BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:05 AM

Chief, that's just Martin, who thinks he's funny (no offense Martin but I think you aren't a great humorist)and he has apparently never seen a photo of CarolC, to judge from what he imagines. He replies to stereotypes that she never suggested, then applies whatever he can think of to her. It's just dumb, and people have been ignoring it.

The article at the top of this thread is one of the worst you could find by it's author.

Thanks for permission to think what I want of you CarolC, really--I know I can anyway but it really does matter to me that you don't begrudge it. I don't have any bad feelings either but honestly I'm fascinated by your persistence in foolishness. I think you're being sophomoric on purpose. You could say what you mean without mentioning Hitler, but you prefer to, then to back away from the implications. You like to pretend you are tone-deaf, and then argue about which dictionary definition you're using. You go, Vulcan girl. It's sophomoric. It's silly. You could drive tonight to instances of slavery in south Florida, but you argue that individual suffering of Palestinians is equal to individual suffering of Jews in the holocaust. You know what? It isn't, because every single thing is different, despite Locke, or Mill, or blah blah blah, or Chomsky. You're baiting and switching, to attract attention to your opinions. It does more harm than good, but you don't care. Did you read in Chomsky somewhere how to formulate dramatic opinions that serve to call attention to yourself? Good for you. You aren't tone-deaf, and you aren't special because people call you anti-semitic when you aren't. You're just being a kid.

It's poshlost, that sort of sentimental narcissistic self-importance that Russians considerately thought to name. As if I came back with a greater-good argument like, um, screw Palestinians. What have they ever contributed to world culture, compared to Jews? They exist just a little bit more than, say, Symbonians. I mean really. fuck them anyway. And also. What Christian that anyone could name goes into a court with the idea of "turning the other cheek"? Screw Christians too, they're just pretending to have actual beliefs, right up until anything matters to them. See? It's pretty easy to come up with flashy stupid stuff, but of course, I didn't actually say any of it. What I actually said was blah blah blah....

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:07 AM

BTW, carolC, I was not referring to your comments to Fred, but the one you made directly to me. After I attempted to be inclusive and to respect your point of view by saying

"I trust that both of us support Human Rights"

You responded with.

"I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I am in support of human rights. For everybody"

This was a bit snippy, to say the least.

It's like when someone says "now, now, we're all adults," and the rsponse is "well, I'M and adult, but I don't know about YOU!"

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Alex.S
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 12:28 AM

Well, I am Jewish (I know this is often a tough concept to the unititiated, but I mean this more culturally/thnically than religiously). Here in LA, most of the people I meet are what one might call members of the "liberal intelligentsia" and many are, in fact, Jewish.

Not once in my life have I encountered any real anti-semitism. We must draw a careful distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, the latter being far more common, and then only in the far left (socialist types).

It's too bad, because several decades ago Jews and socialism mixed nicely (and here, at least, they still do). But, I hear from friends at UC Berkeley (That university bastion of academic liberalism)that anti-zionism is now widespread.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:40 AM

Alex Statman,

I'm glad you made the distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. I believe in the ideal of Zionism but reject the current material state. I am not anti-semitic. I have believed this since 1965. For me it is not a new idea. Its interesting that the intelligentsia is beginning to see the whole picture. I hope they can explain it better than me. I was always afraid to express my views for fear of being labelled anti-semitic.

Just goes to show you that radical ideas, given time, may eventually become mainstream.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:15 AM

Anti-Zionism a radical idea? Nice try. Most Americans and most of the world have been Anti-Zionist from the get-go.

Alex, one of the reasons you have not encountered anti-Semitism may simply be because it is socially frowned upon. As anti-Zionism becomes more and more permissible, anti-Semites will inevitably begin to express anti-Zionist ideas while keeping quiet about their deeper anti-Semitism. So it's very possible you've encountered real anti-semites, if not open anti-semitism. This does not mean that most anti-Zionists are also anti-Semites, but certainly most anti-semites are anti-Zionist.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 02:42 PM

Nerd, What's the differnce? (I mean that sincerely). How do you really separate one from the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM

I consider it as important as the question of how I would feel if I were a Palestinian who was being disposessed of his or her ancestral land. I think it shows a lack of regard for real human issues and the tragedies that ensue, to not see it as anything other than a rhetorical question. (Carol)

I've hesitated very long whether I should give you a response to that question. The reason for my hesitation will become clear soon.
I'll give you the same response I have given in another thread, but considerably longer.

After the last big war, about 14 Million Germans (I have taken the number from one of the Evicted sites, so it surely is a bit of an exaggeration) have been dispossessed and evicted from their ancestral lands (some hundred thousands have been killed in that action). I don't tell you that to complain, for the reasons that have led to this development are known and Germany alone is responsible. (That's why I have hesitated for I am very far from any type of 'we too have suffered' argumentation which would be awfully wrong for many different reasons). I'll tell you that to show how the consequences of evictions can be dealt with in another way than in the Middle East.

These evictions usually had one day's notice and often only one suitcase of belongings was allowed to be taken. These evictions were not only from former parts of Germany to remaining parts of Germany (still the same land, you may say), but also evictions from the land of their birth of ethnic German minorities who had lived for centuries in for instance Czechoslovakia. For most of these people the evictions were for good, for the Iron Curtain prevented them to see their homes even as visitors. Imagine how it feels to be evicted from your home with one day notice and never to see it again for close to sixty years. Only a minority of the evicted has been able to travel now in the recent years (and in the best case made friends with the new residents, who called the same house 'home').

Perhaps it was a slowly dawning sense of guilt or the knowledge that Germany's crimes had led to this development, I don't know, for I was not yet born then. But the evicted were made welcome (my family of then 8 people had to make room for another family of 4 in a house that is now occupied by 2 persons), given rooms and, later, jobs. The feeling was that Germany had a responsibility for them and that they were our co-citizens for good.

If Germany had kept the refugees in camps close to the borders under inhumane conditions with vague promises of helping them to regain their ancestral homes, the development in Central Europe might have been considerably less peaceful than it was. To blame Israel alone for the very real suffering of the Palestinians in the West Bank (formerly a part of Jordan) and Gaza (formerly a part of Egypt) forgets some other players who have used the Palestinians as pawns in a power game.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Mar 04 - 04:05 PM

Well, Chief Chaos, as you know there are people on the left who are very inflexible about certain things. The idea of a state religion rankles them, and they are too rigidly perfectionist to say, "well, if other states have religions then Israel should be allowed to as well." So they would be anti-Zionist on the grounds that it involved moving people into an area and setting up a government based on their religion. They would also advocate dropping state religions everywhere, and a lot of other pie-in-the-sky ideals that will not come to pass anytime soon.

I don't have a problem with the statement "in a reasonable world, Israel would not be necessary, and I advocate a reasonable world rather than a Jewish State in this world" which was essentially what BillD was saying above. And this is anti-Zionist from first principles. But it is not anti-Semitic.

You can also amend this position to not be anti-Zionist, simply by saying "but barring a more reasonable world, I'll support Israel," which is basically my position.

In practice, I agree with you, it is hard to tell whether anti-Semitism lurks behind anti-Zionism or not. But we can't just assume it does.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:22 AM

Zionism was a necessity. Jews got tired of pograms. They wanted a place to live. I think today that anyone who is Jewish is automatically a citizen of Israel (although I stand to be corrected on that), and I do not think Jews have anything to apologize for with regard to Zionism. I personally don't give a rat's ass who likes my position or not. If I were Jewish, and given the history of persecution Jews have faced, I'd want a home I knew I'd be welcome in at anytime. And, given the sordidity of that history, I'd want a few nukes around just to have. Jews have depended on the various countries they lived in to protect them with law. Does anyone here need a list of countries in which that failed? No. Next time there's a pogram against Jews, it will be very expensive for all concerned. And it's about time.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:49 AM

Brucie,

it's not quite true that we are all citizens of Israel. I can't vote for representatives there, because I am an American citizen. But Jews would automatically be granted citizenship if we wanted it and if we went to live there..

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:52 AM

Gotcha. I was dredging what's left of my memory. Thanks, Nerd.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 03:44 AM

brucie - Everyone wants a place to live.

In my family, every generation seems to have found a new (different) place to live. I'm not sure if I have a homeland and I don't care. That hasn't stopped me from living my life. Pograms do not work but Jews are not the first (or the last) to live in countries with laws that do not protect them. There have been internment camps, apartheid, concentration camps, slavery, reservations and so on. What about those people? Should they not be given land that was historically theirs? The only reason Israel was given this special distinction was because the U.S. and Britain needed a strategic location to protect their oil interests.

Displacing one group to satisy the needs of another is not the answer. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because you feel you have been "dumped on" does not give you the right to dump on others. Conflict is always reduced to us and them and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Thats the problem.

Do you ever think there may come a time when people will realize that nations are politically structured to separate people? Someday we may decide to stop fighting and realize that we are all born on this planet and therefore have a right to live here? Borders serve the power elite and their need to control the movement of goods and people. The conflict in the middle east isn't a religious conflict. Its economic.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:03 AM

Dianavan, I think it's a bit of a lowball to characterize Jewish concerns as a feeling that they've been dumped on. Sure there are other reasons for the establishment of Israel than the most important ones. There are other reasons for everything, but it doesn't negate the good, it's just mixed.

   I've decided for myself that I really only support human rights to a limited extent. Driving cars results in human rights violations, in that accidents will undeniably happen, and individual human suffering will be caused, no matter what we do. I'd like it to improve, but for now I live with it. Our jury system results in human rights violations, and since this is known, I draw the line at the death penalty. But until I know a better way to do things without introducing a new set of flaws I guess I'm complicit and a good German in this ongoing abuse. Hitler would be proud of me. I'm a Nazi.

   I'm not Jewish, or especially religious, but if Jews don't mind, Jewish culture is also partly my culture, and Israel is also a democracy. I don't fully support the U.S. in it's current form, but that's the trouble with democracy. I'm still rooting for it to do better.

I don't have to worry about defending Israel and it would be pretty easy for me to criticize in an unbalanced idealistic manner, but who would it serve, but me? People without children are always better and more committed parents than us flawed cretins who have them. The obvious solution is that only childless people should have children.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:12 AM

Martin Gibson, I've been giving it some thought and I really feel
that you have more to fear from the radical right than you do from
the left.

The right's religious agenda is something like this. Preserve Israel
but when the Second Coming happens (which Bush believes) the Jewish
people will be exterminated by God because they don't believe in
Jesus. That's really scary!

Armageddon is blown completely out of proportion due to a misinterpretation of Revelations.

Unless you are a Jew for Jesus, when the radical right is finished,
Jews will be at the least second class citizens and at the most
taken out. The left has no such agenda and many of the great spokespeople for the left were Jewish.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:25 AM

I agree that borders are a mistake. We will be without them soon enough. The multinationals and NWO will see to that. This is just debate and statement of positions. It won't matter much in fifty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

dianavan: You are correct about much of what you say, but in western history, NO group of people have been scapegoated as freguently as Jews. That's fact. I side with Israel. I alos think Palestinians need a homeland. However, I think the security of Israel has to come first. That's my last comment on it. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM

Okay, I understand a little better now.

Te only thing that I have a bone to pick with is how Israel chooses to enforce it's sovereignty (sovereignity?). Unfortunately it's true that far more Palestinians have died in the conflict than Israelis. Sort of makes it a moot point blowing ones'self up.
We (the U.S. military) are constrained from using force above and beyond "an appropriate response". This means if someone pulls a knife we are not allowed to respond with a bazooka. Israel has the right to defend herself by all means but their responses to shootings and suicide bombings include far too many "innocents" (one could argue that there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian). Massad, the Israeli special forces unit, used to be able to get close enough to a suspect to plant explosives in their cell phones. That way only the suspect had their head blown off. Responding to an attack with air borne missiles, tanks, helicopter gun ships etc. is out of hand and only generates more attacks from the other side. We would never allow, nor would the British ever consider, blowing away an apartment building to get one or two "suspected" IRA members. Although the police did blow up a rowhouse in Philadelphia a couple decades ago and end up taking out the whole of the rowhouses in an "unforseen" fire.
If Massad used to be able to do in one target at a time, why are they generating so much "collateral damage" now?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 02:49 PM

CC: Ther is nothing 'selective' about suicide bombing a bus full of kids. I don't mean to sound cold, but this wasn't an issue when it was just Israelis getting hit. Now it's an issue because people attacking them are getting hit. Now we know why Israelis--specifically Jews--need a country of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM

I don't have time to read everthing that's been posted since my last post right now. I'll post this now, and then, when I have time, I'll read and, if needed, respond. This is the information I've been busy gathering in the last few days:

Once again, Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state occupying 77 percent of British Mandate Palestine. It is entirely a creation of the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab segments. Its name derives from the British designation transjordan, meaning "that part of Palestine on the East of the river Jordan." It was the part of Palestine the Arabs got. It is the much bigger part, and the much better part, with all the oil and other natural resources.

This is entirely misleading, and hardly faithful to historical fact.

According to one of the official Jordanian websites, during the period of Ottoman rule:

"The four centuries of Ottoman rule (1516-1918 CE) were a period of general stagnation in Jordan. The Ottomans were primarily interested in Jordan in terms of its importance to the pilgrimage route to Mecca al-Mukarrama. They built a series of square fortresses—at Qasr al-Dab'a, Qasr Qatraneh, and Qal'at Hasa—to protect pilgrims from the desert tribes and to provide them with sources of food and water. However, the Ottoman administration was weak and could not effectively control the Bedouin tribes. Over the course of Ottoman rule, many towns and villages were abandoned, agriculture declined, and families and tribes moved frequently from one village to another. The Bedouins, however, remained masters of the desert, continuing to live much as they had for hundreds of years.

Population continued to dwindle until the late 19th century, when Jordan received several waves of immigrants. Syrians and Palestinians migrated to Jordan to escape over-taxation and feuds, while Muslim Circassians and Chechens fled Russian persecution to settle in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Turkey."

According to all of the documents I've been able to locate about the Mandate period, none of them suggest that the Arabs living in the area that is now Israel and the Occupied Territories should be moved from where they lived to Transjordan. In fact, most of them, including the Balfour declaration, say that the rights of non-Jewish residents should not be infringed:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Some more sites with information about the Mandate period:

Wikipedia

Jordan website



Map of 1947 UN Partition plan

The following quotes are from declassified Israeli documents and personal diaries. Anyone who wants to, can verify them on their own:

Moshe Sharett , first Israeli foreign minister:

1914...

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.

1937:

"The proposed Jewish state (proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan) territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties .... the frontier line would separate villages from their fields .... Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ..... in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states..... It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert ('Zorkim Otam') .... A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory.

For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be 'practical'. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? ... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?"

1949

"the most spectacular event in the contemporary history of Palestine, in a way more spectacular than the creation of the Jewish state, is the wholesale evacuation of its (Palestinian) Arab population. . . . The opportunities opened up by the present reality for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state (referring to the Palestinian Arabs living in the portion of the 1947 UN Partition plan) are so far-reaching, as to take one's breath away. The reversion of the status quo ante is unthinkable."

Quotes from Ahad Ha'Am, a Russian Jewish intellectual

1891

"We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ..... But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains .... are not cultivated."

"If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily."

"....[the Zionist pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency."

"[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules."

"We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside."

"Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ..."

On the subject of the boycott of Arab labor by Jewish labor...

"Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael? And if this be the Messiah: I do not wish to see his coming."
1914...

"(the Zionists) wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this illusion will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution."

Israeli historian and military strategist, Martin Van Creveld, in his book The Sword and The Olive:

"In the Event of invading (Arab) forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ..... were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arabs countries outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews' favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000."

"As for Abdullah's Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive."

".... there was no common military headquarters, no attempts at coordinating the offenses of the Arab armies, and ... not even a regular liaison service for sharing enemy intelligence."
"Perhaps the most important [of Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise."

Yigal Allon , commander of the Haganah's Palmach between 1945-1948

"The echo of the fall of (Palestinian)Arab Safad carried far . . . The confidence of thousands of (Palestinian) Arabs of the Hula was shaken . . . We had only five days left . . . until 15 May([1948). We regarded it as imperative to cleanse (Palestinian Arabs from) the interior of the Galilee and create Jewish territorial continuity in the whole of the Upper Galilee. The protracted battles reduced our forces, and we faced major tasks in blocking (prospective Syrian and Lebanese) invasion routes. We, therefore, looked for a means that would not oblige us to use force to drive out tens of thousands of hostile (Palestinian) Arabs left in the Galilee and who, in the event of an invasion, could strike at us from behind. We tried to utilize a stratagem that exploited the (Arab) defeat in Safad and in area cleared by (Operation) Broom - a stratagem that worked wonderfully.

I gathered the Jewish mukhtars, who had ties with the different (local Palestinian) Arab villages, and I asked them to whisper in the ears of several (Palestinian) Arabs that a giant Jewish reinforcement had reached the Galilee and were about to clean out the villages of Hula, to advise them as friends, to flee while they could. And rumour spread throughout Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem fully achieved its objective . . . and we were able to deploy ourselves in face of the [prospective] invaders along the borders, with out fear for our rear."

"We looked for means which would not obligate us to use force in order to get tens of thousands of sulky (Palestinian) Arabs who remained in Galilee to flee, for in case of an Arab invasion, they would attack us from rear."

In reference to the expulsion of the villages of Lydda and Ramle of their Palestinian inhabitants:

"clogged the routes of the advance of the (Transjordan Arab) Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of "maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralsation in every Arab area (the refugees) reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors."

Mapam party do-leader Meir Ya'ari, on the subject of Allon's strategy of using refugees to accomplish military goals:

"Many of us are losing their (human) image . . How easily they speak of how it is possible and permissible to take women, children, and old men and to fill the road with them because such is the imperative of strategy. And this we say, the members of Hashomer Hatzair, who remember who used this means against our people during the Second World] war. . . . I am appalled."

Yigal Allon, in justifying to Ben-Gurion a plan for military conquest of the West Bank:

"Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now."

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:26 PM

Laws that are different for Israeli Arabs:

(This law pertains only to Israeli Arabs...)

The Absentee Property Law (1950), states that any land left vacated by those who were forced to flee during the war of 1948-1949 becomes the property of the state of Israel. This applies to 200,000 Palestinian of Israeli citizenship (20% of the total), who fled their homes in 1948 and settled elsewhere within Israel. The absentee law also applies to those Palestinians who fled to other countries and to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All of them have been denied all rights to the properties (lands, houses, corporations, shares, bank accounts, bank safes, etc.), which they owned until 1948.

The Laws preventing Arab parties that do not recognize the Jewish character of the Israeli State from participating in elections.

The 1945 emergency legislation, which allows the confiscation of Arab land (by 1998 only 10% of the immovable property owned by Palestinians before 1948 remained in Palestinian hands).
The educational law, which has the promotion of Jewish culture and Zionist ideology as one of its declared aims.

This law applies only to Israeli Arabs:

Following enactment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law on 31 July 2003, thousands of couples will be forced to live apart. Children will be separated from their parents at the age of 12 or will become lawbreakers through no fault of their own. Many families will remain in Israel with no legal status in order to live together.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 06:51 PM

Carol,

I never said it was the British intention to move anyone into Transjordan, but that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs. Nothing you have said contradicts that. Anyone moving anywhere would have been entirely voluntary. Just as Muslims were allowed to remain in India, even though Pakistan was created to be a Muslim state, so they would have been allowed to remain in Israel. Whether they wanted to live in a Jewish state was another question.

I also never said anything that contradicts the 1947 map; indeed, it reflects exactly what I said: that AFTER there had already been a state in the British Palestine Mandate set aside for Arabs (Transjordan), the UN set aside ANOTHER one (the west bank and Gaza Strip). Israel agreed to those borders, but the Arabs in several countries rose against them and the Palestinians in Israel rose up, so israel fought back. Jordan took the land; Israel won it from Jordan in a later war. We've been through it all before, and it makes the 1947 UN plan irrelevant. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, were the ones who rejected that plan.

As to the laws, the US has also enacted wartime emergency laws that may look repressive (and indeed were). You took the characterization of these laws from an obviously biased and distorted website. For example, the law stating that Israel took lands from people who were "forced to flee." They were forced to flee because they rejected Israeli citizenship and rose up in armed revolt against the government! Guess what? The US confiscated British lands in the Revolutionary war, too. It was the Arabs who started that war, and now they complain that they lost their land.

Your discussion of how the Israelis deceived the Palestinians and got them to flee only makes the Israelis look smart AND just. They avoided having to fight pitched battles, and kill or be killed. Is this such a bad thing? Remember again, they did not start that war.

Finally, in the following statement:

This law applies only to Israeli Arabs:

Following enactment of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law on 31 July 2003, thousands of couples will be forced to live apart. Children will be separated from their parents at the age of 12 or will become lawbreakers through no fault of their own. Many families will remain in Israel with no legal status in order to live together.

you neglect even to tell us what the law is or what it does. It seems from the title that it would only apply to immigrants. If so, they can choose whether or not to immigrate there based on what the laws are. Anyway, is this separation of couples really a consequence? We can't tell from what you give us.

This isn't really information, it's propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:12 PM

This isn't really information, it's propaganda.

You're mighty quick with the accusations there, nerd. It was an omission that I didn't notice until after I posted. And I didn't have time to correct it until now.

Nationality and Entry into Israel Law

I never said it was the British intention to move anyone into Transjordan, but that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs.

Please provide the document where it is stated that it was the British intention that Transjordan was the part of the Palestine mandate set aside for Arabs. I've not yet found any evidence that this is the case. I've only found evidence that the British were making conflicting promises to the various groups involved, and that they didn't make any clear cut declarations of their intent (at least none that weren't contradicted by others that they also made). The Hashemites think that not only was it not a part of Palestine, but that Transjordan was the part of the Mandate that was set aside for them. The Hashemites do not represent the indigenous people of what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:25 PM

CarolC, I was not misquoting you, I was stating what you suggested about me by saying "I really couldn't say." You were stating that from my posts, for all you knew, I COULD be "against Human Rights." This then suggests that my posts and my online demeanor are such that one could come away with this impression.

You were, indeed, misquoting me, and telling me what my meaning was on top of that. I find this a bit offensive.

And as for the person you compared to Hitler, when you say "are you saying that X applies, because if so Hitler would be proud of you," rhetorically you are suggesting a comparison to Hitler. You are trying to back someone away from a statement he has made by saying "the way I understand it, that statement suggests a Hitler-like attitude," which in itself SUGGESTS you think he is like Hitler.

Again, I find you telling me what my meaning and my intentions were in asking that question. You are doing exactly the thing you are accusing me of doing.

I was trying to get the person I was addressing (can't even remember who it was now) to "shit or get off the pot" so to speak. Either you advocate collective punishment or not. If you do, then the comparison is apt. If you don't, then it's time to move on to the next question.

Technicalities aside, it's a little offensive.

And again, so is your habit of telling me what I mean by what I say.

This crap about indoctrination is pretty offensive too. There, you are misquoting me rather severely. I never said anything about indoctrination. What I said was that Jews wish Israel to exist, and that all things being equal, and given that there will be the same amount of suffering in the world (a premise I know you don't share, but one which we honestly believe to be true), we would prefer the option that keeps Israel in existence. As they say, "so sue us." But don't slander us!

Ok. I'm willing to accept that that is what you meant by what you said. Now, are you willing to extend to me the same courtesy?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

Wolfgang, I appreciate your post.

brucie, I don't begrudge Jews their homeland in Israel. I think the early Zionists created a lot of the problems the region is experiencing now, with the way they went about getting this homeland. I don't have any problem with Israel being a homeland for Jews now, but I do have a problem with the government of Israel and a large part of the world community not treating the Palestinians like human beings, and I have a problem with Israeli expansionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Mar 04 - 11:57 PM

CarolC,

I'm going to call you on some of this stuff. I am not doing the same things I accuse you of. First of all, although my quotes are not precise, and therefore could fit the definition of "misquoting," I did a good job in each case of paraphrasing what you actually said. So:

on the issue of supporting human rights, you said "I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself."

My paraphrase: "I really couldn't say [whether Nerd supports Human Rights]." I think this is pretty fair.

Second, when you said:

"Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that."

I generalized to "are you saying that X applies, because if so Hitler would be proud of you,"

Again, I think, a pretty fair paraphrase.

Now, what I actually said was "Somewhere in the back of the Jewish mind, there is always the question: What if I have to go to Israel? Will it be there for me? That is something, I think, that can never be engrained in your psyche because you live in a Jewish neighborhood."

You quoted me thus: "And you're right. I will never have the degree of indoctrination that you have recieved about the 'history' of Israel." The only thing your statement had to do with mine was Israel. I was not talking about history, or indoctrination, nor I think did I seem to be doing so. I was talking about the future, not the past. But by putting "you're right" before an invented statement that no-one ever made before now, you are indicating that this was what I said. Like in "you're right, Nerd, you ARE an asshole!"

If you had said, "Nerd, your words suggest that you have been indoctrinated," then I would have disagreed, but not taken offense.

I did not, as you say "tell you your meaning." I was careful to use the word "suggest" in describing what your words only suggested. Insoe cases I had to use the word "suggests" three times in a sentence. (Does this suggest that I am obsessive about shit like this? Perhaps!)

But honestly, CarolC, when you say "are you saying such and such?" Nine times out of ten, the person on the receiving end will take that to mean that you think that IS what he or she is saying. To use that construction without intending the person to draw that conclusion is unwise, as you will be misunderstood.

As for your comments to me, I refer you to my post of 10 Mar 04 - 12:07 AM, which I quote in full (and expand upon) below:

BTW, carolC, I was not referring to your comments to Fred, but the one you made directly to me. After I attempted to be inclusive and to respect your point of view by saying

"I trust that both of us support Human Rights"

You responded with.

"I can't speak for you. I can only speak for myself. I am in support of human rights. For everybody"

So to break this down, I said "this positive attribute belongs to both of us"...which was a compliment to you. And you responded with "well, I believe it belongs to ME, but I'm not sure it belongs to YOU," which was at least a slight, and perhaps a direct insult, to me.

It's like when someone says "now, now, we're all adults," and the response is "well, I'M and adult, but I don't know about YOU!"

If you honestly tell me you did not mean this specific quote in that way, then I'll believe you. (But please tell me how you DID mean it, then!)

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:50 AM

Nerd, I think this discussion has deteriorated into a personality conflict. I do not agree with your characteriaztion of me, and since I know me and you don't, I'm going to stick with what I know. I'm going to refrain from trying to characterize you, for the same reason I wouldn't speak for you about whether or not you support human rights... because it's not my place to do so. At this point, I think these kinds of exchanges are unproductive, and I have no interest in participating in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

Nerd and Carol, back to your corners. You both should be commended
for the in-depth information and background. Let's stay off the personal crap because it gets in the way of your "points" which
are interesting and useful. They are indicative of the problems of
the Middle East and I enjoyed reading the history that you both present.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,C-watch
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:04 PM

Excuse me while I return this thread to its topic, "Anti-Semitism & The Left."

The new issue of Adbusters, a left wing magazine based in Canada, blames the Bush foreign policy on a small cadre of neo-cons dominated by Jews with a Likud Party agenda.

This type of anti-Semitsm on left is not so different from that of the McCarthyite right wingers of my father's day who blamed communism on a small cadre dominated by Jews.

Here's the Adbusters article.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 03:21 PM

CarolC,

I advanced no "characterization of you" at all. I merely pointed out what you said and what many readers would take away from it. Remember, I was not the only one offended by your Hitler remark.

You may know yourself pretty well, but you are apparently oblivious to how you sound to others sometimes. It's no great sin, and it happens to all of us.

(To which you may choose to respond "well, I know it happens to YOU, but not to me!" But I trust you won't do that.)

Okay, back to my corner now...

c-Watch,

It IS, unfortunately, true that many leading neo-cons are Jews and that in the short term, a neo-conservative agenda and a pro-Sharon agenda coincide. Whether it's anti-semitism to point this out depends on how you say it.

I think the adbusters article, trying to claim that it is Political Correctness not to call a Jew a Jew, certainly verges on anti-semitism. It's like when people say, "well, why won't anybody point out that most terrorists are Arabs? Why NOT make all Arabs empty their pockets at the airport?"

Thanks for pointing out that piece.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 09:27 PM

Nerd, a couple of times you've given the impression that there was a separate quibble I had with CarolC about the tone of her remarks about who supports human rights. I was talking about her comment to you though, which I and I most likely everyone but ostensibly CarolC herself heard the same tone of insult in.

Again I disagree with CarolC. I follow these sorts of discussions precisely for the purpose of getting a sense of what people are on about, rather than as a source of history and statistics. She seems to find my line of interest "unproductive"--and I hers. In fact, I'm not sure how much I disagree with her general point, but do know I quite disagree with the manner of stating it.
   
   I could certainly be wrong in my perception of her slant on things. Could easily be quite wrong. But if one hopes to speak for a reason, wouldn't it be productive to take feedback on how one sounds? or why people are put off? I'd think so, if one were serious about speaking for something beyond themselves. I think I'd leave off facile pseudo-ironies about Hitler and the holocaust and simply find another way of stating the case. What harm would that do?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 09:33 PM

Carol C is a serious defender of human rights. I respect her for that. I like Carol, and although I do not agree with her, I admire how hard she fights for the cause she supports. Many of the posts have got pretty harsh from lots of people. Trust that she really believes what she says. And, she is arguing from that position.

If I were Palestinian, I would appreciate having her helping my cause. S'long's we all understand that, things get a bit clearer. Pardon me for speaking on your behalf, ma'am.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Mar 04 - 11:47 PM

Pardon me for speaking on your behalf, ma'am.

Nothing to pardon, brucie. Thanks, once again, for your kindness.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:13 AM

Yes, Fred, I understood that you were talking about the same incident with CarolC. I made the distinction because CarolC seemed at one point to have forgotten that she had addressed me on the matter directly. So when I talked about the Human Rights thing, she said:

"I did not suggest that you aren't for human rights. What I said, and what I've been criticized by Fred Miller for saying, is that I can't speak for you about weather or not you are for human rights, that only you can say whether or not you are for human rights."

Fine, but in my original post I had said "I trust that both of us support Human Rights"; this was in fact what she was responding to. How could I have said this if I myself did not support Human Rights? The only sense I could make of her later comments was that she had forgotten that it all began with a statement by me that I supported human rights and would assume she did too.

This context makes the faulty logic of the whole "I can't speak for you" thing pretty transparent, too. I obviously was not asking anyone to speak for me, as I had already spoken for myself.

Brucie, I agree with you about CarolC, too. It's the low-level insults that she apparently does not mean, but that many of us feel, that got us off on this line. But in general, she's a fighter for what she believes in, and that's always inpressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Sam L
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:26 AM

Well. Everybody is nicer than me. Again. Damn. All the chairs taken when the music stops. Here I am, again, the lone jerk. Where's Martin when you need him. I think it's a conspiracy.

   I don't think I can back-pedal from having said I don't find CarolC's position serious, but instead I think she sounds like a liberal with a pet cause, which she holds apart from all others involving much the same principles. Including those on the other side of her position.

   And I don't agree with you Nerd about low insults. CarolC doesn't do that easily or very much at all, but to the extent she seems to, the problem is more for me that it tips off the whole tone and gist of her position. It's not that she implies that you are not for human rights, it's that she generally implies that nobody is unless they agree with her, and does not admit comparison to the many ways that human rights are compromised toward other ends. Listen: She says things like "I don't begrudge Jews their homeland in Israel"--I guess it's just me, thinking For God's sake who do you imagine you are, anyway? I can't come around to it, at all. No more than I can come around to George Will's posturing in the article above. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Galbraith
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:36 AM

"Trust that she really believes what she says."

Brucie,

Please reread my post of 07 Mar 04 - 05:41 PM. It dealt with one topic: Arafat's corruption.

CarolC's response at 07 Mar 04 - 12:17 PM was: "Are you saying that these things justify the massive human rights abuses that Israel is perpetrating against the Palestinians? Because if you are, you would be advocating collective punishment, and I'm sure Hitler would be proud of you for that."

I did not even mention Israel. For all she knew, I may have been a pro-Palestinian activist who happens to believe that the cause would be better served by a leader who wasn't plundering from his people.

CarolC's implicit message is that anyone who provides a reasoned response to the issue of Arafat's corruption is justifying human rights abuses and is a Nazi.

I've gathered that CarolC's personal and unjustified attack on me was not an isolated incident. Do you think that she believe what she says when mounted that attack on me?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM

If anyone were to do an analysis of this thread, or for that matter, any of the threads on Israle/Palestine, as compared to other threads about world affairs, they would see that the number of personal attacks I recieve on Israel/Palestine related threads is almost one humdred percent greater than those I receive on any other type of thread. This is because, since the people making the personal attacks on me are trying to defend reprehensible, and therefore indefensable actions of the government of Israel, they must resort to ad hominem attacks and smear tactics on those who challenge their viewpoint. Martin Gibson, Nerd, Fred Miller, and various "Guests" are the ones doing it on this particular thread.

Galbraith, I am not suggesting that you are a Nazi, nor was I then. I think it was a mistake for me to use my response to you as a way to make the point that a lot of people seem to think that the whole Palestinian population should be punished for whatever Arafat does or does not do. That is collective punishment, and I think those who use Arafat as an excuse for the actions of the Israeli government are advocating collective punishment. That was a favorite tactic of the Nazis. People should be aware of that. But you're right. You were not doing that. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Frankham
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM

Again, the idea that there is one good side and one bad side is naive.
Of course there are human rights abuses on both sides. The Israelis need to ask the question, however, why would an individual strap
explosives on his/her body and detonate it in a public place? What has lead to this madness? The Palestinians have to ask themselves
at what point will they tolerate Jewish religious practices and
depart from the extremist Hamas-style reactionary groups?

When will the bulldozing of innocent people's homes stop and when
will the rock throwing and suicide bombings as well?

It's simply ridiculous to assign to either side a completely high moral ground for their actions.

America in it's present condition is unable to broker a deal as mediator. Bush's ties to apocalyptic religious bias regarding Israel disqualifies him in every way. The UN is the only hope and in spite
of the John Darby approach to the "Left Behind" novels, a world
government is not such a bad idea. It would curb the conceits and arrogance of the Bushites and the Radical Religious Right.

I'm still for Chomsky's solution.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 12:59 PM

...and Nerd, to answer your question, I don't see how anyone can be for human rights while supporting what the government of Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians. As far as I can see, to do that is to promote Jewish rights above the rights of others.

But I don't think it's my place to tell you what you think, or what your positions are about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:13 PM

OK, we got lots of positions. I'm hoping to change this thread's direction just a bit. We know there's a problem, and we ain't gettin' anywhere with THAT. What's the solution?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:47 PM

Hi Folks,

Many of you may know that I am Carol's husband. Carol has told me that this thread was started by Martin Gibson as a deliberate attempt to troll for her. I haven't read much of it, but I have read enough to believe that this opinion is warranted. I would appreciate it if you all would go back and reread what she has said. In that light, I think then you will find her reactions make perfect sense. She told me what she was thinking when she wrote about speaking for Nerd's belief in human rights.

Nerd, she certainly does not feel exactly as you do about human rights, there are, after all, different levels of support. She also is precisely honest about what she says. If she says she cannot speak for you, she means that she cannot speak for you, not that she thinks that you do not support human rights. This distinction may seem murky to you but it is clear to her, and to me.

I would appreciate it if you'd cut her a little slack.

Thanks Nerd for this kind statement.

But in general, she's a fighter for what she believes in, and that's always inpressive.

I think it perfectly describes Carol's participation in these discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:51 PM

I guess we cross posted Brucie.

I'd really like to see this thread drop off the page and go away.

Why don't you start another thread if you want to discuss solutions? One without the trolling and ill will of this one.


Thanks

Rob

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 01:58 PM

"I would appreciate it if you'd cut her a little slack."

A little slack? You mean just like your little Jack the Sailor?

HA HA HA!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM

Good idea, Rob. I have done so. See "Middle East Solutions" on a thread near you.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

The childish immaturity of Mr. Gibson
is evidenced in every utterance
He howls and bellows like a little lost pup
with bile and venom and sputterence
To engage in conversation with him is
to be dragged into the gutterence.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Nerd
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:09 PM

I think CarolC accusing me of personal attacks is unfair.

(Jack, of course you must defend her.)

Again, CarolC said "I can't speak for you" immediately after I had already said I was for Human Rights. The only way to take this is as "I think there is still doubt, and that you may be lying." THAT is a personal attack, and as far as I could see it came from nowhere.

What, specifically, did CarolC take as a personal attack from me? I'd be interested to see where she think's I've been "attacking."

CarolC, by saying the following:

I don't see how anyone can be for human rights while supporting what the government of Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians. As far as I can see, to do that is to promote Jewish rights above the rights of others.

you have shown that

(1) everything you've said about me and human rights and what you really meant (to me and to your husband) is at best an evasion, because now you say you really think I can't possibly support human rights with my politics (which is interesting)

and

(2) you haven't been reading what I've been saying. I don't support what the government of Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and I don't support what Palestinian terrorists are doing to Israelis. But I don't think a solution can be reached until there is a Palestinian leadership with both the power and the will to negotiate for the Palestinian people. Israel has a democratically elected government and trusts its leaders. It has had progressive governments, conservative governments, and reactionary governments, and NONE of them could work with Arafat. There has not yet been a Palestinian leader who could bring anything to the table, which is precisely why Galbraith's points about Arafat's corruption are relevant, and why your trivialization of those points was unfair. Arafat does not want this problem solved because the problem is the source of his power and wealth. THAT is what has been stopping the peace process for forty years.

Let a real Palestinian leader come forward, who is really commtted to peace, and I think a solution will be reached. Until then, Israel is as unable as the Palestinians to solve this problem. You can blame them all you want, but it will not help.

And the whole "It's not up to me to tell you thing" is old, carolC (and JTS). If you said to me "I think you may be an asshole, but it's not up to me to tell you whether you are an asshole or not. Only you can say if you are an asshole," then where I come from you have still called me an asshole, you've just used a lot of extra words.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:50 PM

ATTTENTION!!

I am back after a few days out of town.

The last post claiming to be me was not me. Jack the Sailor, I did not post what was said about you by someone claiming to be me. Honestly, I do not need someone posing as me to get myself hated by some in this group who I also have no respect for. However, if you do not like this thread, which I did start with a legimate article post by a renowned journalist, then get the fuck off of it.

Whoever posted as me, Fuck you.

Fred Miller, I think this afrticle was one of the best ever written by George Will who is an award winning writer and who I KNOW is repsected by the Jewish community. As for your not finding my posts funny, I just do not give a shit.

As for Chief Chaos, I know what this thread is about, moron, I started it for Christ sakes.

For all of those who have particpated in this thread who have wasted your time arguing with a stubborn Israel hater like Carol C., I do have respect for your tenacity.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:37 PM

I have to say, this whole big discussion about what Nerd insists I meant by what I *didn't* say, is just about one of the silliest things I've ever seen here in the Mudcat.

So Martin, that was not you who stopped just short of calling me a cunt? ( ...in the post under your name that mentions 'female genitalia') Or was that you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:51 PM

BTW, Nerd, I subscribe to the idea that if you don't have anything nice to say, and if no basic, very important principles (such as human rights) are at stake, don't say anything. Maybe you've never heard of that one. Personally, I think it's a good way of doing things.

That is why I haven't responded to the many posts of yours and Fred's in which the two of you enumerate all of the ways you find my style of posting unattractive, or disagreeable, by telling you what I think of yours. And I think I'll continue to keep it to myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:08 PM

It sure would be nice if we could move from here to that wonderful new thread entitled, "Middle East Solution" which was started by a common, uncomplicated, ordinary, every-day saviour of North America's destiny. Holy Shit are y'all pissed off. Just a little light humour here, that's all. Nothin' to see, let's move along; nothin' to see, let's move along.

Special thanks to Pat Paulsen for the NA's destiny remark. Shameless theft on my part.

Subject: RE: BS: Anti-Semitism & The Left
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:17 PM

And with that, a peace settled over the people at Mudcat Cafe. Brothers and Sisters decided to end the thread at the magic number of 250. And to all a good night.