Palestinian Children Tortured, Used As Shields By Israel, UN Says

Great Debates
161

The state of Israel still hasn’t been founded?
Oh, it has? So your claims are utter fiction?
Quelle surprise!

Because, they haven’t and don’t?
Yet again, as I pointed out and you ignored, your claim that the Zionists had plans of “ethnic cleansing” was fictional, that they never hesitated to “kill Arabs of any age” was fictional, and so on. That’s, naturally, why you’re totally unable to cite a single thing in support of your fictions. Yet again, Zionists bought land from its legal owners, the partition was drawn along ethnic majority lines, and the Zionists accepted partition plans that would’ve left them with a fraction of Israel proper.

Oh, yeah, and: you also seem to be ignorant of the fact that it’s not a situation of “guilt by association”, as the Arab Riots, in particular, were instigated by the Grand Mufti. Ya know, the Arab Riots, those pesky lil’ pogroms which caused the Haganah to be created as a defensive force?

The King David Hotel was a valid military target.
Warning was given ahead of time so that it could be evacuated.
Your narrative is, yet again, high school level work. This is not the well-researched, nuanced appraisal that a graduate studies program should strive for.

Your own cite puts paid to your nonsense. Why do you do this to yourself?
Not always on the lunatic fringe? “Irgun and the Lehi prestate right-wing underground movements.” And as I already pointed out to you, and you ignored since you cannot cite something that isn’t factual, the Stern Gang was criminalized by the Zionists. And your ignorance is showing, yet again. Have you really, truly, never even heard of The Saison?
That various underground groups were given amnesty after the war is hardly controversial and is a matter of public record. I doubt anybody here on the “pro-Israel” “side” would argue that Hamas couldn’t be given amnesty if they agreed to a peace deal that recognized Israel’s right to exist. The horror, the horror!

That you think that ‘ZOMG, Zionists used terrorism!’ is some sort of revelation shows that you are vastly underestimating how much your opponents in this debate know (hint: we know a heck of a lot more than you, that’s how we keep catching you in your many, many acts of ignorance and error. )Speaking of which, got any of those cites yet for your claims? Evidently you do indeed understand how to cut and paste a link. Surely you could start with, say, a half dozen of the factual errors I caught you in? Or are you again trying to change the subject with ‘Look, here are some bad things Zionsts did! Even though I can’t cite a single piece of evidence to back up any of my other claims that were challenged, I can cite that!!!’

You have no idea what “intellectual dishonesty” let alone “hand-wave” mean, do you? Protip: they don’t mean that pointing out how many Zionists were kinda annoyed at the British for consigning thousands upon thousands of Jews to death at the Nazis’ hands, or imprisoning Jews for trying to immigrate to Israel even after Israel was founded and recognized by the world as a sovereign state.

As shown, your bullshit about “their agenda” is rancid, even for fecal matter. Yet again, provide a single cite for this bit of fiction. And the idea that limiting Jewish immigration was a good idea because many of the Arabs (who weren’t limited in immigration) were violently, virulently racist? Yeah… one of your poorer arguments in this thread, and that’s saying something.

So you are claiming that you graduated from an International Studies program, but you’re completely unaware of the realpolitik, pragmatic reasons why the United States most certainly interests in the region? That Israel provides us access to its intelligence services? That if push came to shove, Israel offers us harbors and airstrips that we could base our forces out of in a regional war? You are unaware that the Middle East has oil?

Really?

Standard Bullshit Test: if Hamas moved to unoccupied areas and launched rockets, would Israel hit those targets, or civilians?

It should be painfully obvious to you what the answer is, and who is really being targeted. And as we know for a fact that Hamas uses its civilian populace as human shields, deliberately calling down retaliatory fire on their own civilians in order to win the exact sort of unthinking, partisan rhetoric and support that your post typifies, most people who understand the issue realize that Hamas bears the responsibility for its civilian casualties in the conflicts it starts and perpetuates.

162

Indeed it is. Quality of weapons has no bearing on the morality of using those weapons, the moral rightness is in the intent and the consequences of the use.

The mere ratio of civilian casualties inflicted by each side doesn’t tell you anything about the moral dimension of the conflict. Say Canada were to go to war with the United States. Canada would probably suffer several civilian casualties for every one suffered by the U.S., because the U.S. has superior firepower and the fighting would swiftly be confined to Canadian soil. Would this allow us to conclude that the Canadians were more restrained in targeting civilians and morally superior? No, it would not.

That’s not a superior morality either. Hamas isn’t morally superior because they are less equipped to inflict casualties, and Israel isn’t morally inferior because they are better equipped to do so.

163

Oil is for sale. It’s cheaper to buy it than it is to try and secure it militarily. I’m well aware of all those realpolitik arguments, and they are specious. The US need only pursue free and honest commerce with all, and entangling alliances with none.

You’re very disingenuous. Underground terrorist groups have made a lot of history, precisely because they stay underground. Hell, some of their members are welcomed into politics.

What was the Nakba, if not ethnic cleansing?

164

The bit of history you are missing here is that the Zionists were not monolithic, any more than the Palestinians are today.

Roughly, they split between a central, more moderate nationalist movement which created various organs or state and an underground army - the haganah - and various more militant groups which rejected the haganah’s approach as insufficiently radical, such as the Irgun.

During the process of national formation, those running the haganah eventually turned on the Irgun etc. and suppressed them, by force. This was very controversial at the time. However, it was almost certainly necessary to create an actual state.

Years later, some people who had been in the Irgun etc. recycled themselves into democratic politicians, but the organizations they had belonged to were history by that point.

The contrast here is with the relationship between the PA and its more radical brethren. The PA is simply in no position to suppress them. It lacks either the power or the legitimacy. This does not bode well for the chances of Palestine doing what the Zionists did - forming a state.

Perhaps as an anarchist, you see this as a good thing.

165

How odd, not one single citation for any of your claims.
I wonder why?
It must be because you’re so obviously correct that providing factual support would just tarnish your argument.

Very good. Now try to understand why maintaining a balance of power that would avoid a viable war of extermination against Israel, with the inevitable Israeli nuclear counter-strikes, is a good way to keep that oil flowing. Or do you think we’d get much oil out of the world’s largest glass parking lot?

Really? This sort of shit flies in grad school?
“Gentlemen, I am ready to defend my thesis now. It’s: ‘Nuhn uhhhnh!!’ Much research has gone into this.”

“Disingenuous” does not mean “prone to proving me wrong on multiple factual grounds to the point where I am completely and totally unable to even provide the pretense of supporting my errors with cites.”
Easy mistake to make, I’m sure.

Naturally, in your attempt to again change the subject, you’ve revealed that you’re both wholly ignorant about The Saison, and have no answer to the fact that the Stern Gang was criminalized. Funny, that.
And, naturally, you still have provided absolutely no cites for your bullshit about how the Zionists had a plan of ethnic cleansing, let alone how, if the Zionists had no problem killing Arabs “of any age”, why Arabs account for roughly 20% of Israel’s population.

Give proof or retract.

166

No, I knew about how Irgun and Lehi/Stern Gang were criminalized, but also that their members were later rehabilitated, to such an extent that veterans of both organizations were given military ribbons marking their participation. It looks like a case of the mainstream using the underground to do their dirty work, or, deciding in retrospect that the radicals had a point after all. Also, I don’t imagine the Palestinians would behave any differently.

Regarding the Nakba, here’s some evidence for you, compiled by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe.

Here’s a case where a quote from Ben-Gurion was found to be in error, but upon investigation, the basic thrust of violent land-grabbing theft was found to be correct.

I am also well aware of Israel’s Arab minority, and how Israel’s rightists, who are politically descended from the terrorists I mentioned, have plans to expel them, by violence if necessary.

167

Here’s the Jerusalem Post, taking a look at some of the last Lehi/Stern Gang veterans. The journalist acknowledges the attempt at Nazi collaboration. There are documents to prove it. I know that this attempt was made before the worst of the Holocaust even got underway, and that it turned Stern into an outcast, but even so, it wasn’t bad enough to prevent rehabilitation. Also, check out how unrepentant MK Eldad is about the Bernadotte assassination.

168

Regarding the disruptions wrought upon Palestine by Zionism, as far as I can see, it looks like one Michelle Campos has studied it pretty well. Most of the time, people from different communities got along, but there was a steadily brewing controversy (even within Jewish circles) over what exactly Zionism meant. Some took it to mean a benign bolstering of all aspects of the Jewish community, that would nevertheless still be loyally pro-Ottoman (as long as the Empire lasted, anyway!) There was also the question of their (and the Christians’) dhimmitude as long as the Empire existed, but a civil rights struggle need not involve violence and/or population displacement. Others advocated outright secession, and that’s what set off alarms, that only grew in intensity as time went on and more Jews arrived.

That doesn’t for a second excuse the pogroms and other violent reactions of the Arabs during the Mandate era, but can you see why the British might not want to pour more gasoline on that fire?

169

I do not believe you.
And notably, you have entirely overlooked The Saison.
Your entire evidence, it seems, is that after the war, part of the rehabilitation process involved the award of medals. And naturally, still no citations from you on that point. We’ll get to your other highly flawed claims in a moment.

Yes, that’s because you know next to nothing about the situation, even though you’ve been given the relevant term multiple times. That you believe The Saison was somehow benign beggars credulity.

Oooh, again, you need to point out that you’ve got a Token Israeli. Truly a novel tactic. Of course, yet again, if you knew anything, at all, about actual historians studying the conflict, you’d know that Pappe is an admitted propagandist and a liar. Funny that’s the only citation you can find, and it’s from someone who has zero credibility in academic circles.

[

](BACKGROUNDER on Professor Ilan Pappé: When Ideology Trumps Scholarship | CAMERA)

[

](Did Pappé Invent Another Quote? | CAMERA)

And you cited Pappe with a straight face?
Kay.

Ahhh, “False, but accurate!” Mmm mhmmm. And you actually cited Mondoweiss, after Weir? Are you trying to destroy your own credibility in this thread, or is that just an unexpected benefit?

Your own cite says that Ben Gurion figured that “agreement and understanding” with the Arabs would be the path to territorial expansion, with “or other means” added as well. He then goes on to say that his plan is for the Arabs to become Israel’s allies once Israel became strong. He goes on to say that even if Israel was compelled to use force, it would specifically not be to remove Arabs in a region, but to also allow Israelis to live there.

Of course, that quote is a well-known lie, which might make folks wonder just why you cited it.

[

](Johann Hari’s Tirade Against Israel | CAMERA)

Yet again, I’m finding I’m having trouble believing your claims.
If you knew that, how could you claim with a straight face that Israel ethnically cleansed its Arab population and had no problem killing Arabs “of any age?” If you knew that, how could you argue with a straight face that an ethnic group can be ethnically cleansed from an area, and still make up 20% of its populace?

So to get it straight, the Grand Mufti had an actual alliance with the Nazis in order to exterminate the Jews, and that proves nothing. A dissident, marginalized group that the Haganah helped the Brits hunt down, a group which maxed out at about 300 members at its height, accounting for roughly six hundredths of a percent of the Jews in the Mandate territory, tried to institute a military alliance with Hitler. And this shows something about the Zionists.

…okay

As you’re obviously unaware of the history of the region, the Stern Gang’s proposal was for military aid against the British in exchange for the Nazis not butchering the Jews in their sphere of influence. Nor was it supported by the Yishuv.

[

](Paper Breaks Taboo on Shamir, Nazi Link : Jerusalem Post Cites Stern Gang Past, Hits Stance on Peace Now)

So, er, you cited that bullshit… why, exactly?

170

It’s always a pleasure to see your work, FinnAgain. I liked the part about the difficulties of oil commerce in the world’s largest glass parking lot especially.

Regards,
Shodan

171

This is not so much moving the goalposts as seeking out a separate playing field and then declaring victory when the other team whom you did not notify of the move fails to show up.

I never said that the Zionist movement had ended. However, you (mis)use the word to mean “anything bad I can make up about Israelis.” That is a silly definition. Zionism was the effort to establish a Jewish state. To the extent that it succeeded, it has moved into history. It remains “active” in two separate areas: Israelis who look to the creation of Israel as an important aspect of their history and lives, and a tiny number of Israelis who think that Israel should continue to expand their borders to those of the legendary borders ruled by Solomon.

When one employs the word “Zionism” to discuss the day-to-day actions of the nation of Israel either to defend itself or simply to exist, or to imply that “Zionists” (and their fellow travelers) have some nefarious plans that they are plotting to impose on the world, then you are simply misusing the word in the manner of Ahmadinejad. Whatever you may choose to believe regarding the actual Zionist movement prior to the establishment of Israel, (with your nonsense claims of intended genocide, etc.), using the word, today, when claiming that “Zionists” have prevented the American public from learning the “truth” about Israel, is simply using the word to promote hatred.

As do many Jewish families who had lived in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and other lands prior to 1948. Tragedy is compounded, not mitigated, when one chooses to pretend that only one side has been harmed in conflict.

I have no problem with referring to various Zionist actions as terrorism. However, those actions will never be laid to rest as long as the anti-Israeli side pretends that there were not similar terrorist actions perpetrated against the Jews in the region. I see no balance in your posts, just anti-Israeli claims (many horribly exaggerated), told with a one-sided zeal to pretend that al the evil in the region is the direct fault of Israel accompanied by silly claims that the “Zionists” are preventing some group or another from being aware of history that is readily available for anyone who wanted to read it.

172

So now you’re calling me a liar? Don’t the mods have a problem with that?

Yes, I did know about how the Haganah attempting to repress Lehi/Stern. I also knew about how small they were, all things considered, but I think it’s remarkable how it was fine to subsequently honor this bunch, along with Irgun. It’s a fascinating and sordid episode, and most people don’t know about it. By itself, it doesn’t make the entire Zionist project disreputable, and I’ve never claimed that it does.

I also knew about the Arab Israelis. They were lucky enough not to fall victim to the Nakba… so far! Even in situations much worse than the Nakba, some folks usually get away. There were some parts of Europe where the Romani population was so far out of the way that the Nazis and their cronies never bothered them. Some Armenians, particularly the urban population, were spared by the Ottomans from the expulsions that began in 1915.

I thought this would happen. I take care to find sources, either historians or experienced intelligence professionals, military veterans, and others with testimony to offer, and you decide that they aren’t reliable for one reason or another. If it wasn’t spewed out by somebody like Abraham Foxman or Alan Dershowitz, it’s no good, right?

173

Really? It’s not too late for the Palestinians to exercise their right of return, nor is it too late for the Jews who were expelled from various other countries after the Arab-Israeli wars. That’s also a huge case of guilt-by-association. Arabs wrongly saw these Jewish communities as suddenly disloyal and dangerous, and wanted them gone. I realize that they wouldn’t want to go back, and that’s what happens when countries are (in many cases) ruled for decades by US-backed neoliberal regimes. Israel demonstrated its strategic worth in 1967, and, like Costa Rica and the Asian Tigers (and Western Europe!) was allowed to violate what would come to be known as the Washington Consensus. Unfortunately, the neoliberal era came to Israel as well, to the detriment of their standard of living.

I use the word “Zionism” to refer to the efforts to prevent the exercise of the right of return, since the exercise of this right would in effect be returning the land to its rightful owners. It’s too late for most of the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand, but it’s not too late for Israel/Palestine.

Weirdly enough, Israeli expansionism (the settlements) is making this sort of thing a fait accompli.

174

Thanks much.

Then why did you claim that they were acting as an unofficial arm of the Haganah? I do not believe you that you knew about that fact.

So you claim that the Israelis balked at nothing, not murder of Arabs of any age… any yet you can not even pretend to find a reason why the Israelis didn’t butcher them when they had the chance. But you’ll note other population groups, yet again without citation, who weren’t exterminated. And yet, your claim from the beginning has been that the Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse the Arab population, but you can provide no argument specific to this situation, at all, which would account for the massive Israeli Arab population. So noted.

Awww, you poor dear! You found poor, unreliable, distorted citations and I pointed that out, with citations and proof. How very unfair of me. You truly suffer under a great burden. Why, you must not only provide a logically consistent argument (still waiting on that, by the way), but you must also provide support for it with valid citations. What kind of a monster would ask you to refrain from citing an admitted propagandist and proven liar?

Truly, I feel your pain.

As already pointed out to you, there never was “Palestinian territory”. Ironically, it was prevented from being formed by the Egyptians and Jordanians, although you haven’t seen fit to mention that aspect. I wonder why…

And if you knew anything about the Ottoman Land Code, you’d also know that the vast majority of Arabs in Palestine were essentially tenant farmers in perpetuity, leasing lands only as long as they continued to cultivate them. Private real estate ownership by Arabs in the Mandate was, therefore, quite rare. You do know the difference between Miri and Mulk, yes? (heh)

175

We do, indeed, have a p[roblem with posters calling other posters liars.
Expressing disbelief is not, in and of itself, an accusation of lying. (And since you were the first that I saw declaring that a statement by another poster was untrue, it would be well for you to not harp on that topic.)

= = =

Going forward, you and Finn, (and everyone else) will back way from denials of the truth of other posters’ comments.

[ /Moderating ]

176

So noted.

177

Some of the Arabs were unscathed, for reasons that probably varied from place to place, in common with the other survivors I mentioned. It’s not really remarkable. In another example, the Kosovar Liberation Army still hasn’t chased out all of the Serbs yet.

I knew that the Arab regimes were not exactly championing the Palestinians in 1948. In fact, your much-maligned Mearsheimer and Walt were clear on that. That’s an ongoing scandal in the Middle East, made worse by US-backed gangsters like Mubarak.

The Ottoman Empire was seriously unjust as well. That doesn’t mean that European Zionist secessionists necessary had more of a claim to the land than the Palestinians who were there first.

Here’s the long and short of it, which it seems we both want.

The United States should not take sides in this conflict. Why?

  1. The US is in North America, not the Middle East. There is no need for a quarrel with any of the nations of the region. If they unfortunately go to war, that’s their problem. Interventionism leads to unintended consequences, including blowback, and the solution is not more interventionism. Empire is a terrible drain on a country, all things considered. The British and French mostly walked away from theirs, the Portuguese fought for a while until their own military got sick of it, but the Soviets never learned the lesson. Will the US?

  2. The Zionist movement aimed to create a volkisch, ethnically defined state. I oppose this in principle, and it doesn’t seem like Americans ought to identify with that sort of thing.

  3. Israel is an independent country with an independent foreign policy, to which they are completely entitled. This foreign policy does not always jibe with what is best for Americans, and losing sight of this could be disastrous.

  4. To the extent that US-Israeli interests ever really aligned, it was for a cause that I (and many others) see as imperialist and thoroughly ignoble. Before 1967, the US and Israel were only loose allies, if that. Consider Eisenhower’s actions in 1956. In 1967, Israel demonstrated its strategic utility by smashing Nasser, and all who stood with him. Nasser was the kind of independent Third World voice that the West so feared, and aimed to destroy. See also Lumumba, Arbenz, Mossadegh, Ho Chi Minh, and many more. This policy continues to the present day- consider US contempt for Salvadorans, who dared to elect a government that would oppose some aspects of neoliberalism.

That was what I wrote about, by the way, in slightly less strident tones. US policy in the Middle East isn’t much different than it is anywhere else, Israel Lobby or no.

  1. Israel is Goliath, not David, and it always has been. Israel was stronger than its adversaries in 1948, and it still is today. The only way Israel could be seriously endangered (and threaten a nuclear strike, the “Samson Option”) is if the region’s wealthy and/or more powerful countries joined together, along with the weaker elements, in an all-out war. Not only is this unlikely because of the Israeli nukes, but the stronger regimes are often the recipients of American military aid that should be cut off as soon as the same is done to Israel. At the same time, Israeli expansionism, and the rise of their own far-right, makes it ever more likely that the proverbial dam will break… which is all the more reason for the US to get the hell out of everyone’s business!
178

“Necessarily,” not “necessary.”

179

So anyway OurLordPeace,

I asked you why you seem to only refer to popular Internet figures for your sources.

Why do you keep referring to a couple of discredited hacks instead of a more well-respected academic like Muhsaad?

He’s more highly regarded, popular with both his students and faculty and also his work is more original.

He’s also hardly a hardcore Zionist.

So, why didn’t you use him?

The only difference is he’s not as well-regarded on the Internet.

180

Are you spelling that name correctly? It’s not coming up on Google or Yahoo.

When I was talking about my paper’s topic with a faculty member who advised me, the first thing he did was ask if I had read Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. I mentioned that I had, and then I talked about where I wanted to deviate from their thesis, though I found their packaging of the history very useful indeed. This professor is a former ambassador who served on every continent. At no time did he, nor any other faculty member to whom I spoke about this, refer to Mearsheimer and Walt as hacks, or anything like that.