|
Grex > Agora41 > #125: Peace plan details, from Camp David to Taba | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 173 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 100 of 173:
| 
May 28 01:37 UTC 2002 |
Scott, isn't it about time you enlightened yourself?
Since I'm not holding my breath:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/israel/story8.html
It was a mild November evening in 1947 when news of the U.N.
agreement reached the people who lived in Palestine.
In the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the people
cheered and cried with joy and danced in the streets. There was no
cheering in the Arab neighborhoods. There, the plan was denounced
with gunfire and promises to THROW THE JEWS INTO THE SEA.
http://www.intelbriefing.com/afi/afi010926.htm
In 1967, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser precipitated the War with
Israel by blockading the Gulf of Aqaba and threatening to "PUSH
THE JEWS INTO THE SEA."
http://www.house.gov/hoekstra/Israeldiary_2.html
Fading away is the direct military threat of PUSHING ISRAEL INTO THE
SEA. Threats of terrorism and fundamentalism are constantly evolving.
While you think you're being smart to challenge this, others still embrace
this terminology:
http://zog.to/3/intifada2/JeffJacoby.htm
the sentiment to PUSH THE JEWS INTO THE SEA is legitimate and
understandable.
Here's part of an interesting article that touches on this point:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/161yaihr.
asp
Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five
million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field,
and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now
these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack
of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey,
but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and
the constant din of rabid blood oaths to DRIVE EVERY JEW INTO THE SEA?
Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just
reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five
million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can
anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite
to themselves? Of course not. Or marshalling every fiber and force at
their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab state into the
sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents?
Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs
baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you
know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would
ever do to people is debate them to death.
Wups. Looks like he got me down pat. (:
|
bdh3
|
|
response 101 of 173:
|
May 28 03:14 UTC 2002 |
Who's pat?
|
drew
|
|
response 102 of 173:
|
May 28 06:14 UTC 2002 |
Richard Nixon's wife?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 103 of 173:
|
May 28 06:22 UTC 2002 |
She's dead and I thought he wasn't into that either.
|
slynne
|
|
response 104 of 173:
|
May 28 13:18 UTC 2002 |
Wow, Leeron. #100 really shows your bigotry. Imagine for a minute that
while Palestinians are Arabs, they are also a distinct group. I mean, I
am a white (raised Christian) person and I dont consider myself closely
associated with other white, raised Christian, folks. I dont even
consider myself all that closely to Palestinian Christians.
And if someone was kicking me out of my home, I dont think I would care
how much land white folks occupied in the rest of the world.
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 173:
|
May 28 13:58 UTC 2002 |
Myth
At the time of the June 1967 war it was stridently asserted by Israel's
supporters that Egyptian President Gamal Nasser threatened to drive the
Israelis into the sea. This claim, for which there was no evidence at all,
was almost universally accepted as fact in the West and it had a powerful
effect on public opinion in Britain and the United States at that time, in
the wake of the Holocaust of Jews during the Second World War.
Facts
No evidence or proof has been offered to support these allegations. Those
who suggest otherwise are seriously mistaken and merely help to increase the
fear and hatred in the Middle East which does so much to prevent a peaceful
and just settlement.
One British MP, Christopher Mayhew, even offered 5,000 to anyone who could
produce evidence that Nasser had made such a statement. Mayhew repeated the
offer later in the House of Commons (Hansard, 18 October 1973) and broadened
it to include genocidal statements by other Arab leaders. (Manchester
Guardian, 9 September 1974).
During the following four years Mayhew received a steady trickle of letters
from claimants, each one producing some quotation from an Arab leader, usually
culled straight from one pro-Israeli publication or another. Eventually, one
claimant, Warren Bergson, took Mayhew to court. In February 1976, the case
was heard. Significantly, Bergson was unable to offer evidence of Nasser's
alleged statement. In Britain's High Court of Justice Bergson acknowledged,
after thorough research, he had been unable to find any statement by a
responsible Arab leader which could be described as genocidal.
The irony of the claim that the Arabs want to throw the Jews into the sea
has not been lost on the Palestinians. In 1948, Palestinians were literally
pushed into the sea. As photographic evidence shows, Palestinians were driven
into the sea at Jaffa late in April 1948. With land routes cut off by Zionist
forces, tens of thousands from the Palestinian city of Jaffa and neighbouring
villages fled by boat to Gaza and Egypt; scores were drowned.
Major R. D. Wilson, who served with the British 6th Airborne Division
describes the situation in Haifa in 1948: "Tens of thousands of panic-stricken
Arabs streamed out of Haifa [...] The journey was not without its perils since
they were open to attack by Jews" (R.D. Wilson, Cordon and Search: with 6th
Airborne Division in Palestine, Vale and Polden, 1949, p. 193).
|
scott
|
|
response 106 of 173:
|
May 28 17:50 UTC 2002 |
Oh, and I checked out all of Leeron's links. None of them appear to be any
sort of authoritative sounce; indeed most seem to be opinion columns.
|
lk
|
|
response 107 of 173:
|
May 28 18:08 UTC 2002 |
Scott, back to electronicintifadah.com -- a source whose blatant lies I
have already documented (Winter Agora item 20, responses #344-347, 360 & 361,
all of which are still awaiting your response). If you can't explain/defend
the previous lies, why are you persisting with this source? Shouldn't you at
the very least try to corroborate what it says with another source?
Let's pick up with the last paragraph about Haifa, which happens to be my
home port. First of all, there's no explanation for what caused the "panic".
Nor is there any mention that Jews harmed Arabs. The "peril" was that they
"were open" (could have been) attacked -- but they were NOT. Quite to the
contrary, let's get the rest of the story:
The US Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote that "local
mufti-dominated Arab leaders [urged] all Arabs to leave the city."
Time wrote (May 1948): "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly
by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By
withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa".
A British police report stated that "every effort is being made by the Jews
to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their lives".
In fact, Golda Meir in person went down to the beach to urge the Arabs to
remain, to build a new country together. No harm came to those who did stay.
As for "pushing the Jews into the sea", that the call is still being made
by some (who are justifying it) tends to take the wind out of your argument.
While you are denying it, others are saying it!
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 173:
|
May 29 01:20 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, in a previous item you claimed not to write off sources as biased.
So, again, where's your cite on the "pushing the jews into the sea" quote you
keep harping on? Shouldn't be that hard to find Nasser's speech, right?
Assuming he actually said it, that is.
|
mdw
|
|
response 109 of 173:
|
May 29 01:20 UTC 2002 |
Looks to me like the Jews are bent on driving the Arabs into the sea.
Lebanon is their obvious next stop, probably Jordan after that.
|
lk
|
|
response 110 of 173:
|
May 29 03:17 UTC 2002 |
Scott, I don't discount a source as biased unless it is repeatedly shown
to be wrong -- and willfully so. Your favorite (only?) source has misused
the title of a book -- while ignoring that what is written in the book
contradicts their claim. Just above we saw how they totally misrepresented
the situation in Haifa.
If you want to focus on events leading up to 1967, you should read
King Hussein's book "My War with Israel". A copy is availabe at the
UofM library.
As I've already pointed out, even IF Nasser didn't use that exact
metaphor, the reference already existed at that time (having similarly
been used in 1948 and STILL in use today).
So if you want to read more, here's UNESCO's educational server:
http://www.dadalos.org/int/Vorbilder/Vorbilder/rabin/leben.htm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_backgd.php
quotes Nasser: "we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel.
The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim:
the eradication of Israel."
And President Aref of Iraq:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our
opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our
goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."
Tell me, if it wasn't to annihilate Israel, why do you think that the
Arab armies attacked the newly founded state in 1948?!
|
russ
|
|
response 111 of 173:
|
May 29 04:07 UTC 2002 |
Re #103: You mean he never did get it down Pat?
I think it's the fact that Scott has stopped attributing his
pieces, even when he obviously did not write or research
them, which is the most damning to his argument.
|
scott
|
|
response 112 of 173:
|
May 29 11:55 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, is that a retraction back there?
"even IF Nasser didn't use that exact
metaphor"
Hm?
Russ, if you can be bothered to notice, Leeron doesn't give a lot of cites
either. I'd bet that he throws out more "facts" without attribution than I
do.
|
lk
|
|
response 113 of 173:
|
May 29 15:40 UTC 2002 |
Obviously, Scott, I've provided enough cites for you to complain about
my "typical sources" (mostly independent western sources that are generally
well respected). If I'm not mistaken, you have used ONE source that has a
history of publishing outright lies and falsifications (as we saw in Winter
Agora item 20, responses 344-347, 360 & 361 -- which you still can't address,
just as you can't address the misrepresentation regarding Haifa above).
It's not a retraction (see the the word "IF"?). I was just pointing out
the obvious, which is that even IF Nasser did not use that metaphor, the
two important points are:
1. Nasser's stated aim in 1967 (like that of the Arab armies in 1948)
was the complete destruction of Israel.
2. Before and after Nasser's statements, the metaphor of pushing
the Jews into the sea was used. As I demonstrated, it is STILL
being used and justified by some to this current day.
If Nasser did or didn't say this in the days leading up to the 1967 war
is your latest red herring. You had initially challenged the usage of
the phrase in the Arab world in general. It was and is.
|
scott
|
|
response 114 of 173:
|
May 29 16:23 UTC 2002 |
No, actually I was asking for a documented quote. Nobody's come up with that
yet. Guess electronicintafada isn't quite as inaccurate as you'd like to
pretend, Leeron?
|
mdw
|
|
response 115 of 173:
|
May 29 22:53 UTC 2002 |
Everone but Leeron lies, all the time.
|
klg
|
|
response 116 of 173:
|
May 30 00:43 UTC 2002 |
Items from WSJ's online OpinionJournal:
From "Best of the Web" 5/28
"Writing in th Jewish Journal of Greater LA, Dan Gordon, described as a 'peace
activist who has held meetingw with Arab leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, the W Bank and Gaza,' offers some telling details on the aftermath
of to battle of Jenin: . . . (A) story . . . by Dr. David Zangen, chief
medical officer of the Israeli paratroop unit, which bore the brunt of the
fighting in Jenin . . . stated that the Israelis not only worked to keep the
hospital in Jenin open, but that they offered the Palestinians blood for their
wounded.
The Palestinians refused it because it was Jewish blood. . .
The Israeli response, which could easiily have been , ' fine, have it your
own way,' was to fly in 2,000 pints of blood from Jordan. . . ."
Those racist Jews.
Also from this Best of the Web: "Two weeks ago we noted that Yasser Arafat
had signed a 'law' establishing an independent judiciary. Never mind. The
Jerusalem Post reports Arafat has decided to suspend the law."
So much for "reform" of the PA.
Finally, dated today there is an article by Hillel Halkin reprinted from
"Commentary." The key idea of the 6+ page article is: "To sum up: The grat
majority of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not there because
of Israel's original post -1967 policy and would not have been built at all
had the Arabs been prepared to negotiate a peace treaty in the aftermath of
the 1967 war. They are not necessarily illegal, and they have probably, over
the years, furthered peace more that they have hindered it."
A fresh perspective on an overly-debated topic.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 117 of 173:
|
May 30 02:38 UTC 2002 |
Just like all the forts and towns 'furthered peace' in our own
'territories'. Look, pointing out how badly the PLA is playing
doesn't mean the IDF plays well either. "Not necessarily illegal"
is a lovely phrase, I'm sure we'll hear something similar from
the Andersen defendants during thier case presentation.
I agree with you 1000% that Arafat is a thug and not to be trusted.
I agree with you 10000% that the Israelis have the legal right to
colonize the West Bank and Gaza - not because they were there first,
but simply because they conquered it fair and square - shed blood
for it. (A time honored method of gaining territory, the Nazis
called it 'leibensraum' or something like that.) You and
the Israelis being totally 11000% right on both don't make much
difference to the prospects for peace in the region. The IDF
colonists may be there legally and morally, but they are an
impediment to peace. Arafat may be morally a thug, but he is
legally the 'head of state' of the nascient PLA state and until
we somehow decide differently and/or somebody else comes forward
Arafat is whom the world has to deal with to solve the problem.
Israel could probably stonewall for quite some time. Could hold
to the hard positions and use the tactics it is and has.
Gradually support in the US and the world is eroding and at some
point people will get tired of the bloodshed and throw up their
hands and walk away. Then Israel will go it alone (as it feels
it has been doing all along). I wouldn't care to bet on a
positive outcome of that scenario.
|
lk
|
|
response 118 of 173:
|
May 30 05:59 UTC 2002 |
Scott, the phrase "drive the Jews into the sea" exemplifies the Arab
desire to destroy Israel. Grandstanding that Nasser may not have actually
used that phrase (but nonetheless spoke of destroying Israel) is silly.
Alas, my initial claim was that this was a sentiment in the Arab world.
You disputed that. Do you still? Then answer the question: what was the
Arab intent in the wars of 1948 and 1967 if not the destruction of Israel?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 119 of 173:
|
May 30 06:21 UTC 2002 |
So? That was in 1947/8, 1967, and 1973. So what? This is today,
almost halfway through 2002. The murder-bombers of today weren't
even alive back then. The IDF trooper of today who shoots dead a
palastinian farmer carrying a rake wasn't even alive back then.
The intent of egypt in 1947/8, and in 1967, and in 1973 was rather
different that that of Sadat couple years later on doncha think?
Things change. Its time for new thinking, not old.
Santayanna said something about history's message - the Israelis
seem ignorant of the justifications for the nazi atrocities and seem
doomed to repeat them.
|
lk
|
|
response 120 of 173:
|
May 30 06:57 UTC 2002 |
I wasn't aware that there were justifications for the nazi atrocities.
Things change, but the constant (problem) is Arafat -- and his PLO
covenant which still calls for the destruction of Israel (despite
his pledge to amend it and his feigning of doing so).
|
klg
|
|
response 121 of 173:
|
May 30 22:21 UTC 2002 |
bdh3: Did you read the 6+ page article in which the argument is presented,
or are you responding only to the 1/2 paragraph I lifted from it??
|
bdh3
|
|
response 122 of 173:
|
Jun 1 09:01 UTC 2002 |
re#121: Since you didn't enter a URL I merely responded to your item
text.
re#120: I merely point out that the nazi justification for their
act resembles much of current IDF justification with the obvious
irony intended.
I also agree that Arafat is a scum sucking botton feeder and that
the current PLO charter has never been modified in arabic nor
commented directly on in arabic as far as I remember. So what?
Arafat for better or worse, and in my personal opinion much for
the worse and its Israel's own fault, is the 'head of state' of
the nascient Palestine. (The irony doesn't escape me as I have
in my collection many coins with the english word 'palestine'
and the magen david on the same coin) He very well may not
realize how he 'dangles on the end of a spider thread hanging
over the fires of hell' to use traditional 18th century US
metaphor that I doubt even married to a christian he is familiar
with. But the fact is, this is now, and he is whom Israel has
to deal with. (personally, I'd have offed him soon after he
ordered the murder of US diplomats in the Sudan. Worked well for
the USSR under similar circumstances with his crew.)
But this is now and that was then. I don't know what the solution
to the problem is, but I do know that it is not the course that
that IDF and the Israeli government seem hell bent on following
currently.
|
lk
|
|
response 123 of 173:
|
Jun 1 16:51 UTC 2002 |
But therein lies the crux of the problem. It's not that anyone has
a better solution. It's just that Israel is doing the wrong thing
because it's not working. Never mind that things could be worse.
Israel and the IDF are being judged relative not to realistic
alternatives but relative to a non-existent solution.
The problem isn't the way Israel deals with Arafat, the problem IS
Arafat and what he represents. As long as he is hell bent on destroying
Israel (moreso than even building a state on territories he has already
been given), there is nothing Israel can do to appease him and it shouldn't
be surprising that this is not Israel's goal.
|
klg
|
|
response 124 of 173:
|
Jun 1 22:21 UTC 2002 |
re: "re#121: Since you didn't enter a URL I merely responded to your item
text. " My apologies. I didn't realize that locating the Wall Street
Journal online would be so incredibly difficult.
|