Netanyahu visits Trump with the important mission of stopping Iran and Hezbollah as his highest priority. What a waste would it be if he, as some of the members of his coalition want, wastes this golden opportunity discussing 2334.

While the decisions of the UN mean nothing and while Trump is going to close down this rogue organisation anyway during his term in office, this specific resolution, 2334, is very favourable for Israel and in its own true interests.

One thing is common between David Singer and Hamas or Hezbollah: they all fail to recognise Israel. Hamas claims that the people of Israel should be subjected to Islamic interests, Hezbollah claims that the people of Israel should be subjected to Arab or Shiite interests and David claims that the people of Israel should be subjected to Jewish interests. The actual people who live in and are citizens of the state of Israel and their right for self-determination, matters not for any of them.

If certain Jews believe that they have rights over those ghosts of the past (Jewish quarter, temples and wall, the tomb of some Arab Kadi falsely believed to be of Rachel, the Machpelah where people who never existed are claimed to be buried, etc.), then let them go there and fight themselves over it rather than recruit the good people of Israel to do this dirty job for them.

The state of Israel has generously offered all Jews who are under duress and need refuge from anti-Semitism to come and join it at any time. This invitation is being abused by Jews who themselves have never participated in the building of Israel with their own sweat or blood.

Been through it all before. The UN is a corrupt body which should be abolished. Israel will ignore it. New Zealand is a disgrace for going along with the resolution, and Australian should have remonstrated with NZ for its stupidity. Amen.

Evidence!? Expose!? What, like the disingenuous mendacity that passes for legitimate comment in your unusually vacuous articles?

Speculation and Wild Assumption based entirely on self generated false premise/confirmation bias!?

Moreover your mind reading powers are not what they used to be, Agent Provocateur of the first water!?
Alan B.

Resolution 2334 sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Obama could not betray Israel since he has no obligation to support Israel. Like every ethical person he has an obligation to support justice, and the resolution condemns injustice.

David Singer confuses the state of Israel with the Jewish people. They are two separate entities. Some Jews support Israel. Some Jews oppose Israel. Some Jews don't care one way or the other. Probably more American Jews voted for Obama than Israeli Jews voted for Netanyahu. Jews like other people who are for democracy are generally for separation of religion and state. They oppose Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist states since a democratic nation should be for all of its citizens not just those of a particular religion.

Obama did not betray Israel, but Israel encouraged an American, Jonathan Pollard, to betray his country and spy on it. In a show of magnanimity his parole board tempered justice with mercy and released Pollard from prison when justice demanded he should die there. Not satisfied with release in his own country the betrayer wants to go to Israel so scum can be treated like a hero.

Stop your incessant whining David,
You act like it's official that the US is a puppet state of Isreal.
And what? the President of the US can't make decisions without running them by you first?

Israel has never abided by even the stipulations placed upon it upon its admission to the UN, let alone many of the UN's resolutions.

Armchair Critic's incessant whining should cease forthwith.

David Singer is a sterling example of truth, justice and fortitude in adversity.

Play Hatikvah again Sam http://youtu.be/GvJqS3d6UUI

#AlanB

Once again you display your ignorance of what occurred with this statement:
"Speculation and Wild Assumption based entirely on self generated false premise/confirmation bias!?"

You have obviously not read this admission from NZ Foreign Minister McCully:

"Some quite exotic theories have been advanced as to why this resolution was dealt with in the final month of New Zealand's council membership. The truth is: the United States would not accept any resolution on this topic until after US presidential elections in November. The domestic politics would have been too difficult."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11780250

Oh - so Obama was prepared to knowingly mislead American voters by not telling them of his intentions months before Resolution 2334 surfaced suddenly in the Security Council in December. With whom and when did the Obama administration discuss holding off any resolution before the American elections in November?

This is not speculation and wild assumption. This was an attempt to pervert the American elections and to act in concert with other Security Council members on a resolution that America would not veto. New Zealand appears to have knowingly acquiesced in that duplicitous conduct.

Netanyahu would not dare make the following allegation if he did not have the evidence to prove it:
"We have it on absolutely incontestable evidence that the United States organized, advanced and brought this resolution to the United Nations Security Council. We'll share that information with the incoming administration. Some of it is sensitive, it's all true. You saw some of it in the protocol released in an Egyptian paper. There's plenty more; it's the tip of the iceberg."

Mc Cully's admission would certainly be part of what is beneath the tip of the iceberg.

I am not exercising mind reading powers. I am quoting chapter and verse from one of the principal players in this act of Obama betrayal of one of America's closest allies.

Obama denials cannot be believed in the face of McCully's admission.

Dear David Singer,

It is part of politics to say or avoid making statements that would hurt a candidacy even though the politician may take action after the election contrary to a position before an election. To expect a politician to live up to all pre-election statements or positions is to exhibit great naiveté. It is not a betrayal. It is normal politics.

Trump advocated moving the US embassy to Jerusalem during his election campaign. I doubt that he will do it now that he has the power to do so. It will not be a betrayal if he doesn't do so. It is normal politics. He may now feel it would not be a good thing to move the embassy. Doing what is right and good outweighs keeping a promise. Kol Nidre specifically excuses one from making oaths that may be wrong.

I am not sure it would be a good thing if politicians would feel bound by all pre-election promises. It may be a good thing not to keep all promises.What you call betrayal is normal politics. I'm sure you know that, but you prefer to use inflammatory rhetoric.

I think resolution 2334 is a just one. If Obama orchestrated it I think he did something good.

#Yuyutsu

You state:
"David claims that the people of Israel should be subjected to Jewish interests."

Israel is a Jewish State - the Jewish National Home of the Jewish people reconstituted pursuant to the legal rights vested in the Jewish people by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

No better definition exists of "Jewish State" than that given by David Ben Gurion to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine at Lake Success New York on July 7, 1947:

"What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name "Palestine," - I said if - then all would be Palestinian citizens If the State would be given, another name - I think it would be given another name - because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as "Palestine" at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew."

The failure of the Arabs to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan by trying to wipe the newly-declared Jewish State off the map in 1948 still remains the objective of the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dear David,

«...pursuant to the legal rights vested in the Jewish people by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.»

I understand that you are a lawyer, but I piss on your laws and on that rogue organisation. Soon enough Trump will put an end to it anyway.

The right of the people of Israel to live and be secure is based only on their own effort in purchasing Israel's lands, building a wonderful place with their ten fingers and enlivening what was formerly desert and swamps - not due to the babbling of some sedentary lawyers in New York.

As for Ben Gurion, he was a shrewd politician and like them all, often said things for convenience that he never believed in himself. Obviously Israel needed and still needs to have a non-Arab (but not necessarily Jewish) majority for its survival, in other words a majority that would not slaughter the minorities, this goes without saying, but the Jewish narrative was merely a convenient pretext to assure support for Israel's survival. While Ben Gurion kept quoting the bible, he never personally considered it to be true (he founded a circle of scholars who spoke critically of the bible and regularly attended their fortnightly meetings even as a busy prime-minister).

Yes, the Arabs in 1947, 1948 and many of them still today, cannot accept and wish to wipe out any non-Arab state, within the Middle-East and elsewhere, Jewish or otherwise. Fortunately they failed and so my family in Israel, perhaps miraculously, is still alive.

#yuyutsu

Anyone who deigns to write :
"I understand that you are a lawyer, but I piss on your laws ..."
needs to be treated with contempt.

Do you believe in the law of the jungle?

Guess you were so occupied writing your diatribe that you forgot to tell us how your family comes to be living in Israel?

Why did they migrate there, when and from where?

Dear David,

I believe in one law - the law of God: For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, King of kings and Lord of lords; and He shall reign forever and ever!

How my family comes to be living in Israel? Through their mother's womb!

#Yuyutsu

Why are you so reluctant to tell us how your family comes to be living in Israel?

Have you ever been to Israel to visit them?

Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to have a non-Arab (but not necessarily Jewish) majority for its survival?

Don't you accept that Israel is the Jewish National Home?

Dear David,

«Why are you so reluctant to tell us how your family comes to be living in Israel?»

I already told you, they were born there. Some of their ancestry there can be traced back to the year 1600.

«Have you ever been to Israel to visit them?»

Lots. Last time was a few months ago.

«Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to have a non-Arab (but not necessarily Jewish) majority for its survival?»

Because Arabs/Muslims cannot control their violent extremists and those violent extremists would never accept the presence of others in their region and would never rest unless all others are dead. If Arabs became a majority, they would change the legal landscape in such a way that Israelis, including my family, would no longer be able to live there.

«Don't you accept that Israel is the Jewish National Home?»

No, I reject all nationalities. People may want to stick together because they have common goals, values and lifestyles, but that cannot be said of Jews as a group (if even there is such a thing), which are very diverse and can be completely different from each other.

Dear David,

The area that is now Israel is the Jewish National Home because supposedly that is where the Jewish people came into being.

However, because an area is where a people originated a long time ago is no reason that their descendants should return there. Supposedly the Magyars and the Bulgars arose in what is now Ukraine. That is no reason that Hungarians and Bulgarians should settle in or claim those areas. That is what is called irredentism and has been the cause of many wars. If we believe in that highly doubtful document, the Bible, the area between the Jordan and Mediterranean was inhabited before the Jews got there. If the area is the Jewish National Home it is even more the Canaanite National Home because they were there first.

There is a primitive religious belief among some Jews that God is a real estate dealers who allotted Jews that part of the planet. Do you believe that nonsense?

In my opinion no country should discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion. There should be no Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim countries. Although the country may try to be fair to the part of the population that does not represent the paradigm on which the country is founded it cannot be.

Jews are not discriminated against in the United States, Australia and other democratic countries. They can marry who they like in those countries without needing the approval of any clergy. They are not isolated from other children by a segregated public school system. Why should a Jew abandon a democracy which treats him like any other citizen to go to a state dominated by a primitive ethnic nationalism? Makes no sense to me.

I have sympathy for people seeking a refuge from persecution who want to find a haven. However, for people who are not seeking a haven from persecution to go to a country because their ancestors may have lived their a long time ago makes absolutely no sense to me.

#Yuyutsu

I assume your relations are Christians. Is that correct?

Going back as far as 1600 is very impressive. Where did they originate from before making their way to the Holyland?

What should happen to the 57 Islamic States around the world?

Aren't they and their populations very diverse and completely different from each other?

#davidf

You state:
"The area that is now Israel is the Jewish National Home because supposedly that is where the Jewish people came into being.

However, because an area is where a people originated a long time ago is no reason that their descendants should return there."

The League of Nations and the United Nations do not agree with you.

The League of Nations in 1922 unanimously endorsed the right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

The United Nations preserved the rights vested in the Jewish people by the Mandate in 1945 in article 80 of the UN Charter.

The failure of the Arabs and people like yourself to accept the binding legal nature of these decisions has led to untold conflict and suffering by both Arabs and Jews for almost 100 years.

Dear David,

You appeal to legal precedents. That is what a lawyer could be expected to do. I would prefer to appeal to compassion. I believe that no state should discriminate among its population on grounds of ethnicity, race or religion. Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim countries cannot do otherwise. I prefer justice to acceptance of unjust legal precedents. The establishment of a Jewish state served the interests of the British Empire at the time although the British later prevented Jewish emigration to Israel. Your devotion to legalisms prevent you from being a mensch. I assume you know what being a mensch means. Ethnic nationalism stinks whatever group it serves. No Country should discriminate among its citizens on grounds of religion, ethnicity or race.

Dear David,

One can cite past precedents, but often all it does is enshrine the injustice of the past. The United States Constitution as originally written provided for slavery. It was a move toward justice to amend the US Constitution to eliminate slavery. In order to do that it had to disregard the precedent that allowed slavery.

Ethnic nationalism developed in the nineteenth century. It maintained that countries be established on the basis of religion, ethnicity, culture or some other criterion which unified the population. Examples were the unification of Germany and the Risorgimento in Italy. Jews participated in these movements enthusiastically. However, when unification was achieved there was often no place for Jews. So Jews developed their own ethnic nationalism called Zionism. Tony Judt called Zionism the last of the nineteenth century nationalisms. In establishing the state of Israel as a Jewish state where Jews are the paradigm Jews have imitated the ethnic nationalist states which had no place for Jews.

However, there are counter examples to ethnic nationalism. Two examples are the United States and the French Republic which were established on the basis of separation of church and state. The religion of its citizens is not the business of government, and religion cannot use government to advance its agenda. Separation of religion and state are necessary for democracy.

Israel calls itself a Jewish democracy. That is nonsense. Separation of religion and state are necessary for democracy. If the United States became a Christian state, non-Christians would become second-class citizens. As long as Israel is a Jewish state non-Jews will be second-class citizens.

There should be no second-class citizens in any country.

#davidf

1. You state:

"I prefer justice to acceptance of unjust legal precedents"

The rule of law is deeply embedded in democratic countries.

You are apparently only prepared to comply with it when it meets your standards of justice.

The PLO follows your example.

It has declared everything that happened since the Balfour Declaration to be "fraud" in 1964 - as amended to "null and void" in 1967.

Throwing international law out the window and has proved a recipe for disaster.

2. You err in claiming:
"The establishment of a Jewish state served the interests of the British Empire at the time although the British later prevented Jewish emigration to Israel"

All 51 Nations of the League of Nations - not Britain alone - unanimously endorsed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home under the terms of the Mandate for Palestine.

Had the Arabs accepted the Mandate in 1922 - a Jewish State in 22% of the land covered by the Mandate and an Arab State in the remaining 78% would have become a reality instead of a source of ongoing conflict 95 years later.

3. You conclude:
"No Country should discriminate among its citizens on grounds of religion, ethnicity or race"

I agree.

Israel with a population comprising 80% Jews and 20% Arabs is a shining example in a region where discrimination is rife in so many other countries surrounding it.

That is not to say that Israel cannot do better - but Israel's achievements in having given everyone the right to vote, the right to a tertiary education, to exercise freedom of speech, an unfettered press, and to reach high positions of authority in Israeli society and the Israeli parliament should be applauded not denigrated.

Compare that to Gaza and Areas "A" and "B" in the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Yemen and you will understand what I mean.

4. A "mensch" is defined as being a person of integrity and honour.

Respecting the law - not belittling or demeaning it or substituting your own version of justice - is a necessary prerequisite.

Dear David,

We can set the law up as an idol. Sometimes it serves justice. Sometimes it doesn't. I don't think Israel is a shining example. You do. We disagree.

I think no state can be just and represent only part of the population. At one time I thought Israel could do that. I no longer think so. In some ways it imitates the states which oppressed Jews. I think there is no good substitute for a democratic state.

Anybody can attain high office? When a non-Jew can become president or prime minister of Israel I will believe that.

#davidf

1. You state:
"We can set the law up as an idol. Sometimes it serves justice. Sometimes it doesn't."

Who then decides what "serves justice"?

Does the law of the jungle supersede the law of the judges?.

2. You state:

"I think there is no good substitute for a democratic state."

I agree.

But in democratic states the rule of law is supreme.

Israel is uniquely a Jewish and democratic State - as Ben Gurion explained when he told the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine on 7 July 1947:

“What is the meaning of a Jewish State? As I told you before, a Jewish State does not mean one has to be a Jew. It means merely a State-where the Jews are in the majority, otherwise all the citizens have the same status. If the State were called by the name “Palestine,” – I said if, – then all would be Palestinian citizens. If the State would be given, another name – I think it would be given another name, because Palestine is neither a Jewish nor an Arab name. As far as the Arabs are concerned, and we have the evidence of the Arab historian, Hitti, that there was no such a thing as “Palestine” at all: Palestine is not an Arab name. Palestine is also not a Jewish name. When the Greeks were our enemies, in order not to annoy the Jews, they gave different names to the streets. So, maybe the name of Palestine will be changed. But whatever the name of the country, every citizen of the country will be a citizen. This is what we mean. This is what we have to mean. We cannot conceive that in a State where we are not in a minority, where we have the main responsibilities as the majority of the country, there should be the slightest discrimination between a Jew and a non-Jew.”

This is the Jewish and democratic State its two Arabs-only undemocratic neighbours in Gaza and the West Bank want to eliminate.

However this racist twists and turns, a state for an ethnic group of overlords, established by armed violence, maintained by armed violence and expanded by armed violence including gun-protected encroachments outside its borders, is a racist blot on the face of the earth and owes its temporary existence to its current value as a cat's paw for American colonial interests.

The temporary withdrawal of America's veto power, itself a product of a wartime role long past, left a glimpse of what the world thinks of Israel.

Yuyutsu's description of his own family's need of Israel not as an expression of racial overlordship but as a haven from racial injustice accords with everything I learned from my friend whose Jewish family had lived side by side with the Arabs for generations and for whom the Nakba was a disaster that led him to move to Australia and to detest Israel with a passion.

As applies in all probability to Yuyutsu's family who it seems had lived alongside the Palestinian Arabs for many generations without threat and hopefully will continue to do when the poisonous state of Israel has been dismantled.

Don't set too much store by Donald Trump's current policy towards Israel, Mr Singer. His goal is "making America great" and cozying up to its strategic toe-hold in the Middle East serves that objective. For now.

Dear David,

Israel is not democratic since a Jewish state only represents part of the population. The decisions deciding that Palestine should be a Jewish homeland are flawed because the people in the area were not consulted.

Israel has no civil marriage. Why should clergy of any religion decide who can get married?

In 1952 the US Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in schools. Segregation by religion is no better. In Israel not only non-Jews are segregated but all Jews don’t even go to school together. The ultra-orthodox schools lack the secular subjects necessary for a person to make a living in an increasing technological world. The education of boys and girls is different in that milieu. I think only eight schools in Israel have both Jewish and non-Jewish students going to school together. It sure sounds like apartheid.

However, you asked a good question. “Who then decides what "serves justice"?” Sometimes it happens through a legal progress sometimes through civil disobedience. Sometimes it happens through violence. Sometimes injustice wins out.

We can only decide what is right for ourselves. If injustice is trivial we live with it. If it is not trivial we are obligated to oppose it. In Yad Vashem righteous gentiles who refused to obey the Nazi laws and saved Jews are honoured. Laws may be unjust whoever makes them.

Thoreau thought it unjust for the government to tax people to support the Mexican War. He refused to pay that tax and went to jail. He wrote about civil disobedience.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER2/thoreau/civil.html contains his essay. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King jr. practiced civil disobedience – Gandhi against the Salt Tax – King against racial segregation. Eventually India became an independent country free of British rule. . Eventually the laws in the US maintaining racial segregation were eliminated. Civil Disobedience is not the law of the jungle. It incorporates non-violence and means refusing to obey unjust laws..

To end slavery in the USA took the violence of Civil War. If the South had won they would have continued to keep slaves. There is no sure way to justice.

#davidf

You repeat a classic piece of false Arab propaganda with this one sentence throwaway doozy:

"The decisions deciding that Palestine should be a Jewish homeland are flawed because the people in the area were not consulted."

Take the time to read the following:
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

Moreover the Jewish homeland was restricted to 22% of what had been promised to the Jews at the San Remo Conference and by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 as a result of article 25 being inserted in the Mandate for Palestine. This was the direct result of the representations by the Palestine Arab Delegation undertaken with the British Government as set out in the above correspondence.

The Jews accepted that decision - but the Arabs did not.

78% was not enough for them in 1922 and it is still not enough in 2017.

The Arabs wanted 100% then and they still want 100% now. It has dominated their decisions in refusing to accept further compromises in 1937, 1947, between 1948 to 1967, in 1993, 2000/2001 and 2008.

You have outed yourself as a pathetic pawn in swallowing this propaganda whilst seeking to denigrate and delegitimise Israel and help its enemies achieve their nefarious objective.

You would have made far more sense and been more relevant if you had stated:

"The decisions deciding that Israel should not be recognised as a Jewish homeland are flawed in 2017 because the people in the area are not being consulted."

Abbas in the eleventh year of his four year term as President continues to spew his Jew-hatred by refusing to accept a Jewish state among 22 Arab States - whilst holding captive a population that has not been consulted because no elections have been held for the last 10 years.

Yet this outrage is not on your radar.

Why not?

Dear David,

We have been holding a civil conversation. It seems not to be that any more.

'pathetic pawn' is not civil.

Goodbye

Dear David,

Let me try once more. There are 22 Arab states. None of them are democracies. All of them do not have the separation of religion and state which is necessary for democracy. In not having separation of religion and state Israel is an undemocratic state which copies both the Arab states and those states which have oppressed Jews. Look to the United States as a democracy where Jews thrive because it has the separation.

#davidf

Do you now acknowledge that your following comment is unsubstantiated and is in fact false:

"The decisions deciding that Palestine should be a Jewish homeland are flawed because the people in the area were not consulted."

I assume you read the evidence I presented to you to rebut your claim:
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

Could you please withdraw your statement or present evidence you rely on to justify your claim.

Dear David,

I read the reference you suggested. In it was the following:

"If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

The above complains that the people of Palestine would not consent to any constitution which would not give them full control of their own affairs. I grant that Arab representatives were consulted and their views were ignored.

However, my main objection to Israel remains that it resembles more the states where Jews have been oppressed than it does the United States where Jews have flourished. The Jews have flourished in the United States because there is separation of religion and state, and a person's religion is no business of the government. Jews have not flourished in countries where religion is the business of the government as non-Jews flourish at the expense of Jews. In Israel Jews flourish at the expense of non-Jews. Without separation of religion and state a country is not democratic regardless of what it calls itself. Israel imitates the countries which have oppressed Jews. It is not good to have Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim states. They are all oppressive.

It's not just religion, it's racism - the implanted notion that genetics determine people's inborn role as overlords or underdogs. Israel and its behaviour are both founded on racism peddled by elements among those who present themselves as genetic overlords. Religion, an intrinsic evil in itself, gives an added impetus to racism.

#davidf

It is indeed pleasing that you now state:

"I grant that Arab representatives were consulted and their views were ignored"

The canard that you have now retracted:

"The decisions deciding that Palestine should be a Jewish homeland are flawed because the people in the area were not consulted."

has been one of the multitude of false facts presented by Arab propaganda as part of their "narrative"

You can for example find it repeated at the UN in 1947 by the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs:

"As for the Mandate, it contains the same redhibitory defects as the Balfour Declaration. It also violates Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. Whereas the Covenant states that the purpose of the Mandate is to serve the interests of the mandated territory and requires the Mandatory to lead it towards independence, the text of the Palestine Mandate envisages placing Palestine under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home.

The same article of the League of Nations Covenant provides for consultation of the inhabitants of the mandated territories. The inhabitants of Palestine were not consulted."
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/9559F15D11159A028525776C0071FE0B

This lie is but one of the many lies perpetrated over the years by Arab propagandists.

Repeated over and over again and not being challenged they eventually become accepted as truth.

I hope you never make this claim again - and correct others who you see making the same claim.

Fake news was being distributed about the conflict in Palestine by Arab propagandists long before President Trump made fake news an issue.

Beware anyone who seeks to rely on Arab sources for information on the Jewish-Arab conflict. Double check the facts you use from such sources before rushing into print.

Dear David Singer,

In the Arab-Israeli conflict both sides lie. I was told and I believed that the Arabs who fled their homes in the 1948 War of Independence fled because they were told to by the Arabs and would return with advancing Arab armies. It was a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

"A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

I believed that lie and feel bothered about it. Neither the Arab nor the Israeli side can be trusted. I think it is wise to doubt both sides.

I can remember as a small child before there was a state of Israel being chased by other children who said, "Jewy pewy, go back to Palestine." I was born and lived in the United States. That was my country. I now am a resident of Australia. I have had a good life in both the United States and Australia. When someone talks about making Aliyah to Israel I think of those kids chasing me. I have a right to live where I am living and object to being told I should go to a foreign country. I find it equally objectionable to be told that by a Jew hater or a Zionist.

Dear David,

You wrote: “This lie is but one of the many lies perpetrated over the years by Arab propagandists.

Repeated over and over again and not being challenged they eventually become accepted as truth.

I hope you never make this claim again - and correct others who you see making the same claim.

Fake news was being distributed about the conflict in Palestine by Arab propagandists long before President Trump made fake news an issue.

Beware anyone who seeks to rely on Arab sources for information on the Jewish-Arab conflict. Double check the facts you use from such sources before rushing into print.”

Will you be as scrupulous about Israeli propaganda as you are asking others to be about Arab propaganda? I am referring to Benny Morris, an Israeli historian who exposed the lie about Arabs leaving their villages voluntarily during the War of Independence. That lie has been repeated over and over. I used to believe it and am angry about being lied to.

Unfortunately President Trump is a monumental liar who tries to divert attention from his lies by accusing the media of fake news when it is he who has lied. One example of his lies is his claim that the murder rate is high when it is the lowest that it has been in many years in the US. Trump would like to shut everybody up who criticizes him in any way.

#davidf

You quote Benny Morris:

"A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

You do this blissfully in ignorance (I would hope not deliberately) of what Morris himself wrote in the Irish Times on 21 February 2008:

"The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops."

Are you prepared to admit that the Arabs fleeing Palestine did so mainly of their own volition?

According to first-hand information that I got from family-members who were in Israel in 1948, there was chaos, there was no central policy on either side: on the Arab side, different villages and towns received different instructions from their local leaders and surrounding militias and on the Israeli side, the decisions about what to do with the local Arab population was left to each individual local military commander, usually at the level of captains who were in their early 20's - some placed the Arabs on trucks and expelled them, some ignored them and others asked them to stay, all at their personal whim. Also, at least in some cases, Arab villagers fled because they had ground to believe that the Arab militias that were fighting around their villages were going to rape their women.

ear David,

I am not prepared to follow your line which is simply that Arabs lie. Israelis tell the truth. They both lie sometimes. They both tell the truth sometimes. Neither are all good. Neither are all bad. They are all human.

Yuyutsu's last post coincides with what I can make of the situation.

I feel it is bad when one ethnic or religious group dominates another which is what has happened in Israel. The only fair solution I see is to have one state which is no longer Jewish, Muslim or Arab but a state for all the people living in it which does not discriminate as to ethnicity or religion. I am sick of this crap talking about a Jewish democracy. Democracy is not tied to any ethnicity or religion. If my country were officially a Christian country I would be a second class citizen as I am a Jew. In a Jewish country non-Jews are second citizens. you know that, David. You don't live in Israel. You live in a country where most people are Christian, but if the government demanded your country to be called Christian I doubt very much that you would like it. You are a propagandist for a Jewish state, and you remain willfully blind to the consequences of supporting ethnic nationalism. Propaganda is one-sided, and an enemy of truth.

I realise that if I had been a European Jew who survived the Holocaust I would have welcomed the chance to go to Israel. I recognise that the Arab armies tried to destroy the new state, and they were fought off. However, the result was that one people now dominates another people, and that is neither good nor democratic. it is tragedy.

The truth remains that any genetic overlordship is a blot which in Ahmedinijad's words merits sweeping from the face of the earth as was Boer South Africa (which looked to be a permanent fixture until the eve of its comeuppance when the world finally became fed up with it as it will with racist Israel). Boer incursions into land outside its borders especially in South West Africa hastened its demise. The Zionist land grabs in Palestine for settlements for genetically chosen recipients is bringing the demise of racist Israel closer, and if it ends up in one state governed by Sharia "law" because of its refusal to negotiate any deal in good faith then it's asked for it (and betrayed its residents who need a secure, peaceful life).

It could always agree to the status quo ante the Zionist Nakba in which Jews and Arabs lived peaceably in the one territory for centuries, but the chance of any such solution fades daily.

#davidf

You certainly have changed your tune.

Having asserted that 700000 Arabs were uprooted by the Jews - as you believe Benny Morris claimed - and that you had been lied to about that having occurred - you now state::

"Yuyutsu's last post coincides with what I can make of the situation."

Yuyutsu stated:
"According to first-hand information that I got from family-members who were in Israel in 1948, there was chaos, there was no central policy on either side: on the Arab side, different villages and towns received different instructions from their local leaders and surrounding militias and on the Israeli side, the decisions about what to do with the local Arab population was left to each individual local military commander, usually at the level of captains who were in their early 20's - some placed the Arabs on trucks and expelled them, some ignored them and others asked them to stay, all at their personal whim. Also, at least in some cases, Arab villagers fled because they had ground to believe that the Arab militias that were fighting around their villages were going to rape them "

This certainly does not amount to the mass uprooting of 700000 Arabs at the hands of the Jews.

Yuyutsu accords with what Benny Morris recounts in his letter to the Irish Times dated 21st February 2008.

"Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops."

So will you now answer this question.

Are you prepared to now admit that the Arabs fleeing Palestine did so mainly of their own volition?

Dear David,

I am not prepared to say most Arabs fleeing did that on their own volition because I do not have evidence to say it is true. I think some Arabs fled on their own volition. I do not know the proportion.

I am prepared to say some Arabs fled on their own volition. I do not have the evidence to say that most Arabs fled on their own volition.

Dear David,

Are you prepared to agree that the new State of Israel should have allowed people who fled a war zone to return to their homes when the war was over?

So 700000 Arabs fled an invasion of heavily-armed army of racist butchers. Of course it was of their own volition. So?

#davidf

You now state:
" I am prepared to say some Arabs fled on their own volition. I do not have the evidence to say that most Arabs fled on their own volition."

Here are some contemporary Arab sources as evidence:

1. Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, in his book, "The Arabs:"
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

2. Khalid al-Azm, Syrian Prime Minister (1948-49) in his 1973 memoirs:
"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave."

3. "The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two, Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee - Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948).

4. "The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade, He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951)

Please now answer my question #davidf

Dear David,

I have already answered your question. Some Arabs left of their own volition. Whether it was most of them I can't say. However, it was a war zone. Some fled. There were various motives. One can flee a war zone in fear that something bad may happen to you and your family. It seems reasonable that that was the motive for some. They could have been afraid of the armies on both sides. Now please answer my question. Why did the new Israeli government not let those who fled return to their homes? Fleeing in fear or for other motives is not doing wrong. The Israeli government in not letting them return did do wrong. I suspect that the new state wanted to be ensured of a Jewish majority which is why those who fled were not allowed to return.

After the Holocaust some Jews who survived returned to their homes but found they were not allowed to live in them again as others had taken them over. Jews now could do the same to others. Please answer. Why could those who fled their homes in what was then Palestine not return to their homes when the war was over?

#davidf

I don't intend answering your question which I have now asked you three times until you answer mine

I have presented you with contemporary evidence from Arab sources confirming the majority of the Arabs fled as a result of the urging of their own leaders, together with supporting evidence from Benny Morris and Yuyutsu.

You have not provided a tittle of evidence to support your claim that some Arabs fled of their own volition but not a majority.

If you want to have any credibility then produce some evidence to support your claim.

Come on David stop playing games and just admit you were in error and we can then continue our discussion.

The question once again:

Are you prepared to now admit that the Arabs fleeing Palestine did so mainly of their own volition?

Everyone who flees an invasion of well armed foreign murderers does so of his or her own volition, unless they were kidnapped and bundled on to exit trucks.

#Emperor

Your Jew-hatred seems to know no bounds.

Do me a favor.

Switch off for one hour spewing out your vitriolic and offensive comments and watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maMSb8ZIHVE

I am more than happy to watch a video of your choosing showing similar achievements emanating from any of the 57 Islamic States world wide.

Shucks - maybe you might one day become a beneficiary of some of the discoveries shown on this video - if you are not already..

Sit down and marvel - and get that hate out of your system.

You will feel much better.

Everyone,

«The Israeli government in not letting them return did do wrong. I suspect that the new state wanted to be ensured of a Jewish majority which is why those who fled were not allowed to return.»

To the extent that this was indeed the motive, this sounds terrible!

It is one thing to create a space where one can try to live only with like-minded people - but quite another to forcibly drive away former innocent residents of that space.

However, if the above motivation is slightly different then it could be quite valid:

Change "to be ensured of a Jewish majority" into "to be ensured of having no majority of such people who want to kill you, your family and your community".

Which was the case in 1948?

The material result might be the same, but the motive could be quite different and make a world of difference between right and wrong, so can we tell what was in the Israeli-leadership's heart of hearts at the time, and even now?

I don't really know, but I think that it was a mixed bag, I think that there was much confusion and both motivations lived side-by-side.

"Your Jew-hatred seems to know no bounds."

The Uber-racist David Singer again seeks unsuccessfully to disguise his racism by accusing people calling it out as "Jew haters", and references to scientific and medical advances in the seized enclave of Israel. In the same way the British colonialists could refer to their achievements compared with the natives to justify their armed possession of Rhodesia. While it lasted.

The fine detail of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine (Plan Dalet) by armed foreign invaders is given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus and many other sources. It is described also for example in an excellent book on the events by Professor Ilan Pappe (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) bringing the usual chorus from the likes of Mr Singer of "Jew hatred" (or in that case "self-hatred").

Anyone fooled even momentarily by Zionist lies such as those peddled by Mr Singer should do some homework.

Dear David,

You posted on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 12:54:46 PM

“Beware anyone who seeks to rely on Arab sources for information on the Jewish-Arab conflict. Double check the facts you use from such sources before rushing into print.”

You then posted on Saturday, 25 February 2017 9:43:32 PM

“Here are some contemporary Arab sources as evidence:”

Others should beware, but you rely on Arab sources when it suits you.

The Arabs could have left for several reasons:

1. Fear of what they would suffer from both armies.
2. They were driven out by Jewish forces
3. They were encouraged to leave by Arab broadcasts

All of the above could be true. You have not presented any reliable evidence that most left for reason 3.

I understand why you will not answer my question about the reason for not allowing the Arabs to return to their homes. The fact is there is no good reason. It was to establish a Jewish state. To admit that would be admitting that the Jewish state was founded on ethnic cleansing.

Australia, countries in the Americas and other nations were founded on getting rid of indigenous people. If we are to believe the Book of Joshua the ancient Israelites exterminated many of the Canaanites.

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

The Book of Joshua may be and probably is legend. However, the Jewish claim to Israel is based on the Bible, and the Bible describes genocide.

It is unreasonable to demand that Jews be better than English, Spanish, Americans and others who have taken the land from people who were living there. Ancient biblical mythology is no justification for taking Israel. Jew hatred promoted during centuries of Christianity caused Jews to seek a place of refuge. Unfortunately other people were living in that homeland claimed on the basis of past genocide.

There should be no Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim states. No state should discriminate among its citizenry.

It seems Yuyutsu's family lived peacefully side by side with Arabs for generations. It is the murder rampage by Zionists in 1948 that generated the well justified hatred by its Arab victims that has put Yuyuysu's family at risk. Whether they would take it out on a family that lives in Palestine by birthright who knows? History tells how the Russians went through East Prussia like a packet of salts. It was the Huns, not the Russians, that put the people of East Prussia at risk by their own arrogance while in Russia. Certainly the dismantling of Israel needs to be negotiated step by step to preserve the human rights of families born there so that the status quo prior to the foreign terrorist invasion can be restored, including religious freedom and no ethnic overlords.

The alternative is Sharia, which couldn't happen to more deserving people than the foreign settlers but would be a gross injustice to locally born inhabitants.

Dear EmperorJulian,

There were many outbreaks of violence in the area of Palestine before 1948. The Hebron Massacre was just one of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

"The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven or sixty-nine Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[1] The event also left scores seriously wounded or maimed. Jewish homes were pillaged and synagogues were ransacked. Many of the 435 Jews who survived were hidden by local Arab families.[2][3] Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities.[4] Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The massacre formed part of the 1929 Palestine riots, in which a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed, and brought the centuries-old Jewish presence in Hebron to an end.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

The massacre, together with that of Jews in Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and around the world. It led to the re-organization and development of the Jewish paramilitary organization, the Haganah, which later became the nucleus of the Israel Defense Forces.[13] In the metanarrative of Zionism, according to Michelle Campos, the event became 'a central symbol of Jewish persecution at the hands of bloodthirsty Arabs'[14] and was 'engraved in the national psyche of Israeli Jews', particularly those who settled in Hebron after 1967.[15] Hillel Cohen regards the massacre as marking a point-of-no-return in Arab-Jewish relations, and forcing the Mizrahi Jews to join forces with Zionism.[16]"

It is a tragedy in which both sides have played their part.

#davidf

We are getting closer to a meeting of minds as you now agree:

"The Arabs could have left for several reasons:

1.Fear of what they would suffer from both armies
2. They were driven out by Jewish forces
3. They were encouraged to leave by Arab broadcasts."

You misunderstand my observation to double check Arab sources.

THe Arab sources that you seek to deny are contemporaneous accounts of what transpired - not AArab propaganda sources.

Here is another contemporaneous account from a non-Arab

Kenneth O.Bilby, the correspondent in Palestine for the New York Herald Tribune during the War of Independence wrote in a book published shortly afterwards:

"The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.

After the war, the Palestine Arab leaders did try to help people -- including their own -- to forget that it was they who had called for the exodus in the early spring of 1948. They now blamed the leaders of the invading Arab states themselves. These had added their voices to the exodus call, though not until some weeks after the Palestine Arab Higher Committee had taken a stand."
- Kenneth O. Bilby, New Star in the Middle East, (Doubleday, 1950).

How many teeth do I have to draw and how many contemporary accounts do I have to post before you agree that the majority of the Arabs left of their own volition and were not uprooted by the Jews.

Dear David,

I don't deny that some Arabs left of their own volition. You keep wanting me to agree that most of the Arabs left of their own volition, but I have not seen any evidence that most of them left of their own volition.

Whether they left of their own volition or not why should they not be allowed to come back to their homes once the war was over? There is nothing wrong in fleeing a war zone for any reason. Even if most of them fled of their own volition they should be able to return to their homes once the war was over. It seems that you are condemning people for fleeing a war zone. To flee a war zone rather than staying in a war zone where one may be killed seems only good sense regardless of the reason that they fled.

Even if you presented evidence that most of them fled of their own volition I would still question why they were not allowed to come back to their homes.

continued

continued

One could go back to the Alien Exclusion Act of 1905 in Great Britain and the 1924 restriction of immigration by the US in 1924. The Alien Exclusion Act promoted by Balfour kept Jews fleeing oppression in czarist Russia from coming to England, but Balfour who seems to be an antisemite made a declaration which promoted a Jewish homeland in the territory of another country in 1917. The restrictive 1924 immigration law in the US made it difficult for Jews fleeing the Nazis to come to the USA. Most countries attending the Evian conference on refugees in 1938 denied Jewish refugees entry into their country. In desperation Jews turned to Palestine. If other countries had been more willing to accept Jews the state of Israel would have been unnecessary. As it was Jews were compelled to make a nation where other people were living. The Arabs who were not allowed to return to their homes were in part the victims not only of the state of Israel but of those nations who refused entry to Jews fleeing persecution.

The Jewish soldiers who established the state of Israel were not blood-thirsty monsters as EmperorJulian would have it, but the Arabs who fled a war zone for various reasons and were not allowed to return to their homes were victims. Ultimately they were victims in part of the Jew hatred promoted for centuries by Christianity. In establishing a country where state and religion were separate the US was a country which developed a way for people of different religions to live in peace. Unfortunately Christian promoted Jew hatred still existed in the US so the US excluded many Jewish refugees. It is a pity that Israel which calls itself democratic is a state where religion and the government are not separate as is necessary for democracy.

#Davidf

You continue to argue - without any substantiation and totally disregarding the contemporaneous sources I have produced to you - that only a minority of the Arabs fled of their own volition.

This is what Katz states in his book "Battleground" of the claim that the Arabs were uprooted by the Jews:

"The fabrication can probably most easily be seen in the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged cruel expulsion of Arabs by Zionists was in progress, it passed unnoticed. Foreign newspapermen who covered the war of 1948 on both sides did, indeed, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that it was not voluntary.

In the three months during which the major part of the flight took place – April, May, and June 1948 – the London Times, at that time [openly] hostile to Zionism, published eleven leading articles on the situation in Palestine in addition to extensive news reports and articles. In none was there even a hint of the charge that the Zionists were, driving the Arabs from their homes.

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamat Husseini, the Palestine Arabs’ chief representative at the United Nations, made a long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress), the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance that their departure would help in the war against Israel"

Why won't you publish any evidence to support your claim that only a minority of Arabs fled of their own volition?

In other words - put up or shut up.

Of course it was of their own volition. They fled an army of racist murderers.

The earlier racist Hebron murders of Jews by Moslems and the superstitious trigger for it illustrated the evil of religion and especially of theocratic religion amplified by racism. This is something that will need to be confronted in negotiating the terms of a Middle East peace.

Dear David F.,

Both "sides" in the Middle-East are guilty of certain wrongdoings, both historical and current: this needs to be addressed and redressed and so we are discussing it here.

So far so good and I enjoy reading your insights regarding the Middle-East conflict - I think that you have much to contribute.

However, what I don't like is when you use this opportunity, on the back of the suffering in the Middle-East, to push and proselytise your own dogma of civil Western democracy, trying to sell this snake-oil as the ultimate cure for all problems, as if we would all be in heaven if only everyone had a political system just like the USA and Australia.

Apart from the obvious wrongs and cruelty inflicted on each other and which needs to be corrected, there is nothing wrong about any group of people who wish to isolate themselves, on their own legitimate land of course, and live there only with their own kind of people. It seems that neither of the sides to the Middle-East conflict are interested or happy with the lifestyle that you try to sell them.

I could argue that ethnicity is a very poor choice of who one wants to live with, since people of the same ethnicity can be extremely different in lifestyle - but ultimately its their choice, not mine and not yours.

If it is up to me, then I would like to share my life exclusively with people who have similar values and future aspirations rather than with those with whom I only happened to share a common past.

#Emperor

You have been pretty vocal but quite tongue tied about letting me know what you thought of this video

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maMSb8ZIHVE

Are you too dumbstruck to reply?

You obviously agree with me and show #davidf to be grossly in error in claiming only a minority of Arabs left of their own volition - when you state:

"So 700000 Arabs fled an invasion of heavily-armed army of racist butchers. Of course it was of their own volition."

And again:

"Everyone who flees an invasion of well armed foreign murderers does so of his or her own volition, unless they were kidnapped and bundled on to exit trucks."

Of course when you use the terms "army of racist butchers" and "well armed foreign invaders" you are referring to:

1. the 500 to 1000 Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians and Transjordanians who entered Samaria and Galilee across the Jordan and the Palestine-Lebanon frontier in February 1948.

2. A band of up to 500 Yugoslavs presumed to be Bosnian Moslems who were reported en route to the Lydda District during the first week of March 1948.

3. A small party under Fawzi Bey Kawukji who entered Palestine on 5 March 1948.

4. Numbers of Egyptians who entered Gaza District in parties of up to a hundred at a time.

They weren't on a sightseeing tour of the Holyland.

They of course preceded six Arab armies - Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq - who invaded Palestine on 15 May 1948.

Armed foreign invaders all and racist butchers intent on wiping out the Jews.

For once you seem to have got your facts right Emperor.

David Singer wrote “You continue to argue - without any substantiation and totally disregarding the contemporaneous sources I have produced to you - that only a minority of the Arabs fled of their own volition.”

I don’t argue that only a minority fled of their own volition. I have seen no evidence that the number who fled of their own volition was a majority or a minority..

You keep repeating that a majority fled of their own volition, and have cited Arab sources admitting they encouraged them to flee. The fact that they were encouraged to flee is not a proof that those who fled of their own volition were a majority. Repetition of an unproven assertion is not a proof of that assertion. Possibly you can browbeat a witness like that. That is your tactic. You keep hammering an unproven assertion until your opponent gives up. Apparently the Israeli line is that most Arabs fled on their own volition. I see no reason to accept the Israeli line.

Whether it was a minority or a majority who fled a war zone of their own volition why were they not allowed to return to their homes? It does not excuse the injustice if they fled of their own volition.

Your apparent objective is to promote Israel. Do you think you have been effective in doing that? You have not done it with me. Do you think you have done it with any of the others who are following this thread?

You seem more interested in winning an argument one way or another than in promoting Israel.

Returning to the original topic, if Obama colluded in resolution 2334 his action was reasonable. Israel deserves condemnation for the settlements.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your desire to live with those that you feel a commonality with. However, it is rarely possible in the modern state. Even if we have a commonality with a group or person they may change or we may change. Once I might have agreed with David Singer. For peace we must learn to live with difference

#davidf

The following evidence is incontrovertible:

1. "In the three months during which the major part of the flight took place – April, May, and June 1948 – the London Times, at that time [openly] hostile to Zionism, published eleven leading articles on the situation in Palestine in addition to extensive news reports and articles. In none was there even a hint of the charge that the Zionists were, driving the Arabs from their homes.

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamat Husseini, the Palestine Arabs’ chief representative at the United Nations, made a long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress), the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance that their departure would help in the war against Israel" - Katz "Battleground"

2."The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea." Bilby - New Star in the Middle East (1950)

3. "Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951)

Dear David,

As Benny Morris has written some were driven from their homes. I don't know how many. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of the Arab armies. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of the Jewish forces. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of both forces. In everything you have cited there are no numbers given. I can't agree that a majority fled on their own volition because I don't know.

Whether a majority fled of their own volition or not they should have allowed to return to their homes after the war was over. They were not allowed to return to their homes after the war was over. That was wrong, and it was wrong even if a majority fled of their own volition.

Dear David F.,

«For peace we must learn to live with difference»

Of course, peace comes first, but assume that war is now over - what kind of life do you want to have the day after?

«However, it is rarely possible in the modern state.»

Exactly, but you should already be familiar with my views regarding the modern state.

#davidf

You incorrectly state:
"Benny Morris has written some were driven from their homes. I don't know how many. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of the Arab armies. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of the Jewish forces. I don't know how many fled because they were afraid of both forces. In everything you have cited there are no numbers given. I can't agree that a majority fled on their own volition because I don't know."

Morris himself wrote in the Irish Times on 21 February 2008:

"Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops."

You seem to like quoting Benny Morris. What motivates you to continue denying Benny Morris's above conclusion and the same conclusion made very apparent by Katz, Bilby and Issa?

Dear David,

I know some of the Arabs who fled, Morris thinks most, hoped to return with victorious Arab armies. In that they were disappointed. However, that was not a reason to prevent them from returning to their homes.

I incorrectly stated nothing. I correctly stated I don't know the numbers in each category of those who left. 'Most' is not a number.

It was war time. There was confusion. I don't think the numbers in each category can be determined even if there was a desire to do so. I trust neither the Arabs nor the Israelis to give an objective account. One can count bodies, examine hospital records or make other determinations where there are reliable records. In the case of those who fled the armies there are just opinions from two sides neither of whom I trust. All you can offer are quotes of various opinions.

However, regardless of the reason they left, they should have been allowed to return home.

#davidf

I have given you two contemperaneous references (Bilby and Issa) and two researchers (Morris and Katz) who say most of the Arabs fled.

You even have #Emperor Julian backing them up.

Yet you continue to plead "I incorrectly stated nothing. I correctly stated I don't know the numbers in each category of those who left. 'Most' is not a number."

"Most" is certainly a majority. What does "most" mean to you?

If you don't accept that "most" fled - then produce some evidence to prove all these sources are wrong.

Why you are continuing with this inanity is breathtaking. I thought you were made of far better intellectual ability than you are presently demonstrating.

You eventually accepted that the Palestinian Arabs had been consulted at the time of the Mandate - when I presented the evidence to you.

We are at the same point now in relation to most of the Arabs fleeing of their own volition. You have been presented with the evidence and have posted nothing to challenge what I have given you.

Be a mensch and acknowedge the incontrovertible.

Dear David Singer,

I repeat. Whether or not most fled of their own volition I cannot say since I have only been provided with opinions which I do not trust. I do not trust you. I do not trust Arab sources. I do not trust Israeli sources. It may be true that most fled of their own volition. As far as I know there was no attempt to interview the Arabs who fled to find their reasons. There are only opinions on their reasons.

If only one Arab fled of his or her own volition they all should have been allowed to return home after the war.

If all the Arabs fled of their own volition they all should have been allowed to return home after the war.

You want me to believe that most fled of their own volition. I will say it may be true, but I don't know for sure.

However, I do know for sure that those who fled were not allowed to return home.

Why is it so important to you that I agree that most Arabs fled on their own volition?

#davidf

Why is it so important to me that you agree that most of the Arabs fled of their own volition?

Because you started this tortuous conversation with this comment:

"In the Arab-Israeli conflict both sides lie. I was told and I believed that the Arabs who fled their homes in the 1948 War of Independence fled because they were told to by the Arabs and would return with advancing Arab armies. It was a lie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

"A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

I believed that lie and feel bothered about it. Neither the Arab nor the Israeli side can be trusted. I think it is wise to doubt both sides."

What you called a "lie" was in fact not a "lie". Most of the Arabs left of their own volition.

The lie is the claim that 700000 Arabs had been uprooted by the Jews.

It is but one of many canards uttered against the Jews that need to be answered and corrected whenever it is made.

You now are at the point where you state:

"It may be true that most fled of their own volition."

That is a big advance on your initial suggestion that they were uprooted by the Jews.

You state further on:

"You want me to believe that most fled of their own volition. I will say it may be true, but I don't know for sure."

Morris, Bilby, Katz, Atiyah, al-Azm, Hakim,Issa, Azzam Pasha and the 1948 London Times support that statement.

If you don't accept these sources, surely you need to produce your own sources that contradict them.

I will answer your question on why the Arabs were not allowed to return when we agree on how they came to leave.

I watched the video that David Singer recommended which was quite a concession as I find videos, especially when they run for 57 minutes, to be 1% rational communications and 99% performances. This video was more or less what I expected, and it reminded me of my childhood during the war when I admired all the science and engineering and technology the British created and never gave a thought to the injustice of their overlordship in Rhodesia and Kenya and Tanganyika and India where the natives were no more than background. (Until the natives started getting uppity as they have in Palestine which is host to the last racist Western colony in the old style that still infests the world). Thankfully I grew out of it by age 15 and maybe Mr Singer will one day grow out of his infatuation with the Western colonial possession of Israel.

But let's see the comparison with the growth of the kibbutzim blending ethnic racism with socialist spirit as described in the video, and all the achievements starting with the garnering of every drop of water and the growth of a modern Western-based colonial state.

My eyes ran down the gross ugliness of the comments column claiming God had chosen the Jewish people, and I was reminded of the blasphemous ugliness of “Land of hope and glory, mother of the free / How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee? / Wider Yet and Wider May thy Bounds be set / God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet…” of my school days. Israel is the only remaining colonial monstrosity to keep alive the racial supremacy pretence epitomised by the British Land of Hope and Glory.

Dear David Singer,

«I will answer your question on why the Arabs were not allowed to return when we agree on how they came to leave.»

I also am eager to hear your opinion on why the Arabs were not allowed back - what a pity that I might have to wait indefinitely until the two Davids agree, one claiming that he doesn't know some particular piece of information while the other claims that he does know.

On the subject-matter, I would be very surprised if you can answer, because:
1) Ben Gurion and the rest of the Israeli leadership of 1948 are no longer alive.
2) What they said publicly is not necessarily the truth: they had political interest in presenting this decision of theirs in a certain light, regardless whether it's true or not.
3) None of them were Christian.
4) You are not a priest.

Unless they told you their deepest secrets in the confidence of the confessional, how do you propose to know what was in their hearts-of-hearts when they decided to deny the Arab's return?

The material result is exactly the same either way: the Arabs in question were not allowed back in (other than a number of individuals and families that WERE quietly allowed back in, according to my family's direct testimony, but this was never published), but what really matters here is the true motivation of the Israeli leadership. As I said, I don't think that we now can tell what it was.

Dear David,

I once believed that all Arabs left of their own volition. Then I heard that some of the Arabs were driven out and some were massacred. I had been lied to. I can agree that most left of their own volition, but none of them should have been driven out or killed because they refused to leave.

As far as I can see the injustice of not allowing their return was justified by the creation of the Jewish state. Thus the state was founded on injustice. The injustice of the founding of Israel can be removed if it became a state for all of its citizens and not merely a Jewish state.

Jews have been oppressed, persecuted and murdered. One would hope that they would behave differently from their oppressors. That is an unreasonable hope because Jews are human. Oppressed and oppressors are both human. Jews in power will behave much like those who have had power over them.

In Israel there are dissidents like B’tselem and the refuseniks who are appalled by the actions of the Israeli government. They are aware that Jews are acting like those who have persecuted Jews. However, they can only protest. They will never be in power.

Israel can boast of its technology, literature and culture. The English in colonising could boast of bringing Shakespeare and English Common Law to “lesser breeds without the law” as Kipling termed those oppressed by imperial England. Israel copies England in its boasts.

One justification for European imperialism was that it brought Christianity to the ‘heathen’. I respect British culture but not British imperialism or Christianity. However, they are entwined.

Yuyutsu on 1 March 2017 1:45:36 AM mentioned that none of the parties in 1948 were Christian. What does that have to do with anything? With Christianity’s sorry record of imperialism, wars of religion, Inquisition etc. It seems to me good not to be Christian.

Although I do find EmperorJulian’s rhetoric disturbing I appreciate Emperor Julian’s effort to return the Roman Empire to the relative tolerance of polytheism as opposed to the intolerance of monotheism.

Dear David F.,

«Yuyutsu on 1 March 2017 1:45:36 AM mentioned that none of the parties in 1948 were Christian. What does that have to do with anything?»

What it meant in context, and nothing besides, is that since Ben Gurion was not a Christian and also David Singer is not a priest, it follows that David Singer did not hear Ben Gurion's confession!

«The injustice of the founding of Israel can be removed if it became a state for all of its citizens and not merely a Jewish state.»

Yes it could - but at what price?

Soon enough Israel would come under Shariah law and its current citizens, most of whom were not yet even born when that injustice was done, would be lucky to remain alive as Dhimmis.

Further to the solution to the water problem in Palestine, and to the kibbutz movement, both the initial devotion and genius in garnering useful water essentially from dew and in the self-sacrificing achievement of those first racist/socialist communes, both have long ago been swept aside by rapid degeneration into an ultra-racist conquistador state on Palestinian land, and the propaganda video recommended by the racist David Singer cynically draws on the past to elide the natives from its description of the present obscene leftover of Western colonialism.

On the theft of the existing underground aquifers in Palestine, see http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.574554 which lays the swindle bare.

The originating sin in the Israel project is ethnic supremacism, an extreme form of racism.

David f refers to Julian, the least-worst of ancient Rome's sorry line up of Roman tyrants which continues today, masquerading as "Christianity", at the same location.

Julian's demise is a remarkable repetition of the death of Tutankhamen many centuries earlier and for the same reason - each man revived polytheism in an attempt to mitigate the evil of monotheism by dilution and each man failed to watch his back at a critical time.

In Tutankhamen's time the murder was achieved by his venturing out of sight of witnesses where the assassination could be covered up as a "chariot mishap". He had made enemies by pressing for a return to polytheism in the hope that it would dilute the greater evil of monotheism.

Julian's murder was carried out for the same reason. It was enabled in his stupidity in starting a war against Persia (21st century echoes?) and not watching his back in the heat of battle.

As for the Roman war against Christianity, it has continued for 17 centuries and probably claimed even more lives than Islam has managed. The murder rampage is touched on in Foxe's Book of Martyrs and described in detail in a book by a 19th century Sevvo called Ellen White ("The Great Conspiracy").

Dear David F.,

Sorry, I skimped over your last post and commented on it without reading it carefully enough. Specifically, I related to: «The injustice of the founding of Israel can be removed if...» without noticing that the subject of injustice has changed from the previous sentence.

While some regrettable injustice was done in the implementation of founding Israel, and while it needs to be addressed and redressed, the very act of founding Israel did not constitute an injustice in itself.

Note that despite all warts and humps, the Arab citizens of Israel indicated clearly that they would not like to live under any other regime, Muslim or Palestinian. In fact, they protest bitterly against suggestions that their towns and villages might be transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction as part of a land-exchange within a peace deal.

Yuyutsu's family can be made secure after the inevitable end of the last Western colonial possession in the world only by a negotiated dismantlement of the racial supremacist state of Israel (which is the entity guaranteeing danger to all its inhabitants) passing rule to the natives (as in the African colonies) with international involvement if needed in protecting the rights of every individual of any (and preferably no) religion and any genetic origin. America could be a key part of any international guarantee.

It's not fail-safe any more than in the African colonies but learn the lesson of the Mau Maus and the other roving armies for the consequences of trying to deny the natives their right to self-determination in their own homelands.

Otherwise Sharia and dhimmitude here they come.

#davidf

I am pleased that at last you have finally stated:
"I can agree that most left of their own volition"

Now as to your question of why they were not allowed to return:

Every one of your posts ignores that there were three refugee problems caused in 1947-1948:

1. Palestinian Arabs - mostly fleeing of their own volition
2. Palestinian Jews - forcibly expelled from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria by the invading Transjordanian army
3. Jews fleeing Arab countries.
As to these Jews from Arab countries - the following is instructive:

"Throughout 1947 and 1948, Jews in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, and Yemen (Aden) were persecuted, their property and belongings were confiscated, and they were subjected to severe anti-Jewish riots instigated by the governments. In Iraq, Zionism was made a capital crime. In Syria, anti-Jewish pogroms erupted in Aleppo and the government froze all Jewish bank accounts. In Egypt, bombs were detonated in the Jewish quarter, killing dozens. In Algeria, anti-Jewish decrees were swiftly instituted and in Yemen, bloody pogroms led to the death of nearly 100 Jews.

In January 1948, the president of the World Jewish Congress, Dr. Stephen Wise, appealed to U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall: “Between 800,000 and a million Jews in the Middle East and North Africa, exclusive of Palestine, are in 'the greatest danger of destruction' at the hands of Moslems being incited to holy war over the Partition of Palestine ... Acts of violence already perpetrated, together with those contemplated, being clearly aimed at the total destruction of the Jews, constitute genocide, which under the resolutions of the General Assembly is a crime against humanity." In May 1948, the New York Times echoed Wise's appeal, and ran an article headlined, "Jews in Grave Danger in all Muslim Lands: Nine Hundred Thousand in Africa and Asia face wrath of their foes."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-refugees-from-arab-countries

Israel welcomed and absorbed these Jews from Arab countries.

The Arab countries refused to similarly absorb the Palestinian Arabs - keeping them in refugee camps in shocking conditions where they still languish today.

That is the real injustice.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Alternatives are continue the present situation or form two states. If two states were formed the Arab state would not allow Jews and would probably persecute Christians. We could expect continual conflict between the two states with many of the people in one state hating the people in the other state. Both states would be ethnic nationalist states. Two ethnic nationalist states are worse than one ethnic nationalist state.

If the present occupation continues we could expect more Arab-Israeli wars. The Arabs could lose those wars and still exist. If the Israelis lost once that would be the end for Israel.

If the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean became a state for all its citizens your dire consequences might follow. However, they might not. A democratic state for all its citizens might be accepted and continue.

I feel a single democratic state is the best alternative.

Dear All,

Perhaps, it would be for the best to restore polytheism. The gullible and superstitious could worship whatever gods they wished to. There was a spirit of tolerance in the ancient world for those who worshipped other gods. Gods were not jealous of the worship of other gods. In general the ancient polytheistic religions did not prescribe morality. One worshipped and made sacrifices to the gods to obtain their favour. For morality one consulted the philosophers or one’s community. Philosophers were not confused with any deity one could take their opinions or not. The opinion of the philosophers was generally compatible with social reality and not eternally true so their views could change as the situation changed.

Jonathan Kirsch in “God Against the Gods” tells of the struggle between polytheism and monotheism in the ancient world. Here he tells of the role of the philosopher in antiquity:

“Yet another voice that could be heard, quite literally, in the market place of ancient Rome was that of the philosopher. Nowadays, philosophy has come to be regarded as an intellectual pastime that has nothing to do with the practice of religion—and nothing at all to do with real life.

continued

continued

But the philosophers of pagan antiquity were the functional equivalent of what today we would call theologians: they pondered the beginning and ending of the world, the nature and destiny of humankind, the identity and will of the divine. For the same reason that some of the ancients found more spiritual meaning in the mystery religions than in the staid ceremonies of the official cults, others placed themselves under the tutelage of the philosophers who offered to reveal the arcane secrets of the cosmos.

Philosophy was fully as diverse as any other expression of paganism. Just as one might worship one or another of the many gods and goddesses, one might study and practice the teachings of the Stoics or the Epicureans, the Skeptics or the Cynics, the Peripatetics or the Pythagoreans or the Platonists. And, like, the mystery religions, the philosophers offered something that the priests in the official cults ignored-̶̶̶̶̶̶ a concern for the happiness and fulfilment of the men and women who placed themselves under their tutelage. “[T]hey specialised in an activity that one could call in modern language pastoral care, life counselling or psychotherapy,” explains historian Hans-Josef Klauk. [Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity]

While the Pontifex Maximus and the lesser priests and priestesses of the official cults called upon the old gods and goddesses of the Greco-Roman pantheon to preserve the empire, the philosophers were offering advice to ordinary men and women about how to live a decent life.

Here is another example of the moral and ethical concerns that were among the core values of classical paganism—the philosophers instructed their followers on “what is honourable and what is shameful, what is just and what is unjust,” according to one ancient orator, “how a man must bear himself in his relations with the gods, with his parents, with his elders, with the laws, with strangers, with those in authority, with friends, with women, with children with servants.”

Continued

Continued

The most accomplished philosophers held forth in the academies, the houses of wealthy patrons or the royal court—King Philip of Macedon set the standard when he engaged Aristotle as a tutor for his son, the future Alexander the Great—but others plied their trade in public, wandering from town to town and collected the odd coin in an outstretched bowl. Bearded, cloaked in a toga and holding a staff—the standard iconography of the working philosopher—they would deliver their oratory at the gates of a pagan temple, in the public baths or amid the bustle of the marketplace. Not unlike a standup comic, a philosopher had to work the crowd and cope with hecklers: “What, is a juggler coming on?” was one common taunt as reported by an ancient source. pp. 101-102”

Possibly monotheism won out because it was a religion of rule. The monarch could maintain that he (Most rulers were male.) had divine sanction. Constantine favoured Christianity and established what A. N. Wilson called the ‘first totalitarian state”.

Kirsch comments on this:

“As a ruthless campaigner and an expert intriguer, Constantine was perfectly willing and able to search out and punish anyone who challenged his political authority. Among his innovations, for example, was the establishment of the so-called agents in rebus, a corps of imperial courtiers who served as fixers, enforcers and informers. These “doers of things,” as the Latin phrase is rendered in literal English, functioned as the ancient equivalent of a secret police, and they came to be feared and loathed by the men and woman of all ranks and stations on whom they spied. The very existence of such apparatus of state security is what prompts biographer A. N. Wilson to characterize imperial Rome as “the first totalitarian state in history.”” [Paul: The Mind of the Apostle] p. 170

Dear David F.,

«Alternatives are continue the present situation or form two states»

Or three or four...

«Two ethnic nationalist states are worse than one ethnic nationalist state.»

Care to explain the logic?

Between the two evils, I think that if you must live in an ethnic nationalist state, then it is still better to live in such a state of your own ethnicity than in a state of another ethnicity.

However, what if you have three states? Two ethnic-nationalist states for those who like that lifestyle, which would probably keep fighting each other to the grave and beyond, plus one state where the peace-lovers can live!

«If the Israelis lost once that would be the end for Israel.»

Yes, if it's a case of total-loss. Israel did lose ground in 1973, but it recovered. Unlike the popular view, Israel can even withstand one or two nuclear bombs. It would be horrendous with fatalities in the 10,000's, but Israel would survive. Building standards in Israel are far higher than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in fact also far higher than in Australia.

Israel is very strong and currently has no death threats in its horizon from any Arab party. Israel's biggest threat is from Iran, but Iran is not Arab and will continue to seek Israel's destruction regardless of the arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians (it does not like the Sunni Palestinians either). Iran's regime simply can never forget or forgive that Israel was the Shah's best friend and helped him a lot.

«If the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean became a state for all its citizens your dire consequences might follow. However, they might not.»

And you expect my family to take this risk?

«I feel a single democratic state is the best alternative.»

We have just discussed the "single" part. Now why would "democratic" be the best? If people of different ethnicities who bitterly hate each other are forced to live side-by-side in the same state, then it would be best to have a dictator to keep the peace with a rod of iron.

Dear David F.,

«There was a spirit of tolerance in the ancient world for those who worshipped other gods. Gods were not jealous of the worship of other gods»

I think you confuse cause and effect.

Surely you do not seriously believe that the monotheist god, as opposed to the others, is jealous?

It's the people of the time who were not (or were less) jealous of each other - and as a result selected such gods to worship which appealed to them.

The disease in the Middle-East is ethnic nationalism. Religion is only the pretext and if they couldn't use it then they would find some other pretext for hating each other. The real reason is probably genetic/biological anyway and it might also be related to the scarcity of water in the region.

Dear David,

You wrote:

“Every one of your posts ignores that there were three refugee problems caused in 1947-1948:

1. Palestinian Arabs - mostly fleeing of their own volition
2. Palestinian Jews - forcibly expelled from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria by the invading Transjordanian army
3. Jews fleeing Arab countries.”

We were discussing the happenings in 1948, and the Jewish expulsion from Arab countries came later.

You ignored another refugee problem. Arabs were expelled from their villages or killed by Jewish forces. There may have been more leaving because they were forced by Jews than by Arabs. It is not a case of good Jews and evil Arabs. Both sides have done wrong.

The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was partially payback. In some cases the expulsion of Jews had another cause besides the partition of Palestine. While Iraq and Egypt were occupied by the British, some Jews served British interests. When the states became independent they did not want those who had served the colonial powers especially if they were Jews.

The State of Israel could make an offer to the Arab states that Israel would take in the Arabs who left in return for the Arab states taking back the Jews who were expelled. I doubt that will happen.

It is part of Zionist ideology to persuade Jews to come to Israel. It is not part of Arab ideology to persuade Arabs from other countries to come to theirs. In comparing the Israeli welcome to Jews with the Arabs in refugee camps you are comparing apples and oranges.

I was told I should go to Israel by antisemites and Zionists. I resent being told that I should leave the country in which I live. I wouldn’t mind seeing Israel, but there are other places I would rather see first.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Neither of us can affect the decisions made. No option is good. I gave my opinion of what is least bad.

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, ...

Dear David F.,

«Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, ...»

Yes, there is value in sticking to one god rather than constantly changing gods every time when the going gets rough in order to avoid the crisis - some people need this discipline and it tells about human weakness rather than about God.

Of course, once religion is hijacked by the state and its techniques are turned around to serve nationalism rather than God, there is no end to the ensuing evil.

#davidf

You make the following claim:

"The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was partially payback. In some cases the expulsion of Jews had another cause besides the partition of Palestine. While Iraq and Egypt were occupied by the British, some Jews served British interests. When the states became independent they did not want those who had served the colonial powers especially if they were Jews."

I have been unable to find any authority to support your claim.

I would appreciate it if you could refer me to the source you are relying on to make this statement.

Dear David,

Jews were separated from Muslims in some cases by the colonial powers.

In the case of Iraq Jews served in high positions during British control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq

“During the British Mandate, beginning in 1920,[15] and in the early days after independence in 1932, well-educated Jews played an important role in civic life. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy, which often led to resentment by the Muslim population.”

In the case of French North Africa the hostility to Jews was partially due to their elevation above Muslims. This hostility predated the State of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

“In the 19th century, Francization of Jews in the French colonial North Africa, due to the work of organizations such as the Alliance Israelite Universelle[20] and French policies such as the Algerian citizenship decree of 1870,[21] resulted in a separation of the community from the local Muslims.[22][23]

The French began the conquest of Algeria in 1830. The following century had a profound influence on the status of the Algerian Jews; following the 1870 "Décret Crémieux", they were elevated from the protected minority dhimmi status to French citizens of the colonial power.[24][25] The decree began a wave of Pied-Noir-led anti-Jewish protests (such as the 1897 anti-Jewish riots in Oran[26]), which the Muslim community did not participate in, to the disappointment of the European agitators. [27] Though there were also cases of Muslim-led anti-Jewish riots, such as in Constantine in 1934 when 34 Jews were killed.[28””

continued

continued

In the case of Egypt many Jews had passports of other countries and used the connections which that gave them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt

"In 1937, the government annulled the Capitulations that gave foreign nationals a virtual status of exterritoriality the minorities groups were mainly from Syrian, Greece, Italy, Armenia (this also affected some Jews who were nationals of other countries). The immunities from taxation to foreign nationals mutamassir (minority groups) trading within Egypt had given them highly favourably trading advantages.[32] Many European Jews used Egyptian banks as a common destination for transferring money from central Europe, and for those Jews escaping the Fascist regimes.[33] In addition to this, many Jewish people living in Egypt were known to possess foreign citizenship, and those possessing Egyptian citizenship often had extensive ties to European countries."

In Iraq, Egypt and in French North Africa most Jews for one reason or another lived better than most other residents of those countries, and their status was resented. This justified neither their persecution nor their expulsion. Nevertheless, the resentment against the Jews predated the establishment of the State of Israel and was a factor in their expulsion when independence made it possible.

#davidf

Sorry but nothing in your last two posts provides any source to justify your following claim:

"The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries was partially payback. In some cases the expulsion of Jews had another cause besides the partition of Palestine. While Iraq and Egypt were occupied by the British, some Jews served British interests. When the states became independent they did not want those who had served the colonial powers especially if they were Jews."

I searched your authorities high and low but found no reference to the term "payback" or that Jews were driven out for serving British interests.

Iraq became independent in 1932 and Egypt gained full independence in 1936. Britain had therefore ceased having any presence, influence or control over the affairs of these two countries - well before the events of 1947-1948.

Your sources do establish that Jew-hatred and Jew-envy reeked in Iraq, Egypt and North Africa prior to the 1940's - but it had nothing to do with Jews serving British interests.

You yourself admit as much with your following statement:
"In Iraq, Egypt and in French North Africa most Jews for one reason or another lived better than most other residents of those countries, and their status was resented. This justified neither their persecution nor their expulsion. Nevertheless, the resentment against the Jews predated the establishment of the State of Israel and was a factor in their expulsion when independence made it possible."

"Resentment" is not "payback". "Envy" and "jealousy" and "hatred" is not "payback"

For you to therefore misleadingly describe the flight of Jews from these countries as "payback" is not supported by the sources you cited.

You need to do better - or retract your above statement.

Dear David,

You want to assert that resentment was not a factor in the expulsion of the Jews and did not lead to payback. OK. Since neither of us is a mind reader we can leave it at that. We know what the actions were. Possibly, the Arabs thought that since the Jews now had a place to go they saw that the Jews went there.

#davidf

Don't put words into my mouth.

Resentment (ie Jew hatred) was indeed a factor in the expulsion of the Jews.

That is a far cry from what you alleged - payback for the Jews because they served British or other colonial interests.

You have not and cannot substantiate that allegation - as you have beeen unable to substantiate other allegations during this long correspndence.

It is disgraceful that you continue to plug a narrative that has no credibility whatsoever.

I will continue to expose your false and misleading comments.

It's straight from the racist copybook. Natives oppose foreign colonial masters who steal and occupy their land. If the occupiers are British they'll be anti-British, if they're Boers they'll be anti-Boer etc. Here's where the old linguistic sleight of hand comes in. Jews have a long history of racist hostility directed at them, culminating in the Nazi Holocaust when the Huns singled them out, rounded them up and murdered them on a genocidal scale.

Shortly after the war Zionists with colonial ambitions took advantage of the world's lasting revulsion over the Nazi Holocaust and its origins on ancient antiSemitism. European colonialism was on the way out - why not seize and set up a racist colonial state in which the overlords were genetic Jews (with an extra boost coming from the idea that God chose them). Who could oppose that after the appalling treatment Jews has suffered for centuries? So the natives were ethnically cleansed into Untermensch status. Hostility to the overlords who brought this about could be met with appeal to the unique victim status of Jews. It could be written off by con artists as more of the old Jew-hatred.

Sift through the writings of David Singer and one or two of his epigones for example after example of this trick. Don't be fooled by it - it's the voice of colonial oppression.

Dear David,

We disagree, but you can argue politely rather than use words like ‘pathetic pawn’, ‘disgraceful’, ‘no credibility.’ Address me in a polite, respectful manner. I will do the same to you. I can’t make you stop using abusive and insulting language, but if you continue I will not respond to your next post if you answer me.

Patterns repeat. The Polish Jagiellonian kings invited Jews into Poland when they were expelled from Spain. Jews became middlemen. They managed the estates, kept the shops, were skilled artisans such as smiths, made music at both Jewish and gentile weddings etc. In Poland Jews lived well. They were not going to rise to the nobility or descend to the peasantry. The nobility might despise them, but the needed them. The peasants hated them since the peasants had little direct contact with the nobility who were really their oppressors but a lot with the Jews who were the agents of the oppressors. At the end of the eighteenth century Poland was partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria with most of the country going to Russia.
In Russia Jews became despised by the Jew hating czars and lost their status. They had to scrabble for a living. My great, great grandfather was a Jewish farmer. When the czar freed the serfs he gave them his land and the land of other Jewish farmers.

From my reading what happened in the Arab world was a repetition of what happened in Eastern Europe.

I cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq

In it was “Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy, which often led to resentment by the Muslim population.”

It is fair to assume Jews were in the bureaucracy and parliament because the British wanted them there. I doubt that the Iraqis were enthusiastic about Jews holding those positions. Jews were, in effect, middlemen for the British as they were for the Polish nobility.

continued

continued

Even though the Arab states gained formal independence in reality they remained protectorates of the British and the French. During the Israeli war of independence French and British officers commanded many of the Arab soldiers. Glubb, a British officer, commanded the Arab legion. The old imperialists, Britain and France, supported the Arabs and the new imperialists, the USSR and the USA, supported Israel. The war between the Jews and the Arabs was part of a struggle between the greater powers. Both the Soviets and the USA hopped that Israel would become their client state, but the USA won out.

Israel and Saudi Arabia are now client states of the USA. Syria is a Russian client state. Iran is a worry to the greater powers as it is not a client state. The US tried to make Iran a client state by putting the shah in power, but he was overthrown.

The game is still going on.

Israel, although a regional power, is a USA client state. As far as I am concerned it is not a democracy. The definition of democracy changes with time and circumstances. Ancient Athens did not allow women, slaves or foreigners (Even if one’s family had lived in Athens for generations one could be considered a foreigner.) to vote or to participate in public affairs. Athens was not a democracy by current standards. A democracy in this century must include its entire adult population of sound mind regardless of religion, race or ethnicity. A Jewish or Christian democracy is not a democracy regardless what Ben Gurion said.

In Israel Jews serve US imperialism as they served the Polish nobility and the British in Iraq. They were put in that position.

The Jew-hating Balfour supported the 1905 Alien Exclusion Act which kept Jews fleeing czarist oppression from entering Great Britain. However, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 he supported the establishment of a Jewish state in what was then the territory of another country.

I would like to see a democratic state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean with separation of religion and state.

Dear David,

Congratulations on your thorough account about the Jews in the age of nationalism.

Israel is not anyone's client: it does what it believes to be good for itself (even though I believe that it does itself much harm by continuing its occupation of the areas that it won in 1967). So far its perceived interests happen to coincide with the USA, but Israel would not hesitate to switch loyalties should it prove otherwise.

---

«I would like to see a democratic state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean with separation of religion and state.»

Yes and every afternoon they should all have tea and scones with cream and strawberry jam, that's my winning solution!



Thus ends the chapter titled "How I made peace in the Middle-East".

In the next chapter I will tell you: "How I overcame my imperialist habit"!

Baron Munchausen.

#davidf

Two long monologues of bumpff.

Nowhere do you cite any authorities that Jews were kicked out of Arab countries as payback because they served British or other colonial interests.

Afraid to confirm you are indeed a pathetic pawn, disgraceful and lacking credibility.

I hope you keep your promise and not respond any further.

#Emperor

You are in a class of Jew-hating propagandists that exceeds anything #davidf says by miles.

Your hatefilled following false statement says it all:
"Shortly after the war Zionists with colonial ambitions took advantage of the world's lasting revulsion over the Nazi Holocaust and its origins on ancient antiSemitism. European colonialism was on the way out - why not seize and set up a racist colonial state in which the overlords were genetic Jews (with an extra boost coming from the idea that God chose them). Who could oppose that after the appalling treatment Jews has suffered for centuries? So the natives were ethnically cleansed into Untermensch status. Hostility to the overlords who brought this about could be met with appeal to the unique victim status of Jews. It could be written off by con artists as more of the old Jew-hatred."

1. "Shortly after the war"? :
The League of Nations voted unamiously in favour of reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Palestine in 1922!!

2. "Why not seize and set up a racist colonialist state" ?:
the United Nations recommended the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab state in 1947 which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected.

3. "Who could oppose that?"
Six Arab armies did by invading Western Palestine in May 1948 and trying to drive the Jews into the sea.

4. "So the natives were ethnically cleansed":
No they fled the country in advance of the Arab armies - clearing the way for the invading Arab armies to massacre the Jews

Emperor - you are an avowed Jew-hater, an apologist for spreading false Arab propaganda, an utter disgrace and a liar to boot.

"Sift through the writings of David Singer and one or two of his epigones for example after example of this trick. Don't be fooled by it - it's the voice of colonial oppression."

See what I mean? 1948 no longer shortly after the war. Doesn't fit the Zionist narrative. So the ultra-racist reverts to the abusive "Jew hater" stuff. As I said, the self-righteous voice of colonialist oppression and ethnic cleansing screaming on being outed.

Dear Julian,

I happened to be live in South Africa for a couple of years during the time of apartheid. Once we visited a family of white farmers, they had a huge plot of land, from horizon to horizon, and they had 100 black people to work that land.

Sounds bad?

That family built that black village for them on their property with a school for their children, the only school for perhaps 100km around, they cared for their health and provided all their needs. What they told us is: "they are like children, they can't stop fighting. When we were away they fought among themselves and couldn't solve their problems, they just waited for us to return and arbitrate. Once [the white wife] returned home and talked with them, the fighting stopped and everyone was happy again." Those Africans were not oppressed. They were free do go, but they loved their white masters so they stayed, were loyal and to me at least, they looked happy.

Now I don't think that you are a "Jew-hater", but clearly your hatred of certain people whom you deem to be "colonialists" is at the rare extreme of the scale, such hate that you would even prefer the Islamic Daesh to come and cut the colonialists' throats.

While nobody is without sin, Israelis, it seems, push that trigger for you.

I wonder why. Have you been personally abused by colonialists?

Personally abused no. Shamed by my own country's and Britain's record before the many people whose esteem I value yes. Vastly more sympathetic to the oppressed than to the oppressors (including in DV by the way) yes. Contemptuous of those who lack a moral compass yes. And also of those who so lack an intellectual compass as not to know that 1948 was soon after the war (I know, mired in the colonialist narrative of 1920). Also affronted by ultra-racist iggos who call me or people I respect "Jew haters".

Dear Julian,

I don't think that one ought to feel ashamed of things that occurred before they were born and/or were not in their control. One can only be responsible for their own actions.

I don't think that you can find even one country today which does not oppress people in one way or another. First that come to mind are North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia and China, but it's practically everyone. I used to think of Bhutan as an ideal state based on Buddhist non-violence, but then I discovered how they too mistreated and expelled their Nepalese minority.

Evil states have divided this whole planet among them (and now they even seek to assert control over space and the rest of this planetary system). This violence and desire to control is due to the animal-nature that comes with our bodies, covered with only a thin veil of civility. It saddens me that despite hating oppression, you seem to identify with one or two of those states (you wrote "my own country's and Britain's"). I don't have a "my own country": I need to have a place to live in somewhere on this planet and this happens be in Australia, but as I don't identify with it, I don't need to feel ashamed for what it did or does.

I too am sympathetic with the oppressed, but first I must ascertain that the "victim" is indeed actually oppressed. If someone is injured, then I would ask "where does it hurt?" - they could say that it hurts "in my foot" or "in my tummy", etc. and then I would also be outraged with their attacker(s), but if they say that "it hurts my national pride", then I say "Good. I'm glad that your national pride has been hurt and I hope it dies soon".

The so-called "Palestinians" lived happily and prospered under Israeli occupation from 1967 until around 1975-6. They had no road-blocks or other restrictions on travel/work in Israel. So sad for them that Arafat incited them to start calling themselves "Palestinians" and develop a national identity.

We bear responsibility for what our own country does including with whom it allies itself. This is a citizen's responsibility that comes with the benefits and protections of citizenship. To an extent we also have a responsibility to the world at large which comes with the benefits and protections of international law and the institutions that maintain it. Shirking responsibilities is rightly derided as a copout.

Dear Julian,

You unnecessarily take upon yourself the burden of other people's sins. Have you got none of your own to take care of first?

"our own country"? Check my pockets, I own none!

I didn't ask for the Australian state to be here, all I wanted was to escape from a worse place and live in this continent, which should be everyone's natural right - states are nuisance parasites and we owe them nothing. I do not approve of nationalism of any kind, be it Israeli, Palestinian, Australian, Russian, American, whatever.

I cannot stop you from suffering as it is completely by your own choice. Your preferred people, the so-called "Palestinians", while they too are suffering, they too brought it on their own heads, unnecessarily. They could have been happy and prosperous - but due to their infatuation with nationalism and terror, they chose not to.

I have great sympathy for the ordinary local Arab person in the West Bank and Gaza and their suffering as individuals at the hands of both Israel and their own leaders, but once they become beholden to nationalism, there my sympathy ends.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Grayling in "The Meaning of Things"

"Nationalism is an evil. It causes wars. Its roots lie in xenophobia and racism; it is a recent phenomenon – an invention of the last few centuries – which has been of immense service to demagogues and tyrants, but to no one else. Disguised as patriotism and love of one’s country, it trades on the unreason of mass psychology to make a variety of horrors seem acceptable, even honourable. For example: if someone said to you, ‘I am going to send your son to kill the boy next door’ you would hotly protest. But only let him seduce you with ‘Queen and Country!’ My country right or wrong!’ and you find yourself permitting him to send all our sons to kill not just the sons of other people, but other people indiscriminately – which is what bombs and bullets do.

Demagogues know what they are about when they preach nationalism. Hitler said, ‘The effectiveness of the truly national leader consists in preventing his people from dividing their attention and keeping it fixed on a common enemy.’ And he knew whom to appeal to: Goethe had long since remarked that nationalistic feelings ‘are at their strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture’.

Nationalists take certain unexceptionable desires and muddle them with unacceptable ones. We individuals wish to run our own affairs; that is unexceptionable. Most of us value the culture which gave us our sense of personal and group identity; that too is unexceptionable. But the nationalist persuades us that the existence of other groups and cultures somehow puts these things at risk, and that the only way to protect them is to see ourselves as members of a distinct collective defined by ethnicity, geography or sameness of language or religion, and to build a wall around ourselves to keep out ‘foreigners’. It is not enough that the others are other, we have to see them as a threat – at the very least to ‘our way of life’, perhaps to our jobs, even to our daughters.

continued

continued

When Europe’s overseas colonies sought independence, the only rhetoric to hand was that of nationalism. It had well served the unifiers of Germany and Italy in the nineteenth century (which in turn paved the way for some of their activities in the twentieth century), and we see a number of the ex-colonial nations going the same way today.

The idea of nationalism turns on that of a ‘nation’. The word is meaningless: all ‘nations’ are mongrel, a mixture of so many immigrations and mixings of people over time that the idea of ethnicity is largely comical, except in places where the boast has to be either that the community there remained so remote and disengaged, or so conquered, for the greater part of history, that it succeeded in keeping its gene pool ‘pure’ (a cynic might say ‘inbred’).
Much nonsense is talked about nations as entities: Emerson spoke of the ‘genius’ of a nation as something separate from its numerical citizens, Giraudoux described the ‘spirit of a nation’ as ‘the look in its eyes’; other such meaningless assertions abound. Nations are artificial constructs, their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars. And one should not confuse culture and nationality; there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same as national identity.

The blindness of people who fall for nationalistic demagoguery is surprising. Those who oppose closer relations in Europe, or who seek to detach themselves from the larger comities to which they belong, do well to examine the lessons of such tragedies as the Balkan conflicts, or – the same thing writ larger – Europe’s bloody history in the twentieth century. pp. 77-9;