Lies, Zionist lies and PR

SammyB somewhere below invited me to "get used" to Israel! I'm used to having Israel in the neighborhood, Sammy, but I sure don't appreciate your distortion of facts! And I'm not talking about arcane stuff, either...


SammyB wrote "In 1947 the jews took by force the area we used to know as palestine."

Thanks for admitting that the Zionists had started the take-over b e f o r e the UN proclamation. This is indeed correct. The Zionists never were and never will be supporters of an Arab/Jewish cohabitation of the land. And didn't you just admit that this was Palestine?


SammyB wrote "You think the Palestinians have only hated the Jews for about 100 years? Who have been fighting the jews since the time of Abraham?"

The people who call themselves Palestinians are descendants of the ancient occupiers of those lands only in name. And so are the Jews. Unless you believe in some biological continuation & purity of blood, along with the theory that stronger race blood overcomes the weaker one. Tell me, it would be intriguing!


SammyB wrote "[The Jews] had been ejected from every country in the world except for France and the US."

WRONG. They were "ejected" from France, too. Read your history, man.


SammyB wrote "They [Israel] were granted political life by the UN in 1948."

WRONG. Contrary to what you want us to believe, it was not the United Nations that gave birth to Israel in some peaceful & idyllic manner. Zionist armed bands led by Ben-Gurion proclaimed unilaterally the birth of Israel on May 14, 1948, right after the British vacated Palestine, ignoring pleas by the "civilised worlds" for continued talks with the Arabs who had rejected the idea of a strictly Jewish state. The Arabs of course promptly attacked - and yes, they lost. (And don't think that Israel was "weak and helpless" either. We know better. It was Goliath defeating David to be exact. Arabs fell for it wholesale.)


See http://domino.un.org/UNISPAl.NSF?OpenDatabase


The United Nations accepted Israel as a member in 1949 - with the strongest support coming from the Soviet Union.


SammyB wrote "In 1956 they [Israelis] were attacked."

WRONG. It was the Israelis who attacked in 1956.

The Israelis invaded Sinai, along with the French and the British, advanced to the canal, and captured the Gaza Strip. A cease-fire was arranged, because the United States opposed the invasion and strong-armed its allies and Israel to stop it. In early in 1957 the invaders' troops were replaced by the UN Emergency Force. I guess, you could say that "they won", yes.


See http://www.washington-report.org/bac...96/9607083.htm


(Side note: The Israelis tried to undermine Nasser's efforts whereby the British colinists would vacate Egypt. They staged sabotages of British and American facilities, including BOMBS PLANTED IN AMERICAN LIBRARIES, that were to be pinned on Egypt. To the Israelis' embarassment the whole thing blew in their faces. Read about the Lavon affair as detailed by a Jew : http://www.intellex.com/~rigs/page1/lavon.htm)


SammyB wrote "In 1967 they [Israelis] were attacked"

WRONG. In 1967, the Zionists attacked again. You must assume that everyone in this forum was born after the 70s, man!


(Side note: It was in that war, that Israelis felt so cocksure that they attacked and killed lots of American servicemen onboard the U.S.S. Liberty. Israel was slapped on the wrist. See http://www.ussliberty.com )


SammyB wrote "Israel recognizes every other state's right to exist."

WRONG. Ariel Sharon and others, including Labor ministers, have often proclaimed in the past, and most prominently in the 80s, that the Kingdom of Jordan should not exist! That it was the rightful place for all those who called themselves Palestinians. King Hussein did not exactly fell in love with that view.


....Don't take my word on all this, guys, run a search on the Internet and read for yourselves. Start with http://www.mideastfacts.com/index_zion1.html. It is disgraceful that in the wake of Tuesday's barbarism, Zionist apologists have found the opportunity to try and obscure the facts about the Middle East conflict.

Since someone's bound to accuse Cyrus and perhaps me of this anyway I might as well put it on the table.


At least one of the links above appears to be from some sort of anti-semitic, white-supremacist Christian-supremacist website. Although there's a lot of stuff on the web from legitimate sources detailing the predations of Israel, some of it has been predictably pasted into neo-nazi sites, so that if you search for something like the attack on the USS Liberty, you might unknowingly wind up in a page sponsored by these assholes, feigning sympathy for victims of Isreali terror in order to rationalize their own anti-Jewish racism. A few somewhat more principled anti-zionist sites have similar stuff about the "Protocals of the Elders of Zion" and other racist junk.


For the record: I renounce racism and antisemitism in all forms. Neither zionism nor opposition to zionism -- and certainly not advocacy of both Zionism and Palestinian human rights -- is necessarily racist, althought the positions and practices of many on both sides obviously are.


One of the unfortunate side effects of criticizing Israel is that you are sometimes accused of making common cause with your worst nightmare, but I guess that's something you have to put up with.

I didn't check out some the sources you mentioned below, but I was curious about the "electronicintifada" one. Who puts that one out? I would like to know if I get the time and inclination to look at it.

From the site: "The Electronic Intifada project is a focused network of pro-Palestinian activists with a history of Internet and media activism. The project aims to focus on just one aspect of the struggle, the war in the media for a representation of the Palestinian point of view."


It's not a neonazi site.

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

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.

But wasn't the General Assembly at that time dominated by countries like the Soviet Block that were enemies of Israel? And wouldn't these countries go to great length to pass a resolution like you cite whether it was true or not?

Mason Malmuth wrote: ""Wasn't the [United Nations] General Assembly at that time dominated by countries like the Soviet Block that were enemies of Israel? And wouldn't these countries go to great length to pass a resolution like you cite whether it was true or not?""


Another great myth of the Cold War! Which apparently isn't going to be laid to rest anytime soon.


There WAS indeed a Soviet bloc and it was specifically comprised of the following countries : USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Cuba, Mongolia and Vietnam. Did I forget anyone?


China and Albania were routinely at odds with the Soviets, for supposedly ideology differences. Other communists countries such as Yugoslavia and Rumania were unreliable. They preferred to cast their vote with the Non-Aligned bloc.


At the time, remember, there was no marxist Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Angola or Somalia. Cambodge was safely pro-American while for every "soviet-influenced" country from the above list, the U.S. could field a steadfast ally of their own: the United Kingdom, West Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Australia, Canada, etc.


Beyond the two superpowers' satelite orbits, were many semi-"maverick" countries such as Sweden, etc. They were definitely not abiding by the Soviet bloc's wishes. France thought she was still a superpower, for instance.


...Which leaves us with the greatest part of the votes, the Non-Aligned nations. Which comprised African countries such as Tanzania, etc. Even the Arab Middle East countries that were voting routinely against Israel had a stake in the affair. What is always omitted from the analysis was that most of these counties were run by rabidly anti-communist leaders. Nasser had members of the Egypt CP executed sporadically. So did Qaddafi (sp?) with his own "atheists", Assad, and, of course, King Hussein of Jordan.


The "great Soviet bloc of votes in the U.N." is bunk.

Yeah, but your own argument confirms Mason's point, regardless of the existence of a Soviet bloc.

I suppose there's an argument that zionism in actual practice is inherently racist, but it seems to me that the point of the argument is disparagement for it's own sake. Most nation states have grown or benefitted from exclusionary and racist institutions; one can easily argue that the creation of the United States was a racist endeavor (in fact I don't see how it could be refuted). But so what? Should we endeavor to turn back the clock and dismantle America because of it's past crimes? Is that something that's even worth thinking about?


Regardless of the crimes the founders of Israel committed against the indigenous people of the middle east, and I'm sure there are many, present and future generations of Israelis deserve to live in peace within secure borders.