[dhinkel]

I think Israeli minister Ze'ev Boim has made a very good point, and it confirms what I have been thinking for some time:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=397851

The question is: if it is genetic, then what can be done about it?

[yakkiebah]

Sounds familiar...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by dhinkel:
I think Israeli minister Ze'ev Boim has made a very good point, and it confirms what I have been thinking for some time:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=397851

The question is: if it is genetic, then what can be done about it?

OMG

one should think that especially the jews would have learned from history that this kind of dreck doesn't get you anywhere. very sad indeed. really indicative of the level of desperation the israel/palestine conflict has reached.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dhinkel:
I think Israeli minister Ze'ev Boim has made a very good point, and it confirms what I have been thinking for some time:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=397851

The question is: if it is genetic, then what can be done about it?

[lil'babykitten]

MK Jamal Zahalka (Balad) said in response that "whoever says that Palestinian behavior is caused by a genetic defect has a brain defect himself and the values of a racist fascist."

Exactly.

dhinkel, you're a ****wit.

[Logic]

Does he have this on his desk?



And why hasn't this been reported in the world press? What would the reaction be if someone said this about jews?




ps. just saw his half-assed attempt at an excuse.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by dhinkel:

Originally posted by eklipse:

[kvm_mkdb]

dhinkel:

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dhinkel:
I think Israeli minister Ze'ev Boim has made a very good point, and it confirms what I have been thinking for some time:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=397851

The question is: if it is genetic, then what can be done about it?

IMHO,

This is another of these great threads that says: "You evil me good"

First of all, one getting on the path of "genetic proof" is in great danger of being wrong 99.9% because we still do not know much about the role of genes in the first place for specific physical characteristics.

Second, there are no definite link between a specific gene (let alone a set of) and behaviour.

Third, terrorism is an extremely complex set of behaviours which cannot be reduced to it sole action; war IS terrorism or uses terrorism as means to conquer. Terrorism is also a tool used in everyday life when you create fear (i.e. the TV news focusing on a specific ethnic group' behaviour).

If we accept there is a gene for terrorism, remember all those times you tried to scare your little sister "for fun".

There are simpler explanations for terrorism. Here are a few of my own;

1) revenge (like somebody did something to someone and that someone will make them pay for it)
2) attempt to escalate a conflict (because someone does not have a big plane than can unload lots of bombs indiscriminately which calls for action with less effective weapons but attempts to draw attention on a specific topic of "discussion")
3) etc.

Terrorism is defined according to a point of view; for a poor country, terrorism towards an invader (or an adversary perceived as) is simply war. For the victims of this "act of war", it is terrorism (especially if they feel comfortable and do not want to be distracted from their TV shows). For a news caster, the news are only objective information, yet its information can terrorize (and is used so often to trigger other behaviours).

Terrorism is criminal in all sense, but sometimes, it is more so when you think of yourself as good as God, or worse, as good as Innocence, and cannot waist your time with the complaints of human beings thriving in a land far, far away...

Sometimes, if ignorance is bliss, it can also be a form of terrorism.

[Logic]

Open Racism Trickles Down

[shmerek]

The National Union party, which is an alliance of the Moledet, Tekuma and Yisrael Beitenu parties, openly calls for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In fact, Moledet, which is led by Israel’s Minister of Tourism, Benny Elon, claims total ethnic cleansing offers a "solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that is both "practical" and "moral," and campaigned in February, 2002, with the slogans "Expel the Arabs!" and "Kahane was right."

Nice.
sidenote: Isn't Israel screwed anyways because the population growth of arab Israelis is greater than that of jewish Israelis? In 20 years there will be more non jewish citizens what are they going to do then revoke the rights of the arab citizens?

[vmarks]

What's really worth catching here is how you call for Boim's head, but excuse and forgive US Representative Corrine Brown who makes the same kind of absurd and BS comment.

Double-Standard? Shame on you.

I don't know why Boim said this when he knows full well why Palestinians become terrorists: It's been drilled into them from the earliest age. But don't take my word for it, watch this:

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl....10-30-02_02.rm

Rather than accuse Boim of being a Nazi, it's historically accurate to accuse Arafat, and by extension anyone who follows him of being the descendants of the Nazis. How can that be, you ask?

It's documented. Starting in 1921, the British installed Hajj Amin al-Husseini as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. His power grew because of this, and from there he used it to start assaults on the Jews in his midst.

He organized murderous attacks on Jewish and Arab civilians, culminating in the terrorist mayhem of 1936 known as the ‘Arab Revolt.’ This organized terrorist campaign was armed by Hitler's Axis and led by the Arab Higher Committee, which the Mufti had formed that same year of 1936. http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/Muftihistory.htm


By that time a Nazi secret agent, and hunted by the British…


“Ex-Mufti, Criminal Ally,” by ‘Observer’ (Immanuel Velikovsky), New York Post, Monday, February 23, 1948;
http://www.varchive.org/obs/480223.htm

“...The ex-Mufti escaped from Jerusalem and Palestine in the garb of a woman. In Syria he was on Mussolini’s payroll. When, with the beginning of the war, his position in Syria, a French mandate, became ‘insecure,’ he escaped to Iraq. There he worked hard and succeeded in [organizing a coup,] bringing Iraq into the war against the Allies, the declaration of war having been made on May 2, 1941. At that time the Nazis’ entered Greece and Egypt.


When the revolt was crushed (mainly by the Jewish volunteers from Palestine), the ex-Mufti escaped to Iran and hid himself in the Japanese Embassy there. From Teheran he escaped to Italy, where his arrival was announced by the Fascist radio as a “great and happy event;” in November, 1941, he arrived in Berlin and was received by Hitler. In 1942 the ex-Mufti organized the Arab Legion that fought the American invasion in Africa…”

So, Hajj Amin was received by Hitler. What did they discuss at this 1941 meeting? The following excerpt is taken verbatim from a ‘Memorandum By An Official of the Foreign Minister’s Secretariat,’ a Nazi document summarizing the Mufti’s meeting with Hitler:

Germany. Auswärtiges Amt [Foreign Ministry]. Title: Documents on German foreign policy, 1918-1945, from the archives of the German Foreign Ministry. Akten zur deutschen auswärtigen Politik. English Publisher: Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949- Description: Book v. fold. maps. 24 cm.; Series D, Vol. XIII no. 515. NOTE: You may read the entire document at http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/muftihitler.htm

“The Führer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart


1. He (the Führer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe.


2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia.


3. As soon as this had happened, the Führer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. *Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power* [my emphasis]. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.”

The same document states that the Mufti, “was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State.”


That is, he was “fully reassured and satisfied” that Hitler would (1) help him carry out *the destruction of all Jews* living in the Arab sphere and, (2) based on that Final Solution, make him "the most authoritative spokesman in the Arab world."


So how do we get from there to Arafat and the modern PLO/PA? Very simply.

Arafat soldiered under Hajj Amin Al-Husseini and revered him. Here is what Arafat told an interviewer from the pro-PLO London Arabic-language newspaper, Al Sharq al Awsat. His comments were picked up by a leading Palestinian daily: Al Quds (Palestinian daily newspaper)_ Aug, 2, 2002

“Interviewer: ‘I have heard voices from within the [Palestinian] Authority in the past few weeks, saying that the reforms are coordinated according to American whims…’


Arafat: “We are not Afghanistan…We are the Mighty People. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini? ... There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.”

So Arafat got his start as the Mufti’s lieutenant. Later, following the path blazed by the Mufti, Arafat’s Fatah displaced its rivals and asserted its power by violently attacking Palestinian civilians and other Arabs who challenged it. In fact, he bombed and attacked any Arab who was seeking work in Jewish owned enterprises and their families.

There's a direct line from the Waffen SS to the Palestinian Authority today, and ignoring that, combined with ignoring Arafat's own call to jihad and his call to kill all Jews, and ignoring Faisal Al-Husseini's encouragement to push the Jews into the sea, to make Palestine from the West Bank to the Meditteranean, is ignoring a very real danger.

Boim is an idiot. Fatah, the PA, those are the real Nazis.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Nice.
sidenote: Isn't Israel screwed anyways because the population growth of arab Israelis is greater than that of jewish Israelis? In 20 years there will be more non jewish citizens what are they going to do then revoke the rights of the arab citizens?

No, and no. Not screwed, and not revoking rights.

And, the type of racism you accuse Moledet, Tekuma, and Yisrael Beitenu of is outlawed. It's what got Kahane's party kicked out of the Knesset and barred from running for re-election. Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for killing everyone from an ethnic group. None of those parties support that. When you make wild accusations, at least make sure they're accurate.

Moledet supports transfer and opposes the notion of the West Bank becoming a Palestinian state (because Jordan is the Palestinian state according to them.)

http://www.moledet.org.il/english/moledet.html is their English site. At least read it before you go off half-cocked. Also note that they aren't wielding much influence - no one is seriously discussing transfer, and the two-state solution is absolutely on the table.

Yep, pretty much irrelevent at this time in terms of getting their policies pushed through.

http://www.tkuma.org.il is Tkuma's site, but they have no English pages.

Yisrael Beitenu was founded as a party in 1999 and is one of two parties which advocates for Russian immigrants to Israel, having left the anti-semitism and persecution of the former Soviet Union. Yisrael B'Aliya is the other, of which Natan Sharansky is a member and was finance minister in Barak's government. What you see here is Beitenu and B'Aliya jockeying for power in the Israeli government. Yisrael Beitenu would like nothing more than to unseat Likud and take the lead.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No, and no. Not screwed, and not revoking rights.
At least read it before you go off half-cocked.

Half cocked? I was just asking a question.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Half cocked? I was just asking a question.

I read it as if you had said it rhetorically, indicating that yes, Israel is screwed, and yes, will be revoking rights.

Sorry for giving it that reading.

[eklipse]

'Hajj Amin al-Husseini collaborated with Nazis during WWII. Since he was the leader of the Palestinians, they are responsible for his collaboration with the Nazis'

The way we understand this remark is that the Palestinian people must pay the price for the collaboration of a single person with the Nazis. Although the Palestinians who collaborated with the Nazis were a minority, a whole nation cannot pay the price for the choices of a few. It is not only that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) sided with allies (by aiding the British with men and logistics), they have also ignored the call for Jihad, against the British, declared by al-Hajj Amin in April 1941 (Righteous Victims, p. 165). Since Palestinians were promised full independence in 1949 and strict limitation on European Jewish immigration_ (based on the 1939 White Paper), the Palestinian people had an incentive to help the British win the war. It should be noted that several Palestinian brigades were enlisted into the British Army, and Palestinian resistance to the brutal British occupation almost completely ceased during and after WW II.

In general, Palestinians and Arabs are very proud because they were among the few who did not collaborate openly with Nazis. On the other hand, the people and governments of France, Italy, Japan, Romania, Croatia, Chechnya, Bulgaria, Switzerland, ..etc. collaborated openly with the Nazis. Sadly, many of these people happily pointed out their Jewish neighbors and citizens to the Gestapo. If such a rule is to be applied towards the Palestinian nation, then it should be applied with equal proportions to other nations as well, such as the French, Romanian, Italian, ... etc nations. In that regards, it is worth noting that Josef Stalin, the Soviet premier & dictator, forcibly transferred the people of the Caucuses to Siberia as a collective punishment for their collaboration with the Nazis._However, the same people were allowed to return to their homes in 1958 when the scale of the war crime was known to the Soviet premier at the time. Ironically, the people of the Caucuses were allowed to return to their homes under Communist rule, but the Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes, farms, and businesses under Israeli rule?

It is unfair, if not outright criminal, to focus on the choices made by al-Hajj Amin in order to condemn the whole Palestinian people, while ignoring the choices made by most Europeans (people and governments) who collaborated openly with Nazis. IRONICALLY, the truth cannot be more shocking since it has been proven that the Stern Jewish Gang received funding and arms from the fascists to resist the British Mandate in Palestine. Yes, this actually was happening while their Jewish brothers were being gassed and burned in Nazi concentration camps. When the American, British, and their Arab allies were busy stopping the Desert Fox (Erwin Romel) in Egypt, Yitzhak Shamir and Irgun's Menachem Begin were busy killing British soldiers, blowing up the vital Haifa-Cairo railroad supplies line, terrorizing British and Arab citizens, ... etc. (Righteous Victims, p. 174). When Yitzhak Shamir, Israel's future Prime Minister in the 1980s, was asked to explain their collaboration with the Fascists, he replied:_

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (One Palestine Complete , p. 464).

Since these findings started to surface ONLY lately (which widely goes un-debated in many Jewish communities), we feel it is necessary to directly quote one of the MOST pro-Israel historians, Martin Gilbert, who wrote:

"Avraham Stern who had formed a breakaway 'Irgun in Israel' movement (also known as the Stern Gang), tried to make contact with Fascist Italy in the hope that, if Mussolini were to conquer the Middle East, he would allow a Jewish State to be set up in Palestine. When Mussolini's troops were defeated in North Africa, Stern tried to make contacts with Nazi Germany, hoping to sign a pact with Hitler which would lead to a Jewish State once Hitler had defeated Britain. After two members of the Stern's Gang had killed the Tel Aviv [British] police chief and two of his officers, Stern himself was caught and killed. His followers [chief among them Yitzhak Shamir who lead the Stern Gang after Stern's death] continued on their path of terror." (Israel: A History, p. 111-112)

What makes many Palestinians and Arabs EXTREMELY ANGRY is that the memories of the Holocaust are being exploited to paint Palestinians as Nazis. Such dangerous comparison and propaganda tactics are continuously fed to many Israeli and Jewish school children from inception, especially upon visiting the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. It should be emphasized that many life size pictures of al-Hajj Amin standing alongside Hitler are on display at Yad Vashem, just West of Jerusalem not far from DEIR YASSIN. It is hypocritical to hold Palestinians responsible for the "ill fated" choice of al-Hajj Amin, while Israelis and Jews still blind themselves to the choices some of their leaders made during WW II.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:

(...)
Double-Standard? Shame on you.
(...)

So how is this going to stop?

More racist comments? More terrorism? More fences? More suicide bombing?

More splitting hairs on subparagraph of policies?

More historical quotes?

How about "now"?

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Boim is an idiot.

This is the only thing that you have to say about his comments???

If you think the link between PLO and nazi-Germany are interesting why don't you start a new thread about that? This is about a minister in the Israeli government claiming that Muslims/Arabs have some genetic pre-disposition to terrorism. Please stay on topic.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Since these findings started to surface ONLY lately (which widely goes un-debated in many Jewish communities), we feel it is necessary to directly quote one of the MOST pro-Israel historians, Martin Gilbert, who wrote:

What makes many Palestinians and Arabs EXTREMELY ANGRY is that the memories of the Holocaust are being exploited to paint Palestinians as Nazis. Such dangerous comparison and propaganda tactics are continuously fed to many Israeli and Jewish school children from inception, especially upon visiting the Holocaust museum at Yad Vashem. It should be emphasized that many life size pictures of al-Hajj Amin standing alongside Hitler are on display at Yad Vashem, just West of Jerusalem not far from DEIR YASSIN. It is hypocritical to hold Palestinians responsible for the "ill fated" choice of al-Hajj Amin, while Israelis and Jews still blind themselves to the choices some of their leaders made during WW II.

[/QUOTE]

The link to Arafat is accurate. Arafat runs the show. It isn't about making Palestinians pay for a man who is responsible for killing 400,000 Jews on his own (Yes, Amin recommended the transfer of Jews to Poland so that they could be dealt with 'actively', resulting in the direct death of 400,000 of them.) It's about holding Palestinian leadership responsible for CONTINUING those beliefs today, and teaching them to their youth, inspiring them to commit hate and terrorism, and glorifying that terrorism when it harms Jews.

Deir Yassin as a massacre never happened actually, it was made up and put out to disparage Begin as a part of internal politics. http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm

Nice try, but the history is otherwise. It is NOT hypocritical to hold Palestinians responsible for Hajj-Amin when his policies still rule the PA through Arafat, Fatah, Tanzim, Al-Aqsa Martyr's, and the educational brainwashing. Or did you not watch the video I linked to?

And actually, having taught in an Israeli elementary school, I can verify that no such propaganda is fed to them. They don't get taught the history that associates the PA with the Nazis. The education ministry is mostly led by left-wing folks. They don't teach hatred or bloodlust. They do teach that Rabin was a man of peace (which is ironic given his military history.) They teach understanding, that the people who want to kill them want to do so because they're taught to, that they aren't evil, and that we should continue to try and make peace with them - even as they kill us.

When were you last in an Israeli school? I was there every day for two years.

When were you last at Yad Vashem? There aren't "many" pictures of Hajj Amin next to Hitler. In fact, I can't remember a single one. I've been there twice.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What's really worth catching here is how you call for Boim's head, but excuse and forgive US Representative Corrine Brown who makes the same kind of absurd and BS comment.

Double-Standard? Shame on you.

Hardly. These two statements are not close to being in the same league - one is a dumb racial comment made in frustration about US government policy, the other is flat-out racist rant/claim that Arabs are genetically inferior. Or did I miss the part where Corrine Brown talked about "genetic defects" in white people?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
This is the only thing that you have to say about his comments???

If you think the link between PLO and nazi-Germany are interesting why don't you start a new thread about that? This is about a minister in the Israeli government claiming that Muslims/Arabs have some genetic pre-disposition to terrorism. Please stay on topic.

In the thread on Corinne Brown, people apologized for her by saying 'it sounded like an off-hand comment' -- the same could be true here. You want more from me? Ok. He should lose his job. Comments like that aren't helpful in any government.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
Hardly. These two statements are not close to being in the same league - one is a dumb racial comment made in frustration about US government policy, the other is flat-out racist rant/claim that Arabs are genetically inferior. Or did I miss the part where Corrine Brown talked about "genetic defects" in white people?

Brown was speaking to a Mexican-American, condemning the whole administration as White Men who all looked the same to her, never mind Mr. Powell and Miss Rice, or the Mexican-American gentleman she was speaking to. The subtext to her complaint is 'this policy is the result of a bunch of White men who all look the same and are all out to get everyone who isn't a White male.'

Both are stupid, unacceptable comments. But you excuse hers, saying it isn't in the same class. Good on you for being apologetic.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
In the thread on Corinne Brown, people apologized for her by saying 'it sounded like an off-hand comment' -- the same could be true here. You want more from me? Ok. He should lose his job. Comments like that aren't helpful in any government.

:takes a quick look at who has posted in the two threads. Notices that there is no one who has posted in both :

So your POV is that this isn't helpful? And that he should lose his job because it is not helpful?

Nothing more?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
:takes a quick look at who has posted in the two threads. Notices that there is no one who has posted in both :

So your POV is that this isn't helpful? And that he should lose his job because it is not helpful?

Nothing more?

No, that he should lose his job because he's wrong, and that isn't the sentiment we hold in our society, and don't want him representing it in Government.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
No, that he should lose his job because he's wrong, and that isn't the sentiment we hold in our society, and don't want him representing it in Government.

OK, good.

Just wanted to clear that up since in your first post you spent only 4 words on the topic, while spending a whole lot more on describing the "Nazi" Arafat and his companions.

[BRussell]

What do you want from him Logic? He's condemned it, said it was wrong, said he should lose his job. Do you really want to get into a balanced debate about outrageous statements made by leaders on either side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and how often each are condemned?

[edit: you already posted back and forth before I got this posted.]

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
In the thread on Corinne Brown, people apologized for her by saying 'it sounded like an off-hand comment' -- the same could be true here.

"What is it about Islam as a whole and the Palestinians in particular? Is it some form of cultural deprivation? Is it some genetic defect? There is something that defies explanation in this continued murderousness."

...hardly.

the "spirit" in which this comment was made is, imho, quite different.

though if mr. brown actually meant what she said, it was equally ignorant.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, good.

Just wanted to clear that up since in your first post you spent only 4 words on the topic, while spending a whole lot more on describing the "Nazi" Arafat and his companions.

Arafat, and his PA government by extension, is the direct ideological descendant of Nazis. It's documented. When people start accusing Israelis and Jews of being Nazis, the truth is the polar opposite. How many swastikas were posted in this thread, and why is refuting them with the truth wrong?

As for Boim,
His email is zaevb@knesset.gov.il . I've already emailed him. If you feel as strongly as I do, I suggest you do the same.

His home phone is 972-8-6812979.

[theolein]

So dhinkel is not only advocating the incarcetration of Steve jobs because of his roots, but also the weeding out of genetically defect Palestinians.

I find it so fu©king rich that the world has come around to this. 60 Years ago Nazis were making the exact same statements about Jews and today we have some brainless cvnt doing the exact same thing to the Palestinians.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
When people start accusing Israelis and Jews of being Nazis, the truth is the polar opposite. How many swastikas were posted in this thread, and why is refuting them with the truth wrong?

because one of the central points in the german national socialist fascit ideology was the treatment of various ethnic people in relation to their (fabricated) "racial" classification. in a sense, exactly, what mr. boim did with his comment. fascism isn't an ideology that is akin to any particular nation, people, or ethnic group.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
because one of the central points in the german national socialist fascit ideology was the treatment of various ethnic people in relation to their (fabricated) "racial" classification. in a sense, exactly, what mr. boim did with his comment. fascism isn't an ideology that is akin to any particular nation, people, or ethnic group.

And because every other person from the Israeli government quoted in the link said the opposite of Boim's remark and condemned Boim, people cannot rightfully accuse Israel of holding that facist ideology- yet they did. But one can correctly assign that facist ideology to the PA, because they truly do posses it unabashedly. It doesn't mean that this ideology is only theirs, Le Pen and others are no stranger to it- but the PA has a unique and direct link to it, and does not reject this ideology. Bringing that to light is not wrong, especially when it corrects the wrongful assignment of that ideology to Israel.

[macvillage.net]

Nor do the actions of the Israeli government reflect their personal actions.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Bringing that to light is not wrong, especially when it corrects the wrongful assignment of that ideology to Israel.

where did anybody say that "israel", per se, is fascist? if one knew what people actually said behind locked doors, you would find at least as many racist/fascist comments made by israelis as by palestinians. do ariel sharon or boim represent what the average (or for that matter all) israeli(s) believe(s)? certainly not! just as not every palestinian is a hamas or intifada member, or everybody who lived in germany in the 30s and 40s was a nazi.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Deir Yassin as a massacre never happened actually, it was made up and put out to disparage Begin as a part of internal politics. http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/1948/373_zgby.htm

Remembering Deir Yassin

This is an article I never thought I would have to write. It was 50 years ago that the Zionist terrorist groups Irgun and Lehi (Stern Gang) committed a massacre in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Now, 50 years later, the President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), Morton Klein, is waging a campaign in the United States denying that a massacre took place.

Not unlike the historical revisionists who deny the Holocaust, Klein's work "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie," has the appearance of scholarship. It is heavily footnoted, and documented and relentlessly plods through every quote and claim made about the events at Deir Yassin.

Klein's methods are similar to the Holocaust deniers. He uses half quotes, specious arguments and ad hominem attacks in an effort to confound an ordinary reader. He admits what cannot be denied, but minimizes its importance. In the end he claims that Deir Yassin was only a minor but necessary skirmish. It was fought Klein says, to eliminate a hostile Arab presence that was threatening to the Jews of Jerusalem. And its reality he says was distorted by a combination of Arab propagandists, Jewish establishment enemies of the Stern and Irgun Gangs, Jewish leftists and the exaggerated boastings of those who were there (whom, he says, only made their claims as a part of their psychological propaganda campaign against the Arabs).

.....

Click the link for more. We can trade links all day - we won't get very far though.

Nice try, but the history is otherwise. It is NOT hypocritical to hold Palestinians responsible for Hajj-Amin when his policies still rule the PA through Arafat, Fatah, Tanzim, Al-Aqsa Martyr's, and the educational brainwashing. Or did you not watch the video I linked to?

And actually, having taught in an Israeli elementary school, I can verify that no such propaganda is fed to them. They don't get taught the history that associates the PA with the Nazis. The education ministry is mostly led by left-wing folks. They don't teach hatred or bloodlust. They do teach that Rabin was a man of peace (which is ironic given his military history.) They teach understanding, that the people who want to kill them want to do so because they're taught to, that they aren't evil, and that we should continue to try and make peace with them - even as they kill us.

You miss the point - not every Palestinian is in the PA, yet every Palestinian living in the occupied territories suffers at the hands of the Israeli government.

When a Palestinian child sees IDF troops storming through his village, or loses a friend or relative in an helicopter missile strike - does he really have to ask his parents who his 'enemy' is? Is further brain-washing really required? Is the parent really expected to tell the child: "the Israelis killed your friend, but, you mustn't hate them for it - they are still your peace loving neighbors"? Does that not strike you as a somewhat 'bizarre' situation?

Similarly, when an Israeli child loses a friend/relative in a suicide bombing - does he really need to ask his parents who his enemy is? Is the Israeli child's parents really supposed to tell their child: "a Palestinian killed your friend, but, you mustn't hate them - they are your future partners in peace"? Do Nazi comparisons really need to be made in order to make things plainer to the child?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:

You miss the point - not every Palestinian is in the PA, yet every Palestinian living in the occupied territories suffers at the hands of the Israeli government. Do Nazi comparisons really need to be made in order to make things plainer to the child?

Whose territory is it that is occupied? Egypt and Jordan's. Both of whom did not want it back when Israel offered to give it to them. Why? Because they don't want the Palestinians on their hands but would prefer to use them as pawns.

Calling the PA Nazis isn't a comparison when it is factual. No one is saying Arafat is 'like' Nazis, but instead that he is the ideological direct descendant from the Nazis, more so than the people that claim to be Neo-Nazis, Arafat really is. Every person in the PA is suffering under the PA government, which teaches them to hate, and keeps them from moving forward with peace, instead encouraging children to grow up to kill themselves and others, and planning intidfadas well in advance, because for the PA government, getting a country isn't so important as knocking the Jews into the sea. Oh, I'm sorry, I should use the same word they do- criminal Zionists.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Calling the PA Nazis isn't a comparison when it is factual. No one is saying Arafat is 'like' Nazis, but instead that he is the ideological direct descendant from the Nazis, more so than the people that claim to be Neo-Nazis, Arafat really is. Every person in the PA is suffering under the PA government, which teaches them to hate, and keeps them from moving forward with peace, instead encouraging children to grow up to kill themselves and others, and planning intidfadas well in advance, because for the PA government, getting a country isn't so important as knocking the Jews into the sea. Oh, I'm sorry, I should use the same word they do- criminal Zionists.

Arafat is a Nazi - happy?

What has that 'admission' bought you? Nothing.

Is peace any closer to being achieved? No.

Does it excuse Israel's acts of barbarism? No.

Is the acknowledgment that the entire PA is the latest incarnation of the Nazi party going to increase or decrease the tensions between both sides? You tell me.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Arafat is a Nazi - happy?

What has that 'admission' bought you? Nothing.

Is peace any closer to being achieved? No.

Does it excuse Israel's acts of barbarism? No.

Is the acknowledgment that the entire PA is the latest incarnation of the Nazi party going to increase or decrease the tensions between both sides? You tell me.

Nothing? It brings us to a better understanding of the problem. Only when we understand the problem can we begin to understand why the branch of peace that has been extended time after time hasn't been accepted.

As for Israel's acts of barbarism, an army whose soldiers commit zero crimes in wartime has not yet been assembled. What matters, however, is whether a crime is *policy*, and whether crimes are common. In the case of the Arabs (who, lest we forget, were the aggressors) murdering civilians is *policy*: in fact their policy was the extermination of a people. In the case of the Jews, crimes of war were the exception, not the policy, and (lest we forget) they did not even start the war - they were merely fighting for their survival.

The same cannot be said of the Palestinians, because Israel is not committing genocide, and has no plans or policy to- their survival is not contested.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Nothing? It brings us to a better understanding of the problem....

Does it? If you really think 'the problem' is that the PA is a neo-Nazi group, it suggests that you have no understanding of what 'the problem' actually is - more's the pity for you.

The same cannot be said of the Palestinians, because Israel is not committing genocide, and has no plans or policy to- their survival is not contested.

Really?

Shall we compare body counts for both sides?

Then perhaps we can discuss which genocidal campaign is having more success - intentional or not.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by vmarks:
they were merely fighting for their survival.

Thing is, everyone has been fighting for survival for quite some time. The problem is that there are people that are very comfortable right now so they don't bother to do much...

Myself, I am not Jewish. I am not Palestinian. I am just a small insignificant Canadian on the other side of that planet who decided to stop watching TV because of these orgies of bad news about the world. Doesn't mean I am completly disconnected.

Ignorant a lot: for sure.

But my understanding is that so far, whatever the cause of any war, the question remains; what's done to stop it. I am sure Arafat has benefits in maintaining a tension in the area. I suppose that without it, something might ne lost. And truly enough, violence is used to achieve results.

I do not have an answer (I wish I had!) but like some people, I refuse to become indifferent to that situation. There are jews victims of terrorists, as there are Palestininans victims of terrorism.

It is not a question of whom is defending against whom anymore; the conflict has been on for so long, a lot of people have forgottent its sources.

What dhinkel brought has a topic was purely incendiary and there only to provoke such reactions as we have seen here in this thread.

I am not going to deny anyone's point of view. Actually, I believe EVERYBODY IS RIGHT.

But in the end, what are we learning from this situation, beyond the academic debate?

I refuse to believe that what is being discussed here will feed further flames, and I want to hope we can at least learn about our own humanity in this process. The bad and the good.

And maybe learn to improve from it.

Me? Utopist?

If you do not believe you can make a living for yourself, you will never go to work.

Similarly, if you do not start to believe in a better world, how can you get closer to it?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Does it? If you really think 'the problem' is that the PA is a neo-Nazi group, it suggests that you have no understanding of what 'the problem' actually is - more's the pity for you.

If you really think the problem is some so-called Israeli occupation, then it suggests willful ignorance of the problem, and more's the pity for you.

The fact that you aren't satisfied when Israeli withdrawal from settlements is proposed is revealing. The fact that Al-Aqsa Intifada was planned before the close of the Camp David talks in 2000 is also revealing. The PA is not a neo-Nazi group, it IS a direct descendant of the Nazi party. Most Neo-Nazi groups have no such historical bond.

Really?

Shall we compare body counts for both sides?

Then perhaps we can discuss which genocidal campaign is having more success - intentional or not.

There is no Israeli genocidal campaign. If there were, you wouldn't have anything left to speak over- the fact that there is shows I'm correct.

It isn't Israel's problem if the PA starts a war and finds itself unable to wage it- it should be revealing to them that they ought stop, and rethink whether they want to fight a war they cannot win, unless of course they expect Israel to give them arms with which to fight back- not without precedent, since Israel armed the PA police force in exchange for a promise of peace- which Arafat and the PA quickly broke.

This is not a conflict in the middle of a 'peace process' - this is a war planned by the PA in the middle of the talks at Camp David, launched in the summer of 2000, without a care for the well-being of Palestinians. Israel keeps offering to negotiate an end to it, but Arafat refuses. Sure, back about a year ago, people claimed Arafat was irrelevent, that Abu Mazen was in charge- so Arafat replaced Mazen with Qureia, who has refused to speak with any member of the Israeli government. What kind of peace are they seeking if they won't talk about it? The only peace that will be acceptable to them, the elimination of all Jews and taking all of Israel as theirs. Even this doesn't prevent Israel from offering the olive branch.

There are some facts that even you cannot deny:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression naturally are -- as is this latest intifada.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies is to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely target Jewish civilians and murder captured Jewish soldiers.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
There are some facts that even you cannot deny:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression naturally are -- as is this latest intifada.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies is to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely target Jewish civilians and murder captured Jewish soldiers.

1) Legal, but immoral. Also not a binding resolution => no one is required to accept it or follow it. Also, the state of Israel today is nowhere close to being the same as the General Assembly accepted.

2) Yes, but understandable.

3) The stated objective is to get their land back.

4) In the conduct of war, the so-called-Israelis routinely accept Palestinian civilian casualties(do not even try to prevent it) and have attacked Palestinian prisoners in jail with missiles from gunships and fighter-jets.


See, that wasn't so hard.

Are we closer to an end to the war? Unfortunately the answer is no.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
If you really think the problem is some so-called Israeli occupation, then it suggests willful ignorance of the problem, and more's the pity for you.

So the entire Palestinian population is pissed at Israel because they are Nazi sympathizers who want to see Jews thrown into the see - or because their leadership are and they've managed to convince them? Sorry, if you truly believe that, you really have gone off the deep-end.

The fact that you aren't satisfied when Israeli withdrawal from settlements is proposed is revealing.

Revealing of what? That I don't like seeing people kicked out of their homes? I think it's more revealing of you that you don't see a problem with it. You seem to think displacing people is 'okay'.

The fact that Al-Aqsa Intifada was planned before the close of the Camp David talks in 2000 is also revealing. The PA is not a neo-Nazi group, it IS a direct descendant of the Nazi party. Most Neo-Nazi groups have no such historical bond.

You keep insisting on drawing up these Nazi connections, as if it proves something. What are you hoping to achieve? Do you want people to turn around and say "Hey, the Palestinians are Nazis, everything Israel does is therefore justified and automatically placed on the highest moral and ethical grounds."? If so, like I said: 'Off the deep-end'.

There is no Israeli genocidal campaign. If there were, you wouldn't have anything left to speak over- the fact that there is shows I'm correct.

No stated genocidal campiagn - actions speak louder than words. Where are those body counts? (At this point I wouldn't be at all surprised if you attempt to place the guilt for every Jewish death during the Holocaust squarely on the heads of every present day Palestinian man, woman and child.) You yourself, in the past have, said that one of the only proven ways to achieve peace is through a crushing defeat. Are you advocating genocide?

It isn't Israel's problem if the PA starts a war and finds itself unable to wage it- it should be revealing to them that they ought stop, and rethink whether they want to fight a war they cannot win, unless of course they expect Israel to give them arms with which to fight back- not without precedent, since Israel armed the PA police force in exchange for a promise of peace- which Arafat and the PA quickly broke.

Humiliation is not going to solve the problem.

This is not a conflict in the middle of a 'peace process' - this is a war planned by the PA in the middle of the talks at Camp David, launched in the summer of 2000, without a care for the well-being of Palestinians. Israel keeps offering to negotiate an end to it, but Arafat refuses. Sure, back about a year ago, people claimed Arafat was irrelevent, that Abu Mazen was in charge- so Arafat replaced Mazen with Qureia, who has refused to speak with any member of the Israeli government. What kind of peace are they seeking if they won't talk about it? The only peace that will be acceptable to them, the elimination of all Jews and taking all of Israel as theirs. Even this doesn't prevent Israel from offering the olive branch.

Israel likes to offer olive branches whilst at the same time annexing entire olive groves.

There are some facts that even you cannot deny:

1) The creation of the state of Israel was legal: it was approved by a vote in the General Assembly at the UN.

2) The war of aggression by the surrounding Arab states was illegal - as all wars of aggression naturally are -- as is this latest intifada.

3) The stated objective of Israel’s enemies is to exterminate the Jews.

4) In the conduct of war, the Arabs routinely target Jewish civilians and murder captured Jewish soldiers.

1) Laugh.My.Ass.Off. A General Assembly vote?!? You, of all people, cling to that as the legal basis for Israel's existence? Sorry, until Israel deems the GA's authority worthy of compliance with the numerous outstanding resolutions against Israel - Israel's existence can only be described as 'non-binding'.

2) Pffft. The actions of the Zionists circa 1948 could easily be interpreted as 'aggression'. The Arabs could easily claim to be 'defending their interests against a hostile entity'. No dice.

3) Actions, not words. Body counts please.

4) Right. Missiles fired into crowded civilian streets and air-strikes on civilian areas, don't target civilians? Please.

[lil'babykitten]

If the Israeli government and you (vmarks) really think that this terrorism is occurring because Palestinians are taught to hate and kill all Jews, then you really have understood nothing from this conflict.

The Palestinians didn't just wake up one day and decide 'I know! lets go kill some Jews!'
The terrorism is a direct result of an occupation by the Zionist aggressors - who are actually the ones who want the Palestinian people 'pushed out in to the sea'. The terrorism is a result of so-called 'surgical strikes' that kill Palestinian children and destroy families. The terrorism is a result of the dire conditions that have been forced upon the Palestinians. Their homes destroyed daily, their families murdered by troops, their careers destroyed because they can't get past Israeli checkpoints to reach their jobs. They can't even get adequate medical care - some Palestinians have died of heart attacks while waiting to get through checkpoints. And then you want to tell me that this whole conflict is because Palestinians have always been taught to hate the Jews? Give me a break.

How do you really expect an oppressed people to react after years of occupation, years of dire living conditions and no end in sight? Do you really expect them to sit back and let it happen? ignored by the international community for so long, exploited by surrounding countries, even by their own 'leaders', let alone the Israeli government, what more can you expect? That's when people start strapping bombs to themselves, killing civilians and themselves in the process. That is when the terrorist organisations start popping up, looking for new members, which of course by this time are not hard to find.

Really, it appears as though you've learned nothing. Neither the Israeli government. Just look at Boims statements - total ignorance, arrogance and hate. It also speaks of fear. The government fears for it's survival. Why? because it still cannot understand the problem. Still paranoid after the atrocities committed by Hitler, it's blinded by a fear that the Palestinians are the new nazis. Ordinary Palestinians just want peace, just like ordinary Israelis. There is no immense conspiracy to kick out the Jews. Palestinian terror is an act of despair, so is Israeli terror. Remove the aggressors, the one's that are there for their own interests, from both sides and then you might get somewhere. That means Arafat and Sharon must get out.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If the Israeli government and you (vmarks) really think that this terrorism is occurring because Palestinians are taught to hate and kill all Jews, then you really have understood nothing from this conflict.

The Palestinians didn't just wake up one day and decide 'I know! lets go kill some Jews!'
The terrorism is a direct result of an occupation by the Zionist aggressors - who are actually the ones who want the Palestinian people 'pushed out in to the sea'. The terrorism is a result of so-called 'surgical strikes' that kill Palestinian children and destroy families. The terrorism is a result of the dire conditions that have been forced upon the Palestinians. Their homes destroyed daily, their families murdered by troops, their careers destroyed because they can't get past Israeli checkpoints to reach their jobs. They can't even get adequate medical care - some Palestinians have died of heart attacks while waiting to get through checkpoints. And then you want to tell me that this whole conflict is because Palestinians have always been taught to hate the Jews? Give me a break.

How do you really expect an oppressed people to react after years of occupation, years of dire living conditions and no end in sight? Do you really expect them to sit back and let it happen? ignored by the international community for so long, exploited by surrounding countries, even by their own 'leaders', let alone the Israeli government, what more can you expect? That's when people start strapping bombs to themselves, killing civilians and themselves in the process. That is when the terrorist organisations start popping up, looking for new members, which of course by this time are not hard to find.

Really, it appears as though you've learned nothing. Neither the Israeli government. Just look at Boims statements - total ignorance, arrogance and hate. It also speaks of fear. The government fears for it's survival. Why? because it still cannot understand the problem. Still paranoid after the atrocities committed by Hitler, it's blinded by a fear that the Palestinians are the new nazis. Ordinary Palestinians just want peace, just like ordinary Israelis. There is no immense conspiracy to kick out the Jews. Palestinian terror is an act of despair, so is Israeli terror. Remove the aggressors, the one's that are there for their own interests, from both sides and then you might get somewhere. That means Arafat and Sharon must get out.

[Spliffdaddy]

translated:

if you feel oppressed it's ok to kill people.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
translated:

if you feel oppressed it's ok to kill people.

These people don't "feel" oppressed the are oppressed.

I am not advocating murder here just pointing to an error in spliff's statement

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
translated:

if you feel oppressed it's ok to kill people.

What's Dubya's excuse?

[spacefreak]

In reply to the actual article, I find it quite ignorant that Hazan simply chalks up the problem to "it is in their blood" (referring to Arabs' strong desire to murder Jews).

Someone might want to clue Hazan in to the fact that many (or most) of the Arabs in question are educated from birth that Jews are evil. It's not in their blood or genes. Hating Jews is all many of them have ever known; they haven't been raised to be tolerant.

I've seen documentary-type stuff on TV, and the interviewer will be talking to some Arab children. The children's general attitudes are that "Jews are evil, and that's just the way it is". They don't even have fully developed thoughts about girls yet, but their hatred of Jews is already present.

[vmarks]

The following list only works if you intentionally ignore the history of the region and the truth about who the Palestinians are and their motives.

Originally posted by Logic:
1) Legal, but immoral. Also not a binding resolution => no one is required to accept it or follow it. Also, the state of Israel today is nowhere close to being the same as the General Assembly accepted.

Not immoral.

In reverse order: the State of Israel as it stands today is only because the Arab League states surrounding it launched a war with the stated goal of extermination of all Jews. They failed to win, and in a war the land you capture becomes yours. If they had wanted Israel to stay with those original borders, they should never have attacked. They wanted to eliminate Israel and kill all the Jews, so they took the risk and lost. Wars of agression are illegal, as you acknowledge, and that's precisely what the 1948 war was, when every surrounding country ganged up.

Not immoral.

Israel is not a European settler state. “following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, practically all the Yemenite, Iraqi, and Libyan Jews and major parts of the other Oriental Jewish communities migrated to Israel.” These are the Mizrahim, or ‘Oriental Jews’ who used to live in North Africa and the Middle East, from Morocco to Iraq. As I document below, these Jews became more than half of all Jews in Israel.

Why did the Mizrachim end up in Israel?

The Mizrachim didn’t simply ‘migrate’ to Israel. Here is an excerpt from historian Howard Sachar that paints a picture of the environment in which these ‘Oriental Jews’ lived in the two decades leading up to the exodus of 1947-49:

“One particularly successful Axis technique of winning favor among the Arabs had its basis in ideology…the Arabs were reminded of the enemies they shared in common with the Nazis…Nazi German diplomats evinced no hesitation whatever in publicizing the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign. Hardly a German Arabic-Language newspaper or magazine appeared in the Middle East without a sharp thrust against the Jews. Reprints of these strictures were widely distributed by the [Jerusalem] Mufti’s Arab Higher Committee. Upon introducing the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935, therefore, Hitler received telegrams of congratulation and praise from all corners of the Arab world….Throughout the Arab Middle East, a spate of ultra-right-wing political groupings and parties developed in conscious imitation of Nazism and Italian fascism.”

Why was there so much ideological affinity between the Muslims in North Africa and the Middle-East, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany?

The usual explanation is that the Muslims were following the dictate, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ France and Britain had colonized the Middle East. Hitler was opposed to France and Britain. And so, the argument goes, Muslim leaders allied with Hitler in a marriage of convenience.

But a strategic marriage of convenience does not explain the enthusiasm with which the Nazi hatred of Jews was greeted by Arab Muslims. The historical status of Jews in Muslim lands, however, does help explain this enthusiasm.

Many claim that the status of Jews in the Arab world was not like that of Jews in Europe (i.e. it was supposedly *better*), and therefore Arabs did not have anti-Semitic attitudes until Zionists came to Palestine. In truth, Jewish life in the Arab world was characterized by institutionalized racism.

In the Muslim lands, over the centuries, Christians and Jews lived as ‘dhimmi’ people. One often hears that dhimmi status ‘protected’ Christians and Jews because they were ‘people of the book’ - that is, the Bible. But the question is: protected from what?

As it turns out, from complete extermination at the hands of the same Muslims.

Muslims took control of the middle east through jihad - religious wars of conquest. In general, local people who refused to convert to Islam were commonly slaughtered. But Christianity and Judaism were perceived as religions of which Islam was the culmination. If the leaders of conquered Christians and Jews signed a dhimma (agreement) their people could be spared. The alternative to signing was death. So the dhimma was a *forced* agreement, a ‘contract’ of surrender. Jews and Christians were protected from jihad, at least in theory, as long as they adhered to the terms of this ‘agreement.’

Since dhimmis were by definition people who refused to convert to Islam, their existence had to be a living expression of the inferiority of Judaism and Christianity. This inferiority was codified in the rules of the dhimma. see http://dhimmitude.org/d_today.php

Beyond institutionalized inequality and constant humiliation, the dhimma also meant unrelieved insecurity. Why? Because the dhimma was a treaty of surrender by a people conquered in jihad (holy fighting) and its maintenance was conditional. A Jew or Christian perceived by Muslims as violating the dhimma could be severely punished. Moreover, the dhimma itself could be cancelled at any time, subjecting the entire community to a renewal of jihad.

Consider this example. If a Jew or Christian prospered, an envious Muslim might use force or legal maneuvers to seize his wealth. Resistance could be treated as a violation of the dhimma, placing the entire dhimmi community in mortal danger. A Muslim official could rule that the dhimma was void or religious fanatics could rouse a Muslim mob, and the Jews or Christians could be slaughtered en masse.

Ordinary Muslims were brought up to believe in the justice of dhimmitude and therefore the poorest Muslim could feel superior to the richest Christian or Jew. This scorn for the 'lowly' dhimmi people strengthened the ties between Muslim ruling classes and the Muslim poor.

Why did Zionism, the movement for a Jewish state in Palestine, elicit fury in many Arabs from its very beginnings? To understand this, one must look at the world from a traditionalist Arab/Islamic point of view.

The Arab upper classes saw dhimmitude as the cement of the social fabric, helping guarantee the loyalty of ‘the street.’ Many ordinary Arabs perceived in the lowly status of Jews - that is, in dhimmitude - a confirmation of their own worth. And there was special contempt for the Jews, perhaps because, unlike the Christian case, no Jewish states existed to compete with Islamic states.

Jews had been dhimmi people in the Middle East and North Africa for *more than a thousand years.* By way of contrast, Black people were enslaved in the Americas starting ‘only’ about 400 years ago. And yet consider the ferocity with which many white Americans responded to the abolition of slavery (lynchings were common in the post-Civil War South). If one views a person as one’s *natural inferior*, then attempts at equality can be perceived as an affront and an abuse.

Why did millions of Arabs all over North Africa and the Middle East, who never met a Zionist, hate them? There are two reasons. First, they did not act like proper dhimmis. Second, the Zionist Jews carried the dangerous contagion of modern ideas. Of course, there were differences among them. "The Jews" are not some monolithic group. But many brought to the Middle East the ideas of liberal democracy, secular education, and female equality - even socialism. These ideas not only challenged aspects of Arab culture but, if allowed to spread, could destroy the power of ruling elites throughout the Arab world (in 1900 and today as well).

So the immigrant Jews were challenging dhimmitude, a key part of the social fabric, and also had dangerous ideas.

This helps explain why the Mufti of Jerusalem, Nasser, Arafat, Hamas, etc. have not merely called for *defeating* Israel and/or extracting political concessions, but rather have always agitated for its total *destruction*. The existence of a Jewish State in the Middle East is seen as an offense to the natural order of Allah-proclaimed Jewish inferiority - and as a source of ideas that challenge the traditional Middle Eastern practices and power-relations. Arab leaders use both these perceived offenses to mobilize popular support from the Arab 'street.'

This also explains some otherwise odd facts. For example, the Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, organized a murderous attack against Jewish civilians in 1920. It was directed primarily at members of the Old Yishuv. These were not recent Jewish immigrants. Their families had been in Palestine for over 2000 years.

In 1929, Mufti-organized Arabs slaughtered Jews in Hebron and other towns. Although Palestinian leaders speak of the Hebron massacre as a heroic act of resistance to Zionism, in fact it was a terrorist pogrom, and directed largely at indigenous Palestinian Jews, not recent immigrants.

The context of dhimmitude explains why so much terrorist violence was directed against non-immigrant Jews in Palestine. By presenting themselves as equal to Muslims, the Zionists had cancelled the dhimma; therefore jihad could resume. Since the dhimma was an agreement that applied to the entire community, *all* Jews were now subject to jihad slaughter.

Thus, what was misperceived by Westerners as an irrational outbreak of communal hatred was in fact a continuation - albeit in modern dress - of an ancient cultural interaction: the lynching of dhimmis, much like the lynching of uppity Black people in the post-Civil War U.S. South.

This explains why many North African and Middle-Eastern Muslims welcomed Nazi anti-Semitism. The German Nazi ideology coincided with their view of what should be done to ‘uppity Jews.’ To read more about dhimmitude in the Islamic world, visit this excellent resource:
http://www.dhimmitude.org

[vmarks]

It so happens that these Jewish immigrants were *buying* land from Arabs in Palestine, and the Arabs were *eagerly selling* this land. There were some abuses in this, I agree, but not by the Jews. The large Arab landowners in Palestine directed all sorts of political attacks against the small landowners, accusing them of collaboration with Zionism if they dared sell their land, while at the same time the big owners sold their properties at exorbitant prices to the immigrant Jews, making a killing in the land speculation market. That was not fair to the small Arab landowners who wanted to make money too, and who got harassed, sometimes with violence, by the hypocritical, large landowning families - also know as the ‘effendis.’

Even an anti-Zionist such as Nathan Weinstock recognizes this. Take a look:

“While the effendi stratum engaged in these profitable transactions (land deals brought it the handsome sum of £854,796 in 1933, £1,647,836 in 1934 and £1,699,488 in 1935), secret collaboration with the British and the Zionists enabled its members, nevertheless, to preserve their dominant position. Thus it was that the Husseinis displayed “moderation” during the first years of the Mandate (after the events of 1920 which had cost one of their main leaders, Pasha Musa Kazem al-Husseini, his office as Mayor of Jerusalem). For their part the Nashashibis courted the British and cultivated friendships on the Zionist Executive. The Abdul Hadis – the biggest landowners in Palestine – concluded a secret agreement with the Zionist leaders in 1928 on the eve of the 7th Arab Conference, promising that the customary denunciation of the Balfour Declaration would be dropped.

But, whilst in public these leaders stepped up their incendiary attacks on Zionism, denouncing any transfer of ancestral soil to the Jews as a betrayal, they secretly enriched themselves by means of the very operations which they so furiously attacked. The fanatical braggadocio was designed for the gallery. It made it possible to win the support of the masses. It also, no doubt, served other less avowable goals. Under nationalist pressure, the small Arab landowners no longer dared to sell their land openly to the Jews. During the 1936-1939 Revolt [Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin Al] Husseini’s guerillas actually executed “traitors”, but “at the same time a close relative of the Mufti was doing a brisk trade in precisely such allegedly criminal deals, but with a notable difference, for this person used to force sales from Arab small-holders at niggardly prices and then resell to the Jews at the usual exorbitant rates ...” In other words, hyper-nationalist propaganda became a lucrative industry, indeed even an American-style racket, for the Arab gentry.”

Take note that the Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini, who (one often hears) supposedly led an anti-colonial struggle, and in so doing founded the Palestinian movement, does not really behave like an anti-colonialist or someone looking after the interests of Palestinian Arabs.

With respect to the first point, he was not bothered that land was being sold to immigrant Jews so long as it was *his* family that made a handsome profit. With respect to the second point, he had no problem with his family coercing land sales from small Arab landowners at bargain prices so that they could then resell to immigrant Jews at exorbitant prices. Not only that: he executed some of these small Arab landowners for a sin no greater than also trying to make a profit, which activity lowered the price of land on the market for Hajj Amin’s relatives. Hajj Amin and his relatives were Palestinian *gangsters*, and the first effect of a gangster is always to bring misery to his own population, which Hajj Amin did, repeatedly.

It is true that the Arab share-cropping laborers - the fellahin - who had been working in lands that were sold to immigrant Jews, were often out of a job (at least temporarily) after the transactions were concluded, and many suffered dire poverty. But the immigrant Jews did not cause this situation: it was already true that these laborers were very poor, completely exploited by, and chronically indebted to, the effendi class because of the feudal structure of Palestinian Arab society.

What the Jews did was buy land from people who wanted to sell it. The Jews needed to buy land on which to farm, and they could only buy it from those people who had title to the land. A long history of feudal exploitation of the Arab lower classes by the Arab upper classes in Palestine cannot suddenly become the fault of “the Jews” just because they buy some land.

In fact, the PA continues to kill Arabs who sell land to Jews even today. In 1997 Palestinian] Authority officials announced that Palestinians who sell land in the West Bank, Gaza Strip or east Jerusalem to Jewish settlers face *the death penalty*. They have also said sales of Arab-owned land *inside Israel* will be punished.

This is interesting, because the PLO/PA never had a claim to the West Bank or Gaza Strip -- read my response to your number 3.

2) Yes, but understandable.

Only if you like Nazis. Only if you like the idea of institutionalized classes that exist to keep Jews and Christians at the bottom of the social structure.

3) The stated objective is to get their land back.

There are several problems with that as a truthful statement.

When it was first formed, “The PLO’s… charter (the Palestine National Charter, or Covenant) set out the goals of the organization, which included the complete elimination of Israeli sovereignty in Palestine and the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Think about that: the *destruction* of the State of Israel.

It is worth looking at the actual language used in the PLO Charter or Covenant:

“Article 9…said that ‘armed struggle is the *only* way to liberate Palestine.’ Article 15 said it is ‘a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to *purge* the Zionist presence from Palestine.’ Article 22 declared that ‘the liberation of Palestine will *liquidate* the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.’”

The talk of ‘purging’ and ‘liquidating’ a ‘presence,’ and the insistence on violence as the "*only* way to liberate Palestine” (!) certainly sounds like the PLO’s founding goal was genocide.

Is this “a conventional agenda for national liberation”?

And consider this: The PLO was created at an Arab summit meeting in 1964.

This date is quite significant. In 1964, Israel did not control the disputed Judea-Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza territories. Not a single Jewish settlement existed in those areas. So, we can ask the question: in its original, 1964 founding Charter, what was the position of the PLO towards those territories?

“Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”

In other words, when Egypt and Jordan owned, respectively, Gaza and the West Bank, the PLO stated that these countries were the rightful owners of those two territories. This means either (1) that the PLO did not consider these lands to be Palestinian lands, or (2) that it did not mind foreigners ruling Palestinian lands.

It is only after 1967 that the PLO belatedly discovered that these territories were ‘Palestinian,’ after all. The Charter was amended in 1968, as Arafat’s forces were taking control of the PLO (Arafat was elected PLO chairman in 1969).

What happened? In 1967, Israel’s Arab neighbors provoked a war that had the goal of genocide against the Jews, but they lost, which resulted in Israeli control of the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

In a spectacular move, unprecedented in history, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, though victorious against a genocidal provocation, offered to return those territories in exchange for a mere promise of peace. The Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, however, refused to talk.

Israel was left with no choice but to keep those territories. And it was then that the PLO decided these had now become 'Palestinian' lands, which needed to be liberated. Thus began the so-called "occupation."

Conventional wisdom has it that a Palestinian state must be created out of the West Bank and Gaza. Such a state, formed from precisely these areas, is presented as a response to long-established Palestinian demands. But then, why didn’t Palestinian leaders, before 1967, demand that Egypt and Jordan set up a Palestinian state in these lands? Why did they, even then, use the Judea-Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza areas, as well as Syrian territory, to launch terrorist attacks on Israel?

Could it be that the PLO, which was "created at an Arab summit meeting in 1964," and which is entirely dependent on money from Saudi Arabia and other rich Arab states (most of them closely allied with the NATO countries!), is really a tool of Arab policy? A policy which has as its central focus "the destruction of the State of Israel"? [

Is that why, when you go to the Palestinian Authority's official Website (the PA is an offspring of the PLO), you see a map of the Levant in which Israel simply does not exist? That is, a map in which the area of Israel, plus Gaza and the West Bank are simply and jointly labeled 'Palestine'?
See map at : http://www.ipc-ps.info/ipc_a/ipc_a-1/a_map/pal-e.html