The smoking cable: Israel said it had ‘secret accord’ with U.S. over expanding settlements even as Obama said in Cairo they must stop!

Israel/Palestine
on 126 Comments

This is why Wikileaks is so crucial: A June 2009 cable from France, days after the great Cairo speech of Obama, in which the Israelis are said to claim a secret deal with the US for settlement growth. I’m running. More to say later. And note too where Sarkozy says, Israel, the horse of history is galloping past the window. Jump now or you are finished. The Palestinians are stronger than you think. Beautiful. Europe is taking Palestine’s side now because of this understanding. Wow. Thank you, Mr. Assange:

“MFA Middle East Director (Assistant Secretary-equivalent) Patrice Paoli informed POL Minister Counselor June 18 that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
told French officials in Paris June 15 that the Israelis have
a “secret accord” with the USG to continue the “natural
growth” of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Paoli noted
that the French anticipate strong Israeli resistance to USG
pressure on this issue….

“President Sarkozy will have
three messages to convey to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
when they meet in Paris on June 24:

“– ‘You think you’ve got time, but you don’t.’
“– ‘You think you have an alternative solution, but you
don’t.’
“– ‘You think you’re stronger than the Palestinians, but
you’re not.’

“Paoli said that Sarkozy will stress that ‘there is a single
door and it is imperative to move through it now.’”

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

126 Responses

  1. Sin Nombre
    December 21, 2010, 9:01 am

    Just parenthetically, here’s an archived Haaretz story from a few days ago where someone was alleging a deal between Assange and Israel whereby Assange did not release any U.S. documents critical of or embarrassing to Israel in that big tranche that’s got everyone’s knickers in a twist:

    link to haaretz.com

    Don’t think this Sarkozy stuff disproves it as it’s focused on Sarkozy really, but the allegation also seems to lack any real evidence. One odd thing though, the story notes that indeed it seems that stuff critical of or embarrassing to Israel or even related to Israel was not in that tranche at all while stuff about damn near every other country sure was represented. One former U.S diplomat says it might be because cables from the U.S. embassy in Israel are so unremarkable really, but this seems weak to me at least: Lots of stuff Assange released was unremarkable, wasn’t it? He just seemed to dump a truckload, didn’t he? Moreover, what about cables from other ME embassies mentioning Israel?

    In any event might just be one of those odd little things with a perfectly reasonable explanation behind it even if one never learns it. On the other hand though it seems hard to deny that at the very least it is odd, so….

    • hophmi
      December 21, 2010, 10:32 am

      Yes, the entire story is about the conspiracy theorists.

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 11:12 am

        right, it’s just a distraction imho. why oh why that stupid story from the very cia compromised ‘indy media’ warrants a headline in haaretz is beyond me. it is a ‘look over there’ ‘throw everything against the wall’ story if you ask me. whatever.

        the real story today is this:

        ‘You think you’re stronger than the Palestinians, but
        you’re not.’

        !!!!!

      • Antidote
        December 22, 2010, 12:23 am

        there are plenty of conspiracy theorists on either side, hophmi

        link to haaretz.com

    • lysias
      December 21, 2010, 2:16 pm

      Article in today’s Financial Times: Israel urged US to topple Tehran, leaks say (subscription required) (by Harvey Morris in New York):

      Israel urged the US to use student democracy groups and ethnic minorities to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, according to leaked cables from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

      Print version of article (on p. 6 of today’s FT, not on line, apparently) has among other things this revelation:

      The head of Israeli military intelligence told US diplomats his country would be “happy” for Hamas to take power in the Gaza Strip, according to the latest WikiLeak releases.

      The comment was made by Amos Yadlin on June 12 2007, just days before the Islamist group ousted the western-backed Palestinian Authority from Gaza.

      I don’t think the claim Assange was paid off not to reveal cables embarrassing to Israel can survive articles like this one.

      By the way, one of the chief figures of the Jerusalem Post (didn’t catch his name) was in a debate on RT television yesterday evening, and he repeated the erroneous claim that Hamas “overthrew” the Palestinian Authority in Gaza in 2007, as though Hamas’s action had not been provoked by the Palestinian Authority (acting on the orders of the U.S.), and as if the government in Gaza prior to these events had been a PA one, as opposed to a coalition.

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 3:21 pm

        lysias, hasbara hacks always frame it as a coup by hamas, that’s old news.

        Israel urged the US to use student democracy groups and ethnic minorities to topple the Islamic regime in Iran, according to leaked cables from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

        i read about that in haaretz here. it refers to the dagan cable leak. i’ve posted it before at another site but would have to go search for it.

        yep, that’s from this one is revealing.

        The goal should be to encourage Ahmadinejad’s political rivals to remove him from power. Afterward, if the pressure could be maintained it might be possible to bring down the entire Iranian regime, but that would also entail identifying alternative leaders. The idea
        was to use economic pressure to create a public sense of regime failure.

    • RoHa
      December 21, 2010, 4:44 pm
      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 5:26 pm

        These intriguing connections, which might appear suspicious to those suffering from the “crippled epistemology” associated with anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, are undoubtedly coincidental.

        i am hereby announcing my suspicion ‘epistemology’ is a new hasbara code word. i didn’t follow all the other links but no, it doesn’t surprise me someone as well connected as julian assange just happens to have the same lawfirm as heirs of rothschild . they are probably great lawyers. i’m filing this under throw enough garbage at the wall and see what sticks.

      • RoHa
        December 21, 2010, 7:48 pm

        “my suspicion ‘epistemology’ is a new hasbara code word”

        I think you are right.

        Move aside, San Remo, tropes, and cherry tomatoes. Epistemology is here!

        Throwing in “epistemology” when you are accusing people of being conspiracy theorists makes you sound so much more intellectual and rational than your opponents.*

        In fact, the hard line conspiracy denier is usually less rational than the hard line conspiracy theorist.

        The swivel-eyed, tin-foil-hat-wearing, paranoid conspiracy theorist like me starts from the basic assumption that there are hundreds of complex conspiracies, and then interprets nearly everything as evidence for those conspiracies.

        The smug, arrogant, conspiracy denier starts from the basic assumption that there are no conspiracies, and then refuses to accept anything as evidence for conspiracies.

        But there are conspiracies. Perhaps not as many as I imagine, and perhaps not all run by Mossad and the international bankers, but at least some.

        The conspiracy theorist needs to be a bit more selective, and sort out the cock-ups from the real thing, but the conspiracy denier is just refusing to face reality.

        *You can get a similar effect by using a bit of Latin. That makes you seem more cultured, as well.

      • Antidote
        December 22, 2010, 12:46 am

        “The swivel-eyed, tin-foil-hat-wearing, paranoid conspiracy theorist like me…”

        Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

      • RoHa
        December 22, 2010, 5:23 am

        Ooops!

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 2:29 pm

        we think alike roha! and we’re not alone: julian assange

        First take some nails (“conspirators”) and hammer them into a board at random. Then take twine (“communication”) and loop it from nail to nail without breaking. Call the twine connecting two nails a link. Unbroken twine means it is possible to travel from any nail to any other nail via twine and intermediary nails…Information flows from conspirator to conspirator. Not every conspirator trusts or knows every other conspirator even though all are connected. Some are on the fringe of the conspiracy, others are central and communicate with many conspirators and others still may know only two conspirators but be a bridge between important sections or groupings of the conspiracy…

        Conspirators are often discerning, for some trust and depend each other, while others say little. Important information flows frequently through some links, trivial information through others. So we expand our simple connected graph model to include not only links, but their “importance.”

        Return to our board-and-nails analogy. Imagine a thick heavy cord between some nails and fine light thread between others. Call the importance, thickness or heaviness of a link its weight. Between conspirators that never communicate the weight is zero. The “importance” of communication passing through a link is difficult to evaluate apriori, since its true value depends on the outcome of the conspiracy. We simply say that the “importance” of communication contributes to the weight of a link in the most obvious way; the weight of a link is proportional to the amount of important communication flowing across it. Questions about conspiracies in general won’t require us to know the weight of any link, since that changes from conspiracy to conspiracy.

      • Antidote
        December 22, 2010, 4:07 pm

        So, basically, conspiracy theories evolve like any other paradigm – be they economic, social or scientific theories.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 5:04 pm

        yeah, of course. when people plan covert actions whether they be bank robberies, starting wars by lying to the public, ripping off people’s lifelong earnings by way of credit derivatives, or basically any plan that involves planning behind the scenes that is not transparent, anything that could be construed as ‘conspiring’ with another to make a plan happen they are participating in a conspiracy. the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is the theorist theorizing who did it.

  2. joer
    December 21, 2010, 9:08 am

    The only secret about this is that the arrangement between Israel and the US is supposed to be a secret. Who on Earth doesn’t know America backs up Israel in every situation? That’s why I don’t think Wikileaks is the Holy Grail of world liberation that so many people have decided it is.

    • DICKERSON3870
      December 21, 2010, 4:49 pm

      RE: “The only secret about this is that the arrangement between Israel and the US is supposed to be a secret. Who on Earth doesn’t know America backs up Israel in every situation?” – joer
      SEE: Meet the ‘settlers’ lawyer’ – Elliott Abrams ~ By Adam Horowitz, TPM Cafe, 06/25/09

      (excerpts) Elliott Abrams has an oped in today’s Wall Street Journal trying to defend Ariel Sharon’s legacy, and evidently further ruin the Bush administration’s. In his article, “Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements,” he attempts to show that there was a clear understanding between the US and Israel on continuing the “natural growth” of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
      Lara Friedman has posted a take down of Abrams on the Peace Now blog…
      …Friedman proceeds to take apart Abrams article bit by bit. In the end I think it might not really matter, because even if we take Abrams at his word (which is know is dangerous given his history) it doesn’t add up to a whole lot. I personally believe the Bush administration did promise Sharon he could expand the settlements. But even if he did, why can’t that policy be overturned now? Haven’t plenty of Bush’s other stupid mistakes been undone?…

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 5:17 pm

        thank you! my point exactly.

  3. idiocr4cy
    December 21, 2010, 9:09 am

    oops, i guess its out:

    link to 213.251.145.96

    ¶6. (S) Several questions were raised about China’s position
    on Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon. Both sides
    agreed that continued engagement with China and Russia is
    needed — as well as building a consensus in Europe. The USG
    speculated, and the GOI concurred, that China will follow
    Moscow’s lead. USG participants argued that China would seek
    to avoid an international confrontation over Iran. The GOI
    described 2010 as a critical year — if the Iranians continue
    to protect and harden their nuclear sites, it will be more
    difficult to target and damage them. Both sides then
    discussed the upcoming delivery of GBU-28 bunker busting
    bombs to Israel, noting that the transfer should be handled
    quietly to avoid any allegations that the USG is helping
    Israel prepare for a strike against Iran.

    • annie
      December 21, 2010, 11:01 am

      interesting cable idiocracy, i wonder what this means:

      Dual Citizenship Issues
      ———————–

      ¶9. (S) The GOI raised the issue of dual citizenship within
      the context of access to sensitive technology. U.S.
      participants acknowledged Israeli concerns, noting that the
      issue is being worked at the highest levels of the USG to
      reach consensus on how to proceed. The GOI recommended
      obtaining a waiver similar to the relationship from which
      Canada or Australia benefit.

      huh?

  4. seafoid
    December 21, 2010, 10:05 am

    You spend 43 years building up something. It starts off really small and you water it and nurture it year by year and everyone tells you it’s wrong but you believe in it and G-d wants you to do this since it is written in the book and there is Jerusalem reunited and they are just families with kids after all and the land is free and by the time it is finished there will be no Palestinians left to moan and they let 1948 stand didn’t they and they all hate us anyway and it’s half a million now and isn’t it amazing and this can’t stop, it’s too big to stop.

    This is how national catastrophes happen

    • Antidote
      December 21, 2010, 10:23 am

      good summary, seafoid

    • Mooser
      December 21, 2010, 11:44 am

      “This is how national catastrophes happen”

      Yes, and it will be very interesting to see which “the Jews” are caught up in the catastrophe, and which “the Jews” get clean away. With assets.

      • silencenolonger
        December 21, 2010, 12:55 pm

        Mooser
        And that is tragedy of history replayed over and over.

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 1:01 pm

        that makes the assumption an even larger (than nakba) catastrophe will happen.

        i can’t go there in my mind. too horrific. knights will be riding in on white horses very shortly, very very shortly.

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 1:06 pm

        Annie,

        So what is better, a chance of another nakba or giving up the right of return and having a demilitarized state for a period of time? There is no need of “white knights” or the Polish cavalry to get to that solution.

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 1:33 pm

        Are you seriously threatening to wage shoah on the Palestinians if they come home or don’t submit to second-class citizenship under military occupation?

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 1:41 pm

        no i wasn’t referencing actual cavalry. i was thinking about saner minds prevailing.

        or giving up the right of return and having a demilitarized state for a period of time?

        i’m completely over having any faith in a zionist version of “a period of time”. we are not stupid eee. what on earth would be the point of giving up your international rights for an agreement for a demilitarized state? you must be crazy. they already have a virtual demilitarized state, they hardly need a peace process to have it signed in ink.

        tell you what, why don’t you sign an agreement to hand over all your future children the moment they are born and for that i will agree to let you live in a slum forever. it’s a good deal, really.

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 2:20 pm

        Annie,

        The point being that you are not going to get the right of return anyway, so why risk another nakba for that? Just as it was stupid not to accept the partition in 1948 and suffer the consequences for generations.

      • seafoid
        December 21, 2010, 3:50 pm

        You just wait until Palestine is covered over in a thin layer of concrete , Palestinians and then we might give you a state. But it will be demilitarized and it won’t have any borders.

        The Palestinians aren’t falling for this crock of Zionist sh*t any longer, eee.

        There is only one way for 49% of the people to deny the other 51% their basic rights and it’s called apartheid. And Israelis may be more educated but thinking they can pull this off is the height of stupidity.

      • seafoid
        December 21, 2010, 4:30 pm

        It was stupid to evict the Palestinians in 1948. Because Israel would only ever have a temporary technological advantage.
        And statecraft demands respect. And a long term future in the region is built on thinking. But the Zionist founders never thought much.

        The decision to reoccupy Gaza, the holding pen for Israel’s unwanted southern Muslims, in 1967 was insane.

        The decision in 1996 to leave the Hebron settlers in place was cowardly.

      • talknic
        December 21, 2010, 4:48 pm

        eee

        ?? “it was stupid not to accept the partition in 1948 “

        Apart from the fact that there was no obligation to accept UNGA Res 181 or any article requiring both parties to co-sign in order that either attain independence … nor could there be when INDEPENDENCE is concerned … the Palestinians could NOT declare effective independence by 1948 even had they wanted. Jewish forces were already in control of territory slated for the new Arab State, OUTSIDE of those Declared by Israel.

        A declaration of Independence is not effective until the territories being declared are COMPLETELY independent of the any other control.

        For 62 years, Israel has prevented Palestinian independence, whilst usurping their territory, completely against the UN Charter Chaper XI ….. That’s the same UN Charter Israel OBLIGED itself to uphold when declaring.

        The Palestinians claim their rights. Israel wants to continuing it’s illegal activities.

        People who indulge in illegal activities cannot be trusted. You condone illegal activities and try to excuse them. Why on earth do you think anyone in their right mind would believe anything you or your kind spout.

      • Antidote
        December 22, 2010, 1:02 am

        he wouldn’t be the first to do so:

        GAZA | Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:43pm EST

        (Reuters) – A year-old Palestinian girl and a senior Hamas bombmaker were killed in the Gaza Strip on Friday as Israel pressed home air strikes after a senior official warned Gazans they risked a “shoah” if rocket fire did not stop.

        With the Palestinian death toll at 35 in three days, aides insisted the deputy defense minister used the Hebrew word not in its common meaning of holocaust but only as a term for disaster.

        But the strength of his language reflected mounting anger after an Israeli was killed by a rocket on Wednesday and the government debated whether to mount a major ground offensive.

        Hamas, which organized rallies in Gaza, held the comment up as proof their enemies in the Jewish state were the “new Nazis”.

        link to reuters.com

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:13 am

        Just as it was stupid not to accept the partition in 1948 and suffer the consequences for generations.

        Ben Gurion said that the acceptance of the partition would not mean that Israel renounced it’s claims to all of Transjordan, so clearly the consequences would have been tha same regardless.

        You need to update your talking points eee.

      • sherbrsi
        December 22, 2010, 5:33 am

        So what is better, a chance of another nakba or giving up the right of return and having a demilitarized state for a period of time?

        You and the Israeli establishment are one and the same: arrogant, and thinking the Palestinians will simply roll under the latest Israeli offensive. The Palestinians can survive another Nakba, Israel and its already receding legitimacy cannot.

        All it will take for the Palestinians to win is for Israel to walk towards its defeat, as it surely is right now.

      • homingpigeon
        December 22, 2010, 9:22 am

        “Demilitarized state” – splendid concept. I agree with you. The coming Confederation of Israel and Palestine should be demilitarized as much as possible. They have suffered enough. They should not waste any more money on weaponry or other perversions.

      • Citizen
        December 21, 2010, 1:31 pm

        The usual ones for each basket?

      • Colin Murray
        December 21, 2010, 2:01 pm

        Uri Avnery on the subject …

        Ship of Fools 2, 20 Dec 2010

  5. Jim Haygood
    December 21, 2010, 10:48 am

    ‘Barak told French officials in Paris June 15 that the Israelis have a “secret accord” with the USG to continue the “natural growth” of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.’

    This is astounding if true, because it undermines forty years of ostensible US policy. In a normal Congress, Sec State Clinton would be called before a committee and questioned about it.

    • annie
      December 21, 2010, 11:09 am

      i don’t understand how this is info is new or surprising. it is my recollection within months of obama’s swearing in when the issue of settlements came up israel started crowing bush had made some deal w/them about settlements and the US said no we didn’t and israel said but you did and it was implied in some letter i can’t recall exactly.

      all this came out that summer. now if US officials had told the french they had a secret deal w/israel i would be alarmed but what is so surprising about israel telling france this? they were telling obama this too, they were telling everyone this they just had no proof a deal had ever been made.

    • sherbrsi
      December 22, 2010, 6:02 am

      Like many other so-called reveals by Wikileaks, this cable only officially confirms what anyone with two-brain cells has known for all along. There is no way that the US does not monitor or keep tabs of settlements and its expansion, in whatever form the Israelis have spun the latest settlement bloc or construction as a “necessity” in public. The US has been tacitly approving of these settlements all along, which is why if it has mustered any opposition to them, it has been their expansionism (never their existence, which is of far more consequence to a viable and independent Palestinian state). Yet it has been unable to secure even a temporary halting in their development. The US is well aware of its limitations in pressing the Israelis for anything, which is why their weak objections to settlements, if any, are only there for maintaining some semblance of credibility as a peace broker.

  6. seafoid
    December 21, 2010, 11:16 am

    Sarko is right of course.

    My son got a soccer annual for his birthday. It shows loads of facts about soccer history. There are pages for all of the major soccer countries and there is some very interesting information. Around 20 countries get 4 pages and another 40 get 2 pages. Israel gets 5 lines. And that is how important Israel is to the rest of the world. It’s only 5 million Zionists. Who are wrong this time, as Sarko says. And who have ensured that YESHA is the greatest white elephant in the history of the Middle East.

    • eee
      December 21, 2010, 12:08 pm

      When will you ever learn?
      In 1948 500,000 Jews beat the whole Arab world. The 500,000 people of Yesha are more than enough to win a civil war in the West Bank if it were ever to break out after Israel unilaterally withdraws to the 1967 line. Only a two state solution will save a ton of violence.

      • Sumud
        December 21, 2010, 12:33 pm

        In 1948 500,000 Jews beat the whole Arab world.

        Except the “whole arab world” didn’t participate in Israel’s 47/48/49 wars, just small contingents from some surrounding nations. Even that great bogeyman, the mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinian responsible for the holocaust according to some zionists), never had forces numbering greater than 3,000. The arab world wanted a single state with equality, not partition, and definitely not to “throw the jews into the sea” as the oft-repeated hasbara asserts. Read:

        ‘Arab League Declaration [to the UN] on the Invasion of Palestine’
        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        Especially, read the eight sub-points that close the document.

        The 500,000 people of Yesha are more than enough to win a civil war in the West Bank if it were ever to break out after Israel unilaterally withdraws to the 1967 line. Only a two state solution will save a ton of violence.

        This a fundamental misunderstanding of what Sarkozy meant. No sane person would say Palestinians are stronger (militarily) than Israel. Can’t you think of solutions that don’t involve killing Palestinians eee?

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 1:02 pm

        The only solution that does not involve Palestinians killing Jews and vice versa is the two state solution. All other solutions will lead to violence. Can’t you see that Sumud?

        And yes Israel beat the whole Arab world in 1948. The “small” contingents was all they could muster, which was a sign of their weakness. And this time around, they will send even smaller contingents to help the Palestinians. So why are you pushing for a solution that will lead to violence?

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 1:20 pm

        No sane person would say Palestinians are stronger (militarily) than Israel.

        it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 1:30 pm

        Yeah, the Nazis had fantasies about taking on the whole Western world and winning.

        Good luck with that, eee.

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 2:23 pm

        Annie,

        “it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves”

        Of course not, the few survivors of the Holocaust were not saved by the advancing Russian and American armies but by the sudden goodwill put into the Nazi hearts by your lord. How could I have been so blind?

      • talknic
        December 21, 2010, 3:09 pm

        eee Uh?

        The civil war in Palestine which was escalated under the preemptive Plan Dalet in the months prior to and even as the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel was being made, became a war waged by the State of Israel on the non-state entity of Palestine (what was left of it after Israel declared itself independent of Palestine). at the moment the declaration was announced to come into effect.

        At “… one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time:

        As Regional High Contracting Powers, Arab States who represented the non-state entity of Palestine at the time, had a RIGHT to protect the territories NOT declared by Israel, from Jewish/Israeli forces OUTSIDE of Israel’s declared boundaries

        It is the very reason the UN did not go to Israel’s aid, even though Israel had sworn to uphold the UN Charter in it’s entirety, though not yet a UN Member State. (The UN cannot censure non-members. There are no UNSC resolutions ‘against’ Israel until it was admitted into the UN.) Since becoming a UN Member, Israel has accrued some 223 resolutions, most of which are reminders, against Israel’s activities OUTSIDE of Israel.

        The Arab State who sent forces, who were Members of the UN, who COULD be censured for attacking a new regional Independent State. Weren’t censured. The Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine informed the UNSC of their intention, as required by the Charter.

        It outlines the history of their legal argument and cites the relevant Chapters of the UN Charter. There is no threat to Israel. There is no UNSC resolution condemning the Arab States. They they had a legal right and obligations under the UN Charter Chapter XI to administer and protect their ward.

        UNSC resolutions say “in Palestine” and NEVER ‘in Israel’. Post May 14th 1948, Israel was independent. No longer a part of Palestine, but acting IN Palestine, OUTSIDE of Israel’s Sovereign territories and as such, answerable to all UN Member States and especially the other Regional Powers.

        The Hasbara tries to justify, not explain. It’s like wearing one’s shoes on backwards

      • seafoid
        December 21, 2010, 3:52 pm

        “All other solutions will lead to violence. ”

        As opposed to the Gewaltfest that is life under the Zionist heel today, eee? Is there any Zionist solution that doesn’t involve white phosphorous ?

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 4:38 pm

        Talknic,

        Be serious. The members of the Arab League rejected the UN partition from the get go, appealed it to the international court in the Hague, lost there also, and then declared that they will use force to stop any partition. That no country or the UN came to help Israel is a lesson Israelis remember to this day. You better be able to fight your own wars. That is a lesson also to the Palestinians and anybody in Lebanon that plans to stand up to Hezbollah. Nobody is going to come to your help in case of war. Oh, there will be plenty of speeches, but no outside force will ever arrive. Even other Arabs are not willing to die for the Palestinians as the fact that no one, including Hezbollah came to their aid in Cast Lead. Hezbollah did not fire even one rocket. A sad but true lesson.

      • Sumud
        December 21, 2010, 7:55 pm

        The only solution that does not involve Palestinians killing Jews and vice versa is the two state solution. All other solutions will lead to violence. Can’t you see that Sumud?

        Violence exist right now in the form of a long term and extremely brutal military occupation. The only way for Israel to maintain such an occupation is with violence. So let’s not talk about violence as a theoretical, future, possible, maybe sort of thing.

        This much is true: Israel has made the two-state solution impossible. The status quo (which is not static, things get ever worse in Palestine) is not sustainable. So somethings got to give. If the Palestinians decide to pursue a one-state outcome the PA will have to be dissolved and what happens next is anyone’s guess. Further violence is not inevitable.

        If you think a two-state solution is still possible eee then explain why. Netanyahu’s preferred vision for a Palestinian “state” resembles nothing as much as it does the current status of Gaza:

        The only limits on Palestinian sovereignty would be elements that affect Israel’s security. A Palestinian state must be demilitarized, without control over its air space and electro-magnetic field, and without the power to enter into treaties or control its borders. Netanyahu concluded that he and opposition leader Tzipi Livni “only disagree about the name,” i.e. the two-state solution.

        Obviously nobody those conditions are a non-starter, and they’ve been formulated that way by Netanyahu for a reason. The solution to Israel’s security concerns is NOT to turn the West Bank into Gaza, it’s to give Palestinians their liberty and human rights – that’s the rationale of a peaceful settlement: the end of hostilities.

        If there is to be a Palestinian state, a great Israeli leader will have to emerge. As is, Palestinians have no partner for peace.

        And yes Israel beat the whole Arab world in 1948. The “small” contingents was all they could muster, which was a sign of their weakness.

        So first, the entire arab world wants to kill all the jews, and miraculously little Israel beat them all, 100 million or so. Then, when I point out that only a small number of countries in the arab world participated in the war, and from those countries only a small number of combatants, this is not a sign that maybe the whole arab world aiming for Shoah Redux, instead, just that the arabs were weak. No logic shall enter eee?! A sign of weakness is large numbers of combatants and casualties – think of Iran’s “human waves” during the 80s Iran Iraq war.

        I’m constantly amazed at your pretzel logic eee.

      • Patrick
        December 21, 2010, 8:03 pm

        “That no country or the UN came to help Israel is a lesson Israelis remember to this day.”

        It is not true that no one helped Israel. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union arranged for crucial and decisive aid in the form of armaments to be transferred to Israel from the eastern bloc in Europe, in particular from Czechoslovakia.

      • Sumud
        December 21, 2010, 8:13 pm

        That no country or the UN came to help Israel is a lesson Israelis remember to this day. You better be able to fight your own wars.

        This is not a memory, it’s propaganda designed to keep you scared eee and feeling like an eternal victim. You don’t strike me as dumb but you don’t seem to be capable of questioning what you’ve been told.

        There’s a good reason no country or the UN came to Israel’s aid: because pre-state zionist forces had undertaken an aggressive expansionist invasion of the area allocated to the Palestinian state and were ethnically cleansing the indigenous population. By mid-May 1948 already something between 250,000 and 400,000 Palestinians had been expelled or terrorised into fleeing.

        So why would any country come to the aid of zionist forces as they pillaged someone else land?

        Why would the UN come to the aid of zionist forces when their actions were in direct contradiction with the Balfour Declaration and UN Partition Plan? Do you think the assassination of Count Bernadotte was likely to encourage the UN to side with Israel?

        Actions have consequences eee, and Israel needs to learn this. Israel has had the support of many countries over the years – Britain, France, the US and countless others. Don’t believe that it’s always little Israel by itself, it’s not.

        Were it not for the US gumming up the works at the UN SC I believe sanctions would have been imposed on Israel years ago. Quite probably there’s would be a two state solution by now, as the cost of maintaining the occupation would have become too much for Israel. In the short term the US support must seem helpful. It has enabled Israel to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state. As they say “be careful what you wish for, it just may come true”.

      • RoHa
        December 21, 2010, 8:29 pm

        Oh, poo! Are we going to let mere facts spoil a good story?

        (That aid came during a ceasefire, when there was supposed to be a weapons embargo. The embargo was enforced against the Arabs, but not against Israel. Folke Bernadotte disapproved, and he was later assassinated by the Zionists. During WW2 his “white bus” scheme had rescued a number of Jews, but Israelis think he should have rescued more.

        Zionist gratitude.

        link to kungarochdrottningar.se)

      • Psychopathic god
        December 21, 2010, 8:36 pm

        eee: That no country or the UN came to help Iran is a lesson Iranians remember to this day. You better be able to fight your own wars.

        When Saddam Hussein was flying American helicopters over Iranian villages and dropping German-supplied gasses not used since World War I on Iranian civilians — women, children — Iran appealed to the UN but UN refused to come to Iran’s aid. Even so, IRAN DID NOT RESPOND IN KIND: Iran did NOT retaliate using proscribed weapons against its Iraqi tormenter.

        In “Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran,” Yossi Melman quotes an Iranian military man who endured that chemical bombardment: “NEVER AGAIN will we allow our people to be defenseless. We will protect our people.”

      • RoHa
        December 21, 2010, 8:47 pm

        The bracket got cuaght up in the link.

        This should work.

        link to kungarochdrottningar.se

      • talknic
        December 22, 2010, 3:12 am

        eee

        “The members of the Arab League rejected the UN partition from the get go”

        Indeed. On legal grounds, citing the LoN Charter and later the UN Charter on self determination. Have you ever read the Arab States documents on the matter? Or do you just repeat the holey olde Hasbara

        “.. appealed it to the international court in the Hague, lost there also..”

        Uh huh..

        “and then declared that they will use force to stop any partition.”

        Cite the official declaration, verbatim and link…thx

        “That no country or the UN came to help Israel is a lesson Israelis remember to this day. You better be able to fight your own wars. “

        It fails to remember the reason. It was acting outside of it’s declared and legal Sovereign territory usurping non-Jewish folk, even as it was being declared an Independent state.

        “That is a lesson also to the Palestinians and anybody in Lebanon that plans to stand up to Hezbollah. Nobody is going to come to your help in case of war. “

        Odd the Arab state fought numerous wars on behalf of the Palestinians, against Israel. You’ve not read much I guess, too busy pushing the Hasbarrow

        “Oh, there will be plenty of speeches, but no outside force will ever arrive”

        !948….. etc.. Israel was fighting which countries, predominantly in which territories?

        “Even other Arabs are not willing to die for the Palestinians”

        Arab states casualties 1948 – 1950 look it up.

        “as the fact that no one, including Hezbollah came to their aid in Cast Lead. Hezbollah did not fire even one rocket. A sad but true lesson “

        Israel has a Peace agreement with Jordan and with Egypt. Hezbollah are the Lebanese resistance, not the Palestinian resistance. The Lebanese military do not engage. Syria is not equipped for war outside of their territory.

        Say, do you have any more waffle, it’s cute. Odd though that you’d rather Israel be fighting the Arab States as well as slaughtering ill equipped folk who have nowhere to go, except somewhere else in the war zone. No escape, not even into the sea.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:16 am

        The members of the Arab League rejected the UN partition from the get go, appealed it to the international court in the Hague, lost there also, and then declared that they will use force to stop any partition.

        So did Ben Gurion.

        The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.

        By: Ben-Gurion
        Source: P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987″ Simha Flapan

      • homingpigeon
        December 22, 2010, 9:32 am

        Where do you and other Hasbarists get the notion that the path to one state is intended to be violent? The whole premise is that people (Israelis and Palestinians) are thinking outside the box to discover peaceful means for a peaceful end. Settlers will get to stay in the West Bank. They will even be able to buy property and reside in other Arab countries. True, they will need some charm school and have to learn how not to uproot orchards and how normal people get along with their neighbors. They might have to pay for the real estate they’re on in cases where they have confiscated it, but they get to stay. Yes, you’ll have to deal with a certain number of Palestinian families exercising their unconditional right of return as well.

        Hasbarists will be able to retire from this incessant chicanery, sophistry, specious arguing, and trying to outwit the world.

      • hophmi
        December 22, 2010, 10:36 am

        “Where do you and other Hasbarists get the notion that the path to one state is intended to be violent? ”

        I don’t think it’s intended to be violent. I think it will be violent. History suggests that ethnicities who don’t get along do not do well when they are forced together. There is a lot of bad blood in this conflict on both sides.

        “The whole premise is that people (Israelis and Palestinians) are thinking outside the box to discover peaceful means for a peaceful end.”

        The one-state solution go against 43 years of assuming that UNSC 242 is the basis of negotiation, but it is not thinking out of the box. It is simply the resurrection of one idea from the 1940s, which at best can be described as Buberian/Magnesian if you’re interested in true Binationalism, and at worst as the Arab negotiating position.

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 9:14 pm

        Ben-Gurion didn’t decide the fate of the Partition though, The Jewish Agency did. Ben-Gurion had an opinion, the Jewish Agency made policy.

        Your reversal tactics are getting more stale and irrelevant Shingo.

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 9:18 pm

        So the first Prime Minister of Israel just magically came into power and influence after the Nakba, is that it? I guess you have a point it isn’t as if George Washington had any sort of influence at all in shaping US policy before he became President, did he?

        Seriously. You are just embarrassing. This is even worse than when I had to school you months ago that there actually are signatures on the Declaration of Independence.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 9:22 pm

        Ben-Gurion didn’t decide the fate of the Partition though, The Jewish Agency did. Ben-Gurion had an opinion, the Jewish Agency made policy.

        That’s called a distinction without a difference.

        Before the 1948 war, Ben Gurion said that the Partition would not limit Zionist aspirations.

        Four days after Israel had been accepted by UN as one of its members, David Ben Gurion, then 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 Jewish Agency had nothign to say about Ben Gurion’s dclaration.

        Your reversal tactics are getting more stale and irrelevant Shingo.

        Facts may be boring, but they are always relevant Yonira.

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 9:36 pm

        So Shingo, Israel was accepted in ’48, the partition accepted by the JA in ’47.

        You’re reversing a historical time-line here. How can a statement by BG in 1948 be relevant to the JAs acceptance of the Partition in ’47?

        Dance all you want Shingo, but you are making no sense my man.

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 11:04 pm

        If the partition was accepted, yonira, why were five hundred villages wiped out by Zionist militants and half of the (non-European) population driven out of Palestine? That’s your idea of accepting a UN resolution? Small wonder that small minds like now turn the US into a torture state.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 11:10 pm

        How can a statement by BG in 1948 be relevant to the JAs acceptance of the Partition in ’47

        There’s no contradiction Yonira,

        read my post again. BG made 2 statements. One when the partition was accepted and another in 1948.

        The relevance of the partition was that it designated borders, but Ben Gurion rejected those borders, which amounts to a rejection of the partion. In fact, BG was very frank about this. The acceptance was simply a stepping stone to graining acceptance by the UN.

        As it turns out, those borders lasted less than 12 month.

        In 1948, as Prime Minister, BG decalred the partition to be null and void.

        Did the Jewish Agency contradict him or overrule him? No.

        So your argument that the Jewish Agency made policy and the Ben-Gurion did not is clearly false.

        Your turn to dance Yonira.

      • seafoid
        December 21, 2010, 1:05 pm

        YESHA is built on the 2 state solution, habibi.

      • annie
        December 21, 2010, 1:05 pm

        fantasy

        the whole Arab world

        you’ve got to stop taking the hasbara seriously eee. no one else does. that line might have worked for a decade or 2 but those days are long over.

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 2:08 pm

        Annie,

        The Arab League, all of it, sanctioned the 1948 war against Israel.
        That is the reality, even if you cannot bring yourself to accept it.

      • talknic
        December 21, 2010, 4:55 pm

        eee ” The Arab League, all of it, sanctioned the 1948 war against Israel.”

        Odd, they invaded Palestine. The UNSC accepted their Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine as legitimate. Israel was independent of Palestine.

        ” That is the reality, even if you cannot bring yourself to accept it.”

        Nothing in the Hasbarrow is reality…

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 8:37 pm

        The Arab League, all of it, sanctioned the 1948 war against Israel.
        That is the reality, even if you cannot bring yourself to accept it.

        Is that why Zionist gunmen were clearing out Palestinian villages outside of the 1948 partition before even a single soldier from any neighboring country set foot in Palestine?

      • Taxi
        December 21, 2010, 1:07 pm

        Quite surprisingly, the Palestinians are better prepared/focused than they ever were, despite their internal divisions.

        Underestimate them and their global supporters at your own risk.

        Let us also here not forget that israel has fought every single battle riding on the shoulders of either the French, the Brits or us here the Americans – and much of it when the “whole Arab world” was technologically and militarily truly at 3rd world standard.

        When you talk crap like you do eee about the minority muscle of 500,000 settlers, you start to sound like a violent lunatic in a shopping mall crying out ‘I have a gun don’t come near me!’.

      • Taxi
        December 21, 2010, 1:57 pm

        Thanks annie – I just posted my piece to mondoawards.

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 2:13 pm

        Taxi,

        You are repeating the same mantras Palestinians have used for the last 62 years. Ok, have it your away. There is nothing to estimate or underestimate, Palestinians themselves say they have never been more divided and impotent.

        On whose shoulders did Israel ride in 1948 by the way? Israel had zero military support from the UK, France or the US in that war.

        There is only one way to stop violence, a negotiated 2 state solution.

      • seafoid
        December 21, 2010, 5:26 pm

        We are going to destroy YESHA

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 8:40 pm

        On whose shoulders did Israel ride in 1948 by the way? Israel had zero military support from the UK, France or the US in that war.

        Not counting, of course, the MILLIONS of dollars that American business owners funneled into the coffers of Haganah and the Stern Gang. Or all that surplus German military hardware that Zionists were allowed to purchase at bargain basement prices.

        That’s right. No support at all.

      • yonira
        December 21, 2010, 10:04 pm

        Shingo, I am not aware of the this German surplus good that the Zionists bought from Germany. Can you please elaborate on this?

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 10:09 pm

        There’s a lot of stuff you aren’t aware of, actually — least of all the screen name of the person you are replying to. Literacy was never your strong suit though, to be fair.

        It would be a lot faster (and well within the buffer limits of the blog) if I merely delineate what you actually are knowledgeable and competent on, and work you can work outward from that small, manageable seed. How does that sound?

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:18 am

        That’s right. No support at all.

        Not to mention the fact that Chekoslovakia shipped arms to Israel, in violation of the arms embargo on the region.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 3:11 pm

        excellent roha!

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 9:16 pm

        Chaos, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about so you use ad-hominem attacks, I get it. Please tell me about these American business owners funding the Stern gang in particular Chaos, I’d love to be enlightened.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 9:29 pm

        this should get colorful.

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 11:07 pm

        Juust as soon as your college buds come back and serve in the military of the country they were born in, yonira, rather than whoring themselves out to a foreign military. Why didn’t you make the cut, incidentally?

      • Shingo
        December 21, 2010, 2:11 pm

        The only solution that does not involve Palestinians killing Jews and vice versa is the two state solution. All other solutions will lead to violence. Can’t you see that Sumud?

        And Israel havev destroyed any chance of 2 states. Can you see that eee?

      • Shingo
        December 21, 2010, 2:20 pm

        When will you ever learn?
        In 1948 500,000 Jews beat the whole Arab world.

        And in 2006, 2 thousand Hezbollah fighters defeated Israel.

        The 500,000 people of Yesha are more than enough to win a civil war in the West Bank if it were ever to break out after Israel unilaterally withdraws to the 1967 line.

        Israel will never withdraw from the West Bank.

        Only a two state solution will save a ton of violence.

         

        It would if Israel had not killed it.

      • hophmi
        December 21, 2010, 4:23 pm

        “And in 2006, 2 thousand Hezbollah fighters defeated Israel.”

        How much does Hezbollah pay you to keep repeating that?

        What was the victory exactly? Whether Israel “won” is questionable. But Hezbollah didn’t “win.” They gained nothing, and their irresponsibility got a lot of people killed.

      • Chaos4700
        December 21, 2010, 8:41 pm

        How much does Hezbollah pay you to keep repeating that?

        Just because you get paid to post here doesn’t mean any of us do.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:30 am

        How much does Hezbollah pay you to keep repeating that?

        I know it drives you Hasbarats crazy to accept that a group of 2 thousand fighters were able to kick Israel’s ass, but that’s what 51% of Israelis believed after the 2006 war.

        What was the victory exactly? Whether Israel “won” is questionable. But Hezbollah didn’t “win.” They gained nothing, and their irresponsibility got a lot of people killed.

        Wrong on all counts. Victory is based on which side achieved their strategic objectives.

        Israel’s was to wipe out Hezbollah and occupy Southern Lebanon. They failed.
        Hezbollah’s ws to keep Israel out of Southern Lebanon and surviv. They succeeded.

        The fact that Israel lashed out like a man gunman shooting passers by was not Hebollah’s doing. It was a desperate act from a desperate military force that had lost any sense of reason or reationality.

      • hophmi
        December 22, 2010, 8:23 am

        “I know it drives you Hasbarats crazy to accept that a group of 2 thousand fighters were able to kick Israel’s ass, but that’s what 51% of Israelis believed after the 2006 war.”

        HAHAHA. Your proof is a poll from 2006? How many soldiers did Hezbollah kill? I think it was like 100. That is not an ass kicking.

        “Wrong on all counts. Victory is based on which side achieved their strategic objectives. ”

        Oh, it is. So if my objective is to annoy you, and I shoot a bullet into your house, and you burn down my house, I guess I won because I “achieved my strategic objective.”

        “Israel’s was to wipe out Hezbollah and occupy Southern Lebanon. They failed.
        Hezbollah’s ws to keep Israel out of Southern Lebanon and surviv. They succeeded.”

        Ah, I see. So you rely on a ridiculous assumption. Israel’s strategic objective in 2006 was not to occupy Lebanon. That’s beyond ridiculous. It wasn’t to wipe out Hezbollah either. It was to punish them so they wouldn’t violate the border again. And they haven’t yet.

        “The fact that Israel lashed out like a man gunman shooting passers by was not Hebollah’s doing. It was a desperate act from a desperate military force that had lost any sense of reason or reationality.”

        Right. I can’t imagine why a terrorist group kidnapping your soldiers on your soil would be a problem for the IDF.

        You’re a joke, Shingo.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:14 pm

        HAHAHA. Your proof is a poll from 2006? How many soldiers did Hezbollah kill? I think it was like 100. That is not an ass kicking.

        So according to you, a victory is measured by bosy counts of civlians is it Hophmi? Isn’t that what the US did to claim they were winning in Vietnam?

        I can’t find the poll, but it’s clear that Israelis believed at the time that Israel lost.

        Several senior officials acknowledged unequivocally that Israel lost the war against Hezbollah, and confirmed that this is a widely held view inside the Israeli government — despite many public pronouncements to the contrary by Israeli leaders.
        link to salon.com

        Oh, it is. So if my objective is to annoy you, and I shoot a bullet into your house, and you burn down my house, I guess I won because I “achieved my strategic objective.”

        Shooting a bullet into my house would be a threat to my family, not an annoyance. Hezbollah is no threat to Israel so long as Israel stays out of Lebanon.

        Ah, I see. So you rely on a ridiculous assumption. Israel’s strategic objective in 2006 was not to occupy Lebanon. That’s beyond ridiculous.

        On the contrary. Throughout the conflit, Israel’s PR machine continued to insist that their goal was to reach the Litani River. They updated progress throughtout the campaign that they were gettign closer.

        When the conflict was over, it turned out that ground forces were barely able to cross the border.

        It wasn’t to wipe out Hezbollah either. It was to punish them so they wouldn’t violate the border again. And they haven’t yet.

        Of course it was to wipte out Hezbollah. The Winograd Commission concluded that Israeli initiated the war, which means it had nothing to do with Hebollah violating any borders. If borders weer so sacrosanct to Israel, they wouldn’t be violating Lebanon’s air space they way they have been.

        Israeli leaders are insisting that another war with Hezbollah is innevitable. They are also citing the fact that Hezbol

        Right. I can’t imagine why a terrorist group kidnapping your soldiers on your soil would be a problem for the IDF.

        Israel kidnapps people al the time. The capture of the solidiers on the border was just givign ISrael a tastes of it’s own medicine.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 3:16 pm

        I can’t imagine why a terrorist group kidnapping your soldiers on your soil would be a problem for the IDF.

        oh, so by your own standards when the idf goes on palestinian soil and kidnaps children in the middle of the night and hauls them off to jail the appropriate response is to pulverize tel aviv. thanks for clearing that up!

      • hophmi
        December 22, 2010, 3:23 pm

        “oh, so by your own standards when the idf goes on palestinian soil and kidnaps children in the middle of the night and hauls them off to jail the appropriate response is to pulverize tel aviv. thanks for clearing that up!”

        I’m sure the Palestinians would pulverize Tel Aviv if they had the chance.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 3:28 pm

        that’s your argument? they would have done it to us if they could have?

        weak.

      • hophmi
        December 22, 2010, 3:47 pm

        “I can’t find the poll, but it’s clear that Israelis believed at the time that Israel lost.”

        Yeah, mostly because there was lots of press questioning whether Israel won. But you think Israel lost, and I’m not sure what your criteria for that is.

        “On the contrary. Throughout the conflit, Israel’s PR machine continued to insist that their goal was to reach the Litani River. They updated progress throughtout the campaign that they were gettign closer.”

        Whatever. If they said their goal was to reach Iraq, you’d probably take them literally.

        “Israel kidnapps people al the time. The capture of the solidiers on the border was just givign ISrael a tastes of it’s own medicine.”

        Whatever. I’m sure Hezballah would rein rockets down on Israeli civilians if they could. Oh wait, they did.

        “Shooting a bullet into my house would be a threat to my family, not an annoyance. Hezbollah is no threat to Israel so long as Israel stays out of Lebanon.”

        Uh huh. Israel isn’t in Lebanon right now, and it hasn’t stopped Sheikh Nasrallah from going on about it. And they weren’t in Lebanon in 2006 when Hezballah kidnapped Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil.

      • hophmi
        December 22, 2010, 3:49 pm

        “that’s your argument? they would have done it to us if they could have?

        weak.”

        Well, no, not really. You’re arguing that Israel “kidnaps” people all the time and that the holy Palestinians are the victims. But it’s clear that they would do the same and worse if they could. That is why we’ve had attempts at mega-terror attacks in recent years. And it suggests that the Palestinians are not completely innocents here.

      • RoHa
        December 22, 2010, 4:21 pm

        Not even “they would have done it to us if they could have”. Just “hophmi thinks they would if they could”.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 4:32 pm

        you think Israel lost, and I’m not sure what your criteria for that is.

        israel lost because their objective was wiping out any threat of hizzbollah because israel was lobbying to bomb iran (still at that) and wanted hizzbollah neutered prior to that action. they couldn’t do that and the cheney/bush didn’t bomb iran after the enormous devastating hit israel took on it’s image.

        for many people, especially the younger generation, the lebanon massacre was the turning of the tide for israel’s image, it took a nosedive and started going downhill..doubled down w/the gaza massacre and the down hill trajectory has just continued unabated since then.

        now israel says the ‘delegitimization campaign’ is as serious as a military threat, and i believe they are correct. so what does that mean? they’ve now created a whole new threat that largely didn’t even exist for much of the world pre the last lebanon fiasco.

        that is called a net loss.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 4:58 pm

        Superbly put Annie.

        It should’ve added that one of Israel’s motives for attacking Gaza was to re establish Israel’s deterrence capacity.

        Clearly Osrael believe they lost that capacity in 2006, which means they believe they lost the war.

      • annie
        December 22, 2010, 5:17 pm

        yep, they thought they would brush up their image and instead they tanked it.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 5:28 pm

        Yeah, mostly because there was lots of press questioning whether Israel won.

        Lot’s of press, lots of politicians, and most of the Israeli public.

        Israel had a meltdown after the war. Why do you think they created the Winograd Commission? Was it not to investigate why the war was such a failure?

        Whatever. If they said their goal was to reach Iraq, you’d probably take them literally.

        You have a point Hophmi. We should know better than to take Israel at their word, such as when they claim they are trying to stop rocket attacks.

        Whatever. I’m sure Hezballah would rein rockets down on Israeli civilians if they could. Oh wait, they did.

        They sure did. Right AFTER Israel began bombing Southern Lebanon – dropping as many ordinance in a single day as Hezbollah fired throughout the duration if the conflict.

        Just imagine if Hezbollah were as sadistic as Israel and fired not 5000, but 100,000 rockets into Israel!

        Uh huh. Israel isn’t in Lebanon right now, and it hasn’t stopped Sheikh Nasrallah from going on about it.

        They would nectar Hezbollah not driven them out.

        And they weren’t in Lebanon in 2006 when Hezballah kidnapped Israeli soldiers on Israeli soil.

        Nor were the dozens of Hamas law makers in Israel when Israel kidnapped them in 2006.

        Oh I keep forgetting. Israel was defending itself right?

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 5:29 pm

        Not even “they would have done it to us if they could have”. Just “hophmi thinks they would if they could”.

        That’s because Hophmi thinks that because Iaraelis are sadistic maniacs, then everyone everyone else must be.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 5:56 pm

        But it’s clear that they would do the same and worse if they could.

        How is it clear when they haven’t? That’s called speculation Hophmi.

        That is why we’ve had attempts at mega-terror attacks in recent years.

        What mega terror atatcks?

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 9:38 pm

        What is the relevance of a military ass kicking in the ME anyways. The Arabs have been getting their asses kicked since ’48 and have continued to ask for more.

      • olive
        December 22, 2010, 11:31 pm

        “But it’s clear that they would do the same and worse if they could.”

        I think this is merely projecting the darkness that is festering in the Zionist heart on to everybody else.

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 11:43 pm

        The Arabs have been getting their asses kicked since ‘48 and have continued to ask for more.

        Why do you hate brown people?

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 11:53 pm

        The Arabs have been getting their asses kicked since ‘48 and have continued to ask for more.

        Btween ’48 and ’67 yes, but that’s when it ended. Israel had their asses kicked in 1973, 2000 and 2006.

      • thankgodimatheist
        December 21, 2010, 7:53 pm

        “When will you ever learn?
        In 1948 500,000 Jews beat the whole Arab world. ”

        What a stupid thing to say eee! I used to think you’re a fascist now I believe you’re a fascist and a moron.
        There was no “whole Arab world” and those countries who went to fight has no will to fight whatsoever..Only a small Iraqi contingent put up a serious resistance..Have you been living in a cave?..The New Historians debunked this Israeli foundational myth more 20 years ago..

      • eee
        December 21, 2010, 11:57 pm

        Keep lying to yourself. Only a small Iraqi contingent? What about the Arab Legion that took and held Gush Etzion? What about the Egyptian Army that advanced till Ashdod? The whole Arab world declared war on Israel, that is a fact. All the countries in the Arab League declared war on Israel, every last one of them. Their abilities reflected their weakness, not their will.

        And yes, no one sent forces to help Israel. As for the weapons, they were bought for full price on the international market. That is not help.

      • Walid
        December 22, 2010, 2:46 am

        eee’s history of Israel’s pioneers is on the light side. The Jews preparatory activities to reach Palestine were underway before WW II started. The Etzel.il site reports that the Irgun with Jabotinsky had started negotiating with the Poles from before 1936 because Poland was looking for ways to get rid of its 3 million Jews. A deal was worked out in 1936 with the Poles to have them give military training to the Jews and provide them with arms and munitions that would be secretly sent to Palestine as Jabotinsky foresaw that most of Poland’s Jews would end up in a Jewish state. The military training and smuggling of arms into Palestine went on until 1939 and the start of the war.

        After the war, the Irgun set up its HQ in Rome and from there began planning terrorist bombings of British interests throughout Europe. In 1946, the Irgun bombed the Bristish embassy in Rome and then forced to relocate to Paris. Irgun then bombed the hotel in Vienna that was being used by the British army.

        Not mentioned on the Etzel site is how the ship Altalena carrying Polish arms had refused to surrender them to Ben Gurion and when that happened, Ben Gurion ordered the Etzel (Irgun)ship anchored off TA to be sunk and the Jews aboard were killed. Today when we say that the Zionists bombed the Jewish quarters in Baghdad and Beirut’s main synagogue to spook the Jews into leaving, we are told that Jews don’t kill other Jews and they surely don’t bomb synagogues. A cut and dried version of the Altalena story is provided by Israel’s MFA site and a more syrupy version in the Jewish Virtual Library. Israel’s pioneers had an illustrious history of terrorist bombings and were not as innocent and defenseless as eee thinks; the rest of the Irgun arms story from its own site:

        link to etzel.org.il

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 3:33 am

        What about the Arab Legion that took and held Gush Etzion? What about the Egyptian Army that advanced till Ashdod?

        “In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ….. were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews’ favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)

        Clearly, 68,000 men was not the whole Arab world.

        As for the weapons, they were bought for full price on the international market. That is not help.

        False. All the weapons were sent by Czecoslovaia to Israel – FREE of charge.

      • Brewer
        December 22, 2010, 4:20 am

        Glad you brought up Abdullah’s Arab Legion, basically the only disciplined and well armed force.
        He had pledged to support the establishment of Israel and not to venture across the Partition line, a pledge he kept apart from an occasional “heat of battle” chase.

        Thus the Yishuv was able to concentrate its forces against the weaker, Arab irregulars.

        Surprised you didn’t know this. Martin van Creveld and Tom Segev have written extensively about it.

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 8:32 am

        Good point Walid,

        The Haganah got in on the act of sinking ships too.

        My favorite example of Zionists’ concern for their fellow Jews during WWII is the bombing of the SS Patria in Haifa harbor by Haganah.

        Apparently these brother’s keepers didn’t like the British plan to send European Jewish refugees to camps in Mauritius for the duration of the war. A couple hundred were killed so the terrorists could make the point that Jewish victims of the Holocaust were better off dead in Eretz Israel, than alive in Mauritius.

      • talknic
        December 22, 2010, 10:13 am

        eee

        “What about the Egyptian Army that advanced till Ashdod?

        Ashdod was only established in 1956. It now straddles the actual border between Israel and Palestine.

        They reached a s far as Isdud, which was not in Israel.

        “The whole Arab world declared war on Israel, that is a fact.”

        Ahm….Read their ACTUAL Declaration…

        ” And yes, no one sent forces to help Israel.”

        Israel was acting outside of it’s declared boundaries….

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 9:21 pm

        Shingo, can you provide a source on that, Czechoslovakia profited from selling arms to Israel, we all know that. You are making a mockery of history.

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 9:32 pm

        This coming from Mr. “lawl there r no signatures on the declaration of independense noob!”

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 9:40 pm

        Yes yonira,

        I stand corrected, Czechoslovakia did profit from selling arms to Israel. The money for which came from Italian fascist groups.

      • yonira
        December 22, 2010, 10:25 pm

        No source though huh? Are these the same Italian fascists who courted the Arabs during the ’40s?

        link to aijac.org.au

      • Chaos4700
        December 22, 2010, 11:41 pm

        Funny, I clicked on the “About Us” link on that Israeli lobbyist site you linked, yonira, Pretty shoddy.

        But that’s OK, I found their updated pages.

        The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) is the premier public affairs organisation for the Australian Jewish community.

        Some of AIJAC’s activities include:

        The Rambam Israel Fellowship program annually sponsors visits to Israel by selected senior politicians, political advisers, journalists, senior public servants and student leaders.

        You linked us a public relations propaganda factory that dumps spirits Australian political elites off on expenses-paid junkets. That’s your source, huh?

      • Shingo
        December 22, 2010, 11:52 pm

        There’s plenty of sources Yonira.

        link to youtube.com

        link to books.google.com.au

      • Shingo
        December 23, 2010, 7:50 am

        That’s your source, huh?

        Go easy on Yonira Chaos,

        It’s not like he has much to choose from these days is it?

  7. bob
    December 21, 2010, 12:15 pm

    Where was the proof that the US said this. The israelis have been claiming they had a secret arrangement with the Bush admin when Obama was pushing the Israelis.
    link to independent.co.uk

    • Shingo
      December 22, 2010, 8:34 am

      Where was the proof that the US said this. The israelis have been claiming they had a secret arrangement with the Bush admin when Obama was pushing the Israelis.

      What amazes me is the sheer hubris of the US. They had no loegal authority to make this deal with Israel, and such an agreement is surely a violation of intenrational law.

  8. Dan Crowther
    December 21, 2010, 1:52 pm

    I have to agree with bob here. The Israeli’s want to blow off the French, so they tell them Washington has given settlement growth the thumbs up. And knowing that he was more or less powerless to do anything about it, Sarkozy planned on “conveying messages” to Netanyahu. In related news, a plane has just landed safely at Logan Airport, here in Boston.

  9. kalithea
    December 21, 2010, 10:44 pm

    AGAIN, there is no earth-shattering news in these leaked cables. From a Wapo 2008 article:

    “Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration made a secret agreement — not disclosed to the Palestinians — that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies.”

    link to washingtonpost.com

    Again, this leak is favorable to Israel because it not only reinforces their claim, which I suspected and believed to be true all along, since I believe this so-called “peace process”, was a sham, a fraud, a charade being played for the benefit of Israel to prove their “good” faith in actually attempting to seek peace, but it also frees Israel of total blame for settlement expansion since 2004.

    These cables are a win-win for Israel.

  10. hughsansom
    December 22, 2010, 1:24 am

    This is a perfect example of why Obama is in hysterics over the Wikileaks revelations : The US wants to claim credit for anything that makes it look good, and disclaim for anything otherwise. Wikileaks jeadizes this. The Times wouldn’t do it, and not CNN or NPR, but some upstart can, so none of the standard American-terrorist practices will work.

Leave a Reply