Trending Topics:

Krista Tippett puts occupied East Jerusalem in Israel

Israel/Palestine
on 54 Comments
Krista Tippett

Krista Tippett

I listen to Krista Tippett’s thoughtful NPR show about religion and meaning, called “On Being,” even though it dismays me that she avoids asking any hard questions about Israel/Palestine/Zionism. Three years ago I was appalled by her referring to rightwing Zionist Yossi Klein Halevi, who lives in occupied territory, as “redemptive.”

Today Tippett interviewed the artist Ann Hamilton and about 35 minutes in they started talking about Israel/Palestine in an anodyne manner, saying that it was important for the sides to see each other as human. Tippett then said that she had gone to Israel three years ago and visited the Western Wall and though put off by the gender discrimination at the holy site, had had something of a religious experience when she put her hand on stone touched by so many before her over the millennia.

The Western Wall is not in Israel, it’s in occupied East Jerusalem. The global community regards that occupation as illegal, even if Americans don’t know about it. Krista Tippett’s show purports to address political and intellectual questions of great moment; it should not be misinforming people about such a basic fact in the conflict. It’s a sad reflection on our media that someone with such broad appeal would be so oblivious of the Palestinian experience.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

54 Responses

  1. just
    just
    February 16, 2014, 4:53 pm

    Many thanks for bringing this to MW. I listened and was outraged!

    (I can’t wait until I am only a little bit outraged……..you know, when peace and brotherhood comes to this tiny blue ball called earth that humans seem hell-bent on destroying. oops, there I go again!)

  2. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 16, 2014, 5:20 pm

    Kenny Everett had a famous character called Ms Cupid Stunt.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBW8L198GQ

    Here’s Gideon Levy with a humdinger.

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.574399#

    “In the background, of course, is the memory of the Holocaust, and it, too, is exploited fully. “Israel’s destruction” recalls that which can never be forgotten, the death camps and the gas chambers.
    It also recalls something that Golda Meir once told Shulamit Aloni: that after the Holocaust, Jews are permitted to do anything. If the world says eradication, Israel can say occupation, disinheritance and elimination. But the world did not say eradication, and Israel cannot say occupation, disinheritance and elimination.
    Once again, the issue is being out of touch with reality. The Israelis who ask themselves anxiously whether the state will still exist 20 years from now, and dream of getting a second passport, should be asking a different, no less weighty question: about the character of their state, whose dangers lie mostly within.
    But few ask this question. We are too busy with the issue of existence to deal with principles. Warning: imaginary existential danger ahead. “

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      February 16, 2014, 5:40 pm

      @ seafoid

      It’s occupation and ethnic cleansing but it’s all done in the best PWAUSIBLE taste!

      (Thanks for the ref to the brilliant Kenny Everett btw. Paired with Parkinson – classic.)

    • American
      American
      February 16, 2014, 7:24 pm

      ‘In the background, of course, is the memory of the Holocaust, and it, too, is exploited fully.’

      ”Golda Meir once told Shulamit Aloni: that after the Holocaust, Jews are permitted to do anything. ‘

      Warning: imaginary existential danger ahead. “

      Disasterous mix, I still have trouble believing this mental or emotion maladjustment or denial of reality or whatever it is has gone on for so long.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 17, 2014, 12:14 am

        ”Golda Meir once told Shulamit Aloni: that after the Holocaust, Jews are permitted to do anything. ‘

        Alternative reality reminds me of Josef Fritzl

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Fritzl

        his alternative reality lasted 42 years…

        Modern Zionism lies somewhere in the space of criminal madness -It started off normally but somewhere along the line the communal brain fused and now it’s at the stage where a psychiatrist could name it.
        And ” after the Holocaust, Jews are permitted to do anything ” is right at the heart of it.

        Permitted to do anything reminds me of Joanna Dennehy

        http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/12/joanna-dennehy-psychology-sadomasochism-murder

  3. lysias
    lysias
    February 16, 2014, 5:56 pm

    On Being is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Henry Luce Foundation, Lilly Endowment, Inc., and the Kalliopeia Foundation.

  4. Shuki
    Shuki
    February 16, 2014, 7:02 pm

    The Western Wall is not in Israel, it’s in occupied East Jerusalem. The global community regards that occupation as illegal, even if Americans don’t know about it.
    ***
    Yes, the overwhelming majority of Americans are simply just too stupid. They have been brainwashed by textbooks that suggest “East” Jerusalem was captured from Jordan in 1967.

    Thank goodness they have an oracle to enlighten them.

    If all the arabs wanted was “East” Jerusalem, the Golan, Judea and Samaria, Israel wouldn’t have had to fight for its survival in 1967.

    Be appalled all you want… a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol.

    • Mayhem
      Mayhem
      February 16, 2014, 10:46 pm

      Right on Shuki!
      Dr. Mordechai Kedar affirms brilliantly what we need to know at
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6_Cd1rUo5k
      Jerusalem – never once mentioned in the Koran.
      @Philip, you refer to occupied East Jerusalem but in reality it is liberated Jewish Jerusalem, a city saved and restored after Jordan’s decrepit occupation.

      • American
        American
        February 17, 2014, 9:01 am

        Mayhem says:
        February 16, 2014 at 10:46 pm
        Jerusalem – never once mentioned in the Koran
        >>>>

        It wasnt called Jerusalem in the Koran, it was called Al Quds. And so much for your claim to Al Quds or Jerusalem—everyone and their brother has owned the Holy Site at one time or another.

        Al Quds
        Al-Quds is the Arabic and Muslim name of Jerusalem, meaning “the Holy.” According to Surah Al Israh of the Qur’an, Muhammad was transported to “the furthest mosque” on his horse, Al Buraq. Muslims believe that the site of the furthest mosque or furthest place of worship is the temple mount in Jerusalem, site of the ancient Jewish temple and currently the site of the al Aqsa mosque. Muslims hold Al Quds to be the third holiest city, after Mecca and Medina, and it was originally the Muslim Qibla – direction of prayer.

        The compound of the Beit-el-Maqdes (holy house, as in Hebrew- “Beit Hamiqdash – meaning the temple) is holy to Muslims. The Dome of the Rock or “Mosque of Omar” which is not a mosque but a shrine. Next to it is the al-Aqsa mosque. The same ground is holy to Jews as the Temple Mount. The original buildings were apparently built by Caliph Abd al Malik between 687 and 691, but the original al-Aqsa mosque did not survive.

        In the 1960s the dome was resurfaced with gold. The dome covers a rock that according to Muslim tradition is the place where Muhammad departed to heaven. According to Jewish tradition it is the rock upon which Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac.

        Muslims also revere the remains of the West Wall of the temple, which they believe is the place where Muhammad tied his horse when he he was flown to Jerusalem in one night.

        Timeline of significant events for Al-Quds (Jerusalem)

        5th millennium: The “Canaanites” (or Yevusites) conquer the site.

        15th century: The area is conquered by Egypt.

        About 990: The Hebrew king David conquers Yevus, including Zion and renames it Jerusalem, Yerushalayim or city of peace. He makes it his capital, and the Ark of the Covenant is brought to Jerusalem.

        10th century: King Solomon builds the temple and has a wall built around the city

        c. 920: Jerusalem is sacked by the army of Egyptian pharaoh Sheshonk 1.

        c. 785: Joash, king of Israel sacks Jerusalem.

        c. 701: Unsuccessful siege of Senacharib, king of Assyria. According to some sources, Jerusalem is nonetheless forced to pay tribute. A tunnel built by Hezekiah, king of Judea, contains a Hebrew inscription from this time, recording that the tunnel was dug to bring water to Jerusalem in preparation for the siege, and deny it to the Assyrians, as was related in the biblical book of Chronicles and the book of Kings. (See Hezekiah’s Tunnel)

        c. 612: Assyria yields its supremacy over Judea to Babylonia.

        c. 604: Jerusalem is pillaged by the Babylonians, and the king Jehoiakim and his court are captured and transferred to Babylon.

        c. 587: The Temple of Jerusalem is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Many of the inhabitants of Jerusalem are deported to Babylonia.

        c. 538: The Persians defeat Babylon, and allow the Jews to return to Judea.

        c. 515: Second temple is built under the patronage of Cyrus, king of Persia.

        c 444: Nehemiah supervises rebuilding of the fortifications.

        333: Jerusalem is part of Alexander’s empire or sphere of influence.

        320’s: Jerusalem comes under control of Hellenistic Egypt, ruled by Ptolemy 1 Soter.

        198: Jerusalem is transferred to Seleucus 1 Nicator, of Antioch.

        167: Repressive measures spark a rebellion led by the family known as the Maccabees. The manage to drive the Selucids out of Jerusalem and Judea. Roman Senate recognizes Judah Maccabee as a “friend of the Roman people and senate, and places Judea under its protection.

        63: Jerusalem conquered by Pompey of Rome, after he was invited to adjudicate a dispute regarding the priesthood.

        40: Herod the Edomite becomes king of the Roman province of Judea.

        4 Herod dies, and is succeeded by his son Archelaus.

        6 ACE: Judean kingship is abolished and replaced by Roman procurators.

        66: The Jews rebel against Roman rule.

        70: Vespasian lays siege to Jerusalem; his son Titus conquers Jerusalem and razes the city, destroying the temple.

        c. 132: After Romans under Caesar Hadrianus outlaw circumcision, a Jewish rebellion is staged by Simon Bar Kochba. The rebellion is crushed by 135 and large numbers of Jews are killed or exiled. With the advent of Christianity, Jerusalem becomes the center of that religion for a time, under the Church of St. James.

        336: The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built over the ground where Jesus was buried according to tradition.

        Mid 4th century: Large immigration of Christians to Jerusalem, and Christian pilgrimage becomes popular. The relatively small city of Jerusalem was soon turned into a Christian city.
        6th century: The Armenian church establishes its patriarchate in Jerusalem.

        614: Jerusalem was briefly conquered by the Sassanid Persian king Khosrau 2. Many of Jerusalem’s inhabitants are massacred, and the churches destroyed.

        628: Jerusalem reconquered by the Byzantines.

        c. 637: Jerusalem is conquered by the Arab Muslims.

        c. 688: Caliph Abd al Malik builds the holy compound over the ruins of the Temple of Jerusalem, and the place where the Muslims claimed that Muhammad had ascended to heaven. It includes the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque.

        10th century: The current al-Aqsa mosque is built next to the Dome of the Rock.

        969: Jerusalem comes under the rule of the Fatimids of Egypt.

        1010: Fatimid caliph al-Hakim orders the destruction of the Christian shrines of Jerusalem, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

        11th century: New city walls are erected, which exclude the City of David and Mt. Zion.

        1071: Seljuq Turks conquer Jerusalem.

        1098: Jerusalem is recaptured by the Egyptians.

        1099: European crusaders conquer Jerusalem, murdering about 70,000 and expelling all the Jews. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is founded.

        1141: Spanish Jewish poet Yehuda Halevi goes to Jerusalem.

        1149: The new Church of the Holy Sepulchre is consecrated.

        1187: Jerusalem is reconquered by the Muslims under Salah-eddin (Saladin). The “Kingdom of Jerusalem” continues to exist as a small state limited to the coast of Palestine.

        1192: Richard the Lion hearted fails to retake Jerusalem.

        1229: The crusaders resume control of Jerusalem under a treaty between German Emperor Frederick II and the Egyptian Sultan al-Kamil.

        1244: Jerusalem is conquered by the Tatars.

        1247: Jerusalem conquered by Egyptian Mameluks. The only Christians remaining in town were Greek Orthodox and some eastern churches. Jews were allowed to return.

        1259: Jerusalem is sacked by the Mongols.

        1517: Jerusalem conquered by Ottoman Empire under Sultan Selim.

        1535-8: Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilds city ramparts and wall around Jerusalem.

        1556: Earthquake in Jerusalem.

        1831: Jerusalem is conquered by Egyptian troops of Mehmet Ali.

        1840: The Ottomans conquer Jerusalem.

        1847: The Latin Patriarchate (Roman Catholic Church) is reestablished in Jerusalem.

        1859-60: Mishkenot Shaananim constructed outside the walled city by Jews.

        1869: Nahlat Shiva constructed outside the walled city.

        1873-5: Meah Shearim constructed outside the walled city.

        1887: A municipality is established for Jerusalem.

        1917: British troops take control of Jerusalem, following the defeat of the Ottomans in the World War I.

        1918: Cornerstone of Hebrew University is laid in Mount Scopus, northeast of the old city.

        1920: Arab riots against Jewish community.

        1921: Arab riots against Jewish community.

        1922: Jerusalem becomes part of the British Mandate for Palestine.

        ——————————————————————————–

        Synonyms and alternate spellings: Jerusalem, Qods, Quds Al Sharif

        Encyclopedia of the Middle East
        Index
        http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 17, 2014, 2:08 pm

        @American:

        It wasnt called Jerusalem in the Koran, it was called Al Quds.

        American, I think you little confuse between the Quran and the ahadith. As Shuki said, Jerusalem or Al-Quds doesn’t mentioned in the Quran. “The furthest mosque” that is mentioned in Surat Al-Issra was recognized many years later by Muslims in Hadith as the place of the Jewish temple. Here is the phrase from Surat Al-Issra;

        “”Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing”.

        In the past I wrote about this issue and also quoted the relevant Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith. You can read it here:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/worshipers-trigger-intifada.html/comment-page-1#comment-613659

        I encourage you to read most of the comments I wrote to Woody Tanaka in the thread I linked. Although Jerusalem is the Jewish holiest city and never declared as a capital by any Muslim ruler, I have no problem to share it with the Palestinians, although it will be hard to me to see my city divided again.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      February 17, 2014, 12:38 am

      “If all the arabs wanted was “East” Jerusalem, the Golan, Judea and Samaria, Israel wouldn’t have had to fight for its survival in 1967.”

      Israel didn’t have to fight for its survival in 1967. It freely chose to attack its neighbours.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      February 17, 2014, 12:44 am

      ” a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol”

      It’s a Gordian knot, Shuki. It will never be untied.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      February 17, 2014, 12:58 am

      Abbas also stressed he did not want to “re-divide” Jerusalem, saying both peoples could live under their own authorities, which would be overseen by coordinating body.

      “We do not want to re-divide Jerusalem, (we want to) leave Jerusalem open,” he said.

      Israel captured east Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War and later annexed it in a move never recognised by the international community, but the Palestinians want the eastern sector as capital of their promised state.

      “We will build a municipality in addition to the Israeli municipality and we have a superior body to coordinate between them. What’s wrong with this?” Abbas said, winning a round of applause.

      “This is the beginning of coexistence, the beginning of real coexistence.

      https://news.yahoo.com/palestinians-won-39-t-39-flood-israel-39-182642689.html

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      February 17, 2014, 2:03 am

      If all the arabs wanted was “East” Jerusalem, the Golan, Judea and Samaria, Israel wouldn’t have had to fight for its survival in 1967.

      Dull.

      Israel didn’t have to fight for it’s survival – 1967 was a war of choice started by Israel. Numerous contemporary Israeli sources have said this on the record since – they knew Nasser had no intentions of attacking Israel.

      On what grounds are you disputing them?

      1967 was a land grab, a ‘heating up’ of the ethnic cleansing that began in 1947 and has never stopped.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 17, 2014, 3:30 am

        Sumud- True enough the war of 67 was not a war of survival and thus your critique of Shuki is valid. Yet, to exonerate Nasser and the Russians for the outbreak of that war, and to place all the blame on Israel seems to be rather wrong historically. The Russians seem to have wanted that war or certainly the crisis that sparked that war. To label the war as merely a land grab- is to label the outcome of the war as the cause of the war and I think that is a faulty/false portrayal of the history.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 3:45 am

        yonah fredman:

        The Russians seem to have wanted that war…

        Evidence, please.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 17, 2014, 4:44 am

        Sibiriak- First stop wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

        the Soviet Union fed the Syrian government false information that Israel was planning to invade Syria.[95] On May 13, the Soviets informed Egypt officially that Israel was massing troops and was planning on invading Syria.[96]
        It was later revealed that on May 13 a Soviet intelligence report given by Soviet President Nikolai Podgorny to Egyptian Vice President Anwar Sadat claimed falsely that Israeli troops were massing along the Syrian border.[97][98]

        Footnotes; 95. Part 4: The 1967 Six Day War. Retrieved 28 December 2008.

        This is NPR. link http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history4.html

        quote:In the spring of that year, the Soviet Union had led the radical government in Damascus to believe that Israel was planning to invade Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser.

        96. Benny Morris Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. Pg 304
        97. Bregman 2002, pp. 68–69.
        Bregman, Ahron (2002). Israel’s Wars: A History Since 1947. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-28716-2
        98. Black 1992, p. 210.
        Black, Ian (1992). Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services. Grove Press. ISBN 0-8021-3286-3

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 4:53 am

        @ Yonah:

        : [Wikipedia:]In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.

        I was asking for evidence the Soviet Union “wanted war”. It’s a huge leap to go from some inaccurate intelligence reports to a desire for war, isn’t it?

        See: Zeev Maoz (2009. Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy .

        In late April and early May 1967, Soviet intelligence informed Egypt that Israel was concentrating its troops near its northeast border facing Syria. Israel flatly denied these rumors. However, the Syrians—convinced that the Israelis were preparing a major strike against the Ba’ath regime—called upon Egypt for help. On May 15, 1967, in response to the Syrian and Soviet warnings, two Egyptian brigades crossed the Suez Canal into the Sinai Peninsula

        .

        No mention of the USSR wanting war.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 5:19 am

        @yonah fredman:

        More from Zeev Maoz– the Russians NOT wanting war:

        We know two things. First, the Soviets provided Egypt with a false report about Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian border. They refused to retract their claim even when the Egyptians knew that this had not been the case.6

        Second, during the crisis, THE SOVIETS DID THEIR BEST TO RESTRAIN THE EGYPTIANS IN ORDER TO AVERT WAR.

        SOVIET PRESSURE MAY WELL HAVE PREVENTED THE LAUNCHING OF AN EGYPTIAN COMBINED AERIAL STRIKE on Israeli targets on May 28 (Oren 2002, 117–21).

        This duality in the Soviet behavior is clearly puzzling. Some accounts suggest that the Soviets purposely fabricated the report about Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian border for several reasons. First, they may have been misled by the Syrians and simply repeated Syrian claims without double-checking their accuracy.

        Second, Soviet intelligence did a poor job of analyzing information without double-checking it. Third, the Soviets may have been trying to improve Nasser’s standing within the Arab world by a seemingly harmless military-diplomatic maneuver.7

        However, if the Soviet leaders believed that Israel had been planning to hit the Syrian regime, then their actions can be seen as an effort to deter Israel through their Egyptian proxy rather than by issuing a direct threat to Israel—which could have provoked American intervention.

        Once the crisis escalated, THE MODERATE FACTION IN THE KREMLIN—LED BY PRIME MINISTER KOSYGIN—PUT PRESSURE ON EGYPT TO LET DIPLOMACY RUN ITS COURSE.. It would have been counterproductive, from a Soviet perspective, if Egypt had started the war. Thus, the Soviet Union was also playing a deterrence game with both its regional adversaries and its allies.

        (” Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy”, emphasis added)

        Yonah, what are you claiming was the Soviet’s motive for “wanting war”? And can you point me to any accounts by historians assserting this alleged Soviet desire for war?

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 6:32 am

        yonah fredman:

        The Russians were willing to risk a war for they sparked a crisis that led to the war.

        Simplistic and misleading. The Russians could be said to have, at most, inflamed a crisis that was already developing out of a whole series of previous actions.

        Moaz reviewed all the literature on the war and he states unequivocably that:

        The literature on the crisis is in agreement that [the Soviet] reports were false and that the Egyptians were well aware of this.

        If the Egyptians knew the Soviet reports were false, there is no basis for your claim that Soviet misinformation sparked the crisis. .

        Do you have evidence that the Egyptians were NOT aware that the Soviet information was false?

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 17, 2014, 5:01 am

        yonah – I think 750,000 or so illegal jewish squatters in the occupied West Bank combined with Israel’s refusal to let nearly 300,000 Palestinian refugees from 1967 return (17,000 only were permitted) speak more than enough to Israel’s intentions, i.e. 1947/8/9 redux.

        I think of 1967 as Israel’s Great Gamble, and because the settlements have made a viable Palestinian state near impossible –making one state inevitable, also a poisoned chalice.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 17, 2014, 6:18 am

        Sibiriak- I was deriding Sumud’s simplistic “land grab” interpretation of the war. I was asserting that such a statement as Sumud made that ignored the Soviet role in causing the crisis made his statement a falsification of history. (or should I say History for Dummies or History for Believers or History for Propagandists). The Soviets may have thought they could cause a crisis without starting a war. That is a gamble that they took and lost. My complete sentence, the first half of which offended you so much was: The Russians seem to have wanted that war or certainly the crisis that sparked that war. I am sorry for the first half of the sentence. It should have read: The Russians were willing to risk a war for they sparked a crisis that led to the war. (Happy now?)

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 7:16 am

        yonah:

        to exonerate Nasser and the Russians for the outbreak of that war, and to place all the blame on Israel seems to be rather wrong historically.

        I agree that it would be oversimplistic to “place all the blame on Israel” for the outbreak of the war, however, I believe you also are engaging false polemics when you claim that the Russians certainly wanted the crisis that sparked the war . It’s not at all certain that the Russians wanted to inflame an ongoing crisis , while it IS certain they did not spark it.

        Let us not confuse the complex factors leading up to a crisis in 1967 with Israel’s intentions and Israel’s choice to to start the war and grab land in the West Bank etc. .

        Confusing causes with effects is silliness

        Israel’s desire for more land, particularly the important holy areas of “Eretz Israel” in the West Bank, was a major cause of the war ; getting that land was a major effect.

        I agree with Sumud on that point.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 17, 2014, 8:17 am

        yonah fredman:

        [The Russians] sparked a crisis that led to the war.

        The crisis had proximate causes in an escalation in tension and violence between Israel and Syria of which the false Russian reports were a relatively late and not very consequential element.

        Syria had embarked on a project to divert the Haztbani river; Israel wished to destroy that project, but did not want to initiate aggressive action that would damage its relationship with the West. The IDF developed a strategy of taking non-military actions to provoke a Syrian military response, then retaliate with military action to destroy the diversion project. On two occasions the Israeli air force attacked the diversion project, and by February 1966 work on the diversion project was stopped. Syria then began to give indirect support to the PLO.

        Yet, the Israeli military activity along the border continued and even escalated throughout 1966. Using similar tactics for triggering incidents, the Israelis continued to provoke the Syrians. The IDF responded disproportionately every time the Syrians opened fire on Israeli tractors working in the DMZs or on police boats disguised as fishing boats getting close to the northeast shore of Lake Kinneret.

        […]

        In a rare and revealing interview ten years after that period, Moshe Dayan discussed this pattern of Israeli behavior with the journalist Rami Tal (1997).

        DAYAN: I know how AT LEAST 80% OF ALL THOSE INCIDENTS there [along the Israeli-Syrian border] got started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let us talk about 80. It worked like this: we would send a tractor to plow some place in the demilitarized zone where nothing could be grown, and we knew ahead of time that the Syrians would shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to move deeper [into the DMZ], until the Syrians got mad eventually and fired on it. And then we would activate artillery, and later on the air force. […]

        Rami Tal: I am quite stunned by what you are saying. And for what was all this?

        DAYAN: Well, looking back, I can’t say there was a well-defined strategic conception on this issue. Generally speaking, I’ll tell you this. When the War of Independence ended, we signed armistice agreements with the Arabs. We were smart enough to understand that these agreements were not peace agreements, but we were not smart enough to understand that the armistice agreements that had been signed under the auspices of the UN and which were supported by the great powers . . . were very serious agreements that form something with a significant political value.

        What do I want to say by this? We thought then, and it lasted for a long time, that WE CAN CHANGE THE ARMISTICE LINES by a series of military operations that are less than war, that is, to SNATCH SOME TERRITORY and hold on to it until the enemy would give up on it. . . .

        (Zeez Maoz , “Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy”)

        So, Israel was slowly but surely creating a crisis with Syria by provoking incidents along the border with the ultimate purpose of grabbing land .

        If we step back just a bit, we can easily see that 1) Israel was never, ever willing to accept the ’48 armistice lines as a permanent border and wished to grab more of “Eretz Israel”; 2) the Arab states were not willing to accept an expansionist Zionist state; and 3) crucially, there was a substantial power asymmetry between Israel and the Arab states (accentuated by Israel’s decision to embark on a nuclear weapons project in the early 1960’s, aided by France et al.).

        In short, Israel had the power to expand–GRAB LAND- and it chose to do so via various methods, including war.

      • Shuki
        Shuki
        February 17, 2014, 4:54 pm

        “rather wrong historically”
        ***
        Let’s call the child by its name… it is revisionism and a complete falsehood. The notion that Israel chose to go to war out-manned and out-gunned against all of its arab neighbors is absurd. That the Israeli’s prevented the arabs from wiping them out under the military genius of Arik Sharon is a sore that will never stop festering in the side of Israeli’s enemies.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 17, 2014, 3:54 am

        Nasser had no intentions of attacking Israel.

        Al-Jazeera doesn’t agree – refer http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/arabunity/2008/03/2008525173155113657.html
        Earlier he had made the noises to which Sumud is alluding – http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/FRUS8_24_62.html
        but whatever Nassar did publicly was his political manoeuvring, his game of deception.

        Would like to get hold of the whole series of ‘A Question of Arab Unity’ but can only find parts 1 and 2 on youtube.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 17, 2014, 5:43 am

        Mayhem – I’ll take primary Israeli sources over an unsigned AJ article.

        Let’s examine what prominent Israelis had to say about 1967:

        While PM in 1982 and arguing for (another) Israeli invasion of Lebanon Menachem Begin said:

        In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

        Mordechai Bentov, an Israeli cabinet minister in 1967 said the claims that Israelis were facing extermination by neighbouring arab states were:

        invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.

        Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of the General Staff in 1967 said:

        I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.

        Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during 1967 Major General Mattityahu Peled, said the survival argument was:

        …a bluff which was born and developed only after the war… When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today.”

        and further:

        To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military).

        U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time Robert McNamara told Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban that the U.S. intelligence assessment was that:

        the Egyptian deployments were defensive in character and anticipatory of a possible Israeli attack.

        Even Michael Oren gets in on the act describing US intelligence assessments on the situation and that of Israel’s own intelligence:

        By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed…

        and further, that Israel’s assessment was that:

        Nasser would have to be deranged to take on an Israel backed by France and the U.S. Sixth Fleet. War, according to the Israelis, could only come about if Nasser felt he had complete military superiority over the IDF, if Israel were caught up in a domestic crisis, and, most crucially, was isolated internationally—a most unlikely confluence.

        You know better than all of them do you Mayhem…?

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 17, 2014, 6:32 am

        @sumud, you quote from wikipedia (normally a taboo source on Mondoweiss) very selectively, a deceitful activity to say the least. You have also conveniently overlooked the Syrians and Jordanians and their concomitant build up of military force. You don’t mention how Nassar proclaimed, “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.” Check out the volume of discussion in the paragraphs at wikipedia against “Did Israel plan a war?” and for “Did Egypt plan a war?” Your conclusions pretty quickly dissolve in the face of the reality of the events at the time.
        Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated the following facts:
        “The facts of the June 1967 Six Day War demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 17, 2014, 9:58 am

        Mayhem –

        you quote from wikipedia (normally a taboo source on Mondoweiss) very selectively, a deceitful activity to say the least.

        Wikipedia is not the source, each of those quotes by Israelis are footnoted with a source. Go see for yourself.

        Which of them are you disputing, if any?

        What are you actually claiming – that Egypt attacked Israel? Or that pre-emptive war is defensive war?

        I disagree on both points. Pre-emptive war is an act of aggression. At any rate, the Israelis I quoted rule out any possible claims of pre-emptive-war-as-defensive on Israel’s part. They knew Nasser wasn’t going to attack, they attacked Egypt anyway.

        Land grab.

        The article from which you quote Stephen Schwebel but fail to attribute, frames his opinion as fact – but it is opinion nevertheless.

        Another article quoting the same text by Schwebel includes in tiny text the disclaimer:

        (not written in any of his former official capacities)

        Opinion.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        February 17, 2014, 11:47 am

        Another in the series of ‘the vanishing reply button’.

        This is posted in support of sumud’s position.

        The deception had begun with the war itself. Only half an hour after Israel attacked Egypt, an army spokesman announced on state radio that Egypt had attacked Israel. (Eban was still making this claim with a straight face at the UN General Assembly two weeks later.) This announcement was followed by Dayan’s statement that Israel had ‘no aims of conquest’. Dayan, who had never resigned himself to the failure to capture the West Bank in the 1948 war, forgot his pledge in a matter of days. His desire for more ‘living space’, as he put it, was widely shared: Ben-Gurion described the failure to seize East Jerusalem in 1948 as a cause of ‘lamentation for generations’; Israel appointed a military general of the West Bank in 1963, four years before it even captured the territory; and Allon, just before the 1967 war, declared that in the next round of hostilities Israel had to ‘achieve total victory, the territorial fulfilment of the Land of Israel’. There was no master plan for the conquests of 1967 – as Avi Shlaim argues in a new anthology of essays – but the war aroused an expansionist streak that had been dormant since the Suez war, when Ben-Gurion agreed to withdraw from the Sinai and Gaza only under intense American pressure.[*]

        Less than 24 hours after the final ceasefire, the cabinet annexed East Jerusalem. In an act of linguistic subterfuge that would become a familiar pattern of its rule in the Occupied Territories, annexation was cast as a ‘municipal fusion’ intended to provide services to Palestinian residents of the Old City. The cabinet also secretly decided that Gaza would remain part of Israel, and that Israel would not withdraw from the West Bank – soon to be renamed ‘Judea and Samaria’, and populated with civilian settlements disguised as military outposts – until peace treaties were signed with the Arab states. Israel had never set much store by peace treaties – ‘the weakest guarantee of the future of peace’, in Allon’s words – but the insistence on them now served a purpose. In Cabinet Resolution 563, adopted on 19 June 1967, Israel proposed peace agreements based on ‘international borders’ and the vaguely defined ‘security needs of Israel’, and a withdrawal from Sinai and the Golan. Eban later claimed that the resolution astonished the Americans with its generosity, but that the Arabs had rebuffed it. However, as Raz points out, there is no indication that the resolution was passed on to the Arabs, or that the Israelis wanted it to be (the American records state that Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, considered it ‘helpful to have these preliminary thoughts’). Eban himself told Eshkol that the aim of the resolution was to ‘give the Americans something which would motivate them to thwart the Soviet drive for a UN resolution demanding an unconditional Israeli withdrawal’. Even the promise to withdraw from the Sinai and the Golan, Raz observes, was carefully hedged so that Israel could retain parts of both.

        The 19 June resolution was also conspicuously silent as to the future status of the West Bank. The conventional explanation is that the Eshkol government – a national unity cabinet, wracked by political differences and personal animosities – was too divided to reach an agreement. As Begin put it, the government ‘decided not to decide’ because it was easier not to. But, Raz argues, at bottom there was a consensus. The various plans for the West Bank that were debated over the next few years, and which he anatomises in dizzying detail, differed over which parts of the West Bank Israel should keep: whether the leftovers should go back to Jordan or be turned into a semi-autonomous Palestinian entity; whether King Hussein should be overthrown and his kingdom declared a Palestinian state; and where the refugees should be resettled (Eshkol favoured Iraq). But none of these plans envisaged Arab sovereignty, a withdrawal to the 4 June lines, or – least of all – the return of East Jerusalem. Land was security, Israelis believed, and they weren’t about to give up land that offered them more of it – especially land this sacred. Eshkol and his fellow Labour Party members were swept up in the same wave of messianism as other Israeli Jews. ‘We have returned to our most holy places,’ Dayan said, ‘and we shall never leave them.’ Going back to the 4 June lines was unthinkable, as much for reasons of faith as for security: Eretz Israel had, at last, been ‘liberated’.

        From Adam schatz’s review of ‘the bride and the dowry’ by avi raz.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        February 17, 2014, 5:32 pm

        Pre-emptive strikes against an aggressor are justifiable – refer http://www.e-ir.info/2011/06/08/is-pre-emptive-war-ever-justified/
        “Israel and the six day war June 5th 1967 is a chief example of pre-emptive force which was, according to the UN Charter, justified. Why? Because the threats were incontestably imminent. Egypt and other Arab states began moving troops to the Israeli borders, occupying the Sinai Peninsula, the west bank and Gaza strip. This was a clear strategy to surround Israel and consequently was a clear threat to the freedom of Israel. Israel claimed its attack was defensive in nature and necessary to forestall an Arab invasion.” (Ackerman, 2003: 5).
        @sumud, all this guff about the illegality of the settlements in Judaea and Samaria – also opinion.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 18, 2014, 11:03 pm

        Mayhem “Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel”

        Nice bit of zio nonsense. He wasn’t a judge when he gave his opinion, he was only a professor. Furthermore Israel wasn’t “restoring” its sovereignty by war, Israel it was “acquiring” territory by war. Quite illegal. Read Lauterpacht/Schwebel/Herzog http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#Schwebel

        “The facts of the June 1967 Six Day War demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors”

        Problem. 1966 (UNSC res 228)

        “This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat”

        A blockade doesn’t legally exist unless it has been effectively enforced. It was never challenged.

        ” despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated

        UNSC res 228

        “The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

        Irrelevant. It had been illegal by at least 1933 to acquire territory by war, ANY war.

        ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 17, 2014, 6:50 am

        yonah –

        I was deriding Sumud’s simplistic “land grab” interpretation of the war. I was asserting that such a statement as Sumud made that ignored the Soviet role in causing the crisis made his statement a falsification of history.

        Deride away.

        ‘It’s complicated’ is merely your method of trying to obfuscate Israel’s intentions, as demonstrated by:

        • ethnic cleansing of 300,000 West BankPalestinians
        • refusal of more than token return of said refugees
        • 750,000 illegal Israel settlers
        • 47 years of military occupation with no end in sight.

        This is the fault of the Soviets? Or an accidental outcome?

        (or should I say History for Dummies or History for Believers or History for Propagandists)

        Tsk tsk tsk, how rude. You forgot to call me an anti-semite, or ‘extremist’.

        If relying on Israeli sources to form an argument make me a ‘propagandist’, so be it:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/tippett-occupied-jerusalem.html/comment-page-1#comment-641477

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 17, 2014, 7:06 am

        Confusing causes with effects is silliness. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor so that they could sell their cars to America.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 17, 2014, 8:15 am

        Confusing causes with effects is silliness.

        Yes it is. Please stop.

        The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor so that they could sell their cars to America.

        If they managed to bomb Ford, GM and Chrysler then penetrate the US car market and start selling within 6 days of attacking Pearl Harbour, you would probably be correct. But of course they didn’t, unlike Israel’s immediate actions: within days ethnic cleansing began across the occupied Palestinian territories.

        Forgetting the cause of the war altogether – in fact let’s imagine Russia and Egypt conspired to and did start the 1967 war – what does the ethnic cleansing, demolition of Palestinian village and refusal to let refugees return say to you about Israel’s intentions?

        None of those things are an effect of war, they are an effect of Israeli policy – and broadly a repeat of Israel’s behaviour in 1947/8/9.

        Granted, temporary occupation is an effect of war, but occupying for 47 years, stealing most of Palestine’s aquifer water and defacing the land with illegal settlements is not.

        It all points to a land grab.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        February 18, 2014, 12:23 pm

        the Israelis had prepared a hysterical, fictional narrative that was broadcast on national radio describing in detail the Egyptian ‘offensive’. Rabin (then chief of staff) had also prepared plans for a sort of Levantine Gleiwitz, wherein the IDF was going to lob a few artillery shells and blame the blasts on the Egyptian army thus justifying a ‘defensive’ response.

        there is absolutely no question (despite the bleating of the likes of mayhem) that Israeli actions were pre-planned and offensive in nature, and no question (despite some initial disagreement and equivocation) that land conquest was the primary, anticipated outcome. (Ben-Gurion and others had been kicking themselves for two decades over their indecisiveness and failure to take the West Bank in 1948.)

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 18, 2014, 2:39 pm

        Mayhem

        “Pre-emptive strikes against an aggressor are justifiable – refer link to e-ir.info “

        Problem … Israel had already attacked in 1966

        Resolution 228(1966)
        of 25 November 1966
        The Security Council,
        Having heard the statements of the representatives of Jordan and Israel concerning the grave Israel military action which took place in the southern Hebron area on 13 November 1966,
        Having noted the information provided by the Secre-tary-General concerning this military action in his statement of 16 November 17 and also in his report of 18 November I966,18
        Observing that this incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the terri-tory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel,
        Reaffirming the previous resolutions of the Security Council condemning past incidents of reprisal in breach of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan 19 and of the United Nations Charter,
        Recalling the repeated resolutions of the Security Council asking for the cessation of violent incidents across the demarcation line, and not overlooking past incidents of this nature.
        Reaffirming the necessity for strict adherence to the General Armistice Agreement,
        1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the action of the Government of Israel on 13 November 1966;
        2. Censures Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jor-dan;
        3. Emphasizes to Israel that actions of military repri-sal cannot be tolerated and that, if they are repeated, the Security Council will have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter to ensure against the repetition of such acts;

        ” Egypt and other Arab states began moving troops to the Israeli borders…

        Cute wording “to the Israeli borders”. They moved their troops to their own borders and within the Armistice lines in the territories they controlled BY AGREEMENT with Israel. Nothing illegal.

        “… occupying the Sinai Peninsula, the west bank and Gaza strip”

        All of which were already under their control by AGREEMENT with Israel under the Armistice Agreements.

        “This was a clear strategy to surround Israel and consequently was a clear threat to the freedom of Israel”

        Nonsense. If a country is already in the middle of other states, its already surrounded.

        “all this guff about the illegality of the settlements in Judaea and Samaria – also opinion”

        UNSC 476 is based on the law. The law does not have an opinion.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        February 18, 2014, 2:53 pm

        this is to talknic re: the 1966 attack.

        That offensive is what lead King Hussein of Jordan to conclude that Israel intended to annex the WB. He predicted June 1967 in November 1966.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 17, 2014, 9:02 am

        yonah fredman: The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor so that they could sell their cars to America.

        For those who are mentally sane: The US had put an oil embargo upon Japan. Japan response was to capture oil fields in the Indies and the only fleet which would have been able to interfere would have been US fleet.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      February 17, 2014, 2:18 am

      If all the arabs wanted was “East” Jerusalem, the Golan, Judea and Samaria, Israel wouldn’t have had to fight for its survival in 1967.

      Full marks for realising that the territories occupied in ’67 are not the only source of the conflict. I wish the Israeli “left” were half as perspicacious. As for possible paths to resolution (including ’48) today, see e.g. the Arab Peace Initiative.

      • Shuki
        Shuki
        February 17, 2014, 11:20 pm

        “Occupation” is hardly a source of the problem from the arab’s perspective. “Existence” is what they object to. “Occupation” is noting more than a pretext for those who decry it.

        The so called arab peace initiative is a path to resolution only in the sense that it leads to the destruction of Israel… this is the “peace” and “resolution” sought by the arab league.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      February 17, 2014, 8:51 am

      Shuki: Yes, the overwhelming majority of Americans are simply just too stupid. They have been brainwashed by textbooks that suggest “East” Jerusalem was captured from Jordan in 1967.

      Would it be ok to say that the “overwhelming majority of Jews” are simply just too stupid and have been brainwashed because every (other) UN member state, every Security Council resolution regarding the status of Jerusalem and even the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice considers ALL of Jerusalem to be occupied and illegaly annexed by your Antigentile Apartheid Junta?

      mayhem: Jerusalem – never once mentioned in the Koran.

      Jerusalem and Tel Aviv never once mentioned in the Torah, too, which is totally irrelevant for civilisations which are not retarted and abide by international law.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 17, 2014, 9:55 am

        Well, I suppose that ‘Salem’, where Melchizedek is King, does appear in the Torah/Pentateuch.
        The Zionist ‘Judaea and Samaria’, denoting a single region, is not a Biblical phrase. ‘The regions of J and S’ are mentioned in Acts 8, but the plural is significant. In the older Scriptures Samaria is a city rather than a region and has a very negative image as a site of religious error. It was destroyed in brutal fashion by the armies of John, High Priest and ?King of the Jews, around 110 BCE, perhaps fulfilling a long-standing objective of the rulers of Jerusalem, perhaps pursuing a personal agenda of eliminating all sites that were in political or cultic terms Jerusalem’s rivals. The historic connection of Jewish people with Samaria is very negative, so that that ‘Judaea and Samaria’ phrase grates against the facts. That does not mean that, in all the circumstances of today, Jewish people should not live there: no moral principle implies that. The historic connection of Jewish people with Jerusalem is, considered in the same terms, of course very much more positive, but in the same way there is no moral principle linking that fact with unique rights for Jewish people in Jerusalem now.
        ‘Judaea’ in various linguistic forms was from a very early stage the region around Jerusalem: the application of the name expanded over the Persian and Hellenistic periods, as is explained by Israel Finkelstein in his article on ‘The Expansion of Yehud’. But beyond a certain point the name did not fit comfortably, as we see from the designations of the tetrarchies under Augustus, where Judaea is a limited subset.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        February 18, 2014, 12:09 pm

        Well, I suppose that ‘Salem’, where Melchizedek is King, does appear in the Torah/Pentateuch.

        In that case Jerusalem was mentioned in the Quran as (first) Qibla (direction of prayer).

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 18, 2014, 4:47 pm

        @Talkback:

        Could you, please, quote the Quranic verses about the Ulla l’Qiblatain (First Qibla)?

        As far as I know the phrase “Ulla l’Qiblatain, wu-Thani l’Masjadin wu-Thalet l’Haramain” is not Quranic, but was coind later.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 17, 2014, 9:28 am

      >> a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol.

      Jerusalem – tied or untied – should be a free city and the capital of neither a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel* nor a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine.

      (*Israel, not supremacist “Jewish State”.)

      And the “holy places” should be dismantled and re-located (or simply reduced to rubble) and replaced with a nice public park. :-)

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 17, 2014, 10:09 am

        ” a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol”

        I think the Israeli BDSM scene is in Tel Aviv LOL

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 18, 2014, 7:49 pm

      Shuki ” the overwhelming majority of Americans are simply just too stupid”

      Quite intentionally mis-informed would be far more accurate, same as most Israelis are intentionally mis-informed

      “They have been brainwashed by textbooks that suggest “East” Jerusalem was captured from Jordan in 1967”

      Indeed it was and at the time under the sovereignty of a UN Member state and High Contracting Power, namely Jordan, which is why the GC’s do apply.

      “If all the arabs wanted was “East” Jerusalem, the Golan, Judea and Samaria, Israel wouldn’t have had to fight for its survival in 1967”

      Strange that lower case for “‘a’rabs” … You need to practice more, you only lower case it and “‘p’alestinian/e/s” 90% of the time. http://wp.me/pDB7k-dN

      BTW Israel wasn’t fighting for its survival, it was fighting in non-Israeli territory to keep the non-Israeli territory it had illegally acquired by war in 1948/49 and to acquire even more non-Israeli territory.

      “Be appalled all you want… a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol”

      Pity it isn’t actually in Israel. UNSC res 476, just one of the eight reminders of UNSC res 252 giving Israel the opportunity to adhere to the binding laws re-affirmed and emphasized in those resolutions, is quite clear. Unfortunately Israel chose to create more illegal facts on the ground.

  5. RoHa
    RoHa
    February 17, 2014, 12:36 am

    “a untied Jerusalem is our home and eternal capitol”

    Untied from … ?

    Capital: noun

    1 (also capital city or town) the city or town that functions as the seat of government and administrative centre of a country or region: ‘Warsaw is the capital of Poland’

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/capital

    Capitol:
    (usually the Capitol)

    1 the seat of the US Congress in Washington DC.
    1.1 (capitol) US a building housing a legislative assembly:
    ‘the work is on display at the Utah state capitol’

    2 the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in ancient Rome.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Capitol?q=capitol

    • puppies
      puppies
      February 17, 2014, 2:13 am

      @RoHaThere are times when I wholeheartedly approve your schoolmarmism.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 17, 2014, 3:26 am

        All times, I hope.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 17, 2014, 5:12 am

        Exceptionally.

    • Shuki
      Shuki
      February 17, 2014, 4:46 pm

      Maybe my English isn’t as good as yours but I obviously make up for it with my knowledge of history.

  6. bilal a
    bilal a
    February 17, 2014, 7:34 am

    …a bluff which was born and developed only after the war… invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories..an insult ..to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation

    Yet , it is a ‘blood libel’ , ‘blaming the victim’, and historical ‘denial’ to even suggest a narrative different than the official one, invented of whole cloth , only after the war, to justify subsequent Western-Israeli ethnic cleansing and terror.

    ADL: The 1967 War
    http://archive.adl.org/israel/record/67war.html

Leave a Reply