wolfowitz a legitimate target?

[Gamblor]

What do you actually mean by this? Or, more precisely, what do you think the people you're referring to mean by it?

One of either two things depending on which group is involved:

1) Muslim totalitarian Shari'a etc. etc. rule

2) Arab rule, Muslim, Christian, or otherwise.

The Imperialist nationalist Arab movement demands Arab rule over the entire Middle East.

[Gamblor]

Needing only to forge a national consensus among tribal and clan communities

And the Jewish Consensus in the Yishuv, from the Messianic Haredim to the Labour Zionist socialists to the Revisionist Zionists to the Orthodox Religious Zionists were in 100% consensus.

demarcated by borders drawn by foreign occupiers

And the Zionists drew their own borders? Given your assumption that the Zionists want the whole thing, I'd say its surprising that they drew their own, original '48 borders, over only half of the "whole thing".

well-armed and resolute enough to expel the world's most powerful empire

Because that Empire didn't have its hands full preventing another world superpower from taking over all of Europe, it must have devoted a significant portion of its strength to fighting for control of a barren slice of land the size of Lake Ontario. What power those Zionists wielded!

fighting a running civil war with Zionists

A civil war? What political entity were they fighting over? What country existed there? What were the political perspectives? If you think this is a civil war, your perspective is more messed up than I thought. This, is our nation, and their nation. Two distinct and separate cultures, nationalities, livelihoods. It's a good thing those Zionists didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation or else the Arabs might have not attacked at Bull Run! Civil war, indeed.

Need I remind you of the original two-state solution? Why is it now the Arabs are suddenly begging for the original '48 plan? The answer should be plainly obvious to any rational person - they never wanted it before, instead opting to try to take the whole thing. Now they realize they can't have it, so they're settling. For the time being, of course. 20 years from now, after they re-arm, I'm sure they'll take another run at it.

All true, but the wrong conclusion - the Zionists faced every hurdle the Arabs did, without 300 million of their own kind backing them up. Shame. I would expect more from an "impartial", well-read person, but it appears as though you're reading the wrong books.

[Chris Alger]

Your comparison of Zionist success with Palestinian failure overlooks with characteristic idiocy that the Zionists had the support of the world's most powerful empire and the Palestinians didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
"Need I remind you of the original two-state solution? Why is it now the Arabs are suddenly begging for the original '48 plan?"

[/ QUOTE ]
The 1947 (not 1948) partition plan was killed by Israel, not the Arabs. Keeping with long-standing Zionist policy of grabbing as much land as was expedient, Israel (actually the Yishuv) had occupied territory beyond the partition guidelines well before the May 1948 invasion. After the war, Israel refused to consider giving anything back or repatriating the refugees it created. As Univ. of Haifa historian Ilan Pappe notes: <ul type="square">The Arab refusal to accept the partition plan before the war ... did not mean a logical invalidation of the plan after the war. The Americans led the UN to try and persuade Israel to accept the partition plan as a basis for negotiations on peace. However, strengthened by its military successes and already aware of the impotence of the UN and of American reluctance to reach a confrontation, Israel was only willing to negotiate for peace without having to make any gestures on either territories or repatriation.[/list]Indeed, at the end of the 1949 Lausanne conference, "[t]he Arab countries in their note expressed their willingness to sit down with Israeli representatives provided the Israelis would allow the repatration of the Palestinian refugees." Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947-51" (London: 2001), pp. 273, 267. Israel, of course, refused, a policy that remains intact to this day.

Arabic expressions of support for the two-state solution date at least to 1981, when Saudi Prince Fahd proposed withdrawal to 1967 borders with guarantees "that all states in the region should be able to live in peace." In 1988, the PLO formally endorsed the two-state solution after hinting at it with no positive response from Israel or the U.S. for years prior.

Those events are respectively 22 and 15 years ago, what you think a "rational person" would define as "suddenly." Israel, OTOH, "accepted" partition briefly through words only in November 1947 while almost immediately drawing up plans to incorporate Palestinian areas and leave the rest to Jordan. Since then Israel has never acknowledged even in principle the right of Palestinian sovereignty over Palestinian land and people, and platform of Israel's largest party expressly rejects the very possibility of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan. This history is what Zionists like to call "Arab rejectionism," although exactly what Arabs are suppoesedly rejecting is rarely made clear.

[Gamblor]

Your comparison of Zionist success with Palestinian failure overlooks with characteristic idiocy that the Zionists had the support of the world's most powerful empire and the Palestinians didn't.

And your reply, with smug obnoxiousness, ignores the fact that the Arabs had the support of 300 million other oil producing Arabs.

The 1947 (not 1948) partition plan was killed by Israel, not the Arabs. Keeping with long-standing Zionist policy of grabbing as much land as was expedient, Israel (actually the Yishuv) had occupied territory beyond the partition guidelines well before the May 1948 invasion.

Correction, semantic boy. Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv. The Arabs blatantly killed the partition plan, as it was in fact the Arabs who struck first in the Galille, taking over British bases there in Feb. 1948.

The Jews, who were prevented from acquiring any sort of munitions outside of rifles until late 1948, were able to protect their settlements but the Arabs won the battle for the roads, and thruways, which led to a shift in strategy for the Israelis to offensive - in trying to free roads to allow supplies like FOOD through, which the Arabs had refused to allow.

Yet, since the Arabs had no significant representation in the UN until later, they refused any sort of truce negotiations until Count Bernadotte arrived to mediate. In fact, in the south, the Egyptians broke the truce one day before expiry - but then nobody ever said they fought clean.

The history of saying one thing, doing another is common, it appears. Of course, having read a book and never actually conversing, in Arabic, with an Arab is typical of you Human Rights champions who just don't get that they, as a people, have been taught since day one that Jews are evil monkeys and pigs and deserve to die. Again, you're reading the wrong books. Perhaps it's not an inherent evil, but it's certainly a learned one.

Of course, the fact that they explode (and support those that explode) to further their political cause is complety lost on you.

Arab rejectionism, is simply the Arab tendency to fire rifles into the air and shout like banshees every time Israel asserts its independence.

[Chris Alger]

I'll note first that nothing above resonds directly to any substantive thing I said in my last post. So this is the last time I've going to give you the benefit of a detailed response.

[ QUOTE ]
And your reply, with smug obnoxiousness, ignores the fact that the Arabs had the support of 300 million other oil producing Arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know what you're talking about. The entire Arab world was dominated by Britain and France until after WWII, which installed pliant royalties -- several of which still survive -- to govern after they left. There was no Arab commitment to an independent Palestine remotely comparable to the British commitment to Zionism. Furthermore, the militarily dominent British directly assisted the Zionists during the civil war stage of the battle for Palestine prior to May 1948, during which indigenous resistance to the Jewish state was crushed, including the use of civilian terror and ethnic cleansing.

As for the critical period imediately after UNGAR 181, see Benny Morris: "Theoretically, the Palestinian Arabs had the whole Arab world to fall back on, but that world, less organized and less generous than Jewry, gave them little in their hour of need, in money and arms; the thin stream of Arab volunteers, perhaps five thousand all told, even fell short of the number, and certainly the quality, of the foreign volunteers -- both Jewish and non-Jewish -- who came to fight for the Yishuv." Righteous Victims, p. 193

[ QUOTE ]
Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is untrue because the AHC claimed it as part of a proposed unitary Palestinian state, which the UNSCOP minority report recommended. And you're wrong about Arabs attacking first in the West Bank. The attack on the Etzion block didn't occur until May 1948, when the civil war stage was already over. On the whole, Palestinian villages in the West Bank saw little fighting and "barely contributed to the war effort." Morris, p. 195.

[ QUOTE ]
The Arabs blatantly killed the partition plan, as it was in fact the Arabs who struck first in the Galille, taking over British bases there in Feb. 1948.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Palestinian and Zionist militia were actively fighting each other by December 1947. In December-January, "hundreds of Arab civilians were killed or wounded by IZL [Irgun] terror." Morris, p. 198.

[ QUOTE ]
The Jews, who were prevented from acquiring any sort of munitions outside of rifles until late 1948

[/ QUOTE ]
No, by the end of May 1948 the Haganah had 13 tanks, 12 armored cars, 15 half-tracks, 3 coastal patrol boats, 4 or 5 small field artillery pieces, 24 antiaircraft or antitank cannon, 75 PIAT launchers, about 100 armored trucks and personnel carriers, 700 2 inch mortars, 100 3 inch mortars, 28 reconnaissance and transport planes and 3 Czechoslovakian fighter planes. Morris, p. 217.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet, since the Arabs had no significant representation in the UN until later, they refused any sort of truce negotiations until Count Bernadotte arrived to mediate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. In Decemeber 1947, Arab leaders in Jaffa successfully negotiated a cease-fire that Irgun, the Stern gang and some Arab elements failed to abide by. As for cease-fires after the invasion, Count Bernadotte was appointed mediator five days after the May 15 invasion and succeeded in obtaining a negotiated truce beginning June 11 after "first one side then the other balked, each interested in making as many gains as possible on the ground." Morris, p. 235.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, in the south, the Egyptians broke the truce one day before expiry - but then nobody ever said they fought clean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Egyptians don't "fight clean?" You'd think the Egyptians had a hotel bomber, assassin or death squad warrior as a Prime Minister. The July 8 Egyptian attack was anticipatory because "during the truce the IDF had planned a major offensive against the Egyptians" to begin when the truce ended on July 9. Morris, p. 237.

[ QUOTE ]
The history of saying one thing, doing another is common, it appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what? You haven't provided a single example of this.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you're reading the wrong books. Perhaps it's not an inherent evil, but it's certainly a learned one.

[/ QUOTE ]

As your post indicates, you haven't supplied a shred of evidence that any book I've cited here is in any way "wrong" about anything but instead have to fall back on your racist anecdotes about demon Arabs that demonize Jews. And it is more than obvious that whatever "right" books you've allegedly read haven't informed you about the elementary facts about a conflict over which you are eager to see other people's blood shed. I only know a little about it, but then I'm not the one who favors the continued supply of lethal aid to the intransigent side.

[nicky g]

"The Imperialist nationalist Arab movement demands Arab rule over the entire Middle East. "

No, the Palestinians demand Palestinian rule over themselves. The vast majority are not interested in either of your two definitions. Regardless, I note these only refer to "rule". So by "the destruction of the state of Israel", commonly taken to mean the genocide and/or ethnic cleansing of the Jews in ISrael, what you actually mean is a different political set-up where the State of Israel is currently based. So for political aspirations, these people forfeit all of their rights? Believing there should be a Muslim or secular or otherwise non-Jewish state in place of the Jewish state is enough to lose you your rights?

[Gamblor]

The entire Arab world was dominated by Britain and France until after WWII, which installed pliant royalties -- several of which still survive -- to govern after they left.

This is not a fact. How exactly do you take this to be fact?

There was no Arab commitment to an independent Palestine remotely comparable to the British commitment to Zionism.

This is a misnomer. While there was no commitment to Palestine, there was a certain commitment to destroying Zuionists and thus cannot be admitted as evidence in support of your case that the Arabs were willing to accept a two state solution. Furthermore, if the Zionists were committing such horrid terrorism against the British, why did the "victims" turn around and accept the Israeli state?

Furthermore, the militarily dominent British directly assisted the Zionists during the civil war stage of the battle for Palestine prior to May 1948, during which indigenous resistance to the Jewish state was crushed, including the use of civilian terror and ethnic cleansing.

You make no sense. Again, what civil war were they fighting? Over what political entity was control being contested?

On the whole, Palestinian villages in the West Bank saw little fighting and "barely contributed to the war effort.

[ QUOTE ]

Jews happening to live in the unclaimed territory now known as the West Bank were driven out by the Arabs when the war began, fleeing to safe havens like Tel Aviv.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reading Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? I don't recall using the word "Palestinian". If I'm not mistaken, Palestinian is a generic word referring to a smattering of Arabs who inhabited the region during the mandate, while Arabs refers to the whole ethnic group.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Palestinian and Zionist militia were actively fighting each other by December 1947. In December-January, "hundreds of Arab civilians were killed or wounded by IZL [Irgun] terror." Morris, p. 198.

And how many Jewish civilians by Arab fedayeen raids?

No, by the end of May 1948 the Haganah had 13 tanks, 12 armored cars, 15 half-tracks, 3 coastal patrol boats, 4 or 5 small field artillery pieces, 24 antiaircraft or antitank cannon, 75 PIAT launchers, about 100 armored trucks and personnel carriers, 700 2 inch mortars, 100 3 inch mortars, 28 reconnaissance and transport planes and 3 Czechoslovakian fighter planes.

Wow, 3 planes? 13 tanks? The Haganah totalled 140,000 soldiers, in comparison to the combined Arab forces of 350,000. Those numbers are still from the second half of '48, after the establishment of the state. You'll recall, as you said above, that the war began long before May '48, and again, you verify my statement that Israel was not allowed munitions until the second half of 1948.

And it is more than obvious that whatever "right" books you've allegedly read haven't informed you about the elementary facts about a conflict over which you are eager to see other people's blood shed

Only the people eager to see mine.

What is it about Benny Morris you like so much?
His radicalism? Perhaps it is his membership in the Israeli academic left that you admire so much. He is a new Zionist, a propagandist of the first order, and a misrepresentative of the truth. The fact that he's Israeli is not evidence of his reliability, but it is evidence of his right to free speech without intimidation or threat. I'd wonder what some Palestinian Arabs might say about their indoctrination of evil, upon given the right to free speech.

For a further analysis of Benny Morris' fraudulent writings, see here .

You are still wrong. The Arabs rejected the two state solution to begin with, and I don't recall using the word "demon" anywhere.

It would appear you have taken a lesson from the Goebbels School of Propaganda

[nicky g]

"The Arabs rejected the two state solution to begin with"

Is this really surprising? Imagine you're told that half of your country is going to be given away by a colonial power to be settled by some people who don't live there but have decided to create a religious state there based on the fact that some of their coreligionists lived there 2000 years ago. Your reaction would be what, the more the merrier?

The Palestinians were hardly the only rejectionists. The Zionists rejected countless plans and went so far as assassinating the UN mediator sent to report on the matter because they didn't like his plan, (one of the planners of the assassiniation, Shamir, went on to be Prime Minister - how's that for rewarding terrorism?) and have rejected or sabotaged every resolution and peace plan since.

[Gamblor]

Imagine you're told that half of your country is going to be given away by a colonial power to be settled by some people who don't live there but have decided to create a religious state there based on the fact that some of their coreligionists lived there 2000 years ago. Your reaction would be what, the more the merrier?

At what point did half of British Mandate Palestine belong to Arabs? When were the borders demarcated? Nicky, you're brainwashed. There were Arabs there yes, but there were Jews there too. It was nobody's state, it was just a random smattering of people hanging out there - in fact, the main institutions that even resembled a state's institutions were run by the Yishuv.

The Zionists rejected countless plans and went so far as assassinating the UN mediator sent to report on the matter because they didn't like his plan, (one of the planners of the assassiniation, Shamir, went on to be Prime Minister - how's that for rewarding terrorism?)

What court convicted him of this?

and have rejected or sabotaged every resolution and peace plan since.

Yes. It is the Israelis who are rejecting peace. The only comprehensible basis for your statement is that the Israelis rejected any peace that would not provide them with secure defensible borders. Whereas the Arab rejection of peace...

[nicky g]

"At what point did half of British Mandate Palestine belong to Arabs? "

Legally? Never; it was always part of some empire or other. Rightfully? Given that they were the inhabitants of the territory, and assuming the prinicple of self-determination, for hundreds of years.

"When were the borders demarcated? "

In 1922, when the British drew a border between Transjordan (now Jordan) and Palestine (now Israel/Palestine), leaving its inhabitants hoping to establish an independent state within those borders.

"It was nobody's state, it was just a random smattering of people hanging out there "

In 1948 there were 1.2 million Arabs and 600,000 Jews there. That hardly consitutes a random smattering. That said, the vast, vast majority of those Jews had not been born there and had only been there for a decade or less. Their only claim to the land was based on religion, which is not a great basis for the solution to complex international problems.

"What court convicted him of this?"

What Israeli court would? Are you really denying that Shamir was involved?


"Whereas the Arab rejection of peace..."

The Arab postion has been based on 35 years of illegal occupation and repression, and the refusal to redress the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 people.