How to think correctly about Israel and Palestine

[Sevastopol]

Are you suggesting that when Israel comes up, to think in the correct way: Put aside recollections of low stress sensuality. This sounds rather Teutonic. One must instead be concerned with abstruse local political struggles?

Banish thoughts of willing, semitic sirens? Overlook the only satisfactory tourist locale in the middle east?

As far as the uninteresting political question is concerned: Obviously distinct ethno-religious groups emerge and submerge across the continents all the time and its no tragedy. This is hardly a debateable proposition however.

No, of such debate as there is, the stronger side favours carnality.

[Magiver]

Not sure why the double post but if a moderator would delete it and this message I would be obliged.

[David_Simmons]

@Sam Stone

Look, here’s the deal in a nutshell. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were offered a state. The other Arab countries told them not to take it, because once the Israelis were in charge the Arab world was going to smash them and take the land back.

Is there an authoritative cite for what “other Arab countries” told the Palestinians?

It seems to me that the Palestinians look at it this way. The creation of Israel was the forcible and illegitimate taking of land that belonged to them and that they had occupied for a long time.

It’s sort of like the UN deciding that Canadian land was needed as a homeland for some group or other and offereing Canadians the Northwest Territories as a sop.

No matter how we justify it to ourselves, Arabs look at it entirely differently and that’s going to continue as a sore point even though we considere our actions as righteous.

[BrainGlutton]

@Sevastopol

Are you suggesting that when Israel comes up, to think in the correct way: Put aside recollections of low stress sensuality.

Errmm . . . Yeh, I might suggest that, if only I knew what it meant.

[FinnAgain]

@David Simmons

Is there an authoritative cite for what “other Arab countries” told the Palestinians?

Many, many, many.

[

The Arabs refused any compromise and rejected the United Nations partition plan. On May 15, 1948, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, made the Arab intentions unambiguously plain to the British Broadcasting Company: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

](http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=8324&repository=0001_article)

[

In 1957, the Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, passed a resolution stating: “Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees’ right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason.”

](http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=8324&repository=0001_article)

[

Even the foreign press, in regular contact with all sides during the conflict of 1948, wrote nothing to suggest that the flight of the Palestinians was not voluntary. Nor did Arab spokesmen, such as the Palestinian representative to the U.N., Jamal Husseini, or the secretary general of the Arab League, blame the Jews contemporaneously with the 1948 war for the flight of Arabs and Palestinians. In fact, those who fled were urged to do so by other Arabs. As then Prime Minister of Iraq Nuri Said put it, “the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” One Arab who fled encapsulated this thinking in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: “The Arab governments told us, `Get out so that we can get in.’ So we got out, but they did not get in.”

](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031103/3anti_6.htm)

[

As a former prime minister of Syria, Khaled al Azm, wrote in his memoirs, “It is we who demanded the return of the refugees while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon them. [We] exploited them in executing crimes of murder and throwing bombs. All this in the service of political purposes.”

](http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031103/3anti_6.htm)

[

The Economist reported on Oct. 2, 1948: “Various factors influenced [the Arabs’] decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit. . . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

](http://www.stanforddaily.com/tempo?page=content&id=8324&repository=0001_article)

[

There are hundreds of thousands of Arabs who, following the commencement of hostilities in Palestine, left their domiciles at the call of Arab leaders from outside. The case of Haifa is especially well authenticated. When the British prepared to leave the city, they practically suggested that the two sides contest for it. After a day or two of battle, the Arab leaders appeared before the British General with a request that he negotiate the surrender.

The conditions offered by the Jewish forces included full freedom and all civil rights for the Arab residents of Haifa; the Arabs who came from foreign countries to fight were to leave Palestine; and the surrender of only the German (Nazi) officers of the Arab “irregulars” was demanded. The Arab emissaries accepted the conditions transmitted to them by the British General.

A few hours later, however, they returned and, wiping the sweat from their brows, informed the General that they had received orders from abroad not to go through with the agreement and to alert the Arab population that they should hurriedly leave the city. An exodus followed.

](http://www.varchive.org/obs/481130.htm)

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

• Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,

• Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”

• Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

[

(PDF)
Arab leadership from among the para-military forces and the forces of Syria were vociferous in their announcements that they wanted Arabs to leave so that the armies would have a clear field in which to perpetrate their genocide of the Jews. When the war was over and the Jews were driven out or killed, the Arab residents could come
back and have both their own lands and those of the Jews.
We cannot know how many Arabs fled because of these announcements; but since a number of Arab spokespersons after the war admitted to having done this, and wrung their hands publicly in painful repentance of having created the refugee problem, it is clear that the Arab leadership’s own message to many Arabs in the area was a major factor in the Arab flight.1
It is also important to point out at this time that there were a number of cases where Jewish leaders got out in public and pleaded with Arabs not to leave. The mayor of Haifa is the best example of this. At the risk of his own life, he drove through the Arab section of Haifa with a loudspeaker on his jeep, and in Arabic called out to the residents of his city to disregard the Arab propaganda.
Nonetheless, tens of thousands fled. The incredulous British officers who witnessed this, documented it in a variety of sources. Those Arabs who stayed were unharmed and became citizens of Israel.2

](http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/pdf/BigLies.pdf)

Etc…

@David Simmons

It seems to me that the Palestinians look at it this way. The creation of Israel was the forcible and illegitimate taking of land that belonged to them and that they had occupied for a long time.

Funny, then, that the land did not belong to them, at all. It was Turkish. Now, we can argue about proper disposal of governmental land, but it’s dishonest on their part to pretend that they owned it.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@BluePitbull

The Palenstinians didn’t call themselves Palenstinians before Israel was created?

Just like the Jews didn’t call themselves Israeli nationals before Israel was created, just like the Saudis didn’t call themselves Saudi Arabia before it was created, just like Jordanians didn’t call themselves Jordanians before Jordan was created… what’s your point?

[Fear_Itself]

@Sam Stone

So maybe Israel is thinking that the time is now to finally make these countries pay. The only way to stop the proxy wars is to make it really, really expensive to engage in one. Right now, Israel has about the most world opinion on its side as it’s going to get. It has George Bush in the White House - all bets are off depending on who the next president is. Iran still does not have nukes, but will in a few years.

How is this something Bush would support? If Israel attacks Syria or Iran, Iran will attack Israel. What is Bush’s response? If he attacks Iran, he loses what support he has among the Shia in Iraq, and the wheels fall completely off that wobbly cart. If he doesn’t attack Iran, he is seen as weak. Where in your scenario is anything that benefits the Bush Agenda?

[Der_Trihs]

@Fear Itself

How is this something Bush would support? If Israel attacks Syria or Iran, Iran will attack Israel. What is Bush’s response? If he attacks Iran, he loses what support he has among the Shia in Iraq, and the wheels fall completely off that wobbly cart. If he doesn’t attack Iran, he is seen as weak. Where in your scenario is anything that benefits the Bush Agenda?

He wants to attack Iran, but doesn’t have the support, and hopes to either use Israel as a proxy or an excuse to attack ?

[Aeschines]

@Sevastopol

No, of such debate as there is, the stronger side favours carnality.

Then go start your own Sephardic Sluts thread, man, this one’s about politics and violence!

[Fear_Itself]

@Der Trihs

He wants to attack Iran, but doesn’t have the support, and hopes to either use Israel as a proxy or an excuse to attack ?

It’s not lack of support, it’s lack of balls. He would get drawn and quartered on the floor of Congress by his own party, which would then proceed to eat their own children. He might as well hand the White House to the Democrats for the next 30 years. Not to mention opening a third front in the war on terror, with Kim Jong Il watching intently. Dubya hasn’t got the stones to do it.

[Der_Trihs]

@Fear Itself

It’s not lack of support, it’s lack of balls. He would get drawn and quartered on the floor of Congress by his own party, which would then proceed to eat their own children. He might as well hand the White House to the Democrats for the next 30 years. Not to mention opening a third front in the war on terror, with Kim Jong Il watching intently. Dubya hasn’t got the stones to do it.

I hope you’re right.

[Sam_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

All true.

When come back, bring relevance.

The first relevance is that this exposes the lie that this is all about the plight of the Palestinians, that the Arab world is oh-so-troubled that the Palestinains are treated so poorly. Rubbish. If Arabs are worried about Palestinians, they could start treating them better in their own countries.

Second, this exposes the strong undercurrent of anti-semitism that has always been flowing through the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those who say this isn’t about Jews, but about Zionist behaviour need to explain why much worse treatment of Palestinians by Arabs gets a pass or at best a yawn. For that matter, genocide carried out by Muslims gets less world attention than retaliatory attacks by Israel that have casualties you can count on one hand.

Israel is the only country in the world that has to continually justify its mere existence. There are plenty of countries that were created with artificial borders drawn by various powers. Like most of the middle east. Ask the Kurds how they feel about being split up into many countries. They were even promised a nation-state in 1920, just a few years before Palestinians were offered theirs. But somehow, no one has been worrying about them, despite their oppression in the countries they live in, and no one questions the borders of Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey.

The world is full of these kinds of conflicts and injustices. Mostly, people have resigned to their fate and learned to accept the status quo. Only Israel is perpetually seen to be illegitimate, and its conflict with its neighbors receives far more world attention simply because it involves Jews.

In my opinion, the Israeli people have withstood the decades of attack with greater restraint and dignity than any other people I can imagine. Hell, it only took a couple of letter bombs from the FLQ in Canada before we rolled tanks in the streets, and we were ready to go to war with our Natives over cigarette sales. If we had genocidal neighbors who vowed to kill us, attacked us repeatedly over the decades, taught their children that we were monsters that drank blood from babies, and routinely fired rockets into our cities and sent suicide bombers over the border to kill our children, I could only hope that we would respond with half of the compassion and reason the Israelis have shown over the decades. They are fundamentally good people, the only modern, pluralistic democracy in the region, with the best record of human rights of any country in the Middle East.

And yet to some, they can do no right. They are always at fault. The Palestinaisns, on the other hand, can elect murderous thugs who extort billions and thumb their nose at peace, and the thug gets a Nobel prize. They can dig tunnels to smuggle suicide bombs into Israel, and safehouses to store weapons, and young American women will travel across the globe to stand in front of the Israeli bulldozers attempting to close them.

These are the Palestinians who sided with Hitler in WWII, with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and with Saddam Hussein in Gulf Wars I and II. And yet, to some they can do no wrong, and the Israelis can do no right.

It makes no sense to me.

[Sevastopol]

@Aeschines

Then go start your own Sephardic Sluts thread, man, this one’s about politics and violence!

I’ve won you over on the testosterone point?

[David_Simmons]

@FinnAgain

Many, many, many.

Funny, then, that the land did not belong to them, at all. It was Turkish. Now, we can argue about proper disposal of governmental land, but it’s dishonest on their part to pretend that they owned it.

OK, it’s conceded that the Arabs didn’t want a peaceful solution. But I’m surprised that the big domes who carried out this operation didn’t forsee that it would be a canker that would persist for years. Of course they were probably old men and knew that someone else whould have to clean up the mess. At least it was off* their* agenda.

No one is saying that the Palestinians owned the land. But they had lived there for years, even if they just moved in after Turkey lost control in WWI. The point is not logic or how you and I or anyone else thinks they ought to look at the situation. The point is what the Palestinians and other Arabs think about it. That’s the problem that must be faced and no one seems willing to do so.

[Aeschines]

@Sevastopol

I’ve won you over on the testosterone point?

I share your FANTASY!

[Aeschines]

@David Simmons

The point is what the Palestinians and other Arabs think about it.

And Israel will just have to unthink the thinkers.

[Der_Trihs]

@Aeschines

And Israel will just have to unthink the thinkers.

And every time they kill some people who hate them, they make more people who hate them. Are they supposed to destroy the entire planet outside their borders, assuming they could ?

[Aeschines]

@Der Trihs

And every time they kill some people who hate them, they make more people who hate them. Are they supposed to destroy the entire planet outside their borders, assuming they could ?

The dead-ender ME cultures are on a collective suicide mission right now. Call it WWIII. Sooner or later these people are going to calm and get down to the business of modern life, or they’ll toss themselves into the wood chipper. Or Israel and the West will shove the whole log in.

And history will not weep.

[David_Simmons]

@Aeschines

And Israel will just have to unthink the thinkers.

'Tis a consumation devoutly to be whished. I wonder how they are going to do that.

[FinnAgain]

Mr. Stone, that was very, very well said.

@David Simmons

The point is not logic or how you and I or anyone else thinks they ought to look at the situation. The point is what the Palestinians and other Arabs think about it. That’s the problem that must be faced and no one seems willing to do so.

Well… how does one face this problem, as you see it? I’m asking honestly…There have been many offers of negotiation, peace, land for peace, etc… They’ve all been met with violence.

At a certain point, one simply cannot negotiate with a group whose only demands are that your country be eliminated and your populace murdered. What position do you have to negotiate with?

“Okay… you can kill half of our citizens and destroy 57% of our territory via violence. Does that sound fair?”
“No. Can we murder 75% of your civilians.”
“Well… let’s crunch the numbers there.”