Israel and the USA-Why Does This Farce Continue?

[wmfellows]

@FinnAgain

I assume you’re talking about your response to me?
Seriously, why do you do this to yourself? Do you think that facts vanish?
What, exactly, are you trying to deny?

I’m not amused by your game playing.

Skipping over your libellous disortions, spin and the like this pretty much illustrates why these conversations become unpleasant:

It is good of you to concede defeat though. ‘Ayieee, yoooz a zealot, I cannot refute your facts, zealotry makes facts impervious to refutation!’ Not the most elegant way to concede you aint got nuthin’, but quite popular among some it seems.

More productively

@xtisme

Yes they did…though as you undoubtedly know, the situation was complex and also confused.

Absolutely, eye for an eye. I don’t see any virgins involved in the collapse of the Mandate.

However, your original note left things incomplete… I haven’t an issue with the remainder of your comment, it’s fair.

[tomndebb]

TWEEEEET!!

The next personal jab from anyone–even if it would not normally be a violation of the rules–will get a Warning.

Knock it off. Stick to the topic. Make no observations about other posters.

[ /Moderating ]

[MrDibble]

@Dick_Dastardly

The oppressors […] realised this and pushed ahead with negotiations despite ongoing terrorist violence. That’s been generally the case in every similar negotiated settlement. Saying there’ll be no negotiations until resistance is ended is basically saying that you won’t negotiate at all.

It certainly was the case here in South Africa - negotiations happened despite continued violence on both sides.

[FinnAgain]

And a bit more about claims that the Mufti was only a minor irritant to the British and didn’t help design/implement the Final Solution. From the Nuremberg Trial, again testimony from Wisliceny:

At the end of 1942, I tried, at the request of a group, to persuade Eichmann and Himmler to stop exterminating European Jewry and to allow some Jewish children to emigrate to Palestine. I had already discussed with representatives of the Joint in Bratislava the possibility of allowing adults to accompany the transport and we even discussed the number. Later some of the children arrived in Theresienstadt. Eichmann then told me to report to him in Berlin. He told me there the matter had come to the notice of the Mufti through his intelligence service in Palestine. Haj Amin el-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the war in Berlin as guest of the Germans, has protested to Himmler against the scheme, giving as his reason that these Jewish children would be adults in a few years and would reinforce the Palestine Jewish community. According to Eichmann, Himmler canceled the entire operation and even issued an order banning any future occurrences of this nature, so that no Jew would be allowed to go to Palestine from areas under German control.

And some cites for the other libelous facts (my apologies, I can’t find anything about ninjas, but ninjas are sneaky that way):

[

During the period before Israeli independence was declared, two armies of Arab irregular volunteers, let by Haj Amin El Husseini in the Jerusalem area, and by Fawzi El Kaukji in the Galilee, placed their fighters in Arab towns and conducted various aggressive operations against the Jewish towns and village under the eyes of the British. Kaukji and his irregulars were allowed into Palestine from Syria by the British, with the agreement that he would not engage in military actions, but he soon broke the agreement and attacked across the Galilee.

](Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Conflict))

[

The day after Israel’s declaration of independence, the armies of five Arab League members invaded Palestine. UN Secretary General Trygve Lie described this as

the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the war".[29]

Three of the invaders, Egypt, Transjordan and Iraq had mutual-defence treaties with Britain (Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, Anglo-Iraqi Treaty (1930)) and received all their arms from Britain. Israel could not legally import arms because of the Security Council resolution banning arms imports into Palestine.[30]
[…]
The next day Israeli forces shot down three British Spitfires over the Egyptian border.[34] The UK Defence Committee responded by sending two destroyers carrying men and arms to Transjordan.[35] Israel complained to the UN that these troops were in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 50: the one Britain was using to justify holding the Cyprus inmates. Britain denied this, claiming the resolution did not apply to Britain and that the troops were not new to the region as they had been transferred from Egypt.

On 17 January 1949 the Chief of Staff briefed the cabinet on events in the Middle East. Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan, protested at the decision to send arms to Transjordan, taken by the Defence Committee without cabinet approval. He complained that British policy in Palestine was inconsistent with the spirit and tradition of Labour Party policy and was supported by the Deputy Prime-Minister, Herbert Morrison and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Stafford Cripps.[36] The cabinet voted to continue supporting the Arab states, but also voted to recognize Israel and release the Jews from Cyprus.

](Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia)

I admit, I am using the worst kind of libel, the kind that is factual.
Some might even call it… ninja libel.

[ElvisL1ves]

Can we expect you to get around to explaining its relevance to the thread topic?

[wmfellows]

@FinnAgain

And a bit more about claims that the Mufti was only a minor irritant to the British and didn’t help design/implement the Final Solution. From the Nuremberg Trial, again testimony from Wisliceny:

**And? **Serious scholars don’t find Wisilceny credible. Repeating the same distortions in extenso merely highlights the spin. I shall stick with reputable scholars sober reading, rather than propaganda.

And again, refrain from putting words in my mouth and gross distortions of the argument. I referred to the Mufit AND Palestine as a minor sideshow in WWII. They were. Both of them. There is no (serious, objective) historical argument for a serious and important role of the Mufti in the final solution.

Regardless, enough wallowing, the main observation really gets back to Dibble: there’s not an example of an immaculate conception of negotiations in any serious and long-running armed conflict resolved by negotiation. Imposing that condition is fairly like saying one shan’t negotiate at all (but of course it gives one’s partisans a superficially plausible argument to spin to justify said intransigence).

[wmfellows]

@ElvisL1ves

Can we expect you to get around to explaining its relevance to the thread topic?

Presumably it illustrates the shining goodness that is the Chosen Side and the orc-like evil of the opponents, and thus why the otherwise unreasonable conditions to negotiations are in fact, reasonable.

[ralph124c]

My original point: both sides should be honest. Israel should announce to the world, that they intend to keep East Jersusalem and populate it with Israelis…and to hell with anybody else.
The USA should acknowledge that it will continue to fund Israel, no matter what.
If that ends the “peace talks” so be it .
Frankly, I don’t see the point of any further discussion.

[FinnAgain]

@wmfellows

Presumably it illustrates the shining goodness that is the Chosen Side and the orc-like evil of the opponents, and thus why the otherwise unreasonable conditions to negotiations are in fact, reasonable.

Just so I’m following along, Dick makes certain factual/historical errors, I correct him. You challenge me with new factual/historical errors, I correct you. This shows how it was my intention all along to bring this up in support of “the Chosen Side”. Plus, there’s a strawman about unreasonable conditions to negotiations that nobody has brought up except those who are arguing against something nobody said.

Dick brought up his factual errors and you challenged the factual record, and that shows the agenda behind those who tried to point out the facts.
Fascinating.

I do like the anti-strawman logic though.

“If negotiations cannot yield actual peace, then any peace treaty isn’t really worth the paper it’s written on.”
“That’s an unreasonable condition!”
“Wait, what? How do we have peace if after the peace treaty, we’re still engaged in active war!”
“Stop being so unreasonable”

@wmfellows

Serious scholars don’t find Wisilceny credible.

So without a cite you challenge testimony, and then claim I’m ‘spinning’. And Dieter’s own words are “propaganda”, but the “reputable” scholars (who you don’t cite, or name) all agree with you. And of course he had virtually no reason to lie as he was extradited and executed for his crimes in any case, so a plea bargain wasn’t exactly what he was going for. To say nothing of the fact that he kept the same story in 1944 even when he wasn’t at the Nuremberg trial.

Must’ve been rehearsing, eh?

@wmfellows

There is no (serious, objective) historical argument for a serious and important role of the Mufti in the final solution.

Besides, of course, the testimony of someone who you can only handwave away. Do provide those cites showing that he was lying please.

Of course, your claim that there’s no evidence beyond very clear testimony is, likewise, simply wrong. And I just cited evidence that you’ve ignored. The Nazis had worked out an agreement with Arab nationalists (and the Mufti was their guest) to extend the Final Solution to the Middle East. This is not only a fact, but a fact that was independently verified by two separate historians. I just cited it. And quoted it.

We also have Hitler’s own words confirming this fact (but Hitler’s own words are also probably propaganda and spin doubted by all serious historians)

[

he Mufti offered Hitler his “thanks for the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches…The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely…the Jews…” Hitler replied:

Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine....Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle....Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere....In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. The Mufti thanked Hitler profusely.2

](The Mufti and the Führer)

@wmfellows

there’s not an example of an immaculate conception of negotiations in any serious and long-running armed conflict resolved by negotiation. Imposing that condition is fairly like saying one shan’t negotiate at all (but of course it gives one’s partisans a superficially plausible argument to spin to justify said intransigence).

Of course, this is a strawman (and there’s that silly concept of “spin” again). Nobody has said that one cannot negotiate while there is still violence. Nobody has said that there must be an “immaculate” generation of negotiations. I have clarified, enough times for there to be no mistake, that the fact is that if violence is ongoing even after negotiations are completed then the “peace” treaty is peace is name only.

I’ve touched on this point at least three or four times now. But far better to talk about partisan spin while creating your own strawman to knock down.

[elucidator]

What’s this? A cite from the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise? Why, its difficult to imagine a more objective, non-partisan source! Its always good to have citations from sources who’s clear lack of bias is so firmly established!

I’m sorry, did I interrupt? Well, then, just pick up where you left off, that your views are the clear and unvarnished truth, and anyone who disagrees is a liar or a fool.

[FinnAgain]

@elucidator

What’s this? A cite from the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise?

No, it’s not.
Please stick to what is posted in reality.
Thanks.

[ElvisL1ves]

… still waiting for the relevance stuff …

[elucidator]

No, it’s not.
Please stick to what is posted in reality.
Thanks.

I must have been misled by that thing that says “Copyright 2010 The American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise”. Or that part that says “Jewish Virtual Library - A Division of the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.”

Silly me.

Oh, and you’re welcome.

[ElvisL1ves]

@FinnAgain

Nobody has said that one cannot negotiate while there is still violence. Nobody has said that there must be an “immaculate” generation of negotiations. I have clarified, enough times for there to be no mistake, that the fact is that if violence is ongoing even after negotiations are completed then the “peace” treaty is peace is name only.

I’ve touched on this point at least three or four times now. But far better to talk about partisan spin while creating your own strawman to knock down.

@FinnAgain

We know, through tautological, logical necessity that there can be no valid peace negotiations in the face of ongoing violence

Hmmm …

[FinnAgain]

@elucidator

Silly me.

"Record of the Conversation Between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin, Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918-1945, Series D, Vol. XIII, London, 1964, p. 881ff in Walter Lacquer and Barry Rubin, The Israel-Arab Reader, (NY: Facts on File, 1984), pp. 79-84. "

Yep, obviously the cite for the quote is the Jewish Virtual Library.
And rather than bothering to read the gigantic footnote, it’s important to immediately sling ad homs at the place the quote is found and then claim I’ve said things that I haven’t. That’s the best way to analyze a factual issue.

@ElvisL1ves

Hmmm …

Quit the bullshit. I’ve explained it no fewer than three times now, and why you’re wrong. Despite those explanations, some folks keep making the same mistake over and over and over again. If you’re really curious, go look at all the previous corrections of your mistake.

[ElvisL1ves]

I quoted your own words back to you, and I’m wrong?

Hmm…

[SteveG1]

I make no claims as to the complete accuracy of the following. However, they all seem to question the wisdom of building or expanding settlements.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/05/settlement_database.html

Settlements
May 1st, 2009 by Steven Aftergood
Last January 30, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz disclosed a secret Israeli government database on settlements in the occupied West Bank, and posted the Hebrew text (pdf) of the database on their website. … “An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements – about 75 percent – construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued,” according to the Haaretz account. “The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents.”

Elliott Abrams - The Settlement Freeze Fallacy

There is wide consensus that the main obstacle to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is settlement activity – new construction in the communities beyond the “Green Line,” as the border of Israel from the 1949 armistice until the 1967 war is known. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has called settlement activity “the greatest obstacle” to peace, former president George W. Bush called it an “impediment” to peace, and the international “quartet” – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – has criticized settlement activity in virtually all of its joint statements. … So the real issue is not past settlement activity but the demand for a settlement freeze. Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. … Israel has largely, but not fully, kept to those rules; there has been physical expansion in some places, and the Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a mistake: It wastes Israeli resources and needlessly antagonizes the Palestinians who live nearby.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-warns-double-dip-recession/

“The situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I’ve said repeatedly and I’ll say again, Israel’s security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure,” Obama told Fox News in an interview in China Wednesday.
“I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous,” he added.
The U.S. administration has roundly criticized the decision to expand the settlement, a point of bitter contention for Palestinians who wish to make the Old City of Jerusalem as well as other sites holy to Jews, Muslims and Christians as part of its capital.

There are also numerous photographs on the Web of Israeli POLICE dismantling various “settlement” houses and ordering the Israeli occupants to move out. Is it fair then to assume then that these “building projects” may be illegal even under Israeli law?

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”

[FinnAgain]

@ElvisL1ves

I’m wrong?

Horribly, obviously, glaringly, incomprehensibly wrong at this stage after having been corrected at least four times. Yes.
In fact, you quoted me, in my own words, pointing out that I’ve explained my statement several times, so I’m not sure how you missed that fact.

You also failed to quote (and then repeated the exact behavior in the quote) the strawman that you’re using.

I do like the anti-strawman logic though.

“If negotiations cannot yield actual peace, then any peace treaty isn’t really worth the paper it’s written on.”
“That’s an unreasonable condition!”
“Wait, what? How do we have peace if after the peace treaty, we’re still engaged in active war!”
“Stop being so unreasonable”

I’m not quite sure how you can keep missing what I’ve posted, especially since I’ve already posted directly in response to your mistake already, and you keep making your mistake. I honestly do not understand how you can do that. Here,let me refresh your memory, again.

I responded to Dick’s silly question when Lucy asked it and then later on when I elaborated when talking to Captain Amazing. I’m sure that I am undone that I won’t answer the same question a third time. Yeeps.
You just crow about how much of a victory it is and stop mentioning it, eh?

I even had the kindness to go on and

[quote the relevant text]
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12228457&postcount=209), in full.

N+1 evidently

I can admit that I wasn’t 100% clear when I first posted. Then Lucy tried to jump on what he saw as a glaring omission, and I clarified, at length, that I was using the word “ongoing” to describe violence that was not sporadic or circumstantial but would continue.

it’s like saying that if someone is bombing you and is going to keep bombing you (you know, ongoing violence) that a peace treaty is peace is name only and war in fact (because, ya know, they keep bombing you). This is kinda the obvious point that some folks are doing their best to avoid. Violence means there is no peace, ongoing violence means that any peace treaty is not worth the paper it’s written on, because no matter who signs what the violence will go on.

I elaborated on this even more when I posted to Captain Amazing:

Any peace treaty reached while there is still ongoing violence is not anything more than mere words, because if the violence is ongoing a declaration of peace is the same as a declaration of virginity in the middle of a porno. Only if the violence stops and is not ongoing can there be an actual peace.

Hopefully you can stop making the same mistake again and again and again now. Right? Or are you again going to claim that anybody, at all, has claimed that you cannot hold negotiations to secure peace if there is violence rather than that if the violence is still ongoing once the treaty has been signed then it’s a worthless treaty?

Hmmmm…

[ElvisL1ves]

Dude. You said “Nobody has said (that).” Well, you yourself did. Facts are important, as I keep reading someone posting repeatedly.

And we’re still waiting for the explanation of the relevance of your history lecture to the thread topic. Probably in vain at this point, I know, but it still would be a credibility-enhancing move on your part.

[elucidator]

Any “violence”? Any at all? How do you define a level of violence sufficient to negate a peace process?

By the by, I’ve traced your cite to the original archives, and even though I can’t read German, I am satisfied that both Adolph Hitler and the Grand Mufti were anti-Semites, and very, very bad people.