Yesterday I suggested that Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation was coming close to boycott language in comments he made at the Middle East Institute. Levy says I’ve distorted his meaning, and clarifies:
My comments were neither in anger at the lack of a breakthrough at the lack of a settlement freeze, nor were they new. I have previously used the terminology of “drawing a red line at the Green Line”. However, I have not and I do not call for a boycott. It is factually wrong to describe my policy prescriptions as falling in the boycott category. Terminology matters, and has practical implications, and just because one likes the idea of a boycott, one cannot loosely throw around the term where it doesn’t fit. For instance, for Europe or the U.S. to, as you put it, “refuse to trade goods” of products in the settlements is not a call to boycott products from the settlements—it would simply mean that those products would not benefit from the provisions of the relevant free trade agreements and would be subject to appropriate tariffs. In fact, this would simply be the accurate implementation of said free trade agreements given that those agreements apply to Israel and not the Occupied Territories . Likewise, making donations to settler activities beyond the Green Line non-tax deductible (not charitable gifts) is not a boycott—it is simply that such activities should not benefit from a charitable gift status. I know it treats policy as a more complicated thing than the simplistic slogans of BDS, but I am quite clearly not calling for a boycott and to imply otherwise is a misrepresentation of my position.
Oh well. In ten years time when Israel is on the brink of collapse, it’ll be fun calling Levy and telling him “told ya”. Keep delaying the inevitable because it serves your personal interests today.
In essence, what Levy is saying is this: “Let me be clear, I’m a pompous little prick”.
I haven’t seen someone so scared of a word/s since the Knights who say ‘Ni’! And twice as ridiculous.
Give the man a shrubbery!
Nolan, RickB,
I am 100% with Levy on this. Go back and read him again, and try not to get anger and bias in your reading and understanding. What he points out, and no I am not an expert on the issue, is exactly the European problem. Ware from the occupied territories isn’t classified as from the West Bank but as from Israel, and that is exactly the problem.
He clearly cannot utter the word boycott because if does he would immediately be attacked for joining with all of the antisemites and self-hating Jews that populate this site. But it really is, in all but name, a boycott. We should give him some slack — he is battling within the center of political power and they do have their rules, as absurd as they sound to us outsiders.
“He clearly cannot utter the word boycott because if does he would immediately be attacked for joining with all of the antisemites and self-hating Jews that populate this site.”
Uh-oh, are we back to that again? Please provide names or pseudonyms of the antisemites. Also, please provide your working definition of antisemitism and explain how each of the named persons meets your criteria. Is supporting BDS against Israel evidence of antisemitism, as you imply? If you think so, it is easy to see how you would consider almost every regular contributor to this blog to be antisemitic.
Obviously, I don’t agree with your view of the people who contribute here (even though I often would not want to defend some of their opinions). But I’m sure you will keep returning to your repressive accusation again and again.
I do believe that Levy has an inkling of a clue as to what must be done.
Unfortunately in today’s political climate, even suggesting that Israel might be wrong, much less calling for a boycott is tantamount to political suicide.
I believe its only a matter of years before talk of Israel as a threat to American interests is finally discussed in the MSM or at least amongst policy makers.
Speaking of boycotts…good news everyone, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology voted unanimously to reject the bigoted idea of boycotting Israel. It was ten times the usual turn out for the voting and they voted unanimously to reject the slugs and cretins that think Israel is to blame for the refugees created when the Arabs launched a war to annihilate the defenseless Jewish community seeking a sanctuary in the Jewish homeland (genocide). One of the boycottards, the kind that make your skin crawl with revulsion, was dazed and confused wondering why not even one of the teachers defended the boycott. I guess Norwegians understand the difference between supporting a boycott based on hatred, bigotry, and racism that gives aid and comfort to mass murderers and intolerant fanatics vs one meant to put an end to racism, bigotry, and intolerance.
link to jpost.com
“…defenseless Jewish community?” Seriously? You do know that Zionists were pretty heavily armed with surplus equipment from WW2, right? Surplus German equipment, often?
Anyway, good on you. The boycott score is, what? Twelve for, one against? Never mind the, ahem, voting anomalies. Ten times the normal turn out? And it was unanimous, you say? Heh.
Lets keep count of how many times I am challenged on accuracy. I said unanimous…the article and the record says all 12 voted to oppose the boycott. The slime bag teacher that was complaining about the outcome was not on the board, so she did not get a vote. That is 1.
I said ten times the normal turn out, the article says usually 4 or 5 people attend those sessions and that 50 showed up that day. Being conservative with the higher number, my math shows a multiple of ten. That is 2.
I said the defenseless Jewish community was attacked. As the British and French trained and armed armies of every surrounding state or psuedo-state in the case of Arab East Palestine (transJordan), mobilized and readied themselves at their borders like vultures waiting for the British to leave, the worldly wisdom of the day was to keep thousands of able bodied Jewish men interred on Cyprus, the British fleet patrolling the coast enforcing a naval blockade, and the world to place an arms embargo against the Jews. No such arms embargo was placed on Arab Palestine east of the Jordon mind you, only the places where Jews lived was their an embargo and blockade, unfortunately the local Arabs were casualties of the same blockade, (but enjoyed freedom of movement across the frontiers and enjoyed assistance of infiltrators and plenty of supplies to murder Jews with). As the crescendo of doom built, the British finally left on May 14, confident the Jews were to be slaughtered, the next day hundreds of tanks backed by British trained infantry, led by a British officer, and with absolute aerial superiority invaded. The Arab armies were outfitted with Centurion and Matilda tanks, towed artillery, armored cars, Spitfires, Hurricanes, machine gun battalions, and more. The Jews had a handful of crop dusters and some trucks they welded plate steel to and called armored cars, no tanks, no artillery, no heavy machine guns, and only enough rifles for 1 in 3 men to be armed of the quasi-military Haganah and other units. Israel destroyed the armies of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan in 6 days. The Arabs that attacked had 2 weeks before the first airlift of actual war fighting equipment made it past the blockade. Before that Jews fought pitched battles against tanks with Molotov cocktails and courage. For example, a thousand Egyptians backed up by tanks attacked a lone unit of 140 Jews at Kibbutz Negba, which is north of Sderot and east of Ashkelon. The Jews there were outnumbered 7 to 1 and out gunned, they fought hand to hand with the tanks that advanced on the town with Molotov cocktails and a few Piats, (which are very short range rockets that took nerves of steel to wait until an enemy tank had closed to under a hundred yards to fire). The Egyptians lost 5 tanks in the battle. The first usage of heavy weaponry was on the 29th (two weeks after the regular armies of the Arabs invaded the Provisional State of Israel), the Egyptians had made a bid to attack Tel Aviv on the 29th. Israeli reconnaissance spotted 500 Egyptian vehicles on the coastal road from Gaza. The commander of the Egyptian force was Mohammed Neguib and he had 2,300 men of the 2nd Brigade, 10 tanks and 6 field guns, along with an unspecified amount of air assets. (Egypt brought over 50 warplanes to the invasion). Only one company sized Israeli unit was available to confront the Egyptians, btw and they held. This is the first engagement of real war planes of the Israeli side recorded. As I mentioned Czechoslovakia had airlifted weapons past the British naval blockade, and 4 of the planes were thrown together and pressed into service in defense of the out numbered Jewish defenders. That is 3.
As to your suggestion that Jews got state of the art equipment, military history is my strong point. The best tanks the British had during WWII were the Matilda II, the Churchill VII, or the Comet depending on use. The Matilda that the Egyptians were armed with was a weapon that had fought Panzers and the best the Wehrmacht could throw at it. The lighter MKIVs were also WWII tanks, but not the best available. The Jordanians had Centurions though, which were developed so late in the war they did not even see action. For two full weeks the Jews had to face this effectively naked. Clearing the hostile Arab villages before they were hit with this made perfect military sense.
God, so much trash, so little patience I have right now. I’ll just start with the most glaring idiocy in your reply…
“As to your suggestion that Jews got state of the art equipment…”
Do you know what “surplus” means? Because I said “surplus.” I didn’t say “state of the art.” You know, my post was exactly two paragraphs long, and they were short paragraphs and you still got it wrong. Do I need to get out the sock puppets and talk more slowly next time?
Unlike a any poster I have read here, when I am wrong I can admit it. I did not read what you wrote carefully. In my defense you made the statement with descriptors of “hefty” equipment and “German” equipment, which I took to mean “well made”. Or are you trying to Godwin the conversation by bringing the Nazis in on the sly by insinuating that oh no, the Jews used German equipment to save themselves from becoming victims of Arab genocide? Resorting back to name calling too? I wrote a lot of words without using a single ad hominem against you, but that is the best argument you can present so I should expect it. How about we call the accuracy score 4 – 1 so far? Since you are still wrong that the Jews had any heavy weaponry when they were attacked by the regular trained Arab armies.
Michael LeFavour.
I said the defenseless Jewish community was attacked.
Do you think you are dealing with idiots here who dont read, and widely, and who haven’t read Khirbet Khizeh by S. Yizhar? Go peddle your history dreck to nincompoops who dont know any better. Ain’t gonna shine here.
In my defense you made the statement with descriptors of “hefty” equipment and “German” equipment, which I took to mean “well made”
You do know, Mr. self-described military history buff, that one of the primary advantages the German military had was its industrial base? Again, obviously, your command of language is demonstrably lacking — “well made” and “state of the art” are not synonyms either. The attitude is Israeli, but the name and the utter contempt for the English language seems French Canadian. Or are you both?
MRW asks: “Do you think you are dealing with idiots here who dont read, and widely, and who haven’t read Khirbet Khizeh by S. Yizhar?”
Is this a trick question? Of course I am convinced I am dealing with idiots here. You didn’t disappoint either when you mentioned a work of fiction in a historical debate! This is hilarious to me, literally.
“I said the defenseless Jewish community was attacked.”
If they were so defenseless, then how did they end up winning?
And if the British and French had trained and armed armies, then how did the desenless Jews win?
How did the defenseless Jews manage to drive 750,000 Palestinians from theoir homes?
How did the defenseless Jews manage to massacre hundreds in Deir Yassin or bomb the King David Hotel?
Your delusinoal story doesn’t add up does it?
Wikipedia has possibly a more objective comparison of the training and military equipment of the opposing forces during the time period of Israel’s war for independence:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Delusional? That sums up the contents of this blog and most of its supporters in one word. Shingo, I was told with great indignation that the readers of this terror supporting blog were very well educated. Of course it turns out that it is fictional books and Wikipedia that is passed off as fact, but I can’t answer your questions in full without more space.
1. How did the Jews win if what I said is true? I am not religious in any way, so I do not believe in miracles, but the two that happened is that the Arabs did not sweep the Jews aside in a couple of days and the second is that Czechoslovakia risked the world’s ire and broke through the blockade and violated the arms embargo against the Jews that were meant to be slaughtered.
Why did the Jews win? A lot of reasons. One of the main reasons is that the Jews took a stand in WWII and the Arabs didn’t. Arabs sat the fence or sided with the Axis until the Allies were certain to win, then sided with the Allies by declaring war on Germany shortly before it was over so as to be on the winning side. The Jewish side on the other hand volunteered to fight and served under the British flag in every major campaign. The Jewish side had a core of battle hardened veterans that the Arabs did not. While it is true that jihad was called and experienced Muslim soldiers from the all Muslim, Waffen SS, Handschar division, for example, did come to fight alongside the Arabs, they were too few to make a difference and were not part of the formally trained regular armies the British had created. Without German leadership they proved next to useless.
Along with combat experience the Jews had no place to go. Whether genocidal rhetoric from Arab leaders was true or not, Jews had a living memory of the concentration camps. To a Jew who had been liberated from a death camp just a couple of years prior, threats of “momentous massacre” and throwing Jews into the sea had to be taken seriously. The battleground was often within sight of homes and dug outs where the children and the frail were hiding, awaiting the outcome of the fight. It was understood what would happen to any Jew caught by the Arab irregulars.
Along with combat experience, and nowhere else to run with their children, they loved the land itself more than life. The Jews were fighting for something that represented a two thousand year old fulfillment. The Arab homeland was in Arab centered on Mecca.
The last reason I will list is probably the most critical decision that helped the Jews win, they destroyed key Arab villages that could have been used as cover and supply points when the conventional armies arrived. Arab irregulars and infiltrators had been fighting a race war for half a year before the trained regular armies with heavy weapons entered the battle, but prior to their entry there was frantic diplomacy, begging, arm twisting, and an exhaustion of all means to stop the invasion. When all hope was lost, some Arabs were forced from their homes as a military necessity. The armies surrounding Israel were mobilized and brought to staging points at the border waiting for the British to leave. Had the Jewish commanders left those hostile Arabs at their backs they would have likely lost the war. Threats of genocide, nowhere to go, connection to the land, and moral men that fought on the right side with the free world were forced to make tough decisions.
2. How did the British and French trained conventional armies lose to untrained Jews without heavy weaponry in an all out war? Top down training was a huge advantage, having an organized supply system, a clear chain of command, standardized equipment, even having one language (Jews spoke dozens of languages and had to overcome this obstacle as well), all added up. One thing the British could not instill in them, though was the one thing that sets our soldiers apart from all the others we train and arm today…morale. Morale, elan, esprit de corps, these are things that have to be paid for with blood and honorable sacrifice. It is the edge that can’t be manufactured. I served in the Marine Corps years ago and the pride the Marine Corps carries is something that sets it apart from other light infantry units. The US runs soldiers from all over the world through our training courses side by side with our own soldiers, we outfit them with the exact same equipment we have, their leaders train with ours, we pump them up as best we can and let them go, but they nearly invariably fall on their faces. Not always, but often. The Marine Corps has never retreated in battle, that knowledge alone will drive an ordinary boy fresh out of high school to advance on a machine gun nest while taking fire with his bayonet fixed, he knows that his actions will reflect on something that will last forever.
The Jews had it in 1948 for some of the reasons I mentioned above, the Arabs did not. Take the assault on Tel Aviv that involved over a dozen Egyptian tanks, and over 2000 Egyptian soldiers that was halted by a company sized unit of Jews, (a company was probably 4 platoons of 30 or 40 men, so less than 200). The determination of the Jewish defenders and the sudden appearance of 4 Messerschmitts on the battlefield that did very little damage, but panicked the Arabs enough that they pulled back in fear. There are many other factors as well, the Arabs had not been in a fight, the concept of Insha’Allah, or if God wills was a handicap, because God gives a hundred believers the strength to fight as two hundred and God is not to be questioned, in the Egyptian army there was classism, Egyptian officers did not feel it dignified to train with the troops, the Arabs were illiterate as well having some problems reading battlefield instructions, they exaggerated or fabricated success because of the powerful honor and shame dichotomy, Egyptian policy was officers first, horses second, men third, and much more that I do not have space to go into. If you want more details I can provide them.
3. How did Jews drive 750,000 Arabs from their homes? They didn’t. That is pure fantasy used as propaganda to illicit sympathy from gullible stooges, some Jewish ones apparently, after the fact of what really happened. The Jews drove some Arabs from their homes, no accurate accounting is possible as to the exact number. The vast majority left of their own free will without ever seeing an armed Jew either at the request of their leaders or from fear of overblown propaganda that back fired on the Arab side, or in the case of Christian Arabs they left for fear for their lives should the Muslim Arabs view them as traitors. Even the number itself is a myth and the UN admits that not every Arab receiving handouts was a refugee. UN estimates taken at the time were much lower than the propaganda number settled on today.
How did the Jews manage to bomb King David hotel and massacre Arabs at Deir Yassin? They bombed the hotel because explosives are not illegal, they are used in construction. It is worth noting that the King David hotel was where records on Jews to be arrested were stored and the hotel was phoned in advance as well as the kitchen staff set free before the explosion. There has never been a single gesture of warning like this in any Arab bombing, the difference is the Arabs want to kill innocents.
Anything I say about Deir Yassin is speculation, but how they managed to massacre the residents? An on line acquaintance of mine that I do not aways see eye to eye with, but that I find reasonable, Ami Isseroff, wrote a pretty detailed examination of Deir Yassin that does not look good on those involved. In my opinion it does not represent Jewish behavior in general, I do believe the men dressed as women to escape, there was a lot of ammunition found there, they probably hid and allowed fighters to use their village as cover, there was no rapes, and it was lack of training and discipline of the Jews involved in the massacre. Had they been trained soldiers in a real Israel’s army I am convinced it would not have happened. I was not there, nor were any of you. Both sides use the tragedy to further their political goals. That is all I can speak on it other than to reject any mischaracterization of the overall conduct of the Jewish defenders of their homeland. link to middle-east.yu-hu.com
Citizen, you posted a link to such a bastion of acuracy as Wikipedia to do what? Show that I have not misspoke according to the pro Arab wording of Wikipedia?
The shocking statement that set off multiple challenges was that….I said the defenseless Jewish community was attacked.
According to the article you linked to IN THE BEGINNING, Jews had nothing to defend themselves from conventional forces with, they were DEFENSELESS, and further, 2/3 of what few Jews that had even anything that would shoot were pinned down to defensive positions….
“Initially, the Haganah had no heavy machine guns, artillery, armoured vehicles, anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons,[68] nor military aircraft or tanks.[69"
"According to Karsh before the arrival of arms shipments from Czechoslovakia as part of Operation Balak, there was roughly one weapon for every three fighters, and even the Palmach armed only two out of every three of its active members."
According to your source, the Arabs did not suffer those same handicaps imposed on the Jews by the world and enforced by a British blockade...
The Jordan army was, just like I said, armed and trained by the British. "Armed, trained and commanded by British officers, this 8,000–12,000 strong force was organised in four infantry/mechanised regiments supported by some 40 artillery pieces and 75 armoured cars."
Iraq, "In 1948 Iraq had an army of 21,000 men in 12 brigades and the Iraqi Air Force had 100 planes, mostly British."
Egyptian force, "consisted of five infantry battalions, one armoured battalion equipped with British Light Tank Mk VI and Matilda tanks, one battalion of sixteen 25-pounder guns, a battalion of eight 6-pounder guns and one medium-machine-gun battalion with supporting troops."
And they had modern warplanes to challenge the 6 Jewish crop dusters...."The Egyptian Air Force had over 30 Spitfires, 4 Hawker Hurricanes and 20 C47s modified into crude bombers." What a surprise when 4, not 30 or 40,but 4 surplus Avia S-199s showed up. Unlike beating their wives like Muhammad authorized, when they faced anything that can hit back they show their true colors.
Syrian planes were older, but they were war planes..."The Syrian Air Force had fifty planes, the 10 newest of which were World War II–generation models."
The Sherut Avir "became the Israeli Air Force. With its fleet[100] of light planes it was no match for Arab forces during the first few weeks of the war with its T-6s, Spitfires, C-47s and Avro Ansons”, just what I said. The defenseless Jews were effectively naked against heavy weapons for two weeks.
One of the links in your article also backs up exactly what I said about the first real war fighting equipment being used on the 29th, but I am delusional and a liar, what do I know…Talking about the Messerschmitts that had arrived and been thrown into service. “They were assembled and sent into combat for the first time on May 29, attacking the Egyptian army between Isdud and the current Ad Halom bridge, south of Tel Aviv. This was the first action of 101 Squadron IAF. The type proved unreliable and performed poorly in combat.”
Thanks for supporting me, Citizen. Though I don’t think you had that in mind. It is odd, though, that you are not being attacked as a liar and a propagandist, or that you are full of so much BS nobody has the time to refute you. Do I think I am dealing with idiots here who don’t read, and widely? Pretty much, yup…
Test, one sec. Figuring out how to combine a hyperlink w/ text:
Mr. Hate
I really found it amazing that instead of addressing the Deir Yassine Massacre, Michael linked us to a pro-Israeli propaganda site that tries to white wash the entire event.
How low will you go Michael? Got any more cut and paste bullshit arguments? It must be tough defending ethnic cleansing, I pity you.
It’s always such a treat when extremists like Michael LeFavour step into the fray. They come to this blog thinking that every other participant hasn’t heard their propaganda and revisionism 100 times already.
Michael starts off with stepping into his own trap by accusing others of being terror supporters when in fact, Israel was founded on terrorism and stands as a monument to the success of terrorism. In fact, Israel even rewards terrorism and is evidenced by the fact it elected 2 terrorist leader to the highest office in the land.
1. It wasn’t just Czechoslovakia that broke through the arms embaro. The Irgun were receiving aid and arms from Nazi affiliated fascist groups in Italy, which debunks the notion that the Jews were defenseless. That was the point I was making, but in your feverish attempt to get involved in the fray, you overlooked that argument.
2. Whatever your theories were about why the Jews won, it doesn’t support the argument that the Jews were defenseless. No, the Jewish side actually attacked the British in Palestine, and received support from Nazi affiliated groups, so they certainly did no fight and serve under the British flag. In fact, there were 150,000 German Jews serving in the Nazi army and the Zionist terrorist group, Irgun, was also in bed with the Nazis. How does the bombing of the King David Hotel come under the guise of serving under the British flag. Unlike the Zionists, most Arabs and Palestinians defied Hussein’s calls for Jihad against the British.
3. We know from countless statements from Zionists prior to the creation of Israel that the Zionists were itching for a war and knew that they would never achieve their aims of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority without inciting such a war.
Your diatribe about the Jews having nowhere to run with their children, loving the land itself more than life, and the realization of a two thousand year old fulfillment is largely fiction and myth. For a start, there were numerous , locations considered for the Israel, including Africa and Australia, so the fact that Israel ended up in Palestine is largely due to the obsessions of secular non religious Zionists. Most of the world’s Jews, including those living in Palestine, were not Zioniosts and were largely opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.
The Arab homeland was in Arab centered on Mecca. The Palestinian homeland is centered in Palestine.
Your last point as to why the Jews won is a blatant admission that Israel committed vast acts of terrorism, though it probably didn’t occur to you. When you type, “they destroyed key Arab villages” does it not occur to you in the slightest, that this was the highest and most extreme acts of terrorism? Your myopia and blinkeredness is mind boggling. Here you are claiming that the Jews were at risk of being exterminated, while explanation that Israel succeeded because it exterminated Arab village and did so before the Arab armies attacked. Never does it occur to you that this is what incited the Arab armies. No, ion your mind, it was all motivated by an irrational hatred towards Jews.
Former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, wrote in his book, “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy”, that the Arab states were defeated before the war had even started. In fact, he writes that as far as they were concerned, lost already as early as 1936-1939, because they have fought against the British mandate and the Israeli or the Jewish Yishuv, the Jewish pre-state, and they were defeated then, so they came to the hour of trial in 1948 already as a defeated nation. That is, the War of 1948 was won already in 1936, and they had no chance to win the war in 1948.
4. Yes the Jews did indeed drive 750,000 Arabs from their homes. This has been documented by historian Beeny Morris and Illan Pappe. What’s more, we have the admission in the form of coutless quotes from Zionists, before and after the ethnic cleansing, that this was pre meditated and necessary in order to establish a Jewsih majority. The fantast is that the likes of Michael LeFavour insist it was one big happy accident and that the Zionists founders go what they wanted by purely unintended consequences.
The Jews drove some Arabs from their homes, and many fled having witnessed or heard about the massacre carried at Deir Yassin.
Benny Morris laments that the reason the I/P conflict want’ resolved was because Israel didn’t finish the job.
You have to admire Michael LeFavour’s justification and spin on the bombing of the King David hotel and how it wasn’t a terrorist atack because you see, bombs were not illegal. That has to take the cake. Michael LeFavour then explains that it wasn’t a real terrorist attack, because according to him the hotel was phoned in advance. Of course, if that were true, 91 people would not have been killed, Jews included.
Perhaps Hamas should just remember to phone in when they set off a rocket and Israel would have nothing to complain about.
There is no speculation about Deir Yassin, because we again, hate eyewitness testimony to what took place.
While Deir Yassin does not represent Jewish behavior in general, neither do the policies of Israel across the board. To claim that what happened was due to insufficient training is ludicrous. Israel have perpetrated crimes of that scale and worse on countless occasions since then with and without trained armies.
You think I haven’t heard your propaganda a hundred different times and in various versions? I step into the fray because I enjoy ridiculing ignorance and at the same time, my concern is that if this blog’s lies go unchecked it will feed a malevolent narrative that sanctions genocide. I don’t have the time to make a project of it, but I do what I can. I mean if Israel is as evil as the propaganda presented here says then the next step is to do something about it, right? And haven’t many of you stooges been duped to the point of supporting boycotts, protests, writing letters, and traveling to Israel to impede their defensive measures? Doesn’t justifying terrorism and blurring moral lines give comfort to those willing to kill? Willing to kill with or without your approval, I should add. Blogs like these are the Hutu Power Radios of the Internet, extolling the evils of the only Jewish state without examining the role they are playing in legitimizing and even fueling the anti-Israel violence. The sort of demonisation Weiss engages in is a proven precursor to genocide and my sole interest lies in protecting Jews from that happening. I am not a Jew, but enough is enough.
The British were no friends of the Jews and they are second only to the Nazis in responsibility for what happened. At a time when the Jewish people most needed a sanctuary the British were the gate keepers. They turned their backs on the Jews and all but shut down immigration to the safe haven that many could have made it to. Remember the Struma? The concentration camps on Cyprus? The blockade of weapons for Jews to defend themselves with on the eve of impending genocide? The threat of war if the Jews captured more of the Sinai? The rounding up and disarming of Jews that were just trying to defend themselves from Arab deprivations? The biggest fallacy of your statement that the Israel was founded on terrorism is that Israel was founded on love for the land, the overblown Jewish terrorism you allude to was a reaction to Arab violence and British political scheming that exacerbated the situation where an unknowable number, perhaps millions of Jews could have been saved. The groups formed because the British they relied on to protect them from Arab violence failed or were even complicit in the attacks and or indifferent to the carnage. The first attack on the British occurred AFTER the White Paper shut down Jewish escape in 1939. The Arab terrorists of today are under no such existential threats, they have places to live, and if they cease violence none will touch them. In short, there is no compelling reason to accept the need for their terrorism, or accept their despicible targeting of civilians at that. The Irgun made efforts to warn the British to minimize innocent deaths, the opposite of Arab goals today, which you are happy to ignore in your crusade to demonise the Jews.
1. It wasn’t just Czechoslovakia that broke through the arms embaro. The Irgun were receiving aid and arms from Nazi affiliated fascist groups in Italy, which debunks the notion that the Jews were defenseless. That was the point I was making, but in your feverish attempt to get involved in the fray, you overlooked that argument.
Can you source this? And you do know there is a vast difference between purchasing small arms and receiving them for free because the supplier shares some common cause, don’t you? And we are talking about tanks, artillery, and war planes…not bullets and rifled barrels if this is what you claim constitutes being “armed”. Just about every Arab family had a weapon of some sort through tradition, the Jews were traditionally not armed. Your statement in no way debunks the notion that Jews were defenseless or proves that they were aligned with Nazis as you claim. Defenseless in the context I used it meant defenseless against heavy weapons. Ted Horne in his book, A Job Well Done, makes the claim that an offshoot of the Irgun, LEHI, received funding from the Italians, however, there is little evidence, aside from a British intelligence report claiming LEHI was to receive monthly funds. There is no indication they ever received this money, nor did Heller in his more detailed book, The Stern Gang: Ideology, Politics and Terror 1940-1949, find this to be true either. Can you source your statement that the Irgun received “aid” from the Nazis or fascists in Italy? When war broke the Irgun ceased attacks on Britain, but the LEHI continued to fight imperialism. I mention them above because it would make more sense that they are the ones that wuld have received aid if what you claim is true. Can you detail exactly what this so called aid was? I realize Mussolini was an avowed communist early in his life and was infatuated with figures like Karl Marx, which may explain some leanings toward Jewish communist endeavors, but by 1948 that was hardly the case. I think you have been reading too much Falsistine 101 and Wikipedia.
2. Whatever your theories were about why the Jews won, it doesn’t support the argument that the Jews were defenseless. No, the Jewish side actually attacked the British in Palestine, and received support from Nazi affiliated groups, so they certainly did no fight and serve under the British flag. In fact, there were 150,000 German Jews serving in the Nazi army and the Zionist terrorist group, Irgun, was also in bed with the Nazis. How does the bombing of the King David Hotel come under the guise of serving under the British flag. Unlike the Zionists, most Arabs and Palestinians defied Hussein’s calls for Jihad against the British.
Jews fought under flags of every nation they resided in. That is not what we are talking about. I am talking about large scale Jewish involvement, an all Jewish unit to counter the all Muslim SS Division Husseini was involved in creating. Jews volunteered to fight against the Nazis in far greater proportion than their numbers, but of course some Jews also fought for the Nazis. Phillip Weiss and his ilk fight for the murderers of Jews with all their intellectual effort, why should anyone be surprised that some Jews fought for the Nazis? Many of those men did not even consider themselves Jewish and had embraced patriotism to Germany. They were called hybrids, Mischlinge. During the course of the war even they, the ones known as first degree Mischlinge were incarcerated. To those German Jews, their Jewishness was nothing more than a nuisance, I dare speculate none were practicing Jews. To Weiss and Horowitz their Jewishness is a weapon they think gives them credibility to ignorant dolts that lap their detritus up, they are Jews in name only, which to me means they are not Jews. I feel no compulsion to accept Jewish rules at determining who is or isn’t a Jew. To me it is a matter of spirituality. At any rate, can you source your figure of “150,000″? I have seen “estimates” of up to that number, but you claim it is a “fact”. Can you source it? Why am I not surprised?
As to the King David Hotel bombing, you ask how does it fit with serving under the British flag in WWII? I feel like I am talking to inattentive children here. The Hotel was bombed AFTER the war. You claim the Irgun was in bed with the Nazis, but you have yet to document it or place it in context where some small connection exists. How does strangling Jewish immigration during the Holocaust come under the guise of siding with the Jews? Most Arabs did not heed Husseini’s calls to murder Jews? Most Arabs are women, children, and the elderly, by default your statement is true based solely on demographics. What prominent Arab leader called for peace? Can you name one? Or had the Husseini clan murdered all of them by that time?
3. We know from countless statements from Zionists prior to the creation of Israel that the Zionists were itching for a war and knew that they would never achieve their aims of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority without inciting such a war.
When I was a young Marine I was itching for a war myself, but I was unwilling to support starting one for no good reason. I would like to challenge you on any statement you have and place it into context. The Muslim Jewish relationship had been that of master and oppressed. Common sense would tell you that a supremacist is not going to give up power without a some degree of fight. The countless statements you refer to may have been speculation or may have been written AFTER violent Arab aggression against immigrating Jews had already manifest itself. Your point? The US has millions of illegal Mexican immigrants but somehow even the most outraged amongst us seems to control their urge to go on violent killing and looting sprees against them. As hard as it is for you to accept, immigration is not land theft.
Your diatribe about the Jews having nowhere to run with their children, loving the land itself more than life, and the realization of a two thousand year old fulfillment is largely fiction and myth. For a start, there were numerous , locations considered for the Israel, including Africa and Australia, so the fact that Israel ended up in Palestine is largely due to the obsessions of secular non religious Zionists. Most of the world’s Jews, including those living in Palestine, were not Zioniosts and were largely opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.
Where did they have to go when the tanks rolled in? If they didn’t love Jerusalem why did real Jews turn towards the place every day for two thousand years and pray for a return? Why did a small community cling to the place while enduring beard pulling, theft, rape, humiliation, and the whims of random massacres? In order for your statement to be true, you would have to include the Jews in name only. No suggested place for the Jews made sense and all were rejected, your point?
Your last point as to why the Jews won is a blatant admission that Israel committed vast acts of terrorism, though it probably didn’t occur to you. When you type, “they destroyed key Arab villages” does it not occur to you in the slightest, that this was the highest and most extreme acts of terrorism? Your myopia and blinkeredness is mind boggling. Here you are claiming that the Jews were at risk of being exterminated, while explanation that Israel succeeded because it exterminated Arab village and did so before the Arab armies attacked. Never does it occur to you that this is what incited the Arab armies. No, ion your mind, it was all motivated by an irrational hatred towards Jews.
How was it Israel that committed terrorism before the state was formed? On this very thread I was roundly attacked by pothead when I misunderstood him. Go back and read what I said. Villages were destroyed because conventional forces were staging at the border and diplomacy had failed, the choice was to leave a supply point and a hostile population at your back or neutralize the threat. The highest and most extreme acts of terrorism were the killings of any Jew that could not run from an axe wielding mob at Hebron, long before any Arab village needed to be dismantled. As to extermination? I never said that. Those are your ignorant words. I said people were pushed out of certain villages and the buildings destroyed so that fedayin would not just come and occupy the shells or abandoned buildings. The Arab armies had been excited long before. This was a reaction to violent Arab, racist rejection of Jews. The hatred was not irrational at all if you understand the Quran and the Jew hatred codified in Islam’s canonical texts, the Hadith and Sira.
Former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, wrote in his book, “Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy”, that the Arab states were defeated before the war had even started. In fact, he writes that as far as they were concerned, lost already as early as 1936-1939, because they have fought against the British mandate and the Israeli or the Jewish Yishuv, the Jewish pre-state, and they were defeated then, so they came to the hour of trial in 1948 already as a defeated nation. That is, the War of 1948 was won already in 1936, and they had no chance to win the war in 1948.
I have not read that particular book, but I am sure you are misunderstanding it or have not read it yourself, which is a weakness of relying on someone’s propaganda to formulate your opinions. I would like to address the absurdity of your claim though, if the Arabs had tanks, artillery, and war planes, how were they defeated 12 years in advance without firing a shot in your opinion? Why bother toeing the line if you do not intend to fight? For show? Is that why they ran at the sight of 4 war planes when they outnumbered the untrained Jews defending Tel Aviv by more than 10 to 1 with artillery and tanks support vs fire bombs and home made machine guns and mortars? Your apology is weak and illogical.
4. Yes the Jews did indeed drive 750,000 Arabs from their homes. This has been documented by historian Beeny Morris and Illan Pappe. What’s more, we have the admission in the form of coutless quotes from Zionists, before and after the ethnic cleansing, that this was pre meditated and necessary in order to establish a Jewsih majority. The fantast is that the likes of Michael LeFavour insist it was one big happy accident and that the Zionists founders go what they wanted by purely unintended consequences.
No, the Jews did not drive 750,000 Arabs from their homes. That number is bloated beyond logic and their is zero evidence that they were driven from their homes. The majority left of their own free will. The largest single group was even begged to stay in Haifa. The only ethnic cleansing outside of your (after the fact) imagination was committed against Jews in all areas occupied illegally by Arab forces. The fact is, if Arabs had accepted Jews as neighbors and more importantly equals, there would have been no refugees formed. The fault of the formation is squarely on the shoulders of the Arab aggression. At best we can determine who is actually a refugee under accepted international definitions and work to compensate them. The compensation is owed to them by the Arab states, which I suggest should be in the form of allowing them to immigrate and become citizens of their host nations responsible for the mess they are in now.
You have to admire Michael LeFavour’s justification and spin on the bombing of the King David hotel and how it wasn’t a terrorist atack because you see, bombs were not illegal. That has to take the cake. Michael LeFavour then explains that it wasn’t a real terrorist attack, because according to him the hotel was phoned in advance. Of course, if that were true, 91 people would not have been killed, Jews included.
I didn’t say bombs were not illegal. You asked a retard’s question of “how” they did it. I said that explosives are not illegal to acquire for construction, logic demanded you fill in the blanks and understand that the explosives were easy to get, but used as a bomb. Obviously you fail in the logic department as most of the Mondoweiss thralls do. How does a British clerk’s refusal to act on the warning mean that 91 people would not have died? Why bother releasing the kitchen staff before the explosion if killing was the objective? The hotel was targeted because it had a list of names of Jews that were at risk of being imprisoned stored there. The list of names was the target, not people. But why do you pretend to care anyway? The people you champion have created the ugliest society earth has ever known where blood, murder, and suicide are national goals.
Perhaps Hamas should just remember to phone in when they set off a rocket and Israel would have nothing to complain about.
It would go a long way to improving their image if they did as the IRA and the Jews did and phone in building bombs instead of trying to kill as many innocent Jews as possible. The groups are so dissimilar they are not even in the same category.
There is no speculation about Deir Yassin, because we again, hate eyewitness testimony to what took place.
Right, and plenty of eye witnesses are conflicting their stories, huh? Speculation is all we have at this point. Would you care to comment on the Hatuel family massacre, done by your Arab friends and honored with a parade of thousands and at Voice of Palestine radio?
While Deir Yassin does not represent Jewish behavior in general, neither do the policies of Israel across the board. To claim that what happened was due to insufficient training is ludicrous. Israel have perpetrated crimes of that scale and worse on countless occasions since then with and without trained armies.
Because Shingo says so? The fact is, the men at Deir Yassin were untrained that were branded as trouble makers by the Yishuv. Broad and spurious charges of crimes on countless occasions is pure BS. The fact is Israel has an ethical armed force that compares with any force ever assembled in morality. The people you wish to see defeat them are among the worst ever assembled. The only question remains is why you support evil.
Michael LeFavour,
Your tirade is so full of distortions that I am goingto have to rebut you in installments.
Part 1 of 2
Jewish or not, your tirade demonstrates the very embodiment of the Zionist pathology that dismisses any even-handedness and scrutiny of Israel as a call for Israel’s destruction. Calling Israel to account and demanding that they behave like a civilized society is not a proven precursor to genocide, though predictably, that’s how the Zionist cult responds to any outside pressure for Israel’s conformity to international law, U.N. resolutions that call for a return to the 1967 borders, and the lifting of the blockade on Gaza.
You’ve also swallowed the popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war hook, line and sinker. Without the British, there would have been no Israel, but they were the enemy then. Without the UN there would be no Israel either, but they are then enemy now.
Yes, the British did make life hard for Jews in WWII, but the so called “blockade of weapons” affected all warring parties, not just Israel. In fact, the embargo impacted the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were depleting their arms and ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a huge arms shipment from Czechoslovakia. Shipments of that magnitude are pretty hard to miss. They got through to Israel, because they were allowed to.
There was no impending genocide, though you clearly couldn’t resist the temptation to indulge in the kind of hysterical hyperbole we’ve come to expect from Zionist hacks. The war was a response to the murders and terrorist attacks the Zionists were carrying out in Palestine. You don’t get to claim victim hood of an impending genocide when you’ve been busy murdering people, carrying out drive by shootings, and setting off bombs.
The Zionists were not defending themselves from Arab deprivations so much as perpetrating them. The British were there to keep the peace. Zionists terrorists even threatened to bomb London and were caught in the act. They murdered UN Representatives and British soldiers, and then booby trapped their bodies. Yeah, they were soooo defenceless.
You’re wasting your time disputing that Israel was founded on terrorism. Zionism was a political movement based on a secular ideology and was rejected by most of the worlds Jewry, including those who already lived in Palestine. If anything, Israeli terrorism was under reported, and stopped being called terrorism once Israel was created and the terror gangs were re-branded as the IDF. The violence was initiated by the Zionists because they wanted the land that already belonged to the Palestinians.
Ben-Gurion, was quite clear about the need to drive out the indigenous population:
“With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority …. There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)”
As the ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, stated as early as 1905:
“ [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.” (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
Zangwill is already telling us, in 1905, that the Zionists were going to. The Zionists hit the ground running from the moment they arrived. It was not a reaction to Arab violence, it was a precursor to it.
As for Jews being saved, the Zionists didn’t care about them either. Ben Gurion admitted that the Zionists were happy to sacrifice Jews as a price to establish Israel.
“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”
The British stood in the way of their goal of eradicating the Palestinians and achieving a Jewish majority. Without these terror gangs, there would be no Jewish majority today.
Israel was founded on terrorism. End of story.
The “Arab terrorists of today” are under far greater threats than the Zionists were in 1939. They have no way to defend themselves against the world’s 4th most powerful army. They have no home and are being driven off their land, massacred by the thousands, and starved to death. They have every reason to resist, but like the good Zionist stooge that you are, resistance always means terrorism.
“Can you source this? And you do know there is a vast difference between purchasing small arms and receiving them for free because the supplier shares some common cause, don’t you?”
The Jewish Stern gang received funding and arms from the Italian Fascists to resist the British Mandate in Palestine. In fact, the Stern gang’s collaboration with the Fascists and Nazis was going on while their Jewish brothers were being persecuted in Nazi concentration camps. It should also be noted that when the Americans, British, and their Arab allies were busy blocking the Desert Fox’s (Erwin Rommel) advances in north Africa, the Stern gang’s leader Yitzhak Shamir and the Irgun gang’s leader Menachem Begin were busy ambushing British soldiers, blowing up the vital Haifa-Cairo railroad supply line, and terrorizing British and Palestinian civilians (Righteous Victims, p. 174). And when Yitzhak Shamir, Israel’s future Prime Minister in the 1980s, was asked to explain their collaboration with the Fascists, he replied:
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (One Palestine Complete , p. 464).
One of the MOST pro-Israel historians, Martin Gilbert, wrote:
“Avraham Stern who had formed a breakaway ‘Irgun in Israel’ movement (also known as the Stern Gang), tried to make contact with Fascist Italy in the hope that, if Mussolini were to conquer the Middle East, he would allow a Jewish State to be set up in Palestine. When Mussolini’s troops were defeated in North Africa, Stern tried to make contacts with Nazi Germany, hoping to sign a pact with Hitler which would lead to a Jewish State once Hitler had defeated Britain. After two members of the Stern’s Gang had killed the Tel Aviv [British] police chief and two of his officers, Stern himself was caught and killed. His followers [chief among them Yitzhak Shamir who led the Stern Gang after Stern's death] continued on their path of terror.” (Israel: A History, p. 111-112)
BTW. Arabs also fought under flags of every nation they resided in, except for the Nazis of course. 150,000 Jews is nor just some Jews. It is 7 times the number of Muslims that were involved in the Muslim SS Division. And since when does the question of whether someone is a practising Jew make any difference? Talk about clutching at straws! According to Jews, one is a Jew or one is not, no practice is required and one needn’t be a Jew to be a Zionist.
“ Can you source it? Why am I not surprised?”
Not surprised that I haven’t answered your question or rebutted your sophomoric arguments until AFTER you’ve hit the send button? What a genius! Are you in the habit of answering your own questions, or are you simply that desperate to convince yourself that you are right?
Here is the quote from the Reuters article, 2003.
“(Reuters) — As many as 150,000 men of Jewish descent served in the German military under Adolf Hitler, some with the Nazi leader’s explicit consent, according to a U.S. historian who has interviewed hundreds of former soldiers.
Bryan Mark Rigg, history professor at the American Military University in Virginia, told Reuters on Thursday that the issue of soldiers of partial Jewish descent was long a somewhat taboo subject, overlooked by most academics as it threw up thorny questions.”
There is also a book on the subject:
link to kansaspress.ku.edu
Whether the King David Hotel bombing took place before or after the war ended is irrelevant. It demonstrates the lack of loyalty the Zionist had to any cause but their own. The same Zionists, who I’ve proved were in bed with the Nazis, attacked the British as a means to achieve a Jewish state. While the British continued to occupy Palestine, this was never going to be possible.
And why do you bother even asking what “prominent Arab leader called for peace”. What is it with you Zionist psychopaths, that the Arabs must always placate those that are murdering them? Name one prominent Zionist leader called for peace.
“When I was a young Marine I was itching for a war myself, but I was unwilling to support starting one for no good reason.”
So now that you’re a former Marine, your both itching for war, and willing to support wars for no good reason ie. attacking Iran for nukes it doesn’t have? That’s progress!
It’s fun to watch you Zionist Hasbrats go into spin mode when confronted with irrefutable evidence. All of a sudden , you find respect for context. I have no space here to list all the quotes from Zionists endorsing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but suffice to say that like the one from Israel Zangwill, most date back half a century before Israel was created.
Just this week, neteyahu admitted that the Palestinians were indeed “expelled”, so you might want to give up trying to prove otherwise.
link to haaretz.com
No, the Muslim Jewish relationship had not been that of master and oppressed. It was historically based on protector and protected and later in Palestine, one of mutual respect. Muslims were the only people who historical protected Jews.
Your Mexican analogy is a strike out too. If the Mexicans were driving you off your land, you would undoubtedly go on violent killing and looting sprees against them. Immigration, even illegal immigration, is not land theft, but ethnic cleansing is.
Part 2 of 2
“Where did they have to go when the tanks rolled in?”
They didn’t have to go anywhere because they were much better armed and by October, had superior numbers.
Please spare us the sanctimonious BS about the love the Jews had for Jerusalem. Love of land doesn’t stop tanks in their tracks. Jerusalem means as much to the Christians and Muslims as it does to Jews. Jews that were already living in Palestine peacefully alongside the Palestinians, didn’t feel the obsession to own Jerusalem which BTW had passed from Jewish control a few millennia ago. And like I pointed out many times already, most of the worlds Jews did not share any dream of returning to Jerusalem. To this day, most of the world’s Jews still refuse to.
“How was it Israel that committed terrorism before the state was formed?”
Destroying villages is not terrorism? What planet did you say you were from?
Again, this makes a mockery of your suggestion that there was any threat to the Israelis of genocide or extermination. You’re admitting that villages were destroyed (around 360 I believe) and yet you still insist there was no ethnic cleansing? How do you wingnuts convince yourselves to ignore that massive contradiction?
If the highest and most extreme acts of terrorism were the killings of any civilians that could not run, then Israel did that and much worse in Deir Yassin.
Of course, you’ll insist that all the destruction and massacring of the population by Israel wasn’t extermination, it was all self defence, because as we all know that by definition, Israel are and will always be, the victims. We hear that same carnard to this day. Anything that Israel does is self defence, any action by Palestinians is terrorism and the motivation for that drives the Palestinians is not outrage, injustice or revenge, it’s the verses from the Quaran.
“I have not read that particular book, but I am sure you are misunderstanding it or have not read it yourself, which is a weakness of relying on someone’s propaganda to formulate your opinions.”
What an insufferable hypocrite you are. Have you read the Quaran or the Islam’s canonical texts, the Hadith and Sira, or are you relying on someone’s propaganda to formulate your opinions?
If you had indeed been a marine and known anything about history of war, you would know that it was littered with examples of sides going to war in spite of having no chance to win it. Nasser never intended to go to war with Israel either, but once he was attacked in 1967, he had no choice but to respond.
“Senior Hagana commanders met with committee [UN Special Committee On Palestine-UNSCOP] members in Jerusalem’s Talpiot quarter in similarly surreptitious circumstances to express confidence that Jewish forces, which they numbered at 90,000, including 35,000 reservists, could overcome any Arab assault should it come to war.”
link to jpost.com
And FYI, the Jews were NEVER outnumbered by10 to 1, but 4 to 1, but why let facts get int he way of a perfectly good myth right ?
“Thus, even though the Arab countries outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews’ favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)
Is is a fact that Zionists drove 750,000 Arabs from their homes. That number is well established and has been documented by Israeli historians. None of the Palestinians left of their own free will. People never leave their homes of their own free will.
No group was begged to stay, and we know this for the simple fact that they were not allowed to return. In fact, it was the Arab states that were ordering them to remain.
‘In general, during the first months of the war until April 1948 the Palestinian leadership struggled, if not very manfully, against the exodus: “The AHC [Arab Higher Committee] decided …. to adopt measures to weaken the exodus by imposing restrictions, penalties, threats, propaganda in the press [and] on the radio …. [The AHC] tried to obtain the help of neighboring countries in this context ….. [The AHC] especially tried to prevent the flight of army-age young males,” according to IDF intelligence’. (Benny Morris, p. 60)
And before you bore us with your predictable lie that Husseini called for the Palestinians to leave or that they left of their own free will, Glubb Pasha, the British officer of the Jordanian army during the 1948 war, was on the spot at the time and therefore was in a position to know what is going on. He said:
“The story which Jewish publicity at first persuaded the world to accept , that the [Palestinian] Arab refugees left voluntarily, is not true. Voluntary emigrants do not leave their homes with only the clothes they stand in. People who decided to leave house do not do so in such a hurry that they lose other members of their family — husband losing sight of his wife, or parents of their children. The fact is that the majority left in panic flight, to escape massacre. They were in fact helped on their way by the occasional massacres–not of very many at a time, but just enough to keep them running.” (Bitter Harvest, p. 95)
Again from Benny Morris.
‘Whatever the reasoning and attitude of the Arab states’ leaders, I have found no contemporary evidence to show that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti [Hajj Amin al-Husseini] ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus during April [1948]. It may be worth noting that for decades the policy of the Palestinian Arab leaders had been to hold fast to the soil of Palestine and to resist the eviction and displacement of Arab communities’. (Benny Morris, p. 66)
I never asked how the Kind David Hotel was bombed. I pointed out the absurdity of the suggestion that those who carried it out were defenceless.
What evidence is there that the British refused to head any warning, and what evidence is there that any warning was even given? Quick, produce the link now or admit you are lying. Sorry too slow.
Even your justification for why the hotel was targeted is revealing, as well as mind bogglingly lame. According to you , the British a list of names of Jews that were at risk of being imprisoned. Copies of the lists could have existed elsewhere (the British did have telegram facilities) and thus there was no guarantee that bombing an entire hotel would assure those that appeared on the list would not be off the hook. Of course, you haven’t even bothered to address the fact that those that appeared on the list had perpetrated crimes as should have been arrested. Then again, seeing as law and order are an anathema to Israel, it’s hardly surprising that it meaningless to you.
And for the ugliest society earth has ever known, Israel probably takes the cake. When was the last time you saw Muslim families picnicking on a hillside as they watched a city being bombed?
As for targeting civilians, Israel has done so like no other. Ze’ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha’aretz) wrote:
“The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets.”.
The Israeli propagandist and NYT columnist, Tom Friedman, not only admits that Israel targets civilians but endorses it. He expains that the 2006 Israeli invasion and bombing of Lebanon was, contrary to conventional wisdom, a great success and that the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians was a vital aspect of the Israeli strategy — the centerpiece, actually, of teaching Lebanese civilians a lesson they would not soon forget.
link to nytimes.com
“Right, and plenty of eye witnesses are conflicting their stories, huh?”
Really? What eyewitnesses dispute the massacre that took place?
I would condemn any massacre done by anyone. It is you, it appear that is justifying a massacre perpetrated by your terrorist friends. It’s ironic that you should mention the Hatuel mass murder for a number of reasons.
1. Israeli Hasbrats like yourself often dismiss the Jenin as a masacre because only 52 Palestinians were killed, yet it’s a massacre when 4 Israeli Jews are murdered.
2. IDF soldiers, the ones you say are the most ethical and moral in the world, proudly wear t—shirts with the image of a pregnant Palestinian woman and the logo, “One shot, 2 kills”.
“The fact is, the men at Deir Yassin were untrained that were branded as trouble makers by the Yishuv.”
I don’t know why keep obsessing about how training is supposed to avert a massacre. Massacres happen out of an intense and irrational blood-lust, and because of the process of dehumanizing the enemy (part of your so called training), not because skills are lacking. Was the My Lai massacre because of lack of training? Would the Holocaust have been averted had the Nazis been better trained?
Try and use your brain. It might hurt at first, but it will get easier with practice.
There is nothing ethical about Israel’s armed force. It routinely inflicts collective punishment, targets civilians, and wilfully destroys property and routinely commits war crimes. Aba Eben, and Israeli diplomat was commented on a speech made earlier by Menachem Begin, which describes “Israel wantonly inflicting every possible measure of death ans anguish on civilian populations, in a mood reminiscent of regimes which neither Mr Begin nor I would dare to mention by name”.
Even the terrorist leader, as former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin saw the parallels between the IDF and the Nazis yet in your disturbed mind, they are moral an ethical
Your simply a rampant Islamophobe and an pathological racist.
Your tirade is so full of distortions that I am going to have to rebut you in installments.
Part 1 of 2
I am not a Jew, but Muslim or not your tirade demonstrates the very embodiment of the hateful pathology that dismisses any even-handedness and scrutiny of the Arabs calling for genocide or for an end to their desire for Jewish blood. Calling Israel to account for phantom crimes blown out of proportion and demanding that they behave in a manner and standard no other civilized society is held to is a proven precursor to genocide, though predictably, that’s how your hateful cult responds to any outside pressure for your cause to conform to international law, reject non-binding U.N. resolutions that call for a return to the the Auschwitz cease fire line, and demands that Gazans stand on their own two feet and produce a viable economy instead of smuggling more and more weapons to murder Jews with.
You’ve also swallowed the popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war hook, line and sinker. Without the British, there would have been no transJordan theft of 75% of the Jewish homeland and an encouraged genocide launched by the Arabs against the defensless Jewish community, but they were the enemy then. Despite all illegal efforts at the UN to change the binding terms of the Mandate for Palestine treaty, Israel was formed, and the UNs anger has never recovered, they are still the enemy now.
Yes, the British did make extermination of Jews easy in WWII, the blockade of weapons affected only places Jews lived, some Arabs were caught in this unavoidable situation, but the intent was to keep Jews unarmed to stack the deck against them in the attempted genocide Britain encouraged and knew was coming. In fact, the embargo impacted the Jews exactly as it was intended. While the Arab terrorists had free access to border movement to resupply their arms and ammunitions, the untrained Jewish defenders were depleting ammunition defending themselves from terror attacks without any means of easily resupplying.
There was an impending genocide, though you clearly can’t resist the temptation to indulge in the kind of hysterical hyperbole we’ve come to expect from Jew hating hacks that deny it. The race war was a response to the peaceful arrival of Jews in the territory mislabeled Palestine. You don’t get to claim victim hood of a Jewish take over when you’ve been busy murdering peaceful Jewish immigrants, carrying out drive by shootings, and setting off bombs because the thought of a Jew governing a Muslim is an abomination to your Islamic supremacist ideals.
The Arabs were not defending themselves from Jewish deprivations, because the simple fact is Jews were the victims of Arab violence until they formed their own secret organizations to fight back with. The British sided with the Arabs instead of keeping the peace. Arab terrorists even murdered Jews with British officer’s permission and the officer was even caught and reported on. The Arabs put up fliers in Damasacus that offered a rifle, a camel, and supplies to any man for a promise to enter the territory mislabeled Palestine and kill Jews. Yeah, the Jews were soooo guilty of causing the conflict.
You’re wasting your time stating that Israel was founded on terrorism. Zionism is a political movement based on a simple recognition that the Jewish people have a right to determine their own fate, this is accepted by most of the worlds Jewry, including those who already lived in the territory misabled Palestine. If anything, Arab terrorism was under reported, and stopped being called terrorism once Israel had a strong enough force to defend itself from Arab genocidal threats, everyone likes an under dog, the PLO and mujhadin terror gangs have been re-branded as the Palestinian Authority. The violence was initiated by the Arab Muslims because they refuse to share any land with non-Muslims even if they are the rightful heirs to the land of Israel.
Many propagandists chasing shadows attempt to cherry pick Ben-Gurion quotes, claiming he felt the need to drive out the invading Arab population in favor of the Jewish indigenous population, many of these quotes were taken from statements made AFTER the Arabs resorted to violence, but this is misinformation since Ben Gurion stated:
“Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.”
Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, by Shabtai Teveth, page 32 (Shabtai Teveth is probably the best historian that ever wrote about Ben Gurion).
“We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.”
Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians, by Efraim Karsh.
Zionist, Israel Zangwill, understood that Islam was a supremacist ideology that codifies Jew hatred, he sadly recognized that although Jews would come in peace he doubted Muslims would let them have peace, he predicted this as early as 1905:
“[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.” (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
Zangwill is already telling us, in 1905, what the Muslims were going to do to peaceful immigrants. I thought you said Muslims treated Jews so well? Then you bring evidence that Mulims were “accustomed for centuries to despise us (Jews).” Thanks for reinforcing what I have been saying all along with evidence of your own. The Muslims started murdering Jews from the moment they arrived. Jews reacted to Arab violence the same as any other people would and armed themselves with what they could, it was a precursor to the wider conflict the Arabs insisted on for reasons of racism and bigotry.
As for Jews being saved, much is made about a single cherry picked statement made in a secret meeting after Ben Gurion had returned from Britain begging the British to ease immigration restrictions on Jews in what turned out to be their hour of greatest need. Ben Gurion cared deeply for all Jews and dedicated his entire life in fighting for Jewish rights, but understood from the fruitless trip that the British had no intentions of ever allowing a Jewish majority in Israel or of then jeopardizing access to oil or of provoking the racist Arabs, who were sitting the fence while the world fought an epic war of tyranny vs freedom, from siding openly with the Nazi cause they privately supported. Ben Gurion was human like everyone else and in a moment of anger used an absurd proposition to reinforce a point on his colleagues how important it was for Jews to be allowed to immigrate to their homeland, he stated hypothetically: “If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” Anti-Semites and cherry pickers take this statement as a callous abandonment of morality, but taken in context it shows that Ben Gurion was focused on what he believed was a goal so righteous that it transcended any suffering the Jewish people had endured. What yarn spinners fail to realize aside from the context and place it was spoken is ‘when’ the hypothetical statement was made. Ben Gurion spoke these words BEFORE he understood the full horror of what had happened. A single statement out of 57 years of statements has been misued by terrorist supporting Jew haters tying to misrepresent what Zionism is actually about. Ben Gurion’s subsequent actions and deeds do not support the theory that this was a driving force behind the Zionist cause as fact twisters imply. I suggest you read, BEN-GURION The Burning Ground 1886-1948, By Shabtai Teveth for an accurate understanding of who the man was instead of proving how ignorant you are of history.
The British stood in the way of the establishment of Israel and to the extent they were able to, by stretching international laws they were bound by, promoted the goal of eradicating the Jews and maintaining an Arab majority. Without these Arab terror gangs and their British enablers, there would have been peace and many more survivors of the Holocaust today. Israel was founded on love of the land and peaceful immigration. End of story.
The Jewish people are under far greater threats today than the Arabs have ever been. The Arabs have a vast arsenal arrayed against the only country in the world who’s daily existence is constantly at threat of genocide to the point that even Israel’s women must become warriors by neccessity because of Arab aggression. If the Arabs stop rattling their sabers Israel will not feel compelled to defend itself and might become a normal nation where it’s women and children do not have to carry guns everywhere fearing mass murder at any moment. The Arabs have 22 countries they can integrate with zero problems into, but they demand the tiny sliver of the only Jewish land in the world where they massacred Jews by the thousands, and have confined the Jews into a bantustan like box, where the Jews are under pain of death from leaving. The Jews have every reason to resist genocide and Arab aggression, but like the good Muslim stooge that you are, resistance to that always means Jews have no right to live on what you feel is Islamic land and are guilty of every spurious charge you can dream up.
I was going to continue ‘correcting’ your story, but the deeper I get into it the more I realize I am dealing with not only an ignorant person, but a thief. From the section of “Ben Gurion” through all the cherry picked quotes to page numbers and references you have stolen someone else’s words without giving credit. You cut and pasted most of what you posted here directly from….
link to palestineremembered.com
I was accused of doing a cut and paste job here, so it is odd that you are guilty of what I am charged with. I understand paraphrasing, or borrowing a line or two, or having to loook up exact numbers of tanks involved in a certain battle, but outright theft of someone’s work without credit is wrong no matter which side of the debate you are on. Your argument is weak because of it. You are relying on someone else’s research instead of verifying it for yourself, such as the claim that the Irgun received money from the Italian fascists. Palestine Remembered gets it wrong, so the parrot of Palestine Rembembered propaganda gets it wrong and looks foolish for theft as well. You don’t have to be ashamed your source is biased, I am perfectly capable of discarding the extra commentary twisting a fact, as long as the basic fact is there somewhere and you attribute your material.
I was going to continue correcting your version of history, but I don’t feel like addressing cut and paste garbage that had no merit where you found it in the first place, so I am just going to make some independent observations here and there.
“BTW. Arabs also fought under flags of every nation they resided in, except for the Nazis of course.”
With a straight face you can tell this absurd lie, because like a child that has been told that Santa Claus brings toys at Christmas, you are completely ignorant of which you speak. What was Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri? The Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Led by a man calling himself the Fuhrer of Syria. Ever hear of the Ba’ath party? Nazi admirers and funded by Nazis. “We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books… We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism.” Sami al-Joundi, one of the founders of the Syrian Ba’ath Party. Ever hear of the coup in Baghdad in 1941? Or the Jew murder rampage that resulted from it called the farhud? Nazi equipment give free of charge. All spurred on by radio Berlin and pro-Nazi leaders as well. Islam and Nazism are perfet matches with Jew hatred as a central theme, it also shares similarities with Mondoweiss propaganda and the stooges that believe it, come to think of it.
How can you deny history anyway? Documented history? The minutes of a meeting between an Arab leader and Hitler are recorded for the world to see the Arab Nazi connection in…Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, on page 881 ff, the following was recorded…
“The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany’s victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.”
As you can see from a direct conversation with Hitler himself the recorded minutes do not support your childish lie that the Arabs fought for everyone but the Nazis. Hitler explained that he would openly declare his support for the Arabs after his tanks had arrived and he concluded the meeting with this….”The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.
The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.” In a rational forum, some of your co-conspirators would correct you for fear of the entire group of dupes looking like idiots, which leaves me wondering why none has stepped forward to help you out. Of course I was asked before if I thought this group was well read.
The German documentary, Rommel’s War, Rommel’s Treasure, was created and co-produced by historian Jorg Mullner, it was based on archives in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, where Rommel lived and sealed foreign ministry files in Berlin. “The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab antisemite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews.”
Ever hear of the Muslim Brotherhood? Nazis. Attorney John Loftus has deep flaws in his ignorant analysis of Islam, but he has details of history that can’t be swept aside. According to documents he has viewed, Hitler had Hassan al-Banna establish a spy network for Nazi Germany throughout Arabia, al-Banna promised Hitler that the Arabs would murder all the British when Rommel arrived. Loftus said, “These men were Nazi agents, they were spies, who adopted the Third Reich’s policy towards the Jews”.
“150,000 Jews is nor just some Jews. It is 7 times the number of Muslims that were involved in the Muslim SS Division.”
Where do you get those figures? When the division was forming, a hundred thousand Muslims volunteered to murder Jews and Serbian Christians, more came as jihadis from all corners of the world as well. It was not just the famous Handschar division, (which did well rounding up Jews and Christians to murder, and little else), The 21st SS Division Skanderbeg, (mostly Muslim Albanians), the 23rd Waffen SS Mountain Division “Kama” (Muslims) formed as well, but the front threatened to move past their training base and so they were parcelled out to other units and attached as battalions and auxilleries. During the war, about 70,000 Turkestani volunteers served within the German forces, its doubtful you have ever heard of the 162nd Turkestanisch Infanterie Division? In Italy they fought against the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, Japanese Americans, which was the most decorated regiment in American history. A battalion (about 20,000 Muslims) of Crimean Tartars fought in France, (Muslims), known for their atrocities against civilians and gang raping women they captured. In the battle for Stalingrad 3 Turkic (Muslims) battalions were cut to pieces by the Russians. In fact, when the Germans retreated from Russian territory Soviet Muslims followed them fearing reprisals for their whole hearted collaboration with the Germans, these were Chechneyens, Inguish, and others (Muslims). If you look at the deep intigration of Jews in German society the numbers that fought are only surprising at how small the number is. No such intigration of Muslims existed on that scale, yet they volunteered to fight alongside Nazis because the ideology is a hand in a glove match.
“And since when does the question of whether someone is a practising Jew make any difference?”
When a liar is trying to say that the Jews mostly fought for the Nazis I think it matters. I was born to a Catholic mother and an atheist father, should my actions reflect on the Catholic faith I have never adopted? Should I, a man never accepting Catholicism, be counted in a statistic that is meant to condemn Catholics?
Here was my original statement…”can you source your figure of “150,000″? I have seen “estimates” of up to that number, but you claim it is a “fact”. Can you source it?”
Your original statement was….”In fact, there were 150,000 German Jews serving in the Nazi army”
I asked you to source your statement that 150,000 Jews (“in fact”) served and you give me a source that says “as many as”…150,000. A vague statement on the high end was used by you here as a statement of “fact”. Just as your entire argument on every point is weak, you resort to exaggeration on something ridiculous. If you were not trying to embellish the story, why do you not source your numbers? You took the maximalist number and stated it was a “fact”, which is lying. I also found exactly what you wrote, here at StormFront… link to stormfront.org
Do you often post at Storm Front? It would not surprise me at all. It is funny, but you must not read your own links very well, because you keep reinforcing what I am saying with nearly every one you present. You linked me to an article about your book and look what I found…nearly exactly what I have said, “As Rigg fully documents for the first time, a great many of these men did not even consider themselves Jewish”. So if these men did not consider themselves Jewish, the same as I do not consider myself Catholic, doesn’t that make your childish implication that Jews sided with the Nazis a little foolish? I almost feel sorry for you except that I know I am dealing with someone that harbors a deep, deep irrational hatred of another people, we call that racism and bigotry. Hardly surprising you are attracted to this site like a moth to a flame.
“Whether the King David Hotel bombing took place before or after the war ended is irrelevant.”
Go back and read what you wrote. In the context of WWII, you asked, “How does the bombing of the King David Hotel come under the guise of serving under the British flag.” It absolutely matters that the war was long over in light of your ignorant suggestion that the bombing of the British Headquarters at the hotel hurt the war effort. Of course you did not know this until I just pointed it out for you. Your failure is that you are cherry picking for dirt against the Jews instead of trying to understand history in context.
“So now that you’re a former Marine, your both itching for war, and willing to support wars for no good reason ie. attacking Iran for nukes it doesn’t have?”
I believe going to war with an apocolyptical mad man trying to obtain a weapon that can usher in his end time scenario is a good cause. You are frightened the Jews will not be exterminated, but once again you have made a positive statement that Iran does not have nukes. Can you source this or are you raving again, as usual?
“the Muslim Jewish relationship had not been that of master and oppressed. It was historically based on protector and protected and later in Palestine, one of mutual respect. Muslims were the only people who historical protected Jews.”
What happend to the Jews of Medina, were they protected? Of Mecca? Of the Arabian penninusla? Does Shing’s version of protection mean mass murder, enslavement, and rape? Or do you subscribe to the supremacist version of religion (Islam) that does not see taking the life of mischief making non-believers, even ones with their hands bound, as murder, or having sex with an infidel woman that your right hand possesses as rape? When the Ottoman Land Laws were changed giving Jews some equality, the Muslims opposed it, what mutual respect are you talking about? The anger that Jews were going to be treated as equals was so forceful the laws had to be changed back in fear. Mutual respect? Show me any sura in the Quran that shows that Jews are equals to a Muslim? Ever hear of the Pact of Umar? No? Saying that Muslims were the only people who historically protected Jews has to top the list of arrogant stupidity? Ever hear of Oskar Schindler? Cyrus the Great? A city called Shanghai that accepted 30,000 escaping Jews from the Nazis? What a clown you are.
“Your Mexican analogy is a strike out too. If the Mexicans were driving you off your land, you would undoubtedly go on violent killing and looting sprees against them. Immigration, even illegal immigration, is not land theft, but ethnic cleansing is.”
If the Mexicans were doing that I would not go on a violent killing spree, are you so arrogant you are going to presume to speak for me now? Or are you just an ignorant toad. Muslims are killing or plotting to kill Americans 24/7 and I see them as a threat to everything we have built in America, but I have no intentions of killing any of them except in self defense if it came to it. The fact is Jews returned to their land in peace. They did not come with weapons of war, if they were armed at all it was to protect against Arab banditry, which was common. The example is perfect. Mexicans are using up our resources, over burdening our health care system and school system, and taking our jobs and livlihoods. And they don’t speak our language and don’t look like the majority of us. Unlike the racist Arabs Muslim bigots long used to a master oppressed relationship with their Jews, we are not killing and raping them. The example highlights the contrast in how good societies react vs not so good ones perfectly. The question remains with all the evidence, why do people like the site owners support the bad guys?
Part 1 of 2.
You’re clearly upset, which explains why you felt the need to paraphrase my post verbatgin and insert your own distortions. It’s reactionary and juvenile, which I find that a common trait among Zionists. It’s understandable given that your falsification and lies have grained no traction. As someone said in a recent thread, Zionists are such tools, but they tend to be rather blunt instruments.
Whether you are Jewish or not is irrelevant to the discussion. You don’t deny that you as a Zionist, and likely a messianic one at that. You’ve also left no doubt that you are also a rampant Islamophobe. Being a Zionist, especially the cult like fervor you’ve exhibited, precludes you from any claims to impartiality, let alone honesty. Falsifying reality is simply an inherent and conspicuous character of the Zionist, and you have not disappointed.
Israel’s crimes go largely unreported and whitewashed, not at all blown out of proportion. Following Israel’s attack on Qana in 2006, most were blissfully unaware of the prior 1996 Qana massacre which killed 106 killed. Nor is any mention made these days of the 15,000 Israel killed during their 18 year occupation of Southern Lebanon.
The Goldstone Reports points to 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year by Israel, yet this has been snuffed out by the media. The United States has blocked the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague and still you claim that Israel are being held to a higher standard?
I must say, I do pitty you when you make statements about even handedness, while Abe Foxman recently condemned the likelihood of even handedness being introduced by Mitchel. Foxman went so far as to state that not only had Israel never been subjected to even handedness, but that such a concept had no place in the discussion. The founders of J Street said their motivation for forming an alternative to AIPAC was witnessing the attack Howard Dean came under during his campaign for the 2004 Democratic nomination, when he suggested the US should be more even handed in relation to the conflict. It remains official US policy to back Israel unconditionally, but hey, if you insist on soiling yourself in public, suit yourself.
In a way you are right. Israel is held to a DIFFERNT standard, one that gives them carte blanche and facilitates their criminality, by remained unpunished and which guarantees them diplomatic immunity. Israel is indulged like no other and is the only state allowed to flout close to 100 resolutions without consequence It is allowed to maintain it’s farcical “nuclear ambiguity”, thereby enabling it to keep it’s nukes while receiving the world’s biggest welfare cheques and unlimited supplies of arms. Israel has a guarantee of protection by the US, even though it has not agreed to an allied agreement with the US, which would limit it’s options. Israel is encouraged to go on to see how far it can go.
And if that wasn’t Orwellian enough, Israel and it’s lackeys demand that Hamas and Hezbollah be disarmed, while on March 22nd, 14,000 tons of new US weapons arrived in Ashdod on the German cargo ship.
Hearing a Zionist cite “international law” with a straight face is like having Al Capone decrying tax evasion, only more perverse. International law only becomes of relevance to Ziofascists when not applied to Israel.
Gazans would stand on their own two feet if Israel would let them, but like the Nazis did to the Warsaw Ghetto, Israel keeps it’s boot on the jugular of Gaza. Israel intentionally kills civilians and destroys civilian institutions. No country could maintain any economic activity while subjected to these conditions as well as a brutal blockade, which itself is an act of war. The last time Israel was blockaded, it started a war, but the Palestinians are terrorists if they try it on.
link to guardian.co.uk
Of course, it doesn’t help when Tev Aviv and Washington orchestrate coups to overthrow the elected leadership in Gaza after you’ve just held elections.
link to vanityfair.com
As Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar explained in the one and only comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlements n the occupied territories, “Lords of the Land”;
“After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”
That doesn’t even mention the 7,700 shells Israel fired into Gaza between 2005/2006. Israel were never going to allow Gaza to become anything more than an open air concentration camp. As for smuggling weapons to murder Jews, you must be out of your fanatical mind. Any one of Israel’s 5000 US taxpayer supplied fighter-bombers could cause more death and devastation than all Palestinian rockets have caused since they began. 1,400 Palestinians were massacred by Israelis using state of the art weaponry, but all you can think about is whether any Jews got killed by firecrackers fired into Israel.
There was never a theft of 75% of the Jewish homeland, because there was no such thing as a Jewish homeland anywhere, let alone in TransJordan, until Israel stole it. For someone who claims to be the son of an atheist, it’s fascinating that you have such a penchant for archaic principles as divine rights. If you are referring to Jordan taking the West Bank, it wasn’t Jewish homeland at the time either. As is the case today, most of the world’s Jews didn’t live there or consider it their home.
As we have established, and as logic would dictate, the Jewish community was anything but defenseless, or they would have been overwhelmed. The British played no part in the extermination of Jews in WWII. Most of the Jews in Europe had no desire to travel to Palestine, but were given no choice, thanks to the efforts of Zionists in the US and Britain, who were campaigning to reject Jewish entry into North America, so as to populate Palestine. The British were much harsher on the Palestinians than the Jewish population. In 1936, after the Palestinian revolt, the Palestinian elite were persecuted. This was shortly after the first Palestinian party was founded which was to represent the interests of the native population in the two fronts struggle against the British occupation and the Zionist conquerers. Interestingly, it was the British who introduce “punishments” like home demolitions, which were adopted later by the Zionists, though predictably, Jews were never subjected to such treatment by the British.
The British NEVER promoted or tolerated “eradication of the Jews and maintaining an Arab majority”, though it is good of you to admit that there was an Arab majority and that this is what stood in the way of Zionists achieving their goals. The British actually quelled Arab uprisings.
Yes, the British stood in the way of the Zionist plan to eradicate the Palestinian population, at least superficially. British Mandate Palestine was supposed to be a shared homeland to Jews and Palestinians, but this was at odds with the goals of a Jewish State with a Jewish majority. The Zionists had marketed their campaign to achieve Jewish supremacy, which was contrary to international law, the Balfour Declaration, and a violation of the Geneva Conventions, as was the establishing of settlement in the occupied territories after the 1967 war.
The territory was not mislabeled Palestine. The label dates back to the time of the Egyptians, though Herodotus is given credit for inventing the name in the 5th Century. Everyone in the region was considered a Palestinian and held Palestinians passports. The fact that one anti Semitic British officer gave permission to an Arab to seek retribution against a Jews, doesn’t prove that the British sided with the Arabs. The British were occupiers at the time, and as we saw with Haditha and My Lai, occupying forces bring more evil than good. As for the stories about Arabs putting up fliers in Damasacus to incite killing of Jews, there is no evidence, though there is ample evidence of fliers made by Zionists threatening to bomb London unless the British withdrew.
Menachem Begin boasted about his accomplishments at Deir Yassin, by declaring that: “The massacre of Deir Yassin not only had its justification – without the ‘victory’ of Deir Yassin there had never been a State of Israel.” Four years later, the same Begin attempted to kill the German chancellor Adenauer and in 1978 he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but of course, Israel is held to a higher standard than everyone else right?
Everybody was surprised and disgusted at the Deir Yassin massacre, even perpetrators like Haganah and the Jewish Agency, yet they soon got over it.
Without the UN, there was no means by which Israel could have achieved legitimacy. Israel is the only state admitted to UN membership on condition that it would be obedient to the world body and be bound, more specifically, by two General Assembly resolutions – one on November 1947 for partition of Palestine and the other on December 1948 enshrining the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or be satisfied with compensation.
Like it or not, Israel accepted these terms, and yes, they were perfectly legal, given that the UN, currently the main source of international law. A document on UN record, dated 29 November 1948, reads: “On behalf of the State of Israel, I, Moshe Shertok, Minister for Foreign Affairs, being duly authorised by the State Council of Israel, declare that the State of Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligation of the UN Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations.”
Four days after Israel had been accepted by UN as one of its members, David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, declared in the Knesset that UN’s Palestine partition resolution no longer held any moral force because the Arabs had violated it and for Israel the resolution was “null and void” as far as Jerusalem was concerned. Ben Gurion had no authority to make that declaration, because Shertok had already accepted the terms of the agreement in November fo that year, but the fact is that the UN green light was stage one of a plan to steal all the land in it’s entirety.
In a meeting of the Jewish leadership in 1938, Ben Gurion exposed his twisted agenda “after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state – we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” So much for peaceful immigration and no mention made of the rights of Palestinians.
The Zionists needed a UN resolution as a birth certificate for their State and a second one to attain UN membership or the mark of the minimum in international respectability. Once they thought they had overcome all doubts about the legitimacy or viability, they no longer needed the United Nations.
Israel has been condemned or censured by UN hundreds of times for its lawlessness and for going back on its words but no leader in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem has ever shown any concern. Israel now routinely refers to its legal creator as its enemy.
There was never any impending genocide, and the arrival of Jews was anything but peaceful. The immigrants came with a goal of creating a Jewish state with a Jewish majority, which would have been impossible to achieve by peaceful means. If there had been benevolent intentions, there would have been no need to invent the lies that became the bedrock of the Zionist movement. This is to be expected from for a state that is based on myths such land without people for a people without a land, claims that Palestine didn’t exist and the Palestinians were not a distinctive nation and that Israel didn’t expel the native Palestinians from their ancestral homeland. Israel has been trying relentlessly to annihilate the national existence of the Palestinians, more recently resorted to banning the teaching of Nakba in schools and references to it removed from texts.
Even Henry Seigman in column “Israelis and Obama” (The New York Times, November 1, 2009) admitted: “Israeli do not oppose President Obama’s peace efforts because they dislike him; they dislike him because of his peace efforts. He will regain their affection only when he abandon these efforts”.
The formation of secret organizations like Hagana, Stern and Irgun, had nothing to do with fighting back, so much as stealing land. It is absurd to suggest that the British sided with the Arabs, when they had already taken half of Palestine from the Arabs and given it to Jewish immigrants, while the Jewish population was a less than a third of the entire population and only owned 7% of the land.
Moreover, even in its proposed borders, the Jewish state’s population would have been half Arab and that was unacceptable. There would be no Jewish majority today were it not for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The Irgun and Stern gangs were subsequently banned by the Israeli government, but it’s leaders were elected to the highest office in the land.
Having established that Israel was founded on terrorism, the argument that Zionism is a political movement does not contradict that reality, because it was a movement that insisted on the removal of one population for another. Terrorism is after all, accepted as violence by non state actors to achieve a political outcome. Stateless Zionists used terror to achieve a political outcome, the State of Israel, and succeeded.
Israel’s terrorism didn’t end there but continues to this day, including attacks on so called friendly states. The attack on the USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair reveal that Israel have never shied away from attacking allies if it furthers their cause.
It was the Zionist founding fathers, who told us in no uncertain terms, that a Jewish State would be impossible to achieve while the Arab population were present. It was they who were opposed to the idea of sharing land. There were no rightful heirs to the land of Israel, because a) the land was already owned by title and b) there has never been any such thing as the “ land of Israel” other than in the Hebrew Bible. That is simply a messianic invention held by Christian evangelists who believe Israel’s restoration will hasten the return of Jesus.
Just out of curiosity Michael, are you one of those John Hagee types?
We are all familiar with Ben Gurion’s quote, that the land should not be taken from the Palestinians, yet at the same time he was saying Israel would ignore the partition and promoting the transfer of Arabs from Palestine, so clearly he contradicted himself. It’s not like he was the first Zionist to be exposed as a liar.
Ironically, while Palestinians are often accused of ‘rejectionism’, the Zionist leadership only accepted the idea of partition for tactical reasons. First Prime Minister Ben Gurion described a “‘partial Jewish state’” as just the beginning: “‘a powerful impetus in our historic efforts to redeem the land in its entirety.’” In a meeting of the Jewish leadership in 1938, Ben Gurion shared his assumption that “‘after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state – we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.’” Ben Gurion makes a liar of you. Here he is, 10 years prior to the 1948 war, telling us of Israel’s plans to build a strong army and using it to steal land, and you expect us to believe that over the decade that followed, there were no efforts to create that strong military force?
So much for the myth of the defenseless Jews.
It should come as no surprise that “the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism”. Palestinian Arabs had seen the Jewish proportion of Palestine’s population triple from around 10 per cent at the end of World War I, while the Zionist leadership in Palestine were telegraphing their political aims.
The key portion of Zangwill’s statement is his reference to the Palestinians as the “alien population”, thus exposing his bigotry and belief that Palestinians did not belong there. His beliefs about Islam are inconsequential to his argument, and are likely attempts to rationalize his own extremist position and bigotry. Zangwill had it backwards. The Irgun, led by future Israeli prime minister, openly despised the Arabs and sought restoration of Eretz Yisrael, meaning both sides of the Jordan.
Your attempt to conflate fails miserably.
As for Ben Gurion’s concern for Jews, we have already established that he was only too willing to sacrifice Jews for the creation of Israel. His reference to the saving of “Jewish” children reveals that he knew exactly what was taking place in Germany at the time. If we look at Ben Gurion’s quote again, there is no ambiguity. Like I have said before, most of the world’s Jews were opposed to the creation of a Jewish State, with only a small minority in favor of it. Zionists like Ben Gurion, held Jews who didn’t share their vision in contempt, and were quite prepared to sacrifice them for the cause. 17 of the 90 victims of the attack on the King David Hotel were Jews after all.
Ben Gurions says in no uncertain terms that he would rather half “the children of Germany” be sacrificed (ie. killed) for the sake of historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” It highlights the ruthlessness and barbarism inherent in Zionism. In fact, if you look deeper into this statement, Ben Gurion specifically refers to Jews being transported to England, which he would have regarded as traitorous to the Zionist dream, so he likely considered their deaths justified.
It’s tragic hearing Zionists like yourself complaining about a single statement being cherry picked to use against their beloved Israeli father. You can polish that turd all you like, but it is what it is, and tells us all we need to know about Ben Gurion. Nor was it the only vile and racist statement he made in 57 years.
Israel was not founded on greed and hatred of racism, and the belief that a population should be sacrificed. Most Jews at the time were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state, so the majority didn’t share any “love of the land” and most of those who ended up there had no choice, so they didn’t have any “love of the land” either. Israel was founded on a supremacist ideology that was eloquently articulated by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Israeli political Right, in 1926 who explained that:
” … the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here between two truths …. but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed … force majeure.” (Righteous Victims, p. 108)
The Jewish people (in Israel) are under no threat today. Never have they been more powerful. Even Israeli leaders have occasionally admitted the danger is entirely manufactured.
Israeli General Matityahu Peled was quoted in Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972,
“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.”
Before he was murdered by an Israeli extremist, Yitzhak Rabin told Israelis that their country was militarily powerful, and neither friendless nor at risk. How prophetic that while he was telling Israelis that they were not threatened by external forces, he should be murdered by an Israeli? His message was that they should give up thinking and acting like victims. Extremists like Netanyahu, on the other hand, know that a frightened population is easily controlled, and thus insists that every year is 1939 all over again , and that the whole world is against Israel and that Israelis are at risk of another Holocaust. That message of Jewish weakness and victim hood appealed to enough voters to keep him in power. It’s a ploy that worked through history, from Hitler through to Bush.
part 2 of 2
It takes a serious case of delusion to equate both sides militarily. The Arabs can’t possibly challenge Israel’s military supremacy with the 4th most powerful in the world and the 5th largest nuclear arsenal. The only threat of genocide is the one that Israel are capable of unleashing, such as the threat made last year by the Israeli deputy defense minister Mattan Vilna’ai, who warned that Israel would launch a holocaust against the Palestinians if that was what the Palestinians wanted. During the blitzkrieg on Gaza, Avigdor Lieberman was quoted by the Israeli media as saying that a nuclear bomb ought to be dropped on Gaza.
No enemy has even been able to cross the border into Israel since 1967, let alone violate its air space, nor has any army even threatened Israel since 1973.
The claim of genocide is a fraud because Israel is doing the threatening, not being threatened. Israel has been attacking other countries from the first day of its hateful existence. This massive Israeli criminality culminated in the virtual genocide in Gaza last winter, when hundreds of Israeli war planes, the state-of-the-art of the American technology of death, rained bombs, depleted uranium and white phosphorus, and dime bombs on unprotected Palestinian towns.
Israel is probably the only country in this world that thrives on murder, theft and lies, a country that murders children on their way to school and then cries out “self-defense! Holocaust! Terror.!
Genocide indeed.
Only recently, IAF commander Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan said that Israel needed to stop the Russian S-300 missile defense system from reaching countries where the air force may “need to fly”. “We need to make every effort to stop this system from getting to places where the IAF needs to operate or may need to operate in the future,” he said.
These are not the words of a threaded population, but a state that has become drunk on it’s own military power. Israel’s women are required to serve in the military because of Israel is an occupying power and occupations are a drain on human resources. Palestinian women are also involved in the resistance movement BTW. Israel would probably not have to enlist as many women if more Orthodox Jews were willing to contribute. Women and children who carry guns use them to terrorize the Arab population in the West Bank in an effort to drive them out.
link to ipsnews.net
And you probably are familiar with the charming clip of the drunken settler threatening to kill the documentary maker and bragging about how the Jews killed Jesus. You would consider this self defense no doubt.
link to youtube.com
There are no Arab States rattling their sabres at Israel, though Zionist hacks like you will insist that warnings of retribution by Iran in the event of an attacked constitutes a threat. Evidently, only Israel is allowed to defend itself. Not a week goes by that Israel doesn’t threaten to bomb Iran. Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza (an act of war), routinely violates Lebanese and Syrian air space with impunity, has bombed facilities in Syria and regularly carries out acts of piracy in international waters.
None of these are acts of self defense, but acts of domination and intimidation. The Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. Suggesting that they integrate into the surrounding Arab countries is like suggesting that the native American Indians be moved to Mexico. It’s a truly fanatical mindset, given that most Israeli Jews are immigrants or children of immigrants. Most Jews live in the Diaspora, so clearly Jews could also integrate into Western States and would not only be welcome, but safer than in Israel. Your position comes down to the cult like belief voiced by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, that Jews are more righteous than Palestinians.
It’s also ironic that you should lament the possibility of Jews being massacred by the thousands, given that this is precisely what Israel have done in Palestine and Lebanon. It’s even more ironic that you should be alarmed at the possibility of Jews being confined to a bantustan like box, when this is precisely what Israel have done to Palestinians. You admit that both outcomes are horrific, but ignore that it is happening to non Jews.
It’s so obvious, though you’re probably not even aware of the extent of your bigotry. You think that Palestinians are expendable sub humans.
I am not denying that I have cut and pasted some passages, but I have provided links to all my sources. Nevertheless, saying that Palestine Remembered gets it wrong because…..you say so….is not a rebuttal and your refusal to present an argument proves that you don’t have one.
The history of the Baath party is well know, but inconsequential to the history of the region. Hitler after all, was named man of the year by Time Magazine in 1938 was he not? Does that mean that the US and Britain were pro Hitler?
Yes I know all about the coup in Baghdad in 1941 and it is also entirely irrelevant. Talking points will only get you so far, before having to recycle them.
Islam and Nazism were never a suitable union, which is why that experiment failed. Israel, on the other hand, has grown to become the new embodiment of Nazism, as British MP and self proclaimed Zionist, Gerald Kaufman, declared after the Gaza attack. What Israel did to Gaza and Gazans can be compared to the extermination of Germany’s real or perceived enemies during the War. There is little daylight between Zionists and neo-Nazis either these days, with the latter waving Israeli flags and complaining about anti-semtism. Both attack Jewish people and other Semitic groups with extreme viciousness. Both endorse ethnic cleansing and promoted “racial purity” as means of nation building. Both also condemn integration and mixed marriages at a sta policy level. Why bother making a distinction between them? They’re on the same wavelength, along with you it seems.
Like Israel, Nazi leaders and ideologues tried to rationalize and justify their evil acts by claiming that Germany, the motherland, was facing mortal threats and the German nation was faced with either of two choices, destroying the enemies using a no-holds-barred approach, or be destroyed itself. It’s all too familiar. These days, Israel is using the same Nazi arguments not to repulse any real threats, but rather to justify real crimes against humanity being committed against the captive Palestinians.
Hisb-el-qaumi-el-suri started in WWI and was not in itself any connection to Nazism. Some Muslims collaborated with the Germans long before Nazism was born, and did so because Germany had never occupied them. Some Muslims sided with Germany, some allied to Britain.
Muslims are not a monolithic entity, as bigots like you would have us believe. Islam is a religion shared by 1.2 billion people and thus encompasses many differing practices and views. Muslims are human beings with different nationalities and different interests. Not all Christians for example, believe as John Hagee does, that Hitler was an agent of God, or that the anti Christ will be Jewish, but oddly enough, Israel likes this guy.
The fete of the Jews of Medina was virtually undocumented. Some horrific crimes were undoubtedly perpetrated a long time ago. Traggic but irrelevant.
Of course, it was inevitable that you would resurrect the favorite boogie man, Husseini, but you needn’t have bothered. He was irrelevant. He was appointed by the British in 1921 as a means to dividing and control competing Palestinian factions elected by Palestinians and he represented one man’s view. Husseini was driven from Palestine in 1939 and his calls for Jihad against the British were rejected because he was largely despised among the Palestinian population , which incidentally fought on the side of the allied in WWII and drive out the Ottoman empire (who did side with the Germans) from Palestine.
His meeting with Hitler is meaningless. The Nazis’s were white supremacists who had no greater love of Arabs than they did Jews. The idea that Husseini, let alone the Palestinians, played a “significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust” is laughable. The Nazis hardly required one of the sub-human races to sign off on their plans for mass murder, and certainly didn’t need their help.
Whatever Husseini’s views were, they were clearly not shared by the Palestinians, but the Zionists love to obsess about him as a means of discriminating against all Palestinians and distracting attention from their own crimes.
As for the 150,000 Jews figure, I provided you with a link the a Reuters news article. Facing that tricky problem, your predictable comeback is to argue that the same like appears on Stomfront, as though that were supposed to mean something. Pretty pathetic really seeing as many of our arguments appear on Neo Nazi web sites , dispensationist evangelical web sites, Islamophohic neocon web sites and right wing extremist sites. If Stomfront were to post an article that said the world was spherical, would you call it a lie?
As for the King David hotel bombing, how does such an attack 3 years after the end of the greatest war world qualify as unconnected? Would you have dismiss the 911 attacks as irrelevant back in 2004 and unconnected to subsequent military activity by the US?
Grow up.
“I believe going to war with an apocolyptical mad man trying to obtain a weapon that can usher in his end time scenario is a good cause.You are frightened the Jews will not be exterminated, but once again you have made a positive statement that Iran does not have nukes. Can you source this or are you raving again, as usual?”
You’re clearly a disturbed individual but this exposes you once and for all as a cultist ideologue who is desperate for anything that demonizes Muslims. While Ahmadinejad is characterized as apocalyptical, Israel’s ambassador only recently snubbed J Street to speak for the leader of an apocalyptical Evangelical organization that believes Israel needs to be sacrificed to hasten God’s plans (John Hagee). Israel is also the only state that has adopted apocalyptical policies like the Massada and Sampson options.
First, you cite the view of one man (with no influence on Iran’s foreign policy) as a rationale for war and secondly, you state that Iran are trying to obtain nukes when there is no evidence to support this. Is there any evidence that Iran is trying to obtain a nuke? It there any evidence that they are making them?
Yes I can source my evidence on this. The IAEA has, for the 21st time, verified that Iran is not making nukes. 16 US intelligence agencies have verified there is no evidence that Iran is making nukes. Iran is a signatory to the NPT and opened itself to pervasive IAEA inspections. I have evidence to back up my positional that Iran is not making nukes. You have no evidence to support your argument, and you are accusing me of raving?
So provide your evidence or shut up. BTW. You might want to know that I have a nuclear science background and have written reports for the IAEA, so I might know a little more about this subject than you.
As for Jews and Muslism, I stated that Muslism were the only people who ever protected Jews. I never denied that there was conflict between the two religions. As for mass murder, Israel has killed more Muslims that than the number of Jews Muslims killed. Don’t waste your time lamenting mass murder, enslavement, and rape in the light of what took pace in Souther Lebanon (192-2000 and 2006), Gaza and Deir Yassin.
I am not going to indulge in what the Quran has to say about Jews because two of us can play that game. A Jewish rabbi has issued a book giving Jews permission to murder non-Jews, including babies and children, and he claims to base this teaching on the Torah. He is but one of many examples. If you read the Talmud, you’ll find the racism and utter contempt the Jews hold for the goyim. Their fundamentalist rabbis have gone on record preaching that preemptive extermination of sheigetz men, women, and children is OK.
Check out most Jewish and Biblical texts written 1500 years ago, and you’ll find lots of stuff that will shock your 21st century sensibilities. There are enough rabbis in the settler movement that cherrypick the Talmud and come up with plenty of citations that meet their racist needs.
The Pact of Umar? It outlines how to deal with the dhimma, or “protected person” and sounds remarkably like the manner in which Israel treats it’s Arab population. Sounds comparatively civilized given that it refers to the 7th century, when all other religions preached zero tolerance towards other faiths. Palestinians living in Israel live in a far worse position than the Dhimmis of the Ottoman Empire 400 years ago. At least Dhimmi’s were a “protected people,” where as the Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed as we speak.
Oskar Schindler was one man who rose to the occasion, but his own nation was perpeatreting the worst crime in human history. Cyrus the Great was a Persian you idiot. Yes, Shanghai provided sanctuary to 30,000 escaping Jews long before the Holocaust began. Good for them, but no army has ever stood between Jews and those out to kill them other than the Muslims who left Andalusian.
“If the Mexicans were doing that I would not go on a violent killing spree, are you so arrogant you are going to presume to speak for me now?”
You’ve already said you would support a war based on non existent nukes so why would it be such a stretch to suggest you would kill those prepared to invade and take your property? Or do you reserve mass murder for special occasions like killing Muslims?
Yes, there are some Muslims (not all) killing or plotting to kill Americans. Most of the Americans they are killing or plotting to kill happen to be occupying their country killing and them. Muslims are no threat to America however. As horrific as 9/11 was, it certainly was not a threat to America’s existence, or to anything America has built, other that the WTC buildings. You’re resorting to hysteria and hyperbole, or do you believe that America is really that fragile?
Jews did not return to their land . The land ceased to be theirs after the Roman wars. European Jews migrated to Palestine and did not do so in peace. In fact, half a century before they began arriving they had already expressed their desire to drive out the indigenous (or “alien”) population.
They DID come with weapons of war, and used them. They were armed to intimidate and drive Arabs off their land, which continues to this day. Mexicans aren’t taking anything from you. They are doing jobs you are not prepare to do. When the Jews arrived, they didn’t speak Arabic did they? They took resources and property and a did did indeed massacre Arabs.
Under Nuremberg Law and the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, the native population has the right to attack any member of the criminal conglomeration of Zionist squatters and their external Zionist supporters at any time and in any place. Signatories to the genocide convention have the obligation to come to the aid of Palestinians in either removing or obliterating the criminal Zionist genocidaires.
Furthermore, there are plenty of states in which a large Muslim minority or a slight Muslim majority live side by side with their coreligionists in peace without any trace of legal discrimination. Something that cannot be said about the state of Israel, in which Jews have a ridiculous amount of privileges over non Jews. Palestinians have endured Israeli terrorism as well as ethnic cleansing for longer than Israel has been an independent country.
It’s Mr Hate, with us again to exhibit the ugly face of Zionism!
My favorite part is where he claims military history is his strong point, and in the process proves that language comprehension skills aren’t.
If he has a strong point, it’s the stench of raw malevolence exuded by his posts. Makes me glad that the internet isn’t an odoriferous medium.
I would say Mr Hate joined us with nothing to say of any value, not a shred of evidence to disprove anything I have, and is incapable of anything more than childish name calling. Who am I to judge, I only oppose racist bigots instead of fighting over the crunchy pieces of their shit like you do.
He reminds us of the Kahanists in the West Bank, spitting in the faces of passing Arabs and throwing dead dogs into their wells. This is what they sound like. This is pure Zionism.
potsie, who is the “we” you speak for? Are you delusional or do you have a pet snake to slither around with?
Spitting and dead dogs? Are the objects of those oh so ruthless attacks the same Arabs that get goose bumps and teary eyed with pride when one of their children murders and mangles a crowd full of unsuspecting Jews? The same Arabs that steal everything they can get their hands on? The same Arabs that go to mosques where the clergy says Jew killing is sanctioned by God? I just want to be clear so I know how much sleep to lose over it.
“I would say Mr Hate joined us with nothing to say of any value, not a shred of evidence to disprove anything I have.”
You haven;t proves anything other than demonstrate you have no griup on reality.
He proves the depth of Zionist racism with every post.
I really wish that more of these would crawl out into the light of day and expose themselves to the brainwashed masses who think that Zionists are no worse than the KKK.
Sorry Le lafavour that is not true. The Norwegians support the boycott.
Did they reverse their vote? Because had you taken the time to look at the article I linked to you would understand that the issue has been decided and it seems the boycott hardly seemed to have any merit….”The discussion took less than half an hour, since no one argued in favor of the proposal.” So sad, too bad…terror supporters can slither back to their crevices now and gnash their teeth in anguish again. The real world with sunshine and fresh air in it has rejected your mucus coated offering…again. Isn’t this great news?
What do you expect from Norway? They slaughter whales while Israel slaughters Palestians.
So it looks like the Norwegians sided with the mass murderers. No big deal.
BTW. Israel drove out 750,000 Palestinians from their land and there wa no genocide against Jews in Palestine.
If Israel is slaughtering the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, why is their population increasing? Is Israel under armed for the task in your opinion or are you just full of shit?
You are right that there was no genocide against the Jews, but only because the Arabs can’t get to the part where they have all of their victims disarmed. The intent is certainly there. If we don’t do something about Iran it will happen sooner or later some day, not that the likes of you would care.
So now Michael LeFavour is saying that the Israelis aren’t killing the Palestinians fast enough. I mean how many more Palestinians have to die before your blood lust is satiated?
The Arabs have no interest in putting a “genocide” on the Jews. Prior to Zionism Jews and Arabs lived side by side in relative peace. What many Arabs and particularly Palestinians do have a problem with is the racist ideology known as Zionism. An Ideology that asserts that Palestinians do not deserve to live in their historical homeland and must be ethnically cleansed to create living space for teenagers making Aliya from Brooklyn.
In any case it is only when Zionist colonizers from Europe showed up and began ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their land, did the Palestinians begin to hate those who turned them into refugees. Remember its the Israelis who ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, not the other way around.
But I guess you can continue to snort the Ziocaine and just sit there and believe that there is no occupation, that the ethnic cleansing is a hoax, and that apartheid does not exist in Israel.
“If Israel is slaughtering the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, why is their population increasing? ”
Six million Jews were slaughtered and their popualtion also increased.
There was no genocide against the Jews becasue the Arabs never intended to carry one out. The only genocide against the Jews carried out by whote Christians.
Iran are no threat to Isrlae and have never threaterned Israel. Zionist psycopaths want war with Iran, because war is all they know. Of course, they want war, so long as comeone is there to foot the bill and die for them.
All those calls to erase Israel from the pages of time and rockets paraded around with “To Jerusalem” on them are what? If Iran develops a bomb and uses it on Israel what will you say then? Guess I was wrong, won’t cut it. The propaganda and hatred focused on Israel is too loud to ignore. I support going to war with Iran and this is reflected in all my letters, phone calls, and face to face meetings with politicians. And I do it because blogs like Mondoweiss and followers of blogs like Mondoweiss don’t think the pressure on the Jewish state to disappear is enough.
Israel and the US have spoken openly about the need for regime change in Tehran, so when Tehran says that the regime that rules Palestine should be erased from the pages of time, as was the Sovietion, they are returning the favor. Or is only Israel allowed to threaten people and advocate regime change?
And do provide a link of those rockets in paraded around in Tehran with “To Jerusalem” on them. Of course, we all know that in Israel, they get their children to write on their rockets and shells before they get dropped on other children.
link to images.google.com.au
Iran is not developing a bomb. Israel has been sating that Iran is 6 months from developing obe for a decade. Of course if Iran had one, I would agree with Tizpzi LIvni and the head of Mossad – that Israel could live it.
In any case, I’ll wait till I am wrong before thinking of what to say, in the mean time, you are the one who is wrong.
The propaganda against Israel is self inflicted. Israel behave like psyopathic thugs, so yeah, it is what it is. The world didn’t hate Nazis because they were Gemranb did they?
As a suported of a criminal and pthologally militaristic entitiy, I am not surprised that you support going to war with Iran, but the reality is that Israel can’t t do it alone and won’t do it alone. At the very least, Israel wil drag the US into it.
But it’s is good of you to admit you are psycopath. Hopefully it marks the first signs of recovery.
So we are working on the bigger picture and Levy is sort of filling in the details. He is doing it in a simple and powerful way. Demand respect for the law.
Mr Ahmad,
Assuming you call yourself a Palestinian and speak for yourself, would respect for law satisfy you? I say this because the Green Line is not a border, so I am confused at your statement.
“I say this because the Green Line is not a border, so I am confused at your statement. ”
You mean it’s not a border that Israel is willing to recognize. Mind you, Israel has no borders does it?
Some state.
I mean it is not a border except in the fantasies of a lot of really ignorant stooges. The document that created it made it clear that it was not to be prejudiced as a final border, how much clearer does that have to be?
“The document that created it made it clear that it was not to be prejudiced as a final border, how much clearer does that have to be? ”
You might want to cite some sources, rather than making your own facts up as you go along.
I wish his distinction was more than just semantics.
His position becomes as arbitrary and collectively punitive when he fails to distinguish between settlers or settlements that are resident (and would be willing residents in Palestine, or would willing open the settlements to multiple cultural residence) and those that are solely state expansionistic.
If he is going to rest solely on law, then he should rest on law fully.
It was a very interesting panel.
I found Kurtzer’s comments instructive, and nearly entirely coincided with my views.
He did strongly state that there are existing conditions within US agreements with Israel, compelling that US contributed funds, not support settlement development.
He didn’t comment on Gaza.
people seem really scared of getting associated with BDS. (remember semantics about boycott language re: Toronto Declaration) good for BDS! bad for Zionism. Ni!
I believe Levy is factually wrong in one important sense:
Although he’s right about the EU, I believe U.S. free trade agreements with Israel explicitly include the occupied Palestinian territories. This was Clinton’s doing, promoting “economic coexistence” and free trade zones in the West Bank, etc.–part of the same process as the separate roads around Bethlehem.
So although in Europe, if products were labeled correctly as coming from settlements, they would be barred from preferential treatment, this isn’t the case in the U.S.–a good reason to boycott all Israeli products unless they are clearly marked as NOT being made in settlements.