Shamir ordered Bernadotte assassination to save Jerusalem for Jews. But will his obits tell you that?

Israel/Palestine
on 0 Comments
Yitzhak Shamir
The late Yitzhak Shamir, from AP

Israeli president Shimon Peres is calling the late Yitzhak Shamir, dead at 96, a “brave warrior.” What does that mean? It means he used terrorism with very important political consequences. As head of the Stern Gang, Shamir authorized the assassinations of Lord Moyne, the British minister in Palestine, in 1944, and Folke Bernadotte, the U.N. envoy (and Swedish count) in 1948.

The Bernadotte murder is particularly important: Bernadotte wanted to internationalize Jerusalem and limit the borders of the new Jewish state. His murder helped shift partition from 55 percent of Palestine to the Jewish state to 78 percent.

But will the obits tell you that? CNN whitewash:

Born in Poland, Shamir moved to Palestine and fought for Israeli independence…. Shamir was a leader of the Jewish Zionist underground group that fought the mandate in the 1940s.

It wasn’t just the mandate, he fought the U.N.

There is a shameful statement by Hillary Clinton at the end of that piece.

“From his days working for Israel’s independence to his service as prime minister, he strengthened Israel’s security and advanced the partnership between the United States and Israel,” she said in a statement.

I know she’s a diplomat, but could she have kept her mouth shut on some of this? Shamir was the Israeli prime minister, after all, who helped force Hillary’s husband Bill to run to George Bush’s right on settlements in 1992, a position that helped him to defeat the incumbent Bush, who had opposed settlements.

The British are clear about this. Here is the lead of the Financial Times obit for Shamir.

Yitzhak Shamir, who has died at the age of 96, is most likely to be remembered as a terrorist against British rule in Palestine during the 1940s and as a man whose aggressive Jewish settlement policy on Arab lands may have stymied Middle East peace for a generation.

Compare that to the New York Times’ wishywashy Israel-o-philic lead, by Joel Brinkley:

Yitzhak Shamir, who emerged from the militant wing of a Jewish militia and served as Israel’s prime minister longer than anyone but David Ben-Gurion, promoting a muscular Zionism and expansive settlement in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, died Saturday at a nursing home in Tel Aviv. He was 96.

What’s a militia? The Stern Gang. Why did they call it a gang?

Haaretz is more honest, though it never mentions Bernadotte:

When he was 20, he immigrated to Palestine and joined the Irgun two years later. By day he worked in an accountant’s office and at night took part in anti-British activities.

Shamir said “we didn’t take any action blindly or automatically or just for the sake of violence. Our aim was to intimidate rather than to punish … reprisals were never a cause for celebration. They were simply an existential need.” In 1940, Shamir left the Irgun, following Avraham Stern, and became a leader of the Lehi − which the British called the Stern Gang.

In December 1941 he was arrested and spent time in the Mizra prison near Acre. After escaping in September 1942, he was put in charge of operations. In this role he was responsible for the 1944 assassination of Lord Moyne, the British minister of state in the Middle East.

As Shamir put it, Moyne “was a senior official in enforcing British policy in Palestine and didn’t for a moment hide his strong opposition to Zionism and his negative feelings toward the Jews.”

The New York Times does not mention Bernadotte, and it gives Shamir a pass on Moyne. Because surgical assassination is a good thing, you see: 

Years later, however, Mr. Shamir contended that it had been more humane to assassinate specific military or political figures than to attack military installations and possibly kill innocent people, as the other underground groups did. Besides, he once said, “a man who goes forth to take the life of another whom he does not know must believe only one thing: that by his act he will change the course of history.”

Several histories of the period have asserted that he masterminded a failed attempt to kill the British high commissioner, Sir Harold MacMichael, and the killing in Cairo of Britain’s minister of state for the Middle East, Lord Moyne. When Mr. Shamir was asked about these episodes in later years, his denials held a certain evasive tone.

That’s evasive. The Financial Times uses the same “change the course of history” quote to bring up Bernadotte murder.

As a leader of Lehi he approved the assassinations of Lord Moyne, Winston Churchill’s representative in Cairo, and Count Bernadotte, the Swedish UN Palestine mediator who during the war had saved many Jews from the Nazis. Years later Shamir reflected: “A man who goes forth to take the life of another, whom he does not know, must believe only one thing that by his act he will change the course of history.”

Yes and the murder of Bernadotte changed the Partition line, divided Jerusalem as it had not been divided under the original UN Special Committee line of 1947. 

The New York Times has been more forthcoming about this in the past. Here is Clyde Haberman on Kati Marton’s biography of Folke Bernadotte, in the Times, 1995:

[Shamir] she says, signed [Bernadotte's] death warrant. He was part of a troika that led Lehi after its guiding force, Avraham Stern, was killed by the British in 1942. His name was Yitzhak Yezernitsky, a short bulldog of an immigrant from the Russian-Polish border. Four decades later, he became Israel’s Prime Minister under the name Yitzhak Shamir.

Ever suspicious and tight-lipped, Mr. Shamir, nearly 80, still speaks elliptically about the Bernadotte assassination. In a recently published memoir, “Summing Up,” he acknowledges that Lehi wanted the mediator “removed from the arena.” But the group “took no responsibility for the deed,” he says. “The idea was conceived in Jerusalem by Lehi members operating there more or less independently.”

Ms. Marton strips away this deliberate ambiguity. There is no doubt, she says, that Shamir and his co-leaders imposed a death sentence on Bernadotte and selected a four-man squad whose trigger man was one Yehoshua Cohen.

Yes and now the Times restores that ambiguity.

In her book, A Death in Jerusalem, Marton quotes a Haaretz report:

“the decision to assassinate Bernadotte… was taken at a meeting of the Lehi [Stern Gang] Central Committee in which Yitzhak Shamir, former Lehi commander, participated. Who pulled the trigger is less important, [Shamir] said in another place, what is important is that it was the Lehi Central Committee which decided on the assassination.”

She goes on to say that Shamir was the one man with no “milk in his veins”:

[T]hose Israelis who have studied both the case and the man in the context of their country’s history insist Shamir was the key player. “It takes a strong man to give such an order,” says Shabtai Teveth [Ben-Gurion biographer]. … Shamir is such a man.”

Not only has Yitzhak Shamir… never disavowed his role in the murder of the mediator; he has frequently stated that his time as Lehi commaner was the best time of his life.

The Stern Gang was afraid that Ben-Gurion would accede to the U.N. and Bernadotte to give up Jerusalem. Marton says Shamir’s co-conspirator Israel Eldad “regards the murder of Bernadotte as one of Lehi’s [Stern gang's] great achievements. In his view, it saved Jerusalem from the Arabs.”From Marton’s book, in the weeks before Bernadotte was killed:

In his new plan, Jerusalem would belong neither to Israel nor to the Arabs, but would be internationalized along the original UN proposal. All of the fertile Galilee would go to Israel, while Ben-Gurion’s beloved Negev, would, in return, go to Transjordan.

Here is a related entry from the late NYT foreign affairs columnist C.L. Sulzberger’s diary, A Long Row of Candles:

August 24, 1948

On July 22 Bernadotte told a few people confidentially in Rhodes that he foresaw the following ultimate solution for Palestine:

There will be a Jewish state, no matter what else happens. Its boundaries will have to be radically altered to proved a more compact and workable state. Its Arab neighbors must be given an ironclad UN guarantee against any move to expand.

Bernadotte was murdered a month later. So much for a compact state and limits on expansion. Israel got the Negev and much of Jerusalem.

No Responses Yet

  1. Blake
    July 1, 2012, 1:18 pm

    Exactly what I was saying in the yahoo news comments section last night – as were many other commentators mentioning his terrorist past I would like to add.

  2. Abuadam
    July 1, 2012, 1:22 pm

    Who cares about some white european politicos,
    My family only remembers Deir Yassin!

  3. CitizenC
    July 1, 2012, 1:27 pm

    Moyne and Bernadotte were the tip of the Irgun/Stern-LEHI iceberg, of course. See
    Alison Weir’s “History of the US-Israel Relationship, Part I.” Scan for “Terrorists set up U.S. front groups”, and read that and several following sections. Read the prev section on Deir Yassein also. Copiously footnoted.

    link to ifamericansknew.org

    Phil et al, you should really use Weir’s piece as a post.

  4. Citizen
    July 1, 2012, 1:44 pm

    “Once in Palestine, Shamir joined LEHI, the most hardline of three Jewish movements fighting for independence from the British mandate authorities, taking over the group’s leadership after the British killed its founder.
    LEHI was behind the assassination of United Nations mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in Jerusalem in September 1948. LEHI commanders considered Bernadotte to be a British agent who cooperated with the Nazis.” link to wfaa.com

    From Wiki: “Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (in Swedish: Greve af Wisborg; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman noted for his negotiation of the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during World War II, including 450 Danish Jews from Theresienstadt released on 14 April 1945.[1][2][3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The decision to assassinate him had been taken by Natan Yellin-Mor, Yisrael Eldad and Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel.”

    Most of the obits I looked at for Shamir said he was the epitome of –a true icon of Jewish Israeli values. Interesting, huh?

    • ColinWright
      July 1, 2012, 2:11 pm

      “…Most of the obits I looked at for Shamir said he was the epitome of –a true icon of Jewish Israeli values…”

      I have to concede that I agree whole-heartedly with that statement. Perhaps the breathtaking dishonesty and rather slimy greed of a Netanyahu are needed to round out the picture — but yeah. Shamir did represent a good deal of what Israel is all about.

  5. Dexter
    July 1, 2012, 1:48 pm

    Bin Laden died…Shamir died…two birds of the same feather: big deal.

  6. Blake
    July 1, 2012, 1:54 pm

    Death of a Proud, Self-Avowed Terrorist

    Shamir was one of the leaders of Lehi (also known as The Stern Gang), a Zionist terrorist militia which rampaged through Palestine in the 1940s. Were anyone to dispute that Lehi was a terrorist group, Shamir proudly affirmed that particular description in a 1943 article he wrote entitled “Terror.” Shamir wrote,

    Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war…We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.

    First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today, and its task is a major one: it demonstrates in the clearest language, heard throughout the world including by our unfortunate brethren outside the gates of this country, our war against the occupier.

    The Zionist terror campaign of Plan Dalet, put into effect in early 1948 and described by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, consisted of “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding population centres; setting fires to homes, properties, and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning.”

    Shamir seemed to relish the opportunity to terrorize, murder and ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous population into order to make room for the nascent state of Israel. The massacre of Deir Yassin in April 1948, during which over 100 unarmed villagers were murdered, was carried out by Zionist commandos of Shamir’s Lehi and Menachem Begin’s Irgun (of which Shamir was a former member).

    link to theuglytruth.wordpress.com

  7. ColinWright
    July 1, 2012, 1:56 pm

    “…In a recently published memoir, “Summing Up,” he acknowledges that Lehi wanted the mediator “removed from the arena.” But the group “took no responsibility for the deed,” he says. “The idea was conceived in Jerusalem by Lehi members operating there more or less independently.”…”

    In other words, Shamir bore approximately the same relationship to the Bernadotte assassination that Hitler bore to the Holocaust. He merely made it clear that he wanted it to happen.

  8. Hostage
    July 1, 2012, 1:59 pm

    At Lehi’s 70th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem, National Union MK Arye Eldad (whose father, Yisrael, had been one of Shamir’s partners in the leadership) said from the podium: “Count Bernadotte wanted to internationalize Jerusalem. In response, Lehi killed him. With his death, the concept of taking Jerusalem away from the Jewish people died with him.” link to jpost.com

    One of the Haaretz reports yesterday confirmed that Shamir had killed his own colleague and a competitor for leadership in the Stern Gang:

    “The Poles imbibe anti-Semitism with their mothers’ milk,” he memorably remarked to me. His spokesman, Avi Pazner, jumped. That was off the record, he insisted. “No. it wasn’t,” Shamir ruled.

    In the same vein of honest accounting, he effectively confirmed the old rumors that he himself had executed a man, Giladi, during his Lehi days. Matter of factly, he explained why it had been necessary to do so. No braggadocio; no crocodile tears.

    — Yitzhak Shamir: An honest liar, one we can be proud of link to haaretz.com

    The New York Times had reported on the rumors when Rabin ran against Shamir:

    There are skeletons, too, in the closet of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. One of them involves allegations, going back many years and occasionally appearing in print, that in 1943 in pre-state Palestine Mr. Shamir orchestrated the murder of Eliyahu Giladi, a comrade in the Jewish anti-British underground group known as the Stern Gang.

    According to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot, Labor tacticians had a stormy debate Thursday night about whether to raise the Giladi affair, but in the end decided against it.

    link to nytimes.com

    • seafoid
      July 2, 2012, 4:57 am

      From the link “For Eretz Yisrael it is permissible to lie,” Shamir coined his own criteria of honesty. At the end of his term, whether by incaution or by design, he gave an honest accounting to the nation and to history. He had negotiated endlessly about negotiating, he said, and had intended the peace negotiations to go on endlessly, while he meanwhile went on building the settlements that made peace impossible.

      he brought honor to the Jewish state and the Jewish people, much more so than his predecessor, Menachem Begin, who double-talked an American president.

  9. ColinWright
    July 1, 2012, 2:06 pm

    The whitewash on Shamir is really another example of how many of even those who are to some extent critical of Israel stop short of acknowledging the full truth about it.

    Shamir is not alone. Begin was also a terrorist. Sharon personally carried out medium-size massacres of women and children, and when he got bigger, orchestrated larger-scale ones. There are inferences to be drawn about a state that has had three murderers as prime minister in the sixty years of its existence.

    There’s no reason Shamir should be eulogized or treated with cautious courtesy. He doesn’t seem to have had any good points. He was a charmless, vicious, fanatical little killer. He had all the redeeming qualities of an asp.

    • Blake
      July 1, 2012, 4:25 pm

      Yeah Menachem Begin bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.

      • seafoid
        July 2, 2012, 5:30 am

        link to washingtonpost.com

        “Shamir’s vision for Israel was that of a strong, unassailable nation capable of defeating any enemy and continuing down the path of colonizing the West Bank even while establishing itself as an economic success story.”

        Can they keep YESHA from contaminating the economics ? The question on which the Jewish state hangs.

    • seafoid
      July 2, 2012, 5:04 am

      “He had all the redeeming qualities of an asp.”

      Asps have an important role in the food chain, Colin.
      It is disturbing when honest predators like sharks and snakes get tarred with the same brush as sociopathic zionists.

      Time will tell whether or not Shamir acted in the best interests of the Jewish people. Was the decision to choose the darkness the right one?

  10. lyn117
    July 1, 2012, 2:19 pm

    I don’t suppose the obits will mention the Stern gang’s attempt to form an alliance with nazi Germany in WWII, or their receipt of arms from fascist Italy, which Shamir was apparently a party to, either.

  11. talknic
    July 1, 2012, 2:44 pm

    ColinWright July 1, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Mi5 on Menachem Begin: joined the militant Zionist group Irgun during the Second World War and eventually became its leader. The Irgun’s attacks on British targets in Palestine made him one of the most wanted men in the region, with a substantial reward posted for his capture.

    Irgun:the Jewish organisation involved or implicated in numerous acts of terrorism in the closing years of the British mandate in Palestine.

    • Denis
      July 3, 2012, 11:14 am

      Well, this is certainly embarrassing:

      The MI5 UK security agency you link to claims that Bernadotte was assassinated in Paris. This is found in it’s paragraph on the Stern Gang.

      “Perhaps its most notorious attack, though, was the assassination of the United Nations negotiator Count Folke Bernadotte (right) in Paris in October 1948.”

      Bernadotte and Col. Serot were killed in Jerusalem at Ben Zion Guini Square, off Hapalmah Street, according to Wiki.

      With “intelligence” like that, no wonder the British got their butts kicked so badly.

      • lysias
        July 3, 2012, 12:40 pm

        I suspect the error you point out (Bernadotte killed in Paris) was made by whoever (presumably a current MI5 employee) wrote the Web page. I think it is most unlikely that an MI5 person back then would have made an error like that.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2012, 3:28 pm

        I suspect the error you point out (Bernadotte killed in Paris) was made by whoever (presumably a current MI5 employee) wrote the Web page.

        The files were released to the UK National Archives. The text appears to be identical to the webpages there.

        2006
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
        2005
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

  12. lyn117
    July 1, 2012, 3:22 pm

    Update:

    The Washington Post obit briefly mentioned the attempted alliance with nazi Germany, but not the massacre at Deir Yassein. All in all, a better summary of his life than the the NY Times obit an the LA Times obit. That’s not saying much.

    • Talkback
      July 2, 2012, 8:23 am

      I just asked Haaretz in a comment, if they’re going to write about Lehi’s Nazi alliance proposal, but I’m not going to waste my time checking, if they published it. They’re censoring far too much these days.

  13. Linda J
    July 1, 2012, 3:29 pm

    From Nima Shirazi:

    “Death of a Proud, Self-Avowed Terrorist: Former Israeli Premier Yitzhak Shamir Goes to the Great Hague in the Sky”
    link to wideasleepinamerica.com

  14. DICKERSON3870
    July 1, 2012, 4:13 pm

    RE: “Compare that to the New York Times’ wishywashy Israel-o-philic lead, by Joel Brinkley. . . What’s a militia? The Stern Gang. Why did they call it a gang?” ~ Weiss

    PERHAPS THIS EXPLAINS MR. BRINKLEY’S RETICENCE: “Why the U.S. Media Barely Covered Brutal Right-Wing Race Riots in Tel Aviv”, By Joshua Holland, AlterNet, 6/17/12

    (excerpts) Several weeks back, Israel was rocked by a night of right-wing race-riots targeting African refugees. . .
    . . . The story received very little coverage in the. . . States. . .
    . . .Recently, Middle East analyst MJ Rosenberg appeared on the AlterNet Radio Hour to discuss the Tel Aviv riots, the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program and how the Israel lobby helps narrow the discourse around Israel in the United States. Below is a lightly edited transcript of the discussion (you can listen to the whole interview here.)
    [EXCERPTS]
    • JOSHUA HOLLAND: From your inside perspective on that organization [AIPAC], what did you see as far as their tendency to call out criticism that they think is illegitimate or beyond the pale?
    • MJ ROSENBERG: They [AIPAC] consider all criticism of Israel illegitimate. It’s all beyond the pale. I suppose their definition would be if by some miracle someone like Joseph Lieberman made a statement critical of Israel it would be legitimate. When I worked there in the ’80s, back before everyone had computers, they had a big war room where all they did was assemble every bit of data on members of Congress, on candidates, but also on writers, celebrities – anyone in the public eye.
    In those days they would just put them in these folders. They always had at hand all this negative information — what they considered negative information — to tar people as being anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic. That stuff would be given to reporters if something came up. They were either initiated on their own to give to reporters or some reporter called them because they had a treasure trove of information.
    They still operate that way. In those days they did it directly; now they have former staffers and people who are close to the organization in the blogging world and political world who do it for them. They do it so much. When you read that someone is anti-Israel they’re the ones putting it out there. They’ve got the data. . .

    • JOSHUA HOLLAND: . . .Speaking of our discourse, I want to talk about an issue that came up recently that’s gotten very little coverage in the United States. There were a series of violent race riots by right-wing Israelis against African immigrants in Tel Aviv. This was a big deal. I was looking at the US coverage and it was amazing at how little attention these riots received. . .
    • MJ ROSENBERG: . . .This is a common thing. When there are bad things going on inside Israel — the way they treat the Palestinians and in this case the way they’re treating these poor African refugees from loathsome regimes who wind up in Israel — these stories are … I don’t want to say suppressed in the United States, but it’s striking how much coverage they get in Israel itself and how a paper like the New York Times is too scared to touch it.
    I have to say they’re afraid to touch it. The reason is when an American outlet talks about Israel in any way that’s negative, or reports on anything negative about Israel, they will be inundated with complaints from powerful people who will tell them, “why are you picking on Israel?” They always say, “why is it that China is doing all these things and you’re not writing about that?” Of course, they do. You even see it in the blogosphere too, the intimidation. If you aren’t utterly secure in your position in the media then you don’t mess with Israel. More to the point, you don’t mess with the people here who are Israel’s enforcers. . .

    ENTIRE (LIGHTLY EDITED) TRANSCRIPT – link to alternet.org

    • YoungMassJew
      July 1, 2012, 8:14 pm

      “why is it that China is doing all these things and you’re not writing about that?” Because Chinese Americans don’t have the most powerful lobby on the planet coaxing every member of U.S. Congress to funnel billions upon billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to a 21 st century colonial settler colony whose cultural foundation is blood and soil nationalism. Zionists lie. Palestinians die.

  15. Blake
    July 1, 2012, 4:30 pm

    Wish you could have included the “wanted” pic of him up when he was wanted as a terrorist by the Palestinian police pre 1948

  16. DICKERSON3870
    July 1, 2012, 4:39 pm

    RE: “There is a shameful statement by Hillary Clinton at the end of that piece. . . I know she’s a diplomat, but could she have kept her mouth shut on some of this?” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Hell no! Especially not during prime time for raising campaign contributions for the Obama reelection effort.

    AS TO HILLARY BEING A “DIPLOMAT”:
    “We came, we saw, he died.” ~ Hillary Clinton speaking to the press and referring to Gaddafi shortly after he had been extrajudicially sodomized and executed by a U.S.-supported militia
    Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died (VIDEO, 00:12) – link to youtube.com

    ALSO SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

    (excerpt) If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:
    When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger…”…

    SOURCE – link to theatlantic.com

  17. seafoid
    July 1, 2012, 4:46 pm

    “Shamir”, born in
    Europe , died in the Middle East.
    Bibi will be the other way around although he may pop his clogs in the US .

    • Dutch
      July 1, 2012, 7:04 pm

      Seafoid — We are keeping a nice little room for him in The Hague. Seasight, of course.

  18. ritzl
    July 1, 2012, 4:55 pm

    And the Emanuel connection to Lehi/Shamir? I can’t imagine a son of a member of a known terrorist group getting that close to the President if he was of any other ethnic group.

  19. braciole
    July 1, 2012, 5:21 pm

    William Hague must be really gutted – he can’t brown nose Washington or Tel Aviv over Shamir’s death ‘cos there are many in Britain who would object to any eulogy for such a terrorist. But then who really gives a toss what William Hague thinks.

    BTW, anybody who does eulogize Shamir should think carefully about visiting the United Kingdom as there might be some who make a complaint to the Police under the Terrorism Act 2006 against them.

  20. David Samel
    July 1, 2012, 5:27 pm

    The murder of Bernadotte was even more shameful because he was a hero of the Holocaust who saved tens of thousands of camp inmates, mostly women from Ravensbrouck, at the end of the war. Try to find information about him at any Holocaust Museum or in most books about the Holocaust. He´s been nearly wiped from history because he had the nerve to be assassinated by Shamir´s group. It´s disgraceful.

    • ColinWright
      July 2, 2012, 4:47 am

      Wasn’t there even an attempt to smear Bernadotte as anti-semitic?

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2012, 8:27 am

        Journalist and Lehi informant Baruch Nadel did. But the Jewish community in Stockholm and Gilel/Hilel Storch, director of the Jewish world congress in Sweden denied this.

  21. DICKERSON3870
    July 1, 2012, 5:51 pm

    RE: “Shamir ordered Bernadotte assassination to save Jerusalem for Jews. But will his obits tell you that?” ~ Weiss

    A NICE PHOTO of Yitzak Shamir mentoring his protégé – link to google.com

    P.S. I wonder if perhaps Yitzak Shamir (Icchak Yezernitsky) was a “natural born killer”!
    • Natural Born Killers (1994) HQ trailer [VIDEO, 01:46] – link to youtube.com

    P.P.S. I admit it. I’m somewhat infatuated with Juliette Lewis.
    Shhh! Please don’t tell on me!

  22. Daniel Rich
    July 1, 2012, 6:23 pm

    Q: There is a shameful statement by Hillary Clinton at the end of that piece.

    R: Be fair, Phil. She’s got in-laws to consider.

  23. gazacalling
    July 1, 2012, 7:22 pm

    Awesome post, great researching job, thanks for this.

  24. ToivoS
    July 1, 2012, 9:52 pm

    When I first became aware of the Wallenberg story it literally brought tears to my eyes. This wonderful man, as a Swedish diplomat, used his contacts in Budapest to save many thousands of Jews. Then he was caught up in the Stalinist gulag after the war and perished in one of their camps. The Israelis correctly gave them one of their highest honors, to a nonJew, as a rightest gentile.

    Bernodette also used his Swedish diplomatic cover to save Jews. But for him he happened to survive WWII. Because of his high credibility as an international humanist, he was awarded a high position in the UN to resolve the problem in Palestine. It is hard to imagine someone who was more neutral in the whole IP dispute. He came in and tried to find solution that accepted the rights of both sides.

    We now know that such a solution was not acceptable to the Zionist. They wanted the whole cake and a just solution was not on their agenda. Therefore they had to kill Bernodette. Shamir was the agent that ordered the assassination.

    To this day Bernodette has never been honored as a righteous gentile. No to this day the Zionist are trying to remove him from the pages of history. Now that his assassin, Shamir, has finally died the Zionist news sources are ignoring the role that this very honorable human being played in saving Jews during the holocaust. They ignore it through the very simple point of ignoring that Shamir was Bernodette’s assassin. One of these days both Stalin and Shamir will be considered evil forces that shaped 20th century life.

    • Citizen
      July 2, 2012, 5:50 am

      Wiki on Bernodette says Israel planted some trees in memorial of Bernodette in an attempt to ‘heal the wound’ with the Danes or Swedes, or both. It did not work. Jewish Virtual Library says:

      “When the IDF was established on May 31, 1948, Lehi was disbanded and its members enlisted in the IDF. Only in Jerusalem did Lehi remain an independent organization, arguing that at the time of the proclamation of independence the city’s fate had not yet been determined. On September 17, 1948, Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, a UN mediator, was assassinated in Jerusalem, and Lehi members were suspected. The government outlawed the organization’s branch in Jerusalem and shut down its publication, Hamivrak. The leaders of Lehi, Natan Yellin-Mor and Mattityahu Shmuelevitz, were sentenced to long jail terms by a military court, but were released in a general amnesty.

      Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry”

      • tree
        July 2, 2012, 2:19 pm

        The leaders of Lehi, Natan Yellin-Mor and Mattityahu Shmuelevitz, were sentenced to long jail terms by a military court, but were released in a general amnesty.

        The Israeli Foreign Ministry appears to be engaged in a bit of whitewashing. Compare the above description with this, according to Wikipedia, sourced to Joseph Heller’s 1995 book on the Stern Gang:

        Lehi was forcibly disarmed and many members were arrested, but nobody was charged with the killings. Yellin-Mor and another Lehi member, Schmuelevich, were charged with belonging to a terrorist organization. They were found guilty but immediately released and pardoned. Yellin-Mor had meanwhile been elected to the first Knesset.[48]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        So the long sentences meant absolutely nothing. Israel did little to find or punish the murderers. And the triggerman, Yehoshua Cohen, became a personal bodyguard to David Ben Gurion, who learned of his murder of Bernadotte at some point and did nothing.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • tree
        July 2, 2012, 2:42 pm

        More on the sentencing of Yellin-Mor:

        After the assassination in September 1948 of United Nations emissary Count Folke Bernadotte, he was arrested along with Lehi member Matityahu Shmuelevitch and charged with leadership of a terrorist organization.[6] They were found guilty on January 25, 1949, the day on which Yellin-Mor was elected to the Knesset.[7] On February 10, 1949, Yellin-Mor was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.[8][9] Though the court was confident that Lehi was responsible for Bernadotte’s death, it did not find sufficient evidence that the murder had been sanctioned by the Lehi leadership.[10][9] The court offered to release the defendants if they agreed to certain conditions that included forswearing underground activity and submitting to police supervision, but they rejected the offer.[9] However the Provisional State Council soon authorised their pardon.[11]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

    • SimoHurtta
      July 2, 2012, 8:24 am

      I watched on internet sites of some of the main Swedish newspapers. At the best they shortly mentioned only that Shamir died, not the bindings to the assassination. Well much of the Swedish media is owned by “the less neutral religious side”.

      If Bernadotte would have been assassinated by Arabs and the person responsible for the assassination would have now died, the Swedish media had not saved space, costs and energy in their “analysis”. Comparing the past decades media coverage of the disappearance of Raoul Wallenberg and the assassination of Folke Bernadotte would be an interesting academic research subject. Of Wallenberg has been written countless articles and speculations. Bernadotte’s role and killing has been effectively silenced.

      In Jerusalem is a Raoul Wallenberg street, but is there in Israel a street named after Folke Bernadotte? Several streets around Israel are named after his killers. Well using the Israeli “we are the victims” line they could say: Bernadotte forced us to kill him and that we can not forgive to Swedes.

      • lysias
        July 2, 2012, 10:50 am

        Folke Bernadotte was a member of the Swedish royal house. Amazing if the Swedish media ignore Shamir’s role in his assassination.

      • Stone
        July 5, 2012, 4:42 pm

        Yes, it is a shame. He was a great man(and one of the best of that illustrious family) but it is not surprising since the government has been taken over people who are very pro-Israel. The papers as well. For many years, the Swedish government under the leadership of the Social-democrats had quite frosty relations with the Israeli government largely because of this and the lack of justice for the killers. There was a great quote in Kati’s book about a meeting between the UN and Shamir. I forget the quote but Shamir or someone from his staff asked the UN(It might have been Brian Urquhart, in fact) how they should deal(communicate) with them and the UN person said something like “O, we know how you deal with us. Just ask Mr. Bernadotte.” That’s probably not that close but it was rapier-sharp nonetheless.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2012, 8:37 am

      Because of his high credibility as an international humanist, he was awarded a high position in the UN to resolve the problem in Palestine.

      Many people are not aware of the fact that Count Folke Bernadotte was not only the President of the Swedish Red Cross, but also the Chairman of the XVIIth ICRC Diplomatic Conference which authored and adopted the drafts of all four Geneva Conventions in August of 1948 shortly before his death. See the report of the 17th Red Cross Conference, Stockholm, August 1948, link to loc.gov

      To this day Bernodette has never been honored as a righteous gentile.

      Others are credited with saving Jews in the winter and spring of 1945, or worse still with letting Jews die without offering any assistance.

      Yad Vashem makes the white buses and ambulances the centerpiece of the story and downplays the importance of Bernadotte’s negotiations. They claim that the Nazi defeat had become inevitable.
      *http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/PikiWiki_Israel_12486_swedish_red_cross_bus_in_yad_vashem.jpg
      *http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/en-us/5880232_4027908.html

      • Shingo
        July 2, 2012, 10:15 am

        but also the Chairman of the XVIIth ICRC Diplomatic Conference which authored and adopted the drafts of all four Geneva Conventions in August of 1948 shortly before his death

        LOL. Zionist nutters are already convinced that the Geneva Conventions were created to attack Jews.

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 1:35 pm

        “Yad Vashem makes the white buses and ambulances the centerpiece of the story and downplays the importance of Bernadotte’s negotiations. They claim that the Nazi defeat had become inevitable.”

        The Nazi defeat indeed had become inevitable. But there was still plenty of time to die — and the circumstances of the moment meant that death had become more likely, not less.

  25. thankgodimatheist
    July 1, 2012, 10:10 pm

    Show me ONE Israeli leader past and present whose hands hasn’t been drenched with innocent blood!
    A nation drunken to murder!

  26. American
    July 1, 2012, 10:14 pm

    Shamir wasn’t different from the Israelis and Zios of todays. They kill anyone at the drop of hat, they attack friends as they did the USS Liberty, anyone, assassinations are the way of zio diplomacy.

    But I am curious and have asked this several times before and never gotten an answer…Why is it no one is assassinating Israelis or Zionist?

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2012, 7:53 pm

      Why is it no one is assassinating Israelis or Zionist?

      Because it’s one of their favorite national pastimes? See Nachman Ben-Yehuda, Political Assassinations by Jews: A Rhetorical Device for Justice, SUNY Press, 1993

      It contains the accounts of Shamir’s assassination of Giladi (who planned to kill Ben Gurion) and other Lehi murders, like the one committed against Israel Pritzker. link to books.google.com

  27. Boycott Israel on Campus
    July 1, 2012, 10:32 pm

    If not stopped, Israel will try to incinerate Palestine and Iran too:

    “The blood of 80 million Iranians”

    By Blaine Coleman
    ARAB AMERICAN NEWS
    June 30, 2012

    At: link to arabamericannews.com

  28. ssalbe
    July 1, 2012, 10:51 pm

    Interesting post Phillip, which I enjoyed reading. However I do think you should make it clear that the reticence of Haaretz to mention the Count Folke Bernadotte assassination is strictly for foreign (English language) consumption. The Hebrew media was not so coy. Haaretz itself as well as financial paper Calcalist of the Yedioth Acharonoth stable, Yisrael Hayom (Sheldon Adleson give-away freebie known as the Bibiton for its sole aim of supporting Netanyahu) and the settler voice Makor Rishon all alluded to the assassination in their Shamir death coverage.

  29. hophmi
    July 1, 2012, 11:11 pm

    It never fails to amaze me when people like you become pro-imperialist. Of course, the British press would say something like Shamir would be remembered principally as a terrorist. The British always refer to Irgun and Lehi leaders as terrorists because they were the mandatory power.

    It just goes to show what a stooge you are, Phil.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 2, 2012, 9:17 am

      “Of course, the British press would say something like Shamir would be remembered principally as a terrorist.”

      Yeah, I guess Phil forgot your bigoted rule, hoppy: If you’re talking about a Jew, he can never be a terrorist; if you’re talking about an Arab, he can never not be a terrorist. Got it.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 11:40 am

        Woody’s comments are beneath my response. As usual, they are hateful, untrue, and badly written.

        You know what the irony is?

        If this were the 1940s, I have little doubt that whole blog would have a big fan of Yitzhak Shamir and Lehi, because they were the most extreme of the extreme, and at that time, the left was on the side of the Jews rather than against them.

        Everyone here would have celebrated Irgun and Lehi as the freedom fighters they were (because the Palestinians, who do much worse, are considered freedom fighters to all of you). When Lehi disbanded, a lot of their rank became leftists, and some, like Shamir, went to the right.

        You would have celebrated them for throwing off the imperialist yoke of the British Empire, and criticized the Haganah, like you criticize the PA now, for compromising too much. Let’s not forget that Uri Avnery was a Irgunist.

        Folke Bernadotte was assassinated. Nobody hides from that. It would be nice if any of you admitted that his assassination was overwhelmingly condemned by Israel, instead of suggesting that everybody wanted him dead, or that there were a huge number of these political assassinations, or that political assassinations were somehow limited to the Israeli extremists of the 1940s. The extremists in Iraqi killed the UN rep also, except they took a couple dozen UN staffers with him. Abba Eban attended Bernadotte’s funeral as a representative of Israel, Lehi was forcibly disarmed after the attacks and many of its members arrested BY THE ISRAELIS. And contrary to the notion that Bernadotte is not commemorated in Israel, the JNF planted AN ENTIRE FOREST in his honor called Bernadotte Forest. The factual inaccuracies here are almost as bad as the hypocrisy.

        You should think about that irony as you continue here that you would almost certainly have been big Lehi fans back then.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 2, 2012, 12:17 pm

        “Woody’s comments are beneath my response.”

        LMAO. And yet you responded. (And in doing so you implicitly recognize the truth about your anti-Arab bigotry that we all see, that you repeatedly deny.)

        “If this were the 1940s, I have little doubt that whole blog would have a big fan of Yitzhak Shamir and Lehi, because they were the most extreme of the extreme, and at that time, the left was on the side of the Jews rather than against them.”

        LMAO. The issue isn’t the extremism, it’s what the extremism was put in the service of. In the ’40s, I would not have favored this thankfully now-dead terrorist, because he was fighting to take over the land from it’s rightful owners, the Palestinians. The fact that he was fighting Britain is irrelevant — they were both in the wrong and both deserved to be crushed.

        “the JNF planted AN ENTIRE FOREST in his honor called Bernadotte Forest. ”

        Let me guess: they transplanted European plants in the Middle East, and planted them atop an ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village.

      • Citizen
        July 2, 2012, 1:01 pm

        hophmi, didn’t you read this thread through? I already mentioned here that the Bernadotte Forest was planted by Israel in an attempt to heal the wound caused by the murder of Bernadotte. I don’t know if it still exists as such, do you? If so, source?

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 2:28 pm

        Hophmi:

        Given what you have to work with, the above isn’t bad.

        However, you ignore the fact that the Israelis failed to imprison Bernadotte’s killers for any length of time, failed to imprison Shamir, and in fact eventually made Shamir Prime Minister. You also reverse the rather conspicuous attempt by Israel to ignore Bernadotte’s role in saving concentration camp inmates (which, unusually, was actually successful).

        Nor were there a ‘huge number’ of assassinations of UN mediators. And in any case that others elsewhere in other places have also used assassination is hardly a sufficient defense.

        …and so on. Nice try, but it’s really impossible to defend the indefensible.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2012, 3:36 pm

        “If this were the 1940s, I have little doubt that whole blog would have a big fan of …”

        Ah, the omniscience granted by Ziocaine! Is there anything Hophmi doesn’t know when he’s on a Ziocaine jag. And then, the deep refreshing sleep of the just barely sentient, and tomorrow, the blessed Ziocaine amnesia. Time to go back and do it all over again!

      • tree
        July 2, 2012, 4:50 pm

        Everyone here would have celebrated Irgun and Lehi as the freedom fighters they were (because the Palestinians, who do much worse, are considered freedom fighters to all of you).

        Your bigotry and double standard is showing again, hophmi. Palestinian terrorists have killed innocent women and children. Lehi and Irgun killed innocent women and children. The Jewish terrorist groups killed Palestinian civilians in markets and shops and hotels and trains and slaughtered unarmed women and children in Deir Yassin and elsewhere.

        There are no “Palestinians, who do much worse”. In your head you excuse an action when its done by Jews and condemn the same action done by Palestinians. That’s why everyone here with an ounce of sense can see your bigotry.

        You are engaging in projection here. You certainly would have supported the Irgun and Lehi if you’d been around at the time. You only condemn them in retrospect, and still applaud leaders like Ben Gurion, who was responsible for far more death and destruction than the Irgun or Lehi. The Haganah and Palmach committed just as many massacres as did the smaller groups, they just had the convenient cover of war while they did it.

        It would be nice if any of you admitted that his assassination was overwhelmingly condemned by Israel…

        The leadership “condemned” it, but did little to prosecute those who committed murder, as I have shown above. Arresting people only to pardon them after convictions does not indicate an “overwhelming” condemnation, but rather a duplicitous act.

        As another example of ben Gurion’s and the Haganah’s duplicity, with regards to terrorism:

        On December 29, 1947, ETZEL [Irgun] had staged a bomb attack at the Nablus Gate of Jerusalem’s Old City which killed or wounded forty-four people. On the morning of the following day, Tuesday, December 30, 1947, ETZEL operatives threw bombs from a speeding car into a crowd of several hundred Arabs standing outside the main gate of the Haifa oil refinery in the hope of finding employment as day laborers; six people were killed and forty-two wounded. ETZEL would later announce, quite unapologetically, that these acts of terrorism in
        Jerusalem and Haifa had been carried out in retaliation for recent attacks on Jews elsewhere in Palestine.

        Within minutes of the bomb attack at the Haifa refinery gate, some of the Arabs who had been part of the crowd outside surged into the refinery compound and, along with some of the Arab refinery workers, began
        attacking Jewish refinery workers. An hour passed before British soldiers and police arrived to restore order, by which time forty-one Jews had been killed and forty-nine wounded. This was the largest and most brutal
        massacre of civilians which Palestine had witnessed since the UN vote a month earlier. A committee of inquiry appointed by Haifa’s Jewish community concluded that the massacre of Jews at the refinery was
        unpremeditated and that it had been precipitated by the ETZEL attack on the workers outside the gate.[43]

        The Jewish Agency, the official leadership of the Yishuv, promptly denounced ETZEL for the “act of madness” which had brought about the catastrophe at the Haifa refinery, but it simultaneously decided to emulate ETZEL by secretly authorizing the Hagana to retaliate. A day after the refinery massacre, members of the Hagana’s elite strike force, the PALMAH, attacked the village of Balad al-Shaykh not far from Haifa, where a number of Arab refinery workers lived, and nearby Hawasa as well. (The Nesher cement factory, where as we have seen the issue of Hebrew labor surfaced so contentiously in the 1920s and 1930s, was located near Balad al-Shaykh, and the village’s cemetery contained the tomb of Shaykh ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam, whose death in a gunfight with police had made him a nationalist martyr and would set the stage for the outbreak of the 1936–39 revolt.) The Jewish attackers killed some sixty men, women, and children and destroyed several dozen houses. The contrast between the Yishuv leadership’s official stance and its actual response to the refinery massacre was not lost on many Arabs. When Eli-yahu Agassi visited Haifa early in April 1948, an Arab worker berated him: “We know you Jews: you preach one thing and practice another. What was the crime of the Arab workers at Hawasa and Balad al-Shaykh whom your people attacked at night and slaughtered?”[44]

        link to intersci.ss.uci.edu

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 5:11 pm

        You know what the irony is?

        That the official journal of Lehi, He Khazit (The Front ) carried an article attributed by many scholars to Shamir himself* titled “Terror” which admitted that Lehi was a terror organization – and that you are nonetheless bitching about Phil pointing out that fact.

        The article predictably cited scriptural references to Amelek to justify genocide:

        Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all.

        – He Khazit, Issue 2, August 1943.
        link to upload.wikimedia.org
        link to upload.wikimedia.org

        *See for example Isaiah Berlin, Personal Impressions, Viking, 1981, page 50 and Noam Chomsky, “International Terrorism: Image and Reality”, in Alexander George (ed.), Western State Terrorism, Routledge, December, 1991

      • lyn117
        July 3, 2012, 2:09 am

        “If this were the 1940s, I have little doubt that whole blog would have a big fan of Yitzhak Shamir and Lehi…”

        Well, certain leftists of that period, namely Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, clearly called Shamir’s organization fascist.

        As for the JNF planting a forest named after him, that’s a totally cynical of the JNF, to plant trees covering up Palestinian villages and stipulate that only Jews can use the land they acquired from “absentee owners” when Bernadotte himself advocated the return of refugees.

        PS I can’t find this forest named after Bernadotte using google. I wonder if it exists at all.

    • Sumud
      July 2, 2012, 11:49 am

      Hilarious hophmi.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 12:04 pm

        Hey Sumud,

        The sad part is that it’s all true, and most of you do not possess the sense of irony to understand why.

      • Sumud
        July 2, 2012, 12:20 pm

        Don’t flatter yourself hophmi, you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.

        Zionists opposing the British in the 1940s had nothing to do with anti-colonialism or anti-imperialism. They wanted to supplant one colonial power and replace it with another.

        Palestinians wanted neither.

        Israel’s “War of Independence” is a bogus hasbara term designed to conceal the colonial conquest of Palestine by zionists. If rejecting that fabricated history means I have no sense of “irony”, that’s fine with me. I couldn’t care less…

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 2:33 pm

        The sad part is that it’s all true…

        The sad part is that it’s all irrelevant. It is of course speculative what all the posters here would have thought had they been alive in 1947-8, and actually I don’t think your assumptions are particularly likely — but why would it matter?

        Would proto-Weiss’ defence somehow have made Israel’s position valid? I can argue that had you been born a German gentile in 1925, you would have supported Hitler — but that doesn’t validate Naziism.

    • ColinWright
      July 2, 2012, 1:38 pm

      ? Shamir was a terrorist and the Irgun and Lehi leaders were terrorists. How is saying so ‘pro-imperialist’?

    • MRW
      July 2, 2012, 1:54 pm

      Ben Gurion called the Irgun and Lehi leaders “terrorists.” My source? The person Ben Gurion said it to. Ben Gurion despised Menachem Begin. Just despised him. Shamir too. Ben Gurion called Ariel Sharon a “gangster.”

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 2:39 pm

        Well, Ben Gurion also personally congratulated Sharon for having carried out a particularly large and indiscriminate slaughter of Jordanian villagers in a cross-border raid in 1948-49.

        It doesn’t end. You can’t find ‘good Zionists’ by going back far enough. The concept that the Jews had a right to Palestine was implicitly criminal from the start.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 3:39 pm

        That’s my point. Irgun and especially Lehi were outliers in the Yishuv. They were not part of the mainstream. A lot of Jews center and center-left referred to Begin and his ilk as terrorists back then. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have not learned from this lesson, partly because terrorist organizations within the West Bank and Gaza are not outliers, but the mainstream.

        So to write as if the Bernadotte assassination was an “Israeli” thing, as if Ben-Gurion ordered it, is to distort history.

        To complain that American leaders won’t eulogize Shamir by talking about Bernadotte is silly and childish. When Arafat died, President Bush didn’t go into the PLO’s long history of murder.

        But should also teach you that terrorists can reform themselves into respectable political leaders. One day, perhaps a former Palestinian terrorist like Marwan Barghouti or some young Hamas leader we don’t know about, will do a good job governing a state of Palestine, and when he dies, perhaps an American President will have fond words to say about him too.

      • Philip Weiss
        July 2, 2012, 3:59 pm

        hops, later i was thinking, one reason shamir got to be p.m. is that folks knew that about him and approved. like menachem/irgun. in its obit of shamir, nyt says labor held his terrorism against him, but how much did that hurt him? i think it helped.
        because you’re a fairminded liberal i bet you woulda been with labor. just as stuart levey in his harvard thesis was fearful of kahane’s gorwing influence, circa 1985. this is a fearful trend in israeli society and will hurt the brand overseas. he reasoned… well how are you doing? as ed koch would say. those liberal voices have lost again and again, and that’s why i think you have to wonder, Is it in the water?

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 2, 2012, 4:10 pm

        “Unfortunately, the Palestinians have not learned from this lesson,”

        What lesson? For the Jews, terrorism paid off. The Jewish terrorists pre-1948 were successful in killing a lot of Palestinians and stealing their land. May the Palestinians have the same level of success in getting their land back.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 4:52 pm

        “hops, later i was thinking, one reason shamir got to be p.m. is that folks knew that about him and approved. like menachem/irgun. in its obit of shamir, nyt says labor held his terrorism against him, but how much did that hurt him? i think it helped.”

        Who knows? I think the same hard-headedness that must have made him an effective guerrilla leader probably made him a good politician.

        But a lot of it was luck. Shamir was mostly in the right place at the right time. He had no PM aspirations, and Begin anointed him successor when he left office in 1983.

        “because you’re a fairminded liberal i bet you woulda been with labor.”

        That’s my guess as well, and I probably would have been unhappy with things like Deir Yassin and the assassination of UN officials, just as I am today, and I probably would have nodded if I saw Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein’s ad in the NY Times condemning Begin.

        With the benefit of history, I see something positive in the fact that people like Begin and Shamir did reform over time, and thus, unlike some people I grew up with, I can imagine a Palestinian state where former terrorists can govern, and the past can be the past, to be looked upon with a mixture of adulation at the intensity of the freedom fighter, a condemnation of his excess, and a happiness that he is no longer necessary.

        You know how history works. Men like Begin grab the headlines with outrageousness. Bigger men like Ben-Gurion detest their actions but use them as a warning as to what can happen if the political process does not work. The problem with the Palestinians is not the lack of a Gandhi. It’s the lack of a Ben-Gurion and too many Begins and Shamirs. Arafat tried to be Ben-Gurion and Begin at the same time, and at crucial moments, the Begin side won out.

        “just as stuart levey in his harvard thesis was fearful of kahane’s gorwing influence, circa 1985. this is a fearful trend in israeli society and will hurt the brand overseas.”

        I don’t think it’s true to say that the liberals have always lost. Shamir was perhaps the most right-wing PM in Israel’s history. He was in office for 6 years. After he retired, he joined National Union. What happened in 1992? Yitzhak Rabin was elected, and Labor came to power. It’s possible. What happens is that the liberals are always caught in the middle, particularly in a polarized world, because they always see the complexity while the extremes see the simplicity. And of course, to see complexity is seen as weakness, and in decisionmaking, often can become weakness. The lesson of modern media is that simple will win out over complex every time.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 4:54 pm

        “What lesson? For the Jews, terrorism paid off. ”

        Then you are as stupid as they are.

        Terrorism didn’t pay off for the Jews. What got the Jews their state was preparation and planning, not killing civilians. When the British left, Ben-Gurion was ready to run the country and ready to go to war, and the Arabs were disorganized.

      • ColinWright
        July 3, 2012, 12:29 am

        “Terrorism didn’t pay off for the Jews. What got the Jews their state was preparation and planning, not killing civilians…”

        Nonsense. Terror cleared the land in 1948. As the Zionists had discovered over the twenty preceding years, the Palestinians were almost immovable by any other means. Absent terror, Jews would still be confined to the 5-7% of Palestine they had managed to acquire by other means by 1947.

      • lyn117
        July 3, 2012, 1:52 am

        “What got the Jews their state was preparation and planning, not killing civilians. ”

        Ignoring Deir Yassein and the threats made by Jewish terrorists to mass murder civilians all over Palestine, aren’t you? Without which, there wouldn’t have been a Jewish majority in “greenline” Israel.

      • Shingo
        July 3, 2012, 1:57 am

        Absent terror, Jews would still be confined to the 5-7% of Palestine they had managed to acquire by other means by 1947.

        Very true.

        Add to that, absent terror, Jews would be a minority in Israel. There wouldn’t be much chance of claiming to be a Jewish state.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 3, 2012, 8:34 am

        “Then you are as stupid as they are.”

        LOL. Coming from a moronic bigot, like you, that’s virtually a compliment.

        “Terrorism didn’t pay off for the Jews. What got the Jews their state was preparation and planning, not killing civilians.”

        What got them their state was the terrorism in ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their rightful ownership of the land, to make way for people who are strangers to the land. (Unless you’re claim is that the Jews tortured and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their land for fun…)

      • hophmi
        July 3, 2012, 10:32 am

        “Ignoring Deir Yassein and the threats made by Jewish terrorists to mass murder civilians all over Palestine, aren’t you?”

        You mean the threats by Palestinian leaders to kill Jews wherever they were found?

        You mean the massacres of Jews in the Old City and around the Jerusalem area?

        No, I’m not ignoring any of that like you are. I’m not ignoring Deir Yassin either, or the fact that I don’t know many wars in which there haven’t been excesses of some kind.

        But if you going to actually argue that a single massacre was responsible for the flight of 600,000 people, then you are making my point for me – the Arabs were disorganized, and didn’t think beyond throwing the Jews into the sea. The Jews had something to fight for; the Arabs, something to fight against in the Arab pursuit of racial and ethnic purity in the region.

      • Denis
        July 3, 2012, 11:55 am

        “When the British left, . . .”

        How duplicitous can a terrorist-lover get? Nothing like those 4-letter euphemisms. By “left” you mean when the Brits had been run out by the terrorists, just the way the US has been run out of Vietnam and Iraq, and the way the Russia and the US have been run out of Afghanistan.

        I remember so well listening to a friend who had served in Palestine as a solider in the British Army during the Zio-terroist years describing the horrors perpetrated by the Jews against the British and the Arabs. Bombs thrown into cafes, soldiers and civilians getting their throats cut while strolling along a sidewalk, & etc. Begin’s terrorism brought to Palestine, IOW.

        And I remember thinking: Now, here’s a guy that really does have a reason to hate Jews. And he did, too, in the same sad way and for the same sad reasons some VN vets hate all Vietnamese and some Iraq vets hate all Iraqis.

        The really hard part is to resist the temptation to over-generalize the justified loathing that violent Zionists like Shamir, Sharon, Begin, & Bibi inspire. It’s particularly hard for gentiles who don’t have Jewish friends, and this scares me a little bit as the anti-Zionist movement picks up momentum in the US and Europe.

      • hophmi
        July 3, 2012, 2:19 pm

        “What got them their state was the terrorism in ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from their rightful ownership of the land, to make way for people who are strangers to the land. (Unless you’re claim is that the Jews tortured and ethnically cleansed the Palestinians from their land for fun…)”

        Again, you’re entitled to think what you want.

        The United States of America would not have come into existence without the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans. It also would not be what it is today without the Constitution and the melting pot character of the character of the country. It’s no different with Israel. Israel would have had a harder time, given that the Partition Plan left them with a Jewish state that included 400,000 Arabs on land much less than what the Balfour Declaration had promised, creating a stable state without the territorial gains of the 1948 War and the exodus of Palestinians between 1947 and 1948, regardless of the reasons for the exodus. It also would not be what it is today without strong leaders like Ben-Gurion, free elections, a free press, its own melting pot culture, and its intellectual capital.

        The world takes notice when countries are successful and contribute something. The Jews, welfare case that we were after the war, did not sit on the world’s dole and complain about being refugees. They formed a state with functioning institutions and made an attempt to include the Palestinian Arabs in it. The Arab states were not inclined to let that happen, and this is what happened.

        The West will never agree to contribute to breaking up a successful state like Israel in order to incorporate a maybe-state like Palestine. They will never support an unwarranted, poison pill “right of return” that violates the spirit of UNSC 242, for people who have been warring with Israel for years and years. They’re just not going to take possible destabilization over stabilization, particularly now that the region is more volatile than it was before.

        In the last 64 years, Israel has been a miracle in every meaningful sense, developing into a first world country with a liberal democracy, defying every prediction that it would collapse under the weight of the region, under the weight of its internal contradictions as a secular state with a large religious population, that it could not incorporate millions upon millions of poor Jewish refugees, and so on.

        The Palestinians are only now learning through technocratic leaders like Salam Fayyad, that you can actually gain some international sympathy that is more than surface-deep if you actually look like you have some chance of good governance once you have a state.

        The world is more complex than you think it is, Woody.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 3, 2012, 3:28 pm

        Hoppy, your statement is long on nonsense and short on facts.

        Whether israel would have been what it is today if history had been different is irrelevant. The only point is that israel is what it is today because of the terrorism of the Jews against the Palestinians. That is undeniable, even with your Nakba-denial. (Which is as evil and pernicious as Holocaust denial)

        “the Partition Plan left them with a Jewish state that included 400,000 Arabs on land much less than what the Balfour Declaration had promised,”

        The Balfour Declaration promised the Jews no state at all. Only a “national home.” No one knows what that meant, but it didn’t mean “state.” Further, the UK had no right to give away Palestine to a bunch of European Jews — the vast majority of whom had no connection whatsoever to the land in question, save for the fact that they liked some ancient myths set there.

        “They formed a state with functioning institutions and made an attempt to include the Palestinian Arabs in it.”

        That’s a load of garbage. They held the Palestinians who were in israel under marital law until 1966. The Jews of Palestine have sought nothing but institution of a racist state and to steal someone else’s land from the beginning. Nothing else is evident.

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2012, 3:48 pm

        The world takes notice when countries are successful and contribute something.

        Even in the pre-Avigdor Lieberman era, the MFA reported that other countries had taken notice of Israel:

        Israel is set on a collision course with the EU and could turn into a pariah state, on a par with South Africa during the apartheid years, if the conflict with the Palestinians is not resolved, Israel’s foreign ministry has warned.

        In a confidential 10-year forecast obtained by the Associated Press, the ministry’s Centre for Political Research said the EU is pushing to become a major global player in the next decade, and that as a result the US, Israel’s main ally, could lose international influence. If the 25-member EU overcomes internal divisions and speaks in one voice, its global influence would grow considerably, and be more in line with its powerful economy, analysts wrote. Europe is Israel’s major trading partner.

        Israel could become pariah state, warns report link to guardian.co.uk

      • Citizen
        July 4, 2012, 7:45 am

        hophmi, yes, the world is more complex than you think it is, for example, no Jewish state was contemplated by those involved in Balfour; in fact such a notion was expressly ruled out; in effect, the Jewish Zionists were overruled in that matter:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        It’s also clear the two Jewish Zionists very close to Wilson and those Jews who were leaders in the Russian Revolution were keys the Brits used (along with the economic power of, e.g., Rothschild) to break the WW1 stalemate on the battleground.

        Versailles led directly to WW2.

        American ethnic cleansing of the natives ended before the 20th Century. International law was created as the result of WW1 & WW2, especially the curbs put on all sovereign states in the laws applied at Nuremberg.

        Israel was created as a state after this time, not before it. Unlike the Americans treatment of the natives, Israel’s conduct has always been subject to international law, and indeed, that law was a condition precedent and/or subsequent to Israel’s acceptance as a sovereign nation into the community of nations.

        And, prior thereto Balfour Declaration specifically gave the Zionist Jews a “homeland,” within the Mandate land on condition no rights of the non-Jewish population of that land would be harmed.

      • proudzionist777
        July 4, 2012, 9:47 am

        Woody said, “The Balfour Declaration promised the Jews no state at all. Only a “national home.”

        Yet, in a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”
        Peace to End All Peac, David Fromkin cited to Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Companion Volume, Vol. 4, Part3: April 1921-November 1922, p. 1559.(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975)

        Also, it was clear at the time that the term “national home” really meant a state. Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state.” See,Ronald Sanders book, High Walls of Jerusalem, p.652.

        As far as the United States interpretation of “national home”, a U.S. intelligence recommendations drafted for President Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” See, J.C. Hurewitz (ed.),The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol.2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979, p. 132-36.

      • Shingo
        July 4, 2012, 8:24 pm

        Yet, in a private conversation at Balfour’s House in the summer of 1921, both Balfour and the Prime Minister contradicted him [Churchill] and told Churchill that “by the Declaration they always meant an eventual Jewish State.”

        And yet on October 31, 1917, when the BalfourDeclaration came before the War Cabinet,Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state.
        See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

        Also, it was clear at the time that the term “national home” really meant a state

        Actually it wasn’t, which is why they used the term “national home” as opposed to “homeland”.

        During the Versailles Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing specifically asked Dr. Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann” replied in the negative.” and provided an explanation which ruled-out any possibility of Jewish minority rule over the non-Jewish population under the terms of the proposed Mandate.
        See the “The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, page 169 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919.

        Back in 1917, three months after his declaration was issued, Lord Balfour confessed:

        Ballfour’s letter was not his policy, but that of the British government. What Balfour himself may or may not have wanted is irrelevant. He obviously didn’t have the guits to say this in public.

        resident Wilson at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference reported that: “It will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish State as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”

        The funniest thing of all is that the US was not even a member of the League of Nations. When Truman was presented with the letter drafted to admit Israel as a memeber at the UN, he put a line through the term “Jewish State” and replaced it with Israel.

      • proudzionist777
        July 5, 2012, 5:32 pm

        @Shingo

        Is it possible that HMG’s promise of a Jewish State in Palestine was a lie?
        Is it possible that HMG lied to the French, to Hussein, to the League of Nations about their Britain’s imperial designs in the region?

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 5, 2012, 6:16 pm

        First, pudracist666, there was no promise of a state. And even if there were, the UK had no title to the Palestinian land in order to promise it to a violent horde of alien Jewish terrorists from Europe who had no connection to the land of Palestine save for an attachment to fairy stories and myths which were set there thousands of years ago.

      • mig
        July 5, 2012, 6:34 pm

        proudwhatever777:

        Is it possible that HMG’s promise of a Jewish State in Palestine was a lie?

        Yes, because HMG didn’t promise such a thing.

        Is it possible that HMG lied to the French, to Hussein, to the League of Nations about their Britain’s imperial designs in the region?

        To them all. Welcome to the world of politics. Have a seat and buckle up. Its gonna be a rough ride.

      • Shingo
        July 5, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Is it possible that HMG’s promise of a Jewish State in Palestine was a lie?

        Everything is possible, based on the evidence and their actions? No.

        Is it possible that HMG lied to the French, to Hussein, to the League of Nations about their Britain’s imperial designs in the region?

        Everything is possible, based on the evidence and their actions? No.

        On the other hand, it’s certain that the Jewish Agency had no intention of honoring the partition or adhereing to the terms of the Mandate an that the ethnic cleasing of Palestine was planned all along.

      • hophmi
        July 6, 2012, 10:51 am

        We’re gonna have this argument again. The British promised the Jews a state. The whole world understood it that way. What the heck does national home mean, otherwise?

        The US may not have been a member of the League of Nations that was the brainchild of President Wilson but was opposed by Henry Cabot Lodge, but what Wilson said obviously is important.

        The British, would always placed the sides against the middle, also made their share of promises to the Arabs.

      • Bumblebye
        July 6, 2012, 11:09 am

        The British made vague promises of a “national home”.
        What is it about zionism that so addles the brains of the afflicted?

      • Blake
        July 6, 2012, 11:10 am

        Hophmi: “Britain had no moral or legal or legal right to promise the land that belonged to the Arabs to another people so the Balfour Declaration was both immoral and illegal.” – Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian.

      • Mooser
        July 6, 2012, 11:13 am

        “The British promised the Jews a state. The whole world understood it that way.”

        The who? The “British”? You mean that second-rate, used-up, has-been colonialist and mercantile nation, which doesn’t mean squat to anybody anymore, except as a source of insulting aristocratic stereo types?
        That “the British”? Screw them, what they say doesn’t mean squat, and you know it.

      • Blake
        July 6, 2012, 11:17 am

        Hophmi, I may also add that Palestinians were not disorganized.

        Avi Shlaim, Israeli historian: “The battle for Palestine for the Palestinians was not lost in 1948 but in the late 1930’s because Britain completely smashed to the ground the Arab revolt/forces.”

        Ilan Pappe, Israeli historian: “From 1939 there was no Palestinian leadership on the ground, they had all been forced into exile, and this is probably one of the reasons which contributed to what happened in 1948.”

        The British put thousands of Palestinians in concentration camps.

        British spared no effort to disarm the Palestinian people and the search for weapons was intensive. If they found even an empty cartridge in a home they would blow the whole house up. They would prosecute anyone who owned a single bullet. While the British disarmed the Palestinians they allowed Jews to carry arms claiming that Jews were a minority who needed to defend themselves.

        The crucial British accomplishment was allowing Jews to have their own army. Hagannah even had it’s own air force.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 6, 2012, 11:35 am

        “The British promised the Jews a state.”

        No, they didn’t. Nor did they have the right to promise someone else’s land to a people who were strangers to that land.

        “The whole world understood it that way.”

        No, they didn’t.

        “What the heck does national home mean, otherwise?”

        It could mean any number of things. Since the British were, at the time or in the past, sovereign power over many other peoples’ “national homes” (such as in India, Ireland, Canada, Australia, various bits and pieces around the world, all governed from London), the most likely scenario is that they envisioned these alien Jews to act as the British’s bully-boys and thugs for use to keep the true owners of the land, the Palestinians, in line, while the UK ruled over all of them.

        Further, the idea that, in the ‘teens, that the UK had any interest in having any independent, sovereign Jewish-run state in this area, which could challenge the UK’s control of the Suez Canal – the UK’s vital link to the crown of the Empire, India — is idiocy. The Brits may have thought it wise to import a horde of foreign Jews to help control the native Arab population, but so long as the British were maintaining their position in India, there was simply no way that they were going to turn this strategically vital land over to anybody, let alone the zionists.

        The only reason they gave up their mandate in the 1940s was because they were giving up India. If they had dug in their heels in India, the land would probably still be under British control as a mandate, even to this day.

      • Hostage
        July 6, 2012, 12:20 pm

        We’re gonna have this argument again. The British promised the Jews a state. The whole world understood it that way. What the heck does national home mean, otherwise?

        Then you’re gonna loose the very same argument again.

        The oldest US publication devoted exclusively to world affairs, Current History was founded by The New York Times in 1914 to provide detailed coverage of what was then known as the Great War.
        link to currenthistory.com
        Current History, Volume 13, 1921 reported:

        The publication on Feb. 4 of the mandate over Palestine allotted to Great Britain by the Supreme Council of the Allies at San Remo threw a flood of light upon a hitherto dark spot of diplomacy and straightened out a question which was rapidly becoming involved in serious complications. The text embodies, aside from the articles of procedure, the famous San Remo resolution and the no less famous Balfour declaration. Although approved by the Supreme Council at San Remo it has yet to be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. It makes it clear that while the mandatary is expected to establish “a national home for the Jewish people” it is not the intention to create a “Jewish State,” as had been charged in certain quarters.

        The authors of the Balfour Declaration employed the circumlocution “national home for the Jewish people”, not “homeland”. Many, if not most, Jews (including several Cabinet Ministers) were non-Zionists who did not fancy Palestine as their homeland. They insisted that the Declaration contain a safeguarding clause with respect to the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Supporters claimed that “a national home” didn’t mean a state or autonomous government. For example, Lord Cromer thought it would only be a symbolic spiritual center and a reservoir of Jewish culture.

        A week before the Balfour Declaration was released, Privy Council President Lord Curzon, War Cabinet Secretary Hankey, and Secretary of State for India Montagu wrote memorandums explaining that the term “Jewish National Home” had no agreed upon meaning to Jews or supporters of the Zionist movement. See CAB 24/30, “The Future of Palestine” (Former Reference: GT 2406), 26 October 1917; CAB 24/4, “The Zionist Movement”(Former Reference: G 164), 17 October 1917; and CAB 24/28 (Former Reference: GT 2263) “Zionism, 9 October 1917.

        On October 31, 1917, when the Balfour Declaration came before the War Cabinet, Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state. See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

        In 1919 the General Secretary and future President of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference. That same year Longmans, Green, and Company published his “History of Zionism (1600–1918) Volume I”. On pages xxiv–xxv he explained:

        The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.” . . . It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent “Jewish State” But this is fallacious. The “Jewish State” was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.

        link to books.google.com

      • Shingo
        July 6, 2012, 6:57 pm

        The British made vague promises of a “national home”.
        What is it about zionism that so addles the brains of the afflicted?

        Yes, they all seem to suffer from collective dyslexia. They will harp on about “states” and “homeland” and then cite the Bafour Devlaration (which only mentions a national home) as evidence.

        Even more amusing is their insistence that the Jewish State or right to all of Palesrine is enshrined in San Remo and LON, while never being able to cite a single sentence to that effect. They will use vague arguments about de jure statements.

        But as we see with their tortured interpretations of these statements and UNSC242, declarations and resolutions never say what they mean or mean what thy say.

      • Shingo
        July 6, 2012, 7:05 pm

        The Brits may have thought it wise to import a horde of foreign Jews to help control the native Arab population, but so long as the British were maintaining their position in India, there was simply no way that they were going to turn this strategically vital land over to anybody, let alone the zionists.

        Good observation. In 1907, British Prime Minister, Campbell Bannerman announced that  it would be important to establish as strong foreign presence close to the point where the Mediterranean was linked with the Red Sea.

        “We should  install in this region, near the Suez Canal, a force hostile to the people of the country, and friendly to the  European countries.”

      • Blake
        July 7, 2012, 12:41 pm

        Bloody well said there shingo. That is exactly how they are!

    • tree
      July 2, 2012, 2:49 pm

      The British always refer to Irgun and Lehi leaders as terrorists because they were the mandatory power.

      It just goes to show what a stooge you are, Phil.

      So is your point that Lehi and Irgun were NOT terrorist organizations? That they did not commit violence for political ends? That they did not commit violence against civilians? Because both of those assertions would be lies. Why point out that the British referred to the two organizations as “terrorist” when the label fits perfectly no matter who is wielding it? Unless you are engaging in apologetics… oh wait, who am I addressing? Apologetics on behalf of Israel is your sole function here.

      I think you need to look in the mirror to find the stooge, hophmi.

      • Keith
        July 2, 2012, 11:31 pm

        TREE- “…oh wait, who am I addressing? Apologetics on behalf of Israel is your sole function here.”

        Yes, you have captured the essence of Hophmi. An Alan Dershowitz wannabe.

      • hophmi
        July 3, 2012, 10:34 am

        “So is your point that Lehi and Irgun were NOT terrorist organizations? ”

        I think they were. Do you? Hamas has done much worse in its day, and most people here don’t seem to refer to them as a terrorist organization.

        “I think you need to look in the mirror to find the stooge, hophmi.”

        Not at all. If you stand up for the British Empire in the Palestine Mandate, you’re the stooge.

      • Mooser
        July 6, 2012, 11:20 am

        “Not at all. If you stand up for the British Empire in the Palestine Mandate, you’re the stooge.”

        Gee, wasn’t it just a few comments ago you predicated your entire schtick on “The British promised the Jews a state. The whole world understood it that way.”?

        Poor Hophmi! Apparently I never realised the seriousness of the Ziocaine syndrome. I guess the reactionary amnesia starts occurring sooner and sooner. You used to at least be able to get through one thread, sorta.

        BTW, folks, a very interesting conclusion about Hophmi’s profession and hours of employment can be extrapolated simply by compiling the time stamp on his comments.

    • piotr
      July 2, 2012, 9:39 pm

      “Imperialist” obituary: link to guardian.co.uk

  30. proudzionist777
    July 2, 2012, 7:23 am

    In 1947-8 HMG secretly colluded with the Arab States to invade and destroy the infant State of Israel. See the collected works of Professor Meir Zamir.

    Following HMG’s well worn divide and conquer ‘formula’, HMG’s destruction of Israel followed two possible tracks; the Syrian and Iraqi track and the Egyptian and Jordanian track. Initially, HMG favored the Syrian track, but intervening circumstances led her to finally favor the Egyptian-Jordan track.

    The Bernadotte plan must then be viewed as an attempt to appease British wishes, and presumably those of the Iraqis and Syrians. Egypt and Jordan opposed the plan, even though it did not call for a Jewish state, and Egypt, Jordan and the Maronites even expressed some willingness to come to terms with the partition plan.

    Was Count Bernardotte a British puppet? Quite probably.

    • Shingo
      July 2, 2012, 10:25 am

      In 1947-8 HMG secretly colluded with the Arab States to invade and destroy the infant State of Israel

      No you idiot, they struck an agreement with Jordan that the Arad Legion was to enter Palestine only, but stop at the border of the Jewish territory.

      The British had concluded a deal with the Zionists that there would be no confrontation between the Jordanian Arab army and the Jewish forces. This is why Glubb later called the ’48 war, the phony war.

      • proudzionist777
        July 2, 2012, 5:41 pm

        Yes Shingo. I’m an idiot.

        Still, Efraim Karsh, in his book Fabricating Zionist History, completely destroys Avi Shlaim’s baseless contention that there was ” Collusion Across the Jordan” between King Hussein and the Zionists.

        Read Meir Zamir and than tell me again why I’m an idiot.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 11:21 pm

        Still, Efraim Karsh, in his book Fabricating Zionist History, completely destroys Avi Shlaim’s baseless contention that there was ” Collusion Across the Jordan” between King Hussein and the Zionists.

        There isn’t the slightest bit of doubt that Abdullah colluded with the Jewish Agency against their wartime enemy, the former Mufti. He also advised the Agency of his plans to occupy the territory of the West Bank adjacent to Transjordan no later than 8 May 1948. Shlaim originally concluded that Abdullah had betrayed the Palestinians, but there’s really no evidence to support that part of his thesis. The Legion certainly did not betray the Arab cause in the clashes with the Jewish militias in Jerusalem and elsewhere outside the proposed Jewish state.

        Karsh wouldn’t touch the documentary evidence contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States with a barge pole, because it explodes his pet theories. Secretary of state Marshall documented Shertok’s discussion of a cable that he received which outlined a modus vivendi agreement between the Haganah and Col. Desmond Goldie, assistant to Brigadier Glubb commander of the Arab Legion to coordinate their operations and avoid clashes that the small Arab Legion could ill afford:

        I have just completed a lengthy meeting with Moshe Shertok of Jewish Agency who has left for New York by air and flies to Palestine tonight. Shertok, in reporting a conversation he had just had with Creech Jones, had gained the definite impression (which was apparently strongly influencing Jewish Agency attitude) that Abdullah would move his Arab Legion into Palestine but would occupy only the Arab section and not the presently defined limits of the proposed Jewish state. Shertok said that Creech Jones predicted that the Jews would have their Jewish state on May 15; and stated that the United Kingdom is anxious not to permit a general invasion of Palestine, but that he (Creech Jones) believed that Abdullah would not commit aggression against the Jews and asked Shertok whether that would not suit the Jewish Agency.

      • proudzionist777
        July 3, 2012, 4:47 pm

        Prior to Israel’s War of Independence, there were negotiations between Abdullah and the Zionists on two separate occasions . There was never a meeting of the minds; Abdullah wanted a Zionist autonomy, not a State for the Jews, and the Zionists wanted a guarantee that Abdullah wouldn’t war against the Jews.
        Because Abdullah was to be the Arab leader in HMG’s planned attack on the nascent Jewish State, Jordan’s Arab Legion attacked the Jews on both sides of the partition line. Yitzhak, Ronen. “Transjordan’s Attack on the Etzion Bloc during the 1948 War.” IsA 17, no. 2 (2011): 194–207

        Marshall memoranda, which you linked, proves nothing more than that the Zionist’s had been trying to negotiate something with Abdullah, which every body knows happened anyway.

      • Blake
        July 3, 2012, 5:12 pm

        Independence from whom proudzionist?

      • Hostage
        July 3, 2012, 6:51 pm

        Because Abdullah was to be the Arab leader in HMG’s planned attack on the nascent Jewish State

        There is zero documentary evidence to support that nonsense, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary. So provide a reliable source which says the British wanted Israel invaded by anyone, much less King Abdullah.

        Marshall memoranda, which you linked, proves nothing more than that the Zionist’s had been trying to negotiate something with Abdullah, which every body knows happened anyway.

        No, Marshall noted that, after he got the cable from the Jewish Agency regarding the modus vivendi agreement, Shertok actually objected to a truce proposal that he had been trying to obtain in negotiations for the previous three weeks.

        The week before Shertok’s meeting with Secretary Marshall and Under-Secretary Lovett the representatives of the Jewish Agency had been in the Security Council demanding a truce. After they were advised the British had prohibited the Arab Legion from invading the Jewish State, the Jewish Agency had no more interest in a UN brokered truce that entailed a delay in making their declaration of independence. So they did not feel their survival was threatened. Secretary Lovett explained that situation to President Truman:

        Mr. Lovett gave a lengthy exposition of recent events bearing on the Palestine problem. He recalled that on the preceding Saturday, May 8, the Political Representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Moshe Shertok, had called upon the Secretary and himself, accompanied by Dr. Epstein. Mr. Shertok had related that the British Minister for Colonial Affairs, Sir Arthur Creech Jones, had told him that Abdullah, the King of Transjordan, might enter the Arab portions of Palestine but that there need be no fear that Abdullah’s forces, centered upon the British subsidized and officered Arab Legion, would seek to penetrate Jewish areas of Palestine. Furthermore, Mr. Shertok told the Secretary that a message, a week delayed in transmission, had been received from the Jewish Agency in Palestine, recounting overtures by a Colonel Goldy, an officer of the Arab Legion, suggesting that a deal could be worked out between Abdullah and the Jewish Agency whereby the King would take over the Arab portion of Palestine and leave the Jews in possession of their state in the remainder of that country.

        Mr. Lovett said that this intelligence had obviously caused an abrupt shift in the position of the Jewish Agency. Only a week ,before, the Jewish Agency had officially communicated to the Security Council its charges that Arab armies were invading Palestine. Likewise, only a week before, Mr. Shertok and other representatives of the Jewish Agency had seemed seriously interested in proposed articles of truce. Now, however, their attitude had shifted and they seemed confident, on the basis of recent military successes and the prospect of a “behind the barn” deal with Abdullah, that they could establish their sovereign state without any necessity for a truce with the Arabs of Palestine.

        – Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume 5, page 973.

    • ColinWright
      July 2, 2012, 1:43 pm

      This is backwards. The British blockaded the supply of ammunition to the Arab Legion, thus crippling the only force capable of defeating the Haganah in battle — and of course made the state of Israel possible by abandoning the Mandate in the first place.

      Naturally, it’s unknown if the Arab Legion could have crushed the Haganah if their ammunition hadn’t been stuck on the docks at Port Said — and naturally, it’s unknown if it would have actually attempted to do so. However, the fact of the matter is that Britain did not act to destroy the nascent state of Israel, but to insure its survival.

      Then too, even if everything you claimed was true, it in no way follows that ‘the Bernadotte plan must then be viewed as an attempt to appease British wishes.’ Certainly it’s bizarre to see Count Bernadotte as ‘a British puppet.’

      …and even if you were right about all this as well, it’s still not okay to respond by assassinating the person you disagree with. So we have lies followed by absurdities topped with an implied rationalization for a criminal response on the part of the Israelis.

      As always, it’s impossible to defend Israel — however, points for trying.

    • Hostage
      July 2, 2012, 2:07 pm

      In 1947-8 HMG secretly colluded with the Arab States to invade and destroy the infant State of Israel. See the collected works of Professor Meir Zamir.

      Joshua Landis noted that the documents Zamir relied upon shed light on the successful efforts of the Syrian President Quwatli to obtain British assistance in getting rid of the French mandatory regime. He provided false pledges of support for a Greater Syria under Hashemite rule. link to joshualandis.com

      By the 15th of July 1948, Bernadotte was working under mandates from both the General Assembly and the Security Council. The latter mandate allowed for the adoption of provisional measures under Article 39 and 40 of the UN Charter, e.g. link to un.org

      In 1947-48 the British were the official mandatory government of Palestine. In February of 1948, they began holding discussions with the Prime Minister of one of the two states in the joint Palestine mandate, Transjordan. Those discussions concerned efforts by Arab leaders to maintain law and order in the area of the proposed Arab state after the British withdrawal, not an invasion of Israel as Meir Zamir attempts to imply.

      The French Ambassador to the UN, Mr Parodi, personally led the secret discussions among the members of the Security Council about intervention by the Arab states and a modus vivendi agreement on the de facto union between the Arab portions of the former mandate, with a possibility of Syrian assistance in the north. Bernadotte and his successor Ralph Bunche were acting as agents of the entire Security Council, not just the US or UK. The US UN delegation cabled the details of the conversation between Ambassador Parodi and Sir Arthur Creech Jones on the de facto partition of Palestine on 2 May 1948. See the FRUS, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Vol 5, page 895

      The Arab Legion of Transjordan had been part of the 100,000-man British force stationed in Palestine during the mandate. The Legion had permanent garrisons in Rafah and Gaza City that were supplied from British warehouses in the Canal Zone.

      The Jewish militias made incursions into the Corpus Separatum and attacked an Arab Legion convoy when it was making its scheduled withdrawal from Palestine on the road from Hebron to Jerusalem at the Etzion block. Later, the militias made incursions into Egyptian territory, and shot down RAF planes on reconnaissance patrols. Those actions triggered British animosity and obligations under the applicable mutual defense treaties and Article 51 of the UN Charter. The British government advised the other members of the Security Council P-5 about their position on supplying arms to the Arabs for internal security in line with treaty and contractual obligations. It also made formal complaints about flagrant Jewish violations of the embargo and acts of aggression, including the infamous Altalena Affair and the downing of its RAF aircraft. FYI, it’s a matter of public record that the United States opposed the British plans to replenish Arab arms supplies or retain bases in Palestine.

      Zamir makes a mountain out of a molehill over the arms shipments to Arab client states under treaty and contractual obligations, but doesn’t mention the much more significant issue of clandestine arms shipments to illegal Jewish militias and their on-going arms manufacturing efforts.

      All of the members of the League of Arab States received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrawal. Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001.

      The majority of UN member states supported Bernadotte’s proposal, but after the mandate was terminated on 15 May 1948, the matter was up to the emancipated people of Palestine to decide. So the UN did not adopt his proposal on the Arab Union.

      According to the Israeli state archives and Moshe Sharret’s diary, in 1947-48 the leaders of the Jewish Agency and Haganah were constantly talking about their plans to invade, colonize, or instigate civil wars in the neighboring Arab states. For example: on 18 February 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote “We will have only enough troops to defend ourselves, not to take over the country.” Ben Gurion replied:

      If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend, but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination. ” See Ben Gurion Archives, Correspondence Section 23.02-1.03.48 Document 59, 26 February 1948. — cited on page 46 of Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, reprint 2007

      See also “A Historical Opportunity to Occupy Southern Syria”, Let Us Create A Maronite State in Lebanon, & etc. in Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary, and other documents.

      So the Jews were discussing plans to take over the whole of Palestine long before the so-called Arab invasion had taken place. A multitude of sources explain that King Abdullah was given overall Arab command so that he could be blamed for the anticipated failure. His autobiography revealed that the Syrian President and Secretary of the Arab League had called shortly after 15 May 1948 and explained that they did not want to send regular forces into Arab Palestine – at all – and that Lebanon had only taken defensive actions. See pages 20-21, My Memoirs Completed, Longman Group, 1978.

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 4:24 pm

        Yes, yes. Jews bad, Arabs good, Hostage lies.

        There was no Corpus Separatum, because the Partition Plan was never accomplish, because the Arabs had no intention of allowing it and invaded the new state of Israel. So your language is inaccurate.

        And of course, it was the Jews who were expelled from Jerusalem, not the Arabs.

        link to zionism-israel.com

        The idea that Jewish militia just shot down RAF aircraft is a complete distortion of history.

        An extremely detailed account of what happened appears here under the heading “The 2nd Incident”:

        link to spyflight.co.uk

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 6:26 pm

        “Yes, yes. Jews bad, Arabs good, Hostage lies.

        There was no Corpus Separatum, because the Partition Plan was never accomplish, because the Arabs had no intention of allowing it and invaded the new state of Israel. So your language is inaccurate…”

        Speaking of inaccurate…

        On reflection, I don’t even want to bother. These incessant, mindlessly repeated lies — those who repeat them are obviously about as open to reason and fact as a barking dog.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 7:28 pm

        Yes, yes. Jews bad, Arabs good, Hostage lies.

        I provide reliable published sources in my posts, unlike you. If the talking points from your hasbara fellowship don’t contain any sources, you might try some independent reading for a change.

        There was no Corpus Separatum, because the Partition Plan was never accomplish, because the Arabs had no intention of allowing it and invaded the new state of Israel.

        *The Palestinians were legal inhabitants of the territory. They were not invaders.
        *The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel noted that the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel (aka Palestine) to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of resolution 181(II). So which is it Hophmi? link to mfa.gov.il

        Resolution 181(II) contained a binding decision on the Corpus Separatum adopted by 2/3rds of the members present and voting in accordance with Articles 18, 81, and 85:

        The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations.

        See the powers of the General Assembly under the UN Charter:
        *Article 18 link to yale.edu
        *Article 81 link to yale.edu
        *Article 85 link to yale.edu

        General Assembly resolution 303 (IV) reaffirmed the decision to establish Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum. link to un.org

        Many UN member states have continued to treat Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum and refuse to provide credentials for their General Consulate staff to the government of Israel. See Europe Affirms Support for a Corpus Separatum for Greater Jerusalem link to fmep.org

        The UN Trusteeship Council approved the STATUTE FOR THE CITY OF JERUSALEM, T/592, 4 April 1950. link to unispal.un.org

        The government of Transjordan accepted the principle of internationalization, but was not enthusiastic about the idea. The Muslim Holy sites had always been under Arab proprietorship and supervision. The UN plan did not effect “existing rights”. The Prime Minister of Israel rejected internationalization.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Israel and its allies prevented the people of Palestine from establishing self-governing institutions during the Mandate. They were also successful in preventing Transjordan, Arab Palestine, and Jordan from joining the United Nations until 1955. So, unlike the Palestinian people, Israel had joined the United Nations in May of 1949. It was fully represented in the Organization that had designated itself to govern the City of Jerusalem after the termination of the British Mandate. But Israel still refused to abide by the trusteeship decision in accordance with the UN Charter.

        After 25 years of foreign domination by the League of Nations, the Palestinians were under no obligation to accept a form of government imposed by another organization that refused to grant them the same rights as the Zionists to join the UN organization.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 9:35 pm

        The idea that Jewish militia just shot down RAF aircraft is a complete distortion of history. . . . An extremely detailed account of what happened appears here under the heading “The 2nd Incident”:

        Of course “The First Incident” is an account which says Israel shot down an RAF plane on a routine reconnaissance patrol. That’s something that I mentioned in my comment above. So is your source also a complete distortion of history? The only other thing I said was that the British government made formal complaints about the downing of its aircraft.

        So, here is a source which confirms that the British government lodged formal complaints about the downing of its aircraft from a reliable published source:

        Brierly notes, in connection with Israel, that Britain treated with the nascent state before recognizing it. Israeli forces had shot down a British aircraft over Egypt in January 1949. Despite nonrecognition, Britain addressed to Israeli authorities Britain’s intention to seek compensation. Britain dealt with unrecognized Israel as if the country possessed international legal personality

        –Thomas D. Grant, The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999) page 20 citing J. L. Brierly, Special Rapporteur to the International Law Commission, and author of Oxford University Press: The Law of Nations.
        link to books.google.com

      • homingpigeon
        July 3, 2012, 1:02 am

        “There was no Corpus Separatum, because the Partition Plan was never accomplish, because the Arabs had no intention of allowing it and invaded the new state of Israel. So your language is inaccurate. ”

        Hophmi, Since you write with such confidence, could you please tell us the date of the partition plan, the location of Deir Yassin in relation to the partition lines, the date of the Deir Yassin massacre, the date of the withdrawal of the British, and the date of the entry of the Arab Armies into Palestine? And perhaps, while you are on a roll, you could discuss the deployment of the Hagannah and Irgun forces during the period between the declaration of partition and the entry of the Arab armies in relation to the partition lines? And maybe you could tell us if you know anything of how many Palestinians were displaced before the entry of any Arab armies? If you don’t know there are plenty of people on this blog who could tell you. I’m curious as to whether you are a conscious dissembler or just clueless.

      • proudzionist777
        July 3, 2012, 5:00 pm

        @Hostage

        You said,”The US UN delegation cabled the details of the conversation between Ambassador Parodi and Sir Arthur Creech Jones on the de facto partition of Palestine on 2 May 1948. See the FRUS, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Vol 5, page 895″

        No such cable on page 895, Hostage.

        Again. Try to tighten up you cites. Some of us actually bother to read them.

        And you said, “Zamir makes a mountain out of a molehill over the arms shipments to Arab clients”.

        That’s illegal arms shipments, Hostage. Illegal.

        Is that the all criticism you have regarding Zamir’s groundbreaking research?

        “Those discussions concerned efforts by Arab leaders to maintain law and order in the area of the proposed Arab state after the British withdrawal”.

        Okay. So the Egyptian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv. The Egyptian Army invaded the Negev while Syria tried to invade the Galilee and Jordan’s Arab Legion invested the West Bank all in the name of restoring order.

        Sure.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2012, 4:54 am

        @Hostage You said,”The US UN delegation cabled the details of the conversation between Ambassador Parodi and Sir Arthur Creech Jones on the de facto partition of Palestine on 2 May 1948. See the FRUS, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Vol 5, page 895″ No such cable on page 895, Hostage. Again. Try to tighten up you cites. Some of us actually bother to read them.

        ROFLMAO! I didn’t say the telegram was printed on 895. That page of the FRUS cited the telegram and described it’s contents. Here is a verbatim quote from page 895 and a link:

        Given this almost intolerable situation, the wisest course of action might be for the United States and Great Britain, with the assistance of France, to undertake immediate diplomatic action seeking to work out a modus vivendi between Abdullah of Transjordan and the Jewish Agency. This modus vivendi would call for, in effect, a de facto partition of Palestine along the lines traced by Sir Arthur Creech Jones in his remark to Ambassador Parodi on May 2, as indicated on Page 3 of USUN’s telegram [549], May 2, which has been drawn to your attention.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Nothing Livia Rokach said in her book regarding Syria or Lebanon and Israel has anything to do with 1948-49.

        I didn’t say that it did. I provided a verbatim quote and the archive accession number for the February 1948 correspondence between Shertok and Ben Gurion. I noted that Shertok’s diary mentioned plans for offensives against the neighboring states, but I had in mind memoirs published by Moshe Sharett (Shertok), like the one under the title Be-ASha’ar ha Umot [At the Threshold of Statehood], Tel Aviv, Am Ovid, 1958 which covered his discussions with Marshall, Lovett, and UN officials. The links to Rokach’s book were not cited, they were clearly labeled “See also”. FYI, I’m providing links to dated, published sources of analysis that the readers can follow for themselves, so it strains credulity for you to label these comments as lies. Where are the links that support your extravagant claims about the British plans for the invasion of “Israel”?

        Jordan’s Arab Legion attacked the Jews on both sides of the partition line. Yitzhak, Ronen. “Transjordan’s Attack on the Etzion Bloc during the 1948 War.” IsA 17, no. 2 (2011): 194–207

        If we are going to talk about dishonest claims and citations, there’s a clear example. Even the most favorable accounts, like Larry Collins, Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem, page 227 note that Kfar Etzion block was NOT located in the territory of the proposed Jewish state and that it was established for military purposes to threaten the Arab lines of communications and to serve as the southern most defensive position for Jerusalem – yet another city that was not included in the territory of the Jewish state. Page 340 et seq, is another source which explains that Glubb had issued orders to keep the Arab Legion out of the territory of the Jewish state.

        Historians have also noted that the Haganah and Palmach were providing armed reinforcements and military supplies to the Etzion block using convoys and an airstrip constructed at Kfar Etzion. So, this was a Zionist military base in the middle of the territory of the proposed Arab state taking an active part in the hostilities. That was actually the war of the roads”, see Uri Milistein, “The Beginning of the War of the Roads, in 1948″, Ma’arachot, page 281 (November 1981) cited in David Ohana, David Maisel, “The Origins of Israeli Mythology”, page 103 link to books.google.com

        That’s illegal arms shipments, Hostage. Illegal.

        Please provide a citation to a UN Security Council or ICJ determination which held that British deliveries of arms for internal security and in fulfillment of its treaty and contractual obligations were illegal or used in violation of the UN Charter. The British had mutual defense treaties and contractual agreements that required them to provide supplies to Egypt and Transjordan.

        The government of the UK saw no conflict with its Charter obligations, since its conduct was consistent with the right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter and the fact that both the US and USSR had failed to prevent sizable sales of surplus arms to Jewish organizations assisted by volunteer US aircrews and volunteers from the Red Guard. I’ll post some extracts of the documentary record in a separate comment.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2012, 5:47 am

        Okay. So the Egyptian Air Force bombed Tel Aviv.

        When Arabs attack Sderot Israel bombs the Gaza Strip in reprisal. The bombing of Tel Aviv happened long after hundreds of Arab villages had been intentionally destroyed. In late November 1948, Josef Weitz recorded that two of his officials at the Jewish National Fund complained that “the army continues to destroy villages in the Galilee, which we are interested in [settling Jewish immigrants].” In that regards, Weitz was wondering if it’s not a “greater revenge” if the “abandoned” Palestinian properties could be used by the “homeless” Jewish refugees. He wrote the following month during a visit to al-Zeeb (14 km north of Acre):

        “[The village had been] completely leveled and I now wonder if it was good that it was destroyed and would it not have been a greater revenge had we now settled Jews in the village houses. . . [The empty houses are] good for settlement of [our Jewish] brothers who wondered for generation upon generation, refugees. . . steeped in suffering and sorrow, as they, at last, find a roof over their heads. This was [the reason for] our war.” (Benny
        Morris
        , p. 169)

        The Egyptian Army invaded the Negev while Syria tried to invade the Galilee and Jordan’s Arab Legion invested the West Bank all in the name of restoring order.

        The Israelis had long since attacked and occupied territory beyond the partition lines, while emptying and destroying Arab villages on both sides of the partition line. Here is how it defended its actions:
        Question (b): Do you have armed forces operating in areas (towns, cities, districts) of Palestine where the Arabs are the majority, or outside Palestine?

        Answer to Question (b): We consider the territory of Israel as a single unit with a Jewish majority. As indicated above, the Government of the State of Israel operates in parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel; parts which, with the notable exception of Jerusalem, formerly for the most part, contained Arab majorities. These areas have, however, been mostly abandoned by their Arab population. No area outside of Palestine is under Jewish occupation but sallies beyond the frontiers of the State of Israel have occasionally been carried out by Jewish forces for imperative military reasons, and as a part of an essentially defensive plan.
        link to unispal.un.org

        The Egyptian Government have from the outset declared,that their military operations are not directed against Palestine Jews but against terrorist Zionist bands who are armed with the latest and most destructive weapons and who have built up in the Jewish settlements scattered throughout Palestine, fortifications and strongly fortified pillboxes as springboard to attack neighbouring Arab villages and their peaceful inhabitants.

        The Egyptian Government have no other object in view except to put an end to this state of anarchy and to restore security and order in Palestine with a view to enabling its people to set up a United Palestinian state under which all Inhabitants of Palestine, Arabs and Jews alike, may live side by side in harmony and peace enjoying the same rights and having the same obligations and under which sacred places are protected and the freedom of access to them insured.
        link to unispal.un.org

        Once again, Transjordan’s Arab Legion was merely occupying territory adjacent to its own borders that had been allocated for the establishment of an Arab State. There were already about 200,000 refugees in Transjordan. So the Zionists had created a situation where intervention to restore law and order was pretty easily justified.

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2012, 6:29 am

        Long before the UN adopted any sanctions, the US and UK adopted their own unilateral arms embargoes. The Lobby began treating legal arms shipments to Arab states as illegal, while demanding that the embargo on arms for the illegal Jewish militias be lifted:

        it reported information from Harold Beeley, the official in the Eastern Department of the British Foreign Office immediately responsible for Palestine affairs, that “British arms embargo regarding Palestine is still operating under principles Foreign Office memo transmitted Embtel 6523, December 17.

        HMG Is ‘stalling’ regarding all new arms orders for area. Regarding old contracts with Arab states . . .HMG is bound to assume these deliveries will not be used contrary UN Charter. Evidence misuse will result reconsideration entire question.”

        –http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=562

        American Zionists were already circumventing the embargo and immigration policies:

        2. United States control over efforts of American Jews to send arms or emigrants to Palestine. The present arms embargo should suffice as a legal barrier to the efforts of American Jews to run guns and other implements of war into Palestine. However, our legal machinery seems somewhat defective in preventing Jewish corporations from purchasing American vessels for foreign registry with the eventual aim of using these ships for bringing clandestine emigrants to Palestine. The withdrawal of the British from Palestine and their replacement by a United Nations administration would presumably not alter our responsibilities to
        prevent the United States being used as a base for illegal immigration
        activity.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The State Department noted that the national political party platforms called for an end to the embargo against the Zionists and that there was a 50-50 chance the Congress would intervene on their behalf:

        However, the Democratic platform adopted on July 14 contains the following splinter in the Palestine plank:
        “We favor the revision of the arms embargo to accord the State of Israel the right of self-defense. We pledge ourselves to work for the modification of any resolution of the United Nations to the extent that it may prevent any such revision.”‘.

        For your info UndSecy sent for Brit Amb this morning to discuss US -arms embargo for Middle East. He informed Inverchapel informally and confidentially of conversations he had had yesterday with two key Senators asking whether it were true that Brit continue supply arms to Arab states. They indicated that unless some statement could be made to effect such arms were not in fact being supplied Arabs by Brit it would be difficult withstand great pressure campaign being brought on Congress by organized groups in US to force lifting of embargo.

        *http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1221
        *http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=562

        The UK noted that if the US armed the Zionists, it would have to respond by arming the Arabs and that would have embarrassing results. He also ruled-out any Chapter VII resolution in the Security Council:

        Mr. Bevin also hopes that the United States Government will feel able to maintain its arms embargo. If this is raised, HMG will almost certainly be obliged to raise their own embargo on the export of arms to certain Arab states, and the unfortunate position will then be reached of one side being largely armed by the Americans and the other by the British.
        Mr. Bevin cannot agree to any action under Article 39 of the United Nations Charter at least at this stage, since the situation in Palestine, is so confused that an impartial assessment of the true position is needed before any such drastic action is taken, the effect of which would be to place the blame upon one party only.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The UK finally responded to major Soviet and US sales of surplus weapons and aircraft to the Zionists:

        4. British Intelligence reports.made available to us indicate that Jews already have an appreciable air force, are far better armed than the Arabs and British military estimate from this and cumulative effect of aggressive Jewish declarations that it is not unlikely that “within the next few days” Jews on grounds of some Arab provocation, real or manufactured, will reopen their offensive with the objective of seizing more territory. Jewish offensive at this time stands every chance of success because arms embargo has prevented Arab Legion from replenishing its munitions. Bevin thinks it likely Jews may be so ill-advised as to attack Transjordan. If so, Bevin said, Britain’s treaty obligation , to Transjordlan is unequivocal ,and would have
        to be honored.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        4. If Dept is determined to destroy US-UK cooperation by step such as in Dept’s 4071 in all fairness I think we should so advise Bevin and UKDel before a single such approach is made. The British Government is under heavy pressure from its Ministry of Defense and members of Parliament to make some pro-Arab gesture which would help to restore faith of Arab countries in UK. This has been jeopardized by scrupulous observation of the provisions of the arms embargo by UK throughout period when, according to all the evidence, USSR through Czechoslovakia has been arming Israel. This latter, combined with other Soviet activities, should at least establish presumption in regard to her intentions and hopes to foster confusion if not more than confusion in ME. Recent fighting showed clearly military might Israel has acquired behind back SC.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        (e) Soviet connivance in supplying arms and airplanes to Israel through Czechoslovakia (Embassy’s 4660, October 28 and 4645 October 272) thus circumventing UN arms embargo in favor of Israel and building up Arab hostility against US because it has respected UN embargo. This action has been extremely successful because while it appears to represent only central European assistance to Israel, actually its real effect has been to poison Arab-British relations (Embassy is submitting top secret despatch elaborating upon this point).

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        7. Speaking with great feeling Attlee said that in this matter British Governmentt believes future of UN itself is ‘at stake. Failure of League of Nations to take action on a similar issue was beginning of its downfall. Same is likely to be true with UN. Apart from specific issue, it seems to British Government essential that UK and US should do their utmost to secure action by SC if Israel flaunts [flouts] its authority. Among possible first steps would be strengthening arms embargo on party which fails to comply and lifting of arms embargo on other party; denial of loans; severance of financial and commercial relations, and of communications; and possibly at a later stage, blockade.
        8. Meanwhile, said Attlee, British chiefs of staff have advised
        British Cabinet that, as a result of recent Jewish advances, security of Transjordan, who is Britain’s ally, is threatened. Consequently, British Govt is bound to consider what action it should take if Jews, in further violation of truce, were to attack TJ forces which have never entered any part of Palestine which, under November 29 UNGA resolution, would have gone to Jews. If Jews attack TJ territory as they have already attacked Lebanon (Jewish forces are now in occupation of sixteen Lebanese villages) British Govt would be obliged to give armed assistance to its ally. Same would apply in case of Egypt, but British treaty with TJ does not specify that assistance should only be given when TJ territory is attacked. British Govt would, therefore,
        be in grave dilemma. Objections to assistance by British armed forces to TJ forces in Palestine are obvious and serious, and British Govt has no desire to find ‘itself embarked on this course. If, on other hand, British stand aside and allow TJ forces to be driven back across Jordan, their assistance may come too late, and the blow to value placed by other countries on any treaty of alliance with UK may be irreparable. It might be, said Attlee, that whole British and perhaps western position in Middle East might be lost. The more British Govt considers this dilemma, the less it likes it.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

      • proudzionist777
        July 3, 2012, 7:33 pm

        Typical Hostage BS.

        Nothing Livia Rokach said in her book regarding Syria or Lebanon and Israel has anything to do with 1948-49.

        Those chapters you cite in her book have to do with events after 1954.

        Once again Hostage, you cites are as loose as a goose.

      • talknic
        July 5, 2012, 9:40 pm

        proudzionist777 July 3, 2012 at 7:33 pm

        “Typical Hostage BS.

        Uh huh

        Nothing Livia Rokach said in her book regarding Syria or Lebanon and Israel has anything to do with 1948-49

        Uh huh ..

        Those chapters you cite in her book have to do with events after 1954.

        Uh huh … 1954 you say?

        Once again Hostage, you cites are as loose as a goose.

        Uh huh …. So the February 1948 correspondence between Shertok and Ben Gurion was written after 1954 …….

        Man that ol’ ziocaine is really strong sh*t!!!!

  31. Sin Nombre
    July 2, 2012, 8:12 am

    You know, one thing that may be overlooked here is the evidence of something important that may well exist via this whitewashing of Shamir, no different than the same with Begin.

    After all there’s J-Street and Peter Beinart telling us how American jews at least are pulling away from Israel. And yet (in addition to the fact that, for instance, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands has gone on for 40+ years now and *they* haven’t pulled away), here we still see this near veneration for Shamir who everyone knows killed Bernadotte and who was at least somewhat close to the Deir Yassin thing.

    Anyone seen even a molecule of renunciation or repudiation (much less condemnation) of Shamir then by any mainstream American jewish figure or organization? As opposed to Tom Friedman’s gentler- than- gentle “he was a just a figure of the past” sort of baloney.

    I dunno about any of you then, but I’d put the odds at a serious break between U.S. jews and Israel at even less than we’ll see the Pope renouncing Catholicism. No matter *what* Israel does.

  32. lysias
    July 2, 2012, 10:09 am

    I was flabbergasted to see that Shamir’s obit in the Washington Post yesterday mentioned both his leading role in the Bernadotte assassination and his whole career in the Stern Gang. Yitzhak Shamir, former Israeli prime minister, dies at 96:

    He quickly dropped out of school and joined the Irgun, which was led by Begin and the smaller of the two armed Zionist movements seeking to establish a state for the 400,000 Jews living in the territory among 1 million Arabs. When the Irgun split in 1938, Mr. Shamir sided with the smaller, more extreme faction known as Lehi — a Hebrew acronym for “Fighters for Israel’s Freedom” — and also known as the Stern Gang after its melodramatic, poetry-spouting leader, Avraham Stern.

    After Stern was gunned down by British police in 1942, Mr. Shamir escaped from a detention camp and became one of a triumvirate of leaders. While mainstream Zionist groups forged a truce with the British to combat Nazism during World War II, Mr. Shamir and Lehi fought on, even offering to cooperate with the Germans to rid Palestine of British rule.

    Mr. Shamir was the architect of Lehi’s most daring attack, the 1944 assassination in Cairo of Lord Moyne, Britain’s top Middle East official and a close friend of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Along the way Mr. Shamir married one of his own agents, Sarah Levy, code-named Shulamit. She died in 2011. Survivors include their two children, Gilada Diamant of Tel Aviv and Yair Shamir of Savyon, Israel; five grandchildren; and seven great-grandchildren.

    After the war, Mr. Shamir was arrested and escaped again, returning to Palestine in time to join the war for Israel’s independence in 1948. He helped plot the assassination of United Nations mediator Folke Bernadotte, who was working on a partition plan to end the war on terms that Mr. Shamir deemed dangerous. Mr. Shamir’s men ambushed Bernadotte’s car at a checkpoint in West Jerusalem.

    Mr. Shamir seldom spoke about his underground work. But in speaking of Moyne’s killing, he gave author Gerold Frank a cold-blooded summation of the terrorist’s creed: “A man who goes forth to take the life of another whom he does not know must believe one thing only — that by his act he will change the course of history.”

    I wonder if the job of whoever wrote that obituary is now in danger.

    • kapok
      July 3, 2012, 7:26 pm

      Danger? Not likely. The “realist” strain of Zionist apologetics contains great dollops of justification for just about anything. Terror? Meh, everybody does it and, besides, um, Holocaust!.

  33. lysias
    July 2, 2012, 11:27 am

    I remember reading someplace years ago the statement that Shamir was quite willing to trade the secrets Israel got from Pollard for Soviet agreement that Russian Jews could emigrate to Israel because Shamir hated the United States. Can anybody confirm or refute this statement?

    Another interesting thing in yesterday’s WaPo obituary for Shamir was the caption they put under the photograph of Sahmir. It said that Shamir was an admirer of Lenin and Mao.

    • ColinWright
      July 2, 2012, 1:56 pm

      It sounds reasonable that Shamir would have hated the United States. He seems to have been a very good hater.

    • Roya
      July 3, 2012, 1:51 am

      Yeah, in 1999 Seymour Hersh wrote an article for the New Yorker called “Why Pollard Should Never Be Released.” In it he talked about that and more:

      A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard’s material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard’s documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, was of practical importance only to the Soviet Union. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that “certain elements in the Israeli military had used it” — Pollard’s material — “to trade for people they wanted to get out,” including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard’s spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence — no “smoking gun,” in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive — to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion.

      High-level suspicions about Israeli-Soviet collusion were expressed as early as December, 1985, a month after Pollard’s arrest, when William J. Casey, the late C.I.A. director, who was known for his close ties to the Israeli leadership, stunned one of his station chiefs by suddenly complaining about the Israelis breaking the “ground rules.” The issue arose when Casey urged increased monitoring of the Israelis during an otherwise routine visit, I was told by the station chief, who is now retired. “He asked if I knew anything about the Pollard case,” the station chief recalled, and he said that Casey had added, “For your information, the Israelis used Pollard to obtain our attack plan against the U.S.S.R. all of it. The coordinates, the firing locations, the sequences. And for guess who? The Soviets.” Casey had then explained that the Israelis had traded the Pollard data for Soviet emigres. “How’s that for cheating?” he had asked.

  34. lysias
    July 2, 2012, 12:38 pm

    White House press statement on Shamir’s death doesn’t mention the dark points in his past, but it is at least mercifully short:

    Yitzhak Shamir dedicated his life to the State of Israel. From his days working for Israel’s independence to his service as Prime Minister, he strengthened Israel’s security and advanced the partnership between the United States and Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and the people of Israel.

    • Avi_G.
      July 2, 2012, 3:01 pm

      but it is at least mercifully short:

      Something that cannot be said about Shamir who lived to see the age of 96 while his victims’ lives were nipped in the bud. Under his premiership, Israeli authorities killed hundreds of Palestinian children.

      Not only is he a terrorist, he is a mass murderer.

  35. Mooser
    July 2, 2012, 3:39 pm

    Wait a freakin’ minute, let me get this straight. You guys know I’m a little, well, slow. So Zionism was the anti-imperialist, anti-colonial blow against Britian in the Middle East? ROTFLMSJAO!

    • Mooser
      July 2, 2012, 3:44 pm

      Gosh, Hophmi, when I realise there’s an entire archive of your wonderful comments available to anyone just by clicking on your name at the top of one of your comments, I’m grateful life need never be devoid of mirth. What a tome it is by now! A Capn. Billy’s Whiz-Bang for Hasbaratchniks!

      • hophmi
        July 2, 2012, 4:28 pm

        You’re not slow, Mooser, you’re just a hypocrite like most people here, and you’re for self-determination for everyone except the Jews.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 2, 2012, 4:45 pm

        Hey hoppy, if the Kurds’ exercise of self-determination required American Jews to become permanent stateless people and lose everything they have, would you support that? Or do you support self-determination for everyone except Kurds?

      • seafoid
        July 2, 2012, 5:06 pm

        Self determination for the Jews is a Jewish affair, hoph.
        If Jews want to self determine as sociopaths that is fine but nobody else should be involved.

      • tree
        July 2, 2012, 5:13 pm

        Definition impairment syndrome. For most people here, and probably for most people everywhere, the term “self-determination” does not include ethnic cleansing of the people that live in your country, or under your rule. For you, hophmi, “Jewish self-determination” includes ethnic cleansing as a primary mover, but I’m sure that you wouldn’t consider Nazi Germany’s ethnic cleansing of Jews in pre-WWII to be an acceptable form of “self-determination”( as well you shouldn’t). Your problem is exactly the hypocrisy you mention. Only its yours. You define Jewish “self-determination” differently and much more broadly than you define any other groups “self-determination”, and then complain that no one else here respects that broader and more immoral definition for Jews only.

      • Light
        July 2, 2012, 5:25 pm

        Hophmi, are you seriously saying that you lack self-determination?

        For me self determination means having representation in government and equal protection under the law. For Zionists self-determination appears to mean a license to discriminate and oppress.

      • Ellen
        July 2, 2012, 5:38 pm

        Hop….your words sound pathetic and desperate. Shamir was a terrible thug, a murderer, a fanatic. An architect of Israel, with a whole lot of blood on his hands — Israeli, Arab and American.

        Modern nation states are a result of criminality, thuggary and crimes against humanity. Israel is no different.

        Either accept it, atone a people, and make amends or reject Israel.

        The choice is yours.

        And BTW, the Canaanites and Phonetians were in what is now called Israel long before any short lived nomadic tribes who wandered into that region, creating myths for a bunch of Europeans and their enterprise.

      • ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 6:19 pm

        I’m curious as to how I’m a ‘hypocrite.’ Given the context, it must somehow relate to opposing Israel — and I take it you find the ‘hypocrisy’ lies in criticizing Israel but not others.

        If I object to Israel’s crimes more than I do to the usual run of dreary outrages being perpetrated here and there, that’s because unlike what may or may not be transpiring in Uzbekistan, I as an American am directly if involuntarily responsible for funding, protecting, and enthusiastically supporting Israel’s crimes.

        As I’ve pointed out before, it’s the difference between some teenager raping a girl, and my son raping a girl. The first is deplorable; the second an unspeakable horror. Israel — by virtue of her dependence on my support — falls into the unspeakable horror category for me, and I fail to see how that is hypocrisy.

        If and when Israel has absolutely no particular connection to the United States, is supported no more staunchly than any other vicious little abomination, and is entirely on her own — then I will feel obliged to regard her as I would Honduras, or Togo, or any other country of similar size. However, that hasn’t happened yet. You be sure and check on my posts when it does.

      • CloakAndDagger
        July 2, 2012, 6:57 pm

        you’re for self-determination for everyone except the Jews

        Self-determination through genocide. Interesting strategy. It reminds me of someone else in history, but the name eludes me at the moment.

      • andrew r
        July 2, 2012, 7:05 pm

        And you think Israel should be free to enforce policies that were discriminatory (and deadly) to Jews in Europe. Who’s the hypocrite now?

      • maggielorraine
        July 2, 2012, 7:31 pm

        If Jewish “self determination” entails ethnic cleansing and apartheid, call us hypocrites all you please.

      • Hostage
        July 2, 2012, 10:48 pm

        Hey hoppy, if the Kurds’ exercise of self-determination required American Jews to become permanent stateless people . . .

        Well Saladin was a Kurdish Muslim who recaptured Palestine from the Crusaders. His Sultanate included Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Hejaz, Yemen, and parts of North Africa.

        I don’t see any reason why Zionists should run around shreying about Turkish denial of Kurdish self-determination, when they are claiming Jerusalem and Palestine for themselves and building a museum of tolerance on top of Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem where thousands of Saladin’s warriors are buried.

      • ColinWright
        July 3, 2012, 12:06 am

        There is also the point that it’s extremely questionable if ‘the Jews’ are a people.

        Do a German Jew and a Yemeni Jew actually share enough to make a nation? A secular Jew and some Lithuanian Haredi?

        The level of social conflict and estrangement in Israel suggests not. These folks aren’t ‘a people.’ Varying levels of attachment to various cultures related in various ways to the Torah and a vague conviction of common ancestry simply isn’t enough. Jews in Israel refuse to live together, refuse to go to school together, and take it as a matter of course that they shouldn’t pray together. A good half of the political spectrum consists of parties devoted to serving some socio-ethnic fragment or other.

        And indeed, herein lies part of the sickness. As a psychological reality, Israel only has meaning if there is conflict with the world outside. There is no fundamental unity. Last summer, Israel was being convulsed by rapidly mounting protests and then there was a ‘terrorist attack’ and a suspiciously choreographed response.

        And it was everyone to the ramparts. Fortress Israel under seige! The protests abruptly vanished.

        I submit that consciously or not, Israel seeks conflict. She can only survive as a nation for so long as she is surrounded by enemies — and she makes sure she is surrounded by enemies. She generates her identity out of continuous conflict. Witness the current hysteria over Iran. That has nothing to do with the actual threat Iran poses to Israel. It has everything to do with Israel’s need for a common enemy to define herself against. If there wasn’t an Iran, Israel would have to invent her. Indeed, the ‘Iranian threat’ largely was invented — and is carefully nurtured.

        I suppose we all need ‘the other’ to some extent. However, a lot of us manage to feel a pretty strong sense of national identity without continuously validating it with war. The United States went on its rather boisterous way largely in isolation from its founding until 1941. When was the last time Norway felt the need to pick a fight with anyone?

        Israel’s inherent sense of identity is largely a negation. ‘Israel’ only has meaning to the extent that it is surrounded by enemies. Hence her need to generate conflict is more pressing and constant. She has to have enemies — and she makes them. It’s a true fact that Israel is the only nation to have invaded every single one of her neighbors in modern times.

        Picture the population of Israel on a desert island. Can anyone seriously claim to believe they would remain unified? They would be at each other’s throats within a year. There simply isn’t a nation there. The question of ‘self-determination’ is a red herring. There’s no one entity to award that self-determination to.

      • proudzionist777
        July 3, 2012, 9:59 pm

        @Colin

        “Do a German Jew and a Yemeni Jew actually share enough to make a nation? A secular Jew and some Lithuanian Haredi?”

        Yes. They share Jewish genes and a shared history of oppression and genocide.

      • RoHa
        July 4, 2012, 12:27 am

        “Do a German Jew and a Yemeni Jew actually share enough to make a nation? A secular Jew and some Lithuanian Haredi?”

        Yes. They share Jewish genes and a shared history of oppression and genocide.

        Every human being “shares” genes with every other human being. I am told that humans “share” 95+% of our genes with chimpanzees. What makes the “Jewish genes” so special? Are they “shared” with chimpanzees?

        Also, I am a bit vague about the history of oppression and genocide that Yemeni Jews “share” with German Jews? Were the Yemeni Jews being oppressed in Germany, or was it German Jews being oppressed in Yemen?

      • Hostage
        July 4, 2012, 12:44 am

        Yes. They share Jewish genes and a shared history of oppression and genocide.

        The international crime of genocide consists of any one of several acts or attempted acts which do not result in the death of members of a group, but rather in destruction of the group itself, as a cohesive social unit.

        Both States and individuals can be held responsible for the crime of genocide. Emphasis added:

        Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

        (a) Killing members of the group;
        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

        Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

        (a) Genocide;
        (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
        (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
        (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
        (e) Complicity in genocide.

        Article IX: Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

        –Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide link to preventgenocide.org

        So despite the fact that Israel’s internal inquiry commission exonerated the State and its officials, there is very little doubt that they committed the crime of genocide when they forcibly transferred more than 1,000 Yemeni Jewish children to other, non-Yemenite families.
        link to ahavat-israel.com
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Ellen
        July 4, 2012, 4:39 am

        Proudzio….. It is prmitive and racist and narcistic — your self understanding, the understanding of what makes a Jew. Sad.

        We all share similar genetic material and all people have somewhere in history, some even quite recent, a genocide or oppression.

        It is called humanity.

        Has your education, err brainwashing, been so complete that you see no other?

      • Citizen
        July 4, 2012, 12:10 pm

        Yes, Jewish genes were recognized by, inter alia, Adolph Hitler, and the Nuremberg Laws of his regime, where they were recognized as the polar opposite of Aryan/Germanic genes in the way they function in the world. Israel’s law of return also recognizes them. Hence, why have I read so often Jewish authors who say that Jews are not, at least primarily, a race? Which is to say, a blood line? Will there be a time, one day, when ethnic Jews will be transferred as the ethnic Germans were on the heels of WW2? If so, where will they be transferred to? Antartica, by default if Helen Thomas does not get her way?

      • eljay
        July 4, 2012, 1:34 pm

        >> They share Jewish genes and a shared history of oppression and genocide.

        Some Jews – like pz666, giladgeee and Fraudblogs, to name just a few – evidently also share a gene that neutralizes morality, compassion and reason and greatly enhances self-righteousness, hatefulness and greed.

  36. Sibiriak
    July 3, 2012, 2:57 am

    Ian Lustic on Shamir (2002):

    link to globetrotter.berkeley.edu

    Excerpt:

    [Lustick:] What’s ironic is that the Likud, the right wing of the Zionist movement, going back to revisionists, used to make fun of the Laborites, the socialist Zionists, who would create “facts” during the mandate period. “We want this part of Palestine to be with the Jewish state. We’ll put up a stockade there, one more goat, one more acre of land, one more goat. That’s how we’re going to get the country.” And Jabotinsky, that is the leader of the Revisionists, the mentor of Begin, would say, “This is absurd! This is not the way a respectable nation gets a state. A respectable nation gets a state by going out and conquering it and annexing it, or going to the British Empire and having it given to them.” So they made fun of this.

    But when the Likud came into power, it saw the old Labor Zionist techniques, which had been used in some settlements even earlier in the West Bank by the Labor Party government, as the key. They didn’t want to officially annex the West Bank and Gaza; that would mean giving citizenship to the Arabs there, and it would mean a confrontation with the world, to say nothing of the majority in Israel that still opposed it. But just one more settlement, one more settler, one more road — eventually, the idea was to create a network, an infrastructure, a set of interests that would make it impossible, politically, for governments to give up that area, and then impossible psychologically to imagine you would give it up. That was their objective.

    Under Begin, under Shamir, that was the objective. Even though they pretended to negotiate, it was my job in the State Department and elsewhere to try to convince American diplomats that when they were negotiating with Israelis and not objecting to settlement activity, they were actually following the Israeli game plan. Shamir put it best after he lost the 1992 election, when he admitted that the negotiations he had been involved in at Madrid, he was going to drag on for ten years, not with the hope of getting an agreement, but with the hope of putting a million Jews into the West Bank and Gaza, and making future negotiations irrelevant.

    [Question:] Explain to us what have been the factors, the forces that prevent that possibility from becoming a reality.

    [Lustick:] What is the reason why the vision of Gush Emunim, of the Bloc of the Faithful, of the Shamir-Begin governments, of making Jewish rule over the whole Land of Israel a reality — why will it fail? First of all, Israel is not living in a vacuum. The world is a much more tightly interconnected place than it ever has been, and Israel has been deeply implicated and dependent on the United States. book coverSo when you try to convince people that “We shouldn’t even think about the West Bank, it shouldn’t even be on the agenda,” and all the time, you have to defend yourself from outsiders’ questionings, “Why are you doing that? The Palestinians want to talk to you. Why don’t you negotiate with them?” — you undermine your ability not to think about it because you have to give rational arguments.

    In fact, a very amusing thing happened. This is in my Unsettled States book. Shamir was meeting secretly with the youth movement of the Herut Party that he was the head of when he was Prime Minister, and he was asked, “Mr. Prime Minister, what do we do when we’re asked by the leftists and by the Americans, ‘Why should Israel insist on having Judea-Samaria? Why not withdraw from the settlements for peace?’ What should be say to these people?” So Shamir said, “Don’t say anything to them! Don’t argue with them! Just say, ‘Kacha zeh! That’s the way it is!’” And he’s right, because if you argue, that means that there’s some rational basis, some contingent basis on which maybe things could change and you think you wouldn’t need those territories. If Israelis need to argue to win, then ultimately Israel won’t win at all from the point of view of keeping the territories.”

  37. Mooser
    July 6, 2012, 11:23 am

    I think this is Phil Wiess’s contribution to the Zionist regime. Instead of simply banning people as time wasters and liars, he (Phil) insists that the same old canards have to be knocked down every day. Hell, it’s the least he can do.
    Well, it’s his blog, and there’s every reason it should reflect his mind.

Leave a Reply