Israeli Mythinformation About the 1948 War

[Rue]

Facts, reason, history, and sense. None of these mean anything in Bushist Likudistan, right President Argus?

Well Fig once again you are demonstrating something unfortunate. Your comments are indicative of someone who believes that facts, reason, history and sense, must be defined by you, to be acceptable.

If anyone should laugh at something Fig, its your arrogance and the fact that you think you have a monopoly on facts, reason, history and sense.

The difference between us Fig is, I may be a Liberal and argus a conservative, but I do not have the audacity to disrespect him or think I am right and he is wrong because we disagree on certain issues.

At least Argus doesn't hide his arrogance with passive aggressive comments. He comes right out and says what he means.

Can we debate facts and not simply make comments that we think we are smarter then other people because there is a universal truth and only some of us know what that truth is. Thank you.

[Rue]

Yes it was remarkable to see members of the Sharon government routinely showing up on CNN demanding that the Palestinians take responsibility for Israeli security while the IDF was attacking Palestinian police posts and repeatedly violating cease fires.

I guess to you Higgly. To those of us who kept track of the situation, we realize that the PLO was not one lump unit you infer it is and was divided as it still is. The PLO is not a cohesive unit, it is a series of many groups each with its own leader and ideology. At the time you refer to, the PLO's numerous factions were engaged in an internal war between those believing in engaging in terror and those who believed terror should be denounced. The reason Israel at the time was attacking Palestinian police was that many of those police were shooting at Israeli soldiers or openly sympathetic with the terrorist factions within the PLO.

So Higgly it is not remarkable for Israel to have been openly feuding with that portion of the PLO which was engaging with terrorism while asking for the moderate factions of the same PLO for help.

Nothing remarkable about that. If you stopped trying to define Middle East politics in black and white terms and tried to understand its inconsitencies, you would find nothing remarkable about these inconsistencies and for example the fact that within the PLO and today's Hamas are many factions with different beliefs and values, just like there is a wide range of political views within the Knesset or I dare say how other posters perceive what you and I state.

[Rue]

I don't think so, at least not entirely. Either he's a jew-hater - a strong possibility, or he's one of those zealous Israel haters inspired by years of close television coverage of the poor, ragged assed Arabs being beaten down by men in uniforms - you know, those evil soldiers.

So with Rue's playing of the anti-semitism card, this makes two. Just keeping track here.

1) Anti-semitism (2)

2) Israel's right to exist (1)

3) Bleeding heart know-nothing Liberal (1)

Did I miss any? Or are you accusing me of not respecting Israel's right to exist as well?

I'm going to give you guys a name: the Mythectionists. It's a contraction of the words Mythinformation and Projectionist. Just like something Chomsky might do, no?

So tell me Higgly, why do you inter-change the words Jew and Israeli and why did you refer to me as an Israelite? Why when you discuss Israel, do you make statements about Jews in general? Read back what

you and I have written, and show me anywhere where I brought up your religion in a persona or perceived ethnicity in a personal way.

As well Higgly I have yet to see anything in any of your comments inr egards to Israel which presents a view other then being negative of Israel so for you to now say you believe in Israel's right to exist is a good one...Higgly the Zionist. Lol.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The middle east is a powder keg because of religion and history. The lack of tolerance and the desire to seek vengence is coupled with racism and paranoia to create all the conditions for war. Until those conditions are understood and changed then the chance for peace remains at essentially zero.

The folks over here taking sides do little to further the cause of peace in the middle east and in fact harm domestic relations here. These concerns of the middle east are not ours. We cannot solve their problems because they don't want us to, and it really isn't up to us how they live. Their societies are in conflict and not related to or endangering ours, so why do we waste our time with the question in the first place?

[Higgly]

I will get to all of these posts, one at a time, in a first come, first served manner.

[Figleaf]

Facts, reason, history, and sense. None of these mean anything in Bushist Likudistan, right President Argus?

...

If anyone should laugh at something Fig, its your arrogance and the fact that you think you have a monopoly on facts, reason, history and sense.

While you prefer a more flexible stance on facts, reason, history and sense ... I guess.

The difference between us Fig is, I may be a Liberal and argus a conservative, but I do not have the audacity to disrespect him or think I am right and he is wrong ...

How strange. If you don't think you're right, do you think you're wrong? If you don't think you're right, why do you post?

At least Argus doesn't hide his arrogance with passive aggressive comments. He comes right out and says what he means.

What is your point?

[ quote]Can we debate facts and not simply make comments that we think we are smarter then other people because there is a universal truth and only some of us know what that truth is.

I wish you could.

[Rue]

"While you prefer a more flexible stance on facts, reason, history and sense ... I guess. "

Yes Fig, I try to look at all sides of a story instead of just one.

"How strange. If you don't think you're right, do you think you're wrong? If you don't think you're right, why do you post?"

"What is your point?"

Fig I post to debate and challenge people's assumptions, and try get them to see more then one side of

a story.

If you approach issues and only embrace that which you agree with and suits your way of thinking, you miss out on a lot of life.

You might want to try flex and get past right and wrong and learn to understand the grey in between black and white.

[Higgly]

The middle east is a powder keg because of religion and history. The lack of tolerance and the desire to seek vengence is coupled with racism and paranoia to create all the conditions for war. Until those conditions are understood and changed then the chance for peace remains at essentially zero.

The folks over here taking sides do little to further the cause of peace in the middle east and in fact harm domestic relations here. These concerns of the middle east are not ours. We cannot solve their problems because they don't want us to, and it really isn't up to us how they live. Their societies are in conflict and not related to or endangering ours, so why do we waste our time with the question in the first place?

Wise thoughts, Jerry. I think it is our responsibility to at least get history right, because we have to make decisions based on facts on the ground. Here is a case in point....

A Palestinian terrorist and suicide bomber killed a number of innocent people, among them a Canadian citizen who had gone to live in Israel. There was heavy pressure put on Canadian government representatives to visit the family who lived in a West Bank Settlement. West Bank settlements contravene article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, which Israel refuses to recognize, and which Canada has agreed to. The question is... should we have sent a consular official to visit the family of this innocent victim of terrorism?

I believe that our government needs to hear from us before it makes these decisions and that we need to tell it how we feel. If you can't understand the context, you would be hard pressed to interpret this tipping point for Canadian foreign policy.

Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Rue]

How does Israel fight in the propaganda side of the war? What positive actions do they actual take for Palestinians? Any?

The problem I see with expecting Palestinians to be the instigators of peace is that they have no power. I mean, say for a moment that God/Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh or whatever your name for him/her/it is blessed us and Palestinians miraculously stopped fighting all at once. What power do they have to compel Israel to keep its part of the bargain and give them back their share of the land, and their sovereignty, and their rights? None. That is the problem I have with thinking any solution that involves Palestinians completely capitullating is even remotely realistic.

I am really trying to look at this from a more neutral stand point, but who knows... I'm not sure that we can even see the light and the end of the tunnel as things are, let alone reach it.

Sorry Remiel. You ask some great questions. Let me start by explaining that in Israel they most certainly have their extremist parties and people full of hate for Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians just as is the case reverse. These are not the majority. The Israeli government has however come down hard on extremists, often people who come from New York City and resettled in the West Bank and have very rigid views and for example led to the kind of insanity that killed Yitzhak Rabin.

That said, the vast majority of Israelis you must understand have seen someone die by a terrorist attack, lost an immediate relative in a terrorist attack or war, and have been directly in a war or injured so it impacts in their psyche and gives them a siege mentality no different then what you see in Palestinian civilians who have suffered the same thing.

On one level your question has to be answered like this- Israeli citizens like Palestinian civilians, on one level are not able to do anything positive because they both feel powerless to change the status quo. Everyone is waiting for someone in Palestine to say no more violence for now, lets talk instead, sort of like Sadat did because they know Israelis are tired and do not want to fight either. Already mothers on both sides are reaching out to one another.

Now there is a very extensive peace network in Israel. Many Israelis are involved in it and if you go on the web and simply type in Israeli peace networks on google, etc., you will see suprisingly, Palestinians and Israelis have reached out together despite all the nonsense and terrorism and war.

A specific example of positive actions by Israel is its providing medical care in Israeli hospitals to Palestinian children with cancer, liver and kidney disease (in need of dialysis), and other chronic illnesses or treating children injured or maimed by bombs, etc.

Another positive action was Israeli funding of green-houses in Gaza so that Gaza citizens could grow their own food. Unfortunately Hamas destroyed the green-houses. Israel also donated residential buildings that Israeli settlers lived in but were removed from and they gave these homes to Palestinians after the Israeli government forced the settlers to move out-but again Hamas destroyed them all.

Now to answer your last and most important question, you ask what power do Palestinians have to compel Israel to keep their side of the bargain-well its the exact same power Ghandi showed Indians had with the British, or Martin Luther King showed blacks had in America-they have the power to

give Israeli moderates the ability to say, there is no need for our side to maintain a military presence in Gaza or the West Bank. The power of peace is far more powerful then a terrorist bomb because it would neutralize the Israeli army and neccessarily force Israel to make concessions since they no longer would have to worry about security.

Now you said "give them back their share of the land". That is a subject that you must understand has already been answered when Britain chose to allocate 77% of Palestine to Jordan and it has also been answered because after 900,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries and 600,000 fled to Israel, the likelihood of Jews moving back to Muslim countries to make room to bring back the displaced Palestinians was gone for-ever.

The practical reality is this-Palestinian Arabs do not ever want to live in a Jewish State of Israel, and Jewish Israelis will not ever again want to live in a Muslim or Christian state.

It is not reasonable to expect either side to give up what the other side won't and that is why the practical and only realistic solution today is to move on and embrace reality and stop trying to undo what happened 60 years ago and recognize two countries.

That is why the moderate Palestinian wing now is saying its time to simply start a country in the Gaza and West Bank and what is holding this up now is not Israel but Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Wahadi terrorist cells out of Saudi Arabia, and fearful Arab governments who fear if Palestine and Israel settle down, it will not focus attention away from their own internal problems.

Check out these web sites if you want to see examples of Israelis and Palestinians working towards peace in government, education and social projects;

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do...mp;npoId=108364

www.mevic.org/ippen.html www.mevic.org/ippen.html

http://www.seedsofpeace.org/site/PageServe...nter_friendly=1

[Higgly]

...Israeli citizens like Palestinian civilians...

Thank you Rue. Can we consider this ground zero?

[Remiel]

Just to be clear, I wasn't actually referring to the 1948 plan, or even the post-1967 borders... I was mostly referring to land Israel has expropriated with their security fences and walls.

I wish I had bookmarked it, but not so long ago I saw a map of what was supposed to show Israeli and Palestinian controlled lands at different periods of time, with white for Israelis and green for Palestinians... from what I could see, in the central eastern area of Israel there were a whole bunch of green pockets surrounded by white, and the 2004 map was almost all white. From the picture, it doesn't even make sense that one could possibly make a country out of the land currently possessed by the Palestinians. Even without looking at the size, the idea of trying to make a Palestinian state with a tiny strip of land cut off from the main area which has extremely irregular borders... just can't work.

[Higgly]

Just to be clear, I wasn't actually referring to the 1948 plan, or even the post-1967 borders... I was mostly referring to land Israel has expropriated with their security fences and walls.

I wish I had bookmarked it, but not so long ago I saw a map of what was supposed to show Israeli and Palestinian controlled lands at different periods of time, with white for Israelis and green for Palestinians... from what I could see, in the central eastern area of Israel there were a whole bunch of green pockets surrounded by white, and the 2004 map was almost all white. From the picture, it doesn't even make sense that one could possibly make a country out of the land currently possessed by the Palestinians. Even without looking at the size, the idea of trying to make a Palestinian state with a tiny strip of land cut off from the main area which has extremely irregular borders... just can't work.

Abba Eben, in describing the various Israeli proposals, said "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The Israelis have never proposed a viable Palestinian state: they have consistently proposed a failed state.

Abba Eben be damned.

[Rue]

...Israeli citizens like Palestinian civilians...

Thank you Rue. Can we consider this ground zero?

Of course and we always did! Lol. Someone has to make you work hard dude.

[Rue]

Just to be clear, I wasn't actually referring to the 1948 plan, or even the post-1967 borders... I was mostly referring to land Israel has expropriated with their security fences and walls.

No I wasn't clear. Thanks for that clarification. Yah I now know what you are talking about. There are parts of the security wall causing problems-I have read about that and seen some of the portions of the walls or proposed walls that cause these problems as you mentioned.

The walls have gone up because the Israeli army doesn't want to be in the West Bank at all. It feels the only way it can prevent terrorism is to put up walls. Well this is proving an effective tool against terrorists coming in, but of course non terrorist Palestinians suffer for two reasons; i-the ones that are immediately affected by having their homes and farms cut up, ii-the likelihood that if terrorism ever did come to an end, Palestinians now can not come back in to Israel to work.

The Israelis have literally thrown in the towel waiting for Palestinians to put an end to terrorism and thus the walls.

Here is a classic situation where terrorism creates two losers, i-the Palestinians unable to cross and work in Israel, ii-the Israelis unable to access the labour force and have a trading partner so close to home.

Its a catch 22 for Israel. Don't put up the walls and you are forced to chase after terrorists into the West Bank and have Higgly write posts about them. Put up the wall, and then at least their army doesn't come into contact with Palestinian civilians and kill them by accident when it fights terrorists.

I think realistically these walls will go up like the walls of Jericho. Its actually a very ancient method of

conflict resolution common in the Middle East and at one time Jerusalem was surrounded by a huge defensive wall. Hopefully years from now after Israelis and Palestinians forced to be seperate by the walls, have time to cool down, heal , and realize they need each other and take the walls down and form peaceful ecnomic associations like they once had just before the intifadahs.

But you are right, its a major major problem as it is a classic case of humanitarian needs suffering because of greater security needs.

[Higgly]

This is a response to Rue's post of Oct 4 2006, 01:30 PM number 139857. For some reason, the wuote feature is not working properly so I have put Rue's comments in italics and my responses in bold

"Historical records show that the majority of Palestinian Arabs were deliberately expelled by Jewish fighters. "

Of course the above is incorrect. In fact 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left without ever seeing any Israeli soldiers for the simple reason that a lovely gentleman by the name of Dr. Hussein planted a rumour that Jews (Zionists) had massacered Palestinians causing a mass exodus long before 1948 and he did so delibereately on behalf of the Arab League.

What is also a fact is the Arab League on loud-speakers, in speeches, in newspapers, and on its radio, told Arabs to leave stating the war would be quick and they could return once the Jews were removed. So to try revise what happened and make it sound like Jews stood there and said leave is absolute b.s.

The massacre of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish forces in places like Balad al-Shaykh, Deir Yassin, Abu Shusha, Saliha, and Ein al Zeitun are fact. If someone was spreading stories about that, I would say they were performing a public service. As for the radio broadcasts you mention, historians have come to agree that they never occurred.

More to the point according to the UN, yes 711,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced. How about the 900,000 Jews that after 1948 were thrown out of all the Muslim countries of the Middle East and had their property seized not to mention the countless of other Jews not counted in this 900,000 because they had already been killed?

An important question about those Jewish refugees: who is keeping the tally? Have those numbers been audited in any way? These are numbers maintained by Israel to counterbalance any claim for compensation that might be put on it for the Palestinian refugee problem. Calls into question issues related to conflict of interest. Not to forget as well Rue, that whatever harrassment these people suffered came after the 1948 war during which the Arab world saw Arabs being expelled by Israel. I think it is also important to note Rue that a number of Jews living in Middle Eastern countries voluntarily migrated to Israel once the state of Israel was declared.

Palestine never existed as a nation. Anyone who knows anything about Middle East Hisory knows that. The name Palestine is a geographic term.

So what. This is sophistry.

The notion of Arabs wanting a seperate Palestinian nation is for Western consumption. That is what they tell the West because that is of course what people like Higgly want to here. But if you live in the Middle East, if you read Arab newspapers, listen to their t.v. and radio, read their literature and speeches you would know when Muslims talk to each other about Palestine it has a different context.

Nonsense. UN resolution 242 after the 1967 war called for Israel to evacuate the West Bank. Jordan and Israel discussed the possibility of Jordan retaking possession of the West Bank or Israel administering it as an administrative area. The Arabs of the West Bank (where they were by far the majority) wanted to have their own autonomous nation.

Here is what Adbdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said about Palestine when speeking to the Peel Commission in 1937;

" There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."

Or here is what the representative of the Arab League said to the United Nations in his statement in May 1947;

"Palestine was part of the Province of Syria...

...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity."

Or here is what Ahmed Shuqeiri, the Chairman of the PLO to the UN Security Council said;

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

So what. They were coming up with arguments against the entire region being turned into a Jewish State and trying to bring Syria in on their side. Modern Syria itself didn't really exists until the French set it up. I can cite you Israeli cabinet discussions where it was proposed that the West Bank be turned over to a Palestinian Arab autonomous area. So what.

In the real Muslim world, borders are an absurdity. Muslims do not seperate state from religion.

Really? How about Pakistan? Indonesia? Iraq under Saddam? Egypt? Tunisia? Morocco?

The idea of borders was imposed after World War One by the British and French carving the Middle East into little colonies they could control.

Yes. See my point above countering your point about Syria.

Before then Palestine was an empty set of swamps and bogs, and desolate and simply the route between Cairo and Damascus.

O I know. There wasn't even a place called Israel. I am going to skip over your dissertation on history under the Turks....

If the Arab League was as benevolent as it is portrayed ask yourself, why did they never resettle Palestinians in other countries? Why was Arafat expelled from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia?

You are asking the Arab countries to take responsibility for a problem that Israel created. Wouldn't that be convenient. In any case I have already given you arguments that show you are wrong on this.

Well let us go back to what Palestinians think of Palestine; the former military commander of the PLO as well as member of the PLO Executive Council, Zuhair Muhsin made this statement in the early 1970's:

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity....yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

He was referring to the pan-Arab nation.

This is why for example the former Syrian President, Hafez Assad said;

"Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people."

and he also stated;

"Palestine is a principal part of Southern Syria, and we consider that it is our right and duty to insist that it be a liberated partner of our Arab homeland and of Syria."

Why are you holding the Palestinians responsible for something Assad said? Why is it that you keep harping on this theme that the Palestinians should be subject to the opinions, whims, and political ambitions of the Arab countries in the region? This is something straight out of the Likud playbook.

This why there was a major civil war in Jordan in 1967 called the Black Sabbath uprising in which Palestinians the majority of the population in Jordan were prevented from taking control and deposing

King Hussein. Jordan did not want Palestinians in its country and it expelled them.

No Rue, this civil war was fought because Jordan wanted to re-take possession of the West Bank and the PLO wanted it to be an autonomous Palestinian State.

Syria? Syria expelled Arafat and the PLO and Assad and Arafat openly feuded precisely because Syria felt Israel should be part of its country along with Lebanon and to this day feels that way.

You've got this backwards. Syria attacked Jordan in an effort to help the PLO overthrow Hussein. Syria was repelled by an attack from the Israeli Air Force which was requested of Golda Meir by the Nixon Whitehouse, specifically Henry Kissinger.

Lebanon? Lebanon expelled Arafat as well because the civil war between shiite and sunni Muslims and between those two and Christians and Druze became bloody and the PLO tried to seize control of the country.

Lebanon was in no shape to expel anyone. It had gone through a civil war followed by an Iraeli invasion and aerial bombardment that killed some 15,000 Lebanese civilians and reduced the entire country to rubble. It was the Americans who finally brokered a peace deal which would see the PLO leave Lebanon under US escort in exchange for security assurances that the remaining Palestinian refugees would be protected. Israel, most particularly the psychopath Ariel Sharon, broke that deal by slaughtering over 2,500 Palestinian women, children and old men in the Sbra and Chatila refugee camps.

Tunisia? Same thing.

The Arab world is not opening its arms welcoming Palestinians as brothers? Palestinian leaders and Palestinians are considered second class citizens in the Arab world and are seen as Israel's problem.

Oh but Rue. They are Israel's problem.

Israel is a convenient scapegoat because the Arab League then does not have to examine its legal role in encouraging Palestinians to leave and telling them they could return soon

Well Rue, as I say, that is the mythinformation that Israel would have us all believe. It was the mass expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Jewish fighters, the closing of the borders refusing to allow them to return to their homes, along with the passing of the Abandonnment laws in 1950 that robbed the Palestinian of their land. And that indeed is Israel's problem.

What Higgly would also have you ignore is the fact that after World War Two the Grand Mufti of Jerusalemwho had been a frequent guest of Hitler, as was the tradition since the 1930's, called on all MUslims to embrace Nazi anti-semitism, and see the waqr against Israel as not just a war against ISrael but of all Jews everywhere.

Well Rue, you are not going to like to hear this, but prior to the war, there were people in the Palestinian Zionist community who were consdering asking the Nazis for help in expelling the British from Palestine.

Mohamed Abbas the supposed moderate leader of the PLO wrote his thesis on why the holocaust never happened.

Iran just ran a symposium inviting scholars from all over the world to visit and present essays on why the holocaust didn't happen and ran a cartoon contest seeing who could depict the most insulting charactiture of a Jew.

Well Rue, you are going to find this hard to accept but our scared cows are not necessarily everybody else's. In fact that was the point of the cartoon contest which Iran put together after cartoons of Mohammed were published all over the western world, including in this country by the "Western Report."

On Jordanian t.v. in a supposedly moderate Muslim nation, are open discussions by Muslim clerics as to why Jews are infidel

You can see the same thing in CNN most nights of the week except it is the Moslems who portrayed like that. Watch the Glenn Beck show. What does this have to do with the original post?

Egyptian t.v. is full of movies and debates depicting Jews as vermin. On and on it goes.

And you can still see movies on western TV portraying Arabs as slimey murdering thieves. What does this have to do with the original post?

Hamas is not talking about a secular state. Its charter like Hezbollah's calls on a holy war against Jews world-wide.

I don't agree with Hamas, but are there not political parties in Israel that are controlled by the religious right, Rue? In any case, what does this have to do with the original post?

Yah for people like Higgly who have a preconceived notion that Jews are bad, he will cut and paste and find essays to suit his preconceived notion that Jews are not special and are unreasonable, etc.

No Rue, I didn't say Jews were bad. This is entirely your own hate-mongering at work. You use it as a form of attack and in fact it is done a lot by people such as yourself who want to silence people you disagree with or whom you want to silence. Anybody who questions anything about Israel or its policies is immediately labelled as a Jew hater by zealots like yourself.

The fact is however quite simple. Right or wrong 3,500 years of persecution and slaughter of Jews leading to the holocaust created a fait accompli as to the fate of Jews.

Terrible truths Rue, but it was not the Palestinians who did it. What does this have to do with the original post?

This talk of a secular state in an area of the world where Muslims kill each other daily is a laugh.

Morrocco and Tunisia don't seem to be having too much trouble doing it.

When Iran's economy collapses, of course its leader will make all kinds of anti-Zionist statements. First thing you do when your country is corupt and totalitarian and its economhy collapses is to pull the Jewish scapegoating out of the hat to distract.

The Iranian economy is doing not too badly actually. If it does collapse it will probably be because of sanctions put on it by the US.

The Muslim world has embraced Nazism. It was not an accident that so many Nazis settled in Damascus post World War Two and created many of the splinter groups that today call for the destruction of Israel.

Well a lot of them went to Argentina and Brazil too. In fact a lot more than Damascus. Some of them even came to Canada. And what does that have to do with the original post?

So when Higgly tries to paint the Arab world as a bunch of heroes helping a victimized people

Rue perhaps you can point me to the place in my original post where I said this. Again, this is you jumping to conclusions based on your own paranoia. The subject of my post was related to specific items of Israeli mythinformation about the 1948 war and I think I have established a pretty good case for it. All of the other miscellaneous red herrings that have come into the thread have come pretty much from you.

Iraq is condemned to being split in 3 abd becoming a series of fragmented mini states.

Well gee Rue. I wonder why that might be?

Afghanistan is all about getting back to Sharia law despite our naive efforts to turn it into a democracy.

Oh now we're into Afghanistan are we?

Iran? Iran is typical of what Hezbollah and Hamas want, theocratic states that do not allow freedom of speech.

And Iran too. My my how far we've travelled.

So let us stop pretending this is good v.s. bad.

Good idea Rue. When did you plan to start?

Rue you have turned a focussed post into a shotgun rant of your own pet peeves. In short, what you have tried to do is highjack my thread to make it all about your own anti-Arab ravings. If you want to start threads that say these things, then by all means go ahead. But, if you want to be taken seriously in my threads, stick to the subject at hand. And this has nothing to do with the size of your pee-pee.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Rue and Higgly are darned good at this debate stuff I think. Both have made valid points and gone after very well. But I have to ask why either of you choose to pick a side in the first place? Why not simply advocate that the opposing sides undertake a form of binding arbitration with a complete "shunning" as a penalty for non-compliance.

Let those who fail to make peace suffer the consequences of their actions. It is time for the worlds citizens to enter into this equation and hold thier leaders accontable. It is time to start weeding out the leaders who would seek to dominate instead of cooperate. The same fate awaits us all, we live and then we die. We are all equal in death, but in life we are not. It should be the intention of our leaders to make us as equal in life as we are in death.

[Higgly]

"Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender."

I stated and I state again if you enter into discussions about the state of Israel and use that as a platform to criticize the Jewish religion and Jews I will call you on it. Your little ethnic dig is telling Higgly.

I imagine you are referring to my use of the word Israelite. I use to denote people who are pro-Israel. It has nothing to do with religion or citizenship. I would call George Bush an Israelite. You are the one who equates discussions of Israel with attacks on Jews and you use it as an attack mechanism.

"My sources for the post were two well-researched books by recognized and respected Jewish historians - Segev is from Hebrew University and Shlaim is at Oxford. Both worked from primary historical documents - cabinet papers, letters, diaries, published speeches, what have you. This is solid historical research."

Well actually what you did Higgly was to go out and find two historians that opine the version of history you think is the right one and of course are now tryying to infer because you could cut and paste out of context what these two historians said, that everything you say is the truth and everything I say is wrong.

Well to start off with if someone wants to get an idea of how many modern jewish historians there are including the two Higgly has quoted you can go to;

Rue you are welcome to cite whatever sources you wish and if others wish to read them, that is up to them. However the purpose of boards like this is to discuss issues. The idea is for you to digest your sources and represent them in the debate.

"As for the rest of your first post, the key phrase is "a homeland for the Jews in Palestine". Neither the Balfour declaration nor any decision by the League of nations made any statements about turning all of Palestine into a homeland for the Jews. This was strictly a Zionist interpretation and not one that was shared by anyone else - viz. both the British and the UN proposals for partition."

Again Higgly the above comment is false and I refer to the contents of the leage of Nations Palestine mandate that can be found in its entirety at

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/1922_MANDATE/1922_mandate.asp, but I have reprinted the relevant articles to show why what Higgly said is just not true;

Article 4.

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. |Back to top |

Article 5.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.

Article 6.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. |

Higgly trying to revise history is one thing, trying to deny cerain things do not exist is another. If you want be to treat you respectfully, then please don't make such statements because you are either deliberately fabricating falsehoods or are talking off the top of your head. Either way please take the time to read about what it is you are making pronoucements about to make sure what you are saying is accurate. You didn't present an opinion, you presented something that is not true as if it was a fact.

This is fine Rue, but where does it say that all of Palestine will be converted to a Jewish state? Mote also article 6 with reference to the rights and position of others.

"The theme that comes through again and again in these books is that the Zionists knew what they were doing was unfair to the Arabs of Palestine, that the Arabs would resist, and that the only way they could achieve their aims was by constructing an 'Iron Wall of military might'. "

That Higgly is precisely the point. You are reading essays that present a particular version of what happened and you are jumping to the conclusion that because this version has been written it is the only one that should be accepted. There are of course an equal number of books that would also indicate Zionists were sympathetic to Arabs and wanted to live in peace with them but found themselves rejected and the target of

violence and war and that there was of course another way to deal with jews in Israel other then with violence and war.

Yes there were Zionists who wanted a shared state with the Arabs. They lost to the hard liners. This comes through again and again in Israel's history - the hardliners (such as Ben Gurion) winning out over moderates (like Sharett)

The web sites I listed above are just a few examples. Most of the historians you will find on the list unlike Higgly believe that there are two sides to the Palestine-Israel conflict and of course if you have preconceived political biases as to who is right and who is wrong, it will reflect in the way you restate history in books-a point Higgly keeps missing.

No Rue, my post addressed specific items of mythinformation spread by Israel about the 1948 war.

"Although more moderate Jews were willing to accept a shared state, the Zionists constantly pushed for one which would be exclusively Jewish or at least controlled by Jews and which would require a priori the expulsion of Arabs from their homelands."

Higgly the above generalization reflects your personal subjective opinion and has no more validity then if I wrote; " although moderate Muslims are willing to recognize an Israeli state, Muslim nationalists constantly push for a country that will be exclusively Muslim....

And your point is?

Most importantly Higgly you let it slip again. Instead of talking about Israelis, you use the word JEWS. Ooopsy. Slipped again did we?

Which line was this? I think I used the word Jews in a couple of places. Are you saying this is a derogatory term? Why is it OK to use the words Arab and Moslem and not use the word Jew?

"While discussing this actively amongst themselves, the Zionists hid their intentions from the Arabs, even negotiating agreements saying that their plans would have no negative effect on them (such as Chaim Weitzmann's agreement with Feisal). It was only when the Arabs finally realized what was coming, did they start to react violently against it."

This again Higgly is another one of your subjective opinions that does not reflect what actually happened.

No Rue. This is exactly what Weitzmann did. After the 1937 breakout of violence Ben Gurion himself said he didn't blame the Arabs for revolting and that were he in their shoes, he would probably do the same thing. Just call me David.

As is the case in any conflict, both sides were not able to enter into agreements. Jews were very open and blatant about their desire to want a homeland. It was never hidden and to suggest it was is absurd...just as absurd as it would be to say Arabs hid their contempt for the concept of a Jewish homeland.

Yes. What they weren't open about was their desire to forvce the Arabs out.

[Higgly]

Rue and Higgly are darned good at this debate stuff I think. Both have made valid points and gone after very well. But I have to ask why either of you choose to pick a side in the first place? Why not simply advocate that the opposing sides undertake a form of binding arbitration with a complete "shunning" as a penalty for non-compliance.

Let those who fail to make peace suffer the consequences of their actions. It is time for the worlds citizens to enter into this equation and hold thier leaders accontable. It is time to start weeding out the leaders who would seek to dominate instead of cooperate. The same fate awaits us all, we live and then we die. We are all equal in death, but in life we are not. It should be the intention of our leaders to make us as equal in life as we are in death.

I sure agree with you there. I think though that the arbitration has to start with each as equals. There is nowhere close to that situation now. I was hopeful there might be progress when the prison agreement came out between the jailed leaders of Fatah and Hamas. Unfortunately, that has fallen apart. Palestinian society is under such enormous stress that infighting is inevitable, which only delays things further.

[Rue]

As usual Higgly has scattered about some responses that are inaccurate and need clarification and I am going to address them but I will start with one issue that Higgly seems to once agaion have simplified and selected for subjective analysis and save the rest for another post tomorrow.

Let us now be clear on what happened in the black Sabbath uprising because to simply state Syria attacked Jordan is nonsense.

The crisis in Jordan in 1970 was triggered off by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which masterminded the hijacking of five passenger airliners on September 6, 1970 and for those of us that can remember 4 planes were forced down in Jordan.

The fifth in fact involved an El Al airliner from Amsterdam, which was prevented and the plane landed safely in London after the two hijackers had their butts kicked by on flight Air Marshalls.

One of the hijackers, Nicaraguan Patrick Arguello, was killed and the other a woman, Leila Khaled, who had previously hijacked a plane in 1969, was taken into custody by British police.

With these hijackings we saw the planes get blown up on t.v. and this served as the match that lit the fuse for the Palestinian uprising in Jordan that then led to an internal civil war by the PLO to kill King Hussein and take over.

Edward Heath was the British conservative leader at the time.

Information now released from the British foreign ministry does reveal that King Hussein asked Britain and the US to ask Israel for assistance on September 19, 1970.

Israel now admits through third party historians but never directly that in fact a Syrian tank column crossed into Jordan, but turned back after Israel threatened to attack it. The Israelis never did attack it and never had any involvement other then this threat in the uprising and subsequent expulsion of the PLO by Kig Hussein.

The PLO in fact alleged that Israel secretly supplied Jordan with arms after agreeing with Hussein's assessment that a Syrian invasion of Jordan could spark a full-scale regional conflict. In fact Jordan was assisted by the US and Britain not Israel.

In fact the British decided to negotiate with the terrorists and this pissed off Washington. Israel sat this out. The fight between London and Washington is now documented and in fact documents from the British make it clear that Israel was sitting it out.

Syria tried to stick their face in the uprising because the PLA or Palestine Liberation Army's HQ was in Damascus.

But in case you think it is as simple as the PLO being on Syria's side forget it. As I keep saying to Higgly you can not simplify this in black and white terms.

By 1999, Arafat openly was feuding with both Syria and Jordan who he lumped in the same category of being enemies of the Palestinians.

I will finish this later.

[Higgly]

So basically you acknowledge that what I have said is true. Still Rue I must ask. What does this have to do with my original post dealing with the 1948 war? You are trying to hijack this thread. Stop it.

[Rue]

So basically you acknowledge that what I have said is true. Still Rue I must ask. What does this have to do with my original post dealing with the 1948 war? You are trying to hijack this thread. Stop it.

Read back what you wrote. Your responses are allegedly evidence of Israeli misinformation but all you are doing is responding with misinformation. The Israeli Air Force never was involved in the Black Sabbath uprising, and the one tank corps the Syrians sent was not meant to overthrow Hussein but to serve as a symbolic presence in support of the PLA. One tank corps could not have overthrown Hussein and you know it.

More to the point though, and getting back to the debate and precisely why I have responded, in your orginial presentation, you present the conflict between Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East as simply being something between Palestinians and Jews but then quite unintentionally you vividly show how your simplistic Palestine Arabs (good) v.s. Bad Israel is a crock and it is far more complicated then that.

It is in fact misinformation to present the conflict in such a way and forget at least two obvious issues;i-that the PLO has been expelled from Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia, and Arafat has feuded with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia openly leading to his expulsion so your Palestine Arab v.s. Israeli scenario ignores these other segments of the same conflict. But I know in your thesis we ignore everyone but Israel and blame it all on Israel.

Now I am not hijacking the post but pointing out Black Sabbath shows have misleading your position is. Jordan was artificially created from Britain in the early 1920's after it deliberately lied, ignored the Leage of Nations mandate it said it would pursue, and unilaterally took 77% of Palestinian land and created the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as a puppet state for its influence.

In your scenario Palestine is only Israel and Israel was the only colonial nation to displace Palestinians. Well that is pure b.s. and you have been called on it because that is what your posts have implied and inferred in your one sided version of history which selectively ignores anything that won't fit the simplistic black and white scenario you keep trying to defend.

You can ignore this part of the Palestine equation but the fact is the majority of the population of Jordan was always Palestinian and they did not support King Hussein so it was not just Israel they felt hard done by and that is the point. If you want to present yourself as an expert on the conflict present it fairly and don't skip out massive pats of it because they don't conform with your bias.

The point is Hussein was a prop for the British and he was completely dependant on his Beduin army for his survival. Jordan like Israel was and is dependent U.S. economic and military aid. The U.S. pays for half of Jordan's budget. Teh Royal leaders of Jordan have received personal payments from the CIA starting in 1957.

So my point was and is the above, it has not hijacked your post but illustrated you have been selective and your original hypothesis of the Palestine problem simply being caused by Zionists is a crock.

The problem is also just as much caused by;

i-Britain and France's decision to crave the Middle East into artificial borders exasperating the situation

ii-the thousands of conflicts and never changing alliances between Arab nations and the PLO and the decision of the Arab League not to allow Palestinians to settle as civilians in Arab countries.

The decision of Jews to live and create a country in Israel of course created a problem with the existing Palestinian Arabs but what I am saying is, it is one of many catalysts that brought turmoil to the region and to properly understand history we must appreciate them all and not be selective as to what we think is important.

[Rue]

Higgly raised a reference to massacres of Palestinians by Israelis in his response to my responses.

I will say this one time specifically in response to his exercise of raising this issue.

This was not a one sided war where only civilians died on one side and to simply present these incidents and leave it at that is deliberately selective.

To properlly depict what happened in the War of Independence without turning it into a misinformation session about Israel bad, Palestine good, it needs to be properly pointed out that both Jews and Arabs engaged in sniping, raids, and bombings that cost many lives on both sides.

And if we want to be accurate instead of hurling out such comments, between December 1947 and February 1948, 427 Arabs, 381 Jews, and 46 British were killed and 1,035 Arabs, 725 Jews, and 135 Britons were wounded. In March of 1948 alone, 271 Jews and 257 Arabs were killed.

The point is people died on both sides and the attacks were not from just one side.

Here is a specific example of how it was two sided not one sided;

The Arab Legion went out and attacked a Jewish civilian bus convoy at Beit Nabala on December 14, 1948, 4 days later the Haganah then attacked the village of Al-Khisas. So do to what Higgly does and take these attacks in isolation is misleading. You can not take selective snap-shots, you have to look at the continuing series of attacks and how they inter-related to each other.

Pro Palestinian forces cut off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations.[citation needed] and massacred Jewish convoys in the first phase of the War of Independence and this then led to retaliation by the Irgun who killed 107 Arabs. Four days after the killing of those 107,, the Arabs launched a strike on a medical convoy traveling to Hadassah Hospital. Around 77 doctors, nurses, and other Jewish civilians were massacred.

The point is autoricities and deaths happened in the conflict from BOTH SIDES and it is misinformation to present it from only one side.

[Rue]

In response to Higgly's presentations which depict the Israeli Palestinian conflict as being solely caused by Israel and focusing attention only on the displacement of Palestinian refugees, I stated such a presentation was deliberately one sided and misleading because in addition to 711,000 Palestinians beingd displaced so were 900,000 Jews from the Middle East, and Higgly's response to that was so what and to questiont he veracity of the numbres of displaced.

The actual number of displaced Palestinian Arabs from 1949-1967 Israel of 711,000 is a UN guess because many of these displaced Palestinians were of no fixed address.

That said the number of 900,000 Jews, also comes from the same United Nations and from the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that after 1950, kept track of the movement of Jews for two very important reasons; i-it required charitable assistance from Jews outside Israel to resettle these people so had to be very careful documenting who it was helping to get aid, ii-the people from the displaced communities fleeing to Israel provided the statistics in an effort to document their stolen property hoping one day they could get it back.

The point of this issue which Higgly ignored is that when you look at the Middle East conflict and repeat as Higgly has done again that it is solely a problem caused by Israel is misinformation. The fact is had the Muslim world not displaced 900,000 Jews forcing 600,000 to have to flee to Israel, it would have made resettling Palestinian Arabs back in Israel less problematic.

See it is easy to shoot off and say oh Israel wouldn't let the Palestinians return but then it is not so easy when you have to explain, well gee, if 600,000 Jewish refugees were forced to move to this tiny parcel of land, what does that do to the equation.

Well here is what it did.

It is a fact that the actual number of Palestinians who fled the newly formed State of Israel was surpassed by the number of Jews who were forced to emigrate from Arab countries. So of course that effects the ability to properly put people back whence they came.

When Higgly tries to blame this solely on Israel and Zionists he skips the fact that in 1947 United Nations debates, the head of the Egyptian delegation warned that "the lives of a million Jews in Moslem countries will be jeopardized by the establishment of the Jewish State".

Oh well it wouldn't have happened had they not started Israel. The point is the Arab League chose to use Jews in the Middle East as pawns to try prevent the state from coming about.

This is why Haj Amin el-Husseini, chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Executive, told that body, "If a Jewish State were established in Palestine, the position of the Jews in the Arab countries would become very precarious". "Governments", have always been unable to prevent mob excitement and violence".

Now before you simplistically state everything was peechy keen for Jews in the Middle East and their problems only happened after 1949, this is utter b.s. The strain of anti-semitic hatred we see wide spread in the Middle East today, was brought in by the French, British and Germans starting in the 1920's. I will not get into the system of apartheid called dhimmitude that persecuted Jews in the Middle East prior to that because Higgly will accuse me of hijacking his post.

For example, ion Iraq, thousands of Jews were imprisoned or taken into "protective custody" on charges of "zionism". Legislation was passed freezing Jewish bank accounts and forbidding Jews to dispose of their property without special permission. Jews given exit visas were only allowed to take fifty kilograms of luggage per person. A law was passed issuing seizing the property of all Iraqi Jews and Jewish property was sold at public auction. A year after that, more laws were passed, restricting the movements of Jews, barring them from schools, hospitals and other public institutions, and refusing them import and export licenses to carry on their businesses.

The above scenario was repeated in every Arab League nation and in Iran.

So to simply ignore this and say, its bad Palestinians were displaced, but let's just ignore the 900,000 Jews thrown out with no property because it was in retaliation for the Palestinians being displaced, is b.s.

The fact is there were two huge displacements and from a pratical point of view, whether Higgly wishes to justify one displacement and only focus on the other, it doesn't change the practical reality of the situation, Jews had no place to go but Israel.

The fact is Nazis played a prominent role in Arab League nations. The head of Gestapo in Poland went on to be the head of the secret police in Egypt. Former Nazi SS officials openly operated out of Damascus heading Syria's secret police force, training the secret police forces of numerous Arab nations, and leading the hundreds of anti Israel terrorist groups they helped fund before and after world war two.

Palestinians were used as pawns by these Nazis and by Arab nations such as Syria and Egypt who were never interested in helping Palestinians but in fact used them as a pawn in their attempts to seize more territory for their own regimes and power.

What Higgly will continue to ignore is that through-out the Arab world, after 1947, there were thousands of pogroms against Jews in Morrocco, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Israq, Aden. So what? So it meant these attacks forced a transfer and movement of populations on an unprecedented scale and made the displacement of Jews from Arab countries an irreversible consequence.

So when Higgly lectures you on his version of the Middle East conflict, ask him, oh gee what should we have done with all those displaced Jews, thrown them in the ocean? Yes it is unfair. It was unfair to Palestinian Arabs who found themselves displaced and it was unfair to Jews attacked simply for being Jews.

See that is the point. When people attack Israel, they also go world-wide and attack Jews and do not differentiate the two and that is what Higgly does not understand about Israel. It is not just some Europeans who fled to Israel. It is about a final existential stand because Jews know, wherever they lived in the world, without a nation of their own, they would be wiped out and massacered. Unfair to Palestinian Arabs? Yah unfair to them Jews, and countless millions of other people who over the centuries have found themselves displaced.

The question remains though, why after 60 years, are we still talking about this? Does Higgly really believe at this point his Israel bad Palestine good lectures will lead to all Jews leaving Israel and millions of Palestinians never born there simply moving in?

The point is history moves on and creates fait accomplis and we have to learn to deal with them instead of

staying entrenched in the past.

And before Higgly lectures me on Israel bad Palestine good, he better understand I do not take what he says with credibility until I see him presenting both sides of the story equally. Until then he simply is yet another person who thinks Israel bad, Palestine good.

Here are some of my sources for the population displacement of Jews in the Middle East;

1 - Official census of each country; yearbooks of the Jewish communities: The Jewish case before the Anglo- American Committee of Inquiry, 1946; Hayim Chohen, 1952 and 1973; David Sitton, 1974; Andre Chouraqui 1952; Joseph B. Shechtman, 1961; David Littman, 1975

2 - Ada Aharoni, The Second Exodus, (Dorrance, PA, 1983)

3 - Government of Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 1975

4. Government of Israel, Statistical Abstract, 1974

5. Schechtman, J. B. Population Transfers in Asia. New York: Hallsby Press, 1949, 104.

6.American Jewish Congress, Jewish Communities in the World, p. 48 (Hebrew).

[Rue]

I have one last response to yet more misinformation Higgly presented in his responses. Higgly again made a comment referring to UN Resolution 242 and made a statement that Palestinians wanted an autonomous nation in the West Bank.

Well I am not sure what planet he lives on, but Yair Arafat was offered the West Bank and Gaza for a nation and rejected it and Bill Clinton has given numerous speeches indicating Arafat was offered 97% of the land he asked for, indiocated he would take it, and then pulled out of the deal.

We know why. If one reads the speeches of the PLO, they were talking out of both sides of their mouth. They told the West they were interested in Gaza and the West Bank as the nation. Israel in fact offered to comply with a peace formula the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis pushed for, but while Arafat told the Wet he was a moderate simply looking for peace, his same speeches to the Arab world stated the PLO would not stop until Israel was wiped off the face of the map.

It is absolutely irresponsible to sugget the PLO wanted the West Bank as a nation. The PLO, is an umbella group of many factionsonly one of those factions would have accepted the West Bank and Gaza as a nation, The majority wanted Israel off the map. Then came Hamas, Intifadah, Jihand and many other groups who at least were open and honest in their intentions stating the only solution in the Middle East is the wiping off the map of Israel.

So Higgly can skip over Hamas and make lame comments about Hamas and this fact and try skip over this reality-but the fact is today, moderate Palestinians are not stating they want the Gaza and West Bank as a nation. In fact so called moderates such as Mr. Abbas are doing what Arafat did before them. They say one thing for Western consumption and other for the consumption of their people.

The fact is the majority of Palestinians today, still buy into the notion, they will have another war, only this time wipe out Israel, and until that happens, the terrorism will continue.

Until Palestinians step back from this dream of destroying Israel and engaging in terrorism until this can happen, nothing will change and there is no point whining when Israeli soldiers retaliate against terrorists and kill innocent civilians. This whining is what has created the status quo and is causing both sides to be trapped in a never ending cycle of tit for tat.

Want Israel to back off, its simple, recognize their right to exist and stop engaging in terrorism against them. Then they will back off.

Want to solve this problem? Stop trying as Higgly does to scapegoat Israel for all the problems and use them as a dumping zone for social failure and intolerance. Stop demonizing Israel and understand

all nations can be criticized exactly for the same things but to suggest Israel is acting unfairly trying to defend itself and protect its people is b.s.

It is a tragedy Palestinian civilians die, but Higgly, contrary to your quick dismissal of Hamas, some of us think Hamas and all these other extreme groups are morally culpable for the suffering of their people by keeping them entrenched in hatred and refusing to let them move on.

You apologize for Hamas. I do not apologize for Israel's army if it makes mistakes. I say if they make mistakes they must be criticized and people held accountable but I am not sdo naive as to think Israel should do nothing in the face of terrorism and I have better things to do then patronize Palestinians and portray them as helpless victims. They are not. Like any people they could choose to master their own destiny and nothing is stopping them but their own self-defeating behaviour and refusal to let go and move on and build a nation.

[Great Pharoah]

Hey guys. I'm new to this forum, but after reading I think Higgly has a stronger case than Rue does.