Israeli peace group Gush Shalom published the following ad in Haaretz on March 3:
To the leaders of all the parties:
TELL US THE TRUTH!
The elections are approaching. And the closer they come, the more the obfuscation increases.
While the Likud says “No, but” and Labor says “Yes, but”, Kadima says “Perhaps, but”.
Between the leaders of the large parties and their satellites, a mendacious consensus has come into being.
“NO” to a viable Palestinian state, “NO” to a compromise about Jerusalem, “NO” to the Green Line border, “NO” to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Hamas.
And, on the other side, “YES” to unilateral action, “YES” to the wall that robs and annexes the land of the Palestinian villages, “YES” to stealing the money that Israel owes the Palestinian Authority, “YES” to starving the Palestinian population.
Ehud Olmert cuts the Jordan valley off from the West Bank, in preparation of its annexation to Israel, and the Labor Party keeps silent.
The leaders know well that these positions prevent any chance for ending the historic conflict. But they support them in the hope of winning popularity and votes. They play cynically with our fate and the fate of our children. This may lead to another intifada, perhaps to a new war.
The public must know that there is an alternative:
- The State of Israel will support the establishment of the State of Palestine, whose border will be the Green Line with minor, agreed territorial swaps.
- Jerusalem will become the capital of the two states, the Capital of Peace.
- Negotiations will start with the elected Palestinian leadership, on the basis of existing agreements and the cessation of violent action by both sides.
Don’t present false programs that will not stand the test of reality!
Gush Shalom or Gushy Shalom? Capital of Peace? Lets make all middle eastern cities capitals of peace. Let Jews share Riyadh, Teheran, Damascus and Baghdad! And don’t forget the return of all Jewish property from the Arab contries that ejected its Jewish populations as part of ethnic cleansing.
In my view, Jerusalem should never be divided. After what the Arabs did to Jerusalem under Jordanian and Ottoman rule, they are lucky to even have any access.
“THE JEWS OF IRAQ
By Naeim Giladi
I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.” I write about it because I was part of it.”
I know your version is more popular captain.-Keep trying.
“They play cynically with our fate and the fate of our children. This may lead to another intifada, perhaps to a new war.”
In 10-20 years from now the whole idea of two states will be abandoned-mainly because these lunatics don’t want a viable Palestine. By that time Israel will be a basket case, there’ll be a quiet revolution, the arabs will get the vote, one country called Israelistan will emerge.
“In my view, Jerusalem should never be divided. After what the Arabs did to Jerusalem under Jordanian and Ottoman rule, they are lucky to even have any access.”
Was Jerusalme populated to any degree by Jews at the time? You salivating at the dream of a greater Israel?
“I know your version is more popular captain.-Keep trying.”
Orang,
Now you’ve done it. Having read Naeim Giladi’s passgae, Captain has probably gone catatonic and sitting immobilized in front of his PC repeating “Does not compute”.
The Jews of Jerusalem were forced out by the Palestinian Jordanians. They ethnically cleansed Jerusalem of the native Jews.
The Palestinian Jordanians then descerated numerous sacred Jewish sites in Jerusalem and contrary to signed agreements, refused to let the Jews enter their religious places.
When did that take place Chris?
orang, more popular? The truth is usually like that.
You must remember too that the British strictly regulated Jewish movement when the historical mandate of Israel was under their control. Therefore demographics do not tell the full storey.
The problem is you can find anyone to quote anything about events anywhere. The fact that there are always Jews on the margin of history who dissent about the zeitgeist does not make what they say true. As we have seen here, Finkelstein has been well and trully discounted as have other historical revisionists. Its not that their view of history is unpalatable, so much as untrue.
Addamo, I seriously wonder why you’re asking that question. Surely you are familiar with the fact that the Palestinian Jordanians were left in control of Jerusalem after the end of Israel’s war of independance?
Chris,
Filkenstein discounted by whom exactly? Yes he has detractors, but what makes then any more credible than he?
Numerous editors, libel lawyers and leading scholars in the field from Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States were called upon to render judgment and concluded after this peer review process that Beyond Chutzpah made a significant scholarly contribution. After UCPress published it, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) commended UCPress for its principled stand.
Filkensteins dissection of the publication of Dershowitz was pretty compelling, but Dershowitz is still on the speaklign circuit.
That is very much a matter of opinion. Indeed Filkenstein is gaining a great deal of noteriety.
You are answering cap. My querry concerned your question, again:
Addamo, I seriously wonder why you’re asking that question. Surely you are familiar with the fact that the Palestinian Jordanians were left in control of Jerusalem after the end of Israel’s war of independance?
Yes I was aware of that Palestinians controlled Jerusalem at some stage, but I was not aware of the desecration of sacred Jewish sites. I was curious as to when that actually took place.
I was unclear as to the time frame you were referring to, given Captain reference to Jewsih property in Riyadh, Teheran, Damascus and Baghdad.
it sounds good true or not, roll it round on your tongue,
“desecration of sacred Jewish sites”
-that’s alliteration isn’t it?
” The fact that there are always Jews on the margin of history who dissent about the zeitgeist does not make what they say true.”
-No, no. You see, what they say is in fact true, but it doesn’t suit your script on how it should be.
Surely it is logical, jews who have lived in the Middles East with arabs for hundreds of years have some connection. Those who were imported from Poland, Russia, Essex, what attachment do they have? Oh sorry, God, promised, yep got it ………..
orang, not even thinly veiled antisemitism! Ant, don’t you take offense at this nasty blatant salivation at offending Jews? If not, you should.
oh, and alliteration would be more like: you foul filthy fucker!
And how do you know its true? You have merely chosen a dissenting view of history that does not enjoy popularity. Your motives are obvious. Have you considered that the truth is a script that is unpalatable to you? Given your ignorance it would be fair to say that Jews expelled from Israel did end up in many disparate areas ranging from Arab countries to Europe. The connection with Israel never ceased and never will.
Just for the record, to clarify my post above, I lampooned not the supposed act with the alliteration tag, but the accusation.
Alliteration?
How about, captain-a cocksucking cabin boy?
Its funny how liberals like orang will use homsexuality as if it is an insult!
orang, you and addammo seem similarly challenged by English. But seriously you come across as an outright bigot. I don’t see you poking fun at Islamic beliefs and practices. I don’t see you challenging the boilerplate muslim view of history.
People, Puuuulease. Can we keep the insults elsewhere?
Thanks.
captain Mar 5th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Your views are both interesting and out of touch. If you read some impartial history, you’ll know that the (a) which ever group was dominant at the time discriminated against the less dominant groups; (b) the Muslim rulers gave greater freedoms over religious, legal and economic matters, as well as movement than the other two monotheisms; (c) the worst were the Christians who didn’t just discriminate against Jews and Muslims, but persecuted them mercilessly. The reason the Ottomans divided the city was to ensure social harmony – the constituents themselves wanted it that way. Please, please read some “normal” history – not raving polemics by barrow-pushers and axe-grinders. It’s not difficult. Visit a university library; there are hundreds and hundreds of books on he topic.
Chris Mar 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Needless to say it would be utterly racist to infer anything from this about the Palestinians today, given that the vast majority of them were not even born at this particular instant in history.
captain Mar 5th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
I find it curious that the arguments often start with a demographic one about ‘continuous connection to Greater Israel for 2,000 years’ plus ‘there were almost no Arabs settled there’, and then when that gets comprehensively demolished as pure myth (and it is found that if anything, the converse demographic argument is better supported), that mysteriously, it is then claimed that the demographic argument means absolutely nothing … in fact, to appeal to it is to be misled. Very curious.
Correct. And nor does the fat that you point this out make what they say false. One needs to go to the evidence. And to his credit – whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions – that’s what Finkelstein does in obsessive detail as any academic worthy of the title should. (That’s why one can’t regard Dershowitz as much of an academic these days.)
Please cite respectable sources … websites don’t count. Books published by well-known publishing houses and academic journals count.
captain Mar 5th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
…perhaps that should be “challenged in their use of English” (although the whole sentence really needs to be restructured). People in glass houses…
Probably because it is not as central to the issue in terms of land claims. For some literalist versions of Judaism, racially discriminatory real estate claims lie at the core of faith and ethics. This is not to say that Islamic faith and ethics have nothing at all to do with the matter. You’ll note that this is a basic theological conflict in that Islamic ethics has no truck with a racially discriminatory Being, nor does it regard oppression of one group by another as being ethically acceptable. Obviously, this impinges on the occupation of the territories.
Escelllent Rebuttal Edward,
It’s quite remarkable how pliable history can be when you need it to fit a particular versino of events.
Captain is quite fond of making baseless plattituds and padding them equally baselelss hyperbole. Finkelstein’s book went through a very viggorous peer review process and was given the thumbs up. I doubt that Dershowitz’s work was this heavily scruitinized, oherwise, he proabably woudl have foudn himself answering charges of fraud and plagiarism. More importantly, there owudl have been no grist to feed Filkenstein’s entire book.
“I find it curious that the arguments often start with a demographic one about ‘continuous connection to Greater Israel for 2,000 years’ plus ‘there were almost no Arabs settled there’, and then when that gets comprehensively demolished as pure myth (and it is found that if anything, the converse demographic argument is better supported), that mysteriously, it is then claimed that the demographic argument means absolutely nothing … in fact, to appeal to it is to be misled.”
Excellent point. There is a rule og thimb in legal trils, if you can’t argue the facts, argue the law, and if you can’t cargue the law, argue the facts. There seems to be a patern emerging here.
It appears that you are equally unfamiliar with both. Therefore you have no argument?
You have made so numerous false and baseless comments under the guise of how “it appears” to you, that your opinion in becoming increasingly irrelevant and discredited. In fact, I have noticed that you commence your posts with, “it appears”, when you know you are making a statement that is unsupported.
The fact that Filkenstein’s book underwent extensive peer review has nothing to do with my familiarity of the subject matter.
That Filkenstein’s book was published in spite of very public and concerted efforts by Deechowitz to thwart the publication is also beyond dispute.
Edrwad’s point that demographic rationales tying in the ideology of a Greater Israel with the insistence that there were almost no Arabs settled there is very true. These argument are raised often by Zionist extremists.
It is also easy to notice that when these arguments are comprehensively rebutted, the same apologists often shift their rational by insisting that the demographic argument is irrelevant.
An individual with no familiarly with the subject matter can deduce the above armed with noting more than common sense.
False and baseless comments? It appears that you are very unfamiliar with the facts based on your numerous admissions. You appear equally ignorant of the law based on your numerous assertions using laws that do not apply.
Seems my argument has merit and you are whining.
So continues your love affair with the word ignorant.
Your argument has merit? Let me see. Have you proved any of the following to be false?
- Did Filkenstein’s book not undergo extensive peer review by numerous editors, libel lawyers and leading scholars in the field from Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States, which concluded it made a significant scholarly contribution?
- Did Derschowitz not launch a concerted, but unsuccessful campaign to prevent the publication Filkenstein’s book?
- The contradictions Edward alluded to are a common theme with Zionists.
- The saying I quoted about arguing the facts vs arguing the law is not my own invention, but a common expression.
You seem to have a poor comprehension of words like ignorant, unfamiliar, facts and merit, mush less an understanding of using them in the appropriate context. So base on such evidence, “it appears” you are whining and what I am saying is entirely valid.
How many times have we heard Adammo say that the Iranians are telling the truth?
Read their own comments about their truthfullness!
Edward, you do put it better than me: “challenged in their use of English. I will accept that update to my description of adammo and tight-man.
Edward, you ask me to cite facts when you rely on empty polemics. Frankly I don’t think your version of “impartial” history would be anything of the sort.
The problem with Finkelstein is not obsessive detail. It is lack of perspective. He sees ‘fact’ and places value judgements on them. He gives weigh to what suits his particular biases. You can be diligent yet have flawed reasoning. Many historians have distanced themselves from his findings. Further, he relied on other historical revisionsts such as Benny Morris who himself has been discredited.
Its is pure gold the way you rationalise the antisemitic statements here as “Probably because it is not as central to the issue in terms of land claims.” Oh, and Jewish marriage falls into that category? Obviously you have not read the Koran and accepted that it sees Jews as the descendants of pigs and monkeys. Straight from the phophet himself!
Addamo, it is still very clear that you remain very ignorant of facts and laws. You have admitted on numerous times these assertions.
In fact, nothing in your previous post addresses these items, just more of your usual misdirection. Try to stay focused.
I would like to see that reference for the Quranic quote about pigs and monkeys. Somehow I din’t think it will be forthcoming. The best we can hope for is that someone reported that someone else reported that they heard Mushammed said it.
The truth of the matter is that Islam has always recognized the ethical position that discrimination against people is wrong, whatever the practice was in reality.Traditionally, even the much maligned ‘dhimmi’ system was centuries before its time and represented a quantum improvement on practice in the rest of the world which has only belatedly (within the past 50 years) adopted principles that all men are created equal. The Mosque has never been segregated according to race, and Jews were welcomed as converts to Islam; and many converted in droves. Many of the first Muslims were Jews.
It has recently been shown that genetically, there is absolutely no difference between Arab Jews and Palestinians, unlike the heralded (Eu)genetics study of European Jews and Palestinians that found that they had a common ancesor 150,000 years ago.
The fact of the matter is that whatever Jews lived in Palestine previously, most had converted first to Christianity, and then to Islam, and have become what is commonly known as Palestinians today.
Chris,
I am staying focused, which is why I am not arguing historical facts so much as patterns of rhatorical contradictions and events that have indeed taken place.
Here is the Koranic source. Looking forward to your rationalisation of that one.
Captain,
Indeed have I actually said that, or have I simply pointed out what the IAEA has reported? My oh my, you really need to get your arguments in order my friend.
So would you like to explain what that means? That Iran has a stockpile of nukes ready to go? Please explain to me what you take this report to mean? Just so we can determine your comprehension.
“Frankly I don’t think your version of “impartial” history would be anything of the sort.”
That’s a contradiction if I ever read one. Either you have the facts or you don’t. If you had facts, you would be in a position to know that Edward’s version of history was not impartial, not “think” it.
“The problem with Finkelstein is not obsessive detail. It is lack of perspective.”
Oh this is too funny. Lack of who’s perspective exactly? Yours?
“He sees ‘fact’ and places value judgements on them. He gives weigh to what suits his particular biases.”
You on the other hand don’t even need facts and you do it anyway. You said that Finkelstein has been well and truly discredited when in “fact” his works was exhaustively vetted, which in fact is a powerful endorsement to it’s validity.
“You can be diligent yet have flawed reasoning. Many historians have distanced themselves from his findings.”
Please list them. If these historians are so plentiful, you should have no problem. I do expect you to produce names of impractical historians of course. And of course, that would exclude Derschowitz.
“Further, he relied on other historical revisionsts such as Benny Morris who himself has been discredited.”
How strange. In a recent debate with Chomsky, Derschowitz has also relied on references to Benny Morris.
You stated many times that the Iranians have bent over backwards to be honest and transparent in their dealings concerning the nuclear reactor. They have announced that they have not. It shows that you have poor judgement and you are wrong.
I stated that they agreed to additional concessions, over and above those stipulated by the NPT. They did that.
These additional concessions involved an agreement not to pursue uranium enrichment until Europe came up with a proposal that was agreeable to both parties. Europe failed to deliver.
According to the IAEA, Iran did not recommence enrichment until after the second deadline with E3 had expired. As far as I have been able to determine, the agreement put a freeze on enrichment, not construction or equipment installation.
I have warned you before about being careful what you read. The details in this story are very vague. There is nothing in this report that states Iran broke the terms of their agreement with the E3, much less the NPT. This statement is particularly misleading and vague
“while convincing European diplomats that nothing was afoot.”
What does nothing was a foot mean? That there was no installation going on or that there was no enrichment taking place?
Refining yellowcake and emriching uranium are not the same thing.
Nothing listed in this report constitutes even a remote contravention of the NPT.
Given the litany of lies that led to the Iraq war, including inside “sources” like Curveball that lied through their teeth, or half truths reported from testimony from Kamal Hussein, you really should exercise some skepticism, rather than hysteria, which appears to be your reflex reaction.
Incidently,
Here are the deatils of teh agreement Iran reched with the Eu/E3.
On March 23, 2005, Iran offered the EU/E3 a package of “objective guarantees” that included a voluntary “confinement” of Iran’s nuclear programs, to include:
1. Forgoing the reprocessing of spent fuel and the production of plutonium;
2. Limiting the extent and level of uranium-enrichment to that required for Iran’s power reactors;
3. The immediate conversion of any and all enriched uranium to fuel rods to preclude even the technical possibility of further enrichment;
The Iranians also proposed that there be an unprecedented “continuous on-site presence of IAEA inspectors at the conversion and enrichment facilities.”
So there appears no agreement in these items that mentions the cessation of construction or installation of refining/enrichment equipment.
29 JohD
Mar 6th, 2006 at 10:34 am
I would like to see that reference for the Quranic quote about pigs and monkeys.
********************************
Why? Is it not enough that references to published items all over the middle east of such exist? How many Arabs must make that statement for you to believe it has been made?
The quote is either from the Quran or it is not.
If it is, surely that carries an entirely different significance than if it were just a common expression.
For example, you have suggested that Ben Guirons staemnt about beast walking on two legs is a myth. Would it be reasonable to argue that it is unimportant whether or not he said it, so long as enough people believe him to have said it?
Captain Mar 6th, 2006 at 10:57 am
“Here is the Koranic source. Looking forward to your rationalisation of that one.”
You cite a lecture by Dr Leah Kinberg? Jewish isn’t she? From Tel Aviv university right?
Just wondered.
Orang, because she is Jewish, therefore her academic papaer is disqualified? Bigot!
Orang only accepts evidence from Jews if it is against Jewish interests. Shocking antisemitism.
I have stated, as a fact, that Ben Gurion never stated that the Palestinian people were beasts walking on two legs.
I will also aver that there is no statement, by any prime minister of Israel, referring to the Palestinian people as beasts walking on two legs.
It is exceptionally important that the facts remain as such. Or else you run the danger of a known repeated lie being assumed as fact.
From your previous posts, it seems you are not concerned with the facts.
I am in total agreement Chris, but I do think there is a significant differnce betwwen an inflamatory statement being made by Arab leaders and what is stated in the Koran.
For if the Koran does not support the abusive description, those who are guilty of repeating those abuses can be refuted by what is regarded as the ultimate authority in the Islamic world.
And what if it is based in the Koran? What then?
Then obviously it is very tragic and completely unacceptable.
If such statements, victimizing another faith, were to appear in the Bible or the Torah, that would have to render them fraudulent, for how could any religion that petends to champion peace exist alongside such venom?
Chris and Captain,
While our exchanges have been impassionaed and even heated, I do respect the restraint you have both shown by not resorting to charges of anti-Semitism at the first sign of disagreement.
I may have a bad way of expressing it, but I am interested in what you both have to say.
Peace to both of you.
Is there any need to make such a charge?
Sorry? I don’t follow.
Addamo
Mar 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
“… not resorting to charges of anti-Semitism at the first sign of disagreement. ”
**************************************
Is there any need to make such a charge?
Sorry I misunderstood,
No there is no reason to make such a charge, but that has not stopped others from doing so in the past when confronting critcism of Israel. I just felt it was necessary to clarify that and say that your contribution to the debate is stregthened as a result of the composure displayed by you and Chris.
Chris Mar 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I have stated, as a fact, that Ben Gurion never stated that the Palestinian people were beasts walking on two legs.”
I didn’t say it was Ben Gurion, I said it was Begin.
If you’re interested in Ben Gurion, he said;
“We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
Addamo
Mar 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
For example, you have suggested that Ben Guirons staemnt about beast walking on two legs is a myth. Would it be reasonable to argue that it is unimportant whether or not he said it, so long as enough people believe him to have said it?
********************************
“Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.
“We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”
- David Ben-Gurion, in Israel’s Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948