Thanks for quoting those two bastards, Wobbles:
Ben Gurion had no second thoughts about contradicting himself - he could have said anything under the sun depending on what he wanted to get from the person he was speaking with. Himself, a "socialist" dictator, a softer version of Mugabe, believed in nothing but holding power. So here he suddenly poses as a bible-believer... get real!

Moshe Dayan - the famous archeology-thief, would also say whatever at the time was beneficial for his private archeological collection.

Both had plenty to feel guilty for, conveniently reflecting their personal misdeeds on their nation as a whole.

In sharp contrast, Menachem Begin was a dead-honest, true gentelman and man of honour. The fact, which he admitted, that there was no PROOF that Nasser was in fact going to attack Israel, does not mean that it was not likely, especially after he imposed a sea-blockade on Israel. Nobody can prove what Nasser had in mind, but Israel could not afford to risk it, so it attacked first. Egypt did attack Israel before, in 1948, and after, in 1973, unprovoked.

As for Israel serving hidden American interests, doing the dirty work for them, isn't Australia doing the same? we are slightly bigger in size and population, geographically isolated, not under an immediate attack and not facing international and UN sanctions, yet even we find it hard to refuse the Americans, lest we are swallowed by a bigger shark, so how could little Israel refuse?

It is too late and too naive for historians to clear the political air. We are way past that point. "What'n blazes do we need,then?" I'm afraid the only thing that can do the trick is a drastic reduction in human population. Of course, nobody will accept to be on the "reduced" side.

But come on, historians, you are welcome to try anyway: could you please start by removing contents of "the protocols of the elders of zion" from schoolbooks in the Gaza strip, where kids are taught to kill all Jews indiscriminately and receive military training from the age of 5?

Bushbred: Sorry, I was being heavily ironical, even sarcastic. Of course an understanding of history is vital to understanding what's going on today. People like Yuyutsu regard historical figures as "bastards" because they once said things he doesn't agree with. Or at least if those things are under the carpet, that's where they should stay. Yuyutsu's recipe is one for eternal conflict between Israel and its neighbours. His last para about the Protocols of Zion is the only one with which I agree. It's alarming and disgusting that this is still in use as a political weapon.

Also: do the purveyors of this antisemitic crap not understand what part it played in stoking the Holocaust, which in turn was a major factor in establishing the state of Israel in the first place?

Youngsteve,

You may not be aware of it, but records were discovered showing that your grandfather has been naughty, so therefore you ought to leave your home and jump off a cliff.

Plausible?

Sorry, I didn't mean it about your grandfather, but would that make you for a blink of a second want to leave your home and jump off a cliff?

I don't mind having an intellectual/historic discussion, for the pleasure of it in the comforts of Australia: but it would not change anything in the Middle-East.

BTW, you are wrong in thinking that my despising of Ben-Gurion and Dayan has anything to do with what they said. It is rather what they DID, but is not directly related to this discussion.

Anecdotically, Ben-Gurion claimed in 1918 that the Arab farmers of Palestine (as opposed to the Beduin nomads) are descendents of original Jews that stayed in Israel all centuries, but gradually converted to Islam from the 7th century on. He was hoping to convince those farmers to join the emerging Israeli nation, but shoved it under the carpet in 1929, following the Arab massacre of Jews in Hebron.

Does it help to know that Israelis and Palestinians are in fact the same nation? is it of any practical use? I am afraid not.

It's a fact that there are too many people in this world, far more than this earth can hold. Now look specifically at the 1.5 million Gazans (probably more now), squeezed in such a small area, with no jobs, living off UN food rations and breeding like there is no tomorrow: do they have anywhere to go? any economic prospects? any hope? Thus they fall prey to bizarre religious leaders that use them, selling them false hopes of both heaven (literally) and earth (throwing the Jews to the sea and taking their lands).

Suppose historians established clearly that global warming is a direct result of our western-wasteful lifestyle. Would you then invite a drowning Bangaladeshi family and share your home, food, water and everything with them? most likely not even your relatives, so why Israel?

Youngsteve,

I’m neither a “self-hating Jew” nor a “fuming anti-Semite”. Funny how people react when you wander too far from the prepared script. History isn’t a moving 3 year window and perspective is always important.

I’m at least prepared to see things from all sides and in this instance, both sides are to blame and both sides are the victims.

Those random quotes I used were some of very many more I could have used that show the difference between historical fact and current Public Relations and not at all difficult to find.

Although I’m quoting from the past, isn’t that what the Holocaust has become – a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that can be pulled out whenever required and used to justify anything?

There have been mass slaughters and persecutions of both Muslims and Christians in Srebrenica and Rwanda since then but nobody’s claiming special ongoing consideration for their descendants.

I feel nothing but sorrow, horror and shame for those who endured those camps but I don’t have much time for those who exploit the memory of the deaths of the innocent for their own short-term modern goals, just like those mindless drones who strap bombs to themselves for some misguided higher purpose. Likewise, those who deny it ever happened should seek professional help.

Also, the Protocols of Zion, (which some people on BOTH sides like to quote from) was a hoax and the State of Israel wasn’t directly established as a result of the Holocaust. Land was set aside as a safe-haven and Israel declared ITSELF to be a sovereign nation, after a very interesting campaign (which included the occassional terrorist act) most which seems to have been forgotten but is very relevant to what’s happening today.

Something I can’t resolve easily is that an Arab, whose family may have lived in what they regarded as their homeland for generations, cannot return there, but somebody else – from anywhere in the world but simply by having a Jewish mother - is automatically granted Israeli citizenship and free to “return home” at any time. Is there a special word for that?

Wobbles...I agree with you almost entirely. In future, I shall keep my sarcasm to myself (see my reply to Bushbred). Of course both sides are victims, and both see themselves as having a monopoly on victimhood. But, very generally, Jews are naturally unable to empathize with the sufferings of others such as Rwandan Tutsi or Moslems in Srebrenica. Their own experience is foregrounded, and the same applies to all other persecuted minorities. I am not speaking of individuals within those communities, please note. There are honorable exceptions everywhere.

wobbles

Just a couple of things. Even the most extreme of Jewish sects follow ancient Jewish principles that the deity is just as favourably disposed to people who are not Jewish as long as they are good. A good pagan is considered to be more acceptable in the afterlife than a bad Jew. Jews do not have a policy of requiring every one to be Jewish. That is why Israel allows Mosques, Churches, Baha'i Temples, but Saudi Arabia does not allow Churches.

The belief that one has the only true belief is confined to some sections of Christianity and Islam.

You seem to be unaware that the UN has a different definition for Palestinian refugees than others. Large numbers of Egyptians and others moved into Palestine during the 19th century as the Jewish settlers improved the land and created job opportunities, many of the refugees are not long term inhabitants at all and arrived after the European Jews.

And why quote two or three people in isolation and use this as proof. Try quoting Chaim Weizmann, arguably the true founder of Israel.

What is also ignored in all criticisms of Israel is the movement of populations in both directions, Muslims out of Israel and Jews, Christians, Baha'i Druze etc into Israel. The idea that Israel is a product of the holocausts is just not true. The Jewish homeland became a refuge for middle eastern non-Muslims as much as for European Jews.

To ignore this is to lack balance.