Yes, I know a lot of readers support the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression, and some even want the state of Israel eliminated. Others tend to ignore the Palestinian suicide bombings against civilians, the Palestinian placement of weapons in civilian areas, and other violation of the Geneva convention. As I’ve pointed out before, there’s a disgraceful double standard in this situation: Israelis are simply expected to act better than Palestinians, with Palestinian atrocities simply ignored. If Israel sent suicide bombers to Palestinian weddings, you know the world would raise a far stronger alarum than if Palestinians did they same thing—which they do.
I’m no diehard fan of Israel: for example I think they need to immediately get all the settlers off the West Bank before there can be peace, and I favor the establishment of a Palestinian state. But I do see a clear double standard, and a climate in which it’s simply politically correct to ignore Palestinian transgressions and concentrate on the Israelis. Feeding into this is, I think, is some anti-Semitism. That anti-Semitism is clear among Arab states. Hate-filled messages are daily fare on official Arab media—things far more hateful than the ludicrous and bigoted film “Innocence of Muslims” that rightfully angered not only Muslims, but much of the West. But films that are similar, but more bigoted, appear daily on official Arab television, but of course we all ignore those. Many of you ignore that.
You do so at your peril, for the hatred of Jews and Israel in Arab media reflect the greater problem of Islam: a visceral disgust at all things western, and a desire to conquer the lands of heretics, apostates, and infidels. That’s why the two-state solution, which I favor, along with considerable Israeli concessions, will not quell Islamic fanaticism in the Middle East.
Here’s exhibit A (apologies to Chris Mooney!): part of an official bulletin issued yesterday by the Palestinian Authority, and printed in part by the Palestinian Media Watch (if you’re going to call the PMW biased, fine, but if you’re going to accuse them of making this bulletin up, be careful). And remember that this week President Obama is going to the Middle East in an attempt to broker peace by talking to Israeli and Palestinian officials.
Here’s part of the bulletin (my bold)
Op-ed by Hassan Ouda Abu Zaher:
“‘History is a great lie written by the victors’ – said Napoleon Bonaparte, the source of dubious historical writing and father of Freemasonry in France. If so, is the history planted in us through TV and the standard educational curriculum indeed true? The source of this history is the West – the victor ever since the fall of Andalusia (Muslim Spain)! …Our history is replete with lies, from lies about the corrupt [Caliph] Harun Al-Rashid, which ignore the sources indicating that he dedicated one year to pilgrimage [to Mecca] and one year to Jihad (i.e., he was a good Muslim), to the lie about Al-Qaeda and the Sept. 11 events, which asserted that Muslim terrorists committed it, and that it was not an internal American action by the Freemasons, which was mentioned in the Illuminati game cards ten years before it took place, and in over 15 Zionist and Freemason Hollywood-produced films in the 1990s. The method of repeating [the lies] over and over has authenticated false facts. Had Hitler won, Nazism would be an honor that people would be competing to belong to, and not a disgrace punishable by law. Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, and in their youth were questioned more than once about brawls they started in bars, while Hitler hated alcohol and was not addicted to it. He used to go to sleep early and wake up early, and was very organized. These facts have been turned upside down as well, and Satan has been dressed with angels’ wings…”[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 18, 2013]
- The 9/11 attacks were not committed by Muslims, but were engineered by American Freemasons.
- Hitler was a good man, and it’s a shame that the Nazis lost.
- Churchill and Roosevelt were alcoholics, ergo worse than the punctilious, teetotaling (and, I should add, vegetarian) Hitler.
Remember, this is from the official bulletin of the Palestinian Authority. It whips up hatred not only against Jews (the usual stuff) but against America. And it comes two days before Obama’s visit.
If you are going to use this post to beat on Israel, consider what you are doing—and justifying. This is Islamic lunacy, pure and simple, and we must oppose it—even if it comes from Palestine.
Do you really want to be on the side of a regime that sees Hitler as a hero?
sub
Can’t both sides be wrong, at least partly?
There’s wrong and there’s really, really, really wrong.
Both sides have some really, really, really wrong people.
Up to a point, but if you look at the respective media overall,there is no comparison.
I think part of the reason for the double-standard, which clearly exists, is that the Palestinians are the underdogs here — they are way overpowered and the underdog is given some leeway in a fight.
Underdogs? The state of war has always been between Arab countries like Egypt and Syria (and recently some non-Arab like Iran) and Israel. Israel is the underdog, not that that justifies supporting one side over the other.
Israel is only the underdog if you ignore the United States backing them up.
Israel was an underdog that fought back and actually won–think of the defensive wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973–and now it is seen as a bully. Go figure.
Defensive wars in 48 and 67???
Talk about rewriting history…
It sounds as though you need to READ some history!
Didn’t he say both sides are in the wrong, partly?
“Didn’t he say both sides are in the wrong, partly?”
No, not really.
I’m pretty sure he did.
Specifically: “I’m no diehard fan of Israel: for example I think they need to immediately get all the settlers off the West Bank before there can be peace…”
Since they are not getting all the settlers off the West Bank immediately, he is saying that Israel is at least partly in the wrong.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
Of course, both sides can be wrong. But is it not better to deal with facts and look at the action and words of both sides?
Yes, both sides can be partly wrong. and yes, one side can be more wrong than the other, but that doesn’t make the less-wrong side the good guys. We are talking about two sides who backup their stances with their religions. Their all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful gods say that they are right, the other guys are wrong, etc.
“We are talking about two sides who backup their stances with their religions.”.
Really? Israel is a secular democracy. I don’t recall the Israeli government justifying its existence because of it’s religion, either.
It is the Palestinians constantly drawing on Islamic scripture to justify its actions and positions.
So, any secular Palestinian refugee who proves he is not a terrorist or fundamentalist can move back to the village of his family? And the law is the same for people belonging to any religion?
There are three quarters of a million Palestinians living as citizens in Israel, grandfathered in. Can you really blame Israel for not allowing modern Palestinians to become full citizens? They have a democracy, you know. It would be suicide.
“Can you really blame Israel for not allowing modern Palestinians to become full citizens? They have a democracy, you know. It would be suicide.”
I am failing to see how such a patently racist attitude is in any way better than the most reprehensible forms of anti-Semitism.
It’s not a question of race. After 1948 the Arabs who remained outside Israel were in the nature of “enemy aliens” and of course were not allowed free access to Israel. Even so, thousands of Palestinians have Israeli work permits and are allowed into the country. About 20% of Israelis are Arabs and have equal rights before the law.
Jesus, Sarah, they’re called the “Occupied Territories” for a reason. Israel is on Palestinian land.
They are not “occupied” in the legal sense, actually. They are “disputed territory”. An “occupation” applies only to a country that was previously a sovereign state.
Freemasons, no less! But there are a lot of people out there who really believe this stuff!
Clearly Al-Hayat Al-Jadida is a member of the Illuminati, and probably the freemasons as well. They’re *that* devious.
Mike.
Indeed. Truly disgraceful.
Who knew Steve Jackson games could predict the future? They are modern day Tarot cards.
BTW, I agree with you on Israel, there are extremists on either sides that are preventing a peace.
To stir the pot a bit, is this /islamic/ lunacy or paranoia lunacy? If it were solely islamic then I’d expect it to be purely about jews and idolators, but instead we’re hearing about historical revisionism and freemasony, and the illuminati no less (who were accused of seeking to ‘destroy all religions’). You can find practically the same statements from non-muslim western conspiracy theorists.
So is it a related to the culture/society of islam, or the culture/society of paranoia/conspiracy theory? Is islam always going to degenerate into sectarianism (well, probably yes, like many religions), or is this a case of conspiracy theory-thinking affecting islam (and again we see the same sort of thing in the west, in those instances we recognize that it’s conspiracy thinking to blame, not, say, the Methodists or somesuch).
It’s Islamic lunacy, more specifically, lifted straight from the The Protocols. Replete with Napoleon reference, and the new additions of the Illuminati, etc. It is promulgated by ancient prejudices, steeped in the same antisemitic crap in their holy texts. Pure tribal crap, with religion as the thread that binds it all together. Power plays. It’s how you shore up your base.
Wow, that is some crazy rant! Hard to imagine that anyone really believes any of this — what are Illuminati game cards even supposed to be?
BUT, some nuance is important here:
– Note that the header indicates that this is an op-ed, which would suggest it is NOT an official statement of any sort; plenty of newspapers publish op-eds they disagree with.
– It is important to distinguish between people and their leaders (or really, anyone who claims to act on their behalf). The fact that there are some truly reprehensible Palestinian leaders does not mean that the Palestinian people are not oppressed, nor that they do not deserve any sympathy.
I think there are two points to remember here: no Arab country has a free press. Any editorial or what we would call an “op ed” has to meet somebody’s requirements. As for:
“The fact that there are some truly reprehensible Palestinian leaders does not mean that the Palestinian people are not oppressed”
There is always the assumption that they are being oppressed by Israel, but what is the responsibility of their leadership? Aren’t they oppressed by the corruption, belligerence, and intransigence of their leaders?
Lebanon? And by the way, Israel does not have a free press either.
Illuminati game cards are what the name suggests: cards used in a game called “Illuminati”, made by Steve Jackson Games. Oddly enough, it was a satire of conspiracy theories.
I am going home tonight and see if the Boy Scouts still control the Orbital Mind Control Lasers or if the Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow got them back. As everyone knows, EGBT have a +4 to control the Lasers.
John, pulling Illuminati card game references out of his icehole.
That’s “Boy Sprouts”.
It is not hard to feed the fans of antisemitism when the lines have become blurred between legitimate political criticism of Israel and just plain anti-Semitic, racist hatred of Jews and Israel. While Israel has demonstrated many issues that need examining relating to peace and the Palestinians, the country overall embodies the framework of a democratic nation that is trying to change within democratic means but the flaws of Israel, just leave the door open for the most heinous vilification by many intelligent and normally sane non-Jews and self loathing Jews who want to make Israel and Jews the scapegoat for everything. I would be the first person who would want to topple Netenyahu and his band of right wing renegades . They show no respect or urge for peace with the Palestinian People or women or Jewish religious factions other than the Orthodox. In Israel , change happens through the ballot box , not like the rest of the other countries in that part of the world. There are many political parties and people who try for constructive change in Israel where human rights is the ultimate objective. In surrounding countries , the human rights are an obstacle to Islam and Sharia Law . This is also why the destruction of democracies and Israel are a priority for groups like the Hezbolah and Hamas.
+1
“Feed the fans”? Let’s feed them a banana and we can have a metaphor smoothie.
I cannot comment on whether I agree or disagree with you on your points as I digest what you say, but I really must insist on reminding yourself and others that Arabic people are Semitic people also. You just cannot get around that fact. Best regards.
Not only semitic but some of them have Jewish ancestors which is shown by genetic studies. I just do not understand the relevance of it. What matters is surely culture, upbringing, fervently believed religious beliefs, cohesion with the own family or tribe or perceived nationality, and not genes.
Sure, just my reaction to the idea they are ‘anti Semitic’ as claimed in what I read. ‘Genetic studies’ showing’Jewish ancestry is a funny one, not sure what you mean or which study on whom, but the claim is an odd one if you are referring to the Jewish population of Israel, which was largely an immigrant population from Europe/Russia, and you are claiming cultural values. I do know that Jewish immigrants from countries do at times complain of discrimination from ‘European’ Jews, but this is just a fact of life in any country.
The term “antisemitic” has a specific meaning – it was coined to mean bias against Jewish people.
I’ll go with you on that, and would add much, much overused and abused politically
When the term was coined, it was meant to be a cleaned-up, politically correct way of saying “Jew hatred”. It never referred to other Semitic peoples, but now we’re stuck with it.
Pls refer to my ‘much overused and abused politically’ comment and please get off this irrelevant anti semitic argument. What is more relevant is your anti-Arab/Palestinian slant, isn’t it?
I’m sorry you can’t take a lexical note for what it is.
Grow up please, personal attacks are silly. Sorry, your time’s up with me, thanks, find another.
yepiratehere,
I have no interest in joining your conversation with Sarah, but telling her to “grow up” and “personal attacks are silly” in response to her comments to you seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I am not inclined to support either your arguments or hers, but I feel it is only fair to point out that your comments to her have not been any less rude or confrontational than hers. Not that I have a problem with people being rude to each other when arguing, but I do think it sucks when people accuse others of behavior that they are engaging in themselves.
Apologize for the slur, yepirate, or you’re gone.
Your next post will be an apology to Sarah for telling her to grow up.
In fact, you’re the one who needs that advice.
Get it?
I’ll just note that on this thread several commenters, including the commenter Sarah, have engaged in throwing personal insults. One of the Sarah’s replies up the thread reads –in its entirety– “It sounds as though you need to READ some history!”.
Somehow, the topic of Israel vs Palestine seems to attract a rather more vigorous portion of the commentariat.
I am surprised that you found my remark rude. It was the best advice I could give to someone who evidently knew nothing about the history of Israel and its neighbours.
@Sarah: To me, it appears that there are different credible schools of historians (in Israel itself) who subscribe to the interpretations that go against your views (as articulated in this thread). In light of that fact, it does seem rude to me that you would suggest that anyone subscribing to an interpretation different from yours knows “nothing about the history of Israel and its neighbours”.
As I said, the vitriol seems to flow at unusually high levels in posts about Israel and Palestine, and both “sides” seem to be equal contributors to it.
Often you can tell where commenters get their information. They perhaps read Ilan Pappe or Shlomo Sands or versions of them. Such sources are worse than no sources at all, as they are discredited as history. It’s not that a commenter disagrees with me, it’s that he is arguing from very faulty premises, and is it painfully obvious.
” It’s not that a commenter disagrees with me, it’s that he is arguing from very faulty premises, and is it painfully obvious.”
That’s precisely the point that is not “painfully obvious” to me. It seems that both Pappe and Benny Morris have the same interpretation of the facts: that there was an “ethnic cleansing”. They don’t seem to belong to a school of history that is “discredited” as you unilaterally claim, but one that seems to enjoy a reasonable level of popularity in Israeli academia.
Yet, while you are ready to call Pappe a charlatan, you don’t seem to be ready (I apologize if you are) to denounce Benny Morris “ideological” view that the ethnic cleansing was “justified”. I ask this non rhetorically: is that just because one of these guys has an ideologically that is opposed to yours, but the other doesn’t? It doesn’t seem to me that this can be about an academic disagreement on the interpretation of the relevant historical facts, since as I pointed out above, both Pappe and Morris have largely the same interpretation: they just seem to differ on their ideology.
Also, I checked the link you cited in support of your claim that Pappe has stated that history is all about distorting facts to suit an ideology. I quote the statement in its entirety and in context. To me, it seems that Pappe is making a general observation about attitudes in Israel and Palestine rather than admitting what you claim he does,
As the quote makes its very clear, Pappe is honest about his ideology and about the influence it can have on his interpretations: he just seems to be implying that others are not being as honest about it as him.
I will say again that I am a neutral here. But it does seem to me that a lot of “facts” about various people are being thrown about here without as much as a shred of evidence. Almost every claim that has been made on this thread that I have bothered to check seems to have been exaggerated beyond recognition before presentation.
There is plenty of evidence. Morris says he parted company with Pappe several years ago.I didn’t say that school of history was entirely discredited, just Pappe. I recommend Alan Dershowitz, “The Case for Israel”. He goes into some of these arguments in a more detailed form than anyone can on a thread like this.
Absolutely disgusting I agree. But…
In terms of the alleged double standard, I think most people expect Israel to behave better because it is in charge and it is an ally. Israel is certainly capable of doing better and those of us who support Israel want to see it live up to its democratic principles. I can understand (but not excuse by any means!) how an oppressed, despairing population can lash out irrationally and violently. Expecting better from Israel (or the US, for that matter) is simply wishing that they live up to their potential as lawful societies.
“I think most people expect Israel to behave better because it is in charge […]”
Bingo. A double-standard can be reasonable when you’re dealing with asymmetry in power and resources. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.
I think Jerry is way off base suggesting that Palestinian atrocities are ignored. However, do we and should we expect the Israelis to behave better than the Palestinians? Well, yeah. We should expect members of affluent, well-educated, and politically independent societies to behave better than members of impoverished, poorly-educated, and subjugated societies. Pretending we can or should expect identical outcomes in societal behavior regardless of asymmetries in socioeconomic conditions is empirically absurd. We know societies don’t work like that.
I disagree. When the Indians mounted their “Quit India” campaign against the British, they were poor, less educated, and subjugated. But they did it without terrorism, and with great dignity, restraint, and conviction. So your claim that the “underclass” can’t behave well is certainly untrue.
“So your claim that the “underclass” can’t behave well is certainly untrue.”
I made no such claim.
As for India–yes, they got rid of the British through non-violent means. Good for them. Does that one example invalidate a huge body of empirical evidence showing violence and all kinds of societal dysfunction are associated with poverty and poor education? Nope.
Jerry, there is one major difference between Palestine and India (or Palestine and South Africa). In the cases of India and South Africa, the colonial and apartheid regimes wanted to exploit the land *and* its people. Israel wants them to leave or somehow cease to exist. Ben Gurion made this very clear. What does the repeated claims that there never were Palestinians mean?
You also seem to forget that peaceful resistance in Palestine has existed for almost a century. It seems that there was no resistance in the occupied territories from 1967 until 1987 when the first intifada started. This is not true, there were all sorts of peaceful resistance movements in the occupied territories but they were crushed and completely ignored in Israel and the west. Check out Bilin for more recent struggles. Again, received with violence, contempt and silence.
That reasoning doesn’t hold up too well when there are clear examples from history that counter it. I think there are many other variables at play.
Averages are not invalidated by the existence of variance.
That may be true, but two things. 1) You need to show that what you claim is average. 2) You need to show that what you claim is the dominant factor in that average sample.
I don’t have any inclination to reinvent that particular wheel, thanks.
So you are fine with just so stories, even with all the examples of how they are usually later found to be hopelessly simplistic or just flat out wrong? Human behavior and relations make biology look easy.
So far as I can tell, that rates of violence vary substantially across socioeconomic and political conditions is not exactly a “just so story” at this point.
What, exactly, would your alternative be? Idiography?
All fine and well, except this is not “the” official bulletin at all. That is a figment of imagination. It is ONE journal officially sanctioned by the Palestinian Authority, and clearly should be struck off the list immediately.
Other than that this article is shameful propaganda. When you mention the West Bank you might mention East Jerusalem and forced evictions, and you might also mention the joint Israeli/Palestinian efforts to stop official house demolition and evictions from homes legally purchased under UN mandate in the 1950s.
Your characterisation of west-hating Arabs is just lack of knowledge and innocence on the subject matter. I can honestly say that is just untrue.
I’m not sure what you mean about this article being shameful propaganda. Do you mean that reprinting the article, which is meant for a Palestinian audience but seems idiotic to outsiders, is in itself “propaganda”? Is there something wrong with wanting to know what the domestic discourse is in the Arabic-speaking press?
Do you really think this article is meant for a ‘Palestinian audience?’ I could show you things about Hitler, who was not Palestinian, that are much more shocking inn mainstream Indian press. Did I say ‘article’ when I said ‘propaganda?’ Do you really consider your last question relevant and honest? Of course not. That was not ‘Arabic-speaking press’. That was a bulletin from a journal not much different than a blog that the PLA leadership, in efforts to agree to freedom of speech & the press okayed, like they did to half a dozen so-called mouthpieces. Was the title of the blog not propaganda? Was the pretty horrible and totally unfounded claim of ‘west hating Arabs’ normal? I can honestly say it is simply not true in the slightest. Are your questions honest and well-founded?
Do you think an Arabic-language newspaper published in Ramallah was meant for some other audience than Palestinians?
It is a bulletin. It is targeted for a specific political grouping. Have you read some of the ‘right wing’ journals circled by the settlers? I have. Look, I don’t mind that you have an agenda at all, but I find your lack of regional knowledge limits discourse. You do get nowhere firing emotional questions, thanks.
Here is an example of mainstream policy. You can agree with the policy of course, and I would not condemn you for it, but please collect all data you can, and not just filtered ‘news’. I have no agenda whatsoever. But I do not live in USA, so do have a more balanced access to events, and have worked extensively in the Middle East. PS, Arabs are Semitic people also, and proud of being so, which is just a fact with no agenda either. http://managuagunntoday.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/how-israel-practices-racism-and-ethnic-cleansing-as-policy/
There are indeed unpleasant fanatics taking over the asylum. I would favour a one state solution with no religious element permitted to have political representation but with all citizens treated equally.
Did you see that the Gaza marathon was cancelled because the authorities did not want women taking part?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/gaza-marathon-cancelled-hamas-bans-women
PS Hitler is well known for having attempted to cultivate relations with Arab nationalists eg (forgive me for using a Daily Mail article!)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268278/Hitler-blame-Islamic-extremism-Fuehrers-Arab-world-destroy-Jews-inspired-fanaticism-says-book.html
The Gaza marathon, huh? I heard the fastest runner last time was an Israeli entrant wearing a t-shirt saying “This land is my land…” I think they are still chasing him.
Lunacy yes. If we are looking for a root cause of Islamic lunacy, and wish to account for the fact that Israelis often seem less lunatic, I suggest the fact that Jewish and Christian lunacy and intolerance were simply worn down by long exposure to enlightenment values. In other words exposure to non-religion. The Islamic societies must have been isolated from the ameliorating influence and thus preserve more of the cultural diseases of our ancestors.
I can hardly believe what I read there. Your blog is an island of sanity in a sea of madness and I read every single post.
But this?
I’m not understanding your question. Is the subject of craziness in the P.A. off limits?
No – my comment refers to a one sided view being promulgated. The PA never misses an opportunity to shoot itself up the arse, that’s for sure.
I live in the Middle East and I travel extensively in the area. I know how Arabs think (as much as any man from Scotland can) and I have a respect for their views.
On the other hand I’ve always been pro-Jewish. The treatment of the Jewish nation has been persistent and in-depth. They comport themselves with great dignity in the face of slurs and attacks that seem to rise again and again as each generation of non-Jews appears.
But the Nakba and the Palestinian situation does them no favour.
Peace can only come from peace, hatred can only spawn hatred.
To see the Jews somehow ‘represented’ by the Government of Israel is a distortion of what the Jewish nation is.
And to return to my post – the blog is an amazing forum for debate (I’m an atheist so I tend to agree with most of what’s said) – but to see a post so lopsided appals me,
And no, the PA is not off limits at all. Let’s debate it but lets draw back and look at the bigger picture.
Thanks for giving me the space to explain my post.
“..let’s draw back and look at the bigger picture.”
What can this mean, in practical terms?
Is it similar to “Let’s stand so far from the car that we can’t see that the lugnuts are missing, then jump in and drive..”-type of thinking?
IMO, the “big picture” approach is appropriate for children and juveniles, that’s why we overlook transgressions like cheating, stealing from stores, blaming others through lies for immature homo sapiens. We know that children act child-like, so we hope they see the errors of their ways, and we cut them slack, and don’t just march them off to prison for fifteen years, when they steal a candy bar, or even if we find that they’ve stolen a full wardrobe of clothes over several months. No, we consider “the big picture”.
I can see where this “foregiveness” can be taken to extremes, as in the case of young Saddam Hussein, future Iraqi dictator. He was caught transgressing in school, shamed before his peers, so he went home, got a pistol, and shot dead his teacher. His father admonished him, but nothing more happened to him. It’s a cultural ‘thang’.
But to transfer this type of viewpoint, to continually, year after year, “draw back and look at the bigger picture..” is to ignore the fact that these PA writers are adult human beings, in a position of power, and playing extremely, extremely loose with the truth..better known as destructive fabrication; willful prevarication. To even for a moment consider the aspects of actions of Harun al-Rashid, from over a thousand years ago, to be pertinent of A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G in our modern political world, may as well…well, I’m going to stop fulminating. This is a cultural issue being passed down, generation to generation,and in my opinion, is a disgrace to the human race. In my opinion.
Interesting. To me ‘looking at the bigger picture’ is to frame the situation in a much longer time-frame than just the past 70 years.
And it’s looking at the actions of the British and French governments that carved the region up.
Israel is an established country now and its not leaving. That’s a fact. But its how it resolves the issues with the PA that will be remembered in the long run.
It’s an incredibly complex matter – made worse by Iran and its proxies.
The problem is that both Nakba and Palestinian situation is of their own doing (or rather their Arab and Palestinian leaders). If not the war launched against the new established Israel, there would be no Nakba. If Arab leaders agreed to 1947 division of land, there would be a Palestinian state celebrating 65th anniversary. If Arab countries treated Palestinian refugees like human being and not like weapon against Israel, there would be no Palestinian refugees, in the same manner as there are no Jewish refugees from Arab countries in Israel – they have been absorbed and allowed normal life. There are so many ifs… And if the rest of the world started to treat Palestinian like responsible human beings and demand that they agree to the existence of the Jewish state and sign peace agreement, there could be peace.
Why should the Arabs have rolled over when faced with a European solution to what Britain saw as a ‘Jewish Problem’? They saw themselves as freedom fighters much the same as the Stern Gang.
To cut this short, my stance is this
Jews are the smartest people on the planet, no contest.
They have a lot of residual goodwill in the West.
That goodwill is being eroded and the Jewish Nation needs to come up with a long term solution that promotes their image in the eyes of the world. The current actions of the Israeli government are reinforcing anti-semitic views across the world and the goodwill is draining out.
You say ‘if this or that happened there could be peace’. If all the Jews returned to Europe and Russia there could be peace – but that cannot happen, we are where we are.
Peace can only come from compassion. Hatred will only breed hatred.
Lets hope the doves will prevail.
.
«Jews are the smartest people on the planet»
This is racism, even if you think you are being positive with it.
Well I never thought I’d be accused of that.
I made that deliberately as a throwaway line – in the light that they are intelligent and thoughtful people and if anyone can find a solution to the problem, it’s them.
Racism is, in my book, the denigration of a race. Calling people ‘the smartest people on the planet’ is praise where I come from.
I agree, jumeirajames. “Racism” is about denigrating a group of people. Admiration for a group of people comes from an entirely different place. Racism can, and often does, result in inferior housing and education, in hatred, and in murder, among other very negative things. It is foolish to confuse the two attitudes.
And, without evidence, the Jews ARE the smartest people on the planet.
And that’s coming from a dyed in the wool atheist.
From the very beginning (the speach by Ben Gurion) Israel did everything possible to make peace with its neighbours. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to achieve peace when the side you want peace with only wants your demise. And why do you ommit all those Jews who were refugees from Arab and Islamic countries and who today with their descendants are well over half of Jewish population of Israel? Where should they return? To Egypt, Irak, Syria, Libia etc. all busy with eradicating their Christian minority? Finding excuses for Arab countries (many of them still do not recognize Israel and of those who do, they do not allow “normalization” with Israel) and for Palestinians does nothing for the prospect of peace. On the contrary.
The current Israeli government has an agenda that takes no account of Palestinian sensitivities. America bows its knee – not to the Jews but to right-wing Christians.
If that were not so then there would either be no Israel or at least the Israeli government would be forced to compromise.
I am not an apologist for Arab countries or the actions of their people. I find many of the things associated with extreme Islamism repulsive. I lived in Iraq in support of the coalition forces. I’m as right wing as they come.
But I cannot condone the actions of the current Israeli government nor the extremism of some Israeli groups.
Hatred breeds hatred – look at the relationship of England to Ireland. 500 years of conflict, and its not over by any means.
The idea that if one side just accepts the reality of the other is simplistic and niaive.
And if I may make one other point, gathered from my travels in the Middle East and my dealings with Arabs of many countries. The Palestinians are not well regarded in other Arab countries. They’re seen as an issue and Arab countries support them cautiously and hold them at arms length.
The position of a Palestinian is an invidious one.
Bu for me, they are human beings driven to the very edge of despair. Treating them like untermench can only come to grief for all involved.
I respect your views but they are one-dimensional.
The situation of Palestinians is horrible. They are kept in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria etc. deprived of their right and called “refugees” now when the third generation is born on the same soil. Even in the West Bank and Gaza there are still refugee camps! When Israel came into Gaza 1967 and wanted to build normal hom,es and relocate those people, even U.N. was against. Why? As I said, they are not seen as human beings by their Arab brethren but as cannon fodder in the fight against Israel. How come there are no refugee camps in Israel? How come Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights as all other citizens? Israel proposed peace many times. Israel was willing for far reaching compromises, inclusive the division of Jerusalem. This was rejected. Since many years Israel is not building new settlements (yesterday Israeli soldiers destroyed 6 illegal – enlight Israeli law – so called Jewish outpost and evicted their inhabitants. You probably didn’t know about it.) Those settlements that exist were understood to be incorporated into Israel in the future peace agreement with some compensation in land from the Israel proper. There are documents stating that Palestinian side was preliminarily willing to agree. So what horrible crimes does Israel commit? What more would you like them to do without commiting suicide?
i live in the Middle east and the press here is full of Palestine and what is going on there. The press is surprisingly even handed.
The PA seems incapable of negotiation on their own behalf. I don’t know what the answer is but I like to see balance in blogs about the situation.
“Jews are the smartest people on the planet, no contest.”
How did you reach that conclusion? Any peer reviewed articles supporting it?
What is the evolutionary basis for their overabundance of intelligence?
Well, apparently Jews have won in excess of 20% of 830+ Nobel Prizes, according to Wiki. At a guess that must have something to do with intelligence.
Its nota scientific arguement – but look at the Jewish domination of arts and sciences. That’s firepower
“Why should the Arabs have rolled over when faced with a European solution to what Britain saw as a ‘Jewish Problem’? ”
I love how they are all “Arabs” when that suits the argument, but Palestinians are not Arabs when it suits a different argument!
Why should the Arabs not “roll over” as you so objectively phrased it? How about because they got a hell of a better deal than the Jews? How about because they got a hell of a better deal than in 1948 than they got in previous decades? How about because they got 95% of the land?
How about because the Palestinian Arabs in the territory to become Israel got their own special country, just for themselves, where no Jews were allowed to relocate which was at least ten times larger than Israel, and was called Trans-Jordan?
How about because the Jews deserved a homeland – the whole civilized world thought, after the Holocaust? How about they not “roll over” just to show the world that they were not consumed with antisemitism but were willing to accept Jews as neighbors and Jews a having a right to their own nation, as legitimate as the nine or so Islamic nations in the area?
“Roll over” indeed!
The whole civilised world thought the Jews deserved a homeland after the Holocaust. That flies in the face of British imposed limitations on immigration into Palestine. Consider the case of The Exodus and the almost 200 other recorded instances of vessels being turned back, boarded and even sunk.
On the other hand you may mean that Britain was not civilised.
Agree with this comment – not pro Jewish myself though pro-brother-in-law and he’s Jewish. I think Palestinians incredibly misrepresented. Am Scottish too but hope that was not why I agreed!
Thanks for that – I’m getting heavy incoming from others
Well they are being totally unfair. Your comment was valid and sincere.
I had no idea the Third Reich was politically invested in restoring the Caliphate. Ya learn something new every day.
I’m not going to accuse PMW of making the story up but I note that a Google search on keywords ‘Op-ed by Hassan Ouda Abu Zaher’ return links to pro-Israel sites, the American right-wing site Newsmax, and your site.
Even Fox News Channel doesn’t seem to have found the story appealing.
As for the “official bulletin of the Palestinian Authority” a subsequent Google search suggests that means The Palestinian Gazette. A third search revealed nothing new of relevance using keywords ‘palestinian gazette Hassan Ouda Abu Zaher’.
I suggest that each of us should “be careful” when evaluating poorly documented claims.
It is unlikely that pro-Palestinian sites would want to publicise this lunacy, so of course you will probably find it on pro-Israel sites, if anywhere. It is not really a “story” to be picked up by news services. It is more like a humdrum normal opinion piece containing nothing all that new but expressing a concentration of clichés. It will seem bizarre only if you haven’t seen any other examples of the Arab media.
I agree that it is a bit of humdrum hyped by anti-Islamics.
I’m a bit puzzled what this has to do with ‘why evolution is true’ but, then again, Jerry regularly features cute cat videos and ‘guess what my cowboy boots are made of
‘ articles so anything is fair game.
As I always say, if you want to read only evolution stuff, there are plenty of other websites you can go to. I don’t take kindly to people telling me what I should write about, or that I should concentrate on just one thing.
I’m not telling you what to do. It’s your site. I was simply expressing puzzlement at what I’ve been seeing in my emails from you.
I apologize for not making that more clear.
Your post has stimulated some good debates on the situation.
The people replying to my note have been fair and had good points to make. There is real debate here.
I did the same thing as you. The PMW doesn’t provide a link to the article but I was able to find it
http://www.alhayat-j.com/newsite/details.php?opt=1&id=200170&cid=2890
Google translate did a very poor job but some of the words are the same. The page has the guy’s email so I asked him directly. Let’s see if he answers me and I will post it here.
So Hasan answered me. I am copying my question and his reply here.
I do not know Arabic and google translate doesn’t cut it but his reply seems very reasonable to me. If he is simply saying one thing in Arabic and another in English, I do not know.
My email:
Hello Hassan, I hope it is possible to ask you a few questions. I am a Brazilian who has for a long time had utmost admiriation and respect for Palestinians and your struggle against Zionism. This morning I was arguing with someone and he said that Palestinians were crazy – the usual bullshit propaganda we hear from Zionists.
The guy then sent me this link that supposedly is a translation to an article you wrote recently:
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8684
Unfortunately, I don’t know Arabic and since I know that this organization frequently lies and twists what is actually said in Arabic I would like to confirm what you actually wrote.
(1) Do you believe that there was a conspiracy to blame Muslims or Al Qaeda in particular for the 9/11 attacks?
(2) What is your take on Nazism and Hitler.
Thank you very much for your time.
=============================
His reply:
Dear paulo
thanks a lot for your message, i am so glad that there is somebody out border who is not politician and yet he has some interest in Palestinian issues. first off all we have the common base that the image of Palestinian people is drown by twisting propaganda. for your first question, i am sure that AL Qaeda is the one to blame for killing innocent people in such a barbaric way. my question is about if they are the main act or they are just a bad tool. for your second question. at the time that we suffer from others (whose Zionists because our problem not with Jewish), and we suffer specially from racism, those kind off act that exactly Hitler and Nazism act not only on Jewish, but even for every body that is not German. Hitler is a criminal for me, but why should i pay for his act on Jewish.
the core issue off this article that i believe that Hitler and AL Qaeda are both criminal, but i am sure that they are not the only criminals. the one who has the absolute power can hide his crime with very good twisted propaganda. we as human being are allowed to see the selected aspect of truth that the man with power want us to see.
Of course it is, just like the US is expected not to crash hijacked commercial planes into suspected terrorists’ buildings, or to use suicide bombers against civilians. Israel is supposed to be a beacon of democracy, rule of law, and Western values in a sea of Middle Eastern chaos — that is one of the primary justifications for US support of it. If it cedes those values, if it becomes only as good as the often-insane Palestinian “government”, then it is ceding what supposedly makes it special. It then isno longer a bastion of hope for a more rational, open, and egalitarian society, but instead becomes just one more local tribal conflict.
Upholding the values of democracy, law, and restraint are hard.
Just how long, hypothetically speaking, should the United States suffer bus bombings, rocket attacks, suicide bombings and universal elementary school propaganda campaigns from members of an aggrieved Native American reservation who denied the right of America to exist?
How many American citizens would need to be killed to justify a military operation – which could well involve collateral killings – be launched?
And if this same enclave insisted that they would never stop making these attacks until the United States gave full possession of its lands to them, how long would it be reasonable to expect the U.S. to uphold “the values of democracy, law, and restraint”? A week?
Because this has been going on in Israel for more than sixty years. I think your expectations of that shining city on a hill are a tad unrealistic.
I don’t think a discussion on the US’s historical treatment of Native Americans would add a positive note to this debate!
However more relevant to the post I liked the bit: “lies about the corrupt [Caliph] Harun Al-Rashid, which ignore the sources indicating that he dedicated one year to pilgrimage [to Mecca] and one year to Jihad (i.e., he was a good Muslim)”
Sort of like “good” christian kings who made it to Jerusalem slaughtering the local populace on the way, or were known for their piety while massacring the latest band of heretics.
How long has Israel been supporting its armed outposts all over the West Bank?
As Jerry said, they need to get out immediately. Of course there’s no peace, and no prospect of it while they keep up the occupation.
If the Native Americans had fought back harder and longer with more modern weapons, would the US genocide have been more complete or more justified? Is that your argument? Curious.
Well said
Every time I see a post about Israeli / Arab relations I know what’s coming and for the life of me, I can’t understand how anyone can support the PLO, HAMAS, Hezbollah or nearly any Islamic organization. The stated goals of these organizations are genocide of the Jewish population and the conversion of, or death to all non-Jewish people. There is neither latitude, nor a negotiable position possible. To give in to their demands may seem to be an expedient and a civilized gesture, but it’s not, because no matter what you concede, they are not going to change their position and that is what has to happen before you can have peace.
To concede would be utterly irresponsible; it’s the equivalent of giving up a community to gang because they’re violent instead of countering the gang activity.
There is something deeply troubling that a quasi-governmental “authority” should produce something as foolish as this. What planet are these guys living on? Talk about conspiracy theories! If this was deliberately issued in order to inform Obama’s visit to the region, they really do need someone to manage advice regarding press relations and image!
I am largely with you so far as your opening remarks go, though I think the “two-state” solution was never a realistic idea. Am I completely wrong in suggesting that at the time of the birth of Israel, Palestine was part of Jordan, which should have been able to absorb the dispossessed Palestinian population without much trouble? The idea seems to have been that Israel would be shortlived, and the Jews pushed into the sea. No wonder they regard Hitler with so much approval.
There is no likelihood that Israel will give up the settlements on the West Bank. This may be regrettable and censurable, but I do not think there is a chance that this will happen, for religious as well as strategic reasons. The Golan Heights and the West Bank were the two points which made Israel militarily undefendable. It would be suicide to give up the West Bank. The ’67 war made this clear. There is simply no way to provide defence in depth in the narrow strip of central Israel as originally constituted, so the country could be divided in one determined thrust to the coast. Not a chance that it will be given up. There’s got to be another way. Had Israel been left in peace, the West Bank would have been Palestinian territory still. Now that it is in Israeli hands, they cannot let it go. The belief, still held, that Israel must go, is the reason that the West Bank settlements have been actively encouraged by Israel. It’s simply a strategic necessity.
But surely, at the very least, this bulletin should cause readers who tend to idealise Palestine and denigrate Israel to rethink their commitments.
Palestine was never part of Jordan which did not exist at the time. The British Mandate for Palestine covered a large part of the former Ottoman Empire. It covered two parts – Palestine and Transjordania. They were governed separately with the latter having some measure of self autonomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transjordan
British Mandate encompassed the territory of today’s Jordan, Israel, West Bank and Gaza. Britain cut the part which became Transjordan more or less singlehandedly and gave it to its client, Hashemide, creating for him a new country which nevere existed previously. Jews were not allowed to settle there. The rest, on the other side of Jordan river, was for the Jews. However, Britain put strict limitations on Jewish immigration and no limitation on Arab immigration. The majority of inhabitants of Jordan are Palestinians. The rest are Beduins.
the British for perfectly understandable reasons under both the War Time National Government and the subsequent Attlee Administration took strenuous steps to deal with the Aliyah Bet.
Wasn’t the West Bank occupied by Jordan from the end of the Israeli War of independence until the 1967 war?
That was my understanding.
The problem I have with that sort of argument is that, now, rather than having to defend a thin country against an attack down the center, the Israelis have to defend dozens upon dozens of settlements all through the West Bank against a restive population, and the potential of any foreign invasion, not to mention defending Jerusalem. And, even so, is adding a hundred miles of angry militants really the same thing as a buffer zone? And if an army could punch through Israeli territory, could it not punch through the West Bank as well?
I don’t idealize Palestine, certainly, but I don’t think that this cold war mentality about the needs of Israel really match the current situation on the ground. Letting the Palestinians have their own state doesn’t suddenly mean they have main battle tanks, and air force, or atomic weapons like Israel has. And as it stands now, I think controlling the West Bank probably compromises Israeli military strength a lot more than it aides it.
Nevertheless, the West Bank, whether hampered by a restive population or not, allows for defence in depth for a land war. Israel won’t give this up.
And I’m just saying, its not really that much depth, when you think about it, given modern planes, rockets and artillery. Not to mention ships and subs.
And anyway, they just replace defending Tel’Aviv with defending Jerusalem, and give any invading army a huge, huge 5th column to work with.
FWIW, I agree with you Jerry. The only solution is the Two State solution. And for that to happen there needs to be a complete cessation of settler building works, if not a drawback to pre ’67 borders, a partition, or joint rule of Jerusalem and some attempt to deal with compensation issues arising from the 1948 war. The Palestinian State would however need to be a viable sovereign entity and not two Bantustans. Land would need to be given up by Israel to create a corridor between the West Bank and Gaza.
No one except the USA has the clout to bring this about. I see no indication that Obama will take meaningful action. The last President who even tried was George Bush in ’82 or thereabouts who attempted to exert some pressure by withholding $10 billion of guarantees pending cessation of further incursions into the West Bank. In ’84 he is considered to have lost 25% of the Jewish vote on account of his actions notwithstanding that the guarantees were restored.
Do you mean Reagan?
Sorry, wrong dates. I meant ’91 / ’92. Bush senior.
1. As an atheist, I’m fundamentally opposed to a Jewish state. Or an Islamic state. Or a Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, or Scientologist state. Or an Atheist state.
2. I’m still not convinced that a country-sized gated community for Jews is the best way for them to deal with the world.
3. I AM pretty convinced that shoe-horning the new Jewish state into the middle of lands the Palestinians had lived in for millenia was a lousy idea. (and don’t bother pointing out the hypocrisy of an American saying this – I know.)
However, at this point in history I think we all need to accept this situation as a fait accompli and try to support level-headed people on both sides in arriving at a peaceful and fair solution.
You seem to think that “Jewish” means religious. It doesn’t. There is a nation of Jews and they should have the same right to their state as the nation of Frenchmen, Russian, Germans, Poles etc. Proportionally there are more atheists in Israel than in U.S.
“The Law of Return is legislation enacted by Israel in 1950, that gives all Jews, persons of Jewish ancestry, and spouses of Jews the right to immigrate to and settle in Israel and obtain citizenship, and obliges the Israeli government to facilitate their immigration. Originally, the law applied to Jews only, until a 1970 amendment stated that the rights “are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew”.”
(From Wikipedia)
Granted, there is nothing in this that would require Jerry Coyne to renounce his atheism if he wished to become a citizen of Israel. But saying that he should have a special right to a patch of land that has been mostly inhabited by the Palestinians for the last 2000 years (yes, I know there have also been Jews there all that time) is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. Especially since the Torah and other ancient hoo-haw is usually invoked as the “evidence” of that special right.
2000 years ago, my ancestors occupied lands that are now part of Germany. Should I have the right to go there today and kick out the current residents?
If you understand that then why would you think that this . . .
. . . is a valid criticism?
I do think it was a bad idea though, or at the very least very poorly executed, since the Palestinians’ ancestors took part in driving the Jews out of the area and have maintained a cultural and religious based hatred of Jews even to current times. Best of intentions to succor a brutalized people, and perhaps atone for past neglect or worse, but a somewhat less than successful outcome. So far at least.
You do understand that Palestinians are SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED from ever becoming Israeli citizens, don’t you?
…and BTW, it was the Roman Empire that forced the Jewish Diaspora
There were many local peoples in service / liege with the Romans that took part in fighting against the jews before, during and after the actual sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Current evidence indicates that the local peoples from that time period are ancestors of the modern Palestinian people, and indeed of the modern Jewish people as well. As in most regions in ancient times, hell even modern times, different groups within any given region often had conflicts, often very violent ones.
Well, only you can really know what you meant, but what does that have to do with your poor reasoning in your number 3? You even indicated that you know exactly why it is poor reasoning, since you stated it very clearly later on.
Poor reasoning is not in evidence, in the comment you reference. Jews and Palestinians have lived there simultaneously, not exclusively. Get it?
I could not have stated it any more clearly. That is actually what I said, and in fact what he later said.
Do you get it now?
You do realise that even after the diaspora caused by the Romans, most of the region was heavily populated with Jews and many of them eventually converted to Christianity and later on to Islam?
To a point, I have to agree. There is an old joke about a driver being lost, asking a local how to get to a certain place and being told, “well, I wouldn’t start from here”.
The middle east is like that. Pretty much where ever you want to go, here would not be the best starting point. Unfortunately, “here” is where we are and where we have to start from.
Where do we go and how do we get there? Shit, If I actually knew the answer to that I’d get a Nobel prize. Unfortunately, I’m not in the running for any prizes.
Israel is often condemned for being Jewish, but the same people say about the 50+ countries that are Muslim. Why is that?
I don’t quite get your point. I’m not against a country that happens to be majority this or that. I’m against countries that promote one religion over others.
Well, actually I’m against countries that promote religion, period.
Well, they all favour Islam over anything else and in some Jews have been completely expelled and Christians are persecuted. The only place in the Middle East where Christians, Jews and Muslims can live with equal rights is Israel!
I don’t think it is entirely true that Israel has no preferential treatment based on religion. As Wikipedia notes:
“For example, some individuals who would be considered Jewish under halakha are excluded from the rights under the Law of Return – e.g. those who converted to another religion;”
which seems to suggest that conversion to a different religion would reduce the right to Israeli citizenship of a person.
Of course, it does seem believable that Israel probably allows more religious freedom than some of the other middle eastern countries.
I think you are confusing two things here. Israel is constituted as a “Jewish state”, but other religions are not suppressed or persecuted, as in surrounding countries, and have complete freedom. Israel contains many mosques and churches, to say nothing of the HQ of the Baha’i Faith–welcomed in Israel when the Baha’is were thrown out of Iran.
Your claim appeared to be that people have “equal rights” in Israel irrespective of their religions. As I pointed out, this is not entirely true. As I also said, it does seem clear though that Israel has a better record at religious equality than some of its neighbors. I don’t see the point of disagreement.
A noteworthy intermediate status separate from “non-discriminatory nation” and “discriminatory nation” would be “nation that is non-discriminatory to citizens, but discriminatory with respect to immigration and naturalization.”
In general, it’s better to ask “how free is nation X,” rather than “is nation X free.” The answer to the latter question will always be “no” by a plausible but unreasonable standard.
Sorry,moarscienceplz, that should read “…but the same people say nothing about the 50+ countries that are Muslim.” My mistake.
The validity of the Palestinian cause is different from the absurdities of the Palestinian leadership, and their powerlessness leads to even more absurd behavior especially in light of the clear validity of their basic claims.
An educated and enlightened Palestinian colleague once told me that peace will never be achieved in the Levant as long as Israel’s illegal settlements are in place and expanding. No justice, no peace. Rational educated Palestinians know that the battle is fixed and have moved on, so the leadership tends to be selected to represent the irrational, emotional and reactionary segment of the Palestinian society.
The democracy in Israel gives their actions a veneer of legitimacy yet they continue to ignore international dictates. Nobody should say this gives license to killing civilians, it doesn’t. Both sides are wrong but in different ways.
Calling all disagreement with Israeli policy antisemitism is too simplistic. While antisemitism certainly exists, so does anti-Palestinian prejudice.
For many years no illegal settlements were on West Bank and Gaza (unless you are talking about illegal occupation of West Bank by Jordan and illegal occupation of Gaza by Egypt). Nobody was talking about building a peaceful Palestinian state on those territories. Everybody was talking about “pushing Jews into the sea”. So how come, suddenly the only problem are settlements?
Like the Palestinians who were pushed “to the desert” out of what became Israel? There was no problem then? It is absurd. What is it you want?
But you are correct, the problem didn’t start in 1967. It didn’t even start in 1948. A better year would be 1917 with the Balfour declaration. The incredible thing is that today many Palestinians would accept a state in the 1967 borders with some sort of deal for the refugees. They would give up Palestine for a 22% share and you still complain! What more can you want? Collective suicide? It is unbelievable!
It started much earlier than 1917. It was going on through centuries. When Jews tried to return, depending on who was in power, they were allowed to stay, and a few years later a new ruler kicked them out or murdered. This was a place where different armies fought and always tried to remove Jews from their land. When modern Zionism, a reaction to unbearable condition for Jews in Europe and in Arab countries, was born, some inhabitants of this Ottoman province welcomed it. But, unfortunately, the supporters of (in later years) Hitler collaborator, Grand Mufti Hajj Mohammad Amin Al-Husseini, who thought that Jews could exist only as dhimmi, as stated in Koran, won the day. There were riots, massacres (of Jews by Arabs – I have to add this because you seem to know very little of the history of this place except what you read in anti-Israeli propaganda). Later came WWII which Husseini spent in Berlin, discussing the building of death camps for Jews in Palestine with the German experts and building Islamic SS in Europe. 1948 five Arab armies invaded Israel (with volunteers from two additional states). 1967 all rulers of countries neighbouring Israel promised them a bloodbad, Nasser expelled U.N. peacekeepers and Arab armies were amassed at the borders. Israel would never survive this new onslought if not for preventive, surprising strike, virtually hours before Arab armies were to attack. Yes, Sovjet Union accused Israel for agression. No decent person in the whole world agreed. Palestinians had plenty of opportunities to live normal lives in their own country, carved out from Jewish portion of Palestinian Mandate. The bulk, about 80%, was already carved out by British for Jordan with its Palestinian majority. Nobody pushed Israeli Arabs into the desert. The land was a desert and Israel made it bloom. It is not Israel’s fault that PA and Hamas prefers to spent money on weapon and salaries to murderers (the more Jews you murdered the higher salary) instead of development. I do not have a hope in hell to convince you – you seem to be too deeply indoctrinated with the hatred towards Israel, but just so that somebody who really does not know history would not be misled by your totaly untrue picture of reality.
“When Jews tried to return”? Would these be 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation or probably longer of those who left (and probably intermarried etc with the locals in whatever region they ended up in). The right to return implied in this would equally illogically apply to American-Irish, Argentinian-Welsh and Australian-Scots.
American-Irish, Agentinian-Welsh and Australian-Scotts, even if sometimes subject to prejudices, were never hounded like Jews, there were no pogroms of them, mass expulsions from a country, mass murders and no Holocaust. All this was the lot of Jews in many countries. So, yes, through the centuries they were trying to return to the only land they could call their own. And they did.Since the time anybody bothered to count population (1850) Jews were in majority in Jerusalem.
Roman expulsion was year 132. But historical accounts tell about massacres of Jews in Jerusalem by every new conqueror, be it Arab army, Crusaders, Turks etc. So who were those Jews they slaughtered if Jews were not there for millenia and have no right to the country?
BTW many countries, have “right to return” for descendants of their citizens (among others, my country, Poland). Somehow nobody is incensed about it, most people don’t even know or care. Only Israel is chosen to be castigated for it.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine started in 1947 as is well documented. Any Arab army engaged only after may 1948 when ethnic cleansing was well under way. And more, these Arab armies with very few exceptions (lone commanders) never entered the Israeli side of the partition. That’s not me saying, ask Ilan Pappe or Benny Morris.
As for terrorism.
First letter bomb in the middle east: Zionists
First car bomb in the middle east: Zionists
First market bomb in the middle east: Zionists
Hell, some Zionists were so fond of terrorism that when trying to hot the British they sunk a ship full of Jewish immigrants.
Now you come with the desert blooming crap??? Let me tell you. This shows how ignorant you are. Palestine is not a desert. There is a desert the Naqab (Negev). It is still a desert today producing very little. In the rest of Palestine, every agricultural land was used and Palestine was known for its agricultural produce.
I won’t waist my time with you any longer. This is embarassing. I could write a shell script that spewed better propaganda.
The fact that you quote Ilan Pappe explains a lot! He is really not a reputable historian. He has said frankly that history is all about falsifying the evidence if that’s what it takes to advance your program! There was no “ethnic cleansing of Palestine”. He is really a disgrace to the profession of historiography. Benny Morris is at least honest and has retracted some of his earlier statements as more documents have become available.
” He has said frankly that history is all about falsifying the evidence if that’s what it takes to advance your program!”
Citation needed.
“Benny Morris is at least honest and has retracted some of his earlier statements as more documents have become available.”
I don’t have a “god in the fight”, as someone quipped on this blog a few months ago, but on the question of Benny Morris, Wikipedia notes that “Early in 2002, the most famous of the new historians, Benny Morris, publicly reversed some of his personal political positions, though he has not withdrawn any of his historical writings.” It further goes on to describe a seemingly significant school of Israeli “New Historians” who largely seem to agree with the historical accuracy of the claims that Paulo above made in his comment, based on declassified papers from the 1940s. I then fail to see how Paulo’s criticism is nullified on the grounds of your personal view of one of the historians in that school.
It is not a personal opinion. Pappe is simply a dishonest “historian”. Even Benny Morris says of him:
“Pappe regarded history through the prism of contemporary politics and consciously wrote history with an eye to serving political ends. My own view was that while historians, as citizens, had political views and aims, their scholarly task was to try to arrive at the truth about a historical event or process, to illuminate the past as objectively and accurately as possible.”
That comes from an article in the New Republic: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/politics-other-means-0#
It is a mystery to me why the University of Exeter employs him.
If you agree with Pappe’s ideology, perhaps you won’t mind his distortions. For anyone interested in the most objective history possible, he will seem a charlatan. He says of his style of history writing: “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.” It’s all about story-telling, never mind whether it’s true or not!
You can find the whole interview at http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/$99-11-29loos-pappe-interview.htm
Again, I was looking for a citation for your claim that Pappe has claimed that “history is all about falsifying the evidence if that’s what it takes to advance your program”. I am aware of Benny Morris’s opinions on Pappe: but that opinion has no bearing on whether or not Pappe has claimed that he supports rewriting history to serve political ends.
On the other hand, as you are no doubt aware, Benny Morris has also stated that what happened in the Middle East in the late 1940s did amount to ethnic cleansing. He even goes so far as to suggest that he thought it was “justified”*. As far as I can see, no one has condemned this reprehensible statement on this thread, and no one is asking for Benny Morris to be removed for his job for holding that opinion. I wonder why you think then that Pappe deserves a harsher punishment: is it just because his opinions differ from yours?
*Here is the quote, from Wikipedia:
He probably should have defined what he meant by “ethnic cleansing”. This peer review of a book by Pappe may be informative: http://www.meforum.org/1886/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine
22% of what? Do you mean the Mandate area or modern Israel or what? There have been numerous peace proposals and the Palestinians have rejected them all on principle. They have frequently said they won’t compromise.
Could you please clarify what / who this statement is in response to?
Darrelle, to wit:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-visits-israel/msnbc-host-alex-wagner-fear-of-anti-semitism-charge-inhibits-robust-discussion-about-israel.premium-1.509790
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if you meant the OP and following discussion here, or what. Yes, it still seems to be as much as your political / journalistic (at least in the major US news outlets) life is worth to level any serious criticisms of Israel. It is hard to make progress on such a difficult problem if you disallow consideration of the realities of the situation.
Hmmm.. they seem to have enough power to go into voting booths in large numbers and pull levers.
What evidence is there that the viewpoint of the majority of Palestinians does not match that of those in who came from their ranks and ran for office?
For that matter, what evidence is there that the viewpoints of the Palestinian leadership are not shared by the majority of citizens of any Mideast country?
Without disputing your larger point, I think you’re over-interpreting a bit.
I’m inclined to agree — not out of any admiration for Hitler, but out of a cynical recognition that history is written by the victors, and that whole societies may suck up to the powerful without much caring how that power was acquired.
The personal details about Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler are obviously an attempt to favor the latter, but it’s a feeble attempt. The virtues claimed for Hitler are minor virtues at best. One might as well praise Jeffrey Dahmer for flossing after every meal. (Granted, in Muslim societies the use or abuse of alcohol is regarded with more abhorrence than in the well lubricated West.)
The remarks about 9/11 are of course preposterous nonsense. Still, there must be better examples of Islamic lunacy.
I have a sneaking suspicion the Palestinians would not be too happy with the treatment they would have received in a Nazi-dominated world.
The hateful tirade penned by Hassan Ouda Abu Zaher, esq., conspicuously omits to blame cyclists.
Jews, of course; Zionists, of course; Freemasons, of course; alcoholics, of course; infidels, of course. But why not the cyclists?
Every seriously venomous harangue that abides by the rules of the IHSC (International Hate Speech Convention) must include anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, anti-Masonism, and anti-Cyclism. The latter is absent.
What’s going on here?
Forgetfulness? Running over the word count? Closet pro-cyclism?
Be careful in giving Hitler too much latitude; after all, as Dawkins has discovered, he was a Christian. If, as everyone had previously thought, he was an Atheist, he might more reasonably have been embraced.
Hitler (in the words of those close to him) was a devout Catholic.
My “agenda” and “emotional questions” are in the eye of the beholder. Try not to read your own interpretations into my words.
As you only ever seem to comment on ‘Israel’ threads, who could know what agenda you have?
I don’t comment on threads where I don’t have anything to say because others are better informed than I. Is “agenda” the same as “knowledge”?
Like sending troops in to…no wait, that was half a dozen other places. Like guaranteeing their borders? Oops, no, I must be thinking of something else. Like responding to a cry for help? No, there hasn’t been one. American aid, such as it is, is earmarked for expenditure in the US and amounts to about 1.5% of Israel’s GDP. Israel is not dependent on the US, fortunately.
My apologies, everyone. These two posts are in response to quiscalus back in the thread under #2.
Two comments:
1. The clear rejoinder would be “Avigdor Lieberman”.
2. The double standard you describe does exist in some circles. It’s balanced, however, by a contrary double standard in other circles, in which any disagreement with Bibi, no matter how wimpily expressed, is taken as evidence of antisemitism. And it seems to me as if the second double standard is the one currently closest to a position of power in the U.S. Maybe you just read too many liberal publications.
Israel has an anarchically free press!
Most of the osama bin laden press releases were falsified. The same is true of palestinian ones.
Another thing to remember is that the palestinians had an election and voted for someone else to be in charge, but those great lovers of democracy, us and israel, weren’y having it and installed someone else instead.
Yes of course, all religions are evil. But the palestinians are legitimate resistance just as the french during WW2 and the ANC during apartheid.
I’m not sure where you get this, Eddie. Falsified press releases, puppet governments, resistance on the models of the ANC and the French maquis! I miss a reference to alien abductions and sightings of Elvis.
Of course, Eddie’s claim that Osama Bin Laden releases were faked is patently ridiculous.
On the other hand, if you go up the thread, Paulo seems to have posted a response that he received from the author of the article which is the subject of the post above. The basic premise of all the criticism of the author above seem to be that (a) he is an anti-Semite and (b) he is glorifying Al Qaeda and Hitler. In the email posted by Paulo, the author seems to make it very clear that (a) he is not an anti-Semite and (b) he considers both Al Qaeda and Hitler “criminal”.
Thus, at least in this case, all the kerfuffle can be pinned down to a misunderstanding of the author’s intentions, and to reading a bit too much between the lines. We may criticize the author of the article for being a bad writer (or perhaps the translator for being a bad translator), but surely the claim that he is an anti-Semite and/or ad sympathizer of Al Qaeda/Hitler is, shall we say, a bit devoid of factual grounding.
Perhaps the world would be a much more peaceful place if we actually asked people whet they believed rather than assuming for ourselves what they believe.
Admiration for Hitler is abundant in Islamic world. “Mein Kampf” is a bestseller. (Together with “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”) The spiritual leader of Sunni Muslims (and Muslim Brotherhood), Yousef Qaradhavi said: this about Hitler
Tarik Ramadan, seen as the most liberal Muslim in the West, says shyly that he disagrees with some things Qaradhavi says, but the Sheik is a great thinker and a moderate Muslim.
video about Quaradhavi here.
Young Dutchmen from Muslim families have said this about Hitler and Holocaust.
Ask an antisemite if he is an anstisemite and the answer is typically “no”. Ask him if he dislikes the Jews, and the answer is either straightforward “yes” or “no, only Zionists” (since a Zionist is a person who thinks that Jews are entitled to their own country there is not much difference).
Video about Dutch Muslims here.
If some Dutch Muslims hold reprehensible views about Hitler, that is not the fault of the author of the above article, is it?
This sounds weird. So if someone in Israel says that they want Israel to be a secular nation which gives no special considerations to anyone based on religious or ethnic ancestry, they are to be dubbed anti-Semitic?
Re: Mein Kampf. It is also a best seller in India. And yet, India is one of the few countries in the world that has never had any anti-Semitism (though Jews have lived in India at least since the first century CE). Again, the popularity of Mein Kampf is not the fault of the author of the article, is it?
I am sorry to say this, but several comments on this thread read like a “Gish gallop“. Whenever one claim has been disproved, or shown to stand on shaky ground, commenters just jump to something completely different rather than admitting that they might have made a mistake.
By the way, I should add that if your answer to the question is “YES”, then by your definition, almost all of the Israeli people I know (and I do know a few) are “anti-Semites”. In that case, this is clearly a new definition of “anti-Semitic” we are dealing with here.
It seems to me that he has written something in Arabic for a Palestinian readership. He praises Hitler, he trots out clichés about Jews, it goes down well with the intended audience. Then it is translated and a Brazilian asks him if he really meant to say those things. What do you think the author would say in reply? Perhaps he knows how these sentiments sound to outsiders.
As I said, isn’t it sometimes better to just ask the author rather than persist in believing what we think the author must believe?
The passages quoted in the post above are rather unclear. The author never clearly praises Hitler apart from saying that he was a teetotaller. One has to read between the lines–and use a healthy dose of imagination–to conclude that he is a secret admirer of the genocides perpetrated by Hitler. Given that, I am much more inclined to take the author on his clarification on what he intended to say than a biased outsider’s reading of what he wanted to say.
That is the whole point of saying one thing in Arabic and something else in English. It is not a new custom. Yassir Arafat refined it to an art form.
Well, he didn’t seem to be saying anything else in Arabic. The PMW translation (which, I hope, you would agree can be trusted to not sweeten the author’s intentions) does not include any explicit claims by the author that he liked Hitler: he just seems to be bringing him up as a sort of “paragon of evil” to criticize another leader (Winston Churchill, in this case). Now, clearly, “argumentum ad Hitler” is not the most logical of arguments, but surely using that is a far lesser sin than actually being a supporter of Nazi policies? I find it hard to understand why one would be so willing to put into the mouth of the author things he seems to have said neither in Arabic nor in English: indeed, things he explicitly denies he believes.
Have you ever heard of taqiyya? This may be of some help: http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm
Yes, I have. I have also heard of the Irgun. The fact that Irgun,–or the idea of Zionist terrorism–existed, or exists, in no way implies that all Israel supporters are terrorists, or that they believe that bloodshed is justified.
Similarly, that the notion of Taqiyya exists does not in any way imply that the author must have been lying, especially when all other evidence is to the contrary.
I will repeat it again: this thread, and the arguments that people have been putting up, are as close to a Gish Gallop as they can be. When someone presents evidence against a claim that another commenter has made, the standard strategy being followed here seems to be to just quote something completely out of context (like “Taqiyya”: where did that come from? Have you presented any other evidence, using the translation above or the author’s response, that he was lying? How do you think it is justified to just assume that he must be lying?) rather than deal with the issue at hand.
Do you know how long ago the Irgun was disbanded? I think taqiyya is very relevant in this thread.
sub
Like evolution I look at differential mortality. If I tell you the kill ratio over naturally defined phases of the conflict range from 3 to 1 to 10 to 1, is it sufficient for you to identify who they advantage or would you call that a double standard?
Definitely double standards. You are not comparing ratio of killed in other conflicts (many more civillian casualties in proportion to fighters than what IDF gets), or ratio of killed soldiers in other conflicts between sides (compare f.e. with IIWW – attacking Allies had much smaller casualty count than Germans). Moreover you are not taking into account that one side is trying to save as many people as possible, while the other says that they love death more than life and is not trying to shield its civillians, on the contrary, is using them as human shield.
Where do you get the idea that the excerpt you quoted was part of an “official bulletin issued yesterday by the Palestinian Authority”? The PMW website you link to gives their source as an “op-ed printed in the official PA daily”, an op-ed not by the PA but by an individual person.
And as interestingly crackpot as the Freemason theory is, the breathlessly indignant accusations against the op-ed writer are pretty laughable themselves. Neither is there “anti-American hate speech” nor can it be credibly asserted that the op-ed writer said “Hitler was greater than Churchill” nor that he “asserts that negative attitudes toward Nazism are not objective but the result of the West’s victory”. The writer points to hipocrisy in the West and the tendency towards hagiography on the part of the victors of any war, and specifically the ones that were fought in the Middle East, or perhaps those fought in/against Muslim countries. No Nazi hero worship either.
Simply repeating the knee-jerk interpretations of a single partisan group isn’t exactly conducive to more reasonable dialogue about this issue. And more reasonable dialogue is something I suppose we can agree on we could use more of.
For those confused at the Illuminati card game reference, it has particular usage in 911 conspiracy-theory circles. Below are two cards that conspiracy theorists claim show the Twin Towers and the Pentagon being attacked on 911. Implying that the whole thing was planned by an evil cabal, who also made a card game out of it years before the attacks.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_basraNod1Ms/TADZkC9XXNI/AAAAAAAABgg/k4DPZ5WDi20/s1600/illuminati+cards.jpg
Here’s another item of relevant interest, I just came across it and the coincidence of themes was too good to ignore.
Here we have King Abdullah of Jordan explaining that the Muslim Brotherhood is really just a “Masonic Cult”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/world/middleeast/king-abdullah-of-jordan-has-criticism-for-all-concerned.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
There is definitely a double standard. I think one reason it started is because for a while, the US news media were pretty one-sided in their coverage. The appeal of an underdog story is another reason.
And then of course there’s the human tendency, amplified in America, to reduce issues to right and wrong, black and white.
It’s refreshing to see someone give justified critiques of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas without making the leap to “therefore, they shouldn’t have a state”.
Yes, Palestinian Muslims behave badly. So do Israeli Jews. And it’s been going on since before the birth of Israel.
How about a history lesson. 1947, the Massacre of Deir Yassin. Familiar with it?
I’m rather sure you don’t have clue. You were too young to know the roots of this bloody atrocity, but if there was ever a first-cause to the cycle of bloodshed, this is probably it:
254 Arabs are killed. The dead include 25 pregnant women, 52 children (who are decapitated) and babies. Many bodies are mutilated, some before death.
150 women and girls who survive are stripped and placed in open cars. They are driven naked through the streets of the Jewish section of Jerusalem, where onlookers cheer.
In the following days, Israeli-terrorist forces use loudspeakers to warn Arabs to leave their villages or suffer the fate of Deir Yassin.
Menachem Begin (leader of Irgun (a terrorist organization responsible for the King David Hotel bombing) and later Prime Minister of Israel) describes what happened:
“the Arabs fought tenaciously in defense of their homes, their women and their children.”
and justifies the action:
“The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state without the victory of Deir Yassin.”
Arnold Toynbee (the UK historian) describes it as “comparable to crimes committed against the Jews by the Nazis.”
That was the FIRST atrocity. Started by the Jewish terrorists who were later white-washed for their crimes against humanity.
In short, Jerry, there is far fucking more to the story than you know. And there no clean hands in Apartheid Israel. And acting like only one side is to blame…
Fudge that.
This is pure propaganda, not facts. Facts are that Irgun attacked the village Deir Yassin, warning first the leaders to evacuate their women and children. They didn’t. There was a many hours long battle and many women and children were killed. The number is not known but there are estimates of about 110. Nobody was raped or beheaded. This was a Arab ploy to get population into fighting mood. Hassam Nusseibeh, a Palestinian said (there is video of it somewhere) on the BBC many years later: “[Khalidi said ‘We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine'”. Later he added: “This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassinm Palestinians fled in terror”.
You ommit the information that the whole Jewish comminity was horrified at Irguns action and the leaders of this community denounced it in strongest words.
You also write that this was the first massacre. I do not intend to start bidding over the artocities, but just to remind you that Hebron massacre took place 1929, a bit earlier and it was not just an isolated event.
And a general reflection: It is so depressing that this 65 year old lie is still repeated in spite of being debunked time and again, even from Palestinian sources. I wonder how long the lie about the “massacre in Jenin” will live, the lie about Israelis killing Mohammad Al-Dura or little Omar Misharawi (he was killed by Hamas rocket which fell short – but he was a poster victim of Israeli barbarism during the operation The Pillar of Defense. Not every media outlet which published this heart wrenching photo of a dead baby corrected it). In 50 years time somebody will be repeating those lies again…
Wait, how exactly are you equating the massacre allegations about Jenin (exposed as lies by both Israeli and Palestine sources) with the massacare at Deir Yassin which seems to have been accepted as truth by both parties?
As I said before, much of the argument on this thread (by both sides) is reminiscent of Gish Galloping: make spectacularly exaggerated claims an insinuations and jump to something else when you are found out.
Oh dear! A “history lesson” now! And such an arrogant tone to go with the misinformation! The two things do not make a flattering impression.
Food for thought….
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/22/1189193/-Israel-Palestine-News-You-Will-Be-Our-Slaves-Egypt-Floods-Tunnels-Stanley-Fisher-NeoLiberalism
and
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/17/1194779/-Hebron-Abandon-all-hope-ye-who-enter-here
Since the days of the book and the film Exodus, we in the US have been fed a very one-sided view. It is time for the other side to be heard, and I don’t think any nonsense being written by either side erases or lessens what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING between Israel and the Palestinians.
So Jerry’s question, “Do you really want to be on the side of a regime that sees Hitler as a hero?” can be answered with any number of questions about being “on the side of” Israel when an individual says the kind of things you see on the first video of the first link I provided. It is a prejudiced question in my view and while it provoked an interesting and informative comments section, I am uncomfortable with it being raised in that way because it makes me feel that any sympathies that I express for the plight of the Palestinians means that I support that one single Hitler nonsense opinion.
The horrid ridiculous things written here don’t surprise me. I lost my illusion that American liberals are fair minded about Jews many years ago. I’ve heard and read too many antisemitic statements by liberals who bend over backwards to make sure they never offend other groups. Many supposedly intelligent liberals actually subscribe to conspiracy theories in which “the Jews” (it’s rarely said, “Jews”) control the banks or some secret government or something else that controls the world. If you knew how ignorant and bigoted you sounded, you’d be disgusted by yourselves.
Israel is trying to survive in a hostile environment. It does most things with great restraint, especially concerning Palestinians. Sometimes it makes mistakes and sometimes its policies are wrong just like every other country on the planet. If anybody believes that a Palestinian state or any other country in the middle east would continue to try to live peacefully and continue to negotiate with a group of Jews who consistently and continuously committed terrorist atrocities within its borders, you are living in a world you’ve created with your own delusions.
Go ahead. Attack me. Call me names.
+ 1
1- you are ignoring how Israel was created in the first place.
2- I get tired of the old anti-semitism chestnut that gets offered whenever someone holds the actions of the government of Israel’s feet to the fire.
3- Watch the video I offered above (the first video on the first link) and tell me that there is not an underlying religious arrogance being played out on the part of many (not all, but enough) Israelis in Israel and in the Jewish Lobby in the US. Or read The Israel Lobby by Walt and Mearsheimer.
4. If you really spend time looking at the system that Irael has created in Paletine and don’t see its immorality, then spend more time at it!
5. Why would anyone bother to attack you or call you names? You beat them to it by calling anyone who doesn’t see your view delusional.
-2
Not everybody disagrees with you.
There is no excuse for this kind of lunatic nonsense. The author of this piece deserves to be fully condemned for writing it.
I would like to know who the author is, what organizations he may belong to, and who in the West Bank takes the guy seriously. Is he some fringe Imam? Is he involved with the Palestinian Authority? Or is he someone popular with a following? Does anyone know?
This article is an op-ed. This means we can’t fairly say it represents the opinion of the editorial staff of this newspaper, or of the Palestinian Authority.
I’m not apologizing for the piece, which is absurd lunacy. I’m just saying we need to look at the attribution, and look at the context when we decide what the significance of this is. We have no basis for assuming this is the opinion of all or even the majority of Palestinians.
I’m unable to find out who the author is. A google of his name brings up lots of press in the West trumpeting how awful the Palestinians are because of this piece. I would like to see if there are translations into English of any rebuttals or criticisms of this piece.
Even though junk like this exists, it is in no way justification or excuse for the military occupation of the West Bank by Israel. Only one side is militarily occupying the other side’s territory in this conflict.
Actually, up the thread, commenter Paulo seems to have posted what seems to be a response he received from the author. In the posted response, the author explicitly says that he considers both Hitler and Al Qaeda to be “criminal”. Given that, I think much of the horribleness of the piece can be put down to bad writing (or bad translation).
Why bother ? This Isn’t a real discussion, it looks like a machine gun shooting in every direction. When I contacted the author, I was really expecting some sort of reaction. But you were the only one who even mentioned it.
Perhaps the author said one thing in Arabic and another in English, I can’t guarantee it. Neither can they. This is a complete waste of time and, at least two people in this thread are spewing out lies, half truths with a tiny bit of facts to muddy the waters and prevent real discussion.
If you give up in frustration, the propagandizers win. The whole occupation is a war of attrition designed to slowly squeeze out the native population while counting on being able to wear out any international resistance or criticism. They hope some day the world will forget that land was not given to Israel. Don’t let the distortions wear you out.
If you watch the video link I posted, you will see how the Jewish settler arguing with the Arab land owners about who actually owns the land, and how the Arabs will be the slaves of the Jews when the Messiah comes, you will see what you just posted acted out in real life. The Jewish settler might just as well have been singing “This land is mine, God gave this land to me.”
Good summary.
I agree. I am a neutral, and it seems clear that the point here, at least for some of the commenters (there seem to be a few on both sides) is not to have a discussion but to just present, as you said, opinions with a veneer of fact, and to discount any evidence presented that does not agree with their preconceptions.
I love this “veneer of fact”! If you can’t deal with it, it’s a “veneer”!
As I said, I don’t have a “god in the fight”, and I can deal with any real facts on this issue without bias, thank you.
Yet, what I see above is exaggerated claims from both sides (some of moseszd’s claims above from “Palestinian side”, and your and Malgorzata’s claims from the “Israel side”) and a resolute steadfastness on both sides (especially in comments by you) to ignore all evidence presented to the contrary, to “Gish Gallop” to some more exaggerated claims, and to never admit that you might have made a mistake. I bring up as an example your comment about Taqiyya above to insinuate that that author of the post must have been lying—presumably just because he is Muslim—even when all evidence points to the contrary. I also bring up your inexplicable claim that everything Pappe says about history ought to be discredited, even though it is quite clear from the quotes presented above that both Pappe and Benny Morris have the same interpretation of history: they just seem to differ on whether or not the “ethnic cleansing” of the 1940s was “justified”.
I am sorry, but I have had enough of this “debate”. As Paulo points above, the standard of “debate” here (often on both sides) seems to be akin to a hit-and-run (and hope that the “opponent” didn’t catch your opinions dressed up as facts) strategy followed in middle school debates: the objective seems to be to win some debating brownie points rather to have any real discussion.
No, not at all. Much of the evidence you speak of is not factual. In this area more than most you need to understand the context of the situation (e.g. why taqiyya might be relevant) and the wider work of the “experts” (i.e. why Walt and Mearsheimer are not trustworthy, why Pappe is a polemicist rather than a hostorian). You take too much at face value.
Well, whenever I have tried to fact check any of the supposedly “factual” information provided by you, it has turned out to be a rather exaggerated version of the truth, and often seems to be the completely reversed of the truth. For example, you just stayed silent when I pointed out that original sources suggest that Benny Morris and Pappe broadly agree on their interpretation of what actually happened: they just seem to differ on whether it was justified, with Morris maintaining the view—in my opinion is a rather reprehensible view smacking of all the things that are wrong with anti-Semitism—that the “ethnic cleansing” that happened was “justified”.
As for taqiyya: yes it miight be relevant, but when both the translation (by a source which clearly has no chance of being biased towards the author) and the author seem to be clear that they are not supporting Hitler, then I wonder why you would keep persisting with the claim that it is relevant. Perhaps you yourself need to consider your biases too in deciding what is trustworthy and what is not.
I have found similar problems of exaggeration with some of the comments on the other side, and as a neutral, that just suggests to me what I said above: most of the most invested commentors are not here for a discussion at all. They seem to be here just to garner rhetorical brownie points, while discounting any information that might happen to challenge their preconceptions.
“Well, whenever I have tried to fact check any of the supposedly “factual” information provided by you, it has turned out to be a rather exaggerated version of the truth, and often seems to be the completely reversed of the truth.”
And you have access to absolute truth? You have a touchstone…like Walt and Mearsheimer, perhaps? You might read Morris’ very detailed “1948” to get a better idea of what he has said. Seriously, this is an excellent book.
“And you have access to absolute truth? You have a touchstone”
Do you?
When all the neutral sources available on the internet, especially on such a contentious topic as this, disagree with a given exaggerated-looking version of the “facts”, my tentative position is that the neural sources are correct, and the person with the exaggerated version has at least a slight bias towards one side.
But you can’t know whether they are “neutral”, can you, unless you have a good deal more information than you seem to?
Well, for one thing, many of my sources were cited on Wikipedia: which, rather surprisingly to some, can be the most neutral of venues when dealing with specially contentious issues due to a constant policing of important articles by “both sides”.
On the other hand, how do you know your sources have the truth? As far as I can recall, you haven’t produced a single source apart from Morris claiming that Pappe is a “charlatan” or a single source showing that “taqiyya” is relevant to the issue at hand (apart from your own unsubstantiated assertions)?
Do you really find it hard to see why a neutral (like me) would be really reluctant to believe anything posted on this this issue when it comes from certain commentors (of which there seem to be some on both sides)?
Please don’t take it otherwise: I am not saying you (or moseszd from the “other side”) are not reliable. I am just saying that it is abundantly clear to a neutral that you have biases, and that your comments reflect them liberally. Of course, there is clearly nothing unnatural in having biases: I am sure there are other issues on which I can imagine myself appearing as biased (or probably more biased) than you are on this issue. After all, as I am sure you would agree, having a bias is just a natural human reaction to an issue to which one is emotionally attached.
I’m sure that bad writing and translation enter into it. It seemed fairly clear that he was using Hitler as an example to illustrate a thesis about how the victors write history, and that ideology determines how we interpret history. But the claims that had Hitler won, the world would be clamoring to honor Nazism, or that Hitler’s discipline as early riser and teetotal make him more virtuous than Churchill or Roosevelt, are vile and absurd respectively. The illuminati and Freemason stuff also indicates we are dealing with a very distorted view. While there isn’t explicit antisemitic language, the idea that victory could somehow wash clean the horror of murdering 6 million Jews is a chilling and sickening idea.
Regardless of how one views this particular op-Ed piece, to me the important point is that the American press is very aggressive about smearing Palestinians as a whole using guilt by association. Many Americans have the view that Hamas represents all Palestinians, and that all opposition to Israeli policies must be based on antisemitism.
The practice of amplifying negative signs from Palestinians while ignoring or suppressing positive signs from Palestinians is an active propaganda tactic, and it is disheartening to see how many Americans fall for it or engage in it. It seems as if all Palestinians must be perfect before any of them can be viewed as human and deserving of rights and dignity.
If there is a double standard that stands out in the American media, it is always portraying Israel as the good guys and Palestinians as the bad guys. If one points out facts and argues that good and bad exist on both sides of this conflict, one is labeled antisemitic and accused of giving the Palestinians a free pass on their bad deeds. The right wing is very committed to the view that Israel can do no wrong and that Palestinians can do no right.
+10
Thank you. I hope Jerry is still reading this thread.
» Jeff Johnson:
the claims … that Hitler’s discipline as early riser and teetotal make him more virtuous than Churchill or Roosevelt
I can’t see any such claim in the op-ed. Its writer uses this example to illustrate the white-washing and demonization, respectively, of winners and losers after a war. And the painting of Israel as generally having only the noblest of motives and any atrocities as isolated incidents or honest mistakes fits that picture pretty closely.
the idea that victory could somehow wash clean the horror of murdering 6 million Jews is a chilling and sickening idea
Again, who says this? Not the op-ed writer, as far as I can see. And sickening as the idea may be, for decades it was a distinct reality for the victors of WW2 with respect to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the indiscriminate carpet bombing of German cities (i.e. civilians). Until fairly recently, any criticism of those acts was considered beyond the pale. The same goes, or so the op-ed writer seems to be saying, for what Israel calls “retaliation”, which usually kills around ten times as many civilians as e.g. rocket attacks from Palestinian territories do.
He says this:
I don’t think this is true. To assume this would be the case in the event of a Nazi victory, is to assume the world would somehow forget about or not notice the murder of 6 million Jews in order to cravenly grovel to get on the winning side. That implication is disgusting and, in my opinion, not true. There are certainly many instances in history where military “victories” have resulted in the victors remaining reviled and hated vehemently.
Here is a fact about WWII that shouldn’t be forgotten: the motives of the Germans and the Japanese were nothing less than the total political and economic domination of entire continents. The response to that did not have a morally equivalent motive. It was to stop them at any cost and restore national sovereignty to those nations violated by the German and Japanese ambitions. If that unprovoked aggression had not been punished mercilessly, but rather rewarded in any way, it would have set a terrible precedent.
Let me just add, I’m with you about the double standard that amplifies the violence of Palestinians while minimizing or excusing the much more lethal Israeli violence.
It’s crazy to pretend that Israel is in danger of being wiped off the map. It is not. It has unchallenged military and economic hegemony in the region. The Palestinian rockets are frightening and occasionally lethal to a subset of Israelis. But they’ve killed only about 35 Israelis in total since 2002. Compared with Operation Cast Lead, which resulted in over a thousand Palestinian deaths in a few months, there is no fair comparison. But most Americans have no idea of this, and only think “rockets bad, Israeli retaliation good”. In terms of overall Israeli security of the nation as a whole, these rockets are only a nuisance, not an existential threat, and they also play right into the hands of Israeli leaders attempts to discount or discredit legitimate moves toward peace and cooperation by other Palestinians.
I’ve made this same point myself, and argued for a more balanced perspective in several threads on this site that delved into the issue.
My emphasis here is to downplay the importance of this particular article, whatever it says. It is an op-ed, not the opinion of the Palestinian Authority.
The double standard in American media always latches onto such examples and pretends it is representative of all or most Palestinians, when it is not. As examples of negative or ignorant excesses in Palestinian rhetoric or action are amplified, good examples are ignored or suppressed. The end result is that Americans have a very distorted view of the Palestinians and what their historical rights are.
Technically, Palestinians are a Semitic people (along with many Arabs), so calling them anti-Semitic is sort of contradictory.
This morning’s newpaper had a column by Cal Thomas, who is a totally flaky right wing pushy Christian writer who used the same supposed PLO op-ed to justify favoring Irael and the Jews over the Palestinian Arabs.
That puts Jerry in some really awful company.
Oh, for crying out loud. Do you think I reject my opinion if somebody unsavory shares it? And would you like to be in more “savory” company by endorsing the op-ed? Fine, go ahead.
What is your point, exactly?
Jerry- I have the utmost respect for you and your blog. One of your biggest strengths is digging deeply for the facts, doing due diligence with your research and presenting your points with clarity and reason.
When other commentors on here did their homework on the PLO op-ed, it seems that the facts surrounding it are murky at best. It is not a reliable piece of evidence to use in an arguement on taking sides between support for Israel or the Palestinians. It is the kind of shaky “evidence” that Cal Thomas tends to use for his diatribes. And since it caught my eye in this morning’s paper, I felt it was of interest to raise it.
Did you view the videos that I linked or the article that I linked? I personally feel that the argument between the Jewish settler and the Arab farmers is far more important and distressing than the silly op-ed. If you take the time to view it, or read the article on Hebron, I hope that you ask yourself a question similar to what you asked your readers to consider… do you really want to be on the side of Israel after seeing what is actually happening to the Palestinians?
I don’t think you are comparing like with like, Carl. A personal argument with whatever misguided claims is not the same as a newspaper piece meant for public consumption and approved by official authorities. (We should not imagine that anything appears in the Palestinian press without being officially sanctioned.)
Jerry- What I took from your column was that based upon this PLO propaganda piece (or whatever it is), any of us out here who are critical of Israel and/or stand up for the rights of the Palestinians are essentially on the side of Hitler admirers or anti-semitic. Whether you meant to come across that way, I don’t know.
Daily Kos often publishes those Israel-Palestine news reports. They are usually just a series of videotaped happenings and obviously meant to give some PR to the Palestinian view of what they are experiencing. Again, to me what is happening on the ground speaks louder than any op-eds or propaganda from either side. Since Israel has basically had control over what we see and read in the US through the very active and politically powerful Israel Lobby (read Mearsheimer and Walt’s book), I think it is time that people in the US see and hear things from a Palestinian view. Fundamentalist/radical Judaism is alive, well and powerful in Israel. And aligned with them are radical right Christians. They are just as dangerous as the radical Islamists. When Joe Biden last went to Israel and was snubbed, Bibi Netanyhu had spent the night before Joe arrived speaking at a CUFI dinner held in Israel with his Christian nutso buddy Pastor John Hagee. In fact, a community center built in one of the illegal settlements the occupied territories was named for Hagee. So if you are worried about religious fanaticism in Palestine, you have to address what is also happening in Israel.
I hope you will consider taking the time to explore these video and written reports (like the view from Hebron) and see why so many commenters are finally speaking up.
For anyone’s interest… CUFI… check out July convention speaker roster.
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer
Jerry wrote:
I disagree that the op-ed presented here is evidence that the Palestinians as a whole are unable or unwilling to make peace. At the same time I’m not interested in excusing the offenses of one side while criticizing the offenses of the other side. I make no excuses for the author, but I think it is important to move beyond merely cataloging grievances.
In a conflict, over time the defenders of either side stake out more and more extreme positions in order to amplify the differences and strengthen the justifications for their own team. This is conflict resolution 101, and stems from natural elements of human psychology. There is nothing surprising or unusual here.
What gets lost in this process is that neither side can look at all the facts objectively, prefering to focus on and emphasize the subset that justifies their case and confirms their biases while ignoring or unfairly discrediting anything that justifies the opponent’s case.
Conflict resolution requires that each side make an effort to see the other as human, and to put one’s self in the other’s shoes to hear and understand their reasons in the conflict.
There is no need to excuse Palestinian offenses or to excuse the Israeli offenses. Instead it is possible to look past the offenses to focus on both side’s justifications and rights, and keep in mind that both sides are human beings suffering needlessly who deserve peace and prosperity. This conflict is complicated and has very deep roots. Neither side is uniquely victim or transgressor.
Without implying any “moral equivalence” argument, without trying to measure relative degrees of offense or suffering, I assert the following as true of this conflict:
1. Both sides have valid claims.
2. Both sides have legitimate reasons for resenting the other side.
3. There is no objective formula that enables a clear determination of which side has the strongest case in its claims and justifications.
4. Both sides have engaged in propaganda against the other side, and both sides have engaged in violent attacks on the other side resulting in too many deaths, with greater and lesser degrees of provocation on both sides.
5. Most people with an opinoin on this matter do not step back and take a broad view. Instead they have a list of arguments they favor that are strongly tainted by emotional and cultural bias. Arguments of questionable validity have been passed around among the faithful of each side so often and for so long that they are accepted as truth. This effect only increases in magnitude the longer the conflict is prolonged.
6. It is easy to cherry pick facts about either side to make what appears to be a devastating case against them. Too many people do this on either side.
7. Neither side has a valid claim to all of the land that was designated “Palestine” under the British Mandate. There is no resolution possible without understanding and accepting this fact. Anybody who denies this is part of the problem. They are unwilling to accept any rights for the other side.
8. Both sides include millions of innocent good human beings, men, women, and children who suffer needlessly because this conflict continues decade after decade with no end in sight. All of these from both sides deserve respect for their historic rights, economic freedom, political self-determination, and the basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
9. There is no point continuing to enumerate grievances on both sides. Progress can only be made by ending that cycle and acknowledging that both sides have suffered more than they deserve to suffer. Continuing to argue over who has suffered the most will only prolong the suffering on both sides. It is time to wipe clean the slate that tallies competing grievances and move forward by focusing on what solutions are available.
Much of this seems reasonable enough, as far as it goes. One major snag is that Fatah has recently said that there is no difference between it and Hamas, which is a recognized terror organization. Both of these parties assert in their respective charters that they do not want peace with Israel. We may think they have similar rights and grievances and so forth, but the fact remains that, much as WE would like them to make peace, that is not a priority with the Palestinian side. As for your point 7, neither side is going to have all of the old British Mandate land, because Jordan already has most of it.
I’d be interested to see what sources you are using for the claims you make about Fatah and Hamas. This is contrary to everything I’ve seen that has been reported for over a decade. The PA has been active in cooperating with Israeli security forces, and has been encouraging non-violent resistance over intifada and terrorism. Fatah has done this at great political risk, because there is a great deal of popular resentment of Israel among Palestinians. Any person who honestly puts themselves in the shoes of a Palestinian can see why this anger exists. This political risk that Fatah has taken is exactly what Israel needs to acknowledge and reward in some dramatic and tangible way. Anyone who wants peace should welcome every opportunity to elevate the prestige of Fatah and diminish Hamas among the Palestinian populace. Lumping Hamas and Fatah together, besides being false based on all the facts I can see, is the opposite of rewarding Fatah’s good behavior, and very unwise unless one has a vested interest in prolonging the conflict in order to solidify the grip on occupied territory.
Regarding Jordan, this is exactly the argument that the Jewish extremist side makes in justification of the occupation of the West Bank and the settlements, and in defense of Greater Israel. This approach is as sentimental and dangerous as those extremist Muslims who want to push Israel into the sea. It leaves nothing for millinos of Palestinians. This is the position of the Irgun/Likud Revisionist Zionism.
The history of the British Mandate goes against this view. The British Mandate designated as “Palestine” the land west of the Jordan stretching roughly from Gaza to the Levant. This was meant to be shared by Arabs and Jews. How could they have made this a Jewish land? It was full of Arabs living in their ancestral land. So Jews were given the right to immigrate there, and the founding documents were unequivocal on the point that nobody, neither Arabs or Jews, would be discriminated against or privileged in this land. That changed with the 1947 UN Resolution 181.
This was meant to be a reply to Sarah under #44: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/for-your-delectation-more-hatred-and-lunacy-from-the-palestinian-authority/#comment-408240
I didn’t lump Hamas and Fatah together, Abbas did. Nor is it an “argument” to point out that Jordan occupies a large chunk of the old British Mandate. It is simply a neutral fact.
The charters of both Hamas and Fatah are online. They both see the destruction of Israel as their ultimate goal.
Not any more: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/01/27/1010372/new-fatah-charter-omits-negationist-language
My understanding is that the charter has been amended but that other parts not specifically mentioned have not been removed.
It is a fact, but its meaning is not that Jordan is for Arabs and Palestine for Jews. That is the convenient fallacy implied by those who wish to stretch this fact into something it is not. The facts of provisions made for Jewish migration to Palestine during the British Mandate are laid out in the San Remo document. It stated that Palestine, i.e. the original Mandate minus Traansjordan, was to be shared by the Arabs and the Jews. There is nothing from the charter for the mandate nor from how the British administered it that can be conveyed as justifying claims of 100% of Palestine for Israel. Jordan is irrelevant to the discussion of Palestine, yet it is always brought up by those arguing for Greater Israel. I repeat, those who are pushing for Greater Israel are the mirror image of those who want to eliminate Israel, equally extreme absolutists who want to take and control the land where their counterparts want to live.
It’s not irrelevant, because Transjordan was part of the original Palestine. From 1937 if not before it was clear that the remaining land would have to be divided into two states.
In the British Mandate, “Palestine” designates the land west of the river Jordan, not Traansjordan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
It’s all a bit murky, isn’t it? The British Mandate for Palestine included the region soon to be hived off to Transjordan, and after 1922 “Palestine” did not include it but was the remaining slice west of the Jordan. The borders were rather vague at the best of times.
This is crystal clear: the land called Palestine in the documents was separate from Traansjordan, and was to the west of the Jordan river. That land was to be shared by Arabs and Jews. There are two groups of people who deny this: the Israeli right wing following in the tradition of Irgun/Likud who demand that Palestine be pushed into the Jordan river, and militant Arabs who demand that Israel be pushed into the sea. Both are the enemies of peace and justice, of a two state solution that accommodates the needs of all people living in the region. It just happens that one side is crude in its propaganda and relatively weak militarily, so it resorts to desperate measures. The other side is wealthier and more powerful militarily, and uses more sophisticated propaganda.
Yes, after 1922 they were separate regions. The Palestine rump couldn’t be shared because the Arabs kept attacking the Jews. That’s why there was a partition plan later. I’m not sure what your point is. The two state-solution has been advanced over and over.
Sarah,
If you don’t get the point, then it must be very hard for you to put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians.
During the British administration of the Mandate in Palestine, Arabs attacked Jews, but also Jews attacked Arabs, and Jews attacked the British. But there were also lengthy periods of relative peace, despite several uprisings, the worst of which came in the mid-thirties I believe.
If you can’t understand that both Jews and Arabs had and have historical ties and family legacies on this land, that most of the Arabs had a more immediate sense of this land as Muslim land than did long absent diaspora Jews who for all intents and purposes were recent immigrants, then it must be very hard for you to understand why Palestinians call the partitioning and the 1948 war the Naqba (catastrophe). It’s not from antisemitism, its from a direct sense of loss. Any humans might react this way, as did for example the American Indians when they were dispossessed by recently arriving settlers. At the same time, this gift of land from the UN and the world was a great victory and blessing for the Jews.
This difference is a key in the conflicts that persist today. You seem to only be able to look at it from one side, not both sides. Try to see the Palestinian side while retaining your positive view of the accomplishments of Israel and of Israel’s right to exist. It is possible to see and understand the complaints of both sides at the same time, without reducing either side to monstrous or undeserving people.
Do you really think that your screed has any bearing on my simple statement? There is nothing to “get” and nothing has been “reduced”. You have invented an argument out of nothing.
There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Jeff- valiant attempt to get Sarah to at least open her eyes a bit on the plight of the Palestinians, but it appears there is no hope of her climbing on board the honest broker bus.
It does not seen to matter to apologists for Israel that 750,000 Arabs lost their ancestral homes and farms. God declared these lands belong to his favorite people, and that is where Israel and apparently a good portion of the western world have hung their hats.
The countries who irrationally side with Israel in all this have been and will continue to pay the price until we realize that Israel is not a good world player now, nor a good world partner.
This comes close to insulting another commenter with accusations of dishonesty and “blindness.” Lay off the nastiness, ForCarl, and stick to the facts, please.
Jerry-
I did not accuse or even use language related to Sarah being “dishonest” in any of her comments. The reference to “honest broker” refers to the ability to step back and see both sides. The US has often stated that it would like to be seen as an “honest broker” in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but seems to have been unable to accomplish that because our favoritism towards Israel always undermines our negotiating abilities. Perhaps I should have put the phrase in quotes.
I’ve been following the discussion between Sarah and Jeff and was commenting in support of Jeff’s attempts to get her to see another side. She characterized his arguments and his attempts to help her see another side as a “screed” and accused him of formulating his argument “out of nothing”. If that’s not insulting another commenter, then I guess I don’t know what the meaning is of a true insult. However, I will apologize for using a phrase that might be taken as an accusation of blindness on her part.
That being said… a review of comments made by Sarah to various other commenters will demonstrate a tendency to infer that they are ignorant of history, as in these comments…
“I am surprised that you found my remark rude. It was the best advice I could give to someone who evidently knew nothing about the history of Israel and its neighbours.”
“It sounds as though you need to READ some history!”
“Oh dear! A “history lesson” now! And such an arrogant tone to go with the misinformation! The two things do not make a flattering impression.”
You know what? I’m not a nasty person, and I’m a bit sad about being accused of nastiness, so I think I’m just going to stick to the science/cats/atheism postings from now on…