POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

Some Israeli/Palestinian History

Many if not most Arabs were forcibly driven off their historic land. Some 800,000 of the approximately 900,000 Palestinians who originally lived in the area that became Israel were forced to flee as a result of a systematic campaign of intimidation, massacres and internationally recognized ethnically-motivated mass expulsions. When the Jewish state was created, approximately 400 Palestinian towns and villages were depopulated by Jewish armed groups under the cover of the war, and were razed to the ground.

Instead of these crucial details, what we get from Oren is an image of pastoral Zionist bliss, of pure and progressive civilization struggling to survive in the midst of the dark and hostile Orient: “Drawing on Western and East European models, the Jews of Palestine created new vehicles for Agrarian settlement..., a viable socialist economy with systems for national health, reforestation, and infrastructure development, a respectable university, and a symphony orchestra — and to defend them all, an underground citizens army...”

Even if true, this is like saying “At least Mussolini made the buses run on time!” or “Hitler loved Wagner and promoted opera!” So what, any decent person would respond, if the cost was the persecution and ethnic cleansing of millions? It is by utilizing this kind of romantic nonsense that Zionists have since promoted the image of Israel as a little outpost of vulnerable civilization and democracy surrounded by a mass of Arab Jew-haters, forever at risk of being smashed into oblivion by the illogical and backward Arab mob. And on this count, Oren does not disappoint. Israel, he writes in language that observers of Israeli political rhetoric will find only too familiar, “had nowhere to fall back to but the sea”. The barbaric Arab society, meanwhile, “patriarchal, capped by totalitarian regimes, dwindling employment opportunities, low levels of health care were endemic to most of the Arab world... was hardly ripe for progress.”

Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, is presented by Oren as a hero who despite everything “refused to despair”, and whose cunning and brilliance saved the new Israel against those barbaric, corrupt Arab aggressors. His passion for Ben-Gurion is equaled only by his apparent contempt for everything Gamal Abdul Nasser stood for. Everything bad Nasser did is thoroughly documented. Nothing bad the Israeli leaders did is documented. The following statement by Yitzhak Rabin on Ben-Gurion for example would have provided a bit of balance and useful context: “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’”

Whenever Israel goes on the offensive in Oren’s account, it is always “in reprisal for guerrilla attacks”. And even then, when there is clearly documented evidence that war crimes were committed, he tries to excuse the parties involved by adding little disclaimers, even for the butcher Ariel Sharon: “Israeli commandos led by Major Ariel Sharon blew up dozens of houses, killing sixty-nine civilians — inadvertently, he claimed.”

What should matter here to the “objective” historian is not what Sharon claimed happened, but what history says happened. Elsewhere, the fashionable word “terrorist” is repeatedly used, but exclusively to define actions by Palestinian-led resistance organizations. Then as now, no Israeli, it would appear, is ever capable of provoking a “terrorist” act, let alone engaging in one.

Perhaps most damning is Oren’s treatment of the issue of colonialism. Almost needless to say, Soviet support for the Arab world in the context of the Cold War is well-documented. The confusion — or, more likely, deliberate obfuscation — arises over the question of why France, and then the United States, threw their support behind Israel.

“Finally an alliance was formed (between Israel) and France,” writes Oren, “which was also at war with Arab nationalism — in Algeria — and which shared Israel’s socialist ideals.”

Excuse me? The link between colonial France’s slaughter of one million innocent Algerians in a country it had no right to have occupied, and colonial Israel’s “war with Arab nationalism” in a country it too had no right to have occupied, and from which it had thrown almost a million Arabs, could hardly be said to have anything to do with “socialism”. To suggest otherwise, as Oren does, is to enter the realms of fantasy and idiocy uncharted even by academics of the ultra-right. However, Oren is thankfully nothing if not inconsistent when it comes to the little tricks he plays with history, and he later unwittingly undermines himself by revealing the true colonialist basis of the analogy: “Citing the Algerians’ recent victory over France — a victory that owed much to Nasser’s support — (the Syrians’) called for a ‘people’s war’ to destroy the Zionist plot.”

Yes indeed. But why the mocking phrase “Zionist plot”? Maybe because to replace it with “the same kind of destructive and illegitimate colonial forces” might be to steer too dangerously near the truth.

The United States’ support for Israel is a much simpler matter according to Oren. In 1964, Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol visited Johnson and told him: “We cannot survive if we experience again what happened to us under Hitler.” As a result, Johnson “gave Israel $52 million in civilian aid.” Now wasn’t that nice of the altruistic Mr. President, who of course had not a colonialist intention in his administration!

Unsurprisingly, it turns out that Oren is well-trained in insidiously subverting the truth for ideological ends as former adviser to the Israeli delegation to the United Nations, an organization that has done its utmost over the past 50 years, at the behest of the United States, to ensure Israel gets away with its perpetual war crimes.

The final nail in the coffin — or rather, two nails in the coffin — of “Six Days of War” as a serious academic undertaking comes in the form of “advance acclaim” on the back cover. One endorsement is from Ehud Barak, former prime minister of Israel and previously chief of staff of its terrorist outfit ironically called the Israeli Defense Forces, an extreme right-winger who as recently as 2000 likened the Palestinians to “crocodiles,” explaining: “The more you give them meat, the more they want.” Another quotation is from Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic, an ultra-right campaigning American political journal that has long been defined by its crude Zionist agenda.

 

Thanks for quoting it

Regards


TF

 

So you call Wild a Nazy. Do you know or understand what it means???? Wild is against a war that has no real roots or aim except steal the oil of the Iraqi people and that is supported by a racist agenda. This for me is years away from Nazism. And As I said it before, stop accusing a man beacuse of his ancestors but judge him on what he is today.

I can call your attitude as being disgusting, since as I posted it before, the USa did worse to the bmack people during 3 centuries or more and has already forgeooten its evil acts. Yet, I know the american society has evolved and that the situation is completely different than 30 years ago. So consider it as being the same for germans...

So for me if you support war, you are certainly the nazi. The germans have evolved and are certainly more civilized than most other european countries. Don't forget that till the 60's, France and Great britain had their colonies and what they did was simply disgusting and could be comapred to the Nazi exactions. Don't forget that. There is no superior country, all of them were involved in killings and lurdering of millions of people.

May be "one day" the USA saved the world but it happened so long ago and they commited so many crimes after that, it becomes evident for me modern Nazis are not german anymore.


Quote from stu:[/i]


That sums it up then......couldn't care less.... about being labeled a Nazi ???

Explains a lot .
I have witnessed any credibility you may possibly have had completely evaporate.

Your "cleaning lady" wont be able to clear up the mess that leaves.

jeez , couldn't care less about being thought of as Nazi.....I wonder how many Germans feel that way ??? [/QUOTE]

 

Do you really live in the US????

Even, us in europe we know that there are nazi groups in the US and we all learned about the Klu Klux Klan and their crimes on the black society and even on the jewish or latin community...

"Initially, the prime targets of the white supremacists were African-Americans and any sympathetic whites, especially those belonging to the Radical Republican Party. After World War I, other minority groups such as Jews, Hispanics, Asians, or anybody they identified as foreign, were also subject to violent attacks. "

 

Quote from fairplay,

since so many people here seem to be going after you because of your insistence on having the last word, may I ask you to let me/us know:

* did Germany not have some sort of a constitution in the 18th century?

hi fairply,

my reference to the American 18th century constitution is intended as a hint at the fact that it is a hopelessly outdated constitution. America is a one-party state (with "Republican" & "Democratic" wings) ruled by a corporate plutocracy represented by an appointed (not elected) plenipotentiary president. the American "elections" are a joke ... by European (and probably Indonesian) standards. would anyone outside the US of A dare calling the US supreme court´s ballot counting stop order and the ensuing appointment of G. W. Bush as president a democratic election process ... in your opinion ?

"Germany" as a modern national state didn´t exist in the 18th century. The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae - Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm#Name

ceased to exist with the so-called Reichsdeputationshauptschluß of February 25,1803

http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/rechtsphilosophie/hdoc/reichsdeputationshauptschluss1803.html ... German

http://www.miniatures.de/html/int/campaigns/1803Reichsdeputation.html ... English

and the resignation of Franz II as Roman Emperor, German King etc. on August 6, 1806.

like Britain until today this empire didn´t have a written constitution. closest to what one could perhaps call a "constitution" was the "Goldene Bulle" of 1356.

http://www.wi2.uni-erlangen.de/NueTour/e/history/gbull.html


regards

wild

 

Very funny

200 years of democracy for white europeans certainly not for black slaves

 

Pasting Contest-

C'mon TF, get with it, I think wild has the edge on you.

Don't forget: Extra points for quoting from fringe web sites.

 

I am not even trying to compete with Wild.
This guy is an artist in Pasting, and I really mean it an artist he has a gift and me I am just a hard worker.

TF

 

A gift? Bwaaaahahahaha!