Lies, Zionist lies and PR

I couldn't agree with you more when you say that "opposition to zionism is not racism". But I couldn't disagree with you more when you say that "neither is zionism". Zionism is absolutely a form of racism. In fact, on November 10, 1975, the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 3379 (XXX) determining that Zionism is a form of racism.


natedogg

Your post, quoting from B'nai B'rith, confirms that the state of Israel commenced hostilities. In other words, that THEY attacked. SammyB claimed that "Israel was attacked". He claimed the same thing about the war of 1956!..


The rest of the text contains no "alternative history" either. It's just the standard excuses for Israel being the aggressor once more (they called it "pre-emptive strike") despite the American mediation efforts that your text quotes. Israel had an excuse for every aggressive, blatantly illegal act it has committed, including the invasion of Lebanon. Nonetheless, it's nice to have at least been spared the standard denials about the sinking of the U.S.S. Liberty. Thanks, Tom.

Right and I'm sure if you read an account from an anti Israeli source the account would be much different than the account given at the site that I provided a link for. There really is no clear cut answer as to whether it was a "pre-emptive" strike or a "Zionist attack."

I believe the historical perspectice you give regarding the Zionists and Palestenians was for the most part accurate.

I'm afraid I don't know the definition of "Zionism", or even, for that matter, the word "racism", although I have a pretty good idea what "racism" means. I have virtually no idea what "Zionism" means.


In our enlightened wisdom we easily feel that prejudicial standards are bad things, and in many ways, they are. However there can be very practical reasons for certain things, for instance, such as many citizens of Israel perhaps not wanting to live in a very mixed society. The most obvious reason is that many of their neighbors hate their guts, and who want to have fellows like that living next door and down the street.


At the risk of offending those who prefer the Mike Styvick outlook over the Archie Bunker mentality (and BTW I'm somewhere in the middle), it is also true that lower socioeconomic groups have higher crime rates. I'm all for judging each individual on his/her own merits, but when discussing groups, we must also discuss averages. I don't think I would be as safe if I lived in many ethnic neighborhoods in the U.S., and not just because I'm a white guy. Likewise, in the Middle East, the situation is far more pronounced. Archie Bunker's visions of falling property values would probably be minor compared to the effects of having all the Palestinians sharing all of Israel with the Israelis. I'm not judging right or wrong here, and again, I'm not even sure what Zionism is. I'm just saying that if Zionism is the Israels wanting to live primarily with other Israelis (whom they know will be on average quite well-educated, professional, and hard-working), that is not racism per se, that is being practical, and being practical in a very dangerous part of the world.

Isn't attacking those who are openly committed to your destruction a form of defense? If the Islamic world had just always LEFT ISRAEL ALONE I will bet dollars to donuts that Israel would never have attacked on several occasions.


When the U.S. goes to attack the terrorists who just committed those acts against us, in my view, that is DEFENSE even though it is an aggressive action. I mean c'mon. The Islamic states call for a war to destroy Israel, then when Israel strikes back it is considered an aggressive action? A guy with a knife says he is going to kill you after he robs you in a dark alley somewhere, and you, Cyrus, get in the first punch while he is still talking and get the knife away from him? That is offense? Did you have an "excuse" for this aggressive action?

If the U.S., instead of Israel, were surrounded by much larger neighbors openly sworn to destroy her, and they were making preparations to do so, we probably would have nuked ALL of them. Perhaps Israel should be commended for restraint.

The historians who wrote from a pro-Israel perspective, both in Israel and in the west, immediately after the founding of Israel, wrote from a triumphalist perspective: everything Isreal did was sanctified, and everything it's opponents did was, by definition, evil. Likewise, the Arab and Palestinian writers of the same period took exactly the opposite perspective, their writings replete with virulent antisemitism.


This is a natural thing. Reading early American historians' views of the founding of our country, or Theodore Roosevelt's Winning of the West is embarrassing today. As time passes, more records become available and a more even-handed perspective becomes possible.


In Israel today, a group of "new" Israeli historians, led by Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim, are challenging the triumphalist sense of history that was previously unchallenged there. I have found the following books the most persuasive in explaining the history of the Zionist enterprise before 1948, the Palestinian and Arab response, and the history of the state of Israel since 1948. Some may be hard to find:


Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, The Transformation of Palestine

Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape

Boas Evron, Jewish State or Israeli Nation?

David J. Goldberg, To the Promised Land

Ian Lustick, Arabs in the Jewish State

Benny Morris, 1949 and After

Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palenstinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949

Ilan Pappe, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951

Ilan Pappe, The Isreal/Palestine Question

Maxime Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State?

Rogan and Shlaim, The War for Palestine

Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine

Anita Shapira, Land and Power

Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition

Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall

Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs

Baylis Thomas, How Israel Was Won

Thanks for this list of resources - I often read this Forum just to find good books to read. Unfortunately, I'm nearly a fast enough reader to Get through this whole list. Do you mind narrowing it to 3-5 'must reads'?


Thanks much,


R

I've been following this discussion and I'd like to add my perspective.


I agree that unbiased history paints a pretty dim picture from either side of the Palestine issue, but there is a point SammyB made that I think should be considered instead of dismissed as being arrogant, i/e Whatcha goin to do about it.


The way Israel conducts itself is a reality. It isn't going to change. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's real. Trying to persuade or force or terrorize Israel into being neighborly or even fair to the Palestinians will probably not succeed. Sort of a NIMBY attitude. If there is going to be peace in the region another kind of accommodtion must be found.


This certainly doesn't work.