[redcarpet]

Redcarpet is a supporter of the Labour party Heinie. He will always support blowing up arabs wherever it happens and no matter the reason.

That's false. I don't support the air strikes in Syria nor the Libya intervention. Nor the wars against Iraq & the sanctions and so on.

You don't speak for anyone except yourself, remember that.

[wat0n]

All people have a right to self-determination and where there is a right, there is also a reciprocal duty on others to respect this right. It is important to distinguish the rights of nationalities from the civil and human rights of persons within states. So, where you have a people such as the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe who were united by a common historical tradition, ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, language (Yiddish), and religion, then you have a people with a right to determine their own future. This right was recognized by governments in Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and so forth. But from time to time there were pogroms and Jews were not always safe. Jews in other countries assimilated very well with the dominant culture in countries such as Austria and Germany, being over represented in some prestigious professions such as medicine, the law, and banking. Naturally, with the Final Solution during World War II, the European Jews sought a territory of their own. By creating a Jewish state in Palestine, however, the right of Palestinian Arabs to determine their future was denied and they were displaced and dispossessed of their homeland. This was a fundamental injustice. The 1967 war between Israel and other Arab countries saw the expansion of the Jewish state of Israel into the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This occupation of the Palestinian Arabs is the source of the Israel/Palestine conflict.

No, it wasn't denied by the Zionists - they were given the option of founding a smaller state in the eastern part of the Mandate, one that is ironically bigger than what they are going to get under any peace treaty now.

Why did the Zionist Jews have the right to settle and impose their regime over the native population? Why do they have greater rights to self determination?

The root cause of the conflict was the Zionist settlers. No people anywhere in the world would accept foreigners coming in and setting up their own regime over the natives.

What about self determination of each individual in a region regardless of race, color or religion.

Zionist is founded oin the assumption that isnt possible that the majority will always oppress the minority. Zionist by seeking to impose Jewish rule over Palestinians is racist colonialism saying one group (foreigner) have greater rights than natives. 'Transfer' the removal of most of the Palestinians was always a core belief of Zionism, from Hezl on down, it was not a reaction to Palestinian violence.

Victor klemperer thought the Zionists were as bad as the Nazis in that both denied that he was a true German, he remained in Germany after the war after mainly surviving by being lost in the confusion of Dresden.

Nonsense, the mainstream Zionists accepted the bipartition even if they felt they had a claim over the complete Mandate. It's not necessarily part of the ideology to deny the Palestinians their right to self-determine, which is why their mainstream body, the Jewish Agency, accepted the UN proposal.

As I said, ironically that was the best chance for the Arabs of Palestine to get a state - it's not like Jordan or Syria wanted to grant them one - and it would have been bigger than what is on the table now.

[pugsville]

They accepted the partition for Now., the Zionist leadership remained committed to expansion at the earliest available opportunity, it merely accepted the partition tactically and in no way recognized any rights of the Palestinians. Thus the Israeli wars of Expansion and the driving out and dispossession of the native population.

The Palestinians accepting the Partition would not have stopped the Israeli invasion,

[KlassWar]

They accepted the partition for Now.

I'd wager that the Zionists of the '40s were probably willing to accept the partition more or less permanently: Most Jews back then (Zionists included) were part of the 'reality-based community', at least to the extent of being willing to face the fact that the population they were displacing would need a country to live in. Over time, as their long-term diplomatic and security situation got worse (they really shouldn't have fucked with the Soviets' Arab clients), their collective sanity slipped real fast and they quickly lost any meaningful connection to reality, allowing their country to slip into a morass of truly bizarre sectarian jingoism.

At this point the Zionist state is pretty much an irrational actor. They're shit-scared of long-term demographics and yet they don't stop expanding into more Arab land even though they know full well it only makes their demographics projections even bleaker. They know full well they can't formally annex the occupied territories because that'd require them to either grant citizenship to the annexed populations or become an international pariah... And they maintain the occupation anyway, establishing an apartheid regime that can only turn them into an international pariah, despite the fact that they're terrified of economic, diplomatic and military isolation (as the frenzied crackdown on the BDS movement proves). They pretend they're a military powerhouse while everyone knows full well that any major conflict they can't decisively win in three months tops would surely bankrupt the country.

It's like a national psychosis, and down that road there only lies one thing: Uncontrolled catastrofucks one after another.

[Heinie]

...
At this point the Zionist state is pretty much an irrational actor. They're shit-scared of long-term demographics and yet they don't stop expanding into more Arab land even though they know full well it only makes their demographics projections even bleaker. They know full well they can't formally annex the occupied territories because that'd require them to either grant citizenship to the annexed populations or become an international pariah... And they maintain the occupation anyway, establishing an apartheid regime that can only turn them into an international pariah, despite the fact that they're terrified of economic, diplomatic and military isolation (as the frenzied crackdown on the BDS movement proves). They pretend they're a military powerhouse while everyone knows full well that any major conflict they can't decisively win in three months tops would surely bankrupt the country.

It's like a national psychosis, and down that road there only lies one thing: Uncontrolled catastrofucks one after another.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. The Israelis, however, place no value on the Israeli citizenship of Arabs in Israel and Permanent Residence status of Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem as it is proposed to withdraw citizenship from any Arab-Israeli citizen charged with terrorism, including their relatives. Palestinians in East Jerusalem who are charged with terrorism and their entire families will also have their Residence Status revoked and all these stateless people will be transported to Gaza. This will relieve the unfavorable demographics.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.680714

Your prediction that Israel would become an international pariah is hardly credible if this has not yet happened over 48 years of brutal occupation of the Palestinian Territories including periodic massacres of children and civilians in Gaza. As long as the United States continues to provide international political cover for Israel, they consider they have little to worry about. They have nuclear weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems provided by the United States, France, and Germany and they will use them without compunction.

[wat0n]

They accepted the partition for Now., the Zionist leadership remained committed to expansion at the earliest available opportunity, it merely accepted the partition tactically and in no way recognized any rights of the Palestinians. Thus the Israeli wars of Expansion and the driving out and dispossession of the native population.

The Palestinians accepting the Partition would not have stopped the Israeli invasion,

Of course it would, after all the Haganah believed it wasn't ready for war by the time the bipartition took place, which is why it only went on the offensive on April 1948, and even then it was because they believed that if they didn't do so and relieve Jerusalem they would lose the war anyway.

I doubt any of this would have taken place if the Palestinians had accepted the bipartition.

Furthermore, it is also unlikely there would have been room for Israel to launch any sort of offensive war after 1948 if the Palestinians had gotten a state, considering 1) the resolve of the international community to do its best to keep borders fixed and 2) the lack of possibilities by the Arab states to justify offensive actions against Israel if the Palestinians accepted its existence. At last, the Irgun and Lehi would have likely been crushed by the Israeli state if the Palestinian Arabs had accepted the bipartition, as they were in the Altalena Affair,and the Herut and Likud wouldn't have acquired any political relevance afterwards either.

The historical aspirations to get all of Eretz Israel would have given space to the practical realities on the ground, eventually, particularly since Ben Gurion was, for the most part, a rather pragmatic leader who understood what would the consequences of a mutual acceptance of the bipartition entailed.

[pugsville]

the Irgun and Lehi were notl crushed abut absorbed into the IDF. Eventually there successors started running Israel, likud, Begin, Shamir.

Ben Gurion was inf favor of revising any partition at the bext opportunity.in 1956 during the Suez crsis, he asked Britain and France as while they were at it why not conquer the West Bank, the Golan and Lebanon up to the Lantini river. Ben Gurion was a expansionist. He believed in transfer the expulsion of most Palestinians and the creation of greater Israel.

The Israelis would have invaded not matter what the Palestinians did. The Israelis may well have staged some incident and say that the Arbas started it as Israelis falsely claimed in 1957 and 1967.

[wat0n]

the Irgun and Lehi were notl crushed abut absorbed into the IDF. Eventually there successors started running Israel, likud, Begin, Shamir.

They were absorbed against their will and forced to demobilize, not being allowed to become independent units within it. That is, they were crushed.

Ben Gurion was inf favor of revising any partition at the bext opportunity.in 1956 during the Suez crsis, he asked Britain and France as while they were at it why not conquer the West Bank, the Golan and Lebanon up to the Lantini river. Ben Gurion was a expansionist.

Over strategic concerns that would have become moot had the Palestinians accepted the bipartition in 1947.

He believed in transfer the expulsion of most Palestinians and the creation of greater Israel.

No, he did not believe in forcibly expelling the Palestinians, and while I'm sure he regarded the whole of Eretz Israel as part of the heritage of the Jewish people, he was also aware that this was not feasible without expelling the Arabs from it.

The Israelis would have invaded not matter what the Palestinians did. The Israelis may well have staged some incident and say that the Arbas started it as Israelis falsely claimed in 1957 and 1967.

They could have kidnapped Palestinian kids and made matzah with their blood too!

And the Arabs definitely started it in 1967. Particularly Egypt upon blockading the Strait of Tiran.

I'm not sure about 1957, but in 1956 Israel was very much concerned about Palestinian incursions into Israeli territory from Egypt and Gaza.

[Rich]

Look I'm very glad about what happened. If the Zionists hadn't used pre-emptive terror and ethnic cleansing the beautiful state of Israel would not exist, instead there would all most certainly just be another Muslim shit hole. But do stop the ridiculous argument about the partition plan. The partition plan was a joke. It was utterly taking the piss. It made Austria's demands in the July crisis look like an exercise in fair minded impartially. It was obvius that ethnic cleaning and terror was built into the plan. The Jewish state was utterly unviable, unstable and unsustainable with its pre war demographics. Short of a big label on the UN map in large red lettering saying: "To be racially cleansed of Arabs", how more blatant could they be?

I mean if you say Palestine was an infidel land stolen by Muslims I'll agree with you. Of course we infidels have right to return to Palestine as we have a right to return to the Levant, but don't try and pretend that the partition plan was fair by normal convention of the time or of now.

[wat0n]

Look I'm very glad about what happened. If the Zionists hadn't used pre-emptive terror and ethnic cleansing the beautiful state of Israel would not exist, instead there would all most certainly just be another Muslim shit hole. But do stop the ridiculous argument about the partition plan. The partition plan was a joke. It was utterly taking the piss. It made Austria's demands in the July crisis look like an exercise in fair minded impartially. It was obvius that ethnic cleaning and terror was built into the plan. The Jewish state was utterly unviable, unstable and unsustainable with its pre war demographics. Short of a big label on the UN map in large red lettering saying: "To be racially cleansed of Arabs", how more blatant could they be?

I mean if you say Palestine was an infidel land stolen by Muslims I'll agree with you. Of course we infidels have right to return to Palestine as we have a right to return to the Levant, but don't try and pretend that the partition plan was fair by normal convention of the time or of now.

Oh but you forget the 600,000 European Jews who moved there after 1947. They would have likely stabilized this new Jewish state.

[Zamuel]

The Israelis would have invaded not matter what the Palestinians did. The Israelis may well have staged some incident and say that the Arbas started it as Israelis falsely claimed in 1957 and 1967.

So, Nassar's surprise seizure of the Suez Canal (violating several treaties and closing the canal to Israeli shipping) was -NOT- an act of war ? His eviction of the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai (violating another treaty) was -NOT- an act of war ? The Israelis just made that stuff up right ... ? Just like they made up the destruction of the Egyptian Airforce? and all those Soviet Tanks they captured ... Those 20,000 Arab Casualties were just out there having a picnic, right ?

And the Holocaust never happened and Rudolph really DOES have a glowing red nose !



Zam

[Heinie]

So, Nassar's surprise seizure of the Suez Canal (violating several treaties and closing the canal to Israeli shipping) was -NOT- an act of war ? ...

Forgive me but the topic is about Benjamin Natanyahu's assertion that it was the Palestinians who masterminded the Final Solution, not the Nazis.

[pugsville]

1956 - The Israelis started large scale raids into Gaza targeting Egyptians which lead Nasser to support Palestinian raids which he had been trying to stop before. Though the Israelis were convinced at the time he was supporting them before this. Israel is far from blameless in the border incursions, Generally the Arab regimes tried to stop them but after massive indiscriminate Israel reprisals (sometime the Israelis deliberately staged provocations). Palestinians had plenty of reasons after 1949 to hold grudges against Israel and needed no encouragement of support.

1967 - The straits were a mere pretext. The closure of the straits is pretty arguable as a valid action. Egypt had not signed the treaty about straits, innocent passage only applied in peace (there was a cease fire rather than peaceful relations), the straights did not qualify under the treaty as they did not connect high seas area, and the Israeli claim to Elat was contested as it was occupied after the ceasefire.

In Any event the the the alleged violation was minor and the response of a massive surprise attack was totally unwarranted. There was no reason to jump straight to all out war.

Rabin told the cabinet that the Egyptians had already decided that ships escorted by the US would be allowed passage. (Tom Segev 1967 page 240) and cabinet member Sapria did not think to closure was important "The Straits were closed in 1956 - did it threaten Israel's security? No it did not!" (Tom segev 1967 page 241)

Israel began the escalation by threatening Syria. Egypt was reacting to support it's ally.

Egypt was totally within it's rights to nationalize the Suez Canal, (whta treaties were violated?) and close the Canal to an Hostile state.

Ben Gurion Transfer and Expansion.

"Both (speaking of Wiezman and Ben-Gurion) saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual taking over of the whole of Palestine"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 138)

"Ben Gurion understood that compulsion would probably be required And if the British did not exercise force, the Jews would have to do the job. In his mind he merged the possibilities of expansionism and transfer. He refused the Idea of a minute state that Peel had outlined; teh Negev and Trans-jordan would have to become Jewish"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 142)

(speaking of Ben Guriuon) ". but the thrust if his thinking in favour of conquest and transfer seems clear"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 142)

[wat0n]

1956 - The Israelis started large scale raids into Gaza targeting Egyptians which lead Nasser to support Palestinian raids which he had been trying to stop before. Though the Israelis were convinced at the time he was supporting them before this. Israel is far from blameless in the border incursions, Generally the Arab regimes tried to stop them but after massive indiscriminate Israel reprisals (sometime the Israelis deliberately staged provocations).

1) Describe a provocation.

2) And yet the Arab regimes were ineffective at that, so the problem remains.

Palestinians had plenty of reasons after 1949 to hold grudges against Israel and needed no encouragement of support.

Yeah, so Israel should have just allowed them to target their civilians. I wonder why don't you excuse Irgun's campaign against Arab civilians during the Mandate under this reasoning? After all, it was formed as a result of the Hebron massacre in 1929.

1967 - The straits were a mere pretext. The closure of the straits is pretty arguable as a valid action. Egypt had not signed the treaty about straits, innocent passage only applied in peace (there was a cease fire rather than peaceful relations), the straights did not qualify under the treaty as they did not connect high seas area, and the Israeli claim to Elat was contested as it was occupied after the ceasefire.

In Any event the the the alleged violation was minor and the response of a massive surprise attack was totally unwarranted. There was no reason to jump straight to all out war.

Rabin told the cabinet that the Egyptians had already decided that ships escorted by the US would be allowed passage. (Tom Segev 1967 page 240) and cabinet member Sapria did not think to closure was important "The Straits were closed in 1956 - did it threaten Israel's security? No it did not!" (Tom segev 1967 page 241)

So what? Are you saying Israel should have asked the US to escort all of its ships forever? What kind of bullshit is this?

Israel began the escalation by threatening Syria. Egypt was reacting to support it's ally.

And largely due to false Soviet claims that Israel was massing troops on the border with Syria.

Egypt was totally within it's rights to nationalize the Suez Canal, (whta treaties were violated?) and close the Canal to an Hostile state.

I recall the UN passed resolutions calling Egypt to allow Israeli shipping to pass.

Ben Gurion Transfer and Expansion.

"Both (speaking of Wiezman and Ben-Gurion) saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual taking over of the whole of Palestine"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 138)

"Ben Gurion understood that compulsion would probably be required And if the British did not exercise force, the Jews would have to do the job. In his mind he merged the possibilities of expansionism and transfer. He refused the Idea of a minute state that Peel had outlined; teh Negev and Trans-jordan would have to become Jewish"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 142)

(speaking of Ben Guriuon) ". but the thrust if his thinking in favour of conquest and transfer seems clear"
(Benny Morris Righteous victims page 142)

It's funny you quote Morris considering he has disavowed this version of history since at least 2004.

[pugsville]

No Benny Morris recent work only confirms his early work, he has not refuted any of his historical works. His Political view have perhaps moved a fair way to the right. He does not deny but increasingly confirms the brutal nature of the Israeli expulsion of many Palestinians, he just now political agrees with the action and says now they should have been more expulsions.

UN passed many resolutions. Israel ignores many. SO this resolution is a cause for war but the others can be ignored forever?

The Point is Israel rushed to war for domestic political reasons and the hop of expansion in 1967. They were not interested with Diplomacy.

[Zamuel]

Forgive me but the topic is about Benjamin Natanyahu's assertion that it was the Palestinians who masterminded the Final Solution, not the Nazis.

Then I guess your post is off topic ... isn't it ?

Egypt was totally within it's rights to nationalize the Suez Canal, (whta treaties were violated?) and close the Canal to an Hostile state.

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, United Nations Security Council Resolution 95 (1951), and the Britain Suez withdrawal treaty of 1954.
British PM Eden suggested a military response and the loyal opposition supported him. Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the (opposition) labor party stated publicly "It is all very familiar. It is exactly the same that we encountered from Mussolini and Hitler in those years before the war". Britian and France both landed troops in support of Israeli forces (just like they did in Poland 1939). You starting to get the picture ?

The situation was resolved by the UN, who placed UNEF troops in the Sinai ... they guaranteed the suez canal remained open, until Nassar evicted them at gunpoint in 1967 ... and reoccupied the Sinai with a massive Russian armed troop concentration ... an act of open war.

The "provocation" raids you accuse the Israelis of were responses to murderous night attacks on innocent Israeli citizens by Egyptian Fedayeen irregulars. In 1954 a senior Egyptian Military officer admitted, "military presence along the armistice line is to prevent infiltration, but the Palestinian troops encourage the movement of infiltrators and carry out attacks along the line." Israel initiated "reprisal" raids against military targets that immediately followed such attacks ... this was a repeat of their policy that had successfully ended such incursions by Jordanian forces.

So what? Are you saying Israel should have asked the US to escort all of its ships forever? What kind of bullshit is this?

It's the really stinky, totally irrational, "I'll say anything I think I can get away with" kind.

Zam

[wat0n]

No Benny Morris recent work only confirms his early work, he has not refuted any of his historical works. His Political view have perhaps moved a fair way to the right. He does not deny but increasingly confirms the brutal nature of the Israeli expulsion of many Palestinians, he just now political agrees with the action and says now they should have been more expulsions.

He does seem to be blaming the Palestinians over what transpired in 1947-1949, and also seems to believe Israel essentially accepted the principle of bipartition.

UN passed many resolutions. Israel ignores many. SO this resolution is a cause for war but the others can be ignored forever?

No, but it's not like there was much, if any, acquiescence by the international community on the matter - especially the matter of the Suez. Though it seems to me that Israel was more concerned about access to Eilat (because oil arrived there) rather than the Suez - perhaps because Israel had access to the Mediterranean by land.

The Point is Israel rushed to war for domestic political reasons and the hop of expansion in 1967. They were not interested with Diplomacy.

This applies to Egypt as well, Nasser in particular saw the drama as an opportunity to emerge as a regional leader - particularly since Yemen wasn't going well.

But I would not say any side wanted things to escalate to the point of reaching war, not even Israel. The minutes of the meetings in the run up to the Six Day War show indecisiveness on the part of the politicians and concern on the part of the military over the potential results of the war (especially in light of the indecisiveness of the political echelon).

[Heinie]

Then I guess your post is off topic ... isn't it ?

No, I mentioned Benjamin Netanyahu's contention that The Holocaust was accomplished at the demand of the Palestinians.

[pugsville]

What exact clauses of any treaty were the Egyptians violating? Nationalization did not effect any of the treaties as the concession still rested with the same entity and compensation was to be paid. s a state of War existed it's pretty arguable the Egypt was within it's rights to restrict Israeli use of it's canal and territorial waters,

Whatever violations may have been committed by Egypt the secret plotting by Israel, France and Britain to unleash a surprise war of aggression is much much more serious action.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestini ... 48_to_1956

"Between 1948 and 1955, infiltration by Palestinians into Israel was opposed by Arab governments"
"After an Israeli raid on an Egyptian military outpost in Gaza in February 1955, during which 37 Egyptian soldiers were killed, the Egyptian government began to actively sponsor fedayeen raids into Israel."

"In 1953, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion taskedAriel Sharon, then security chief of the Northern Region, with setting up of a new commando unit, Unit 101, designed to respond to fedayeen infiltrations (see retribution operations).[19] After one month of training, "a patrol of the unit that infiltrated into the Gaza Strip as an exercise, encountered [Palestinians] in al-Bureij refugee camp, opened fire to rescue itself and left behind about 30 killed Arabs and dozens of wounded."
"United Nations reports indicate that between 1949 and 1956, Israel launched more than 17 raids on Egyptian territory and 31 attacks on Arab towns or military forces"
"In 1956, Israeli troops entered Khan Yunis in the Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip, conducting house-to-house searches for Palestinian fedayeen and weaponry.[34] During this operation, 275 Palestinians were killed, with an additional 111 killed in Israeli raids on the Rafah refugee camp.[34][35] Israel claimed these killings resulted from "refugee resistance", a claim denied by refugees;[35] there were no Israeli casualties"

Israel has often targeted civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Beit_Jala_Raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre

[Zamuel]

What exact clauses of any treaty were the Egyptians violating?

Why don't you read the treaties and see ?

Anti-Israeli Propaganda (BS) is readily transparent ... Israel Kicked Ass ... Arab interests seem to vacillate between whining about that and trying to deny that they got their asses kicked ... After a little reflection, I think maybe Netanyahu's statement was directed more internally, to re-energize Anti-Palestinian Bias in Israel. Your ridiculous assertions only help that along ... I'm sure he appreciates your efforts.

Zam