PDA

View Full Version : A Veritable Army of Lies


Gamblor
01-13-2004, 01:13 PM
Look Cyrus, I can cut and paste too!

The region: A veritable army of lies
by Barry Rubin

Four points about the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are so obvious and easily documented that an army of lies must be mobilized to ensure that elites and publics throughout the world don't grasp them.

<ul type="square"> From 1948 to the present, with various exceptions and temporary truces, Arab regimes, the Palestinian leadership, and - since 1979 - Iran have sought to wipe Israel off the map. Whether employing harsh rhetoric ("Drive the Jews into the sea") or euphemistic phrases ("a secular democratic state," "right of return," "one-state solution"), this has remained the main viewpoint expressed daily in the Arab arena.

There are, of course, exceptions. These include Egyptian policy since 1978, the Jordanian government's position, a few courageous Arab liberals, and a sector of the Palestinian leadership. Morocco and a few other states in the Gulf could be added to this list.

But what is amazing is how limited all these forces are and how hesitantly they contradict that basic principle.

During the 1990s, the Western-oriented Palestinian Authority rhetoric spoke of two states, but this was not matched by what was said on the semi-official and official media, in school textbooks, mosque sermons, Fatah educational materials, and most other materials.
This anti-Israel extremism is enhanced by a daily Arab demonization of Israel that is so deep and extraordinary one may well despair of it ever being reversed.

Yet the pretense is that Arab and Palestinian leaders are ready for a two-state solution.

The method used by the Palestinian movement, and often by Arab states, has been deliberate, strategic terrorism - purposeful attacks on civilian Israelis. It has been the expressed doctrine of PLO leaders since the 1960s.
Again, after a brief hiatus for much of the 1990s, this historic policy returned after 2000. It is easily demonstrated that Yasser Arafat has encouraged and supported these attacks and that many of them are in fact carried out by PA security forces. Public opinion polls show the masses' backing of them.

We are in the post-September 11 world, where a global war against terrorism is supposedly going on. Yet on this issue the Western media does not in most cases use the word "terrorist." To call Arafat an advocate and implementer of terrorism is considered a "controversial" position, even in the US.

Israelis have favored a peaceful, compromise solution. Half the population has long supported an end to Israel's presence in almost all the territories captured in 1967 ("land for peace"); the other half opposed this mainly because it did not believe the Arab side would accept a real peace, even at this price.

For a dozen years now Israeli leaders have advocated major concessions and acceptance of the creation of a Palestinian state on the basis of a prior peace agreement. Now even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has openly called for such a solution - a courageous position given the events of the last three years and attitudes in his own party.

The overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want to be occupiers, even of land which has the most significant religious and historical importance for them. They have been willing to take major risks for peace and have suffered huge casualties because of that readiness.

This truth is not negated by the existence of settlements, the view of a shrinking minority that this is part of the land of Israel, or Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's three years in office during the mid-1990s.

In 2000 Syria turned down peace even when offered the entire Golan Heights. Arafat rejected peace even if it meant he would get - in the context of an opening bid at the Camp David summit and of the final offer in the Clinton plan - an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, control of al-Aksa mosque, and massive refugee compensation. [/list]

THE PROPORTION of people in the Middle East, or even in the West, who understand these simple facts is far too low. There has been a massive literature seeking to rewrite history and claim that Arafat was never offered anything reasonable. Every day lies about these events and all the points made above appear worldwide from professors, journalists, and politicians.

Blotting out these four basic facts prepares the ground for demonizing Israel, or at least misrepresenting the situation so that it seems to be the villain. After all, if the Arab side is eager to make peace and doesn't really use terrorism while Israel wants the conflict to continue, seeks to hold onto all the territories, and is not facing any serious threat, what other conclusion can one reach?

There's an Arab proverb that can be very roughly paraphrased as: "How do you know it is a lie? Because it is so big."

In a sense, all the slander is a kind of compliment. After all, so much misrepresentation would be unnecessary were the case against Israel not so weak. Nevertheless, the denial of historical truth on these matters is the overwhelmingly dominant standpoint in the Arab world and among Muslims, the majority standpoint in Europe, and a significant factor in the US.

So why do I remain an optimist? Because I firmly believe that objective reality ultimately determines outcomes, and not the lies or misperceptions that people have along the way. This view has been richly and repeatedly proven by history.

The problem is that history also shows how much unnecessary suffering is inflicted meanwhile.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal and editor of Turkish Studies.

Chris Alger
01-13-2004, 01:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"...Arab regimes, the Palestinian leadership, and - since 1979 - Iran have sought to wipe Israel off the map"

[/ QUOTE ]

With what your writer apparently believes is a most insidious weapon of mass destruction: "euphemistic phrases."

In other words, the Arabs and Iranians have wanted to do to Israel what Israel did and still does to Palestine. What animals these Arabs be.

"During the 1990s, the Western-oriented Palestinian Authority rhetoric spoke of two states, but this was not matched by what was said on the semi-official and official media, in school textbooks, mosque sermons, Fatah educational materials, and most other materials."

I.e., it mirrored Isreal's position.

"The method used by the Palestinian movement, and often by Arab states, has been deliberate, strategic terrorism - purposeful attacks on civilian Israelis."

I.e., they copied Zionist/Israeli tactics, but with fewer civilian deaths.

"Israelis have favored a peaceful, compromise solution."

Although their government won't tell anyone what it is.

"Now even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has openly called for such a solution ...."

But he won't tell us what it is, other than "two states," somewhere, while he retains his position of no compromise on Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks, indefinite military occupation, right of return, etc.

"The overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want to be occupiers...."

Then they should elect a government that shares this view and withdraw from all occupied territories in exchange for permanent recognition and peace, a position that no Isreali government has ever accepted.

"In 2000 Syria turned down peace even when offered the entire Golan Heights."

No. Israel offered to withdraw from nearly all of the occupied Golan area, Syria said no, and Sharon now wants to backtrack from Isreal's former position. Israel, not Syria, is headed in the opposite direction from diplomacy, as usual.

"Arafat rejected peace even if it meant he would get - in the context of an opening bid at the Camp David summit and of the final offer in the Clinton plan - an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem, control of al-Aksa mosque, and massive refugee compensation."

Misleading. Barak never offered must of East Jerusalem to the PA and Sharon demanded no compromise on Jerusalem, breaking off talks while the Clinton's more accomodating proposal for Jerusalem was still on the table and the PA was seeking to clarify it. Purported Palestinian "control" over the Al Aqsa mosque and the Haram al-Sharif was qualified by both proposals by Isreaeli sovereignty over the land where it is located, allowing for the possibility of Jewish flags flying over Islam's third holiest site, a long-term goal of the Zionist right. Sharon has bitterly denounced all proposals, such as those in the Geneva Accords, for Arab sovereignty over Islmaic holy sites.

Gamblor
01-13-2004, 03:26 PM
"During the 1990s, the Western-oriented Palestinian Authority rhetoric spoke of two states, but this was not matched by what was said on the semi-official and official media, in school textbooks, mosque sermons, Fatah educational materials, and most other materials."

I.e., it mirrored Isreal's position.

Israel's position, even to its own electorate, is security first, then peace. Given that Israel (in its Zionist mandate) is by definition a nation of refugees, it is impossible to compare Arab intentions (given the Arab nationalist movement's success in 99% of the Middle East) with Israeli intentions.

"The method used by the Palestinian movement, and often by Arab states, has been deliberate, strategic terrorism - purposeful attacks on civilian Israelis."

I.e., they copied Zionist/Israeli tactics, but with fewer civilian deaths.

No Israeli group has been indicted in international court or by any national government outside the Arab world in terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. The closest thing to ethnic cleansing the Zionists engaged in was the purchase of lands, often at exobitant prices, from Arab landowners (who were often murdered by their brethren for the crime of selling to a Jew). On the other hand, Arab leaders openly advocated the murder and "emancipation" of "Zionist occupied" lands.

"Israelis have favored a peaceful, compromise solution."
Although their government won't tell anyone what it is.

A common problem among bigots such as yourself is to turn a group into a monolith - capable of but one set of opinions, with one common intention among them. You should know that this is impossible in a democratic state such as Israel, but certainly possible in a dictatorial regime such as the Palestinian Authority's actions dictate. However, the land-for-peace movement is the most prevalent peace strategy used by Israeli governments, as evidenced by the exchange of the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt for the mere right of recognition of existence in peace.

"Now even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has openly called for such a solution ...."

But he won't tell us what it is, other than "two states," somewhere, while he retains his position of no compromise on Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks, indefinite military occupation, right of return, etc.

Correction: he openly tells his nation what it is: security first, then peace. Arafat has shown time and time again, that he refuses to deal. Even the Saudi Crown prince chastised him for his rejection of peace at Camp David. The current PM, Qurei, openly adheres to his belief that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are indeed actual Zionist documents, and the last PM, Abbas, refused to admit the truth of the Holocaust.

"The overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want to be occupiers...."

n they should elect a government that shares this view and withdraw from all occupied territories in exchange for permanent recognition and peace, a position that no Isreali government has ever accepted


Such as the Barak Labour government who went straight to the negotiating table and was met immediately with the second Intifada.

"In 2000 Syria turned down peace even when offered the entire Golan Heights."

No. Israel offered to withdraw from nearly all of the occupied Golan area, Syria said no, and Sharon now wants to backtrack from Isreal's former position. Israel, not Syria, is headed in the opposite direction from diplomacy, as usual.


Spare me your rhetoric. Given Syria's complicit support of Hezballa and various Arab terrorist groups, it is indeed difficult for Sharon to make peace with groups that have been murdering Israelis for 30 years now and demanding Arab/Muslim control over all of the land. Israel, yesterday (Jan 12), offered Assad a Sadat-style visit to Jerusalem, which he promptly rejected.

Purported Palestinian "control" over the Al Aqsa mosque and the Haram al-Sharif was qualified by both proposals by Isreaeli sovereignty over the land where it is located, allowing for the possibility of Jewish flags flying over Islam's third holiest site, a long-term goal of the Zionist right.

Islam's third holiest, and Judaism's "first" holiest. Even Haram al Sharif as Islam's third holiest site is misleading: No Muslims make pilgrimage to Jerusalem - before 1967, Jerusalem was not even a blip on the Muslim radar. Their attentions are focused on Mecca and Medina.

In contrast, Judaism's second and third holiest sites are Joseph's Tomb in Nablus (Shechem), and the Ma'arat haMachpelah in Hevron, both under Palestinian sovereignty and both requiring heavy armed guard for Jews to visit. Often even that is not enough, as the 12 ambushed Jews in Hevron last year can no longer attest. Muslimsm, before the intifada, and even now, are allowed to visit Haram al-Sharif virtually indiscriminately without fear of danger, while it was under Israeli sovereignty.

How many Palestinian flags are burned in the streets of Tel Aviv?

How many Israeli flags are burned in the streets of Gaza?

Gamblor
01-13-2004, 03:26 PM
"During the 1990s, the Western-oriented Palestinian Authority rhetoric spoke of two states, but this was not matched by what was said on the semi-official and official media, in school textbooks, mosque sermons, Fatah educational materials, and most other materials."

I.e., it mirrored Isreal's position.

Israel's position, even to its own electorate, is security first, then peace. Given that Israel (in its Zionist mandate) is by definition a nation of refugees, it is impossible to compare Arab intentions (given the Arab nationalist movement's success in 99% of the Middle East) with Israeli intentions.

"The method used by the Palestinian movement, and often by Arab states, has been deliberate, strategic terrorism - purposeful attacks on civilian Israelis."

I.e., they copied Zionist/Israeli tactics, but with fewer civilian deaths.

No Israeli group has been indicted in international court or by any national government outside the Arab world in terrorist attacks on innocent Arab civilians, for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. Etzel and Begin were indicted for attacks on British soldiers - hardly terrorism. The closest thing to ethnic cleansing the Zionists engaged in was the purchase of lands, often at exobitant prices, from Arab landowners (who were often murdered by their brethren for the crime of selling to a Jew). On the other hand, Arab leaders openly advocated the murder and "emancipation" of "Zionist occupied" lands.

"Israelis have favored a peaceful, compromise solution."
Although their government won't tell anyone what it is.

A common problem among bigots such as yourself is to turn a group into a monolith - capable of but one set of opinions, with one common intention among them. You should know that this is impossible in a democratic state such as Israel, but certainly possible in a dictatorial regime such as the Palestinian Authority's actions dictate. However, the land-for-peace movement is the most prevalent peace strategy used by Israeli governments, as evidenced by the exchange of the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt for the mere right of recognition of existence in peace.

"Now even Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has openly called for such a solution ...."

But he won't tell us what it is, other than "two states," somewhere, while he retains his position of no compromise on Jerusalem, the large settlement blocks, indefinite military occupation, right of return, etc.

Correction: he openly tells his nation what it is: security first, then peace. Arafat has shown time and time again, that he refuses to deal. Even the Saudi Crown prince chastised him for his rejection of peace at Camp David. The current PM, Qurei, openly adheres to his belief that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are indeed actual Zionist documents, and the last PM, Abbas, refused to admit the truth of the Holocaust.

"The overwhelming majority of Israelis do not want to be occupiers...."

n they should elect a government that shares this view and withdraw from all occupied territories in exchange for permanent recognition and peace, a position that no Isreali government has ever accepted


Such as the Barak Labour government who went straight to the negotiating table and was met immediately with the second Intifada.

"In 2000 Syria turned down peace even when offered the entire Golan Heights."

No. Israel offered to withdraw from nearly all of the occupied Golan area, Syria said no, and Sharon now wants to backtrack from Isreal's former position. Israel, not Syria, is headed in the opposite direction from diplomacy, as usual.


Spare me your rhetoric. Given Syria's complicit support of Hezballa and various Arab terrorist groups, it is indeed difficult for Sharon to make peace with groups that have been murdering Israelis for 30 years now and demanding Arab/Muslim control over all of the land. Israel, yesterday (Jan 12), offered Assad a Sadat-style visit to Jerusalem, which he promptly rejected.

Purported Palestinian "control" over the Al Aqsa mosque and the Haram al-Sharif was qualified by both proposals by Isreaeli sovereignty over the land where it is located, allowing for the possibility of Jewish flags flying over Islam's third holiest site, a long-term goal of the Zionist right.

Islam's third holiest, and Judaism's "first" holiest. Even Haram al Sharif as Islam's third holiest site is misleading: No Muslims make pilgrimage to Jerusalem - before 1967, Jerusalem was not even a blip on the Muslim radar. Their attentions are focused on Mecca and Medina.

In contrast, Judaism's second and third holiest sites are Joseph's Tomb in Nablus (Shechem), and the Ma'arat haMachpelah in Hevron, both under Palestinian control and both requiring heavy armed guard for Jews to visit. Often even that is not enough, as the 12 ambushed Jews in Hevron last year can no longer attest. Muslimsm, before the intifada, and even now, are allowed to visit Haram al-Sharif virtually indiscriminately without fear of danger, while it was under Israeli sovereignty.

How many Palestinian flags are burned in the streets of Tel Aviv?

How many Israeli flags are burned in the streets of Gaza?

Chris Alger
01-13-2004, 10:06 PM
"The closest thing to ethnic cleansing the Zionists engaged in was the purchase of lands, often at exobitant prices, from Arab landowners"

No, the closest thing to "ethnic cleansing" was when Israel forcibly depopulated 400 villages and 90% of the Arab population of Israel in 1947-48 and by subsequently refusing to allow the refugees to return, killing them when they tried.

"Such as the Barak Labour government who went straight to the negotiating table and was met immediately with the second Intifada."

The Barak/Clinton proposals called for retaining most settlements in the occupied territories and the continued military occupation of West Jerusalem and the Jordan River Valley. This is what Israel apologists like yourself call "complete" or "90+%" withdrawal in order to pretend that the Palestinians were given everything they purported to want, and when it was offered, chose violence instead, proving their subhumanly genocidal and suicidal national character, under this kind of shoddy analysis.

Gamblor
01-14-2004, 12:52 AM
No, the closest thing to "ethnic cleansing" was when Israel forcibly depopulated 400 villages and 90% of the Arab population of Israel in 1947-48 and by subsequently refusing to allow the refugees to return, killing them when they tried.

Hear that? That's my Saba spinning in his grave. It appears the Arab propagandists have found another victim - ladies and gentlemen - I give you revisionism.

Those conspiracies are so exciting to believe aren't they? Obviously, both sides have some degree of truth, although nothing near Alger's wild claims of Zionist violence.

The real issue here is that the refugees who left Israel at the time went to Arab countries where they were treated far worse - shall we examine the Aswan Dam in Egypt which forcibly relocated 100,000 Arabs. In Post-WW2 Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Romania, 15 million ethnic Germans were also forcibly expelled. But the greatest ethnic cleansing event in terms of property lost? The expulsion of the Mizrachi Jews from the surrounding Arab countries. The only way to accomodate these Jews was by acting in kind towards the Arabs.

According to Dershowitz, "It should be recalled that between 1948 and 1967, Israel posed no barrier to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. There was no Palestinian state because the Arab leaders did not want a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. Their collective goal was the total destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees would better serve that goal if they were kept in camps as a homeless people than if they were allowed to move out of the camps and establish their own state." This sums it up fairly nicely.

Yet, were these "population exchanges" equal? Obviously not. The Arab refugees did intend to return to their homes - this cannot be denied. But how could a state be expected to allow a belligerent population to return after they declared open warfaresolely based on ethnic grounds? How can the Jews be expected to allow the same people who have expressed sheer hatred of Jews since day one, long before the state was even a gleam in Herzl's eye? Need I remind you of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's (Arafat's uncle himself) alliance with Hitler, or his intention to implement the Final Solution in the Holy Land in a similar style to Hitler's concentration camps?

For a more thorough analysis of this Post-Zionist agenda and revisionist attitude founded in an anti-Zionist bias (laid out by Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim for the most part), read The New Republic by a man you have quoted here before - Charles Krauthammer

Chris Alger
01-14-2004, 01:51 AM
"I give you revisionism."

Israel's 55-year violation of UN General Assembly resolution 194 ("the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date"), leaves nothing to revise. Israel was borne through brutal ethnic cleansing, and your racial supremacist friends over there want to do it again so they can steal the West Bank and Gaza too.

"although nothing near Alger's wild claims of Zionist violence"

So just how many civilians has Israel killed since 1948? Conservative estimates regarding the Lebanon invasion in 1982 are around 10,000, more civilians than have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since Zionism's earliest days.

"the refugees who left Israel at the time went to Arab countries where they were treated far worse"

For which Israel bears no responsibility, having created the refugees and refused to let them return? Another fine argument.

"The only way to accomodate these Jews was by acting in kind ["in kind" to what you have defined as "ethnic cleansing"] towards the Arabs."

Now that you've admitted that Israel engaged in the same kind of ethnic cleansing the Arabs did, let's put this behind us. Obviously, both groups have just demands that should be addressed, but Israel wants to address neither and Zionists generally prefer to address only the claims of the Jews. That's why this issue is usually presented like you have: no interest in solving the problem, but as a tit for tat justification for screwing people.

As for the Israel's "need" to engage in ethnic cleansing in order to accomodate emmigrants, note that Israel has accomodated for more voluntary immigrants than the number of Palestinians than the PA has actually requested return to Israel, rendering this argument a canard.

"Israel posed no barrier to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza."

Dershowitz's point that the Palestinains were screwed by Arab leaders is true. Your point that Israel is therefore justified in screwing them too is stupid.

"But how could a state be expected to allow a belligerent population to return after they declared open warfaresolely based on ethnic grounds?"

At least by the same means that it maintained order despite the presence of such a population from the earliest days of independence. Israel was not deterred by security concerns, but by concerns for ethnic supremacy.

"Need I remind you of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's (Arafat's uncle himself) alliance with Hitler, or his intention to implement the Final Solution in the Holy Land in a similar style to Hitler's concentration camps?"

Yeah, remind me of your source for the latter assertion, that the Mufti intended to exterminate the Jews of Palestine.

Do you have a link to Krauthammer's review?

Gamblor
01-14-2004, 02:26 PM
the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date

"and live at peace with their neighbours"? Have you been drinking?

Conservative estimates regarding the Lebanon invasion in 1982 are around 10,000, more civilians than have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since Zionism's earliest days

Realistic estimates of the mass murder of the Lebanese put responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Muslim/Christian civil war, beginning in 1975. The real problems in Lebanon began on Black September, in 1970. Upon Arafat and the PLO's ejection from Jordan for plotting to overthrow King Hussein, he set up camp in Lebanon.

The American Lebanese League, in a 1982 public statement, claimed that "The death and destruction caused in large part by the PLO and Syrian occupation of Lebanon during the era of the Lebanese civil war resulted in an estimated 100,000 killed, 250,000 wounded, 800,000 Christians and 500,000 Moslems homeless, and 32,000 orphaned children from 1970 to 1981."

Your claims are a drop in the ocean compared to the real perpetrators of the violence, and it is likely that Syria financed the continued Palestinian terrorism campaign (from Lebanon against Israel) because if Israel were to withdraw from Lebanon, then the pressure would fall on Syria and she would be forced to withdraw as well - lucky enough though, the world found something else for which to blame the Jews, and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon continues unchallenged.

The rest of your argument is based on the falsehood that it is some sort of ethnic superiority complex that prevents Israel from absorbing the refugees. In fact, Israel has accomodated upwards of a million Arabs with full citizenship and democratic, religious, and organizational rights. Ethnic superiority would be directly contrary to the recent Sharon ruling that for every Board of Directors in Corporate Israel, one Arab must be a member.

What prevents the return of these Arabs is that Israel, as a nation of refugees (mostly from Europe, some from Ethiopia and Arab nations), is keenly aware of the problems of being a minority ethnicity when one group (in this case, Arab Muslims) intends to impose its will on the other (the non-Muslim dhimmi class). Zionism itself is based on the Marxist notion of class struggle - the idea being, that the only way to win the class struggle was to become the majority. Hence, Zionism is a socialist ideology, theory and in practice - the Zionists had originally intended for the whole country to consist of Kibbutzim.

By allowing the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship, it paves the way for Arab majority in Israel to turn it into yet another Middle Eastern Arabist state, thus turning the Jews there into refugees once again.

As far as Haj Amin al Husseini goes, here is his story (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php).

Krauthammer's review can be found in the Sept. 8, 1997 issue of The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/) and is not available online. Online I've seen a few quotes relating to anti-Zionism, but none to Post-Zionism, with which the article is most obsessed.

Chris Alger
01-14-2004, 03:09 PM
"In fact, Israel has accomodated upwards of a million Arabs with full citizenship and democratic, religious, and organizational rights," yet allowing a few hundred thousand refugees to return [what was asked for an rejected at Camp David] would "pave[] the way for Arab majority in Israel to turn it into yet another Middle Eastern Arabist state."

Make up your mind.

The American Lebanese League is an apologist for Arabic Christian terrorists that murdered a huge part of Lebanon's population, and as such blames the Palestinians and Syrians for Isreali bombardment of refugee camps, apartment buildings, hospitals etc., just as they do the same for the Christian massacres perpetrated by their allies. Under it's analysis, Isreal bears no responsibility for anyone it killed in Lebanon, much less the thousands that died from Isreali bullets and shells, because everything, as always, is the exlcusive fault of the Untermenschen Muslims.

You rant about the Grand Mufti from your Zionist propaganda site contains no support for the plan you contend he harbored for exterminating Palestine's Jews after WWII, as I suspected.

MMMMMM
01-14-2004, 03:09 PM
" Hence, Zionism is a socialist ideology, theory and in practice - the Zionists had originally intended for the whole country to consist of Kibbutzim."

So...how do you assess the prospects for Israel to replace some of her socialistic programs with capitalistic incentives in the near future?

History has shown that capitalism is far more efficient and productive than socialism. The goals of Israel, both in religious terms and in self-protection terms vis-a-vis the Arabs, could remain in place just as well or better if Israel were to discard its flawed socialist roots for a more energetic, efficient approach to economics. As a side benefit, the GDP of Israel would rise; the average standard of living would rise; and Israel would become richer and less dependent on the U.S. for financial assistance.

If in in the future the U.S.should reduce or eliminate aid to Israel, Israel had better be financially strong enough to survive and defend herself on her own merits. Sure she could win a war or two or three easily right now, but as to maintaining readiness and countering terror on a long-term basis, she requires a vibrant capitalistic economy, not a socialistic sluggish economy. Just because U.S. sentiment has been such as to favor Israel with great financial largesse, doesn't necessarily mean that U.S. sentiment will always be so.

A word to the wise: Israel should rethink her socialistic economic approach, because it is ultimately not viable in the long-term as massive drains on her economy are required for maintenance of national defense. Since Israel is surrounded by a sea of enemies, immense future defense expenditures are certain, but Israel's wherewithal to meet these expenditures is uncertain and in fact would be extremely problematic without U.S aid. Indeed, even with massive U.S. financial aid, Israel is currently under significant economic strain. Therefore Israel should think to the future, with the goal of implementing economic policies which will help create wealth, in order that she may one day be self-sufficient. And if by chance the U.S. should continue aid to Israel indefinitely (rather unlikely IMO...indefinitely is a very long time, and centuries-old regional hatreds are likely to persist even longer than U.S. aid), then Israel will still be all the richer if she has traded socialistic economics for capitalistic economics.

Gamblor
01-14-2004, 03:52 PM
yet allowing a few hundred thousand refugees to return...

The problem with this request at Camp David was the precendent - namely the precedent for the rest of the 3.5 million-odd refugees to demand the same right. My mind, and the mind of the Israeli Jewish public is made up.

The American Lebanese League is an apologist for Arabic Christian terrorists blah blah blah.

Of course. So I may safely assume that your ad hominem attack on the source means you have no argument here?

You rant about the Grand Mufti from your Zionist propaganda site contains no support for the plan you contend he harbored for exterminating Palestine's Jews after WWII, as I suspected.

So every pro-Israel site is Zionist propaganda, and every pro-Palestinian site, such as electronicintifada.com, which you have cited in the past, is a valid, journalistic source?

Furthermore, your weak ad hominem attacks (your second of the post) amount to sheer fabrication, as the source cites numerous quotes from Husseini himself.

But to humour you (in the hopes that those who don't yet have an understanding of the conflict will soon see through your demonization campaign), I'll forward you to a more academic source. (http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/muftism.htm)

Nonetheless, in Husseini's memoirs he wrote: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours."

Gamblor
01-14-2004, 05:42 PM
So...how do you assess the prospects for Israel to replace some of her socialistic programs with capitalistic incentives in the near future?

Right now the biggest problem in Israel is labour strife. The Histadrut (the national labour union) has so much power, they have the ability to shut down the country- which basically happens once a year, if not more.

I see arguments for both sides, but the Zionists used economic socialism for a reason. It's ability to make do with minimal resources in a small nation works well in the Israeli case, but as the country grows, and its economy grows, it will be more and more difficult to maintain.

Israel as a capitalist state is already blossoming - except the problem is, the economy is missing out on the 18-21 demographic, as well as 1/12 of the entire population at any given time, due to the mandatory 1 month per year reserve duty. This is the real problem, and part of why I still maintain that all Jews should move to Israel - the three years of service could be reduced to one or two, and the economy would boom with a large influx of American dollars.

The socialist aspect was designed by the Zionists to include any Jew in the decision-making process of the New Yishuv, no matter how rich or poor, and I for one, still support that ideology, even if it costs a me a couple thousand Shekalim a year.

When the Arab oil runs out, and their desperation increases, then I'm worried.

Chris Alger
01-15-2004, 02:55 AM
"So I may safely assume that your ad hominem attack on the source means you have no argument here?"

No, the argument was clear: as a result of its extreme anti-Muslim bias (an intense hatred that appears to be endemic among politically active Lebanese Christian Arabs), your source attributes all deaths, even those resulting to Israeli and Christian bullets, to Arab factions, even those resulting from Phalangist car bombs and massacres. Obviously, this can't be taken seriously by any thinking person.

You, on the other hand, cannot deny my original point that you tried to sidetrack with your ridiculous take on Lebanon: Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinian terrorists have killed Isrealis.

"So every pro-Israel site is Zionist propaganda"

Not necessarily, but the ones you rely one, like the one in question, are typically very crude and laden with bad facts. This one, for example, attempts to place all blame for the 1936-39 Arab rebellion on the Mufti, which is historic nonsense.

"as the source cites numerous quotes from Husseini himself."

Not for the proposition you asserted, which is that he intended to liquidate Palestinian Jewry. In fact, the quote in your source says he had no problem living peacably among the Jews of Palestine, but that his quarrel was against Zionists who intended to deprive his people of their homeland, as they ultimately did.

As for your "acadmeic" source, I can't even discern his name. It contains no footnotes but instead relies on the usual ranting and raving followed by a bibliography. Although Phillip Mattar's biography, The Mufti of Jerusalem, is included in the bibliography, one of only two biographies cited, the author doesn't discuss or even acknowledge Mattar's conclusion that the Mufti never visited any death camps and was unaware, as was much of the rest of the world, including the Zionists of Palestine, of the holocaust while it was happening. Your source also cites Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial," long exposed as a work of fruadulent scholarship. In other words, your sources are all junk.

Gamblor
01-15-2004, 10:39 AM
Your source also cites Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial," long exposed as a work of fruadulent scholarship.

By whom? More nutbars? Elaborate. Finding some even more biased source does not constitute "exposure as fraud".

You, on the other hand, cannot deny my original point that you tried to sidetrack with your ridiculous take on Lebanon: Israel has killed far more Palestinian civilians than Palestinian terrorists have killed Isrealis.

...have killed Israelis? Of course. Nobody can deny that. But the number of civilians killed by Palestinians in general dwarfs the Israeli count.

But it doesn't matter, because if sheer numbers are your measure of morality, then there is no further discussion.

Suppose the situation were reversed - that the Arabs had all the firepower... do you think there would even be a negotiating table?

Cyrus
01-16-2004, 05:41 PM
"If sheer numbers are your measure of morality, then there is no further discussion."

Isn't the Jewish Holocaust of World War II one of the blackest pages of human history in moral terms precisely because of the great number of people that were murdered ? Do you think we would still call it the Holocaust if there were just ten Jews killed?

Oy vey.

Gamblor
01-16-2004, 10:07 PM
Isn't the Jewish Holocaust of World War II one of the blackest pages of human history in moral terms precisely because of the great number of people that were murdered ? Do you think we would still call it the Holocaust if there were just ten Jews killed?

Not at all, actually.

It is one of the blackest pages of human history, in moral terms, because of the method and ideology behind the murders! The sheer idea of murdering an entire group for the God they worship is the immoral aspect of it - that it was actually implemented is irrelevant to the morality of the event.

In E=mc2, Einstein discovered a relation that gave way to the atomic bomb. Was that discovery the blackest event in human history, from a moral standpoint?

Naturally, it would not be the Sho'ah if 10 people were killed - that's a weekly occurence in Israel (and parts of the Territories). But to plan the elimination of an entire ethnicity and even attempting to execute said plan is what makes the Sho'ah the hideous event that it is. If every Jew had escaped (to Israel, no less), it would still be the blackest moral era of humankind, but it is the scale of murder that make us shocked to ponder it, even today.

Chris Alger
01-16-2004, 10:19 PM
"that it [the holocaust] was actually implemented is irrelevant to the morality of the event"

This has to take first place for the most idiotic statement ever made on these forums.

MMMMMM
01-17-2004, 12:01 AM
Cyrus,

Number of people killed is only one measure of morality (albeit a generally important one). I think you know what Gamblor was trying to say. If numbers killed is considered to be the only measure of morality, then the evaluation itself may be significantly lacking.

Cyrus
01-17-2004, 07:41 AM
"The sheer idea of murdering an entire group for the God they worship is the immoral aspect of it - that it was actually implemented is irrelevant to the morality of the event."

Although Alger has already commented on the above inanity, I cannot refrain from commenting as well : WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU ON? (I mean, lemme at it!) Must be some heavy stuff.

Listen, you claimed you are studying to be a lawyer. You should know that ideas are neither punishable nor immoral. Actions are, in our day and age. If you were to include a modicum of the human studies (don'know, some phee-losophy p'haps?) in your curriculum you would also learn that people have the strangest, and often vilest, ideas! People think about good acts as they think about murder, daily, sporadically or constantly. What we actually do with them and by them thoughts is what's important. If Hitler's thoughts had remained simply an ideology (numerous European texts had called before Hitler for the "extermination of the vermin") it would never, never, anount to anything more importnant than a second-rate burglary. Yes, violent anti-semite texts are that common in History.

So, your convoluted statement is both a complete, utter stupidity as far as the Jewish Catastrophe is concerned and a colossal idiocy as far as human law is concerned. Bravo, bravo --- but don't do that again.

"Einstein discovered a relation that gave way to the atomic bomb. Was that discovery the blackest event in human history, from a moral standpoint?"

No, it wasn't. The atomic bomb explosion was. Not the blackest but close. So, you got it! Einstein's "idea" wasn't the fault, it was its misguided and criminal application that is the villain in the drama. Just as you should know. Just like I explained above.

...Take a break, 'fore you go totally outta control.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gamblor
01-17-2004, 05:31 PM
Q: By how much did Cyrus miss my point?

You should know that ideas are neither punishable nor immoral. Actions are, in our day and age.

Agreed. Does the ability to act on ideas alone make it any worse, morally?

It is not the idea alone that was so immoral - it was the implementation of the idea given the power and money required to implement it.

None of those other texts you don't refer to called for the complete annihilation of the Jewish people, maybe a "take-back" of the power the Jews hold.

Only a fool would argue that actually murdering is much worse than thinking about murdering.

The point, for the less perceptive of you, is the following question:

Just because Hitler had finally acquired the power and money (ironically, what most claimed the Jews had all of) to gas 6 million, is it any worse than if he didn't have those resources, and simply wandered around with a pistol murdering as many Jews as he could find, and only broke, say, the 500 mark?

Gamblor
01-17-2004, 05:43 PM
Shall we compare the numbers of civilians the other side has deliberately targeted for murder?

The IDF stops somewhere between 3-5 suicide bombings a week, while I'd argue that virtually any Palestinian in the IDF's line of sight don't have much time left to plan the next attack.

Never mind that Palestinian casualty counts include those killed by the PA's security forces, by other factions, and the bombers and bomb-makers themselves.

Cyrus
01-17-2004, 10:24 PM
"Just because Hitler had finally acquired the power and money to gas 6 million, is it any worse than if he didn't have those resources?"

Yes, Virginia. Yes.

"..and simply wandered around with a pistol murdering as many Jews as he could find, say 500 ?"

Yes. Once more, yes!

And by the way : You stumbled and fell again. Into the same hole of your logic. (It's so big a hole, it kinda was unavoidable.)

We were talking if IDEAS are worse than ACTIONS, my honorable friend. It was you who came up with the fantastic notion that the Holocaust was no more important as an act than as an idea!

Now you bring into the argument an act (Hitler killing 500 Jews) to compare it with another act (Hitler killing 6 milion Jews). And this is supposed to refute my argument that acts are punishable but ideas are not. And that SIZE MATTERS!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Why don't you quit while you're only a mile behind?

Gamblor
01-17-2004, 10:35 PM
We were talking if IDEAS are worse than ACTIONS, my honorable friend. It was you who came up with the fantastic notion that the Holocaust was no more important as an act than as an idea!

No we weren't. You were. I was talking about the lack of relevance of the magnitude of death to the morality of the situation. If one suicide bomber kills 30, and another kills 5, is one any worse than the other?

You're still hoping for a fly ball out there in left, and it ain't comin'.

And this is supposed to refute my argument that acts are punishable but ideas are not. And that SIZE MATTERS!

Sometimes I wonder if we're having the same conversation. And then I remember who you are.

Cyrus
01-18-2004, 07:39 AM
Cyrus &gt; "We were talking if IDEAS are worse than ACTIONS. It was you who came up with the fantastic notion that the Holocaust was no more important as an act than as an idea!"

Gamblor &gt; "No we weren't. You were."

Really? Let's see. Here are your own words from your own text (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=482687&amp;page=9&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1), baby :

Gamblor &gt; "The sheer <font color="red"> idea </font> of murdering an entire group for the God they worship is the immoral aspect of it - that it was actually implemented is irrelevant to the morality of the <font color="red"> event </font> ."

Hmmm, that sure strikes me like someone equates the IDEA of killing millions of Jews with actually going ahead and DOING IT! Yep, that's right, it is.

I wonder if you think my memory can only keep in the last 15 minutes. (I wonder if eating your words is kosher food.)

Cyrus &gt; "Isn't the Jewish Holocaust of World War II one of the blackest pages of human history in moral terms precisely because of the great number of people that were murdered ? Do you think we would still call it the Holocaust if there were just ten Jews killed? SIZE MATTERS!"

Gamblor &gt; "Sometimes I wonder if we're having the same conversation."

Ouch, I'm hurt! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Maybe you're right and size doesn't matter. Killing 10 Jews and killing 6 million perhaps comes out about the same in the morality scale. Well, let's check out your own words from your own text (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=482687&amp;page=9&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1) once again:

Gamblor &gt; "Naturally, it would not be the Sho'ah [the Holocaust] if 10 people were killed."

Hmmm, sure looks like someone agrees that the Holocaust was named the Holocaust precisely because of the sheer scale of the crime, in other words the SIZE of the crime.

Well now! I guess you are right. We are not having the same conversation! (You are talking to yourself, and I'm sure you are winning.)

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gamblor
01-19-2004, 12:51 AM
Hmmm, that sure strikes me like someone equates the IDEA of killing millions of Jews with actually going ahead and DOING IT! Yep, that's right, it is.

Fair enough, I can see how you would see that.

But if you'll recall, I had also written (in the previous sentence no less!) that It is one of the blackest pages of human history, in moral terms, because of the method and ideology behind the murders!

Notice method and ideology. Now, that doesn't sound like someone who thinks the idea is the only measure, now does it? It is but one half of the equation. The m in mc2. The Roy in Seigfried and Roy. The Alger in Cyrus and Alger.

The sheer idea of murdering an entire group for the God they worship is the immoral aspect of it - that it was actually implemented is irrelevant to the morality of the event.

On it's own, your analysis is correct. But as is classic with you and Chris, you ignore the real issue and take individual quotes. I must admit you're the best proofreader I know, and I'd like you to reexamine some of my high school essays. Let's turn some of those pesky B's into A's. Now that context has been established, let's examine this quote in more detail. When reading between the lines, we realize that the author's intentions were to establish that even if the method and ideology (building the chambers and outright death for no reason in particular) were valid, simply having the resources to implement the idea on such a vast scale is not the immoral act in and of itself.

Name: Cyrus
SAT Verbal Score: 240

Gamblor
01-19-2004, 01:43 PM
if the method and ideology (building the chambers and outright death for no reason in particular) were valid

should read: invalid, as in immoral.