An Israeli on Nakba Day: ‘Our humanity is bound up with your right to return’

Man see school nakba
A Palestinian man overlooks a school in a refugee camp, 1948. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

My sisters and brothers the refugees of Palestinian, today is the 15th of May, the Nakba Day, and I have one request from you; a heartfelt request from the son of occupiers, as an occupier, to those who paid the price for this occupation.

No, I do not ask for forgiveness for the occupation, or the destruction and expulsion that occurred in the Nakba of 1948. I can’t really expect forgiveness for these horrors, not in the true sense of forgiveness, the religious or spiritual sense. And since this forgiveness cannot truly take place, so can Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation occur only as a political and cultural settlement that will allow us to stop the killing and the mutual fear (and this mutuality does not mean symmetry, because it absolutely does not exist between the sides). Religious forgiveness belongs, therefore, to a different dimension, an unrealistic dimension utopian to a radical degree. This perhaps is a Platonic idea or guiding principle that guides us in the right direction that we must strive towards even if we’ll never get there.

Therefore, my request is more modest, and I hope that you could relate to it because without it I will not be able to continue to hope and to believe that it is possible to live in this land. And by “living” I mean really living, in the true sense of the word—to speak its language, to know its history, not just to conquer it, to turn it into a myth, to be afraid in and to want to be someplace else, which is not this land, when a good opportunity happens to come up, to run away to foreign lands (always in a Western direction) in every opportunity…

My request is, therefore, that you persist and will not give up your right to return.

It might sound a little strange because who am I to ask of you to insist on your own rights, the basic right of people who were uprooted from their land and their homes. But despite this, despite how awkward or absurd this request may be, despite it sounds as minefield, I insist. Please, you and your children, don’t ever give up your right to return. Not (only) for yourselves but for me also. Do you understand? If you give up this right all chance for a just life in this land will be lost and I will be sentenced to the shameful life of an eternal occupier, armed from the soles of my feet to the depths of my soul and always afraid, like all colonizers. From my point of view dangerous things might happen to us, the Israelis, if it happened that you, the Palestinian refugees, give up your right to return. If that day arrives, the day where you give up your right of return, the great haters of the Jews will be able to celebrate their ultimate victory. When the Jewish Israelis’ position as conquerors and bringers of woe will be made permanent, their haters will prove that they were right when they blamed them for having a badly damaged humanity .

Our humanity is bound up with your right to return. The day we expelled you from your land you carried a part of it with you. Only when you can return we will be able to restore our humanity. It is hard for us to continue in this way, with damaged humanities. It doesn’t mean that all our humanity has left us, but, as you know, we were left mainly with vulgarity, condescension, militarism and fear. Yes, we have some beautiful things but about real humanity occupiers cannot even dream of. Actually to dream of it may be possible. About a life in cooperation with you here in our shared land. It is a beautiful and moving dream.

In my dream I see a life in cooperation with my friends, Palestinian refugees, who have exponentially grown in numbers ever since I started to learn and teach about the Nakba. From then, many places here have ceased being (only) training grounds for the army, JNF forests, national parks, ancient Jewish towns, ancient ruins, Crusader fortresses, liberated towns, picturesque villages, empty wilderness…

Miska, Qula, Bir’im, Saffuriyya, al-Ghabisiyya, ‘Ayn Ghazal, Yaffa, Haifa, Tabaria, Ijzim, Dair Yassin, Safsaf, Ijlil, Qaqun, ‘Innaba, al-Lajjun, al-Ghubayyat, and more – Israel destroyed an entire life, an entire page of civilization, in destroying these places. For me these places have a real face, one that I met personally, and there are many refugees that are demanding their right to return to them.

When you return these empty towns and villages will be filled with people, they will be bursting with life and will stop being only a testimony for death and sad memories as they have been for 62 years. Filling up these spaces will also fill up the empty space in my own humanity.

Your right to return is my opportunity and that of all Israelis to begin restoring our humanity.

Eitan Bronstein is the Executive Director of the the Israeli NGO Zochrot. Zochrot’s aim is to promote awareness of the Palestinian Nakba and their slogan is "To commemorate, witness, acknowledge, and repair."

Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 370 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. VR says:

    We are going to have to answer this statement by agreeing, because nothing less is just or true. We cannot deny it nor can we minimize or hedge on this point, it deserves all of our support and effort, we need to act on it. If we do not, not only will there be no peace in our being because there can be none without this justice fulfilled, but as the attorney William Moses Kunstler so aptly said, sometime in the near future we are “going to wake up at 3:00AM in the morning screaming.”

    • RE: …If we do not, not only will there be no peace in our being because there can be none without this justice fulfilled, but as the attorney William Moses Kunstler so aptly said, sometime in the near future we are “going to wake up at 3:00AM in the morning screaming.” – VR
      MUSICAL INTERLUDE (brought to you courtesy of Ziocaine®):
      “…Out beyond the water’s edge
      Far out past the coral ledge
      Underneath the diamond dancing light
      Chase the world from far below
      Silent sleeping in they go
      Drifting down into the endless night….
      ….Leaving reason far behind
      Nothing here is cruel or kind
      Only your desire to set me free…
      Let us lie here all alone
      Worn away like river stone
      Let us be the sirens of the sea….”
      OceanLab Sirens Of The Sea, from Above & Beyond Club Mix [05:05] – link to youtube.com
      “Things just go better with Ziocaine™”

    • Avi says:

      Haifa – 1948

      Photos

      link to life.com

      (The standing man to the right, up on the porch/deck is a Hagana man, the new boss).

      link to life.com

      • This picture perfectly captures the issue.

        Thanks for posting these Avi’s.

        • Avi says:

          No problem, James.

          You might find this photo
          interesting too.

          I snapped the one on the right.

        • Yet according to the Zionists “the Palestinians were merely nomadic Bedouins.”

        • For those interested. I just posted 76 photos documenting the nakba here:

          link to angryarabscommentsection.blogspot.com

          Most of them are totally unknown to the public.

        • Avi says:

          62 years is a long time to be sitting in a refugee camp. The Holocaust AND the persecution of Jews in Germany didn’t go on for that long.

          And I say that out of anger. A lot of anger. Why? Mostly because the disparity between the so-called civilized West’s treatment of the Holocaust and Jews after WWII, and its treatment of Palestinians to this day have been severely slanted. The recognition such a tragedy has received in movies, dramas, paintings, plays, textbooks and poems stands in stark contrast to the recognition the Palestinians and THEIR tragedy have received.

          But, it gets even more outrageous. After WWII, when many Germans came to terms with Nazi ideology and realized the stain it had left on Germany, they sought to make amends and prosecute those responsible for the crimes of the past. In contrast, Israel, and many Jews – especially in the US – continue to ignore the crimes that which Israel inflicts on the Palestinians, while denying the basic facts and revising history as we know it.

          This entire modus operandi is atrocious. It’s not only a stain on Israel, but it could very well leave a much darker stain on Judaism and Jews for a long time.

          Doesn’t the average shmuck in Brooklyn or Florida realize that the truth cannot be hidden forever?

          It’s time the US media and the national discourse in the US evolved and allowed for an honest and open debate on Israel and its relationship with the United States. Jewish Americans play a leading role in that.

        • Sumud says:

          “Mostly because the disparity between the so-called civilized West’s treatment of the Holocaust and Jews after WWII, and its treatment of Palestinians to this day have been severely slanted.”

          Avi – nothing demonstrates this better than the fact that Holocaust denial is a go-to-gaol offence in Europe and Lieberman wants to make Nakba commemoration a go-to-gaol offence in Israel – for up to three years. Where are the EU’s comments of outrage on this? It’s a disgrace.

          On your last paragraph we can only hope the mainstream media are forced into more honest reporting on the I/P conflict as a result of the blogging/comment culture that is developing as part of web 2.0. You only have to read article comments on all but the most fascistic sites to understand there is growing genuine factual awareness about I/P. Perhaps this will give editors who wish to report on I/P more honestly some coverage.

          Taxi told me a few days ago that he cancelled his cable subscriptions after witnessing the absolute disparity between Al Jazeera and the US networks coverage of the first days of the Gaza Massacre. That’s a great response I think – vote with your dollar.

        • Walid says:

          Those 76 photos described what happened very well. Other than black and white and the one with the truck convoy, they were almost identical to the pictures we saw coming out of Gaza last year. Israel didn’t have white phosphorus, or dense nnert metal (DIME) or DU bombs back then but the innovative Israelis of back then (like those of today) were not averse to using bacteriological warfare on the unsuspecting Palestinians. Israel introduced a lot of things to the ME from terrorist bombings, to blowing up houses, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, torture, concentration camps and so many other goodies. It’s no wonder these smart people earned so many Nobels in so many fields.

      • yonira says:

        (The standing man to the right, up on the porch/deck is a Hagana man, the new boss).

        LOL fucking prove it Avi. Cause he looks Jewish he is automatically the new Haganah man in charge? Sure there is a good chance he is in fact that, but to say it without proof is…… the status quo i guess here at mondoweiss

        • Cliff says:

          You pick out the most asinine things to quibble over. I think Avi was making a reference to Cool Hand Luke, although maybe I’m reading into the picture too much.

          In any case, you’re pathetic.

          Hey, Avi, you forgot to punctuate, you Jew-hater!!!11one

        • Avi says:

          He’s wearing the same style clothes as these:

          link to life.com

          link to life.com

          If he were a British royal marine he would have been wearing a uniform.

        • Avi says:

          Hey, Avi, you forgot to punctuate, you Jew-hater!!!11one

          I’m l33t that way.

        • Aref says:

          And you always provide proof for what you say yonira–and I am not talking about links to Zionist propaganda crap. Oh sorry, you had David Horrowitz video–this pathetic figure who longs for the days of McCarthy.

        • VR says:

          Do you remember the recent past yonira? “Stop picking on me…when did I say that?” blah, blah, blah It is good to see you more honest now yonira, however all it has done is vindicate my initial impressions of your first bullshit postings. Now there is no mistaking your “positions,” which are as equally spurious as your initial denials.

        • yonira says:

          lol, you are getting me confused with Chaos, his main argument against me is my lack of punctuation. and avi is a jew.

          do you realize no one respects you here cliff? I can live with it because I am the opposition, but you get in fights w/ people on here who you are in agreement with. its impossible for you to take an ounce of criticism from anyone, you’ll burn any bridge you built, just because someone disagrees with you. are you an only child? i doubt it because most of the indian families i know have large families, but you sure act like one.

          i will have fun watching you self-destruct on here again Cliff, see if maybe you can’t get yourself banned for longer than 10 days this time. aren’t there any grieving mothers you want to mock?

          well

        • yonira says:

          just sick of all the lies cliff, just like how IDF trolls are making a career out of blogging, when in fact they are merely volunteering.

        • Shingo says:

          No one said the IDF trolls are making a career out of blogging. Obviously, there’s not much money in it given how badly they are performing.

        • Trolls are paid, yonira!

          That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli government
          Straight out of Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry: a new Internet Fighting Team! Israeli students and demobilized soldiers GET PAID to pretend they are just regular folks and leave pro-Israel comments on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other sites. The effort is meant to fight the “well-oiled machine” of “pro-Palestinian websites, with huge budgets… with content from the Hamas news agency.” The approach was test-marketed during Israel’s assault on Gaza, and by groups like Give Israel Your United Support, a controversial effort to use instant-access technology to crowd-source Israel advocates to fill in flash polls or vote up key articles on social networking sites.
          link to muzzlewatch.com

        • Trolls are paid!

          The Foreign Ministry presents: talkbackers in the service of the State

          After they became an inseparable part of the service provided by public-relations companies and advertising agencies, paid Internet talkbackers are being mobilized in the service in the service of the State. The Foreign Ministry is in the process of setting up a team of students and demobilized soldiers who will work around the clock writing pro-Israeli responses on Internet websites all over the world, and on services like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. The Foreign Ministry’s department for the explanation of Israeli policy* is running the project, and it will be an integral part of it. The project is described in the government budget for 2009 as the “Internet fighting team” – a name that was given to it in order to distinguish it from the existing policy-explanation team, among other reasons, so that it can receive a separate budget. Even though the budget’s size has not yet been disclosed to the public, sources in the Foreign Ministry have told Calcalist that in will be about NIS 600 thousand in its first year, and it will be increased in the future. From the primary budget, about NIS 200 thousand will be invested in round-the-clock activity at the micro-blogging website Twitter, which was recently featured in the headlines for the services it provided to demonstrators during the recent disturbances in Iran.
          link to kibush.co.il

        • PAID!

          This deliberate proliferation of on-line hasbarats raises two points. The first concerns why anyone would spend hours a day to prostitute themselves for Israel. Money, of course. Ilan Shturman, deputy director of the Israeli foreign ministry’s hasbara department (!), told an Israeli business newspaper in July that US$150,000 had been allocated for the first stage of a campaign to seed the Internet with hasbarats:
          link to engforum.pravda.ru

        • rachel says:

          Just because you are paid to spread pro-Palestinian propaganda, it does not mean that other posters are like you.
          Just checked your link to Abu something and he said that
          “the Zionists depopulated 675 Palestinian towns and villages”
          This is like the Jenin massacre. The number of depopulated villages keeps growing and growing. A while ago it was 400, now it is 675!
          I also checked your pictures of the “Nakba”. It seems to me that they are pictures of everyday life anywhere in the Middle East in the 50′s.
          And you complain about Hasbara! You guys are the expert in lying. I could go on and expound at length about the relationship some cultures have with the TRUTH but I am not racist like you.

        • You can do better than that Rachel. Maybe when it’s not your bed time.

        • “I also checked your pictures of the “Nakba”. It seems to me that they are pictures of everyday life anywhere in the Middle East in the 50’s.”

          Abu something

          rachel, rachel…
          incredible

        • Rachel, ma chère mégère non-apprivoisée
          All my life I’ve heard/read the number of destroyed villages is to exceed the 500, more like 580. Just because someone over here mentioned 400 that doesn’t mean the number has been revised…As for the photos, I’m surprised you didn’t give us the usual prepaid ” Photoshopped” that every self-respecting hasbara scum opposes to any document/photo. A slight improvement but still can do better, I think.
          The photos are real and you know it. Suck it up!

        • Chaos4700 says:

          David Duke has a Jewish franchise now?

        • “incredible ”

          I’ve seen worse, ma reine. Much much worse than Rachel.
          Any temptation to become a complete and absolute misanthrope in this case is understandable. What we witness here is humanity at it’s lowest.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Huh. That was supposed to be a reply to this particular piece of tripe, for the record.

        • Avi says:

          “Abu something”

          Why did the Jewish American community scold Jackson for his “Haime town” comment?

          How about George Allen’s “Macaca” comment? Why was that so bad?

          You know the answer.

          So next time, try to get the guy’s full name. Make an effort, instead of letting your filthy racist colors shine through.

          “Abu something”.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          The French Canadian psycho is giving even Zionist Jews a bad name, I thin, huh Avi. Almost as bad as five-year-Jew yonira.

        • Avi says:

          I also checked your pictures of the “Nakba”. It seems to me that they are pictures of everyday life anywhere in the Middle East in the 50’s.

          That comment betrays your inherent racism. Your tiny pea-sized brain can’t fathom the fact that the Palestinians actually lived in limestone-built homes. No. Instead, photos of them in tents agree with your stereotypes of them. So you think it’s everyday life in the 50s. Are you senile or just racist? Wait, I got it, you’re both racist AND senile.

          but I am not racist like you

          Suuuuure you’re not a racist. We know you’re not because you just said so yourself. Who are we to believe, our lying eyes or you?

        • Chaos
          I don’t think the reply button is working properly. My replies are all over the place but not where they should be! :(

        • “Just because you are paid to spread pro-Palestinian propaganda”

          Damn, you reminded me! I haven’t received my check for this month yet. But maybe it’s in the mail. If I don’t receive it by the end of the month I’ll switch sides. I heard the hasbara trolls are paid much better and quicker!
          Thanks Mrs. Ratched.

        • Walid says:

          Does it really matter for Rachel if the actual number of villages turn out to be 400 instead of 580 and would it lessen the Zionist crimes?

        • “Just checked your link to Abu something and he said that
          “the Zionists depopulated 675 Palestinian towns and villages””

          BTW, Abu Sitta is referring to the number of villages DEPOPULATED, not DESTROYED. Many villages were just taken over and inhabited by the Jewish immigrants without being brought down.

        • BTW, Rachel. The woman with her children in the tent looks like she’s having a smile on her face. I think she’s happy they were kicked out of their home and that the nakba took place. Check it out.
          link to 3.bp.blogspot.com

        • Sumud says:

          “do you realize no one respects you here cliff?”

          Who are you to speak on behalf on everybody here yonira?

          I respect cliff – occasional overheated rhetoric,yes, but well informed and often extremely witty.

        • Walid says:

          TGIA, putting Shakespeare aside for a moment, Rachel is better described as a museraigne than a mégère. She probably mistook what you called her for a compliment.

        • Mooser says:

          I respect him, yonira. And the funny part is, of course, Cliff respects you, much, much more than you deserve.

        • Mooser says:

          Then go elsewhere. We’ll miss you, but we’ll get over it. We can always send cards on birthdays, and small gifts at Christmas-Hannukah.

          Yonira, I want to make this perfectly clear: If you don’t like the content here, I will not be a party to forcing you to stay, and I’ll fight any man who does!

          And if your principles are forcing you to stay and fight, well, the only reason for that is you’re afraid to go to the neo-Nazi sites where your staunch advocacy of Judaism would be needed! You just come here cause we’re “easy”. But then, that’s what you always do, huh?

        • Mooser says:

          The funnieswt part of this whole thing, Sumud, is that Cliff shows the zio-trolls more respect than anybody here! Cliff actuially takes them seriously, and thinks they are worth getting upset over. That’s a hell of a lot more validity than I would ever give those gonifs-cum-goofs!

          But from what Yonira has told us about his relationship, I don’t think “respect” is a word he is familiar with. “Submission”, maybe, but not respect.

          BTW, Yonira, you got a date for the wedding yet? You’re not getting any younger, and “your Jewish children” are waiting to be born and make Aliyah! Aww, won’t they look cute in their size-2 IDF cammies!

        • Cliff says:

          yonira, I’m not an only child. I have a younger sister. I’ve written here briefly about our experiences going to the same private HS.

          I was banned for like 3 days, and that’s the only time it happened and will ever happen.

          I never insulted Nurit Peled-Elhanan. I was only venting about the fact that whenever Palestinian suffering is brought up here (or their humanity) – it always needs to be presented by a Jew.

          I quoted at length, the writings by guest authors like Seham (I think) and Ahmed (I think) – my memory is a bit hazy but I think those names are probably right.

          One of them wrote that ‘Palestinian identity’ and humanity is always being molded by ‘sensitive Jewish hands’ – like how Anna Baltzer was brought along w/ Barghouti on TDS.

          Anyway, the post in question was vulgar and angry. I think Phil once wrote that the hate in this conflict emanates outward. It’s polarizing.

          So yea, I hate the IDF and the settlers and all the ‘liberal’ PEP phonies. Why shouldn’t I be angry? This is blatant colonialism in the 21st century.

          You’re twisting the things I’ve said so that you can say I arbitrarily insulted a grieving mother. I was upset w/ the image of parity being drawn between the two peoples, symbolized by her suffering. I wasn’t insulting her suffering. Just the image being propped up. I mean, didn’t WJ take issue w/ whether that Holocaust survivor was really a Holocaust survivor (camps)? She was the one who sympathized w/ the Palestinians and went on one of the Free Gaza ships. I mean, we even had Zionist trolls here – the same trolls you say do not exist – insult this woman.

          I think it was Julian who said she could have benefited from the Gazan diet, because she is overweight – or something along those lines, it was an insult about her weight basically. The woman is in her 80s.

          Anyway, bottom-line – I’m not one of those people. I’m not like eee or BSD/UNIX or whatever else freak pops up on this blog because they were either paid to or ‘volunteered’ to ‘spread pro-Israel sentiment’.

          I even went into further detail (I had to, since Phil deleted the original post and all people were left with was the response by himself and Annie) when I referenced a picture in Newsweek or something – mentioned on Scarborough (the one episode where Z. Brisomething called Joe ‘stunningly superficial’). The picture juxtaposed a Palestinian woman and an Israeli woman. Both distressed.

          However, we know how many died on each side, don’t we? This was the Gaza massacre.

          It’s superficial – in the bigger picture, not individual stories like Nurit and other Israeli families who’ve lost loved ones due to Palestinian terrorism – to equate both sides. It’s logistically false. There is an occupation. There is a blockade. There is injustice and inequality in the legal system. The injustice is institutionalized, against the Palestinians. Etc.

          Whenever people talk about Israel needing to be saved ‘from itself’ its this romantic image. Like the ‘fallen’ hero or something.

          And even then, it’s like OK – Israel is hurting too, but no where near as bad as the Palestinians OBVIOUSLY. I can’t think of another conflict like this, where so much attention and patience was paid to the oppressor’s side (not implying all the people involved on that ‘side’ are ‘guilty’ or anything) – but there is ALWAYS antagonism. This conflict has been going on for a long time. It’s not a misunderstanding. It’s fucking THEFT on a large-scale. The partition was unfair, the Brits were racist and subjugated the Arabs during the Revolt. Everything has been counted against them. And the Europeans will find the most vile, disgusting filth of a human being within Arab societies and prop them up as leaders.

          Mubarek. Karzai. Saddam. Etc. All those family dictatorships, all those puppet presidents.

          There is a lot to be pissed off about because it’s all messed up in every way.

          I’m not self-destructing though, yonira. I can travel. I can have a normal life, get a job, have fun, etc. I can rest assured no one is going to kick me out of my home because I’m not a Jew. I won’t have to deal w/ insane religious fanatics protected by one of the strongest armies in the world, imbued w/ political immunity.

          I live in a democratic society w/ laws against that behavior. So I’m free to even get upset and it mattering (somewhat).

          So yea, I won’t self-destruct. I could forget about it all if I wanted, and it wouldn’t directly affect me. That’s what really bothers me.

          Anyways, I don’t give a damn what you or that Zio-chick, or the religious nutcase, or the ex-IDF goon, or the polite fascist, or the Christian fundie, or the countless other pod-people think.

          And fyi yonira, it was not a lie. Did you not read the article? Look back at the response by James Bradley. Volunteers and paid trolls.

          Given, the mechanical nature of Shamir’s posts (check the time-stamp, check the copy-paste job, etc), he’s most likely paid whereas eee was probably a volunteer.

          In the end, you all end up imploding and dropping all pretense of driving a wedge amongst the regulars. Do you remember how BSD/UNIX was at first? Polite, intentionally ambiguous, etc.? Then the dude totally lost his mind and went into super-settler mode.

        • yonira says:

          Thanks for the explanation. I agree with you much more than you you will ever realize Cliff. I am sickened by the settler movement and sickened by the treatment on the Palestinians.

        • potsherd says:

          Maybe it’s hard to realize, yonira, when you keep making remarks about “mondolies” and licking the asses of every Zionist troll who shows up here.

        • yonira says:

          Chaos,

          how long have you been a Palestinian activist? what do you have personally invested into the situation? do you feel at all like a hypocrite bring my Judaism up, when your only connection w/ the Palestinians is your dying need to be a victim?

  2. Eva Smagacz says:

    In Poland there is a growing movement of people who would like Jewish presence and culture to be acknowledge and recreated. Polish Jews and their descendants have absolute right to Polish passport and citizenship. The Germans forcibly removed from Western Poland, whose houses were given to Poles forcibly removed from Eastern Poland ( now Latvia, Lithuenia, Bielorus) are engaging in court actions to be given back their property. And winning. It’s the principle.

    What do you think eee? I know your family have land in Poland. Are they thinking of coming back to their country? Have they lodged a claim in the courts?

    • Sumud says:

      Eva ~ spare a microsecond in remembrance for eee, he experienced his own Nakba a few days ago (minute in comparison to the *real* Nakba of course) and apparently got booted after one too many inappropriate comments.

      It’s good to hear about a non-violent jewish insurgency in Poland, it’s only appropriate, and just. And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Israelis know this – jews know this, we all bloody know it – we just need the damn politicians to act on it.

    • zamaaz says:

      The Nakba issues:

      [During the 1949 Lausanne conference, Israel proposed allowing 100,000 of the refugees to return to the area, though not necessarily to their homes, including 25,000 who had returned surreptitiously and 10,000 family-reunion cases.[8] The proposal was conditional on a peace treaty that would allow Israel to retain the territory it had taken, and on the Arab states absorbing the remaining 550,000–650,000 refugees. The Arab states rejected the proposal on both moral and political grounds.[9]
      Safran wrote that “The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel’s existence”.[87]
      Morris, however, in a more differentiated analysis, resumes:
      In retrospect, it appeared that at Lausanne was lost the best and perhaps only chance for a solution of the refugee problem, if not for the achievement of a comprehensive Middle East settlement. But the basic incompatibility of the initial starting positions and the unwillingness of the two sides to move, and to move quickly, towards a compromise — born of Arab rejectionism and a deep feeling of humiliation, and of Israeli drunkenness with victory and physical needs determined largely by the Jewish refugee influx — doomed the ‘conference’ from the start. American pressure on both sides, lacking a sharp, determined cutting edge, failed to budge sufficiently either Jew or Arab. The ’100,000 Offer’ was a classic of too little, too late. [88]

      [9] Nadav Safran, Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press, p. 336; Sela, Avraham. “Arab-Israel Conflict.” The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East. Ed. Sela. New York: Continuum, 2002. pp. 58-121. “Israel was willing to allow an agreed number of [refugees] to return (the figure of 100,000 was proposed) and to pay compensation for land and housing left behind …. The Arab states rejected Israel’s arguments and proposals on both moral and political grounds” (pp. 77-78).]

      History showed that the only crucial chance for this Palestinian conflict was squandered by the Arab leadership in 1949. The cause was Arab rejectionism and a deep feeling of humiliation.. In short – Arab pride!

      We at present, is witnessing the celebrated sentimentalization of the Nakba tragedy… with all the historical options in both sides can we make Israel responsible to this crisis ?

      • zamaaz says:

        [Our humanity is bound up with your right to return. The day we expelled you from your land you carried a part of it with you. Only when you can return we will be able to restore our humanity. It is hard for us to continue in this way, with damaged humanities. It doesn’t mean that all our humanity has left us, but, as you know, we were left mainly with vulgarity, condescension, militarism and fear. Yes, we have some beautiful things but about real humanity occupiers cannot even dream of. Actually to dream of it may be possible. About a life in cooperation with you here in our shared land. It is a beautiful and moving dream.]

        The Arab-Israeli War occurred exactly for the intent of the Jews to reoccupy the country and rebuild the Jewish nation Israel (take or leave this fact)… as granted and declared by the league of nations; to declared the above aspiration after the fact of a bitter war is unrealistic or even mockery of the sufferings of the vanquished – the Palestinian Arabs due to said 1949 historical blunder of Arab leadership?

        If we can devise political activities (Nakba) with such scale, why cannot we raise sound bridging options or mitigation political proposals that can resolve the stalemate, or ease the tragedy among the Palestinians?

        To think that the Palestinians were left there in Israel to suffer without a territory, it implies there was no other intent but to make them pawn to such strategic goal of making Israel carry the political burden indefinitely. Now I understand why the hearts of the Jewish leadership was hardened…because they know Arab leadership themselves exposed the Palestinian people to such perpetual sufferings… as political pawns… This also showed that the Arabs nations themselves share half of the guilt…
        Thus the more we celebrate the Nakba the more we also remember the mistakes of the Arab leadership in 1949…
        From these backgrounds, one lasting resolve for said crisis is the completion of the 1949 Lausanne Conference…by Arab nations absorbing the Palestinians… But because this cannot happen anymore (as the historic opportunity was overrun by events), then the Palestinians have no other chance but suffer consequence of the blunder of their Arab ‘forefathers’…

        • zamaaz says:

          The more we argue in these pages, the more we know the roots of this seemingly unresolvable conflict….Very sadly, for all the tragedies on this earth, the Palestinians seemed to have fallen into the ‘bottomless pit’… and it is now clear that the cause was primarily the leaders pride in many forms; ethnic, religious, historical, racial, political, military, etc….
          It was truly said; [Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18 )]
          I can almost hear a song of sorrow among the sufferers …

        • Aref says:

          Of course it is always always the “other” who is responsible for their misery and destitution. It is always the “other” who is at fault. Nothing the Zionists and colonialists have done is responsible for the destruction of a country, the dismemberment of society and the tearing apart of families.
          Yes of course it is the “Arab leadership” that wanted to transform Palestine into a “Jewish State”. Yes of course it is the “Arab lesdership” which razed 350-400 villages to the ground and expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. Yes of course it was the “Arab leadership” which prevented the refugees from regaining their homes (many of which were completely erased from existence). Yes of course it is the rape victim who is responsible for her raping.
          You claim to be a Christian and a believer in God. Is this the compassion that Jesus taught? Is this the love that he preached?
          Is this the justice that he tried to spread?
          I have a suspicion that you are nothing but hate-filled individual who is too happy to justify the murder of anyone who does not belong to the “tribe”.

        • Julian says:

          It was Arab leadership that decided to go to war. First with the Civil War. Then with an all out invasion. If they had accepted the Partition resolution today there would be 2 Arab States in what was Palestine.
          A million Jews lost their homes in Arab countries with out hope of getting them back, Israel took them in. the oil rich, land rich Arab world should have accepted their brethren. Instead for political reasons they kept them in camps.

        • potsherd says:

          And of course when Israel conquered the rest of the land, it abolished the camps and set the refugees free.

        • Aref says:

          “A million Jews lost their homes in Arab countries with out hope of getting them back, Israel took them in. the oil rich, land rich Arab world should have accepted their brethren. Instead for political reasons they kept them in camps. ”

          While it is true that some countries expelled Jews, it is also important to realize that this was the result of the Zionist actions in Palestine. This is not excuse the expulsion but to put things in context.
          Also it is important to realize that in many cases Zionists were also responsible for creating an atmosphere of hatred and of insecurity so that they can populate Palestine with Jews, as Jewish mass immigration did not materialize. I suggest reading other material than your Hasbara pamphlets and go beyond the “speaking points”.
          Here is a start:
          “I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.
          I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.” I write about it because I was part of it.”
          Naeim Giladi

          Naeim Giladi is an Iraqi Jew who lived in Baghdad and as a youth joined the Zionist underground. He spent some time in Iraqi jails and managed to escape and found his way to Israel. While he was there he came to realize what the Zionist project was about. I suggest that you read some of what he wrote.

        • Aref says:

          I am sorry I foergot to put a link to Naiem Giladi’s quote:
          link to palestineremembered.com

        • Julian says:

          Not the famous Naiem Giladi. You anti Zionists search far and wide for some nut who verifies your world view.
          Mordechai Ben-Porat, Moshe Gat, Shlomo Hillel all alive and in a position to know the truth deny Giladi’s version.
          Iraq didn’t evict over 100,000 Jews steal their homes and property because of a bombing. The Arabs ethnically cleansed and stole the property of 1 million Jews. When are they getting their property back?
          Israel offered to take back 100,000 Arabs and reimburse the rest. The Arabs offered nothing. Where is your moral outrage?

        • Sumud says:

          Kinda *funny* how nobody complained about this ethnic cleansing of the jews until the new historians got access to Israel’s archives and started making noise about the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians – as soon as the issue of compensation came up bang! All those arab jews who had gloriously made aliyah over 15+ years suddenly had been ethnically cleansed..

        • zamaaz says:

          As I have said before, war is a trafic reality… no accusations of massacre, rape, pillage, etc. can ever justify the lives and properties of people destroyed… If we truly demand to have society of peace, rights, dignity, equality, etc. first and foremost war must be avoided at all …

        • zamaaz says:

          As I have said before, in a war, everything (sorrow, tragedy, destruction, etc.. ) is possible; you cant blame anyone but the war itself… The court of justice only works after the fact of war…

        • Red says:

          More Zionist myth and propaganda. The Zionists had already gone to war – in the 6 months before May 48, the Zionist terror gangs were carrying out bombings of Palestinian market places and villages. In Jan 48, the Zionists bombed the Semiramis hotel killing 24 people, in April 48 they attacked Deir Yassin murdering over 100 people and used the attack as way to terrorise the rest of the population.

          And why should they have accepted the partition. Would you accept someone coming into your home and say sorry buddy but 100 years ago or a 1000 years ago, xxx group of people use to live here and now they want your house and you have to leave or you have to give them half of your house. Would you do it? I doubt it very much, so why should the Palestinians have been expected too do the same.

          As Jabotinsky noted in the Iron Wall in 1923:

          “My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

          The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.

          And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad”.

          He goes onto note that this is equally true of the Palestinians and that they feel instinctively love for their homeland just as the Siouz and Aztecs did.

          Jabotinksy notes (and maybe you should take heed of these words Julian) “To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.

          Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators”.

        • zamaaz says:

          Even though you discount the ’1000 years’ basis, the sequence of fateful events alone, would put a people at war footings.

        • Shingo says:

          The state of Israel is 60 years old. 1000 years ago it was still Palestine.

        • zamaaz says:

          No, not 1000; more than 2000 years ago – it was Palestine because it was the Roman that named it as insult to the Israelis they have just subjugated….

        • zamaaz says:

          [April 48 they attacked Deir Yassin]

          Under the circumstances of being beseiged in a brewing hostilities, as the Jews in the city of Jerusalem was under an Arab siege, anyone among them is expected to break the offensive cordon… Even among us would be going that under such circumstances… Though the process could be mainly psychological, but the painfull loss of lives is a tragedy of war which should have been avoided at the first place…

      • Polly says:

        Glad you cleared that up Zam. Let the genocide continue!

        • zamaaz says:

          Sadly and woefully, no other choice…

        • I think that’s the most despicable thing I’ve read on here.

        • I meant the : “Sadly and woefully, no other choice…”

        • potsherd says:

          I have reported this comment as advocating Palestinian genocide.

        • Cliff says:

          If this doesn’t deserve a ban, then I don’t know what does.

          Please report Zamaaz for advocating genocide.

        • Aref says:

          Cliff, why ban him? If he wants to make a fool of himself and show to the world his despicable ideas which promote hate, murder, and genocide, by all means let him.

        • I personally don’t think anyone should be banned, but that’s just my view. It could stifle some needed discussion.

        • I reported him for bad English and awful grammar! :0)

        • aparisian says:

          No Cliff! Give the Zionists the chance to talk truth. Let them show the world their true fase. Zam is honnest, he is unlike yoni and his friends Witty etc.. Who tell you soft things and support the genocide beyond.

        • Cliff says:

          WTF are you talking about ‘lareineblanche’?

          What about advocating genocide is “discussion”? Or w/ eee calling Danaa a “whore”? Or the countless Zios here who spam the blog w/ the same damn articles, the same arguments, over and over.

          Are you new here? Or maybe you’re a troll too.

          “Discussion”? Do you know what ‘point-scoring’ is? People can undermine sincere discussion so easily. The more idiotic trolls like yonira/eee/etc. are easier to identify. Dick Witty or zamaaz, are a bit more polite but that just means you have 2 seconds before you realize you’re reading the insane rantings of ethno-religious fanatics.

          “Discussion”? Yea right. Whatever you say, tourist.

        • aparisian says:

          Dick Witty or zamaaz, are a bit more polite but that just means you have 2 seconds before you realize

          love that one Cliff lol

        • potsherd says:

          Now, now Cliff.

          That is precisely lareineblanche’s point – that people like Z-ass reveal the Zionist position to be the insane ranting of ethno-religious fanatics.

          I don’t agree with her about banning these nutcases. I think they distract from honest discussion, rather than adding to it. But it’s a legitimate point of view and you shouldn’t berate her for it.

        • Aref says:

          Cliff, please there is no reason to start throwing accusations. There is nothing that lareineblanche said that deserves your tirade. I perfectly understand what “lrb” said and she/he did not mean simply the this nut case of Zamaaz. I think you owe lrb an apology. Nothing that ‘lrb’ wrote suggests agreement with Zamaaz or even tolerance for what this apologist for genocide wrote. On the contrary.

        • yonira says:

          Advocating genocide is wrong

        • Cliff says:

          “terrorist neckerchief” – favorite part.

          Where does she advocate genocide?

        • yonira says:

          you are smart cliff, figure it out.

        • Aref says:

          Yonira thank you for your stating that “advocating genocide is wrong” I don’t believe that anyone here would disagree with you if you actually mean that this statement extends to all peoples without exception.
          However, I really fail to see the connection between the statement and the video. Are you implying that the student condones and advocates genocide? Where did she state that? The student did not advocate genocide and her question was very clear and to the point. She was very courteous and polite. So what are you trying to say? Do you espouse the same view as those who equate Muslim or Arab with terrorist? If so doesn’t that make you a bigot?

        • Cliff says:

          Aref, follow the chain of events.

          This clown, zamaaz will come into a thread and make a huge post, followed by 2-3 follow-up posts – all of which is usually nonsensical religious garbage.

          In the exchange in question, another commentator gave a facetious nod to an earlier post made by zamaaz.

          zamaaz, being the settler, religious fanatic trash that he is – concurred w/o an inkling of irony.

          So when I said we should ban him for blatantly advocating genocide, I think the category of offenses FOR A BANNING have been implicated clearly.

          Calling a female commentator a ‘whore’ or advocating religious fundamentalism, or terrorism, or genocide, or being a racist goon/etc. etc. – isn’t that reasonable?

          Why not parse the Zionists who comment here? Who actually debates sincerely? I actually believe Dick Witty does so, but he’s senile and a total ideologue. (Double standards, willfully ignorant, etc.)

          WJ is the only Zionist worth debating, or showing respect to because he’s not a complete troglodyte douche.

          So no, “lrb” is not proposing freedom of speech in the sense that we should be tolerant of different opinions, but that we should tolerate blatant racism and advocacy for terrorism, ethnic cleansing, etc.

          The day someone here treats WJ like Dick Witty or yonira, is when you know we’re being unfair. The aforementioned Zio-trolls have been here a long time and most regulars lost their patience w/ them by now.

          That’s the context. It’s not like I’m new, saw one of yonira’s daily asinine posts and flipped out.

          Now in any case, sure – let “lrb” make his/her little comment about ‘freedom of speech’ (when no such thing exists, there is always some kind of moderation/censorship – remember that one guy and ‘Judeofascism.com/blogspot’ or w/e?).

          And it exists IRL too, in the media, in our social circles (how open is Phil about his politics to his friends and family? remember those posts he’d make, then moments later take down because he felt it would not be accepted by his social circle?), workplace, etc.

          We can technically say ‘advocating genocide’ is an ‘opinion’. However, that’s about as meaningful and sincere as when BSD/UNIX would characterize the removal of illegal settlers/Jewish colonies from OCCUPIED PALESTINE as an ‘ethnic cleansing’.

          It’s intellectually dishonest. So what the hell? Who is “lrb” directing this universalism at?

          No standards. That’s my problem. These freaks run over Palestinians, steal their land, steal their water, etc. They’re parasites. And you let them get inch after inch in the debate by placating them (continuing to treat them as sideshows).

        • yonira says:

          Horowitz: If you don’t condemn Hamas, obviously you support it. Case closed. I have had this experience at UC Santa Barbara, where there were 50 members of the Muslim Students Association sitting right in the rows there. And throughout my hour talk I kept asking them, will you condemn Hizbollah and Hamas. And none of them would. And then when the question period came, the president of the Muslim Students Association was the first person to ask a question. And I said, ‘Before you start, will you condemn Hizbollah?’ And he said, ‘Well, that question is too complicated for a yes or no answer.’ So I said, ‘Okay, I’ll put it to you this way. I am a Jew. The head of Hizbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or Against it?

          MSA member: For it.

          That is a lot more than what Zamaaz said, and you guys want to burn him at the proverbial Mondostake.

        • Cliff says:

          I’m not smart, remember? You the genius (because you’re Jewish of course) think my med school is not up to par (something to do w/ my family paying my tuition).

          Anyways village idiot, enlighten me. Tell me how she advocates genocide.

        • Cliff says:

          Dear god, man.

          Did you even watch the video? She didn’t even say that. Horowitz says someone else did. That someone else is not in the video.

          So essentially, Horowitz’s word is what you’re citing, versus us reading zamaaz, your Jewish fundamentalist friend, right here in the open.

        • yonira says:

          don’t kid yourself you are going to be a pharmacy tech Cliff. have you memorized the follow “would you like to consult the pharmacist on your medication today?”

          you’ll say it, repeatedly.

        • yonira says:

          she said she was for bring all Jews to Israel so Nasrallah didn’t have to hunt them down globally.

        • Aref says:

          Cliff, I am Palestinian and proud of it. I am not placating anyone. My comment was that ‘lrb’ did not say anything that indicates agreement with the nut cases.
          Yes, you are right that calling someone a “whore” and advocating genocide and justifying murder, etc… are all acts that deserve to be condemned. Banning those people does not solve the problem nor does it help end Palestinian suffering and the establishment of justice. Let them speak and expose to the world what they really think and who they really are. Are we afraid that they actually have some credibility and that they will convince people of the veracity of the venom they spew? What are we afraid of?
          Anyone of us here who is truly educated about the conflict can tear to shreds all the arguments and expose all the bullshit.
          I am not afraid to challenge any of the propaganda and of the distortions, bigotry and hate that those characters espouse and advocate. Let them say whatever they want and show the world their true nature.

        • Cliff says:

          She didn’t say that at all.

          She got up there to the microphone and was clearly nervous. Trying to defend the MSU’s rep. from a lunatic like Horowitz in enemy territory will do that.

          He would not answer her question initially, and instead asked her to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah.

          I can understand why she wouldn’t. That doesn’t mean, she thinks killing civilians is great or that antisemitism is acceptable. It’s like if you and I got into an argument here, and I – instead of debating you, kept attempting to parse your ‘loyalties’ or other sentiments.

          You could say ‘No’ just because of how the question is posed or who is asking.

          Like, I’ve seen the same style of argumentation by Dershowitz in the Chomsky debate.

          There was a particular exchange where Chomsky slipped up, and changed his words, after repeatedly getting shouted down by Dersh. Then Dershowitz seized on the opportunity as if he discovered a cure for cancer and said ‘[blah blah] Planet Chomsky’ (you’d get it if you saw the entire debate).

          This chick isn’t good at public speaking. And she knew, instinctively (like any other person), that the tone of the question was like something akin to the ‘Red Scare’.

          It was a stupid comment nonetheless, but it’s in no way comparable to the garbage zamaaz pollutes this blog with. She uttered 2 words, as opposed to the stream of posts zamaaz makes here daily.

          I think the fact that she said ‘you don’t understand’ or something as Horowitz was cutting her off at the end, is proof that she was nervous and being instinctively defiant of someone whom she felt was ‘parsing’ her loyalties/etc.

        • yonira says:

          It was a stupid comment nonetheless, but it’s in no way comparable to the garbage zamaaz pollutes this blog with. She uttered 2 words, as opposed to the stream of posts zamaaz makes here daily.

          Good point Cliff, Zamaaz does say some stupid shit, I should have considered this before using him as a comparison. What he said was wrong, advocating for the genocide of anyone is inexcusable.

        • Cliff says:

          Aref, why did you have to say ‘proud of it’ – am I insulting you and your identity? What the hell?

          [...]are all acts that deserve to be condemned.

          Awesome! We’ll just ‘condemn’ people who know what they are saying is condemnable. So I call yonira a racist, Jewish supremacist, goon (who possesses the intellectual chops of Shooter McGavin) – so what! He knows this already.

          It’s laughable that all you want is to ‘condemn’ them here collectively. That accomplishes nothing, because they will understand that they can simply continue to harass people due to their race/sex/sexuality/etc. (yonira has made homophobic comments toward Chaos for example).

          Do you honestly accept letting THIS kind of commentary to go unchecked?

          BS – in fact, Phil has banned people for far less. He banned a guy for using the term ‘Judeofascists’. The guy was not a Jew, so it wasn’t acceptable.

          ‘Judeofascists’ is a catchy/controversial term so I would not use it, because it’s unnecessary and feeds into the pathological narcissism Zionists exhibit w/ respect to Judaism and Jewishness.

          But it’s a term that was coined by an Israeli academic. So it’s not taboo, he had good reason to say it – stating it towards the end of his life. Clearly, it’s a concept he contemplated for a long time.

          Now, for sake of consistency, I wouldn’t say it. ‘Islamo-fascism’ and similar wordings, is BS. It’s a hateful term. Conflating politics w/ religion, conflating all of a people w/ the bad parts of their ‘group’.

          I think we need standards so we can talk about the goddamn post Phil makes instead of dealing w/ trolls ALL the time.

          Go ahead and say a whole lot of nothing though, Aref.

        • Sumud says:

          5 days on youtube and +200,000 hits – I guess your little vid went out on megaphone or something like it huh yonira?

          I’ll answer the question she couldn’t for bogus homeland security reasons. I support Hamas – both the political and Al Qassam brigades. I disapprove of some of their tactics. I think their crimes are minute in comparison to Israel – and that includes suicide attacks. They were elected by the Palestinian people and Israel/US/Quartet need to engage with Hamas if they are serious about a peaceful settlement.

        • Donald says:

          Cliff, you’re blasting away at allies. Lrb and Aref are free speech absolutists. I don’t agree–from my usenet days and from what I’ve seen at other blogs and for that matter, this one, I think a certain amount of control by the blogowner is a good idea. Not too much, but trolls and hatemongers can often take over a comment section. If a genocide advocate wants to advocate genocide, let him start his own blog. In contrast, lrb and Aref are like John Stuart Mill–sunlight is the best disinfectant, etc… In my opinion some opinions are so grotesque and immoral there’s no reason why they should be allowed in a blog–there’s nothing to debate. But I can understand lrb and Aref’s point of view–they aren’t spouting nonsense or BS, but just a different notion on how best to handle despicable opinions.

          There are several people that post regularly here that I would ban if I were made blog dictator–zamaaz at or near the top of the list. (He’s a Christian Zionist, btw, not a Jewish fundamentalist.) I’d also have a very limited tolerance for anti-semitism, which you can see here occasionally. I’d probably put RW on a short leash–the Richard Silverstein solution of two posts per day seems sensible. Or else create an open thread every few days for the trolls and people who want to argue with them.

        • That video on the “Horowitz” site is representative of the kind of fear-mongering and smearing that people of his kind are using to shut people up. Notice that he completely changes the subject, and doesn’t address the question. This is typical. I can only fear for those that take people like that seriously.
          Why should they condemn Hamas? What does that have to do with anything?
          As for banning, I just think it gives the wrong impression to these people : that they might be important, and that their “arguments” are somehow dangerous, whereas they are for the most part ridiculous, off-topic, and childish.
          Notice how they brought this discussion completely off-topic too. It worked. We should be talking about the Naqba.

        • Aref says:

          Cliff, I said “proud of it” not because of you but because of all who would want me to disappear and to be invisible. I am not going to engage in debate with you. However, what I want to say is this: when would the world start listening to Palestinians instead of telling us all the f***ing time what we need to do and how should we behave?

        • Sumud says:

          “you are smart cliff, figure it out.”

          yonira ~ she also referred to the “Hitler Youth Week”, I guess you believed that also?

        • Sumud says:

          Aref and Cliff – I think you have your wires crossed, a misunderstanding.

          Aref: you are talking about lareineblanche and the idiot genocide comment made by Polly and supported by zamaaz

          Cliff: you are talking about the lady in yonira’s stupid video.

        • aparisian says:

          yonira,
          you are a man of actions not speech. You prefer massacre the brown people instead of giving useless speech huh?

        • aparisian says:

          Good point Cliff, Zamaaz does say some stupid shit, I should have considered this before using him as a comparison. What he said was wrong, advocating for the genocide of anyone is inexcusable.

          you are not credible, you keep supporting the 3e reich and their massacres in Gaza, Lebanon etc… you have Zero credibility.

        • Aref says:

          lrb, I agree. Some here think that they are doing the world a favor engaging the trolls who obviously have a way of diverting any discussion away from the topic. Instead of ignoring them we are actually encouraging them.
          I am not sure where you are but there is this story in the US now where a student is protesting the AP (Advanced Placement) English exam because of its use of a quote by the late Edward Said. The claim is that because the exam states that E. Said is a Palestinian-American, the quote has and the exam have acquired political meaning and significance causing Jewish students to feel uncomfortable and the AP exam has become biased as a consequence.
          Since day one Palestinians have been silenced, marginalized and hidden behind the cloak of invisibility. Everywhere, attempts to silence Palestinians has been going on and yet everyone wants to tell us what to do and how we should behave and conduct ourselves. This student’s concern and outrage was not about the quote which was about exile in the most generic way but because the word Palestinian was used to refer to the author. Palestinians in her mind are not meant to be scholars, thinkers, intellectuals, etc…They are not meant to be human beings, period. They are to remain invisible, subhuman barbarians who have contributed nothing to the world other than strife and suicide bombings.
          I am not for silencing anyone because I, as a Palestinian, remember when I was young in Jerusalem riding the Israeli bus with friends we were afraid to speak Arabic because we did not want to feel the sting of dirty looks. We did not want to feel diminished to the size of an ant. This is what silencing means and feels to me because I have lived it and I have experienced it.
          If I accept that silencing someone is OK then I have to accept that someone seeks to silence me and I cannot accept that.

        • Some here think that they are doing the world a favor engaging the trolls who obviously have a way of diverting any discussion away from the topic.
          Yes. At the same time, I myself have learned some things by reading the rebuttals made by the other, more knowledgeable people here, so while I think there is a tendency to spiral out of control, there is some value in systematically trying to refute the outrageous claims of some of the “trolls”.
          The problem is being able to distinguish between those that are obviously just planted here to stir up trouble and make the place look bad, and those that are sincere, and need to be confronted with solid arguments and facts. How can one tell the difference?

          “…there is this story in the US now where a student is protesting the AP (Advanced Placement) English exam because of its use of a quote by the late Edward Said.”
          That was discussed in another post on this site, recently, with some good comments.

          “Palestinians in her mind are not meant to be scholars, thinkers, intellectuals, etc…They are not meant to be human beings, period.”
          Exactly. If you put them on the same level as yourself, as equals, how can you justify what is happening? You must dehumanize them. This is the propaganda machine, it works pretty well.

        • MHughes976 says:

          Changing the subject is the main technique. Massive comments, massively repetitive, full of references to useless websites, are a common part of the method.
          I’d like to say that I value lrb’s comments. (But is she a reincarnation of the Looking Glass character who likes to believe impossible things?) I don’t think anyone should be expelled from any discussion for having an opinion, as I think Mill has proved, though Mill also remarks that the occasion and manner of expressing an opinion are another matter. There’s no point in trying to convince the pub bore that he supports the wrong football team unless you’ll listen to his statements – it’s another matter if he rants on for twenty minutes and starts smashing beer glasses. Likewise, there’s little point in having a discussion like this unless we’re prepared to confront the standard Zionist arguments. It’s not our fault that the Zionist arguments are usually expressed amid a torrent of annoying repetition mixed with insults, which really do become insufferable.
          I think that annie has suggested a moment of silence or prayer for the victims of the terrible Nakba: well said, let’s all do this.

        • annie says:

          yonira, she said she was for bring all Jews to Israel so Nasrallah didn’t have to hunt them down globally.

          because we all know Horowitz is not an inflammatory hyperbolic neocon liar. i went to Nasrallah’s wiki page, the source of most of those alleged ‘quotes’ are either memri or camera. this alleged quote of Nasrallah Horowitz sites is questionable at best and likely a complete fabrication (LIE). the quote published in the daily star written by one Badih Chayban (who has virtually NO web presence or other articles to speak of ) has been spread all over the internet on neocon sites. well know middle east reporter and former hizbullah captive Charles Glass writing in the London Review of Books has this to say about that alleged quote.

          Eugene Goodheart asks whether I am familiar with two statements he attributes to Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (Letters, 7 September). Goodheart uses the inflammatory quotations to accuse Nasrallah of being ‘an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide’. If I am unfamiliar with the statements, it is because they are in all likelihood fabrications. The first (‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’) was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut’s English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star’s managing editor writes of Chayban’s article on Nasrallah, that ‘I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].’ The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was ‘a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.’ The account of Nasrallah’s speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments. Goodheart’s second quotation – ‘They [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment’ – comes from the Israeli government’s website at link to tinyurl.com. For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement.

          secondly, what compelling reason do i have to believe Horowitz’s recitation of the response from the audience member? could this response not have been in relation to his original question?

          For or Against it?

          MSA member: For it.

          of course there are complications wrt to either condemning or supporting an organization like hizbullzh. and , they are part of the lebanese government. they protected lebanon from israel murderous month long attack. if i had to choose one of the other of course i would choose ‘support’ for my choice is either to leave the lebanese totally defenseless against a proven aggressive regime, or support lebanon’s defense.

          therefore, your full of shit and so is horowitz. his ‘quote’ was based not on fact but hypothetical and his ‘recollection’ of the conversation was likely flawed since he’s practically incapable of telling the truth and has demonstrated repeatedly the willingness to lie and align himself w/liars.

          Case closed.

          Goodheart wonders whether, as a former captive of Hizbullah, I may have succumbed to Stockholm syndrome; may I ask in return whether he is succumbing to the disinformation that passes for scholarship and journalism in certain quarters in the United States?

          published in the daily star by written one Badih Chayban

        • annie says:

          oh i made a big mess of that post’s format. after closing the blockquote i started writing in the middle of it. after the bolded section of glass’s statement “For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement.”..then it’s me again..until after i write case closed. the last paragraph is the end of glass’s quote.

          sorry.

        • annie says:

          lol, i’m making a friggin mess of things! the last sentence (“published in the daily star by written one Badih Chayban “)..ignore it. i was supposed to erase it. obviously the blockquote wasn’t written by the lying ‘journalist’ neocon stooge water carrying for the zionist Badih Chayban. i’m just assuming anyway. maybe they paid him big bucks for all i know. but camera has sure squeezed lots of blood out of that turnip.

        • zamaaz says:

          [Sadly and woefully, no other choice… ]
          But to continue this conflict (or war) … It is up to you to interpret it…

        • yonira says:

          Sumud,

          do you also support, like her and Nasrallah, bringing all Jews to Israel so Hezbullah doesn’t have to hunt them down globally? that is the crux of the video, that is why it has gotten 200k hits over 5 days.

        • yonira says:

          She said it Annie, not Horowitz.

        • yonira says:

          are you saying i’ve killed people? maybe in video games I guess. Are you going to blame me for the the Iraq war and the Holocaust like Chaos now? you are better than that.

        • Shingo says:

          “do you also support, like her and Nasrallah, bringing all Jews to Israel so Hezbullah doesn’t have to hunt them down globally? ”

          Hezbullah has never hunted anyone down globally. Of course, if Israel decides to invade Lebanon again, then they are fair game.

        • Shingo says:

          “Advocating genocide is wrong”

          But only Hamas are ever guilty.

        • zamaaz says:

          [Polly May 15, 2010 at 7:27 am
          Glad you cleared that up Zam. Let the genocide continue!

          19 zamaaz May 15, 2010 at 7:42 am
          Sadly and woefully, no other choice… ]
          Have ou not realized this question of Polly is sarcastic?
          I have continued my post with
          [Sadly and woefully, no other choice… ]
          But to continue this conflict or war… It is up to your interpretation….
          My point is, as I have said before many times that this is war; and in a war anything can happen… murder, killings, masacres, ‘genocides’… That is why in my posts in the past, war must be avoided at all… Whatever our accusations against anyone this cannot return back those who have died… and relatively they died in vain. So what is the futility of accusing people? Now, wars in the past have culminated and have ended… why not look for amenable solution? CAn we resolve the fate of teh Palestinians by soly blaming and accusing Israel? In this case of Palestinians, they were placed in political limbo.. because of rejection of peace…

        • zamaaz says:

          If I were Polly, In a situation of contention and negotiations, I should not placed anyone in a question that would give them no option at all but choose war…. This is the same situation that put Israel in no other choice but war ot attrition… This is one lesson we could learn in this debate ….

        • Sumud says:

          “do you also support, like her and Nasrallah, bringing all Jews to Israel so Hezbullah doesn’t have to hunt them down globally?”

          Don’t be ridiculous – of course not.

          It was a stupid thing of the MSA member to say and if she genuinely believes it then she’s very wrong. I have my doubts that is her genuine belief: she doesn’t want to express support publicly for Hamas because of fears being arrested under homeland security yet she is OK advocating genocide against jews? It looks to me like an emotive response to Horowitz cowardly deflection.

          Yonira – the IDF rules of engagement during the Gaza Massacre enabled combat fitting the legal definition of genocide. For or against the IDF? A YES/NO response will suffice.

        • zamaaz says:

          Yes, Aref, that is a magnaninous gesture… thanks! Actually Aref, I am not a Jew nor anti-Palestinian. I too hope for peace to these people. What I oppose is the way these anti-government people pursue peace for Palestinians … Their approach of mockery, sneering, harassing, humiliating, etc. the government and the Jews… is actually not appeal to reason with the government, but actually hardening their hearts… That way one can never gain peace … Where can you find someone demand for peace and human rights after smacking the face of another entity? The fact is that this war is a birth fang of an emerging nation (every nation suffer this process) and we gain nothing by accusing one of the protagonist.. we are not stabilizing, but fanning the flames of war!

        • Sumud says:

          Yonira – you didn’t answer my other question. Do you believe the MSA member when she referred to “Hitler Youth Week”?

          And – how did you come across this video?

        • Sumud says:

          annie – thanks for takedown of Horowitz quote, most informative.

        • zamaaz says:

          Aref, I value your magnanimity… I do not intend to promote destruction of the Palestinians. I just wanted to present and face the facts eye-to-eye, so that we can at least find ways to deal with its ghost, and perhaps ease the plight of the Palestinians… We must take courage to face the facts… and not simply curse and complaint over it…. In an Asian country there was a saying; ‘better to light a candle, that curse the darkness…. ‘

        • Shingo says:

          “Sadly and woefully, no other choice… ”

          Because the Bible says so…

        • Shingo says:

          “I just wanted to present and face the facts eye-to-eye”

          Then put away the fictional Bible and pic u a history book.

        • Mooser says:

          “In an Asian country there was a saying; ‘better to light a candle, that curse the darkness…. “

          Yeah, wasn’t Eleanor Roosevelt the Empress of that Asian country?

        • lyn117 says:

          I apologize for all the posts I’ve made a mess of too. And just to be safe, any mistakes like that I make in the future.

        • zamaaz says:

          [The countless Zios here who spam the blog w/ the same damn articles, the same arguments, over and over.]

          On certain issues, one side of argument is presented by the activists /’progressives’, and at another side, specific counter arguments are presented by the ‘anti-activists’. This is the reason why arguments are of same contents. It is now for the audience to weigh these arguments and judge accordingly….

        • lyn117 says:

          But notice in the clip how the camera cuts between Dershowitz and the student. It doesn’t pan over to her and back. It makes for a good film, but the actual recording must have been edited anyway to make her answers flow properly after Dersh’s questions. There’s no actual evidence that her two words were in answer to Dersh’s question regarding Hezbollah’s (supposed) statement.

        • lyn117 says:

          Sorry, not Dersh’s, Horowitz’s question

        • zamaaz says:

          Aref, you have delivered a very important point here, but I think except me, others has not given weight on it…

      • “We at present, is witnessing…”

        What we is witnessing are illiteracy and mental confusion passing for political science, zamass…Why doesn’t you just zip it and spares yourself such a public embarrassment?

    • “What do you think eee? ”

      I don’t think he’ll be be able to say much, Eva, as he’s been unceremoniously granted a kick in ze papotin for having shamelessly called someone a crack whore or something equivalent..

  3. Shmuel says:

    Let me get this straight. Israel made the following “generous offer” in 1949:

    1. Israel gets to keep all of the territory it has seized (78% of Palestine)
    2. Only 1/7th of the refugees get to return (far less in fact, because this number included those who had already “returned surreptitiously” and family reunification cases), and not necessarily to their homes.
    3. The Arab states “absorb” the vast majority of the refugees.
    4. The Arabs accept all of this and grant Israel a peace treaty.

    And the reason it failed was “Arab rejectionism” and “Arab pride”?

    Of course if it had all been prophesised 2k years earlier by Jewish prophets, that’s ok then.

    • zamaaz says:

      Look, there was even good chances in the past to have lasting peace:

      [In November 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[16] Partition was ACCEPTED BY ZIONIST LEADERS (upper case was mine) but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. (Wikipedia)]

      And the consequence is this unending war…

      [Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states(Wikipedia)]

      Why did the Arab leaders rejected the offer when they according to history, were the first to attack (the next day)? Was it because they at the bottomline, rejected the need for or refused to have lasting peace? As the Palestinians suffer gravely, these in fact were ironies in history….

      • zamaaz says:

        Now all I can see is that, this celebration of Nakba is likewise ironical and futile…

        • Shmuel says:

          Now all I can see is that, this celebration of Nakba is likewise ironical and futile…

          Yes, the criminal and his friends always consider any mention of his crimes “ironical and futile”, not to mention “bludgeoning” and “filled with irrational hatred”. Best to make a law against bringing such things up – in the name of freedom of speech, naturally.

        • zamass you’re an awful human being. What a sorry excuse for a biped.

        • potsherd says:

          Z-ass, tell it to the Jews, who celebrated the destruction of Jerusalem every time it happened.

      • “Why did the Arab leaders rejected”

        Ha ha..

      • VR says:

        It is always amusing and quite disgusting to see someone who claims to have religious compunctions, and to base those on some perceived holy book, make excuses in the name of some deity for obvious atrocities. A while back on my blog site after posting Max Blumenthal’s “Rapture Ready” video I was assailed by one of these brainless “Christian” fanatics. They seem to throw all decency and logic to the wind in the name of some “prophecy” they divine from the bible, and in the name of unclear and twisted portions damn what is clear and their supposed sworn duty – all in the name of knowing the whole mind of their contrived god (making their deity a caricature made in their own image, for whatever supposed gain by whatever questionable means – they are Zionist twins, brothers from another mother).

        So, if I can do it here is the twisted conversation (you have to go to the link, prompt the comments section at the bottom of the post, and read from the bottom up. The exchange is much to long to post here.) with me trying to use historic Christianity’s own methodologies to convince this woman who claims she is a pediatrician, she will have none of it (I can see her praying over her patients “god, should I help this child, give me a sign – what is your will”) –

        “HOLY” JOE – “SATANIC” MUSLIMS – AND THE ESCHATOLOGY OF DEATH

        I am convinced that our “prolific” poster zamaaz holds the same delusions, all driven by “prophetic” nonsense which trumps plain facts on the ground, and even clear passages from the book he quotes (doing untold hermeneutic violence) for a strange “prophetic” system pulled out of thin air and fertile imagination. Too bad it has resulted in the deaths of many people.

        • zamaaz says:

          It is not that I promote deaths of many. I am merely trying as much as possible to show information at all levels (spiritual, political, sociological, etc.), explaining things why were there was such a conflict, and why it seems perpetually tangled. I believe lack of comprehensive understanding of this conflict lead people to wrong notion and inflaming further sufferings of the victims and multiplying the deaths…
          I do not intend to be apologetic for the ‘Jewish aggression’ as people accuse them… but that is fairness supposedly… For what is idealism when these are floated on opposite notion, and run against the flow of reality?

        • zamaaz says:

          [I am convinced that our “prolific” poster zamaaz holds the same delusions, all driven by “prophetic” nonsense which trumps plain facts on the ground, and even clear passages from the book he quotes (doing untold hermeneutic violence) for a strange “prophetic” system pulled out of thin air and fertile imagination. ]

          I have not yet touched the Christian perspective related to the prophetic future… in these discussions. I already have mentioned these in my past posts… Now were focusing on the attrition and political dimension of the conflict… I somehow believe, the spiritual Christian view on this conflict were already addressed…. proving why there such the rebirth of the Jewish state of Israel…

          But the fact you questioned my arguments, I challenge you to bring many Bible scholars to disprove my arguments….

        • Shingo says:

          ” But the fact you questioned my arguments, I challenge you to bring many Bible scholars to disprove my arguments….”

          Setting aside the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction, I already debunked your Biblical arguments and exposed your poor understanding of the Bible in relation to Israel. 

          It doesn’t require Bible scholars to disprove your arguments, as they are based on a corrupted interpretation that has been born from the even more corrupt Christian Evangelical movement.

        • zamaaz says:

          [I already debunked your Biblical arguments and exposed your poor understanding of the Bible in relation to Israel. ]

          Where are your counter arguments, (and specify the issues please!)

        • Shingo says:

          “”Where are your counter arguments, (and  specify the issues please!)”

          There is no mention in the Bible of the Israel being rebuilt or being returned to the Jews.

      • David Samel says:

        When you say that the 1947 Partition Resolution was “ACCEPTED BY ZIONIST LEADERS,” you imply that the Jewish side accepted the UN’s role in deciding a solution while the Arab side rejected it. Not so. First, several prominent Zionists, including future PM’s Begin and Shamir, rejected partition outright. Second, even those who accepted it did not accept the UN borders for partition, and immediately launched a military campaign to increase the Jewish State’s boundaries, which ultimately was very successful (increased from 55% to 78% by 1949). Third, the Jewish side was antagonistic to the UN’s 1948 efforts to mediate, uniformly opposing UN Mediator Bernadotte, and Shamir’s group assassinated him. Fourth, the Israelis refused to consider compliance with UN Resolution 194, passed about one year after the Partition Resolution (181), which called for return of the Palestinian refugees. The “ZIONIST LEADERS” accepted only the Partition Resolution’s notion that a Jewish State should be created. They didn’t accept the proposed compromise, but only that one part of the compromise that they found favorable. And since 1947, ZIONIST LEADERS have rejected virtually every attempt of the UN to intervene.

        In addition, this myth about the war starting on May 15, the day after Israel declared itself a state, is absurd. Hundreds of thousands of refugees already had fled in terror, many in response to the April 9 massacre at Deir Yassin. And that was hardly an isolated incident, being only one of a number of massacres committed by the Jewish forces.

        Other than that, zamaaz, your factual recitation is fairly accurate.

        • Sumud says:

          Excellent David Samel you saved me a stack of typing. A few additional points:
          • Ben-Gurion deliberately had any references to borders removed from the Israeli Declaration of Independence – they WERE in the draft though.
          • Not only UN 194, also Israel refused to comply with the terms of UNGA 181, in particular (but not only):

          “”No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State)(4) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be said previous to dispossession.”
          link to yale.edu

          If you read Part II. UNGA 181 it describes the borders in extremely precise terms. From the day Israel came into existence it was in breach of the document that brought it to life. Truman should have stuck by his guns when he wanted to withdraw support for the Partition in March ’48 because of the civil war.

        • yonira says:

          David,

          Only the Jewish Agency had the power to accept or deny the partition. This is an argument I have heard on here several times, several prominent Zionists, including future PM’s Begin and Shamir, rejected partition outright. big deal. Did every Jew in Palestine need to accept 181 before it was formally accepted? no. What matters is the Jewish leadership (the Jewish Agency) accepted the proposal and the Arab leadership rejected it.

        • yonira says:

          Sumud

          from the day Israel came into existence it was in breach of the document that brought it to life. again this is irrelevant. If the Arab leadership would have accepted 181 then, yes this would be a valid argument, but since they didn’t, 181 was insignificant following the creation of Israel.

        • yonira says:

          What brought Israel to life was it’s declaration of independence

        • VR says:

          What bought Israel to life was colonial theft

        • VR says:

          All equivocations of the particulars within the colonial context denied

        • Sumud says:

          “the Jewish leadership (the Jewish Agency) accepted the proposal and the Arab leadership rejected it.”

          Yonira, pry open your mind if you can and resolve the contradiction: if you want to claim the JA accepted UNGA 181 then you have to accept it breached the terms of 181 in MULTIPLE instances.

          If you want to claim that those breaches were legitimate then you have to accept that the JA rejected 181.

          You don’t get to have your cake (Palestine) and eat it also.

        • Sumud says:

          “What brought Israel to life was it’s declaration of independence”

          Israel has always been a sick patient on life support – a Frankenstein among nations – BROUGHT TO LIFE and claiming legitimacy because of UN support, then defying UN SC resolution like no other.

        • tree says:

          What matters is the Jewish leadership (the Jewish Agency) accepted the proposal and the Arab leadership rejected it.

          From Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. (The book you said you didn’t want to read, yonira. )

          By 1947, David Ben-Gurion presided over a political structure of decision making that probably constitutes the only complex aspect of the history related in this book….Briefly, it allowed him to determine almost single-handedly the main policies of the Jewish community vis-a-vis the world, the Arab neighbours and the Palestinians. It was Ben-Gurion who now led his associates simultaneously to accept and ignore the UN Partition Resolution on 29 November 1947.

          The categorical rejection of the scheme by the Arab governments and the Palestinian leadership made it undoubtedly easier for Ben-Gurion to believe that he could both accept the plan and work against it. Already in October 1947, before the resolution was adopted, Ben-Gurion clarified to his friends in the leadership that if the map of the partition plan were not satisfactory, the Jewish state would not be obliged to accept it.

          It is clear, therefore, that the rejection or acceptance of the plan by the Palestinians would not have changed Ben-Gurion’s assessment of the plan’s deficiencies where he was concerned. For him and his friends at the top of the Zionist hierarchy, a valid Jewish state meant a state that stretched over most of Palestine and allowed for no more than a tiny number of Palestinians, in any at all, to be included.

          As unhappy as he was with the UN map, Ben-Gurion realised that under the circumstances- the total rejection of the map by the Arab world and the Palestinians- the delineation of final borders would remain an open question. What mattered was international recognition of the right of the Jews to have a state of their own in Palestine. An observant British official in Jerusalem wrote to his government that the Zionist acceptance of the partition resolution was selective: the Zionists rejoiced in the international recognition of the Jewish State, but then claimed that the UN had offered “non-Zionist conditions for maintaining it”.

          The expected Arab and Palestinian rejection of th plan allowed Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership to claim that the UN plan was a dead letter the day it was accepted- apart, of course, from the clauses that recognised the legality of the Jewish State in Palestine. Its borders, given the Palestinian and Arab rejection, said Ben-Gurion, “will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution”. As would be the fate of the Arabs living in it.

          A formula now emerges. The less important the body Ben-Gurion appeared in front of, the more supportive the leader was of the Partition Resolution; the more significant the forum, the more adamant he proved in his scornful rejection of it. In the special body that advised him on security issues, the Defence Committee, he dismissed the Partition Resolution out of hand, and already on 7 October 1947- before UN Resolution 181 was even adopted- we find him telling the inner circle of his colleagues in the Consultancy that in the light of the Arab refusal to cooperate with the UN, there “are no territorial boundaries for the future Jewish State’.

          In October and November 1947 the Consultancy became Ben-Gurion’s most important reference group. It was only among them that he discussed openly what the implications would be of his decision to disregard the partition map and to use force in order to ensure Jewish majority and exclusivity in the country. …

          (from pages 35-37)

          Pappe thus begins his discussion of the Consultancy, the Zionist leadership group that advised Ben-Gurion, and their plans to implement the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

          What’s clear is that Ben-Gurion only claimed to “accept” the Plan because he knew that the other side had already rejected it. Had the Palestinians accepted it (an utterly insane thing to do for those who were losing over half of their land), Ben-Gurion would have been forced to publicly reject it, rather than publicly claim to “accept” what he was privately vehemently rejecting and working against. The Jewish State in the Partition Plan, even though it was over half of Palestine, was smaller than he wanted, and the population of the “Jewish” territory was nearly evenly split demographically between Arabs and Jews. Such a territory could have never become a state that privileged Jews ( a Zionist state) without the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians -something that was specifically prohibited by the Partition Plan. All of the Consultancy meetings and plans, from February 1947 through May 1948 were geared towards the creation of a Jewish Zionist State with minimal numbers of Palestinians.

        • tree says:

          Two corrections:

          “no more than a tiny number of Palestinians, in any at all, to be included.” should read “IF any at all”

          And Consultancy meetings began in June 1947, not February.

          Any typos in the quoted material are mine, as I transcribed it from Pappe’s book.

        • Shingo says:

          “What matters is the Jewish leadership (the Jewish Agency) accepted the proposal and the Arab leadership rejected it.”

          Verbally yes, but their actions during the 1948 were a rejection of it.

          If they had accepted the partition, they would have allowed the refugees to return.

        • zamaaz says:

          [The “ZIONIST LEADERS” accepted only the Partition Resolution’s notion that a Jewish State should be created. They didn’t accept the proposed compromise, but only that one part of the compromise that they found favorable. And since 1947, ZIONIST LEADERS have rejected virtually every attempt of the UN to intervene.]

          Of course, this is justifyable, for many of the Jew cannot further the decimation of their territory… Half of their territory was already given to State of TransJordan in 1922.

        • zamaaz says:

          [This is war]

          [The “ZIONIST LEADERS” accepted only the Partition Resolution’s notion that a Jewish State should be created. They didn’t accept the proposed compromise, but only that one part of the compromise that they found favorable. And since 1947, ZIONIST LEADERS have rejected virtually every attempt of the UN to intervene.]

          Of course, this is justifiable, for many of the Jew cannot further the decimation of their territory… Half of their territory was already given to State of TransJordan in 1922.
          Considering the facts of war the UN resolution unfavorable to the Jews are irrelevant.. Where can you find a war, the vanquished controls the ‘Aces’? So in the view of the Jews, it could be – ‘if you don’t understand the cost of war, lets have it for another round…’

        • zamaaz says:

          This Arab-Israeli war was a rehash of a conflict similar to the American-Filipino War in late 19th Century which was sparked right after the Spaniards left the Philippines… the only variance was that the natives who declared independence lost…

        • zamaaz says:

          If Ben Gurion used his creativity of mind to maneuver out of this political pitfalls, the matter is – it was rejected (by the Arabs).. that gave him the rational justification to move…

        • zamaaz says:

          As a leader of a emerging nation, he should do it…

        • Shingo says:

          “… the only variance was that the natives who declared independence lost…”

          That makes 2 differences.

          The natives were the Palestinians and not only did they lose, but it was the immigrants who declared independence.

        • zamaaz says:

          That is ok, cordially accepted, and duly implemented…

        • zamaaz says:

          Thanks David Samel, I was just running along the semantics and context of the historical notes …

        • Mooser says:

          “Thanks David Samel, I was just running along the semantics and context of the historical notes”

          We call that “cutting-and-pasting” or “spamming”, but to each his own, I guess.

        • David Samel says:

          Mooser, I haven’t the slightest idea what zamaaz thanked me for, but at least he did not call me anti-semantic

        • zamaaz says:

          Or on the otherside; ‘assessment; or ‘interpretation’ it depends how we look favorably at it…

        • zamaaz says:

          After the fact of war, the Israelis were obviously freed from the previous political commitments and demands… Whatever issues arise on these matters are now ‘moot and academic’ or ‘water under the bridge’. The Israelis has now the option and freewill to decide on their internal maters…

        • Shingo says:

          “After the fact of war,  the Israelis were obviously freed from the previous political commitments and demands…”

          False. 

          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 – of November 1947 for partition of Palestine and of December 1948 enshrining the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or be satisfied with compensation. 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. 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 of their State, they no longer needed the United Nations, currently the main source of international law. Israel has been condemned or censured by UN many hundreds of times for its lawlessness and for going back on its words but no leader in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem has ever betrayed any concern. Some Israelis have even taken to calling its legal creator its enemy.

        • zamaaz says:

          [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.” ]

          Of course Israel hereby unreservedly accepts the obligation of the UN Charter and undertakes to honour them. That is a responsibility of every member state…

          [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 (emphasis is mine) and for Israel the resolution was “null and void” as far as Jerusalem was concerned. ]

          Israel has effectively and morally voided any peace agreement is has committed to the UN, inasmuch as the said agreement was violated by the attack of the contesting party …
          Thus, any resolution of UN that is against the essence for the UN was established, can be ignored or rejected… For no state can be forced to self-destruct, or undermine itself .

          The same line of statement corroborated my opinion…

        • zamaaz says:

          Cannot we understand? Once an agreement was violated by any of the concerned party… That agreement is automatically voided?
          An no one can raise any issue against the offended party to comply any proposals that come after its thrashing? As aftermath of the violation the offended party is now morally freed to decide for himself…

        • Shingo says:

          “Israel has effectively and morally voided any peace agreement is has committed to the UN, inasmuch as the said agreement was violated by the attack of the contesting party …
          Thus, any resolution of UN that is against the essence for the UN was established, can be ignored or rejected…”

          The contract was between Israel and the UN not Israel and the Palestinians.  You know nothign about laws, let alone international law  and what’s worse, is that your a hypocrite.  Wasn’t it you that suggested Hamas should have resolved the 2008 ceasefire violation by Israel via legal means?  So what article or legal precedent gave Israel the authority to abandon it’s obligations under the UN?

          That’s the problem with you pathological liarss.  When you have no substance to suport your argument, you simply make shit up.

          “For no state can be forced to self-destruct, or undermine itself .”

          IWhy woudl accepting the partition undermine Israel if Israle had already accepted the partition as part fo it’s creation?

          You’re such a morong, you don;t ebven realize you’re contradictring yourself.

          It’s a waste of tiome debating you Zamaaz.  As iothers have pointed out, not only are you a vile racist and a liar, but you have no interest in honest debate.

          Even the pro Israeli contigent think you’re scum and worse than the worst of anti semites

          Maybe it’s best that you leave this blog and don’t come back. I won’t be wasting any more time responding to your diatribes.

  4. annie says:

    a moment of silence and prayer to commemorate Nakba Day.

    • Sumud says:

      I spent some time today at:

      link to palestineremembered.com

      I thought that today of all days, I want to be reading, hearing and seeing Palestinian perspectives. I’m disappointed we have a banner article today by an Israeli but not a Palestinian, but I guess that Mondoweiss has a particular demographic.

      Many of the pages at PR have comments and guest books. The menu on the left has the districts of mandate Palestine linking to a page for each and every of the villages that were ethnically cleansed. There’s article, photos and videos and there are thousands upon thousands of comments, a lot in arabic but some in english. A lot of people writing I’m from Village X or Y, though you understand they’ve never set foot on the land.

      The videos link in the left menu has a section “Documenting the destroyed villages”, contemporary videos taken by mostly Israeli arabs and jews working together. It’s heartbreaking to watch – I have to think of the refugees in Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan, Lebanon etc. who must have seen their village for the first time ever, and it’s an empty field or pile of stones. It’s bittersweet I guess – there is also a focus and determination to document and remember.

      A page on Imwas, a village cleansed in 1967:

      link to palestineremembered.com

      Via links under the photo, follow the sequence of photos forward as the village is completely erased and replaced. This is ethnic cleansing – I know of the more than 500 villages – but I must confess I still find it shocking. Imwas is one of several villages buried under Canada Park. I’ll post again with a link to a Canadian story on the Park made in 1991.

    • zamaaz says:

      Yes, Nakba, a day of tragedy for the Palestinian nation….

  5. VR says:

    With all due respect the Nakba is not over

    • annie says:

      perhaps i shouldn’t have used the word commemorate.

      • VR says:

        Commemorate is not wrong annie, it is an atrocious act and an ongoing process. What we see today is just the same activity incrementally of what initially took place (do you see the current unmistakable violent activity? It is and extension of what has gone on since the beginning), as if that is excusable as compared to the initial salvo .

        The Zionists will try to tie it to the past as if it does not continue to this day, and they will deny the past to distract from the present activity. They will also try to get you to forget the past and just concentrate on what occurs today – they try to tie you up both ways.

        RESISTING THE NAKBA

        “One of the most difficult things to grasp in the modern history of Palestine and the Palestinians is the meaning of the Nakba. Is the Nakba to be seen as a discrete event that took place and ended in 1948, or is it something else? What are the political stakes in reifying the Nakba as a past event, in commemorating it annually, in bowing before its awesome symbolism? What are the effects of making the Nakba a finite historical episode that one bemoans but must ultimately accept as a fact of history?

        I will suggest to you that there is much at stake in all of this, in rendering the Nakba an event of the past, a fact on the ground that one cannot but accept, admit, and finally transcend; indeed that in order to move forward, one must leave the Nakba behind. Some have even suggested that if Israel acknowledges and apologises for the Nakba, the Palestinians would forgive and forget, and the effects of the Nakba would be relegated to historical commemorations, not unlike the one we are having this year.

        In my view, the Nakba is none of these things, and the attempt to make this year the 60th anniversary of the Nakba’s life and death is a grave error. The Nakba is in fact much older than 60 years and it is still with us, pulsating with life and coursing through history by piling up more calamities upon the Palestinian people. I hold that the Nakba is a historical epoch that is 127 years old and is ongoing. The year 1881 is the date when Jewish colonisation of Palestine started and, as everyone knows, it has never ended. Much as the world would like to present Palestinians as living in a post-Nakba period, I insist that we live thoroughly in Nakba times. What we are doing this year is not an act of commemorating but an act of witnessing the ongoing Nakba that continues to destroy Palestine and the Palestinians. I submit, therefore, that this year is not the 60th anniversary of the Nakba at all, but rather one more year of enduring its brutality; that the history of the Nakba has never been a history of the past but decidedly a history of the present.” Joseph Massad

        • VR says:

          Further quote –

          “THE NAKBA IS NOW: Ever since the Nakba came to describe the tumultuous actions of 1948, an ongoing struggle has raged to define it as a past and finished event rather than an unfinished present action. This is not an epistemological struggle but a lively political one. To identify the Nakba as a past and finished event is to declare its success and insist on the irreversibility of its achievements. It is to insist that there is no longer a struggle to define it, nor a successful resistance that stands in its way. It is to grant it historical and political legitimacy as a fact of life, but also to endow all its subsequent effects as its natural outcome. Thus the struggle of Palestinian citizens of Israel today, according to the Zionist narrative, is not a normal anti-colonial struggle or one that demands national or ethnic or civil rights, but rather an “abnormal” struggle to reverse the Nakba.”

        • zamaaz says:

          I do not resist the commemoration of the Nakba… it is for everyone to decide… My only issue is that this tragedy of Nakba incident is primarily the ‘foolishness’ of the past Arab leaders (as the British official has said). The Jews according to historical records, even tried their best assuring the Arab populace, to avoid the disaster of social disaster due to socio-economic dislocation. Thus, its celebration is not basically an indictment against Israel but against the past Arab leadership…. Remember, in the case of Haifa Arab evacuation, the people also were encouraged to leave because they felt abandoned by their military leaders. Thus, we are reopening the wounds among Arabs themselves… Are we not pouring gasoline over the flames of dismay?

        • Shingo says:

          “I do not resist the commemoration of the Nakba… it is for everyone to decide… My only issue is that this tragedy of Nakba incident  is primarily the ‘foolishness’ of the past Arab leaders (as the British official has said).”

          How can it be the foolishness of the Arab leaders when the Zionists were talking about expelling the Arabs from late 1800′s?

          The fact is that without the Nakba, the dream of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority was dead in the water.  That is why the Zionists attacked the British, because they knew that once the British were gone, the Palestinains woudl be easy to deal with.

          “The Jews according to historical records, even tried their best assuring the Arab populace, to avoid the disaster of social disaster due to socio-economic dislocation.”

          False, tehre are no such historical records.

          “Remember, in the case of Haifa Arab evacuation, the people also were encouraged   to leave because they felt abandoned by their military leaders.”

          False again.  As Benny Morris doscovered, there is no histoifal evidence of this.  In fact, the records show that Arab leaders ordered the Palestinians NOT to leave.

          Your talking points and false propaganda are tired and long since debunked.  Your Bible has turned your brain to mush.

        • VR says:

          Zamaaz, unfortunately your understanding of the Nakba is a spurious as your understanding of the bible, it is amazing that you keep displaying your ignorance and its “conclusions.”

        • “To identify the Nakba as a past and finished event is to declare its success and insist on the irreversibility of its achievements. It is to insist that there is no longer a struggle to define it, nor a successful resistance that stands in its way. It is to grant it historical and political legitimacy as a fact of life, but also to endow all its subsequent effects as its natural outcome.”

          This is deep, and hits home.

        • zamaaz says:

          [ The year 1881 is the date when Jewish colonisation of Palestine started and, as everyone knows, it has never ended. ]

          Jewish colonisation of Palestine is one thing, the eviction of Arabs is another … it does not necessarily that one has to be evicted to colonialize…

          [As Benny Morris discovered, there is no historical evidence of this. In fact, the records show that Arab leaders ordered the Palestinians NOT to leave.]

          Now we have come to the point where one historical narrative contradict another … However, it does not necessarily follow there was an absence of record, the order did not happen.. by mere essence of British reports and the dialogue themselves between leaders (like that one by British officer) showed there was indeed a contesting ideas to evacuate or not, and that there was this final crucial decision …

  6. DavidSiden says:

    Yonira says, What matters is the Jewish leadership (the Jewish Agency) accepted the proposal and the Arab leadership rejected it.

    Thats pretty much the story now with the Barak and Olmert offer.
    The Palestinians are still rejectionists.
    Nothing will change for these people.
    Having a conflict is goldmine for them.

    Thank goodness Jews dont put their people in refugee camps.

    • Aref says:

      “In an interview in Ha’aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon’s diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in ‘formaldehyde’.”
      Yep it is the Palestinians who do not want to negotiate !!!!!!!!!!!

      • Sumud says:

        Aref – DavidSiden is trolling, that’s all.

        • yonira says:

          this trolling thing is stupid, basically anyone who tries to argue your points is a troll and needs to be banned. how is that constructive?

        • Sumud says:

          Where is the arguing of my point?

          I’m not calling you a troll am I?

          DS pops in now and then – drops a lot of links/posts in quick succession, generally not related to the article – and then doesn’t respond to any of his responses.

          You may be crackers and occasionally quite repugnant yonira but at least you participate, not just threadjack. DS’s modus operandi is identical to shamir – which upon examination of the timestamps of his posts – could NOT have been achieved by a person – only a team or bot.

          The shamir sham – annie noticed it then I went back to his debut post and confirmed it:

          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Cliff says:

          Um, no – a troll is not someone who disagrees w/ the majority on a blog.

          And w/ respect to the people who’ve been banned so far – 1 was a religious fanatic, Jewish colonist/settler and another was a guy who regularly began his posts by calling everyone a Jew-hater (kind of like you, only you’ve dropped the whole Jew-this/Jew-that song and dance, and stick to saying we ‘hate’ Israel – as if anyone has to love Israel) and was kicked off the blog for calling a female commentator a ‘whore’.

          Like I’ve said in the past, you’re a schizo, hypocrite, and pathological liar.

          You show up here daily like you’re new. You know the history of the commentary here. You’ve seen the posts. So you should know by now that we’re not lying when we say someone is a troll.

          Siden spams the blog in the same exact way as Shamir, and as the countless other trolls whose names don’t matter because they are most likely the same people.

          Julian, Siden, et al. like to bring up Olmert’s “offer” – every time they do, we ask for details of the offer.

          Each time, no response.

          And as to WHY someone is a troll? Well, for example ZioTrolls on this blog like you, will make a post in one thread. Then spam it across the other threads on the front page of the blog. You don’t even read your responses. It’s just to clutter up the ‘recent comments’ section.

          The other style of trolling is to regurgitate the same stale, debunked, hasbara bullshit over and over:

          ‘The Palestinians are rejectionists’
          ‘Olmert’s amazing offer’
          ‘Arab horde randomly attacked the poor fledgling Jewish State to commit another Holocaust’
          ‘Jews were exiled form the Arab world, and it’s the same thing as the Palestinians being exiled by the Zionists during the 48′ War’
          ‘Israel left Gaza in 2005′
          ‘Palestinians will have peace when they love their children more than they hate Israel’
          ‘Blah blah is antisemitic’

          The same stupid shit over and over. And you keep doing it, then forgetting on purpose so you can once again say: “You guys just want people banned who don’t agree with you.”

          No, moron. We’ve debunked your arguments countless times, and maybe we’re just sick of reading the same stupid propaganda over and over again.

          Who are you even talking to? You’re talking to yourself. Everyone here knows you, yonira. It’s very easy to find your comments on ‘owning’ Anna Baltzer’s Jewishness, or mocking Palestinian children, or making homophobic comments toward Chaos. Etc. etc.

          You’re a loser. And yes, a troll.

        • Cliff says:

          Ok, yonira. I know you’re a total douchebag, Zionist tool. However, I’ll suspend my belief for a moment.

          Read the following, and try to provide an argument against the notion that Shamir is yet another one of your fellow ZioTrolls.

          Quoting Sumud so everyone can see:

          In brief 48 comments by Shamir – ALL new comments (ie none in response to other posters). There were altogether 140 comments with around 10 other new comment subthreads – ie. Shamir totally dominated and hijacked the thread, most were in response to him.

          Timestamps broken into lots of ten:

          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:30 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:32 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:33 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:35 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:39 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:42 pm

          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:44 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:46 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:48 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:50 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:53 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:54 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:55 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:56 pm

          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:57 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 3:58 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:01 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:02 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:05 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm

          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:07 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:11 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:12 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:16 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:19 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:24 pm

          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 4:38 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 5:03 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 5:40 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 5:42 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 5:45 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 5:49 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm
          Shamir May 9, 2010 at 7:16 pm

          So the first 40 comments are “written” and submitted in less than an hour – and definitely some are too long to be typed in the intervening period. “Shamir” is either a bot, a team of people or a single person using canned comments – maybe a combination. “Shamir” does respond to people by name occasionally but NEVER that i could find by hitting REPLY to an existing comment, it always starts a new subthread. A bot software limitation?

          Whichever it is, Shamir is not the kind of entity interested in dialogue, discussion – or IDEAS which is the raison d’etre of Mondoweiss.

          I’m going to report him for abuse and point out these comments with our observations. Thread spamming/jacking is not mentioned in the MW Comments Policy but I can’t imagine it is accepted!

        • The shamir sham – annie noticed it then I went back to his debut post and confirmed it
          Yes, good work!

        • Cliff says:

          And from syv:

          Sumud, haven’t you figured it out yet — he is not writing any of this stuff. Google his sentences and you will find the words lifted from some obscure proIsrael site. These are sites with very little traffic — he is simply giving their words — never with attribution– some mileage by reposting here where there is an audience.

          Simple experiment, yonira. Google one of the many posts by Shamir, in the style of ‘canned commentary’ – that is, a post in which he writes at length, w/o responding to someone by name.

          He’s definitely a bot, or a team of trolls working together. It’s already been reported by the mainstream Israeli press that, that racist, apartheid State is looking for loser Zionist trolls to pollute blogs like Mondoweiss for a living.

          Go outside yonira, get a life.

        • yonira says:

          And w/ respect to the people who’ve been banned so far – 1 was a religious fanatic,

          how would you classify yourself in that group Cliff?

        • yonira says:

          LOL, can you prove any of this? can i get flavoring in my kid’s medicine, he doesn’t like the taste.

        • yonira says:

          For a living? LOL, love to see that…

        • Cliff says:

          Again, you keep acting like this discussion we’re having is new.

          That’s why it’s totally possible to believe you and the rest of the Zio-Trolls are sock-puppet accounts. Are you saying that’s impossible?

          As I said, it was reported on in mainstream Israeli press. Look it up yourself. Damn you’re lazy.

          I mean, the very idea is plausible. But you make it all sound like a conspiracy. It’s so sad.

        • Cliff says:

          As I said, moron – answer the points made by Sumud and annie. Until then, shut the hell up. You’re BORING.

          Think of new hasbara, please. Or at least rephrase your whining.

          Anyway, I expect a couple days from now, you saying the same exact stuff in this exchange – in another thread, as if it’s all so new.

          ‘Hey, you guys at MondoLies just hate Jews and Israel and want to ban anyone who disagrees with you.’

          And then, we’ll go through it all again, because you’re a goddamn retard.

        • Cliff says:

          Here, for the loser douchebag troll, yonira:

          link to haaretz.com

        • Considering that Israel has actually created a special division to post pro-Israel Hasbara all over the internet, its very plausible that some or most of the trolls posting here on Mondoweiss are in some way associated with this effort.

          link to technology.timesonline.co.uk

          It is part of an attempt by Israel’s political leaders to use the internet to spread their message and has seen the country’s Army, the IDF, becoming the first ever national force to set up their own YouTube channel.

          And from Nazereth based Jonathan Cook,

          Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel.

          Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and demobilised soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s line on the Middle East conflict.

          “To all intents and purposes the internet is a theatre in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we must be active in that theatre, otherwise we will lose,” said Ilan Shturman, who is responsible for the project.

          The existence of an “internet warfare team” came to light when it was included in this year’s foreign ministry budget. About $150,000 has been set aside for the first stage of development, with increased funding expected next year.

          Don’t be surprised when many of us are skeptical when a new troll shows up here cut and pasting the same exact arguments verbatim.

        • rachel says:

          Cliff,

          Take a good look at yourself. You are in no position to call anyone a loser. You are a petulant and spoiled little desi brat. You are a monster douche bag. Most people here think you are an asshole but they tolerate you out of anti-zionist loyalty.
          Your posts are EXTREMELY BORING, PROPAGANDIZING AND REPETITIVE SHIT. You are a bully, trying to intimidate people by calling them trolls.
          FUCK YOU! YOU DON’T OWN THIS SITE!

        • Cliff says:

          You’d think that, after we found out that people like Siden and Shamir are copy-pasting the same arguments over and over, yonira would budge.

          That’s some serious denial.

        • Cliff says:

          Cry more, you banshee freak.

        • Cliff says:

          Leave Israel aloooooooone!!11

        • potsherd says:

          It’s telling that the Israeli Hasbara Dept recruits people to pose as idiots. Or maybe they just recruit idiots.

        • Cliff says:

          I think the best trolls already came to the site during Gaza massacre, and left after they couldn’t handle it.

        • potsherd says:

          Whereas Zionists are always restrained and polite.

        • yonira says:

          Cliff thanks for proving my point, they are volunteers, they aren’t doing it for a living. I never questioned such an organization existed, I merely questioned that fact that they were making a living of trolling, your claim is false, moving on….

        • yonira says:

          Rachel, you should have seen what a fucking asshole Cliff was before he was banned from Mondoweiss. He has calmed down ten fold. He looks back at those days when he couldn’t troll Mondoweiss, those were the saddest days of his life.

        • zamaaz says:

          But the fact Shamir provided important infos to this debate, though he may not have responded to rebuttals, his arguments are likewise valid and useful to other participants, thus his presence cannot be denied as part of the debate…

        • zamaaz says:

          I could be possibly, for Hasbara, a volunteer idiot…

        • Shingo says:

          There’s nothgi useful about lies.

        • zamaaz says:

          [Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and demobilised soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s line on the Middle East conflict.]

          Excuse me, I am not Internet-savvy, nor with language skills (Shingo can confirm that), not a Jew, nor a settler either…Where can I claim part of that about $150,000 budget? (LOL!) And perhaps the Israeli government should give extra premiums to those exclusions like me… (LOL!)

        • Sumud says:

          “Cliff thanks for proving my point, they are volunteers”

          Yonira – was that a deliberate attempt to prove potsherd comments on hasbara idiots?

          The linked Haaretz article states:
          “The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad. The Foreign Ministry intends to hire young people…”

          The Jonathan Cook article is from Counterpunch and the quoted text you somehow managed to not read:
          “Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel.”
          link to counterpunch.org

          Volunteers exist, and paid commentators exist.

        • Cliff says:

          yonira is clearly a volunteer. Too stupid to get paid to troll.

        • zamaaz says:

          But one should assess, why are there volunteers? could there be some cause?

        • Shingo says:

          “But one should assess, why are there volunteers? could there be some cause? ”

          Yes, like the KKK. They were volunteers who believed in a cause.

        • Shingo says:

          Well $150,000 doesn’t go very far unless you hire second rate help.

        • zamaaz says:

          [There’s nothgi useful about lies. ]

          Historical brief on the Palestinian conflict:

          1917 Balfour Declaration
          1922 Was the creation of state of Jordan as an addition of an August 1922 clause to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine until its independence in 1928.

          [The Jews agreed to the decimation of its original mandated territory in favor of the Arabs, to gain peace (UN reports)]
          [The Arabs were already given an independent state, the Jews were not.]

          1947 hostilities between Arabs and Jews broke out. But the first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of these hostilities.

          1947 (November) the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem.[16] Partition was ACCEPTED BY ZIONIST LEADERS (upper case was mine) but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war.

          1947 (December) Siege of Jerusalem started..

          [The rejection of the partition by the Arabs, gave the Jews no other option but to struggle for total control of the contested territory]

          1948 (April 9) Deir Yassin massacre took place as a response of Jews to relieve Jerusalem from Arab siege.

          1948 (14 May) Israel declared impendence, the neighboring Arab states attacked the next day.

          1949 Lausanne Conference, after the war the Israeli who gained upperhand still agreed and offered measures for the future of the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs leaders as before rejected the offer. The Arab states rejected Israel’s arguments and proposals on both moral and political grounds”.

          [I appears the Jews were double-crossed by the Arabs (with the aid of the British magnanimity). Their British mandated territory was cut into half in 1922 in favor of State of Transjordan; and then Jews accepted another proposed partition in 1947, and the third offer was presented in 1949, but all the three proposal were rejected by the Arab leaders. This gave no other indication than the Arabs want everything of Israel.]

          After all these rejections the Israelis should have been no options left but has to proceed with the rebuilding the Jewish AT THEIR SOLE VERSION…

          Now were are the lies I fabricated, are not these works of historians themselves…

          As result in my assessment, these continued rejections by the Arabs placed the Palestinians remaining in Israel in politically ‘floating’ situation; without a state, without a government, and without ‘future’.

          All in all, the Jews offered to the Arabs three times; momentous opportunities for peace… yet the Arabs rejected them. As a consequence, the Jews cannot wait for the Arabic gesture and have decided to moved on and fully pursue the total restoration of Israel. At this conjunction of history, the failure of Palestine, and whatever political consequences in relation to sovereign measures of Israel, cannot be blamed on Jews anymore.
          With such history of conflict, insisting on Israel culpability would not lessen the conflict itself…

        • Shingo says:

          “1947 hostilities between Arabs and Jews broke out. But the first thing the documents show is that Arab flight from Haifa began well before the outbreak of these hostilities.”

          Rubbish. The Israli terro groups were already atatcking Palestinian villages and British outoposts befoer 1947.

          “Partition was ACCEPTED BY ZIONIST LEADERS (upper case was mine) but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war.”

          False again. The declaration of indepenence, which itself was a violation of the parition agreement, is what led to the civil war.

          “1948 (April 9) Deir Yassin massacre took place as a response of Jews to relieve Jerusalem from Arab siege”‘

          Rubbish. A year befoer the Deir Yassin massacre was orchestrate (to drive out the Palestinains), the Israelis had alrady enthically cleansed 200,000 Palestinians from their homes.

          “1948 (14 May) Israel declared impendence, the neighboring Arab states attacked the next day.”

          Israel were asked not to declare independence until the UN could reach an agreement. Israel ignored the request.

          “1949 Lausanne Conference, after the war the Israeli who gained upperhand still agreed and offered measures for the future of the Palestinian Arabs.”

          False, because Israel had already rejected the UN Resolution demanding that the refugees be allowed to return.

          It was at the Lausanne Conference that the dismal future of the Palestinians was decided. The United States did not support self-determination for the Palestinians or an independent Palestinian state. In Washington’s view, the Palestinians were not a separate people deserving the Wilsonian right to determine their own fate.

          “The Arab states rejected Israel’s arguments and proposals on both moral and political grounds”.

          Because the argument denied Palestinians self determination.

          “I appears the Jews were double-crossed by the Arabs (with the aid of the British magnanimity”

          On the contrary. The British and US double crossed the Arabs to aid the Israelis.

          “and then Jews accepted another proposed partition in 1947″

          They were in no position to complain. They only owned 7% of the land and were being given 50% while the Palestinians were being forced to give up half.

          “After all these rejections the Israelis should have been no options left but has to proceed with the rebuilding the Jewish AT THEIR SOLE VERSION…”

          They could have done that without stealing land. The fact is that they had no chance of building a state without land theft and ethnic cleansing.

          “Now were are the lies I fabricated, are not these works of historians themselves…”

          Which historians? Sorry to say, what you have repeated is not history.

          What you petronisingly refer to as the rejections by the Arabs was their refusal to give up their land to be handed over to European immigrants who had stated clearly that they intended to steal everything they could.

          All in all, the Jews offered nothing to the Arabs, but only took from them.

          A car thief doesn’t get the right to dictate what parts of the car the owner can have back.

        • Good work Shingo.. I have no such patience with this moron. Yours is to be commended.,

        • Mooser says:

          And you do Rachel? And you do?

        • zamaaz says:

          Easy Rachel, if you lost your temper, we lost the consistency of our cause… Are you a lady? I hope I have not offended a lady…

        • yonira says:

          this coming from the pharmacy tech(no offense of course) who is respected by no one on mondoweiss.

        • yonira says:

          Zamaaz, your Zionism stems from the fact that you believe your Messiah is coming as it says in prophecy. You don’t care about the Jewish people or the Israeli people, you are purely using them as a means to an end.

          The only Jews who you are concerned with is the 144k who your prophetic works say will be converted to Christianity following the rapture. In my eyes you are just as bad as the most rabid anti-zionist.

          Israel is a refuge for the Jews, not a sign that of Christ’s second coming.

        • Shingo says:

          Beautifully put Yonira.

          Indeed, these people are truly insidious. They would just as soon cut your throat as they would pretend to care about your wellbeing.

          Argue as we might about Israel, I would swear on my mother’s grave, that if you were being persecuted for being Jewish, my house would be open to you, and thatgoes for anyone here, even Julian.

  7. DavidSiden says:

    link to hsje.org
    THE FORCED MIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ARAB COUNTRIES

  8. DavidSiden says:

    Aref, that what happens in war. The invading Arab countries should have thought about that before they attacked Israel in 48.
    On the Palestinians, i advise you to read this article, which tells the truth.

    link to hagshama.org.il
    Were The Palestinians Expelled?

    • Aref says:

      ” About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.”

      “That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.”

      What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

      “Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948].”
      .
      .
      .
      “Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”

      When ethnic cleansing is justified

      Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

      “There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.”

      This is an excerpt from an interview Avi Shavit has conducted with Benny Morris, a Zionist by his own admission and an apologist for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

    • tree says:

      Aref, that what happens in war. The invading Arab countries should have thought about that before they attacked Israel in 48.

      The Arab countries did think about that, and what caused them to enter the war was the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

      Pappe:

      The Partition Resolution was adopted on 29 November 1947, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine began in early December 1947 with a series of Jewish attacks on Palestinian villages and neighbourhoods in retaliation for the buses and shopping centres that had been vandalised in the Palestinian protest against the UN resolution during the first few days after its adoption. Though sporadic, these early Jewish assaults were severe enough to cause the exodus of a substantial number of people (almost 75,000).

      On 9 January, units of the first all-Arab volunteer army entered Palestine and engaged with the Jewish forces in small battles over routes and isolated Jewish settlements. Easily winning the upper hand in these skirmishes, the Jewish leadership officially shifted its tactics from acts of retaliation to cleansing operations. Coerced expulsions followed in the middle of February 1948 when Jewish troops succeeded in emptying five Palestinian villages in one day. On 10 March 1948, Paln Dalet was adopted. The first targets were the urban centres of Palestine, which had all been occupied by the end of April. About 250,000 Palestinians were uprooted in this phase, which was accompanied by several massacres, most notable of which was the Deir Yassin massacre. Aware of these developments, the Arab League took the decision, on the last day of April, to interven militarily, but not until the British Mandate had come to an end.

      The British left on 15 May 1948, and the Jewish Agency immediately declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, officially recognised by the two superpowers of the day, the USA and the USSR. That same day, regular Arab forces entered Palestine.

      By February 1948, the American administration had already concluded that the Un Partition Resolution, far from being a peace plan, was proving a recipe for continued bloodshed and hostility. Therefore, it twice offered alternative schemes to halt the escalation of the conflict: a trusteeship plan for five years, in february 1948, and a three-month cease-fire on 12 May. The Zionist leadership rejected both peace plans out of hand.

  9. DavidSiden says:

    Shmuel, you say,
    Israel gets to keep all of the territory it has seized (78% of Palestine)
    Jordan encompassed 75% of the total area of the British Mandate.
    So how the heck can Israel have 78%, when the East Bank was 75% of the land which went to the Arabs.
    Today in the East Bank we see the Arab burning all Jewish goods.
    The hate in these Arabs is scary.

  10. DavidSiden says:

    Aref, Naeim Giladi was a well known anti Zionist Jew.
    Historian Dr. Yosef Meir, a noted Iraqi Zionist underground operative, argues in a rebuttal article to Giladi that the bombings in Iraq against the Jews was the Iraqi government or Arab nationalists. He points to the fact that the bombings in question occurred after the Citizenship relinquishment act of 1950 had already expired and therefore no Jews could register for exit. He also notes that the two zionist operatives hanged were never charged with the masouda shem-tov bombing, but rather three unrelated bombings which occurred later. On the other hand, he lists the motives of the government and the pressure it exerted on “Near-East” (the company performing the airlifts). Yosef Meir’s criticism points to circumstantial evidence that the Zionist movement had no motive while the Iraqi government and Arab nationalists did, and accuses Giladi of withholding this information on purpose, calling it “an obvious attempt to mislead readers.”[6]

    • Walid says:

      “Aref, Naeim Giladi was a well known anti Zionist Jew.
      Historian Dr. Yosef Meir, a noted Iraqi Zionist underground operative, argues in a rebuttal article to Giladi that the bombings in Iraq against the Jews was the Iraqi government or Arab nationalists.” (DavidSiden)

      David, Giladi said it himself that was an anti-Zionist and he went on to explain why he was so along with the horror stories on how the Jews were poisoning the Palestininian Arabs’ water wells with typhus and dysentery bacteria.

      If Giladi would have been alone making such declarations, one would be be skeptical but he wasn’t. Yehouda Shenhav, a noted Israeli scholar whose parents were Iraqi Jews said more or less what Giladi said about the yanking of Jews out of Iraq and describes why the Zionists did it.

      I think read what Dr. Yosef Meir wrote about what Giladi wrote rather than having read Giladi’s story yourself. The Near-East company you read about was owned by the Jewish Fund and the lead agent on the flights was a Mossad agent. There was collusion with the Iraqi Prime Minister’s Office since the PM and other top Iraqi officials were owners of the travel agency that booked all the flights of the Iraqi Jews and they personally benefitted from the exodus.

      Naim Giladi’s story:

      link to bintjbeil.com

    • tree says:

      He points to the fact that the bombings in question occurred after the Citizenship relinquishment act of 1950 had already expired and therefore no Jews could register for exit.

      If Dr. Meir said that, then he was stating an obvious falsehood. The first bombing occurred on April 8, 1950, shortly after the Act was passed in March of that year. The second one, which caused the fatality, occurred on January 14, 1951. The Act was originally scheduled to expire in March 1951, well after both of those bombings. Its expiration date was later extended.

      The Act itself, the Cancellation of Iraqi Nationality Law, was passed as the result of British, American, and Israeli pressure on Iraq which prior to that time had made emigration to Israel a crime. Any Jew who wished to leave Iraq was allowed to register as such and thus leave Iraq legally. The registration itself was in the hands of the Iraqi Jewish community, and became controlled by Zionist emissaries from Israel.

      As to the bombings and the their correlations to the registry rolls:

      From Shiblak:

      Very few Jews registered during the first three weeks—that is, before the first terrorist bomb (at al-Bayda coffee house on 8 April 1950) Only three people turned up to register on the first day. In all 126 had registered before the attack.

      Almost immediately after the first bomb attack, thousands of Jews began to queue up in the registration offices, including 3,400 who registered on the day after the bombing. …By 26 April 1950, about three weeks after the attack, 23,000 had completed the first stage of registration and w,300 the second stage. By the end of 1950 it was reported that 31,500 of those who had registered had arrived in Israel.

      Ther is some evidence, however that the rate of registration decelerated from the summer of 1950 to the end of the year. Nearly nine months passed befroe the second bombing, the one a Mas’uda Shemtob Synagogue on 14 January 1951. According to Foreign Office reports, at least 30,000 Jews had indicated their wish to stay in Iraq. In its annual report for 1950, the Jewish Agency put the number of Iraqi Jews who were expected to come to Israel in 1951 at not more than 15,000. Adding this to the number who had already left for Israel in 1950 (31,500), we find that 46,500 had already left or were ready to do so, of a communtiy of almost 130,000 in all.

      The effect of the second terrorist attack was more serious. Here unlike in the first case, a Jewish centre had clearly been targeted and the first deaths occurred. During the six weeks prior to the attack, 2,300 had registered, as compared with 7,600 in the fortnight following the attack.

      By 8 March 1951, when the deadline for registration was supposed to expire, 105,000 Jews had registered and 40,000 had already left. The deadline was later extended.

      The March 1951 attack on the US Information Centre was probably an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to gain more support for the Zionist cause in the United States.

      The last two attacks, in May and June 1951, were directed against Jewish firms. They were probably intended to put pressure on well-established members of the community, who were the last to emigrate.

  11. DavidSiden says:

    Hasn’t the time come for Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz to once condem Arab racism and hatred.

    link to ynetnews.com
    Jordanians burn Israeli produce
    Hundreds burn Israeli fruit, vegetable crates after clerics issue religious edict
    Roee Nahmias
    05.15.10

    • Walid says:

      DavidSiden, you’re upset at the symbolic destruction of a few crates of Israeli produce; I’m upset at the destruction of 24,145 houses in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza since 1967 and the 4,247 houses in Gaza last year by Israel and let’s not forget the hundreds of thousands of olive trees uprooted by the enviromentally friendly only democracy in the ME:

      link to icahd.org

      As to your question to Weiss and Horowitz about their failure to condemn Arab hatred, comfort yourself thinking that everyone else is.

  12. DavidSiden says:

    Aref, Israel did not cause the Arabs to leave.
    Why not post these facts.
    link to hlinc-zionsake.org

    • yonira says:

      David,

      you can’t bring that up on here. The reverse it true though when discussing the Jewish exodus from Arab states. Any argument against it being a Zionist plan is denied outright, but when the idea that the Arab states could have done the same to the Palestinians, you are considered a troll and there is a call for you to be banned.

      • That’s because we’ve debunked this as a talking point to negate the Palestinian right of return far to many times now.

        Even if all the Arab Jews that currently live in Israel today were all ethnically cleansed in the same manner that the Palestinians were cleansed by the Israelis, that still would not negate the Palestinian right of return.

        • yonira says:

          and we’ve debunked yours, but they keep on getting repeated constantly. its fucking stupid, you guys are so boring.

        • Shingo says:

          Sorry, you have’t condemned anything or anyone.

          After all, you never got to explain your theory as how Winograd’s conclusion referred to the grond war only in 2006, even though according to you, it has been repeatedly demonstrated.

        • Shingo says:

          “its fucking stupid, you guys are so boring”

          Translation: Yonira lost another debate and it now going back to his fallback poisiton of throing his own faeces at his opponents.

        • yonira says:

          please what debate did I lose Shingo, its gone way beyond debates on here.

          Shingo what is the point of showing you guys any evidence, when 3 days later it will be brought back like it wasn’t proven wrong. its not worth it, trying to debate you guys like civilized academics is not possible on here.

        • yonira says:

          what does winograd have to do with the iraq pogroms? also when we had that argument 2 weeks ago you were trying to say that winograd was blaming the IDF for firing katyusha’s at Israel. there really wasn’t much of a burden of proof required on my part to debunk that nonsense. Hezbullah fired katyushas and kidnapped/killed israeli soldiers. Israel (ill advised in my opinion) didn’t turn the other cheek and started their bombing campaign followed by a ground invasion. Nasrallah could have saved lebanon thousands of lives by returning the soldiers instead of executing them, he didn’t and a country he doesn’t even run, was made to suffer for it.

        • Shingo says:

          Your lies are reaching Witty levels of derrangement Yoni.

          “what does winograd have to do with the iraq pogroms?”

          You lied then and you are lying now.

          “also when we had that argument 2 weeks ago you were trying to say that winograd was blaming the IDF for firing katyusha’s at Israel.

          I never said that becasue the firing of katyusha’s at Israel was not how the war started.

          “there really wasn’t much of a burden of proof required on my part to debunk that nonsense.”

          Still waiting for you to debunk anything. What you did was conflate with your army of straw men.

          “Hezbullah fired katyushas and kidnapped/killed israeli soldiers. Israel (ill advised in my opinion) didn’t turn the other cheek and started their bombing campaign followed by a ground invasion. ”

          A bombing campaign that had nothing to dow with the cross border skirmish and which Olmert admittd he had planned months ahead.

          “Nasrallah could have saved lebanon thousands of lives by returning the soldiers instead of executing them, he didn’t and a country he doesn’t even run, was made to suffer for it. ”

          Yes, the afct that the IDF massacred 1,300 Lebanese civilians is all Nasrallah’s falt. The IDF had no say in it.

        • Shingo says:

          ” its not worth it, trying to debate you guys like civilized academics is not possible on here.”

          Not possible when you are not ciovilized nor an academic, but you have never posted anything that would meet that standard.

          BTW. It looks like your claim that Erdgon had stopped the flotilla has also been denbunked.

          link to mycatbirdseat.com

        • Shingo says:

          “please what debate did I lose Shingo, its gone way beyond debates on here. ”

          A few hours ago, you had your ass handed to you about Shlomo Ben Amu admitting the Camp David offer was inadequate and that Israel were entirely to blame for the 1967 war.

        • Shingo says:

          Just to remind you Yonira,

          This was Winograd’s conclusion:

          “Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated………..Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,”

          Notice there is no mention of Katusha rockets starting the war.

        • yonira says:

          nice source.

        • yonira says:

          anyone who blames the 67 war on israel is a fucking lunatic. does history mean nothing to you people?

        • yonira says:

          so shingo, let’s end this right now, do you admit or deny that Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel as a diversion to kidnap and kill Israeli troops. This being the instigation for Israel’s war against Hezbollah?

        • “anyone who blames the 67 war on israel is a fucking lunatic.”

          Hardly better than shamir’s” Goldstone’s report is flawed because it’s flawed”..
          Yawn…

        • Shingo says:

          Yes I do admit it Yonira, just as Israel has done on countless occasions. And because the many occasions that Israel did the same thing did not lead to war, it also proves that the cross border skirmish is not what started the war.

          As Winograd stated, the war was initiated by Israel ans Israel alone.

        • Shingo says:

          “anyone who blames the 67 war on israel is a fucking lunatic. does history mean nothing to you people?”

          History is what happened, not what you believe happened, which is propaganda. You’re basing your beliefs about the 1967 war on the false narrative that was created at the time.

          History involves the ongoing investigation of said events to uncover the truth, and what we know today about the 1967 war completely undermines the lies we were peaented.

          We just debunked the narrative about the war that you and others still cling to. We presented facts that came to light long afte the war, yet you reject all that evidence because of what you brlieve to be history.

          Consider all the lies that led us to attack and invade Iraq. If history had ceased to be written in March 2003, we would allstoll be insisting that the war was about Iraq’s WMD and that Saddam was about to attack the US.

          If lies could so easily be used to lead us to war in 2003, don’t you think that lies were even more powerful 4 decades before the information age?

        • Sumud says:

          “anyone who blames the 67 war on israel is a fucking lunatic. does history mean nothing to you people?”

          Yonira at time like this I’m all for primary sources:

          “Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

          Menachem Begin stated that “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” [76]

          Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: “the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli,” but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.

          Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was “a bluff which was born and developed only after the war… …”When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today.” [77] Peled also stated that “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military).”
          link to en.wikipedia.org

          As much as having to rebut the same silly debunked points is annoying – you really are doing newbies a service. Imagine how much they are learning about Israel’s failing colonial experiment! And from Israeli sources no less!

        • Shingo says:

          There you go again Sumud. Confusing facts with “history”.

        • zamaaz says:

          It is not as anyone has said, it should be supported by the facts of the matter…
          The 2008 Gaza conflict was preceded by continued barrage of rockets from January to somewhere June 2008, and there was almost a four consecutive months lull, and after a Palestinian was killed by an Israeli, the barrage of rockets renewed from Nov to months that followed (2009)… The trouble is, if there was a killing why can’t the Palestinian proceed to pursuit the complaint for criminal proceedings? Why for the lose of one or two (?) they chose to add more a thousand (more than 1310) to the deads plus the apparent destruction of their civil infrastructure? For political objective of delegitimizing Israel postion? What have they gained in the political campaign maneuver against Israel? More sufferings to the Palestinians? Because they gave the Israelis the moral opportunity to do so?
          This is what I hardly understand… The pro-Palestinians are struggling to uphold the lives of Palestinians, the Palestinian leadership or perhaps the people themselves are willing to spend out the lives of their people fore such goal? Is this struggle of Palestinian supporters worth their cause?

        • yonira says:

          Sumud, So what is your point on the 6 day war? Why did Nasser mobilize at all? All I am saying is without mobilization, there wouldn’t have been a war. Without Nasser’s rhetoric would the Israel’s have attacked them?

          Nasser’s rhetoric became increasingly bellicose; on March 8, 1965 he said:

          We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.
          A few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs’ goal to be:

          … the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.

        • yonira says:

          more primary sources…

          n June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq added these words to the mountain of provocation:

          The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.

          Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly:

          The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.

          Gamel Abdel Nasser, May 3oth 1967. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.

        • Shingo says:

          Zamaaz,

          You continue to behave lie the perennial loser who truns up to a party after it’s over.

          “The 2008 Gaza conflict was preceded by continued barrage of rockets from January to somewhere June 2008,”

          Completely false.

          We’ve already established that the Gaza conflict was initiated by Israel when they broke the ceasefire on November 4th when no rockets were being fired at Israel.

          “The trouble is, if there was a killing why can’t the Palestinian proceed to pursuit the complaint for criminal proceedings? ”

          In which court of law?  Are you seriously that deluded and brain dead to believe that an Israeli court would entertain such hearings?  Are you seriously that deluded and brain dead to believe that an international court would puruse recriminations for the guilty parties?  What precendent has been set that demonstrates such options are effective?

          “Why for the lose of one or two (?) they chose to add more a thousand (more than 1310) to the deads plus the apparent destruction of their civil infrastructure?”

          They had no choice.  Tzipi Livni already told the world that a long ceasefire was no in Isrel’s strategic interests.  Thus, Israel put an end to the ceasefire becasue it had continue too long and were conerned that Hamas were appearing to look moderate.

          “This is what I hardly understand…”

          There is a great deal you hardly understand.  If the roles had been reversed, you’d be among the most vocal critics condemning Hamas. but because you are a Crhistina Evngerlical, racist, facsits nut job who is desperate to set fire to the Jews, you are sanguine about it.

        • Shingo says:

          “Why did Nasser mobilize at all? All I am saying is without mobilization, there wouldn’t have been a war. Without Nasser’s rhetoric would the Israel’s have attacked them?”

          Israeli leaders have already debunked this talking point. They knew that Nasser had not amassed anything that would have enabled sny kind of attack.

          As the Istaeli general said, he knew it and he knew it.

        • yonira says:

          Shingo, re-read what he said about rocket fire, he was right on.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • yonira says:

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Here are 37 projectiles fired during the ‘cease fire’ so who broke it?

        • Sumud says:

          “Sumud, So what is your point on the…”

          Yonira – How about you respond a few of my questions in this thread before you ask any more yourself?

        • yonira says:

          which questions Sumud? my initial question was, can you put any blame on Nasser, your response was quotes from Israeli military brass on their intention. You never answered my question. trying any sort of discussion w/ you guys is futile. if you want, ask away and i’ll answer. but the games are getting boring.

        • yonira says:

          100k troops and 1000 tanks? is that nothing? the US took and held Iraq with 130k max, afghanistan with a fraction of that. why mobilize at all? why get your public geared for a war with insidious comments, if that is not your intention? to put zero blame on Nasser is to deny history.

        • Shingo says:

          “100k troops and 1000 tanks?  is that nothing?  the US took and held Iraq with 130k max,  afghanistan with a fraction of that. ”

          Not counting the 3 – 4 aircraft carrier fleets, the private contractors (that outnumbered the actual troop numbers by a factor of 3), the military bases in Qatar, or the logistics operation that have taken up one third of the land of Qatar, the 3 trillion in treasure, the massive air support (dropping more than 2 500lb bombs every minute 24/7), the UAV’s, the satellite network, the support of the NAS, NORAD, the CIA, the entire DOD…etc etc.

        • Walid says:

          Yonira, about Nasser, you’re not totally wrong but you’re not totally right. There is no doubt about Israel’s intention to attack Egypt but Nasser led with his chin with his incessant threats to Israel, the expelling of the UN forces, the closure of Tirana and the non-stop flaming rhetoric over the Egyptian airwaves about what he was going to do to the Jews. It seems that while he was doing all this, he was secretely trying to negotiate with the Israelis that kept giving him the finger. I’d say that Nasser miscalculated in the same way Nasrallah miscalculated in 2006 when he assumed that the whole thing would result in a routine prisoners swap. This doesn’t take anything away from Israel’s plans of attacking Egypt in 67 and Lebanon in 2006; Nasser and Nasrallah gave Israel the alibi it needed to do it.

          This becomes obvious when you look into some aspects of the 67 war like the deliberate bombing of the USS Liberty, the attack on the Golan only after Egypt had been defeated, the pre-arranged deal with Jordan that was similar to the one as in 48 and later in 73 that basically kept Jordan out of Israel’s hair during the fighting and Lebanon’s refusal to mobilize to join Nasser’s planned party.

        • Sumud says:

          “which questions Sumud? ”

          Geezus Yonira: ctrl-F (or Cmd-F if you’re on a Mac) will get you there.

          To do with the Horrorwitz video:

          1. the reference to Hitler Youth Week.
          link to mondoweiss.net

          2. Supporting the IDF despite their genocidal actions (vs. Nasrallah’s rhetoric) in Gaza. A YES/NO response please.
          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Shingo says:

          Walid,

          There is a lock of back story to this situation event that drove Nasser to make those bellicose threats.  Israel had been trying to lure Nasser into war since 1956, but for over a decade, he refused to take the bait.

          Then in November, 1966, there was an Israeli attack on a Jordanian village called Samu, where they blew up around 125 buildings and killed a large number of Jordanian soldiers.   The Jordanians and the Syrians criticized Nasser for not coming to their defense. Nasser was being taunted for his, as it were, for his impotence in the face of Israeli aggression.

          And there were various incidents in the Syrian Golan Heights.  Moshe Dayan admitted that by that stage, 80% of the incidents with the Syrians were instigated by the Israelis.   Israel were already engaged in a land grab in what were called the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel.

          In April 1967 one of those incidents instigated by the Israelis unfolded into an aerial battle with the Syrians. And the Israelis knocked down 6 Syrian planes, 6 Syrian Migs, including 1 over Damascus. And it was at this point again when Nasser was being taunted for not doing anything.

          By May Israel was making clear that it was going to engage in a large scale strike against Syria and that put further pressure on Nasser.   Israel played Nasser like a violin.

        • tree says:

          I always find it amazing that Israel apologists can insist that mobilization of some of Egypt’s forces indicates they must have started the war, but Israel can cross the border into Jordan, destroy a village and kill dozens of people, including Jordanian soldiers, and that’s not an act of war. Neither is entering Syrian air space and shooting down a Syrian plane over its capital of Damascus. They think that Israel can violate the sovereignty of two of its neighbors at will, but God forbid a neighboring country “mobilize” its forces on its own soil.

        • ddi says:

          “100k troops and 1000 tanks? is that nothing?”
          Yes, that’s nothing. According to the the 3:1 “rule” of combat, in order for an an attacker to win the battle his forces should be at least three times the forces of the defender. Of course that assumes an equal degree of competency between the two forces which clearly wasn’t the case.

  13. DavidSiden says:

    Peace is not in Israel’s hands. It’s in the Arabs’ hands. And it’s clear from their actions that they take – the Arabs are not interested in peace with Israel. They are interest in a peace without Israel.

    • Cliff says:

      DavidSiden – isn’t your usual trolling moniker, “Len”?

      link to tabletmag.com

      Last comment.

      • Cliff says:

        Bump. Waiting for the village idiot yonira, to say we’re all conspiracy theorists for thinking Siden/Shamir are sockpuppet/trolling accounts.

        Jew-haters! Everywhere! Hitler/Nazi/Islamoblahblah! Am Israel Chai!

      • Good catch, Cliff! Ha ha…Also it’s possibly a typical post/talking point that all those who are doing the hasbara job spread everywhere.

      • Good catch, it’s almost funny seeing that. It’s been obvious for a while (here and on other sites) even from the hollow rhetorical style and strange phrases that there was something fishy going on…

    • Shingo says:

      “Peace is not in Israel’s hands. It’s in the Arabs’ hands. ”

      Yes, teh Arabs have offered it and Israel have rejected it. Israel are interested in security, not peace, becasue peace would involve returning stolen land.

    • zamaaz says:

      This is the tragic truth of the matter….

  14. DavidSiden says:

    Aref do you know who wrote this? Try Benny Morris from 2 months ago.

    The absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians was mainly due to Palestinian rejectionism and intractability. There was never, as there still is not, a credible, serious Palestinian partner for peace with Israel, not before 1948, and not since. In the years 1920-1948 no Palestinian leader would contemplate either a bi-national, one-state arrangement with the Jews based on political parity or the partition of Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs. Indeed, in 1937, the Arab leadership flatly rejected the two-state solution, proposed by the British Peel Commission, which would have given the Zionists only 17 percent of Palestine. The pre-eminent Palestinian national leader during the 1930s and ’40s (and arguably in the 1920s as well), Haj Amin al Husseini, rejected all talk of compromise and consistently advocated substantially reducing the number of Jews already in the country (i.e., by mass deportation, or worse).

    Nothing has changed since. The 1950s were a hiatus, while the Palestinians licked their wounds from 1948. But when they re-emerged politically under Yasser Arafat and Fatah/the PLO in the 1960s, and during the following two decades they flatly rejected all talk of a two-state solution, preferring the replacement of Israel either in one fell swoop or in stages by a Palestinian Arab state, possibly to include a small Jewish minority.

    During the 1990s, the PLO played a devious, two-faced game of extracting concessions while pretending it had an interest in an eventual two-state solution, which, when offered by Barak (July 2000) and Clinton (December 2000), it promptly rejected. Since then, the ascendancy of Hamas, a fundamentalist organization dedicated openly to anti-Semitic principles and to the destruction of Israel and empowered formally by the general election of 2006 as the leading political force in the Palestinian territories, has assured the rejectionist trajectory of Palestinian political ambitions.

    In other words, the Israeli peaceniks and their ragtag collection of parties and associations (Hermann usefully lists more than 100 of them in Appendix 1—but Peace Now is the only large one among them) were essentially in the business of shadow-boxing: from HaOlam Hazeh editor Uri Avnery in the 1950s on, they would issue manifestos and meet in European hotel lobbies with dissident Palestinian officials (who were later invariably gunned down by less peace- or at least dialogue-minded fellow Palestinians), sign on for this or that conciliatory initiative—and all for nothing. There was no real partner with a solid constituency across the divide, not the mendacious Arafat, who sought Israel’s destruction with all his heart and soul, not the Marxist George Habash of airplane-hijacking notoriety, and not the fundamentalists, who sought nothing more than to cast out the infidels and impose Sharia law over all of Palestine.

    Given this reality, Israel’s peace movement—and Israel’s peace-minded political leaders, from Rabin and Peres, through Barak, Sharon (who evacuated the Gaza Strip), and Olmert (who, in negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, reportedly offered the Palestinians more than Clinton had, and, of course, was turned down flat)—cannot be held to account for the failure to achieve peace with the Palestinians (or, indeed, Syria, which, in 1994-1996 and again in 1999-2000, even when offered the Golan Heights, refused to sign on the dotted line). Hermann’s book—a work of otherwise fine political analysis and synthesis—never really makes this clear, which is its great failing.

    • Aref says:

      I do not expect Benny Morris, the apologist for ethnic cleansing to say otherwise. Nonetheless, it is very convenient that he skips over 1948. He does not deny his previous research and conclusions.
      Of course, what else do you expect him to say? That the Zionist state is not interested in peace and has done everything to create an environment where peace is not achievable? What do you make of Dov Weissglas and his statements published in Israeli newspapers? What Israel wants is a subserviant docile Palestinian population that accepts whatever Israel dictates and if they refuse they are rejectionists and terrorists. Keep the propaganda and distortions coming but you must realize that you’re not fooling anyone and you’re not dealing with idiots.

      • Walid says:

        Israelis or Zionists have been talking about getting rid of the Palestinian Arabs for over 70 or 80 years. The subject comes and goes but never really disappears’

        Benny Morris the first time around criticized Ben Gurion for not having evicted all the Palestinian Arabs but in his revised version, he softened his views somewhat because he had been put in the doghouse with his initial revelations. Wiki has this on him:

        …According to The Economist: “Mr Morris also said, in an interview that stunned his supporters, that Israel was justified in uprooting the Palestinian ‘fifth column’ once the Arabs had attacked the infant state, and that the number executed or massacred—some 800, on his reckoning—was ‘peanuts’ compared with, say, the massacres in Bosnia in the 1990s.”[8] On the subject of Israel’s Arab citizens, Morris has argued:

        The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified..

    • Shingo says:

      You gotta love how David jumps from 1095 to the 1990′s, completely imitting the 1967 war that Israel launched and the 1982 invasion of Southern Lebanon.

      “PLO in the 1960s, and during the following two decades they flatly rejected all talk of a two-state solution, preferring the replacement of Israel either in one fell swoop or in stages by a Palestinian Arab state”

      Cpompeteoly false. Israel’s atack on Southern Lebanon followed the PLO’s public endoresement of the 2 state solution. In fact, many have suggested that was the primary motivaton for the invasion.

      “During the 1990s, the PLO played a devious, two-faced game of extracting concessions while pretending it had an interest in an eventual two-state solution, which, when offered by Barak (July 2000) and Clinton (December 2000), it promptly rejected.”

      Both Baarak and Clinton knew the Camp David offer was inadequate, which is why they revised the offer at Taba, where both leaders (Arafat and Barak) stated they would have reached an agreement if they’d had more time.

      It was Barak that called off thetalks early due to what he said was the need to focus on the Israeli elections.

      Isreli foreign minister at the time, Shlomo Ben Ami, stated that if he’d been a Palestinian, he too woudl have rejected Camp David.

      “Israel’s peace-minded political leaders, from Rabin and Peres, through Barak, Sharon”

      You know how far down the rabbit hole Israel has gone when war criminals like Sharon are referred to as peace minded. As George Galloway once said, how ironic is it that Bush calls Sharon a man of peace, when not even Sharon thinks he’s a man of peace?

      DavidSidens talking points are about a decade oút of date and in serious need of an update.

      • yonira says:

        Shingo,

        Do you think Nasser was at all responsible for the 6 day war?

        • Israel invaded Egypt, yet somehow Nasser is equally responsible for the war?

          Nasser may only be responsible in the sense that he may have underestimated the Israeli resolve to invade his country.

        • Shingo says:

          Yonira,

          “Do you think Nasser was at all responsible for the 6 day war?”

          No and for these reasons.

          1. The blockade only affected 5% of all shipping and had no impact on Israel.
          2. The blockade lasted about a week. The first couple of days the Egyptians searched ships. By the end of the week they stopped searching the ships. The ships were going right through. We know that because the main figure there, Indar Jit Rikhye (in charge of the UN forces there at the time), wrote in his book “The Sinai Blunder’, that there was virtualyl no blockade.
          3. It is often cited that the move by Nasser to remove the peace keeping force from the Sinai was considered the first step towards the war. There was an easy solution to that problem. All Israel had to do was restation the UN forces on the Israeli side of the border. If they were effective on the Egyptian side, they would have to have been equally effective on the Israeli side.
          U Thant in his memoir, (Secretary General) and Odd Bull, from Norway, in his memoir, all said the war could’ve been averted had Israel simply restationed those UN forces on its side of the border. Tom Segev in his new book 1967 , says that had Israel restationed the forces on their side, the war could’ve been prevented.
          4. U Thant had made a suggestion to have a moratorium. The moratorium would be that Egypt promised not to fire on foreign vessels going through the Straits of Tiran, and Israel woudl promise not to send through Israeli-flagged vessels. Egypt says, yes. Israel said, no.
          5. Nasser suggested that World Court should decide the legitimacy of the clokchade. The Israelis said, no.
          6. Israeli intelligence corroborated US intelligence. In June 3, 2 days before the war, the head of Israeli intelligence, Meir Amit went to Washington where the American presented their findings.

          Those findings were as follows:
          a) There was no chance Nasser was going to attack.
          b) If he did attack, to quote Lyndon Johnson, as he said to the Israeli Eban, “you’re gonna whip their ass.” In fact the CIA predicted the war would be 7 days long, 7 to 10 days.

          Amit’s reposnse to them was “we do not dispute any of your findings, any of your projections.”

          That means June 3 he agreed there was no chance Nasser would attack and, if by any chance he did, Israel woudl win easily.

          Last but not least, we have these quotes from Israeli leaders confirming all of the above.

          1. Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli army chief of staff during the war, later stated: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
          2. General Mattityahu Peled, a member of Israel’s general staff in 1967, opined that “the thesis according to which the danger of genocide weighed on us in June 1967, and that Israel struggled for its physical existence is only a bluff born and developed after the war.”
          3. Menachem Begin, not yet prime minister but a member of the Israeli cabinet, allowed that: “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

        • zamaaz says:

          Shingo May 15, 2010
          For argument sake these exactly what happened…. But have you not noticed?Why are the Arabs have this fondness to put themselves in such bad position? Nasser has spoken much against Israel, warned and threatened Israel, and massed troops against Israel; what do you think could be the impact of such actions?

          What recourse remains is for one to strike first for a surprise to gain upperhand, and if ever they strike first, that is their fateful risk and responsibility… If they lose the combat, there is no other person to embrace the accountability but themselves….

        • zamaaz says:

          All these eventual dynamics mentioned by Shingo reflects James Bradley was right. The careless actions by Nasser which gave the Israelis the opportunity to attack, could have been rooted to his underestimation over Israelis…

      • yonira says:

        shingo, basically everything you said above is entirely false. where do you get your information? can you start citing it? Because the shit you say is way to far off to believe w/ out proper citation.

        what would be an adequate solution for you guys? I mean other than full right of return, which is a non-starter because it was equal the end of Israel.

        • The reason hes not citing is because hes cited these very same arguments far to many times, to every single troll including yourself who make the same exact arguments verbatim as if they were following a script.

          Furthermore, these are not obscure arguments but are what is understood by most experts on the topic to be what happened.

        • tree says:

          Yonira, you are completely uninformed if you truly think that everything that Shingo said in the post above is a falsity. I don’t think you’ve ever even taken a course on the conflict like you claim you have, and you certainly don’t follow any legitimate news sources if you are now insisting that all those points that are mentioned by Shingo are lies. What particularly do you find “way to far off to believe”? All of this information is readily accessible to anyone who really wants to find it.

          As a starter, for the quote from Ben-Ami that he would have rejected Camp David if he had been a Palestinian and a confirmation that it was Barak that ended the Taba negotiations , please see this debate between Norman Finkelstein and Ben-Ami. Shingo is NOT relying on what Finkelstein says to make those two points. Ben-Ami himself acknowledged both points.

          link to democracynow.org

          And the fact that Barak ended the Taba talks is well known,. If you don’t know that, maybe you should take that as an indication that you are quite ignorant of the facts, rather than a reason to accuse someone else of lying.

        • Shingo says:

          “what would be an adequate solution for you guys? I mean other than full right of return, which is a non-starter because it was equal the end of Israel. ”

          Go on pretending that the Palestinians would not be open to an offer of compensaton so that you can dismiss the Arab peace prosal and any peace negotiations. See how far that gets you when you end up with a single apartheid state.

        • Sumud says:

          I’ve cited the quotes by Begin, Rabin etc. (and more) above.

        • yonira says:

          Tree, i’d love the see a collegiate level class that pins the entire conflict on history. you can say, repeatedly, that i don’t know jack, you don’t believe i’ve ever taken a class on the conflict, etc. I don’t give a fuck, you guys make arguments that israel is entirely responsible for everything that has every happened in the ME, how is this historically accurate? you’re inability too look at the conflict from a historical perspective, but only from a perspective of being the perpetual victim makes everything you guys say on here suspect.

        • yonira says:

          on israel, not history :)

        • tree says:

          Yonira,

          You claimed that Shingo was lying when he stated that Shlomo Ben-Ami said that he would have rejected the Camp David agreement if he had been a Palestinian. He also claimed he lied when he said that Barak ended the talks at Taba. I showed that you were wrong and Shingo was right on both of those points. And he was correct or the other specific points that he made, and you were wrong. At the least I would expect you to acknowledge where you were proven wrong but you seem to be incapable of that. Which is why I believe that this is all about rooting for your team for you rather than understanding. But you don’t get to rewrite facts, or pretend they don’t exist, just so you can believe in some dearly-held theory of balance and equivalency. Sometimes things aren’t evenly balanced and both sides are not both equally at fault.

          I’m not making a comparison of Israel and Germany here, but I think you yourself would agree that Poland was not equally to blame for WWII as was Germany, so you understand at some level that assigning more responsibility to one side than the other is not per se historically accurate. I would guess that you would likewise blame the ethnic cleansing and mistreatment of the native Americans more on the European?American settlers than on the American Indian tribes, right?

          Shingo’s and Sumud’s recitation of facts are accurate. It seems like you are most upset about Israel getting the majority of the blame for 1967 war, but take out the names and identiies of the parties involved, and just look at the actions. Country A, in response to a mining incident, committed by unknown persons, that resulted a few soldiers deaths, executes a full scale attack, involving tanks and aircraft, on a civilian village in neighboring country B, resulting in the death of dozens and the wanton destruction of civilian housing, and then, by the admission of its own generals, foments a border skirmish with country C, and sends its planes into Country C’s airspace and shoots down one of its airplanes over Country C’s capital. Then country A threatens to invade Country C. Meanwhile, country D, which has a mutual defense pact with Country C, threatens to close down its territorial waters to Country A’s ships, and mobilizes its forces in response to those threats against Country C. The US and the UN attempt to mediate, Country D agrees to mediation of its right to close its territorial waters to Country A’s ships, and further agrees to meet with US officials in Washington about diffusing the conflict. In the meantime, Country A decides to take that moment to attack Country D’s air forces on the ground well within Country D’s territory. Why, oh why, do you want to insist that Country A is not primarily to blame for starting the war? Other than the fact that you want to root for Israel, and historically speaking, Israel IS Country A in this discussion?

      • zamaaz says:

        Whatever were the following circumstances, we can plainly saw there were rooted onthe Arab-Arab conflict that started way back 1947…
        And the historical Arab responses to the situation are typical to these continuation of the tragedy …. On these historical facts, no reasonable person can utmost point culpability to the Israelis….

        • Shingo says:

          “On these historical facts, no reasonable person can utmost point culpability to the Israelis….”

          As has been demonstrated repeatedly,. you wouldn’t know the first thing about historical facts.

          You should get lost Zamaaz.  You might think you are fooling the rest of us by retuning to this blog having shed your Bible bashing rhetoric (probably having sought advice from your corrupt pastor to tone it down), but it’s clear you are not th eleast bit interested in any honest discussion.

          You;re wasting your time and taking up real estate with your disatribes.

        • yonira says:

          Shingo, is israel 100% to blame for everything bad in the ME?

        • zamaaz says:

          [You might think you are fooling the rest of us by retuning to this blog having shed your Bible bashing rhetoric (probably having sought advice from your corrupt pastor to tone it down), but it’s clear you are not th eleast bit interested in any honest discussion.]

          No any pastor invovled, I do scriptural research myself, and I have been doing it since 2005… I only go back on scriptural basis when the question of historical territorial claim arises …

        • zamaaz says:

          It only happened I have just been closing my scriptural research when I discovered this webpage…

        • Shingo says:

          “Shingo,  is israel 100% to blame for everything bad in the ME?”

          No of course not.  What a silly question?

        • “You should get lost Zamaaz.”
          Could this be a hint? No, it’s much more.
          You have shown that you have no desire to learn anything here. Just stop.

        • Shingo says:

          “only go back on scriptural basis when the question of historical territorial claim arises …”

          Well, that’s a lie for start.

          First of all, you were citing the Bible on every occasion, regardless of territorial issues.

          Secondly, if you were remotely interested in historical claims, you would be sourcing actual historical documents, not a work of fiction.

        • Shmuel says:

          I do scriptural research myself

          So I’m assuming that you are fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Syriac. Any other of the biggies for Bible research? You know, Latin, Ethiopic, Old Church Slavonic, etc. I’d love to hear your opinion on the Peshitta.

        • Shingo says:

          Nicely put Shmuel,

          Of course we know that when it comes to the term “research”, that’s just a ephamism for being brainwashed by a snake oil salesman with lots of bling, big hair and a fat ban account, who has convinced Zamaaz that he’s special because he gave all his money to that sheister.

        • yonira says:

          who are you trying to impress Shmuel?

        • zamaaz says:

          No, the only reference I used is the King James Version, the oldest, roughest English, and the most heavy weight among versions… the rest are the Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, and Various Bible Commentaries…
          All other versions I consider derivatives, and interpretations could be variant…

        • zamaaz says:

          Again I will mention that the events of ancient history in the Bible (or in Tanak) have been corroborated by archeological relics… In your denyal, you have not yet mentioned any book that narrates events in the land of Israel as old as 1,300 BC like these scriptures…
          Actually to be more precise in our position we need rebuttals, not gross denyal …

        • zamaaz says:

          And besides, I have not extensively used the scriptures for my arguments… Rather I used the historical arguments and notes presented by both protagonists here plus the Wikipedia…
          So there is no need to anchor on the bias of using the scriptures…

        • Shmuel says:

          Interpreting prophecies about death and destruction in translation (and one made before the development of critical scholarship, no less). Sounds very iffy, not to mention downright dangerous, if you ask me. One copyist error, one variant reading, one mistranslation, one little-understood hapax legomenon, one idea difficult to render in translation – and you’ve offed thousands, maybe millions!

    • Avi says:

      It looks like the first few posts got clipped.

      (Second try)

      Haifa – 1948

      Photos

      1. link to life.com

      (The standing man to the right, up on the porch/deck is a Hagana man, the new boss).

      2. link to life.com

    • Sumud says:

      Thanks Avi – I’ve seen number 6. before – it’s from the evacuation of Jaffa. I’ll put a link below to a page at Lawrence of Cyberia on the attack against Jaffa and this moment, which LoC describes “Palestinians driven into the sea”.

      After a 4 month long campaign of terorrist attacks Jaffa had been intensely shelled for about 4 days with massive damage – and many more killed than Gaza rockets managed in a decade. All land/road exits from Jaffa – which was supposed to be a Palestinian enclave under UN Partition – had been cut off so the population had to evacuate by sea. Some went north to Lebanon and some south to Gaza. I guess militant Gazans and refugees in Southern Lebanon listened to their grandparents about the terror of coming under rocket attack – and decided to try it out themselves.

      link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

      The list of zionist terrorist attacks – all directed at non-military targets – is eye-opening.

      • Avi says:

        That’s interesting information about the photo above.

        The link is very informative, especially the photos. I always find myself appreciating photos more than text because they have a way of transforming one to that point in time, vividly. I don’t think text – no matter how descriptive – can accomplish that feat.

        • Avi says:

          I don’t think text – no matter how descriptive – can accomplish that feat

          This is off topic, but I want to clarify that. While I feel that photos give me a glimpse into the past or into an event compared to mere textual descriptions of what took place, personal experiences as told by firsthand accounts can be and often are quite engrossing and encapsulating.

        • Sumud says:

          I understand what you mean Avi.

          It’s easy to recite 500+ Palestinian villages were ethnically cleansed but it’s a dry fact. I do think a good writer can encapsulate the nature of such events – Primo Levi’s writing on the experience of being in a concentration camps are an example.

          But photos are immediately immersive, they are confronting. I linked above (about comment no. 100) to a sequence of photos and a short documentary on Imwas, one of the villages cleansed and demolished in 1967. Until I saw those pics a while ago I hadn’t really *felt* the Nakba.

      • Mooser says:

        “The list of zionist terrorist attacks – all directed at non-military targets – is eye-opening”

        Thank you, Sumud! Thank you! I have been flogging that link for years now, and I’m glad somebody else noticed that list (of the Zionist terrorist attacks on civilians) and thought it worthy of mention.
        The list is a reproduction of a typescript list, a report from the British Colonial Office back to London. Or a compiling of many reports.

        At any rate, it makes apparent what simple common sense and familiarity with the world makes obvious: There is no magic Jewish way to take over a place, even Zionists have to do it the old-fashioned way, by either killing or frightening people enough to make them leave.

  15. Avi says:

    One more photo:

    13. link to life.com

    I had no other way but to post multiple times as the comments system doesn’t accept more than 2 links at a time.

  16. Aref says:

    “Before the partition, Jews comprised only one-third of the population of Palestine, which held some 608,000 Jews and 1,237,000 Arabs. Even within the area designated for Israel under the U.N. partition plan, the population consisted of some 500,000 Jews and 330,000 Arabs. How could a country with such a large Arab minority become a Jewish homeland?[1]”
    .
    .
    .
    “There is ample evidence of forcible expulsions. The most notorious was the Lydda/Ramle death march. On July 12 and 13, 1948, on the direct order of Ben-Gurion, Israeli forces expelled the 50,000 residents of the towns of Lydda and neighboring Ramle. Yitzak Rabin, later to become Israeli Prime Minister, wrote in his memoirs that “there was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the ten or fifteen miles” required to reach Arab positions. Before they left, the townspeople were “systematically stripped of all their belongings,” according to the Economist newspaper in London. Many of the expelled died in the 100-degree heat during the trek.[4]”

    You can read the rest here link to robincmiller.com
    with references to reputable historians and the propaganda sheets that Siden, yonira and the rest of the apologists for ethnic cleansing, murder, and Apartheid like to spew.

    • zamaaz says:

      If you dissect the report of Robin C Miller, these are some highlights I found:
      At the outset of the hostilities in 1947, Miller recognized the fact the Jewish leadership were likely gainst the expulsion of Arabs such as in the case of Haifa. But at the aftermath of the war, the decision of Jewish leaders entirely changed:

      1948 (July 12 -13) On the direct order of Ben-Gurion, Israeli forces expelled the 50,000 residents of the towns of Lydda and neighboring Ramle.
      1948 Forcible expulsions were commonly practiced by the Jewish/Israeli military: February 15 Qisariya on
      March: Arab Zahrat al-Dumayri, al-Rama and Khirbat al-Sarkas in April; al-Ghabisiya, Danna, Najd and Zarnuqa
      July 24: Jaba, Ein Ghazal and Ijzim on;
      October 31: al-Bi’na and Deir al-Assad on, among many others. Israeli historian Benny Morris has identified 34 Arab communities whose inhabitants were ousted.

      These above expulsion is clear change in the heart of the Jews in general… This is what I meant before…. In war anything tragic can happen. War must have been avoided … The bitter war of 1948 must have contributed to such reversals…

      • Shingo says:

        “At the outset of the hostilities in 1947, Miller recognized the fact the Jewish leadership were likely gainst the expulsion of Arabs such as in the case of Haifa.  But at the aftermath of the war, the decision of Jewish leaders entirely changed”

        False.

        Ben Gurion stated it bluntly.
        In the 1930s, David Ben-Gurion expressed his strong support for compulsory transfer, crowing that “Jewish power” was growing to the point that the Jewish community in Palestine would soon be strong enough to carry out ethnic cleansing on a large scale (as it ultimately did). In fact, the Zionists knew from the start that there would be no persuading the Palestinians simply to leave voluntarily and that violent conquest would be necessary to implant the Zionist state.
        “With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”
        Source: Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 144

        “we must expel all Arabs and take their places”
        David Ben-Gurion, commenting on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan in 1937

        All these statements weer made long before 1947, which proves  Miller a fraud.

        There was no change of heart, because as Benny Morris put it, ethnic cleansing is built into the DNA of Zionism.

        • zamaaz says:

          [In the 1930s, David Ben-Gurion expressed his strong support for compulsory transfer, crowing that “Jewish power” was growing to the point that the Jewish community in Palestine would soon be strong enough to carry out ethnic cleansing on a large scale (as it ultimately did). In fact, the Zionists knew from the start that there would be no persuading the Palestinians simply to leave voluntarily and that violent conquest would be necessary to implant the Zionist state.]

          Strong support is one thing, but what has happened before the eyes of the British officials was another. This is one thing to consider historically – ‘net events’! Fortunately for Ben Gurion, events unfolded favorable to his views this could be the reason for his ‘approved actions’. Yet the facts remain that there was indeed an opportunity in time that the Arabs were encouraged to stay…
          But fate offered another path in history…

        • zamaaz says:

          Do I sound fatalistic? I could be…

        • zamaaz says:

          For all the extensive research of Miller highlighting the ‘crimes’ committed by Israelis against the Arabs, you call him fraud? (LOL!) This was report even endorsed by an Israel critic!
          While his historical emphases was contradictory to Efraim Karsh professor and head of Mediterranean studies at King’s College, University of London who mentioned the blunder of Arab leaders in evacuating the Arabs of Haifa in 1947-48 hostilities? Which is which?

  17. David Siden is Shamir..

  18. syvanen says:

    It is difficult to see why anyone is debating Siden. He is not debating you. He is simply cutting and pasting from a variety of places and then moving on. His 2:32 post above is taken directly from wikipedia (note the “[6]” is a wiki reference).

  19. How long are we going to read the SAME talking points refuted and debunked so MANY times? Is it not evident that free speech can not be an excuse to reinventing the wheel in every discussion? This is becoming a serious issue over here. Maybe that’s interesting for the new who show on this site and who is not acquainted with the fundamentals and the basics but for all those who have been hearing the stuff for countless years it’s a recipe for boredom and disengagement from any discussion. The job of a typical troll, shamir/DavidenSiden/Zamass is to do just that. Keep us entangled in the same threads of lies, fabrications, myths and all hasbara carefully crafted for that purpose.

  20. I just received 104 photos (most never or rarely seen before) documenting the nakba. A must have documentation of this tragedy. I’ll be posting them on my blog as one post. It’ll take me an hour to complete the job in case you’re interested.

  21. Hasbara or Za’bara
    Salman Abu Sitta

    “Nobody perfected this art of deception, or double-speak, better than the Zionist agents. How else could you explain the success of a Hungarian man, like Herzl, sitting in a Vienna Café, and professing that a Jews’ State will be established in 50 years in a faraway land he had never lived in? His success, almost solely in Europe at the time, was manifested by convincing colonial powers of the advantages of supporting his colonial project and convincing their people, the Europeans, that this conquest, killing, plunder and destitution of a people is a divine will, a miracle and a victory for western civilization.

    Nobody had to create so many myths and falsehoods in their endeavours more than the Zionists. The reason is simple: they did not have credible facts to prove their case, so they had to invent dubious alternatives, relying on the readiness of the gullible people and the opportunistic politicians to believe them.

    Take the slogan: “Palestine is a land without people”. It was terra nullius, they say. Of course, Zionists knew that people lived there and built over 1000 towns and villages, most are 2000 years old, according to Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea (313 AD) who recorded them. Yet Zionists submitted a map to the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919, showing Palestine as ‘a grazing land for nomads’. They presented this map to the colonial powers, particularly the British and the French. The irony of course is that the British had finished their voluminous survey of Palestine, 40 years earlier, in 10 volumes, listing 12,000 historical sites including towns and villages, and the French finished their survey through their scholar, Victor Guerin, in 1863, who produced 8 volumes of his journey to almost every Palestinian village. Yet they chose to believe the Zionists and hoodwinked their public to support this ‘noble and moral’ conquest, in churches, newspapers and public debates.”
    link to palestinethinktank.com

  22. yonira says:

    Atheist, so your proof is from a Pravda forum? which originated from this website?

    link to gregfelton.com

    Have you no shame?

  23. rachel says:

    Hey Shingo,
    How come they are all civilians in Hamas and Hezbollah land? Who is doing all that firing of rockets?

    • Shingo says:

      Good question Rachel.

      We know because Israel did’t go after Hezbollah but went after Lebanon’s infrastructure and Lebanese civilian homes.

      We also know because Tom Friedman explained to us that the stratergy Israel adopted was to inflict enough pain on the civilian population that Hezbollah would think twice about paying the same price a second time.

      • Avi says:

        Shingo,

        You probably know this too, but we also know because ISRAELI generals themselves explained their tactic quite candidly and without a scintilla of shame or embarrassment in the Israeli press. rachel’s senility must be getting the best of her. I’ll try to go easy this time, she tends to squeal when more than one commenter criticizes her ridiculous posts.

        • Shingo says:

          Yes Avi,

          I included 3 quotes including those from Mdmachem Begin and Yitzak Rabin.

          The trouble with Zionists is that they go to such great lengths to control the propaganda,but there’s always at least one Istaeli politicianor military leader who had a brain fart and opens his mouth and boasts about their real agenda and how they achieved it.

          A year before the Gaza massacre, Israeli leaders were already talking about unleashing a Shoah on Gaza.

        • Shingo says:

          In fact Avi,

          Israeli leaders seem to suffer from an involuntary need to tell the truth. Beginning with Ben Gurion right through to Tzipi Livni, they invariably tell the truth after the original propaganda campaign.

          Ben Gurion, Dayan, Shamir, Rabin, Meir, ben Ami and countless others, have all helped us debunk the Zionist propaganda.

    • Sumud says:

      That’s nonsense rachel. Hamas and Hezbollah both have militant wings. Nobody denies that. Not had your morning coffee?

  24. All my life I’ve heard/read the number of destroyed villages is to exceed the 500, more like 580. Just because someone over here mentioned 400 that doesn’t mean the number has been revised…As for the photos, I’m surprised you didn’t give us the usual prepaid ” Photoshopped” that every self-respecting hasbara scum opposes to any document/photos.
    Boring.

  25. homingpigeon says:

    Time for the “eggplant alert.” Zionist trolls come onto a thoughtful blog and announce that Palestinians have no right to their land because it was the Israelis who developed the eggplant. Thoughtful people are whipped into a frenzy trying to counter this new hasbara and prove that it was the Palestinians who developed the eggplant. The discussion is successfully hijacked and instead of discussing the modalities of how we will work for the right of return and the evolution of the one country solution we are madly howling about eggplants.

    • Avi says:

      Actually, one of the least known Israeli inventions is the egg. That’s right. The egg many humans have for breakfast first came from Israel, well before it came from any chicken. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise, especially those anti-Semitic chickens.

      • tree says:

        …those anti-semitic SO-CALLED chickens, you mean. There were no chickens before the Israelis invented the egg! Chickens are not even mentioned in the Old Testament, proving they did not exist!

        • Sumud says:

          Not to worry – tree the IDF showed 100,000 anti-semitic chickens “who’s the boss” in Gaza last year. Their jew-hating clucks were no match for the bulldozers who flattened them in their pens.

  26. Sumud says:

    The IDF celebrate Nakba Day by killing a 75 year old man on the Gaza border – multiple gunshot wounds.

    ‘Report: IDF soldiers kill elderly Palestinian near Gaza border’
    link to haaretz.com

    • Shingo says:

      ‘Report: IDF soldiers kill elderly Palestinian near Gaza border’

      His name wasn’t Shalit so it’s not officially a tragedy.

      • Sumud says:

        No doubt we’ll be told soon enough he was a senior citizen terrorist. That, or the IDF will do their own “investigation” and invariably say it was his fault. Haaretz already suggest he was in “an area designated as a combat zone” AKA Gazan agricultural land. Had he been in the 300m. buffer zone I’m sure that would have been mentioned, it wasn’t.

  27. I found this whole posting profoundly hypocritical, and reminiscent of the crap continuously spouted by social scientists.

    Example: And since this forgiveness cannot truly take place, so can Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation occur only as a political and cultural settlement that will allow us to stop the killing and the mutual fear (and this mutuality does not mean symmetry, because it absolutely does not exist between the sides). Religious forgiveness belongs, therefore, to a different dimension, an unrealistic dimension utopian to a radical degree. This perhaps is a Platonic idea or guiding principle that guides us in the right direction that we must strive towards even if we’ll never get there.

    I fully agree with the widest possible remembrance of the Nakhba, but surely not in such sentimental and overwrought terms.

    Is this an American/Palestinian groupie?

  28. Brewer says:

    “Our humanity is bound up with your right to return.”

    This truth is not born of a Palestinian mother like the one in thankgodimatheist’s picture (who does indeed look happy in her refugee tent. And why wouldn’t she? She has her children and a few household effects, unlike the victims of the 33 massacres committed in order to persuade people like her to leave. No doubt she is happy to be alive)

    It is an eternal truth most often attributed to Martin Luther King but the dictum is older than King.
    It was Unitarian Abolitionist Minister, Theodore Parker who said it first, in the early nineteenth century
    “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one… And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”

    link to en.wikipedia.org