The Case for Israel

[Jim Sagle]

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El576&enVersion=0

The Case for Israel
You've seen Alan Dershowitz defend O.J. Now see him defend Israel. The famous lawyer makes the case for the Holy Land. A Jewsweek exclusive.

by Alan Dershowitz - July 24, 2003

Editor's note: In September 2003, Alan Dershowitz will be releasing a revolutionary new book called "The Case for Israel" which will, in classic legal fashion, lay out the case for the Jewish State. In conjunction with the book's publisher, Jewsweek has been able to get a sneak peek at Dershowitz's latest and is now able to share with our readers the first ten pages of the upcoming book.

The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world, from the chambers of the United Nations to the campuses of universities, Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott, and demonization. Its leaders are threatened with prosecution as war criminals. Its supporters are charged with dual loyalty and parochialism.

The time has come for a proactive defense of Israel to be offered in the court of public opinion. In this book, I offer such a defense -- not of every Israeli policy or action but of Israel's basic right to exist, to protect its citizens from terrorism, and to defend its borders from hostile enemies. I show that Israel has long been willing to accept the kind of two-state solution that is now on the proposed "road map" to peace, and that it was the Arab leadership that persistently refused to accept any Jewish state -- no matter how small -- in those areas of Palestine with a Jewish majority. I also try to present a realistic picture of Israel, warts and all, as a flourishing multiethnic democracy, similar in many ways to the United States, that affords all of its citizens -- Jews, Muslims, and Christians -- far better lives and opportunities than those afforded by any Arab or Muslim nation. Most important, I argue that those who single out Israel for unique criticism not directed against countries with far worse human rights records are themselves guilty of international bigotry. This is a serious accusation and I back it up. Let me be clear that I am not charging all critics of Israel with anti-Semitism. I myself have been quite critical of specific Israeli policies and actions over the years, as have most Israel supporters, virtually every Israeli citizen, and many American Jews. But I am also critical of other countries, including my own, as well as European, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries. So long as criticism is comparative, contextual, and fair, it should be encouraged, not disparaged. But when the Jewish nation is the only one criticized for faults that are far worse among other nations, such criticism crosses the line from fair to foul, from acceptable to anti-Semitic.

<snip>

This book will prove not only that Israel is innocent of the charges being leveled against it but that no other nation in history faced with comparable challenges has ever adhered to a higher standard of human rights, been more sensitive to the safety of innocent civilians, tried harder to operate under the rule of law, or been willing to take more risks for peace. This is a bold claim, and I support it with facts and figures, some of which will surprise those who get their information from biased sources. For example, Israel is the only nation in the world whose judiciary actively enforces the rule of law against its military even during wartime. It is the only country in modern history to have returned disputed territory captured in a defensive war and crucial to its own self-defense in exchange for peace. And Israel has killed fewer innocent civilians in proportion to the number of its own civilians killed than any country engaged in a comparable war. I challenge Israel's accusers to produce data supporting their claim that, as one accuser put it, Israel "is the prime example of human rights violators in the world." They will be unable to do so.

[drdon326]

1. Best line...

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

The truth will set you free.

great post, jim.

[meti57b]

3. second best line .....

"When the best is accused of being the worst, the focus must shift to the accusers, who I contend may be guilty of bigotry, hypocrisy, or abysmal ignorance at the very least. It is they who must stand in the dock of history, along with others who have also singled out the Jewish people, the Jewish religion, the Jewish culture, or the Jewish nation for unique and undeserved condemnation." ... Dershowitz

Jim, thanks for the heads-up on the book. I pre-ordered it.

[newyorican]

13. "the best"?

I had always thought that chauvanistic interpretations were forbidden? Oh well, guess it's easy to see that Alan has fallen down and hit his head. He starts with hyperbole and descends into blubbering fantasy. What a wretch he has become.

This pro-torture (as long as you're Islamic) nut has finally cracked. The "best" my ass. Israel is well suited for the docket in which it sits, a glance to either side will reveal that their Palestinian counterparts share space in the *same* docket.

[durutti]

14. Not if you're an American

Because Israel's relies so much on American aid, it is the responsibility of American citizens to criticize Israeli policy, just as it is their responsibility to criticize American policy.

But even if that wasn't the case, this argument hardly makes sense. You could make the same argument about any country.

[Classical_Liberal]

19. Israel isn't being singled out

I was a critic of apartied, and the Talibans.

[Darranar]

21. Israel certainly is singled out...

Look at any human rights site. Israel will be on it-likely in the headlines. Other conflicts, much worse, will often be shunted off to the side.

[the_sam]

30. Israel *should* be singled out

First of all, if you're interested in activism, you have to single out some country, or at least a handful of them. It's impossible to address all concerns in all countries. Progressive Jews and Arabs might feel a special connection to Israel/Palestine, so it's understandable that for them Israel is singled out.

Israel should be singled out by Americans (just as Colombia and Egypt should be) because Israel is closely allied with the United States, and heavily reliant on U.S. aid. Since our tax dollars are subsidizing Israel's activities, we have a right and duty to examine them with extra scrutiny.

[Darranar]

31. You don't believe...

that the huge corporations that exploit thousands of poor people around the world and allow widespread violence for their benefit have no aid from the US? Yes, not monetary, but consumers buy their products.

[the_sam]

33. That's one reason why we're so heavily invested in Israel

American companies sell them their equipment (Caterpillar bulldozers, for instance).

The problem of corporate power and the Middle East conflict are intertwined. I've demonstrated on for Palestine. I've also demonstrated against the World Bank.

Darranar, do you realize that you're making the exact same argument that defenders of apartheid South Africa made 20 years ago*? By your logic, we shouldn't complain about anything, since it's always worse somewhere.

*BTW, it wasn't Yasser Arafat who originated the comparison of Palestine to apartheid South Africa. It was Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.

[Darranar]

35. I am?

I am not defending the occupation or the human rights abuses done by Israel. I am pointing out that all the time and enrgy we spend on Israel could be spent better in other areas, if only our governments realized this and didn't trust the corporations as much as they do.

[the_sam]

41. Israel relies on us

The relationship between the United States and Israel is probably closer than that between any two nations anywhere. We have the clout to change Israeli policy that other nations lack. Therefore, it's especially appropriate to criticize Israel.

[Darranar]

43. Not really...

Israel does not automatically listen to US concerns.

Anyway, do you understand my point? I am not sure you do. There are real and larger human rights abuse cases in the world where the US has power, through its corporations.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. This is about the war on terrorism not just human rights

Israel's behavior reflects badly on us, and I don't want to subsidize it.

[Darranar]

48. Bush's behavior does too...

and moreso.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Bush's behavior is to subsidize Israel despite the settlements

.

[Darranar]

52. This is a progressive forum...

Have you forgotten about:

The situation in Iraq

The situation in Afghanistan

The anti-muslim rhetoric coming from friends of the Bush admnistration

The propping-up of dictators in the Middle East for the sake of oit and imperialism.

All of these are responsible for the mess in the Middle East and the hatred of the US by many Arabs.

[Classical_Liberal]

160. The most awful and persistent problem is israel's settling the west bank

It is related directly to atleast three of the problems you mentioned.

The invasion of Iraq was in part to get a pro-israel government there. Unfortunately that is incompatible with real democracy in Iraq.

The antimuslim rhetoric is mostly coming from proisrael hawks in the religious right and in the neocon right who advocate a clash of civilizations.

The dictators quite frankly are kinder to Israel than Democratic Arab governments would be.

I know this is a progressive forum. Israel isn't a progressive country and it is creating a nightmare for mine.

[Darranar]

167. The most awful and persistent problem in the Middle East and elswhere

is imperialism. That is the root cause for everything mentioned above.

[the_sam]

174. Threaten to withdraw military aid...

And see how quickly Israel complies with U.S. demands.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. The Israeli Palestinians problem is currently hurting American

Security, and should be priority number one at this point.

[Darranar]

2. Exactly...

the author is completely correct.

[bemildred]

4. Alan (the torturer) Dershowitz throws down the gauntlet.

Should be a good show.
All phasers on stun, Scotty.

[pschoeb]

5. The Alan Dershowitz who advocates torture and collective punishment

Is going to argue a case about violations of human rights? Obviously since he doesn't think torture or collective punishment are human rights violations, he should have an easy time defending any human rights violator by mearly stating this.

for more see:
http://www.counterpunch.org/youmans0910.html

meti57b pointed to to this line as the second best

"When the best is accused of being the worst, the focus must shift to the accusers, who I contend may be guilty of bigotry, hypocrisy, or abysmal ignorance at the very least. It is they who must stand in the dock of history, along with others who have also singled out the Jewish people, the Jewish religion, the Jewish culture, or the Jewish nation for unique and undeserved condemnation." ... Dershowitz

Since Dershowitz is argueing about "comparable situations" ie long term occupation of territroy. This statement should read "When the best occupier", instead of just the best. There are many countries who have never occupied land outside their borders and so aren't in the comparison. Being the "best occupier" is a dubious distinction, if Dershowitz can even prove it.

Most Human rights activists don't single out Israel. I haven't paid anywhere near as much attention to Israel's human rights violations as I have to say Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Burma, and the United States. I tend to focus on human rights violations I have the ability to effect by being a US citizen, that is violations by the US or a country that the US supports, such as Indonesia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

Patrick Schoeb

[Darranar]

6. Which country...

has responded more humanely when under attack by its neighbors? Which country has retaliated as hmanely against terrorists? Certainly not the US. There is indeed a double standard, even if the author overstates it.

On edit: Read my post below. This post doesn't accurately show my opinions on this subject.

[Darranar]

7. Oops...

I wasn't thinking when I posted that. Israel has hardly responded humanely to many of its threats. My point there was that sometimes it does have a respect for human rights and human life that is very respectable, but that does not get noticed by some of the rabid Israel is always wrong crowd.

Israel's behavior in Jenin, for instance, was far better than that of the US in Afghanistan. Rather that bombing the place to bits from the air, Israel went from house to house, searching for terrorists-and they paid for it. They lost several soldiers because they were humane, and because they were there in person, they had to chase down several terrorists and allow several authority figures to paint them as evil and inhumane.

Israel has the right to respond against terrorism humanely. Israel has the right to security within its borders. Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state that respects all religions and all religious places.

Israel does not have the right to respond to terrorism with heavy-handed tactics that lack respect for human rights and human life. Israel does not have the right to hurt people because of tehir religion. Israel does not have the right to claim Palestinian land and bulldoze Palestinian houses, unless the bulldozing is removing an intact terrorist threat and is not simply collective punishment.

[durutti]

15. But the U.S. isn't in a position to change anytime soon

Israel is.

[Darranar]

20. Of course...

Israel must change, and so must the US. Hopefully both of those changes will happen as soon as possible.

[Equinox]

175. Kurdy Bear the Bulldozer driver was humane?

Darranar, no one knows what happened in Jenin. Israel made sure of that. But you can definitely ask Kurdy Bear as he was drinking his whiskey and plowing down peoples homes with a smile on his face.

[Gimel]

72. Torture as a method

for obtaining confessions should be stopped everywhere in the world. Counties such as Joran, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Etc, Etc, USA, Mexico, Argentina, etc, etc, wherever it occurs, it should be eliminated. Only human interrogation is allowed. No sleep deprivation, heat deprivation or bamboo under the nails. No lighted match threatening any point of the body, or hanging by the ankles and lashing with electic coils, or anything similar. Not to women by husbands, or by police to gain confessions.

Israeli methods are modest compared to other MidEast countries, but torture by any means should be stopped. Including torture by bombing buses.

[Darranar]

79. Completely agreed

n/t

[vierundzwanzig]

8. Cut and dried

I am surprised Dershowitz could turn something into a cut-and-dried verdict what has been disputed for half a century.

I sense a tad of overzealous engagement here.

Any book that makes such claims ought to be taken with more than a grain of salt.

[Darranar]

9. Claims?

He is actually rather moderate, in comparison to some others. I think that some of his statistics are off, and that Israel is hardly as humane as he tries to portray it, but most of what he says is correct, and the sentiments, if not the facts, I pretty much agree with.

[Gimel]

10. Due time

Thanks for bringing this book to my attention, Jim. It is high time that someone with skill in presentation of facts, and a convincing professional title, puts all of this into perspective.

[tinnypriv]

11. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Sinai is "disputed territory"?

This guy should stick to smearing Shahak. He can't defend himself.

[Darranar]

12. That it is not...

It belongs to Egypt.

[newyorican]

16. LOL

Not sure what is funnier. The Sinia being converted to "disputed territory" or the intro that inadvertently compares Israel to OJ. And we *all* know how innocent OJ was. :eyes:

If there was ever an article that deserved Jims favorite "ain't nuthin' but" tagline, this is it. But since that is abominably bad form, I will give in to my more reasonable side and resist that churlish behavior.

:D

[Jim Sagle]

17. Shahak is a self-hating loony.

[tinnypriv]

22. Alan

Is that you?! :D

[tinnypriv]

23. Oh yeah

And the correct form would be: was a loony. He ain't nuthin but dead, after all.

Try and keep up with current events, there's a good chap.

[Jim Sagle]

151. So he's a dead loony. He ain't nuthin' but worms.

[tinnypriv]

166. Hey, thats nuthin' but a good thing in Judaism!

One peacenik down, lots to go eh? :D

[Darranar]

168. Umm...

I sincerely hope that this is not an anti-semitic comment. I do not think that you are racist and view you as generally quite reasonable. If it is not, as I believe, can you better explain it?

[tinnypriv]

169. Jewish funeral arrangements

"Judaism belief is that we do not preserve the body because as the body decays, the soul ascends to Heaven"

-- http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/torat/death.asp (randomly picked)

I presume that clears up the misunderstanding.

[Darranar]

171. Now I understand...

Being a Jew myself, I knew about the funeral arrangments, but I thought that you might be implying something different. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Gimel]

24. Taba was disputed

Taba was returned after a process of arbitration.

[tinnypriv]

25. Taba is "crucial to its own self-defense"?

He's referring to the Sinai. Good try, no cigar. Point stands.

[Gimel]

27. Crucial in a sense

It it hadn't been returned the first time, would the second capture have been necessary? I'd say it ws crucial to self-defense and only returned in exchange for peace assurances. Taba was the disputed area.

Perhaps we need an outside judge to confer that point, if you really covet it.

[tinnypriv]

28. LOL

Are you serious?

[Darranar]

56. Yes, I think she is...

Anyway, her ideas have merit. An outside judge will provide objectivity where there is none.

[newyorican]

18. So generous of Alan the Torturer

He gives all those that disagree with his chauvanistic POV a choice between being:

A) An anti-semite (an overplayed card if there ever was one)

B) An *international* Hypocrite :shrug:

C) An Ignoramus :shrug:

Too bad in his world only those he has *chosen* as "the best" are allowed to be right. Oh my, there are quite a few that haven't been chosen as "the best" aren't there?? What to do with all of these *wogs*, eh, maybe some discipline is needed...hmmm?

[Herschel]

26. Alan Dershowitz for President?

Why not? He has championed many progressive views. He has a realistic position on Israel and the Middle East. There is much to recommend, even if it will not happen.

[tinnypriv]

29. If you define "progressive"

As torture, violence, conquest and detention without trial, sure the guy is plenty progressive.

By that standard, Bush is leader of the Greens. :crazy:

[newyorican]

32. He would do worse than Lieberman

who is going down in flames. :D

True humiliation would come when Al Sharpton is veiwed as more desirable the Alan the Torturer.

[Herschel]

84. Al Sharpton is an anti-semite

Totally unfit to run for the office. I do not care what polls say about that.

[Darranar]

86. Never heard this before...

But then again, I don't know much about Al Sharpton. I tend to pay more attention to the ones advocated by most DUers-Kerry, Dean, and Kucinich.

What has he said that is anti-semitic, my friend? I am not questioning your claim, I am simply curious.

[Herschel]

116. Al Sharpton

has referred to Jews as "diamond merchants" among other things.

[Darranar]

118. And this is a legitimate Democratic candidate for President?

How far have we fallen?

[StandWatie]

164. that wasn't what he said..

here is what he supposedly said:

"Don't just talk about the jeweler on Utica. Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here."

What he says he said:

"we've got to stop black guys snatching purses on Utica Avenue, and we've got to stop the diamond merchants in South Africa"

Now the first (if true) would be callous and incentitive but I can't call it anti-semetic.

[newyorican]

91. All the more humiliating

if you get the joke, that is...

[Herschel]

108. Explain yourself

I do not understand

[newyorican]

154. The *joke* is

Even with the baggage (accurate or not) that Sharpton carries, Alan is *less* desirable than Al Sharpton and would get less support *if* he joined the presidential race. Does not speak volumes for Alan the Ethnic Cleansing, Torturer of Muslims and Arabs (or those that would support him).

[Herschel]

158. We do not know how he would fare

We cannot question he has a great mind. I will leave it at that.

[newyorican]

161. You must have a mouse in your pocket

because *I* am not included in your "we" comment. Unless you meant to say "greatly twisted", that is...

It is very revealing that you would think someone who advocates torture, ethnic cleansing and annexation of foreign lands has a "great mind".

:crazy:

[Forkboy]

34. I dont know whether to laugh or cry

Alan...progressive?

My heads going to pop :crazy:

[Herschel]

36. You three

Mr. Dershowitz is quite progressive in many regards. I believe you object to his pragmatic stand on the Middle East and terror, nothing more.

[Darranar]

37. I don't know that much about him...

Could you enlighten me, Herschel?

[Herschel]

38. I do know he was a defender of Bill Clinton

and I believe he champions many progreesive causes, civil liberty protection high among them. I hope to have some links for you.

[Darranar]

39. Thanks, my friend...

Since he defended OJ Simpson, I assume he is also progressive on civil rights?

[Herschel]

40. Here are two right wing sources

that refer to him as liberal. Certainly they would not if he were one of theirs. From the Simpson case, I presume he is a strong advocate for rights of the accused.

http://www.liberty.edu/chancellor/nlj/feb99/mstaver.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/28/175440

[Darranar]

42. Very interesting...

Do you know where he stands on economic matters? His social liberalism is evident to me.

[tinnypriv]

47. So what?

By the standards of some loonies, the NYT is communist :crazy:

[Herschel]

63. If you say he is conservative

Post your information for me to see.

[tinnypriv]

66. Before I do that

Define "conservative" for me.

Just so I know what I'd be trying to prove...

[Wonder]

67. The OJ Simpson Case a Marvel in Legal Mastery.

Cochran darns a black shirt and tie and plays the race card.
Dershowitz putters about the barrister and plays the anti-Semitic card. By all means spread those right wing sites around.

Ah yes Israel Right or Wrong!

[Gimel]

71. The case was a travisty

As far as that goes, almost everyone agreed that OJ was guilty, except for the jury.

He must have done it for the fee. Whatever, he obviously had other reasons for writing this book. Involvement in the OJ case doesn't mean he doesn't know the law, or that he can't reason well. In fact, he must be one of the highest paid and successful attornies in the country.

[Wonder]

75. Of course he did it for a fee and some notoriety.

Just because he is a lawyer does not make him ethical or above reproach either. And believe it or not till this day there are those that believe OJ is innocent.

I wasn't angered by the acquittal the way many folk were. I chalked it up to Karma. This trial came behind the LA riots, Cochran knew Los Angeles Afro Americans were rightfully riled by the Rodney King verdict which acquitted those police who beat the shit out of him which was not only a heinous break from arrest procedure, but not an isolated incident.

Afro americans have had to put up with what is termed Southern Justice for years in this country, wherein innocent black men were convicted of crimes they did not commit, to say nothing of the heinous actions of the KKK left to run wild in the south and till this day is a group that has not been disbanded, but has worked its way into American Politics to some degree.

It was Cochran's and Afro America's big fuck you! (pardon my crude use of the language). Kind of like Afro American Justice "Right or Wrong". Just utilizing the loopholes in the system the way they were utilized against them.

Unfortunate that both Rodney King (not really an upstanding citizen) and OJ would be their poster boys. But it was poetic justice to the max and is also testament of how far we have come when in America we have come to witness the acquital of guilty black criminals by rightfully resentful black jurors. While it is understandable, I am not sure that it is progress. Two wrongs do not make a right, but such is human nature.

We are off topic here and unfortunately the lowest common denominator does tend to take us all down, with virtue and fairness taking a backseat to legal technicalities aimed at winning rather than rendering justice.

[tinnypriv]

46. Nah

I object to the fact he is a malicious slanderer and supporter of torture, nothing more.

[Classical_Liberal]

49. I don't think his stance on the Sinia and Torture are very pragmantic

. He would basically undo the success of Jimmy Carter, in getting Begin to leave the Sinia.

[Darranar]

51. What's all this about Dershowitz being pro-torture?

I don't know very much about him. Have I missed something?

[tinnypriv]

54. Sounds like you've missed a lot

He also thinks you should randomly raze to the ground Palestinian towns in "retaliation" for terrorist attacks. You know, as a deterrent. If I recall, he was the first to call for that and played a role in Gamla (pro settler website) making that view famous.

Also, the Boston Globe won't actually print letters of his if they have anything to do with Israel Shahak, since their ombudsman caught him flat out lying about Shahak back in the 80's (he was smearing him stalinist-style).

I'd dig out links etc to back this up, but it really would be more instructive if you researched him yourself.

Oh, and pick up his book Chutzpah if you fancy a laugh.

[Darranar]

55. About him, I probably have...

Do you have any sources showing where he's made these statements?

[tinnypriv]

57. As I said above

It would be better and more instructive for you to do it yourself, but if you insist:

On razing villages:

• "For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.
  
  The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action. The soldiers would simply be acting as the means for carrying out a previously announced policy of retaliation against a designated target. Further acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The "waiting list" targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas." (Dershowitz, Jerusalem Post, March 11 2002)

On proposing the execution of family members of suicide bombers:

• "(that is) a legitimate attempt to forge a policy for stopping terrorism" (cited in Forward, June 7 2002).

On Gamla, here is a nice summary (Dershowitz writes for Gamala BTW):

• "Inspired by Dershowitz, a group of former Israeli military officers and settlers supported by a pro-Israel charity in New York posted on its website this ingenious proposal to facilitate "transfer": "Israel issues a warning that, in a response to any terrorist attack, she will immediately completely level an Arab village, randomly chosen by a computer from a published list.… The use of a computer to select the place of the Israeli response will put the Arabs and the Jews on a level footing. The Jews do not know where the terrorists will strike, and the Arabs will not know which one of their villages or settlements will be erased in retaliation. The word `erased' very precisely reflects the force of Israel's response." (Finklestein, Image and Reality, Sept 2002).

[Darranar]

58. Thank you...

It didn't say anything about torture in there, but the horridness of his ideas surprise me, if he really said that. Where did you find this information?

[tinnypriv]

60. Oh you come across this guy a lot

If you're following anything to do with Israel. He's the atypical liberal apologist for Israeli and U.S. violence bar none. Actually, a quote from memory: "the vatican is one of the bad guys (and not opposing terrorism)...the U.S. and Israel: we're the good guys".

As for torture, sorry I missed it out:

"Dershowitz: Torture could be justified" (http://us.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/, CNN, March 2003), to cite one of thousands.

If you take my advice and research him, see how often he uses the argument that it is illigitmate to criticse Israel unless you've first criticised China in Tibet - to his satisfaction. Then ask yourself two questions:

1) How often does he say it is illigitmate to criticise the PLO/PA unless you've first criticised Sharon's terrorist attack at Qibya?

2) How often does he actually define what would meet his satisfaction?

I think you should be able to readily find the answers to those questions and draw the appropriate conclusions.

[Darranar]

61. The link doesn't work for me...

However, I searched on Google and found many references to that torture statement.

To my disappointment, I found mostly hard-right/anti-semitic websites attacking him, one or two defending him, and a piece on counterpunch criticizing him. I disagree with counterpunch on many issues and think that they exxagerate on several, so I'm looking for a better left-wing site then that.

Anyway... how many of us pro-israel people who post on DU do you consider to be "atypical liberal apologists" for Israel and the US? Or, to rephrase that question and not make you violate the personal attacks rule, what do you consider an "atypical liberal apologist" to be on this issue?

Personally, I feel that none of us here on DU are "atypical liberal apologists." Most of us have moderate views on the issue and do not take any extremist positions.

[tinnypriv]

62. To answer

<< To my disappointment, I found mostly hard-right/anti-semitic websites attacking him, one or two defending him, and a piece on counterpunch criticizing him. I disagree with counterpunch on many issues and think that they exxagerate on several, so I'm looking for a better left-wing site then that >>

How about this: http://www.spectacle.org/0202/seth.html?

They ran a pro Dennis K article last month.

<< what do you consider an "atypical liberal apologist" to be on this issue? >>

Hypocrites. There are a lot of them, so unfortunately you have to use a sweeping generalisation in order to even be able to address the point without it running to 90 paragraphs. I consider the initial observation to be essentially trivial however - does the person bend over backwards to justify the crimes of their appointed holy state(s)? Do they simply refuse to enagage in debate and attempt to divert discussion elsewhere? If yes, they're probably an apologist (speaking generally, not about DU). For example, I would consider John Stuart Mill an apologist for British crimes. The fact he was an outstanding liberalist on other issues is irrelevent.

<< Personally, I feel that none of us here on DU are "atypical liberal apologists." Most of us have moderate views on the issue and do not take any extremist positions >>

I haven't run into anybody like Dershowitz, if that's what you're asking. However, I'm sure if pressed, some would adopt his positions on several issues.

[Darranar]

69. And?

If pressed, I'd adopt some of Dershowitz's stances. What he has to say about those who concentrate on Israel beyong all else I agree somewhat with, and also, though I disagree with his statistics, on Israel's right to defend itself, even if he's a bit extreme sometimes.

[Forkboy]

59. Hey Herschel

still want to argue that I hate Alan because you,"believe {I} object to his pragmatic stand on the Middle East and terror, nothing more."?

He's a real pragmatic guy,that Alan.And what a champion of liberal ideas! :eyes:

[Herschel]

64. Please!

Did I say you hated him? I think you know the answer.

[Forkboy]

68. "Please" yourself

you clearly stated that I didn't like him because of "his pragmatic stand on the Middle East and terror, nothing more."

You've now been shown more.Will you have the decency to admit your charge against me is false? I think I know the answer :eyes:

[Herschel]

82. Do you disagree?

You oppose him because of his stands on the Middle East and terror. It is true. As for whether you hate or dislike him, I doubt you have met.

[Forkboy]

135. I dislike him for his position about torture

that could apply to any country's people,it's not limited to the Middle East.I dont like torture...period! He advocated it.I had agreed and disagreed with him in the past.His position on the ME is no different from many.His position on torture is abhorrant

Do you hate or dislike Bush? Have you met him? Are you saying you can only have opinions of people you've met? What an assinine comment.

Can I start making assumptions about you now?

[Wonder]

76. "proposal to facilitate 'transfer'"

Isn't that something what corrupt governments can get away with, by playing on the fears of a terrorized populace even some of the most liberal minded are leaning toward transfer, including the admirable Israeli revisionist Benny Morris.

It is a propaganda tactic that probably goes back well before Goering. You are familiar with his famous quote on manipulating the fears of the masses in an effort to rally them behind even the most fascist political or military actions?

And then there are those famed Einstein quote:

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

AND THE ONE THAT IS THE MOST APPLICABLE HERE AND MIGHT BE MY ALL TIME FAVORITE:

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

[Darranar]

81. I know...

The propaganda spread by Bush and Gang and Sharon and Gang (same thing? Perhaps) has managed to scare the Americans and the Israelis, respectively, into allowing some horrible things to happen.

[Forkboy]

53. Believe as you will

:shrug:

Do you believe torture is pragmatic?

[Gimel]

157. Harvard Prof

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/facdir.php?id=12
They never get elected, and don't forget that he's a Jew.

:think:

[Wonder]

65. Why should Israel NOT BE criticized?

Is Israel above reproach? It stands defiantly in violation of International Law. Is guilty of human and civil rights abuses. Sharon has been accused of war crimes yet untried. It is an Apartheid state with all that entails including collective punishment, humiliation, starvation and torment. Far from a true democracy, it relegates non-jews to second class status, wherein citizenship is withheld. It enforces marshall law not upon those of Jewish faith, but those considered almost non human those, lowly Palestinians who dare ask for their rights and have the audacity to continue to complain about being pushed from land upon which they lived and toiled.

What shall we do instead? Turn our heads and just chalk it up to Oh well Israel has the right to exist (which in fact within the debates I have participated in is rarely questioned, and is a sentiment that rarely has much of anything to do with criticisms), another over exaggerated bunch of hogwash at this stage of the game considering Israel still expands its settlements.

What a convoluted justification, trumped up as a defense. All it really does is justify all the atrocities Israel stands charged of, whereby Israel can continue to side step any accountability or bear any responsibility, which in actuality only serves to enable the occupation. In its attempt to pragmatically argue Israel is completely innocent of any wrong doing, the defense once again attempts to also deflect any criticism from Israel. It is a defense reliant upon one dimensional and patented argument, whose only aim IMHO is to confuse hearty criticism with anti-Semitism, by infering that those that dare to be critical question Israel's right to exist. The defense is not even original, but redundantly tactically, and oh so transparent.

It is more an accusation, with reliance on the anti-Semitic card. A card which has become an all too calculated tactic and can stem from Jewish defense mechanisms only, becasue many more times than I can count this interpretation, which demeans even the most astute criticism of Israel as solely the result of questioning its right to exist, is almost paranoid delusion. It is a frequent accusation which is meant to deflect critical attention away from Israel in an attempt to turn the tables back unto those who criticize by INFERRING AND PRESUMING that the criticism translates into meaning that the critic only aims to, not only question Israel's right to exist, but in complete misinterpretion of the critic's intent, often goes even a step further as it than incorrectly persumes that the critic is calling for the dismantling or the destruction of Israel altogether, and then has even the audacity to suggest that the critic sanctions the murder and plundering of Israeli citizens.

Inferences that are culled, not from the discourse or the criticism itself, but instead most often just a reflexive defense response aimed at, if not silencing criticism altogether, attempts to diminish criticisms signficantly. Frequently the accusation is completely inaccurate and incorrect. In other words, from what I have gathered on forums, that interpretation (the criticism interpreted to mean the critic calls for the dismantling of Israel) is most often presumption only, nothing more or less. A persumption which is based not in reality, but relies almost completely on debate tactic and well calculated strategies wherein pat counter defenses are bulleted out and memorized, with that particular bullet flung about in response to almost any criticism and utilized by those that more often than not are merely defending "Israel Right or Wrong."

On the other hand, one might deduce in irony that in actuality it is Israel that has and does and continues to question the right of the Palestinians to even live equally, as the occupation stands as a daily testament to the fact that Israel most certainly questions, not only the right of the Palestinians to exist, but their very existence, as well as the existence of Palestine itself.

What a display of legal mumbo jumbo. Once again pointing the finger outward, downplaying his own criticisms of policy to point out Israel is innocent Israel is only in defense of itself, all its terroristic activities justified by its struggle for statehood, its murder of arab civilians justified by war. Right Israel is the "winner" the occupation just it's spoil of war. What utter mediocrity! Good work Dershowitz!

[Gimel]

73. Criticism

A true critic should recognize the positive as well as the negative. It should recognize Israel's accomplishments as well as it's failings. Unless the situation as a whole is addressed, studied and understood, nothing meaningful comes from criticizing violations of UN resolutions, many which are non-binding and often merely state a position and recommendation for changes to be implemented.

[Wonder]

74. Well said!

In this instance, however, Dershowitz is rationalizing in a way to protect the full innnocence of Israel which continues to enable GOI not to have to bear any responsibility. His argument stems from what I believe to be the weak contention that Israel has not done wrong but instead is just being held to higher standard. It's the old Ben Gurion philosopy (I paraphrase): if the world powers can do it why should Israel be called to task for doing it.

I find this line of thinking deplorable. Just another excuse to let Israel off the hook and perpetuate the myth that this mess is due solely to "Arab Aggression", an aggression that has no bases in any reality but that "the Arabs" are anti-Semitic as are those that sympathesize with them. While Dershowitz rationales are logical. They are nothing more or less than just that: Rationales that enable Israel to continue on right or wrong unscathed and unaccountable. Rationales that are not even unique but just a replay of the same old rationales we have heard since the early fifties. They do more harm than good and do not fool all of the people all of the time, not on the international stage by a long shot.

[Gimel]

77. Higher standard

Much of what he says is that Israel DID have a higher standard than most of the rest of "Western nations" through it's creation. The legal purchase of land under the Ottoman Turkish rule, and attempts to comply with UN resolutions, etc. The Jews were on the defensive both before and following the declaration of the State of Israel.

I've been trying to see a connection to OJ Simpson case and Dershowitz writing of this book. Why does one man become involved in these two cases, OJ and Israel?

It seems that the "appearance of justice" for the US legal system, or historical record was more important than actual justice. Some felt that the balance of "karma" needed rectification, and this was a way to achieve that.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, the Palestinian use of the media to promote it's cause makes the cause appear justified, whether it not the reality and actual facts bear that out. Appearance of justice is again more important.

Perhaps by writing this book, Dershowitz is trying to balance his own "karma" and promote Israel's case against the media Intifada of the Palestinians.

[Wonder]

78. Palestinian use of the media to promote it's cause???

WHAT Palestinian use of the media to promote their cause? WHERE? Certainly not in the states where their cause has been effectively suppressed underneath Israel Doctrine and propaganda.

While I certainly understand the rationales behind much of the early zionist movement in their fight for statehood as well as the struggle to get it placed back on the table after the White Papers in 1939, full exoneration is ridiculous considering the immorality at play, as well as the very high price Israel has paid in their attempts to maintain world favor.

Oh yes those "legal" land dispossession schemes. Legal does not make them moral. All is so securely sewed up by patented response. Your argument does prove that all opinions can be neatly packaged in an attempt to redeem even the most immoral actions and deceit.

Your undying and full support of Israel "right or wrong" is commendable, but I do not agree with your overview.

From my view Dershowitz has just exchange one immoral cause with another. Continued deniablity will not realize peace, just risks creating more bad karma.

[Darranar]

80. The Arab states...

are full of propaganda. Much of that propaganada gets imported to Europe.

[Wonder]

83. and round and round and round it goes

why do you represent yourself as being an advocate of peace? It is clear where the impasse lies -- directly on Israel's doorstep. If they did not insist upon continuing their denials, they possess both the power and the might to bring about restitution, reconciliation, and finally lasting peace.

Me things you are no peace advocate at all, but more times than not place yourself squarely in that category -- Israel right or wrong. Whilst you are most certainly entitled to this stance, you must at the very least ADMIT that IS what you stand for; that way we can stop wasting each other's time going round and round and round.

[Darranar]

85. Oh, please...

HAVE YOU MISSED HALF THE POSTS I HAVE POSTED THE PAST FEW DAYS?

I am indeed a peace advocate. Saying that I am for Israel, right or wrong, is completely incorrect-as I believe YOU have mentioned yourself in the past.

Since when does power and might bring about peace? Only diplomacy and generosity does, as many nations have learned to their sadness.

[Wonder]

88. Well Yes it Sounds as If True

yet it seems after all is said and done you settle back into the Arabs did it and are exclusively to blame, or perhaps I am misreading you.

Really you should not worry about me none. I account for one opinion and mostly that is mine. I have no need to win over anyone to my way of thinking. That is as futile as going round and round, don't you think?

Especially when one considers that all of our opinions put together amount to a hill of beans when it comes to actually having any real impact on the course of things to come in the gulf region. Be it Iraq, Iran, or the I/P conflict, etc. These days I don't hang my hat on false gods or false hopes...love affairs will do and even they are hard to come by. Nope...instead...

I'm just sitting here watching the wheel's go round and and round oh how I love to watch them roll, no longer riding on the merry go round I just had to let it go..........John Lennon (Imagine that).

[Darranar]

89. I do?

I don't seek to convince anyone either. I seek to discuss and to state my opinion-and to become aware of new facts and new developements.

The blame for the conflict, like almost any other conflict, lies on the shoulders of both sides. Both sides have had their extremists using violence against civilians for their own purposes. Both sides have had their mistakes and their atrocities, committed both by them and against them.

My post that you replied to simply said taht as much propaganda is on the Arab/Palestinian side of the conflict as on the Israeli side-simply in different areas of the world.

[Wonder]

90. your view is a bit too generic for me

My opinion tend to lean more toward it being Israel who has been allowed to tell only part of the truth and to this day "Israel has never been required to face its own past," which has enabled to keep up their facade of total innocence. IMO, this fact stands as a major obstacle to peace.

On the other hand when one considers that Palestinian Terroristic actions, which have always been for the most part up front, in that they claim responsibility for their terrorist deeds, rather than to hide it away deceptively and call it something it isn't, has always owned up to their actions. The New PA has outwardly stated it does not condone terrorist action neither theres or Israel's.

It is for this reason that responsibility for another failed peace process, especially considering this road map is hardly any different from the last, while Sharon continues to redraft his plan for transfer, some of which has already begun by way of the grand exodus his use of disproportinate military insurgence has already initiated.

He continues to ignore Palestinian Right of Return, he stand directly as a the main obstacle to peace, the rest is so easily predictable, what we predict will follow this temporary cease-fire, Sharon waits hungrily in anticipation of, his banks his whole strategy on it.

Israel in great part responsible for its failure to come to the table with any real sincere desire for lasting peace or a State of Palestine, which Sharon clearly opposes. How many ways must this be exposed? How many ways must it be communicated?

Yes both sides have their responsibility to bear, I see the Palestinians have recognized theirs. Hamas and Fatah have stated their terms. Sharon has chosen to boycott them. Right of Return is minimized as something insignificant when it is the heart of the Palestinian cause and Pollard now stands as oh so much more imperative that Right of Return which is maintained once again on final status.

It does not get any clearly than that, I just repeat myself is all.

[Darranar]

92. Hamas...

currently employs terrorists. I'll believe taht they'll stop terrorism when I see it happen.

Sharon is no real partner for peace. I agree with you there.

[Wonder]

93. Haganah was a terrorist organization

which became legitamized as the IDF once Partition when through and the state of Israel was declared. Six of these half dozen of the other.

[tinnypriv]

94. I would have picked out

Irgun Zeva'i Le'umi, worse than Haganah. I'd compare Haganah to Fatah, Irgun to Islamic Jihad.

[Darranar]

95. Hagganah was rather humanitarian...

It warned those who were in its targets to evacuate before the bombs went off.

Irgun was a terrorist organization. There is no justification for some of the things that they did.

[Wonder]

97. was it Haganah responsible for the attack on King David

if so sure they telephoned in the attack before hand yet still 91 people were killed, the rationalization being this was a military installation?

[Darranar]

99. Both Hagganah and Irgun were responsible...

I believe Irgun actually carried out the attack, but Hagganah helped plan it.

The British commander inside the King David Hotel ignored the warning. The Hagganah didn't want to kill anyone.

[Wonder]

98. but than again it could be considered arguably moot

as at the time the British Authority wanted Haganah dismantled completely Shai managed to wiretap the appropriate office and along with the strategically placed moles, the British Auth's scheme to dismantle the terrorist org was revealed. Operation Broadside it was called it was want prompted the King David Attack which to this day there still remains disagreement as to ben gurions knowledge of the attack.

I believe it was Haganah, I can double check it I have the book here.

[Darranar]

100. How was Haganah a terrorist organization?

If Hamas called when they placed bombs at an installation and told the people within to leave, I wouldn't be condemning them.

[Wonder]

101. who said Hamas does not Harbor Terrorists

no one said that. The British Authority after the white papers made no distinction between Irgun and Haganah. The BA want Haganah dismantled entirely. I would assume this was not because they considered them a police force or a legitmate army, not at that time anyway.

Oh I see they are legitimized in your eyes because of the phone call. They did not always phone ahead. This call came in on the Kind David bombing. Let's see did Sharon's commando unit 101 call ahead before blowing up civilian homes?

[Darranar]

102. They consistanty...

called before an attack. They had a campaign to avoid hurting the common British soldier, not believing it justified, but rather teh British government of Palestine.

Must I repeat? I do not support Sharon. His ideas are far too hardline for me.

[Wonder]

107. Yet you do not seem to call for Israeli accountability

that is like the anti-occupationalist that say at the same time it is solely Arab Aggression that is responsible and the Arabs must take full responsibility and full blame. These same anti-occupationalists that seem to have NO understanding of the correlation between Israeli terror and Arab Aggression from a cummulative perspective.

They admit to Israeli terror yet they are clueless of its damaging effects..... doik doik doik... it is mind bending truely...

you may be right about these polite phone calls but the only phone call I am thus far aware of is that one for the King david... unless they only made the calls when they were attacking british installations but when it came to hits on the arabs well they were left to bunt.

I have to check something.

[Darranar]

111. Okay...

Israeli terror and Arab terror are not independent. One causes the other, but other factors can cause either aside from terror.

Arab aggression is certainly responsible for quite a bit of the problems in the Middle East. So is Israel, the US, Britain, France, and several other countries.

[tinnypriv]

104. Right

I'm sure the next time I take a trip through Manchester city centre I'll bow down to the IRA's "humanitarian" zeal. :eyes:

[Darranar]

106. What's the connection...

between Hagganah and the IRA? I don't get it.

[tinnypriv]

112. If you phone ahead that makes you "humanitarian"?

The IRA phoned ahead when they ripped the heart out of Manchester. That is the connection.

[Darranar]

115. The truth is...

That the Hagganah had a policy of humanitarianism and not killing the British soldiers, but rather hurting their operations as a show of non-murderous resistance. That is legitimate. I don't know about the bombing in Manchester, so I cannot address your point there.

[tinnypriv]

129. 5 second education:

On Saturday 15 June 1996, at a peak shopping time on Father's Day, a 3,000lb IRA bomb exploded in Manchester, injuring more than 200 people and ripping into the fabric of the city's main shopping centre. In a state of shocked disbelief, police had begun clearing people from the area some 40 minutes before the blast; fortunately, several telephoned warnings had been issued to newspapers, radio stations and to at least one hospital in Manchester an hour before the blast. Newspaper offices in Dublin and Belfast received similar warnings.

An army bomb squad employed a robotic anti-bomb device to check an illegally parked Ford van, which had been recorded by several closed circuit security cameras in the city, when the bomb exploded.

Manchester's ambulance services counted 206 injured people. Most injuries were sustained from falling glass and building debris. In the immediately ensuing chaos, ambulances and private cars were used to shuttle victims to local and regional hospitals.

... http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/buildings/bombing.html

The bomb that exploded in the centre of Manchester on 15 June 1996 was the second largest used by the IRA in an attack on the British mainland.

Although no one was killed in the blast, the device caused massive damage to the Arndale shopping centre - smashing almost every window in a half-mile radius.

... http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm

...

You might want to rethink "humanitarian" :eyes:

[Darranar]

136. Well...

It is hard, and the IRA realized this, to evacuate an entire shopping center on a busy day. The Hagganah mainly attacked buildings, which are far easier to evavuate. Anyway, the Hagganah gave more warning then this; the building could have been evacuated had the British commander been cautious.

[Wonder]

96. Irgun too!

but yes I believe your parallel perhaps is more accurate than mine, yet it seems you get my drift. The point is with statehood the terrorist issue will dissipate accordingly. Another problem is that Israel wants the Palestinians to demilitarize completely. They are not to be allowed any army at all.

[tinnypriv]

110. I agree

The PA has shown it is infinitely better at preventing terrorist attacks (think Oslo period) than the IDF. That is just obvious - they know the people and have better intelligence. Statehood, 67 borders, no settlements, reasonable solution to the refugee problem and East J as capital and the PA's stature would increase a thousand-fold. Thereafter, I suspect most of Hamas etc would integrate into Palestinian society. Those who didn't could be contained as a criminal problem.

The parallels to Israeli statehood are pretty amazing at times. I suspect that is why there has always been such vehemance and opposition to Palestinain national rights - it dilutes the claim of Zionism to the territory, and Israeli's see a part of themselves vis a vis their own nationalism.

Also, another comparison I would make is with Britain in Northern Ireland. When the UK just responded to IRA terrorism with violence, it increased the terror. When it started to address the root causes, it made things better. No paradise, but better.

[Darranar]

114. It is?

So why doesn't it prevent them?

Anyway, when you say that East Jerusalem should be the capital of the Palestinian state, do you mean ALL of it?

[tinnypriv]

120. Maybe you missed Op Defensive Shield

Where virtually the entire security apparatus of the PA was destroyed.

When the Palestinain public was commited to Oslo, and it looked like the PA would gain, terrorist attacks were mostly prevented. When Oslo was revealed to be the bantustan programme it always was, the PA lost stature and Hamas gained increased support. The dynamic is trivial - the more you hit the PA, the more Hamas gains. I'm not sure why I have to point this out. I suggest you read "Erased in a moment" by HRW, the section on PA political culpability in terrorist attacks.

As for East J, of course I mean all of it. It is the heart of Palestinian cultural and economic life. It being the "capital" is largely symbolism however, which of course you'd know if you'd followed the issue for any time at all.

[Darranar]

121. All of it?

All of the Jewish holy sites that were desecrated under the Jordanians? The Jewish section, which was ethnic cleansed by the Jordanians? Do you think Jews should have free access to it?

[tinnypriv]

124. Religious sites

Can be administered by the UN. The PA already agreed to free access for all (with international monitors) in the Beilin-Mazen proposals. "Capital" doesn't mean sovereignty in this context. Jerusalem would be united as the capital of both states, hence the distinction between West J and East J is largely symbolism.

I'll defer to an Israeli expert on the matter: Jerusalem is largely a question of "technical" finesse, and can be fixed in "five minutes". The tough issues are elsewhere. Front and center: borders, settlements. They're hard. Jerusalem is a cakewalk.

[Darranar]

131. I think...

That both capitals should have thier main administrative offices out of the Old City, and have some sort of joint rule, with UN supervision, within.

[Wonder]

117. the hall of mirrors it tis for sure

I believe that is why I can't understand this stubborn denial the parallels are most certainly their if the Jews can understand their struggle against persecution... from a human perspective it seems it would follow they could understand the Palestinians struggle against persecution... as well as the Ironies...
'
Some of the early anti-zionist Jews saw this clearly from the very beginning... Is it fear that disables the ability for Israel to admit their share of responsible. fear of somekind of anti-Semitic backlash... or is it that they have gotten away with the denial for so long from hard right perspective... that in the current right wing climate Sharon figures why admit now...

I can understand the leaders unwillingness to admit... but the populace and so many of those of Jewish faith one encounters on forums... that is were I shake my head ... things don't add up... I mean once you come to the history it doesn't take a scholar to see what is what.

And I have noticed too! That the Palestinian narratives get booed most times for their stress on the zionist movement. Well doink doink doink... who in the world can they not stress it when to a large extent when you go back to mandate through to 1948 the dispossessions and transfer policies came via the founding zionists...

[Darranar]

119. Hagannah never sent suicide bombers...

to massacre innocents. Many of their actions were defensive, and those that weren't were generally humanitarian.

[tinnypriv]

122. Nah

They just shot women and children while raping and destroying Palestinian villages in 48 (literally raping). Real defensive (before the Arab armies entered the war), and real humanitarian (no comment necessary).

The fact they never specifically used suicide bombers is a straw man.

Are you making this stuff up as you go along?

[Wonder]

125. oh yes that sound real friendly to me...

:eyes:

and on that note I am calling it a day.

[Darranar]

126. No...

Do you have examples? I believe you are confusing Haganah with Irgun, which did do all those things.

[Wonder]

128. Look ... I will definitely be checking into this

I have one of Benny Morris' book...and a number of other sources although I get the feeling that tinnypriv has a better handle on this than I and would save me mucho tiempo... but don't you think I'm just going to take anyone's word on this...

there is so much contradiction... I have made it a rule... I read... I cross reference.... I formulate my own opinion... and it has worked most times... facts are facts are facts no matter if they are omitted or admitted...

[tinnypriv]

138. A very good attitude to have IMO

If you have Birth which I cited, you should be able to readily go to the pages I referenced for the appropriate passages on this subject.

If you have Border Wars or Righteous Victims I couldn't help as easily. I don't own Righteous Victims and I don't have Border Wars to hand. Doh. :)

[Gimel]

163. Critics

Have you followed any of the criticism on Morris?

For example:
III. WITHHOLDING VITAL EVIDENCE
Morris repeatedly omits key words or even sentences from his quotations, thus distorting their meaning; or he places the quotes out of context; or he portrays them in false light. At times he even omits entire passages, then has the nerve to castigate the speaker or writer for the absence of these very passages!

Take Ben-Gurion's discussions with his advisers on January 1-2, 1948, to determine the strategy of the Yishuv against Palestinian attempts to subvert the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 1947 through violence. Morris compares the thirteen-page description of these deliberations in Ben-Gurion's diary with the eighty-one page stenographic typescript of the proceedings and found a "few but telling" differences.31 Leaving aside the fact that it is technically impossible for a thirteen-page diary entry to replicate a eighty-one page stenographic typescript fully, Morris neglects to inform his readers of much key information.

<snip>

Morris does not mention that Ben-Gurion's diary entry is replete with references to the Arab masses' lack of interest in war.33

Indeed, Ben-Gurion repeatedly tells of his conviction that the Palestinian masses did not want war but had this imposed on them by an intransigent leadership. He reiterated this theme both in his meetings with Sir Alan Cunningham, the British high commissioner in Palestine,34 and expressed it publicly. On November 25, 1947, for example, he stated that "it should be borne in mind that the masses of the Arab people—forcibly silenced and deprived of political expression—are not keen to rush to battle."35
http://www.meforum.org/article/466

[tinnypriv]

170. Yeah I've followed it

And the bile Pipes comes out with isn't worth a jot.

[tinnypriv]

137. Two off the top of my head

Zeva Haganah Le-Yisrael policy:

"It was standard Haganah policy to round up and expel (villagers)...usually old people, widows and cripples from sites already evacuated by most of their inhabitants" (Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, p.288)

They carried out this in October 1948:

"SAFSAF - '52 men tied with a rope and dropped into a well and shot. 10 were killed. Women pleaded for mercy. 3 cases of rape... a girl aged 14 was raped. Another 4 were killed'" (Morris, Birth, p.222)

A meeting of Mapam (Labor) in November 1948 described these atrocities as "Nazi acts" (Birth, p.350, n37).

This stuff goes on and on and on. I'd cite more, but this is enough to demonstrate the point.

[Darranar]

139. Quite a bit of this...

could have been Irgun, not Hagganah.

[tinnypriv]

141. This is Haganah

Specifically. I thought I made that clear.

Atrocities carried out by the Irgun (and Herut) are seperate. I can cite those if you like, but that would go off the topic.

[Wonder]

143. LOL

OMG ---- but dionk dionk dionk!!

I will find the Danial Katz trial as well... while his thesis was originally supported by I believe it was .... hmmm I don't remember the university... he was made mince meat at trial... as an old Haganah general sued him for libel...

if nothing else, Deir Yassin aside, it will attest to the contravercy surrouding Haganah...

I have more to say about this in regard to those parallels you were talking about... but I really must sign off now....

to be continued.

[Darranar]

145. My point was...

that it is very hard to tell who was responsible. The relationships between Hagganah and Irgun varied over time, and different people in Hagganah might have had different opinion sof Irgun and might have worked with them.

That's it for the night.

[tinnypriv]

150. I'm sorry, you don't have a clue what you're talking about

It wasn't hard to tell who was responsible - it was ADMITTED in black and white in internal Labor documents. I'm not sure what more proof you require. :crazy:

Please, just read the book I cited. This is obviously a waste of my time and yours.

[Darranar]

152. It WAS?

According to some, it was admitted in black and white in Hamas documents that the dictator of Lebanon was responsible for the massacres in Lebanon. You'll see why I don't trust so-called "proof" without more than one source...

[tinnypriv]

153. Oh I could give you several Israeli sources

But this is obviously a waste of time.

I think it is beyond hubris for somebody who clearly only consults online ME "talking points" to have the temerity to call into question the findings of the most respected (incidentially, right-wing) Israeli historian when attempting to discuss something they clearly know ZERO about.

I gave you the most complete secondary source on this. Try reading it. That means you actually have to buy it or get it out of the library - you know, the standard procedure when you're serious about finding out about a topic.

I have no more recommendations for you, since for some reason you hold the opinion that somehow historical citation is less useful than simply making up whatever whacked-out nonsense you feel like.

Never in my experience of discussing I/P have I ever seen anybody talk with such authority about a subject without even attempting to have some prior knowledge of it. Unbelieveable. :eyes:

[Gimel]

162. Benny Morris

It's been over 8 months now, since Benny Morris has made a startling U-turn in his political view. Are you aware of that?

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Articles/Story904.html

[tinnypriv]

165. Obviously

Why do you think I called him right-wing? I've also stated several times that he thinks explusion would have been a great thing. Doesn't change his scholarship a jot, and he has said that himself.

[Gimel]

172. Political ends

Scholorship with a political goal in mind isn't true objective scholorship.

[tinnypriv]

173. No scholarship is objective

And serious people make that as clear as possible.

[Wonder]

142. READ POST 140

Benny Morris clears it up for us... IT WAS ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO BE IRGUN...

Is it so hard to believe that the dartardly activities of Haganah would be surpressed in an effort to clean them up a bit as the resident IDF?

[Wonder]

140. Deir Yassin Same Benny Morris' Book

the one I do not have.. I have his book Israel's Secret War's which I have have not checked yet...

I got this snatch out of my Edward Said book pg 157 chapter Deir Yassin Recalled... in which he references the Morris book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem)

I quote

snip
More than any single occurrence in my memory of that difficult period it was Deir Yassin that stood out in all its awful, and intentional fearsomeness—the stories of rape, of children with their throats slit, mothers disemboweled, and the like. They gripped the imagination, as they were designed to do, and they impressed a young boy many miles away with the mystery of such bloodthirsty, and seemingly gratuitous violence against Palestinians whose only crime seemed to be that they were there. Yet it was not until almost a decade later that I was able to understand the context and real meaning of what happened at Deir Yassin.

It used to be thought that the massacre was a deliberate but somehow random terrorist incident planned and executed by Menachem Begin's Irgun. What we now know is that according to Israeli historian Benny Morris the "operation" at Deir Yassin was not only abetted and participated in by the Haganah, but was part of an over-all Zionist plan (Dalet, first written about by Walid Khalidi) to systematically empty Palestine of its Arab population. Deir Yassin, because of the sheer horror of its murderousness had, says Morris in his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, "the most lasting effect of any single event of the war in precipitating the flight of Arab villagers from Palestine" (p. 113).

The fact of course is that it was not just "Arab villagers" who left for that and similar reasons, but two-thirds of the entire Palestinian population, about 800,000 people. Recent extremely important work by the Palestinian-Israeli scholar Nur Masalha on the concept of "transfer" in Zionist thought shows how persistently the Zionists imagined, planned for, and implemented programmes to rid their "promised land' of the native people. His first book, which treats Zionist ideology from 1882 to 1948 is Expulsion of the Palestinians; his second, and only just published, is a terrifyingly graphic account of the period between 1949 and 1996: A Land Without a People: Israel, Transfer and the Palestinians, 1949-96.

-----

There is much contravercy surrounding al Nakba as well in terms of haganah participation, which I do believe to this very day is denied, haganah participation, that is..

I will find the Daniel Katz case for that...

and I also do have some essays by Nur Masalha the Palestinian Historian... I will see if I can find those too. It is all very tidy and nice to name Haganah a defense organization, which I do believe is another campaign that has been relative success along with the suppression of some of the "Zionist Plan"

to be continued...

ON EDIT HERE IS THE SAID ESSAY --- DEIR YASSIN RECALLED
http://www.deiryassin.org/op0008.html

[Darranar]

144. I don't believe that...

Not for a second. Anyting that mentions a "Zionist plot" goes off the line for me... Seriously, Dier Yassin was done by Irgun.

[Wonder]

146. no zionist plot huh

well aren't you conservative... benny morris himself even attests to transfer policies what do you think kind of a plot is referred to?

Purposeful intent to clear the land of Arab palestinians. It is common knowledge this is true. This intent.

You can believe what you need.

[Darranar]

147. The "Zionist plot"

part was a joke... not sure if I made that clear or not. However, it is true that there is no Zionist organization that all Zionists have to believe in or follow.

Purposeful intent by whom?

[Wonder]

148. Do some of your own digging you are so fair

You believe there is responsibility to bear on both sides. Why don't you go digging on the Israel side and not center your whole argument around Hamas and the suicide bombers. Why should I do your homework for you...

It is very clear the Zionist Movements more hidden agenda (made clear by Morris and Rokach, Masalha) and the dots can be connected all the way through to Benny Elon... and Sharons struggle to keep what is obvious hidden just beneath the surface in his attempt to make it look as if it is the only option available rather than a real peace process...

Who's leg do you believe you are pulling... at least it seems that is what you are doing, I only can infer.

[Darranar]

149. The Zionist movement?

Wait... you believe that the Zionist movement formed a conspiracy to slaughter and ethnic cleanse the Palestinians? That is simply not true, and it is completely baseless. Many Jews are Zionists, and Zionists are almost as varied as Jews. You are HIGHLY overgeneralizing here. And you blame me for pulling people's legs...

[Wonder]

155. (made clear by Morris and Rokach, Masalha)

It is not a matter of what I BELIEVE. You work through the history and it becomes clear that transfer policy was big on the agenda. Even the underlying motivation and strategies behind the invasion of Lebanon were aimed at the transfer of the Palestinians.

Now perhaps I am not using the appropriate terminology here but it is common knowledge that transfer was an aim within the Political zionist movement. I know how important the proper terminology is to this discussion. You want to deny this is so, well you have good company. It seems to me that even today Sharon is denying this is so. He is going to make it look like a relaitory effort so that he continue to deny it is so.

Nationalism and Jewish state also defines the zionist in the broader terms... which included aims to transfer all Arabs from the land. On the more extreme side therein lives those who aspired to realize Greater Israel which the Christian Zionists support at which point will come that time once accomplished the christian zionist will make their play for the land in thier attempt to convert the Jews to Better Jews which in essence will be to convert them to christianity.

So many are adverse to what is demeaned as the so called Palestinian Narrative because it places some of it's stress on the fact that a group within the early zionist movement were indeed intent upon transfer All Arabs off of that land. It seems to me one of the main disparities between the Israeli Narrative which prefers to either play this down or denies it outright and the Palestinian Narrative. It boils down to transfer policies and expansionist goals.

[Darranar]

159. Oh, come on...

CERTAIN MEMBERS of the Zionist movement certainly advocated transfer. Completely agreed.

What is your definition of the political Zionist movement?

Anyway, I know many Zionists. I myself could be considered a Zionist, because I believe in a Jewish state in Palestine. All but one of those Zionists (and that one really doesn't know anything about the situation) do not advocate transfer.

[Wonder]

156. you make it sound like there was no Zionist movement!

Yet I read the phrase all the time.

[Wonder]

176. TEDDY KATZ'S THESIS: WHAT HAPPENED IN TANTURA & HAGANAH

My apologies for taking so long but I had remembered the name incorrectly... Here is a very nice commentary and analysis of the Katz thesis and the trial he was subjected to which I referred.

The Tantura Case in Israel: The Katz Research and Trial
Ilan Pappé

Abstract

This article examines the academic and legal controversy that has arisen in Israel over a graduate thesis using oral history-the taped testimonies of both Arab and Jewish witnesses- to document a massacre carried out by Israeli forces against the Palestinian coastal village of Tantura in late May1948. Though the researcher, Teddy Katz, is himself a Zionist, the case sheds light on the extent to which mainstream Zionism is prepared to go in discouraging research that brings to the fore such aspects of the 1948 war as "ethnic cleansing." The article also discusses the research itself and summarizes the actual massacre as it can be reconstructed from the available sources. It is followed by excerpts from some of the transcripts.

snip
ON 21 JANUARY2000 , the Israeli daily Ma'ariv published a long article on the massacre of Tantura. Written by journalist Amir Gilat, the article was based mainly on a master's thesis by Teddy Katz, a student in the department of Middle Eastern History at Haifa University. The thesis, entitled "The Exodus of the Arabs from Villages at the Foot of Southern Mount Carmel," had been awarded the highest possible grade for a master's thesis several months earlier. It had been submitted in March1998 , but for complications having nothing to do with the case itself, was examined only at the end of 1999. The thesis is microhistorical research on the 1948 war focusing on five Palestinian coastal villages between Hadera and Haifa, particularly on the villages of Umm Zaynat and Tantura. The testimonies reproduced by Katz in his fourth chapter tell a chilling tale of brutal massacre, the gist of which is that on 22 - 23May1948 , some 200 unarmed Tantura villagers, mostly young men, were shot dead after the village had surrendered following the onslaught of Haganah troops.

Katz interviewed 135 persons for his thesis. The Tantura chapter is based on the testimonies of forty witnesses, by coincidence twenty Arabs and twenty Jews, all of them taped. Tracking down the Palestinian survivors was more difficult than finding the Jewish soldiers: Tantura had been captured by the33 rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade, and the names of the veterans were readily obtainable. The Palestinians he interviewed, on the other hand, most of whom live in Furaydis and Jisr al-Zarqa, villages near Tantura, as well as Tulkarm in the West Bank, had to be found by word of mouth through Jews who knew them or through the intervention of Palestinians from Tantura living abroad. Moreover, while Jewish soldiers are accustomed to being sought out to talk about their war experiences, the Tantura survivors still living in Israel were reluctant to participate in a project in which they were asked to shed light on Jewish barbarism during the war.

The thesis is not without its faults. When he wrote it, Katz was not aware of some important material (which in fact adds confirmation to the story, of which more later), and he failed to address the important issue of why, in contrast to many other massacres of the 1948 war, knowledge of this one had apparently not gone beyond the immediate circles of the survivors: neither Walid Khalidi's seminal work All That Remains nor the exhaustive Palestinian Encyclopedia, for example, mentions it. Other relatively minor methodological deficiencies, typical in theses of this level and kind, later became the basis for the prosecution's case in the libel suit brought against Katz, which will be described below. Nonetheless, Katz's thesis is a solid and convincing piece of work whose essential validity is in no way marred by its shortcomings.

WHAT HAPPENED IN TANTURA

what happened in Tantura on22 - 23May1948 , though many details are still obscure and probably will remain so. On the eve of the occupation, Tantura was a large village with a harbor--fit for boats, not ships--on the coast thirty-five kilometers south of Haifa and a few kilometers west of the main road linking Haifa to Jaffa and Tel Aviv. From the evidence, it transpires that after the battle ended and the village had surrendered to the Alexandroni Battalion, some 200more people were killed. The IDF documentation, as noted above, refers to about twenty Arabs killed during the battle itself, and the commander in charge of the operation affirmed in his interview with Katz that no more than thirty Palestinians had been killed in the fighting. Yet one of the Jewish witnesses Katz interviewed, who personally supervised burials, testifies himself having counted 230 Palestinian corpses.

According to the witnesses, the killings took place in two stages. The first phase was a rampage. From Katz's interviews with the soldiers, it was unleashed by the soldiers' anger caused by shots fired at them after the village had officially surrendered. It appears that one or two snipers were still active and that they killed or wounded one, two, or even eight Jewish soldiers (the testimonies differ on the numbers) following the surrender. One of the Jewish eyewitnesses said that a particularly popular soldier had been killed in that fire. The rampage phase left about 100 people dead.

SNIP

In general, the ethnic cleansing in Palestine as a whole and in the area between Hadera and Haifa in particular was carried out against a background of vague instructions from above, as is testified by the commander of the battalion occupying Tantura. According to these instructions, every commander occupying a village had full authority to do with the inhabitants as he saw fit, whether they surrendered or were taken prisoner.
The usual practice followed by Alexandroni in occupying a village--the brigade also captured the villages of Hayriyya, Kafar Saba, Qaysariya, Sakiyya, Umm Zaynat, and (later) `Ayn Ghazal, Ijzim, and Jabal, among others--was to expel the inhabitants while the battle was in progress. Villages were purposely not fully encircled, and one of the flanks would be left open so that the inhabitants could be put to flight through this "open gate." But in Tantura, due to lack of coordination during the battle, the village was completely surrounded with Jewish boats offshore blocking the sea route and the Alexandroni units on land, there was no "escape gate." The concentration of so large a village in the hands of the occupier--Tantura had about1 , 500inhabitants--produced the rampage, the massacre, and the executions. From the testimony of the perpetrators, it would appear that some saw the executions as being in the service of the Zionist security apparatus (killing young men they saw as soldiers of the enemy), others as part of a personal vendetta. The pattern must have been similar in the almost forty other places where massacres occurred.

snip
It should be clear by now that no true reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians can ever take place without full awareness of what happened in the Nakba. It is for this reason that research on the Nakba by Jewish scholars has to be part of a public campaign based on clear positions vis-à-vis the conflict and its solution. The questions of compensation, the Palestinian right of return, and Israeli moral responsibility are anyhow already in the public mind of both Israelis and Palestinians as negotiable issues. Finally, research on the Nakba requires some kind of international protection. The historical research, the public campaign, and the legal defense should be part and parcel of the same political action in Palestine, Israel, and abroad.

THERE IS MUCH MORE: http://palestine-studies.org/data/abstract-6081.html

[Wonder]

103. I mean really!!!

friendly terror? Are you following this. friendly terror! A bomb goes off kills 91 people considered friendly because they happened to place a phone call first.

In a million years... It is laughable really it is!

[Darranar]

105. The British commander ignored it...

They gave a warning, a clear one, taht they were bombing the hotel. The British commander should have paid heed to that warning. He did not.

[Wonder]

109. OH I SEE IT WAS THE BRITISH COMMANDERS FAULT

for the fatalities NOT the fault haganah, AFTERALL THEY DID PUT A CALL IN.... like I said doink doink doink... uh yeah I get it!

[Darranar]

113. Listen please...

A defensive organization that is very humanitarian and has a lot of respect for human rights is under attack from the authoritarian power. How do they retaliate? With such strikes against military headquarters. The British should have learned their lesson from prior attacks.

[Wonder]

123. a defensive organization??? you listen

The official line on the defensive argument was that the Arab's going back to mandate did not follow BA orders after peel they uprose, the British beat them down and the Israel argument was that well the Arabs uprose what did they expect, they deserved what they got, after all they are the "losers"

Now we have the white papers wherein the BA wants to dismantle this so called defense and friendly terror org named Haganah along with the other varied Israeli Intelligence legs and terror groups. And there were so many legs (shakar, palmah, shia, irgun, etc. some intelligence legs some terror orgs). Friendly or not prior to the end of WWII they were in voilation to Brits law. To say nothing of all the wiretapping and the government office breakins early Israeli intelligence partook of. they even had an adjacent room to the Peel commission bugged.

Now you tell me that the Brits should have learnt their lesson?

Well then my friend that same argument should work for the Palestinians as well and the Israeli's should most certainly have learnt theirs too. And what would that be... their military strategies have failed to stop the suicide bombers and has not defeated the Palestinian resistance either. GIVE THEM THEIR STATE ALREADY NOT FOR FAKE NOT CANTONS OR BANTUSTANS BUT A LEGITIMATE STATE... GET OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS... NO VETO POWER OF THEIR ELECTORAL PROCESS... REPARATION FOR DAMAGES... TO THE REFUGEES... AND THE DAMAGES FOR THIS SHAMBLES THAT HAS BEEN MADE OF THE OLD PA.... (and sorry for the caps)

man-- you cannot have you cake and eat it too!

[Darranar]

127. Hagganah was indeed a defensive organization...

They fought against Arab attackers.

I support a Palestinian state-under the condition that they will be a democracy (a true one) and that they will stop the terrorists.

[Wonder]

130. semantics

as if Arabs had no right to protest another little BA shaft that was being foisted upon them... like Arab lives are worth shit...

[Darranar]

132. They did have that right...

and they exercised it.

Many Jewish extremists attacked Muslim villages, and many Muslim extremists attacked Jewish villages. The Hagganah was created for protection against the Muslim extremists.

[Wonder]

133. and Hamas was created?

much controversy there the creation of Hamas afterall... alittle bit of history seems hard to nail down to... what was the exact genesis of Hamas... but they have served a number of purposes beside suicide bombing... as well.

[Wonder]

134. enough

I am not moved by patented smoozing over things... and like I said ... tonight I am calling it a night. Happy hunting!

[wakfs]

70. "Jewsweek"?

The emperor doth have no clothes, methinks.

[Jim Sagle]

177. Are you saying a site named "Jewsweek" necessarily

has no credibility?

What would you say about sites like Arab News and Electronic Intifada?

[Wonder]

178. I'll bite Jim

they ain't nuthin' but shit?

[StandWatie]

87. You would have to go back to Communists arguining about the Soviet Union..

To hear this sort of doublethink babble.

It's classic Dershowitz, open up "acceptable debate" and label the rest "anti-semetic" as if you held the view that ethic partion wasn't the greatest soulution in India (that only resulted in about a megadeath or so instantly) you must hate Pakistan or India or whatever.

"acceptable debate" has only one thing that I can think to compare it to and that's the fight over what was "acceptable debate" in criticizing the Soviet Union among communists it's an absolutely incredible phenomen and when the history books are written to try and explain all this they are going to have their hands full, because I can't begin to get a handle on it.