Extreme Cowardice

[Pilgrim]

Speaking about cherry picking, you conveniently omitted Nasser's blockade,which is part of a pinser manuever, leading up to the war of 1967. Sneaky omission and a pipsqueak move. If you are going to quote Nasser, why don't you mention all the other 'pearls of wisdom' from him about Israel?

Six Day War - crucial quotes


Arab Threats Against Israel

Just a little something to put all this into context (bold emphasis mine):

The British secured Jerusalem in December 1917. The British moved into the Jordan valley in 1918 and a campaign by the Entente into northern Palestine led to victory at Megiddo in September.
The British were formally awarded the mandate to govern the region in 1922. The non-Jewish Palestinians revolted in 1920, 1929 and 1936. In 1947, following World War II and the Holocaust, the British Government announced its desire to terminate the Mandate, and the United NationsGeneral Assembly adopted a resolution recommending partition into an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Jewish leadership accepted the proposal, but the Arab Higher Committee rejected it; a civil war began immediately, and the establishment of the State of Israel was declared in 1948.
Following what is known as the 1948 Palestinian exodus, the 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were driven from their homes were unable to return following the Lausanne Conference, 1949. In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel captured and incorporated a further 26% of the Mandate territory, Jordan captured the region today known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt. In the course of the Six Day War in June 1967, Israel captured the rest of Mandate Palestine from Jordan and Egypt, and began a policy of Israeli settlements. From 1987 to 1993, theFirst Palestinian Intifada against Israel took place, which included the Declaration of the State of Palestine in 1988 and ended with the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords. In 2000, the Second or Al-Aqsa Intifada began, and Israel built a security barrier. Following Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2004, it withdrew all settlers and most of the military presence from the Gaza strip, but maintained control of the air space and coast. In 2012, the State of Palestine replaced the PLO as UN observer following United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19.[SUP][43]

Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/SUP]

Although the source article is somewhat lengthy, it does offer an insight to the considerable changes in control of the area over the course of history.[SUP]

Anyone who's read a newspaper in say, the last 20-30 years might have noticed quotes such as this:

[/SUP][SUP]"A prominent Islamic scholar making a landmark visit to the Gaza Strip declared Thursday that Israel has no right to exist and voiced his support for rocket fire on Israel, giving a boost of legitimacy to the militant Islamist Hamas rulers of the Palestinian territory.
...The U.S., EU and Israel brand Hamas a terror group, while the rival Fatah, which rules in the West Bank, enjoys Western backing."
[/SUP][SUP]
Islamic cleric in Gaza rejects Israel's existence

If history is any indicator, there will never be peace between these two peoples. However, a positive step toward that end would be a complete military victory by Israel over Hamas and the other terrorist organizations sponsored by the Iranians. While the administration of Barack Hussein Obama dithers, the Iranians proceed toward completion of their nuclear ambitions. If allowed to continue in this manner of delaying, negotiating and stalling the completion of Iranian enrichment facilities will completely change the dynamics in the area. Whether Israel has the courage to step up where Obama won't and stop the Iranian developments remains to be seen.


[/SUP]

 

[RLENT]

Just a little something to put all this into context (bold emphasis mine):

LOL ... you ... providing context ?

That's almost as hilarious as the "I am balance" one you tried to pull awhile back.

BTW - the link you provided at the bottom of your quote goes to the section of the article about the etymology of the word "Palestine" ... not to the section which you quoted.

Congrats on likely confusing anyone who bothered to click it.

Although the source article is somewhat lengthy, it does offer an insight to the considerable changes in control of the area over the course of history.

It does offer some insight - but only on a very broad basis and is very limited - it fails to engage those nagging little details of history ... which we will do in very short order.

I'm fairly sure that these will be things that some folks would prefer we avoid.

Anyone who's read a newspaper in say, the last 20-30 years might have noticed quotes such as this:

Yup ... but what they haven't probably seen is quotes like the ones below ... but they will ... the times they are a-changin' ...

First, from the great granddaddy of Zionist terrorism and "father" of the Zionist enterprise on the ground in Palestine, David Ben-Gurion:

Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66).

Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.
​

Of course, Ben-Guroin wasn't really being honest about the actual purpose ... one that continues to this very day under the Prawer Plan.

How about this one:

On July 12, 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed by the British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)
​

Nothing more than a thief licking his chops over the prospect of an impending theft he plans to commit.

Or this:

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)
​

It would be dangerous because it expose the Zionist enterprise for what it truly was: an ideology organized around a (religious/racial) supremacist mindset - which embraces and justifies utter criminality on the basis that "we're better, so we deserve it"

And this - which provides clear evidence of the duplicity of the Zionists stated positions versus their actual intentions:

and while addressing the Zionist executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that:

"after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)
​

Well over half a century later and nothing has changed.

Then there's this utterly psychopathic statement, which provides true insight into how fanatically crazed the ideology of Zionism can make someone:

A month after the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion provided an interesting mathematical formula for saving German Jewish kids. He stated in December 1938:

"If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter----because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People." (Righteous Victims, p. 162, The Complete Translated Letter translated by IPS and here is the original in Hebrew))
​

So Ben-Gurion was willing to sacrifice half the innocent children who were exterminated in the Holocaust, in order to better serve the interests of deranged, fanatical ideology of Zionism that he embraced. That's the mark of psychopathy in my book.

Ben-Gurion was dismayed with the large "mass robbery" of Palestinian properties by the citizens of the "Jewish state". He said in a Cabinet meeting:

"The only thing that surprise me, and surprised me bitterly, was the discovery of such moral failings among us [Jews], which I had never suspected. I mean the mass robbery in which all parts of [the Jewish] population participated." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 69)

​

Obviously, his concerns were likely from a PR perspective only - given the utter immorality that he willingly embraced to accomplish the end goal of a "Jewish State" ...

Switching from Ben-Gurion, let's have a look at some of the statements of other early Zionists:

Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
​

So much for that whole "an empty land for a people, and a people for an empty land" lie ... err ... I mean thing ...

And yeah ... why allow oneself to be "deluded" about being civilized ... when you can just steal what you want through the use of force instead ?

In 1904, before Zionism matured into a powerful political force, Menachem Ussishkin stated that:

"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land from its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers." (Righteous Victims, p. 38)
​

Well, they weren't limited until they became "rulers" ... the ROBBING of land from it's owners actually started well before that.

In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:

"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)
​

The idea that scoundrels and thieves possess "noble ideals" is simply ludicrous ... even more so for violent criminal thugs and murderers ...

Collective punishment of a population is a war crime under international law:

Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan wrote in his memories regarding the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the 'Imwas, Bayt Nuba, Yalu, and big portion of the West Bank city of Qalqilya:

"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy." (Righteous Victims, p. 328)
​

Another Zionist fan of butchery to accomplish the "holy" mission:

Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality, stated :

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
​

More thieves contemplating the thievery that will eventually be committed:

In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians:

". . . There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become a the strong and papules ones." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)
​

Some thoughts on the true nature of what was actually happening in 1948 ... apparently to Christians ...

During the 1948 war, the Military Governor of Jerusalem, Dov Yosef, wrote Ben-Gurion describing the "looting" of Palestinian properties:

"The looting is spreading once again. ...I cannot verify all the reports which reach me, but I get the distinct impression that the commanders are not over-eager to catch and punish the thieves. ...I receive complaints every day. By way of example, I enclose a copy of a letter I received from the manager of the Notre Dame de France (a monastery). Behavior like this in a monastery can cause quite serious harm to us. I've done my best to put a stop to the thefts there, which are all done by soldiers, since civilians are not permitted to enter the place. But as you can see from this letter, these acts are continuing. I am powerless." Ben-Gurion promised he would discuss with Moshe Dayan the possible measures to be adopted in order to put an end to the robbery. The subject troubled him greatly. Prior to the occupation of Nazareth he ordered Yadin to "use submachine guns on the soldiers if he saw any attempt at robbery." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70)
​

The confessions of a man on nearing death's doorstep, and some further thoughts on that:

Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldman (one of the prominent Zionists leaders) before he died:

"I don't understand your optimism.," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us out".

I was stunned by this pessimism, but he went on:

"I will be seventy years old soon. Well, Nahum, if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish state I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish state. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish state, and I would answer: fifty-fifty."

"But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind," I broke in, "and be Prime Minister of Israel too?"

Who says I sleep? he answered simply. (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99)

​

Ben-Gurion was correct about many things: Thieves do not sleep well; usually they're afraid of retribution. This is exactly how the average Israeli feels. However, Palestinians and Arabs may disappoint him about couple of things:

• It has been three generation since Nakba, and Palestinians still hold on to their looted homes' keys (inside Israel) more than ever.
  
• He will be amazed how many Zionist Arabs (several Palestinian leaders among them) are ready to sell Palestinian rights so they can retain their positions of power and financial gains.

Any person around the world has the right to defend his home and family, however, in the West a Palestinian does not have that right despite that his home was stolen by Holocaust survivals. Westerners (especially Europeans) for centuries took turns gang rapping their Jewish citizens, and their guilty conscious burns them from the inside.

This guilty conscious is the reason why the West covers up Israeli war crimes and continues to paints Israeli apartheid as "the only democracy in the Middle East". Somebody has to pay for their crimes against their European Jews so long it is not a Westerner who pays the price.

History will tell that not only they have wronged Palestinians by making them pay for their crimes, but also they have wronged their Jewish citizens twice: Once for the many Holocausts they have committed against their Jews, and the second for locking them into an endless struggle with stubborn Arabs who would not sell their rights.

If history is any indicator, there will never be peace between these two peoples.

If one means the Palestinians and the Zionists, yes ... one would probably be correct ... in that the Zionists are, to a very large extent, a war-like, criminal people, intent on dispossessing an indigenous people (the Palestinians) and stealing their land ... as clearly evidenced in the platform of the Likudniks which I provided earlier.

If however means the Palestinian people as a whole and the Jews, I don't think that's necessarily the case at all ... as evidenced by the historical fact of relatively peaceful co-existence over many years ...

The intractable problem really came out when the greedy, foreign interlopers arrived on the scene ...

Of course, that's evidence that some may choose to ignore ... in furtherance of a specific agenda ...

 

[RLENT]

However, a positive step toward that end would be a complete military victory by Israel over Hamas and the other terrorist organizations sponsored by the Iranians.

That ain't gonna happen ... just look what happened to Israel when they tried to take out Hezzbollah in 2006: they essentially got their butts kicked ... Hezzbollah fought them to a standstill and the Israelis were forced to withdraw ...

Look what's happening in Afghanistan to what is arguably the largest and most well-eqiupped military on the face of this planet ... or what happened in Iraq to same ...

Bottomline: the Israelis do quite well when they are a vastly superior force, armed to the teeth with sophisticated and modern weapons, suppressing what is largely an unarmed populace ...

But when they have to actually go into battle against a well-trained, highly organized opponent - even one as small as Hezzbollah was (estimated to have been around 5,000 fighters) - it's another matter altogether ...

The issue is further complicated by the mindset of the Israelis themselves - which is manipulated by those government and elsewhere to a political end: the Israelis consider the lives of (Jewish) Israelis quite dear ... as evidenced by the public reaction to the 2006 war in Lebanon.

It's not hard to envision a scenario where the IDF takes large losses in some offensive action (which is what most Israeli military actions are) and the public support dries up like morning dew in the hot summer sun.

Thugs and bullies are often prone to backing down when hit with a fist directly in the nose ...

IOW: there's a real good possibility they'll fold like a cheap suit in the event that they take substantial losses ...

Further Israel essentially created Hamas - something that is widely known and acknowledged - in an effort to implement their "divide and conquer" strategy, and as a pretext for war on the Palestinian people ...

Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.

"Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel's creation," says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel's destruction.

How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas - WSJ.com

That hasn't exactly worked out quite like they had planned ... in that they created and empowered an entity which was certainly more extreme than Fatah ... and which ultimately has received support of the people of Gaza in elections, thereby giving it more legitimacy ...

Furthermore, that legitimacy will continue to be enhanced to the degree that Hamas moderates and seeks to wage war more through political activities rather than armed conflict (although it will not likely forego the latter)

While the administration of Barack Hussein Obama dithers, the Iranians proceed toward completion of their nuclear ambitions.

Yeah ... electricity for the masses of Iran's populace ...

Unfortunately (for some) the question of Iran's nuclear program is no longer up to single country - the US - as evidenced by the participation of the entire P5+1 ...

The US' global influence is exists ... but is on the wane ... and will continue to wane for the foreseeable future ...

This will no doubt severely frustrate the petty little authoritarian wannabes ... who dream fondly and endlessly of prancing around on the world state, flinging their Johnsons™ very mightily in every direction to demonstrate their (so-called) "manhood" ...

If allowed to continue in this manner of delaying, negotiating and stalling the completion of Iranian enrichment facilities will completely change the dynamics in the area.

The dynamics in the region need to change ... Israel needs to be put in it's place and told to sit and down and shut up ... deal with the problems it is, itself, creating right in its own backyard by continuance of the ongoing occupation and it's other various illegal actions.

Whether Israel has the courage to step up where Obama won't and stop the Iranian developments remains to be seen.

I'm guessing not ... Israel has already managed to turn itself into an international pariah nation ... it's condition in this regard deteriorates further with every passing day ... as well it should ...

If Israel were to undertake military action against Iran, it would amount to an unprovoked war of aggression ... another "war crime" and "crime against humanity" to add to the long list of the ones it has already committed ...

In a world-wide poll done by the BBC back in 2012, Israel's world-wide standing continued to descend further down the crapper from 2011, with it being ranked along side North Korea, and only ahead of two other countries: Iran and Pakistan.

Out of the 22 countries surveyed, only in three (the US, Nigeria, and Kenya) was Israel viewed in a positive light. In the United States support is still strong ... mostly due to efforts by the US MSM to keep the vast swaths of the public in complete and total ignorance as to the actual history of I-P conflict and what's actually going on over there on the ground.

Israel retained its position as one of the world's most negatively-viewed countries, according to BBC's annual poll published Wednesday night. ...

Evaluations of the Jewish state, already largely unfavorable in 2011, have worsened in 2012. Out of the 22 countries polled, the majority in 17 of them view Israel negatively, while only three (the US, Nigeria and Kenya) view Israel positively. In Kenya, negative ratings of Israel fell by 10 points to 31%, while the country experienced an even larger increase in positive ratings of Israel, rising 16 points to 45%.

Negative perceptions of Israel in EU countries have continue to rise, reaching 74% in Spain (up 8%), 65% in France (up 9%), while in Germany and Britain the negative views remain high but stable (69% and 68% respectively). In other Anglo countries, perceptions of Israel are worsening, including in Australia (65%), and Canada (59%).

Among Muslim countries, perceptions of Israel have continued to deteriorate. Of particular concern for Israel is the country sitting on its southern neighbor, Egypt, where 85% of the population views Israel negatively, up 7% since 2011.

In Asian countries, public opinion on Israel is growing increasingly antagonistic. In China, just 23% of those surveyed view Israel positively compared with 45% negatively. In India, overall opinion has shifter from being divided in 2011 to leaning negatively. In South Korea, negative views of Israel rose a full 15% (to 69%), while positive views decreased 11% (to 20%) ...

Poll: Israel viewed negatively around the world | JPost | Israel News

And it got even worse still in the 2013 poll:

Israel one of world's most unpopular countries and it's getting worse: BBC survey

As Israel is its own worst enemy, you can expect that situation to continue to worsen over time - as people become better informed and more aware of the true nature of the conflict and its actual history (as opposed to the hasbara crap that certain folks like spew)

The more astute among the Zionist community (which generally lean left politically), are seeing the writing on the wall.

From 2012:

U.S. commentators are talking more loudly in the media about Israel's failure to engage with a two-state peace process – which could leave Israel out in the cold when it comes to fateful decisions on Iran as well as disconnecting Israel itself from a democratic future. ...

For an important group of public intellectuals, the occupation of the West Bank is becoming more rather than less important. And we are not talking here about the usual cast of anti-Israel characters, but of mainstream journalists, scholars, and opinion makers – those who write in middle-of-the-road, general publications with a broad readership.

Something is happening—a turning point, I suspect. No matter how much Israel’s leaders want to change the subject, it’s not working.

Well, that certainly came to pass ...

Israel is losing the battle for public opinion in America

From 2013:

Washington’s failure to clinch two-state deal would shift Palestinian focus to international groups and college campuses where organized Jewry holds little sway.

In the spirit of the season, let me hazard a prediction: 2014 will be the year that America’s Israel debate begins to pass the organized American Jewish community by.


The first reason is the end of the American-dominated peace process. Despite John Kerry’s best efforts, the most likely scenario is that 2014 will be the year he fails. Even if Kerry manages to convince Israeli and Palestinian leaders to accept a “framework agreement,” which lays out guidelines for a final deal, it’s unlikely he can get it implemented.

At the end of the day, Benjamin Netanyahu still leads a party dominated by people opposed to a Palestinian state. Indeed, the man he’s just appointed as his top foreign policy advisor publicly opposes a Palestinian state. For Netanyahu to embrace a territorially viable Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem would mean losing his political base, something that throughout his political career he has adamantly refused to do. ...

Kerry himself has said that if “we do not succeed now, we may not get another chance.” He’s right. If he fails, the United States won’t take another shot until it inaugurates a new president in 2017, and maybe not then. In the meantime, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle will move outside Washington as Palestinians take their case to international organizations, college campuses, religious and labor groups and European consumers. And for the organized American Jewish community, that’s a disaster because universities, international organizations and liberal religious groups are exactly the places the American Jewish establishment is weak.

But across the world, fewer and fewer people believe Washington will effectively use its leverage, and if the Kerry mission fails, Washington will no longer even try. The Palestinians are ready with a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that shifts the struggle to arenas where the American Jewish establishment lacks influence. ... [rlent editorial comment: Anyone remember what happened to South Africa ?]

It’s no secret that young Americans are less unwaveringly “pro-Israel” than their elders. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center poll, while a majority of Americans over 65 say they sympathize primarily with Israel, among Americans under 30 it drops to just over one-in-three, with a plurality of respondents saying they sympathize with both sides.

In 2014, American Jewish leaders might lose control of the Israel debate

Long story short: Israel is toast ... they have backed themselves into a corner of their own making ... from which the only exit is the very thing that they are seeking to prevent: full rights and equality for those under their subjugation ...

And situation will only get worse as the backlash from the international community grows and intensifies, which will have the affect of driving Israel further towards even more extremist positions ...

It's a self-sustaining feedback loop ... which is not only sustaining the insanity but actually causing it to increase ...

 

[RLENT]

It appears that a deranged, racist Zionist - and I do realize I am being redundant there - has perpetrated a heinous act of terrorism on the streets of Tel Aviv ...

My question is this: Where is the outrage from all the so-called "moderate" and supposedly "peace-loving" Israelis ?

Have any of them spoken out and condemned this utterly horrific and cowardly act by this savage barbarian ?

Will there be a "Million Zionist March" by the purportedly "moderate" Israelis in Jerusalem in an effort to let the terroristic extremists in their midst know that they repudiate the vicious thuggish acts of despicable cowards like this man ?

Or will they just cower in abject silence ?

What responsibility will the mainstream Israeli politicians - who have been instrumental in stoking racist hatred and inciting violent acts toward black, non-Jewish refugees - take for their own crazed racist and utterly irresponsible actions ?

A 1.5-year-old baby girl was evacuated to hospital after being stabbed in the head near the Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv on Friday evening.

The baby, of Eritrean origin, was in serious condition and was evacuated to Ichilov Hospital on a ventilator, the Magen David Adom EMS spokesperson told The Jerusalem Post.

Police said that the baby's mother was holding her child and walking with her husband on Yesod Hamaala Street near the entrance to the bus station when a man approached and stabbed the baby.

Drunk man stabs baby in head near Tel Aviv Central Bus Station | JPost | Israel News

 

[RLENT]

To the victors (even though they be criminal thugs and terrorists):

Moshe Smilansky described the looting that gripped citizens of the "Jewish state" from the whole spectrum of the Israeli society during the 1948 war:

"The urge to grab has seized everyone, Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, bricks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts. ..." He could have also added to the list toilet bowls, sinks, faucets and light bulbs. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70)

​

Out of their own mouths they convict themselves:

During the course of the 1948 war, reports of WAR CRIMES perpetrated by the Israeli soldiers reached the Israeli Cabinet. Such atrocities shocked Aharon Cizling, and during a Cabinet meeting he said:

"I've received a letter on the subject. I must say that I have known what things have been like for some time and I have raised the issue several times already here. However after reading this letter I couldn't sleep last night. I felt the things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here. I could not imagine where we came from and to where are we going. . . . I often disagree when the term Nazi was applied to the British. I wouldn't like to use the term, even though the British committed Nazi crimes. But now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken. . . . Obviously we have to conceal these actions from the public, and I agree that we should not even reveal that we're investigating them. But they must be investigated. . . ." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 26)
​

I suspect that the "public" being referred to above was the "international public" ...

As the Israeli Army was entering Eilabun (Palestinian Maronite Christian village) on October 30, 1948, the soldiers went on rampage in the village looting Palestinians properties. In a letter dated January 21st, 1949 sent to the Israeli Minority Affair Ministry by Faraj Diab Surur, the Eilabun's Mukhtar, along with other village notables describing the looting and the ethnic cleansing of their village by the Israeli soldiers as the following:

"When the [Israeli] commander selected 12 youngsters (shabab) and sent them to another place, then he ordered that the assembled inhabitants to be led to [al-]Maghar and the priest asked him to leave the women and babies and to take only men, but he refused, and led the assembled inhabitants---some 800 in number--- to [al-]Maghar preceded by military vehicles. . . . He himself stayed on with another two soldiers until they killed the 12 youngsters in the streets of the village and then they joined the army going to [al-]Maghar. He led them to [al-]Frarradiya. When they reached Kafr 'Inan they were joined by an armored car that fired upon them [refugees] . . . killing one of the old men, Sam'an ash Shufani, 60 years old, and injured three women . . . At [al-]Frarradiya [the Israeli soldiers] robbed the inhabitants of IL 500 and the women of their Jewelry, and took 42 youngsters and sent them to a detention camp, and the rest the next day were led to Meirun, and afterward to the Lebanon borders. During this whole time they were given food only once. Imagine then how the babies screamed and the cries of the pregnant and weaning mothers."

Subsequently, the Israeli Army looted the Palestinian Maronite village of Eilabun. In early 1949, many of these refugees were allowed back to their homes after relentless lobbying by Aharon Cizling (the Israeli Agriculture Minister) in the Israeli Cabinet. It is worth noting that these returnees were among the few hundreds to be allowed back to their homes, farms, and businesses, however, the great majority of the Palestinian people are still dispossessed and homeless and have been since the 1948 war. (Benny Morris, p. 229-230)
​

Barbaric, sub-humanoid Nazi thugs:

As the Israelis rampaged through the friendly Palestinian village of Huj (northeast of Gaza), Yitzhak Avira (an old-time Haganah Intelligence Service officer) registered a complaint against the continued destruction of the village. He wrote Ezra Danin (a member of the 1st and 2nd Transfer Committees and a Haganah Intelligence Officer) on August 16, 1948 that:

"recently a view has come to prevail among us that the [Palestinian] Arabs are nothing. Every [Palestinian] Arab is a murderer, all of them should be slaughtered, all the [Palestinian] villages that are conquered should be burned . . . I . . . see a danger in the prevalence of an attitude that everything of theirs should be murdered, destroyed, and made to vanish."

Danin Answered: "War is complicated and lacking in sentimentality. If the commanders believe that by destruction, murder, and human suffering they will reach their goal more quickly---I would not stand in their way. If we do not hurry up and do [things]---our enemies will do these things to us." (Benny Morris, p. 167)

It is worth noting that Palestinian inhabitants of Huj had collaborated openly with the Haganah and the Israeli Army before and during the 1948 war. However, such good will did not save them from being ethnically cleansed. Similarly, Zarnuqa (the hometown of the Islamic Jihad founder Fathi al-Shikaki) inhabitants had a comparable experience with the Israelis, and paid the price of their collaboration by being driven out of their village under the threat of the gun towards the neighboring village of Yibna. Sadly, Yibna's people, who were not yet occupied, drove them back to the Israeli occupied Zarnuqa. In a nutshell, they became unwanted people by both sides camping in the wadis between the two towns. This is a typical story of collaborators who outlive their usefulness. (See Benny Morris, p. 127 for details)
​

As Operation Hiram was being concluded in late October 1948, a Palestinian refugee from Sha'ab (east of Acre) described his experience as the following:

"The Jews grouped us with the other [Palestinian Arab] villagers, separating us from women. We remained all day in the village [al-Bi'na] courtyard . . . we were thirsty and hungry." Two Palestinian villagers, he recalled, were taken aside and shot dead, and the other Palestinian refugees were robbed from their valuables. Some "200" men were selected and driven off, presumably to a POW camp. The refugee went on to say:

"It was almost night . . . [The] al-Bi'na mukhtar asked the Jews to permit us to stay overnight . . . rather then travel [northwards] at night with our old men, women, and children. The Jews rejected the mukhtar's request and gave us [i.e., the refugees] half an hour to leave . . . When half an hour passed, the Jews began to shoot in the air . . . they injured my nine-year old son in the knee. We walked a few hours until we reached Sajur . . . We were terrified, the road was full of people in every direction you looked . . . all in a hurry to get to Lebanon." A few days later, after a brief stay in the Palestinian Druze village of Beit Jann, they reached Lebanon. (Benny Morris, p. 227-8)
​

According to Shai (Israeli Internal intelligence) commander Levy reported on April 12, 1948 that the occupation of DEIR YASSIN went as follows:

"The occupation of the village was carried with great cruelty. Whole families---women, old people, children---were killed, and there were piles of dead [in various places]. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors." In a report the following day, Levy added: "LHI [Stern Gang lead by Yitzhak Shamir] members tell of the barbaric behavior [Hitnahagut barbarit in Hebrew] of the IZL [Irgun gang lead by Menachem Begin] toward the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the IZL men raped a number of [Palestinian] Arab girls and murdered them afterward (we don't know if this is true)." The Shai operative who visited Deir Yassin hours after the massacre, Mordechai Gichen, reported on April 10, 1948: Their [i.e., the IZL?] commander says that the order was: to capture the adult males and to send the women and children to Motza. In the afternoon [of April 9, 1948], the order was changed and became kill all prisoners. . . . The adult males were taken to town in trucks and paraded in the city, then taken back to the [village] site and killed with rifle and machine-gun fire. Before they were put on the trucks, the IZL and LHI men searched the women, men, and Children [and] took from them all the jewelry and STOLE their money. The behavior toward them was especially barbaric [and included] kicks, shoves with rifle butts, spitting, and cursing (people from [the Western Jerusalem neighborhood of] Giv'at Shaul took part in the torture).

It must be emphasized that the Israeli mainstream usually singles out LHI and IZL with war crimes atrocities, yet the Haganah had the lion's share of other suppressed war crimes. For example, the Haganah made great effort to hide its part in the attack (like approving it on April 9, 1948, supplying machine gun cover and two Palmah squads in armored cars) which occupied Deir Yassin, and during the following decades, Menachem Begin's Herut Party and its successor, the Likud, were continually berated for Deir Yassin in internal Israeli political squabbling. (Righteous Victims, p. 205-206)
​

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

While the administration of Barack Hussein Obama dithers, the Iranians proceed toward completion of their nuclear ambitions.

Rlent......Yeah ... electricity for the masses of Iran's populace ...

Unfortunately (for some) the question of Iran's nuclear program is no longer up to single country - the US - as evidenced by the participation of the entire P5+1 ...

The US' global influence is exists ... but is on the wane ... and will continue to wane for the foreseeable future ...

This will no doubt severely frustrate the petty little authoritarian wannabes ... who dream fondly and endlessly of prancing around on the world state, flinging their Johnsons™ very mightily in every direction to demonstrate their (so-called) "manhood" ...

Can you imagine....bullying a sovereign country into NOT developing nuclear power?.....the access to cheap power for the development of manufacturing and job creation so a nation can grow and be self sustaining without any kind of aide....BUT no lets keep them in the dark, lets keep them poor and dependent on the US and other powers.....gee whiz....doesn't speak well for any country trying to appear progressive and free spirited...

 

[muttly]

Context,accuracy and verification is important when quoting someone.

Henry Clifford, the man who brought distorted Israel/Palestine maps to the Metro-North Railroad stations in New York State, is now defending those maps with bogus and distorted Zionist quotes. Writing in the Journal News, he claims that Zionist leaders wrote or said the following:

* False Quote: David Ben-Gurion: 'We will expel the Arabs and take their place." The original text of this letter shows that Ben-Gurion actually wrote the opposite: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel the Arabs and take their place. . . "

* Distorted Quote: Theodor Herzl: "We shall have to spirit the penniless population (the Arabs) across the border . . . while denying it any employment in our country."

As Efraim Karsh has ably shown, this is a truncated quote. The more complete quote is:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.
Thus, Herzl spoke of trying to move out poor inhabitants by finding them employment in other countries, and he spoke of the benefits that he believed locals would receive. He also indicated that those who could not be convinced to sell their land could simply stay.

* Out of Context: Ben-Gurion: "I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine." In fact, in the meeting in question Ben-Gurion stressed that expansion would occur via "mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement." The relevant part of the actual protocol reads:

Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.
Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?
Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us... And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state. (from Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea," Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)
* Distorted/Truncated Quote: Moshe Dayan: "There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." In the full quote, Dayan makes clear that the much of the land were purchased, not that the Palestinians were dispossessed:

We came to a region of land that was inhabited by Arabs, and we set up a Jewish state. In a considerable number of places, we purchased the land from Arabs and set up Jewish villages where there had once been Arab villages. You don't even know the names [of the previous Arab villages] and I don't blame you, because those geography books aren't around anymore. Not only the books, the villages aren't around. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, and Gvat was established in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Huneifis and Kfar Yehoshua in the place of Tel Shaman. There isn't any place that was established in an area where there had not at one time been an Arab settlement.
* Questionable, Unverified Source: Clifford claims that Ben-Gurion wrote: "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That it natural, we have taken their country." In fact, according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him. Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion, and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it.

And, finally, here's a real Ben-Gurion quote that Clifford chose not to share:

In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well. ...The attitude of the Jewish State to its Arab citizens will be an important factor—though not the only one—in building good neighbourly relations with the Arab States. If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, and if his status will not be the least different from that of the Jew, and perhaps better than the status of the Arab in an Arab state, and if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, will be built... (Ba-Ma'Araha Vol IV, Part 2, pp. 260, 265, quoted in Fabricating Israeli History, Efraim Karsh, p.67)

CAMERA Snapshots: Distorted Quotes to Defend Distorted Maps


http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2219

 

[RLENT]

Context, accuracy and verification is important when quoting someone.

Indeed it is ...

And it's also important not to use logical fallacy and inaccuracies if one doesn't wish to be refuted - a premise that it appears you have yet to grasp.

Henry Clifford, the man who ...

It's irrelevant - since I didn't quote Henry Clifford ...

Nice attempt at misdirection tho' ...

Are you planning on giving a full and complete demonstration of your ability to use logical fallacies ?

* False Quote: David Ben-Gurion: 'We will expel the Arabs and take their place." The original text of this letter shows that Ben-Gurion actually wrote the opposite: "We do not want to and we do not have to expel the Arabs and take their place. . . "

Your first problem is that you apparently can't cite the sources for the various quotes. The second problem is that you are unaware that they are two separate quotes, made at two different times, documented by two different sources:

The one I originally quoted - which you refer to above as "'We will expel the Arabs and take their place." - was from Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948 by Dr. Nur-eldeen_Masalha who is a historian and Professor of Religion and Politics and Director of the Centre for Religion and History and the Holy Land Research Project at St. Mary's University College, University of Surrey. The rest of his scholarly credentials - which are substantial - are documented at the link above (ie. his name)

From the Amazon description (linked above) of the book (Explusion of the Palestinians):

In this meticulous work, based almost entirely on Hebrew archival material, Nur Masalha examines the Zionist concept of "transfer," or the expulsion of the Palestinian population to neighboring Arab lands. Masalha establishes the extent to which "transfer" was embraced by the highest levels of Zionist leadership, including virtually all the Founding Fathers of the Israeli state.

From the quoted editorial reviews (linked above) on Amazon:

(Dr. Masalha) shows using documents from the Israeli archives, that the flight of the Arab population from what became Israel in 1948 - which Israel's first president, Chiam Weizmann hailed as 'a miraculous clearing of the land' - was in fact 'less than a miracle than the culmination of over a half century of effort, plans and (in the end) brute force'. -- Edward Mortimer, Financial Times

Almost entirely based on declassified Israeli archival materials, Dr. Masalha's sober and carefully researched account shows conclusively that 'transfer' - a euphemism for expulsion - was from the start an integral part of Zionism....(an) impressive and timely book....quietly devastating research.. -- Rt. Hon. Lord Gilmore, The Guardian [London]

Dr. Masalha's book will excite controversy, not because his conclusions can be challenged - the sources leave no doubt about the facts - but because the book exposes in detail the notion of the Zionist design and the means by which it was achieved...an important and scrupulous piece of revisionist history. -- Michael Adams, Middle East International

The second quote is actually a different quote and here it is, in context, with the source (the book "Righteous Victims" by the Israeli "new historian" Benny Morris) cited:

Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937:

".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)
​

But the attempt at conflation (more logical fallacy) is fairly typical for Ziobot hasbara - given that the use of misdirection, lies, and conflation is pretty much their stock-in-trade.

Apparently you seem to be unaware that Ben-Gurion himself went through a number of transformative stages (3) in terms of his political thought (which considered as whole would be internally contradictory) vis-a-vis Zionism - but that's a subject for another post.

We may have to do a little expose on the source that you seemed to be inclined on using (CAMERA) and those associated with that Zionist hasbara entity ... that could very well end up being an entirely fruitful endeavor, given their documented and easily demonstrable history of perverting the truth.

But hey: ... soldier on bro' ....

 

[RLENT]

* Distorted Quote: Theodor Herzl: "We shall have to spirit the penniless population (the Arabs) across the border . . . while denying it any employment in our country."

As Efraim Karsh has ably shown, this is a truncated quote. The more complete quote is:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.

Oh these are the ones that I really love: It's where the little hasbarats actually contradict themselves with their own statements.

There was no "distortion" of Herzl's words in the quote I provided - a fact you largely confirm with the quote you supplied. (Nice move )

The quote is not distorted at all ... as a true distortion would require an alteration of some of the words to alter the actual meaning and sentiments expressed ...

Instead, what we have is the insertion of "(Arab)" into the quote I provided and the use of ellipses to indicate an omission of some of the text - which is irrelevant to point being made.

Both are common, accepted editorial practice ... and neither the insertion of "(Arab)" - to clarify the use of an indefinite pronoun and who it referred to, nor the use of ellipsis alter the premise of the what was being said:

Herzl was advocating the use of ethnic cleansing and dispossession through economic warfare - the denial of employment on the basis of not being a member of right race/ethnicity/religion.

That he gives lipservice to some imaginary effort - which never in fact happened - at finding employment for those being cleansing and displaced is not exculpatory in terms of the contemplated crime in the least.

Furthermore, it is self-contradictory and totally incongruous to say the least, to speak on the one hand about denying the indigenous inhabitants the economic means to survive - employment - and then in the very next breath speak about respectful "toleration" and "protecting" them:

It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.

Thus, Herzl spoke of trying to move out poor inhabitants by finding them employment in other countries, and he spoke of the benefits that he believed locals would receive. He also indicated that those who could not be convinced to sell their land could simply stay.

The guy believed his own bullchit ... the very thing from which self-delusion is made ...

And of course we all know how "gentle" the "expropriation" (aka theft) of private property eventually was ...

So it's fairly clear which of Herzl's words his faithful adherents actually took to heart and followed ... and which they totally ignored ...

You're really rackin' up the points on the FAIL side of the ledger ... but please, do continue ...

After all: Who am I to stand in the way of someone who seems intent on continuing to shoot himself in the foot ?

(BTW - my sources for Herlz's quote - which both seem to agree on the wording of - were America and the founding of Israel : an investigation of the morality of America's role by John W Mullhall and Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999 by Israeli "new historian" Benny Morris ... neither of which is a former "research analyst" for the IDF ... lol ...)

 

[RLENT]

Mutt,

I realize that this might be a very difficult thing for you to wrap your head around - and possibly an even more difficult thing for you to execute in actual practice, given that you have probably never attempted anything quite this daring before ... but here's the deal:

Essentially, what we - you and I - are trying to do here is have a conversation. The way that's supposed to more or less work is kinda like this:

Me: How's the weather down your way ?

Mutt: It's sorta cool and foggy right now ... but it's supposed to clear up later.

It doesn't work quite so well - or even at all - when it goes like this:

Me: How's the weather down your way ?

Mutt: I had a banana on my cereal this morning ...

Me: Huh ?

Mutt: The cat just coughed up a furball ...

Me: What are you talking about ? ... What about the weather ?

Mutt: I'm thinking about changing my air filter ...

In other words, the conversation - in order to be rational - is supposed to follow general guidelines in which answers or replies are responsive to questions and/or statements when they are posed, and extraneous, irrelevant matters - which are factually non-sequitur - are not randomly introduced into the conversation for no good reason.

This of course assumes that one is attempting conversation with a generally sane individual ... above the age of twelve or so years ... and not a crackhead, someone who is high on LSD, or a hallucinating mental patient ...

To that end:

* Out of Context: Ben-Gurion: "I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine." ... (from Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea," Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)

Well, that looks like it would be just swell ... if my source of the quote was Benny Morris and something he wrote ... but it's not - it's Israeli Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel: Myths And Realities (Pantheon Books, New York; ISBN 0-394-55888-X (August 1987))

Flapan was the former National Secretary of Israel's Mapam party, the director of its Arab Affairs department, and a peer of David Ben-Gurion - IOW, someone who was actually there on the ground in '48 (Flapan immigrated to Israel in 1930 at the age of 19)

Mapam entered the 1948 coalition government with a radically different policy towards Arab civilians from that being pursued by David Ben-Gurion. Mapam's executive committee advocated Jewish-Arab coexistence, opposed the expulsion of civilians and was in favour of the right of refugees to return to their homes after the war. In June 1948 all cadres were issued with a policy statement, "Our policy towards Arabs during the war", which had been written by Aharon Cohen the Head of Mapam's Arab Affairs Department . Mapam was particularly opposed to the destruction of Arab houses. Aharon Zisling, one of two Mapam members of the cabinet, raised the issue repeatedly towards the end of June. At a Mapai Centre meeting, 24 July 1948, Ben-Gurion accused Mapam of hypocrisy, citing events at Mishmar HaEmek, he said: "They faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this, And they were the first to do this."

Mapam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So IOW, Mapam - while they had been caught up in the insanity and frenzy of the war at some point - came to a "radically different" position and advocated a "radically different" policy than David Ben-Gurion: no ethnic cleansing and no dispossession ...

And Flapan is most decidedly an unabashed Zionist ... but not necessarily an apologist and whitewasher. He was, apparently, capable of thinking critically:

In the preface of 'Zionism and the Palestinians' (1979) Flapan writes:

To dispel misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that my belief in the moral justification and historical necessity of Zionism remains unaffected by my critical reappraisal of the Zionist leadership. The history of Zionism demonstrates the extent to which the urge to create a new society, embodying the universal values of democracy and social justice, was inherent in the Zionist movement and responsible for its progress in adverse conditions.

Israel's problem today lies in the disintegration of these values, due largely to the intoxication with military success and the belief that military superiority is a substitute for peace. Unless the liberal and progressive values of Zionism are restored and Palestinian rights to self-determination within a framework of peaceful coexistence are recognised, Israel's search for peace is doomed to failure. I firmly believe that these trends will ultimately become the deciding force in Israel.​

And by the way, here's a few thoughts on Efraim Karsh, his criticism of the Israeli "New Historians" and the particular book of his that is cited in what you are relying on for a refutation:

Yezid_Sayigh, professor of Middle East Studies in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, writes of Karsh's criticism, "[t]his is not the first time that Efraim Karsh has written a highly self-important rebuttal of revisionist history. He is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)." (Karsh responds that he has an undergraduate degree in modern Middle Eastern history, and Arabic language and literature, and a doctorate in political science and international relations.)

Sayigh urges academics to compose "robust responses [to Karsh] that make sure that any self-respecting scholar will be too embarrassed to even try to incorporate the Karsh books in his/her teaching or research because they can't pretend they didn't know how flimsy their foundations are".

Ian_Lustick, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, writes of Karsh's attacks on the New Historians that, "however likely readers are to be impressed by the intensity of Karsh's pristine faith in Zionism, they are sure to be stunned by the malevolence of his writing and confused by the erratic, sloppy nature of his analysis. Errors, inconsistencies and over-interpretations there may be in some of the new Israeli histories, but nothing in them can match the howlers, contradictions and distortions contained in [Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians]."

[Benny] Morris responds that Karsh's article is a "mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material (his piece contains more than fifty footnotes but is based almost entirely on references to and quotations from secondary works, many of them of dubious value) and the history of the Zionist–Arab conflict. It does not deserve serious attention or reply."

Morris elsewhere argues that Karsh "belabor minor points while completely ignoring, and hiding from his readers, the main pieces of evidence" and argued, "... Karsh, while claiming to have 'demolished' the whole oeuvre, in fact deal[t] with only four pages of Birth. These pages tried to show that the Zionist leadership during 1937–38 supported a 'transfer solution' to the prospective Jewish state's 'Arab problem.'"

IOW: Karsh is not really a historian - he only holds an undergraduate degree in history ... but he is certainly an unabashed apologist for Zionism, Israel, and all the horrors that they have brought the world ...

Such are the folks that mainline that new and improved industrial-strength Ziocaine™ ...

 

[RLENT]

* Distorted/Truncated Quote: Moshe Dayan: "There is not one single place ..."

This one approaches the level of utter psychosis ... since the quote of Dayan that I originally quoted/referenced is not either: 1. the one you claim above (as a supposed "Distorted/Truncated Quote") ... or 2. any part of the refutation to it that you supply ...

IOW: it's a total non-sequitur as a response to the quote I supplied of Dayan's ...

... Earth to Muttly ... come in please ...

One of the hints that one is talking to a crazy person is that they are utterly incapable of carrying on a normal conversation.

IOW: When you say something or ask a question, you get a completely bizarre reply which is totally out of the blue, from God only knows where (likely some different universe or parallel dimension) ... and which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you originally said or asked ...

 

[RLENT]

* Questionable, Unverified Source: Clifford claims that Ben-Gurion wrote: "If I were an Arab leader ...

Largely irrelevant - since Clifford is not my source of the quote - and since I didn't claim Ben-Gurion wrote it.

In fact, according to Nahum Goldmann, Ben-Gurion allegedly said this to him.

That might be why when I initially included the quote, I cited Goldman as it's source ...

Goldmann was an adversary of Ben-Gurion,

That's not really an accurate representation of the relationship they had (which tells ya a little bit about your source's agenda): they were actually allies ... although like many allies, they had disagreements and differences of opinion in terms of strategy, tactics, and policy:

Goldmann had long supported the creation of two states in Palestine, one Arab and one Jewish; his view was that independence was more important than controlling a specific territory, and his definition was that the aim should be to create 'a viable Jewish state in an adequate area of Palestine’. After the war he worked actively with David Ben-Gurion towards the creation of Israel, although he, with Moshe Shertok, advised Ben-Gurion, in vain, that the declaration of independence be delayed in order to allow more time for reaching a diplomatic entente with the Arabs.

Anyone who wants to read more about who Goldman actually was, and what he did, can do so at the Wiki link below:

Nahum Goldmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and he came out with this alleged quote, verbatim, in his book published two decades later (The Jewish Paradox, 1978), five years after Ben-Gurion died. There was no recording of the quote, and Ben-Gurion was no longer around to dispute it.

That doesn't prove the quote was inaccurate or that it wasn't said by Ben-Gurion.

I think that in order to judge the quote's potential veracity, one would have to know something about the character of Nahum Goldman ... as well as about the character of David Green ... who you know as David Ben-Gurion ...

One can look at the Wikipedia article linked above and view Goldman's service to not only Israel, but to both Israel and the Jewish people as a whole and get some kind of an idea about the man he might have been. While he was for Israel, he was not incapable of being critical of it ... out of concern.

And, finally, here's a real Ben-Gurion quote that Clifford chose not to share:

In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well. ... The attitude of the Jewish State to its Arab citizens will be an important factor—though not the only one—in building good neighbourly relations with the Arab States. If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, and if his status will not be the least different from that of the Jew, and perhaps better than the status of the Arab in an Arab state, and if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, will be built ... (Ba-Ma'Araha Vol IV, Part 2, pp. 260, 265, quoted in Fabricating Israeli History, Efraim Karsh, p.67)

Again, this quote is largely irrelevant and non-sequitur to our conversation - because, for starters, I'm not "Clifford" (whoever he is) ... nor am I quoting him or using him as a source.

Interestingly, the very quote you supply above is itself "truncated" - as indicated by the use of ellipsis between the words I have marked in bold above.

So much for that (full) "context" thingie that appears to be the basis for a claim of "distortion" ... (cue Muttly snicker)

(I always love it when hasbarats contradict themselves or show themselves to be hypocrites ... it's especially delicious when they actually do it in the same breath or article.)

I suspect you left the last quote in because you thought it had some exculpatory value for Ben-Gurion. Well ... it might or might not.

In any case it is not easily evaluated - is because your citation fails to place the occurrence of the statement in terms of the context of time ... and the evolution of Ben-Gurion's political thought - which varied considerably over his life.

IOW: are these thoughts Ben-Gurion had when he was younger and in his idealistic phase ... or much later, when - with the thoughts of his own guilt about the Holocaust haunting him - he turned into the brutal, bitter, and vengeful hawk that he eventually became ?

And, that's a shortcoming (lack of context of time) that your cited source - the article from CAMERA - suffers from in its entirety as well ... it's lazy writing at a minimum, and lazy scholarship at worst ...

The site I am going to give you a link to at the end of this reply suffers from neither.

Since you seem to be interested in trying to do refutations (even though it doesn't appear that you're very good at it), I'll give you (and everyone else) a whole slew of Ben-Gurion's quotes ... along with a whole bunch of quotes from other Zionists ...

People can then make their own judgement on the motivations of the Zionists and the true nature of Zionism.

But first I'll share with you what I just referred to above:

Based on our research, we can show that Ben-Gurion's personality was drastically transformed over the years, which can be broken down into three major phases as follows:

• Idealism Phase: This phase started from the time he immigrated to Palestine and ended just before the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933. During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited in building the Histadrut from the ground up as an effective political, military, financial, educational, and social organization that had roots in all sectors, almost a "Jewish state" before May 14th, 1948. During this phase, he made a lot of assumptions, many of which turned to be wrong. For example:

• He saw Zionism as just, and thought that Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states would benefit from Zionism, and that therefore, they would welcome the new Jewish immigrants.
• He envisioned that Jews from all over the world would immigrate to Palestine in great numbers, and that over time they would become a majority or a fact on the ground.
• He did not think that Palestinians had any collective rights whatsoever, such as the right of self-determination. He did not believe that they had any sense of nationalism, therefore, they could be ignored. Sometimes he argued that even if Palestinian nationalism did exist, that it could be bought or bribed.
• He contemplated Palestinian "transfer", where the use of force would not be necessary. He envisioned that Palestinians could be enticed to leaving their country in favor of the new Jewish immigrants.
• He did not envision Europe's Jews would die so quickly, and in such big numbers.

• Transformation Phase: This phase dominated most of the 1930s and early 1940s, when Ben-Gurion started to confront events that contradicted many of his earlier assumptions. From the quotes below, you will see how he struggled to transform himself, from an idealist to realist. The primary wrong assumptions that caused him extreme discomfort were:

• He felt that the sword was hanging over Europe's Jewish citizens, which forced him to re-examine many of his earlier assumptions.
• Jews could not become a majority without infringing Palestinian rights.
• Zionists were the primary force behind the maturing of the Palestinian national movement. This became evident when the first popular Palestinian uprising took place between 1936-1939.
• Palestinian national movement could not be bought, but it could be curbed.

In other words, he became a believer of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's famous doctrine, that of the IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first came out with his famous doctrine in 1923, Ben-Gurion exploited its racist and inhuman nature to score political points against Jabotinsky (similarly, Deir Yassin's massacre had been used demonize the Herut and Likud parties in spite of Haganah's role in the atrocity, click here for details).

Although he passionately despised Jabotinsky (actually, when Ben-Gurion was the Prime Minister, he had refused to let his remains to be reburied in the "Jewish state"), the evidence shows that Ben-Gurion was one of his major silent admirers.

During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited with restraining the Haganah in its actions against the Palestinian resistance during the 1st Intifada. Actually, he demanded that the Yishuv play a low key, for almost three years, despite of Jabotinsky's stinging criticisms. This policy was completely reversed during the next phase, where Ben-Gurion transformed himself into a hawk.

​

• Implementation Phase: This phase started soon after WWII ended, and shaped his way of thinking all the way until the early 1960s. During this phase, Ben-Gurion felt guilty for what happened during the holocaust (as Menachem Begin did), and in a way also felt responsible. It agonized him that Jews could be led to the gas chambers without fighting back. This fact drastically changed him, and as a result he became cruel, insensitive, inflexible, undiplomatic, and quick to use force to send a message, especially to the neighboring Arab states. While self-restraint had been his motto during the First Palestinian Intifada between 1936-1939, he now became the complete opposite. As it will be proved from the quotes below, there are ample evidence to show how Ben-Gurion was the primary force behind the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war.

Finally, it should be pointed out that Ben-Gurion's transformation was one of his major assets. However, he never admitted the transformation had happened, and he never credited the Israeli political Right for shaping Israeli politics (regardless if their policies were right or wrong). He was able to change course almost immediately when proven wrong. The questions which beg to be asked are:

• What if the holocaust had not happened?
• In which direction would Ben-Gurion and Weizmann have directed the Zionist Movement?

You will find all the of the quotes - Ben-Gurion's and other Zionists - at the link below. You will also find a number of the quotes could be construed very much as "exculpatory" or casting Ben-Gurion in a good light ...

IOW: they are fair and balanced ...

That's the difference between someone who wants an honest, unflinching assessment of the truth ... and a Kool-Aid drinker who is so invested that he has to defend the Big Lie at all costs ...

David Ben-Gurion-A Brief Biography & Quotes - Palestine Remembered

I suspect, at the end of David Ben-Gurion's life, Nahum Goldman was, in fact, the man David Ben-Gurion really wanted to be.

 

[RLENT]

By the way Mutt ... I've got a question for you that been puzzling me here for a bit:

Why are you - a right-winger - so invested in defending a left-wing Socialist like Ben-Gurion ?

And here's an interesting thing to ponder:

Modern Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz considered Ben-Gurion "to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met."

Some interesting thoughts in the source (linked below) where the above comes from:

Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry - The Rev Dr Michael Prior Cm, Michael Prior - Google Books

Factually speaking, that right there might just be the very definition of what actually constitutes a "self-hating Jew" ...

 

[Pilgrim]

Can you imagine....bullying a sovereign country into NOT developing nuclear power?.....the access to cheap power for the development of manufacturing and job creation so a nation can grow and be self sustaining without any kind of aide....BUT no lets keep them in the dark, lets keep them poor and dependent on the US and other powers.....gee whiz....doesn't speak well for any country trying to appear progressive and free spirited...

First of all, restraints on Iran's nuclear energy capabilities does NOT keep them in the dark. They have huge reserves of oil and natural gas which they could develop faster and more inexpensively to provide all the energy they need for economic development. Their oil reserves are the 4th largest in the world, and their natural gas reserves are 2nd only to those of Russia.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

However, the policies of their autocratic leaders - including those related to possible weapons-grade nuclear enrichment - have led to UN sanctions that have hindered this more rational course of action.

The report, entitled "Iran's Nuclear Odyssey: Costs and Risks", seeks to tabulate the opportunity costs of the nuclear program, and puts these at "well over $100 billion" in terms of lost foreign investment and oil revenues.
Relatively small uranium deposits will keep Iran from being fully self-sufficient in nuclear energy, it said, while Tehran has neglected to maintain existing infrastructure and develop other resources that could better secure its energy needs.
For instance, Iran's 1,000-megawatt Bushehr nuclear reactor, which came onstream in 2011 after repeated delays, accounts for just 2 percent of its electricity production, while about 15 percent of "generated electricity is lost through old and ill-maintained transmission lines", the report said.
Iran has vast oil and gas reserves, but sanctions have forced major Western firms to abandon the petroleum sector, making crucial upkeep difficult. Iran's solar and wind energy sectors have also gone undeveloped, the report said.
"No sound strategic energy planning would prioritize nuclear energy in a country like Iran," the report said.
"Instead of enhancing Iran's energy security, the nuclear program has diminished the country's ability to diversify and achieve real energy independence."

Iran's nuclear program entails huge costs, few benefits: report | Reuters

Iran's problems can be traced directly to their lack of openness with the IAEA and the inspections agreed to as a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

How does Iran justify its refusal to obey the Security Council resolutions?

The technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion.
Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and other nuclear activities.
Iran has said it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows signatory states to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for power generation.
Such states have to remain under inspection by the IAEA. Iran is under inspection, though not under the strictest rules allowed because it will not agree to them.

BBC News - Q&A: Iran nuclear crisis

Considering all of the above combined with Iran's close association and support of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, it's no wonder that even China and Russia have been apprehensive about Iran's nuclear plans and voted for the UN sanctions. They've done nothing to prove they can be trusted, and the facts make it obvious their nuclear developments have nothing to do with "cheap power".

“Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and [its ally Hezbollah‘s] terrorist activity have reached a tempo unseen since the 1990s, with attacks plotted in Southeast Asia, Europe, and Africa,” the State Department said in its analysis, pointing to attacks last year in India, Thailand, Georgia and Kenya in which Iran was implicated.

Feds say Iran's support for terrorism growing - Washington Times

 

[RLENT]

Can you imagine ... bullying a sovereign country into NOT developing nuclear power? ...

Oh ... I can imagine it ...

I can also imagine a lot of knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers imagining it ... with utter delight and glee ...

Major wood on that one ...

the access to cheap power for the development of manufacturing and job creation so a nation can grow and be self sustaining without any kind of aide ...

Yup ... it isn't just about being able to light a bare 100 watt light hanging in Shahab's goat shed ... it's about having abundant power to fully industrialize an entire country ... one which has a rapidly increasing population.

This is (apparently) from a Singapore-based analytics firm from back in 2008:

Iran has long insisted that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and growing industrialization in the Iranian economy. Since the population of Iran has more than doubled in the past 20 years, the government of Iran supports that the need for nuclear power is evident.


The country regularly imports gasoline and electricity and ensures that burning fossil fuel in large amounts can cause significant harm to the overall Iranian environment. Iran also wishes to diversity their sources of energy.

The oil reserves from Iran are currently estimated at 133 billion barrels with a current pumping rate of 1.5 to 1.8 billion barrels each year. Assuming that the pumping rates remain steady and additional reserves are not found, this is only enough oil to last Iran for the next 75 years or so.

So ... what do they do after that ?

Burn goat turds ?

I doubt that the first party that replied to this post of yours has any long-term solutions in mind ... even for his own nation ... let alone for a foreign one, run by a "mullahocracy" as he puts it ...

Iranians feel that their valuable oil should be used for products that are higher in value than the generation of electricity. They feel that petroleum is a much too noble material to burn and hope to begin producing nearly 23000 megawatts of electricity using their nuclear plants.

Iran is also facing financial constrains and claim that developing the excess capacity in the oil industry will cost the country more than $40 billion. In a study from Johns Hopkins University, Roger Stern has deduced that since energy subsidies, hostility to foreign investment and the inefficiencies to the Iranian economy, the oil exports could potentially vanish completely by the year 2015.

During his presidency, the Gerald Ford administration also concluded this to be a potential problem for the Iranian economy. Due to these potential outcomes, the United States National Academy of Sciences has previously concluded that the Iranian government has a valid economic basis for the nuclear energy program of that country.

The above puts the lie to the idea that there is no legitimate basis for the Iranians to develop nuclear energy for power.

BUT no lets keep them in the dark, lets keep them poor and dependent on the US and other powers ... gee whiz ...

From that same article:

Iranian authorities believe that they can not trust the United States or Europe to provide the country with nuclear energy fuel. This conclusion points to a long list of agreements, contracts and treaty obligations which were left ultimately unfulfilled.

Developing nations state that they do not want to give up their rights to the enrichment of uranium and do not trust the United States or other countries of nuclear production to be steady suppliers of the nuclear materials that they would need in order to run their own power plants.

Can't really blame 'em ... if I were another country, one of the last countries I'd consider trusting would be the United States ... too much history and a track record there ...

We screwed the pooch ... and if we want to be considered as trustworthy we need to change the way we act and deal with other nations ...

doesn't speak well for any country trying to appear progressive and free spirited ...

No it doesn't ... and the Iranian's don't appear to be inclined to accept outsiders denying them their rights and meddling in their internal affairs lightly:

The determination to continue the nuclear energy program in Iran is strong, as is the decision to retaliate against any Western attacks over the nuclear power program.

Of course, some idjits don't believe (or can't bring themselves to admit) that the US has ever "meddled" in any foreign countries internal affairs ... nevermind any past coups we might have been involved in to topple democratically elected governments ...

 

[RLENT]

The brave and courageous forces of the Zionist occupation in "heroic action":

(Jerusalem) – No evidence has been presented by the Israeli authorities that a 15-year-old boy fatally shot in the back by Israeli soldiers near his school on December 9, 2013, posed any threat to life that would justify such a killing. It was the second incident involving the lethal shooting of a child in the back by Israeli forces deployed near a school in 2013. ...

“Twice this year, Israeli soldiers hiding near schools, apparently to make arrests, have killed children who posed no apparent threat,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “If the past is any guide, these boys’ families can look forward to a prolonged, opaque, and fruitless process that does not hold perpetrators to account or deliver justice.”

In January, Israeli forces who had concealed themselves next to a military fence not far from the boys’ school in the village of Budrus fatally shot Samir `Awad, 16, witnesses said. `Awad had entered an open military gate in the Israeli separation barrier. Soldiers appeared and shot `Awad as he tried to run away, witnesses said. They said that `Awad and other Palestinians in the area had not thrown stones or otherwise threatened the soldiers. The military has not claimed that they did.

(Article continues at link below)

Israel: No Evidence that Boy Killed by Soldiers Posed Any Threat | Human Rights Watch

 

[RLENT]

Another mental defective from the "great" state of Texas:

PressTV - Let's blow all Iran nuclear sites up: US lawmaker

This spit-dribbling idiot needs to be institutionalized in a mental facility on 72 hour "hold and observe" ... and then permanently committed as a danger to himself and others ...