At the American Jewish Committee-affiliated blog, the Z word,a new low, a piece arguing on the basis of the Gaza slaughter: Long live the Dahiya doctrine! That’s a doctrine of disproportionate military aggression against any of Israel’s perceived enemies– a recipe for permanent war.
Writes our tipster: I wish I could say it was sarcastic, but I’m afraid it’s not.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 60 comments }
Philip,
Why would you go Wikipedia the legitimacy it doesn’t deserve?
As for the Dahyia Doctrine of disproportionality – which the Wikipedia article fails to mention – it is born out of the idea that once its ‘enemies’ perceive it as a raging lunatic, Israel will have the deterrence capability it needs. Anyone who dares challenge Israel, as it were, would have to think twice before doing so.
In other words, after losing the ground battle to Hezbollah in 2006, Israel went on a rampage to prove that it can and will use disproportionate air power to subdue anyone daring to stand up to it, even if that power is used to target civilians, civilian infrastructure and non-military targets.
It is in line with the Neoconservative doctrine of Shock & Awe that was used in Iraq in 2003. It is meant to deliver such devastation, over a short period of time, so as to psychologically and physically breakdown any resistance, to bring the invaded country down on its knees in desperation.
As it happens, that is also the very definition of terrorism.
I’m not surprised the AJC supports terrorism. Now, I’m just waiting for the US state department to list them as a terror organization and for the FBI to start rounding them up and for the various peace-loving, freedom-espousing lawyers across the US, like Dershowitz, to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
Yeah, there’s another delightfully descriptive term for this sort of tactic that predates Dahiya: blitzkrieg.
That’s actually rather unfair. To Nazi Germany. Blitzkrieg is an operational doctrine (or rather, an operational method) for destroying military forces. It does not really have anything to do with terrorizing civilians, which this Dahiya doctrine seems to be all about.
The Dahyia Doctrine is necessary only in this respect, because there are no standing armed forces to march against Israel (or any of consequence), it has to act the part. Therefore it has excelled in the murder of innocents – old people, women, and children – it is the only thing it knows, and it always reverts back to it as in the case example of both Lebanon and Gaza. It has to justify its massive hunger for fire power, and since there is none that can throw back as much as it can deliver, it does so because it can do it. As it commits these atrocities it keeps repeating over and over again that it is “surrounded by enemies” and must continuously be the perennial victim – and it keeps its victim-hood through repeating that it is attacked because of antisemitism. Obviously this cannot continue.
Why don’t you *give* Wikipedia….
The “Dahiya Doctrine” is simply the latest name for a strategy that Israel has used since 1948, and Zionists used since the 1930’s and before. And then they wonder why people hate them.
It must be because they are Jews. Because its simple human nature that if some big bully beats the crap out of you, you will have a great and abiding respect, and perhaps even a love, for him. Unless of course, he is Jewish. Then it is necessary for him to continue to beat the crap out of you and all your relatives and neighbors, until you forget that he is Jewish, and then you will finally respect him. Of course, its also necessary for him to continually remind you that you only hate him because he is Jewish, and thus he makes his own mission that much harder to accomplish. But, on the upside, that means he gets to continually beat the crap out of everyone without ever questioning his own moral superiority. Permanent war. “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
Obama Administration Takes from American Farmers, Gives to Israel
At a time of financial crisis in the United States in which thousands of Americans have lost their jobs and homes, an Israeli news service reports that President Obama has just signed a presidential memo eliminating a tariff on Israel that protected American dairy farmers and that raised money for the American economy.1
In addition, according to the Israeli report, US trade authorities have ordered the return of $17,000 to an Israeli export agent for a levy paid for butter produced by an Israeli company.
Council for the National Interest President Eugene Bird objected to the change: “Once again we see Israel receiving special treatment, at the cost to Americans. Even American citizens who oppose protective tariffs want to see a fair and equitable policy. Instead we have a policy change — implemented without public input or debate — that benefits one of the richest nations on earth, and a nation that consistently flouts US laws and policies.”
Israel is generally rated as having the 17th wealthiest population in the world.
Bird also noted that Israel, in violation of US trade agreements, has been blocking some American products entirely. “A serious look should be taken at how Israel has prevented certain American products from being imported into Israel,” Bird said, “for example orange juice.”
In addition, Bird pointed out that for decades Israeli policies have prevented Palestinian exports, creating extreme financial hardship that has escalated in recent years. Numerous Palestinian farmers have lost their livelihoods, and unemployment and malnutrition are being seen in Gaza at what the Red Cross has called “devastating” levels.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/po-dairy.html
This kind of doctrine that is required to suppress insurection against colonial dominion has already been defined. A people can be suppressed by overwhelming military force. It has been seen before but it requires tremendous effort. Based on precedent if the colonial force is able and willing to kill at least 10% of its subjects, there is a good chance that they will prevail. The US killed about 300,000 (out of a population of 3 million) Philipeans at the begining of the 20 th century. The survivors capitulated. In the Viet Nam war the US managed to kill only about 3 % of their people. We lost. Israel is facing a real dilemma. Last winter they managed to kill what we consider unnaccepctably numbers of people, but it only amounts to less to .1% of the Gazan population. If they really want to win this war they have to kill at least a hundred of times more than they did then, somewhere in the range of 100 or 200 thousand Palestinians. That is their dilemma. If they do not kill at that level then they will not only loose the democraphic struggle, but will leave behind enraged survivors willing to fight on. If they do kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, then they can no longer claim to have the most moral army in the world. Not only that, the rest of the world might just stop trading with them(imagine BDS on a global scale).
However this calculas works out Israel has in its power to totally suppress the Palestinians, but if they try they could loose all of their support in Europe and the US. It is interesting to see how this plays this out.
“The US killed about 300,000 (out of a population of 3 million) Philipeans at the begining of the 20 th century.”
One of the orders given during this massacre was kill every male the age of ten and over.
Was it Krauthhammer who said Jews reject proportionality in war because Just War doctrine comes from Catholicism?
Americans have the government they want (and the rest of the world has to live with it until one day they fly a few planes into some symbolic buildings); root basic policies in the interrelated areas
of foreign policy; health care;conservation; and finance are never questioned in the form of open public debate. They are taboo. While it’s true one who does question our root policies
in public is not shot, it’s equally true such voiced dissent is ignored, the dissenters effectively shunned while the status quo elites at most bicker about what to nip or tuck
around the edges of minor policy details. And the evolving American way hurts
Main Street here, and abroad:
http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/
(second article on the page)
http://shadowedforest.blogspot.com/2009/10/war-recession-health-care-what-can-we.html
Israel can take the world down with it:
http://www.rense.com/general87/destroy.htm
yeah, I used to look at the crackers in the flyover states and say to myself “what a bunch of boobs, don’t they know they’re being taken”. That sentiment also applies to a lot o’ Jews: Netanyahu is going to drag you down to hell with him, give your head a shake!
It is the international norm already (not just Israel’s) for dealing with insurrection.
The premise of it is a communication. The fantasy of the doctrine (internationally) is that it is less violent than allowing non-definitive result, say a violence that continues for decades or centuries.
But, in practice, as Phil has alluded, it is more like a mother that beats her child senseless, then expects that the only outcome of that will be “learning” and “behaving”. When, in reality the outcome is a scar of unconsciousness and trauma that distorts rational decision-making and living for generations, which ends up requiring rather than a single excessive event, a continuing stream of high-level violence.
If such an approach is unsuccessful, then the result is that the “mother” also becomes traumatized and habituated to insensitivity.
The disaster of the whole situation is that it creates a CYCLE of one traumatized and irrational party inflicting harm on the other, in pendulum swings, exagerating the others’ traumas indefinitely.
Perpetrator AND dissenter.
The only change in that cycle is when those that are sensitive to the reality of trauma cease punitive approaches to changing it, and instead work to accomplish an effort (if not a current success) at real reconciliation.
This site to my mind is a continuation of the tragedy in adopting the punitive and vengeful (even from otherwise compassionate Phil. Adam and Blankfort I don’t have a clue about.)
A single intervention (tough and love) is not suggested, but a punishment of Israel Jews for their 20th century experience.
VIOLENCE creates scars and perpetuates itself in a cycle. Not nonviolent resistance, as in BDS.
Bull. BDS particularly exacerbates scars and harrassment.
What do you think a blockade is?
You should be more committed to non-violence, than just to adopt a punitive approach.
“What do you think a blockade is?”
Witty, that first post of yours made good points. People can argue about whether BDS in some form is a good idea or not–I’m open to listening to both sides.
But at some point you ought to have the decency to admit that Israel’s blockade of Gaza is much worse than anything I’ve heard proposed for Israel. (If anyone is proposing something that bad for Israel, I’m against it.) Instead you’ve claimed it was justified because it’s war, when in fact war does not justify acts of collective punishment. You only want it ended on certain conditions–by that reasoning, then, you can have no moral objection to even an extremely harsh blockade on Israel.
Unless, of course, you are Israel, in which case any resort to military violence will be excused as a necessary “response” and “self-defense”, while a blockade of Gaza, much more punitive that BDS, and, as we have seen, more violent as well, will be likewise excused. Witty never takes his own advice. If he did, he’d be taken more seriously here. Instead he’s the poster boy for Hypocrisy.
The Case For BDS, by Kathleen and Bill Christison:
JG: In my recent interview with Jonathan Cook, he spoke highly of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, saying that in his view, “there is no way to end the occupation unless Israelis are made to see that they will pay a heavy price for its continuance.” Would you agree with this? If so, how would you respond to criticism about harming “innocent” Israelis with a blanket boycott or sanctions? Or is there even such a thing as an “innocent” Israeli when it comes to the issue of Palestinian suffering?
KBC: We do indeed agree with Jonathan on the wisdom of BDS and the notion that Israelis must be made to pay a heavy price for continuing the occupation if there’s to be any hope of ever ending it. As to whether “innocent” Israelis might be harmed by a blanket application of BDS, we would ask where one should draw the line on what harms Israelis. Does it harm innocent Israelis to cut off or cut back U.S. aid to Israel—which would be the ultimate sanction? Under a long-term ten-year agreement, the U.S. gives, not lends, Israel $3 billion of military aid every year—in cash, at the beginning of each fiscal year—plus additional increments of economic aid and loan guarantees on a year-by-year basis. Aid of this magnitude and given under these terms obviously greatly helps the Israeli economy. It also gives Israel virtually total impunity to commit whatever atrocities it wants against the Palestinians without fear that the U.S. will cut it off. So if we’re worried about harming individual Israelis, we have to worry about the guy in an electronics shop who is harmed economically because he no longer gets the subcontract for some airplane or tank part, but we also have to worry about the innocent Palestinians—the literally millions of innocent Palestinians—in Gaza particularly, but elsewhere as well, who are being killed by those airplanes and tanks and other military equipment that Israel uses with the impunity granted it by the U.S. If blind justice weighs these two groups of innocents and the harm done to them on her scales, we believe she would conclude that the “innocent” Israeli is after all not so innocent.
Although it may be clearer how the scales should balance when we’re talking about military aid, the same factors must be weighed when we deal with boycotts of non-military products and academic and cultural boycotts, and we think the same conclusions must be reached: ending Palestinian suffering at Israel’s hands is a more worthy, more just objective than saving the economic hide or the jobs of any Israelis. Maybe you’re right that there is no such thing as an “innocent” Israeli when it comes to Palestinian suffering. In a democratic state—democratic at least for Israeli Jews—all Jewish Israelis are responsible for the injustices and the killing and the atrocities visited upon the Palestinians. They elected the governments that have carried out these policies and actions; they have failed to put an end to them; they live in a state established on the suffering and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians over 60 years ago. We Americans are just as responsible for the killing and atrocities visited by U.S. forces on Iraqi and Afghan civilians and in past eras on civilians in places like Vietnam, and we would not claim that sanctions against the U.S. were unfair, even if these caused us to suffer personally. Perhaps this should be the criterion: that innocence lies in greater measure with the people being oppressed and bombed and occupied, and we must be more concerned with ending harm to them than with causing incidental harm to individuals in the oppressor-occupier nation.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gore10232009.html
So, Witty sees this site as advocating punishment of Israel Jews simply for being Israel Jews who lived in the 20th Century. How about their 21st Century experience? Does this site also exist to punish that experience?
To the extent that the Israeli government and the military leaders of the IDF intentionally designed Operation Cast Lead to be an implementation of the Dahyia Doctrine of disproportionality, they succeeded beyond imagining.
At the same time, the Dahyia Doctrine explicitly violates the Geneva Convention.
As a strategy, it is prima facie evidence of Israel’s intent to target a civilian population, and that the Goldstone Report accurately chronicled the IDF’s war crimes.
No wonder Netanyahu is trying to change the rules of war after the fact. But no amount of intellectually-dishonest hasbara will make Goldstone go away.
One can see the Dahyia Doctrine in small instances, the small instances give a view of the whole working of the Israeli government in regard to the Palestinians. In other words if they do this in small instances they will establish the same in their whole policy, a part of the whole represents the whole sum.
As an example, you can see the working of the whole by who is involved in the atrocities, it is not merely the “IDF” (they are about a defensive as a mad dog) but a whole array of institutions. Take Beit Hanoun, where 18 people were killed by Israeli tank shells, in their sleep in a civilian neighborhood, on Nov. 8th 2006. What we have here is a war crime, plain and simple.
Let it be known that war conventions necessitate the safety of civilians. First, Israel initially had a 300 meter rule for firing shells of this nature because the accuracy of these projectiles is usually a couple of hundred meters off. Earlier this year they purposefully reduced their guidelines to 100 meters through the participation of the judicial courts. The result is an extended family slaughtered. Second, shells of this nature must only be fired when there is a immanent threat – according to Israelis own command confession, the rockets they alleged were fired the day before.
This tell us two things – what was done was a bold faced war crime. It also tells us how valuable Zionists believe Palestinian lives to be, worthless. It reminds one of the statement many years ago of Menachem Begen (previous prime minister) – “Palestinians are animals walking on two legs.” The question that this evokes is simple – does someone who acts this way, which works in concert with its institutions, and obviously believes that the Palestinians are worthless deserve to run a government, let alone the fourth most powerful military force in the world? What is true of the parts, and now the parts are legion, reflects the whole sum.
The doctrine is the expression of Israeli exceptionalism in military terms. It is totally one-sided. Israelis accept it because they know it is impossible that it will ever be applied to them, that the “enemies” they target don’t have the military capacity to do unto Israel as Israel keeps doing unto them.
If civilian casualties were ever inflicted upon Israel in the proportion that they have inflicted them on others, the screams of “genocide” would rise up to the heavens.
Palestinians dictate their own worth by demanding thousands of prisoners for Gilad Shalit.
Do you know why you always present such defective arguments (excuses for argument) like this yonira? It is because ideology truncates you thought processes, Zionism is bad for you.
You’re argument for this aberration is because you think Gilad Shalit is immensely valuable, when the Israeli government just uses him as an excuse for their atrocities, so he is valuable to them only in the mileage they can get for their acts of barbarism. This is because we all know that the way to influence people and win friends that will elicit his release is to bomb, maim, and kill thousands of Palestinians (obvious sarcasm) in his name.
To argue for human life by killing thousands, on the basis of one human being, does not show the value of the one life, it shows that you do not consider the Palestinians human beings nor even Gilad Shalit, they are expendable in the name of a skewed ideology.
Einstein was right about the creation of Israel -
“The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.”
He stated that until 1947.
Time to read of Einstein’s life.
“Time to read of Einstein’s life.”
You first.
link
Yonira, the real question is: why does Israel kidnap thousands of Palestinians for every one soldier Hamas takes prisoner?
Palestinians would demean their own worth by NOT demanding the release of ALL political prisoners and plain-old kidnap victims in Israeli detention.
What I’ve read indicated to me that Einstein was an assertive advocate of settlement, institution building, Jewish self-governance, who like me regarded Palestinians as human beings to be treated as kindly and collaboratively as was possible.
When push came to shove, he supported the Jewish state, describing the 1948 ratification as “fulfillment of our dreams”.
NOT, as some shame or disapproval as you infer.
What I’ve read indicated to me that Einstein was an assertive advocate of settlement, institution building, Jewish self-governance, who like me regarded Palestinians as human beings to be treated as kindly and collaboratively as was possible
as was possible, in light of our assertive advocacy of settlement and institution building and Jewish self-governance ON THEIR HOMELAND.
Let’s be as kind as possible and collaborate as much as possible while we move in and push them out. This is Zionist humanism
The supremacism seeps out yet again. Never ceasess to amaze.
It also evokes the question, do Americans really want to enable such a rascist regime?
And why not take all the benefits of the special relationship and give them to Americans to help their domestic plight? I mean, come on–how about comparing the Israeli health care system to the USA’s? And just how cost effective is the special relationship the USA has with Israel for Americans? And just how net effective is it
in terms of strategic America First interests? And, also, how effective in supporting our hard won Nuremberg world ethical principles?
I don’t like the ellipsis in Phil’s post and I want to distinguish the Dahiya doctrine from the doctrine of eternal war.
- from the start the idea of eternal war was an important part of the thinking: unfortunately peace is impossible . Get over it.
- from the start the idea of asymmetric retaliation was just as important:
– any incident could be used to build up an alibis for whatever Israel was up to. Israel is then always reacting in self defense. Alright, so they are ‘over-reacting’, which is already a legitimisation of their actions. This contrasts with tit-for-tat strategies where the restraint is a signal that there’s no intention to escalate
– to assert a position of dominance in a relationship, similar to how a dictator crushes any opposition with massive overkill. This is not necessarily escalation.
The Dahiya doctrine is an approach to massive collective punishment that was inspired by the Kosovo war.
With all these strategies there is a big component of getting your logic accepted by the international community. I think the idea of massive collective punishment is pretty well accepted – if Israel is the one doing it.
There is always the definitive test: if someone else was doing the same thing to Israel as it does to others, what would the reaction be?
What the Allies did to Japan and Germany in the latter half of WW2?
I would think the the Dahyia Doctrine originated in Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s concept of the “Iron Wall” that called for the early Zionists to develop clearly superior military strength and the will to use it. I don’t believe that anyone can understand contemporary Zionism and Israel’s national character without some understanding of Jabotinsky’s influence. Worth studying.
Jabotinsky was a founder and early leader of the militant Zionist underground organization, Irgun. After Herzl’s death in 1904 he became the leader of the right-wing Zionists. His legacy is reflected in today’s Likud party. The Jabotinsky Medal is awarded for distinguished service to the State of Israel, and most Israeli cities have streets named after him.
In an article published in Ha’aretz Daily in 1923 he outlined his IRON WALL concept that the Arab population must learn and accept that resistance to Zionism is futile:
“…. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ….a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers….And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights.” (emphasis added)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze‘ev_Jabotinsky
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story640.html
Pretty hard to distingish between the banners held high as in Nazi Germany and as in contemporary Isael–the only thing I see separating the two is Nuremberg Trials and its progeny in Geneva; this means the USA, the only current superpower, has switched sides in philosophy–Goering is now the mentor of both the USA and Israel; Europe is
muzzled with guilt, as is the USA, though without substantial reason.
I think one has to be careful seizing on the statements of this or that partisan of this or that cause and then holding same against the entire cause. Every cause in the world has its crazies so it seems one has to ask whether the statement at issue really seems to harmonize with the reality of the cause. Seems to me in this instance there is at least a little such harmonization given the fact of the disproportionality involved in Gaza and elsewhere historically, and then if I recall there was some other Israeli partisan at some NY rally or etc. saying “damned *right* we were disproportionate and that’s a good thing” or words to that effect.
This also reminded me of the recent statement of that Minnesota Rabbi Friedman quoted in Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091469.html):
“I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral. The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”
Coming from a religio I found same quite interesting.
….”then if I recall there was some other Israeli partisan at some NY rally or etc. saying “damned *right* we were disproportionate and that’s a good thing” or words to that effect. ”
At July 17,2006 at a rally in New York City, Israel’s UN ambassador Dan Gillerman thundered:
“[T]o those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You’re damn right we are.” This comment was made the same day that Israeli warplanes set Beirut’s harbor ablaze, pounded villages, neighborhoods, and highways across Lebanon, and flattened the Palestinian foreign ministry in Gaza City along with surrounding homes.
“His comments drew wild applause,” said the Jerusalem Post. Next to him were two prominent Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Lautenberg said: “It’s up to Israel to design how strong her response ought to be.” Clinton added: “We will support [Israel’s] efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians… We will take whatever steps are necessary.”
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/09/01/israel-beyond-good-and-evil/#
http://www.theamericancause.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=201&cntnt01origid=26&cntnt01returnid=29
The notion of overwhelming force originated permanently in history. It is the description of employing better armaments, terrifying ones.
Also, in contrast to Phil’s editorializing “recipe for eternal war”, the doctrine of overwhelming force is designed to be used ONLY once, convincingly.
It is only where it doesn’t convince where it becomes eternal. If any strategy is “eternal” it is the terror and guerilla strategy, which rightfully deserves horrific criticism (very very very little as yet from Phil).
Again, the only valid conclusion that I can derive from all this is the increased importance on reconciliation, rather than on even dissent.
I agree with dissent that seeks cessation of settlement construction.
I also read today of the 1949 armistice, which was criticized (Jordan was criticized more than Israel) for “cutting off Palestinians from their farms”.
Anybody else studied enough in history to have that concept in their minds? I just learned of it, even as I had thought that I read widely.
Still trying to blame the Arabs, I see. How predictable.
No, actually trying to demonstrate your ignorance of history.
And demonstrating your own instead, Richard. Not surprising.
What do you believe is innaccurate?
Let’s start with the Nakba denial part. That’s a good springboard, considering.
Richard, you mention reading about the 1949 armistice in the vaguest of terms and then tell us you had never heard of this before, even though you, for some unknown reason, think of yourself as well-read. Really? You’ve never heard of the concept of Palestinians being cut off from their land? You’ve just pointed out your own ignorance in that post, and further pointed out your ignorance by asking me to explain it to you.
Israel (or, more correctly, Zionist terrorists who were intent on creating Israel) used the “terror and guerilla strategy” in its infancy. It then secured enough military power to employ the doctrine of overwhelming force. It hasn’t convinced, so it has become eternal. Horrific.
Palestinians, the victims of first Zionist terror and guerilla tragedies and now the doctrine of overwhelming force which has become eternal because it hasn’t convinced, are resisting. Understandable.
I suppose, Richard, you’ve read “Israel’s Border Wars”, by Benny Morris? I did, a couple of years ago, but it’s a bit fuzzy now, so you can refresh my memory. Or if not that, then perhaps you’ve read the summary of Morris’s findings as found in Avi Shlaim? Please tell us what happened to several thousand Palestinian infilitrators, the vast majority unarmed, many of them trying to sneak back to work on their farms. Okay, I’ll tell you–they were shot by Israel.
And then tell us about how Jordan did in fact try to stop infilitration, but when it happened despite their efforts (and in some cases there were terrorist assaults involved), you can tell us how the Israelis responded. You can tell us about Sharon’s actions, and your hero Ben Gurion’s attitude towards Sharon’s actions. Then you can tell us how all of this was really Jordan’s fault.
I’ve read Righteous Victims by Morris, and the biography of the Arab League commander during the 1948 war (I forgot his name).
Please restrain yourself from imagining my conclusions. You’ve guessed wrong frequently, to point of misrepresenting my views and objective comments.
Noone can know all of history. I don’t assume that I do. The point of that statement is to suggest some humility.
From a study of history (recent or longer), an early step is to identify what occurred. The next step is to identify what occurred in context of what was happening elsewhere (internal political cred, relationships with opponents, global relationships). Hopefully, at that point, one acknowledges that one is too uninformed to make authoritative judgements and BOTHERS to learn more.
I’m recommending that you learn enough of Zionist history and Israeli history to make more informed comment, than just Segev, Shlaim, even Morris.
They are important, but they are opinions, based on their research (limited even if much more than mine), and filtered through SELECTION of relevance and ideological bias.
You can learn from them, but you can’t rely on them. Your conclusion can end up very similar to their’s, or very different, upon a thorough read.
And, certainly, hopefully, your current statements and actions will be effected by your being more informed.
In my case, I don’t know enough to risk either being silent (relative to settlement expansion in particular), nor to adopt ANY punitive or condemnatory approach.
And yet you haven’t responded to any of the points he brought up. You, RW, simply danced around the subject.
If Donald was specific, there would be “facts” to respond to.
The next question would then become relevant. “What else was going on? What was the context of actions or statements? What is the significance in context?”
The difference between reading and gathering information for understanding (and responsive and responsible action) and reading and gathering information for propagandistic purposes (warring in words).
“and in some cases there were terrorist assaults involved)”
That wasn’t clear. I meant that a small fraction of the infilitrators were armed and intent on committing violent acts against Israelis. The Jordanians tried to stop this, but didn’t always succeed.
According to Morris, most infiltrators were trying to get back to claim their property, others (largely Bedouin) to rob and pilfer.
Are you aware of the early conflict between Zionists buying land (assuming that that meant exclusive use) and the fellahin understanding that they had permanent permission to reside?
Which do you think is legal in fact?
Are you aware of the early conflict between Zionists buying land (assuming that that meant exclusive use) and the fellahin understanding that they had permanent permission to reside?
Which do you think is legal in fact?
—————————————————–
The word is “Fallaheen”. But, what relevenace does that have on the issue of “inflitration” and why did you even bring infiltration into this thread?
You said, “I have just learned this today”. Congratulations on opening a book and reading a bit. If you announce new information you learn in this fashion, are we to conclude that you haven’t read a book since Mondoweiss.net was founded?
Anyway, most “infiltrators” (How can someone be an infiltrator in their own land and country? If anyone was infiltrating, it was your buddies from Europe and the US) were actually trying to retrieve whatever belongings they had. Reclaiming land was futile given the tension along the border at the time.
Most of those who snuck in and out were mainly interested in finding their relatives from whom they were separated during the war, or were in the business of smuggling food supplies. I know because I did my masters dissertation based on interviews I conducted with Palestinians from several villages in Israel who live along the green line, just a few miles from their homes.
As for the Jordanian crown, it was a British client since the early days of its inception. There’s nothing new there. Just like Abbas (Abu-Mazen) is an Israeli whore, so was the King. That’s why Hussein, the grand father, was assassinated in Jerusalem.
In fact, the Jordanian crown betrayed many Palestinians when it simply handed over swaths of land to Jewish militias as part of trilateral agreements with Britain in 1948. Palestinian villages and towns in what was known as the Tulkarem district (north east of Tel-Aviv) did not actually fall to Jewish militias but were betrayed by Jordan’s king who called on the Jordanian-Iraqi forces to withdraw.
Have you read Tom Segev’sThe Seventh Million and Illan Pappe’sThe Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine?
By the way, in 1947, only 7% of the privately owned land in Palestine belonged to Jewish Zionists.
Good rant Nolan.
My question was a fairly simple one, implying conflict of understanding, but followed by warring.
Rather than seeking to describe and hopefully reconcile the conflict, you also adopted warring as your mode.
Did I “bring” infiltration into this thread, or was it others? Stop the shoot first approach, please.
Yet, you haven’t addressed any of the points I brought up in response to your diatribe. All you did was come back at me with more self-righteous indignation and holier-than-thou nonsense. Try harder next time. You’re not that good at deflecting the issue, by the way.
If by “warring” you mean pointing out that which conflicts with your ideology then the answer is “yes”. Your problem is that you are a flip-flopper and a hypocrite. Perhaps you can start by overcoming that denial. It will be a healthy transformation for you.
Rather than seeking to describe and hopefully reconcile the conflict, you also adopted warring as your mode.
Not everyone can perfect passive aggressiveness and conceitedness like you.
Nolan,
If you want to discuss actually, try to tone down the active aggression.
It makes the interpersonal the subject of your content, rather than the points themselves.
I contest that MOST of the far left and right/left angry commentators have not yet read a history of Zionism or of Israel, except from sanctioned dissenting sources.
Its like only reading “A People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn, and concluding “I am a student of history”. (That book is excellent for its scope and commitment by the author, but including the presence of irony in avoiding straight up good guy/bad guy oversimplification. A good example is his chapters on the civil war in which he praises and condemns the anti-draft movement, that also morphed into a mass racial murder movement, in New York.)
The classic feigned wound feint isn’t going to get you much ground here, Witty. The fact that you’re whining about someone being aggressive and going completely off the rails with regards to the real debate is proof enough that your position is inflated merely by the hot air of your egoistic mirages.
And Witty? Unlike myself (and really, you) most of the commentors here are LIBERAL AMERICAN JEWS. You’re going to keep making the case that Jews — American Jews in particular — are not taught about Zionism? Really?
The fact is, they learned about Zionism and found it utterly lacking. You should maybe deal with the fact that the issue isn’t that the people here don’t know real Zionism — it’s that they do, and they reject it as the false doctrine that it is.
Comments on this entry are closed.