Israel Builds, Obama Administration Squirms

@ "Dr." – At least Larry is honest. He just wants to take it because he believes he has the power to do so. You quoted Benny Morris – I did not. And he has not recanted in the way that you describe. He changed his conclusions. He too joins many Israeli historians who now claim that while yes, it's true that in fact that the Hagannah and the Stern gang and other Jewish paramilitary (one man's paramilitary organization is another man's terrorist group) used overwhelming force, terror and violence to clear many homes, towns and villages of the people who had lived their for hundreds of years. What Morris now says is that Israel had no choice – and that its only mistake was that it didn't go farther. Well, okay then, you go join that club. Here's what you are signing up for.

Here's an actual Morris quote for you from his early days.
T Rami al interviewed Benny Morris for the newspaper Yediot Ahronot in December 1994.
Morris: As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had ‘run away.’ But I knew nothing else.The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes…The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies.”

Benny Morris also said this:
“Israelis like to tell the world, that they are running an ‘enlightened’ or ‘benign’ occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel’s was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation.” Israeli historian, Benny Morris, “Righteous Victims.”

He never recanted that statement nor many others which clearly show the aggressive intentional acts of violence that Israel committed in the process of clearing a big chunk of Arab Muslims from their homes in Palestine. He only now talks of its necessity and righteousness. So, have at it, be on the side of religious zealot willing to shed blood for his religion. The U.S. has no interest in backing ancient, religious Zionist claims to land. And Israel has shamed itself by it's ruthless and criminal pursuit of its interests.

Of course none of this relieves the refugees of the moral responsibility for their actions, but one should at least correctly account for who's zooming who in this "conflict". The settlements are a testimony to Israeli right wing, Zionist aggression. Those of you who disagree with me here should at least acknowledge that there are many Jews living in Israel and abroad who agree with my positions and acknowledge that the settlement agenda is pushed by radical Zionists within Israeli society. Each and every one of these actions is fought for intensely by forces who simply want to take back their God-Given land "from the river to the sea" (that's right, it's not a chant only heard at anti-Israeli rallies). They see changing the facts on the ground as a way to insure that there is no way that '67 borders could be agreed without dislocating 500k Israelis (mostly conservative, very religious hardliners – a very vocal and politically powerful community in Israeli society). You see both sides of the fight here are covered in blood. Why should any American care who wins this conflict of religious supremacists? And if you don't think Zionism adds up to religious supremacism, you are simply willfully ignoring a fact that is plain for almost all the world to see.

Notice that nothing you say actually refutes my statements. If you listen to Karsh and Morris, they, when forced will admit that what the Zionists did between '47 – '49 adds up to ethnic cleansing, but that it was never intended. Such a position is so laughable that I wouldn't accept it from a teenage child – but I'm supposed to say, oh, I see, they didn't mean to chase off 650,000 Arab Muslims living there. Btw, Morris' work again, supports me. Out of hundreds of villages forcibly cleansed Israelis, only 6 were moving on due to urging by militants.

But even at that, you won't get a real argument out of me. Israel undertook a bloody task and the Arab Muslims there provided a rallying point for many different strains of Arab and Muslim political activity. The long campaign evolved into an absolute mess. So what? Does that mean you actually expect anyone to believe that the Zionists believed they could successfully form a nation with the population of Palestine being what it was? I'm supposed to ignore that this very issue was debated loudly for decades before '47? That from the Balfour Declaration on that every formal international action regarding the Zionists establishing a homeland in Palestine insisted that the indigenous people's not be forced out from their homes, including the U.N. resolution that granted the land to the Zionists in the first place?

Instead I'm asked to believe that, "gosh, things just got out of hand and we kind of got a little carried away, and while yeah, the Lydda Death March of 50,000 Arab Muslims fleeing for their lives was kind of like ethnic cleansing, but hey, sh*%t happens? And oh yeah, I hear that pesky U.N. resolution demanding the right of return every year – starting in '49 (and back then supported by the U.S.), but we'll just choose to ignore that resolution – but it has nothing to do with our desire to keep our land free of pesky Arab Muslims who lived there hundreds of years before we invaded the land in a calculated, 50 yr campaign to take it for our own." That's the line of reasoning you are expecting me and others to swallow. It doesn't pass the sniff test if you are being reasonable.

Lastly is your absurd accusation of me being anti-semitic. I've said nothing here that can be remotely construed that way. I am opposed to Zionism and if you choose to peddle the lie that being Jewish and Zionist are one in the same, well have at it. Just know that there are millions of anti-Zionist Jews in the world, so you are calling millions of Jews anti-Semitic. I'm not going to try and justify myself to you – you don't care about truth. You just want the land of Israel for Jews, period. Okay, have at it – JUST DON'T TELL ME WE SHOULD SPEND A PENNY OF U.S. TREASURE OR SHED A DROP OF AMERICAN BLOOD FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN OF RELIGIOUS SUPREMACY.

What about these facts,
1. Syria came to being as a result of gaining independence from the French under the mandates system in 1946. Prior to 1918 it was part of the Ottoman Empire & did not exist as an independent country. (Also not to be confused with Assyria).
2. So too with Lebanon, gaining independence from the French in 1943.
3. Iraq gained independence from the British Mandate in 1932. Again, the area now known as Iraq was seized by the British in 1918 from the Ottoman Empire.
4. (Trans)Jordan was created in 1946 succeeding from the British mandate by annexing all of PALESTINE East of the Jordan river, 82% of the land reserved for the creation of a Jewish national homeland as stipulated under the Balfour Declaration & Ratified via The League of Nations.
The "so called" Palestinians got their land, its called Jordan, The Jews got the land West of the Jordan when they declared independence, just like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq & Jordan. If you believe that the Jews have no right to the land than based on you own argument, the states of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq & Jordan are also null & void. In addition, the 1million+ Jews who were forced out of Arab lands should be compensated for their loss.
If you are of the opinion that Zionism is so bad, than I would assume that your opinion of Islam would be in the sewer?
As for the populations in the locality of Palestine, the Jews have had a constant presence in the region since the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD. No other ethnic group can claim & prove same.
Your inability to recognize your double standard would as you say, "makes you stupid"!

You have concentrated your reply on one aspect of my post, what of the remainder?
However you are wrong, the Jews in the Arab/ Muslim countries were forced out & to this day jews are not allowed to enter any Muslim or Arab state in the middle east.
The difference being is that they ultimately had a state to run to.
So, again with reference to points 1-4, how are they different to the creation Israel?

No, but none of those nations "tranferred" 650,000 people out of their homes. How did you miss that little fact in all your lecturing?

Actually not. I despise the Paleo-Libertarian Ron Paul. He's a lowlife and phony. The real libertarian in the field, Gary Johnson is my guy. You see, I'm not an isolationist, anarchic, conservative crank, no, I actually subscribe to the classical liberal values (in the sense of Paine, Jefferson and Madison) that were the basis of our countries founding. Unlike Tea Partiers and Conservative Christians – and Progressives for that matter – I understand that freedom of conscience means that we can come together on the common ground of liberty and that government should stop at that water's edge. Just listen to Santorum – he says unabashedly that you can't run your life without a Christian informed government telling you what to do. Period. He makes no bones about it. If you agree with him, you are an enemy of liberty. You are with the Hamilton's and Adams's of this world, and accordingly quite the enemy of individual sovereignty. This site is so fully of people who think they understand things like history and liberty when all they do is repeat agitprop fed to them by hacks. So sad, so depressing. With defenders liberty like this, it's hopeless.

"Actually not. I despise the Paleo-Libertarian Ron Paul. He's a lowlife and phony…"

So, you're just the average run-of-the-mill anti-Semite, then. It explains much of what you say. Say "Hi!" to the boys over at Stormfront …

Lol, quoting Joan Peters no less, wow, you have to go back 30 yrs to that book, which has been utterly disproved by great scholarship – Israeli and others – in the meantime. Dershowitz – a lawyer, not a historian – wrote a laughable book a few years ago that has no place in serious discussion about the history of the conflict. He just repeats Peters disproved propaganda. You should hear it taken apart by real historians – Dersh is not a reliable source of anything. You know he was accused of plagiarism with that book yes? It follows roughly Peters narrative and ignores most of the legitimate historical scholarship done since. It's a joke – and so is anyone who quotes either of them.

Now you've stepped in it. Let's just take Joan Peter's laughable "scholarship" on, shall we? Or even better, lets have Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath (a member of Likud) sum up Joan Peters work. If you have the guts to actually digest what he has to say about Peters' work, you may have to change your mind a bit. Fyi this was the contemporaneous raction to her work back in '86, two years after it came out. By a Jewish, Israeli scholar. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1986/jan…

You see, I'm not sympathetic to the Arabs/Muslims either, but rather am disgusted with the lot of you. This is a campaign that went on for a long time before the state of Israel was created and the U.S. has no equity in it – why do we continue to allow ourselves to be dragged in? Is it impossible for us to re-assess our interests and change our position? Or is the status quo so important that it overrides reason and morality?

Did you not notice, the entire electable Republican field has promised they would "take out" Iran's nukes. We only do that for Israel, not ourselves. I cannot stomach going to war with another Muslim country, and I think it would be the most foolish of steps for the U.S. to pre-emptively attack Iran.

In fact a truer narrative of Iran is that Israel and the U.S. are being incredibly threatening and provocative. Much was made of attacks on Israeli govt officials abroad, but somehow certain folks managed to miss that this was clearly a calculated level of retaliation against Israel/U.S. assassinations and sabotage within Iran itself. We so routinely violate Iranian airspace that we feel insulted when they dare shoot down one of our drones. We surround them with over a dozen military bases, we put crushing sanctions on them. And we think that they should just unilaterally disarm? And we think they are the problem?

The second they harm a hair on our heads domestically, we should decapitate their government and destroy their military. That should be our promise to any country. Let me put it another way. We manage to sit by while the North Koreans systematically starve an imprisoned population of tens of millions, but are all in for Zionism? What? We go to the pre-emptive war view again? What are the consequences of attacking Iran for the U.S.? Do you think that will make it more or less likely that we'll be attacked at home? And what happens after we win? Do we occupy Iran? Who do we let run it? Have we learned nothing from the past 10 yrs about our inability to nation build? But no, for Israel, we'll go to the mat, I'm sorry, it's just that I don't see Israel's interest as really relevant to U.S. interests. I could care less if Jews get to live in Palestine – or Arabs for that matter. It is no business of ours.

I don't know a single person of any political perspective who thinks it's a good idea for the U.S. to attack Iran. I've asked dozens, not a single one. We are tired of war. If Israel wants to attack Iran, have at it, just know you'll be fighting it out on your own. That's what both sides want anyway, to just finally duke it out and have a winner once and for all. So, let it be done. Rock and roll all you Muslims and Jews – yeah, git some! But remember this in your thrall of righteous rage – you have sunken just as low as your enemy in your means and the ends you pursue and don't even recognize it.

I hope you actually read the article above. It will straighten you out if you simply do your own fact checking on what he says. This commentary is typical of the academic response to Peters' work from back when her book was published. I wonder, do facts matter to you at all?

You are what you reveal about yourself. An anti -Zionist is worse than an anti-semite because you are not only a hater of the people but you also wish to destroy our homeland and deny our obvious right to live in peace in Zion. Despite a myriad evidence, undeniable, beyond any doubt you persist with untrue, distorted lies, denials and outright inventions. I see only anti -Israeli, anti – Zion and anti-semitic motivations from you. Evrything a real Nazi was and would be proud of. You see, not only did I serve proudly in the IDF during the six-day war, lost more than 80 members of my family in the Holocaust but I am, in fact, the son of Holocaust survivors who recently passed on. I am here because of their heroism against the same hate that you articulate, albeit in a more modern disguise" The Jews are a great people," just not deserving or belonging in Zion. Which country has "Arab" or "Arabia" in its name? That IS where arabs originate. Not from Israel!!!!!

Simple: EVERYTHING you write can be summed up easily. Anti – Zion = anti-Semite, and more, as I stated above. The point about the Holocaust also escapes your sick and hateful brain. My people were robbed of the land by the Romans more than 2,000 years ago. The Holocaust is the final culmination of what a state-less people had to suffer. NEVER AGAIN! Porat did NOT discredit anything in Joan Peters book. He added more supportive evidence. Exactly why do want to deny our claim to the land? Because you are fair? What skin do you have in the game? You probably are living on the taxes I am paying for your sorry existence!

Right – but I don't give a crap about what the Torah says, yeah? That's what makes this a religious squabble and no business of the U.S. to begin with. As for Porath, he did move rightward but has not changed his scholarship and has never denounced his ridicule of Peters. He is a respected, serious, Israeli, Jewish, Zionist scholar on the topic whereas Peters wasn't even a historian.

As for calling verbal threats "acts of war" I guess by that definition, Iran could attack the U.S. because we are threatening war? Right, I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?

A perfect example of Zionist. hateful rhetoric above. And if you know or are related to Porath, you know that he is now a member of the Likud Party and holds a professorship – I don't know why you try to cast doubt on those easily verifiable facts.

I hope you wiped the spittle of your screen that you must have covered it with while uttering the rant above. I can see the veins bulging from your head, your righteous anger boiling over, lol, your emotionalism adds no weight to your arguments.

Glennd1,
From a humanist perspective, I understand where you are aguing from, however Israels situation is unique, the Jewish people find themselves in a position whereby they are the only singularly identifiable race whose enemies want to exterminate them as a race of people. Period.
Stand back & look at the bigger picture, Israel is surrounded by 14,000,000 square miles, comprising 22 countries, full of people whose intent is to erase it from the pages of history.
Whilst I am absolutly pro Israel, I am not going to argue that Israel has in all instances acted honourably however, history demonstrates the reality that Israel is a besieged state. A victim presented to the world as the villain by the villain masquerading as the victim.

Thanks, personally I do not believe that the US should go to war on Israels behalf either however, I do take exception when people make out Israel to be the pariah of the world for defending themselves against nations & groups that openly state that their intent is to "wipe Israel off the map"
As I have stated elsewhere, Israels position is unique & not one to be envied.
I should also add that the US is far from being "holier than thou" & has acted poorly & in its own self interests on a number of occasions at the expense of others. You might also note that Australia has, in every instance stood beside the US as a loyal friend. Food for thought!

If by aggressor you mean that they hit Egypt's airfields 1st, then you are correct.
However, Egypt, in conjunction with Jordan & Syria shut all air & sea routes in & out of Israel. Nasser even stated publicly on return from the USSR that his intention with regard to Israel was war.
Syria had been shelling northern Israel from the Golan & Egypt had also expelled the UN forces stationed in the Sinai, massed approx 7 divisions in their place on the border with Israel & closed the Suez.
I don't know what you would class as an act of war or even overt aggressive behavior, however Israels hand was forced. Any competent military planner & strategist would look at the situation & come to the conclusion that an attack was imminent & strike 1st, especially when you consider that Israel was outnumbered approx 10:1 on 3 fronts!
Remember also, Israel did not attack Syria & Jordan, they attacked Israel 1st!

"Stop pretending it's a valid land claim": Israels claim is no different then to Iraq, Jordan, Syria & Lebanon.

Cheez, I cannot believe how stubborn you are. Yes, Israel struck first in 1967, but there were at least three declarations of war by Egypt and Syria beforehand, as pointed out by Snorbank. That makes Israel the defender, NOT the f..ing aggressor, no matter how you try to twist reality.

In 1973, Israel waited because this time, she didn't want to be accused of being the aggressor by pigs like you – and was damn near annihilated.

Your constant arguments prove exactly what the people here say about you. According to you, the Jews, and only the Jews, have no right to a homeland of their own. That is anti-Semitism.

You ignore the Arab calls to massacre every Jew in the Holy Land in 1948, and concentrate solely on Jewish self-defence, calling it illegitimate. You refuse to even imagine what might have happened if the Jews had not prevailed. That makes you a Jew hater.

The only thing that surprises me as that you have yet to parrot the ridiculous claim that you cannot be an ant-Semite because Arabs are Semites.

They were not "declarations o war" – and the Israelis were quite provocative in their actions in the run up to the war too. Just look at the testimony of U.N. peacekeepers in the region at the time. Israel struck first. Which makes it an offensive action. Period. Did you ever have a fight with a guy in high school who was constantly shooting his mouth off about kicking your butt? Did you punch him first? If so, you started the fight. Period. Even if you were provoked. How can you not seenthat? Being provoked doesn't make your action not offensive. Only in the Israeli-apologists mind can such – "down = up" Orwellian double-think pass for reason. Israel has been the aggressor in the region, claiming land, defending and expanding her holdings at every chance. I mean, how do you ignore that the U.N. just plunked this territory down in the region against the wishes of the people who lived there and all the nations in the region? That is an aggressive action from the get go – or do you somehow just skip that part of the history when doing your calculations about who the aggressor is?

And you have no basis for accusing me of anti-semitism. I simply don't see why the U.S. puts so much of its political capital at risk over a religious claim to land. And ignores the crime against humanity Israel committed between '47-'49, cleansing its newly awarded territory of 650,000 Arab muslims. There is no valid moral argument to support those actions – it's simply picking sides. How is it in our interests to do so? Answer: It isn't. This is where we disagree. There is nothing bigoted about my position, I base it on the facts as I see them and my sense of right and wrong. Why does it make you so angry that I disagree? Why do you have to insult my character/

What nonsense! I was there, you idiot. I AM a Veteran of the six-day war. The "testimony of U.N. peace keepers" is utterly useless. They were not peace keepers, they were a con put on us following Mivtza Sinai of 1956. What peace keepers run when told by Nasser to walk?

Stern said it best, even if you are dumb, deaf and blind: "According to you, the Jews, and only the Jews, have no right to a homeland of their own. That is anti-Semitism." THAT IS NOT ONLY A BASIS, that is the ROCK OF GIBRALTAR of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC!

Hey, thick-headed NAZI liar: Stern said it best, even if you are dumb, deaf and blind: "According to you, the Jews, and only the Jews, have no right to a homeland of their own. That is anti-Semitism." THAT IS NOT ONLY A BASIS, that is the ROCK OF GIBRALTAR of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC!

Just to clarify;
"I do believe that history shows that Israel returned the sinai to Egypt rendering your comment meaningless." After the Yom Kippour war in 1973, which Egypt started.
Israels need to hold the Sinai after hostilities ceased, was justified by Egypts actions leading upto june 67. The Suez provided a natural defensive position.

Lol, it's like shooting fish in a barrel here, you folks are so cutoff from the actual news you don't even know what's going on in the real world. Here's a link to rioting Jews – just liked I described. http://youtu.be/gTwWKdfi8G8 Wake up – stop listening only to Fox and Horowitz and Levin – there is a much broader world of information out there. You are being lied to and manipulated and don't seem to realize it.