Jewish History in a nutshell

[Gamblor]

Pre-1948:

"You can't live here as equals and as Jews"

"You can't live here as Jews"

"You can't live here"

"You can't live"

1948:

"You can't live there as a state"

"You can't live there as a state of Jews"

...No compromise.

[SevenStuda]

My eyes are dry, no sympathy here.

[Gamblor]

No sympathy.

Just understanding.

[Gamblor]

It should be obvious that Israel has no intention of seeing what is on the other side of the ellipsis (...).

It ends with Israel.

[Chris Alger]

"You can't live here as equals and as Jews"

Equals? Here's how Theodore Herzl (now residing in Mt. Herzl, Israel) described in his diary how the Zionists should treat their "equals": "We must expropriate gently .... We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countires, while denying it any employment in our country.... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

Note: "our" country in 1895, when less than 10% of the Palestinian population was Jewish, and many of them anti-Zionist. How backward and irrational Arab culture must be for them not to welcome their exproppriators with open arms.

[jokerswild]

Your citation is just one example. The Grand Mufti's relationship with the Adolf Hitler is well documented.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

Progress is close to at hand. The suicide bombings have slowed, and the Israelis are openly discussing dismantling setlements. It is no time to harden views against compromise on both sides.

[jokerswild]

I don't see where anyone asked for sympathy.

Don't ever expect tough Jews to ask. They know they wouldn't get any under any circimstances.

[MMMMMM]

Er Chris, since you can't defend the laws of Arab lands that discriminate against Jews (and against other non-Muslims, and women), you instead turn the point (that Jews couldn't live as equals) on its side by impugning the corresponding in the Zionists' position and systems. Well, they may deserve it to some extent. But just once I'd like to hear you admit, and state, that the laws and customs in Arab lands which discriminate against non-Muslims and women are backwards. Go ahead--I want to hear you say it.

Further, the manner in which the Zionists went about forming their state may indeed have been too heavy-handed and immoral in certain aspects. But that does not nullify the argument that the Jewish people were broadly discriminated against, oppressed and persecuted--and therefore needed a haven.

You seem to be so accustomed to arguing one side of things that you sometimes do not acknowledge valid points the other side makes, and you instead turn the focus. That might be a good trick in court, but it's not a good way to have a genuine discussion or debate.

[MMMMMM]

"Your citation is just one example. The Grand Mufti's relationship with the Adolf Hitler is well documented."

Yes, and Arab anti-Semitism goes back a long way, and is entrenched and virulent to this day.

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

This is an oversimplification.

"Progress is close to at hand. The suicide bombings have slowed, and the Israelis are openly discussing dismantling setlements. It is no time to harden views against compromise on both sides."

Hopefully, but I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be.

[Cyrus]

"Chris, since you can't defend the laws of Arab lands that discriminate against Jews (and against other non-Muslims, and women), ..."

When did the discussion turn to "Arab laws" and how Muslim religion treats women? This thread, I remind you, is about Jewish History. Your man, Gamblor, started this thread. You have an uncanny and quite transparent way of shifting the discussion to irrelevant topics when the discussion is going against you! (Just so that you don't zigzag again: The Zionists can or can't be racists irrespective of whether Muslims treat or don't treat their women badly. Geddit? This is not a relativist concept!)

"...you instead turn the point (that Jews couldn't live as equals) on its side by impugning the corresponding in the Zionists' position and systems. Well, they may deserve it to some extent."

"To some extent"?!? He just pointed out to you that the very foundation of Zionist ideology called for the expulsion (read ethnic cleansing) of all the native population. Which population, by the way, Gamblor denied that it even existed in Palestine!

"Once I'd like to hear you admit, and state, that the laws and customs in Arab lands which discriminate against non-Muslims and women are backwards. Go ahead--I want to hear you say it."

I'm sure Chris Alger is amused but I will "say it" for my part : The laws concerning women are backwards in Muslim countries. (Quick : What color chador are women obliged to wear in Libya?)

So again, what does that prove? That since Muslims treat women badly ...Zionist ethnic cleansing of Israel and the forced settlement and expropriation of land is somehow right?!?

"The manner in which the Zionists went about forming their state may indeed have been too heavy-handed and immoral in certain aspects."

Yeah, that ethnic cleansing (that still goes on in the West Bank and other areas, to free the Holy Land from the "Palestinian scum") was a tad "heavy handed", tsk tsk, and "immoral", oh yes.

You have such a way with words, it's positively poetic.

"The Jewish people were broadly discriminated against, oppressed and persecuted--and therefore needed a haven."

Well, you just heard the founder of Zionism flat out declare, courtesy of Chris Alger, that that particular "haven" was constructed with the explicit commitment to rid it of its previous inhabitants; to get it completely cleansed of 'em.

According to your twisted logic, a people is persecuted, so ....this gives them the right to persecute others.

[MMMMMM]

As I showed in another thread, Arabs and Arab states have long discriminated against Jews, and oppressed and persecuted them both legally and by custom. So when Gamblor gave his quaint little rundown of Jewish history, that was obviously a part of it ("You can't live here as equals."). Chris chose to ignore that and offered instead a criticism of Zionists.

"'m sure Chris Alger is amused but I will "say it" for my part : The laws concerning women are backwards in Muslim countries. (Quick : What color chador are women obliged to wear in Libya?)"

Fine, you're halfway there. Now the part about non-Muslims being less than equals in the eyes of the law in most Arab lands...

"You have such a way with words, it's positively poetic."

Thank you, Cyrus;-) I know I really should have been a poet, but you know...financial considerations...and I got started gambling...and well, that's another long and somewhat sad and twisted story. But maybe it's still not too late /images/graemlins/grin.gif

By the way, the reason I may have understated any evil tactics on the part of the early Zionists is because I do not know much of the specific history of the time, so I chose an open or flexible passing description rather than erring too far in either direction.


"According to your twisted logic, a people is persecuted, so ....this gives them the right to persecute others."

Not exactly, but since they were roundly persecuted over the long haul, I would say they did have the right to a safe haven of their own, and thus the dilemma. They should be able to clear out the non-Jews if they wish, from that tiny, tiny state, although those thus removed should be entitled to true resettlement (and not in a refugee camp) and plentiful financial compensation. The Irgun or whomever, if they did so, should not have used terrorist tactics. What must be understood is that the bigots of the world made Israel a virtual necessity for the survival of the Jews. They were fighting for their survival and sometimes used bad or immoral tactics, which, where used, I condemn as inexcusable. Blame the rest of the world, and the Arabs, for not resettling those displaced, and blame the Jews for not offering sufficient financial compensation to those forcibly displaced (which would have aided their resettlement).

[Gamblor]

"To some extent"?!? He just pointed out to you that the very foundation of Zionist ideology called for the expulsion (read ethnic cleansing) of all the native population. Which population, by the way, Gamblor denied that it even existed in Palestine!

Would you care to show me this?

[Gamblor]

The Irgun or whomever, if they did so, should not have used terrorist tactics.

The closest the Irgun came to terrorism is the bombing of the King David hotel, and they warned all civilians to leave the hotel before they bombed it!

The Irgun were mainly involved in freeing Jewish activists from British jails in Palestine.

They had no foreign political goals other than the establishment of the state, and their ideology was based on Ze'ev Jabotinsky, whose position on the Arabs I established in "Shlaimy as Cyrus' mom's and nicky g's wife's cholent"

[Chris Alger]

I don't know what you mean by "backwards," but I agree and have never disputed that "the laws and customs in Arab lands ... discriminate against non-Muslims and women." I suppose you think this tees up your usual ironclad argument that (1) many social customs and policies in the West and Israel are normatively superior to those that prevail in Arab countties, therfore (2) have the right to steal their land and kill them.

"But that does not nullify the argument that the Jewish people were broadly discriminated against, oppressed and persecuted--and therefore needed a haven."

And since the Jewish people "needed a haven" they (or Israel) This might be arguable but few people ever argue it, certainly not the rejectionist Palestinians (where and under what terms being a different question). I haven't because I don't disagree. Again, it's the same argument: since the Jewish people "needed a haven," they have a right to steal land and murder.

The tricky thing about we lawyers is that we try to concentrate on what's relevant.

[Gamblor]

Again, it's the same argument: since the Jewish people "needed a haven," they have a right to steal land and murder.

You are 100% correct. This post certainly sheds light on your position, and I suppose this comes down to a question of whether or not what Israel does can be considered outright "stealing" and outright "murder."

I have opined on a regular basis here that Israeli actions do not constitute outright theft and murder.

Perhaps I ought to put this in a format you will recognize:

WHEREAS Israel is a democracy, even for its Arab minority, and

WHEREAS Israel has a right to secure and defensible borders, and

WHEREAS Israeli expropriation of nonsovereign territory captured in fair and just warfare from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and

WHEREAS the Jordan River is a natural and secure defensible boundary against invasion from said Kingdom of Jordan, and

WHEREAS the "Green Line" is not a natural and secure defensible boundary (the construction of a security fence notwithstanding), and

It follows that Israeli annexation of the West Bank would not constitute outright theft.

WHEREAS Palestinian Arabs continue to use violence not as a response to Israeli actions but rather as a strategy toward achieving political gains through terrorizing the Israeli electorate (this can be settled through the bombing of Arab-Jewish jointly owned establishments), and

WHEREAS Israel has the moral right to defend itself against terror by any means necessary

WHEREAS the Israeli army, in principle and in practice, has taken measured steps to reducing the impact of military actions on Palestinian civilians (through not simply bombing terrorist headquarters but actually engaging in urban warfare, which minimizes casualties but greatly endangers soldiers),

It follows that Israeli actions in the West Bank do not constitute murder.

[Chris Alger]

I don't think anyone misunderstands your position: Arabs are genetically inferior to non-Arabs, including but not limited to Jews, and are "born and bred," as you say, to lie, murder, steal, etc. Therefore, anything that Israel or the U.S. does to Arabs can always be justified.

[Gamblor]

[andyfox]

The Irgun used terroristic practices. Begin's book The Revolt became a handbook of sorts, used as a guidebook by terrorists the world over, including the Palestinians and The Irish Republican Army. Begin was denounced repeatedly for his tactics by the mainstream Zionists movement, Ben Gurion refusing to even talk to him for some time. Albert Einstein took our a full page ad in the New York times denouncing him.

There were uglier terrorists too. The Stern gang, for example; Shamir was involved with that group.

Note that at the beginning of Begin's book he talks about how the land was empty, waiting for redemption. In this attitude was born the tragedy that befell Zionism.

[Gamblor]

It is terrorist practices that get you the Nobel Peace prize.

Half of it, at least.

Begin found the one Arab leader who wanted peace as bad (if not worse) as he did.

And yet, to appease the fundamentalists, Sadat declared that all new Egyptian law would be based on Shari'a.

And look where that got him, in 1979, during a military celebration of the crossing of the Suez.

Just goes to show: they hate Israel more than they love themselves.

[andyfox]

Sadat was a bad guy in his younger days too. He was generally regarded as a lightweight when he succeeded Nasser, and Egypt, people forget, had been Israel's most implacable foe. Meanwhile the peace these two guys made has lasted many years. If those two could do it, maybe there's hope for even the likes of Sharon and Arafat.

[Gamblor]

There is no chance for Arafat.

Egypt fought fair. Arafat fights dirty.

Egypt fought on the battlefield. Arafat fights in the streets.

Egypt was clear and honest about their war-mongering intentions. Arafat is a dirty liar and a professional terrorist.

I have no doubt that any peace between the Israelis and any Arafat-run organization will last as long as a World Series game.

Finally, I have no doubt that if you offered a Muslim-Arab state in place of Israel I'm sure he wouldn't have to think too long.

[MMMMMM]

'I don't know what you mean by "backwards," but I agree and have never disputed that "the laws and customs in Arab lands ... discriminate against non-Muslims and women." I suppose you think this tees up your usual ironclad argument that (1) many social customs and policies in the West and Israel are normatively superior to those that prevail in Arab countties, therfore (2) have the right to steal their land and kill them."

I don't think that point #2 follows from point #1, and I have never made that argument.[/i]"

"...[i]Again, it's the same argument: since the Jewish people "needed a haven," they have a right to steal land and murder."

I think those displaced should have been compensated handsomely for their land and homes which were taken--and if they weren't, they still should be, along with receiving resettlement assistance (and not in refugee camps either).

[Utah]

The tricky thing about we lawyers is that we try to concentrate on what's relevant.

Now that's a true gut buster!

Concentrate harder.

[Chris Alger]

"I don't think that point #2 follows from point #1, and I have never made that argument."

Of course it doesn't follow but you've made the argument repeatedly. The example I cited earlier where you argued that the occupation and Israel's reluctance to recognize Palestinian national rights was understandable because Palestinians "routinely" engaged in the culturally backward practice of "honor killings." Besides being prepsterously false, this is merely one of many examples where you have used some perceived flaw of a victimized group to justify or rationalize their continued victimization.

[Gamblor]

There is no occupation, despite Arik Sharon's admission a few months ago.

The land in what is now called the West Bank was Jordanian territory until the Six day war in 1967.

On a side note, why was nobody complaining about the Jordanian Occupation? But I digress...

Regardless, Jordan renounced claim to that land after Israel repelled advancing Jordanian forces. There is no sovereign state of Palestine, thus there is no occupation of any sovereign state.

The land is disputed between a nation and an incontiguous group of Arabs who recently decided to call themselves Palestinians, and apparently everyone has jumped on the bandwagon.

Those are the facts.

[MMMMMM]

I don't think that was the central thrust of my argument at all. If I recall, my point was more that a lot of Palestinians supported suicide bombers; wanted to eliminate Jews; held backwards, violent, delusional beliefs (such as that suicide-bombers are martyrs rewarded by Allah with 72 virgins in Paradise); and I may have mentioned "honor-killings" as well since honor-killings are practiced in many Arab countries and I may have read of some cases in Palestinian territory. But importantly, the thrust of my argument WAS NOT that inferiority makes the Arabs deserving targets for oppression, but rather, that given the degree of backwardness, delusion and violence built into too much of Palestinian society by now--why would the Israelis want them living in Israel with them? And I don't blame the Israelis for wanting to keep a people out who have too high a percentage of deluded violent maniacs in their midst. Also note that I'm not saying that all Palestinians are like this: just that the populace has an unacceptably high percentage of murderous lunatics, and who in their right mind would want them as immediate neighbors? Let them all in and before you know it the suicide bombers would be operating freely in the very heart of Israel.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, the Palestinians (or some intolerably high percentage of them) are subhumans (backward, delusional, "murderous lunatics") therefore the sentiment behind the occupation -- not wanting to grant them national rights -- is something for which you "don't blame" Israel.

By the same token, one could paint Israelis as subhumans -- a tendency to colonize and expropriate, an ideology of racial supremacy -- etc. (all of which would be flagrantly racist) -- to conclude that one shouldn't "blame" the Palestinians for not accepting Israeli national rights to the former Palestine, while conceding that this might not apply to all Isrealis, and that a few among the Palestinians overdo it, and so forth. It's all the same dumb argument.

[MMMMMM]

"In other words, the Palestinians (or some intolerably high percentage of them) are subhumans (backward, delusional, "murderous lunatics") therefore the sentiment behind the occupation -- not wanting to grant them national rights -- is something for which you "don't blame" Israel."

No, I was referring to a blanket "right of return" as being too risky for Israel. I have repeatedly before said that the Palestinians should have their own state alongside Israel (although more lately, I have been thinking that resettlement, with significant monetary compensation, may be the more practical and therefore better option--more practical in the sense that it may be wishful thinking that the two states would live side-by-side in peace).

"By the same token, one could paint Israelis as subhumans -- a tendency to colonize and expropriate, an ideology of racial supremacy -- etc. (all of which would be flagrantly racist) -- to conclude that one shouldn't "blame" the Palestinians for not accepting Israeli national rights to the former Palestine, while conceding that this might not apply to all Isrealis, and that a few among the Palestinians overdo it, and so forth. It's all the same dumb argument."

I think the Palestinians are a special case in that nowhere else is a society so infected with such a high percentage of the population in delusional madness--willing to be suicide bombers--in the grip of an institutionalized death-cult, as it were. For whatever reasons (some not their fault), the Palestinians have a higher percentage of violently suicidal wackos than the Israelis (and likely more than any other society in the world). So comparing them to the Israelis in this sense is not apropos because it's not just "a few" Palestinians. Now I'm not saying this due to genetics or anything else per se; it's just a fact. And I don't blame the Israelis for not wanting a full "right-of-return" for the Palestinians.

When the good, relatively normal Palestinian people manage to restrain their mad dogs, then things could be different. But a society that has a significant percentage of mad dogs (and those who support them) is a damn dangerous neighbor. Good fences make good neighbors as the saying goes and the Palestinians, by some supporting and others not preventing suicide bombing, are by their actions literally begging for a fence. And is it in Gaza that the fence is well-established? Well wherever it is, I have read that the incidence of suicide bombing there has been almost nil compared to the other areas.

So to recap, the Palestinians have unfortunately become a sick society. Many good and sane Palestinians exist, but the percentage of violently homocidal/suicidal loonies is outlandish especially when taken together with their supporters. So what's Israel to do.

[nicky g]

Why the hell would Jordan want to invade Israel? Of all the Arab states it has been the most conciliatory and downright craven towards Israel.

Last I checked stealing something because it makes your borders more easily defensible does not change the fact that it's stealing. Nevertheless the charge of stealing land isn't simply, or even mainly, about the fact that Israel rules the West bank - it's about individuals' lands and homes being taken from them and handed over to Israeli settlers. THeft no matter what way you look at it.

[nicky g]

"On a side note, why was nobody complaining about the Jordanian Occupation?"

Maybe because Jordan wasn't trying to resettle the West Bank with Jordanian settlers? Regardless, what business is it of yours? If the Palestinians were amenable to being ruled by Jordan, but not by Israel, that's up to them.

[Gamblor]

I should rephrase the question:

Why was nobody discussion Palestinian national rights under Jordanian rule?

I'll tell you why. Better yet, Joseph Farah, Arab-American, will tell you why.

Myths of the Middle East (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15066)

Oh, wait we also have More Myths of the Middle East (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15073)

[andyfox]

"Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land."

This is exactly the attitude the mainstream Zionist movement took that resulted in the disaster we have today.

Note that the realist Jabotinsky knew this to be false.

[andyfox]

OT, but according to Mr. Farah “The choice is simple: The world of standards and morality, of marriage, order, the rule of law, and accountability to God? Or the world of anything-goes, aberrant sexual behavior, doing-your-own-thing lifestyles"

Seems like a pretty simple choice to me too. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Boris]

Mr. Fox I think you need to take a bath.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Alger]

Jethro Bodine

I loved that gag when I was a kid.

[John Cole]

"I really should have been a poet . . . but maybe it's still not too late."

M,

It's too late. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Well I'm already half a poet--can the rest really be that hard?

[John Cole]

I have it on pretty good authority that if you haven't started by the time you're twelve or thirteen, seriously, then ya ain't got a chance. Of course, you have that half on me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Does a personal limerick, required in school at age 6 or 7, count?


There once was a boy named Mark,

Who had a goat that ate bark.

His name was Sam-san,

Liked fruit from the can,

And liked to play with a shark!


Other than that, no serious attempts until the mid-teens.

I was out walking in the woods today, and had some glimpses of what might be some material for a very personal poem, possibly a sonnet: Ode To Hypocrisy. This was a relief, as no subject matter has seemed greatly inspiring in recent years, and I don't care to write poetry without true inspiration. Strange, too, how much more complex the potential subject matter is in my early 40's compared to my mid-20's. Hopefully, if I haven't lost what I was able to do back then, I will be able to craft a poem exploring this subject in a personally intimate sense. If I can't, it won't be for lack of material.

[MMMMMM]

Also, John...maybe you just haven't been inspired enough to really write poetry--I would find it hard to believe that you couldn't write good poetry--but without a subject or setting which arouses some serious emotion or contemplation, it is difficult to find the real spark. Of course you have experienced all that in your life, but have you tried combining it with poetry when the feelings or contemplation were strongest upon you? For me it all has to come together, and when the time is right to write a poem, it becomes a theme to dwell upon, off and on, for some period of time--from a day to a week, perhaps, or sometimes longer--and even after that, it echoes in my subconscious, to be occasionally revisited or revised. The cadence and sounds help lead on, and I am not always sure where it is taking me.

The other type of poetry, for me, is the increased awareness and crystallization of perception exemplified in Haiku. This becomes almost a form of meditation, or an attempt to see more clearly into the nature of something, and to capture that perception. Of course this technique can be blended in other poetic forms, but the Haiku is special to me in this way.

As for writing poetry as an exercise or an assignment--I don't think I very well could, and it would be difficult or almost distasteful to me to try to force it. Maybe I'm guessing wrong, but maybe you just haven't had the proper subject at the right time. It's a little like Thoreau's morning air--the subject and the time only come together for a while, then they are gone. If the subject (or perception) doesn't really matter to me, then the poem doesn't matter, and I won't write it.

[Gamblor]

It's nice to see you advocate for the morally as well as financially bankrupt.

[Cyrus]

As useful as keno runners.

[Gamblor]

So you can't refute his argument?

The number of "Jews" you cite, whose positions are long understood to be blatantly false, like Shlaim and Morris, the post-Zionists, you hold to be more valid simply because they are Jewish.

Yet an Arab, Joseph Farah, presents the truth of the situation and this is the best you can come up with?

Hey, want to buy a used car?

[Cyrus]

"The number of "Jews" you cite, like Shlaim and Morris, the post-Zionists, you hold to be more valid simply because they are Jewish."

I hold the views of the Jewish historians to be quite valid because they are backed with research and documentation, with emphasis to sources from the Israeli and Jewish side. Moreover, their contentions are corroborated with most relevant records. Claiming that they are false and then presenting as evidence of their falsehood some frothy inanities by rabbis may be OK for the schoolyard but here it doesn't wash.

By the way, your quotation marks around the word "Jews", which you use when you refer to people who share the same ethnic origin as you but whose views you disagree with, speaks volumes about your mindset!

"...whose positions are long understood to be blatantly false..."

You wish. There has been no refutation. (Just ravings and unsubstantiated denounciations from the usual fanatics.)

"Yet [when] an Arab, Joseph Farah, presents the truth of the situation, this is the best you can come up with?"

Joseph Farah may be an Arab, an American or a Martian for all I care. He has no credibility whatsoever in my book. He simply puts out unadultarated propaganda and nothing of substance. How dare you compare the dispassionate academic work of people like Shlaim with the fanatical and extremist output of the World Net Daily editor?

By the way, I would humbly yet strongly advise you, since you are a Jew, NOT to support people who support ethnic cleansing, blacklists (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34415) and social ostracisms in general. These ideas have long been established as eventually creating extremely dangerous conditions for persecuted minorities, and particularly for Jews.

[Gamblor]

Bottom of the 9th and Big Cy at the plate.

I hold the views of the Jewish historians to be quite valid because they are backed with research and documentation, with emphasis to sources from the Israeli and Jewish side. Moreover, their contentions are corroborated with most relevant records. Claiming that they are false and then presenting as evidence of their falsehood some frothy inanities by rabbis may be OK for the schoolyard but here it doesn't wash.

Somewhere around, oh, say, here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=433895&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1), you should find my scathing indictment of these post-Zionist "New Historians" Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris, having sourced Efraim Karsh, who not only lacks the hook nose and hands dripping Christian blood to be a Rabbi, also happens to be an authority (academic, no less!) on Middle Eastern affairs, having held teaching positions at institutions as prestigious as the Sorbonne, King's College (U of London), Columbia, and the LSE. In Middle Eastern and Meditterannean Studies, no less. Oh, and never mind his contributions to The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine, The International Herald Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The London Times, The Sunday Times, and The Daily Telegraph. Careful, batter, you keep swinging like that you're gonna catch cold.

By the way, your quotation marks around the word "Jews", which you use when you refer to people who share the same ethnic origin as you but whose views you disagree with, speaks volumes about your mindset!

What exactly does it speak about my mindset? That I am pointing out your oft-repeated claim that simply being Jewish gives you the right to lie in favour of the Palestinian Arabs. Quotation marks are used to show that the words are cited from elsewhere, in this case, your post. By using quotation marks, it allows me to show the reader that the emphasis on the fact that these academics are Jewish is your doing, not mine. The fact that these writers are Jewish is irrelevant to my argument.

Im my world, all people are inherently equal, white, black, brown, yellow, and red, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and Native. Being Jewish doesn't make your academic work any better (or worse) than anyone else's. For shame, Cyrus.
That's two thus far, Shooter. One more and you're out, baby!

He has no credibility whatsoever in my book. He simply puts out unadultarated propaganda and nothing of substance.

Which was exactly my claim against Shlaim and Morris! That's so cute, you're sounding like me now!

How dare you compare the dispassionate academic work of people like Shlaim with the fanatical and extremist output of the World Net Daily editor?

I dare!

What, when you don't like something, you call it extremist? Are the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and San Francisco Chronicle all fanatical and extremist newspapers? Because they have all featured his columns! Farah's many journalism awards include reporting honours headlines honours to honesty in journalism honours to editing and newspaper design honours. Oh yes, he is Right. And he's also right.

These ideas have long been established as eventually creating extremely dangerous conditions for persecuted minorities, and particularly for Jews.

...if abused. The key to history, oh great ruler of misery, is being able to use everything you believe in whilst understanding more of its repercussions so that they can be used while at the same time avoiding the pitfalls of the past.

Strike three. I feel like Roy Halladay.

[Chris Alger]

Your "scathing indictment" of Avi Shlaim consists of the criticism that he is a Jew living in England, "the country in which King Edward I borrowed from Jews, promptly expelled them when he couldn't repay, invited them back, borrowed again, and then expelled them again." Certainly a fair description of the country without which there would be no Zionism in Palestine. Real scathing stuff, this.

Your criticism of Benny Morris is based on the notorious crank Efraim Karsh, who's been caught fraudulently misquoting and omitting facts so many times that Morris no longer even responds to his criticism, dismissing it as half-truths" and "outright lies." Karsh is also a Jew living in England, miraculously immune from the pernicious influence of Edward I.

More importantly, since you are utterly ignorant of Israeli history you can't even begin to address the substantive terms of this debate. Karsh, for example, while quibbling with Morris's translations and paraphrasing, never confronts Morris's central thesis: the Yishuv and the fledgling state of Israel engaged in mass ethnic cleansing, both through deliberate expulsions of Arabs and by refusing to allow their repatriation. (Morris, however, claims that most refugees left as a result of war, not as a result of Zionist design, which was implemented later after the fait accompli). Specifically, Morris contends that <ul type="square"> Recently declassfied Zionist documents demonstrate that a virtual consensus emerged among the Zionist leadership, in the wake of the publication in July 1937 of hte Peel Commission recommendations, in favor of the transfer of at least several hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs -- if not all of them -- out of the areas of the Jewish state-to-be. The tone was set by Ben-Gurion himself in June 1938: "I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral." [/list] Righteous Victims, p. 253.

Not only does Karsh fail to openly deny this thesis, his scattershot attacks on Morris are a contradictory pastiche of denying the evidence of the event while denouncing Morris for failing to argue that it was understandable, necessary or justified.

It is simply an unpleasant fact of history that Israel was created, in part, by preventing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from staying in their villages and homes, by confiscating thier property and by vigorously marginalizing and displacing those that remained. Moreover, the traditional Zionist line that the Palestinians voluntarily fled -- as if that could somehow justify preventing their return and stealing their property -- has been proven fraudulent by numerous authorities spanning several decades. So much so that not even Karsh bothers to reiterate it these days.

[Gamblor]

Your "scathing indictment" of Avi Shlaim consists of the criticism that he is a Jew living in England...

Half-truth. He is an ex-Israeli living in England. Very different.

Your criticism of Benny Morris is based on the notorious crank Efraim Karsh.

Karsh is also a Jew living in England, miraculously immune from the pernicious influence of Edward I.

Half-truth and outright lie.

That Edward the Confessor died more than seven hundred years ago might betray that I in no way invoked the influence of Edward I as affecting Shlaim. You took the ball and ran jes' a little too far wit it, Cap'n.

More importantly, since you are utterly ignorant of Israeli history you can't even begin to address the substantive terms of this debate.

Outright lie. I am utterly aware of your version of Revisionist history, in which you (and your boys Shlaim and Morris) figure, it was all so long ago, who will argue with me if I change the facts and a few quotes around? Answer: The people that the whole thing still matters to. Everyone else can be convinced cause they can recall a war or two a few decades ago.

The Ben Gurion quote you are referring to
Ben Gurion saying the exact opposite at the Israeli Declaration of Independence seems to be ignored -
"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions.

Oh, wait, there's more here:

"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."
Ben Gurion, May 14, 1948

And of the refugees today, well... Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property.

As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunums of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. (Safian)

And at the same time, what of Jewish refugees from Arab lands? What compensation have they received, what UN agencies were formed in their favour?

Moreover, the traditional Zionist line that the Palestinians voluntarily fled -- as if that could somehow justify preventing their return and stealing their property -- has been proven fraudulent by numerous authorities spanning several decades.

Outright lie. It is still debated, and both sides of the argument have supporters on both sides of the overarching conflict.

Final score, 1.5-2.5. You are a bit more an outright liar than a half-truth-teller.

[Gamblor]

Your "scathing indictment" of Avi Shlaim consists of the criticism that he is a Jew living in England...

Half-truth. He is an ex-Israeli living in England. Very different.

Your criticism of Benny Morris is based on the notorious crank Efraim Karsh.

Karsh is also a Jew living in England, miraculously immune from the pernicious influence of Edward I.

Half-truth and outright lie.

That Edward the Confessor died more than seven hundred years ago might betray that I in no way invoked the influence of Edward I as affecting Shlaim. You took the ball and ran jes' a little too far wit it, Cap'n.

More importantly, since you are utterly ignorant of Israeli history you can't even begin to address the substantive terms of this debate.

Outright lie. I am utterly aware of your version of Revisionist history, in which you (and your boys Shlaim and Morris) figure, it was all so long ago, who will argue with me if I change the facts and a few quotes around? Answer: The people that the whole thing still matters to. Everyone else can be convinced cause they can recall a war or two a few decades ago.

The Ben Gurion quote you are referring to
Ben Gurion saying the exact opposite at the Israeli Declaration of Independence seems to be ignored -
"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions.

Oh, wait, there's more here:

"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."
Ben Gurion, May 14, 1948

And of the refugees today, well... Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property.

As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunums of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. (Safian)

And at the same time, what of Jewish refugees from Arab lands? What compensation have they received, what UN agencies were formed in their favour?

Moreover, the traditional Zionist line that the Palestinians voluntarily fled -- as if that could somehow justify preventing their return and stealing their property -- has been proven fraudulent by numerous authorities spanning several decades.

Outright lie. It is still debated, and both sides of the argument have supporters on both sides of the overarching conflict.

Everything a half-truth or outright lie. After all, if you accept that as defence from Morris, no reason you shouldn't accept it from me.

Final score, 1.5-1.5. A tie. You are equally a half-truth teller and an outright liar.

[Gamblor]

Your "scathing indictment" of Avi Shlaim consists of the criticism that he is a Jew living in England...

Half-truth. He is an ex-Israeli living in England. Very different.

Your criticism of Benny Morris is based on the notorious crank Efraim Karsh.

Karsh is also a Jew living in England, miraculously immune from the pernicious influence of Edward I.

Half-truth and outright lie.

That Edward the Confessor died more than seven hundred years ago might betray that I in no way invoked the influence of Edward I as affecting Shlaim. You took the ball and ran jes' a little too far wit it, Cap'n.

More importantly, since you are utterly ignorant of Israeli history you can't even begin to address the substantive terms of this debate.

Outright lie. I am utterly aware of your version of Revisionist history, in which you (and your boys Shlaim and Morris) figure, it was all so long ago, who will argue with me if I change the facts and a few quotes around? Answer: The people that the whole thing still matters to. Everyone else can be convinced cause they can recall a war or two a few decades ago.

The Ben Gurion quote you are referring to
Ben Gurion saying the exact opposite at the Israeli Declaration of Independence seems to be ignored -
"We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions.

Oh, wait, there's more here:

"We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and goodwill, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."
Ben Gurion, May 14, 1948

And of the refugees today, well... Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property.

As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunums of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. (Safian)

And at the same time, what of Jewish refugees from Arab lands? What compensation have they received, what UN agencies were formed in their favour?

Moreover, the traditional Zionist line that the Palestinians voluntarily fled -- as if that could somehow justify preventing their return and stealing their property -- has been proven fraudulent by numerous authorities spanning several decades.

Outright lie. It is still debated, and both sides of the argument have supporters on both sides of the overarching conflict.

Everything a half-truth or outright lie. After all, if you accept that as defence from an academic who ought to know better, no reason you shouldn't accept it from me.

Final score, 1.5-1.5. A tie. You are equally a half-truth teller and an outright liar.

[Chris Alger]

"Ben Gurion saying the exact opposite at the Israeli Declaration of Independence seems to be ignored"

Hardly. This was the stuff of mainstream Zionist historiography and Ben-Gurion hagiography: the official line. It is, of course, nonsense given Isreal's oft-repeated declarations for five decades that it will, under no circumstances, consider allowing any significant number of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees it created to actually "participate in the building-up of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and representation in all its ... institutions." This is, in the real world, how Isreal "extended its hand ... in an offer of peace and goodwill."

And of course, it is public statements like these that were contradicted at the time by the classified documents, the diaries and private letters, and the acts of the troops on the ground, that provides the grist for the revisionist mill. Your reliance on public statements despite the facts that contradict them is no better than exonerating Saddam or the Soviets with the same technique.

Israel's "compensation" system is a sham. See Israel's Legal Maneuvers (http://216.239.57.104/custom?q=cache:ScXYFkD60PwJ:www.palestinecenter.or g/cpap/pubs/20000804ib.html+palestinian+custodian+of+absentee+ property&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8) ("In sum, there is currently no forum in which Palestinian refugees can make an enforceable claim for their land and properties taken by Israel.")

"And at the same time, what of Jewish refugees from Arab lands? What compensation have they received, what UN agencies were formed in their favour?"

Their rights should be reciprocal. But because Israel has no intention of allowing any significant number (even 100,000) of the refugees to return, Israel has never advanced this notion.

Interesting scoring system. You attach the conclusory label "lie" to everything you disagree with and then claim you "win" the argument. Just keep saying that to yourself over and over, and perhaps eventually you'll believe it.

[Gamblor]

Your reliance on public statements despite the facts that contradict them is no better than exonerating Saddam or the Soviets with the same technique.

Or Arafat. BINGO!

So that logic alone refutes 1/2 of your post history on this subject!

Of course, having perused those classified documents, you are fully qualified to write on them.

Here's an idea. Find me a mainstream historian who has read them. Perhaps a quote from an Israeli figurehead still alive and in the eye today.

Israel's Legal Maneuvres (http://216.239.57.104/custom?q=cache:ScXYFkD60PwJ:www.palestinecenter.or g/cpap/pubs/20000804ib.html+palestinian+custodian+of+absentee+ property&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8)?

(Notice the spelling of the word manoeuvres. Lawyers, I believe, are required to pay attention to details.)

As far as this website goes, do you really want me to examine the impartiality of the source? "Palestine Centre"? What kind of sick joke is this? How much rhetoric can one article take?

Re: Jewish refugees: Their rights should be reciprocal. But because Israel has no intention of allowing any significant number (even 100,000) of the refugees to return, Israel has never advanced this notion.

The most strident anti-Arab members of the electorate are in fact the Jewish refugees. Makes it a shame those Arab nations put the Palestinians right in the centre. Either way, you can blame the Israeli public, not leaders for the lack of success of the compensation program. Of course once you blame the Israeli public, you're walkin a mighty fine line indeed between that and the A-S word.

You attach the conclusory label "lie" to everything you disagree with and then claim you "win" the argument. Just keep saying that to yourself over and over, and perhaps eventually you'll believe it.

Your acceptance of pro-Palestinians labelling Israeli claims "lies" betrays your bias. My post contained a little more than that one word "lie". And your posts are lies. You think they're truth? They're as truthful as the Palestinian victimhood, the Israeli racism and apartheid, and IDF atrocities.

Just keep saying that to yourself over and over, and perhaps eventually you'll believe it.

[Chris Alger]

God you're weird.

[Gamblor]

God you're weird.

You never struck me as a religious man.

'Twas an excellent, well-thought out and well-researched response.

[MMMMMM]

Don't get him started...you'll be apt to get a lengthy footnoted argument supporting his position;-)

[Gamblor]

I will address the thesis of a post rather than pick away at the outer edges of the argument, in a desperate attempt to undermine the credibility of the writer.

Cyrus, Chris, take notes.

the Yishuv and the fledgling state of Israel engaged in mass ethnic cleansing, both through deliberate expulsions of Arabs and by refusing to allow their repatriation.

Now let's examine the credibility of this claim, and not the mindless emotive babble of the "not-even-a-solicitor" who makes it.

According to Khaled al-Azm, PM of Syria, 1948-9:
the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..."
Khaled al-Azm, Memoirs, (Beirut, 1973) Part 1, pp. 386-387

Perhaps we should ask Harry Stebbens, an official in the British Mandatory Government, who decided to write that

Long before the end of the British mandate, between January and April, 48, practically all my Arab Palestinian staff of some 200 men and women and all of the 1800 labor force had left Haifa in spite of every possible effort to assure them of their safety if they stayed.
London Evening Standard of Friday, Jan. 10, 1969

Perhaps they feared retaliation for the Kfar Etzion massacre in which Arab fighters massacred 50 odd Jewish doctors and nurses in a hospital convoy. Yet, there was no Palestinian Arab army bases, so where do you go to find the perpetrators? That's right, you go to where the perpetrators are hiding - in Arab towns. Among civilians.

Jamal Husseini, chair of the Palestinian Higher Committee, proclaimed to the UN Security Council, on Apr. 23, 1948, that "we have never concealed the fact that we began the fighting."

Iraqi PM Nuri Said also pointed out that the Arabs, as a whole, intended to:

smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
Nimr el Hawari (the former Commander of the Palestine Arab Youth Organization) in "Sir Am Nakbah" ("The Secret Behind the Disaster"), 1952 (Nazareth)

Ethnic cleansing, indeed.

Perhaps the most telling scam in this whole conflict is the use of the word Palestinian. The term Palestinian refers to both Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Roman, Ottoman, and British Palestine.

Its reference to Arabs only is a relatively recent phenomenon. When those Arabs decided they couldn't beat Israel with guns, they re-invented themselves as "Palestinians" yearning for their homeland, and began a nationalism campaign.

[Gamblor]

Jabotinsky accepted the notion of Arab nationalism, and that is what led him to conclude that Jews were not safe within an Arab majority - they'd simply be put back to where they were before (and during) Nazi Germany, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. etc.

But there was still no Palestinian national movement until post-67. It was all Islam, which seriously denies acceptance of any non-Muslim rule over Muslims. When Jordan was in charge, this wasn't an issue, but with Israel's victory in the Six Day War, and especially the rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, it all changes.

For anyone who denies anti-semitism in Arab lands, notice that when Israel was formed, they began to boot the Jews out. They weren't booting Israeli nationals, or even supporters of Israel. Just Jews.