ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

George's statements aren't false, Advocate. He comes from a different perspective and view of history and, from his perspective, has forgotten more history than most people will ever know.

In the issue of Israel, the strange phenomenon is that both sides can be passionately opposed without either being wrong.

What is this history that George has forgotten?

It is unlike you to attack the messenger rather than the message, George. I think Pipes' Harvard PhD in history and credentials as Middle East expert should at least give him a valid voice whether or not one likes what he says. He deserves more than vague personal criticism to discredit him.

I'm the first to agree that a PhD in a particular discipline does not give one carte blanche authority--Paul Krugman comes to mind for instance. Krugman, however, has been discredited by others of equal expertise. I think it is hard to say that Pipes has been discredited by others of equal expertise.

Pipes did not speak of the futility of peace treaties but rather of the reality of the attitudes toward Israel and how those attitudes have made real solutions difficult if not even non existant in the relatively short history of Israel's existance. Given that he speaks not only from authority of expertise but from having lived there, can you say with confidence that his views re the attitudes of Egypt are wrong?

He at least provides some reasonable counter balance to the side you defend which attempts to be reasonable, but which is pretty consistent in saying again and again that it is Israel's aggressive/oppressive policies that have brought deserved anger down upon her. Your side gives brief lip serve to but essentially turns a blind eye to any extenuating circumstances related to Israeli policies and actions. Your posts come across strongly as Palestinian sympathizer reluctant to acknowledge that the Palestinians and their allies have done anything to justify any harsh treatment they receive from Israel. Supporting that likely erroneous perception is the fact that you criticize Israel easily but do not criticize her enemies unless prodded to do so.

And in fairness to you, I'm sure it appears that I am at times an apologist for Israel trying to make it look as if Israel is the innocent victim in all circumstances and can justify all her actions and policies in the name of self defense. Supporting that erroneous perception is the fact that I criticize Israel's Arab neighbors easily and find infrequent cause to criticize Israel.

I suspect that in this case both of us are right and both of us are wrong and the truth will emerge from the effort of an honest attempt to look for it and recognize it when it surfaces.

Pipes was a frequent consultant to the Naval War College, and several agencies of the DoD and Intelligence community, I have participated in seven or eight seminars, conferences and quasi war games with him. I know him to be very focused on what he sees as intrinsic defects in Arab and Islamic culture.

My opinion is that, although he has several valid points in this area, he consistently fails (in my view) to take adequate account of the British and French colonialism of Arab lands in the 19th century and their rather more systematic organization of an Arab rebellion against the Ottomans, as a result of which the colonial powers emerged from WWI as the masters of the Middle East. The Hashemite princes of Mecca who aided in this rebellion and who were promised (by the British)the rule of Palestine and Mesopotamia, were bitterly disappointed at Versailles to learn that Britain and France had already divided the territory between them - France taking Lebanon and Syria, and the British everything else. Soon after this discovery of this betrayal by the Allies, they learned of the Balfour Declaration in which the then British Minister promised their support for the eventual creation of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. This was hardly an auspicious beginning for the establishment of the flexible and welcoming attitudes among the Arabs - far greater than anything ever exhibited in Europe - that would be required to peacefully accept what was about to unfold.

The unhappy experience of the interwar years played all this out in gristly detail, including some early clashes with the then relatively small numbers of Zionist settlers.. Then after WWII as the French tried to reclaim their colonies in Syria and Lebanon; and the British their control over Palestine and Iraq (which they had largely lost in a civil war in the 1920s); Palestine was confronted with a flood of displaced Jews, victims in one form or another of the Holocaust and often no longer welcome in their former European homes. No one could fail to sympathize with their desperation or desire for a homeland.

However, later, when it became clear that the Zionist concept of a Jewish homeland did not include any notion of equality for other people, the already frayed temper of the people of Palestine and of the surrounding Arab countries was - understandably in my view - strained past the breaking point.

My objections to the policies of Israel are essentially that they - on their own - decided to inject that kind of insult and injustice on an already volatile situation, and on the people that they claimed they wished only to see as their peaceful and friendly neighbors. The early Zionist Leaders were no fools, and it is very likely that, from the start, they planned a long struggle to drive out the native population and acquire territory exclusively for themselves. The Jewish Homeland which the UN approved was not for an exclusively Jewish State. When the new Israeli state proclaimed itself the homeland of Jews from all over the world, establishing a perpetual right of return for Jews everywhere, and then went on to prohibit the return of Palestinians who fled or were driven out by the Zionists during the 1948 war - condemning them to a miserable existence in crowded refugee camps in the desert north of Jerico. it proclaimed itself a backward relic of an age long past, an intolerant, unjust tribal theocracy with no intent of providing equal justice to all its residents.. In one of the many perverse ironies of history the survivors of NAZI racism, labor camps and murder, inflicted major elements of the same fate on their victims. What was worse, following the 1967 War in their treatment of the people of the occupied West bank they have repeated and extended the process with organized ethnic cleansing of large areas of the West bank for settlements of Jewish immigrants from the crumbling Soviet Empire.

It is worthwhile to step back and consider all this from the perspective of the Palestinians.

I believe the Zionists underestimated Palestinian stubbornness and tenacity. What has ensued is a protracted struggle, showing no signs of abating. It is one that history has repeatedly shown will ultimately be won by the side with the higher birth rate and the one able to absorb the most suffering - as opposed to the richest side, most able to inflict injury on the other. This is a story that has played out many times before on the stage of history.

I think Daniel Pipes understands all of this very well. His piece was not an exercise in communicating an understanding of history. It was instead a bit of polemic designed to influence the opinions of a public in a direction he favors.

To piggy-back on georgeob's post, we see the same happening in Iraq. The powerful military of the US cannot outlast the Arab-Muslim insurgency simply based on logistics.

Bush and Patreaus are stubborn to think they can win this war in Iraq with 150,000 troops - being placed in harms way for prolonged periods that only accomplishes more death and injury for a goal that was lost when Bush started this war.

Bush's stubborness to not negotiate with terrorists if Syria and Iran shows how wrong-headed and ignorant he is.

As Patreus have said before he took over in Iraq, this war cannot be won on only the military front. Sending 30,000 more troops is and was never the solution.

George, CI, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

You can snow us with words all you want, but you are wrong in almost everything you say.

That is a lie and I believe even you know it.

Ichan's windy 'rebuttal' corrected me on one point, the 1993/4 Treaty with Jordam. -- for which I stand corrected, The rest was merely yet another recitation of the nonsense about the opening of the 1967 war. I have a vague recollwction that the first time you raised that issue with me, you were truly surprised to learn that Israel started the war with surprise attacks on Egypt, followed by Jordan and Syria. Since then it appears that ypur position is " No they really didn't start it, and even if they did, it was because they had to do so".

You have repeated this blamket accusation of 'creating facts' repeatedly on these threads. Despite this you have not (since doing so regarding the facts of the opening of hostilities in 1967) ever disputed any particular one. Moreover you have not ever disputed the facts of the grotesque injustice of Israel's treatment of the West Bank Palestinians.

Civen this your continuation of this, at best, childish tactic is demeaning to you and deserving of contempt.

George, you didn't surprise me with anything you said, which is all BS. In the 1967 war, Egypt attacked first by blockading the Gulf of Aqaba, an act of war. Also, you said that Egypt was not advancing on Israel's border, which I presume you made up. Following the blockade, Israel had every right to attack Egyptian forces. And you apparently lied when you said that Israel first attacked Jordan and Syria. Again, your credibility is zilch.

But I am certain that CI will agree with you.

Obviously you need not only some lessons in history but in law and/or geography as well ( you might consider to read a bit about country borders [here especially territorial border]).

you are twisting words and quibbling in a most remarkable way. Are you saying that Israel launched a surprise attack against Egypt in 1967 or aren't you? Please answer that question. There is no shortage of readily accessible material on the subject --- all of it is very clear in noting that Israel started the hostilities with surprise coordinated air attacks on Egypt. (I also know from direct personal conversations with IAF officers that these attacks had been planned and rehearsed for months prior to the conflict.)

It was I who pointed out to you that Nasser's announced closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping could be interpreted as a casus beli by Israel. I never at any time made any claims, one way or another about movements (or the lack of them) of troops and military forces within the borders of any of the contending forces. You raise these points as though they controvert something that was said. but thus is most certainly not the case.

You are just throwing dust in the air to obscure the point, and then retreating behind your bland and utterly deceitful accusation of wholesale creation of facts --- all without once addressing the central question of the systematic injustice, expropriation of property, and deprivation of political, economic, and basic human rights of the Palestinian people.

I believe the truth here is all too evident -- you see that defense of the Zionist cause - as it has been implemented in Israel - is impossible. So instead you attempt to confuse, quibble and attack its critics for usually quite irrelevant points. When challenged on this you resort to bland sweeping accusations of the distortion of unnamed facts by those critics. It is a weak defense at best, but perhaps better than any others available now to you. I don't think that anyone here (except perhaps Ichan) is persuaded by it.

Israel is in a defacto war against Pal terrorist organizations, including Hamas, who seek to kill as many Israelis as possible, as well as destroy Israel. Israel's reaction is not any more harsh than it has to be.

You don't seem to condemn the the leadership in the USA, which lied us into a war in Iraq, where we have killed over 100,000 and largely destroyed the country. Nor do you condemn our past monstrous acts in Nam, of which you were a part.

Okay boys, lets cool it with the sticks and stones here.

Earlier I said that both sides can be passionately opposed and neither need be evil nor even necessarily wrong. It is not useful to dismiss all facts inconvenient to Israel any more than it is to excuse Palestine for its sins because Israel is seen as more unvirtuous than virtuous.

Here is the mini-history from the Truman Library acknowledging an event of that administration that was one of the things that put his poll numbers as low as our current President. But it does lay it out pretty clearly that Israel has never been accepted in the Arab world and it isn't necessarily Israel's fault in all cases, nor is Israel blameless in all cases.


Truman recognizes the State of Israel May 14, 1948


The Recognition of the State of Israel: Background

In 1917 Chaim Weizmann, scientist, statesman, and Zionist, persuaded the British government to issue a statement favoring the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The statement which became known as the Balfour Declaration, was, in part, payment to the Jews for their support of the British against the Turks during World War I. After the war, the League of Nations ratified the declaration and in 1922 appointed Britain to rule in Palestine.
This course of events caused Jews to be optimistic about the eventual establishment of a homeland. Their optimism inspired the immigration to Palestine of Jews from many countries, particularly from Germany when Nazi persecution of Jews began. The arrival of many Jewish immigrants in the 1930s awakened Arab fears that Palestine would become a national homeland for Jews. By 1936 guerilla fighting had broken out between the Jews and Arabs. Unable to maintain peace, Britain issued a white paper in 1939 that restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The Jews, feeling betrayed, bitterly opposed the policy and looked to the United States for support.

While President Franklin D. Roosevelt appeared to be sympathetic to the Jewish cause, his assurances to the Arabs that the United States would not intervene without consulting both parties caused public uncertainty about his position. When President Harry S. Truman took office, he made clear that his sympathies were with the Jews and accepted the Balfour Declaration, explaining that it was in keeping with former President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "self determination." Truman initiated several studies of the Palestine situation that supported his belief that, as a result of the Holocaust, Jews were oppressed and also in need of a homeland. Throughout the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the Departments of War and State, recognizing the possibility of a Soviet-Arab connection and the potential Arab restriction on Oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews.

Britain and the United States, in a joint effort to examine the dilemma, established the "Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry." In April 1946, the committee submitted recommendations that Palestine not be dominated by either Arabs or Jews. It concluded that attempts to establish nationhood or independence would result in civil strife; that a trusteeship agreement aimed at bringing Jews and Arabs together should be established by the United Nations; that full Jewish immigration be allowed into Palestine; and that two autonomous states be established with a strong central government to control Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the Negev, the southernmost section of Palestine.

British, Arab, and Jewish reactions to the recommendations were not favorable. Jewish terrorism in Palestine antagonized the British, and by February 1947 Arab-Jewish communications had collapsed. Britain, anxious to rid itself of the problem, set the United Nations in motion, formally requesting on April 2, 1947, that the U.N. General Assembly set up the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). This committee recommended that the British mandate over Palestine be ended and that the territory be partitioned into two states. Jewish reaction was mixed -- some wanted control of all of Palestine; others realized that partition spelled hope for their dream of a homeland. The Arabs were not at all agreeable to the UNSCOP plan. In October the Arab League Council directed the governments of its member states to move troops to the Palestine border. Meanwhile, President Truman instructed the State Department to support the U.N. plan, and, reluctantly, it did so. On November 29, 1947, the partition plan was passed in the U.N. General Assembly.

UN Resolution 181, defined the outline of a settlement in Palestine creating both a Jewish and a Palestinian homeland. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel. On that same date the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31). The U.S. delegates to the U.N. and top ranking State Department officials were angered that Truman released his recognition statement to the press without notifying them first. On May 15, 1948, the Arab states issued their response statement and Arab armies invaded Israel and the first Arab-Israeli war began.
SOURCE

As an aside: although the USA recognised Israel de facto within minutes after the proclamation by Ben-Gurion, the Soviet Union, Guatemala, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia granted de jure recognition almost immediately.

It is interesting that the Palestinian terrorists, whose aim - you claim - is to "kill as many Israelis as possible", somehow manage to kill only about one Israeli for every 9 or so Palestinians, killed by the IDF & Israeli security services whose aim is - according to you - to "be no more harsh than it has to be" (whatever that means). The Palestinian 'as many as possible' turns out to be a very much smaller number that the Israeli 'as many as necessary'.


Well I find your criticism of our realpolitik, while in the next breath defending the same or worse from Israel every bit as incongruous. As for the attempted insult regarding my part in our supposed "monstrous acts" in Vietnam, I will let it pass with only silent contempt.

My objection to Israel is not that it started the 1967 War -- a largely irrelevant question - war was coming, whatever the initiating event - as has been amply discussed. My objections center on the regressive character of the Zionist state, and the truly inhuman treatment it has meted out to the Palestinian inhabitants of the lands it has seized, mostly during that war.. This has taken a situation, already inflamed by past European imperialism, and created conditions that are likely to produce unending conflict there, and, as well, to worsen the larger ongoing crisis between the Islamic world and the West.

Moreover, Zionists have skillfully played on the presumed similarities of their experience with aspects of the self-image of the United States to create the illusion that Israel and the United States stand for and represent the same things in this world (nothing could be farther from the truth), and to insist that we owe them continued protection and sponsorship in the world, no matter what it costs us or what injustices Israel continues to inflict on its neighbors and subject peoples. This is a truly dangerous thing that threatens both countries: Israel, because it allows the extreme Zionists (who currently rule) to silence their internal critics and continue their inhuman land grabbing without the national reflection that just might produce the peaceful evolution of a just and tolerant pluralistic state. The United States because we are stuck with this vicious albatross about our necks. It is time for us to throw it off.

On this thread,we see this from Frank Apisa...



Do you still wanna say that nobody is saying it?

The piece you cited from the Truman Library was less a mini history of Truman's actions than it was a partisan rationalization for them. In fact Truman's action was a relatively popular thing at the time -- not at all a source of the unpopularity then sweeping around him, indeed it was likely an important factor in his win over Dewey in the closely contested election of 1948.

The resistance by major elements of our diplomatic and Foreign Policy establishment was real enough. An odd, abiding "Arabism" or thinly veiled hints of anti-Semitism are the usual explanations offered for this. The most rational explanation, of course, is that our unqualified support for the as yet unproven Zionist state was indeed very likely to cause us immense and continuing problems in a critical area of the world, and these people knew this well.

As it turned out the new Zionist state turned out not to be the model of European style socialist progressivism its many advocates worked so hard in films and news reporting to impress on the American public. Instead it revealed itself as a backward-looking tribal, racist, semi theocracy with a decided militarist bent, that built the unequal treatment of people into its core self-definition and founding acts. It was as far from the pluralistic democratic tradition of the United States as were the Fascist states we had just finished fighting; the Soviet Empire with which we were then contending; and, for that matter, the authoritarian, tribal Arab states of the region.

While we had and continue to properly have "normal" relations with many such states, nowhere else have we gone on to develop a presumed "Special Strategic relationship" with one, particularly one so contrary to our self interest and so boundless in the costs it might impose on us.

How all this happened and developed is likely a very interesting story, and historians are only now, and still very tentatively, beginning to analyse it.

George, you throw around the term "Zionist" as though it were an epitaph. Here is a definition.

Entry: Zi·on·ism
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'zī-&-"ni-z&m
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel
- Zi·on·ist/-nist/ adjective or noun
- Zi·on·is·tic/"zī-&-'nis-tik/ adjective
--Merriam-Webster


Further, your calling Israel regressive is laughable. It is a democracy, much like ours, surrounded by totalitarian states. The latter subjugate their women and minorities, tolerate no dissension, are mired in religious persecution, etc.

Main Entry: zi·on·ism Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: znizm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Usage: usually capitalized
Etymology: Zion (Palestine) + English -ism
: a theory, plan, or movement for setting up a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine


"zionism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (17 Apr. 2007).

This is one of my favorite rumors on the vote establishing the state of Israel. Hard decisions. "Those Israelis who were present for the foundation of the Jewish state insist [Rockefeller] had crossed several lines and had made a profit on both sides of the war. Rockefeller's name arose in several incriminating wiretaps and. . . it is entirely possible that the Zionists were given transcripts by sympathetic British officials. . .One Israeli intelligence officer admits the British connection. . . Ben-Gurion had already accumulated more than enough ammunition against Rockefeller and had decided that he couldn't take any chances with an indirect approach. There was no time for a British-style media campaign. The Latin American votes were needed in three days.

"Our American sources insist that the Jews simply laid their cards on the table for Nelson to read and 'blackmailed the hell out of him.'. . .In 1936, the Rockefellers entered into partnership with Dulles's Nazi front, the Shroder Bank of New York, which. . .was the key institution in the Fascist economic 'miracle.' In 1939 the Rockefeller-controlled Chase National Bank secured $25 million for Nazi Germany and supplied Berlin with information on ten thousand Nazi sympathizers in the US. Except for a few months' interruption, the Rockefeller-owned Standard of New Jersey company shipped oil to the Nazis through Spain all throughout the war."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ivWD5mmH-FAJ:home.att.net/~m.standridge/rocky.htm+kruschev+rockefeller&hl=en&ie=UTF-8