When I was in college, the social history of slavery began to appear. Scholars were writing about the world that the slaves made. Even in chains, they had music, story and custom that was different from the whites, and it was a vibrant culture.
What is the World the Jews made? As we try to resist integration in the west, as our children marry non-Jewish children, we hold on to our difference, and that difference focuses more and more on a 100-year-old settlement in the Arab world: Israel. The problematic aspect of The world the Jews made, to which this
website is a Jewish response (at times), is: Jews are defiantly isolating
themselves from world opinion out of an ancient idea of chosenness and
exceptionalism. It is problematic not because it is a response to assimilation; hey, anyone can resist assimilation, it's your choice. It is problematic because it is igniting the Middle
East. It is problematic because it treats a different ethnic/religious
group as non-people. It is problematic because it nullifies American foreign policy.
Here's a post from the greatest newspaper in the world, Haaretz, late last month, by Allison Speiser, who I sense is an American, talking about her plans to move to a settlement in Shomrom, the biblical term for the northern West Bank. Here's how she justifies it:
The status of the land often referred to as “occupied territory” is complicated, lacks a simple solution that would satisfy all sides and is beyond the scope of this post. To that end I encourage everyone to do their homework, become informed members of the conversation.
Speiser's behavior is in complete defiance of American foreign policy and world opinion. Her idea of the "norms" of occupation is anachronistic. We don't justify occupation. Read the U.N. resolutions, from the same body that created Israel. Kabobfest responds here.
Borders ARE redrawn after wars.
Should they be in general?
Should they in this case?
I'm surprised to hear you invest in the anti-civil-rights description of land as national, "Arab land".
Zionism, when constructed of purchasing land or achieving legal title by other legitimate means (licensed use of legal state titled lands), is just with no questions asked.
The statement "the land is Arab" is a fascistic approach that denies the civil and property rights of minorities. Not to mention that in the last 100 years the land was NEVER under any Arab sovereignty, first Turkish, then British, then in 1948 Israeli in Israel, Jordanian (Arab) in the West Bank, Egyptian (Arab) in Gaza.
Get to know this terrorist bitch!
http://templebethahm.com/pix/index.php?twg_album=Get+to+Know+the+Religious+School&twg_show=Allison+Speiser%2C+Hebrew+and+Kitah+Zayin+teacher.jpg
(shorter) link to tinyurl.com
Ho hum, Witty, same old racist hasbara nonsense. Go try on your KKK hood already and pose for the photo.
Oh, will there be no end to the zionist fabrications of history?? Israel was attacked in 1967? So I guess that means that Egypt bombed its own airfields in order to put the blame on the poor, oppressed, always-on-the-defensive Israelis??? What a load of bullshit. Sorry to use such an undiplomatic word, but that is precisely what zionists have always spewed and continue to spew, with increasing desperation as of late.
Not only did Arabs not start the war of 1967, but Israel did so without being provoked. If there was any provocation at the time, it was deliberately initiated by Israel (by Moshe Dayan's admission). Anyway, this is a moot point since it was Israel that launched the surprise attack and not the Arab armies.
But what a coincidence that this came up. I was just reading testimony by Mattityahu Peled (Chief of Supplies and Provisions Section of the Supreme Command of the IDF during the 1967 war). I quote, from Ha'aretz (March 19, 1972):
According to Major-General (Res.) Dr. Mattityahu Peled, to say that Israel was in danger of annihilation in June 1967, and that the State of Israel fought the war for its material survival, is "a delusion that arose and grew only after the war."
Dr. Peled also claimed that in May 1967 the Israelis were not in danger of annihilation "either individually or collectively," adding that "the Egyptians had mobilized 80,000 men in Sinai, while we had mobilized against them hundreds of thousands of men." He said that the fact that there was no danger of annihilation had led to irresolution in the government, which had acted in conformity with the point of view that only the danger of annihilation could justify the waging of war, and that it was not possible to start the war for political reasons.
Dr. Peled added: "When was Israel last exposed to an Arab attack? In 1948, according to my reading of history."
And from al-Hamishmar, March 20, 1972:
"I am ready to agree," said [Ezer] Weizmann (Chief of the Operations Branch in the Supreme Command of the IDF in 1967), "that there was no danger of the State of Israel being destroyed. But this does not mean that we could refrain from striking at the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians. If we had refrained from doing so, the State of Israel would not have continued to exist in the same degree with the same spirit and with the same character."
**
Anyway, Peled is wrong on one thing: the Arab armies intervened only because zionists were launching attacks against largely undefended Palestinian villages and towns, and massacring the inhabitants and driving the rest out. These actions had been planned in advance and given operation names, and were carried out not only in the areas that were assigned to the Jewish state by the UN partition plan, but also in areas that were situated beyond those borders. zionists had depopulated tens of villages and carried out a number of massacres and stepped beyond the borders defined by the partition plan (which, contrary to zionist fabrication of history, zionists had never formally accepted), long before a single Arab army set foot in Palestine.
I hope Ms. Speiser does not have any children.
Egypt never made peace with Israel prior to 1967, supported the Fedayeen and closed the Straits of Tiran as well as the Suez Canal to Israel, all illegal and an act of war, ye "blogger from Lebanon". Their crowds marched through the streets chanting "death to the Jews" & "throw them into the sea". That is so peace-loving, I guess like Arab family honor killings.
Israelis are filth from the toilet.
I'm against throwing Israelis into the sea.
It's polluted enough.
"The statement "the land is Arab" is a fascistic approach that denies the civil and property rights of minorities. Not to mention that in the last 100 years the land was NEVER under any Arab sovereignty, first Turkish, then British, then in 1948 Israeli in Israel, Jordanian (Arab) in the West Bank, Egyptian (Arab) in Gaza."
Posted by: Richard Witty | April 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM
* * * * * * *
I find the concept of sovereignty used in this example and as an excuse for Jewish control to be full of misdirected focus. The simple fact that the same people lived on this land for so many generations should undermine this argument. If there was Ottoman, Jordanian, Egyptian or British sovereignty it was the same people who lived in this land of Palestine. The Jews arrive and say that nobody ever lived here and that g*d gave it to us. Then they pushed these people (the arabs) off the land and put them in concentration camps all based on this vacuous concept of "sovereignty. This is horseshit Witty. You cannot reasonably use this argument.
From what I've read, both blogger from Lebanon and Ysrael Medad are correct. If memory serves,
Mossad also fed out false information to the arabs that Syria was about to be attacked by Israel to make Egypt put up a show of force to try to make Israel back down. Israel then attacked Egypt, a planned preemptive war to gain more land. There must be a timeline and additional information on this.
Yisrael,
Neither supporting the Fedayeen or closing the Suez Canal are illegal, nor were either of those related to the beginning of the 1967 war.
As for your comments on the Egyptian view of Jewish people at the time, I wouldn't say it's too dissimilar from the view of your fellow illegal settlers (and Israelis in general) of Arabs today.
Here's some more detailed info: link to en.wikipedia.org
/>
Among other things, the Straits and Canal were closed as a defensive measure by Egypt considering perceived Israeli activity at the time.
Perhaps the crew of the USS Liberty might have additional data?
"Egypt never made peace with Israel prior to 1967"
Israel never made peace with Egypt, let alone the Palestinians. Israel continued to lynch and kill Palestinians and "drive them out" of their homes and bulldoze their villages long after the 1948 was over. Tens of thousands of Palestinians had their villages destroyed AFTER the armistice, and this practice extended well into the 50s until the 60s.
"supported the Fedayeen"
At least get the word right. It's fida'iyyoon/fida'iyyeen and not "fidayeen". And no, Egypt did not support them, not until Israel began massacring Palestinians in the Gaza Strip day in day out after cramming hundreds of thousands of them into that tiny sliver of land (see the August 1953 massacre which brought about Gazan riots against Egypt, demanding that Egypt provide them with arms to resist Israeli massacres — the attacks continued, with two major attacks in Feb and Sept 1955). Your beloved zionist leaders admitted that it was Israeli attacks and massacres and policies that forced Abdel Nasser to provide arms to the Palestinians in Gaza and train and organize their infiltration activities, which assumed a military character. In fact, most of the incidents of border infiltration after the 1948 war were not even armed fighters, but unarmed/civilian infiltrators (acting alone) trying to check up on their houses or gather crops from their lands which were beyond the green line. I don't recommend that you argue about things you have no clue about.
"closed the Straits of Tiran as well as the Suez Canal to Israel all illegal and an act of war"
Actually, the closure of the Straits was neither an illegal act nor an act of war. In fact, the closure was a perfectly legal act, and if it were to be considered "an act of war", so would, under international law, Israel's numerous violations of the armistice, and its massacres of Palestinians, as well as its attack on the Sinai & Suez in 1956 in a tripartite conspiracy between Israel, Britain, and France. How convenient of you to ignore the 1956 MILITARY ATTACK and OCCUPATION of the Sinai, and at the same time refer to the perfectly legal and PEACEFUL act of closing the Straits to Israeli shipping. Again, don't pretend to be an expert on what you don't know.
Witty, you've often suggested if some formal organized didn't assert authority over the land it is then okay for Israel to come along and take it from the people living there. People who have lived in a land from time immemorial have some rights to the land even if they haven't established border crossings, guards and flags.
And speaking of borders, it would be nice if Israel would say what she considers her borders, instead of ever expanding settlements, access roads, checkpoints and concrete walls.
A question, doesn't it seem to you that Israel's building of settlements all over the west bank indicates that Israel intends eventually to make the entire west bank part of Israel (with scattered non-contiguous reservations for those Palestinians who refuse to leave)? I mean, why would Israel spend so much time and building and defending settlements in the west bank if it didn't intend to keep the land?
It's not original with Witty. It is standard zionist crap.
Witty will be right back to answer–you; he had to run to the door of his gated community because some tow-headed riff-raff kid had appeared out of nowhere and was hogging the
swings at the park, yelling his Daddy was in the US Marines so he could have some fun too.
Yisrael Medad, Shiloh, Israel, you are too close to the situation and are by dint of childhood and adult brainwashing, too bug-nuts crazy to have anything useful to say. Why can't you see that. I mean, you must know you're crazy, right, when you look around?
Anyway, Brooklyn is beautiful this time of year and there is a statute of limitations on most things. Oh, but not all, I see.
Witty, this is your big chance! Quick, ask Medad if there's an opening at Shiloh for a guy with your qualifications.
Medad, I beg you to scan the comments in the last couple of posts and read Richard Witty's comments. I'm sure you will quickly see he is the ideal type compatriot to join you in your great work of reclaiming the land for Jewish ownership. And besides, Witty would get such a kick out of it if you gave his little comments a personal seal aproval, like.
I'm telling you, Medad, you got an extra cot and a rifle and plowshare for Witty, you won't find a better settler! He's got it all!
RE: "In 1967, Israel was viciously attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria."
MY COMMENT: I wonder where she gets her history from. I'm guessing it's the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).
Well, Mooser, let's not go overboard praising Witty just because he watches Curb Your Enthusiasm
and so went out and purchased a swiss army knife to clean his finger nails.
Citizen, I think Witty has the makings of a fust cless settler! I'm sure if he would just give it a try, it would be the fulfillment of a life long dream. I can just see Witty sitting atop a hill, all kippahed up, with one of those new digital phylacteries (they got a 15gig version on which you can get the whole Torah, Talmud, Midrash, and it prevents heatrash when powered by a solar yarmulke) tapping out his blandatory messages and fussy obfuscations, drawing inspiration from the Holy Land, Greater Israel.
I can see him now, on watch for the settlement, alert for any "cynical" moves by Hamas.
Mooser, Richard's too lazy to go. But his son has gone over, so now he can enjoy vicarious "aliyah."
"In 1967, Israel was viciously attacked by Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria…They attacked Israel…"
That is, of course, factually false. Israel was not viciously attacked, Israel attacked viciously, and the other states responded to Israel's attacks, as might be expected. Oh – and Iraq, for one, never made it to the front, so it is dishonest to even say that Iraq counter-attacked.
And what almost no one knows is that throughout the Arab world there was very real and very serious fear of Israel's aggressive nature. In Baghdad we were making very serious preparations to defend against attack, to treat the wounded, to withstand a possible siege, and to protect our homes and families.
"Borders ARE redrawn after wars.
Should they be in general?
Should they in this case?"
Richard Witty, are you really that ignorant of international law? Do you really not know that Israel's membership in the United Nations includes an agreement that acquisition of territory by war is impermissible? That the Fourth Geneva Convention, among other instruments to which Israel is a signatory, precludes the colonization and exploitation, let alone the expropriation of territory by war and occupation?
Seriously, Richard Witty, are you being this dishonest only with us, or with yourself as well?
"Egypt never made peace with Israel prior to 1967…"
Israel never made peace with anyone prior to 1967, and systematically ignored or repulsed any attempts at peacemaking on the part of any Arabs.
"…closed the Straits of Tiran as well as the Suez Canal to Israel, all illegal and an act of war…"
The closure of the Strait of Tiran and the Suez Canal was a symbolic act, largely in name only. A few ships were boarded, but no ships were barred from passage, and the impact on Israel was virtually zero since Israeli-flagged ships did not use either the Strait or the Canal. Further, states have a right under customary international law to bar shipment of goods that might be used against the state from passage through their territory. Given the serious threat from Israel at that time, it was absolutely within Egypt's rights to stop, board, and examine ships that might be carrying such goods to Israel, and to turn them back if necessary.
"Their crowds marched through the streets chanting "death to the Jews" & "throw them into the sea"."
SURE they did! You know 'cause you were there, right? Well, oddly I was living in the Arab world at the time, and I neither saw nor heard of anything like that, not in person, not on TV, not on the radio, not via the grapevine.
Shirin, Witty likes Eichmann's version of Kant's catagorical imperative–so long as he can reverse
the tribe's power. Unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is dependent on more welfare, so it has to act accordingly. If Israel had the independence of Hitler's Germany, Witty would be more forthright, more transparent in what he believes in his heart, judging from his years of comments posted here
on Phil's blog. Some time you just have to play Steppin' Fetchit until you become a rich star and do really want you want sans serious blowback.
Kant's catagorical imperative for Israel's resurrection. Check out the recent discussions on this blog.
"Mossad also fed out false information to the arabs that Syria was about to be attacked by Israel to make Egypt put up a show of force to try to make Israel back down."
That is basically correct, except that it was Russia that gave the false information that Israel was preparing to attack Syria. It was made credible by the fact that just prior Israeli war planes had been flying deep into Syria, and had bombed just outside Damascus. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense pact at the time, and when Nasser, who envisioned himself as the leader of the entire Arab world, did not react to the Israeli flights and bombing of Syrian territory, he was derided for his inaction. Therefore, he felt compelled to take some action in order to appear that as leader of the Arabs he was doing something to defend his ally. Therefore, in response to the rumour from Russia, and Israel's provocations, he gathered a few tens of thousands of troops in the Sinai, and imposed a largely symbolic blockade of the Strait of Tiran.
"Israel then attacked Egypt, a planned preemptive war to gain more land."
Actually, the primary purpose for the attack was not to gain more land. Israel had been watching Egypt's military and political progress for some time, and had planned for years that when that power reached a critical mass Israel would launch a massive military attack to take out Egypt's military and discredit Nasser. The war allowed Israel to opportunistically grab more territory.
"There must be a timeline and additional information on this."
There's lots of information, much of it in books that are long out of print.
Shirin, I have done more research, and, although Mossad was involved as an enabler with Russia in this context, and land-grab was in the heads of some key Israeli actors as a long term goal, your
rendition is in essence more accurate than mine. Thank you for your clarification!
It does not surprise me that Mossad was involved in the whole thing.
And yes, expansion was in the mind of Israeli leaders starting with Ben Gurion, as revealed in many of his statements to others and in his diaries. 1967 provided a wonderful opportunity, which they took great advantage of. Arabs were very well aware of the Zionist expansionist plans (or at least hopes), and in the days leading up to Israel's attack, and all during the war as we saw Israel continuing to take more and more territory there was great fear that they would just keep right on going and end up on our doorsteps. The relief was enormous when the war, and their advance, was stopped.
I would submit that the Arab states became involved primarily out of self-defense, and secondarily out of solidarity with Egypt and the countries surrounding Israel, and that "destroying Israel" was not one of the goals at all.