The real reason they hate Israel

[Gamblor]

Saudi officials blame "Zionist elements" for local terror attacks
Ellis Shuman
May 5, 2004

Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told a news conference yesterday that it was "no secret that extremist Zionist elements ... are deeply involved in a vicious campaign against the kingdom." On Saturday, Crown Prince Abdullah blamed "Zionists" and "followers of Satan" for recent terrorist attacks in his country. Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Danny Ayalon said the statements were anti-Semitic and incited hatred.

Speaking to CNN last night, Ayalon said, "With their continued policy of denial and the blaming of others, the Saudis are guilty not only of incitement, but of anti-Semitism and creating an atmosphere of hatred. They are therefore protecting the real terrorists, who are Islamic extremists," he said.

Yesterday, Saud vowed to strike hard at "deviants" who attacked a Saudi petrochemical site at Yanbu on Saturday, killing two Americans, two Britons and an Australian. The gunmen dragged the corpse of one American through the streets, but were later shot dead by police, Agence France Press (AFP) reported.

"The Saudi leadership and people affirm their determination to strike with an iron fist in fighting this deviant group in order to uproot this wicked disease from the body of our nation," al-Faisal said.

Saud claimed that one of two Saudis who had been linked to the Yanbu attack were believed to be followers of two well-known London-based Saudi dissidents, Saad al-Fagih and Mohammed al-Mas'ari, who, according to the Saudi foreign minister, are being financed by Israel. No evidence of such links has ever been made public, Newsweek reported.

Asked to comment on Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz's remarks that "Zionist enemies" were involved, Prince Saud said the attackers' aim to shake the kingdom's stability fed into a "Zionist campaign" against the monarchy, in reference to Israel and its supporters in the United States, Reuters reported.

"It is no secret that extremist Zionist elements which are spread throughout the world are deeply involved in a vicious campaign against the kingdom aimed at turning people against it, with false allegations and fabricated lies," he said.

"What the awful terrorist group is doing these days, in a desperate attempt to destabilize security and national unity, feeds into the interests of these extremist Zionist elements," he added.

Addressing the royal court at Alsalam palace in Jeddah on Saturday, the Crown Prince, the country's de facto ruler, said, "'It became clear to us now that Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the kingdom. I can say that I am 95 percent sure of that."

Newsweek reported that Abdullah's comments stunned Bush administration officials and noted that they came only days after the U.S. State Department praised Saudi Arabia for its "aggressive" and "unprecedented" campaign to hunt down terrorists.

[MaxPower]

For years, I wondered why arab nations did not take an active role in trying to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Then I realized that they do not want to end the conflict. If the conflict ended, they would not have Israel to scapegoat anymore and their citizens might realize that their countries problems are not caused by Israel. I'm sure that some Saudis see right through this, but many do not.

I believe that democratic reform will never happen in the Middle-East as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. If it ever ends, people will start to look internally for the cause of their problems rather than to Israel or the US.

[Gamblor]

You've hit the nail on the head.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that this phenomenon is the chief cause of the conflict. In Israel, it is understood that it is an Arab-Israeli conflict, not a Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

[Cyrus]

"For years, I wondered why Arab nations did not take an active role in trying to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

It is true that the Arab regimes in the area never looked too kindly on the Palestinians, who have always been more tolerant, more democratic and more independently-minded than most other Arabs. It is also true that more Palestinians have died in the hands of other Arabs than from Israelis. (And if the numbers are not that apart, the point remains.)

But Arab leaders have gone to extreme lengths to accomodate their "new neighbor" who barged into Palestine full of fire and rage. All those efforts came to none naturally (Israel doesn't want true peace because war and this kind of "peace" we have now gets more benefits for it). In case all these years you have been unaware of the Arab efforts towards rapprochement with Israel, both openly and clandestinely, you can make up for lost time by checking out a Jewish historian's account in " Iron Wall (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393321126/qid=1083981079/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1__i1_xgl14/103-6015498-6319842?v=glance&s=books) ".

(Gamblor hates the writer's guts, so that should make for a solid recommendation!)

[nicky g]

This is true of some leaders on both sides of the conflict. Witness Sharon's efforts to undermine every truce and peace initiative of the intifada. The continuation of it gives them a rationale for holding to land and resources they want, for "security reasons". It is not true that either all Arab or Israeli leaders do not want or have not made genuine efforts to see an end to the conflict, however. I have no sympathy for the Saduis but only last year they suggested full normalisation of relations between Israel and all Arab states simply for return to pre-1967 borders.

[Gamblor]

Of course.

Return to 1967 borders, and we'll completely forget about all the demands that Islam reign supreme over all of Palestine.

Sharon's efforts to undermine every truce and peace initiative of the intifada. The continuation of it gives them a rationale for holding to land and resources they want, for "security reasons".

That's a fairly bold claim, considering Sharon mandated as his election platform a solution to the conflict, and will likely not be re-elected if he does not deliver in part on this promise.

[Gamblor]

Gamblor hates the writer's guts, so that should make for a solid recommendation

I had hoped illiteracy was all but eradicated in the modern day United States.

I have yet to announce my hatred of Avi Shlaim. I have, however, explained that his opinions are neither consequential nor significant.

Shlaim's fans lay mostly in the anti-Zionist/Palestinian camp. In reality, there is no realistic comparison between opinions expressed in the Arab vs. Israeli media. Virtual total control of information in the Arab world vs. virtual total freedom of information in Israel allows for serious dissenting views in Israel, while it would be extremely difficult for an Arab to side with Israel. Although some still do.

Contrast Shlaims words with, for example, the relatively benign words of Salman Rushdie which brought a fatwa against him. Even mild dissenters in the Arab world are often jailed and executed. Arafat has kept control of the PA mainly through this method.

Many Israelis are so anxious to make peace that they are willing to distort the clear facts. Many Israeli historians are prepared to completely change history to produce a more even-handed narrative, hoping that it, rather than the truth, will be more conducive to peace.

More than anything, Cyrus, it is a fundamental fallacy that one side of a conflict is wrong if some people of that ethnicity support the other side. For example, that he great Liar himself Noam Chomsky has supported the works of Holocaust-denier Faurisson, does not mean the Holocaust did not occur.

Yet, the staple of Palestinian Propaganda is "You see? Even a Jew says Israel is wrong!"

Your argument that somehow ethnic admission is any evidence whatsoever in favour of the Palestinian argument is a fantastic charade. But I give these readers a little more credit.

[iblucky4u2]

It sounds to me like the Saudis are using OJ logic - We will look everywhere to find the culprits (except at themselves). They do not want anyone to remember that OSB is a Saudi, that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi and that, in fact, it was Saudis who committed this latest act against them.

Let's see, [ QUOTE ]
"The Saudi leadership and people affirm their determination to strike with an iron fist in fighting this deviant group in order to uproot this wicked disease from the body of our nation," al-Faisal said.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would make a humorous editorial cartoon, having an iron fist striking themselves and uprooting wicked disease from their bodies.

[Cyrus]

"Many Israelis are so anxious to make peace that they are willing to distort the clear facts. Many Israeli historians [such as Avi Shlaim] are prepared to completely change history to produce a more even-handed narrative, hoping that it, rather than the truth, will be more conducive to peace."

Not long ago you were foaming at the mouth against the likes of Avi Shlaim and calling them names such as "self-hating Jews", etc. Now you say those Jewish historians are after a "nobler" cause (i.e. they are writing fallacies to placate the other side and thus pave the path for peace). Well, make up your mind -- which of the two lies you prefer?

You see, the problem with lying is that you often forget what you've said.


"That the great Liar himself Noam Chomsky has supported the works of Holocaust-denier Faurisson, does not mean the Holocaust did not occur."

Chomsky, arguably the greatest scientific linguist ever, according to informed opinion, is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole, although his critique of American imperialism is deliciously penetrating (and, thus, annoying to some). But Noam Chomsky has never denied that the Holocaust happened. This is simply one more gross distortion of reality, one more lie of yours. (One that in a few weeks' time you will probably forget and say something completely different about Chomsky.)

"The staple of Palestinian Propaganda is You see? Even a Jew says Israel is wrong!"

Decent Israeli historians are, as a matter of fact, many and extremely strong in their work. That they bravely proffer the world their work is indicative of the nobleness of their cause. Their work goes at great length towards restoring the vitality and the strength of inherent Jewish morality, a work that is naturally opposed by immoral Zionist supremacists such as you.

[Gamblor]

Not long ago you were foaming at the mouth against the likes of Avi Shlaim and calling them names such as "self-hating Jews", etc. Now you say those Jewish historians are after a "nobler" cause (i.e. they are writing fallacies to placate the other side and thus pave the path for peace). Well, make up your mind -- which of the two lies you prefer?

I finally get it Sah-russ! Avi Shlaim is all Jewish historians, and all Jewish historians are Avi Shlaim. They're one and the same. If Avi Shlaim is motivated by one thing, then all Jewish historians are motivated by that same thing. (Lemme guess, it's money and power - that's why one becomes a Jew in the first place, right?).

No no, Sah-russ. I listed a number of reasons why a Jewish historian has no impact on the veracity of your wild claims. Shlaim may be motivated by shock value, he might indeed be motivated by peace, or he might have hated going to Shul every Shabbat and is getting revenge on his parents for choking his young neck with that ugly brown tie. Who knows? After all, you had a problem with those kids in high school, eh? The Jocks? The Leather-jacket rebels? Some neo-conservative girl rejected your invitation to the prom, no doubt. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

People say that in Israel, if you get 5 people to sit in a room to discuss something, you'll get 6 different opinions. Yet it is the media that often brings the dissenting view to the viewer/reader, because the status quo isn't exciting enough. So the works of Shlaim are given far more attention than the equally valid but different works of names like Efraim Karsh, who quickly dispel the lies that historians like Shlaim disseminate.

But Noam Chomsky has never denied that the Holocaust happened. This is simply one more gross distortion of reality, one more lie of yours. (One that in a few weeks' time you will probably forget and say something completely different about Chomsky.)

Never done said that pardner. I said he supported, via writing the praising foreword of a book by a Holocaust denier, Robert Faurrisson. No need to lie. It's unbecoming a "champion of human rights" as I'm sure you fancy yourself.

Their work goes at great length towards restoring the vitality and the strength of inherent Jewish morality, a work that is naturally opposed by immoral Zionist supremacists such as you.

So now the inherent Jewish morality does exist? There is something special about Jewish thought and intellectuality? I get it, if I say it, I'm a supremacist, if you say it, it's the truth.

"Immoral zionist supremacists"? Good one.

"I know you are but what am I?"

[nicky g]

Chomsky on Faurisson controversy:

His Right to Say It (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html)

Excerpt: "In the fall of 1979, I was asked by Serge Thion, a libertarian socialist scholar with a record of opposition to all forms of totalitarianism, to sign a petition calling on authorities to insure Robert Faurisson's "safety and the free exercise of his legal rights." The petition said nothing about his "holocaust studies" (he denies the existence of gas chambers or of a systematic plan to massacre the Jews and questions the authenticity of the Anne Frank diary, among other things), apart from noting that they were the cause of "efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression." It did not specify the steps taken against him, which include suspension from his teaching position at the University of Lyons after the threat of violence, and a forthcoming court trial for falsification of history and damages to victims of Nazism.

...

Thion then asked me to write a brief statement on the purely civil libertarian aspects of this affair. I did so, telling him to use it as he wished. In this statement, I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson's work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire's famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

Faurisson's conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print (for example, in my book Peace in the Middle East?, where I describe the holocaust as "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history"). But it is elementary that freedom of expression (including academic freedom) is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous (and often justified) condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy.

I later learned that my statement was to appear in a book in which Faurisson defends himself against the charges soon to be brought against him in court. While this was not my intention, it was not contrary to my instructions.
...
Many writers find it scandalous that I should support the right of free expression for Faurisson without carefully analyzing his work, a strange doctrine which, if adopted, would effectively block defense of civil rights for unpopular views. Faurisson does not control the French press or scholarship. There is surely no lack of means or opportunity to refute or condemn his writings. My own views in sharp opposition to his are clearly on record, as I have said. No rational person will condemn a book, however outlandish its conclusions may seem, without at least reading it carefully; in this case, checking the documentation offered, and so on. One of the most bizarre criticisms has been that by refusing to undertake this task, I reveal that I have no interest in six million murdered Jews, a criticism which, if valid, applies to everyone who shares my lack of interest in examining Faurisson's work. One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views expressed. I have, for example, frequently gone well beyond signing petitions in support of East European dissidents subjected to repression or threats, often knowing little and caring less about their views (which in some cases I find obnoxious, a matter of complete irrelevance that I never mention in this connection)."

[nicky g]

"Return to 1967 borders, and we'll completely forget about all the demands that Islam reign supreme over all of Palestine."

It seems to me that if those borders were returned to as part of a final agreement, it would be impossible for Islam to reign supreme over all of Palestine.

[Gamblor]

Chomsky's own views are irrelevant, although I find some solace in his view that the Holocaust did occur.

Faurisson did not claim that tax breaks for corporations do not stimulate the economy. There is strong evidence on both sides for that - there is no definitive answer (although, in this forum, everyone seems to know the answer).

Faurisson claimed the Holocaust simply didn't happen; that, ipso facto, incites resentment and hatred against Jews for

a) "pulling the wool over our eyes"
b) "exploiting" it for financial and political gain

That is called incitement to hatred.

Now, on the other hand, I don't deny that various aspects of Holocaust remembrance certainly amount to political gain for Jewish people; but I maintain that those gains are only enough to bring Jews to equal footing with the rest of the established world, and furthermore, that the remembrance provide gains is not tantamount to exploitation of the Holocaust - those gains are trivial compared to the moral imperative of a Jewish state in the land of the Jews.

One day, the Arabs will truly make peace, Jews will not be persecuted on account of their religion, and anyone who wants to will come live in Israel. But first and foremost, it is the Jews who are forcibly converted, killed, and slandered among European and Arab states as little as 60 years ago, and it is Jewish people that need a Law of Return just in case 60 years isn't long enough. After all, between the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust were 450 years.

[nicky g]

You said the Chomsky had supported Faurisson's works. He didn't. He suported Faurisson's right to freedom of expression.

"That is called incitement to hatred."

Most countries have laws against incitement to hatred. Most don't have laws against, or prosecute people for, Holocaust denial. That would sugggest that most people do not see Holocaust denial on its own as equivalent to incitement to hatred. I don't see it as that either, although it is blindly stupid and frequently accompanied by such incitement.

[Gamblor]

I was ridiculing the argument that if Israel were to return to 67 borders, the Arabs would somehow forget about their real goal of an Arab state covering all of what is Israel (http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plophase.htm).

How many times must I remind you?

The logo of the Palestine Liberation Organization:

http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plologo.gif

Care to show me the 67 borders?

[nicky g]

An Arab state or an Islamic stae? Oh I forgot, it's all the same to you. All Arabs are the same, they all hold the same opinions, the same religious views blah blah blah. The Saudi plan was for a return to 1967 borders as a final settlement. It's not even a plan I endorse; the Palestinians are entitled to much more than that. But that was the plan and your usual racist rabbitting on isn't going to change it.

[Gamblor]

Well considering that many Arabs are Christian, I don't see the point to your post.

Regarding the Saudi plan, didn't Arafat also promise to clean up the terrorism?

Nonetheless, they are entitled to much more than that.

But it is not Israel's responsibility to give it to them. It is the responsibility of the Arab nations that have declared War on Israel, and created the refugee problem (if not the refugees themselves - that is still disputable).

[Gamblor]

Does writing the foreword for a book not imply support for the work?

Most countries have laws against incitement to hatred.

Most WESTERN countries have laws against incitement to hatred.

Not a single Arab country has any qualms whatsoever about blaming the Jews for controlling

a) the United States government
b) the media
c) the money
d) the World a la Protocols of the Elders...

Not bad for 14 million people eh?

[Gamblor]

Taking for granted that all the PLO wants is sovereignty over the Territories is a pretty huge mistake.

On January 1, 2002, the Fatah terrorist organization - led by PLO chief Yasser Arafat - declared that "a legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel, the outpost of the imperialist powers." The declaration was part of a communique issued marking the 37th anniversary of Fatah's first terrorist attack, in 1965.

[nicky g]

He didn't write a foreword for the book. He wrote an essay on the civil liberties implications of the case that was republished without consulting him in a book the guy published in the run up to his trial.

[Cyrus]

"Chomsky's own views are irrelevant, although I find some solace in his view that the Holocaust did occur.2

What the link (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html) proved was that you have lied about Chomsky, repeatedly.

You insinuated first that Chomsky claimed the Holocauste never happened! When you were called on that lie, you changed tack and claimed that, "in fact", Chomsky supported the claims of Holocaust deniers.

Well, now you have been shown to have lied all the way : Chomsky did not support the claims of Holocaust deniers. All Noam Chomsky did was uphold the greatest American tradition of free speech. Holocaust deniers may be supporting a "vile and evil cause" but they still have the right to speak their mind freely.

--Cyrus

PS : Don't try to understand what I meant by "noble Jewish tradition". You will never understand. You may think you understand on account of being a Jew but your background is irrelevant. (The Nazis thought they understood Nietzsche too.)

[Gamblor]

Only an obnoxious weak-minded could possibly take an admission of error and turn it into "proof" that I "lied". How is the Chris Alger School of Debating?

You want so bad to be right, to not be wrong anymore, it must hurt. Ointment won't help this pain.

You don't mind Jews as long as they sit in the corner and run their banks and shut up.

But asserting themselves as a group, well, that just doesn't fit your mold, now does it?

Don't try to understand what I meant by "noble Jewish tradition". You will never understand. You may think you understand on account of being a Jew but your background is irrelevant.

All I know, is Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Constantine, Isabella and Ferdinand, Richard II, Czar Alexander, and Haj Amin el-Husseini keep finding their way into power.

May the Arab people take to heart the words of Thomas Jefferson, that "all men are created equal", quickly, and in our days, Bim'hera, V'Yameinu.

[Cyrus]

"Only an obnoxious weak-minded could possibly take an admission of error and turn it into proof that I lied."

Well, haven't you? This was not the first time that you posted a lie about Chomsky. The difference this time is that someone called you on it. And, after some zigging and a-zagging, you admitted that, well, actually, Chomsky (squirm squirm) does not support the claims of Holocaust deniers.

"You don't mind Jews as long as they sit in the corner and run their banks and shut up. But asserting themselves as a group, well, that just doesn't fit your mold, now does it?"

This is only indicative of your paranoid mindframe and nothing else. (About the banks bit, throw in the dentists, alright? And we have a deal - in your mind.)

"All I know, is Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Constantine, Isabella and Ferdinand, Richard II, Czar Alexander, and Haj Amin el-Husseini keep finding their way into power."

You must be seriously suggesting that the above lot found its way to power through an ...anti-semitic agenda. However, this is a simplistic, if not utterly erroneous, historical perspective. That brown-shirt brainwashing can't have entirely erased elementary knowledge of History, now, can it?

(And who is that Constantine guy, the Byzantine emperor perhaps?)

[Gamblor]

Well, haven't you? This was not the first time that you posted a lie about Chomsky. The difference this time is that someone called you on it. And, after some zigging and a-zagging, you admitted that, well, actually, Chomsky (squirm squirm) does not support the claims of Holocaust deniers.

No, I haven't. I erred. That is different from lying - as in, I admitted it when I was shown, in Chomsky's own words, that he recognized the Holocaust as historical fact. Lying is the deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

You must be seriously suggesting that the above lot found its way to power through an ...anti-semitic agenda.

Not quite, Jim Bob.

Regardless of how that lot found its way to power, it did indeed find its way to power. And once there, they all, each in their own special way, gave legitimacy to the Zionist cause.

[Cyrus]

"No, I haven't. I erred. That is different from lying - as in, I admitted it when I was shown, in Chomsky's own words, that he recognized the Holocaust as historical fact. Lying is the deliberate misrepresentation of facts."

You lied. This is shown through your repeated accusations against Chomsky for holding anti-semitic views, the latest one of which, according to your twister of a mind, is his support of Holocaust revisionists.

(You still fail to realize that Chomsky made every effort to conceal his own views about the Holocaust deniers. Noam Chomsky, in true American spirit, supports the right of Holocaust deniers to have their say unimpeded, without examining whether they are right or wrong.)

I understand that notions of free speech, deeply ingrained in American ethics, are completely beyond your morality (after all you have just posted (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=680974&page=10&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1) that you dislike America and Americans in general) but I am putting them forth nonetheless. Call me a time waster.

[Gamblor]

I understand that notions of free speech, deeply ingrained in American ethics, are completely beyond your morality (after all you have just posted that you dislike America and Americans in general) but I am putting them forth nonetheless. Call me a time waster.

Really? Where in there does it say I disdain "notions of free speech", and "I, personally, have no particular love for Americans" is not "I dislike America and Americans"? To quote a famous American, Do you see why?

Now who's lying?

Pray, tell.