Even the World Bank Understands: Palestine is Being Disappeared

[polly7]

By Jonathan Cook

Friday, October 18, 2013

Two recent images encapsulate the message behind the dry statistics of last week’s report by the World Bank on the state of the Palestinian economy.

The first is a poster from the campaigning group Visualising Palestine that shows a photoshopped image of Central Park, eerily naked. Amid New York’s skyscrapers, the park has been sheared of its trees by bulldozers. A caption reveals that since the occupation began in 1967, Israel has uprooted 800,000 olive trees belonging to Palestinians, enough to fill 33 Central Parks.

The second, a photograph widely published last month in Israel, is of a French diplomat lying on her back in the dirt, staring up at Israeli soldiers surrounding her, their guns pointing down towards her. Marion Castaing had been mistreated when she and a small group of fellow diplomats tried to deliver emergency aid, including tents, to Palestinian farmers whose homes had just been razed.

The demolitions were part of long-running efforts by Israel to clear Palestinians out of the Jordan Valley, the agricultural heartland of a future Palestinian state. Ms Castaing’s defiance resulted in her being quietly packed off back to Europe, as French officials sought to avoid a confrontation with Israel.

The World Bank report is a way of stating discreetly what Castaing and other diplomats hoped to highlight more directly: that Israel is gradually whittling away the foundations on which the Palestinians can build an independent economic life and a viable state.

Full article: http://www.zcommunications.org/even-the-world-bank-understands-palestine-is-being-disappeared-by-jonathan-cook.html

[oberliner]

1. Typical BS from Jonathan Cook

Amazing that paragraphs like this can get published:

The second, a photograph widely published last month in Israel, is of a French diplomat lying on her back in the dirt, staring up at Israeli soldiers surrounding her, their guns pointing down towards her. Marion Castaing had been mistreated when she and a small group of fellow diplomats tried to deliver emergency aid, including tents, to Palestinian farmers whose homes had just been razed.

I count at least five distinct lies in that one paragraph.

But that is typical of Jonathan Cook, one of the British White Men showing the way!

[polly7]

2. Awesome.

I love it when you jump in to attack the messenger ...... it means the article's really bothered you. That's when I know it's a good one.

[King_David]

3. It's not only the messenger ...

His message is a lie...

France has withdrawn that soon to be ex Diplomat for that bogus manufactured event ... Not so worthy of an Oscar because it was badly acted by the amateur "diplomat"... She's toast.

[Scootaloo]

7. Well, Oberliner has a point...

The claim that Israeli soldiers had their guns pointed at her is obviously false, for instance.
Here's the image, from al-jazeera...


And here's the entire image:


And a second angle:


And a third:


Their guns are pointed downwards, at rest - not being aimed at her.

And, well, she DID, y'know... start it:


Whether a skinny French woman throwing a punch deserves to have her ass dropped is debatable, I suppose. But to claim that the Israelis had their guns on her, or that they attacked out of nowhere, is in fact false. Paris recalled her after this because, well... nobody wants a diplomat who starts a fistfight.

And usually I'm rolling my eyes at our hasbaristas and their constant claims of worldwide Palestinian media-control conspiracies and such. But... Uh, yeah, the Al-jazeera photo is definitely cropped specifically to create the impression it does. Shame on the editor.


Still, however, oberliner is evading the point of the opening article, regarding the economic conditions of the west bank. So, though he's right on the issue of Marion Castaing, Polly's also right about him evading the issue to attack the messenger.

[azurnoir]

16. It's a slight varient of the "thankyou for smoking" method of debate

wherein you do not have to prove you're right only that your opponent is wrong even on the most miniscule of details and take that and run with it, there by hijacking the debate and making uit appear as though they're all wrong

[Scootaloo]

17. Well, it's either that or the gish gallop...

And if I had to choose between the two...

[azurnoir]

18. I think I like that one better Gish Gallop

it hits the nail right on the head so to speak

[Purveyor]

37. Indeed! +1 eom

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

91. That's been happening quite a bit too often.

[shira]

4. Lying propagandist & bigot Jonathan Cook; fan & supporter of Gilad Atzmon....

...who among other nasty things wrote of "Jewish persecution of Hitler".



Classy.

[madrchsod]

8. i just finished reading some articles from these two

and that will be the last time. i did`t find the hitler article but i`ll pass on that now.

[Scootaloo]

15. Atzmon is fucking nuts

And I mean that in a medical way, I think the dude needs some sort of medicine.

Shira likes to pretend everyone she disagrees with is a "big fan" of his. or that they're Pat Buchanan. Or whoever her boogeyman of the day is.

[shira]

22. Jonathan Cook is a fan of his, as are Richard Falk, John Mearsheimer, Greta Berlin, etc...

Even those who've come out against him turn out to be supporters of Hamas terror, spewing old antisemitic canards, running interference for PA/Hamas ideology and actions.

Doesn't speak well for your "cause".

Hell, I asked you long ago to name a few decent & well known, genuinely progressive, anti-zionist organizations or leaders.

Still waiting.

When your I/P views are really like those of Pat Buchanan, it's probably time you own up to that....

[Scootaloo]

25. More demands to "admit" something?

I swear Shira, your interrogative techniques couldn't sway a five year old.

[shira]

27. I can call out and condemn the likes of Caroline Glick for her absurd, bigoted views....

I can admit what's obviously wrong with her views.

You can't break rank with the worst anti-zionists.

I suspect you can't b/c you agree with pretty much everything they do and say....

[Scootaloo]

29. And then demand people "admit she's right"

And then you say this:

You can't break rank with the worst anti-zionists.

When you just responded to a post where I said this:

Atzmon is fucking nuts. And I mean that in a medical way, I think the dude needs some sort of medicine.

Does your personal universe lack a connection between time and space, Shira? 'Cause at times it seems that you really have no perception of either your surroundings or the sequence of events that brought you there.

[shira]

47. Atzmon is easy to condemn. You don't get bonus points for that.

The very fact that you and your colleagues have the most difficult time naming just one decent, anti-racist anti-zionist organization or one anti-zionist leader goes to show this goes well beyond lunatic neo-nazis like Atzmon.

[Scootaloo]

49. Well, except I already have

The hangup is that you believe every anti-Zionist is a "lunatic neo-nazi." You even lob this accusation against your fellow DU'ers. Essentially, any person I name, you will condemn simply because they are anti-Zionist. Whether it's Greenstein (still waiting for you to back up your accusations against him by the way), Anthony Loewenstein, Hajo Meyer, Selma James, Judith Butler, Stephen Fry, whoever, you'll just argue that they are essentially crematoria operators.

And even if, by some weird swing of fate, I were the one, lonely, isolated example of a sane anti-Zionist in the world... this would not make Zionism a good idea. Think of it this way - if every anti-communist was a looney like Strangelove's General Ripper, would that make Stalinism right?

[shira]

51. So let's take Tony Greenstein

1. Israel = Nazis antisemitism, which is a form of Holocaust denial (minimization/deflection onto Jews).

2. I showed you how he justified nazi style hate and incitement vs. Jews by Stalinists within Germany pre-WW2 & you didn't have a problem with that...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113447554#post13

That's not just vile, it's hypocritical due to Greenstein's obsession linking Jews as collaborators with Hitler's minions during the Holocaust.

3. And then there's the WIKI page on the PSC (Palestinian Solidarity Campaign) that Greenstein co-founded:

Several PSC leaders have publicly made anti-Semitic statements. Ellie Merton, chair of Waltham Forest PSC, was a strong supporter of the anti-Jewish, pro-terror Ken O'Keefe and his "Road to Hope" convoy, which was strongly supportive of the Gaddafi government in Libya. The website of Waltham Forest PSC recommends, and links to, the notorious Deir Yassin Remembered website, an organisation heavily criticised for its promotion of Holocaust denial. Merton has claimed that the murders in Norway by Anders Breivik were part of a conspiracy by the Israeli government.[58][59]

Cliff Hanley, former Chair and Secretary of Bristol PSC, attributed 9/11 and WikiLeaks to a Jewish conspiracy and "has sent messages to the Bristol PSC mailing list on how the 'Jewish lobby works'." Sammi Ibrahem, former chair of West Midlands PSC, runs an anti-Jewish website called Shoah.org.uk and is an admirer of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. In 2011, the website published a 1996 essay by Ernst Zündel which proclaimed, "I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at Nuremberg. They were the world's martyrs, not villains. Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial – not one! They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform – and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern Europe."[60][61]

A page titled "The Power of Zionists" was displayed on the Liverpool PSC website that displayed a caricature of a Jewish man with a hooked nose and a Star of David flag, ordering an American soldier to march on. The text reads "Join the United States Army...and fight for Israel". Liverpool PSC has suggested that there are too many Jews in Parliament.[62]

The PSC has frequently publicly supported Hamas. PSC representatives met with Mahmoud al-Zahar, a Hamas leader in Gaza in October 2010. Al-Zahar has been noted to have publicly made "deeply homophobic and anti-Semitic comments". He has been quoted apparently calling for the killing of Jewish children "all over the world", saying Israel has "legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine".[63]

PSC activist Andrew Collingwood published photos of a 2009 protest in which he was involved, one which depicted a sign showing a witch with "accentuated Jewish features", that "posited that anti-Semitism is a made-up concept".[60]

In order to paint British Jews as racists, Terry Gallogly, the former Chairman and current Secretary of the York branch, sent emails to members to implore them to help distort the outcome of a poll being conducted a Jewish newspaper which discussed the problems of the violent English Defence League,.[64] Tony Greenstein, a leading PSC activist, allegedly "applauded Gallogly for this attempted smear". Gallogly, who is also a member of the national executive of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, was involved with a 2007 visit to the University of York by Aharon Cohen from the extremist Jewish group Neturei Karta.[65] Cohen had created controversy earlier in 2006, when he said that he thought that victims of the Holocaust "deserved it in one way or another".[66]

In 2004 a vigil held at Clifford's Tower to commemorate the massacre of Jews in 1190 was allegedly "gatecrashed" by PSC activists,[60] according to organizer of the ceremony Hugo Bieber, Chairman of the Jewish Society, James College, University of York.[67]
Reading PSC member Anthony Gratrex has written that "a majority of the media is Jewish owned or controlled." Many PSC members have expressed admiration for Gilad Atzmon, who has said that the characters Fagin and Shylock accurately represent Jewish identity, that the credit crunch was caused by the Jews,[68] that the Holocaust is a "religion", and that Hitler may be proved right about the Jews.[69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Solidarity_Campaign#Anti-Semitism

That's not just bad, it's vile and depraved.

==========

To answer you, it's very telling that there is no decent anti-zionist leadership or decent anti-zionist organizations out there. There are no elected Dems in Congress or the Senate who hold such views. You need to really ask yourself why that is.

[Jefferson23]

9. What are you claiming? Joanthan Cook wrote of "Jewish persecution of Hitler".

Link it.

[shira]

10. No, Jonathan Cook is a fan of Gilad Atzmon, and Atzmon writes about Jews/Hitler....

....among other revolting antisemitic canards that Cook has no problems with. Like Richard Falk, John Mearsheimer, Lauren Booth, and Greta Berlin....who also love Atzmon's Jew-bashing and support for terror operations against, you guessed it, Jews.

As much as you bitch and moan about the credibility of certain sources, or lack thereof, it doesn't get much worse than Cook for his propaganda.

[Jefferson23]

12. Uh huh, Hurry Up Harry's Place analysis..ok. n/t

[Scootaloo]

14. From a fan of Richard Landes and Caroline Glick, no less... n/t

[shira]

23. Another lie. And from a fan of gutter trash like Tony Greenstein no less. n/t

[Scootaloo]

24. Except it's perfectly true

Remember?

I want to thank Azurnoir for bringing that silly shit to light... in your thread you started with Caroline Glick as your co-pilot.

Should I go back and reference all your use of other right-wing sources, Shira? You know, The Algemeiner, Gatestone Institute, Pajamas Media?

Point is, you're simply in no position to argue that because someone has associations with someone you dislike, said person is wrong. Especially when you're so eager to take someone you claim to find utterly reprehensible, and demand that the rest of us "admit" that she's right. Combined with your regular pouting about ad hominem, it just makes you look like a really big hypocrite.

If you're trying to win people over to your point of view, this really isn't the way to do it.

[shira]

26. Big difference b/w us....

I'm not responsible for the views of people who either agree or disagree with me.

Try to understand that.

If I disagree with Glick or Landes, and I do, I let it be known. Sometimes I agree with them, other times not. That shouldn't stop me from ever quoting them or anyone else I like or dislike.

It just so happens that you and your comrades here REALLY DO march in virtual lock-step with each other, defending to the hilt the worst of the worst in your movement. Dissent is bad. You will run all kinds of interference for the nastiest anti-zionists out there. I can only assume you tacitly agree with the worst of the worst.

For example, there's another thread here about Amira Hass supporting terror attacks vs. civilians. I don't expect even one of you to come out and condemn something as obviously nasty as that. Why not just say you aren't responsible for the views of others and on that you disagree and condemn it...as well as others with similar views? None of your fellow comrades here can do that.

You can't even condemn Tony Greenstein for his Nazi/Israel comparisons, his antisemitic views, or support for terror. How am I to interpret that other than thinking you're in lock-step with his worst views?

[Scootaloo]

28. Well, at least you can admit being a hypocrite

Most people wouldn't do so with as much pride in it as you seem to, but I think the... special approach you have towards ethics and principles is well-established.

For example, there's another thread here about Amira Hass supporting terror attacks vs. civilians. I don't expect even one of you to come out and condemn something as obviously nasty as that.

Well, one, we're not trained monkeys to come out and dance for your pleasure. And you never seem to rush to condemn Israel for the shit it does, so again I guess you're just a proud hypocrite.

For another though, engaging you in discussion is the intellectual analogue of fucking a coil of barbed wire. Sane people avoid it altogether, and even the insane learn that the effort it takes is not worth the return. Perhaps your thread lacks the pious hair-tugging you want, precisely because it's you who wants it. You have a caustic personality, you have no notion that you can be wrong about something, and even the most reasoned attempts to speak with you eventually end up with you spiralling off the deep end. I maintain that only my long exposure to the misanthropic freaks of right-wing message boards enables me to tolerate your wild-eyed histrionics and naked rage to the point that I do. And even given that, I have to take breaks.

Your thread is empty because you've obviously made up your mind about not just the subject, but also anyone who would ever bother speaking about it with you. Doing so would just end up more or less like grinding one's crotch against a shank of cattle fencing - why fucking bother?

[shira]

46. But I'm not. I'll condemn/criticize anything if simply asked. I don't mind being questioned....

...about my views here like you guys are. It's obvious you guys are embarrassed to share your views. That's been demonstrated here countless times. You're good dishing it out, but very piss-poor taking criticism back against your vile movement.

Prove me wrong.

What's your take on Amira Hass' article? Maybe reply over there, okay? Or not.

[Scootaloo]

48. Well, no, you are. Go back and read the posts, Shira

You're basically arguing that people who endorse or cite fuck-knuckles are themselves fuck-knuckles... except for yourself.

You judge people as being outright nazis because they belong to some organization that has a connection to FreeGaza, because of Greta Berlin misposting a video to the wrong group. Because they are within seven degrees of Greta Berlin, they are as bad as any crematoria-operating Reich fuck, according to you.

However, you directly cite the work of Caroline Glick (and demand others "admit she's right&quot and Nahum Shahaf. You lavish praise upon the "scholarship" of Richard Landes, which is sort of like admiring the "research" of Jerome Corsi. Your regular sources of information here are far-right neoconservative blogs like Gatestone Institute. But you, oh, you don't get tarred by the brush of the fuck-knuckles you associate with, becuase, uh, uhm, er, uh, hmm, that is, uh, because!

If you want to play with guilt-by-association, you have to realize that others will expect you to be internally consistent. That is, you are absolutely no different from the likes of Glick, Shahaf, or even John Motherfucking Bolton, because you hold them close, and believe that people should be judged by such associations. If you [o]don't want to be judged by those associations - and it seems that you don't - then you need to stop holding others to that standard. Consistency, that's all.

Which brings us to the point you try to make here. Yes, if prompted, you will sometimes lob out a criticism. I don't believe I've ever seen you do so unprompted, though. Okay, that's fine, really - you're not a dancing monkey, either, right? However, I don't think i've seen you maintain consistency even when prompted. Like on the subject of settlements. if asked, you will say that you believe settlements are a problem and an impediment to two states... but, left to your own devices, you argue that htye are an integral and unquestionable part of Israel, that critics of them want a "judenrein" even that Palestinians have no intrinsic rights to the West Bank. I'm really not sure what the conflict in your head is, which is the "Real" you, or even if they're both your rela positions and you just forget shit easily... but after all this time, forgive me if I just presume that what you say unprompted is what you really believe, and what you're prompted to say is just a fig leaf to cover for your actual beliefs.

[shira]

50. But I don't generally agree with Glick's views on I/P. You guys tend to march in lock-step....

...with the leaders of the anti-zionist movement, no matter how vile and toxic their views. If you disagree with them, you never show it. Which makes me believe you're "absolutely no different from them".

I don't have problems with settlements that should be part of Israel in any reasonable agreement. Others that should be part of Palestine in any deal are bullshit, although I'm sure we disagree on which ones. While settlements are an impediment to peace, Kahanists are an even bigger impediment. I do have a problem with a Jew-free Palestinian state. It's not just that Jews won't be allowed to live there. What's worse is that their access to important sites will be severely restricted under PA control, and that's intolerable.

Those are my real positions, no bullshit. The reason I don't criticize unprompted is b/c I refuse to join a hatefest, that's all.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Please share your knowledge with me, Oberliner.

What are the 5 lies?
I am always seeking education in areas I am not well versed in.

[oberliner]

11. I'm glad somebody asked

The second, a photograph widely published last month in Israel, is of a French diplomat lying on her back in the dirt, staring up at Israeli soldiers surrounding her, their guns pointing down towards her. Marion Castaing had been mistreated when she and a small group of fellow diplomats tried to deliver emergency aid, including tents, to Palestinian farmers whose homes had just been razed.

1. a photograph widely published last month in Israel

2. their guns pointing down towards her

3. Marion Castaing had been mistreated

4. group of fellow diplomats

5. to deliver emergency aid

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. And you know those are lies because......?

I am thinking of another post on DU today which pointed out a photograph of the trucker's strike over the weekend,
showing dozens and dozens of trucks
was actually a photo of another incident years earlier.
The link to the original photo was provided in the OP.

So...what do I need to know to understand your five points . ?

[madrchsod]

6. three other sources on this problem

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/10/18344690/west-bank-gaza-area-c-future-palestinian-economy

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/08/israel-palestinians-economy-idUSL6N0HY1O120131008

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Israelis-restrictions-cost-the-Palestinian-economy-34-billion-annually-328129

[delrem]

19. The source of the problem is the parasite that is totally consuming Palestine.

The parasite gives no quarter, and it telegraphs its ambitions. That's what's happening in Area C.

"Area C"
There no other designation that inspires in me such revulsion.

[King_David]

31. "Gongylonema pulchruma," ?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4109733

[Israeli]

20. every picture tells a story polly7.....

that Israel is gradually whittling away the foundations on which the Palestinians can build an independent economic life and a viable state.

this is one that does not need the World Bank or Jonathan Cook to explain ....

[azurnoir]

30. Thank you

I can not tell you the number of times we've been told those maps are lies nothing but lies, but when asked how so no one can really tell us except that well they're lies

[Israeli]

34. I wouldn't describe those simple illustrations as maps azurnoir

now if its maps you want then Peace Now is the best place to go ....
and this one is one of the best :

http://peacenow.org/map.php

[King_David]

32. Yea if you posting an accurate picture sure .

But "The intent of this propaganda map is to suggest that an Arab country called "Palestine" existed in 1946 and was driven from existence by Jewish imperialists"

Debunked nonsense that map..

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/andrew-sullivan-revises-history-again/37401/

"5 Million Palestinians Classified as refugees " your ridiculous map says .. That's because the Arab countries where they were born somehow don't allow them to become citizens of the country they were born in .... Unlike any other refugees in this World.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Well, dave, to now debunk your crap...

That's because the Arab countries where they were born somehow don't allow them to become citizens of the country they were born in

Israel will pretty much welcome anybody of Jewish ancestry, from anywhere in the world, with citizenship yet the same welcoming hand that grants foreign nationals, with the right religion, citizenship outright prohibits Palestinians from that same right.

Furthermore, Israel and its newcomers add insult to injury by doing everything possible to drive out the Palestinians.

Colonialism and apartheid.

Israel and its cheerleaders are hypocrites.

[King_David]

38. Some choice quotes and real 'mature' debating technique from R. Daneel Olivaw on this thread alone .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49049

'what a bunch of amateurs '

'You're really not that good at this'

'In act you are downright horrible at it. '(sic)

'You really are an amateur.'

'Amateurs, all. '


'You really are horrible at spreading the BS around'

'Just go away and be lame someplace else'

'

Yes real mature



Update:

Amateur.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49145

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. And again dave runs while validating my post.

[shira]

52. Why do u think Israel accepts Jews of all types? Explain to us the reason. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. I'm more concerned with why Israel pushes out Palestinians

and won't let them or their children return while admitting in the diaspora: who had never set foot inside Israel before.

[King_David]

54. Yeas a lot of people are obsessed with IP

For many different reasons.
Most times to the exclusion of any other
" topic"

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. Well, dave, I guess that you must mean Shira.

[King_David]

61. Shira has a reason,

Her people are involved ...others are obsessed for other reasons , even when there's no involvement or connection, obsessed with this 'issue'' and the 'people' to the exclusion of all other.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. Reason? She aparently now admits that the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians

was on the money.

With reasons like that who needs enemas.


Ah, the excuse machine never ends with y'all...

[King_David]

65. Yep it is all about motivation,

And extreme right and extreme left motivation.

The views sometimes expressed here are marginal and would shock most in the USA Democratic Party, and their motivation in their extreme Hate towards The Jewish State and sometimes its people is sometimes suspect, especially those with no horse in the race such as Greta Berlin and Mel Gibson.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

68. You guys are really phoning it in tonight with the excuses.

You can't excuse standing up for ethnic cleansing.

Not in Africa, Not in the USA, not in Bosnia, not in Palestine.



IMHO it's not that you don't get it, but it is seems that you don't care; it doesn't matter that Zionists were doing it...and still are.

[King_David]

69. Most uninvolved non Jewish Non Muslim 'activists'

don't care about Not in Africa, Not in the USA, not in Bosnia...but only The Jewish State and its people worldwide. That is the rub.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

71. This is I/P, dave. Perhaps you don't understand that.

Seemingly, you have a problem understanding that ethnic cleansing is a bad thing, and making excuses for others that support it is even worse.

[shira]

55. Diversion. You guys never answer the simplest questions. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. Tell us again how you agree with benny Morris and his views on ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49410

"but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing."


Who the hell here actually disagrees with that?

Who prefers to have their people annihilated rather than ethnically cleansing some or most of their enemies?

[shira]

58. So b/w ethnic cleansing or genocide, you prefer that the Jews be wiped out....

Right?

That would've been the better, more ethical choice.



Or do you deny the Palestinian genocidal intent of that time period? As if Hitler's Mufti Haj Amin al-Hussayni would've never dreamed of such a thing.

Either way it looks bad for you.

Denying Palestinian genocidal intent (in both the Fatah and Hamas charters today) isn't exactly Holocaust denial, but it's the next closest thing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

59. Don't change the subject to fly from your own hypocrisy.

You've stated that you agree with Morris on ethnic cleansing.

Morris agreed that...

BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. 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.

And the ethnic cleansing is still going on strong, when Palestinians are uprooted from their homes and farms, when their olive groves are burned down, when they must act like strangers in their own house.

The ethnic cleansing is till going on strong, but now it mechanized into the state while the Palestinians population endures different laws, invading settlers from Israel, IDF abuse and general Israel indifference: apartheid.

[shira]

60. Between the annihilation of the Jews and having to ethnically cleanse Palestinians....

...the choice is clear.

No one in their right mind would prefer genocidal annihilation to ethnic cleansing.

Those were in fact the only 2 choices.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. I'm sure all despots and their bootlickers would agree with you.

If the only way that the Zionists could bring about their dream, the Palestinians nightmare, was by a pogrom on the Palestinian people, something you are continuously and sickeningly at peace with, then it is a truly despicable choice given that the only way to win was to destroy another.

Never again seems so much of a fucking ironic joke put into this context.

[shira]

64. 2 choices back then, and only 2....

Jews could've been annihilated again, just a few years after the Holocaust.

Or they could've fought for Israel and ethnically cleansed their Nazi enemies under Haj Amin al-Husseini.

If there had been no ethnic cleansing and Palestinians had won the war behind al-Husseini, what do you think would've happened to the Jews?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. And you come back with the plied old excuse of wife beaters and violators everywhere.

If we didn't terrorize and forcibly remove the Palestinians from their homes and villages at gunpoint, well at least the ones we didn't kill, then how would we very have ever formed a country?

If you can only form a country on the backs of others then it isn't much of a country.



Well, shira, at least you admit to being a fan of Benny Morris and ethnikkk cleansing.

Now all you have to do is to forcibly admit that apartheid is actually a good thing for the Israelis. If you can be so callously abrupt about ethnic cleansing then I guess an admission of apartheid is around the corner.

[shira]

67. It means so much being chided by someone who prefers that the Jews be annihilated back then...

From the Eichmann Trial regarding Haj Amin al-Husseini...

It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the Final Solution, viz., the extermination of European Jewry, and there is no doubt that, had Hitler succeeded in conquering Palestine, the Jewish population of Palestine as well would have been subject to total extermination, with the support of the Mufti.

Only a horrible person would prefer the above scenario to what the Jews of that era did to avoid annihilation.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

70. And the Godwin raises it's frightful head...with the veneer of shira.

I for one am truly amazed that you need desperately to turn this into a Nazi song and dance, when it was the Zionists who were the villains in this particular act

If one must embrace the Nazi costume as a defense then they had best be prepared to accept that they are inseparable from it.

[shira]

72. "The Zionists were the villains in this particular act". Okay, so what should they have done?

Let's go back to 1947-48 and the civil war is now raging. What should the "Zionists" have done instead?

If they had lost the war, there would've been no Jewish state. No Jewish state means ________________?

What would have happened to the "Zionists", or Jews of that era in Palestine had they lost the war and no Jewish state had evolved?

Hitler's Mufti and his Nazi companions are now in charge.

What would have happened to all those Jews?

You don't want to go there, do you?

Your position on this couldn't possibly be more vile or depraved.

===========

Rather than respond to the questions asked, you'll just repeat your demonizing rhetoric and propaganda like a broken record.

Just a suggestion, but I think you'd be more comfortable spewing your shit at Stormfront. No one would oppose you there. You'd be able to relate with like-minded people.

[azurnoir]

73. So your saying the British along with the US

would have allowed a second Jewish genocide in less than 10 years to occur in Palestine? The British colonial forces did not finalize their pull out until May 1948

Quite a charge against both countries

[shira]

74. The Brits and US have allowed recent Syrian and Sudanese massacres/genocide....

Last edited Wed Oct 23, 2013, 06:01 PM - Edit history (2)

...along with mass attacks vs. Christians throughout the Arab mideast (like the Copts in Egypt for example).

What makes you think the West cared about Jews 65 years ago right after the Holocaust when the West couldn't care less about mass slaughter of Muslims and Christians in the mideast now?

[azurnoir]

75. so you think the US along with the West would allow a genocide against Israeli Jews right now?

because otherwise your post makes no sense

[shira]

76. You asked me about 2 Holocausts within a decade back in the 40's. My answer was yes. NT

[azurnoir]

77. yes but then you pointed out 'genocides' the US is allowing right now as your answer

so once again would the US also allow a genocide against Israeli Jews right now?

[shira]

79. Now? Nope. But back then, sure. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

90. I believe that what you have written is deceptive.

There would be no way that the USA or especially Britain would have allowed that to happen.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

78. Perhaps they should not have expelled 700,000 Palestinians for starters.

In addition to that they and their cheerleaders shouldn't embrace that ethnic cleansing so easily while deriding the rest of the world for being anti-Semites.

To some of the defenders of Zionist expansion hypocrisy knows no bounds.

On edit: please keep on digging up Hitler's ghost to wrap around yourself. I find it quite comical.

[shira]

80. You're telling me what they shouldn't have done. I'm asking u what should they have done instead.

Had there been no expulsions, either forced or voluntary, and had there been no state as a result then al-Husseini and his hordes would've won the war.

What then do you believe would have happened to the Jews?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

81. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"No, don't answer with your answer. Now answer differently!"
-SoS Shira


Has it ever occurred to you to consider for a moment that, and I have to add in your infinitesimally small reasoning, what you are accusing "al-Husseini and his *hordes"...ahem... of doing is exactly what the zionistas did wholesale to the Palestinians?

Are you completely blinded to the reality that the zionistas were the ones wearing the uniforms while committing the atrocities?

If it hisses like a goose and marches like a goose, then it is a goose.

What then do you believe would have happened to the Jews?

Perhaps they would have realized that they couldn't just steal a country out from under its present inhabitants?



*al-Husseini and his hordes. Is that how you see 700,000 Palestinian refugees?

[shira]

82. Can't handle a real question, can you?

And I never accused all 700,000 refugees of being Nazi hordes and minions, only those Palestinians fighting under his authority against the Jews. How else am I to view them?

Also, the vast majority of the 700,000 left of their own accord and were not forced out. Did you not know that?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFexclusives.html#74

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

83. Apparently you can't handle a real answer.

And I never accused all 700,000 refugees of being Nazi hordes and minions, only those Palestinians fighting under his authority against the Jews. How else am I to view them?

And yet you agree with Benny Morris on ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians. That's a war crime.

Also, the vast majority of the 700,000 left of their own accord and were not forced out. Did you not know that?

You then throw the above piffle out to justify a war crime? What lies by omission!

[shira]

84. So what should the Jews of 1947-48 have done against their Palestinian enemies under al-Husseini?

Surrender? Kill themselves? Other?

Still waiting for that answer.

Any day now...

And yet you agree with Benny Morris on ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians. That's a war crime.

Morris didn't write about Jews expelling 700,000 Palestinians.

Historian Benny Morris notes that “in general, Haganah and IDF commanders were not forced to confront the moral dilemma posed by expulsion; most Arabs fled before and during the battle, before the Israeli troops reached their homes and before the Israeli commanders were forced to confront the dilemma.”

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

85. "Morris didn't >>>write<<< about Jews expelling 700,000 Palestinians. "

No. He was interviewed about it, and he told the evil truth about how he felt about it.

BM:
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. 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.


Source: Whose Holy City?: Jerusalem and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
By Colin Chapman

Ans some love to lap that curdled shit up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49410

[shira]

86. He said there was no choice but to expel them. That the choice was that or another Jewish genocide.

You're still lying by omission.

And I'll bet you will continue to repeat the lie that Zionists expelled all 700,000 Palestinians back in 1948, despite all the evidence proving most of them chose to flee on their own.

That's lying by commission.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

87. "He said there was no choice but to expel them." 700,000?

Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

You have stated that you agree with him, and that ethnic cleansing was better than a genocide. Neither is good.

Yet you were caught in your spin/deception calling the 700,000 Palestinians Nazis and a horde.

When you were called on your deception it you said that they were not all that, and that the number of Nazis and hordes must of been relatively small then: self debunking the term horde altogether.

Give the above as accurate, until you decide to deceive DU again, why were 700,000 Palestinians expelled, as Benny Morris does state, if they were not a horde or Nazis?


On edit: I like how you tried to use a tired attempt of attack by saying he didn't "write those lines" when the fact was he was being interviewed and said those lines.

Nice attempt at obfuscation, SoS.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

89. Most war refugees "choose to leave" when the alternative is death.

Nice try spin master.

Now read how shira slips up here.

I never claimed all Palestinians or all who were expelled were Nazis.

Which is it, spin master, were they expelled or did they "choose" to leave?

[Shaktimaan]

92. Is that a slip?

Some were expelled, most fled of their own accord because they wanted to avoid getting killed in the war that was raging at the time.

Most war refugees "choose to leave" when the alternative is death.

Obviously. But the fact that people fled out of fear of being killed doesn't mean they would have been. People tend to err on the side of caution in these things, and I don't blame them. But the 20% of Israel's non-Jewish citizens who did remain and were neither killed nor expelled demonstrate that your binary description wasn't the reality.

But it's a good segue into the other side of that issue. What was the choice faced by the Jews at the time? Morris offers that ethnic cleansing is preferable when the alternative is suffering genocide. If the choice is between your enemy losing his home and you losing your life then the former is the way to go. You'll note that none of the Jews in this war fled to anywhere else. Not because they weren't afraid of dying themselves, but because they didn't have anywhere else to go. Most of them were already refugees at this point. Palestine was the place they escaped TO.

It's also key that the Yishuv accepted the UN's peace proposal in 47. The war wasn't a foregone conclusion. Also that the expulsions only began after the war was halfway over and the Yishuv was badly losing. The Arabs were neither Nazis nor a horde but they weren't neutral either. (reference the war of the roads and the blockade of Jerusalem for more info.) The Jews faced the choice of either committing ethnic cleansing or losing the war.

I don't find this ethically problematic. But I realize you disagree. So my question is what you would have proposed as an acceptable alternative? (My idea is that the Arabs should have accepted the peace deal instead of starting a war in the first place.)

[azurnoir]

36. where today right now is concerned the map is accurate it's how it's labeled for 1946-1967

that is inaccurate and then goes on to make the familiar whine about refugees

[oberliner]

35. From 1949-1967 the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt

Why are they labeled on 1949-1967 map as Palestine?

[Israeli]

39. probably to simplify things oberliner....

its for a bus poster after all .

This one brought out to counter it does not mention surrounding countries either :



StandWithUs,(SWU) a pro-Israel advocacy group based in Los Angeles, intends to launch a poster campaign in Canada to counter a Palestinian Solidarity effort depicting the disappearance of Palestine. Last August the Palestine Awareness Coalition posted 15 bus posters in Vancouver, Canada, illustrating the “disappearance of Palestine due to Israeli occupation over the past 65 years.”

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/politics/activism/7173-pro-israel-group-takes-battle-to-stations

[delrem]

40. well, I bet those posters will go over with a big laugh. sheeeee.

I doubt that they'll get the kind of audience reaction that they imagine.
But then, hasbara is totally bankrupt.

[King_David]

44. That's the analysis we have come to expect from you nt

[oberliner]

41. But it's a lie

The maps are just not true.

Those "Stand With Us' maps are equally ridiculous.

[Israeli]

42. how about this one ?

bit out of date tho ... 2003.

seriously , like I said to azurnoir .... Peace Now is the best place for maps or here :

http://www.btselem.org/maps

have a problem with any of these oberliner ?

[oberliner]

43. No problem there

Any map that illustrates how the West Bank is impacted by the existence of Israeli settlements makes a very strong point about how destructive those settlements are to Palestinians being able to establish an independent state.

Other than the use of the loaded term "Bantustan" this map sticks to facts rather than over-simplifications and outright lies like those other ones.

I think that an agreement along the lines of Geneva Accords is the way to go. I wish more people would bring attention to that proposal instead of playing these games.