We were told not to try to speak to Ben Gurion, but when I saw him, I asked why, since Israel is a democracy with a parliament, does it not have a constitution? Ben Gurion said, "Look, boy"-I was 24 at the time-"if we have a constitution, we have to write in it the border of our country. And this is not our border, my dear." I asked, "Then where is the border?" He said, "Wherever the Sahal will come, this is the border." Sahal is the Israeli army.

Ben Gurion told the world that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it. Then Israel took half of the land that was promised to the Arab state. And still he was saying it was not enough. Israel needed more land. How can a country make peace with its neighbors if it wants to take their land? How can a country demand to be secure if it won't say what borders it will be satisfied with? For such a country, peace would be an inconvenience.
-Naeim Giladi

The Arab zionists were called Blacks by the Ashkenazis, so the Arab Jews named themselves "black Panthers"

Thanks for that little bit of information. I was wondering why they referred to themselves as the Black Panthers.

I've read accounts from several Sephardic Jews (Arabic Jews) some of whom left Israel because of the racist way in which they were treated because they were from an Arabic culture. One woman stated that in school, Arab Jews were requested not to speak Arabic to one another and were called derogatory names when they did by their Ashkenazi (European) teachers.

This is an excerpt only, full story in link:
_________________________________

In an interview with the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Shohat said her entire family emigrated from Baghdad in the 1950s.

"I was robbed of my cultural origins," she stated. "The first marker of one's identity is your name, yet when my relatives arrived in Israel, their Arabic names were immediately Hebraized. My grandmother's name was Masouda, but it was changed to Sara. My mother had wanted to name me for my great-grandmother, Habiba, who died shortly after the family arrived in Israel. But the authorities frowned on Israeli children having Arabic names and they were, after all, helping us shed our 'backward' ways. The whole idea was that anything Western was good and anything Middle Eastern was bad."

"Growing up an Oriental Jew in the '50s and '60s wasn't easy," she recalled. "Any ads we saw idealized blond children—the notion of beauty was a European ideal. It was tough to assert your Middle Eastern origins and so we internalized our shame and felt uncomfortable over our visible links with the East."

"It was taboo to speak Arabic in school and whenever teachers wanted to chastise us, they would refer to us as 'you Moroccan' or 'you Iraqi' or 'you Yemeni,'" Shohat recalled. "Jews from the Middle East were expected to abandon their Middle Eastern traits, so we grew up without studying our history or culture. It was all the more tragic for Palestinian Israelis, who couldn't even read about Arab history in textbooks."

The chasm between Western and Eastern Jews is exemplified, Shohat stressed, by the fact that many Oriental Jews who arrived in Israel in the 1950s had not experienced the Holocaust and had little knowledge of the idea of Zionism.

"It is taken for granted that the Holocaust is a shared historical memory of all Israelis, but, with all due respect, it isn't," she continued. "And so most mizrahim end up knowing nothing of our accomplishments and contributions to philosophy and literature in the Arab world."

"Even if there is peace, what does it mean if racist ideas and conditions continue to prevail in Israel? Real peace to me is rethinking attitudes—the Arab culture is a legitimate part of the history of Israel."

"I was under major attack on the radio, TV and press—not because I was critical of Israel's heroic-nationalist films that brain-washed the people with the ideal of the Eurocentric Sabra—but because I refused to separate the Palestinian issue from that of the Western Jew denigrating the Oriental Jew and his culture."

She was surprised to discover that some academics most hostile to her theories were the so-called liberals in Israel's Peace Now Movement.

"Somehow, these Western Jews find it threatening to admit the Palestinian issue is related to the second-class treatment of Oriental Jews; they refuse to look into this complexity," she explained.

"I'm not out to abolish all differences in Israel. We Oriental Jews of the so-called Desert Generation want to reclaim our heritage and make a more positive future for those who follow after. We don't want Sephardic Jewish and Palestinian kids to be ashamed of their origins or their darker colors; we want them to be proud of the culture they come from."

What are you doing about solving "present day problems" other than demonizing the Palestinian peoples?

Actually I addressed this theme several days ago - and the post was promptly censored, as I referred to the documentation released during the Netanyahu administration relating to the 'purported expulsions' in the late '40s.

Ben-Gurion advocated exclusive Hebrew labor from the start, he stated in the early 1920s:

"Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses. Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine Complete, p. 288)

Here, it bears noting that the Jewish Agency's ban on jewish - non-jewish commerce (initially instituted, I believe, in 1919 - but not actually enforced until Ben Gurion's speach. see above) led directly to the Arab Commercial strikes of the early 20s and the general Arab unrest (including many deaths on both sides) which in turn led to the retreat of the jewish population of Hebron and other areas.

Links on the theme 'second-class citizen' follow:

What is there between the Mizrahi issue and Palestinian Nationalism
http://nswas.com/sfp/articles/shenhav_02.htm

On Sephardic jews
http://jewishwebindex.com/Sephardi.htm

The right to die and the right to dance
http://sephardiconnect.com/issues-right.htm

WHEN JEWISH MEANS ASHKENAZI
http://www.loolwa.com/ashkenazi.html

Israel: divided by racism
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1997/283/283p19.htm

The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm

The world is manipulated to such a degree that only once you reserve a moment or two to observe it from an unbiased perspective do you grasp the reality of the situation plauging the earth!

I am a zionist.
I am a zionist who like all zionist was in the dark as to the fate of the Arab jews at the hands of thugs who also identified as Jews.

The zionist elite (which will be reffered from this point forward as the 'capitalists')have done unmentionable Harm in the name of zionism , which I do not condone.

However ignorance is bliss, and I was ignorant until now.
These capitalists dressed as Iraqis killed the Jews to prompt them to flee in fear for their lives to the Jewish nation.
These capitalists also behaved like Nazis to inflict fear in the ashcenazis to flee in horror to Israel.

It is awful and it needs to end, for the sake of people like me, Jews who have been manipulated to live in constant fear of barbaric Arabs/

even if this was ALL true (there is lots of documentation on iraqi percecution of jews for example) it would be irrelevant to the question of zionism. You may not have noticed but Ben Gurion is not currently the israeli president.
The fact is those people ARE in israel now. and even this guy here has a vote.

If we do not look at things the way they are Now and do the right thing Now (Road Map or Whatever) how can there ever be peace.
Before 1947 There was no State of Israel,
But Still there were Arabs all over the Area We know today as Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
Many Arab Countries have agreed to recognize Israel if Israel allows the millions of Palestinian People (both Muslim and Christian) to have their own Country where they can govern themselves and live in peace.

West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of what is TODAY, Israel, West Bank and Gaza.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP IN THE FOLLOWING WEB PAGE:
The Orange areas are Israeli settlements in the already small 22% that is West Bank and Gaza. What kind of carved up mess will the Palestinian State be unless all the settlements are removed (which will probably never happen) or just make the settlements part of the New Palestinian State (which can happen right now)??
CLICK HERE > http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg

The only way to have a Palestinian State with reasonable borders is to set the Borders NOW, to pre 1967. (or what I believe they call the green line)

For details on how this might work:

CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php

I responded to angie a few times, but the fucking islamic terrorist-loving editors here, all of whom seem to love yasser arafat, deleted my comments

Actually, with Israel's repeated refusals to cooperate with any peace initiative in any meaningful form (and I'm not speaking of the empty promises made, too often followed by an obviously staged bombing intended to ‘derail’ the process, that leave open the question who has really ‘profited’ from the bombing).

The continued building and expansion of settlements (ALL of which are ILLEGAL).

The continued occupation of Syrian and Lebanese lands (The invasion in violation of Article 51 UN Charter, and the continued occupation remains in violation of countless UN GA and SC resolutions).

The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, previously parts of Jordan and Egypt at the time of invasion (The invasion in violation of Article 51 UN Charter, and the continued occupation remains in violation of countless UN GA and SC resolutions).

The daily violation (quite probably at every contact between Occupation Forces and the Occupied, and therefore tens of thousands of times daily) of quite literally nearly every single paragraph of the Human Rights Conventions (here Israel has been consistent and has proven itself, at least in ‘theory’, to have an interest in Human Rights and has always been one of the earliest to sign and ratify every treaty).

I’m more inclined to accept the 1953 borders as an ‘acceptable solution’.

What you are "willing to accept" is irrelevant. What maters is "is it a possible solution."
I can imagine you negotiating with stalin during the cold war.. "Im willing to accept all of your satelite states and your first born child ok ?

"I can imagine you negotiating with stalin during the cold war"

you appear to have problem with RELEVANCE, scottie.

Please re-read the previous post and deal with the content - OK?


eg: "The continued building and expansion of settlements (ALL of which are ILLEGAL). "



They are illegal "settlements", aren't they Scottie? And they are still building those illegal "settlements" , aren't they? These "settlements" (armed outposts for whacky fundamentalists--would be very UNsettling if they started appearing in your neighborhood, wouldn't they, Scottie?

In what way are the settlements illegal?

Rabbi Weiss of the Neturei Karta (http://www.ntusa.org or http://www.netureikarta.org) told me that it is definately true that Zionist Jews burned synagogues and even killed other Jews in order to terrorize them into moving to Israel.

The three closely related questions were directed at Scottie, Dave.

You selected one question and feigned ignorance in order to request clarification of common knowledge. (re: the legality of settlements)

Had you answered my third question on the unsettling effect of settlements on Palestinians instead of trying to create a diversion, you would have been forced to demonstrate a capacity for empathy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=empathy

The following is some more very interesting excerpts from Naeim Giladi's article located at the link below:

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel. Although physically I never did return to Iraq-that bridge had been burned in any event-my heart has made the journey there many, many times.

With the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Israeli-condoned Sabra and Shatilla massacres, I had had enough of Israel. I became a United States citizen and made certain to revoke my Israeli citizenship. I could never have written and published my book in Israel, not with the censorship they would impose.

Even in America, I had great difficulty finding a publisher because many are subject to pressures of one kind or another from Israel and its friends. I ended up paying $60,000 from my own pocket to publish Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, virtually the entire proceeds from having sold my house in Israel.

Zionist propagandists still maintain that the bombs in Iraq were set off by anti-Jewish Iraqis who wanted Jews out of their country. The terrible truth is that the grenades that killed and maimed Iraqi Jews and damaged their property were thrown by Zionist Jews.

This, too, was the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whom I had the opportunity to meet in New York in 1988. In his book, Ropes of Sand, whose publication the CIA opposed, Eveland writes:

In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel. . . . Although the Iraqi police later provided our embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and library bombings, as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaigns, had been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had "rescued" really just in order to increase Israel's Jewish population."

Eveland doesn't detail the evidence linking the Zionists to the attacks, but in my book I do. In 1955, for example, I organized in Israel a panel of Jewish attorneys of Iraqi origin to handle claims of Iraqi Jews who still had property in Iraq. One well known attorney, who asked that I not give his name, confided in me that the laboratory tests in Iraq had confirmed that the anti-American leaflets found at the American Cultural Center bombing were typed on the same typewriter and duplicated on the same stenciling machine as the leaflets distributed by the Zionist movement just before the April 8th bombing.

Tests also showed that the type of explosive used in the Beit-Lawi attack matched traces of explosives found in the suitcase of an Iraqi Jew by the name of Yosef Basri. Basri, a lawyer, together with Shalom Salih, a shoemaker, would be put on trial for the attacks in December 1951 and executed the following month. Both men were members of Hashura, the military arm of the Zionist underground. Salih ultimately confessed that he, Basri and a third man, Yosef Habaza, carried out the attacks.

By the time of the executions in January 1952, all but 6,000 of an estimated 125,000 Iraqi Jews had fled to Israel. [Note how Israel's propagandists always inflate this number.]

After 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted and their lands confiscated in 1948-49, Ben Gurion had to look to the Islamic countries for Jews who could fill the resultant cheap labor market. "Emissaries" were smuggled into these countries to "convince" Jews to leave either by trickery or fear.

In the case of Iraq, both methods were used: uneducated Jews were told of a Messianic Israel in which the blind see, the lame walk, and onions grow as big as melons; educated Jews had bombs thrown at them.

A few years after the bombings, in the early 1950s, a book was published in Iraq, in Arabic, titled Venom of the Zionist Viper. The author was one of the Iraqi investigators of the 1950-51 bombings and, in his book, he implicates the Israelis, specifically one of the emissaries sent by Israel, Mordechai Ben-Porat. As soon as the book came out, all copies just disappeared, even from libraries. The word was that agents of the Israeli Mossad, working through the U.S. Embassy, bought up all the books and destroyed them. I tried on three different occasions to have one sent to me in Israel, but each time Israeli censors in the post office intercepted it.

Britain always acted in its best colonial interests. For that reason Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour sent his famous 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild in exchange for Zionist support in WW I. During WW II the British were primarily concerned with keeping their client states in the Western camp, while Zionists were most concerned with the immigration of European Jews to Palestine, even if this meant cooperating with the Nazis. (In my book I document numerous instances of such dealings by Ben Gurion and the Zionist leadership.)

In September 1949, Israel sent the spy Mordechai Ben-Porat, the one mentioned in Venom of the Zionist Viper, to Iraq. One of the first things Ben-Porat did was to approach el-Said and promise him financial incentives to have a law enacted that would lift the citizenship of Iraqi Jews.

Sixteen years later, the Israeli magazine Haolam Hazeh, published by Uri Avnery, then a Knesset member, accused Ben-Porat of the Baghdad bombings. Ben-Porat, who would become a Knesset member himself, denied the charge, but never sued the magazine for libel. And Iraqi Jews in Israel still call him Morad Abu al-Knabel, Mordechai of the Bombs.

Ben Gurion told the world that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it. Then Israel took half of the land that was promised to the Arab state. And still he was saying it was not enough. Israel needed more land. How can a country make peace with its neighbors if it wants to take their land? How can a country demand to be secure if it won't say what borders it will be satisfied with? For such a country, peace would be an inconvenience.

I know now that from the beginning many Arab leaders wanted to make peace with Israel, but Israel always refused. Ben Gurion covered this up with propaganda. He said that the Arabs wanted to drive Israel into the sea and he called Gamal Abdel Nasser the Hitler of the Middle East whose foremost intent was to destroy Israel. He wanted America and Great Britain to treat Nasser like a pariah.

In 1954, it seemed that America was getting less critical of Nasser. Then during a three-week period in July, several terrorist bombs were set off: at the United States Information Agency offices in Cairo and Alexandria, a British-owned theater, and the central post office in Cairo. An attempt to firebomb a cinema in Alexandria failed when the bomb went off in the pocket of one of the perpetrators. That led to the discovery that the terrorists were not anti-Western Egyptians, but were instead Israeli spies bent on souring the warming relationship between Egypt and the United States in what came to be known as the Lavon Affair.

Ben Gurion was still living on his kibbutz. Moshe Sharett as prime minister was in contact with Abdel Nasser through the offices of Lord Maurice Orbach of Great Britain. Sharett asked Nasser to be lenient with the captured spies, and Nasser did all that was in his power to prevent a deterioration of the situation between the two countries.

Then Ben Gurion returned as Defense Minister in February, 1955. Later that month Israeli troops attacked Egyptian military camps and Palestinian refugees in Gaza, killing 54 and injuring many more. The very night of the attack, Lord Orbach was on his way to deliver a message to Nasser, but was unable to get through because of the military action. When Orbach telephoned, Nasser's secretary told him that the attack proved that Israel did not want peace and that he was wasting his time as a mediator.

In November, Ben Gurion announced in the Knesset that he was willing to meet with Abdel Nasser anywhere and at any time for the sake of peace and understanding. The next morning the Israeli military attacked an Egyptian military camp in the Sabaha region.

Although Nasser felt pessimistic about achieving peace with Israel, he continued to send other mediators to try. One was through the American Friends Service Committee; another via the Prime Minister of Malta, Dom Minthoff; and still another through Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia.

One that looked particularly promising was through Dennis Hamilton, editor of The London Times. Nasser told Hamilton that if only he could sit and talk with Ben Gurion for two or three hours, they would be able to settle the conflict and end the state of war between the two countries. When word of this reached Ben Gurion, he arranged to meet with Hamilton. They decided to pursue the matter with the Israeli ambassador in London, Arthur Luria, as liaison. On Hamilton's third trip to Egypt, Nasser met him with the text of a Ben Gurion speech stating that Israel would not give up an inch of land and would not take back a single refugee. Hamilton knew that Ben Gurion with his mouth had undermined a peace mission and missed an opportunity to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Nasser even sent his friend Ibrahim Izat of the Ruz El Yusuf weekly paper to meet with Israeli leaders in order to explore the political atmosphere and find out why the attacks were taking place if Israel really wanted peace. One of the men Izat met with was Yigal Yadin, a former Chief of Staff of the army who wrote this letter to me on 14 January 1982:

Dear Mr. Giladi:

Your letter reminded me of an event which I nearly forgot and of which I remember only a few details.

Ibrahim Izat came to me if I am not mistaken under the request of the Foreign Ministry or one of its branches; he stayed in my house and we spoke for many hours. I do not remember him saying that he came on a mission from Nasser, but I have no doubt that he let it be understood that this was with his knowledge or acquiescence....

When Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal in spite of opposition from the British and the French, Radio Cairo announced in Hebrew:

If the Israeli government is not influenced by the British and the French imperialists, it will eventually result in greater understanding between the two states, and Egypt will reconsider Israel's request to have access to the Suez Canal.

Israel responded that it had no designs on Egypt, but at that very moment Israeli representatives were in France planning the three-way attack that was to take place in October, 1956.

All the while, Ben Gurion continued to talk about the Hitler of the Middle East. This brainwashing went on until late September, 1970, when Gamal Abdel Nasser passed away. Then, miracle of miracles, David Ben Gurion told the press:

A week before he died I received an envoy from Abdel Nasser who asked to meet with me urgently in order to solve the problems between Israel and the Arab world.

The public was surprised because they didn't know that Abdel Nasser had wanted this all along, but Israel sabotaged it.

Nasser was not the only Arab leader who wanted to make peace with Israel. There were many others. Brigadier General Abdel Karim Qasem, before he seized power in Iraq in July, 1958, headed an underground organization that sent a delegation to Israel to make a secret agreement. Ben Gurion refused even to see him. I learned about this when I was a journalist in Israel. But whenever I tried to publish even a small part of it, the censor would stamp it "Not Allowed."

Back up your claims of irrelevance or whatever if you are going to make them

They are illegal "settlements", aren't they Scottie?

- depends on what law you are refering to. some are illegal under israeli law. So?

And they are still building those illegal "settlements" , aren't they?

- who is "they"? maybe someone probably is. So?

These "settlements" (armed outposts for whacky fundamentalists--would be very UNsettling if they started appearing in your neighborhood, wouldn't they, Scottie?

- You will first have to define the word "whacky" befopre that becomes a valid question. Besides what are you proposing be done about "fundamentalists in my neighborhood" armed ones no less (who isn't armed?).

Hey, this is, indeed, most interesting. Keep 'em coming!!!

"Even in America, I had great difficulty finding a publisher"

See only takes $60,000 to get a book published. actually even less. Lots of people want to get books published your very lucky if you get a publisher to front up with the dough to get it done unless your already got published books.

" I learned about this when I was a journalist in Israel. But whenever I tried to publish even a small part of it, the censor would stamp it "Not Allowed.""

- Most probably it is because you went overboard.
lots of expose of israel stuff gets published. Maybe its more the how you right than the what you write. Either that or your trying to publish a left wing article in a right wing paper and it jsut wont fly with the readers

The Settlements are scattered all over the West Bank and Gaza.
Map of Settlements:
CLICK HERE > http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/artoff3260.jpg

How is this Wonderful Road Map going to work if we do not have a Palestinian State with reasonable borders where the Palestinian People can live in Peace and not have to worry about Israel confiscating their land and demolishing their homes????

For Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1618616.php

For more details on possible solution:
CLICK HERE > http://dc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=64554&group=webcast

What do you know -- now, instead of the Radio Islam Holocaust denial site, it's Bradley Smith's "CODOH" Holocaust denial site.

Keep that up and it's starting to look like you're doing that on purpose.

@%<

If my post is deleted - I will merely post the entire document.

I'm not sure which is worse - those who question hype or those who use the questioning of hype to their own means.

How about those who willingly and intentionally use overtly antisemitic materials like Holocaust denial sites as their sources but then whine like a martyred saint when they're called antisemitic?

@%<

Are you a Semite?

or

Are the people Israel persecutes under the guise of security the 'real' semites.

Now tell me exactly who is guilty of 'anti-semitic' behaviour.

Why is it that some people so readily accept the misuse of language so readily?

Shouldn't this be called 'anti-semantics'?

Terrifically ironic -- you're playing semantic games with the long-established meaning of the word "antisemitic" and yet you turn around and accuse _me_ of playing semantic games.

Let me remind you where the word "antisemitic" comes from in the first place. It's from a dude named Wilhelm Marr, in a book that was published around 1875 or so, called "Antisemitizmus." Basically, Marr was a Jew-hater who, seeing that the secularization of European society was taking away the traditional theological reason for hating Jews, tried to posit a pseudoscientific principle whereby good Europeans could explain why they hated Jews without having to cite Scripture. So Marr invented this sort of cultural equivalent of Coulomb's law of electrostatic repulsion, and called it "antisemitism." Now, at the time he was writing, Germany was essentially without an Arabic population, but had a large Jewish population. And the book itself dealt exclusively with Jews, not Jews and Arabs. So the term "antisemitism" was immediately taken to be a euphemism for "hating the Jews." And in that sense it became widely used in many different languages, including English, to mean "hating the Jews."

So it turns out that Marr was a bozo, and the word he chose for that made-up concept ends up being as inaccurate as the concept itself. But take a look in any dictionary of damn near any European language, and you'll see that the definition of "antisemitic" is always specifically about hating, not Semites, but Jews. The only people I've ever seen use it to mean anything else are a few fringe-de-la-fringe types trying to argue that the term is somehow less that clear.

And the basic rule of semantics is that words mean what they are used to mean, no matter what the word roots indicate. Otherwise, we'd have to call August "October" and October "December", since "octo-" and "dec-" mean "eight" and "ten" respectively.

But, hey, let's see if you can actually show some spine. What _exactly_ are you suggesting about the Jews by saying that the Palestinians are "'real' semites"? Are you willing to spell that out, or would you rather stay quivering in the shadow of your furtive innuendo?

@%<

Nothing to say about a people.

Everything to say about a 'loose canon' of a nation who has spent it's lifetime of existance attempting to fool the world of it's true intent.

A nation who - has attacked each and every of it's neighbors.

A nation who - relies on the 'charity' of others for it's existance.

A nation who - has repeatedly attacked the interests of it's so-called allies.

A nation who - repeatedly has undermined any attempt at 'self-determination' by the peoples of it's neighbors in the theory that any religious (especially forms of radical Islam) govenment is prefferable to any form of Arabic Nationalism.

A nation who - through it's network of blind supporters attempts to control or silence, all discourse on the theme.

Sick: "Nothing to say about a people."

Yep, no surprise there. I knew you wouldn't have the courage to step up to the plate and defend your antisemitic insinuations, and lo, you caved instantly. Not even a token attempt to save face.

Go ahead and tell us, Sick: are Palestinians more Semitic than Jews? It's what you clearly meant to imply. Can you come right out and say it, or will you continue to twist? Surely, if it's not what you believe, you'd have no difficultly repudiating it.

@%<

You never answered my question!

ARE YOU A SEMITE?

I never attack a group, I only challange individuals.

A few of the reasons I dislike Israel as a nation are stated above.

If you're asking, "Am you a Jew?" then the answer is yes. And, as a Jew, I am also therefore a Semite. Obviously.

But I find it fascinating that you can drop several _hints_ about what you think about the origins of the Jewish people, but when asked to make that crucial and backbone-dependent move from fogbound innuendo to unambiguous assertion, you suddenly turn to Jello and can't run away fast enough.

Wassamatta, lamb chop? Afraid you'll tip your hand?

@%<

I removed the comment because it contained a link to a Holocaust denial site. I didn't do this to please Gehrig. Personally, I think he's the one who put it there. He has been asked repeatedly not to comment on such things but to instead email us about it so we could remove it. He has never once done this. The only possible explanation is that he doesn’t want links to Holocaust denial sites removed. He want’s them here so he can claim we’re anti-Semitic. Ergo, I think he puts them here, himself.

The next time anybody whatsoever posts a link to a Holocaust denial site, and Gehrig posts a comment about it instead of emailing us, I’m going to remove everything he ever wrote.

This is his last warning.

Sem·ite    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (smt) n. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. A Jew. Bible. A descendant of Shem. [Back-formation from Semitic.]

The goal of the Temple Mount Faithful is the building of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in our lifetime in accordance with the Word of G-d and all the Hebrew prophets and the liberation of the Temple Mount from Arab (Islamic) occupation so that it may be consecrated to the Name of G-d.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whacky

---

I want to bring a word from G–d to the enemies of Israel and to all the nations in the world. Do not even try to prevent this godly event and process. The purification of the Temple Mount from the foreigners and enemies of Israel and their desecration of the holy site of G–d and the rebuilding of the temple cannot be prevented. This is a major historical, prophetic, end-time event which the G–d of Israel and the Universe will soon bring to completion in our lifetime.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whacky

---

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel.... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours ... When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle."
-- Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan (Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 4/13/83, NYTimes 4/14/83)

---

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." --Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein (Cited in the New York Times, 02/28/1994.)

---

"It is openly stated in the books written by the founders of Zionism that the means by which they planned to establish a state was by instigating anti-Semitism, and undermining the security of the Jews in all the lands of the world, until they would be forced to flee to their state. And thus they did." - Jews NOT Zionists

---

paraphrasing Scottie: MAYBE - JUST MAYBE - violent fundamentalists really ARE stealing Palestinian lands to erect military outposts for Jehovah - SO? WHO GIVES A SHIT?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whacky
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist

fixed.

If Alan Dershowitz can admit that he isn't actually a Semite, nor that all jews are. Why do you persist in this obfuscation and myth.

I'm not refering to an 'accepted' or traditional mis-use of a term, I'm talking about the 'genetic' term as defined - not by myself, but by the scientific (sic. Genetic) community.

Although you have attempted in the recent past to ignore the scientific facts of the issue by dissing the studies you have neglected to bring forth any valid argument to support your private theory.

So admit to your tactics of smear, and be done with it.

Alan Dershowitz's Un-American Activities
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/CCC/elder2.htm

COLUMN: Exposing anti-Semitism on college campuses
http://www.uwire.com/content/topops101102002.html

one of the editors: "Personally, I think he's the one who put it there."

That's what your denial on the antisemitism issue mandates that you think. The simple fact is, Indybay is being had by people exploiting your hatred of Zionism to feed you antisemitism. You find this disquieting, because you'd like to believe that the anti-Zionists are a pure and noble lot, and it turns out that this isn't 100% true, and you'd rather not admit you were being duped.

How long, for example, did you take Windy Wendy seriously before she tipped her hand? How much of her sludge appeared here, essentially unchallenged, before she did her meltdown? Same with Brian, who loved to attack Israel under any pretext but then started pushing David Irving. Ate it up, didn't you, until it got clear just where he was coming from?

And now we've got "Sick of the Lies" who cites CODOH and drops hints about the nefarious origins of the Jewish people -- and the instant his bluff is called, does everything he can to keep from directly addressing the issue he was so freely hinting about. But let him post the most extraordinarily hateful things about Israel, and you'll eat it up with a knife and fork and pound the table begging for more, and blink away the very idea that your hatred might be in the process of being exploited by an antisemite.

More!! *thump thump thump* More! More!! More hate! More hate! *thump thunp thump*

one of the editors: "The only possible explanation is that he doesn’t want links to Holocaust denial sites removed."

That just flat doesn't compute. If I wanted it to stay up, why would I call attention to it of any sort, rather than just letting it float incognito?

one of the editors: "He wants them here so he can claim we’re anti-Semitic. Ergo, I think he puts them here, himself."

And again, that's what your denial on the antisemitism issue demands that you think. I don't believe and don't claim that Indybay is antisemitic. I _do_ believe and _do_ claim that there are antisemites who post here under the guise of anti-Zionism, and give clearly discernable signs of that, and some of you are simply too intellectually lazy or too wrapped up in your hatred of Israel to notice the difference. Your naïveté and your hatred leave you vulnerable.

So you find it easier to believe it's REALLY ALL JUST A ZIONIST CONSPIRACY, there there, it's all right snookums, we're really all saints after all, there there, snookums, it's just a Zionist trick, there there, mean old tricksy Zionists, there there.

The only problem is this: I don't use nyms. Period. Sorry that you find that so hard to handle.

one of the editors: "The next time anybody whatsoever posts a link to a Holocaust denial site, and Gehrig posts a comment about it instead of emailing us, I’m going to remove everything he ever wrote."

And, as I've said before, I'd wear it as a badge of honor. Because what does that say about how effective I've been, and what lengths some of you will go to to protect your precious illusions about how there's no antisemitism in the anti-Zionist movement? As I've said every time you've made this threat, go ahead and ban me, pull my posts, and you'll have made my point about your fingers-in-the-ears "la-la-la-la-I-can't-HEAR-you" stance far more completely than I could.

@%<

"I'm not refering to an 'accepted' or traditional mis-use of a term, I'm talking about the 'genetic' term as defined - not by myself, but by the scientific (sic. Genetic) community."

Oh, you mean like the microbiological studies that trace the genetic markers in the Y chromosome, and show a strong correlation not only between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, but also a slightly less but still significant correlation between those two groups and other Semitic groups?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/geneticbrothers000509.html

Google "hammer chromosome ashkenazi" for more.

But, once again, come out and say what you'd trying to leave as innuendo. Where do the Ashkenazi Jews come from? Can you say it?

Incidentally, neither of your links supported your claim that Alan Dershowitz (!) claimed that the Jews are not a Semitic people.

@%<

The genetic differences between humans and simians are also "negligent", are you also going to claim to be a monkey, if it suits you?

If the monkeys live in a Jungle that is deemed to have some geo-political interest to them, they would claim to be the lost tribe of that Animal Kingdom.

Remind me again, Sick -- who is it that you're claiming the Ashkenazi Jews are most genetically similar to, if not the Sephardic Jews?

@%<

The groups of jews were seperated for some time and over time changes occur. Therefore difference is not proof of unrelatedness but similarity could be proof of relatedness.
Unless you are going to look at the whole DNA you have an uphill struggle to prove they are "unrelated".

Besides I dont think anyone is claiming there has been Zero intermarrage with locals.

I think Sick's got another agenda here, I've got a reasonably specific guess what it is, and I'm just curious to see whether he's going to step up to the plate and yea-or-nay it directly, or just keep cowering behind innuendo, dodges, and weaves.

Remind me again, Sick -- what group, according to you (but not, as that news article demonstrated, not according to molecular biology) do you think the Jews would most resemble genetically, if not other Semites? If they aren't 'real' Semites, then what are they, Sick? Who did you have in mind?

Can't say it, can you? Why is that?

@%<

"the essential nature of, scotties"
In what way is this aimed at me?

To the individual who felt robbed of her heritage because her family changed their name: Ashkenazi Jews also changed their Yiddish names upon immigration so as to sound less Ashkenazi, as modern Zionists looked down upon Yiddish with more fevor than they ever looked down upon Arabic. The name "Klein," which means "small" in German, might become "Katan" in Israel. " "Golda" became "Zahava." "Shayna" became "Yafa" etc.

Would you get your facts from Billy Gramme or Osama Bin Laden? Neturei Karta are religious fanatics with an agenda. "Rabbi Weis from Neturei Karta" is not a reliable source.

"Geneticlly' Semitic? "Semetic" refers to a language type. There is no such thing as "genetically Semitic." Sorry.

This page is a great introduction to those who Wish to Join the Peace Effort.
It is none judgmental and has an interestin’ vibe.
Have a good ol' time.

What, and Yomama is!?!

do it in the anti-Semitism thread:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1617238.php

We created a place for the subject. Go there. Anybody who only objects to anti-Semitism, and never once objects to any other kind of racism, is a racist. Racists are not welcome here.

Stop trying to monopolize this board with your sick, racist obsession. And don't EVER comment on a link to a Holocaust denial site again. If you really don't want this stuff to be seen here, email us when you see it. If you don't email us, we have no choice but to assume that you post them yourself. Do it one more time, Gehrig, and you're out of here.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent here, but...

Ed. > "Anybody who only objects to anti-Semitism, and never once objects to any other kind of racism, is a racist."

This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen. Racism is defined by Mirriam-Webster as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." There is nothing in this definition to suggest that focusing on the particular type of racism that affects one the most is in and of itself racist. The editor's claim is like saying that Martin Luther King is a racist because he spent more time dealing with anti-black racism than with anti-Asian racism.

>"Stop trying to monopolize this board with your sick, racist obsession."

Hmm... I don't seem to recall seeing a higher proportion of posts by gehrig than by others, such as Sick, or Angie in other threads. And certainly nothing in these posts to warrant such a vicious personal attack. Perhaps the good editor's time would be better spent in attempting to maintain a civil tone and in deleting truly offensive posts than in harrassing those whose politics he finds disagreeable. In any case, your most recent diatribe merely proves gehrig's point.

Cordially,
Jonathan

Are you disputing my point (that relying on religious fanatics for facts is unwise)? Just wondering.

gehrig likes to fashion himself a great opponent of anti-semitism, but he's really just a smooth talking flack for the apartheid state of Israel (wanna talk about racism?).

he's a classic johnny one-note emitting the same tired, snotty-nosed drivel month after month after month.

i don't think he should be silenced. it would be better to bottle his bile and sell at as a cure for insomnia.

relying on religious observants, ie the neturei karta is relying on the foundation of the laws of judaism.
calling those who call upon others to observe the law of moses is not fanaticism by any means, yommama

relying on religious observants, ie the neturei karta is relying on the foundation of the laws of judaism.
calling those who call upon others to observe the law of moses is not fanaticism by any means, yommama

I've warned him repeatedly not to respond to comments with links to Holocaust denial sites. I am 100% convinced that he puts them there himself. He's a troll. His sole and only function on this site, from the very beginning, has been to smear all critics of Zionism as anti-Semites. He does nothing else whatsoever here. It’s a racist tactic, with a racist motivation. Gehrig is a racist, and so is anyone who defends him.

As for the definition of racism, if you don't like mine, that’s too damn bad. If it offends you so, go to a different site. better still, start your own. To only care about attacks on one's own tribe is racist. To put one’s own tribe first for any reason, is racist. It’s offensive. To defend someone who does it is offensive. You’re defending him. You’re offensive. Why are you sticking up for this racist troll? Are you him under another name? Do you get paid by the same agency? Or are you just plain ignorant of what goes on here?

This site is one of the very few places where an anti-racist critique of Zionism’s intrinsic, inherent racism is currently being articulated. This has drawn the wrath and attention of Zionists all over the globe. They spam this site constantly with propaganda, vulgarity, sometimes even pure gibberish, over and over and over, sometimes hundreds of comments a day. You don’t see it because we spend hours a day removing it. If we didn’t remove it, this site would very quickly become unusable, which is exactly what the Zionists want. They are trying their damnedest to drown out their opposition by shouting down the truth.

Barging in where you’re not wanted and taking over by brute force, is what Zionism is all about. It is the heart, core and essence of the Zionist ethos. They did it to Palestine, because the Palestinians have been unable to stop them. Try as the might (and believe me, they do try mightily), they will *not* do it here. Here, we *can* stop them. And that’s exactly what we intend to continue doing.

A fact is a fact is a fact. Who it is who says it, doesn't matter. Why they say it doesn't matter. Neither does anything else they say.

He pretends to be and anti-anti-Semite in order to make anti-anti-Semites look bad, in hopes that this will make pro-anti-Semites look better by comparison.

Pretty clever, huh?

--"To only care about attacks on one's own tribe is racist. To put one’s own tribe first for any reason, is racist."

Absolutely. There is only one race: The Human Race. If everyone internalizes this and takes it to heart, there would be no injustices being committed by any group against any other.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
-John F. Kennedy
http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/

the most powerful anti-semites in this society over the past decades are or have been vehemently, even rabidly, pro-Israel.

think: Richard Nixon, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson...

Gehrig never has time to complain about all the Christian right creeps who express their love for the Jews via apocolyptic fantasies of armegeddon which end with the Jews as converts to Christianity or as mounds of dust.

What a relief that we have such conscientious, observant, and honest editors here!

Thank you and keep up the good work!

"To only care about attacks on one's own tribe is racist."

That would make this entire site, and your entire staff racist, wouldn't it?

As for the article, I thought we all knew this story by now. The Iraqi government convicnts Jews of bombing their own neighborhoods. Big surprise, right? As I recal, seven or so Iraqi Jews were hanged as Israeli spies. Others were imprisoned where they remained until recently. When Saddam opened his prisons, they were nowhere to be found.

Old news. Perhaps forensics on the mass graves will uncover new information, but this is old news.

In a word, no. We oppose all forms of racism, not just racism against Jews. Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, any more than anti-Nazism is anti-Germanism. Zionists are to Jews what Nazis are to Germans, an embarrrassment to an otherwise admirable people.

=================================
SCOTTIE:
> "You will first have to define the word "whacky" befopre that becomes a valid question"


ME:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whacky
=================================

SCOTTIE:
> "In WHAT WAY is this aimed at me?"

*********************************
SCOTTIE:
> "some [settlements] ARE ILLEGAL under israeli law. SO?"
> "maybe someone probably is [building ILLEGAL settlements]. SO?

ME:
> "paraphrasing Scottie: MAYBE - JUST MAYBE - violent fundamentalists really ARE stealing
> Palestinian lands to erect military outposts for Jehovah - SO? WHO GIVES A SHIT?"
*********************************

SCOTTIE:
> "In WHAT WAY is this aimed at me?"

It's funny how someone named "laugh at the dying" would discuss racism -- as though he were in a moral position to do so.

That handle may sound clever to him, but I suspect what he had in mind when he came up with it is laughing at people being killed in Iraq or Palestine -- in other words, Arabs.

Somehow I find it hard to believe he would be laughing if his mother or brother or even someone of his own ethnicity were killed.

one of the editors, having a really terrific mental flame-out: "I've warned him repeatedly not to respond to comments with links to Holocaust denial sites. I am 100% convinced that he puts them there himself."

That makes you a one-hundred-percent fool.

Let's think this through, shall we.

The basic problem for "one of the editors" is the same as it has been all along: it's that I'm right. He'd love to be able to use Excuse #1 -- "Those Zionists are always screaming 'antisemitism' when there isn't any" -- but, by golly, because I'm restricting my comments to Holocaust denial sites, which are unarguably antisemitic, I've gone and shot that excuse out from under him. Every last time I've cried "wolf," I've brought back the wolf's pelt to show.

So instead "one of the editors" has to move on to Excuse #2 -- "He's _planting_ the wolf pelts." Now, let's think this through a minute. Let's take a look at the URL that was posted about two weeks ago for the Adelaide Institute. That was posted by the spewmaster JA. JA also posted a whole sequence of notes about my reaction to that post, and never once did he say that he _hadn't_ made that post. So, for that Adelaide Institute URL to be a plant, I would have had to forge not only the post with that URL, but also all the following JA posts on the topic afterward, _and_ JA would have had to never have noticed any of them or else he would have complained that he had been forged. And you _know_ he would have complained loud and long about it.

But, to paraphrase Dumbfock Holmes here, that dog didn't bark. Yet this scenario apparently strikes "one of the editors" as not only a possibility but _the most likely_ (!) possibility, "the only possible explanation"! Unless "one of the editors" is suggesting that I _am_ JA, and the point of all that pointless spew of his is just a fantastically time-consuming effort to -- to what? -- to call attention to a post I knew would be pulled if I called attention to it and probably ignored if I didn't?

Now multiply that by Brian -- are you going to claim that I'm Brian too? -- and "Sick" -- are you going to claim that I'm "Sick" too? -- and all the other folks who have, over the last year or so I've been reading here, and presumably long before, posted links to Holocaust denial sites. When Brian complains because his URLs on the David Irving trial were pulled, was that just me in disguise? Was I forging Windy Wendy when she went off on "the Kosher tax"? Or maybe she's another one of my non-existent sock puppets? Or maybe everyone on this board is an emacs macro but you?

And what is your supposedly all-compelling overwhelming "evidence"? Simply that I don't fight Holocaust denial the way you wish I would.

Yep, that's it. That's your whole "case."

one of the editors, demonstrating his lack of reading comprehension yet again: "He's a troll. His sole and only function on this site, from the very beginning, has been to smear all critics of Zionism as anti-Semites."

You know, no matter how many times I explain it, "one of the editors" is either too thick or too much of a liar to get it right.

Take off your fucking blinders for a moment, "one of the editors," and _read_ what I say for once in your pathetically blinkered life.

I do not believe and I have never claimed that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

I'll say that again. I DO NOT BELIEVE and have NEVER claimed that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

And I'm _very fucking tired_ of explaining this to you again and again and again, only to have you immediately turn around and have one of those sudden convenient attacks of strategic Alzheimer's and claim that I've said the oppposite.

What I've said, consistently all along, is that there are those who _use_ anti-Zionism as a guise for their antisemitic rhetoric, who are intentionally using anti-Zionism as the hook for their real agenda, and if you aren't careful, you'll end up swallowing a lot of crap without knowing the poster's true intent.

One more time: I DO NOT BELIEVE and have NEVER claimed that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. But there are those who _do_ criticize Israel in an inherently antisemitic way, and it's no sin to point fingers when it happens. A mature person will understand that antisemitic criticism of Israel _undermines_ the Palestinian cause; an adolescent who can only see US and THEM will, however, whine bloody murder, wah wah wah wah.

Have you got it YET? Have you finally fucking got it through your head what I'm saying, or are you going to jam your bullshit into my mouth again in a few days after more of your sudden strategic memory loss? Are you too busy painting halos over your own portraits to see how your hatred of Zionism is being cynically exploited?

one of the editors: "He does nothing else whatsoever here. It’s a racist tactic, with a racist motivation. Gehrig is a racist, and so is anyone who defends him."

Blow it out your ass, Mussolini. You can't back up your hysterical claims so instead you get out your biggest, widest tar brush. What's it like to have such a tiny, tiny set of mental Legos with which to build a worldview? It's obviously very uncomfortable, because you're flailing like an octopus in an electric chair.

And why are you flailing? Because I'm presenting a simple and uncomfortable truth, one that threatens to rattle your state of blissful denial and comfortable numbness, and you are so completely petrified that I might be right on this too, that you'd rather spin wildly implausible swiss-cheese theories that I'm a paid agent (!) of Thuh Zionist Conspiracy (!) than take a look in the mirror and discover, well what do you know, maybe there's something to what Gehrig says after all.

one of the editors, speaking of flailing crazily: "As for the definition of racism, if you don't like mine, that’s too damn bad. If it offends you so, go to a different site. better still, start your own. To only care about attacks on one's own tribe is racist. To put one’s own tribe first for any reason, is racist. It’s offensive. To defend someone who does it is offensive. You’re defending him. You’re offensive. Why are you sticking up for this racist troll? Are you him under another name? Do you get paid by the same agency?"

More comic paranoid hysteria, with a dash of messiah complex thrown in. A really splendid performance.

@%<

Why don't you email us when you find a link to Holocaust denial site, so we can remove it?

Firstly, I would like to make it clear that I am not gehrig. It should be perfectly clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the differences in style, vocabulary and the content of our posts is such that they must have different authors.

Secondly, I would like to know if you are accusing me of being a racist. If so, I would like to know the grounds for this accusation. In a day and age where a charge of racism is sufficient cause for loss of employment, it seems to me that a wise person would be somewhat more careful running around accusing people of being racist.

Which brings me to your definition of racism. Whether or not I "like" your definition or not is irrelevant. There is already an established definition for racism. You don't get to make up your own definition and then expect it to gain universal acceptance. So I would ask you, given the dictionary definition for racism, how can you claim that gehrig's posts, or mine, are racist? Here's Mirriam-Webster's definition again: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Now, I'm sorry if gehrig's posts, or mine, or anybody else's touch a nerve with you. But maybe, just maybe, it's time for you, and indeed, the left in general, to begin to express a little of the tolerance about which they so often rhapsodize, to accept a little of the diversity that they claim to cherish. Or is "diversity" in political thought less worthy than divesity of skin color? Are you so blinded by your own enlightenment that you cannot tolerate politics which differs from your own?

Cordially,
Jonathan

Because I don't want my email address to get out to the naziboys and the Dan Elliotts of the world, as it easily could because IMC mailing lists are archived and the IMC-SF archives are, as IMC principles dictate, open and transparent.

And I refuse to set up a nazi-trap Hotmail account or whatever just to assuage the paranoia of an Indybay editor who can't quite get his head around where I'm coming from, no matter how many times I explain it.

@%<

>t should be perfectly clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the differences in style, vocabulary and the content of our posts is such that they must have different authors.

Any competent writer can write in a variety of styles. It happens here every day.

I'm not accusing you, personally, pf being a racist. i'm accusing Gehrig, and Zionists in general, of being racist.

No one on the Left tolerates Nazis, or anti-Semitism, or racism in whatever form it takes.

So why should anyone tolerate Zionism, which is little different except that that form of racism is directed towards Palestinians specifically and Arabs in general?

>I'm not accusing you, personally, pf being a racist.

That's not what you said. You said "Gehrig is a racist, and so is anyone who defends him." As I was defending him, I take that to mean that you were indeed calling me a racist. Now, just to be perfectly clear, I would appreciate either an apology for this false accusation or an explanation of how my comments fit the accepted dictionary definition of racism.

And should you have time, I would be interested to see how gehrig's posts fit this definition of racism. If you cannot do this, perhaps you should stop harrassing him..

Cordially,
Jonathan

one of the editors: "Any competent writer can write in a variety of styles. It happens here every day."

Do tell, "one of the editors" -- how many different nyms do _you_ post under during a given week? Ten? Twenty? Five? It's obviously not just one name -- which is, let me remind you, the way I do it.

Go ahead, "one of the editors," let's go for full disclosure. Here's a complete list of the names I post under on the IMCs:

1. gehrig

Now give us _your_ list.

@%<

Nonce-nym: "No one on the Left tolerates Nazis, or anti-Semitism, or racism in whatever form it takes."

Would that such noble words were actually true.

Here's a hint -- what French paper first published Paul Rassinier's claims that the Holocaust was a fraud? Was it a left paper, a right paper, a socialist paper, or what?

@%<

“I don't want my email address to get out”


Me either. I hide myself quite well.



> to the naziboys and the Dan Elliotts of the world, as it easily could because IMC mailing lists are archived and the IMC-SF archives are, as IMC principles dictate, open and transparent.

IMC-SF archives are transparent. SF-IMC-Editorial archives are not. It’s a private list.

See:

http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-sf-editorial

(snip)

This is also a private list, which means that the list of members is not available to non-members.

(snip)


>And I refuse to set up a nazi-trap Hotmail account or whatever just to assuage the paranoia of an Indybay editor who can't quite get his head around where I'm coming from, no matter how many times I explain it.

I don’t believe you. You’re a clever and persistent guy. If you wanted to be anonymous, you would have found a way. I did.

one of the editors: "You’re a clever and persistent guy. If you wanted to be anonymous, you would have found a way. I did."

Now reread the second paragraph of my earlier response: "And I refuse to set up a nazi-trap Hotmail account or whatever just to assuage the paranoia of an Indybay editor who can't quite get his head around where I'm coming from, no matter how many times I explain it. "

In other words, sorry, but I don't particularly feel the need to be "clever and persistent" just because you've got a paranoid bug up your paranoid ass, and only to prove what -- to anybody but an utter paranoid freak -- oughta be blatantly obvious.

But hey, Dumbfock Holmes, give us _your_ explanation of how I made that Adelaide Institute URL end up in JA's post. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

@%<

I don't care what you feel. The next time you comment on a Holocaust denial site link instead of emailing us, you're going to be erased. If you don't feel good about that, tough sh*t.

>perhaps you should stop harrassing him.

I'm not harrassing him. I'm explaining how he can continue to be our guest on this site. If he chooses not to listen, he's out of here.

before you get kicked out of the site by the editor can you respond to the following quote:
Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman
advocated transporting Palestinian prisoners to a
place "whence they will not return"
by drowning them in the dead sea.

one of the editors: "The next time you comment on a Holocaust denial site link instead of emailing us, you're going to be erased."

Here's a clue, Dumbfock. Think about this and then ask yourself why I'm not jumping through your hoop.

How many times have you accused me of having posted those Holocaust denial URLs, with exactly nothing to support you but your own lame out-the-ass paranoia? And then waved away my refutation as a mere Zionist trick?

How many times have you accused me of posting using sock puppets to slander Indybay, with exactly nothing to support you but your own lame out-the-ass paranoia? And then waved away my refutation as a mere Zionist trick?

How many times have you accused me of being a "paid agent" of some unspecified but nefarious organization, with exactly nothing to support you but your own lame out-the-ass paranoia? And then waved away my refutation as a mere Zionist trick?

How many times have you tried to jam the equation "anti-Zionism = antisemitism" into my mouth so you can flog me for it, no matter how many times I explain that that's not what I believe, and with exactly nothing to support you but your own lame out-the-ass paranoia? And then waved away my refutation as a mere Zionist trick?

Now, with all the shit and slander you've poured on me, why the _holy inverted batfuck_ would I _want_ to dance to your tune? Out of what, good faith? You gotta be fucking joking! Why should I show good faith to someone who's shown such consistent _bad_ faith, again and again and again? To earn an apology you'd somehow never get around to delivering? Fuck _that_ noise.

Meanwhile, here's the question you dodged -- "But hey, Dumbfock Holmes, give us _your_ explanation of how I made that Adelaide Institute URL end up in JA's post. Go ahead. I'm all ears."

@%<

As a person who advocates racial tolerance it would behoove you to condemn Mr. Lieberman’s call for the extermination of imprisoned Gentiles.

By your lack of response should one assume that you agree with the minister of transportation who has volunteered to drown all jailed Palestinian citizens...

gehrig has on this thread alone managed to disprove every argument against him/ her and the best you can come up with now is a threat to throw him off because he refuses to send you an email and give up his anon status. This is stupid.

Is this an admittance of defeat?

As a person who professes to advocate racial tolerance - Do you condemn Mr. Lieberman’s call for the extermination of imprisoned Gentiles?

stop posing as "your fan", and answer the question directly.
Do you or do you not support avigdor Liebermans call for the drowning of the gentile imprisoned population in Israel ?

What's been taking me so long? I've been watching to see how many ways, and how tendentiously, you'd continue to mischaracterize what Lieberman said. You've tried to dress it up now several different times in several different florid ways in the garb of genocide.

Having said that, it's a reprehensible comment and he should withdraw it.

@%<

Finally, it took you what...forty eight hours to come up with:
"it's a reprehensible comment and should withdrawn",

Now it is due time to release all Palestinian Political prisoners immediately!

Do not drown them, gehrig...

Lieberman blasted for suggesting drowning Palestinian prisoners
By Gideon Alon
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=315541&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

A storm erupted in the Knesset plenum yesterday, following Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman's reported proposal to provide buses to take the Palestinian prisoners that Israel releases to a place "whence they will not return."

According to another report, Lieberman said the prisoners should be drowned in the Dead Sea and he would provide the buses to take them there.

MKs Jamal Zahalka (Balad) and Talab A-Sana and Abdelmalek Dahamsha (United Arab List) blasted Lieberman.

"How can you suggest transferring thousands of Palestinian prisoners to the Dead Sea and drowning them there?" Dahamsha asked in a debate on traffic accidents. Lieberman retorted that MK Dahamsha visited an Arab murdered in Afula by Palestinian terrorists.

The Arab Knesst members were furious. MK Talab A-Sana said "that's the ultimate fascist statement, shame on you."

Lieberman told MK Zahalka "Let me tell you openly. As far as I'm concerned you're much worse than Arafat and Abu Mazen. If it was up to me you'd be sitting in jail, at best."

Opposition leader Mk Shimon Peres denounced Lieberman's utterance, saying it inflames the hatred between the two nations. "You should not have said what you said, this is not a Soviet regime nor a Communist one. You will not lock anyone up and you will not threaten anyone."


Where is the mis-characterization?

The reliability or non-reliability of the sect Neturei Karta's beliefs can only be understood by a Torah scholar, which I assume you are not. As for me, I cannot rely of the opinions of people who abuse other Jews and wish their downfall. This is a clear violation of the mitvah of ahavas yisroel.

"Where is the mischaracterization?"

Gee, don't you remember? "do you reject libermans vision of the extermination of the indigenous Semtic people of the land of Palestine?" What Lieberman said was downright shitty, and I'm glad he's being called to account for it (just as I'm glad that the head of Hamas is being called into account for declaring he wants a Palestine "without a single Jew"), but saying it expresses his "vision of the extermination of the indigenous Semitic people of the land of Palestine" -- wow, do you think you could hyperbolize a little more?

In the meantime, maybe you could help Dumbfock Holmes out with this question he's having trouble handling. "But hey, Dumbfock Holmes, give us _your_ explanation of how I made that Adelaide Institute URL end up in JA's post. Go ahead. I'm all ears."

@%<

Judaism is judged by ones observance of the ten commandments.
Neturei Karta observe the law while their zionist counterpart routinely break 'em.

The people Lieberman calls to exterminate by drowning them in the dead sea are the indigenous Semiticic Palestinian men and women and children...

From hence forth gehrig should be dissmissed as a degenerate racist whos only contribution to the fight for racial tolerance is the struggle to tolerate the racists tendencies of the zionists.

From hence forth gehrig should be dissmissed as a degenerate racist whos only contribution to the fight for racial tolerance is the struggle to tolerate the racists tendencies of the zionists.
It was like pulling teeth to get a response from him on Mr. Liebermans vision of the wholesale murder of Palestinian prisoners.
By his silence on the matter, he has joined the rank of the transportation minister and others like the two of them.
gehrig and lieberman, two peas in a pod...
speechless!

Actually:

From hence forth gehrig should be dismissed as a rabid racist whose only contribution to the struggle for racial understanding - is his struggle to excuse the racist tendencies of the zionists.

Tell me- what do you know about Jewish law? Are you orthodox? Where have you learned? You don't sound to me like you know what you're talking about when you discuss "Jewish law." What is "ahavas yisroel", for example?

Have another beer and keep trying; I'm sure you'll figure out what you mean to say sooner or later.

@%<

Which part of the Ten Commandments don’t you comprehend?

You are no Jew but a revisionist, picking out commandments that appeal to you like: ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘ahavas yisroel’ while ignoring the rest.
You rent out Judaism to justify The annexation of the Palestinian land!

Neturei Karta's position has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. It has to do with post-Biblical rabbinic commentary pertaining to the diaspora from the Land of Israel and the Messainic era which Jews await. Neturei Karta care nothing for the Palestinians. Ask them what will happen tot he Palestinians when the Messiah comes and all the Jews, both dead and alive, return to the Land of Israel. Ask them where Palestinians fit into the picture. You may be surprised.

And by the way, Judaism is not "judged" by the Ten Commandments. Judiasm is "judged" [sic] by 613 commandments. I suggest you read the Bible.

Putting words in people’s mouth is un jewish of you.
On their site they display nothing but compassion and concern for the Jewish and none-Jewish Palestinian victims of Zionism.
You display no compassion for either.

I am the founder of a new type of religion, more like a cult called- Zionism.

In the name of Zionism, you are not only supposed to kill, but encouraged to do so.

If you display any sort of compassion towards the disadvantaged (Palis)
you’ll be labeled a traitor and jailed.

My state is Israel, where obedience to my religion is defined by a total lack of judgment on the part of my followers

and complete and utter immunity from any prosecution.

Yomama and his type hide like frighten children behind the apron of Judaism because they know they won’t be able to get away with the murders they have been committing had they not taken cover under the guise of Judaism!
They single handedly drag Judaism in the dirt because they can’t take the rap for their insidious behavior

Perhaps it is un-Christian to put words into other people's mouths but I cannot think of any injuction against this in Judaism. Do not confuse the two- they are entirely different religions.

The supposed compassion that Neturei Karta display is utter nonsense. They would throw all the Arabs into Jordan if they did not believe that Jews must wait for Messiah to come and bring all the Jews to isarel. Again, I suggest you ask them where the Palestinians will go when those millions of Jews return when Messiah comes.

The basic belief of the sect of Neturei Karta is that until the Messiah arrives, Jews may not establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel. They do not oppose a Jewish state on humanitarian grounds. What they are feeding you if nonsense- they assume you have no knowledge of Jewish texts and issues within modern Judiasm, nor the resources to investigate their claims.

“Perhaps it is un-Christian to put words into other people's mouths but I cannot think of any injunction against this in Judaism”.

Thou shall not bear false witness.

Or for a smooth agent like you:
lying is ‘no- no’. .

“…What they are feeding you is nonsense- they assume you have no knowledge of Jewish texts and issues within modern Judaism, nor the resources to investigate their claims…”
“…The supposed compassion that Neturei Karta display is utter nonsense. They would throw all the Arabs into the Jordan…”

Again you are confusing Zionism with Judaism and projecting your technique on observers of this religion like the Jewish group of Neturei Karta !

“Perhaps it is un-Christian to put words into other people's mouths but I cannot think of any injunction against this in Judaism”.

Thou shall not bear false witness.

Or for a smooth agent like you:
lying is ‘no- no’. .

“…What they are feeding you is nonsense- they assume you have no knowledge of Jewish texts and issues within modern Judaism, nor the resources to investigate their claims…”
“…The supposed compassion that Neturei Karta display is utter nonsense. They would throw all the Arabs into the Jordan…”

Again you are confusing Zionism with Judaism and projecting your technique on observers of this religion like the Jewish group of Neturei Karta !

Actually, there are circumstances in Judaism where one MAYlie: for purposes of humility (Bava Metzia), modesty (Bava Meztia), protecting others(Bava Metzia) and peace (Ketubot). If you are familiar with the Bible, you will know that all three of the Patriarchs lied. Nice try.

Regarding bearing false witness, this applies to judicial proceedings. Again, nice try.

In any case, it is not "putting words into another's mouth" to speak the truth. If you know someone wishes to kill you mother, but does not actualyl say so explicitly, you are not "putting words into their mouth" by informing the police of thier evil intention.

By the way, it is utterly obvious to any observant Jew that you are either not Jewish or are a secular Jew of secular parents.

"Actually, there are circumstances in Judaism where one MAY lie"

Why should anyone believe your next line, when your Religion permits you to lie for your 'cause'?

ONE: 'You shall have other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Forget the Sabbath day and keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'dis Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall steal.'

NINE: 'You shall bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall covet your neighbor's house; you shall covet your neighbor's wife and his male servant & his female servant & his ox & his donkey and anything that is your neighbor's.'

Some 1,400 years later, the 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day:



"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

Check the sources (all observant Jews, including your Neturei Karta sect, believe these sources are part of the Law):

Ketubot 16B-17A
Bava Metzia 23B

You will find it stated absolutely clearly that lying is sometimes permissible. As I noted previously, Abraham and Jacob both lied.

Regarding the Ten Commandment: thank you for posting them. What is your point?

Please ignore my last remark. I did not notice that you had removed the word "NOT" from each verse. But why don't you back up you claims? Zionists worship graven images? Prove it!

While you look for justifications for your lies may I ask you a simple question.

In the name of Zionism which commandment have you not been pushed to break
(4-10?)

'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

None of them.

Genisis 12:7- "Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Schem [Nablus], at the teberinth of Moreh. The Cananites were then in the land. The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "I will assign this land to your offspring."

I skimmed through most of this garbage, but can anyone explain the following?

1. How did Gehrig make KL post a link to an overtly anti-Semitic web-site?

2. Is "one of the editors" the only editor that he can create arbitrary conditions and threaten a participant with erasing him entirely if he doesn't jump on command?

3. "Semitic", unless you use it in the biblical sense (sons of Shem) refers to a language group, not people. Half of Ethiopians speak a Semitic language and half do not. Are Ethiopians "Semitic"?

4. Anti-Semitic means Jew-hater. It was coined as a euphemism by Jew-haters who wanted a scientific sounding name to their hatred.

5. Arabs are not indigenous to Israel. The earliest "Palestinian Arabs" arrived in the 16th century. They are as "indigenous" to Israel as the white man is to America.

6. Who gives a damn what a bunch of religious nuts have to say? Neturei Karta are also pro-life, anti-feminist and anti-gay. Since this is supposedly a left-of-center or "progressive" site, I'd expect that agreeing with NK on something should be cause to reconsider your position -- not "proof" of its validity.

Hmmmm: "Anti-Zionist" posters seem to have various hatist and right-wing arguments (e.g. JA's contention that US loan guarantees to Israel deprive US banks of greater profits). Seems to me like a small group of very dedicated people are spending a lot of time pretending being "humanists" for the sole intention of demonizing Israel, Zionists and yes, Jews.

"Who gives a damn what a bunch of religious nuts have to say?"

You are vilifying Neturei Karta, doesn't the irony of demonizing a Jewish people fill you with Jewish guilt?

Zionism is the only system that demonizes True Judaism!

I didn't demonize NK, I was wondering why left-wing progressives would be glorifying religious fundamentalists who are anti-abortion, anti-feminist and anti-gay.

Can you address that and my other questions?

"Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Schem [Nablus], at the teberinth of Moreh. The Cananites were then in the land. The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "I will assign this land to your offspring."

Christians Jews and Muslims are His Offsprings.
Jesus, Moses and Muhammad were Arab descendents of His.

"and they shall eat it as barley cakes, and they shall make it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight" -- Ezekiel 4:12
***********************************

a) the ten commandments applied only to transactions between the chosen (Stephen Pinker, How The Mind Works)

b) religion is an irrational and dangerous justification for actions (Viruses of the Mind, Richard Dawkins)

c) The topic was zionist murder of Jews to make them flee to Israel.

d) attacking the source [eg: Neturai Karta] of an argument supported by evidence is a logical fallacy [argumentum ad hominem]

It is interesting how Zionazis avoid every question regarding the Halacha.

ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM

by Livia Rokach, Third Edition
A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. Foreword by Noam Chomsky
Index and Foreword

AAUG PRESS ASSOCIATION OF ARAB-AMERICAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATES, INC., Belmont, Massachusetts
First published in the United States of America by AAUG Press c1980, 1982, 1986 by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. All rights reserved in the U.S. Published 1980. Third Edition 1986
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Rokach, Livia. lsrael's sacred terrorism. (AAUG information paper series: no. 23) ISBN 0-937694-70-3

CONTENTS
Foreword by Noam Chomsky
Preface To This Addition by Naseer H. Aruri
Introduction

Chapters
1 Moshe Sharett and His Personal Diary
2 Ben Gurion Goes to Sdeh Boker: Spiritual Retreat as a Tactic
3 Retaliation for War
4 "A Historical Opportunity" to Occupy Southern Syria
5 Let Us Create a Maronite State in Lebanon
6 Sacred Terrorism
7 The Lavon Affair: Terrorism to Coerce the West
8 Nasser: Coexistence with Israel is Possible. Ben Gurion's Reply: Operation Gaza
9 Disperse the Palestinian Refugees
10 ... and Topple Nasser's Regime

Appendices
Operation Kibya
And Then There was Kafr Qasim
"Soon the Singing Will Turn Into a Death Moan"
The Lavon Affair
Israeli Newspaper Reveals Government's Attempt to Stop Publication of Israel's Sacred Terrorism
Notes


FOREWORD
HISTORY, particularly recent history, is characteristically presented to the general public within the framework of a doctrinal system based on certain fundamental dogmas. In the case of the totalitarian societies, the point is too obvious to require comment. The situation is more intriguing in societies that lack cruder forms of repression and ideological control. The United States, for example, is surely one of the least repressive societies of past or present history with respect to freedom of inquiry and expression. Yet only rarely will an analysis of crucial historical events reach a wide audience unless it conforms to certain doctrines of the faith.

The United States always starts out with good intentions." With this ritual incantation, a liberal critic of American interventionism enters the area of permissible debate, of thinkable thoughts (in this case, William Pfaff, "Penalty of Interventionism," International Herald Tribune, February 1979). To accept the dogma, a person who is unable to tolerate more than a limited degree of internal contradiction must studiously avoid the documentary record, which is ample in a free society- for example, the record of high-level planning exhibited in the Pentagon Papers, particularly the record of the early years of U.S. involvement in the 1940s and early 1950s when the basic outlines of strategy were developed and formulated. Within the scholarly professions and the media the intelligentsia can generally be counted on to close ranks; they will refuse to submit to critical analysis the doctrines of the faith, prune the historical and documentary record so as to insulate these doctrines from examination, and proceed to present a version of history that is safely free from institutional critique or analysis. Occasional departures from orthodoxy are of little moment as long as they are confined to narrow circles that can be ignored, or dismissed as "irresponsible" or "naive" or "failing to comprehend the complexities of history," or otherwise identified with familiar code-words as beyond the pale.

Though relations between Israel and the United States have not been devoid of conflict, still there is no doubt that there has been, as is often said, a "special relationship." This is obvious at the material level, as measured by flow of capital and armaments, or as measured by diplomatic support, or by joint operations, as when Israel acted to defend crucial U.S. interests in the Middle Last at the time of the 1970 crisis involving Jordan, Syria and the Palestinians. The special relationship appears at the ideological level as well. Again with rare exceptions, one must adopt certain doctrines of the faith to enter the arena of debate, at least before any substantial segment of the public.
The basic doctrine is that Israel has been a hapless victim-of terrorism, of military attack, of implacable and irrational hatred. It is not uncommon for well-informed American political analysts to write that Israel has been attacked four times by its neighbors, including even 1956. Israel is sometimes chided for its response to terrorist attack, a reaction that is deemed wrong though understandable. The belief that Israel may have had a substantial role in initiating and perpetuating violence and conflict is expressed only far from the mainstream, as a general rule. In discussing the backgrounds of the 1956 war, Nadav Safran of Harvard University, in a work that is fairer than most, explains that Nasser "seemed bent on mobilizing Egypt's military resources and leading the Arab countries in an assault on Israel." The Israeli raid in Gaza in February 1955 was "retaliation" for the hanging of Israeli saboteurs in Egypt-it was only six years later, Safran claims, that it became known that they were indeed Israeli agents. The immediate background for the conflict is described in terms of fedayeen terror raids and Israeli retaliation. The terror organized by Egyptian intelligence "contributed significantly to Israel's decision to go to war in 1956 and was the principal reason for its refusal to evacuate the Gaza Strip" (Israel- The Embattled Ally, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978).

To maintain such doctrines as these, or the analysis of alleged fact that conform to them, it is necessary scrupulously to avoid crucial documentation. Safran, in his 600-page study, makes no use of major sources such as the diaries that Livia Rokach reviews here, relevant parts of which had been made public in 1974, or the captured Egyptian documents published in Israel in 1975, or other sources that undermine these analyses (see footnotes 19, 20). Much the same is true of the mainstream scholarly literature and journalism fairly generally.

Moshe Sharett's diary, to which Livia Rokach's monograph is devoted, is undoubtedly a major documentary source. It remains outside of "official history"-that version of history that reaches more than a tiny audience of people unsatisfied by conventional doctrine. It is only reasonable to predict that this will remain true in the United States as long as the "special relationship" persists. If, on the other hand, Israel had been, say, an ally of the Soviet Union, then Sharett's revelations would quickly become common knowledge, just as no one would speak of the Egyptian attack on Israel in 1956.
In studying the process of policy formation in any state, it is common to find a rough division between relatively hard-line positions that urge the use of force and violence to attain state ends, and "softer" approaches that advocate diplomatic or commercial methods to attain the same objectives- a distinction between "the Prussians" and "the traders," to borrow terms that Michael Klare has suggested in his work on U.S. foreign policy. The goals are basically the same; the measures advocated differ, at least to a degree, a fact that may ultimately bear on the nature of the ends pursued. Sharett was an advocate of the "soft" approach. His defeat in internal Israeli politics reflected the ascendancy of the positions of Ben Gurion, Dayan and others who were not reluctant to use force to attain their goals. His diaries give a very revealing picture of the developing conflict, as he perceived it, and offer an illuminating insight into the early history of the state of Israel, with ramifications that reach to the present, and beyond. Livia Rokach has performed a valuable service in making this material readily available, for the first time, to those who are interested in discovering the real world that lies behind "official history."

Noam Chomsky, January 1, 1980


PREFACE TO THIS EDITION
IN PURSUIT of its objectives of disseminating accurate information about the Middle East, the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc. thought it in the public interest to publish this study, which analyzes lsraeli-Arab relations in the late 1940s and 1950s in the light of the personal diary of Moshe Sharett. 1 Head of the Jewish Agency's Political Department from 1933 to 1948, Sharett became Israel's first foreign minister ( 1948 1956), under David Ben Gurion), and was prime minister in 1954 and 1955.
Since this book was first published five years ago, a number of occurrences have taken place that point up its enduring significance. Although this work deals primarily with events of the 1950s, it is of more than historical interest. Indeed, the information it provides makes it clear that the record of the past quarter century could easily have been predicted; the only novel quality is the ferocity with which the Zionist strategy of the fifties has been carried out in the decades that followed.No longer does the Zionist movement feel compelled to hide its true intentions. Its regional alliances with the Phalanges party and other right-wing elements in South Lebanon, and its special relationship with the United States, propel it like a juggernaut in pursuit of imperial goals.

The first edition of this book appeared when the Middle East and the United States were preoccupied with the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations that led to the 1978 Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli treaty of March 1 979, and with the Israeli Invasion of South Lebanon of March 1978. Subsequently,the Camp David formula not only has failed to produce the comprehensive settlement promised by President Jimmy Carter, it in fact contributed to a second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in, June 1982. By neutralizing Egypt, the Egyptian-Israeli treaty allowed Israel to proceed confidently with its plans to crush Palestinian resistance and obliterate the Palestinian national identity, with a view to perpetuating its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights. Today, the Palestine question is further from a peaceful and just resolution thin at any time in the past, while Lebanon continues to hemorrhage and to divide along sectarian lines.
The Camp David Accords, and the subsequent Reagan Plan introduced in September 1982, were grounded in flawed assumptions about lsrael's"security" and Arab threats to that security. Recent developments in the region have exposed the Reagan administration's complicity in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon,2 which was calculated to produce results deemed beneficial both to American strategic interests and to Israeli expansionist goals. The interests of the Reagan administration and lsrael's Likud government coalesced around three objectives: the destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure in Lebanon, the redrawing of the political map in Lebanon, and the reduction of Syria to manageable proportions. Pax Americana and pax Israelica were to be realized through the campaign cynically dubbed "Peace for Galilee."
The 1982 "operation," as well as its predecessor, the "Litani Operation" of 1978, were part of the long-standing Zionist strategy for Lebanon and Palestine, which this transition of the Sharett diary illuminates. In fact,that strategy, formulated and applied during the 1950s, had been envisaged at least four decades earlier, and attempts to implement it are still being carried out three decades later. On November 6, 1918, a committee of British mandate officials and Zionist leaders put forth a suggested northern boundary for a Jewish Palestine "from the North Litani River up to Banias." In the following year, at the Paris peace conference, the Zionist movement proposed boundaries that would have included the Lebanese district of Bint Jubayl and all the territories up to the Litani River. The proposal emphasized the "vital importance of controlling all water resources up to their sources."

During the Paris conference, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion (who later became, respectively, lsrael's first president and first prime minister) attempted to persuade Patriarch Hayik, who headed the Lebanese delegation, to abandon South Lebanon in return for a promise of technical and financial assistance to develop the area to the north, which they hoped, would become a Christian state.
The Zionist military forces that invaded Palestine in 1948 also occupied part of the district of Marjayun and Bint Jubayl, and reached the vicinity of the Litani River, but were forced to withdraw under international pressure. Then, in 1954, the leaders of the newly established state of Israel renewed Zionist claims on Lebanese water when President Eisenhower's envoy Eric Johnston proposed a formula of sharing the Litani waters among Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Israel, in fact, threatened to use force against Lebanon to prevent the utilization of the Litani waters to develop South Lebanon.
While these threats were made during the period covered in the Sharett diary, consider what actually happened later, during the 1960s, '70s, '80s: In 1967, lsrael's war against three Arab states not only gave Israel possession of eastern Palestine (the West Bank), Gaza, the Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights, but also enabled Israel to capture the headwaters of the Jordan and Manias rivers. In addition, Israel destroyed Jordan's East Ghor Canal and its Khaled Dam on the Yarmuk River, which flows into lsrael's Nahariva Pool. In the 1978 "Litani Operation," Israel established firm control over the Wazzani River, which flows into the Jordan, as well as almost the entire length of the Hasbani River. And in the 1982 "Operation Peace for Galilee," the entire length of the Litani River came under Israeli control."

The goal of profoundly altering water distribution in the region could be achieved only within the context of a vassal state in Lebanon with a puppet government, an endeavor about which the Sharett diary has much to say (p.22 ff). In fact, Ben Gurion's plan, in 1954, to establish such a puppet governments plan enthusiastically endorsed by Moshe Dayan was finally put in motion nearly a quarter of a century later. Dayan's "officer" did indeed emerge, even bearing the same rank of "just a major" Major Sa'd Haddad,whom Israel encouraged to proclaim secession from Lebanon in April 1979.lsrael's defense minister, Ezer Weizmann, announced his government's support of Haddad's canton of "Free Lebanon": "I consider Haddad a Lebanese nationalist and as far as I know he wants Beirut to become the capital of a free independent Lebanon once more without interference from the Syrians or the Palestinians."4 Support for Haddad, and by implication for a Zionist-Phalangist alliance, was also voiced by right-wing Lebanese politicians. Stated Camille Chamoun, "We need such a Lebanese force to struggle in the South for the liberation of Lebanon, and not just a part of Lebanon, and Sa'd Haddad is not a traitor."

But the Zionist proxy "mini-state," which was set up in a border strip six miles wide and sixty miles long, was repudiated by the world community. A United Nations force, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), was mandated to help reestablish the authority of the central Lebanese government in the South. Israel, however, defied the relevant United Nations resolution (which was supported even by the Carter administration) and persisted in its support of Haddad. After a March 1981 agreement by the Syrian and Lebanese presidents to reassert - in cooperation with UNIFIL - the authority of the Beirut government in the South, Israel and Haddad's militia bombarded a UNIFIL position, killing three Nigerian soldiers (March 16, 1981).

Israel's destabilization of Lebanon, in pursuit of a Maronite-dominated client state, has taken several forms, ranging from extending the Camp David formula to Lebanon, to its full-scale invasion of 1982. With regard to imposing a Camp David solution on Lebanon, Menachem Begin made a statement to the Israeli parliament on May 7, 1979, inviting Lebanon to enter into negotiations with Israel on the basis of Syrian withdrawal and expulsion of the Palestinians from Lebanon. This proposal evoked an enthusiastic response from Bashir Gemayel, commander of the Phalangist Lebanese Forces, who told Beirut's Monday Morning on May 28, 1979:
"These principles are sound and should be accepted is the basis for any Lebanese endeavor to find a solution. . . . President Sadat accepted a similar proposal and he is now leading Egypt to an era of welfare and prosperity. When shall Lebanon be allowed the right to seek its own welfare?"

The elder Gemayel, Pierre, added:
"You shall say that I am defending Sadat as I defended Sa'd Haddad; my dear, I would be a coward and without honor if I did not defend my point of view" (Al-Safir, August 2, 1979)
Israel's aggression against Lebanon in 1982 was clearly designed to cement these alliances between Israel and the "Major" in the South and with the Gemayels and Chamouns to the North - all in an effort to secure the balkanization and vassalization of Lebanon, the eradication of Palestinian nationalism, and the intimidation of Syria. To attain these goals, Israeli leaders were willing to risk a wider regional war, and indeed to push the world to what is in every respect a "pre-nuclear" situation. This alone should give the American people cause for concern and action. In addition,the United States has provided Israel with the economic and military means to invade Lebanon, to bomb Baghdad, and to perpetuate the occupation of Palestine and of Syrian territory in clear violation of U.S. law, including the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 and the Israel-U.S. Mutual Defense Agreement of 1952.

The 1982 Israeli invasion so tipped the domestic balance in favor of Israel's Lebanese allies that the majority of Muslims, nationalists and other anti-Israel groups were left in a clearly submissive condition. The terms of the victor were dictated to the vanquished. lsrael's new ally,Bashir Gemayel, was to be president/viceroy of Lebanon, although according to noted American journalist Jonathan Randal, Bashir himself, who owed his presidency to Begin and Sharon, complained that these two treated him like a "vassal."'. The Shultz agreement of May 17, 1983 was to be Lebanon's Versailles, which would realize the long-standing Zionist dream described in the Sharett diaries a "Christian" state that would ally itself with Israel.

Despite the assassination of President-elect Bashir Gemayel before he could take office, initially matters developed in accordance with Israel's strategy for Lebanon. The negotiations, handled by civilians from the two countries' foreign ministries, appeared to be headed towards normalization along Camp David lines; Israel secured a liaison office in Beirut, the next thing to an embassy; the Phalanges party and its leader's son, Amin Gemayel, now the president of Lebanon, began to reshape the country in their own image. But it soon became clear that sectarian hegemony, sponsored by Israel and supported by the United States, was a poor substitute for even the antiquated confessional system of 1943. By fall 1983, Israeli troops were forced to withdraw to the Allah River. By February 1984, President Reagan ordered U.S. troops to withdraw, while Druze and Shiite fighters made a triumphant entry into Beirut (February 10,1984). President Amin Gemayel, who owed his presidency to the Israeli invasion, was forced under new political and military conditions to repudiate the Shultz agreement (March 1984) and to close Israel's "embassy" in Beirut (July of the same year).

Not only did the Israeli invasion of 1982 fail to achieve most of its objectives: It pushed the right-wing Lebanese Forces to a position that borders on fascism and renders reunification and reintegration a remote possibility. It has exacerbated the Lebanese civil war at an unbearable cost in human lives and property.

This human tragedy compels us to examine the Israeli rationale of "security," a rubric that has covered a curiously large number of Israeli violations of international law and human rights, recently and in the past. Why, we must ask, does Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip close universities, shoot students in classrooms and on the street, deport leaders, dismiss mayors, create colonial settlements and encourage terrorist acts by settlers all in the name of' "security?". Why, when confronted with massive popular resistance to its occupation of South Lebanon, did Israel react with the same "Iron Fist," initiating raids on villages, mass arrests of civilians, wide-scale destruction of homes and property, and assassinations even though this policy could only further alienate the population."

The personal diary of Moshe Sharett sheds light on this question by amply documenting the rationale and mechanics of lsrael's "Arab policy" in the late 1940s and the 1950s. The policy portrayed, in its most intimate particulars, is one of deliberate Israeli acts of provocation, intended to generate Arab hostility and thus to create pretexts for armed action and territorial expansion. Sharett's records document this policy of "sacred terrorism" and expose the myths of Israel's "security needs" and the "Arab threat" that have been treated like self-evident truths from the creation of Israel to the present, when Israeli terrorism against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and against Palestinians and Lebanese in South Lebanon, has reached an intolerable level. It is becoming increasingly evident that the exceptional demographic and geographic alterations in Israeli society within the present generation have been brought about, not as the accidental results of the endeavor to guard "Israel's security" against an "Arab threat," but by a drive for lebensraum.

Referring to the terrorist bombings that crippled two prominent West Bank mayors and injured other civilians on June 2, 1980, William Browser, in an article for the New York Times (June 5, 1980), explained the apprehension of West Bank Palestinians: although military occupation is not new to them, Israeli terrorism-if that is what it was- is virtually without precedent in the last thirty years." It behooves Mr. Browser and the attentive public who reads the "news that's fit to print," to examine the many precedents amply documented and occasionally decried by a bewildered Israeli prime minister who worried about the moral deterioration in Israeli society in the 1950s that first prompted revenge as a "sacred" principle. In a passage quoted in Rokach's study, Sharett wrote:
"In the thirties we restrained the emotions of revenge. . . . Now, on the contrary, we justify the system of reprisal ... we have eliminated the mental and moral brake on this instinct and made it possible ... to uphold revenge as a moral value.... a sacred principle" (p. 33).

The undisguised satisfaction that the maiming of the two Palestinian mayors evoked among many Jewish settlers in the West Bank is reminiscent of the feeling in Israel in the 1950s that caused Sharett so much anguish, and challenged his conscience. In fact, the private armies now being organized by Jewish vigilante groups determined to keep the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip under permanent Israeli control, have openly advocated the removal of all Arabs from occupied Palestine. Although these ultra-nationalists consider former Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir (former members of the terrorist Irgun and Stern gangs) to have become patsies, fools and traitors, and although Begin condemned the attacks on the Palestinian mayors as "crimes of the worst kind," the fact remains that the settlers of Gush Emunim and Kach are carrying out the settlement policies of the Israeli government. This government provides them with the protection and economic benefits and equips them with legitimacy. By the same token, it ensures that their victims will be defenseless and powerless. The 1948 Deir Yassin massacre, committed by Begin's Irgun Zvei Leumi, and the June 2, 1980 bombing, committed by another vigilante group, are products of the same type of "sacred terrorism."

The thirty-two years that have lapsed in the interim have witnessed innumerable acts of Israeli terror: it hardly seems necessary to recall the aerial bombardment of vital civilian infrastructures in Egypt and Syria in the late 1960s,7 or the destruction of southern Lebanon in the 1970S and'80s, nor to mention the brutality with which the occupation regime treats the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, or the many assassinations of Palestinian intellectuals in various European capitals in the early 1970s.

A most disturbing phenomenon, which will continue to inhibit the prospects for Palestinian-Israeli coexistence, is the ascendancy of the radical right in Israel. Its orientation towards brute force, its attitude towards Arabs, and its contempt for debate and dissent, leave little room for coexistence. Justifications of acts of terrorism against Palestinian civilians are rampant among members of the political establishment and Jewish settlers. Israel's former Minister of Science and Energy, Yuval Neeman, Knesset member Haim Druckman, former chief of staff Raphael Eytan, and Sephardic chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu are on record justifying that kind of terrorism.8 In July 1985, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir vowed to work for the early release of convicted Jewish terrorists, whom he described as "excellent people who made a mistake" (Jerusalem Post, July 12, 1985). The propensity for violence against Arabs has been clearly established in interviews of settlers, young and old, by Israeli and Western journalists.9
The radical right nowadays speaks outright of dispossession and deportation of Palestinians. Israeli sociologist Yoram Peri wrote in Daivar (May 11,1984) that while Defense Minister Arens and Foreign Minister Shamir speak of annexing the West Bank and Gaza and forging a "pluralistic" society, the extreme right advocates deportation, a term which, four years ago, no one would dare utter. "Hence," he wrote, "the proximity of the right to the Fascist conception of the State."

Another factor that inhibits coexistence is the cavalier manner in which members of the establishment claim sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza. So contemptuous of the need to argue and convince was Foreign Minister Shamir, that his reply to a question of why Israel lay claims to those territories consisted of one word: "Because!" Israel's Chief Rabbi, Shlomo Goren, has remarked that in religious law retaining the occupied territories takes precedence over the duty to save life. Terms such as"Western Eretz Israel" and "Judea and Samaria," which are being used with more frequency and emphasis, represent a revival of the revisionist Zionist notion that the "land of Israel" also includes modern-day Jordan, and underline Israeli leaders' determination never to relinquish the illegally occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The more the world tries to understand the situation in the Middle East,the more the Zionist organizations in the United States, acting in concert with Israel, try to fog it up. lsrael's wars against the Arabs in 1967 and 1982 obliterated its David image and confirmed it as the Goliath of the Middle East. No longer was it possible for the Israeli government to escape public scrutiny, despite all the immunity which it enjoys in the American public arena, as its forces, in the name of "security" for Israeli civilians, carried out the most ruthless aerial bombardment since Vietnam.The U.S. ambassador in Lebanon, whose government used its Security Council veto to protest lsrael's war gains in 1982, described their saturation bombing: "There is no pinpoint accuracy against targets in open spaces." The Canadian ambassador said lsrael's bombing "would make Berlin of 1944 look like a tea party. . it is truly a scene from Dante's Inferno." NBC's John Chancellor said: "I kept thinking of the bombing of Madrid during the Spanish Civil War. ..we are now dealing with an imperial Israel." Indeed, in their pure murderousness, given the frequent use of phosphorus and cluster bombs, the Israeli bombings of Beirut, an advanced form of state terrorism, far outstripped the attacks on Guernica, Coventry and Dresden.

Since this book was first published in 1980, the Zionist movement has responded to the growing criticism of Israeli violence in a hysterical manner. Surveillance, monitoring the activities of lsrael's critics in the media, churches and on the campus, intelligence gathering and blacklisting reminiscent of the McCarthy period in the United States, are among the tactics employed recently by Zionist organizations to stifle criticism of Israel. 10 Pinning the anti-Semitic label on critics his become the standard and easiest tactic to preempt rational discussion of public policy regarding Israel and to intimidate would-be critics. The list of victims includes such distinguished individuals as former Senator Charles Percy, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, former Under Secretary of State George Ball, former Congressman Paul Findley," and many other lesser known individuals who struggle against overwhelming odds to retain a job and secure their livelihood. Menachem Begin's famous remark after the Sabra and Shatila massacres, which defined criticism of Israel as "blood libel against the Jewish people," is a stark example of the trend to equate open criticism with anti-Semitism, even as Israel continues to have trade relations and military cooperation with the most notoriously anti-Semitic regimes in Central and South America." Israel's war against journalists was revealed in the legal suit against NBC's reporting of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, 13 its repeated allegations that journalists who report news detrimental to Israel do so only in response to Arab "threats,"14 and in the killing of CBS crewmen in South Lebanon, who were covering the implementation of Israel's "Iron Fist" policy (March 21, 1985).

Other hysterical responses to increasing knowledge of the facts of the Middle Fast conflict have emerged in the writings of propagandists masquerading as scholars. Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial 13 turns history on its head by claiming that Jews did not replace native Palestinians, who were allegedly no more than illegal Arab immigrant workers who moved to "where they found work." The absurd and indefensible allegation that there were virtually no Arabs in Palestine prior to the Zionist influx, seems intended to provide a veneer of legitimacy for lsrael's increasingly violent efforts to make the myth that there is "no such thing as a Palestinian" a chilling reality.

The Zionist effort to stifle public debate of Israeli actions extended to the present study. After unsuccessful attempts by the Israeli establishment to suppress publication, in Hebrew, of the Sharett diary in Israel,attempts were made by threats of litigation and otherwise to suppress our publication of this study of the diary here in the United States. On April 11, 1980 the AAUG received communication from a well-known law firm in New York requesting in the "firmest manner possible" that we refrain from printing, publishing or otherwise reproducing portions of the diary. The law firm, acting on behalf of the family of the late Moshe Sharett and the Israeli publisher of the diary, threatened to "initiate prompt litigation in a Federal District Court" on the grounds of alleged violation of United States copyright laws.

Subsequently, the AAUG received a telegram from the Sharett family emphasizing that all rights would be vigorously protected if the association published "parts or all of Moshe Sharett's diaries." Anxious transoceanic calls were received by our office from the Israeli media. Our right to publish was questioned, but not on the legal grounds cited by the Sharett family and its legal counsel. Instead, we were hysterically accused of attempting to expose Israel via Sharett in a sensationalist manner. The Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv headlined a front-page story, "Israel's Haters in the U.S.A. translated with No Permission the Diaries of Moshe Sharett" (April 4, 1980). According to former Knesset member Uri Avneri, writing in Haolam Hazeh (September 23, 1980), the Israeli Foreign Ministry initially supported Moshe Sharett's son, Yaqov, who edited the Hebrew publication of the diary, in his attempt to suppress publication of Livia Rokach's study based on the diary. "But to his disappointment, the Foreign Office did not uphold its support for him. The Jerusalem politicians decided that pursuing a legal course in stopping the dissemination of the book would be a mistake of the first order, since this would give it much more publicity."

Needless to say, our accusers not only prejudged our book before its publication and cast aspersion on the organization and the individuals involved in its production; they also assumed that our publication was an unauthorized translation. In fact, the material quoted as verbatim translations from the Sharett diary or substantially paraphrased from that diary comprises only about one percent of the diary. Rokach's study utilizes excerpts from the Sharett diary to reinforce and illustrate her own thesis.

We are under no illusion that the challenge before us was predominantly legal. After all, what Sharett said in his diary, limited as it is to the Hebrew-speaking public, is very revealing; it constitutes an indictment of Zionism by the former prime minister of Israel, and dismantles many erroneous assumptions about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It refutes a three-decade-old dogma and emphasizes the need to reexamine the uncritical support Israel has enjoyed in the West for its policies toward the Arabs. Hence, the Israelis' need to suppress and censor, to withhold relevant and vital information from the public discourse on the Middle Fast. We are painfully reminded of similar attempts to conceal the fraudulent methods which the United States politico-military establishment employed in its pursuit of the war against the Vietnamese. The ability of the establishment to withhold the truth from the American public prolonged the Vietnam War and aggravated the social, economic, and human problems which resulted from that war. It will be hoped that the deceptive strategy of David Ben Gurion,which Moshe Sharett documented in his day-today record, will not be withheld forever from the American public, whose lives are materially affected by events in the Middle East. Thus, in our opinion, Israel's Sacred Terrorism has an indisputable significance in the formulation of a healthy and objective policy towards the Middle East.

It is our considered opinion that Sharett's Personal Diary, is a very important historical resource that sheds much light on Israel's policy towards the Arab world, particularly for all of us in the United States who have such a large stake in Middle Eastern developments and the eventual outcome of the conflict. Therefore, the use of Sharett's historical resource for scholarly study does not infringe the copyright laws.
We have taken particular precautions, however, to ensure that our selections have been translated accurately, have not been taken out of context and are not mitigated or contradicted by anything that Sharett wrote elsewhere in the diary. We are also certain that these selections satisfy the "fair use" criteria of United States copyright law:

1. The AALUG is a non-profit, educational organization, which is not publishing this study for commercial exploitation.

2. The nature of Moshe Sharett's diary relates materially to the "right of the public to know."

3. The amount of the copyrighted material reproduced in this publication amounts to no more than one percent of the whole.

4.The economic value of the original work would not suffer from the limited quotations included in our study.

We take comfort in the protection afforded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution involving freedom of speech and the press and the companion "right of the public to know." The Pentagon Papers were revealed to the public after they had long lain unnoticed in the archives of the American military bureaucracy. The critical nature of their content warranted that they should have been unearthed much earlier than their dramatic appearance. Sharett's startling revelations must not be subjected to the same bureaucratic strangulation, or kept away from the English-reading public so that their usefulness as a factor in Middle East policy is nullified.

NASEER H. ARURIAAUG Publications Committee November 1985


PREFACE NOTES
1. Moshe Sharett, Yoman Ishi (Personal Diary), edited by Yaqov Sharett (Tel Aviv: Ma'a 1979).
2. For example, upon his retirement in May 1985, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis revealed that in December 1981 Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon outlined his plans for the impending invasion to U.S. envoy Philip Habib (Washington Post, 24 May 1985).
3. See for example Thomas Stauffer, "Israel Calculates the Price of Peace: Money and Water," Christian Science Monitor, 13 January 1982, and "Israel's Water Needs May Erode Path to Peace in Region," Christian Science Monitor, 20 Januarv 1982; John Cooley, "Syria Links Pull-Out to Guaranteed Access to Water," Washington Post, 8 June 1983; and Leslie C. Schmida, "Israel's Drive for Water," Link, 17, 4 (November 1994).
4. Quoted in al-Nahar and al-Sa ir, 22 April 1979.
5. Quoted in The Isolationist-Israeli Alliance Is a Phenomenon that Threatens the Unity of Lebanon, presented at the World Congress for Solidarity with the Lebanese People, Paris, 16 18 June 1980 (Beirut: Information Bureau of the Lebanese National Movement, 1980), 9.
6. Jonathan C. Randal, Going All the Way: Christian Warlords, Israeli Adventurers, and the War in Lebanon (New York: Viking Press, 1983), 10-11.
7. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, Israeli bombing reduced the Egyptian cities of Suez, Port Said and Ismailia to ghost towns. During the same period Israel carried out repeated air raids against Syria. Following the killing of eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, at least 200 people, almost all civilians, were killed in Israeli "reprisal" raids in Syria alone. David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch (London: Futura, 1978), 251-252.
8. See articles by Yoram Peri in Davar, I I May 1984. Ya'acov Rahamim in Ma'ariv, 14 December 1983, and Mary Curtius, "Israeli Debate: Should Settlers Be Pardoned," Christian Science Monitor, 15 Julv 1985.
9. See, for example, Christian Science Monitor, 10 May 1984.
10. At its annual convention in 1984, the Middle East Studies Association called on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Def'amation League of B'nai B'rith to "disavow and refrain from" blacklisting practices against scholars and students. For more information on efforts by supporters of Israel to quash open debate, see, for example, Naseer Aruri, "The Middle East on the U.S. Campus," Link, 18, 2 (May June 1985).
11. Former Congressman Findley documents the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in They Dare to Speak Out (Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill, 1985).
12. For a detailed analysis of lsrael's relations with Central American regimes, see Milton Jamail and Margo Gutierrez, It's No Secret: lsrael's Military, Involvement in Central America, forthcoming, AAUG. See also Israel Shahak, Israel's Global Role: Weapons.for Repression (Belmont, Mass.: AAUG, 1982)
13. In May 1994 a pro-Israel group known as Americans for a Safe Israel (AFSI) filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission to deny renewal of licenses for station WNBC-TV in New York and seven other NBC affiliates, charging that NBC had presented one-sided coverage of the war in Lebanon. See Christian Science Monitor, 14 May 1984. AFSI also commissioned Professor Edward Alexander to write a study, which appeared under the title NBC's War In Lebanon: The Distorting Mirror (1983).
14. An example is Ze'ev Chafets, Double Vision: How the Press Distorts America's Media, of the Middle Last (New York: William Morrow, 1983). Chafets is former head of the Israeli press office in Jerusalem. American journalists have vigorously denied these allegations. (See, e.g., Charles Glass, ABC Beirut correspondent, in CPJ Update [published by the Committee to Protect Journalists], November December 1984).
15. New York: Harper and Row, 1984. For critical reviews of Peter'sbook, see Norman Finklestein, in In These Times, 5 11 September 1984, 12-13, Muhammad Hallaj, "From Time Immemorial: The Resurrection of a Myth," Link, 18, 1(January March 1985); and Ian Gilmour and David Gilmour, in Arab Studies Quarterly, 7, 2 3 (Spring/Summer 1985), 181-195.

AAUG Publications Committee, November 1985



INTRODUCTION
POPULAR SUPPORT of Israel over the last quarter of a century has been based on a number of myths, the most Persistent of which has been the myth of lsrael's security, Implying the permanent existence of grave threats to the survival of Jewish society in Palestine, this myth has been carefully cultivated to evoke anxious images in public opinion to permit, and even encourage, the use of large amounts of public funds to sustain Israel militarily and economically. "Israel's security" is the official argument with which not only Israel but also the U.S. denies the right of self-determination in their own country to the Palestinian people. For the past three decades it has been accepted as a legitimate explanation for lsrael's violation of international resolutions calling for the return of the Palestinian people to their homes. Over the past thirteen years Israel has been allowed to evoke its security to justify its refusal to retreat from the Arab and Palestinian territories occupied in 1967. Security is still the pretext given by successive Israeli governments for widespread massacres of civilian populations in Lebanon, for expropriations of Arab lands, for the establishment of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, for deportations, and for arbitrary detentions of political prisoners. Although the security of the Arab populations in the whole region has been repeatedly threatened over these years by overt and covert warfare, terrorist plots and subversive designs, and although UN resolutions demand the establishment of secure borders for all states in the region, so far only lsrael's security has been at the center of international discussion.

The persistence of the myth of Israel's security shows that there is considerable public belief in the so-called Arab commitment to eliminate the Jewish state. Most of the distinguished Western writers who present this case derive their arguments from Zionist versions of events in the late 1940s, at the time of the establishment of Israel, and in the mid-1950s, when Nasser came to power. They go on from these arguments to present Israel's so-called struggle for security and survival as a moral issue. The media often furnish politicians, who have other reasons for their political and military support of Israel, with the convenient issue of the West's moral commitment to Israel.

Other versions or approaches to the facts have more often than not been ignored. For example, recent disclosures by Nahum Goldmann (Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1979) have gone practically unnoticed. Goldmann, who for more than thirty years headed the pro-Zionist World .Jewish Congress, charges that the Arabs were not consulted about the partition of Palestine in 1947, and further that their willingness to negotiate a political compromise that might have prevented the 1948 war was vetoed and undermined by Ben Gurion before May 1948.

The recently published Personal Diary of Moshe Sharett (Yoman Ishi. Tel Aviv: Ma'ariv, 1979, in Hebrew) now offers a decisive and authoritative contribution to the demystification of the myth of lsrael's security and its security policies. Between 1933 and 1948 Sharett guided the foreign relations of the Zionist movement, as head of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, and from 1948 to 1956 he was lsrael's foreign minister. In 1954 and 1955 he was its prime minister as well. The following pages present extracts from Sharett's diary demonstrating the following points:

1 .The Israeli political /military establishment never seriously believed in an Arab threat to the existence of Israel. On the contrary, it sought and applied every means to exacerbate the dilemma of the Arab regimes after the 1948 war. The Arab governments were extremely reluctant to engage in any military confrontation with Israel, yet in order to survive they needed to project to their populations and to the exiled Palestinians in their countries some kind of reaction to lsrael's aggressive policies and continuous acts of harassment. In other words, the Arab threat was an Israeli-invented myth which for internal and inter-Arab reasons the Arab regimes could not completely deny, though they constantly feared Israeli preparations for a new war.

2. The Israeli political/military establishment aimed at pushing the Arab states into military confrontations which the Israeli leaders were invariably certain of winning. The goal of these confrontations was to modify the balance of power in the region radically, transforming the Zionist state into the major power in the Middle East.

3. In order to achieve this strategic purpose the following tactics were used:
a) Large- and small-scale military operations aimed at civilian populations across the armistice lines, especially in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, then respectively under the control of Jordan and Egypt. These operations had a double purpose: to terrorize the populations, and to create a permanent destabilization stemming from tensions between the Arab governments and the populations, who felt they were not adequately protected against Israeli aggression.
b) Military operations against Arab military installations in border areas to undermine the morale of the armies and intensify the regimes' destabilization from inside their military structures.
c) Covert terrorist operations in depth inside the Arab world, used for both espionage and to create fear, tension and instability.

4. lsrael's achievement of its strategic purpose was to be realized through the following means:
a) New territorial conquests through war. Although the 1949-50 armistice agreements assigned to Israel a territory one-third larger than had the UN partition plan, the Israeli leadership was still not satisfied with the size of the state, the borders of which it had committed itself to respect on the international level. It sought to recover at least the borders of mandate Palestine. The territorial dimension was considered to be a vital factor in Israel's transformation into a regional power.
b) Political as well as military efforts to bring about the liquidation of all Arab and Palestinian claims to Palestine through the dispersion of the Palestinian refugees of the 1947-49 war to faraway parts of the Arab world as well as outside the Arab world.
c) Subversive operations designed to dismember the Arab world, defeat the Arab national movement, and create puppet regimes which would gravitate to the regional Israeli power.
In providing documentation on the above points, Sharett's Diary deals a deadly blow to a number of important interpretations which are still being presented as historical truths. Among these are the following items:

1. To this date the majority of scholars and analysts cite the nationalization of the Suez Canal as the chief motivation for the October 1956 war, It is thereby implied that the projected British and French aggression against Egypt provided Israel with an opportunity to achieve the termination of fedayeen attacks from across the armistice lines, and to settle its accounts with Nasser's regime, to which these attacks were attributed.

What Sharett tells us now is that a major war against Egypt aimed at the territorial conquest of Gaza and the Sinai was on the Israeli leadership's agenda at least as early as the autumn of 1953, almost a year before Nasser ousted Neguib and consolidated his leadership. It was agreed then that the international conditions for such a war would mature within a period of about three years. The Israeli military attack on Gaza in February 1955 was consciously undertaken as a preliminary act of war. A couple of months later a government decision to commence a war to conquer the Gaza Strip met with the strenuous opposition of the foreign minister, whose political liquidation was thereupon decided by the supporters of the war policy, headed by Ben Gurion. Had the prospect of the tripartite aggression not appeared on the horizon in later months, Israel would have gone on to attack Egypt according to its own plans, and, moreover, with U.S. consent.

2. The occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 has been described, and is still widely understood today, as an Israeli defensive action in the face of Arab threats. Sharett's Diary offers unequivocable evidence that the occupation of Gaza and also of the West Bank was part of lsrael's plans since the early fifties. American Zionist leaders were informed about these plans in 1954, In 1955, Jewish and Arab lives were sacrificed in a series of provocative attacks undertaken to create a pretext for the occupation of Jordanian territory. The chief obstacle postponing this occupation was Britain's residual presence in Jordan upholding the Hashemite throne.

3. The continuing, violent Israeli aggression in Lebanon still is being attributed, shamelessly, to Israeli security needs. In particular, Israeli spokesmen, echoed by Western media, try to explain lsrael's massive intervention in Lebanon and the Lebanese events in general, with the following historical arguments:
a)In the struggle between Muslims and Christians, a conflict which would have broken out regardless of outside interference, Israel's role has been limited to the defense of the Christian minority.
b)The presence of the Palestinian resistance, or in Israeli terminology, of Palestinian terrorism in that country required Israeli intervention.
Sharett's Diary, however, provides the entire documentation of how in 1954 Ben Gurion developed the diabolic plans to "Christianize" Lebanon, i.e., to invent and create from scratch the inter-Lebanese conflict, and of how a detailed blueprint for the partition and subordination of that country to Israel was elaborated by Israel more than fifteen years before the Palestinian presence became a political factor in Lebanon.

The use of terror and aggression to provoke or create the appearance of an Arab threat to lsrael's existence was summed up by the then "number two" of the Zionist state's hierarchy:

"I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have invented, and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood, and on the violations of the law by our men-all of which brought grave disasters and determined the whole course of events and contributed to the security crisis".

A week earlier, Moshe Dayan, then lsrael's chief of staff, explained why Israel needed to reject Any border security arrangements offered by the neighboring Arab States, or by the United Nations, as well as the formal security guarantees suggested by the United States. Such guarantees, he predicted, might "tie lsrael's hands." Presumably, that would render unjustifiable or even impossible those attacks and incursions across the armistice lines which through the mid- 1950s went under the euphemistic name of reprisal actions. These actions, Dayan said,

"are our vital lymph. They . . . . help us maintain a high tension among our population and in the army. . . in order to have young men go to the Negev we have to cry out that it is in danger". (26 May 1955, 102 1)

The creation of a siege mentality in Israeli society was necessary to complement the prefabricated myth of the Arab threat. The two elements were intended to feed each other. Although Israeli society faced a serious risk of social and cultural disintegration under the impact of a mass immigration of Asian and North African Jews into the pre-state's ideologically homogeneous community, the purpose of the siege mentality was not so much that of attaining a defensive cohesiveness in Israel's Jewish society. It was calculated principally to "eliminate the moral brakes" required for a society to fully support a police which constituted a complete reversal of the collective ethical code on which its formal education was based and from which it was supposed to derive its vital strength. Of course, this ethical code had not been respected in the past either. Aggression and terrorism had been exercised by the Zionists before and during the 1947-48 war. The following testimony of a soldier who participated in the occupation of the Palestinian village of Duelma in 1948 is only the most recently disclosed of a long chain of evidence:

Killed between 80 to 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up. . . . Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered "good guys". . . became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better. (quoted in Davar, 9 June 1979)

But these episodes did not filter through to the society at large. The War of Independence was ritualized, on the contrary, as a miraculous victory of (Jewish) right against (Arab) might. Deir Yassin was (falsely) described by tile ruling Labor establishment as an isolated and even condemnable case, a product of the brutality of the minority lrgun group. Manuals, school textbooks, history books, anthologies and the media placidly glorified the moral quality of the war, the "Puritv of the weapons" used by the army, the Jewish ethos underlying the state.

The security or reprisals policy of the 1950s represented, in this sense, a qualitative leap. The strategic designs were perceived, by the Israeli leaders themselves, is totally irrational in respect to the regional realities, and especially in respect to the international context to which Israel had formally committed itself. Therefore, the support required for it inside the country had to be total, i.e., emotional, almost instinctive, with no concessions to rationality and no moralistic cover. A strategic goal such as the transformation of Israel into a regional power inevitably presupposed the use of large-scale, open violence, and could not pretend even mythically to be achieved on the basis of the earlier moral superiority doctrine which, therefore, had to be replaced with a new one. Terrorism and "revenge" were now to be glorified as the new "moral. . . and even sacred" values of Israeli society. The resurgent militarism no longer needed the idealistic, socialist varnish of a Paimach: the military symbol was now Unit 101, led by Arik Sharon.

The process of this cultural even more than political transition was not automatic. In fact, as Dayan admitted in the above quotation, much anxiety had to be generated to encourage it. The lives of Jewish victims also had to be sacrificed to create provocations justifying subsequent reprisals, especially in those periods in which the Arab governments succeeded in controlling the reactions of the harassed and enraged Arab border populations. A hammering, daily propaganda, controlled by the censors, was directed to feed the Israeli population with images of the monstrosity of the Enemy. More images showed that negotiated security arrangements with the Enemy could only be interpreted as a fatal proof of Israeli weakness.

The final point of this process which Sharett watched in the 1950s was the election of Menachem Begin as prime minister in 1977. Sharett's Zionist perspective was based on a political/diplomatic alternative to the terror strategy of Ben Gurion and his followers. This, he thought, could consolidate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and perhaps enlarge it in the future, without major concessions to the surrounding Arab world. Sharett believed his goals could be achieved without disturbing the West. Indeed, he thought Israeli plans could be coordinated with the West's. He lucidly perceived as fascist the logic behind lsrael's security doctrine, and correctly evaluated its consequences of moral corruption on the internal level and increasing violence on the regional level. He opposed it, and was certainly its most illustrious victim. His defeat, however, was inevitable, because his dissent from the strategy was quantitative more than qualitative: on methods rather than substance; on the number, for example, of the victims of a given military action and only vaguely on the ideology behind such actions.

Basically, in the light of his unflagging Zionist faith, he was as fascinated as repelled by the strategy, as envious of its immediate successes as he was worried over its longer range consequences and international repercussions for Zionism and Israel.

The liquidation of his dissenting presence was considered indispensable to the realization of the Israeli political/military leadership's megalomaniac and criminal designs. His intrinsic weakness consisted in his seemingly rational hope that the so-called liberal West would prevent the implementation of his opponents' designs. He relied on the West rather than on the awakening of a local, popular conscience which he had the power and the information to provoke but which as a Zionist he could not and dared not do.

On the contrary, notwithstanding his scruples and torments he almost invariably ended up collaborating with his adversaries, and with those elements in the security establishment who conspired against him, in the fabrication and diffusion of deliberately distorted versions of events and policies for domestic and international consumption.

In a historical perspective Sharett's self-portrait as it emerges from his Personal Diary, thus also explains why no so-called moderate Zionist proposal is possible,and how any attempt to liberalize Zionism from the inside could not but-as has repeatedly been the case-end in defeat. A clear, lucid, coherent logic runs through the history of the past three decades. In the early fifties the bases were laid for constructing a state imbued with the principles of sacred terrorism against the surrounding Arab societies on the threshold of the eighties the same state is for the first time denounced by its own intellectuals as being tightly in the deadly grip of fascism.

This may be just one more reason why Western journalists, scholars sand analysts may find themselves greatly embarrassed by the following document. These commentators still insist on upholding the presumed moral commitment of the West to what they obstinately continue to mystify is Israel's security. In this sense Sharett's Diary, is potentially devastating to Zionist propaganda as the Pentagon Papers were in regard to U.S. aggression in Vietnam.

AAUG Publications Committee, November 1985


Chapter 1
Moshe Sharett and His Personal Diary

Moshe Sharett (Shertok) was born in Harsson, Russia, in 1894. He emigrated with his family his father was a fervent Zionist activist-to Palestine in 1906, at the age of twelve. The family settled in the Arab village of Ein Sinya, near Nablus. Later, Moshe, his brother and three sisters would describe that two-year period, during which they studied Arabic, played with the children of the village and learned fascinating stories from the village's elders as the happiest time of their lives.

In 1908 the Shertok family moved to Tel Aviv, where Moshe entered the Hertselyah High School. At the outbreak of World War 1, he was conscripted into the Ottoman army, where he took an officer's course and then served as an officer, mostly in Syria. After the war, while the British Mandate was established in Palestine, he graduated from the London School of Economics, and shortly thereafter entered political activity in the ranks of Labor Zionism. He was a founding member of Mapai (Party of the Workers of Eretz Israel), and became chief editor of Davar, the daily organ of the Histadrut (the trade union federation dominated by Mapai). Later he was appointed as deputy to Haim Arlosorov, the head of the Jewish Agency's Political Department. After Arlosorov was murdered on a Tel Aviv beach in 1933, Sharett was appointed as his successor. The Chairman of the Jewish Agency at that time was David Ben Gurion.

According to Sharett, the conflict with Ben Gurion which characterized their twenty-five years of close collaboration at the summit of the Zionist movement and the state of Israel, originated in suspicions on Ben Gurion's part that Sharett was loyal to Chaim Weizmann, the president of the World Zionist Organization. In the 1940s Ben Gurion accused Sharett, unjustly according to the latter, of collaborating with Weizmann to negotiate, with U.S. mediation, an agreement between the Zionist movement and the Emir Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Sharett claimed that in reality he contributed to the failure of those negotiations. But according to Dr. Nahum Goldmann, Sharett was again involved in 1947-48 with Goldmann in negotiations mediated by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, aimed at obtaining a political solution to the problem of the Zionist presence in Palestine, possibly leading to creating a Middle Eastern Confederation including a Zionist entity. The main negotiator on the Arab side was to be Egyptian Foreign Minister Nukrashi Pasha. These negotiations, which were expected to prevent the first Arab-Israeli war, would have meant postponing the date scheduled for the proclamation of the state of Israel by a few weeks. Ben Gurion vetoed the negotiations, rejected the postponement, and accused Sharett of being opposed to the creation of the state, an accusation he vehemently denied. Fundamentally, Ben Gurion's preference for the use of force, versus Sharett's preference for the diplomatic method to achieve the same goals, was the basis for the conflict between these two Zionist leaders, which lasted until Shtrett was ousted from the Israeli government in June 1956. Moshe Sharett died in Tel Aviv in 1965.

The Personal Diary, which Moshe Sharett wrote from October 1953 to November 1956 covers the last years of his political activity as lsrael's first foreign minister, including the two years in which he replaced Ben Gurion as the prime minister. It then extends over the first fifteen months of the tormented inactivity following his political demise. Moshe Sharett stopped writing his diary in the middle of a phrase on November 29, 1957. His last notes identify one of his previous collaborators, considered a close personal and political friend, as one of the conspirators against him.

The Diary, a 2,400 page document in eight volumes, contains the daily notes and aide-memoires in which Sharett recorded current events: personal, family, and party happenings, as well as national and international meetings of prime importance, conversations with his wife or other members of the family alongside administrative questions regarding his ministry and comments on cabinet meetings. The i

KL: "How did Gehrig make KL post a link to an overtly anti-Semitic web-site?"

I'm guessing you meant "JA." Although I'd also be interested in "one of the editors"'s theory on how I made Brian push a David Irving book, and made "Sick of the Lies" push both CODOH and Radio Islam (two Holocaust denial sites). Hypnotism ray, maybe?

The main problem is that "one of the editors" is simply in denial about how antisemites exploit anti-Zionism, and he's flaming out at me because I'm making that denial impossible to maintain. He'd rather weave his increasingly baroque theories that I'm Dr. Evil than face down a simple but uncomfortable truth.

But let's look at the _implications_ of that JA post of a link to the Adelaide Institute site, just to make it clear what I'm saying -- and more importantly, what I'm not saying, since "one of the editors" feels himself ethically unconstrained from jamming the most amazing shit into my mouth.

JA was posting a cite to something or other from the anti-Zionist Jeffrey Blankfort. Does Blankfort even know that he's quoted on a Holocaust denial site? Probably not. Does being quoted on a Holocaust denial site make you an antisemite? Not a priori. By mentioning that Blankfort has been quoted on a Holocaust denial site, am I calling him an antisemite or a Holocaust denier? No -- only that his ardent anti-Zionist screeds are being used as bait.

Bait for what? For people like JA, who admitted that he knows nothing about the Adelaide Institute or their website, but still posted a URL for their site anyway. Does that make JA an antisemite? Not a priori. Does that make JA a dupe whose hatred of Zionism let him be exploited into plugging a Holocaust denial site? Ab-so-looot-ly.

Yet, of course, when I pointed this out, I was told _I_ was the villain.

After a while, you gotta wonder: are they _intentionally_ missing the point, or are they really that lacking in comprehension?

Notice that "one of the editors" is unwilling to address the question of whether he's accusing me specifically of having planted _that_ URL. He'd rather wave his hands in wide, sweeping gestures when he's throwing his accusations around. The details trip him up. And for good reason -- what I've been accused of isn't true. Which is why he's going to fade back into the fog rather than respond in any substantive way.

KL: "2. Is "one of the editors" the only editor that he can create arbitrary conditions and threaten a participant with erasing him entirely if he doesn't jump on command?"

Like I said, he takes me personally, because he _really really really_ wants to believe that I'm the one posting the Holocaust denial links. But he also knows that he can't prove it -- for the simple reason that it's not true -- and that frustrates him no end.

That's why I've taken to calling him Dumbfock Holmes: he's convinced he's got it figgered out, and he's wa-a-a-ay cleverer than I am.

As I've said several times, if Dumbfock Holmes _does_ carry through on his snit and ban me from the ranch, that will only prove my point -- about how the progressive left is in denial about how its hatred of Zionism is being exploited by overt antisemites, my central theme here all allong -- and prove it more effectively than my posts alone could.

This is why he has to threaten not only to ban me -- notice, incidentally, that posting Holocaust denial URLs _doesn't_ get you threatened with banning, but pointing them out _does_ -- but to delete the clear and consistent trail of posts I've made explaining _how_ the progressive left is in denial on the antisemitism issue. He has to not only sweep _me_ under the rug, but the issue itself, the argument itself.

@%<

"Christians Jews and Muslims are His Offsprings.
Jesus, Moses and Muhammad were Arab descendents of His."

Not according to the Bible.

You say that Zionists ignore Halacha. Prove it! You make a lot of wild claims, but you are unable to back them up.

...or,

Why is it that Zionists exploit the "holocaust", "anti-semitism" et.al.?

Why is it that any challange to the "preffered" version is immediately associated with denial.

Do the zionists need the "holocaust" so much?

"It's funny how someone named "laugh at the dying" would discuss racism -- as though he were in a moral position to do so."

I am in a moral position to do so. Of course there's no way to prove it one way or the other. What the hell do you know about me anyway?

"That handle may sound clever to him, but I suspect what he had in mind when he came up with it is laughing at people being killed in Iraq or Palestine -- in other words, Arabs."

Actually, I came up with this handle after watching Palestinians dance and celebrate -- and laugh -- on 9/11.

"Somehow I find it hard to believe he would be laughing if his mother or brother or even someone of his own ethnicity were killed."

You seem to imply something here. Let's just say my first encounter with Islamic extremism came at an early age and it was not a pleasant experience. So fuck off.

And who the hell brought up ethnicity? Not me.

And to the indy editor, I need only point you to the long thread on this site celebrating the death of CIA agent Mike Span. Remember that? Who was laughing at the dead then? Members of your own "tribe" that's who.

And every time you guys defend censorship on this site, you say this site is for your friends and allies, and they don't need to see complaints about anti-semitism (or whatever), so you are obviously only concerned about your tribe, specifically, those who share your political views. You don't defend anyone who disagrees with you. You never protest against Palestinian suicide bombers.

Ergo, this is a racist site by your own arguments.

KL: "Seems to me like a small group of very dedicated people are spending a lot of time pretending being "humanists" for the sole intention of demonizing Israel, Zionists and yes, Jews."

... yet when one of the blows a gasket, like the obsessively anti-Israel Windy Wendy did in January or so, and starts making overtly antisemitic comments, it never seems to occur to the anti-Zionists here that they've been had, and that some of the ardently anti-Zionist posts here are not nobly motivated.

And when it gets undeniable in some cases -- like when Brian starts pushing David Irving -- then one of the editors will step in and do everything in his power to make it look like an isolated freak case, rather than part of a disturbing pattern that's been part of Indybay for as long as I've been reading it. "Whatever you do, folks, don't connect the dots. Move along."

@%<

"After a while, you gotta wonder: are they _intentionally_ missing the point, or are they really that lacking in comprehension?"

I vote for lack of comprehension. This "alternative news site" has all the editorial integrity of a high school newspaper without the adult supervision.

Back to the thread, it's sad that Iraqi Jews were framed -- and hanged -- for the very terror campaign against them, and even more sad that people here would rather believe the official Iraqi version of the story.

What really happens in the middle east makes my "offensive" name seem rather innocuous, don't you think?

Or don't you think?

"laugh at the dying" sounds more like one of those five Israelis caught laughing hysterically while watching planes flying into the towers from their van.

There is hardly any point in debating supporters of Israel who fabricate lies like they are going out of style.

In the above article, Naeim Giladi talks about how he came about the knowledge of Zionists planting bombs in Jewish neighborhoods. Nowhere does he mention that anyone was ever hanged there let alone arrested for those incidents.

Naeim Giladi:
A few years after the bombings, in the early 1950s, a book was published in Iraq, in Arabic, titled Venom of the Zionist Viper. The author was one of the Iraqi investigators of the 1950-51 bombings and, in his book, he implicates the Israelis, specifically one of the emissaries sent by Israel, Mordechai Ben-Porat. As soon as the book came out, all copies just disappeared, even from libraries. The word was that agents of the Israeli Mossad, working through the U.S. Embassy, bought up all the books and destroyed them. I tried on three different occasions to have one sent to me in Israel, but each time Israeli censors in the post office intercepted it.

In September 1949, Israel sent the spy Mordechai Ben-Porat, the one mentioned in Venom of the Zionist Viper, to Iraq. One of the first things Ben-Porat did was to approach el-Said and promise him financial incentives to have a law enacted that would lift the citizenship of Iraqi Jews.

Soon after, Zionist and Iraqi representatives began formulating a rough draft of the bill, according to the model dictated by Israel through its agents in Baghdad. The bill was passed by the Iraqi parliament in March 1950. It empowered the government to issue one-time exit visas to Jews wishing to leave the country. In March, the bombings began.

Sixteen years later, the Israeli magazine Haolam Hazeh, published by Uri Avnery, then a Knesset member, accused Ben-Porat of the Baghdad bombings. Ben-Porat, who would become a Knesset member himself, denied the charge, but never sued the magazine for libel. And Iraqi Jews in Israel still call him Morad Abu al-Knabel, Mordechai of the Bombs.

Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth. Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the Arabs, were the pursuers of peace. The truth is far more discerning: bigger players on the world stage were pulling the strings.

These players, I believe, should be held accountable for their crimes, particularly when they willfully terrorized, dispossessed and killed innocent people on the altar of some ideological imperative.

I believe, too, that the descendants of these leaders have a moral responsibility to compensate the victims and their descendants, and to do so not just with reparations, but by setting the historical record straight.

That is why I established a panel of inquiry in Israel to seek reparations for Iraqi Jews who had been forced to leave behind their property and possessions in Iraq. That is why I joined the Black Panthers in confronting the Israeli government with the grievances of the Jews in Israel who came from Islamic lands. And that is why I have written my book and this article: to set the historical record straight.

We Jews from Islamic lands did not leave our ancestral homes because of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims. And we Arabs-I say Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home-we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the Jews. And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, let me say that we Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and the Golan Heights.
http://www.ameu.org/printer.asp?iid=36&aid=72

""laugh at the dying" sounds more like one of those five Israelis caught laughing hysterically while watching planes flying into the towers from their van."

An earlly mis-report that was quickly corrected, yet became part of the mythology amongh those who want to believe Israel perpetrated 9/11. Was a truck full of explosives also found on the Brooklyn Bridge? And another in the capitol mall? Those were also reported about the same time, in the chaotic hours after 9/11.

"There is hardly any point in debating supporters of Israel who fabricate lies like they are going out of style."

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Lies should be brought out in the open and debated. The truth will stand on its own merits, while lies will destroy themselves. Those who do not wish to debate openly are usually afraid their own lies will be exposed. So if it makes you feel better, you may opt out of any debate.

"In the above article, Naeim Giladi talks about how he came about the knowledge of Zionists planting bombs in Jewish neighborhoods. Nowhere does he mention that anyone was ever hanged there let alone arrested for those incidents."

so i guess that's proof enough it didn't happen?

Iraqi jews were framed and hanged for being sraeli spies, convicted of bombing their own neighborhoods for PR value. Ask anyone who was there, dumbfuck.

An eerily similar event happened recently with British terror victims in Saudi Arabia. Or is that not in your book, either?

I also notice the total (at least to this point in time) lack of response to the "Lavon Affair".

This is exactly what I mean by Israel's supporters lying through their teeth:
--"An earlly mis-report that was quickly corrected, yet became part of the mythology amongh those who want to believe Israel perpetrated 9/11"

First of all, it was not a "mis-report" as he claims. Second, it has nothing to do with "Israel perpetrating 9/11" as he adds in an attempt to make the original post sound nefarious.

In fact, when it was first reported, the media claimed those five were Arabs. People who watched these Israelis laughing their heads off, called the police on them -- probably thinking they were Arab. The media originally reported they were Arabs and then never corrected the report when the truth was found out.

After it was found that they carried Israeli passports, the story fell off the face of the earth as others (like the Anthrax attacks) after investigations revealed the stories took a wrong turn -- one which would implicate the wrong people rather than Arabs.

As I've noticed the text of the complete book (very long) as previously posted, to be in fact - shrinking, I have found a new link - the text posted is a little longer... however a link has been provided to the full document.

http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/117822.php

Recommended Reading!

First of all, the story "fell off the face of the earth" because it was not true. But since you'll never believe the obvious, why don't you be a good investigative reporter and go find the arresting officer(s)? Gather some evidence? Do something other than the usual "all media everywhere is engaged in a conspiracy of silence" bullshit.

And regarding the similar post on jerusalem indymedia... by the same guy who posted coconut oil as a cure for cancer.

Great job, freakazoids. You really have me convinced... that you're full of it.

1. How could Gehrig make JA post a link to an overtly anti-Semitic web-site?

++ Can't the editors see the IP address of the poster?
I realize people can post off different accounts, but isn't it easier to blcok an account than to get one?
In other words, why don't the editors block the IP address of sites that post reference to holocaust denial sites and we'll see who drops off this site?

2. Is "one of the editors" the only editor that he can create arbitrary conditions and threaten a participant with erasing him entirely if he doesn't jump on command?

++ How many editors are there?
Is "one of the editors" the moniker used by all editors, a Borg-like but anonymouse reference to the collective? (I like 7-of-9 better.)

3. "Semitic", unless you use it in the biblical sense (sons of Shem) refers to a language group, not people. Half of Ethiopians speak a Semitic language and half do not. Are Ethiopians "Semitic"?

4. Anti-Semitic means Jew-hater. It was coined as a euphemism by Jew-haters who wanted a scientific sounding name to their hatred.

5. Arabs are not indigenous to Israel. The earliest "Palestinian Arabs" arrived in the 16th century. They are as "indigenous" to Israel as the white man is to America.

6. Who gives a damn what a bunch of religious nuts have to say? Neturei Karta are also pro-life, anti-feminist and anti-gay. Since this is supposedly a left-of-center or "progressive" site, I'd expect that agreeing with NK on something should be cause to reconsider your position -- not "proof" of its validity.

++ Why are purported left-wing progressives glorifying religious fundamentalists who are anti-abortion, anti-feminist and anti-gay?!

> You are vilifying Neturei Karta

++ They are entitled to their primitive beliefs, just as Jerry Falwell is. But don't try to push them on me or think that their position holds any weight or should impress any thinking person.

Hmmmm: "Anti-Zionist" posters seem to have various hatist and right-wing arguments (e.g. JA's contention that US loan guarantees to Israel deprive US banks of greater profits). Seems to me like a small group of very dedicated people are spending a lot of time pretending to be "humanists" for the sole intention of demonizing Israel, Zionists and yes, Jews.

++ For an excellent article specifically about this point, see:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030203&s=diarist020303

Is Population Transfer the Solution to the Palestinian Problem—And Some Others?
http://www.vdare.com/locke/palestinian_problem.htm

Are Ethiopians "Semitic" or are european "semitic", furthermore, are Europeans "indigenous" to Israel?

There is an extremely interesting, well written, and captivating article above by Livia Rokach entitled "Israel's Sacred Terrorism"? So where are the comments?

Hoping it will go away?

what bible are you reading?

What Christians know as the "Old Testment." Check my sources.

Unable to deal with what I do say, the "anti-Zionists" are forced to dishonestly spoof straw men. I did not enter this comment above:

Now here is a site with a message
by KL Thursday July 10, 2003 at 04:45 PM

----------------------------------------------------------------------

KL> 3. "Semitic", unless you use it in the biblical sense (sons of Shem) refers to a language group, not people. Half of Ethiopians speak a Semitic language and half do not. Are Ethiopians "Semitic"?

?> Are Ethiopians "Semitic" ?

The scientific use of "Semitic" refers to a language group, not to people.

If you wish to consider people who speak a semitic Language to be Semites, then Ethiopians can't really be classified because half are and half are not -- which underscores the futility of such a classification.

If you wish to use the Biblical definition, I don't think anyone knows if Ethiopians (or anyone else) are the descendants of Shem.

?> are european "semitic"?

Probably not. (But Jews are not European, if that's what you are reaching for.)

?> are Europeans "indigenous" to Israel?

No, but note that Ashkenazi Jews are NOT indigenous to Europe.

I fear you missed the point, however, and that is that:

4. Anti-Semitic means Jew-hater. It was coined as a euphemism by Jew-haters who wanted a scientific sounding name to their hatred.

I've given up on anyone being able to resond to points 1, 2 and 6, but it is interesting that no one can contest this:

5. Arabs are not indigenous to Israel. The earliest "Palestinian Arabs" arrived in the 16th century. They are as "indigenous" to Israel as the white man is to America.

KL: "Arabs are not indigenous to Israel. The earliest 'Palestinian Arabs' arrived in the 16th century. They are as 'indigenous' to Israel as the white man is to America."

It's easy to fabricate "facts" like this when Israelis control archeology exclusively and PROHIBIT Palestinans from studying it in Israeli universities.

See Paul de Rooij's "Identity Under Siege" in Counterpunch.org -- Excerpt follows:

For decades, Israelis have been attempting to erase the vestiges of the 400+ Palestinian villages and towns destroyed during the 1948 war. The towns have been bulldozed and the ruins have been built over. Where one finds a pine forest in Israel proper one will find the ruins of a Palestinian village that the Israelis are trying to hide. In recent months, many of these ruined villages have been "developed" so that Palestinians won't be able to claim them in an eventual peace agreement, but part of the process is to rid the country of Palestinian history and vestiges. Erasing the ruined villages is not only an attempt to rid any Palestinian claim to the land, but also another attempt to demolish their identity.

Archeology has been a battleground with a long history. Israelis have always claimed monopoly in archeology, and they have prohibited Palestinians from studying this field in Israeli universities. Israeli archeologists will usually concentrate on the old layers in the archeological excavations, to the exclusion of the more recent ones dealing with Palestinian history -- these are usually destroyed. A few years ago, Dr. Albert Glock, an American archeologist head of the Palestinian Institute of Archeology at Bir Zeit University, was excavating the recent layers near Ramallah when he was mysteriously assassinated. Palestinians suspect that the Israelis assassinated him because digging up the recent history counters the Israeli attempts to bury the Palestinian history.
-Paul de Rooij
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1120.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, have you now been permanently assigned to SF Indymedia?

classic leftist defense.

"its ALL A CONSPIRICY!!
I know this because I MUST be right and the evidence disproves me!!"

KL "Unable to deal with what I do say, the "anti-Zionists" are forced to dishonestly spoof straw men. I did not enter this comment above:"

And then they turn around and accuse _us_ of rhetorical dishonesty.

@%<

See:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6BE22B35

Are you the same Scottie who makes an idiot out of himself everyday over at LA-IMC?

"There is an extremely interesting, well written, and captivating article above by Livia Rokach entitled "Israel's Sacred Terrorism"? So where are the comments?

Hoping it will go away? "

It did go away, and no matter how many times you try and bring it up, it keeps going away. You may as well try and mount a discussion on Saddam Hussein's early work, titled "Jews, Persians, and Flies (things God should not have made)"

This is what we call the marketplace of ideas (I know, indymedia is anti-capitalist). If an idea is false and ridiculous (these people are bombing themselves!) then it is discredited and ignored.

But what do you care? We're all sheep, not smart like you.

BTW, you inspired my name with your laughing with CZ. Made me wonder if you knew what exactly you were laughing about. Thought you might like to know that.

Funny that!

When others on this Board snickered at the title, you blatantly stated quite emphatically you used it because of a handful of Palestinans laughter with 9-11.

Now you're transferring your reasons on to me. Astonishing. Shucks! Haven't gotten around to blaming me for 9-11 yet, have you? Others of your ilk has more or less stated thus, you know, the HI, and the No, and the Ugh, and the Uhh.

I note now Concerned Zioinist is being vilified as well.

And guess what? "Laugh at the Dying"? You go right ahead and bemoan my amusement re Concerned Zioniist. His unique ability to throw the garbage of the Israeli propaganda machine back at you is admirable.

Now what's the problem here? Are you saying Nablus is a lie? That thereis no devastation? There is no rubble? There is no occupying force? Or are you saying there is no Nablus at all? Or . . .

laugh at the dying - QUOTE: (a)
"An earlly mis-report that was quickly corrected..."

---

5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy
Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday.[...] They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.
Ha'Aretz, September 17, 2001

---

Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators
Eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts. The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.
Bergen Record, September 12, 2001 (copy)

---

December 26, 2001

September 11 nightmare ends for two illegal Israeli aliens
By Uri Ash

Ro'i Barak [paid some money for an airfare and] left for New York 16 months ago to earn some money. [!]

Like many [poor] young Israelis, the 23-year-old from Upper Nazareth moved furniture [in the United States] to make a living [illegally].

On September 11, Barak was in Ohio on a job. He and his partner, Moti Butboul, 26, from Rechasim, headed toward Chicago, from where they had planned to return to New York.

On the way the next day, however, they were stopped by a police officer in Pennsylvania for a routine inspection, and were eventually sent to jail. The two were released to Israel only last week, while five of their co-workers are still under arrest in the United States.

At the time they were stopped, the policeman held them for a few hours, after which another squad car arrived followed by four FBI agents. Barak, speaking from his parents' home, said he does not know what prompted the policeman to call the FBI - perhaps their foreign accent or the previous day's arrest of their five friends who worked for the same moving company in New York. He said the FBI may have been tracking their truck after their co-workers' arrests.

--Ha'Aretz

---

The White Van
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
ABC June 21, 2002

Spies, or students?
Were the Israelis just trying to sell their paintings, or agents in a massive espionage ring?
Ha'Aretz, May 14, 2002

---

Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Security, June, 2001
In January, 2001, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Office of Security Programs (IS), began to receive reports of Israeli art students attempting to penetrate several DEA Field Offices in the continental United States. Additionally, there have been reports of Israeli art students visiting the homes of numerous DEA employees. These incidents have occurred since at least the beginning of 2000, and have continued to the present
DEA

---

Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth
Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage
Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.[...]

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September (Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel) were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.[...]

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports and another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.[...]

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. The FBI questioned Mr. Suter once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his lawyer to be interviewed for this article.[...] Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the FBI in New York.
Forward, February, 2002

---

Dominik Suter of Mossad on an FBI List of September 11 Suspects (large pdf)

ZIONISTS - press Rupert Murdoch's FOX news Button! (inc audio)

---

laugh at the dying - QUOTE: (b)
"Iraqi jews were framed and hanged for being sraeli spies, convicted of bombing their own neighborhoods for PR value. Ask anyone who was there, dumbfuck. "

---

OKAY!!! - let's ask someone who was there...

The Jews of Iraq

By Naeim Giladi

I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism."

I write about it because I was part of it.

---

I said 9/11, but that was just one example. It was your laughing that really did it. Did you see me post here before that? Nope. My first post was a response to your "Oh that's so funny!" As I recall, I called you a sick fuck. What CZ says has absoultely nothing to do with Israel, you guys are simply making light of death, and then working yourselves into a self-righteous frenzy. It's really pathetic. You could easily join ISM and find yourself having tea with suicide bombers.

And this thread is about Iraqi jews, not Nablus or your Palestinian crusade.

How do you define the word- 'descendants'?

If one only reads the excerpts with your emphasis added, one might believe there is something to the story. Yet every article you cite has a similar disclaimer:

From your Ha'aretz article:

"The outline of the scandal is the same wherever it is published, with the more respectable journals taking more care over the details and relying more on reports and documented evidence, while the more marginal publications pile on spurious details and compare the scandal to the great conspiracies of the past."

Isn't that right? I would say indymedia definitely falls into the "marginal" category.

I have no doubt that the official Iraqi inquiry found the Mossad responsible for all terrorism. I also am not surprised that someone wrote a book claiming "I was there" and "it's all true." Conspiracy theories need this kind of thing. It's their defense against the truth.

Also, your html sucks.

All I know is that before the smoke cleared from that tragic strike, Benjamin Natanyahu declared on broadcast TV that the strike was "good" for israel.

Actually the article is about the tendency of zionists under the "leadership" of the Jewish Agency to commit "false flag operations" in an ongoing attempt to sway political opinion or accomplish questionable goals (oft-times with the blood of jews).

As a zionist this should be a red flag, and raise at least a few questions. However from what I've seen in this thread - the only questioning has been of the messenger.

Do yourself a favour and maybe save a few lives in the process - and just for arguments sake click on the following google searches...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22false+flag+operation%22+%2Bisrael

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22false+flag+operation%22+%2Bzionists&btnG=Google+Search

Sure there is a lot of speculation - but there a lot of documented cases - too many.

any questions?

In the Bible, the Israelites are the decendants of the sons of Jacob, who is the son of Isaac, who is the son of Abraham. The ISRAELITES are led into Israel afetr forty years in the desert. Itt does not sounds to me as though you have actually read the "Old" Testament." It is totally unambiguous about ownership of the Land of Israel, and the identity of the Israelites.
Read the Bible.

"All I know is that before the smoke cleared from that tragic strike, Benjamin Natanyahu declared on broadcast TV that the strike was "good" for israel."

Now tell us what he said in the very next breath.

You _do_ know, don't you?

Mind you, I think Netanyahu's an asshole, but that doesn't give you a right to lie about what he said.

@%<

Is Jesus, a jew Abrahams descendant?

"All I know is that before the smoke cleared from that tragic strike, Benjamin Natanyahu declared on broadcast TV that the strike was "good" for israel."

and in the next breath, he said" oops I meant for business, not israel"....

I challenge you to tell us what Netanyahu said immediately after he publicly announced that the strike of '911 was good for Israel'?

I know what Mr. "Too -Clever-to-be-True" said, that wasn't it... but could freely interpreted as close.

He also didn't appeart o be too sympathetic for those who lost loved ones.

In what context did former prime minister of the state of Israel declared that ‘nine eleven’ was a good development for Israel?

88: "In what context did former prime minister of the state of Israel declared that ‘nine eleven’ was a good development for Israel?"

Glad you asked. He was taking questions after a speech, and one question he was asked -- this was 9/12/01, if I remember right -- was whether the attack was good for US-Israel relations. (Note -- not, as the Indybay conventional bullshit has it, "good for Israel.") Netanyahu's off the cuff response was "very good -- no, not very good, but it will increase understanding in the US of what Israel has been facing all along."

As it turns out, he was right -- opinion polls showed that people became more sympathetic to the Israeli cause every time Osama bin Ladin claimed he was supporting the Palestinians. Funny how that works.

Now, if I remember right, it was some wise ass at the Guardian UK who decided to decontextualize the question and then shorten Netanyahu's answer to "very good." Then the distortion landed in Counterpunch, where everyone lapped it up. And, because it's anti-Israel and you folks will believe _any_ goddamned thing as long as it's anti-Israel, Netanyahu's supposed approval of the 9/11 attack is as much a mainstay of Indybay as it is of the neo-Nazi sites,

I remember seeing the actual, un-chop-jobbed, full comment in the New York Times, though. And to portray his actual comment as if he were somehow chortling with glee over the tragedy is simply wrong.

@%<

Jesus himself was a decendant, but the vast majority of Chistians are not of Jewish decent. And the few that are of Jeiwsh decent have rejected the laws of the Torah and Israel.

It is important to note that no word of mr. laden is taken out of context by the pro-israeli press.

Did you actually see Netanyahu speak?

Did you see Barak?

Netanyahu's comments were repeated quite often on CNN over a couple day period.

Barak's only once or twice, however Netanyahu appeared to gloat - where Barak at least seemed to show concern.

"It is important to note that no word of mr. laden is taken out of context by the pro-israeli press."

When a guy is issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of Israel and the U.S., it's kinda hard to take that out of context.

Are you saing bin Laden (or as you so respectfully call him, "Mr. Laden"... incorrect by islamic/arabic standards btw) was simply misunderstood? What was the true context? Was his unabomber-style manifesto just an off-the-cuff answer to a badly worded question?

"It is important to note that no word of mr. laden is taken out of context by the pro-israeli press."

bin Ladin's statements were so 100% pro-Palestinian and called for the destruction of Israel so clearly that even that shitbag Arafat got embarrassed enough to tell bin Ladin to shut up about the Palestinians a few months after 9/11.

@%<

Let us survey the topic and see if the vast Ashkenazis are of Jewish descent (i.e. Palestinian Jews ) and then lets survey to find out if the vast number of Palestinian none- Jews are descendant of Abrahams descendant , the lord Savior, Jesus CHRIST.

!: "however Netanyahu appeared to gloat"

Given that you couldn't recall either the context or the response correctly, you can imagine how much weight I'm going to put on your recollection of how you think he appeared.

@%<

The "Palestinians" are not native to the area. Any anthropologist will tell you that. Of course,even if they were actually decendants, they would be in a lot of trouble with G-d for rejecting the laws of the Torah.

I don't recall being asked the context - I do remember someones cute posting with my signature... but you are barking up the wrong tree Fido!

And yes I saw the entire statements made by both Netanyahu and Barak, and my statement on their contenance stands. End of issue that isn't!

It is important that the unbiased news medium is not featuring videos with a mr.laden look alike to distort his words.
Israeli prime minister would never gloat at the death of US citizens.

There has to be some standard that all people live by in order to define themselves as members of the same religion.

That standard was first set by Moses with the Ten Commandments.
If you follow those guidelines you are by definition a Jew.

If you ignore them, than you are no longer a follower of Judaism, but an atheist.
Similarly, A real Christian is any body who abides by the teachings of the Lord n’ savior Jesus Christ who has taught us to treat others as we would have liked to have been treated, a teaching we commonly call “the golden rule”.

It seems that to be a faithful zionazi one would have to abandon all the rules given by Moses and the Lord and savior.

The "advocates" of Nazism and Zionism would expect nothing less of their followers.

Trying to reconfigure the thread?

This is apparently the first 'Netanyahu' reference in this thread.

You brought it up - you finish the story!

Or, is this another zionist red-herring designed to eat-up bandwidth, and deflect the real issue.


finish the story
by gehrig Friday July 11, 2003 at 01:37 PM

"All I know is that before the smoke cleared from that tragic strike, Benjamin Natanyahu declared on broadcast TV that the strike was "good" for israel."

Now tell us what he said in the very next breath.

You _do_ know, don't you?

Mind you, I think Netanyahu's an asshole, but that doesn't give you a right to lie about what he said.

@%<

What you are saying is that Jews are not bound by a contract to abide by Jewish morals and conduct themselves accordingly but are Jews because of their genes.
The Nazis concur.

What you are also saying is that an eastern European Jew has an identical racial makeup to that of an Ethiopian Jew from the jungles of Africa, regardless of either one of their personal believes.

Lets test your theory by dumping both Jews to the Sahara desert and see which one turns pink?

You claim that Palestinians of Christian faith are not descendants of Jews and therefore not real Jews.
Is that why your predecessors crucified Jesus Christ, for not being a Zionist (proper) Jew but a Humane individual...

Jews are Zionists because the Bible, not in spite of it. Have you read the Bible? It sounds as though you have not.

As far as Christ-killing, you guys have it all wrong. It wasn't Judas. It was my Uncle Benny. He did it in the basement. With a hatchet. No nails were involved.

"Jews are Zionists because the Bible tells 'em so"

which is why all of Israel is secular.
what a pack of contradiction...

and you follow in your uncles' footsteps by murdering HIS Descendents.

As a zionist jew, what is your opinion on religious and multi ethnic co existance?

KL> Arabs are not indigenous to Israel. The earliest "Palestinian Arabs" arrived in the 16th century. They are as "indigenous" to Israel as the white man is to America.

?> It's easy to fabricate "facts" like this when Israelis control archeology exclusively and PROHIBIT Palestinans from studying it in Israeli universities.

Pulease. There most certainly are Arab archeologists studying in Israeli universities and working in the field. To prove your lie, I need only present one example, and Dr. Hassan Khalileh will be it.

Yet even your lie is insufficient to explain why archeologists and historians failed to collect data before the establishment of Israel. Or why Palestinian Arabs have no common holidays prior to the 20th century, no national heroes, etc.

Perhaps if these anti-Zionists were a little bit smarter they wouldn't present evidence that supports what I say:

|| Israeli archeologists will usually concentrate on the old layers in the archeological excavations, to the exclusion of the more recent ones dealing with Palestinian history

Exactly. The "Palestinian" (Arab) history is in the "recent layers" because they are recent arrivals.

QED.


?> Let us survey the topic and see if the vast Ashkenazis are of Jewish descent

It's already been done and the answer was YES!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familycohanim.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/science/social/14GENE.html
http://www.mycweb.com/megillah/jul2000/jewish_genes.html

Albert Glock!

The archeologist who was assassinated apparently for leaving ‘no rock unturned’.

That's your only comeback?

Even IF one archeologist was killed years ago [and there is no evidence to back your claim] it still doesn't explain how there are Arab archeologists in Israeli universities when you had lied and said they were not allowed.

Nor does it explain why no archeologists did such works prior to the establishment of Israel.

Nor does it explain YOUR OWN SOURCE which unambiguously states that the Arab layer in Palestine is the RECENT archeological layer, proving what I had said.

the europeans are indigenous to israel as par the biblical stories.

QUOTE: laugh at the dying:

Conspiracy theories need this kind of thing. It's their defense against the truth.

---

Attacks Held to be a CONSPIRACY !!!
LA Times

---

"When I use a word", said Humpty Dumpty in a rather zionazi tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

PRESS Rupert Murdoch's FOX NEWS BUTTON, ZIONISTS.......

</b></b><p><b>PERUVIAN CONVERT</b> - Ben-Haim says that after he finishes the Hebrew course, he may join the army, "because I wasn't in the army in Peru and that is something I lack, and also because I want to defend the country and if there is no choice, I will kill Arabs. But <b>I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because <i>they like to kill</i></b>." </p>

<p>He bases this belief on <i>his scientific view of Judaism:</i> <b>"The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and <i>only Jews do not have that instinct</i> - <font size="+2">that is a genetic fact."</font></b> </p>

<p>But if you were not born a Jew genetically, don't you have that instinct? "Maybe it was there, but it makes no difference because now we are all Jews." </p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html">The Guardian</p>

<p><i>religion - teaching children to look forward to being dead</i></p>

test

ancestory is irrelevant since "our god said we could have it" is not likely to win an argument against another religion and my ancestor lived here - is a specious argument that allows people like red indians or aborigonies to claim basically everywhere.

If I were to 'entrust' something to another, this could be construed to my giving... this doesn't allude or imply permission to destroy the contents of that object, or the object itself.

The argument "God gave us the land" is idiotic and moot as this "trust" has been repeatedly broken.

You asked for my opinion as a religoius Jew on religous and multi-ethnic co-existence: As human beings we are obligated to show respect for one another. Israel s a model of multi-ethnic coexistence: There are Eastern European Jews, Morrocan Jews, Yeminite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Persian Jews all living together peacefully in Israel. And for those who wish to claim that the Middle Eastern Jews are somehow discriminated against by Zionists, allow me to point out that the Middle Eastern Jews are by and large the most right wing Israelis. They are far more conservative than Ashkenazi Jews and regard the Arabs with deep hostility becauses of the centuries of oppression that they suffered in Arab lands and second-class citizens.

"Believer" claimed that "all of Israel is secular." That is absulutely ridiculous.

Israel s a model of multi-ethnic coexistence: There are Eastern European Jews, Morrocan Jews, Yeminite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Persian Jews... - and:

PERUVIAN CONVERT - Ben-Haim says that after he finishes the Hebrew course, he may join the army, "because I wasn't in the army in Peru and that is something I lack, and also because I want to defend the country and if there is no choice, I will kill Arabs. But I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."

He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the instinct of murder and killing like all gentiles, and only Jews do not have that instinct - that is a genetic fact."

But if you were not born a Jew genetically, don't you have that instinct? "Maybe it was there, but it makes no difference because now we are all Jews."

The Guardian

religion - teaching children to look forward to being dead

Oh, sorry. I forgot to add Peruvian Jews. Judaism knows no ethnic bounderies.

What are you saying here, that control of Palestine ought to be determined on the basis of religion? How can that be considered democratic?

PERUVIAN CONVERT - Ben-Haim says that after he finishes the Hebrew course, he may join the army, "because I wasn't in the army in Peru and that is something I lack, and also because I want to defend the country and if there is no choice, I will kill Arabs. But I am sure that Jews kill Arabs only for self-defence and justice, but Arabs do it because they like to kill."

He bases this belief on his scientific view of Judaism: "The Arab has the INSTINCT OF MURDER and killing LIKE ALL GENTILES, and ONLY JEWS DO NOT have that instinct - THAT IS A GENETIC FACT."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,770315,00.html

I was responding to "Believer" who claims that Zionists in fact violate the Bible by virtue of their beliefs.

Someone sent me a link to an article by Naeim Giladi about the Jews of Iraq, which was about how Zionists poisoned wells and did all kinds of dirty tricks, including the murder of Jews, to get them to flee to Israel. And I also read this article. Israel did not have a problem with Jews who wanted to go there. There were enough wanting to escape oppression. It was not so easy to get to Israel when there were quotas and afterwords the population was to double in a few short years. Israel didn't have to go out and murder Jews to get them to come there. That is a patently absurd assertion. And about a million Jews did flee from Arab land with little more than the cloths and a few things they could carry. Naeim Giladi, if he exists at all is another purveyor of bullshit. Why not include the other BS propagandists, almost all of them exclusively on radical left, post-Zionist, anti-Zionist, anti-Israel Jewish, Arab and other sources. To mention some of the more notorious bashers of Israel and Zionism there is Rashid Khalidi, Daoud Kuttab, Edward Said, Raja Shehadeh; Israeli Jews including Simha Flapan, Peretz Kidron, Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim; French Jew Maxime Rodinson; Jewish and other Americans such as Janet Abu-Lughod, Lenni Brenner, Andrew and Leslie Cockburn; Norman Finkelstein; Leon Hadar; and Irishman Erskine Childers are all discredited mythmakers. Go to http://pnews.org/ and follow the links there which expose them to their lies and disclose the truth. The claims advanced by Giladi are rediculous assertions. There is no basis in fact for them except for Giladi to possibly want to make himself well known to anti-Zionists (He is quoted extensively on white supremacist web sites). Providing proof requires more than made up stories (for whatever reason) from the anti-Zionists. Hank Roth (PNEWS-L, the oldest "progressive" list on the internet - since 1982)

Jewish Iraqi victims sued the Israelis government for staging iraqi pogroms and the government settled the suit out of court.

I wonder just what the results would be, if the archives of the Jewish Agency ever became public?

You suck a good dick!

In a way I feel sorry for the author, it must be terrible to hate one's self so badly. In 1951 the Iraqi Government arrested the bomber, an Iraqi Army Officer from an opposition party. He was an Iraqi Muslim. The author of this article has no choice but to label himself non-Israeli,or "formerly Israeli" [sic] after Israeli Courts issued huge monetary judgements against him for libeling Mr.Ben Porat.

The author doesn't tell readers that Iraqi PM Nuri Sa'id tried to enlist Jordanian and British Governmental assistance in a plan to Ethnically Cleanse all 180,000 Iraqi Jews in 1948 and again in 1951. This was discussed by the British Ambassador to Jordan, Sir Alec Kirkbride in his memoir, "From the Wings: Amman Memoirs, 1947-1951" (London: Frank Cass, 1976) pp115-16 as well as in at least 11 Arabic Language tomes as well, including, "an Nakhba, 1947-1951, Volume IV" (Sidon and Beirut: al Maktabah al Asriyyah,1960) pp893 by the (then) Jordanian Commisioner to Jerusalem (East Jerusalem), 'Arif al 'Arif, himself a Palestinian.

The Iraqis also stated as much in Delegate Fadil Jamali's speech to the UN General Assembly on November 18, 1947.

The author wrote his nonsense in 2003. I can only hope that therapy and/or medication have helped him in the interim.

<p>True story of the 50's, not only in Iraq but Syria, Morrocco, Algeria & Egypt, amongst the Jewish communities. The 30's were concentrated on Russian, German & Polish Jews . . as Weizmann had bragged in 1939 Zionist Report, we shall see about 1.5 Million Jews coming into Palestine. How else, seriously are you going to get happy, rich German Jews in to Palestine, without the use of force. Giladi tell's it as it was, speaks it as it was; even though, Zionists have done their best to discredit him & destroy any evidence of the truth . . </p>