Forces in Israeli society are trying to save that society. I am sure they are trying to preserve the Jewish state, but the least we could do is give them some airtime in the U.S., so that Americans and yes American Jews open one eye. This is from Ynet; I have no idea why "the researcher" is not named:
Israel plundered and destroyed tens of thousands of Palestinian books in the years after the State's establishment, according to a doctoral thesis to be submitted next month by a Ben-Gurion University researcher.
In an interview with the researcher published on al-Jazeera's website Thursday, he claimed that Israel destroyed the Palestinian books in the framework of its plan to "Judaize the country" and cut off its Arab residents from their nation and culture.
According to the doctoral dissertation, Israeli authorities collected tens of thousands of Arab books in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, Safed, and other towns that were home to Arabs. Israeli officials proceeded to hand out about half the books, while destroying the second half, characterizing them as a "security threat," the researcher said.
...The researcher told al-Jazeera that according to documents he possesses, Israel destroyed 27,000 books in 1958, claiming that they were useless and threatened the State. Authorities sold the books, most of them textbooks, to a paper plant, he said."This was a cultural massacre undertaken in a manner that was worse than European colonialism, which safeguarded the items it stole in libraries and museums," the researcher charged.
Note that Israel is barring the teaching of the Nakba in Israeli schools. Note that 10 years from now this will be in the New York Times. Or maybe 20-- when they open the Nakba museum on the mall and Spielberg puts out the blockbuster, "Passover 1948" about the destruction of Jaffa, when the Irgun and the Haganah pushed nearly 70,000 Palestinians out of a city promised to them under Partition, and many of those Palestinians were forced into the sea.
And remember: Exodus by Leon Uris was published in the U.S. in 1958, just as they were destroying these books.
I was certainly influenced by that awful book, the influence lasted for decades. I think most people in the 60s and 70s were under some Israeli spell.
The problem now would be getting a movie about the Nakba distributed, getting it out where people could see it. In 1958, there wasn’t an anti-Israeli lobby at work to prevent the Uris book and movie from being known. On the contrary.
You’re right, potsherd. The book-movie was a great psychological attack on reality, a tremendous PR effort by Zionists–I don’t think the Gentiles involves had a clue:
link to divergences.be
Next time around, maybe they will.
I avoided that book, and the movie, like the plague. I’m stupid, but not stupid enough to do that! The music, the movie theme “Exodus” I did do a fency organ arrangement of, until I figured out the minor progression was lifted from a Chopin prelude, No. 20, in C-minor, to be exact. The music business is full of gonifs
I’m feeling a bit max-ed out on 24/7 apartheid here. Time for some of the Mondoweiss wistful musings help the medicine go down…?
Lesson plan:
Students should compare and contrast Israel Independence Day celebrations with those of other ethnic groups and nationalities in the United States (St. Patrick’s Day parades for the Irish American community, Columbus Day celebrations for the Italian American community, etc.). What do these celebrations suggest about the relationship between one’s homeland, ethnic identity, and American identity? How are the identities similar or different? What is the significance of rooting for a soccer team or Olympic athlete from a country of one’s ethnic or national origin?
Citizen, I think I might be on to something- after WW1, as a result of the Versailles conference, besides the armament restrictions and reparations required of Germany, many of the colonies which belonged to Germany and the Ottomans became British or French possessions (bear with me, I’m making it very general here). With that , an entirely new racial hierarchy and way of dealing with the color bar and alliances changed radically, and peoples were dealt with on this racial and ethnic basis.I’m becoming convinced that this era, in between WW1 and 2 and these policies and practices formed the nucleus of the way Israel deals with it’s position in the world. In particular, this was a time in which fairly modern technology (airplanes, vehicles, repeating arms, communications) were put at the service of a racial ideology not yet discredited.
I’m going to look into it some more this week.
Great, Mooser, and what have you discovered? That Israel has digested the Nazi approach and simply replaced the swastika with the star of David?
That would be a gross oversimplification, and probably a very unprofitable argument to make. Plus, the Nazis had a short (however brutal and destructive) reign as occupiers, and had their colonies taken at the end of WW1.
No, I think for the mechanics of Zionism, it might be best to look at the European colonial administrations. I would venture to say, also that that period represented the greatest disparity of means, too, between the colonial masters and the peoples. This is when people on the ground armed with little more than sticks were gassed or bombed from airplanes. That is the period that Israel is shocked that the rest of the world doesn’t care to re-create for the benefit of the Zionists.
But I would stay away from the Nazi-Zionist comparison, except in a very few, areas. Yes, they are pretty basic comparisons, but it’s very hard for people to grasp, especially if they don’t have a grasp on the facts.
Crap, got sidetracked. I think it’s also the time when the structures of racist law which Israel seeks to emulate were developed.
Mooser, Citizen – I’ve noticed that most analyses “What went wrong in Germany that made them kill Jews,” start with END of WWI and Treaty of Versailles. That’s important as far as it goes, but it’s important to understand some stressors in pre-WWI Germany. I don’t know much about Weimar Republic (research project #25-02347235247); I DO know that the German victory over France in 1871 was huge for Germans; it heralded their first giant step toward national unification, and it was a victory deliberately pursued and hard-won, with major institutional structures put into place in German society (most notably education) in order to make victory more certain.
In the aftermath of Franco-Prussian war, Jews came to be less welcome in Germany for several reasons: 1. many Jews migrated to Germany to cash in on Germany’s victory. These carpetbaggers were resented because they had not bled and spent to achieve the victory.
2. Germans rewarded themselves for their years of frugality and sacrifice by incurring great personal debt, purchasing (with borrowed money) homes that were far too elaborate and expensive for them to maintain. Much of the credit for these luxuries was extended by Jewish bankers.
3. Jewish merchants and banker/investors came to control critical sectors in German economy — ports, press, education among them.
These factors came into play by 1881; Germans were writing about their concern about disproportionate Jewish influence on German life in 1881; Hitler was born in 1889.
It’s not only the history books – Zionists have been targeting the Palestinian intellectuals. Mossad is credited with the assassination of 530 Iraqi intellectuals and scientists since 2003. They’re in the procees of eliminating Iran’s nuclear scientists too,
The Intellectual Holocaust
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Another load of shit Rehmat, why would Israel be killing Iraqi intellectuals after the invasion? Do you actually believe this shit?
Iranian nuclear scientist is more believable, although the latest ‘victim’ Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was definitely killed by his own regime. Israel and the US are not the only people who are accustom to “false flag operations”
No, yonira, Mahammadi was not “definitely” killed by his own regime. Just because Ahmadinejad says a thing, it’s not necessarily false.
You have a gross tendency to dismiss any allegation against Israel out of hand without any investigation into the facts.
Certainly would love to see the “definitive” proof of this claim.
Please, Post it Here! What a scoop!
“Iranian nuclear scientist is more believable, although the latest ‘victim’ Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was definitely killed by his own regime.”
Definitely? Based on what evidence Yonira and what motivation?
It was reported a year ago that Israel were planning on killing Iran’s scientists.
Does any other country in the world so openly engage in murder, with such impunity?
Don’t you guys see the irony? Rehmat makes claims such as these all the time and you guys lap it up(did you guys miss the post where Rehmat claimed the Haiti Earthquake was caused by Israel?). I guess I its all about being on the right side.
As for motivation Shingo, it was purely a false flag operation.
And who went around lapping up Rehmat’s remark? Tell me that.
Whereas you uncritically suck down any propaganda favorable to Israel without taking a single look at the facts. And you’re always wrong.
You’ll notice that nobody here is claiming with any degree of certainty that Iran was not behind the killing. What people are saying is that your stupid comment that he was definitely killed by his own regime is is very stupid and unsupportable comment, something that only a Ziocaine addict would say. You exhibit the critical thinking skills of a leech.
As for motivation Shingo, it was purely a false flag operation.
False flag operations are also motivated Yonira, so stop stalling and provide the basis for your assertion tha tMassoud Ali-Mohammadi was “definitely killed by his own regime”.
Isn’t it remarkable how you Hasbrats comnplain about claims made against Israel, demanding water tight evidence, yet make baseless claims while refusing to back it up with evidence of your own?
I like “Hasbrats”! Hows about “Hasabaratchik”, with its echoes of “apparatchik”?
From now on, its Hasbaratchik for me! Lets set ourselves the task of getting it into the dictionary!
For many years I too was mystified as to why, after nearly every coup, intellectuals get offed. Petras gives us an idea of the extent in Iraq:
The answer is actually very simple. Far right and far left coups require the re-writing of History and the bedding in of a new ideology. Killing intellectuals including Humanities Professors achieves this in two ways. Elimination and intimidation – those who are not killed, flee, leaving the field clear for new idealogues.
Iraq’s case is slightly different, the object is degradation of the entire economical and social framework. The perpetrators are an outside force, not intent on seizing power, merely rendering the state impotent.
Over time, as the given excuses (WMDs, Oil, Democracy etc.) all fall away like rotten fruit, it has become clearer that Israel’s security was the primary factor. No need to explain Perle, Ledeen, Wolfowitz and the whole PNAC crew to this forum.
A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon lays out a plan to degrade the Arab States that surround Israel. Published (in Hebrew) in February 1982, the paper is either the genesis of the strategy we see working out today or it is remarkably prescient:
link to cosmos.ucc.ie
Bombing buildings cannot set a culture back very far. Buildings are rebuilt and society can actually be strengthened by the process. In order to successfully remove a threat from a modern, organized state, it is necessary to eliminate the intellectual capital and create a reversion to an earlier, more primitive society.
If you study carefully, you will observe this process in Iraq.
It always takes years before the full narrative s of “death squads” become public. In this case, I have no doubt where the trail will lead.
That’s quite a find, Brewer! Certainly no one more than Israel benefitted from the Iran/Iraq war.
Not really a load if shit. Israeli killing of Arab intellectuals is an old and continuing story.
According to the article Israel is just not using the term “nakba”, not that they aren’t informing of Palestinians’ experiences.
Its an ongoing fight what gets taught in public schools. The relevance of Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the US” was partially that many of the subjects in the book are still not mentioned in public school teaching, at least not in enough detail to be real.
But, those that write about power write about power, while those that write about people’s movements write about people’s movements. The conclusions often are skew, and don’t prove one thing about another.
I experienced a “cognitive dissonance” from reading your description of the ynet article, and the actual article itself. Any that have functioning skepticism detectors see through that. If you are going to suggest that people address mass media skeptically, you’d have to pass a color-blind test.
I experienced a “cognitive dissonance” from reading your description of the ynet article, and the actual article itself. Any that have functioning skepticism detectors see through that.
Yes, we indeed see through your “cognitive dissonance”. The problem starts with the simple fact that Phil isn’t “describing the article”, he is using the research or more the researcher as an example of positive forces inside Israel …
Did you read the BBC article that Phil linked to?
It reminds me a lot of the destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities
link to jcpa.org
Oh, so you’re saying that the rampant pillaging and destruction waged by Zionist militants fueled that sort of blowback? What a remarkably insightful comment by you, yonira. Or do I give you too much credit?
link to haaretz.com
Great article by Aluf Benn in Haaretz on how Israel’s standing is continuing to deteriorate in European diplomatic circles. This is a telling anecdote:
Imagine if some American diplomat had a Joe Wilson moment at an AIPAC function where the same hasbara was spewed about “common values.” “You lie!”
Americans don’t know enough to be outraged that sanctions on Iran that were imposed at the behest of Israel (see Treacherous Alliance by Trita Parsi, and view Keith Weissman’s remarks at December 2009 conference convened by Richard Silverstein: both sources report that in 1995 (10 years before Ahmadinejad elected Pres. of Iran) AIPAC wangled (or Lewinskyed?) Clinton into proscribing US companies from carrying out highly lucrative contracts with Iranian companies, to the detriment of US interests.
In the last week or so, Israeli diplomats and its glorious Bibi have similarly strongarmed Germany into curtailing German contracts with Iran to improve Iran’s port at Bandar Abbas, playing the usual Holocaust card and also claiming that Iran shipped arms to Hamas and Hezbollah from that port, therefore, it must be punished.
Based on comments to an article in Haaretz about this matter, many German people see through the tactic and are angry that Germans will lose opportunities and they’re angry that Angela Merkel is so easily plied by Israelis, whom the German commenters deem unsavory.
Consistent with Keith Weismann’s observation that tho the sanctions harmed US interests, they did not have the intended effect on Iran, German comments foresaw that the work at the Iranian port that Germany lost will likely be awarded to a Russian or Chinese company.
Israel is a rogue elephant crashing about the world breaking china and vandalizing other people’s economies, for no good purpose other than to appease Israeli psychosis.
Merkel, an ardent advocate of world human rights generally, for example she has taken on China and Russia on this issue, avoids the issue of Palestinian rights. Germany is locked into constant support of Israel due to its Shoah past. However, recently a few higher profile Germans have squeaked about the ever-expanding Israeli settlements as a roadblock to peace.
Oscar, thanks for the link. I disagree with its final paragraph. Netanyahu is going to get Obama to bomb Iran in return for making another peace overture to Palestine? What are they smoking over there? Gas goes to $200/$300 barrel as a result, and Americans are going to cheer? If nukes are unleashed, and WWIII is threatened, Americans are going to cheer?
I saw the Exodus movie last year and liked it a great deal.
this passage from Exodus, the movie, stands out:
“justice is an abstraction.”
“We’ll keep bombing.”
“let the next injustice work against somebody else …” really sums up the last 60 years. With no end of the injustice in sight.
” justice and Jews in the same breath…
…is a logical uncertainty”
Now if *I* said that…
Inadvertent truths are often the most powerful.
Yes, Dick Witty; it was a great Hasbara tool to showcase your issues. Your case was perceived as nice, shiny and clear through Newman’s blue (Aryan) eyes. For a long while, the newly born state of Israel was the most handsome, just and beautiful phenomenon of modern history for many throughout the world. However, with the passage of time, new generations, complicated circumstances, and many Israeli “mistakes” made along the way, the Gentile world simply is waking up to the movie’s manipulation of reality at the expense of the world. Now, let’s see, which American movie actor can we get to represent the Palestinians in 1948 for a new movie called “Nakba?”
Exactly, where is that movie? Make already, if you have the ability or influence.
There’s money around that would be interested, and many European and Asian directors.
The portrayal of the various representative forces in the Exodus movie were actually quite accurate. For example, the Jabotinskyite was portrayed as opportunist, dogmatic, but also sympathetic in ways.
Perhaps you are really angry at yourself that you didn’t approach the movie with skepticism, and now similarly don’t approach your own 180 degree reaction with skepticism.
Well, Dick Witty, I was a teen-ager when the movie came out; I’m not really angry
about the little I knew back then; as one grows one learns about the art of manipulation. I assume you also appreciate Leni Riefenstahl ‘s contributions. Her work is on a much higher scale, artistically speaking, that the likes of Exodus.
Things have sure changed since 1960. When the movie “Exodus” first came out, across the USA as in Pittsburg: our entire junior high and high school was bussed to Pittsburgh, about 70 miles from our town, to see the movie. I guess the school paid for it as we were never asked for any money for the tickets or the bus trip.
It was a Saturday showing and when we got back to school on Monday and for several days after, every class covered what we learned from the movie and the historical context of the content of the movie.
We spent several days of history class talking about the creation of a Jewish state and how important this was to the world. It was all taught in a very positive light. A light to mankind. The Palestinians were never really mentioned.
I just want to draw attention to this very interesting comment. I doubt the school system couldn’t have paid for such a trip without a grant from some outside agency. It’s pretty amazing, because America and American Jews weren’t nearly as in to Israel then as now.
Witty – as someone who believes the ‘ends justifies the means’ opportunistically and hypocritically, do you think you have credibility to propose possible solutions to this conflict?
Clearly, the dissent over Exodus, is that it is a propaganda movie.
Why would you make a benign, one-sentence statement like this:
…when clearly the criticisms offered here are both sincere and passionate?
It’s ridiculous Witty. You can only ‘beg the question’ and obfuscate in response, naturally.
I believe that there are conditions in which the ends justify the means.
Don’t you? You employ some ends here that I find repugnant, and for some means that you justify.
Like what? Do I support killing Israeli civilians? Terrorizing them? Be specific Witty, it’s important.
I’ll tell you what though – if I were an ‘ends justify the means’ Zionist who called himself ‘liberal’, then I would take responsibility an advocate the One-State solution as a struggle AND solution that would reform Israel AND the Palestinians.
I should have been clearer Witty. It’s not simply that you’re an ‘ends justify the means’ type of person. It’s that you’re also opportunistic (and by definition in this context, hypocritical).
You don’t want to make amends or seek ‘mutual’ whatever – that’s just a mechanism (rhetoric in this case) to present your get out of ‘jail’ (as how you see it) card.
There is no perfect war. We can’t go back and change history – except, Israel has been pursuing the same policies since 48′. They cannot expel 800K Palestinians but they can do so slowly while the Lobby buys them time.
You want to cut your losses. You’ve bet a lot on the Zionist project, selfishly naturally, and to save it (‘from itself’) you want to go out while on top.
In your world-view, the Palestinians are just rag-dolls. Cannon fodder. To you – they have no ties to the land which is now called Israel. They have no history or culture. They came from nowhere. They are just unsightly shadows.
This sentiment informs all of the things you’ve said on this blog. I find that disgusting.
Thea Von Harbou would understand Witty. She wrote the script for Metropolis, not the B movie Exodus, which was instigated by Zionists, and peddled across the USA k-12 system in my youth.
link to thea-von-harbou.blogspot.com
“Arabs, as the New York Times review noted, appear in Uris’s novels as murderers, thieves and rapists. They are lazy, cowardly, boastful, deceitful, untrustworthy, backbiting, and lustful. The Haj presents the Zionist interpretation of the Palestinian people. As an instance of bias and bigotry, it is hard to beat.
Largely self-educated, Uris proudly called attention to the quantity of his research. “The first thing you have to do,” he remarked, “is get immersed in the project, organising yourself, knowing what you are going after and not going after. It is extremely important to know what you don’t want to find.”
link to guardian.co.uk
An example of willingly adopting malevolent means is the choice to describe my comments as “ends justifying means” as the theme of my reasoning, as if you don’t adopt similar thinking.
You willingly misrepresent others in the end to portray others as some caricature.
Its a failing on your part, a hypocrisy.
“In your world-view, the Palestinians are just rag-dolls. Cannon fodder. To you – they have no ties to the land which is now called Israel. They have no history or culture. They came from nowhere. They are just unsightly shadows. ”
This is a lie. A falsehood in two regards. First, you presume to know what I think, which is impossible. Second, I don’t regard Palestinians as rag-dolls in the slightest. I regard them as human beings entirely. I don’t presume that they came from nowhere, they came from somewhere. Some are from families that formerly resided in Palestine for generations, some not.
In any case, the important feature of democracy, if that is what you advocate for, is current, not ancestral. (Ancestral is the basis of Zionist claim to sovereignty over all of the land, a ludicrous and anti-democratic position).
Actually, Some Arabs appear as blood-thirsty and some appear as enlightened and hospitable.
Did we see the same movie?
“‘”An example of willingly adopting malevolent means is the choice to describe my comments as “ends justifying means” as the theme of my reasoning, as if you don’t adopt similar thinking.”‘
This must take the prize for the most convoluted and incoherent sentence ever contructed.
“‘First, you presume to know what I think, which is impossible”‘
No, it’s not, because you have explained and demonstated what you think, albeit inadvertently.
“‘Second, I don’t regard Palestinians as rag-dolls in the slightest. I regard them as human beings entirely”‘
Humans beings, but nevertheless, lesser beings that Israeli Jews. After all, you consider a boytcott of Israel a crime, but a blockade agaisnt Gaza entirely appropriate.
“Ancestral is the basis of Zionist claim to sovereignty over all of the land, a ludicrous and anti-democratic position”
Do we take that as an admission that Zionism therefore, is fundamentally flawed and incompatible with democracy?
Witty, you are being evasive.
Please clarify your your point here. You and I are the same, because I ‘adopt malevolent means‘? That’s it? Or because you believe I am a hypocrite, for pointing out your hypocrisy? (Probably both?)
Witty, you are simply repeating your earlier claim. I asked you to simply flesh out an example of an argument I made here, where I expressed solidarity w/ the sentiment of ‘ends justify the means’.
You have to first identify my alleged hypocrisy in this regard.
Witty, this is just childish. You are interpreting me superficially on purpose.
You are being dishonest.
I am not claiming to be able to read your mind. I am coming to a conclusion about the style of your commentary.
The humanity of Palestinians is not part of your perspective. You only see them as obstructions.
Hence, why you accept the terror that induced the flight of the Palestinians in 48′.
If you accept the ‘means’ (terror) – then you do not care for the humanity of the victims.
You make arguments about how the Palestinians should ‘give up’ on One-State, because Zionism exists. Well, the Palestinians existed too. Even if there were no such thing as ‘Palestinians’ – they were still people. Human beings.
This is my point. Their tragedy does not factor into your commentary.
Now, I am not simply talking about the Palestinian experience. Logistically, there would be no Jewish State – as you prefer it to be, Jewish majority – without the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
So I am not simply asking you to ‘feel’ their pain. I am asking you to tell me why you have the credibility to propose a solution when your brand of Zionism is purely opportunistic and hypocritical.
Before you make another shallow argument:
‘ends justifies the means’ is in an obvious context. I won’t express it.
I will just say, that a person studying hard, to get into a good college is not an appropriate scenario to characterize as ‘ends justifies the means’.
Common sense.
Well, we agree on one thing. That is that Palestinians are human beings.
Wondering when we are going to agree that Zionists are human beings, Israelis.
I expect that you are going to go into a litany of what “Zionists” did, then generalize that justify that Zionists deserve to be accountable.
Irony alert: Richard, do you have evidence that Israelis are really humans? I mean not some kind of extraterrestial aliens or some kind of Avatars?
Obviously this is a highly relevant point that might lead to a discourse turn/a paradigm shift for us: “the posse”.
[Private note: Now that I would have a little more time, I realized that my niece is in big troubles considering her thesis deadline (BA) ... more important than "stalking" Richard Witty and quite possibly time consuming in the near future: Internet non-users, resisters, ...]
“Actually, Some Arabs appear as blood-thirsty and some appear as enlightened and hospitable.”
I didn’t see it. I read the plot synopsis at wikipedia and it appears that the Arab opponents of Zionism are bloodthirsty extremists and the nice Arab who warns the Zionists about a planned attack on a Jewish village is later killed by the Arab extremists. The bombing of the King David Hotel is part of the movie, but there’s not much about the massacres of Arab villagers by Haganah forces or the forced expulsions of Arab civilians. The bombing of the hotel was the work of Zionist extremists and so was Deir Yassin–it’s not until later that people realize that Haganah also has atrocities to its discredit.
It sounds like the movie was a product of its time, when most (though not all) of the ugly deeds committed by the Zionist forces weren’t known in the West and the ones that were known could be attributed to Irgun, but everyone knew about Arab atrocities. It’s not surprising that you’d like it.
“Richard Witty January 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I believe that there are conditions in which the ends justify the means.”
That’s just how many Germans felt, Richard! They had no personal animus against the Jews, but felt it would be better for Germany if they weren’t there.
Cliff, have you seen it?
Just curious…… not being a dick or anything like that…..
Yea, saw it a few weeks ago. Netflix.
“Just curious…… not being a dick or anything like that…..”
Yonira, dear, you couldn’t if you tried! Without very expensive surgical assistance, of course.
Yup, that’s Witty, always beg the question, and never answer the questions which beg for answers.
But you would, wouldn’t you?
link to boston.com
It “annoyed Iraqis a lot” that the Americans who failed to protect Iraqi cultural treasures were devoting such care to the Jewish archive.
I didn’t read Exodus but I did read the sequel “The Haj” Which tells the story from a Palestinian point of view. It’s really powerful.
Luckily these days we have the ipad so books cannot be destroyed as they are digital.
Just read the wikipedia plot summary. Sounds like crap.
link
More specifically, it sounds like the sort of thing condescending Westerners write when they want to portray themselves as compassionate towards the “pragmatic” ordinary Palestinians whose suffering is caused almost exclusively by the failures of their own leaders and their culture. Michener’s “The Source” was another of the same type.
The Haj doesn’t tell anything from a Palestinian point of view. It’s entirely of a type with Exodus – except Exodus is a story primarily about Zionists in Palestine, written from a Zionist point of view, whereas Haj is more about the Arab population in Palestine, also written from the Zionist point of view. Its Arab characters are a caricature of what Zionists pretend them to be, in order to justify treating them as Zionism does – they are bestial, dirty, backwards, superstitious, and too dumb even to let their new well-meaning Jewish neighbors help them learn basic hygiene and healthcare and farming and other benefits of the 20th century.
“Cringeworthy” might be a better word for it, rather than “powerful”. It’s the kind of book that is so clumsy and embarrassing in its stereotypes that you’d like to think it wouldn’t get published today by any serious publisher.
I will check it out BSDNOW, not on an Ipad though,
Nozette, link to haaretz.com
possibly another Israeli spy planted in US defense industry, also
Exodus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Uris
link to unionsverlag.com
Brewer,
You omitted the “according to one source, “in the early fifties….”
I guess you dont’ want any skepticism placed on your comments.
RW.
I guess you don’t want any comments placed on your skepticism since you neglect to post any support for it at all.
A Google search for “Edward Gottlieb Exodus Uris” throws up page after page of relevant sources such as Arthur Stevens, former public relations director of Prentice-Hall Inc and head of Safire Public Relations (in his 1985 book “The Persuasion Explosion”).
link to wrmea.com
“The saga of the Exodus stands out because it was so successful in gaining sympathy for the Zionists. As Ike Aranne, captain of the Exodus recalled, Zionist intelligence officers “gave us orders that this ship was to be used as a big demonstration with banners to show how poor and weak and helpless we were, and how cruel the British were.”
In the early 1950s, an American public relations man, Edward Gottlieb, seeking to improve Israel’s image in the United States, hit upon the idea of hiring a writer to go to Israel and write an heroic novel about the new country. The writer was Leon Uris, and his novel, Exodus, became a huge best-seller.14 Moreover, the highly romanticized novel later became a movie starring Paul Newman. It was a box office smash hit.
The fact that Uris’s book totally distorted reality and ignored the basic injustice involved in the West imposing on the Middle East a solution to its own problems was completely overlooked. Instead, the movie inculcated in millions of Americans the image of Zionists as pioneers in search of freedom among fanatical Arabs and perfidious British officials, an image that lingered for many years, in part because of the saga of the Exodus.
link to wrmea.com
The remarks of the Captain:
“to show how poor and weak and helpless we were, and how cruel the British were”
…reflect a tiny light on the Patria disaster.
I have always been skeptical about the claim by the Irgun that they over-estimated the amount of explosive needed to disable the ship. They were very experienced with explosives at the time and there are many effective yet non-destructive ways to disable a ship.
I have long suspected that the intention was to demonize the Brits or Arabs in the way Aranowicz/Aranne describes.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Exodus, the movie, formed the focal point of the introduction to the most recent AIPAC conference in Washington, DC. In the video intro, an American Jewish girls says, “I had just seen “Exodus,” then I took a trip to Israel and saw all the places first hand; it was awesome… [or words to that effect]” link to c-spanvideo.org
The Haj
link to nytimes.com
link to bookrags.com
ALERT!
Friends,
New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner, who is embroiled in an ethics controversy, is about to embark on a small speaking tour. We urge people to raise Bronner’s ethics violations at these and future venues.
Further info: link to campaign.constantcontact.com
I see Bronner is following course with what Olmert did, when in doubt “go on tour.” It seems to be the cure all which the offenders use, the PR carpet ride. When you kill a few thousand Palestinians (or support such), and you have glaring conflict of interest problems – fly in the face of it with PR. Try to make yourself attractive, and put lipstick on that pig.
Or (in regard to the Exodus) make a movie! You take take theft and murder on a national scale and turn it into an ancient divine “privilege.” By all means use all of the “national” methodology of lying settler states. Pull out all the stops, and hope that at the end of the day (or century) you get people to sing Hatikva just like Americans sing god bless America – with a tear in their eye.
Do you notice how they always take the trail on “higher learning” on these tours? They do it for two specific purposes. First, it gives the appearance of legitimacy – after all, isn’t this where we send our children? It is also the place where we are supposed to get prepared for later life, if you want to “make it,” you have to go to the hallowed halls. Universities and secondary institutions go through a long process of accepted as the receptacle of knowledge that is worth knowing. So the hucksters salivate about making tours through the elaborately prepared institutions of learning.
The second reason they are chosen, is because in reality, the way the institutions of higher learning survive in the US system is by “gracious” donors. In reality this makes them severely compromised, led by the administrative process of funding, rather than the attainment of truth. Not all participants are compromised in this fashion, however they are far and few between. So, if the till has been greased by the proper ideologues (Bronner will be visiting Brandeis, Vassar, and UC Santa Barbara in his hasbara quest according to the article Dan posted above) this is the “payback.” Than all of the students can learn what it means to be an “objective” journalist. All the intellectuals can have a clam bake –
SUIT UP FOR THE PARADE
Although “Exodus” is/was propaganda, Sal Mineo’s performance in it was his best in any film. Although Mineo appeared in “Rebel Without a Cause”, his role in that James Dean film was that of a nerd, whereas only in “Exodus” does he appear as a rebel (with a cause).
Other memorable moments in the film: 1. When Eva Marie Saint wonders whether the blonde Jewish girl was only half Jewish (because of her blondness) and the girl’s assertion that she was fully Jewish. 2. The relationship between the blonde Jewish girl and Sal Mineo: the Jewish girl’s faith in other people because of the conduct of the nonJews of Denmark and Sal Mineo’s inability to comprehend such altruism. 3. Lee J. Cobb’s estrangement from his Irgun leading brother (Opatashu), but his assertion to Paul Newman that he didn’t want his brother to die at the end of a British rope.
You are free to call it a grade “B” movie, for indeed regarding the Palestinian Israeli conflict it is propaganda, but IMDB gives it a 6.8 rating, which is not bad.
That’s interesting. So it has some intellectual relevance, so long as it’s not dealing w/ the main subject matter?
Kids in Guatemala liked CBN’s shows, not for the message so much as the production value. So I agree with you. Propaganda can look cool. It can sound smart. It can even have some truth in it. It’s still propaganda though.
Regarding Jaffa- The Arabs never accepted the partition plan and the war that was fought in the months after the partition plan’s passage mooted the plan. The sin of the Israelis was in not allowing the Palestinians back after the war was over. Fighting a war that the enemy started was no sin. (Of course I will hear arguments that the Israelis should never have come to Palestine in the first place and that was precisely the argument that the Arabs/Palestinians were making at the time that they launched the war in the days after the partition plan.)
David Hirst , The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East, London: Faber and Faber, 1977, pg. 123-143. An excerpt (pg. 136, 138-139, 142):
Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, New York: Pantheon, 1987, pp. 81-118. An excerpt (pp. 42, 83-84, 132):
Thank you Cliff. You saved me a task. I feel duty bound to jump in on questions of History.
I think it is Martin Creveld who gives the numbers.
At the outset, both sides fielded about 60,000 troops but the greatest contingent of the Arab League (and the best equipped) was the Jordan’s Arab Legion – trained and equipped by the Brits. Jordan, through secret negotiations with Golda Meir, moved only to secure the West Bank.
In the second phase of the War, Israel had fielded an additional 30,000 troops and received substantial arms from Czechoslavakia. The Arab League received little in the way of reinforcements.
Another somewhat fine point often overlooked is that there was never a partition of the land. The plan for partition existed for about three months then was dropped at America’s insistence. They favored a multi-ethnic State under U.N. stewardship.
Neither party accepted partition. Ben Gurion’s letters and diaries attest to his acceptance of partition only as an interim measure and Begin’s “partition of the homeland is illegal” comment is well known – certainly to the Arabs. It is fatuous to assert that they were somehow culpable for not going along with the deal when they knew full well that the Zionists had no intention of honoring it.
If you study the history of this conflict, one hasbara technique becomes evident, the pushing and pulling of the time line. Thus the refugees “fled the fog of a War that they started” when in fact, about half of them were expelled before the War began.
The Arab League Declaration to the U.N. explaining their actions makes this clear:
“The Zionist aggression resulted in the exodus of more than a quarter of a million of its Arab inhabitants from their homes”
-that was written before May 15.
It makes for fascinating reading. I seriously believe the Arab League thought the U.N. would approve.
link to mideastweb.org
”The Arabs never accepted the partition plan”
Neither did the Israelis.
“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.
By: Ben-Gurion
Source: P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987″ Simha Flapan
I would add that the Palestinians didn’t accept the partition plan because it was heavily biased against them, but they realized they had no power to change anything, it was going to go ahead and all they could do was make a bit of noise. The Zionists realized they couldn’t publicly say “We are not satisfied with three quarters of the pie because we intend to have it all” so they decided to appear reasonable by not protesting.
Why, Tuyzentfloot, you do have a way of getting to the nub of the matter. You nailed the Zionist Zeitgeist of that moment in time.
“The Arabs never accepted the partition plan and the war that was fought in the months after the partition plan’s passage mooted the plan. The sin of the Israelis was in not allowing the Palestinians back after the war was over. Fighting a war that the enemy started was no sin”
The fact that so many people have internalized factoids like this is one of the main tragedies of books like Exodus and also Michener’s Source. Also fantastic is the notion in these novels that the Palestinians fled because their leaders asked them to and the Israelis did their best to keep them from fleeing. I have even discovered “pro-Palestinian” people in America who believe this. The facts, which require no specialized research, no uncovering of secret archives, are that the Hagana, Stern, and Irgun forces were well on their way to conquest of the intended Palestinian areas of the partition, and had already done ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the areas of the partition selected for the Jewish state before any Arab armies entered Palestine. The dates of various battles and deployments can be derived from any of the memoirs of the various Israeli players involved. The Deir Yassin massacre and explusions took place in an area that was to be the international zone of Jerusalem. The date was April 9, 1948 by which time an estimated 300,ooo Palestinians had already been cleansed out of their villages. The Arab armies began their entry on May 15, 1948 and for the most part were involved in securing what was left of the areas of Palestine allotted for the Palestinians. Jordanian combat, while the most effective, simply consolidated Jordanian control on what was left of the “West Bank” and prevented the Israelis from a complete conquest of that area in ’48 and ’49.
How many Jews (Zionists) had to be killed during December 47 and January and February 48 for you to admit that there was a war on? How many roads had to be impassable without getting shot at during those months before you will admit that there was a war on. How many nonPalestinian fighters had to be in Palestine before May 15, 1948 in order to pass the test.
The war started the week after the partition was passed. The roads were controlled by anti Zionist forces and until the implementation of Plan Dalet, the Arabs (Palestinians) were winning the war.
“If you study the history of this conflict, one hasbara technique becomes evident, the pushing and pulling of the time line.”
I asked a very simple question. How many Jews/Zionists were killed in the months of Dec. 47, Jan. 48 and February 48? How many would have to be killed before you will admit that there was a war going on during those months? Were the roads passable for nonArabs during those months? Did the representative of the AHC (Arab Higher Committee) admit to the United Nations in April of 48, that they had started the fighting.
(And because I’m in a pugnacious mood, why did they call themselves the AHC and not the PHC, as in Palestinian Higher Committee, if they already referred to themselves as Palestinians? Answer: They didn’t call themselves Palestinians at that time.)
(Plus this: How many rich Palestinians left the area of conflict between December and March, not as a result of “Zionist aggression”, but because they could afford to do so? And how did the abandonment by this elite of the society affect the other Palestinians who were left behind by the elites?)
I am not pushing and pulling the time line, I am asking if you have facts or just anti Hasbara propaganda.
I don’t know the casualty figures at various points. There was a civil war going on in the time that you mention. The problem with Plan Dalet is not that Zionists had a military plan to take over some territory–the problem is that they took over the territory, expelled hundreds of thousands of civilians and then didn’t let them back home when the war was over.
WJ.
Your question appears simple and the simple answer is that the ratio of killings prior to the outbreak of hostilities was remarkably similar to today – more than 10 “Arabs” to one Zionist. A simple answer only serves to obscure the picture however.
One fundamental question needs to be addressed at the outset:
Would or should an indigenous population stand idly by while illegal immigration rises to such heights it threatens to overwhelm them in their own land? What steps would a reasonable man take to avoid such an eventuality?
It is only by addressing this question that we can understand the events of the decade or two leading up to May 15 1948.
In my view, Palestinians took those reasonable steps but were met by equivocation by the Brits and obduracy on the part of the Zionists.
I shall try to be brief and, for convenience, I will use Wikipedia quotes. Note that I do not rely on Wikipedia as an authority. The facts are independently verifiable.
Palestinian Nationalist ambitions began about the mid nineteenth century with a revolt against the Ottoman Empire but waxed and waned periodically up until the early twentieth. The King-Crane Commission of 1919 noted that 73.5 percent of all petitions they received called for absolute independence.
Almost everyone knows about the promises of Statehood made by the Allies during the first and second World Wars which were promptly rescinded as soon as those conflicts were done with.
Between the wars, Palestinians’ civil protests against excessive immigration and for sovereignty were ignored and cost them dearly. The revolt of 1936 began with a general strike and sabotage of infrastructure but the backlash from the Brits and Zionists created a full on revolt.
The odious Orde Wingate was partly responsible:
The result was devastating for the Pals:
Such were the conditions leading up to the events of 1947-8. It is my impression that, in the intervening years, the incidents of provocation by the Zionists outdid retaliatory acts in both number and severity. Certainly the acts of terror perpetrated by the Stern Gang, Irgun and even the Haganah were never matched. There is not, to my knowledge however, a full and easily accessed accounting.
How much sense can we now make of your question:
“I asked a very simple question. How many Jews/Zionists were killed in the months of Dec. 47, Jan. 48 and February 48? How many would have to be killed before you will admit that there was a war going on during those months?”
In my view, not a lot of sense without understanding the full context of the times.
One might as well, in defending the conquest of Native Americans, ask how many Palefaces had to be killed by Native Americans before that conflict could rightly be labeled a “War”. There never really was a “War” in that instance. There was a series of expulsions followed by retaliation or resistance leading to massacre – in almost every case, massacre of the indigenous people.
In truth I find the question (framed as it is in order to provide justification for what was, in every sense of the word, an invasion) rather nonsensical. Resistance to the occupation of ones homeland should not be considered a provocation – then as now.
As to when the “War” began, I suggest caution if you wish to defend the Zionist actions and ideology. A whole edifice of justification rests on the foundation of the “massed Arab Armies attacked the nascent Jewish State” meme and that event did not occur until 15 May 1948.
I often visualize Hasbaratchiks (there Mooser, I’ve used your term!) as jumping from one ice floe to another. As one proposition is defeated, they leap to another. Unfortunately, the subsequent proposition is not compatible with the former and leads to unintended consequences:
“The expulsion of the Palestinians was a consequence of a War Arabs initiated”
….but the expulsions began before the War.
“Well actually the War began before the Arabs attacked”
So the Arabs didn’t attack, they came to the defense of the Pals?
” No, actually ummmm (seeking the next ice floe) the Pals attacked first.”
But the Pals were a very small force, disorganized and disarmed. The Israelis fielded 60,000 men at arms?
“Well, (back to the first floe) the Arabs had 60,000 when they attacked.”
…..I think you can see where this is headed.
Apologies for a complex reply but it was a fairly curly question. Also let me note that WJ’s posts have always given me the impression that he/she is genuinely seeking answers.
I do not profess to have them all.
What I do have I have gleaned from thousands of hours reading every supported fact I have been able to lay my hands on (and yes, a great deal of opinion), then trying to make sense of the various narratives. My interest is primarily History. It is only since pursuing this interest that I have become “anti Hasbara”, for a comparative study of the History and the Zionist narrative reveals the stark contrast between what happened and what we were told had happened. That contrast defines Hasbara.
In my youth I ardently supported the Zionist Project.
I reject as fatuous any attempt to deny Palestinians a national identity based on the etymology of the word “Palestinian”. Such arguments apply equally to the word “Israeli” .
Sorry WJ.
I should have said at the outset, I was not accusing you of screwing with the timeline, just being influenced by it. None of your former posts have appeared insincere to me.
My original post was in reaction to Phil Weiss’s comments regarding the expulsion of the population of Jaffa, despite the fact that Jaffa was part of the Arab state as specified in the partition plan. By the time of the expulsion of the Arab population of Jaffa the partition plan was moot. The idea that an Arab enclave could coexist so near to the Jewish city of Tel Aviv during a time of war strains credibility. I admitted that the primary sin of Israel was not in the expulsion of these Arabs but in the fact that Israel did not readmit them after the war was over.
The Arab revolt of 1936-39 resulted in a profound defeat for the Arab forces. It also resulted in a profound defeat for the Zionist hope that Palestine would be a refuge for Jewish refugees for it resulted in the White Paper of 1939 which severely limited Jewish immigration.
From 1939 to 1945, except for certain exceptions the Zionists were supporting the British and the Arabs were supporting the Nazis.
When WWII began to wind down the Zionists were clearly focused on kicking out the British and establishing a Jewish state. I do not have statistics available for the casualties of the two sides (Arab vs. Jewish) in the time period between 1945 and Dec. 1947 and I don’t think it is safe to make any assumptions regarding casualties during this period.
The relevance of statistics for the months of Dec. 47 and January, February and March of 48 is based upon the contention that the Zionists should have been expected to respect the borders of the partition plan. The casualties of those months prove that there was a war already on.
I have casualty statistics for the months of December and January and March, but lack the statistics for February. The statistics for December, January and March are: 652 Jews killed and 784 Arabs killed. These are sufficient casualties to consider the partition plan borders moot.
Is it your contention that there were no members of the Arab Liberation Army in Palestine before May 15th of 1948? If so, it is a contention that flies in the face of history.
I understand the Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise. I understand the motivations for the Zionist enterprise. But there are certain things which are historical facts and should allow for a common base of factual approach to the conflict.
The contention that I read so often on this site that the Zionist expulsions of populations began before the invasion of the Arab forces on May 15th will continue I am sure. Those assertions seem to be based on the idea that there was peace in the land and that the Zionists were the ones to bust up that peace. That is clearly not the case. There was a war on as of November 30th 1947.
“The contention that I read so often on this site that the Zionist expulsions of populations began before the invasion of the Arab forces on May 15th will continue I am sure. Those assertions seem to be based on the idea that there was peace in the land and that the Zionists were the ones to bust up that peace. That is clearly not the case. There was a war on as of November 30th 1947.”
Well,no, the contentions will continue because they are true, and it’s not based on some idea that there was peace before May 1948. There’s no doubt there was a civil war going on and also no doubt that expulsions of civilians began on a large scale. There’s disagreement among historians about whether Plan Dalet was intended to be a permanent demographic change. After driving Arab civilians out of their homes and enlarging their territory, and faced with the fact that the UN partition plan already gave the Jewish portion a population of Arabs almost equal to the number of Jews, it’s hard to believe the Zionist side wouldn’t have noticed that Plan Dalet, whatever its military rationale, was also a chance to change the demographics and keep it that way, even if there were also military reasons for a short-term expulsion. (Assuming there were such).
WJ.
I would like to continue this discussion but weekdays are not good for me.
The narrative I consider most likely in view of the evidence is one of increasing pressure on the indigenous people who, for the most part, did not involve themselves with politics. Each village seemed to have its own attitude and in many cases, this was governed by their experience. Some villages saw economic advantage in Jewish settlement and remained on the sidelines – Najd (Sderot) and Deir Yassin for instance. Others resisted on a local level, mainly in response to provocation.
There were a few small organized resistance groups such as that of Abd al-Qader al-Husseini and the Holy War Army which arrived in January 1948 with a couple hundred men. He recruited locals and caused the blockade of Jerusalem.
Your reference to the Arab Liberation Army leaves me a bit puzzled. If you mean the group of about 3000 Syrian volunteers led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, my understanding is that they were largely ineffective after they arrived on the scene in March or April of 1948 and in fact betrayed Husseini.
From where I sit, backdating the beginning of “War” to 1947 requires some substantiating evidence. As far as I know, it is a recent innovation introduced (I think by Ephraim Karsh. Don’t get me started on Karsh who is something of a joke among legitimate Historians.)
I am very keen to hear from you some numbers and descriptions of the various contingents fielded by the Arabs during the period before May 1948 and the narrative you feel supports the earlier onset of War. I grant you the Jerusalem Road was bitterly contested but does it justify the massacres of civilians and displacement of the populace? I can think of very few examples of this tactic being employed in modern warfare. The usual method is to secure the village leaving non-combatants in place. There is evidence to suggest that driving the civilians towards Arab lines was a deliberate tactic, a human shield to cover the advance of Yishuv forces.
A few points.
“The idea that an Arab enclave could coexist so near to the Jewish city of Tel Aviv during a time of war strains credibility”
The assumption here seems to be that there were no Arab civilians – that all Arabs were the enemy. This is a justification for and in fact a description of ethnic cleansing.
“the White Paper of 1939 which severely limited Jewish immigration.”
The idea that unregulated immigration was somehow a right or was “just” is quite astonishing. Nevertheless, the quota of 15,000 Jewish immigrants per year set by the White Paper was actually not unreasonable at all when one considers that nearly half a million had already been granted entry, putting huge strains on Palestinian society.
“From 1939 to 1945, except for certain exceptions the Zionists were supporting the British and the Arabs were supporting the Nazis.”
I expected better of you. This is a gratuitous slur. You well know that the Yishuv’s National Military Organization (under Yitzak Shamir) had offered its services to Nazi Germany and terrorism against Britain continued during the War years e.g the Patria bombing, assassination of Lord Moyne.
Aside from the grossly misused example of Mufti Hussayni, I have seen nothing to support the statement: “Arabs were supporting the Nazis” if by “Arabs” you mean Palestinians. Be interested to see evidence of this.
“The statistics for December, January and March are: 652 Jews killed and 784 Arabs killed
Alarming as these numbers appear, I do not think they support the thesis of “War” as you intend. About a thousand casualties a year result from the current violence.
I shall continue to visit this thread and am happy discuss further as time allows.
Erskine Childers provides the definitive rebuttal of the “they abandoned or were told to abandon their homes” hasbara:
link to users.cloud9.net
BTW.
Childers wrote that in May 1961
“Regarding Jaffa- The Arabs never accepted the partition plan and the war that was fought in the months after the partition plan’s passage mooted the plan.”
Regarding Jaffa
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Mondoweiss comment section has the best goddam hasbara debunkers on the web!
Ban Witty and the rest? Never! Why, the debunking opportunities they provide, you couldn’t buy for a million bucks!
It must be tiresome, though.
You all have my sincere admiration for your knowledge and tenacity. Thanks for interesting yourselves in this question.
More about Exodus, from Reel Bad Arabs:
Bump, wanted the regulars to see this excerpt.
Mondoweiss is the only regular debunker of hasbara available world wide.
Not by a long shot, Citizen! JSF comes to mind, and Silverstein, and at least a dozen others.
dont forget hasbara buster.