An unconscionable farce
Word reaches me that my criticisms below of the approach taken by UK Jewish leaders in the Jewish Human Rights Coalition towards the ‘Durban II’ farce in Geneva have produced a state of near-apoplexy among certain JHRC members and their hangers-on, who believe I have failed to recognise the heroic role these leaders have been playing behind the scenes at this meeting and the terrific results they have achieved. They thus underline how grievously they fail to get the point.
On one particular matter, however, I may have inadvertently giving the wrong impression. I wrote that it was only last Friday, when the JHRC fruitlessly implored Foreign Secretary David Miliband three times to withdraw from the conference, that they appeared to have realised that the event was indeed a travesty and that there were ‘serious concerns’ that could not be overcome. This has been taken to mean in some quarters that I was saying it was the first time the JHRC had asked the government to withdraw. Actually, I didn’t mean that. I meant precisely what I said -- that only on Friday did the JHRC realise the game was now up. But now I realise that this is not so. They still haven’t realised it.
Let’s look first at what the JHRC had actually said about withdrawal before its ‘three phone-call’ agony with Miliband last Friday. Its supporters claim that it had previously urged the government to withdraw. On March 19, the Jewish Chronicle reported that the President of the Board of Deputies and JHRC member Henry Grunwald had told the BofD the previous weekend that he had
lobbied the British government to withdraw.
But the same story went on:
‘There are ‘red lines’ and we think those lines have been crossed. I wrote to him [Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch Brown] and I am seeking a meeting with him. If they have been crossed, the government should keep the word it has given to us on many occasions and we will keep up the pressure,’ said Mr Grunwald. ‘The arguments are continuing. The Board is actively involved with other Jewish organisations in this country in trying to see if anything can be salvaged from what should be a very important international conference,’ he added. ‘But we are coming to the conclusion that it is beyond redemption.’
‘Coming to the conclusion’ that it was beyond redemption? ‘If’ the red lines had been crossed the government should withdraw? The requested meeting was, it was also reported, to ask the government
to clarify its position.
None of that is the same as having
lobbied the British government to withdraw.
It’s possible, of course, that Grunwald may have done so in his actual letter to Malloch Brown; but that’s not what was reported. Moreover, on March 20, the day after having that meeting with Malloch Brown, Grunwald’s tone had completely changed. The Jewish Chronicle now reported that Grunwald had hailed the newly sanitised draft Declaration for ‘Durban II’ as
a vast improvement on anything that has been considered before
and that, despite certain problems remaining with the text, it had given him ‘a degree of cautious optimism’ that the Geneva conference would not turn into a repeat of the Durban 2001 anti-Israel hate-fest.
All this ambiguity underlines the main point that I was making – that throughout this whole episode, the UK Jewish leaders have failed to understand the true sting of the ‘very important ‘ Geneva ‘Durban II’ conference and have adopted therefore deeply misguided tactics. In particular, they have repeatedly drawn a distinction between the potential undesirability of the UK government being involved in Geneva – which they accepted -- and the extreme desirability of themselves being involved. They failed to grasp the incoherence of their position: after all, if their own participation could improve matters, why did that not apply also to the government?
They thought they could help remove the worst aspects of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice from the text and prevent a re-run of the Durban 2001 hate-fest. But what they principally wanted to avoid was the vicious anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred that had poured out of the NGOs at the 2001 Durban meeting. They didn’t seem to grasp that the real problem was the official Declaration produced at that conference which singled out Israel for defamation as part of the UN’s campaign to delegitimise it. Indeed, some months ago I was told by one prominent JHRC member that there had been no problem with that Declaration, only with the NGOs.
Thus they doubly and triply miscalculated. For the whole point of this week’s Geneva conference, as its own Declaration makes clear, is to reaffirm the official text of Durban 2001. So any improvements to the text of the Geneva Declaration would therefore be worse than useless because they would merely serve to sanitise the process whose core mission is to reaffirm Durban 2001, thus institutionalising within the UN the libellous delegitimisation of Israel as a racist state. Worse even than that, by taking part they actually helped legitimise the entire process -- and thus made it easier for the British government to take its own appalling decision to attend the conference.
True, the British delegation took part in yesterday’s walk-out when Ahmadinejad embarked on his demented anti-Jewish rant. But this mass walk-out was little more than a shallow stunt since, with the exception of the Czech Republic, everyone promptly went back into the conference after Ahmadinejad left. And as Obama (to his credit) finally recognised, that conference remains unconscionable because it reaffirms the racist declaration of Durban 2001.
The fact is that even if Ahmadinejad had not turned up the Geneva conference was always going to be a travesty of human rights. With Iran as its vice-chair, Libya as the chair of the ‘Main Committee’ running the conference and Cuba acting as rapporteur, how could this ‘anti-racism’ meeting ever be anything other than a two-finger gesture by some of the world’s leading tyrannies to the cause of freedom and true human rights? It should have been shunned; and if it had been from the outset, the chances are that it would not have taken place at all.
Grotesquely, activists such as those protesting at my remarks are now actually congratulating themselves for ‘achieving a lot’ at Geneva, which they seem to think represents some kind of victory. They thus appear unable to see beyond their own enormous egos. Taking the credit for lobbying, arranging interviews, ‘gathering information on hostile NGOs’, monitoring antisemitic incidents around the complex and helping the noisy protests during Ahmadinejad’s speech is simply grandstanding on the back of an obscene event which should never have been allowed to happen.
The fact remains that Geneva provided a platform for Ahmadinejad -- on the anniversary of Hitler’s birthday and the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day -- to pose hideously as a champion of human rights while implicitly denying the Holocaust once again and defaming Israel – which he has repeatedly threatened to wipe out -- as a destroyer of those rights. And what was the mass walk-out other than an utterly hypocritical act of gesture politics? After all, it’s not as if anyone can have been surprised at what Ahmadinejad said. Every single person who turned up to hear him had a pretty good idea of what he was going to say. His appearance did not reduce the Geneva conference to a farce: it simply exposed it for the farce that it already was and rubbed the participants’ noses in it.
While the JHRC was congratulating itself for helping organise the protests against him, the Arab states sat there and applauded. The prestige and legitimacy thus afforded to Ahmadinejad’s foaming hatred towards Israel and the Jewish people will have been amplified throughout the Arab and Muslim world; and so too will the power and danger of the Iranian revolutionary regime. The BBC reports that the Iranian state media described Ahmadinejad as the
superstar of the conference... One pro-government paper said the president had shot the last bullet into the brain of the West.
If the free nations had shunned Geneva from the start, this damaging outcome could have been averted. As it is, Ahmadinejad’s remarks are today front page news around the world. The UK and US governments (despite the last-minute American withdrawal, its previous ambiguous attitude prevented other countries from following the lead of Canada and Israel in refusing to have anything to do with ‘Durban II’) along with the other participants in this travesty all helped make this happen -- and have thus helped strengthen the clenched Iranian fist yet further.
Nor have the British Jews apparently yet learned their lesson even now. The reason I wrote that on Friday they finally realised the whole thing was a travesty was that I thought they were finally calling it a day. Not so. For as they are now boasting to each other, they are still working behind the scenes to sanitise the Declaration yet further:
In parallel with all of the activity around the Ahmadinejad speech work on securing the best possible text in the document has continued quietly in the background.
Even now they still fail to grasp that ‘securing the best possible text’ will merely legitimise a process that should have been placed unambiguously beyond the pale.
Ten countries are now boycotting Geneva altogether: Israel, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. The British government delegation may have walked out of Ahmadinejad’s rant, but it has still not withdrawn from the conference itself which goes on until Thursday. It is thus still underpinning the unconscionable. So are all those others who are still attending a conference they say has descended into ‘a circus’. But if it is indeed now just a ‘circus’, why are they still there? Why is the conference continuing at all?
The really terrible thing is that, for all the pious expressions of shock and horror at Ahmadinejad’s speech, many of his odious and even deranged claims are now common currency amongst the western intelligentsia. The oppressive ‘power grab’ of European colonialism; the creation of Israel ‘in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe’; the ‘aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza’; the ‘military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth’; America’s responsibility for the global financial meltdown after it introduced ‘laws and regulations in defiance of all moral values only to protect the interests of the possessors of wealth and power... And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of dollars of cash from the pockets of their own people and other nations into the failing banks, companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for their economy and their people’; the identification of Zionism with racism and the need therefore to ‘eradicate’ it; all these monstrous and genocidal myths that featured in Ahmadinejad’s speech are now the commonplaces of western political and intellectual discourse.
After all, did not even Jeremy Paxman, the grand inquisitor of BBC TV’s Newsnight, ask on the programme last night in the course of an otherwise vigorous dissection of the UK government’s hypocrisy in walking out:
What is the difference between Zionism and racism?
The real sting of the Geneva circus is that the Islamist agenda of delegitimising Israel, Jewish peoplehood and thus Judaism itself is actually being endorsed within the west. Which is why so many countries decided to turn up – and which is why Ahmadinejad may actually have done the cause of human rights a back-handed favour, in leaving those who would otherwise have had barely a qualm in endorsing Durban II nowhere now to hide.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (174)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
2 The danger for the Lib Dems - James Forsyth
3 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Paul Sinclair
April 21st, 2009 8:09pmSpot on again Melanie!
The British government and the UN have yet again shown themselves to be devoid of all sense and feeling in all matters relating to Israel and the Jewish people and once again make their pretense of being against all racism and incitement to hatred an absolute joke!
As for the JHRC.... perhaps they think that the anti Jewish pogroms and ethnic cleansing cannot possibly happen to them in 'civilised' Britain! How I wish that were true!
David
April 21st, 2009 8:54pmI know Mr Grunwald. He's a more observant Jew than you are, and incredibly intelligent. I'd take his analysis over yours any day of the week and twice on Shabbos.
While you sneer from behind the pages of the press, he's out there actually dealing with real anti-Semitism and real religious issues. Your attitude to him speaks volumes.
Winston Smith
April 21st, 2009 9:20pmI'm just angry that they allowed this man into the West, let alone to speak.
How could so many European powers attend this conference? Are they so ignorant to not see that this is all about the Islamic World, calling on the Christian-Judaeo West to get support for Iran to attack Israel?
This man should be alienated by the West and Iran should be watched very closely.
I hate to say it, but there should have been no Iraq or Afghanistan, but instead an Iran. Saddam's country was a secular one yet Iran is an Islamist one. What poses the greatest threat to the West?
I'm still trying to get over CH4 broadcasting this vile man at Christmas.
Roger K
April 21st, 2009 9:48pmWhen will some of these nice Jewish people realise that the real reason for both Durban 1 and 2 is to legitamise the destruction of Israel. The Nazi ghettos had their Judenrats but honour goes to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. My concern is with those countries who sat there clapping Ahmadinejad's speech. This conference is supposed to be about racism and discrimination and most of those who stayed represent countries who discriminate on grounds of nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. The stench of their corruption reaches high heaven. The BBC corressponent for the conference Imogen Foulkes reported "Like him or hate him Ahmadinejad was democratically elected", as we say in New Zealand, 'yeah right!' First of all you have to be allowed to stand by the revolutionary Council of Mullahs then face the gross intimidation tactics of the ruling government. What planet do they live on?
Keep on needling them, Mel, these posturing, posing buffoons who walk out only to return again.
Nick
April 21st, 2009 10:28pmWhat do the JHRC have to say about the plight of the Palestinians? I'd be very interested to know.
Augustus
April 21st, 2009 10:29pmThere has been a massive misinformation campaign about Durban 2 - That this conference does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of Durban 1 was that NGOs were to blame while states and the UN were blameless. But there is only one state mentioned in the Durban Declaration: Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices
in it: Israel. And yet the very first thing the conference does is to reaffirm its abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel's free and democratic society. But Israel no doubt understands this cowardly game, this ugly diplomatic effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed. The states nominated to serve in a leadership role in this conference are among the world's leading practitioners of racism and not those interested in ending it. A global megaphone has been handed to the president of a state which actually advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust. These people have not only violated the universal standards against racism, they have chosen instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural differences. By their twisted concepts of incitement they have chosen to fight Jews instead of racism. And in so doing they are ultimately responsible for an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance throughout the world.
Dixon
April 21st, 2009 11:13pmWhat Paxaman ACTUALLY said was much worse than that: "What is the difference between Zionism and racism?"
hadrian
April 21st, 2009 11:13pmPaxman is an arrogant pig.
I don't hear him enquiring into thos beacons of toleration and freedom such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. This whole conference is so inverted in its perception of truth it'd put even Hilter's propaganda machine in the shade.
Truthtriumphs
April 21st, 2009 11:30pmThe Jewish leadership in the UK is reminiscent of that in the 1930s Germany----- craven, spineless and if not apologetic in so many words, certainly conveying that sentiment.
The so-called Jewish leadership simply cannot grasp that if it were to robustly and openly stand up for those rights that other groups demand and are accorded, and equally robustly counter the lies and defamation increasingly and uniquely reserved for Jews, and Israel---the collective Jew, it would simultaneously win gentile respect, instead of incurring contempt, and do the job it is elected to do, namely protect Jewish freedoms in this country.
It should take lessons from the American Jewish leadership, but hubris and arrogance, not to mention smug self-satisfaction, will prevent it from doing so.
rippon
April 21st, 2009 11:32pmSurely it's Jews, e.g. Ilan Pappe ('Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine'), Norman Finkelstein ('Beyond Chutzpah'), Noam Chomsky ('Fateful Triangle'), who do far more in "deligitimising Israel" than any Iranian clown ever could.
Jenny
April 21st, 2009 11:57pmYes, Dixon, Paxman's very good at slipping his prejudices under the radar like that.
And tonight on Newsnight we've had a story on a propagandist 'aerosol artist' (no state grant if you call it graffiti?) who gets his inspiration from The Koran. Ah, well, it's Newsnight, where else would he be getting his inspiration from?
Some imbecile from Aston University referred to this graffiti as a 'discussion'. Yes, of course, and if I went out and graffitid "Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" would I be allowed to 'discuss' that with the 'community'?
Can't think why that verse about hypocrites keeps coming into my head. Maybe it's because I've watched 'News'night twice this week.
Adam B.
April 22nd, 2009 12:00amNick, what does the MCB or MAB have to say about the plight of Jews?
I'd very much like to know.
Terry
April 22nd, 2009 4:04amAs a long time conservative voter who has issues with the Australain Federal Government, I nonetheless congratulate the Rudd government on its principled decision to stay away from this Jew Hate Fest.
To see an iranian delegate screaming 'Zion Nazi' at Ellie Weisel was a throw back to nazi germany itself. For Libya and iran to be part of a conference that was supposed to attack racism is so sick as to be bizarre.
Yet the un secretary and the mass media still don't get it. Shocking as armupasshole's words were, more shocking was the wild applause from the delegates who didn't walk out. That is the reason I wish to see the demise of this evil un organisation. Large parts of it support genocide and racism, not to speak of its blind eye towards real genocides such as Darfur, which it staunchly ignores.
The mass media are culpable for not engaging in a war of words against the delegates that applauded armupasshole and stayed to hear his nazi propaganda till the last word.
The un, islamic and leftofascist war against the Jews is heading for open warfare. Yet the Guardian et al stand by and applaud the aggressors.
Which delegates applauded hitler's iranian cousin? The papers won't tell me. I want them identified and shamed.
Shaun Harbord
April 22nd, 2009 7:40am"They thus appear unable to see beyond their own enormous egos." The kettle calling the pot black surely.
Nick
April 22nd, 2009 7:42amAdam B, I'm happy to answer that question for you.
"For our part, Muslim communities must take more responsibility to ensure that criticism of some of Israel's policies does not slide into a kind of a casual anti-semitism. Perhaps the best way to encourage this vigilance is to ensure that grassroots ties prosper between our communities."
Inayat Bunglawala, Jewish Chronicle, 16 Mar 2007.
Miranda Rose Smith
April 22nd, 2009 8:10amThe difference between Zionism and racism is that racism targets a specific race; Zionism is open to all Jews, regardless of race.
Miranda Rose Smith
April 22nd, 2009 8:32amDear David: I'm sure Mr. Grunwald is an intelligent, decent man. He just doesn't realize that you can't negociate with rattlesnakes.
Trumpeldor
April 22nd, 2009 9:17amA "normal"country unlike Switzerland would have arrested ahmadinjad on the spot to put him behind bars !
Western civilization is doomed !
The only recent postive event was the success of St George's Marches in Britain
British people seem much wiser than their ministers.
logdon
April 22nd, 2009 9:42am@Nick April 22nd
When a confirmed and compulsive liar tell's you he is not lying do you believe him? Bunglawala is the media operator for the MCB which boycotts Holocaust Day. As justification for this action the then Secretary, Iqbal Sacranie coated the decision in deceptive molifying oil by suggesting that the event be broadened out to include other 'atrocities'. Surprise, surprise, these turned out all to be so called 'genocides' perpetrated against Muslims and initially even Rwanda was missed out. A bit of a giveaway? He then scrambled to add it to the roll call, saying that it was intended to be there all the time. His dissembing was almost painful to observe, full of contradiction and talking as if we were all idiots. It was for me a huge insult, both to our basic intelligence and the memory of six million dead. Yet more of a giveaway was the 'missing' Sudan/Darfur inclusion or the Turkish Armenian massacres and thus the pathetic waffling and deception went on. So from being a memorial to the worst ever event of mechanised, industrial scale, mass execution of the innocents, he was intent on twisting the whole meaning into a whingefest with Jews not the victims but in the frame of perpetrators. This by now is classic MCB tactic and at last our erstwhile Gov has twigged that all is not as it appears in that den of vipers and thankfully they’ve now severed ties. The last straw reason for this was the signing of a document by Daud Abdullah which legitimised attacks on the Royal Navy patrolling in ‘Muslim waters’ off Gaza and there to prevent arms shipments. In other words an organisation with Gov affiliation and funding was advocating armed action against our own Navy! And even now the obfuscation rages as Abdullah (who did sign despite all protest to the contrary) quite unbelievably attempts to intimidate and then sue Hazel Blears for defamation. That is the MCB. And suddenly a pattern emerges. This supposed conference on racism is hijacked in similar manner to the the MCB/Holocaust Memorial debacle and the whole event inverted into a hate the Jew fest. What will it actually take before we learn?
Carl
April 22nd, 2009 9:44amNick, I don't think that very reasonable quote of Inayat Bunglawala was what Adam B was hoping to see.
Oberon
April 22nd, 2009 9:46amFor years, Iranian Muslims have been appealing to the West to support them in changing the Iranian Islamic Constitution and Penal Code. They have even mounted petitions that Iran be expelled from the UN until it complies with basic human rights.
Some of the unspeakable human rights abuses ...
Iranian Islamic Constitution Article 13: Only followers of three other religions are recognized as minorities (who do not have equal rights with the Muslims believing in twelve imams). The rest are infidels and deprived from all civil rights and killing them is indisputable.
Iranian Islamic Penal Code Article 49: A girl becomes criminally liable at 9 years of age; a boy at 15 years age. This can be the death sentence.
If a boy or a girl who has not reached the age of liability commits a crime, the court is entitled to sentence him/her to corporal punishment ( a public flogging) ... public floggings of 8 yr old little girls, and 14 yr old boys ...!!
Article 83, para 2: Women can be stoned to death. The size of the stones is also set - neither too small not to hurt, nor to large as to kill outright.
Article 110: Homosexuals are to be executed.
Article 207: A Muslim who has killed a non-Muslim has impunity unless only subject to paying fines.
Article 222: A sane person who has killed an insane person has impunity.
Article 220: A father or grandfather who kills his child or grandchild has impunity ... but, a 5 year old child who kills some one is punishable
under the law – page 152 ....
Article 201: A thief, the first time must get his/her four fingers of the right hand cut. The second time, he/she must get his left feet cut from below the tarsus. The third time he must be convicted to imprisonment, and fourth time, even if he steals in the prison, his conviction must be execution.
Article 513: Apostates from Islam are to be executed.
The entire catalog of human rights abuses can be seen on thise report from the FIDH [International Federation of Human Rights] submission to the UN Assembly - Third Committee - 60th Session, October 2005
http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir_un2005a.pdf
A 15 yr old boy was hung. His crime. Seen eating in public during Ramadan.
Isn't it about time devout Muslims came out and condemned such institutional crimes committed in the Middle East under the name of Islam.
Hopefully, such barbarity has nothing to do with Islam. Surely, these are based on primal tribal lores and customs.
This is the 21st century. Muslims must speak out if Islam wants to have any credibility in the West.
Interestingly, the Iranian Muslims who want changes to the Penal Code, also are those that support Israel, and champion Israel's right to exist.
rippon
April 22nd, 2009 9:50amBut, Miranda Rose Smith, the Israel-haters will simply seize on that as an admission that Zionism is racist towards Muslims because the philosophy is that Palestinians must be driven off the land they inhabit so that Jews can take over.
Polly Gamma
April 22nd, 2009 10:51amDAVID @ 8.54 21/4
This giggling sneering malevolent destructive Islamaniac was given a platform as if he were a dysfunctional juvenile deliquent in front of an indulgent bunch of holier than thou overconfident quacks in a group counselling session.
An obscene lack of balls all dressed up in moral superiority means those who are selling us ALL out aint half as 'incredibly' intelligent or half as observant as they needs to be. Wise up David.
logdon
April 22nd, 2009 10:56amHere's the latest from Jihadwatch. Quite unbelievable. Actually on second thoughts very believable from Irans point but this is an international stage, not some two bit flea bitten corrupt Middle Eastern outpost. The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum. They scream and shout at a Holocaust survivor and next demand respect for Islam?
April 22, 2009
Member of Iran's official delegation at Durban II : "Wiesel, you Zionazi!"
The Iranians have just been an all-around class act at Durban II, haven't they? "'Wiesel, you Zionazi!!'," from YNet News, April 21:
Iranian disgrace in Geneva: A member of Iran's official delegation to the UN's anti-racism conference verbally assaulted Shoah survivor and Nobel Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel in Geneva, referring to him as a "Zionazi."
The incident was captured on film by Sergio Wider of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The video features the Iranian official repeatedly screaming at Wiesel, who chose to remain silent and ignore the reprehensible comments."
Miranda Rose Smith
April 22nd, 2009 11:23amDear rippon: Muslims are not a race. Muslims in Israel vote, sit in the Knesset, have their holy sites protected, practice their religion freely, proselytize freely, AND YOU AND THE ISRAEL-HATERS KNOW IT!!!!!!Israel can't waste time trying to appease the Israel haters. I've been sending the Prime Minister letters and faxes for years, telling him that Israel's only hope of survival was to tell the U.N. and the world media to go-I won't tell you what, because then the Spectator won't print the post-themselves with a fire extinguisher.
The real Winston Smith
April 22nd, 2009 12:00pmWinston Smith? Hey! That's my property! Thief! Come on now. There's not two of us, are there? Where the hell do you get a name like that, if you are not super brilliant. Get out of here, imposter! Or I will send you to hell.
Miranda Rose Smith
April 22nd, 2009 1:29pmDear Winston Smith and The real
Winston Smith: Is either one of you familiar with an early George Orwell novel called Keep the Aspidistra Flying? Gordon Comstock, the protagonist of Keep the Aspidistra flying is virtually Winston Smith's Siamese twin brother, except that one inhabits a terrifying universe, the other inhabits a comic or tragi-comic at times, but basically farcial universe. Maybe one of you could be Gordon Comstock?
Alex Bensky
April 22nd, 2009 1:47pmIt is useless at this juncture to point out that whatever Zionism may be, "racist" is not it, unless by "racist" you simply mean "someone I don't like."
But I can see the point in staying in the conference. Instead of saying, in effect, that Zionism is "racist, murderous, bloodthirsty, savage, and not very nice" through diplomacy the conference might have been willing to drop "not very nice." What a victory that would have been!
epaminondas
April 22nd, 2009 1:53pmUnderlying this stupidity is the unalterable and obvious truth..NOTHING CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE UN ANYMORE.
Too bad, but that's how it is.
WHO's job can easily be performed by other orgs. The other ancillary operations such as UNESCO and UNICEF are totally co-opted by the same forces as Durban.
It's a farce for the west to continue.
It's just a PC farce.
NYC would benefit far more by collecting all the parking fines and sending the lot on their way, and bundling the building in to condos on the river.
The UN could then enjoy themselves in Moscow, Chungking, Ho Chi Minh City, Ouagoudogou, Abidjan or some other deserving 'metropolis'. I'm sure the French would love it there
Dixon
April 22nd, 2009 1:55pmKeep this up and "Durban III" ( if such a thing were to occur )would surely have David Irving as the keynote speaker.
Speaking of which, Mr Irving was sent to prison for saying less than Mr Dinnerjacket.
Meanwhile, I learn that holocaust survivor and nobel peace prize winner Eli Wiesel was at Durban II and an Iranian delegate was caught on video repeatedly screaming at him that he was a NAZI! Nice. ( News via jihadwatch.org ).
logdon
April 22nd, 2009 2:08pmOberon
April 22nd, 2009 9:46am
"Hopefully, such barbarity has nothing to do with Islam."
I'm sorry, Oberon but it IS Islam. All which you list is codified in one form or another in the Koran or Hadith. Islam being the direct word of an infallible and pristine god cannot change. Because of this they cannot undergo a reformation and as such there is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are moderate Muslims of course but that's another thing. Living in the West or more enlighted states, many adapt but look what's going on in the Swat Valley. One peep of divergance from the path will result in serious harm. Even the trimming of beards could end in death. And heaven help you if female and desirous of education.
rippon
April 22nd, 2009 2:35pm“Muslims are not a race,” is the rebuttal from Miranda Rose Smith, implying that anything done to Palestinians cannot be motivated by ‘racism’. But the Israel-haters, which includes high-profile Jews who have said (written whole books, in fact) far more than Ahmadinijad ever could to “delegitimise Israel”, will retort that the ‘sub-human’ characterisation of Palestinians has always been a crucial component to rationalising the terror, massacres and dispossession that has been going on since 1948.
The racist language includes: "two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle," from such sources as Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Foreign Minister/Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan.
Ricky
April 22nd, 2009 2:50pmA "conference" bankrolled by Saudi money, organised by Cuba and Libya - all well known gangster led practitioners of anti-democracy, intolerance, terror, islamism or hatred - could only have one inevitable result - that of the Iranian Fuerher calling for The Final Solution Part II, backed by the massed cheering of thugocracies worldwide. All that was missing was his full SS uniform and regalia.
By simply attending this nasty little get together, marks one of the most shameful decisions by Boy Millibland and this hapless government. Full marks to Barak Obama!
I look forward to the next UN conference on Care in the Community led by Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin, and the Hamas leadership.
rippon
April 22nd, 2009 3:13pmIt seems many people (on this thread, and, indeed, globally) have not actually read the text of Ahmadinejad's speech (a link to which Melanie Phillips has helpfully provided in her article above). The way to defeat Israel-haters is to address what Ahmadinejad (and many others, including many Jews) actually say, rather than indulge in deranged dishonest rantings like Ricky's above.
rippon
April 22nd, 2009 3:15pmFor example, nowhere in that transcript (of Ahmadinejad's speech) is there a sentence to the effect, 'Israel is a racist state', as has been widely, but falsely, reported.
jane
April 22nd, 2009 3:40pmWhat are you talking about, 'rippon'?
None of what you have quoted amounts to a political manifesto of any ruling party, and neither does it amount to an instruction to kill anyone; quite unlike the Hamas charter, which covers both those bases: "O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
I don't know why everyone is ascribing the questions Jeremy Paxman asks to himself. Given his track record on writing books himself, there's every chance his questions were ghost written for him.
There were so many errors in his book on politics, he got fed up with being blamed for them and so decided to come clean by saying that he had an 'assistant' who'd made lots of boo boos.
To avoid being flushed out in the open again, when he released 'his' book on the Victorians and Victorian art, he actually expected people to praise him for openly admitting it wasn't all his own work.
Would he have been so honest if he hadn't been so embarrassed by being forced to admit his book on politics wasn't all his own work?
Why don’t they call it Taqiyyanight?
James Murphy
April 22nd, 2009 4:20pmAn observation, if I may, on a couple of the posters to this site: firstly, am I alone in noticing that the name of the venerable 'Miranda Rose Smith' spells an anagram of the much missed 'Verity'? Welcome back indeed ma'm! Secondly, 'Karl', your silence on Mel's previous post was startling, and in its way made me feel strangely humble - as if I were witnessing an event of biblical proportions. Sad to see, then, that you have broken your vow. And yet I believe that the day will dawn when you finally recant your humourless monocular anti-Israeli visions. Maybe not this year or next, but in that moment of grace, yes, Karl, even you and BLADES will accept that Israel has a right to exist.
Yours Sincerely,
James Murphy,
Campaign for the Exposure of George Laird as an utter Buffoon at Glasgow University
Dixon
April 22nd, 2009 4:42pmPaxman can be a good persistent questioner at times. But it seems to me his problem is...as indicated by that languid drawling demeanour that he so often exhibits...that he is essentially a salary-journo who often is not in the least interested in the subject of an interview and so spouts any damn nonsense that eneters his head in the pursuit of an easy provocation of a response, so saving him any real effort and allowing him to go back into his post-prandial-seeming haze.
David Lindsay
April 22nd, 2009 5:14pmPaul Sinclair, what about the Jews who were killed in the bombing of the King David Hotel? Do they not count because they were British?
Just how anti-British does a country have to be for certain people? Look at the Euston Manifesto Group (if it still exists) and the Henry Jackson Society, and there they all are: the old supporters of the Soviet Union or of the Boer Republic set up as an explicit act of anti-British revenge in a former Dominion of the Crown, now united in devotion to the vision of America closest to the tripe taught in schools there about the War of Independence and its background, and to the vision of Israel closest to the hanging of our teenage conscripts and the photographing of that act (within living memory, of course).
If for some unknown reason Netanyahu (did you see him in that skullcap as if he were the Rebbe of Lubavitch? – why don’t people just laugh?) either sincerely believed, or at least managed to convince the Knesset, that there was about to be an Iranian strike against Israel, and if Israel then took out wherever that strike was supposed to come from, then that would be Israel’s and Iran’s business, not ours.
Poppy Koch
April 22nd, 2009 5:43pmTo Rippon @2.35 22/4
Quote from a well known Journalist.....
"The Hamas movement educates the children in its schools, beginning in kindergarten, to believe that a martyr is given virgins in Paradise. This journalist visited Hamas schools in Gaza City, where he saw an 11-year-old boy speak to his class: "I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys...I will tear their bodies into little pieces and will cause them more pain than they will ever know." His classmates shouted in response, "Allah Akhbar," and his teacher shouted, "May the virgins give you pleasure." A 16-year-old Hamas youth leader in a Gaza refugee camp told the journalist, "Most boys can't stop thinking about the virgins."....end of quote
These promises come from the Koran as part of the age-old war on the Jews, and Palestine is not the only hatchery where the promises are used.
Frankly I can think of a whole bunch of much worse names than
"..."two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle," .....
for neighbours who raise expedient suicide worshippers to pose a constant threat and to lurk in my vicinity drooling with lust at the thought of wiping out my family and friends in order to qualify for the above.
Sorry Rippon the reality is that this baleful indoctrination has been going on since way before 1948 and you don't 'address' it, you face up to it with unwavering strength.
George Laird
April 22nd, 2009 6:10pmDear James Murphy
I noticed that you have included my name and attached abuse directed towards me at the end of your rant.
It is generally considered good manners that if you wish to throw in abuse you should have the common courtesy to at least flag this up to your victims so that they can have the opportunity for what is considered retort.
Retort means answering back dimwit.
I like you think I am familiar with most of the dribblers on here but yours is a new name and if memory serves we have never had a run before your attack on me.
Have I done something to upset you?
I suspect the attack by you is your way of joining the Israeli supporting rent a mob on here as one of the clique.
There are no membership requirements in so far as my understanding so your drivel at the end was not necessary.
Is possible to ask if you are the ned; Jim Murphy MP, Secretary of State for Scotland?
Are things so bad in East Renfrewshire for the Jewish vote that you have to come on here and garner support by being seen to be doing something?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
rippon
April 22nd, 2009 6:39pmPoppy Koch said (above):
Frankly I can think of a whole bunch of much worse names than "two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle,"
( - these were quotes from prominent Israeli statesmen, suggesting that Israel’s rulers might indeed be racist)
Therefore, Poppy Koch’s position seems to be that Israel can afford to be much more racist than it is because, after all, the Palestinians are already well ahead of the Jews in that respect.
Obviously, this is not a recipe for peace.
Carl
April 22nd, 2009 7:37pmIsraeli atrocity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7838465.stm
What say the apologists?
Ellen
April 22nd, 2009 7:55pmCarl, if you're so outraged, you should direct your query toward the Palestinian militants. If they weren't attacking Israel night and day, these things wouldn't happen.
If the Israelis beared any animosity to this man they would have killed him the moment he went across the border. Instead of which, he is another innocent victim sadly caught up in the the crossfire because of Palestinian militants who act on this instruction: "O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
Stanislav Koblinski
April 22nd, 2009 7:56pmWhat say the apologists?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8012543.stm
'Of the attack on the house of a Palestinian doctor, Izzeldeen Abuelaish, which killed three of his daughters, the military said soldiers had been targeting "suspicious figures" in the building and had urged the family to leave days earlier.'
Joshua
April 22nd, 2009 8:01pmDavid Lindsay, What about the six million Jews murdered in large part because Britain didn't lift one finger to save them? Alternatively, you could look at the British atrocities in post-war Palestine committed against the survivors of the Holocaust. I have in mind not just infamous incidents like the Exodus but also the seventy-eight doctors and nurses murdered on the Hadassah convoy in April 1948. The massacre continued for many hours as the British who had guaranteed the safety of the convoy watched and did absolutely nothing. Indeed, little has obviously changed in the interim as far as Britain is concerned.
Joshua
April 22nd, 2009 8:07pmDavid Lindsay, Most Jewish people, whether religious or not, wear a head covering, out of respect for their fellow Jews, if nothing else, on a number of occasions during the year. I assume most people do not laugh (at least I hope they do not laugh) for the simple reason that they are not anti-Semitic.
James Murphy
April 22nd, 2009 8:10pmBut Karl, re, your 'Israeli atrocity': surely even a tunnel-visioned bore like you must realise that quoting Al BBC carries all the credibility of a Pekingese schoolchild waving Chairman Mao's little red book? And George Laird: I go back further than you do on this blog, yea, even, indeed, unto the Pre-Speccie days of Mel's old site. If I appear but rarely it's because I usually keep my powder dry until my reserve of patience is pushed beyond its extraordinary limits by certain posters.
Yours Sincerely,
James Murphy
Campaign for the exposure of George Laird's tragic lack of humour at Glasgow University.
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 22nd, 2009 9:35pmrippon, you have quoted insults with no evidence or context that they were directed against the Palestinian people (a misnomer, by the way -- the so-called Palestinians have much more in common ethnically and culturally with Egyptians, Jordanians or Syrians, depending on where they live and which Arab nation had concurred them in 1948 than they do with each other) rather than being directed against murderers, terrorists and genocidal thugs claiming to represent the Palestinian people, and against those who support them. If I call a thug a vicious two legged insect, the fact that the thug may be an Arab intent on my extermination does not turn the insult into racism.
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 12:01amRather a desperate argument by ahad ha'amoratism, clearly disturbed by what the quotes suggest about Israel's leaders. (The argument is pointless because it could simply be inverted and employed by Palestinians.)
This is why the Israeli state must hold a mirror to itself, otherwise the ‘debate’ and recriminations just go round in circles like this. Accepting responsibility for the horrific nature of the way – the Nakba of 1948 – Israel established itself, is rightly recognised, thankfully by Jews of honesty and integrity, as the first necessary step towards peace.
For example: Albert Einstein, along with 27 prominent Jews in New York, condemned the massacre of Deir Yassin in a letter published 4 December 1948 in The New York Times, noting terrorist bands [i.e. Begin’s Irgun] attacked this peaceful village.
Deir Yassin was simply one of a long catalogue of atrocities aimed at terrorising Palestinians into fleeing to make way for the Jewish settler-occupiers.
Linda Smith
April 23rd, 2009 2:50amrippon: Are you unaware of the "long cataloge of atrocities" by the Arabs aimed at terrorizing and murdering Jews?
Linda Smith
April 23rd, 2009 2:54amRippon: are you unaware that it was the Arabs who declared war on the Jews the day after the Partition Plan was announced on 29 November 1947?
Adam B.
April 23rd, 2009 3:01amrippon, Deir Yassin was a battle, not a "peaceful village." It is a bit rich to aim your criticism in one direction only, when Arab terrorists had introduced the mass killing of Jews in the holy land long before your claims about deir Yassin.
Name me one massacre of Jews by Arabs - do you know the names of these places as readily as "Deir Yassin" rolls off your tongue? I bet you can't name one, because the propaganda machine from which you derive your view has never mentioned them.
Waht about the ethnic cleansing of Jews form Arab and Islamic nations in 1948 and after? Are you even aware of this?
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 9:15amAdam B. said, “Name me one massacre of Jews by Arabs.”
Give some names and I will see what I can learn about them (e.g. google, wiki, amazon).
But this retort does illustrate my point. The logic behind it is: it is ok for Israel to commit atrocities because the Palestinians are already committing worse ones. It’s the same flawed logic behind two enemy groups calling each other ‘racist’ – that’s ok too because ‘they ARE more racist than us.’
Taken to its pathological extreme, anyone can employ this defence of their actions, e.g. the Nazis were only defending the world from the Jews who are more [adjective of choice, e.g. ‘racist’] than them.
There needs to be serious discussion about the true nature of Israel, regardless of the true nature of anyone else.
The contention, by serious Israeli and Palestinian historians, is that the founders of Israel employed tactics of mass violence and terror to seize land already occupied by indigenous Palestinians.
(Presumably, then, the rebuttal would be that the Palestinians have committed that crime against the Jews to a larger extent. But that rebuttal would be impossible to substantiate without recourse to shameless lying.)
Carl
April 23rd, 2009 10:39amIsrael - we lied to the world:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6150448.ece
Why should we believe anything the IDF says? They lied about the use of White Phosphorous and would have continued to do so if they had not been exposed by the Times.
phil
April 23rd, 2009 10:47amrippon you have a lot to say and little to offer other than untruths and attacks -do you think that the western diplomats walked out to get a cup of tea or because dinnerjacket was ranting and lying ?These threads are for intelligent people to debate ,not to air their twisted racist views ,although unlike the countries I presume you admire ,you are allowed space to write your vile comments ,and for us to tell you what we think of you .
Linda Smith
April 23rd, 2009 10:54amrippon's assertion "There needs to be serious discussion about the true nature of Israel, regardless of the nature of anyone else" is intellectually vacuous.
A state does not have a "nature" as it is an inanimate object. Furthermore a State cannot be judged on the actions it's government chooses to take without examining ALL the circumstances and ALL the reasons.
What you advocate is a Kangaroo Court. Silly boy, go to the back of the class!
stanley Jerusalem
April 23rd, 2009 11:20amphil, Linda and Adam - They are a pain but life could be somewhat duller without the likes of George[Glorious or otherwise] carl, Blades,
Silicon Nitride, Rippon and Mr anachronism himself Hazlitt.
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 11:56amAdam B. hasn’t had a chance to respond yet, so perhaps someone else can. I cited one instance (from a long catalogue) of atrocities committed against Palestinians by the founders of Israel – the Deir Yassin massacre. (Obviously I’m not the original source of such information. Prominent Jews, e.g. Einstein, and others drew attention to such atrocities long before me.) Adam B. highlighted my ‘ignorance’ by challenging “Name me one massacre of Jews by Arabs.” In response I have asked, give me some names so that I can see what I can learn (e.g. google, wiki, amazon) – or, better still, give me references (e.g. web-links, books, articles, dvds) to save me the effort of searching.
Of course people make a valid point when arguing that one should become knowledgeable about the behaviour of both sides in a conflict; but, from the point of view of Israel, the problem with that is that the Palestinians are bound to look better (less violent), if only because they’ve never possessed the technological means to unleash violence on the scale that Israelis has.
Adam B.
April 23rd, 2009 12:41pmrippon, you have misunderstood. I contested your version of events at Deir Yassin (most historians? really? Have you taken a poll? Since when do you speak for "most historians"?) Therefore, I have not said that it's OK for Israel to commit such alleged crimes, because I don't believe it has. Therefore, my post does not illustrate what you contend.
So you need a helping hand in finding massacres of Jews? Come on rippon, the information is freely available, why do you need to be spoonfed? And don't you think it strange that you immediately know names like deir Yassin, but can't name a single massacre of Jews? This is because you have been subjected to an endless barrage of propaganda, which has given you one version of events.
What about Jews ethnically cleansed form the Arab world? I'm quite happy to discuss the founding of Israel rippon, but only if we open up the debate to include the whole picture, including the "nature" of Arab nations (as you term it).
By the way, Einstein was also a supporter of Israel.
Linda Smith
April 23rd, 2009 12:44pmrippon: Hebron massacre 1929
Nannette
April 23rd, 2009 1:04pmBravo Melanie! You have to be applauded on saying what the majority of us think about our so-called Jewish "leadership", who STILL don't get it.
You're 100% correct in that their huge egos get in the way of them seeing the reality of this serious situation. Because they suffer a severe lack of foresight, and even less of an understanding of the global jihad. Jews around the world are more vulnerable as targets now than they ever were during the Holocaust.
Durban 2 will inflame more violent antisemitism and the Jewish leadership, especially that of Britain, will be as helpless as a paper fireguard.
I do wish they'd wake up, or alternatively appoint astute and intelligent people like yourself to the Board...
davka
April 23rd, 2009 1:11pmMassacres of Jews by Arabs (how far back do you want to do? here is just a selection in modern times):
Jews were murdered in 1898 (Algiers) 1905 (Sana'a) 1907 (Casablanca, Marrakesh, Oujda) 1909 (Darab, Kermanshah, Shiraz, Iran) 1911 (Mosul) 1912 (Fez) 1920 (Todra, Morocco)1920 (Jaffa) 1921 (Oran. Algeria)1929 (Hebron) 1929 (Safed) 1933 (Aden) 1934 (Constantine, Algeria) 1936 (Baghdad, Basra) 1941 Baghdad (180 Jews killed) 1945 Libya (140 Jews killed) 1947 Aden (82 Jews killed) 1948 Morocco (48 Jews killed) 1948 Egypt (50+ Jews killed)
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 1:56pmI never said “most historians”. I don’t know what the consensus view of ‘most historians’ is (regarding Deir Yassin in particular, or Israel in general); maybe there isn’t one.
Here is a book that gives a comprehensive account of the mass violence and terror practised by the founders of Israel: ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ by Ilan Pappe. Of course, depending on your viewpoint, Pappe is either a serious historian of integrity or a deranged self-hating Jew (or something else).
I didn’t “immediately know” the name ‘Deir Yassin’; I had to read a book (Pappe’s) to know that name. That’s why I’ve asked for references so that I can learn of infamous incidents where Palestinians have also committed atrocities.
In time, I’m sure I will get round to reading the work of writers who take a different view of Israel, e.g. Alan Dershowitz. According to those who persistently argue that Israel is not an aggressor but acts in self-defence, in such books there should be thoroughly researched accounts of infamous massacres of Jews by Palestinians. In the meantime, I’m grateful to Linda Smith for ‘spoonfeeding’ me ‘Hebron massacre 1929’. I have started reading about that.
‘Einstein was a supporter of Israel’ doesn’t really mean anything in this context. I’m a ‘supporter’ of Britain but I would condemn certain actions of my own government, actions which undermine the moral standing of this country.
phil
April 23rd, 2009 2:54pmrippon you can read norman finklestein who is even crazier than ilan pappe ,you will no doubt enjoy that ,but truth may be hard to find .perhaps you may then read Abba Eban whose work is not for the demented
phil
April 23rd, 2009 2:59pmDixon I know I have written this before but it bears repeating paxman -he is only interested in his ratings ,the facts are unimportant so long as he can make a victim of any interviewee.the losers ? us!we never find out the truth as he will cut them off if they are making progress /for me he has ruined one of my favourite programmes and one that was a flagship for the BBC -what a waste of a brain !
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 23rd, 2009 3:04pmrippon, as far as Arab massacres against Jews and using violence to drive Jews out of Palestine, look up the history of Gush Etzion/Etzion block, as well as the events at Naharayim during the 1948 war. You also overlook the fact that the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and other Arab nations invaded the nascent Jewish state in 1948 with the avowed aim of murdering every last Jew there; by the grace of G-d and the bravery and determination of the beseiged Jews, and the incompetence of the Arab officers -- and to the surprise of much of the world -- the numerically superior and far better armed Arab armies did not succeed, although they did succeed in wiping out Jewish villages and neighborhoods that had existed for anywhere from decades (e.g. Gush Etzion) to centuries (e.g. East Jerusalem).
By the way, assuming that the quotations you supplied are authentic, you still have supplied no context as to whom the insults were aimed at, nor as to whether the insults were describing behavior or inherent characteristics. So far this son of apes, pigs and the murderers of prophets is not convinced.
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 23rd, 2009 3:06pmThe PA is currently trying an Arab from Chevron for selling land to Israelis, which constitutes the capital crime of treason under the laws of the PA. Remind me again who the apartheidt state is?
Michael B
April 23rd, 2009 3:32pmrippon,
Ilan Pappe is to scholarship and moral and intellectual integrity what Genghis Khan was to statecraft, or what Adolf Eichman was to bureaucratic efficiency. Is there any hyperbole invested in such statements? Perhaps, perhaps not, at most it's a debateable question. In Pappe's case his deluded quality is due to a combination of sophistical pretense and Leftist inclinations, in Eichman's case and in Khan's case naivete was not a factor.
(One can also find Russian and other ideologues/scholars who variously deny the Ukrainian mass murder of '32/33. And I'm something of a Russophile, so that's not a sweeping indictment.)
Adam B.
April 23rd, 2009 3:49pmrippon, thank you for being open minded and examining these other issues, unlike Carl and george laird who just spew venom. I have no problem with serious examination of Israel and its history - depending on the motivation of the examiner. There is a concerted and orchestrated campaign underway by many on the far left, in the media and the Islamists to demonize and delegitimize Israel, in order to pave the way for destroying the Jewish state. Such people pretend to be interested in human rights or historical wrongs, but in fact they are driven by a maniacal obsession with Israel (hence someone like george laird pretends he's a campaigner for human rights but by his own admission doesn't campaign for any human rights issues, anywhere in the world, unless he can attack Israel). Therefore, your comment about criticizing Britain isn't quite equivalent, as no-one is trying to actively destroy Britain as an entity (although the Islamists are trying to destroy it culturally). In other words, the atmosphere has become so poisoned by obsessive Israel and Jew-hatred that truly independent and serious analysis is very difficult. Wrongs perpetrated by the Arab states are ignored, whilst Israel is placed under a microscope, where any wrong is amplified, or simply invented (as has often been the case - Al-Durrah, the Jenin "massacre" that never was etc). Such historical investigations are usually politically motivated, including by several "historians."
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 3:50pmNow the name Noam Chomsky will probably make people on this forum reel in despair/disgust(/whatever), but he wrote this in response to an email (from me to him):
Israeli leaders have described them [Palestinians] as "two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle," etc. It's a very typical phenomenon: when you grind someone under your boot, you have to concoct a rationalization so as to be able to look yourself in the mirror, and the standard one is that they are some kind of untermenschen.
I found this hard to believe so I pressed Chomsky a bit about sources, to which he replied:
The sources exist: Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Foreign Minister/Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan.
Chomsky added:
There have been analogies drawn between Zionism and Nazism, most famously by Israel's renowned sage the late Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who spoke of "Judaeonazism" in connection with the occupied territories. But I don't think there is any comparison between the Holocaust and the Nakba, and in general I think it's a poor analogy. Also quite unfair. Whatever crimes Israel has committed pale alongside those of its superpower sponsor, for example. Same with the Warsaw Ghetto and the Gaza Strip. There's no intent to send everyone in the Strip to an extermination camp. [End]
Make of that what you will, but what is striking is that, never mind Ahmadinejad (the guy whose words sparked this article by Melanie Phillips and this thread), the severest critics of Israel’s behaviour are very high-profile Jews, e.g. Pappe, Finkelstein (Norman), Chomsky, Shlaim, Einstein, Pinter … . Now, people might suggest that Jewish critics of Israel comprise just a few sick individuals who merely cravenly seek plaudits from the deluded ‘liberal intelligentsia’. But the problem is the list of such ‘sick individuals’ becomes apparently endless the more one researches. Moreover, so many of those individuals are already so highly-accomplished in their particular fields that there is no need for them to seek plaudits from anyone. Thus, people who feel able to defend Israel’s behaviour ought to prioritise the debunking of these Jewish critics (what you people might call ‘the enemy within’) over rebutting people like Ahmadinejad (who ‘would say that’ anyway). That would mean dissecting their work in an academic fashion as opposed to sticking fingers in ears and screaming insults like ‘crazy’, ‘demented’, etc.
patricia
April 23rd, 2009 3:52pmOn the day when Israel is criticised for knocking down yet more Palestinians' houses, in defiance of Obama and Brown, let alone its own alleged commitment to peace (hahaha), the Iranian leader's words about Zionist racism ring truer than ever.
Nannette
April 23rd, 2009 4:35pmRippon, instead of quoting a letter that Chomsy made or may not have written to you, please let us know the historical sources where Israeli leaders are supposed to have these things about Arabs.
Name the book, chapter and page - not Arab propaganda sources.
You'll be hard pressed to find a reputable history book containing anything like those quotes.
stanley Jerusalem
April 23rd, 2009 5:11pmrippon
April 23rd, 2009 3:50pm "Moreover, so many of those individuals are already so highly-accomplished in their particular fields that there is no need for them to seek plaudits from anyone."
When Wagner's hateful paper dealing with the contribution of Jews to music was shown to Offenbach, a fabulously successful German Jew living in Paris, he said with admirable pragmatism " let him keep writing music."
Excellence in one sphere of activity is no guarantee of excellence in others though many of these 'stars' swallow their own propaganda and come to believe they possess some papal quality of infallibility when they mouth off on subjects unrelated to their fields of expertise. E.g. Daniel Barenboim, an Argentine Jew of Israeli origin who bangs on ad nauseam about Israeli-Palestinian relations to the utter boredom and contempt of the majority of Israelis [and possibly even Palestinians.
It is the media who give these 'stars' their platform from which to spout and having given it to them can hardly back off and claim they are wrong or misguided.
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 5:14pmWell, I don’t have the time or energy to track down the original sources and contexts (for those racist words by Israeli leaders about Palestinians). And I don’t, for now, want to indulge in more correspondence with Chomsky, either – to request original sources from him. (I’m perfectly happy to be branded a liar by people who defend Israel’s behaviour.)
Here’s something I was able to find quickly and easily, though (wikipedia): Prof Yeshayahu Leibowitz was an outspoken critic of Israeli values and national policy. His remarks shortly after the Lebanon War in 1982 accusing Israeli soldiers of "Judeo-Nazi" mentality provoked a public outcry amongst Israelis. [End]
Responses on this thread give some hope about the morality of people who defend Israel. It seems some of you find it hard to accept (as I did) that Israeli leaders could say such things about Palestinians. That’s encouraging because it suggests that your internal moral compasses would force you to re-evaluate your unqualified support for actions of the Israeli state – if such things (racist words about Palestinians from Israeli leaders, campaigns of violence and terror to expel Palestinians, e.g. the ‘Nakba’) were true. So your flaw is denial (e.g. Nakba denial) rather than brazen immorality.
Ros
April 23rd, 2009 5:22pmPatricia: Since when does Israel need permission from Obama or Brown for anything that it, as a sovereign state, does? Why don't you go and peddle your racist filth on any other 'We hate Israel/Jews' blog?
Adam B.
April 23rd, 2009 6:15pmrippon, you've changed your tune. From going to investigate massacres of Jews and the wider context of the Middle East, you have just started to repeat the propaganda I warned you against (whilst failing to investigate sources outside the leftist hate merchants). If you can't name the sources, then you should treat such quotations with a pinch of salt (why do you believe them so readily?) There is always an agenda at work, and Chomsky and pappe are both highly politicized, with a very specific 9and warped) world view.
rippon
April 23rd, 2009 8:05pmThat’s what I draw some hope from, Adam B.. Your contention is that the statements (by Leibowitz, Pappe, Chomsky and many others, Jews and non-Jews) about Israeli racism, violence, terror and crimes are false (or gross distortions of the truth). That gives me hope because it suggests that you and other supporters of Israel’s actions would re-evaluate the morality of that support if those racist quotations and accounts of Israeli atrocities (e.g. during the Nakba) were true. That is, your support for Israel relies upon denial of those allegations. That is encouraging because it is a more moral position than, ‘I support Israel no matter what the regime does, even if everything Pappe says is true.’
Now, you ask a very good question which, in general terms, is: how can anyone decide which side of a debate to believe? Well I suppose one helpful practice is to watch what happens when two diametrically opposed sides confront each other, and see which side presents a more coherent convincing argument. Thus, I have watched various debates, e.g. N. Finkelstein v Dershowitz, Chomsky v Dershowitz, and read various material, e.g. Pappe, N. Finkelstein, Dershowitz, Chomsky, Horowitz, Kamm.
People are correct to suggest that my reading is not yet sufficiently broad. There’s a lot of material out there. That’s why I would like to be ‘spoon-fed’ references to sources where I can read scholarly accounts of episodes where Palestinians have massacred Jews, which is what Pappe has done, the other way round of course.
But I appreciate the rebuttal that Pappe’s work represents the opposite of ‘scholarship’. I also appreciate the allegation that, if Chomsky said that specific Israeli leaders made specific racist comments about Palestinians, then Chomsky is lying. No doubt, my ‘flaw’ from your viewpoint is that I do not believe that Chomsky is a brazen compulsive liar, but I would nevertheless find evidence to support that contention interesting – I have been reading ‘The Anti-Chomsky Reader’ recently on the assumption that that would be a good place to find such evidence.
Adam B.
April 24th, 2009 12:36amrippon, you seem to be labouring under a few misapprehensions. Who has said "I support israel whatever the truth"? Who?
By the way, what you cavalierly call the "Nakba" was a triumph for Jewish people, who re-established their national homeland after 2000 years and 6 million of them were murdered - precisely because they had nowhere to go, and no-one let them in. Sorry you think that the Jews' refusal to lay down and die is a "catastrophe."
In addition, I never said "who to believe"? There are such things as truth and morality - and they're not relative. Again, you write from one side only, (putting Israel under the microscope)without examining the rampant racism and intolerance which emanates from large swathes of the Islamic and Arab worlds. In short rippon, from your language, I think you're approaching the subject with a whole load of preconceived ideas and prejudices. It is clear you have been exposed to the leftist, nihilist propaganda machine.
rippon
April 24th, 2009 2:22pmWhy do you keep mis-quoting me, Adam B.?
I never said ‘you support Israel whatever the truth.’ I said the exact opposite to that. I said it was encouraging that that was NOT your position. I said that people’s (e.g. your) support for Israel depends on the assertion that what Pappe says (in his ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’) is false. I said that is encouraging – because it suggests that supporters and critics of Israel share the same morality, i.e. both regard Pappe’s writing about Israel as extreme indictments of the State.
Therefore, thankfully, there is no debate between us about what would constitute moral and immoral behaviour by Israel. The only question is whether Pappe reveals or distorts truth; therefore, the question which obviously follows is, how can one decide that?
I said that one helpful method is to see what happens when diametrically opposing protagonists debate each other, and also read the writing of opposing sides. Now, I don’t think anyone who does that can seriously conclude that Pappe, Chomsky (and many others) are merely brazen compulsive liars, which suggests there is considerable truth in what they say. If that’s the case, then morally that ought to be addressed, e.g. campaign to restrain Israeli violence. However, practically, it perhaps does not need to be addressed because, taking an example from history, there is no longer any resistance by native Americans to European settlers, and no significant campaign (that I’m aware of) to address that massive injustice, perhaps because it is relatively ancient history. The resistance and politics of native Americans was erased by erasing the people. It seems possible that the same might happen with the Palestinians. I think Chomsky has remarked that ‘we are witnessing the death of a civilisation’ and, from Pappe’s book, that was basically the goal of Israel’s founders (e.g. Ben Gurion) – to cleanse and occupy the land of Palestinians.
I reiterate: thankfully, there seems to be no difference between supporters and critics of Israel morally. The difference lies in disputes about the historical record. I think your position is that Pappe is a brazen compulsive liar; I happen to think that is not a tenable conclusion if you read his work. But, like I say, it might all become merely an academic question anyway because, in time, the Palestinians might be successfully erased and forgotten (like native Americans), Israel-supporters can celebrate the triumphs of Zionism, Israel-critics can mourn the passing away of a people, and then we can all just exercise ourselves about something else.
stanley Jerusalem
April 24th, 2009 2:51pmrippon
April 24th, 2009 2:22pm
"The difference lies in disputes about the historical record."
There are two totally independent accounts of the Assyrian attempt at the conquest of Judea. The Hebrew Bible states that Sennacherib invested and conquered Lachish but failed to repeat his victory at Jerusalem. The Assyrian engravings we have discovered [Brit. Mus.] Reveal that Tiglath Pileser, Sennacherib's general, was victorious at the seige of Lachish but totally omits any mention of Jerusalem, thus no failures.
How surprising. That's how history was always written. Winners, losers and fence-sitters with axes to grind.
What makes you think Chomsky, Papp, Finkelstein, Oz and Pinter and Barenboim [I know, Harold's gorn to meet his maker] and the rest of the disgruntled living in luxury and out of the firing line are any different?
rippon
April 24th, 2009 7:44pmI know practically zero biblical history, stanley Jerusalem (april 24th, 2.51pm), so I’m in no position to reply to anything in your first para.
In answer to your question, I say again: if you read (/watch/listen to) those people, I don’t think it’s a tenable conclusion that they are all brazen compulsive liars. Therefore, if there is significant truth in what they say, then morally that ought to be addressed, e.g. campaign to restrain Israeli violence; but, practically, it might soon become ‘unnecessary’ in the same way that it is now ‘unnecessary’ to address the injustices committed by the European settler-occupiers against the native Americans – because issues of injustice against people can be erased by erasing the people.
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 24th, 2009 9:59pmThe term Nakba was first used by the Pan-Syrian movement several decades before Israel was established, to protest the grant of most of the Palestine Mandate to Transjordan (now Jordan). Why did they see this as a catstrophe? Because their movement posited that all Arabs living in the area were simply "South Syrians" who should be citizens of a united Syrian state -- an early admission that the idea of an historic ethnicity called Palestinian was simply a fiction. The phrase was recycled later to mean the existence of a Jewish state, but the origins of the term are instructive.
Gav T
April 25th, 2009 2:34amRippon. I've rather enjoyed reading most of your posts, you appear to have the desire to at least search for a relative truth. What is missing from the anti-Israel narrative & invective is context. Take your Chomsky comments as an example of missing context; "two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle," /
Ok so let's assume that those comments were made by the people referred to. Now who were they talking about and what was the basis for the comments? Were they talking about all Arabs, or were they talking about only some (Arab) people who had just blown up a busload of children? If they were general statements made about all Arabs then they could be taken as being racist remarks. If they were targeted statements about terrorists then they weren't harsh enough. They could also have been made as a gesture of frustration over a failed peace offer, or other similar context. There's many, many, instances where the remarks can be quite harmless (although perhaps a bit unwise from those in high office). /
That (absolutely necessary) context is missing from Chomskys email to you, and perhaps you'd like to start asking why he removed the context when he of all people knows what context is about. The claims of distortion against the likes of Pappe are due to those authors deliberately removing context from historial data in order to support their own personal bias. The pro-Israel crowd is sometimes guilty of it too, but they're saints in comparison with the Israel haters.
rippon
April 25th, 2009 7:19pmGav T (April 24th, 2:34am) said: If they were general statements made about all Arabs then they could be taken as being racist remarks. [End]
He is referring to a part of my earlier post in which I gave quotes provided in email responses to me from Noam Chomsky: "two-legged beasts," "grasshoppers," "drugged roaches running around in a bottle," from such sources as Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Foreign Minister/Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan. [End]
So, Gav T’s comment, like others before it, is an encouraging sign about the morality of Israel-supporters because it shows that, IF the quotes are true (and not distorted out of context), then Israel-supporters might accept that there is a mentality within Israeli leadership which poses an obstacle to peace.
It is clear that, in quoting those Israeli leaders, Chomsky is asserting that this reflects a general mentality (view of Palestinians) in at least elements of the leadership (if not the leadership generally) that helps justify military operations and prevent peace progress.
Now, Chomsky daily fires off email responses quickly to a burgeoning inbox. That will be why he didn’t provide context. Context is provided when people write books and articles, not quick emails.
Pappe provides plenty of context. On dipping briefly into his ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ one example is:
(p23) As the Second World War drew to a close, the Jewish leadership in Palestine embarked on a campaign to push the British out of the country. Simultaneously, they continued to map out their plans for the Palestinian population, the country’s seventy-five per cent majority. … One of them [leading Zionist figures], Yossef Weitz, wrote in 1940: ‘it is our right to transfer the Arabs’ and ‘The Arabs should go!’ [Yossef Weitz, ‘My Diary’, vol 2, p. 181, 20 December 1940] Ben-Gurion himself, writing to his son in 1937, … : ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.’ [Ben Gurion’s ‘Diary’, 12 July 1937, and in ‘New Judea’, August-September 1937, p220.] … Ben Gurion masterminded the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. [End]
Now, that all constitutes sourced context, and Chomsky’s books are similarly rigorous. So the pertinent questions include: is stuff like that jammed pack with lies, and/or does it weave ‘facts’ in such a way as to distort the truth?
‘Bias’ is a dodgy concept. For example, I suspect that most historical accounts of Idi Amin or Hitler or whoever are ‘biased’ because they focus on the bad stuff and say little about the good that such men did.
To reiterate my basic point: thankfully, Israel-supporters seem to share common morality with most of humanity. Therefore, their position depends upon the belief that Pappe and many others are brazenly, pathologically dishonest. That is an untenable position. Now, Norman Finkelstein has exposed the shoddy, dishonest scholarship of Alan Dershowitz (e.g. in their infamous ‘Democracy Now!’ debate), but Israel-Palestine is a fascinating debate so I need to read Dershowitz and other pro-Israel-ers more thoroughly.
phil
April 26th, 2009 1:44pmrippon would it be wrong of me to ask you to go and do all your research prior to sharing your thoughts with us such as hitlers good points -Some here have been incredibly polite to you ,but as it is a "free to speak" area I have to say I find it incredibly boring -I do not want to wait months before you find out that finklestein is crazy and that he has been removed from his post at an American college because of the nonsense he wishes to teach -go and find his rant on press TV and then tell us what you think of him ,as for the rest of the revisionists ,they are not called that for nothing
If I want to read all the quotes that pappe states I am quite capable of reading them for myself without all your referrals ,so as you have said above go and read Dershowitz and whoever else pleases you but please stop boring me with these long and flabby daily thoughts of rippon .
rippon
April 26th, 2009 5:00pmYes, I must say, full credit to Melanie Phillips for allowing me (and others) to post on these threads. Whatever people might say about her (and they say a lot), she must be commended for promoting free speech on her blog.
Phil (April 26th, 1.44pm) seems to have missed my point about Hitler. My point is that ‘bias’ is a dodgy concept because, in principle, a ‘balanced’ (‘unbiased’) account of Hitler (or Idi Amin or any other mass-murderer) would talk about the negatives AND the ‘positives’ of such characters.
I already know about N.Finkelstein’s ‘craziness’ and his expulsion from De Paul University (so it won’t take me months to find out). I haven’t seen Finkelstein’s ‘rant’ on Press TV but I have seen the Finkelstein v Dershowitz debate on ‘Democracy Now!’ That gave the impression that Finkelstein had rigorously exposed Dershowitz as a charlatan. But I would like to gain a wider picture of Dershowitz, that’s why I want to read more of his work and learn more about him (I happen to know, if I recall rightly, that he is highly rated as a lawyer because he successfully defended O.J. Simpson against what many regarded as a slam-dunk murder charge, so Dershowitz is presumably very capable and intelligent).
Phil has asked: after I have done my research (re Finkelstein), “tell us what you think.”
I too would like to ask: anyone, e.g. Phil, who has had the patience to read my extract from Pappe’s book, what do you think?
I myself think there are only two possible conclusions: Pappe is telling the truth, which means that Israel was born out of deeply immoral motives and actions. Or, Pappe is a brazen compulsive liar and those quotes (from Ben-Gurion and Weitz and many others throughout his book) are fabricated.
(I don’t think the second one is a tenable conclusion.)
Here’s a suggestion to Phil: if you don’t want to read my thoughts, then in future, whenever you see my name appear, just skim-read or skip to the next post that you do consider worth reading.
Joe Kaffir
April 26th, 2009 5:04pmNick,
so you are quoting Inayat Bunglawala who has been exposed as a former associate of Hizbut-a-Tahrir and antimsemite by Ed Hussain in "The Islamist" and defended radical sheihks as "courageous" and refused to remove the openly antisemitc MAB from the MCB. Why not get straight to the point and quote a better known antisemite:
"The Jews have only themselves to blame" - Hitler.
This has all happened before and while we watch our WWII & holocaust movies and documentaries few appreciate how such things can come to pass....slowly but inexoribly and usually based on previous existing antisemitism.
Jews must never be at the whim of such a fickle and gullable mob ever again.
phil
April 27th, 2009 12:40pmRippon I am well aware that their is no compulsion for me to read your posts ,but I normally read everyone,s words partly in case those like sin /carl and the blade write something even more outrageous than usual ,and I expect most do the same ,so I think you have some responsibility to write either factual or debatable comments ,even amusing asides if you wish .What I do not enjoy are remarks about the better side of hitler and accusations of exposure of Dershowitz by the disgusting finklestein .I get the impression that you are a seeker of truth rather than Israel basher ,but you are either confused or deluded by reading sensational lies by discredited historians ,so my point to you is that I do not want to have to read about your doubts ,nor do I want to know of your reflections of how hitler and amin have been misunderstood -I have no doubt they are in hell still trying to explain themselves and will not feel much better for your intervention on their behalf .
If you want to see finklestein in action just put "press tv ,finklestein "in your browser and watch the video ,if you are left in any doubt as to his sanity i will be surprised ,just watch his glazed eyes and the manner of his speech -it rather reminds me of "one flew over the cuckoos nest ",or even the demeanour of rudolph hess.
If you are in any doubt as to the formation of the state of Israel and the reasons for it ,you have much work to do ,suffice it to say their intention at the outset was "to be a light unto nations",but after more than 60 years of being under attack it is hardly surprising that they have become somewhat harder in their response to the outside world ,most of whom do not give a damn about them .Does it not surprise you that their allies are the democracies or that their opponents are the despots from countries with insane interpretations of what is supposed to be a peaceful and loving religion ? Of course you will have realised that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and that to use sticks and stones is not a sensible option .
Your purpose here seems to be to inform us of your readings from discredited historians as I said earlier ,but why do you think that those of us who have spent years posting on this area would want to know what you have found ?
-we have seen it all before and we are not impressed .Can I suggest you read from the writings of those that are not discredited and that you do not visit sites that produce hate and lies as you will not further your education there .
Lastly I hope you will use your logic and ask yourself what purpose Israel could possibly have to want to fight ,surely a solution of peace with good neighbours is far more appealing than what they have endured all these years -that is what the family that I have there have always told me they want and cannot have -I do believe that the majority of Palestinians want the same but are to terrified by the crazies to come forward and say so -now there is something for you to invest your time in ,so when you have a solution we will be happy to hear from you .
rippon
April 27th, 2009 4:35pm(I’ll be briefer than usual, out of respect for Phil’s exasperation with me.)
I said that ‘bias’ was a problematic concept because, in principle, an ‘unbiased’ account of Hitler or Idi Amin (or other mass-murderers) would include material about the ‘positive’ side to them. My point was apparently too subtle because Phil has interpreted this as me being sympathetic towards them and ‘intervening on their behalf’.
I posed the question: What conclusion should be drawn from quotes cited by Pappe in his ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’? – e.g. leading Zionist figures saying: ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937], ‘it is our right to transfer the Arabs’ and ‘The Arabs should go!’ [Yossef Weitz, 1940]
There are two possible conclusions: Pappe is telling the truth, which means that Israel was born out of deeply immoral motives and actions; or, Pappe is a brazen compulsive liar and those quotes are fabricated.
Phil’s conclusion is clearly the latter (on the basis that Pappe is a ‘discredited’ historian); I, on the other hand, consider the latter conclusion untenable.
But I am grateful that Phil has answered the question. I contend, then, that this is the root of the Palestine-Israel problem – the denial of the deeply immoral, horrific nature of the establishment of the Zionist state (and, of course, denial of all subsequent Israeli crimes, invariably whitewashed as ‘accidents’, on the rare occasions when incidents are admitted).
phil
April 27th, 2009 5:25pmrippon your quote"I contend, then, that this is the root of the Palestine-Israel problem – the denial of the deeply immoral, horrific nature of the establishment of the Zionist state (and, of course, denial of all subsequent Israeli crimes, invariably whitewashed as ‘accidents’, on the rare occasions when incidents are admitted)." ----------well it has taken quite some effort to smoke you out and now we can all see where you are coming from -its plain to see you never had any interest in the truth ,solely some way to criticise the state of Israel in a wholly untruthful manner ,so now I do hope no one will waste any further time with you .you seem to think you are dealing with fools here but you are not smart enough to play that game .you now stand exposed as just another hater -I have quite enjoyed our little game ,but its over now and you have lost ,what a silly waste of your time .,you can of course get on with your study of hitlers good points ,it shouldnt take up too much of your time ,but you will not get any clients here .
rippon
April 27th, 2009 6:48pmOh dear, what juvenile terms phil has framed this discussion in. The “game” is to “smoke-out” the “haters” (= critics of Israel). People who defend Israel are not “fools”, and I am not “smart enough” to prove otherwise. phil says I have “lost” this “game”, which he has “enjoyed”.
I haven’t ‘enjoyed’ this discussion myself. I have found it rather frustrating for several reasons: phil has repeatedly misinterpreted my references to Hitler and mass-murderers as sympathy for them (and he talks about me being “not smart enough”). No one (e.g. phil) ever offered a mature rationale for dismissing Pappe’s quotes from leading Zionist figures, e.g.: ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937], ‘it is our right to transfer the Arabs’ and ‘The Arabs should go!’ [Yossef Weitz, 1940]. For example, no one ever said plainly that those quotes are pure fabrication, but merely that Pappe should not be listened to (even if he tells the truth, presumably). Also, the only rationale offered for dismissing N.Finkelstein was not to do with the content of his words but, rather, Finkelstein’s appearance (“glazed eyes”) and style of speech.
I don’t feel (as phil does) that this discussion has been ‘a silly waste of my time’; while frustrating, it has been quite stimulating too. phil said, “I do hope no one will waste any further time with you,” so it might be some consolation to him that he’s the only one who’s really been doing that; so, if he can now restrain himself, his hope will most probably come true.
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 27th, 2009 9:15pm"Ok so let's assume that those comments were made by the people referred to. Now who were they talking about and what was the basis for the comments? " Gav T, thank you for stating in greater detail what I had alluded to in an earlier post.
"There are two possible conclusions: Pappe is telling the truth, which means that Israel was born out of deeply immoral motives and actions; or, Pappe is a brazen compulsive liar and those quotes are fabricated."
rippon, without ruling out #2 (Pappe does not enjoy a high repuation for veracity), there are at least two more possible outcomes - he was taken in by sources that he mistakenly believed to be accurate, or the Zionist leadership changed its goals and tactics after the UN adopted the partition plan in 1947 and decided to accept half a loaf. The theories are not mutually exclusive. You will note that all of Pappe's sources predate the partition resolution. There is also plenty of evidence that the Arabs began fleeing well before the Arab League invasion of May 1948, and that the Arab League countries urged them to do so, using a combination of promises, threats and appeals to anti-Jewish sentiment. The latter facts have been documented from Arab sources, among others.
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 27th, 2009 9:20pm"[t]he only rationale offered for dismissing N.Finkelstein was not to do with the content of his words but, rather, Finkelstein’s appearance (“glazed eyes”) and style of speech." I'll add a third. The man is a proven and shameless liar, including his false accusations of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz, which Finkelstein has continued to repeat despite Dershowitz having provided conclusive evidence -- in the form of drafts written in his own hand -- that the book was his own work, and Dershowitz's footnotes in the book in which he clearly cites the work that Finklestein accuses him of plagiarising.
rippon
April 27th, 2009 10:58pmThank you ahad ha’amarotsim, your replies have more substance than others before.
I retort thus:
Your case against Pappe rests upon the belief that: at worst, Pappe is a brazen compulsive liar who fabricates quotes; or, at best, he’s an incompetent scholar who is easily duped by bogus sources. That’s a clear position, but it’s not tenable.
Those are serious charges (against Pappe). Now, this might sound like a taunt, given the nature of the dialogue I’ve seen on threads below Melanie Phillips’ blogs, but it isn’t (because I myself don’t carry a catalogue of sources in my head to back all my arguments), but, I’d be grateful if you could point me to any sources that demonstrate Pappe’s deeply flawed scholarship (perhaps in the same way that ‘The Anti-Chomsky Reader’ is intended to ‘expose’ Noam Chomsky).
I’m puzzled by your “half a loaf” phrase because Gaza and the West Bank don’t constitute half of Palestine-Israel.
The two quotes Pappe gives from the tiny snippet of his book that I extracted do pre-date 1947; but it is not true that “all” Pappe’s sources predate 1947: the book as a whole draws on many sources, e.g. Hagana, IDF, Jewish Agency archives, pre- and post-1947, that (from the horse’s mouth, so to speak) provide ample damning evidence against the true nature of Israel’s leaders and ‘defence’ (read ‘attack’) forces.
You seem to suggest that Palestinians were fleeing Arab forces, not Jewish ones. (This is as reprehensible as peddling the myth that Palestinians left ‘voluntarily’.) Again, I would be grateful if you could point me to any sources that substantiate that.
You say, “The man [N.Finkelstein] is a proven and shameless liar, including his false accusations of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz, which Finkelstein has continued to repeat despite Dershowitz having provided conclusive evidence [to the contrary].”
But these are serious charges and Dershowitz is a most formidable lawyer. Surely, the proof of the pudding is that Dershowitz has not sued Finkelstein (but I might be out-of-date: has Dershowitz begun legal proceedings against Finkelstein?).
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 28th, 2009 12:51amrippon, I do not suggest that Arabs were fleeing Arab forces only. The Arab "leadership" fled Palestine out of fear of both the Jews and of the Arabs, but it has been amply documented that they were encouraged to do so by the forces of the Arab Legion, who promised they would share in the spoils after the Jews were slaughtered or driven out, and would be slaughtered like Jews by the Arab Legion if they remain. Sadly I do not have time to hunt up the sources at this time, but perhaps someone else on this blog has the sources handy.
As to half a loaf, what was left of the Palestine Mandate after the majority was given to Transjordan was much less than half, and about half of that was offered to the Jews under the partition plan -- but without Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem at that time had both the highest per capita Jewish population and the longest coninuously settled Jewish community. In this sense, settling for something rather than holding out for everything and getting nothing, is half a loaf.
I am not qualified to judge Pro. Pappe's scholarship. Others who are have not been impressed.
As to libel law, yes, the charges made by Finkelstein are serious. Libel law in the US is a bit different than in the UK, and a plaintiff -- particularly one who is a public figure -- has a nearly insurmountable burden of proving not only that the statements are false but that the defendant made the statements with full knowledge they were false. It should be noted that Dershowitz has repeatedly accused Finlestein of lying, and sent what he described as “a dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions" to the faculty members of a university that was considering whether to grant Finklestein tenure, yet Finkelstein so far as I know has not sued Dershowitz either.
phil
April 28th, 2009 1:14amrippon one has to assume that dershowitz has come to the conclusion that finklestein is not worth bothering about in a similar way that I have come to the same conclusion about you -you are here to debase Israel and nothing else ,you by your own admission know little or nothing so one has to assume you are here to throw stones -last year we had another strange woman like you who sent us essays of nonsense by the yard ,how long do you intend to bore us with these endless drones ,saying nothing but taking a long time to do so -you exposed yourself at 4.35 today ,we know what you are doing and we know you are wasting your time as well as ours. I hope Ahad sees you for what you are- an agent provocateur and btw it was your own words pleading on behalf of hitler ,probably the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these threads .
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 28th, 2009 3:16pmPhil, somehow I missed rippon's "that ‘bias’ is a dodgy concept because, in principle, a ‘balanced’ (‘unbiased’) account of Hitler (or Idi Amin or any other mass-murderer) would talk about the negatives AND the ‘positives’ of such characters." Well, yes, it is fairly well known tht Hitler yemach shmo was a brilliant speaker, revitalized German national pride, followed a healthy vegetarian diet, encouraged physical fitness among German youth, and could not abide cruelty to animals. Does rippon beleive that these things mitigate the crimes of one of the more evil men to exercise power in the last several millennia, who unleashed untold misery upon so many millions of innocent people? As a politcally liberal friend of mine likes to observe, let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out. You are right, phil, there is no reason to waste further time on rippon.
phil
April 28th, 2009 4:10pmahad ha'amoratsim maybe now we can get back to some sensible stuff -I think she was a knaidel short of a real chicken soup .)
rippon
April 28th, 2009 4:13pmI’m surprised at the density of ahad ha’amoratsim and phil, regarding my point about ‘bias’ and mass-murderers (e.g. Hitler). Ahad cites the observation, ‘let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.’ That’s exactly the point I was making. I did not make it with so much subtlety that it could easily be missed. But these two cretins have managed to miss it, repeatedly. I’ll try one more time (perhaps not the last, given how tough it is to penetrate the skulls of these retards): the ‘secret’ to comprehending the point lies in the use of inverted commas. There, I’ve just used another example. I put ‘secret’ in inverted commas; the meaning, not too subtle for anyone with bigger brains than ahad and phil, is, of course, that it’s not a ‘secret’ at all – everyone with reasonable intelligence and education knows how to interpret inverted commas in such a context. That is why I say the ‘positives’ of Hitler because, as far as I’m aware, there is nothing positive to say about the man; and anyone who waxes lyrically about Hitler’s lead in brilliant oratory, national pride, healthy lifestyle, animal welfare etc. is merely obfuscating the man’s crimes with a pretence of ‘balance’ and not succumbing to ‘bias’. – that’s why I say ‘bias’ and ‘balance’ are problematic concepts.
Now, apart from basic intelligence (where I clearly lead those two morons), another essential disagreement between critics of and apologists for Israel actually lies with the concepts of media ‘balance’ and ‘bias’. (Now, the two morons might need another bit of education: on that occasion, the significance of the inverted commas is not ironic but intended, instead, to highlight the words as the concepts under consideration.) The essential disagreement is:
Critics see, for example, BBC bias (no inverted commas this time; I hope it’s clear why because educating retards is a tiresome task) in painting the conflict as a ‘war’ (inverted commas because the word actually means something else, which I’m just about to explain … ), when, in fact, it is actually a crime (no inverted commas because ‘crime’ means ‘crime’, and not something else) of one group (Zionists) bludgeoning another group (Palestinians) into submission and acceptance of their dispossession and poverty.
Whereas apologists see BBC bias as twisting/spinning Israeli self-defence as unwarranted aggression and Palestinian terror as ‘resistance’ (more inverted commas; I hope the retards are approaching the ‘Ahh!, now I get it!’ stage of comprehension).
Morons: go take a remedial class in reading, writing and comprehension before attempting to debate me. This time you really have wasted my time because I’ve had to deliver a short class in that topic myself, rather than enlightening you further on what writers beyond the ones I’ve already mentioned are saying, which, like Pappe’s work, also needs rebuttal or acceptance.
phil
April 28th, 2009 5:50pmsorry rippon it looks like we morons have sent you over the edge but for the sake of peace I will accept your expertise in commas if that makes you feel better -maybe you could try pol pot now ,or a book on attila the hun with a foreword by dinnerjacket -dont worry I am sure somebody loves you ,even thinks you are clever ,not here though .Cant speak for Ahad ,but I think he is far too smart for you lass .
rippon
April 28th, 2009 6:11pmThanks, phil: yes, your acceding to my expertise is encouraging.
Your pol pot and Attila the hun remark makes no sense, though – unless you’re suggesting that, since I’m a ‘fan’ (understand the inverted commas?) of Hitler, I might also be a fan of those characters; and if you are suggesting that, then, despite your bowing to my superior intelligence, it seems you’re still regurgitating your previous misconception (I did say previously that, despite my re-visiting your confusion, the point might still not penetrate your skull).
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 28th, 2009 6:49pmSo let's see. From 1900 to 1929 or so, a whole bunch of Arabs migrate into Palestine because Jews have bought land there from the lawful landowners, and those Arabs, like the Arabs who were there before them (but who were there in sparser numbers) consider it their right to murder, steal and loot from the Jewish population and to squat on unoccupied land. Then over a period of decades the Arabs use terror to attempt to pressure the Jews to leave, and to frighten the British out of fulfilling the mandate to give the Jews a state. Then in 1947 the UN votes to further partition Palestine (more than half of which had already been turned into Transjordan). Then in 1948 the British withdraw and five Arab armies invade to wipe the new state of Israel off the map: rippon's conclusion? That all this means the Jews are not waging war, they are committing crimes. And that everything they have done since by way of self-defense is illegitimate because they should have been driven into the sea in 1948 if not earlier. Okay, I admit it, rippon, you're too subtle for me. How can I dispute the brilliant logic and devastating facts demonstrated by slinging around such terms as 'moron', 'cretin' or 'retard'?
phil
April 29th, 2009 10:05amlooks like rippon has lost her audience since she descended into "cretins,morons and thick skulls"---oh happy days
rippon
April 29th, 2009 10:25amMy audience only really comprised phil and ahad. I tried three times with my last post, but it simply would not appear.
Linda Smith
April 29th, 2009 12:22pmRippon: I (and probably other silent readers) have been following this thread. What progress have you made with your research into Arab massacres of Jews?
Instead of reading revisionist historians, why not consult historical documents, eg the United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948:
"The (British) Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations....."
The Arab hypocrites and their allies bleat on about "disposession" of land. But, the Jews were going to lose far more than land at Arab hands. The Arabs were committed to genocide.
Hamas's Charter blames Jews for all the "evils" of the world - including the French Revolution. Hamas's Charter states that Hamas's objective is genocide of Jews as a religious Islamic duty and quotes the Koran.
Read it online and then you will understand why Israeli historian Benny Morris says he prefers ethnic cleansing to genocide.
Nothing has changed.
rippon
April 29th, 2009 2:32pmThanks, Linda Smith. That constitutes a genuine rebuttal (and is a refreshing change from the idiotic suggestion that I support Hitler.)
(Incidentally, I’m perturbed that, despite trying four times now, my previous post still does not appear; it would be helpful if the moderator gave some reason for rejecting it.)
Yours is one piece of evidence out of a body of such evidence that might conceivably trump the alleged veracity of Palestine-Israel history offered by Pappe and others. Now, I presume that, like me, you’re not a scholar in this area – like, say, Pappe and Dershowitz are (or claim to be). Ideally, I would like someone to suggest a scholarly source that, like Pappe does, collects together and makes sense of a body of such evidence to offer a coherent account of who did what and why. (In the absence of such suggestions, I will probably just go to Dershowitz’s ‘Case for Israel’.)
In the meantime, from my ‘biased’ perspective (that I have acquired from Pappe and others) …
Here’s a possible problem with the quote you’ve given me. It gives the perspective of the British Government. But, the British were deeply immoral, cowardly and corrupt. (The UN were deeply flawed too.) They (the British) had a responsibility to protect Palestinians, but invariably looked the other way whenever Jewish forces attacked, terrorised and cleansed Palestinians villages. Therefore, it would make sense to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the Nakba by suggesting that the Palestinians were bent on violence against Jews anyway.
Yes, the Hamas Charter does preach hatred against Jews. I don’t think anyone ‘likes’ Hamas or what they stand for. But Hamas are a very new political phenomenon in the region and Gerald Kaufman MP (a Jew, so presumably a ‘self-hating’ traitor) makes a valid point when he says, ‘[paraphrasing, can’t remember the exact words] Israel has brought Hamas upon itself; if you refuse to negotiate with Fatah, then Hamas is what you end up with.’ Moreover, other analysts (e.g. N.Chomsky) have pointed out that, to counter any ‘peace offensive’ from the Palestinians (because unjust settlement by force, rather than just settlement through negotiation, is Israel’s preference), Israel persistently takes the line that, whoever holds the balance of power, e.g. Fatah, Hamas, is not the authentic voice of Palestinians, and this provides a convenient pretext for always rejecting negotiations. Therefore, when Fatah were the dominant party, Israel gave support to Hamas; now that Hamas are the dominant voice, US-Israel’s line is that they will only consider negotiation with Mahmoud Abbas.
rippon
April 29th, 2009 3:15pmRe: Linda Smith, April 29, 12.22pm
Out of curiosity, I googled. The full wording gives a very different picture to the one suggested by Linda Smith:
"in the present circumstances the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable. The Arabs are determined to show that they will not submit tamely to the United Nations Plan of Partition; while the Jews are trying to consolidate the advantages gained at the General Assembly by a succession of drastic operations designed to intimidate and cure the Arabs of any desire for further conflict. Elements on each side are thus engaged in attacking or in taking reprisals indistinguishable from attacks…The Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present."
Linda Smith
April 29th, 2009 11:25pmRippon: you posted "They (the British) had a responsibility to protect Palestinians, but invariably looked the other way whenever Jewish forces attacked, terrorised and cleansed Palestinians villages. Therefore, it would make sense to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the Nakba by suggesting that Palestinians were bent on violence against Jews anyway."
You paint a false picture. There were not "Palestinians" and "Jews". There were Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians. If the British had a duty to protect Arab Palestinians", then it also had a duty to protect Jewish Palestinians.
Why would the British "look the other way whenever Jewish forces attacked..."
Please provide evidence for your assertions.
rippon
April 29th, 2009 11:58pmCan’t remember the details off the top of my head, but, in general terms, the British were in a hurry to get out of Palestine and didn’t want to get embroiled in the violence. They were happy for the UN to take over responsibility for the horror and mess that was unfolding. British (indeed, global) sympathy for the Jews in the wake of the holocaust also contributed to Britain’s reluctance in taking a censorious attitude towards what their leaders (e.g. Ben-Gurion) were perpetrating.
Linda Smith
April 30th, 2009 12:47amRippon: why did you ignore my question "What progress have you made with your research into Arab massacres of Jews?"
Here's a little help:
In 1929 there was a "wave of Arab attacks on Jewish settlements provoked by the Mufti of Jerusalem. Attacks started on isolated Jewish quarters in Jerusalem on August 23. The next day there was a barbarous slaughter of Jews in Hebron: 59 men, women and children were butchered - and it was only after the attack was well and truly over that British troops arrived from Jerusalem. The disturbances spread throughout the country. Many of the inhabitants of Motza (a small village near Jerusalem) were murdered, and their homes demolished. Other small villages were destroyed - among them Ein Zeitim, in Upper Galilee; Hartuv, Kfar Uria, and Hulda on the Judean foothills between Jaffa and Jerusalem; and, after a particularly heroic defense, Be'er Tuvia in Southern Judea. At Mishmar Ha'emek, the police ordered the settlers to leave, and then watched while the Arabs looted the place. the attack on the Jews of Safad was particularly brutal. In one week 105 Jews were murdered and 187 murdered throughout the country; property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars was destroyed and plundered. Isolated quarters and small settlements suffered, though they were defended heroically; in the large villages and towns the Arabs did not dare to attack. The Jews who survived in Hebron abandoned the town but most of the destroyed villages were soon rebuilt."
from The Jews in Their Land (1966)
rippon
April 30th, 2009 11:11am(I hope this post appears on the thread ... )
To anyone who addresses me:
If I go silent on you, it is because I lost patience with submitting posts which would simply not appear (for ages, or even at all), not because I got tired of chatting with you.
rippon
April 30th, 2009 12:01pmThe Jews in Their Land (1966) is by David Ben-Gurion. Now, I understand that Ilan Pappe and others are considered highly 'biased' sources, but using Ben-Gurion himself, the actual mastermind behind Palestine’s ethnic cleansing, is not sensible. It’s as ridiculous as going to Ariel Sharon for a fair account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, or to Henry Kissinger for an account of Cambodia-Vietnam.
Linda Smith
April 30th, 2009 12:02pmRippon, on you posted "The way to defeat Israel-haters is to address what Ahmadinejad (and many others, including many Jews) actually say, rather than indulge in deranged dishonest rantings..."
But, whenever you are requested on this thread for evidence to substantiate your own Israel-hating allegations, you respond "can't remember the details off the top of my head" and indulge in your own unsubstantiated deranged dishonest rantings.
I have better things to do than waste my time debating with a bigoted hypocrite.
rippon
April 30th, 2009 12:38pmI intend to read 'Case for Israel' by Dershowitz.
You, Linda, might like to read 'Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' by Pappe.
phil
April 30th, 2009 5:14pmLinda Smith forgive me smiling but that took a long time .)) Ahad and I came to that conclusion some time ago ,but I salute your patience -I tried polite ,education ,rude nothing made any difference ,do you remember that woman last year who wrote by the mile not by the sentence ? could it be her in disguise .))
rippon
April 30th, 2009 6:05pmI intend to read 'Case for Israel' by Dershowitz.
You, phil, might like to read 'Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' by Pappe.
phil
April 30th, 2009 7:21pmrippon -no thank you ,by your own admission it is you that does not know the history of this region -I by contrast have been doing it for a long time and I am pretty fed up of hearing you tell us you do not know it, but nevertheless continuing to make ridiculous accusations based on discredited writers -I have been there seen it done it and have the teeshirt .come back when you can say the same .
ahad ha'amoratsim
April 30th, 2009 11:24pm"Ben-Gurion himself, the actual mastermind behind Palestine’s ethnic cleansing" If the Israelis are out to perform ethnic cleansing, they have to be the most incompetent ethnic cleansers the world has seen. Arab population growth, life expectancy literacy and income thrives when they are Israeli citizens or under Israeli administration, and plummets when they organize terror wars or administer themselves. So far Israel has cleansed several areas of Jews (Gaza and the Sinai among others) but that's it.
"It’s as ridiculous as going to Ariel Sharon for a fair account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre" which you will recall was committed by Lebanese. A US federal court found that Sharon had been taken in by their assurances that they would not attack (for which an Israeli court of inquiry found him negligent). The same US court found that any accusation that Sharon planned, collaberated in, condoned, or wanted those attacks is simply an out and out lie. Feel free to spread the lie if you like -- UK libel law is much tougher than that of the US, but Sharon is not likely to sue you. You'll just have to put up with the occassional individual pointing out that you are spreading a long-refuted but popularly accepted lie.
rippon
April 30th, 2009 11:46pmRe: phil, April 30th, 7:21pm
Phil resorts yet again to a juvenile line of argument which boils down to, ‘I know more than you, nah nah nah nah nah!’ [fingers stuck in ears], completely missing the fundamental point – which is this:
There are writers, e.g. Dershowitz, Pappe, with diametrically opposed perspectives on Palestine-Israel. The question is, how can someone decide who presents the true picture?
Now, I apologise in advance to phil who repeatedly confesses his intellectual deficiency in not having the patience for reading long-ish arguments, but here goes …
This simple-minded bald assertion that Pappe et al are “discredited” (by who?) is not good enough. There needs to be a rigorous (scholarly and/or journalistic) analysis of what ‘revisionists’ write and exposure of their ‘lies/distortions’.
For example, when Pappe ‘fabricates’ the quote, ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937], then there ought to be someone on a forum like this who can point to some event (e.g. court case) where someone (Ben-Gurion Foundation/Trust, perhaps) has charged Pappe with fabrication and smearing of Ben-Gurion; or some book/article where such fabrications are exposed and dissected. The kind of thing I have in mind is a book like ‘The Anti-Chomsky Reader’, which is intended to debunk Noam Chomsky.
The issue is not how knowledgeable I am. The problem (for Israel-apologists) is that if anyone goes to standard information sources to learn about Palestine-Israel, then, apart from Dershowitz et al, they are bound to run into the ‘revisionists’. For example, on the amazon page for Dershowitz’s ‘Case for Israel’, there are links to books by Pappe, Finkelstein, Shlaim, Robert Fisk, Jimmy Carter et al. Indeed, the volume of literature critical of Israel swamps that of apologists. It’s not tenable to dismiss all those writers with vacuous words like “discredited”, “liars”, “glazed-eyes”, “mad”. This juvenile level of debate suggests that Israel cannot win the battle of ideas; it can only win militarily by pounding harder (as long as it suits the US to continue sponsoring their ‘cop on the beat down there’).
It doesn’t help phil’s case to say “no thank you” to reading Pappe, and that he has been “doing it for a long time” – doing what exactly, write garbage it seems. He would do better to read Pappe (and/or numerous others – one is spoilt for choice) so that he can quote, dissect and discredit Pappe in a more mature way than simply shouting “hater”.
The immaturity was further illustrated earlier with the foolish suggestion that I felt sympathy for mass-murderers. On that subject, I’ll address the hurt I may have caused to phil and ahad.
I used the words “morons”, “cretins” and “retards” (accurately) exclusively with respect to the idiotic inference that I supported Hitler. And, indeed, my logic there is unassailable (or “brilliant” – ahad’s preferred term). I did not say morons, cretins or retards simply because you cling to a different version of Palestine-Israel history – a fantasy, in fact, but something you are certainly entitled to.
You are actually also entitled to say that I support Hitler, too, if you like (I don’t mind being smeared by a double-act of your calibre), but you would have to frame it something like this: ‘I suspect that rippon’s words, perhaps reasonable-sounding to those who are uninitiated in the mendacious tactics of the haters, hide an inner dark heart of vehement anti-Semitism and Hitler idolatry.’
But you are NOT entitled to say that my words imply support for Hitler, because they don’t, whereas your words do imply ignorance regarding the use of inverted commas.
rippon
May 1st, 2009 1:29amPeople on this thread clearly have a strong masochistic streak: they repeatedly say with exasperation that rippon ‘is not worth wasting time on’, yet they keep coming back for more. I’m happy to oblige, though my altruistic streak does compel me to suggest this: masochism is generally harmful, so rather than flogging dead-horse arguments, seeking counselling would be a more healthy option.
phil
May 1st, 2009 10:36amrippon I am done with you now -you have obviously blown your mind and resorted to childish insults ,but without humour ,you keep repeating that you are not knowledgeable on this subject and expect us to debate with you ,and then sneer when we try to be helpful ,so I am afraid you will have to resort to patting yourself on your back and telling yourself how clever you are ,,you have a one person admiration club and sadly it will probably remain so .goodbye .
Linda Smith
May 1st, 2009 10:39amRippon projected this self-revelation onto other posters: "I suspect that rippon's words, perhaps reasonable-sounding to those who are uniniated in the mendacious tactics of the haters, hide an inner dark heart of vehement anti-Semitism and Hitler idolatry."
As a psychologist, I suggest that it is Rippon who should seek counselling - a need she also projected onto other posters.
rippon
May 1st, 2009 2:06pmPhil, you say you don’t want to talk to me any more; well, I’ve heard that before, so I’ll believe it when I see it.
Regarding your attempt to be “helpful”, this is the help I requested (but was never forthcoming): a recommendation of a pro-Israel writer who comprehensively debunks Pappe (or any one of numerous others).
You’re absolutely right, of course, that being knowledgeable is very important. Now, amazon is a good place to go in search of such knowledge, but the problem remains, whose ‘knowledge’ can we trust? For example, what should one make of these words regarding Jonathan Cook’s ‘Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair’?: “This is an impressive and timely book written by one of the most knowledgeable writers on the Palestine-Israel conflict.” [ – note the word “knowledgeable” there]
Linda Smith’s response (that I have ‘revealed’ myself) typifies the lazy defence resorted to against critics of Israel: they must be anti-Semitic (and if they’re Jewish themselves, then they must suffer some pathological self-hatred – a contortion of reason that becomes necessary if you insist on dismissing reasonable criticisms of Israel at all costs).
(Incidentally, Linda’s response is illogical; she surely can’t mean what her words say: that I have projected my own ‘anti-Semitism’ onto phil and ahad – because that would mean I believe phil and ahad are anti-Semitic. We have our differences in this discussion, but whatever else you may think about me, I’m sure you don’t think I believe phil and ahad are anti-Semitic.)
“As a psychologist”, Linda, I suppose I should take you seriously, so thanks for the counselling suggestion, I might look into it. You might like to look into Jonathan Cook’s book.
phil
May 1st, 2009 4:00pmLinda Smith does her condition have a name ? neural linguistic therapy might help as I think it is appropriate for a compulsive syndrome disorder that this seems to be /it was at first interesting because she seemed to want guidance ,then annoying because of stubborn intransigence and rejection of a different opinion and now hilarious .I hope the new flu does not mutate as quickly as this .) I am now observing the outpourings from a safe distance .
rippon
May 1st, 2009 5:21pmThere was no ‘mutation’ in my ‘condition’, phil (welcome back, by the way).
My ‘condition’ was always, and remains, a preoccupation with the questions: How can the output of Pappe (and many others, e.g. Jonathan Cook) be rebutted? Is there a source (e.g. a book/article by Dershowitz, say) that rigorously debunks Pappe’s ‘Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’? For example, has anyone persuasively argued that Pappe’s quotes – e.g. ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937] – are fabricated (or distorted out of context)?
I assert that simply shouting “anti-Semite”, “hater”, “self-hating Jew”, “mad”, “discredited”, etc does not constitute a persuasive rebuttal against critics of Israel.
Moreover, I have repeatedly asserted that previously – which, again, shows that there was no ‘mutation’ in my ‘condition’.
(Actually, there is a name for my condition: ‘consistency’.)
Linda Smith
May 1st, 2009 7:29pmPhil, to clarify: Rippon wrote this words "I suspect that rippon's words, perhaps reasonable-sounding to those who are uniniated in the mendacious tactics of the haters, hide an inner dark heart of vehement anti-Semitism and Hitler idolatry" and attributed them to other posters. As the words came from rippon's own mind, they reveal her own thoughts - not the thoughts of the other posters.
For her own reasons, rippon is obsessed with the Jewish/Arab conflict and seems to spend most of the day posting comments. One might understand Jews being obsessed as criticism of Israel is linked to antisemitic attacks, also many Jews have family and friends in Israel. But why is rippon obsessed with THIS topic. What's the hook?
Rippon asked "how can someone decide who presents the true picture? Answer: by examining all the facts in all the circumstances, which rippon fails to do. Apparently in rippon's mind Arabs are saints and Jews are sinners. She makes malicious accusations and allegations against the Jews (and the British) but declines to cite her sources. When the subject of Arab massacres of Jews is raised, she declines to comment. She ignores facts that do not fit her mindset or fabricates a rationale to explain them away.
Rippons pretends she wants a mature debate but her method of debating is a travesty - she really delivers "an unconscionable farce."
rippon
May 1st, 2009 8:37pmI am very interested to read about massacres: it is a fascinating and chilling feature of history.
I am grateful to Linda for providing at least one source, David Ben-Gurion, on the subject of massacres of Jews by Arabs. But there was no one more politically directly involved in the bloodshed out of which Israel was born that Ben-Gurion, so he is not the best of sources to rely upon. Dershowitz is obviously a more independent voice than Ben-Gurion and, presumably, he will include accounts of such massacres in his book. Moreover, it is always possible that someone, e.g. phil, Linda Smith, might post on this thread other sources that will detail such massacres.
(The bloodshed continues to this day and the volatility of the Middle East means that every adult citizen of the world ought to be ‘obsessed’ to some degree with background and current events because, potentially, the wider world, e.g. us, could get drawn in. This country has a long history of association with the conflicts in the region, e.g. Iran, Iraq, and strong connections with Israel – more good reason to be ‘obsessed’.)
However, the ‘score’ for both sides regarding massacres will always make Israel appear far more violent than Palestinians; so that will always be a PR problem for Israel (and a debating handicap for defenders of Israel).
Linda is correct that one should endeavour to examine “all the facts in all the circumstances”. That is why I suggest that people examine the facts of Pappe, Cook and many others (which are very damning) and explain, or point to someone who explains, why those facts can be discounted – with a more persuasive ‘explanation’ than assigning vacuous labels (e.g. “hater”, “anti-Semite”, “mad”, “discredited”) to people who criticise actions and policies of the Israeli state.
I could equally well muse upon the question: why are phil and Linda Smith so ‘obsessed’ with discussing rippon if I am simply another typical ‘bigoted’, ‘closed-minded’, ‘anti-Semite’ not worthy of their time and attention?
Linda Smith
May 2nd, 2009 1:27amI do not understand why rippon finds herself unable to google "Arab massacres of Jews". She is clearly an adept googler when she chooses.
Here is a morsel from Wikipedia on the 1938 Tiberias massacre:
"It was systematically organized and savagely executed. Of the nineteen Jews killed, including women and children, all save four were stabbed to death. That night and the following day the troops engaged the raiding gangs."
British Mandate report; (United Nations)
But as rippon discounts or reworks any facts that do not fit her Arab-as-victim stance, I do not expect her to accept the accuracy of this report either as she has previously said she does not respect the British.
Here is an extract from another article she won't read or accept because it is written by a Jew:
"SOME OF today's scholars prefer to present every massacre of Jews as a "response" to some Jewish deed, and to portray as a "myth" the very idea that Israel struggled desperately for existence in 1948.
But it was no myth.
The fact is 1,256 Jews were killed in five months. Even before the first Arab villages were captured in April, 924 Jews had already been killed. Ilan Pappe should have pondered what might have been if those Jews had not been slaughtered.
What if attacks and riots had not been the first Arab reaction to the partition plan?
Plan Dalet was a plan, it was one of many plans. The lists compiled by the Hagana had been cobbled together for a decade before 1948, but they were not blueprints - merely intelligence assessments. The British also kept lists of everything; they knew about weapons in various kibbutzim, about the Hagana and illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Those lists weren't blueprints for ethnic cleansing anymore than were the Hagana files on Arab villages.
When a Jewish area was overrun - and some were - the homes were looted or destroyed and any survivors were killed, as at Kfar Etzion (only three of the defenders survived the massacre).
The potential for the ethnic cleansing of Jewish Palestine was never realized because of the discipline, determination and sheer luck of the Yishuv.
If the Arabs had not carried out across the board attacks throughout the Yishuv between 1947 and 1948, perhaps the nature of the subsequent Jewish victory would have been different. As it was, the ceaseless attacks against all isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders every reason to see neighboring Arab villages as threatening and to act accordingly.
Scholarship - including that of the "new historians" - on the 1948 war will remain incomplete until methodical studies are carried out about widespread and often well-planned Arab assaults on the Yishuv."
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Frantzman-2007-08-16.asp
I recommend rippon read the whole article online. By the way, Papper himself admits he writes polemic not history.
phil
May 2nd, 2009 10:46amLinda Smith rippons quote "I am very interested to read about massacres:"---I think this backs up my conclusion that the lady has a problem ,I must admit to having one too,, that is ,I am amused by these people and enjoy debunking them -I have no wish to go on fact finding missions that would serve no purpose and in any case would attract the usual tactic of a lawyer with a bad case ,that is asking for further and better particulars until the opposition gets fed up .So long as Pete will allow a little satire to point out how ridiculous are the arguments of these people I will continue ,but I do prefer debating with intelligent people who have moveable minds .have a good weekend regards phil
rippon
May 2nd, 2009 6:44pmI sympathise with phil’s sentiment – “no wish to go on fact finding missions” – because research can indeed be a tedious business, and that is why I myself asked (on a presumably appropriate forum) for pointers to literature which seeks to debunk the ‘revisionists’.
Thanks to Linda Smith, then, for going to this trouble. She has provided exactly what I have been asking for – a source (Seth Frantzman) who directly addresses the picture painted by Pappe.
It seems the crux of Frantzman’s ‘debunking’ of Pappe is:
1) Pappe has misinterpreted his evidence from “Hagana and Israel state archives”.
2) Pappe does not subject the ethnic cleansing plans of the Arabs against Jews to the same analysis that he applies to the Jews.
3) Pappe wrongly dismisses the notion that Jewish forces had to conduct military operations against Arabs for the sake of the survival of Jewish state; instead, Pappe’s false picture is one of unprovoked Hagana/Irgun/Lehi aggression against Arab non-aggressors.
Linda Smith also suggests that Wikipedia is a good source of enlightenment on the massacres. Indeed, there is this interesting page (which I found by following Linda’s suggestion of googling on “Arab massacres of Jews”): ‘Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war)
My thoughts:
It is not tenable to suggest that Pappe ‘misinterprets’ his evidence. The evidence he cites is clear and unambiguous, e.g. ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937]
The British themselves (in the source provided earlier by Linda Smith: United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948) said, "in the present circumstances the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable”.
Moreover, that Wikipedia page provides further evidence of the non-aggression of the Arabs:
“Despite their rhetoric, Arab armies committed few atrocities and no large-scale massacre of prisoners took place when circumstances might have allowed them to happen, … .”
The picture of 1948 presented by Frantzman and Pappe are mutually exclusive. (There is no ‘middle ground’ or ‘compromise’.) For example, Pappe asserts that the Jews were the aggressors and any violence committed by Arabs was a response/reaction; Frantzman asserts the opposite.
But there is some tension in Frantzman’s piece, suggesting that his position is difficult to substantiate: for example, he writes the sentence, “When a Jewish area was overrun - and some were - the homes were looted or destroyed and any survivors were killed, as at Kfar Etzion (only three of the defenders survived the massacre).”
The phrase “and some were” is surprising. One would expect, assuming that Jewish existence was at stake, “and many were” with a list of examples instead of just Kfar Etzion. The reference to survivors is puzzling. Presumably that refers to non-combatants so Frantzman should make it clear that the women and children were massacred, rather than tentatively implying it. If “only three of the defenders survived”, then presumably those “defenders” were combatants and not women & children, and his parenthetical remark merely adds to the confusion about who exactly was ‘massacred’.
I appreciate, of course, that such analysis by me will be seen as pedantic nitpicking to avoid the uncomfortable ‘truth’ that the Arabs were merely brazen anti-Semites bent on mass-murder of Jews. But at least now, this constitutes a discussion which is more mature than the suggestion that I support Hitler, or phil’s latest immature suggestion – that I find stories about people being massacred entertaining.
Linda Smith
May 3rd, 2009 2:50pmrippon (29 April 2.32pm) "Yes, the Hamas Charter does preach hatred against Jews. I don't think anyone 'likes Hamas or what they stand for. But Hamas are a very new political phenomenon in the region...."
False.
Hamas is defined in its charter as "a division of the Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. The Moslem Brotherhood was founded in 1928. It's founder Al-Banna advocated violence to create an Islamic religious caliphate from Mauritania to India, from Turkey to Yemen, and from Pakistan to Somolia. He quoted Mohammed's extra-Qur'anic teaching that the world would know ultimate redemption, and the resurrection of the dead; only when the Moslems had succeeded in annihilating all of world Jewry, or converting them to Islam. His words are in the Hamas Charter.
By the late 1930's Nazi Germany had established contacts with the Brotherhood.The Brotherhood adoped fascist trappings, language and symbolism. Al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem dominated the Palestinian political scene from the 1920s and was a close collaborator with Hitler.
In his memoirs after the war Husayni noted that:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a freehand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours'."
Although The Shaw Commission of Enquiry into the Arab massacres of Jews at Hebron and Safed in 1929 did not find Al Husayni directly culpable it did find that:
"The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established. .......
[The disturbances] took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish property. A general massacre of the Jewish community at Hebron was narrowly averted. In a few instances, Jews attacked Arabs and destroyed Arab property. These attacks, though inexcusable, were in most cases in retaliation for wrongs already committed by Arabs in the neighbourhood in which the Jewish attacks occurred."
Rippon's statement on 2 April "such analysis by me will be seen as pedantic nitpicking to avoid the uncomfortable truth that the Arabs were merely brazen anti-Semites bent on mass murder of Jews" is accurate. What motivates Rippon's refusal to acknowedge that Arabs were not "innocent victims"?
phil
May 3rd, 2009 2:52pmrippon are these the further and better particulars that I referred to.You surely now must realise that we are just amused by you and that what ever conclusions you wish to come to are an irrelevancy to us .I confirm that all my thoughts about you have not changed and that whichever way you wish to conceal your agenda ,you are truly transparent -but do not stop I need a little fun .
Linda Smith
May 3rd, 2009 3:50pmRippon posted "It is not tenable to suggest that Pappe ‘misinterprets’ his evidence. The evidence he cites is clear and unambiguous, e.g. ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937]"
Benny Morris and Ephraim Karsh dispute the "evidence" that the Ben Gurion quote above is "clear and unambiguous". The original document includes additional words which are ommitted from the quote. Therefore the quote is not "clear and unambiguous". Furthermore it is decontextualised. The quote is dated 1937 at which time Partition and Compulsory Transfer of Arabs was recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937 citing the large scale population transfer of Greeks and Turks carried out in the 1920s. Millions of Sudetenland Gemans in 1945 and Hindus and Moslems were compulsorily transferred after the Partion of India in 1948. Compulsory transfer was internationally acceptable at that time.
'Pappé has long acknowledged that he is not objective and cares little about factual accuracy. He readily admits that ideology drives his historical writings and statements. And his ideology can be simply summed up: Israel is illegitimate and should be the target of international sanctions until it is dismantled as a Jewish state:...
"Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers".' (Le Soir, Bruxelles, 29 Nov 1999).
The revisionists' aim is to exonerate the Arabs from their culpability as aggressors and from their role in creating the Arab Refugee problem. Their agenda is to transfer the guilt from themselves - where it belongs - to Israel.
The Deir Yassin Battle in April 1947 was not a massacre by Jews of Arabs. The lies were made up by Arabs, and spread by Arab High Command and Dr Hussein Khalidi of the "Voice of Palestine" radio news channel. Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah determined that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. The total Arab dead, including the Iraqi soldiers, according to the Beir Zayitt, calculation was 107.
The Arab intention was expressed publicly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League on May 15 1948: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." In other words, the Arabs threatened not just murder of individuals but of a nation, namely, genocide.
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived...On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
(The Cairo daily "Akhbar el Tom, October 12, 1963.)
"..the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it (Palestine) and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes.." ( Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973).
As Benny Morris, himself a former anti-Israel revisionist, wrote 'The "innocent" Palestinians were the aggressors - and dispossession was the price they paid for their aggression".
rippon
May 3rd, 2009 5:19pmLinda Smith also seems unable to grasp the crucial meaning of inverted commas. She has mis-quoted me (deliberately?):
"such analysis by me will be seen as pedantic nitpicking to avoid the uncomfortable truth that … "
The inverted commas around ‘truth’ (deleted by Linda) are crucial of course because I don’t accept your fantasy picture of 1948 – and, of course, you don’t accept Pappe’s truth (no inverted commas that time – get it?) either.
“What motivates Rippon's refusal to acknowedge that Arabs were not "innocent victims,” Linda asks.
The answer is: the mountain of literature (e.g. books by Pappe, Cook et al), documentaries, speeches and sources out there. Indeed, Linda herself has provided a source which undermines the delusion that the Jewish settlers only acted out of self-defence:
United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948: "in the present circumstances the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable”.
It is not tenable to suggest that all that evidence against Israel is false/misinterpreted/distorted. And it’s not tenable to argue that all those Israel-critics are anti-Semites, partly because the most severe critics include people who are Jews themselves; and, again, it’s not tenable to argue that all the Jewish critics must suffer some psychological sickness, e.g. ‘self-hatred’.
The crux of Linda’s latest contribution is that Arab anti-Semitism has existed for a very long time. But that is an irrelevance if one is attempting to address the charge: Israel was born out of, and continues to exist, in the context of extreme violence unleashed by the state’s leaders (with their Zionist ideology) upon Palestinians.
If the ‘defence’ for this is that Arabs have always harboured racist hatred for Jews, then you could argue (for example) …
The British have a long history of violence and racism towards Asians and many white people continue to harbour that racist hatred. Therefore, the Asians living in London (say) are justified in attacking white people and driving them out of the city because, after all, that’s what the whites would do to them, given the chance – so better to usurp them by striking first.
It’s this spurious logic that can ‘justify’ any aggression. For example, the ‘justification’ for attacking Iraq is that, no matter if it’s illegal and WMD don’t exist anyway, the point is that Saddam would LIKE to attack us if he could, and one day he might be able to – so better to usurp him by striking first.
By this logic anyone is ‘justified’ in attacking, and driving out, anyone else. You merely have to harbour some fantasy about your enemy’s intentions.
phil, yet again, has chipped in with another typically juvenile contribution. There is nothing ‘amusing’ or ‘fun’ about what I say. I have said repeatedly that many commentators out there, who cannot be dismissed (as you would like to with lazy labels, e.g. “haters”), are making the most damning charges against Israel (a country you clearly admire a great deal). Whether you take my view (the issues of extreme immorality and violence they raise cannot be dismissed and must be addressed), or whether you take your view (those haters are deliberately, mendaciously, unremittingly smearing one of the most moral, honourable nations on earth), there is nothing ‘amusing’ or ‘fun’ about this. Linda Smith, unlike you, does at least have the maturity to grasp the seriousness of this debate: her agenda, apparently, is to defend the honour of Israel; although that is actually an untenable position (because the state is actually extremely dishonourable), at least it is a more mature attitude than simply seeking some ‘amusement’ and ‘fun’ out of a life-and-death issue.
(Your attitude is puzzling too. Previously, you expressed exasperation and didn’t want to read me any more: “Now I’m done with you” I think your words were. Now you are encouraging me, “do not stop I need a little fun”, even though I am an “irrelevancy” to you.)
I think you’re right about this, though: my agenda is transparent – I want people to be aware of what Israel’s critics are saying.
Oh, thanks to Linda Smith for this latest post, too.
This is disturbing: “Compulsory transfer was internationally acceptable at that time.” That means the Palestinians WERE being driven out, but they should have accepted it (without resistance) because it was also happening to other peoples, and other countries found that ‘acceptable’.
Regarding this quote, ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937].
Linda asserts that this is distorted out of context and does not mean what it says.
Linda also states that Deir Yassin was a ‘battle’, not a massacre.
In that case, it seems Pappe is correct about ‘facts’:
They are accepted facts that Ben-Gurion said those words and that there was extreme violence and death at Deir Yassin. Now one side interprets those facts, respectively, as a plan for ethnic cleansing and a massacre. The other side interpret them as NOT that (e.g. ‘massacre’ should really be ‘battle’). Then Pappe is correct that the way you interpret facts does indeed depend upon your ideology.
Here’s another example illustrating Pappe’s (correct, it seems) observation about ‘facts’:
Everyone agrees that the US did indeed invade Iraq in 2003. Now, one side of the debate asserts the ‘fact’ that the invasion was primarily motivated by the desire to control oil reserves and expand US military presence in the region. The other side asserts the ‘fact’ that the invasion was primarily motivated by the desire to curtail Saddam’s capacity for terrorism. Which ‘fact’ you agree with will indeed depend upon your ideology.
Regarding Palestine-Israel, though:
The balance of facts is so overwhelming that only an ideology of blind fanatical embrace of contemporary extreme Zionism (or simply pure ignorance/naivety) can allow one to interpret Israel’s actions as ‘self-defence’.
Linda’s quote from the Syrian prime minister is interesting. Pappe asserts (roughly speaking, if I recall correctly) that the Palestinians have indeed been treated with a large degree of betrayal by Arab nations – my recollection (of what he wrote) is that the leader of Transjordan has been perhaps the worst offender. But the betrayal by Arab nations is irrelevant to a discussion about Israel’s crimes (e.g. mass injury, death, dispossession and poverty of Palestinians).
rippon
May 3rd, 2009 5:32pmLinda Smith, regarding this part of your post:
As Benny Morris, himself a former anti-Israel revisionist, wrote 'The "innocent" Palestinians were the aggressors - and dispossession was the price they paid for their aggression".
Is your position, then, that the Palestinians were indeed dispossessed of their homes and villages (but only because they deserved it due to their aggression towards Jewish settlers)?
Linda Smith
May 3rd, 2009 8:43pmRippon, my point about Compulsory Transfer being internationally acceptable was that it was mooted by the British in 1937. Ben Gurion is quoted as saying that it would be up to the British, not the Jews to implement compulsory transfer of Arabs; they were not being driven out by the Jews as you assert.
Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah determined that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire, at Deir Yassin, so I do not understand what you are babbling on about in your post.
When you write "Israel was born out of, and continues to exist in the context of extreme violence unleashed by the state's leaders (with their Zionist ideology) upon Palestinians - you are clearly barking mad as all the documents and records of the time clearly show it was the Arabs who declared War on the Jews. (I see you still persist in your fiction of referring only to Arabs as "Palestinians". )
No word from you I note on the dispossessed 850,000 refugees post 1948 from Arab countries or the massacre of Jews in Iraq in 1941or the Yemen in 1948 - but no doubt you'll find a justification for that as well.
You reject or ignore any evidence that does not fit your agenda of Arab victimhood and Jews as criminals. You are quite right on one thing - which "fact" you agree with will indeed depend upon your ideology. You assert your Israel demonising ideology is true because it is supported by mountains of literature, documentaries and speeches, but quantity is not an indicator of truth. People are driven by other motives beside truth, such as envy, spite and hatred, religious fanaticism, and of course antisemitism
You posted to me "I don't accept your fantasy picture of 1948 - and, of course, you don't accept Pappe's truth (no inverted commas that time - get it?) either." Pappe himself says he is driven by anti-Israel ideology - as are you. As far as I am concerned yours is a fantasy picture and, to use your favourite word, untenable. You ignore, or claim as irrelevant, all evidence such as the Shaw Commission, that does not support your Jew as criminal/Arab as victim ideology. You are preposterous in your refusal to recognise the religious/political Islamic basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict, particularly in view of the fact that it is the global Islamic jihad for world dominance that threatens the West.
rippon
May 3rd, 2009 10:37pmWe have diametrically opposed evidence and, even when we draw on the same evidence, we interpret it in diametrically opposed ways.
For example, it seems we agree that Ben-Gurion said the words, ‘The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war’ [Ben Gurion, 1937], but we disagree about what those words imply. (You say the meaning is distorted because the words are taken out of context.)
There seems no solution to this impasse. There seems no ‘common ground’ between us.
Now, of course I appreciate that, in your view, my position seems an affront to … whatever – honest scholarship and human decency, perhaps. But here, in outline, is your position:
● The Palestinians were, and are, the aggressors. Israel always acts in self-defence (but sometimes makes mistakes).
● Palestinian violence against Israelis is driven by radical-Islam ideology and anti-Semitism; it has nothing to do with reacting to Israeli occupation and violence.
● Stories of large-scale violence have been twisted by Israel-haters into ‘massacres’ of Palestinians by Jewish forces when, in fact, such incidents were merely battles or actual massacres of Jews by Palestinians.
I think you do actually believe all that stuff. I don’t think you are like Alan Dershowitz (who, from watching him debate Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky, is clearly a deliberate brazen charlatan and liar). Assuming you are not like Dershowitz, then the diagnosis in your case is a deep attachment to an ideology which blinds you to the truth – understandably so because, otherwise, the horror of what you defend would probably be too much to bear.
I have remarked before that this is an encouraging aspect about the morality of many Israel-apologists. They KNOW that the charges against Israel are extremely serious; therefore, they MUST deny the truth of those charges. To preserve some sense of personal decency, and to preserve the illusion that Israel is a moral nation, when grinding others under their jackboots Israeli forces must tell themselves that they are not behaving fascistically but honourably in defence against an evil enemy.
I haven’t read enough to be able to respond to all the historical notes you produce, but I will make one observation regarding the ‘alleged’ massacre of Palestinians by Jewish forces at Deir Yassin.
You say:
Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah determined that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire, at Deir Yassin, so I do not understand what you are babbling on about in your post.
As I’ve remarked, our respective positions are irreconcilable because I believe Pappe when he writes this:
Albert Einstein, along with 27 prominent Jews in New York, condemned the massacre of Deir Yassin in a letter published 4 December 1948 in The New York Times, noting terrorist bands [i.e. Begin’s Irgun] attacked this peaceful village.
rippon
May 4th, 2009 1:27amAlbert Einstein letter
New York Times, December 4, 1948
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Beginâs political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Beginâs behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Beginâs party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants÷240 men, women, and children÷and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Beginâs efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L. LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAISEL, SEYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGIS, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. SINGER, IRMA WOLFE, STEFAN WOLFE.
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
(from google: "albert einstein new york times 1948")
phil
May 4th, 2009 9:33amrippon of course I read what you write -I told you many times I find you amusing and the fact that you keep trying to put your nonsense across to both Linda and myself ,you must realise by now that we are a threesome and nobody else is reading this story -for some reason Linda seems to think she can persuade you of the real facts ,I know she cannot and "frankly my dear I dont give a damn "-you have a problem and I understand that and I did suggest a solution its called NLT ,but you are aware I am enjoying the fun so I admit to being a little selfish here ,at times I am actually crying laughing at your attempts to insult us ,you must realise as well that whatever you say will change nothing ,both Linda and myself have made it clear so many times that we wish for peace and justice for both peoples ,but that will never be achieved whilst people like you continue to fuel the fires by repeating blood libels ,your guilt is even more than those who are demented enough to believe what they write as you are just a cutter and paster,but do reply and attempt to justify yourself .I need my daily ration !!
phil
May 4th, 2009 9:41amLinda this is getting worse .)) she missed out uncle tom cobley and all--I cant remember French and Saunders ever writing better stuff than this -Hancocks half hour maybe .)))))))
rippon
May 4th, 2009 11:01amThe pertinent question is, where does the responsibility lie for the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
In your two recent posts, phil, your only words connected with that issue are “we [you and Linda] wish for peace and justice for both peoples.” The rest is all just fluff about the personalities on this thread and narcissistic comments about yourself and your reactions to this chat – amusing (to you), perhaps, but of no significance.
Now, in ‘wishing for peace and justice’, it must be recognised that, without justice, the only way to achieve peace is to wipe-out any resistance to occupation. Wiping-out can be achieved through expulsion or killing, or a combination, of the undesirable people. (Mass-killing is how the English settlers made peace with the native Americans and how the Nazis made peace with the Jews, for example.)
Let’s assume (although all the evidence is to the contrary) that Israel wishes to achieve peace with Palestinians through justice rather than through pounding them into submission with its superior weapons.
Then it’s crucial for Israel to recognise, and correct, the immorality and criminality of its actions – those in the past that lead to today’s situation, and those of today which exacerbate the conflict.
You are correct, phil, that I do cutting and pasting, but there isn’t any alternative if one wants to cite sources. My latest paste is the 1948 letter to the New York Times signed by many prominent Jews (of which the most famous happens to be Einstein). You and Linda Smith might consider following their example: recognising that the problem with Israel lies with the immorality of its leadership, going all the way back to at least 1948.
Here’s another source: ‘Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews’, by Alan Hart.
• The Zionism of the book’s title is Jewish nationalism or political Zionism as the creating and sustaining force of modern Israel – i.e. not what could be called the spiritual Zionism of Judaism.
• A key to understanding is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.
• Modern Israel is a Zionist state, not a Jewish state.
The New York Times letter and Alan Hart, and many Jews around the world, recognise that the Jewish state has been hijacked by fascist leaders whose continuing crimes are entrenching Israel’s pariah status internationally.
Linda Smith
May 4th, 2009 12:37pmrippon, for reasons of your own you are driven to promulgate a polarized ideology of Jews as criminals versus Arabs as innocent victims. When you are presented with substantiated facts that conflict with your own blind fanaticism, you ignore them or fabricate an unsubstantiated rebuttal.
You cite Pappe as the source of much of your arguments and "facts" and champion him as the arbiter of truth and accuracy but by Pappe's own admission he does not "stick to facts and the 'truth'" but is a polemicist who desires the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Benny Morris reviewing Pappe's book "A History of Modern Palestine in New Republic wrote:
'The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappe's historical methodology and his political proclivities. He seems to admit as much when he writes early on that
"my [pro-Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the occupied not the occupiers; and sides with the workers not the bosses. He feels for women in distress, and has little admiration for men in command.... Mine is a subjective approach....".'
You arrogantly claim your own intellectual superiority to others who comment here and couple that with your ceaseless slandering of Israel and solipsistic accusations of "extreme immorality and violence" by Jews against Arabs. I find it bizarre that you twist and turn to avoid admitting that the Arabs ever massacred Jews - despite the substantiated historical evidence I have provided such as the Shaw Commission Report.
Your assertion in support of your Arab-as-innocent-victim" stance: "the balance of facts is so overwhelming" is at odds with your admission: "I haven't read enough to be able to respond to all the historical notes you produce...."
Your stance that the Arabs were "innocent victims" is falsified by the historical data.
As you claim you have not read enough to respond to my substantive points falsifying your Arab-as-victim stance, I see no point in continuing this exchange.
Linda Smith
May 4th, 2009 12:54pmInteresting discrepancy between Einstein's letter in 1948 quoting The New York Times claiming "240 men, women, and children" killed at Deir Yassin and the Arab University scholars' finding in 2004 that 107 people were killed at Deir Yassin (including Iraqi soldiers).
rippon
May 4th, 2009 5:33pmWell, Linda, ideology comes into play again (as Pappe says, correctly, it seems):
In his rebuttal to Morris’ damning review (of Pappe’s ‘A History of Modern Palestine’), here: http://hnn.us/articles/4482.html, Pappe details instances of how Morris openly lies in his haste to trash Pappe’s book. Now, of course, the rebuttal would presumably be along the lines, ‘No, Pappe is the liar; Morris tells the truth.’
So your choice of ‘liar’ and ‘truth-teller’ depends on your ideology. That applies to you just as much as me. (Pappe’s ideology is to side with the oppressed, Morris’ ideology is to side with the oppressors.)
So, as you (and I) have correctly observed, this discussion between us cannot really get anywhere – certainly not towards agreement on some common ground. But, nevertheless, there is still some value in it (so I hope you don’t abandon chatting with me): for example, you may well have not read the 1948 letter to the New York Times (signed by prominent Jews, e.g. Einstein) before I posted it on this thread. Reading it might give you some pause for thought about the picture you currently nurture of what really happened at Deir Yassin.
Moreover, to be fair, I have mentioned a good number of other people besides Pappe as sources of enlightenment on Palestine-Israel. (Your choice of ideology, though, means that you are unlikely to read them when you know in advance that they are critical of Israel – and if so, then that would further validate Pappe’s point about the spurious nature of ‘facts’ and ‘truth’, i.e. whose ‘truth’? I made a similar point, much earlier in this thread, that ‘balance’ and ‘bias’ were also problematic concepts – my point about what a ‘balanced’ account of Hitler ‘should’ contain.)
Thanks for pointing out the Shaw Commission Report. That report essentially says that Arabs’ principal motive for attacking Jews was fear that increasing Jewish immigration and acquisition of land was threatening their future
A key conclusion of that report is:
“Racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future, was the fundamental cause of the outbreak. In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. Fore eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have different in some material respect from those which previously obtained. The Arabs have come to see in the Jewish immigrant not only a menace to their livelihood but a possible overlord of the future.”
Now, history shows that, in fact, Arab fears about the future were wholly justified.
But anyway, the conclusions coming out of any inquiry from the British parliament should be treated very cautiously (conclusions from recent inquiries into the government’s part in the Iraq invasion illustrate that). It is naturally a very suspicious conclusion that ‘No blame can be properly attached to the British government for failing to provide armed reinforcements, withholding of fire, and similar charges’ – very convenient that (as usual) the British government is found to be blameless.
I have never said that ‘Arabs have never massacred Jews.’ I haven’t read about all the thousands of years of history behind the Middle East (yes, I know, my deficiency again – not well-read enough to debate you), so I’m in no position to say that. With regard to Palestine-Israel, the focus ought to be on recent events and the history behind them. For example, the Xmas 2008 attack on Gaza was definitely a massacre, so that ought to be studied and understood (by professional journalists and historians, and any regular people who can find the time). But I appreciate, of course, given your ideology, that you willingly accept the narrative that that massacre was an act of ‘self-defence’ by Israel.
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I consider myself intellectually superior to you; I am not. I am merely in disagreement with you. (I am only intellectually – and morally – superior to phil, who used to repeatedly misunderstand the meaning of posts, even after patient explanation by me, and who repeatedly treated this discussion about life-death issues as a “game” for his “fun” and “amusement”.)
Linda, you say, “I see no point in continuing this exchange.” That’s a shame. I will nevertheless check back on this thread from time to time to see whether you (or anyone else) has re-started chatting.
Linda Smith
May 5th, 2009 1:18amI am baffled as to why rippon thinks that a newspaper account in an American newspaper should be more accurate than an Arab University research study of the Deir Yassin battle. I can think of no plausible reason why Arab scholars on the West Bank should wish to destroy an Arab propaganda fiction.
The expulsion of Jews by Arabs and massacres in Iraq and Aden happened in the 1940s as I stated - not in "all the thousands of history behind the Middle East". rippon is ducking and diving again avoiding addressing issues that falsify her stance of Arab as innocent victim.
I am alarmed that rippon thinks that fear of immigrants justifies massacring them as the UK (and Europe) have had huge numbers of immigrants in recent years who many people see as a "menace to their livelihood" and a threat to their traditional culture.
Linda Smith
May 5th, 2009 9:29amThe New York Times 1948 "reporting" of the Deir Yassin battle is as suspect as the false "reporting" of the Gaza school incident in 2009.
It was widely reported by the media (notably the BBC) that the Israelis shelled an UNWRA school in Gaza killing 30-49 civilians who had taken refuge inside it? This story was later proved false and retracted.
The New York Times was owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family from 1896 until the 1960s. Arthur Sulzberger was fervently against a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Sulzberger recalled that Churchill once "brushed me aside when I tried to talk Palestine to him, saying 'I know you are not a Zionist, but I am'."
The Arab University scholars have now established that the New York Times 1948 story was false. To paraphrase rippon: stories coming out of any newspaper should be treated cautiously.
rippon
May 5th, 2009 8:05pmSo far I have followed up two of the sources you have provided, Linda:
1)The United Nations Palestine Commission. First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council. A/AC.21/7, January 29, 1948
2)Shaw Commission Report (1930)
Neither supports your position. The first states explicitly that the Jewish assertion, that the Arabs are the aggressors and the Jews the attacked, is not tenable.
The second clearly says that, for eighty years previously, there were no reported attacks by Arabs on Jews and that, therefore, something must have materially changed to provoke such attacks.
But I might find the time to look into another source you cite. You said:
“Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah determined that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire, at Deir Yassin.”
- can you provide a link-to/title-of a webpage/book/article?
Indigenous and oppressed people will always attack the enemy. That is why native Americans attacked the US cavalry. That is why Indians sometimes attacked the British. That is why Jews attacked the Nazis (e.g. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). That is why black slaves (imported from Africa) attacked white Americans.
One would have to be a very serious history scholar to examine the details of all (or even just some) of those attacks to try and decide which were ‘justified’. But, generally speaking, I would say all those examples (in my preceding para) of resistance were certainly ‘understandable’, probably ‘justified’ too.
Attacks on immigrants stem from fear about the threat those immigrants pose to your future. Palestinians’ fears about Jewish immigration were well-founded, e.g. fear of dispossession. The British had a responsibility to allay those fears by implementing just resolutions. They chose not to, and invariably turned a blind-eye to the cleansing of Palestinian villages by Jewish forces, partly because British leadership (e.g. Churchill, according to your quote) were firm supporters/sympathisers of the Zionist cause of establishing a pure Jewish homeland.
The New York Times, and its reporting from Palestine, is basically irrelevant to our chat thus far. Its only relevance was that it happened to be the journal in which that letter signed by 27 prominent Jews was published. I thought you might say something to ‘debunk’ that letter; instead you have talked about the NYT itself.
You say, “The Arab University scholars have now established that the New York Times 1948 story was false.”
But this statement of yours makes no sense because I didn’t refer to any NYT ‘story’. Your statement could make sense if you are asserting that it is false to say that that letter appeared in the NYT, that it didn’t, that the letter is a fabrication perhaps. Are you saying any of those things?
rippon
May 5th, 2009 11:23pm(I hope this post appears … )
Sorry for my ‘silence’, Linda. I have replied, but I seem to be experiencing again the problem of getting published.
Linda Smith
May 6th, 2009 12:10amrippon, the letter addressed to the New York Times signed by Einstein clearly states that the New York Times itself was the source of the Yeir Dessin story which has now been discredited by the Arab scholars. See Paragraph 6 (line 6):
".....On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants-240 men, women, and children ........."
rippon
May 6th, 2009 1:15amYep, sorry, you’re right. The NYT did report the Deir Yassin incident.
Ok, I take your point then: You are asserting that, because “Arthur Sulzberger was fervently against a Jewish homeland in Palestine”, he allowed his paper to print a false story of massacre.
Naturally, due to our different ideologies, I would say the NYT story was not false. I’m sure it was one of many publications that carried the story, so it’s not fair to bestow such exclusivity on the NYT as the “source” of the story. I’m sure the real picture was that the massacre was such a major incident that the NYT felt it couldn’t ignore it.
Our differing ideologies also mean that I would characterise your callous attitude to the victims at Deir Yassin (and numerous other villages) as Nakba-denial (reminiscent of David Irving’s take on the holocaust).
Indeed, that letter (Einstein et al) characterised the Zionist regime as a fascist one. Now, the letter did not centre on Deir Yassin (it merely used the incident to illustrate what the signatories wanted to say anyway – that Begin’s regime had a fascist nature).
So what do you make of that letter? Do you, perhaps, simply think that those signatories are just a few more of the many Jews in the diaspora who are ‘self-haters’, or merely more ‘Jews for genocide [of themselves]’, to use one of Melanie Phillips’ pithy phrases. Do you believe that Einstein took that line simply to court more attention in favoured circles (the ‘liberal intelligentsia’) – like Melanie Phillips apparently believes of Noam Chomsky (to name just one).
The Israeli regime itself detests the Palestinians for reacting (with, for example, violence and appeals to international standards of justice, e.g. UN resolutions) to occupation, shelling, siege etc, instead of just fleeing or dying quietly. The ‘homeland’ Israel believes in is a God-given one, and that mentality – authority granted by God – helps the regime, psychologically, to justify, in its own warped mind, all tactics in seizing more land and resources (e.g. water) and pummelling more Palestinians to death and disability in the process.
Do you know of any link-to/title-of any webpage/book/article from those Arab scholars (“Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah”) that debunks the notion that Deir Yassin was a massacre. That is very surprising news to me; I’d be intrigued to see exactly what they say.
Linda Smith
May 6th, 2009 2:13pmReferences for Bir Zeit study discrediting Arab propaganda claims.
Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi "Deir Yassin" Monograph No 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987)
Sharif Kanaana, "Reinterpreting Deir Yassin, Bir Zeit University, (April 1998).
Kana'ana, Sharif and Zaitawi (1987) "The Village of Deir Yassin) Bir Zeit University Press.
There is plenty of documentary evidence that the Arabs used the Deir Yasin battle as propaganda tool. For example, in a BBC documentary upon Israel's fiftieth anniversary, a former Palestinian radio broadcaster, Hazem Nusseiba, revealed that Hussein Khalidi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, had in April 1948, ordered the broadcasting of inaccurate numbers for Deir Yassin to maximize Arab political gains from this tragic episode.
rippon
May 6th, 2009 4:18pmI have googled on several different things, e.g.
‘Sharif Kanaana and Nihad Zitawi "Deir Yassin" Monograph No 4, Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit: Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987)’
This actual document itself doesn’t seem accessible. The googling only seems to lead to webpages where this document is cited as a reference. For example, there are pages on ‘The Jewish Virtual Library’ site and the ‘Free Republic/Zionist Organisation of America’ site.
The pages are:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/674327/posts
Naturally, my suspicion is that these pro-Zionist sites are including a Palestinian scholarly reference in their bibliography to give the impression that there are even Palestinian scholars who endorse their judgement that the Deir Yassin incident was not a massacre. But, of course, it would help if you could give me a way of accessing the Kanaana, Zitawi document itself (like I say, I only seem able to find documents where Kanaana, Zitawi are cited as references).
I have managed to find a wikipedia page containing this:
“During the takeover or related holding of the village, according to conclusions drawn from villager oral histories in a 1998 study by Birzeit University, between approximately 107 and 120 Palestinian Arab civilians were killed by elements of two Jewish nationalist irregular military organizations.”
- which is part of this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Montag/project2
That page goes on to present some of the controversy regarding the actual numbers and circumstances.
In conclusion then, it seems the interpretation of the Deir Yassin incident yet again depends upon one’s ideology. If you have a strong pro-Zionist ideology, then you will buy into propaganda which seeks to obfuscate Zionist crimes, e.g. Deir Yassin massacre. (Similarly, if one buys into certain other ideologies, then one can believe that the Nazis and the European settlers did not really commit genocide against the Jews and the Native Americans.)
I reiterate my other point:
Putting aside for the moment Deir Yassin, because it was simply a piece of evidence (albeit ‘flawed’, from your viewpoint) cited in the Einstein-et-al NYT letter to further illustrate their point, what do you make of that letter, Linda?
For example, perhaps your reaction is that the numerous, ubiquitous Jewish critics of Israel make you very angry with their treachery. Is that a fair inference?
Linda Smith
May 6th, 2009 5:20pmI suggest you contact Bir Zeit university.
Linda Smith
May 6th, 2009 11:47pmrippon: here is a link to a BBC News item 8 March 2007 "Hamas ban Palestinian folktale book". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6426441.stm
"....Some Palestinians fear that the government, which came to power last March, is trying to enforce its Islamic agenda on the occupied Palestinian territores. The 400-page book, Speak Bird, Speak Again, was compiled by Sharif Kanaana, a professor of anthropology and folklore at the West Bank's Bir Zeit University..."
If you google Professor Kanaana, you will find his research on Deir Yasin listed. In view of the ban on his folk-lore book, I won't be surprised if you find it difficult to get a sight of his work on Deir Yessin which busts the propaganda myth.
Linda Smith
May 7th, 2009 1:44amThe United Nations Palestine Commission Report dated January 29 1948 which you claim supports your ideology of Arab-as-victim says "in the present circumstances the Jewish story that the Arabs are the attackers and the Jews the attacked is not tenable".
But, "In the present circumstances" the Arabs had declared War on the Jews immediately after the UN voted in favour of the Partition Plan on 29 November 1947 following a legal process. Therefore The Jews were fully justified in taking whatever pre-emptive measures they considered necessary to defend themselves from the Arabs who the Report confirms were committed to killing Jews.
I am still waiting for your comments on the Arab massacres of Jews in Iraq 1941 and Aden 1948, and the expulsion of 850,000 innocent Jews, stripped of their assets, from Arab and Muslim countries since 1948.
By the way, the Jews, not the Arabs, are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.
rippon
May 7th, 2009 12:11pmLinda, you cited this BBC News item:
"Hamas ban Palestinian folktale book". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6426441.stm
I don’t know why you bothered. Citing that does your argument no credit and merely suggests you’re clutching at straws. That news item is about Hamas taking a book of Kanaana’s of the shelves because they deemed the sexual content inappropriate for schoolchildren. That’s not a newsworthy story, and it’s completely irrelevant to our discussion.
Following your pointers, I have managed to find some info on Prof Kanaana:
A profile of him here: http://www.palestine-family.net/index.php?nav=3-83&cid=90&did=2273&pageflip=2
This profile says nothing to support your fantasy that Kanaana’s research debunks the ‘massacre’ characterisation of Deir Yassin. Moreover, his academic record is something you would actually find highly objectionable, e.g. “He also conducted extensive research on the Israeli destruction of Palestinian villages in 1948 and 1953. The research is presented in a series of monographs that detail the events surrounding the destruction of a number of these villages and life in each of these villages prior to annihilation.”
I have also found Kanaana mentioned on website to your taste (i.e. Israel-apologist): http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php
“A pitched battle ensued [at Deir Yassin], and when the smoke cleared, 110 to 120 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were dead. The number killed has been confirmed even by Palestinian Arab researchers, such as Bir Zeit University professor Sharif Kanaana who puts the number no higher than 120 (although he clings to the claim of massacre). Another contemporary Arab source deflates the number killed to less than 100 … ”
I didn’t say The United Nations Palestine Commission Report Jan 29 1948 ‘supports my ideology.’ I said that it didn’t support your position. The impression I gained from the Wikipedia article about that report was that, while it did not support your position, neither did it particularly characterise the Jews as pure aggressors against Arabs.
My point is that, if you cite sources, at least do me the credit of citing ones that do actually support your position. Otherwise it looks like you haven’t even bothered to read what you’re citing (and if that’s the case, then I might have to retract my previous statement and say, instead, ‘yes, it seems I am intellectually superior to you after all.’).
You have hinted at what seems your basic position: Israel is fully justified in taking whatever pre-emptive measures they consider necessary.
Well, like I’ve said before, that basically gives Israel carte-blanche for any acts of aggression. By that logic, Westminster could argue, ‘We think Ireland wants to attack us. Therefore, we consider it necessary to bomb the Irish to PRE-EMPT that threat.’
You say you are still waiting for my “comments on the Arab massacres of Jews in Iraq 1941 and Aden 1948, and the expulsion of 850,000 innocent Jews, stripped of their assets, from Arab and Muslim countries since 1948.”
Well, I will probably google any keywords you care to suggest, although, in light of my experience so far, your suggestions are becoming tiresome because they never seem to support the position you are arguing. I have actually googled “Arab massacre Jews Iraq 1941”, but that only seemed to lead to bloggers and websites who, like you, merely want to find ways to ‘justify’ Israel’s fascist tendencies, rather than to real sources of information, e.g. Wikipedia.
For my part, I am still waiting for your comments about the numerous, ubiquitous Jews (e.g. Einstein) in the diaspora who criticise Israel’s actions: to reiterate, do you consider them traitors who merely seek attention in fashionable circles (e.g. ‘liberal intelligentsia’) and/or Jews suffering some psychological sickness (e.g. ‘self-hatred’)?
You say, “By the way, the Jews, not the Arabs, are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.” So it seems you want to argue the Israel-apologist position in the context of millennia of history instead of just the last (roughly) ninety years.
Linda Smith
May 7th, 2009 3:06pmA propos my attitude to critics of Israel, I believe in the British tradition of free speech.
Linda Smith
May 7th, 2009 3:20pmrippon you posted "By that logic, Westminster could argue ' We think Ireland wants to attack us. Therefore we consider it necessary to bomb the Irish to PRE-EMPT that threat"
Your logic is false. The State of Ireland has not declared war on England whereas The Arab states declared War on the Jews on 29 November 1947 in direct response to UN Resolution 181. The Arab press and public speeches made it clear that this was to be a war of annihilation like those of the great Mongol hordes killing all in their path. The Jews would be either dead or out.
Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6 1948 (same appeared in The London Telegraph August 1948) confirmed:
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
The Jews were fully justified in defending themselves against the declared genocidal intentions of the Arabs. Remember this was 2 years after the end of the Holocaust. If you want to talk about fascists, let us discuss the Muslim Brotherhood founded in 1928 and the fascist antisemite Nazi Haj Husseini, Hitler's ally, who sought to implement Hitler's genocidal final solution of Jews.
In order to defend some areas that were completely surrounded by Arabs (like the Jews of Jaffa, Jewish villages or kibbutzim in parts of Galilee and the central hill country, and in Jerusalem) the Haganah adopted scare-tactics that were intended to strike terror into the Arab population of those areas, so that they would retreat to safer ground. Then, it would be possible for the Haganah to defend those Jews would would otherwise be inaccessible and thus vulnerable to genocidal Arab intentions.They knew that outnumbered Jews, undefended in the Arab enclaves would be slaughtered as they were in the Gush Etzion villages and in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem and as had happened in Hebron in 1929.
Arafat in Alan Hart's authorized biography says Egypt wanted to evacuate the Palestinians in order to annex Sinai. The Egyptians coralled the Palestinian into Gaza and made them refugees, not the Jews. According to Arafat own admission the Deir Yassin lies were spread "like a red flag in front of a bull" by the Egyptians. Having terrorized them with these stories, the Egyptians disarmed the Arabs of the area and herded them into detention camps in Gaza (today's refugee camps.) According to Arafat, it was to get the Arabs out of ther area because the Egyptians wanted a free hand to wage their war. Egypt intended to conquer the Negev and the southern part of the coastal plain without interference from the local Arabs.
Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948 admitted that he was told by Hussein Khalidi to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the Jewish state-to-be. and told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were "our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims. Mr Nusseibeh's interview can be seen on many clips on Youtube, as can Arab witnesses debunking the atrocities claims. The New York Times claim of 240 dead Arab civilians has been falsified by Arab sources. Logic leads to the conclusion that there is every reason to be suspicious of the rest of the New York Times story and Arab claims of a senseless massacre rather than a military battle where unfortunate civilians got caught up in the cross fire.
Wherever Arabs chose to stay, they were unharmed and became citizens of Israel. Had the Arab leadership accepted the UN partition plan, there would have been a state of Palestine since 29 November 1947 for the Arabs, alongside of Israel. Had the Arab armies not invaded there would have been no refugee problem.
I am still waiting for your comments on the Arab massacre of Jews in Iraq 1941 and Aden 1947 in addition to the 850,000 Jewish refugees, stripped of their assets, expelled from Arab and Muslim countries since 1948. You are an adept googler. There is plenty of info available online. You are just fudging the issue because it is further evidence that your ideology of Arab as innocent victim is untenable.
Linda Smith
May 7th, 2009 7:44pmre The Arab massacre of Jews in Iraq 1941:
'.....the BBC has recently made important changes to an online article in response to a formal complaint filed by CAMERA.
The complaint pointed to outrageous misrepresentations and omissions in the May 7 article, "Israelis from Iraq remember Babylon." The piece painted a highly misleading picture of "an easy, happy life" for Jews in Iraq and practically ignored the actual record of persecution faced by that population. Most egregiously, the piece failed to mention the Farhoud, a brutal anti-Jewish massacre that occurred in 1941.
After an initial refusal by the BBC News Web site to amend the article and CAMERA’s subsequent appeal to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU), an editor told CAMERA: "On further consideration, we have made some changes to the report." The ECU later upheld CAMERA's complaint with respect to the accuracy of the piece, agreeing that it "had shortcomings on the facts."
One of the key changes was the addition of information on the 1941 massacre:
"But, while anti-Jewish sentiment flared up after the creation of Israel and the subsequent Arab-Israeli war in 1948-49, discrimination and attacks on Jews were part of life in Iraq.
In the most notorious incident, mobs rampaged through the Jewish district of Baghdad killing an estimated 170 Jews in 1941, in what became known as the Farhoud massacre."
BBC also added the word "fled" to describe the departure of Jews from Iraq. This addition is significant because the article initially said only that the Jews "left" Iraq — a euphemism that hardly describes the duress, pressure and even expulsions that caused the exile.
The BBC further suggested that it would soon publish a feature article to provide readers with another (and hopefully more accurate) look at the plight of Jews forced from their homes in Arab countries.'
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12&x_article=1352
"The Farhoud, which devastated the confidence of the Iraqi Jewish community, might be described as the beginning of its end. Though the next six years would be relatively quiet, the stage was set for the eventual wholesale emigration/expulsion of Iraq’s Jews. Swastikas began "appearing everywhere." An ominous 1942 British intelligence report noted that "the Iraqis will punish the Jews eventually" (Basri)."
(note BBC article appeared 2007)
rippon
May 8th, 2009 12:40amYou have asked for my comments on Arab massacres of Jews (and other anti-Semitic practices):
These are crimes of course for which the perpetrators should be brought to justice. Any nation indulging in massacres of a certain ethnic/religious group should be the subject of UN/League of Nations resolutions and international pressure.
Do you happen to know how any international bodies and/or countries (e.g. US, UK) reacted (e.g. condemnations, sanctions, threats) to the Iraqi and Yemeni regimes for massacring their indigenous Jews?
Thanks for all that ‘information’ you’ve provided. Of course, by going to different sources, one could arrive at a diametrically opposed version of events.
You seem to have provided me alternative Arab sources (now that your Kanaana source is debunked) as supporting your fantasy that Deir Yassin was not a massacre. I might get around to looking into them. Ditto, regarding your Arab sources (e.g. Ghoury) that blame Arab states rather than Israel for the refugee problem. (At least you seem to acknowledge that a refugee problem was indeed created, and Palestinians weren’t simply leaving voluntarily.)
You have also come dangerously close to admitting that Israeli forces (the Haganah) employed terror tactics: what could they do to “strike terror”, as you put it, into Arabs? Well, surely massacres would be a good tactic for “striking terror”. If no massacres (e.g. Deir Yassin) occurred, then how do you think the Haganah managed to “strike terror” into Arabs – singing off-key or mooning at them perhaps?
The question I have repeatedly returned to is this:
What is one to make of the fact that the most severe, and largest body of, criticism of Israel comes from Jews?
I suggested your answer might be along the lines that the diaspora contains a proportion of psychologically sick Jews, but you haven’t actually shown any inclination to address the question.
Here is the answer then: the crimes of Israel are so stark and horrendous, fascistic even, according to the Einstein-et-al group, that Jews themselves feel moved to condemn them. The Jewish critics hate the way Israel has corrupted Zionism and Judaism.
Linda Smith
May 8th, 2009 12:33pmrippon: "you have asked for my comment on Arab massacres of Jews (and other anti-Semitic practices)...Of course, by going to different sources, one could arrive at a diametrically opposed version of events."
Rippon, please provide evidence of the opposed version of the Iraq massacre in 1941 you are referring to. Of course Arab/Muslim sources are anadmissable as the antisemitic practices and murders were committed by Muslim Arab antisemites. Here are just two of the many verses in the Koran justifying murder of Jews, Christians, and other unbelievers in the name of Islam.
9,30 "...The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."
9.29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nore do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
rippon
May 9th, 2009 1:05amKeep trying, but they just won’t publish my post …
rippon
May 9th, 2009 11:00amI wrote:
Thanks for all that ‘information’ you’ve provided. Of course, by going to different sources, one could arrive at a diametrically opposed version of events.
You replied:
Rippon, please provide evidence of the opposed version of the Iraq massacre in 1941 you are referring to.
I have since looked into “Farhud” on Wikipedia, which says:
“Farhud (translation from Arabic: "pogrom", "violent dispossession") was a violent pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad, Iraq on June 1-2, 1941.”
(This is the start of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud)
So my suggestion that different sources could give a different interpretation is invalid; that was a reckless comment of mine based on my past experience of your version of historical events and sources to substantiate that (principally Deir Yassin).
The understanding I have gained from that Wikipedia page is:
Hitler’s regime, largely through the German ambassador in Iraq, successfully agitated anti-Semitic feeling in Iraq. The pro-Nazi group of Iraqi officers, the “Golden Square”, overthrow Britain’s regent in Iraq.
As usual with Middle East politics and conflict, oil reserves were a key factor in the motives and actions of the European powers involved – Britain and Germany.
The key factor behind the motivations and actions of Iraqis may have been anger-at and opposition-to the terms of the military treaty forced on Iraq by Britain at independence. “The treaty gave the British unlimited rights to base troops in Iraq and transit troops through Iraq.” (wiki) (This sounds exactly like Iraqi anger today with respect to the Americans.)
All of this is interesting, but it has nothing to do with the valid criticism of Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians – except in this respect: given the history of pogroms against Jews, it is shameful that Israelis should behave that way towards Palestinians: "As a Jew, I was ashamed at the scenes of Jews opening fire at innocent Arabs in Hebron. There is no other definition than the term 'pogrom' to describe what I have seen." – Ehud Olmert, Dec 8, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7770384.stm
The repugnant nature of aspects of the Koran and Islam is also irrelevant to a discussion about the crimes and immorality of Israel – unless your defence of Israel is along the lines, ‘It’s ok for Israel to commit crimes against Palestinians because, deep in their hearts that’s what the Palestinians actually want to do with Jews; therefore, better we pre-empt by doing it to them first.’
Now that argument does have the virtue of being logically consistent. But taken to its logical conclusion, Israel would have to achieve ‘the peace of the graveyard’ by wiping out the Palestinians – mass-killing and permanent expulsion from all areas Israel wants to occupy (the method by which the Nazis and the European settlers achieved peace with the Jews and the Native Americans).
Critics of Israel assert that it is that kind of philosophy that actually drives Israeli policy; and when Israel complains about Palestinian terror and double standards from the international community, their arguments are disingenuous because their real gripe is not that the criticisms are invalid, but that the rest of the world doesn’t just shut up and let them get on with it. (All criminals would prefer others to look away and just let them get on with it.)
rippon
May 9th, 2009 11:47amHooray! They finally published my post (after three attempts).
If I stop replying to you, Linda, it’ll be because I got fed up with this – having to make multiple attempts at getting a post published.
Have you experienced trouble like this?
Linda Smith
May 9th, 2009 12:06pm"The repugnant nature of aspects of the Koran and Islam is also irrelevant to a discussion about the crimes and immorality of Israel....."
False. The repugnant nature of aspects of the Koran and Islam is absolutely central to a discussion of what your allege are the crimes and immorality of Israel"
Sorry no time to elaborate further right now as I am off out for the rest of today.
Linda Smith
May 10th, 2009 2:31pmRippon, your justification of Arab massacres of Jews in the 1920s and 1930s on the basis of fear of immigrants is untenable. The radical Arab Palestinian and Muslim leader, the "Grand Mufti" el Husseini was a genocidal fascist.
According to testimony by Nazi war criminals, the Mufti's influence was critical to the German decision to annihilate the Jews of Europe. At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny testified:
"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
Arafat, allegedly Al-Husseini's great-nephew was tutored and worked for Al-Husseini from the age of 17.
Al Husseini in 1948 "I declare a Holy War, My Muslim Brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"
Arafat in Al Sharq Al Awsat (London Arabic Daily) and reprinted in Palestinian daily Al Quds on August 2,2002:
“We are not Afghanistan… We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin Al-Husseini?… There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, when they considered him an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 War and I was one of his
troops.”
Radical Islamic Jihad and pan-Arabism in its violent form find a common root in Al Husseini. He is the vector of European fascism into the modern Islamic world, both religious and secular.
Your assertion that the Jews of Israel were not defending themselves against genocide in 1948 is preposterous as is your ideology of Jew oppressor/Arab-as-innocent-victim.
The Jewish State of Israel has a duty to defend its citizens against genocide.
rippon
May 10th, 2009 4:24pmYou have written that the Mufti (Al-Husseini) was a critical influence to the Nazis’ holocaust project. That is an amazing allegation because the Nazis clearly had the necessary pride and self-sufficiency in abundance to execute that project (without the need for any egging-on by some crazy Arab; the Nazis held Arabs in racist contempt too).
You have implied that Arafat was essentially the inheritor of Al-Husseini’s/the-Nazis’ genocide-of-Jews philosophy. That is an amazing allegation because, if true, no Israeli leader ever would have entered negotiations with Arafat (just like Israeli leaders currently refuse to negotiate with Hamas).
Your characterisation of Israel’s military action, in 1948 (and even now, it seems), as ‘defence against genocide’ is amazing. Now, in your defence, I think you do actually believe that, so succoured by Zionist propaganda you seem. However, Norman Finkelstein and others provide long records of evidence demonstrating that Israel’s leaders have never believed it (they just spout it to get mugs like you on side). This ‘defence against genocide’ is an example of the ‘holocaust industry’, in which Zionists cynically exploit past pogroms, primarily the holocaust, against Jews as a means of ‘justifying’ any/all violence unleashed on Palestinians by the Jewish state. This does a deeply immoral and shameful service to the victims of the holocaust.
I feel for you, Linda, in this respect: yours is an impossible task – to defend the military (and other, e.g. siege) actions of Israel. Therefore, you will inevitably descend to amazing allegations and depths.
Criticism of Israel is an infinitely easier task because there are mountains of transparent evidence to facilitate that task. That is why numerous UN resolutions against Israel are always carried near-unanimously, the only real rejectionists being the US and Israel (and God help Israel if America has a change of heart about how its imperial interests in the region are best-served, because Israel is little more than US military base, despite its proud delusions about ‘Zionism’ and ‘Jewish-homeland’).
Linda Smith
May 10th, 2009 6:01pmAs you have said that you have a limited knowledge on this subject, I see no further point in debating with you.
You make assertions that you claim are logical, but which are based on false assumptions and fail the rules of logic.
Most of your arguments centre on relativism, interpretation, and ideology. As I am not interested in entering into a philosophical debate now -
GOODBYE
PS I am fully expecting you to respond to this with another splurge of Anti-Israel propaganda of alleged "crimes" and "immorality" etc etc. but I shall not respond. Suffice to say, the tenacity of the accuser is not the arbiter of truth.
rippon
May 10th, 2009 8:03pmAlleged “crimes” and “immorality” [of Israel], you say. Well, invoking the Jewish holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis as a means of justifying Israeli violence on defenceless Palestinians is what many Jews themselves, e.g. Finkelstein, Einstein, find so immoral and such a shameful betrayal to the memory of the holocaust victims. (You might like to read Finkelstein’s ‘Holocaust Industry’ to get a measure of the anger and betrayal Jews feel at the Zionists’ corruption, lies and cynical exploitation of Jewish victims of holocaust.)
Israel wouldn’t dare attack Palestinians if the Palestinians also possessed Apaches, F16s, nuclear weapons, etc. – such is the cowardice of the Zionist capos whose ‘courage’ depends entirely on the backing of their superpower Godfather.
Everyone (e.g. me) has limited knowledge on this (and all) subjects. Your attempts at expanding my knowledge almost invariably relied on sources which were either spurious (e.g. Zionist websites pretending that an Arab scholar, Kanaana, substantiated their case) or manifestly actually undermined the very case you were arguing.
Tenacity of accusers often stems from truth and the strength of their case. Tenacity is how, for example, votes-for-women were won, and how slavery and apartheid were ended (officially at least, if not underground manifestations).
However, systems built on lies, i.e. what persistently comes from the lips of Israel’s leaders, are inherently unstable. The only way such systems, e.g. the Zionist state as currently constituted, can survive is by wiping out opposition and killing debate and/or people (e.g. Palestinians).
You are “not interested in entering into a philosophical debate now”, but nothing I have said here or recently is ‘philosophical’; therefore, to borrow your words, “I am fully expecting you to respond to this”, because you have claimed to given up on me before and not meant it.
Linda Smith
May 10th, 2009 10:51pmI posted my previous comment before rippon's timed at 4:24pm was printed. Rippon's comment confirms that she "debates" by constructing an argument built on false premises. I have no intention of wasting my time further "debating" with rippon, but merely wish to set the record straight when she dismisses Al Husseini as "some crazy Arab". Here are just a few facts from Al Husseini's genocidal Nazi CV.
1941 Hitler made Al Husseini chief architect of offensive in Bosnia: Serbian-Cyrillic alphabet outlawed. Serbs were forced to wear Blue armband. Jewish Serbs were forced to wear Yellow armband.
While in Bosnia, Al Husseini took the title "Protector of Islam". 100,000 Bosnian Muslims joined the Nazi ranks. They sought Nazi approval to establish autonomous Nazi protectorate for Bosnian Muslims.
Al Husseini approved the Pejani Plan, calling for the extermination of the Serbian population. Nazi Germany refused to implement the Pejani plan.
Bosnian ethnic cleansing under Al Husseini:
, Orthodox Christian Serbs: 200,000 killed
. Jewish Bosnians: 22,000 killed
. Gypsies: over 40,000 killed
1942 Al Husseini intervened personally with Nazi High Command to block Red Cross offer of exchanging 10,000 Jewish children for Nazi prisoners of war. They died in Hitler's gas chambers.
1943 Al Husseini created the Hanzar Division of Nazi Muslim Soldiers in Bosnia, which he called the 'cream of Islam'. It became the largest division of the Third Reich Army (26,000) men) and participated actively in the genocide of Serbian and Jewish populations. 'Hanzar' was the name given to the dagger worn by officers under the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Muslim soldiers pledged allegiance to the Nazi regime in an official statement prepared by Heinrich Himmler, head of SS Nazi troops.
1943 Al Husseini was made Prime Minister of Pan-Arab Government by the Nazi regime. His headquarters were in Berlin.
Al Husseini planned the construction of a concentration camp in Nablus to implement the 'final' solution in Palestine to exterminate the Jews there, as an extension of Hitler's plan.
Al Husseini became a close friend of Himmler who gave him a private tour of Aushwitz where he insisted on seeing first hand the murder of Europe's Jews.
Himmler, Head of SS, and close colleague of Amin Al-Husseini, financed and established Islamic Institute ('Islamische Zentralinstitut') in Dresden under Al Husseini. The purpose was to create a generation of Islamic leaders that would continue to use Islam as a carrier for Nazi ideology into the 21st century.
1 March 1944. Amin Al-Husseini made a speech from Berlin addressing Muslim SS troops: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, History and Religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."
1944 Al Husseini was one of the founders of the Arab League whose goal was to reinforce Pan Islamic unity. Founding countries: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. Husseini was appointed to President in Absentia of Fourth Higher Committee of Arab League.
1946 Al Husseini was appointed leader of Muslim Brotherhood in Jerusalem. Wahhabi Islam was a perfect vector for Husseini's policy of ethnic cleansing + Nazi methodology to implement his vision of an Arab World free of Jews.
Yugoslavia requested extradition from Egypt of Al Husseini for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Egyption government refused to release him.
1946 Egyption-born Yasser Arafat met Al Husseini at age 17 and started to work for him.
rippon
May 10th, 2009 11:59pmWelcome back to the fray, Linda.
Well, once again, one’s ideology determines which narrative you will accept. For example, there are these alternative perspectives:
Benny Morris also argues that "[the Mufti] was deeply anti-Semitic', sinced he 'explained the Holocaust as owing to the Jews' sabotage of the German war effort in World War I and [their] character: (...) their selfishness, rooted in their belief that they are the chosen people of God."[165]
Nevertheless, Peter Novick argued that the post-war historiographical depiction of al-Husayni reflected complex geopolitical interests that distorted the record.
'The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann--of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.'[166]
In a study dedicated to the role and use of the Holocaust in Israeli nationalist discourse, Idith Zertal takes a new look at the Mufti's alleged antisemitism. She states that 'in more correct proportions, [he should be pictured] as a fanatic nationalist-religious Palestinian leader'.[167] Also, "(...) the demonization of the Mufti serves to magnify the Arafatian threat" and that the "[portrayal of the Mufti as] one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry (...) has no (...) historical substantiation."[168]
All the above is from this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni
But even if we fully accept your characterisation of al-Husayni, it is a propagandistic distortion to imply that Arafat was the inheritor of al-Husayni’s genocide-of-Jews philosophy. Like I said, if that were true, no Israeli leader ever would have entered into negotiations with Arafat (just like the current leadership won’t consider negotiating with Hamas). The Israeli leadership don’t believe Arafat or the Palestinians ever represented a threat to Jewish existence, but it serves them well for people like you to spout that nonsense.
Linda Smith
May 11th, 2009 1:04pmrippon posted 'You are "not interested in entering into a philosophical debate now", but nothing I have said here or recently is 'philosophical'.'
False. Everything rippon posts is philosophical. Moreover, she is unable to distinguish fact from opinion.
Linda Smith
May 11th, 2009 1:31pm"But even if we fully accept your characterisation of al-Husayni, it is a propagandistic distortion to imply that Arafat was the inheritor of al-Husayni’s genocide-of-Jews philosophy. Like I said, if that were true, no Israeli leader ever would have entered into negotiations with Arafat (just like the current leadership won’t consider negotiating with Hamas). The Israeli leadership don’t believe Arafat or the Palestinians ever represented a threat to Jewish existence, but it serves them well for people like you to spout that nonsense."
Straw man argument, typical of rippon's logically false method of demonizing Israel.