Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Still no evidence for PRC involvement in attacks

A week passed since the Eilat attack, and the IDF has yet to prove the blame of the group Israel chose to attack in response.

Earlier this week I posted about the cracks in the Barak-Netanyahu narrative regarding the terror attacks near Eilat. A quick reminder: While the attacks were still going on, Barak blamed them on the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, and hours later the IAF attacked and killed the leadership of the PRC. However, there is not a shred of evidence the PRC had anything to do with the attacks, and Barak’s action plunged Israel and Hamas into a new round of hostilities.

Since Monday, there have been a few more reports in the Israeli media, casting more doubt on the official story. Yediot reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that nameless people in the security apparatus doubt the PRC were responsible for the attacks, and raise an interesting question: If they were responsible, why was the PRC’s entire leadership in the same place?

According to Yediot’s anonymous intelligence sources (bear in mind that such sources should always be viewed with skepticism; by their very nature they cannot be corroborated, and they tend to be unreliable even when speaking openly), the attribution of the attacks to the PRC stems from one somewhat incoherent comment on some Jihadi message board.

Ha’aretz reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that at least three on the attackers were Egyptian Jihadis. American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here – told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.

Two days ago, the IAF attacked the Gaza Strip again – naturally, it does not consider itself bound by the ceasefire; only the Palestinians are, and only them can be blamed for breaking it  – and killed some Islamic Jihad apparatchick. Yesterday, the IDF claimed (Hebrew) that he was in charge of funding the Eilat attacks. Hold on a minute, I’m confused: I thought you said the attacks were carried out by the PRC, and now it’s the Islamic Jihad left holding the bag? As of yesterday, reported Amira Hass in Ha’aretz (Hebrew), there are no mourning tents in Gaza. As of today, one week after the attack, the IDF refrains from exposing the identity of the attackers it killed.

One should note that none of the bewildering array of information comes officially from the IDF Spokesman, but rather from all sorts of “senior sources”. That’s the way the IDF raises a smokescreen, and then, when it is penetrated, rightly say he said nothing official. Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz was adamant, during a phone call on Sunday, that all of the people involved in the attacks were Gazans; unofficially, the IDF seems to back away from this position.

Despite the ceasefire, the IDF renewed attacks on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli media – aside from Netanyahu’s mouthpiece, Israel Ha’yom – quietly points that out. This low level of military activity suits barak fine: It prevents a serious escalation, which may deal a blow to the Egyptian peace treaty – the Egyptians have warned the cabinet, it is reported, from a full-scale offensive (Hebrew) – and yet allows the government a distraction from the demands of the #J14 movement.

And if a few Gazans die, who cares?

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Philos

      Yossi: I read the 7th Eye article but wasn’t able to find the Yediot one online. Do you know if it’s available? It’d really help me win an argument with some Leftists I know who think the government should be praised for showing “restraint” :)

      Reply to Comment
    2. Deïr Yassin

      If more evidence shows up: are the State terrorists called the IDF going to bomb Cairo, or will they chicken out ?

      Reply to Comment
    3. Bosko

      By their own addmission and deeds, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PRC and their ilk are at war with Israel. As such, Israel does not have to justify any attack against them. Especially following incidents like the Eilat attack. Israel is entitled to hit anyone or all of them if it chooses to. Why should Israel be required to constrain itself? War is war. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PRC and their ilk want war? They get war.
      What next? Should Israel get a signed confession in triplicate by some obscure terrorist faction before Israel can respond to attacks against it’s civilians? Only in the feverish minds of defenders of terrorists. Even the idea has gotta be a bad joke.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Arieh

      Stop being so stupidly one sided. What cease fire are you talking about when there are missiles being fired at Israeli civilian populations!!!
      If you want to give the truth go ahead, but not a distortion of it.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Anthony

      Even ignoring the attack last week, what do Gazans expect from sending missiles into Israel? Israel is no longer occupying Gaza, and the militants there know that continuing to send over missiles is the single surest way to make it impossible for Israel and the PA to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Deïr Yassin

      @ Anthony
      I’ll return the question: “what do Israelis expect killing civilians in Gaza on a weekly basis ?”.
      I know most people in Israel never hear about – neither do they care about – the civilians killed in Gaza: have you heard about the 17 years old mentally retarded who was killed Tuesday last week by 10 bullets, mostly to his head ? He was not in the buffer zone nor was he of any danger. Have you heard about the 75 years old woman who was wounded by the IDF 600 meters from the buffer zone while herding her sheeps. The IDF killed all her sheeps. Seems to be ‘fun’ while on duty. Do you ever hear about all these stories of daily harassment, with no other purpose that harassing ?
      And just in case: you Israelis can forget your wet dreams about Gaza and the West Bank as two different entities. We belong to the same people, we were expelled from the same land, and as long as Israel is occupyong the West Bank, it’s occupying the people of Gaza too.
      You are nation of collectiv navel gazers. Simply incredible how a people can be so blind of what they are doing to others: poor Israelis, the Gazan are sending missiles into “the-desert-thet-they-made-bloom’. We just forget the more than 20 killed since last Thursday, don’t we.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Bosko

      And you just forget what starts and perpetuates the killings on both sides. Hint: When Arabs don’t shoot at Israelis, Israel does not shoot Arabs. Another hint: There has been a steady barrage of rockets from Gaza at southern Israel consequently Gazans die in return fire. The West bank has been relatively calm, there is no return fire by Israel on the West Bank.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Jon

      @ Bosko

      “And you just forget what starts and perpetuates the killings on both sides. Hint: When Arabs don’t shoot at Israelis, Israel does not shoot Arabs.”

      Israel violated a ceasefire on November 4, 2008 by killing 6 Hamas militants. (Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website had even shown a graph that Hamas had been honoring the ceasefire from the ceasefire-agreement-signing in 6/08 until 11/4/08). Then a barrage of Qassams by Hamas (killing no one). Next, Hamas asked Israel to renew the previous ceasefire, but Israel responded with Cast Lead, killing 1,300 to 1,400 Gazans (versus 13 Israelis killed during Cast Lead).
      Source:
      Lecture on Operation Cast Lead:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpMpHgw7yVk

      One of Israel’s most eminent scholars, Zeev Maoz, was the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. The JCSS was founded in 1977 with funding primarily from Jewish communities in the US. Among its primary supporters were Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban and Joseph Strelitz, President of the American Friends of Tel Aviv University and later Chairman of the International Board of Trustees. Prof. Maoz published a book in 2006 entitled Defending the Holy Land. According to amazon’s editorial review, “Defending the Holy Land is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Israel’s national security and foreign policy, from the inception of the State of Israel to the present.” Maoz concluded (& I’m paraphrasing here) that Israel’s war experience is one of folly, recklessness and self-made traps. Not one of Israel’s wars, he continues, with the possible exception of the 1948 war, was a war of self-defense. All were wars of choice. Israel’s decision makers were as reluctant when it came to making peace as they were daring in making war. Most of the peace proposals came from Arabs, the international community or local organizations. In quite a few cases, Israel was the party that violated the peace treaties. Maoz adds that Arabs have, in many instances, a remarkable tendency for respecting their treaty obligations.

      In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett’s personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: “[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no — it must — invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge…And above all — let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.”
      Source:
      Quoted in Livia Rokach, “Israel’s Sacred Terrorism.”

      Reply to Comment
    9. Anthony

      DY, let’s say you’re right and Gaza is completely justified in firing constant missiles at Israeli schools and Israel completely wrong: can we at least agree it’s completely counterproductive and makes Israelis think “why should we withdraw from settlements in the West Bank when this is what happened when we withdrew from Gaza?”

      Reply to Comment
    10. Deïr Yassin

      @ Anthony
      I’ve always found amazing how zionists describe certains facts: the State of Israel has the most sophisticated weapons in the world, and still, when we have 352 children killed during Cast Lead, it’s “collateral damages” or whatever.
      The Palestinian factions have some homemade (more or less) weapons, and still when THEY hit a bus or a school, in the zionist narrative, they aim these targets on purpose. We should change weapons then !
      I’m not saying “Gaza” is completely justified in firing “constant missiles” (what’s constant to you ? before the Eilat-attack for whom I remind you, we don’t know the responsible) and Israel “completely wrong”.
      I’m saying that if you really try to follow what’s happening almost all ceasefires have been violated by Israel.
      Israel withdraw from Gaza – a tiny part of Palestine – only to made the weight of the occupation even heavier on the West Bank. Israel did not withdraw from Gaza to make life easier for the Palestinians, but in order to try to divide the Palestinians and let Gaza off to Egypt.
      @ Jon
      The Israeli violation of the ceasefire in November 2008 is simply not admitted by the majority of Israelis. I don’t know why but maybe killing Palestinians is not violation of a ceasefire. You can post these facts hundreds of times, Bosko will never integrate them. He only knows how to parrot the Hasbara list: blame Hamas, blame Hamas. Too much Ziocaine :-)

      Reply to Comment
    11. Bosko

      @Jon – Please spare me and stop quoting your biased sources. I am not sure that you are old enough, but I am. I still remember the atmosphere just before the 1967 war. I remember the TV images of Arab mobs prematurely celebrating what they thought would be their forthcoming victory over Israel. I remember seeing them marching, chanting in chorus, as they always do and I still remember them carrying a caeicature type and classically antisemitic Jewish looking effigie hanging by it’s neck …
      As for your assertion that the 1967 war was unnecessary, it is easy for the likes of you to assert that now. But think of it this way.
      1. Three Arab countries mobilised their forces and were lined up at Israel’s border
      2. Israel therefore had to mobilise it’s citizen Army.
      3. All industry an commerce stopped as the stalemate continued.
      So, even if for the sake of argument, the Arabs were just bluffing. Do you think Israel could afford to demobilise? And if not, how long do you think Israel’s economy would have lasted before collapsing do to the blockade by land and sea?
      Anyone with more than a pea sized brain would see why Israel had to launch it’s preemptive strike against Egypt, under the circumstances. I don’t need your propagandist so called academics with their agenda to tell me their fairy tales. I actually witnessed history as it was unfolding in front of me and I still remember it. That’s why I can think for myself.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Bosko

      “The Palestinian factions have some homemade (more or less) weapons” -Deir Yassin

      I guess getting murdered by “home made weapons” is somehow less deadly than by other means. I think the parents of the Israeli school boy who was recently murdered by an anti tank missile (some home made weapon eh?) while he was on his school bus, would beg to differ.
      I also guess that the Deir Yassins of this world expect Israel to abide by the standards that her beloved Palestinian Arabs set. If they murder one Israeli, Israel is only allowed to kill one Arab in response. If they murder two Israel has a quota of two and so on, huh? And if Arabs use bows and arrows only, then Israel has to use only bows and arrows, right?
      Not right. That’s not how wars work. Sow the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind. That’s how all wars work. The best thing is not to have wars. Try to assimilite that Deir Yassin.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Bosko

      @Jon – “Hamas had been honoring the ceasefire from the ceasefire-agreement-signing in 6/08 until 11/4/08). Then a barrage of Qassams by Hamas (killing no one)”
      Is this a joke? Hamas have been honouring the cease fire, then a barrage of Qassams (killing one). And you say that’s not a violation of the cease fire by Hamas? I am shaking my head in disbelief at such willful blindness …

      Reply to Comment
    14. Deïr Yassin

      @ Bosko
      Had to take a sniff of Ziocaïne, and forgot to read the rest, huh ?
      I’ll try to adapt to your mental age, i.e. kindergarten: How come with your sophisticated weapons, Palestinian civilian casualties are ALWAYS accidental, but Israeli civilian casualties are deliberate when Palestinian weapons are far less sophisticated than Israelis ??
      Why don’t you move on to Hasbara 102, it starts getting boring: you’ra parroting the same crap.
      In this case, Israelis started killing Palestinians when bombing Gaza as you have NO evidence that Palestinians were behind the attack in Eilat. “Guilty because Palestinian”, right ?

      Biased sources you say about Ze’ev Maoz. Do you have any idea about who the guy is ? Nah, let’s get some MEMRI, Palwatch, Daniel Pipes, that’s serious stuff, right ?
      Your former pen name “Right Wing Zionist” fitted you better.
      As I know this is a discussion with no purpose, I’ll leave it there. I won’t answer your next comment.
      Irhal !

      Reply to Comment
    15. Deïr Yassin

      Just this before my BDS on Bosko.

      Reading your comment to Jon it’s clear you neither understand anything of what he writes nor do you know anything about this period, or you wouldn’t answer as you did.
      The barrage of Qassams by Hamss starting on November 4th 2008 that Jon mentions was an reaction to the killing of 6 Hamas militants by the IDF on that same day. Did you just skip the line with the 6 Hamas members killed ? Jon starts the sentence on the Qassams by “then”. You know “then” meaning “afterwards”. Wow, we’ll have to draw this for you with a time schedule and everything, won’t we ?

      No, I’m shaking my head in disbelief. You don’t even understand what you’re commenting on.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Jon

      @Bosko
      Zeev Maoz served as the Academic Director of the M.A. program of the IDF’s National Defense College for 4 years, according to Wikipedia. Is he a ‘biased propagandist’?

      Was Prime Minister Sharett a biased propagandist, too, in his quoted diary entry above?

      Was Norman Finkelstein’s reliance on IDF soldier testimonies after Cast Lead an example of basing his youtube lecture on more biased propagandists?

      Although I didn’t mention the Six Day War, you brought it up for some reason (thus implicitly denying Maoz’s main thesis that all but the 1948 war were wars of aggression). I’m not sure that experiencing the run-up to the former war, as you did, necessarily trumps the research of a professional historian like Maoz. (I didn’t experience it myself, being an American).

      Surely you don’t think David Ben-Gurion was a teller of fairy tales.

      “In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt… David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’… The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.”
      Source:
      Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle.”

      “Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…Haganah was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’…The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date….”
      Source:
      Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

      @Deir Yassin
      I smiled at your posts. Let’s throw all Ziocaine into the nearest ocean! ….Hm-m-m, but if the sharks and other sea critters ingested Ziocaine, what would that do to them? Would they attack smaller fry, then immediately forget they’d done so, then act astounded that their victims were fighting back? Would they then emblazon huge headlines, say, on their Daily Oceanic Moral Volcano website, to the effect that the poor dears had just experienced a vicious terrorist attack by those bloodthirsty tunas? ;;;;;; I’ve long enjoyed your posts on various forums. BTW, Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam said in a recent thread that he wished you’d come back, as he appreciates your wise words, too. Blessings.

      And Bosko, the saddest thing is that your approach to this conflict forces you to ignore Jews.

      Reply to Comment
    17. Bosko

      @Jon – Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, out ofcontext quotes if Ben Gurion etc … Yep you convinced me Jon.
      You say you are an American huh? Then how about this …
      Imperial Japan was already defeated but America nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the war earlier and save lives.
      How about Britain? Germany was already defeated but Dresden was incinerated and fire bombed.
      That’s how you fight YOUR wars so please don’t come here and lecture Israel about how it should respond to aggression.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Bosko

      @Deir Yassin – Fact: There is relative calm in the West Bank, Israel does not fire at the West Bank Palestinian Arabs.
      Fact: There is a steady bareage of rockets and other attacks from Gaza. Israel responds in kind and with interest.
      Which bits of those facts don’t you understand?
      As for your BDS of me, it’s becoming boring. I wish you’d keep your promise already. Irhal to you too.

      Reply to Comment
    19. Bosko

      And then this …
      @Jon – ““Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive”
      Is there a point to this quote? Because if there is, then it escapes me. It says, the Arabs were the original attackers and when the tide of the battle turned, Israel ended up in the offensive.
      The only thing that I would guess you are trying to say is that it was wrong for the Israelis to go on the offensive?
      Is that how you guys fight YOUR wars? I think not.

      Reply to Comment
    20. Bosko

      @Deir Yassin – “The barrage of Qassams by Hamss starting on November 4th 2008 that Jon mentions was an reaction to the killing of 6 Hamas militants by the IDF on that same day”

      And the killing of the Hamas terrorists was because they were caught digging a tunnel towards Israel’s border which was a violation of the cease fire.
      Come on now, you gotta tell the whole story, not just the reaction by Israel to Hamas provocations.

      Reply to Comment
    21. Jon

      @ Bosko

      You’re quite right about my country’s nuking of Japan, our firebombing of Japanese & German cities. (We murdered 80,000 Japanese in a single night in March –yes, March–1945). There is a very long list of atrocities we’ve committed. Your point is well taken. See William Blum’s book, Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions Since World War II. Yes, Japan was ready to surrender in July 1945 & we knew that, as we’d broken their codes. We also always provided pretexts for our many evils (assassinations, coups d’etat, mass murders, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc)to an unsuspecting US public, “justifying” our actions (fooling the people).
      Israel & my country are like peas in a pod, in that sense. So there’s no reason for us to look down on Tel Aviv.
      But at least there’s no reason why Washington MUST provide diplomatic & financial assistance when Israel does its evil deeds. According to Maoz, Arabs have been pretty good about seeking peace & honoring agreements. The idea that Israel will be driven into the sea is sheer fantasy. Read Maoz’s book, Bosko. Please?

      Reply to Comment
    22. Bosko

      @Jon – You know what? I don’t feel qualified to judge whether what Truman did was right or wrong. Let history judge. But I will put a nuance on America’s decision. Firstly, my understanding is that Japan was not willing to sign an unconditional surrender and any invasion of Japan would have caused large scale casualties of young American soldiers. Here is a quote from admiral Leahy …
      “He notes that General Marshall believes that an invasion of Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island, “will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation.”
      Although it is my understanding that Admiral Leahy believed that Japan was willing to surrender under their terms and that in his opinion, those terms would have been satisfactory to the US, who is to say that he knew better than Truman? And if Truman was right, then surely the lives of young American soldiers had to count for something too?
      Israel faces the same decisions too. But it seems that the left everywhere always values the lives of aggressor nation’s citizens above the lives of their own fellow citizens. Especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight vision. But the realities in the middle of a war are not always that simple. Whatever decisions are made when trying to fend off aggressors such as Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or Hamas, lives will be lost. It’s a question of deciding whose lives are more valuable, our own citizens? Or theirs? To me the decision is obvious especially when one remembers that Palestinian Arabs voted in Hamas in 2006. Don’t tell me they didn’t know what Hamas stood for?

      Reply to Comment
    23. Bosko

      @Jon – Hamas doesn’t break cease fires, does it? Not much. Only the ones it declares a couple of days ago …
      “JERUSALEM, Aug. 22 (UPI) — A few more rockets struck inside Israel Monday evening despite a Hamas-declared cease-fire, police said”
      Go figure …
      http://m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-59221314012649/

      Reply to Comment
    24. Jon

      @Bosko
      The solution should’ve been for Truman to make the unconditional surrender in fact conditional. The Potsdam Declaration (the Truman ultimatum) didn’t even so much as mention Hirohito (!!??!!).
      See Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman & the Surrender of Japan, by the trilingual American historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. America was just plain wrong to nuke Japan. We had no excuses.

      (Btw, I’m not a leftist. When I vote, I vote Republican).

      Maoz shows that Israel is the aggressor. Unfortunately, Bosko, you yourself value the lives of aggressor nations’ citizens more highly than others. I say this in sadness.
      Your approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict forces you to devalue and ignore Jews. Very sad.

      Reply to Comment
    25. Bosko

      @Jon – “The solution should’ve been for Truman to make the unconditional surrender in fact conditional”
      And you don’t know what would have been the ultimate consequences of that. They may very well have been worse than what Truman decided on. I’ll leave it at that, I won’t argue this point further.

      @Jon – “Maoz shows that Israel is the aggressor”
      No he does not. He and you just think that he does. Some people have the knack of convincing those who are predisposed to be convinced. The trouble with you Jon is that you tend to read a restricted set of sources who reinforce your existing point of view. Me? I read a number of sources with opposing points of view. I weigh them up against each other, look for inconsistencies, corroborate bits and pieces of information that reinforce one another and compare it all to my own experiences. In other words, I do my own research and I do my own thinking.
      You on the other hand read a Mofaz, he sends you down a path that reinforces what he says and you don’t bother to look at other historians who disagree with him.
      Last but not least, you might be voting Republican but that does not mean that you don’t have leftist views at least on certain subjects. In fact most of us do. Except that you and I disagree profoundly about who the aggressor is in the Middle East.

      Reply to Comment
    26. Bosko

      Oops I meant Maoz :)

      Reply to Comment
    27. Bosko

      @Jon – I just listened to an interview of Zeev Maon. His answer, right at the end of the interview about Hamas, clinched my opinion about him. He said that he disagreed about the views of both the government of Israel and the US about the election of Hamas by the Palestinians. His view was that Hamas has to be viewed as innocent before being proven to be guilty.
      Great stuff! Between 2000 and 2004 Hamas was responsible for the murder and maiming of thousands of Israeli civilians. And what was that in response to? It was in response to Barak’s peace offer in Taba which even leftists admit to that the two sides nearly reached agreement.
      So please Jon, give me a break. The problem with the Maozs of this world is that they have infinite patience with the likes of Hamas and zero tolerance for Israeli mistakes. And I do admit that Israelis do make mistakes. The question is who makes more mistakes, who is more bloody minded and who is playing the zero sum game. IMHO, it is NOT Israel but it IS Hamas and their ilk.
      What motivates Maoz? I would say it is a combination of ideology and a motivation to play to an intended audience which rewards his views. And I mean both monetarily and with adulation. Both of which he and his ilk crave.

      Reply to Comment
    28. Bosko

      @Jon – One more thing …
      The Maozs of this world take great delight in triumphantly pointing out that “Israel’s aggressive policies” have not worked. They say there is still violence hatred and no peace. They are absolutely right of course on that score.
      What they won’t bother telling you though is what the outcome of alternative policies would have been. People like me can tell you though. There would be triumphalism in the Arab world as they would continually up the ante in violence. They would pour the pressure on till something would have to give. Either Israel would collapse internally or there would be an even bigger backlash against the perpetrators of violence a bigger war with even more casualties on both sides. I would bet on the latter outcome.
      How do I know? Because everytime Israel dabbled with Maoz’s ideas, the Lebanon withdrawal, the Gaza withdrawal, the situation got worse. On the other hand, every time Israel retaliated strongly, there was always a lull in the violence. Every time without exception …

      Reply to Comment
    29. Jon

      @Bosko
      You said on August 26th:
      “out of context quotes of Ben Gurion”
      after I’d quoted him previously.

      So, if you describe me as one-sided or narrow-minded, may I justifiably deflect the charge by claiming that you’re taking my words out of context?
      ;;;

      The Zionist Malchiel Gruenwald, a Holocaust survivor, accused Hungarian Zionist Rudolph Kastner of having collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. So the Israeli government (RK was its Ministry of Trade & Industry spokesman) sued for libel and the trial was held before an Israeli court. Judge Benjamin Halevi presided. After a long trial, the verdict came down. Gruenwald was declared not guilty of libel, and the judge even told Kastner: “You have sold your soul to the devil.”

      And here are the Kastner-Gruenwald Trial Transcripts (in Hebrew) from the Israeli government archives:

      The entire transcript is available here:
      http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=409

      and here (with all the protocols):

      http://www.archives.gov.il/ArchiveGov/ArchiveNavigation.aspx?ID=30.0.50

      http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=409

      “Since the existence of Zionism, one constant trend of thought has been the direction of Weizmann, Greenbaum, Sharett, Ben Gurion, Ehrenpreisz, Kastner, Stephen Wise, the councils in the ghettoes, and the rescue committees of the free world: ‘The only yearning was for the State. The [Jewish] people as a whole, or a segment thereof, were merely the means for the realization of a homeland. Whoever did not serve this purpose might as well not have been created’.”
      Source:

      http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/resources/onlinebooks/Holocaust%20Victims%20Accuse.pdf

      The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals, by Reb Moshe Shonfeld. (The book can be viewed online for free at the above link).

      If you’re going to ignore Reb Shonfeld’s book, Bosko, are you even going to ignore the Israeli government’s own Kastner trial transcript too?

      You made an error in judgment that most people in the world made & still make, friend. You assumed that Zionism was designed to protect Jews. In fact, Bosko, it was designed to protect only those Jews who were useful to it, whereas all others “might as well not have been created” as the above quote says. And that cold-hearted sentiment is unfortunately anti-Semitic. It doesn’t value Jews as people who have dignity and intrinsic worth, as they should have. Instead, Zionists consider them only as political tools. (For the proof, read the trial transcript, please).

      For more on Herzl’s anti-Semitism, see also:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsVUO3kotH0&feature=related

      Itzhak Greenbaum, Ben-Gurion’s Minister of Interior, declared in 1943: “When they asked me, ‘can you not use Keren HaYesod funds to rescue Jews in Diaspora?’ I said ‘No!’ and I repeat ‘No!’ It is incumbent that we withstand this wave which is pushing the Zionist agenda into second rank. When offered two proposals: the rescue of multitudes of Jews in Europe, or the redemption in Israel, I choose without one moment of hesitation the redemption in Israel. Zionism supersedes all.” from the above Herzl video, part 4 @ 1:27

      Reply to Comment
    30. Bosko

      @Jon – That’s not the Herzl that I know. But even if for the sake of argument he did think that way at one stage, what does that show? It shows that he was searching for a solution for a problem. The problem of the Jews of Europe. Let us say for the sake of argument that his initial answers were heading in the wrong direction. So what? He was human after all. We all make mistakes, I know I do. Don’t you Jon? So he dabbled with some crazy ideas that never had a chance to work but after he witnessed the trial of the French Jewish captain Dreyfus, the outpouring of hate against him and Jews in general, he realised that the only way the Jewish people would end up living a dignified life is by returning to their ancestral home land and achieve self determination. That was the essence of Zionism. He then worked tirelessly to achieve that aim, till the end of his life. Of course others joined him and the movement grew. That’s the Zionism that I believe in. I don’t believe in a personality cult. I believe in the IDEA and the idea is bigger than any one person, including Herzl himself.
      Now a brief word about Kastner, I actually remember the case although I was a kid then. He may have been a villain then again, that may not be the case. Again, I don’t really care. He was only one person. He did not personify Zionism the idea. Let us say that he was a vicious villain (which I am not saying), tell me Jon, which ideology didn’t doesn’t have its share of villains? Let’s pick on any ideology/system/country. Are you saying that there are/were no rogue politicians that give any of those a bad name? Surely not. Is America an inherently a bad country because of the Richard Nixons of this world? Surely not. All systems/ideologies/countries have their bad apples. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water, I believe in the right of the Jewish people to have self determination so I am a Zionist. End of story!

      Reply to Comment
    31. Bosko

      @jon – Now please do me the courtesy and respond to my previous three posts above the last one. I am genuinely interested in your feedback even though I am sure you won’t agree with what I said.

      Reply to Comment
    32. Jon

      @Bosko
      It’s very late at night here in the States now. But I’ll try to accommodate your request. It would’ve been possible for you to see the conflict in a different perspective, one based on research in the primary documents, interviews with Jewish participants in the action, etc etc. But you’ve apparently dismissed Maoz as unworthy of your attention because he saw Hamas in a more positive light than you do. He sees Muslim/Christian violence as largely reactive (his book covers 1948 to around 2004) and proportionately less than Israel’s many provocations (massacres, assassinations, etc, which Sharett desired, according to his diary entry. Just like Israel’s bosom buddy, the US does so often, too).
      Example:
      http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000634499

      But although you read many sources from various angles, I sense a reluctance on your part to engage in the substance of his argument, all because he doesn’t dislike or hate or understand Hamas sufficiently. This strikes me as odd logic. If examining Israeli government sources, say, for instance, about the Taba talks, allowed Maoz to demonstrate in his book that in fact Taba was broken off when Israel abruptly broke off the talks, and if Hamas didn’t—contrary to your mistaken assumption— react to this cutoff of talks with massive violence, etc then it seems you’ve sealed yourself into an ideological bubble because ZM is ‘politically incorrect’. You won’t know that you’re mistaken because you won’t read him.

      You probably thought I was just joking when I asked:
      “You said on August 26th:
      “out of context quotes of Ben Gurion”
      “after I’d quoted him previously.
      “So, if you describe me as one-sided or narrow-minded, may I justifiably deflect the charge by claiming that you’re taking my words out of context?”
      But I was actually half-serious, Bosko. Another example: if Israel has a lot of beautiful women (and it does!!), can someone dismiss that sincere opinion of mine simply because my detestation of Obama isn’t intense enough for someone’s tastes? —(??!!??!!!)
      How does, say, an Israeli government archival document, say cabinet meeting minutes or something, proving that an Arab offer of peace was not only rejected in Tel Aviv but immediately followed by Israeli military attack find itself devalued in your eyes just because ZM is politically incorrect?

      The reason I don’t respond to more of your assertions is that they are sometimes based on mistaken assumptions. Now in fairness to you, Bosko, you haven’t had time to explore all the links I included. But you seem to continue to devalue a lot of Jewish voices: Maoz, Finkelstein, Reb Shonfeld, IDF soldier testimonies, Interior Minister Itzhak Greenbaum, etc etc.
      Since I don’t know Hebrew, I was hoping you’d read the trial transcripts for me so that I could find out if what I’ve read about its contents was in fact true.
      Although I admire Ahad Ha’am a lot, his cultural Zionism is very different in spirit from Herzl’s et al political Zionism. I was trying to show that political Zionism in general, not just Herzl, was a bad apple, because it deliberately exploited Jews. I wish you’d pay more attention to the spirit of political Zionism, not just its hasbara.
      You say:
      “he realised that the only way the Jewish people would end up living a dignified life is by returning to their ancestral home land and achieve self determination. That was the essence of Zionism.”
      But, Bosko, political Zionism only cared about Jews who fit in with Zionism’s goals. They didn’t care if other Jews were gassed. You’d see that if you paid more attention to Jewish voices, like the trial transcripts, Sharett, Shonfeld, etc.

      YAWN. Shalom!

      Reply to Comment
    33. Bosko

      @Jon – Ok now it’s my turn to ask you to read something …
      http://www.meforum.org/2139/defending-the-holy-land
      A Reviewed by Efraim Inbar of Zeev Maoz’s “Defending the Holy Land
      A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy”

      Efraim Inbar is professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.
      He makes some very pertinent observations. Here is a quote from his review …
      “The author’s account of the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects a total misunderstanding of the central role played by Israel’s use of force in compelling the Arabs to come to grips with Israel’s permanence. Military victories in 1956 and 1967 are curiously and myopically seen as exacerbating Israel’s relations with its neighbors, rather than as important events in Egypt’s gradual realization that Israel could not be destroyed—a process that culminated in the 1979 peace treaty. Similarly, the author fails to see that the military victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, despite the strategic surprise on two fronts, was another significant step in the Arab recognition of Israel as an entrenched fact”

      Reply to Comment
    34. Jon

      @ Bosko
      I read the review by Prof. Inbar & found it deeply disappointing. There are simply too many propaganda devices & distortions (ZM, he insinuates, is ‘unhinged’ ‘Israel-bashing’ ‘myopic’ ‘Pavlovian’ etc) for me to respond to every one of them, friend. Indeed one of the things that so disappointed me about his review of Maoz is that he almost never discusses the actual content of his book. Then finally toward the end of the review, EI says this:
      “What he calls “provoked infringements into the DMZs [demilitarized zones]” on the Israeli-Syrian border were actually attempts by Israelis to till the land that was under their sovereignty.”
      In my opinion, Bosko, there’s an intrinsic value in paying attention to the very person who led the capture of the Golan Heights, Gen. Moshe Dayan.
      “General Moshe Dayan, who commanded the Israeli forces in 1967 and gave the order to occupy the Golan, gave an interview to an Israeli journalist, Rami Tal, in 1976. The interview was kept secret until April 1997, when it was published in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharanot. It has been authenticated by Israeli historians, and General Dayan’s daughter, Yael, a member of the Knesset, insisted that it be published.
      In the interview, Tal interjected, “But they were sitting on the Golan Heights….”
      “Never mind that,” said Dayan. “I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started…. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything – (it was) in the demilitarized zone – and [we] would know in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until, in the end, the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force…. And that’s how it was.”
      Dayan thought that the Golan would have to be given back to Syria if there were ever to be peace in the region and that keeping it would result in the loss of many Israeli soldiers.
      Then why did he give the order to invade?
      Essentially, it was because of pressure from the would-be settlers, who convinced Levi Eshkol, the Israeli prime minister, to occupy the Heights and the fertile lands beyond. When asked if that was all there was to it, Dayan replied:
      “I can tell you with absolute confidence that (they) were not thinking about (security); they were thinking about the Heights’ land…. I saw them; I spoke with them. They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land.”
      [End of Yediot Aharanot interview excerpt]
      During the peace talks between Syria and Israel [US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Akins continues] that took place while Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister of Israel, there was almost full agreement. Israel would withdraw from all of the Heights; there would be demilitarized zones on both sides of the border – more in Syria than in Israel. Perhaps the only significant unresolved issue was where the final border would be: the international pre-1947 border (the Israeli position) or the 1948 truce line (the Syrian position). A total of less than 15 square miles was at issue.
      This encouraging development ended with the murder of Rabin and the subsequent election of Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister. Netanyahu agreed to talks with Syria, but they had to begin all over again. The Syrians said that they wanted the talks to resume, but they would have to proceed from positions already agreed upon.
      Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak resumed talks with the Syrians, but he was apparently not ready to let them proceed from the point reached with Yitzhak Rabin. Nonetheless, Syria, other Arab countries, and all those who are interested in peace in the Middle East have not yet given up hope that Barak will follow internationally accepted forms and traditions and will resume negotiations at the point which the earlier government had reached: full withdrawal from the Golan and demilitarized zones on both sides of the border. The Syrians maintain that Rabin agreed to the 1967 cease-fire line as the final Israeli-Syrian border; Barak maintains that this was only a “draft” proposal, not a firm Israeli commitment. I believe that either side could accept the position of the other without doing damage to its security or prestige, and that a logical compromise would be, more or less, to split the difference.

      Earlier in the same James Akins article (URL below):
      [State Dept official George] Ball is certainly right that the Israelis wanted no interference in their plans to occupy Syria’s Golan Heights. The essentials of the Golan problem are well known; they can be described as follows:
      “From 1948 until 1967 [I assume this paragraph is a quote from a book by George Ball], the Syrians sat on the Golan Heights and shelled the defenseless and peaceful Israeli farmers below. This was done out of maliciousness or a desire to be provocative or perhaps just because the Syrians were evil. Clearly, this situation had become intolerable to the Israelis, and they had not only the right but the duty to change it. And they did; the occupation of the Heights – although there may not have been any specific provocation during the Israeli attacks on Egypt and Jordan – was perfectly understandable and justifiable.”

      These “facts” were widely, if not universally, understood in the United States. Brent Scowcroft, subsequently head of the National Security Council, responded archly when I [Ambassador James Akins, the author of this article] suggested that the story was not exactly right: “Everyone knows the facts,” he said. “I was just in Israel and I saw for myself what had happened.” The problem was – and is – that this Israeli history of the Golan is pure fiction. Every one of the 1,000-odd clashes between Syria and Israel between 1948 and 1967 was examined by the UN supervisory commission, which found that only a very few had clearly been caused by the Syrians. A few dozen were ambiguous, and all the rest were caused by Israel. But, many Israelis insist, the UN was notoriously anti-Israel, so how could its reports be believed? Well, there were many officers of many nations, and they all reported the same things. Could they all have been lying? We no longer have to rely only on UN documentation to confirm the verity of their accounts.
      Source:
      http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-akins.html
      See Part II, beginning with paragraph 9

      So Inbar ignores Dayan’s own words, & describes the tractors plowing in the DMZ as just tilling the land, when Gen Dayan admitted in the above interview that this was a deliberate provocation.

      Inbar lacks credibility, Bosko.

      Reply to Comment
    35. Bosko

      @Jon
      Let’s put a bit of perspective on your article. I found the source that you got it from and it says this too …
      “I’m concerned that this will become the whole story, that people will lose sight of how the ’67 war broke out, how Syria was the catalyst, how it was seeking a rise in tensions, seeking to goad Egypt into action,” Mr. Maddy-Weitzman said. ”There is a lot of toying with founding myths. Revisionism is one thing, but when we throw out the context in which things were occurring, we are sapping ourselves unjustifiably.”
      The bottom line is that prior to 1967 Syria did not recognise Israel’s right to exist and it chose to be at war with Israel even though Israel did not have the Golan at that stage. That was the crux of the problem. In that context, I am prepared to believe that Israel too did it’s share of provocations. But if you are going to point the entire finger of blame on Israel and Israel alone while exonorating Syria, then we profoundly disagree.
      In fact, your little story reminds me of another attempt by critics of Israel to lay the entire blame for the 2000 intifada at Israel. They said that Sharon’s visit to the temple mount was an unjustified provocatiom which sparked the Intifada. Really? Visiting a shrine that is holy for Jews is a provocation? To me, that idea itself is a provocation of us. The bottom line is that it is hard to provoke people who want peace and it is very, very, very easy to provoke people who want to be provoked.
      By the way, historians are questioning the context of that interview with Dayan. I don’t know who is right but I do know that the Syrians are not lily white innocents who were sucked in by evil Israelis. They have their own mischief to answer for.

      Reply to Comment
    36. Bosko

      @Jon
      Now that you focused on the Golan Heights issue, and discounted Prof Inbar’s credibility on that score, could you please look at my previous post and comment on what the good Professor says there about Zeev Maoz? Here is what he says again …
      “The author’s account of the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects a total misunderstanding of the central role played by Israel’s use of force in compelling the Arabs to come to grips with Israel’s permanence. Military victories in 1956 and 1967 are curiously and myopically seen as exacerbating Israel’s relations with its neighbors, rather than as important events in Egypt’s gradual realization that Israel could not be destroyed—a process that culminated in the 1979 peace treaty. Similarly, the author fails to see that the military victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, despite the strategic surprise on two fronts, was another significant step in the Arab recognition of Israel as an entrenched fact”
      Jon, for the sake of fairness please try to do this instead of just digging up “more dirt” on Israel. I think Prof Inbar makes a good point above. Surely you don’t want to skip over it and ignore it?

      Reply to Comment
    37. Bosko

      Oh and a word about Norman Finkelstein. Him I happen to be familiar with and all I can say: Please … spare me. The guy is a narcissist. He has no credibility whatsoever. He cast in his lot with our enemies and all he does is carp, nit pick and concentrates on negatives. He comes across as a very unbalanced, I’d even say unhinged pundit. I have seen his debate with Dershowitz and all he did was nit pick on side issues while avoiding substance.
      He thrives on conspiracy theories and extremist statements, the more extreme the better as far as he is concerned.
      Why does he do it? Who knows exactly. He obviously has a chip on his shoulder but also, it seems to me that he is playing to a target audience that tends to lap up his theories. I suspect he craves their attention and their adulation reinforces his propensity to present even more controversial theories. I suspect, also that he makes a good living out of catering to the tastes of his particular audience.
      So please, Jon, leave our Finkelstein out of the picture. He said already too many things that have discredited him in my eyes. If you want, I can bring some of those things up and prove him wrong. But we will get sidetracked from our main debate. So I would prefer to avoid that if we can.

      Reply to Comment
    38. Jon

      @Bosko
      You say:
      “I found the source that you got it from and it says this too …
      “I’m concerned that this will become the whole story, that people will lose sight of how the ‘67 war broke out, how Syria was the catalyst, how it was seeking a rise in tensions, seeking to goad Egypt into action,” Mr. Maddy-Weitzman said. [etc]”
      The source I used about Gen Dayan is at this link:
      http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-akins.html
      Perhaps you can show me where exactly at that link you got the above quote. Because I don’t recall the name Mr. Maddy-Weitzman nor do I see it now.
      You say:
      “historians are questioning the context of that interview with Dayan”
      But are they questioning its content, friend? Dayan said Israel was seeking a rise in tensions with the tractor maneuvers in order to take the Heights. He also said that 80% of the provocations on the Golan were committed by Israel. (This chimes with P.M. Sharett’s diary entry earlier in the thread about the provocation and revenge tactic).
      You say:
      “I am prepared to believe that Israel too did its share of provocations.”
      Well, Bosko, we finally found something we agree on. (smile, wink)
      But I’d like to suggest that someone who’s even more supportive of Tel Aviv than yourself COULD say —-using your own frequent line of argument—-that ANY comments critical of Israel should be ignored because the evidence the critic cites is taken out of context (you said this about the Ben-Gurion quote I cited) or because the critic is morally and/or mentally deficient (your ad-hominem response to Finkelstein & Maoz). The reason I wrote the previous sentence, Bosko, was to tease you good-naturedly. ;;;
      In order to determine whether Syria or Israel was to blame in this matter (1967) & in what proportion or who’s to blame in their bilateral relations generally would require careful study of the primary historical documents. Maoz did this & I’m beginning to doubt that you’ll read him.
      You say:
      “when we throw out the context in which things were occurring, we are sapping ourselves unjustifiably.”
      I agree, which is why I mentioned days ago the many massacres, plus the incipient ethnic cleansing, which led to the outnumbered-two-to-one Arabs declaring war in 1948.
      You say that I:
      “discounted Prof Inbar’s credibility on that score”
      If you were to re-read that post, you’ll (hopefully?) see that ‘discounted’ is too mild a word. Of the 2 factual matters the Professor mentioned in his review, one is authoritatively proven (by Dayan himself) to be false.
      You say:
      “Surely you don’t want to skip over it and ignore it?”
      You say that like it’s a bad thing to ignore someone. But you’ve ignored Sharett, Interior Minister Itzhak Greenbaum, Reb Shonfeld’s & Maoz’s books, the video series produced by anti-Zionist Jews regarding Theodor Herzl’s anti-Semitism, the Kastner trial transcript (doesn’t Kastner refusing to rescue Jews who were being shipped to Auschwitz concern you?)
      I want to clarify that although I’m in agreement with Ahad Ha’am’s cultural Zionism (hence it would be false to say I’m anti-Zionist), I’m adamantly opposed to political Zionism because of its cold-hearted view of people as nothing but political tools.
      BTW, here’s something else you said that I definitely agree with, Bosko. I don’t think we should delve into the content of Finkelstein’s lecture on Cast Lead or anything else he said, for that matter. You’re right, this would be too distracting.
      As far as Prof Inbar’s quoted paragraph re ZM:
      “The author’s account of the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects a total misunderstanding of the central role played by Israel’s use of force in compelling the Arabs to come to grips with Israel’s permanence.
      [If the end justifies the means in any & every case, & I don’t believe it does, then does this mean that white Americans’ (my tribe ;;) genocide/ethnic cleansing of native Americans was justified because the slaughter forced our victims to accept that we were here to stay? And of course, when Hitler achieved his lebensraum by gassing and shooting 6 million Jews & assorted other unwanted non-Aryans, the political goal---lebensraum---didn’t justify the exterminations.]

      Military victories in 1956 and 1967 are curiously and myopically seen as exacerbating Israel’s relations with its neighbors,
      [When the Golan was seized in ’67, this complicated relations with Syria. In what sense is it myopic to point this out? Au contraire, it would be myopic NOT to point it out.]
      rather than as important events in Egypt’s gradual realization that Israel could not be destroyed—a process that culminated in the 1979 peace treaty.
      [this phrase I agree with completely.]

      Similarly, the author fails to see that the military victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, despite the strategic surprise on two fronts, was another significant step in the Arab recognition of Israel as an entrenched fact”
      [I see no reason to disagree with this statement either.]

      Reply to Comment
    39. Bosko

      @Jon
      I got that paragraph from the third page of the following New York Times Article.
      .
      http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?src=pm
      .
      You said quite a lot in your above longish post. I will respond to what I consider your main point here and hopefully will come back to answer other ones later.
      .
      “[If the end justifies the means in any & every case, & I don’t believe it does, then does this mean that white Americans’ (my tribe ;;) genocide/ethnic cleansing of native Americans was justified because the slaughter forced our victims to accept that we were here to stay? And of course, when Hitler achieved his lebensraum by gassing and shooting 6 million Jews & assorted other unwanted non-Aryans, the political goal---lebensraum---didn’t justify the exterminations.]” – Jon
      .
      That’s quite a comparison you got there Jon. Let me take it off the top. First, your comparison to what happened to American natives at the hand of white Americans. You talk about the similarities to what Israel did. I’ll talk about the differences …
      .
      FIRST: – I didn’t know that white Americans had ancestors in America. The Jews on the other hand come from the area that is Palistine from which we were exiled 2000 years ago. In that sense we are more like the native Americans returning to their homes, rather than white Americans.
      .
      SECOND: – Some of us Jews continuously inhabited Palestine and we kept a foothold in that land even longer than the Arab presence. In other words, you could argue that there were two sets of native populations in Palestine in the late 19th century, Arabs AND Jews, not just Arabs.
      .
      THIRD: – It is true that in the late 19th century, about 130 years ago now, waves of Jewish immigrants started returning to their ancestral home lands. Funnily enough, a few years later, the ranks of the native Arabs began to increase through Arab immigration from neighbouring countries.
      .
      FOURTH: – The Jewish immigrants settled on lands that they lawfully purchased. They did not steal anything from either the Arab or the Jewish natives.
      .
      FIFTH: – It is true that the purpose of the Jews was to build and establish a Jewish home land. It is also true that the native Arabs became restive because they in turn earmarked the entirety of Palestine as THEIR home land. Which of course meant that they ignored the rights of the Jewish natives who by then were bolstered in numbers by the Jewish immigrants.
      .
      SIXTH: – All of which meant that by 1947, about 600,000 Jews were pitted against 1.2 million Arabs who by then had a historybof hostilities against one another. Hostilities that were initiated by the Arabs against the Jews. You mentioned massacres Jon. One of the earliest massacres was the massacre of Hebron’s Jews by Arabs in 1929. Of course the Jews did not take such things lying down. They too responded and certainly by 1947 there were a history of tit for tat attacks and killings on both sides.
      .
      SEVENTH: – It is worth mentioning what the stated intention of the Palestinian Arab leadership was towards the Jews of Palestine. Their leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amyn Al Husseini collaborated with the Nazis during WW2 and instigated a plan with them which would have resulted in the mass murder of all the Jews of Palestine, had the Nazis been victorious. The mufti himself in fact was indicted for war crimes committed against Jews in Europe during WW2 where he recruited Muslim soldiers who massacred Jews and Serbs.
      .
      To be continued …

      Reply to Comment
    40. Bosko

      EIGHT: – As no doubt you are aware, in 1947, the UN passed resolution 181to partition Palestine into two parts. One for the Jews the other for the Arabs. Which was the fairest possible outcome because earlier in 1921, the Brits split off Eastern Palestine and gave it to the Hashemite Arabs. Who named theeir new country Transjordan.

      NINE: – The Jews accepted the partition plan, the Arabs did not. In fact, immediately following the UN resolution, the Arab population rioted and dozens of Jews were murdered.

      Ok, I won’t go on with this, I am sure you know the rest of the story. A civil war ensued and the neighbouring Arab countries got involved. 1% of the Jewish population died in that war, there were atrocities committed by BOTH sides and there was the Nakba. The Jews ended up being victorious and Israel was born. Etc etc.
      .
      The way I see it, what happened in Palestine bears very little resemblence to what happened between America’s whites and the native Indians. And even less resemblance to lebensraum and the gassing of Jews. Unless of course you meant to talk about the Mufti’s openly stated intentions towards the Jews of Palestine.
      .
      Anyway, I won’t go on abput it. Let me stop here for now.

      Reply to Comment
    41. Y.

      I waited and waited to see if anyone ever looks at the links here at +972. Apparently the answer is usually “no”.
      .
      For example, G. writes that “American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here – told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.” Here’s what the article actually says:
      .
      “”ברור שוועדות ההתנגדות היו מעורבות, אך הן לא היו המוח או השרירים של הפעולה; אנשיהן היו רק התצפיתנים”, אמר איש המודיעין. “ועדות ההתנגדות השמיעו קול לאחר הפעולה ולפיכך הן נעשו מטרה מיידית”.”
      .
      “It is obvious the PRC was involved, but they were not the brain or mussel of the action; their people were the look-outs” “The PRC made a voice after the action and therefor became an immediate target”
      .
      That’s pretty different from this write-up – which is to be expected here at +972…

      Reply to Comment
    42. [...] we should remember that a few days after the attack, the IDF killed an Islamic Jihad operative, and then claimed he was responsible for funding the attack. Again, we have no proof for this. It may be the truth. It may be just an attempt to justify an [...]

      Reply to Comment
    43. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel