May 16, 2008
The Miracle, at 60
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Before sending Lewis and Clark west, Thomas Jefferson dispatched Meriwether Lewis to Philadelphia to see Dr. Benjamin Rush. The eminent doctor prepared a series of scientific questions for the expedition to answer. Among them, writes Stephen Ambrose: "What Affinity between their (the Indians') religious Ceremonies & those of the Jews?" Jefferson and Lewis, like many of their day and ours, were fascinated by the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and thought they might be out there on the Great Plains.

They weren't. They aren't anywhere. Their disappearance into the mists of history since their exile from Israel in 722 B.C. is no mystery. It is the norm, the rule for every ancient people defeated, destroyed, scattered and exiled.

With one exception, a miraculous story of redemption and return, after not a century or two, but 2,000 years. Remarkably, that miracle occurred in our time. This week marks its 60th anniversary: the return and restoration of the remaining two tribes of Israel -- Judah and Benjamin, later known as the Jews -- to their ancient homeland.

Besides restoring Jewish sovereignty, the establishment of the State of Israel embodied many subsidiary miracles, from the creation of the first Jewish army since Roman times to the only recorded instance of the resurrection of a dead language -- Hebrew, now the daily tongue of a vibrant nation of 7 million. As historian Barbara Tuchman once wrote, Israel is "the only nation in the world that is governing itself in the same territory, under the same name, and with the same religion and same language as it did 3,000 years ago."

During its early years, Israel was often spoken of in such romantic terms. Today, such talk is considered naive, anachronistic, even insensitive, nothing more than Zionist myth designed to hide the true story, i.e., the Palestinian narrative of dispossession.

Not so. Palestinian suffering is, of course, real and heart-wrenching, but what the Arab narrative deliberately distorts is the cause of its own tragedy: the folly of its own fanatical leadership -- from Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem (Nazi collaborator, who spent World War II in Berlin), to Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser to Yasser Arafat to Hamas of today -- that repeatedly chose war rather than compromise and conciliation.

Palestinian dispossession is a direct result of the Arab rejection, then and now, of a Jewish state of any size on any part of the vast lands the Arabs claim as their exclusive patrimony. That was the cause of the war 60 years ago that, in turn, caused the refugee problem. And it remains the cause of war today.

Six months before Israel's birth, the U.N. had decided by a two-thirds majority that the only just solution to the British departure from Palestine would be the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state side by side. The undeniable fact remains: The Jews accepted that compromise; the Arabs rejected it.

With a vengeance. On the day the British pulled down their flag, Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq -- 650,000 Jews against 40 million Arabs.

Israel prevailed, another miracle. But at a very high cost -- not just to the Palestinians displaced as a result of a war designed to extinguish Israel at birth, but also to the Israelis, whose war losses were staggering: 6,373 dead. One percent of the population. In American terms, it would take thirty-five Vietnam memorials to encompass such a monumental loss of life.

You rarely hear about Israel's terrible suffering in that 1948-49 war. You hear only the Palestinian side. Today, in the same vein, you hear that Israeli settlements and checkpoints and occupation are the continuing root causes of terrorism and instability in the region.

But in 1948, there were no "occupied territories." Nor in 1967 when Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined together in a second war of annihilation against Israel.

Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. The declared casus belli of the Palestinian government in Gaza behind these rockets? The very existence of a Jewish state.

Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every "peace process," however cynical or well-meaning, will come to nothing. letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...amin_judah.html at May 17, 2008 -

The pious Dr. Krauthammer mentions the State of Israel anywhere near Thomas Jefferson? When they're morally on different planets? Obscene.

He doesn't mention, if only to rationalize them, the kind of wanton slaughters by Zionist terrorists perpetrated at the King David Hotel or Deir Yassin? Obscene squared.

He cites Israeli war dead, but doesn't bother with noting how the then-indigenous Arab population suffered in far greater numbers? Imitating what Bush's minions are reporting and noting, or not, about Iraq? Obscene cubed.

This panoply of praise is entirely to be expected, but its premise is nonsensical. The establishment of the government of Israel is no more a "miracle" than was the Apollo Moon-landing program.

Both were American government boondoggles at which huge amounts of taxpayer-extorted money were thrown, hoping that something would stick. (Coincidentally, they're of the same order of magnitude, adjusted for inflation. Apollo, though, actually came to an end.)

Eventually, with enough of such a blizzard, something is likely to bear results. You don't have that much cash being awash and that many creative minds working on a project without something coming to fruition.

Apollo planted U.S. flags on the Moon and created a visible, elaborate effort, one that had some undeniable beneficial side effects in the sciences, but was ultimately bereft of any follow-through that endured.

Israel has grabbed the attention and angst of the world for six decades, it has nurtured a few of its own industries through its own fascism (imitating its patron), but it has become an untenable and unstable nuclear-armed garrison State that clings precariously to a functioning non-war economy.

In terms of long-term effect on world history or on the lives of most humans, they're both as useful or productive as Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens' bridges-to-nowhere in Alaska. They've kept people busy and agitated, they've fed U.S. war-industry payrolls through tax extortions, but that's about it.

Except that Israel may yet drag "our" State, as Ariel Sharon openly boasted he could, into a nuclear war. The Moon, population (contra Heinlein's Harsh Mistress scenario) still, sadly, zero, probably not.

Do you believe in such "miracles"? I certainly don't want that one. Yet I fear we're going to get saddled with it — and $10-per-gallon gasoline, and slaughtered troops in six figures — very soon.

You want a true historical miracle, Barbara? Consider how many Jews were, and are, able to live in genuine and continuing peace with their neighbors, worshiping unmolested, not looking nervously over their shoulders for suicide bombers or conscription officials. Far more, still, than in all of shrinking Israel — but they're living in American neighborhoods, running American businesses.

The Lower East Side of Manhattan, the single-family houses in Skokie, Illinois, the shaping of the motion-picture industry that employed Rand long ago — those are the true miracles. Not the West Bank imitation of the Berlin Wall, nor the nuclear-weapons stockpile at Dimona.

The following book looks very informative concerning the birth.

The Birth of Israel 1945–49: Ben-Gurion and His Critics
Joseph Heller

http://books.google.com/books?id=S9Y4IbeXq...-with-thumbnail

If they are, so too is present day United States.


That he didn't mention them, no, that they happened, yes.


He could have, but you are not differentiating between Arab caused Arab suffering and Israeli.

You'd make a better case if you dropped the obscenity crap which is in itself obscene absent reference to the gross Arab obscenity re this situation. The U.S. can disengage from Israel and Israel can then take care of itself if the U.S. can stomach an Israeli nuclear power independent of its influence. The stupid Iraq War has helped cheapen the dollar which is a major reason for soaring oil prices, the other being myopic U.S. energy policies at home. The Iraq War was Bush's responsibility. There's obscenity for you. A trillon dollars, inflation, thousands of lives when all he had to do was say "Boo!" to Iraq to get what the U.S. wanted from Hussein.

--Brant

Greybird makes three separate points in his objections to Charles Krauthammer's article. I shall examine each of them because they, especially the first two, constitute the "accepted wisdom" among Israel's most vocal critics.

1. Greybird: "He doesn't mention, if only to rationalize them, the kind of wanton slaughters by Zionist terrorists perpetrated at the King David Hotel or Deir Yassin."

I don't know why, in his brief article, Krauthammer is required to examine incidents that occurred more than 50 years ago and before the establishment of Israel, but let us nevertheless consider them and judge whether or not they onstituted "wanton slaughters."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikepedia: King David Hotel Bombing

The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bomb attack against the British Mandate government of Palestine and its armed forces by members of the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization, which was led at the time by Menachem Begin, a future Prime Minister of Israel…

The attack was planned before lunch time, so that there would be no people on the ground floor of the coffee shop which was the section to be destroyed. Irgun reports included explicit precautions so that the whole area would be evacuated….

As part of the Irgun plan, a sixteen year old recruit, Adina Hay, made three calls warning of the attack. The first message, at 12:22, was delivered to a telephone operator at the King David Hotel in both Hebrew and English. In the summer of 1946, there many false bomb warnings. This one was seemed no different, and there was no immediate response. At 12:27 Adina Hay made a second warning call, this one to the French Consulate. This call was taken seriously, and the staff rushed through the building opening windows and closing curtains to lessen the impact of the blast. At 12:31, Adina made a third and final warning call to the Palestine Post newspaper. The telephone operator at the newspaper was tired of bomb threats that turned out to be hoaxes. But she called the Palestine Police CID and made a report. She then called the King David switchboard. The operator at the King David reported the threat to one of the managers. This warning resulted in the discovery of the milk churns in the basement. It was too late. (Thurston Clarke, "By Blood and Fire," Putnam, NY, 1981, pp.160-214.) The explosion occurred at 12:37. …

The Jewish leadership publicly condemned these attacks. The Jewish agency expressed "their feelings of horror at the base and unparalleled act perpetrated today by a gang of criminals".... (italics mine) Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the British did not evacuate and so there were casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Deir Yassin
A Battle, Not A Massacre

NEW YORK- A pro-Arab lobby group which has always claimed that 254 Arabs died during the 1948 battle of Deir Yassin has quietly changed its story, and now admits that about 100, not 254, were killed. The change comes just weeks after the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) released a study showing that the number of Arabs killed in Deir Yassin was less than half of what has been claimed, and that they were not massacred….

The changes in the death toll count come in the wake of the ZOA's publication of a new study, Deir Yassin History of a Lie, a 32-page analysis (with 156 footnotes) by ZOA National President Morton A. Klein….

Among other things, the ZOA study shows that the original claim of 254 dead was not based on any actual body count. The number was invented by Mordechai Ra'anan, leader of the Jewish soldiers who fought in Deir Yassin. He later admitted that the figure was a deliberate exaggeration in order to undermine the morale of the Arab forces, which had launched a war against the Jews in Mandate Palestine to prevent the establishment of Israel. Other eyewitnesses to the battle estimated that about 100 Arabs had died. Despite Ra'anan's admission, the figure 254 was circulated by Palestinian Arab leader Hussein Khalidi. His claims about Deir Yassin were the basis for an article in the New York Times claiming a massacre took place--an article that has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.

The ZOA study describes how in 1987, researchers from Bir Zeit University, an Arab university in Palestinian Authority territory, interviewed every Arab survivor of the battle and concluded that the number of civilians who died in Deir Yassin could not have been more than 120. Despite the study, the "Deir Yassin Remembered" group continued using the figure of 254 dead.

ZOA president Klein said "Now that the ZOA has publicized the Bir Zeit University findings and proven that far fewer Arabs died than was always claimed, the pro-Arab propagandists have been forced to quietly change their story. Our booklet proves not only that the death toll was falsely inflated, it also proves there was no massacre, rape, or mutilation."

Meanwhile, Dr. Hussein Khalidi is at the center of a startling new report, in which several Arab eyewitnesses to the Deir Yassin battle admitted that some of their original claims about Jewish atrocities were fabricated. The latest issue of the Jerusalem Report (April 2, 1998) reveals that in a forthcoming BBC television program, Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the Jewish state-to-be.

According to the Jerusalem Report, Nusseibeh "describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi ... 'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.'"

The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Deir Yassin resident in 1948, who says that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims. "'We said, 'There was no rape.'" [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.'"

Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Deir Yassin were "our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.

In 1948, Labor Zionist leaders initially claimed there was a massacre, in order to score points against the rival Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern Group, the fighters who conquered Deir Yassin. But Israel's Labor-led governments have, over the years, gradually rescinded the massacre accusation. A little-known 1952 Defense Ministry judicial court ruled that Deir Yassin was a legitimate military target. Official Israeli government statements about Deir Yassin, in 1960 and 1969 (under Foreign Ministers Golda Meir and Abba Eban), formally rebuked the Labor Zionist officials who had made the false massacre accusation in 1948, describing the "massacre" charge as a "fairy tale" and a "big lie."

http://israelvisit.co.il/BehindTheNews/Mar-30.htm#Battle

-----------------------------------------------------------
"Wanton slaughters?"

(Continued)

2. Greybird: "He cites Israeli war dead, but doesn't bother with noting how the then-indigenous Arab population suffered in far greater numbers."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1948, Israel, and the Palestinians
by Efraim Kirsh
Commentary, May 2008

Sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West.

During the past decade or so, the actual elimination of the Jewish state has become a cause célèbre among many of these educated Westerners. The "one-state solution," as it is called, is a euphemistic formula proposing the replacement of Israel by a state, theoretically comprising the whole of historic Palestine, in which Jews will be reduced to the status of a permanent minority. Only this, it is said, can expiate the "original sin" of Israel's founding, an act built (in the words of one critic) "on the ruins of Arab Palestine" and achieved through the deliberate and aggressive dispossession of its native population.

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian "refugee problem" forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel's alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950's, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation,[1] and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel's revisionist "new historians," and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel's "original sin," grudgingly stipulated that there was no "design" to displace the Palestinian Arabs.[2]

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-1948) and Israel's early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the "new historians," paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record. They reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported….

_________
An inflow of Jewish immigrants and capital after World War I had revived Palestine's hitherto static condition and raised the standard of living of its Arab inhabitants well above that in the neighboring Arab states. The expansion of Arab industry and agriculture, especially in the field of citrus growing, was largely financed by the capital thus obtained, and Jewish know-how did much to improve Arab cultivation. In the two decades between the world wars, Arab-owned citrus plantations grew sixfold, as did vegetable-growing lands, while the number of olive groves quadrupled.[8]

No less remarkable were the advances in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the Muslim population dropped sharply and life expectancy rose from 37.5 years in 1926-27 to 50 in 1942-44 (compared with 33 in Egypt). The rate of natural increase leapt upward by a third.[9]….

Had the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs been left to their own devices, they would most probably have been content to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them. This is evidenced by the fact that, throughout the Mandate era, periods of peaceful coexistence far exceeded those of violent eruptions, and the latter were the work of only a small fraction of Palestinian Arabs.[11] Unfortunately for both Arabs and Jews, however, the hopes and wishes of ordinary people were not taken into account, as they rarely are in authoritarian communities hostile to the notions of civil society or liberal democracy. In the modern world, moreover, it has not been the poor and the oppressed who have led the great revolutions or carried out the worst deeds of violence, but rather militant vanguards from among the better educated and more moneyed classes of society
.
So it was with the Palestinians. In the words of the Peel report:

"We have found that, though the Arabs have benefited by the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary . . . with almost mathematical precision the betterment of the economic situation in Palestine [has] meant the deterioration of the political situation.[12]"

In Palestine, ordinary Arabs were persecuted and murdered by their alleged betters for the crime of "selling Palestine" to the Jews. Meanwhile, these same betters were enriching themselves with impunity. The staunch pan-Arabist Awni Abdel Hadi, who vowed to fight "until Palestine is either placed under a free Arab government or becomes a graveyard for all the Jews in the country,"[13] facilitated the transfer of 7,500 acres to the Zionist movement, and some of his relatives, all respected political and religious figures, went a step further by selling actual plots of land. So did numerous members of the Husseini family, the foremost Palestinian Arab clan during the Mandate period, including Muhammad Tahir, father of Hajj Amin Husseini, the notorious mufti of Jerusalem.[14]….
_____________

Against this backdrop, it is hardly to be wondered at that most Palestinians wanted nothing to do with the violent attempt … by the mufti-led Arab Higher Committee (AHC), the effective "government" of the Palestinian Arabs, to subvert the 1947 UN partition resolution…. many opted to stay out of the fight. In no time, numerous Arab villages (and some urban areas) were negotiating peace agreements with their Jewish neighbors; other localities throughout the country acted similarly without the benefit of a formal agreement.[17]

Nor did ordinary Palestinians shrink from quietly defying their supreme leadership. In his numerous tours around the region, Abdel Qader Husseini, district commander of Jerusalem and the mufti's close relative, found the populace indifferent, if not hostile, to his repeated call to arms. In Hebron, he failed to recruit a single volunteer for the salaried force he sought to form in that city; his efforts in the cities of Nablus, Tulkarm, and Qalqiliya were hardly more successful. Arab villagers, for their part, proved even less receptive to his demands. In one locale, Beit Safafa, Abdel Qader suffered the ultimate indignity, being driven out by angry residents protesting their village's transformation into a hub of anti-Jewish attacks. Even the few who answered his call did so, by and large, in order to obtain free weapons for their personal protection and then return home.[18]….
.
Nor did the Arabs attempt to hide their culpability. As the Jews set out to lay the groundwork for their nascent state while simultaneously striving to convince their Arab compatriots that they would be (as Ben-Gurion put it) "equal citizens, equal in everything without any exception," Palestinian Arab leaders pledged that "should partition be implemented, it will be achieved only over the bodies of the Arabs of Palestine, their sons, and their women."… ;
_____________

This…scare-mongering was undoubtedly aimed at garnering the widest possible sympathy for the Palestinian plight and casting the Jews as brutal predators. But it backfired disastrously by spreading panic within the disoriented Palestinian society. …For not only had most Palestinians declined to join the active hostilities, but vast numbers had taken to the road, leaving their homes either for places elsewhere in the country or fleeing to neighboring Arab lands.
_____________

"Arabs are leaving the country with their families in considerable numbers, and there is an exodus from the mixed towns to the rural Arab centers," reported Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner, in December 1947, adding a month later that the "panic of [the] middle class persists and there is a steady exodus of those who can afford to leave the country."[29]…

By early April some 100,000 had gone, though the Jews were still on the defensive and in no position to evict them. (On March 23, fully four months after the outbreak of hostilities, ALA commander-in-chief Safwat noted with some astonishment that the Jews "have so far not attacked a single Arab village unless provoked by it.") By the time of Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, the numbers of Arab refugees had more than trebled. Even then, none of the 170,000-180,000 Arabs fleeing urban centers, and only a handful of the 130,000-160,000 villagers who left their homes, had been forced out by the Jews.

The exceptions occurred in the heat of battle and were uniformly dictated by ad-hoc military considerations—reducing civilian casualties, denying sites to Arab fighters when there were no available Jewish forces to repel them—rather than political design.[35] They were, moreover, matched by efforts to prevent flight and/or to encourage the return of those who fled. To cite only one example, in early April a Jewish delegation comprising top Arab-affairs advisers, local notables, and municipal heads with close contacts with neighboring Arab localities traversed Arab villages in the coastal plain, then emptying at a staggering pace, in an attempt to convince their inhabitants to stay put.[36]
_____________

What makes these Jewish efforts all the more impressive is that they took place at a time when huge numbers of Palestinian Arabs were being actively driven from their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or in order to prevent them from becoming citizens of the prospective Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa on the AHC's instructions, despite strenuous Jewish efforts to persuade them to stay.[37] Only days earlier, Tiberias' 6,000-strong Arab community had been similarly forced out by its own leaders, against local Jewish wishes.[38] In Jaffa, Palestine's largest Arab city, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea;[39] in Jerusalem, the AHC ordered the transfer of women and children, and local gang leaders pushed out residents of several neighborhoods.[40]

Tens of thousands of rural villagers were likewise forced out by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the ALA. Within weeks of the latter's arrival in Palestine in January 1948, rumors were circulating of secret instructions to Arabs in predominantly Jewish areas to vacate their villages so as to allow their use for military purposes and to reduce the risk of becoming hostage to the Jews.

By February, this phenomenon had expanded to most parts of the country. It gained considerable momentum in April and May as ALA and AHC forces throughout Palestine were being comprehensively routed. On April 18, the Hagana's intelligence branch in Jerusalem reported a fresh general order to remove the women and children from all villages bordering Jewish localities. Twelve days later, its Haifa counterpart reported an ALA command to evacuate all Arab villages between Tel Aviv and Haifa in anticipation of a new general offensive. In early May, as fighting intensified in the eastern Galilee, local Arabs were ordered to transfer all women and children from the Rosh Pina area, while in the Jerusalem sub-district, Transjordan's Arab Legion likewise ordered the emptying of scores of villages.[41]

As for the Palestinian Arab leaders themselves, who had placed their reluctant constituents on a collision course with Zionism in the 1920's and 1930's and had now dragged them helpless into a mortal conflict, they hastened to get themselves out of Palestine and to stay out at the most critical moment. Taking a cue from these higher-ups, local leaders similarly rushed en masse through the door.
High Commissioner Cunningham summarized what was happening with quintessential British understatement:

"You should know that the collapsing Arab morale in Palestine is in some measure due to the increasing tendency of those who should be leading them to leave the country. . . . For instance, in Jaffa the mayor went on four-day leave 12 days ago and has not returned, and half the national committee has left. In Haifa the Arab members of the municipality left some time ago; the two leaders of the Arab Liberation Army left actually during the recent battle. Now the chief Arab magistrate has left. In all parts of the country the effendi class has been evacuating in large numbers over a considerable period and the tempo is increasing." [42]
Arif al-Arif, a prominent Arab politician during the Mandate era and the doyen of Palestinian historians, described the prevailing atmosphere at the time: "Wherever one went throughout the country one heard the same refrain: 'Where are the leaders who should show us the way? Where is the AHC? Why are its members in Egypt at a time when Palestine, their own country, needs them?'"[43]
_____________

…Few among the Palestinian refugees themselves blamed their collapse and dispersal on the Jews. During a fact-finding mission to Gaza in June 1949, Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo and no friend to Israel or the Jews, was surprised to discover that while the refugees "express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes. . . . I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over."[47]
_____________


Sixty years after their dispersion, the refugees of 1948 and their descendants remain in the squalid camps where they have been kept by their fellow Arabs for decades, nourished on hate and false hope. Meanwhile, their erstwhile leaders have squandered successive opportunities for statehood.

It is indeed the tragedy of the Palestinians that the two leaders who determined their national development during the 20th century—Hajj Amin Husseini and Yasir Arafat, the latter of whom dominated Palestinian politics since the mid-1960's to his death in November 2004—were megalomaniacal extremists blinded by anti-Jewish hatred and profoundly obsessed with violence. Had the mufti chosen to lead his people to peace and reconciliation with their Jewish neighbors, as he had promised the British officials who appointed him to his high rank in the early 1920's, the Palestinians would have had their independent state over a substantial part of Mandate Palestine by 1948, and would have been spared the traumatic experience of dispersion and exile. Had Arafat set the PLO from the start on the path to peace and reconciliation, instead of turning it into one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in modern times, a Palestinian state could have been established in the late 1960's or the early 1970's; in 1979 as a corollary to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty; by May 1999 as part of the Oslo process; or at the very latest with the Camp David summit of July 2000.
Instead, Arafat transformed the territories placed under his control in the 1990's into an effective terror state from where he launched an all-out war (the "al-Aqsa intifada") shortly after being offered an independent Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and 92 percent of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. In the process, he subjected the Palestinian population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to a repressive and corrupt regime in the worst tradition of Arab dictatorships and plunged their standard of living to unprecedented depths.
What makes this state of affairs all the more galling is that, far from being unfortunate aberrations, Hajj Amin and Arafat were quintessential representatives of the cynical and self-seeking leaders produced by the Arab political system. Just as the Palestinian leadership during the Mandate had no qualms about inciting its constituents against Zionism and the Jews, while lining its own pockets from the fruits of Jewish entrepreneurship, so PLO officials used the billions of dollars donated by the Arab oil states and, during the Oslo era, by the international community to finance their luxurious style of life while ordinary Palestinians scrambled for a livelihood.

And so it goes. Six decades after the mufti and his henchmen condemned their people to statelessness by rejecting the UN partition resolution, their reckless decisions are being reenacted by the latest generation of Palestinian leaders. This applies not only to Hamas, which in January 2006 replaced the PLO at the helm of the Palestinian Authority (PA), but also to the supposedly moderate Palestinian leadership—from President Mahmoud Abbas to Ahmad Qureia (negotiator of the 1993 Oslo Accords) to Saeb Erekat to prime minister Salam Fayad—which refuses to recognize Israel's very existence as a Jewish state and insists on the full implementation of the "right of return."

And so it goes as well with Western anti-Zionists who in the name of justice (no less) call today not for a new and fundamentally different Arab leadership but for the dismantlement of the Jewish state. Only when these dispositions change can Palestinian Arabs realistically look forward to putting their self-inflicted "catastrophe" behind the

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarti...ated-text-11373
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continued)

3. Greybird: "Israel has grabbed the attention and angst of the world for six decades, it has nurtured a few of its own industries through its own fascism (imitating its patron), but it has become an untenable and unstable nuclear-armed garrison State that clings precariously to a functioning non-war economy."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Post
Israel's Gift to the World
By Alan M Dershowit
May 4, 2008

As Israel celebrates its 60th birthday, the world should recognize the enormous gifts the Jewish state has given the world. Israel has exported more lifesaving medical technology to the far-flung corners of the earth than any nation of comparable size. It has done more to protect the environment, to promote literature, music, the arts and sciences, to spread agricultural advances and to fight terrorism within the rule of law.

Israel has created a legal system that is the envy of the world, with a Supreme Court that is open to all with few, if any, restrictions on its jurisdiction. As America's most liberal Supreme Court Justice William Brennan observed when he visited Israel in 1988:

"It may well be Israel, not the United States, that provides the best hope for building a jurisprudence that can protect civil liberties against the demands of national security. For it is Israel that has been facing real and serious threats to its security for the last 40 years and seems destined to continue facing such threats in the foreseeable future. The struggle to establish civil liberties against the backdrop of these security threats, while difficult, promises to build bulwarks of liberty that can endure the fears and frenzy of sudden danger - bulwarks to help guarantee that a nation fighting for its survival does not sacrifice those national values that make the fight worthwhile."

Yet despite these disproportionate contributions to the world, Israel has proportionally more enemies than any nation on earth. Moreover, the intensity of the enmity directed against the Mideast's only democracy is unexplainable on any rational basis.

It is remarkable indeed that a democratic nation born in response to a decision of the United Nations should still not be accepted by so many nations, groups and individuals. No other United Nations member is threatened with physical annihilation by other member states so openly and without rebuke from the general assembly or security counsel.

No other nation has been subjected to so many threats of boycott, divestiture, and delegitimation than the Jewish state. No other nation with such high standards of morality has ever been regarded as so immoral by so many members of the media, academia, and the intellectual elite.

Israel's enemies have learned how to take advantage of its high standards of morality. They understand what Golda Meir meant when she said to the terrorists: "We can perhaps forgive you for killing our children but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children." Islamic extremist leaders who preach the culture of death are indeed trying to make you kill their children, because they know that every time you accidentally do, they win as big a victory as when they deliberately kill one of your children. That is why they fire their rockets from densely-populated areas knowing that you have no choice but to try to destroy their launching pads and knowing that in the process you may kill some innocent people. It is a win-win situation for them and a lose-lose situation for you.

I agree with the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he said that Israel should try to make peace as if there were no terrorism and fight terrorism as if there were no peace process. No nation can be expected to endure repeated and systematic attacks against its civilian population, even when those attacks come from civilian areas. No nation can make peace with terrorists who seek not compromise, but total defeat of their enemy.

Israel's continuing efforts to fight terrorists within the rule of law and within the reasonable constraints of human rights and civil liberties may be among Israel's most enduring contributions to the civilized world. Israel's fight is our fight. Israel's struggles are our struggles. Israel's victory over terrorism will be our victory - a victory that will benefit the entire world.

So let the entire free world join Israel in its celebration of sixty years of nationhood, since no nation in the world has contributed more per capita to the general welfare of the people of this planet than Israel.

Happy Birthday to Israel - may she go from strength to strength and from success to success, and may she finally experience the kind of peace and legitimacy she has sought since her creation on the ashes of the Holocaust 60 years ago.

/Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard
Law School. His latest book is "Is There A Right to Remain Silent?"/


<http://www.nypost.com/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Review of Israel in the World: Changing Lives Through Innovation, by Helen and Donald Davis:

This colorful volume takes an in-depth look at a remarkable achievement: how one small and very young country has successfully become one of the world's technological leaders.

From agriculture to medicine, Israel stands right at the forefront of technological development. Learn about the country's many achievements and breakthoughs, and how it's poised to remain on the industrial cutting edge in the foreseeable future. The countless accomplishments outlined here would be dazzling, even if they hadn't emerged from a nation that didn't even exist 60 years ago: Israel created the ICQ chat facility that is now used by hundreds of millions of internet surfers each day; the technology that allows you to leave voicemail messages on a mobile phone; the medical diagnostic equipment (including magnetic resonance imaging) found in most hospitals; and the surveillance equipment that alerts security officials to suspicious activities at airports….

For example, at the Weizmann Institute, Dr Michal Schwartz has developed a way of harnessing immune system cells to repair and revive damaged nerve fibres. Other medical breakthroughs include the miniscule camera-in-a-tablet used for internal diagnosis, ultrasound for destroying tumours and Israel's highly effective disaster relief operations.

A great help to third world people has been the discovery by scientist Yoel Margalith of the Bti bacterium that kills certain kinds of flies and harmful mosquitoes. This has already saved millions of livers and is an environment-friendly intervention. Most remarkable is that Margalith is a holocaust survivor, of both the Bergen-Belsen and Teresienstadt camps

In many fields Israel is so far ahead of the pack that other countries have no chance of catching up. One of the most interesting innovations developed in Israel is a project to avoid collisions between aircraft and migratory birds. It involved the study of the flight paths of birds. This work of researcher Yossi Leshem is now also used by the Jordanian and Turkish air-force.

Israel has more engineers per capita than any other country on earth and a remarkable number of hi-tech companies. Innovation in the fields of computers and information technology is particularly impressive. This encompasses software, operating systems, storage & retrieval systems, verification and firewall technologies, plus a host of mobile phone applications.

Israel's creativity is not restricted to science and technology, as there is also much happening in arts and culture. Despite its small size and its many enemies, this country is bursting with creative energy and making a huge contribution to the global marketplace and to quality of life worldwide.

The founders of this brave country were aware that Israel had almost no natural resources and that its people therefore had to develop and apply their brainpower. Well, they are succeeding spectacularly. What a pity that Israel has to devote so much of its money and resources to protect itself from its neighbours! If its full genius were given free reign, it would become even more of a blessing to the world.

Amazon.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

I received a request from Mike11 to move this thread to Mideast due to the level of historical detail the discussion is pursuing. I agree, but I left behind a link. I also deleted a post Mike11 made in the middle of Barbara's threesome requesting this, but this was not moderation. It was a simple one-liner and it broke the continuity. If he wishes to post something else like that, he is more than welcome to.

I also fixed a misattribution at Barbara's request.

Michael

Excellent, Barbara. Thank you for putting so much time into your reply.

Barbara; Excellent as always! If I reach your age I hope I am as sharp. Thank you again!

What is "sharp" or "excellent" about merely quoting entire articles, in a forum that isn't functionally suited to doing so?

I am truly tired of Barbara Branden not choosing to argue in her own right — pretending that quoting rivers of verbiage, as such, actually makes a point for herself.

I could quote even more pieces outlining Israel's wanton torturing of prisoners, theocratic contempt for the rule of law, and fascist hothouse fertilizing of the R&D of particular industries.

(Even Rand admitted to the likes of a "Project X." Israel is full of them. It also can subsidize such industries freely because we pay for its "defense," as we have with Japan and Germany for the same six decades.)

I'm not, however, going to inflict all that on you.

One cannot reply to an entire article by, say, Dershowitz. Not in the sense of one's doing so in order to supposedly counter Barbara's own points. We don't know what Barbara's specific points are — beyond her patent worship of Israel and of every neoconservative she can dig up who wants to "defend" it to the last American soldier's life and American taxpayer's dollar.

I'm not going to get into an endless cycle of "Well, Steve, Dershowitz did say that, but I don't believe it in quite the same way." That wastes my time in providing any rejoinders.

Barbara openly refuses to write in her own voice and make her own points, she's done this for years now in three different O-venues, and I HAVE HAD FRIGGING ENOUGH.

Greybird: "I am truly tired of Barbara Branden not choosing to argue in her own right — pretending that quoting rivers of verbiage, as such, actually makes a point for herself."

I fail to see how paraphrasing what I have in part learned from others, rather than giving their reasoning and documentation in their own words, would make my points more clearly. I have no doubt that the readers of my posts know exactly what points I'm making.

You wrote: "Barbara openly refuses to write in her own voice and make her own points..."

Tsk, tsk, Graybird. I see that you are not a dedicated reader of my work, or you would never make such a claim.

Barbara

The problem with seeing Israel's history as the Good Qua Good and its detractors as anti-semitic (aside of creating an ironclad array of self serving lies) is that it completely ignores the moral conflicts which have shaped its history and society. To use one of Miss Branden's quotes from the Wikipedia,



On one side was the Jewish Agency which was socialist and open to negotiating with the Arabs, on the other the various Revisionist groups which were fascistic and endorsed the ethnic cleansing in Palestine and Jordan. The differences were so extreme that the Haganah and Palmach declared the famous Open Season against the terrorists.

So, which side are the Semites? If one says the Jewish Agency than the entire campaign against the Palestinians is antisemitic. If one says the Fascists are the true Semites than Rabin was quite the Jew Hater.

Let's look at Zionism. Most of the religious community in the Diaspora opposed Zionism, were they Anti-Semites? How about Ben Gurion who talked about abandoning Zionism once Israel had a clear Jewish majority, are those who say that time is now Anti-Semitic? The questions of Palestinian Nationhood, Israeli war crimes, Post Zionism; these are all questions raised in Israel itself, they're advocates are not Anti-Semites.

Next is the issue of the sources used. Exclusively Jewish, exclusively pro-Zionist. It speaks to an amazing insularity in your views and understandings of this conflict. The mythologizing at work in your speaking of Israel here is staggering, though something I am entirely used to. You try to present a fictional image of Israel as the Good Guy .

In the image you are trying to present, of Israel's Founding devoid of ethnic cleansing and the Defensive Occupation you are ignoring Israel's internal battles and distorting the truth. The Israeli society was torn in its founding between 2 sides, one of those sides came to rule Israel throughout the Occupation. They then openly called for settlement and the reduction of the Palestinians to a captive work force and market. The Dream of Greater Israel led to tax breaks with army protection for the colonials and destruction of Palestinian Industry, Education, and Political Bodies through Martial Law, the GSS and systems designed to physically isolate the Palestinian towns. This is one of the great Narratives of Israel, known by all in Israel, and debated by all in Israel. In ignoring and distorting it you are either ignorant or being dishonest.

In taking such an uncritical approach to Israel, or at least seeming like you do, and labeling those who disagree with you as Anti-Semites in other threads, you are giving a very good reason to ignore you.

Joel,

The sources aren't exclusively Jewish unless you discount Arabs referenced by Jews.

There are lots of grounds for criticizing Israel, a lot of it done by Jews living in Israel.

Israel is at war with Hamas because Hamas is at war with Israel. What possible excuse does Hamas have for firing rockets into Israel at civilians from Gaza except to provoke Israel into firing back and thus maintaining the conflict?

Let the United States do the non-interventionist, libertarian foreign policy thing and leave Israel alone to finally realize it's truly at war and smash its enemy. Not to mention the enemy that is Iran. Is this what you want? I mean, after the U.S. cuts loose Israel what's to criticize compared to the brutal insanities extant in the rest of the world? Perhaps you have some good transitional ideas?

--Brant

Joel,

I agree that reliance on a one-sided source only does not convince outsiders of anything (and that goes for all sides). I encourage everybody interested in this issue to read all the information available from all the different sources. When good will and commitment to reason is used, the facts tend to stand out amidst all the propaganda and omissions.

I am recently reading Dershowitz's book, The Case for Israel. There is a lot of information in there that I would have loved to have known before, but I couldn't stand the propaganda that surrounds all this, both for and against. So I simply ignored him for the longest time. I know I am not alone.

The main problem I have had with this issue is trying to put my hands over my ears so I can read and think for myself. Unfortunately, when you do that, both sides come down hard on you.

(Oops! Here it comes again!... )

btw - Happy birthday, Israel.

Despite all the mess and irrationality (and there is more than enough—nay, there is plenty—to go around), I salute and celebrate all of the good that has come out of that country. Looking at just the roll of productive achievements, Israeli Jews have been one hell of a job. Even my Bedouin former father-in-law used to say that Israeli Jews made a garden out of the desert.

btw - I have no problem with anyone quoting an article if they think the author expressed their views better than they could. That's honest.

(I am against a name-dropping kind of use of articles where it is evident that the poster has not read or assimilated what he is posting, but I have not seen that on OL for quite some time.)

Michael

Michael,

You said something that would, in any rational universe, be key but is irrelevant in this context-



The core of this conflict is not a dispute over fact, it is not even a dispute over moral issues, it is a dispute over national narratives. It is in seeing the Other on its own terms, not as something to unload your fears and ambitions upon; it is a fundamental unwillingness to acknowledge the existence and thus the rights of your enemy. This unwillingness exists in both Israeli and Palestinian circles in equal measure. Because I know the Israelis better I'm going to give some examples based on them but every word apples in equal measure to the Arabs.

The idea of being a Jew by nationality was a fiction until 1948. The Jews conjured this Identity out of thin air so as to respond to the anti-semitism and nationalism of Europe, it is completely artificial and Subjective. The Arabs, even well into the 1960's could not accept this conjuring as worthy of respect. The PLO Charter of 1968, based on the previous 2000 years of history, stated "Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong." What right did these Jews have to define themselves in such a way they would need Arab land? Perhaps they were merely pawns, part of the Western Imperialist Vanguard? Perhaps slaves to corrupt masters? Surely they can not mean it!

The advantages of Arab denial are obvious, the incentives the Arabs had in seeing Zionism as fake included Pan-Arabism, cultural and economic security as well has keeping their homes and businesses safe from foreign influences.

The Israelis responded in kind to the conjuring of the "Palestinian". Advantages of this denial canbe seen most clearly in the Israeli Right. If Palestinian Nationalism is seen as a product of corrupt leaders like Arafat than surely Israel's claim to the Land, Labor and Markets of the territories is legitimate. This has given a major bias in Israeli propaganda, something as ephemeral as a nationality without a State can be easily denied, its history rewritten and its assets seized by the dominant power.

I just want to give you an idea of how deep this conflict over history runs. "Truth" in this context is not fixed and not easily knowable. The truths of the national dialogue are fluid and changing with the circumstances. Tracking something like "Identity" becomes very hard to do and strong biases become obvious just by trying to simplify the task.

This is similar to the debate over suicide bombers, we all know it happens but have a vested interest in seeing its cause in a particular way. If you have the same political agenda I do its cause has to be seen as socio-economic, something changeable if we have the will to see Palestinian society progress. For others with a will to see Palestine dominated indefinitely, its cause must be equally unchanging and beyond reason, as being an unbeatable blind fanaticism.

There are advantages though to seeing Perception and Myth as more important than Facts. First of all because facts don't matter in that part of the world and because both sides, being mythic in their basic foundations, see the world in some pretty mythic ways, this needs to be understood to change things for the better. Let me give an example -

An Arab observer can look at Israel as a State with the limitless financial and diplomatic aid of the world's superpower which further enjoys the aid of the diaspora and say such a State would be affected in a way favorable to the Palestinians if a Divestment campaign really picked up, after all, the Israelis have so many friends and so many resources in high places they would finally be coerced to the bargaining table. An Israeli observer sees Israel as essentially alone, persecuted and on the edge of disaster, a divestment campaign would make it certain beyond doubt all humanity is against the Tribe and would therefore act in a dangerous and extreme way against its threats, starting with the Palestinians.

In my mind MSK the more you look at this honestly the more your beliefs will fragment and become contradictory being based on the changing contradictions of Identity Politics. Moral Judgment will give way to limited and practical solutions.

This is a good thing.

Joel, your post (#13) examplifies precisely what I wished to avoid by quoting at length as i did -- particularly the carefully documented article on Israel and the Arabs in 1948, which presents a great deal of important information not formerly available. I was not interested in offering a string of assertions backed by nothimg. Blanket assertions such as your claim that "the various Revisionst groups... were fascistic and endorsed the ethnic cleansing in Palestine and Jordan," surely deserve to be ignored.

You wrote: "Next is the issue of the sources used. Exclusively Jewish, exclusively pro-Zionist." I suggest you read more carefully. Many of the specified sources were and are opponents and enemies of Zionism amd Israel.

You wrote, "In taking such an uncritical approach to Israel, or at least seeming like you do, and labeling those who disagree with you as Anti-Semites in other threads, you are giving a very good reason to ignore you."

It is not the case that I take an uncritical approach to Israel, although in the present context my purpose was to defend Israel against unjust attacks. Of course Israel has made mistakes; of course Israel has done things it should not have done. I don't know any defender of Israel who denies that. But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good."

Nor -- and I fimd this accusation particularly offensive -- have I given you or anyone reason to say that I "label those who disagree with [me] as Anti-Semites." If that were my policy, I would have dismissed Greybird's comments out of hand with the accusation of anti-Semitism rather than presentng a lengthy and thoughtful response. Clearly, you are referrimg to one instance: my reaction to Wolf's remarkable post about the Jewish domination of just about everything, When someome repeats the favorite comspiracy-theory accusations of such rabid and open anti-Semites as David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, I do not know how the label of anti-Semite can be avoided.

According to Farrakhan, Jews are “bloodsuckers” who control the government and the media. He blames Jews and Israel for the war in Iraq, for controlling Hollywood and for promoting what he considers immorality. "The mind of Satan," he annoumced, "now is running the record industry, movie industry and television." "Of course," he added, "they [the Jews]have a very small number of people but they are the most powerful in the world."

Farrakhan further stated that "President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who are under the influence of Zionists, can never be dispassionate brokers for peace. Pres. Bush and Sec. Rice will always come down on the side of Israel to the detriment of America and any real peace that could be made in that region of the world.”

David Duke wrote that Jews “thoroughly dominate the news and entertainment media in almost every civilized nation; they control the international markets and stock exchanges; and no government can resist doing their bidding on any issue of importance. ”

Wolf Devoon wrote: "there's litte doubt that Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans to conquer Iraq was likewise staffed and led by Zionists. That the WMD 'smoking gun' lies were concocted by Zionists and those lies were trumpeted in U.S. newspapers, radio and television channels by Zionists.

"Justin Raimondo has done as much as anyone to expose the Jewish Lobby and its hammerlock grip on Congress and presidential politics. Personally, I'm in favor of a Jewish National Holiday, one day a year when their control of Wall Street, television, movies, music, book publishing, and politics would be suspended for 24 hours. Maybe that would wake people up, a day without Zionist propaganda -- blank TV screens.

"Judaism is racist, defined by heredity. Zionism is infinitely worse, defined by fantasy."

Anti-Semitism means prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a group. How would you have me refer to Wolf? -- as a fair, principled, reasonable critic?

Barbara

So the Arabs are worse? So what? That justifies what? It justifies nothing. All this line of reasoning asserts is that Israel's actions are slightly less reprehensible than her enemies, so therefore Israel is "good qua good" as a result?

C'mon.

Bob

How much "less reprehensible" do you think Israel's actions are, Bob?

--Brant

You said "slightly less." I did not.

Barbara

Yeah, well "slightly less" might not be the best choice of words I agree. I just really get tired of the argument that the Arabs are so evil that it justifies whatever acts of babarism that Israel commits.

Just because in balance, the Arabs may be more 'evil', it justifies nothing.

Bob

The problem is not Arabs, it is who controls and rules the Palestinians through force and terror. The worst is Hamas.

--Brant

Agreed. But I used "Arabs' because of this comment by Barbara:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies,"

I think this is highly offensive, and I'm not Arab. I respecfully suggest she reflect on why she had to include the word 'Arab" in that context.

The fundamental problem. I believe, is that one cannot be pro-Jew and not be anti-Arab at the same time (and vice-versa of course too). Therefore, without this admission we cannot even begin to rationally and honestly discuss, much less deal with, the problem of racism.

Bob

Barbara is using language precisely. She said "Arab enemies," not "Arabs." If she used just "Arabs" elsewhere--I don't think she did--I'm pretty sure "enemies" was strongly implied. I'm "pro-Jew" and not "anti-Arab." I'm pro-Arab; I'm pro-life. Hamas is anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-Jew, anti-life.

--Brant

Bob,

You just did something that I used to do. I want to give you some information so you can look at it in a different light. You took a broad principle that works for most things and applied it to an area you (seemingly) know very little about, and then based a severe moral judgment on that principle alone.

When dealing with the Islamic culture, generally racial, cultural and political boundaries are much more blurred than they are in other cultures. They are so for a reason. For instance, Barbara's use of the word "Arab" just now offended you, but I have no doubt at all—none—that it would not offend an Iranian, which is the biggest and bitterest rival (Shiite) in Islam to the Saudi Arabian version (Sunni). I know this because I lived within the Islamic culture for 5 years in Brazil. I was on the periphery, I admit, but I was still close enough to observe things like this.

In fact, there is a funny term the Arabs use for Arabs in Brazil: Turk.

Now why do you think this is so?

Look to the Qur'an. Within Islam, only the Arabian version is the valid one. All other translations are considered mere descriptions. Also, the two holy places in Islam are Mecca and Medina, both in Saudi Arabia. One of the five pillars of Islam is to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. No other country has a holy place in it.

An idea that is present in the Qur'an, which both fundamentalists and enemies of Islam harp on to an exaggerated degree, is for Muslims to establish one nation on earth under Islam.

These conditions apply to all Muslims everywhere. To call a Muslim an Arab is actually flattering to him, not a term of bigotry.

Back to why Brazilian Arabs call Arabs "Turks," the reason is the Ottoman empire, which ruled practically all Islamic countires before WWI. And it ruled them for a very long time.

So if you look at a Jew facing Nazi-based anti-Semitism (which is the kind, say, with Hamas), then hear that same Jew talk about Arabs, you are dealing with two different animals. They are as different as night and day.

Let's be clear. A Jewish bigot is a bigot, regardless of anything else, but a Jew using the word "Arab" for identification purposes is not. Just like an Arab (or Muslim or whatever you want to call the members of the Islamic nation) saying the word Jew is not a bigot, but saying "Jewish swine," like you see on Palestinean TV daily, is a bigot.

Knowledge is power, my friend. Use it wisely when you judge.

Michael

I think it's pretty well-known that Iranians don't like to be called Arabs. Not because it's a term of bigotry, just because it's incorrect. According to Wikipedia, only 3% of Iranians are Arab; 51% are Persians.

Laure,

I don't know where it's well known. Where I used to live in Brazil, it was not well known at all. And I knew many Iranian immigrants and descendents.

Maybe it is different in other parts of the world. I usually see Westerners make an issue out of this in the news, hardly ever an Iranian.

If it gets territorial, I can imagine calling an Iranian an Iraqi would be offensive, or something like that, but I don't believe this would be the case as regards anything dealing with the Islamic culture.

I believe this is one case of transposing alien values on another culture. We all do it, too, because what we are is what we know best.

I do agree that an Iranian might correct a foreigner on this because of being correct (as you said). I can imagine him getting upset if the person refuses to adopt the correction. He might interpret that as a form of bigotry against him in answer to his request. I don't see him imagining that any bigotry between Arabs and Persions is involved.

Michael

You've got it all wrong. What I was objecting to was the use of 'Arab enemies' when 'enemies' would suffice. I was not objecting to the term 'Arab' at all. She deliberately adds an ethnic adjective to the term 'enemies' as if the ethnicity somehow contributes to the term.

In this context saying "Jewish swine" as you put it, or "Arab enemies" as Barbara did is exactly the same. It's a bigoted remark, period.

Whether she admits it or not, what she did was ask us to weigh Jewish behaviour vs "Arab enemy' behaviour to make a point that Arab enemies (not just enemies but ARAB enemies) are swine - or more precisely how so much better (Good qua good) Jews are in comparison.

Let's be honest now, that's just as bigoted as Wolf, just more subtle...

Bob

Bob,

What enemies surround Israel that are not Arab (in the sense I described above)? Israel happens to have had German enemies and others who are non-Arab.

You are stretching the word here to include a meaning that is not present in the usage.

Also, Barbara is not a bigot. I object strongly to your characterization of her as such. I will only let it stand this once because I am aware how the image her exclusive reliance on strongly pro-Zionist sources comes across, but not anything in your arguments.

I will delete anything else like that.

Please stick to the ideas.

Michael

I humbly suggest that that is simply not possible - a contradiction.

And until we realize this is a contradiction, racism will flourish unabated.

Bob

Exactly, so why was the term included? Read the paragraph again, groc the intent, then tell me again I'm wrong on this.

Bob

Ok fine.

But is this a bigoted remark?:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good."

Can someone who truly believes this, as written, not be racist? I ask you.

Bob

Grock...

(There, I grocked it.)

You're wrong on this.



(You are wrong, too.)


No it isn't racist.

I believe this statement would have read: "But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its German enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good," if Israel had been set up in Germany. You could almost make that statement in light of WWII.

If someone constantly attacks you from the same group and you identify that group, you are not being racist. You are being racist if you claim that all members of that group are attackers and haters (and cannot be otherwise), though.

Here is the basic logic. They are called Arab enemies because:

1. They are Arabs,
2. They are there,
3. Nobody else is.
4. There are lots of enemies there.
5. Other enemies exist.

If this is not clear, I give up and let's let the matter be.

Michael

How is there not a contradiction (or two) in there? Really now. I honestly don't think you believe this.

"are being racist if you claim that all members of that group are attackers and haters "

No. You know this isn't correct. One is racist if one believes that the racial component of the group distinction contributes to their status as enemies.

I do not believe that you have such poor understanding of what racism is. I smell a rat here. Something just doesn't add up.

Bob

OK, Bob.

Please define racism as you understand it.

And please try to hold on to that chip on your shoulder that demands that someone agree with you or be evil. That's what I object to in some ortho-Objectivists and it is not becoming in you.

I will not allow intimidation to become part of the rhetorical fare of this discussion forum. The rat you smell is gnawing on that chip.

Michael

Barbara: "But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies..."

Bob: "I think this is highly offensive, and I'm not Arab. I respectfully suggest she reflect on why she had to include the word 'Arab' in that context.... She deliberately adds an ethnic adjective to the term 'enemies' as if the ethnicity somehow contributes to the term. In this context saying 'Jewish swine' as you [Michael] put it, or 'Arab enemies' as Barbara did is exactly the same. It's a bigoted remark, period."

I appreciate -- and agree with -- what Brant and Michael have said explaining my use of the word "Arab." In simplest terms, I used the word "Arab" because those are the enemies of Israel we were discussing, not its other enemies. (See your post #18.) This does not seem very complicated to me. Period.

Barbara

When I say I'm "pro-Jew" I'm not saying I'm pro-a-Jew-who-murders. When I say I'm pro-Arab I'm not saying I'm pro-an-Arab-who-murders. I am saying I minimally don't hold it against any human being just because he is one or the other. It's the essential humanity of each I am "pro."

--Brant

Right! Now we're getting somewhere!

The only thing you should add, I think, is the corollary that you cannot hold someone in higher esteem because he is one or the other. Or in other words, you cannot be PRO - [insert race here] and not be racist.

Bob

Any prejudice, positive OR negative, that is based all or in part on the genetic or cultural heritage of a person. Or in other words, drawing a conclusion regarding an individual based on a racial characteristic (true OR not).

It ain't that tough.

For example.

1) West africans are the fastest runners. (98 of the world's top 100 sprinters have west afican blood). (fact)

2) Joe is west african, therefore he must be fast. (racist)

Do I really have to explain this?

Bob

Well, perhaps Michael, but I'm really sensitive to folks that claim they're not racist, but somehow cannot stop making racist remarks.

And to be more clear, as soon as somebody is avidly PRO - [insert race here] it's only a matter of time before the more familiar racism leaks out more overtly. Happens every time. One just has to agitate a little and out it pops, right on cue.

Most people don't realize that being Pro - [insert race here] defines one as inescapably racist. It is one and the same. Look at the Nazi's. As soon as the aryans become the ideal, every one else is just different levels of genetic garbage.

Bob

For crying out loud! Why the hell is it so easy to see that being pro-White is racist, but being pro-something else is just bloody fine? Just because there might be a minority/majority situation changes nothing! Pro-Jew is JUST as racist as being pro-White. It is EXACTLY THE FRIGGIN' SAME THING!

What frustrates me is that until we wake the hell up and face this, racism rocks on.

Bob

Well, I have a much greater cultural affinity for Jews than Arabs, but there is some culture that is Jewish I do not like, at least for its insularity. It's very uneven. I can say the same about WASPs, of which I am one. I like another culture--or aspects of it--that gives me a broader, positive idea of who I am, potentially at least, as a human being. I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start. That doesn't last long. For instance, I can't stand willfull stupidity and many Jews combine that with brains usually expressed as liberal, collectivist, socialist. The more obviously obnoxious is greatly self-limiting. The evil to dangerous is reflected in The New York Times, historical champion of communism-coverup Stalin mass-murdering and Castro in Cuba. The NYT is America's truly traitor newspaper and it is controlled and owned by the Sulzbergers. It's in big trouble financially because of declining ad revs and I hope to see it shrivel up and die in my own lifetime, its hdqs bldg bulldozed and the land turned into a park so I can go there and dance. But the hatred and contempt I feel for that paper, which I read for decades, is not hatred for Jews, even its owners. I don't think Walter Duranty was Jewish. Was Herb Matthews?

--Brant

But Bob, Barbara didn't make a #2-type statement, did she? She never said, Ahmed is an Arab, therefore he must be unfairly against Israel. And Brant didn't make a #2-type statement. He never said, Ira is a Jew, therefore I like him better than Ahmed (or whatever). I think both of them are making #1-type statements. Arabs oppose Israel's existence (doesn't mean they all do). Not sure what Brant's view of Jews is, but it could be something like, "Jews are fun-loving and place a heavy emphasis on intellectual pursuits." (doesn't mean this applies to every Jewish individual) It is very difficult for human beings not to create stereotypes of different categories of people. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not, sometimes they're based on our own limited experience with that category of people. I agree that drawing a conclusion about any individual based on his racial characteristics is always racist.

You're right, she said "Arab enemies" - no difference when in context IMHO. Now, she contends that 'Arab' merely distinguishes between Israel's other middle east enemies. like ah... er...uh... the 'other' ones.

Now let's look at what she did say (either first hand or by quotation - which we have to assume she agrees with).

"the world should recognize the enormous gifts the Jewish state has given the world."

"Israel has created a legal system that is the envy of the world"

"No other nation with such high standards of morality"

"no nation in the world has contributed more per capita to the general welfare of the people of this planet than Israel."

and...

"In many fields Israel is so far ahead of the pack that other countries have no chance of catching up."

And so on ad nauseum, but then this:

"But the fact is that when one weighs the sins of Israel against the sins of its Arab enemies, Israel clearly comes out as what you call "the Good Qua Good.""

So, not only are the Israelis the best in the world at just about everything, the Arabs are so evil that, even acknowledging that Israelis have made mistakes, the Israelis are the very models of goodness compared to the Arab enemies.




Oh really?

Brant:

"I will tend to hold a Jew in higher esteem than any other including WASPs if that's all I know right off the bat as a default start."

Ahem....

So, now let me go back and summarize what Barbara's argument boils down to:

1.) Jews = greatness.
2.) Arabs totally suck.

No, no racism there, none at all.

Bob

Well... OK, Bob, you win this round. Although I don't think it is necessarily racist to view present-day Jewish culture as superior to present-day Arab culture. But I can see where you're coming from -- if you replace "white" for "Jewish" and "black" for "Arab", the nasty tone of a statement like this becomes more obvious to me.

Well Laure,

It's not about winning at all. It's just a topic I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about. I used to be angry (well annoyed at least) in my youth about why I couldn't have a "white" club, when there was a "Chinese" club meeting going on every week. Of course, I know now I was wrong and the idea of a "White" club is offensive. But so is the Chinese club for the same reasons. It seems I grew up and saw the light, but few others "get it".

Jews have had a tough history, to say the least. As a non-violent example, many clubs (like country clubs) historically don't (and maybe still don't) allow Jews to be members - just as an example. This sickens me. Now, Jews go ahead and set up the ultimate club (a country) and refuse to allow non-Jews to join. (I know there are Arab Israelis, but try to immigrate there as a non-Jew and see what happens.) They escape the discrimination only to do exactly the same thing. This sickens me even more.

Touting the greatness of Israel, or any other racial group, is just the 'pretty' side of something very ugly at its core. It's my contention that it's about time we faced it, and not give these folks a pass because they're all "nice and positive".

Barbara quoted Dershowitz at the beginning and I guess that set me off because I think that this guy is a total, complete scumbag.

Bob

C'mon back,Wolf; we're all racists here, now, except Bob, altho I'm beginning to wonder if he is racist for racists. A Jew in college once all but called me a Nazi. If he only knew! I've met many obnoxious Jews, but I never let that color my attitude toward Jews I liked. I thought that would have been racist. I love the way Jews generally celebrate and encourage education, inteligence, efficacy and achievement. I never knew this was racism on my part. I've never given any Jew 10 cents just for being Jewish, though. When I said "default start" it was only a start, not a start/stop. I had an Arab roommate in college. I wasn't crazy about him. I did like him a lot more than the Jew who thought I was a Nazi because my political views at the time were similar to Barry Goldwater's! I'll never forget his arrogant condescending leering/snearing. It's a hateful memory for me, but that is for him, not other Jews.

Bob, I really feel that you quote me in a way that somewhat changes what I said and meant because you keep cutting up my sentences to find the bits and parts you can use. This has happened twice so far on this thread.

--Brant

Maybe I am. I'll have to think about that!

Bob,

Let's take the issues according to priority. To start with, rules of engagement. Without such rules, no rational engagement is possible.


The answer is yes. You do have to explain it. Questioning that is akin to stating that you do not want to establish rules of engagement.

You are making some serious accusations and defining one's terms is the standard procedure in a philosophical debate. If you wish to continue the debate on a rational level, it is a good idea to adhere to such rules of engagement. They exist for a reason. You are not dealing with children in kindergarten here, but highly intelligent intellectuals. Learn to respect that.

Now, about your definition of racism.


I am not satisfied with this definition on several levels, but I will discuss two. The first is not being clear on what you mean by prejudice. If you mean evaluation, that is one thing. If you mean a synonym for racism, this is what is called a circular definition. For example:

A racist is someone prejudiced about race.
Someone prejudiced about race is a racist.

That's not much of a definition. You didn't go to that extent, but your meaning is vague, so I would be interes