Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 10

Section 1: [Continuation]

H: When Zionists Defends Zionism

One of the most risible things about Zionists, supremacist, racists, imperialists, and colonialists is when they rise to their own defense. One such example is of President George W. Bush who declared the United States is not a “torturer nation,” while his occupation force has been actively engaging in torturing and killing hundred of thousands of Iraqis since the first day it invaded Iraq; the other, when Condoleezza Rice compared the imperialist takeover of Iraq to the American Civil War.

In her sheer shallowness, Rice overlooked that Americans fought the Civil War among themselves. In Iraq, American imperialists invaded it not to liberate it from “dictatorship” or to take part in an Iraqi civil war that did not exist but to conquer its oil wealth, partition it, elevate Israel to absolute military power in the Middle East, and use Iraq as a territorial springboard for further American expansion in Asia.

Similarly, Zionists deny that Israel is structurally violent, racist, and supremacist. Or, when Zionists do admit their racism, they blame the victim: “it is the fault of the people that they despise!” For example, at ynetnews: “The Association for Civil Rights’ poll, which showed a high incidence of racism within Israeli society, accurately reflects the attitude of the majority of the public to Israel’s Arabs. However, the reason for it does not stem from a racist attitude on the part of the Jews, but rather, it stems from security-based hostility and political disagreements. When Arabs convey the message that they do not accept us here as a majority in a Jewish state and in control of the Land of Israel, this is the result.”1

An example of propaganda put forward in defense of Zionism is by the Zionist website: Zionism and Israel Information Center. After stating that Zionism is not racist, the website proceeds to declare that everything negative written against Zionism is untrue, and that quotations attributed to Zionist politicians and theoreticians are either false or taken out of context. The website then continues by giving universally banal examples of “falsifications against Zionism.”

To prove its contention, the website reports benign quotes by Israeli politicians and founders. In essence, the site editors try to substitute the objective reality of Zionism as the world witnessed it with rhetorical statements without merit. It is only conceivable but also eminently believable that everything said or analyzed about the criminal nature of Zionism is true except that the Israelis eat the livers of Arab babies at Yom Kippur. Said the editors of the website:

Scattered around the Web are numerous pages of “Zionist Quotes” that show Zionism as an evil, racist conspiracy. Many of the quotes are forgeries and inventions. There was never any Ariel Sharon interview with a “General Ouze Merham,” and there was never any General Ouze Merham either. Amos Oz did not interview Ariel Sharon in 1982 or at any other time and denies that he interviewed Ariel Sharon. If you see any of those quotes, you can know the “information” on that page is a fake, and the people who present them are careless or liars. The intent of the doctored quotes is to “prove” that “Zionism is Racism.” and that ‘Zionists’ planned the transfer of Arabs from Palestine from the start. This false thesis is advanced by fabricating quotes in interviews that never took place, or by altering real quotes and taking them out of context.2

Refutation: We are willing to consider such a statement by Zionists, if they agree to consider that anti-Zionist or anti-Jewish quotations attributed to Nazi leaders were just false Nazi quotes.

However, even in the absence of quotations and despite Zionists protestation to the contrary, facts on the ground and the history of the Zionist entity in the past fifty-nine years (since statehood in 1948) speak powerfully and irrefutably about the racism of the state of Israel. While Zionist quotations help to focus the attention on the guiding mentality of Zionists, the history of racism and violence by Zionist Israelis, on the other hand, is universal by its unique barbarity and pathological intensity. A limited sampling include:

  • The Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and Stern’s (headed by Itzhak Shamir) massacre of villagers at Deir Yassin, 1948.3
  • The massacre of Palestinians refugees at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 by rightwing Lebanese Christian militia under the order of Ariel Sharon.4
  • The Apartheid Wall in the occupied West bank (see photo5)
  • The occupation and frequent bombardment of refugee camps in all of the occupied West Bank and Gaza,
  • The Jenin Massacre (read a debate on the issue by David Edwards of Media Lens6)
  • The destruction of Lebanon and the U.S. proxy wars against the Arab and Muslim states, and so on.

Special Note

Certain websites vigorously pursue denunciation of false quotations attributed to Zionists. That some websites would publish loosely researched or unverified quotations of Zionists is sloppy and stupid. It undermines social activism on behalf of Palestinians and ultimately helps Zionist aims. Establishing the veracity of information is important, but to engage in denying racist quotations without denouncing the instances of verifiable racist comments presents an inescapable conclusion: the websites are not interested in fighting racism. These websites have another agenda, and that agenda is acting as cover for Zionist racism. These websites are, therefore, guilty of perpetuating racism.

Readers must be vigilant and consider information with sufficient skepticism. Readers should be skeptical of unsupported claims. Readers should demand that writers make known the sources upon which they made their claims.

Next: Part 11 of 12

Read also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.

  1. Yitzhak Levy, “Arabs are to blame,” ynetnews, 8 December 2007. []
  2. Zionist Quotes,” Zionism and Israel Information Center. []
  3. Deir Yassin Website, Deir Yassin remembered. []
  4. What happened at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982? ” Palestine Facts. []
  5. Israel’s Wall in the West Bank,” Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel. []
  6. David Edwards, “How To Fool The Whole World, Machiavelli,” ZNet, 10 May 2002. []
Kim Petersen is a former editor of Dissident Voice and can be reached at kimohp@gmail.com. B.J. Sabri is an observer of the politics of modern colonialism, imperialism, Zionism, and of contemporary Arab issues. He can be reached at b.j.sabri@aol.com. Read other articles by Kim and B.J..

15 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Ralph Ray said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:39am #

    ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS KIILED SINCE SEPTEMBER 29, 2000

    Breakdown of Deaths:
    CHILDREN KILLED: Israelis: 119; Palestinians: 971
    The majority of Palestinian children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping or simply being in their homes. 64% of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers. (Source: Remember These Children)
    CIVILIANS KILLED: Israelis: 704; Palestinians: 2,043-2,912 (Source: B’Tselem)
    KILLED IN TARGETED ASSASSINATION: Israelis: 1; Palestinians: 367 (Source: B’Tselem)
    PERSONS WHO WERE OBJECTS OF TARGETED ASSASSINATION: Israelis: 1; Palestinians 218 (Source: B’Tselem)
    KILLED ON OWN LAND: Israelis: 558 (54.3%); Palestinians: 4,281 (98.5%) (Source: B’Tselem)
    KILLED ON OTHERS’ LAND: Israelis: 469 (45.7%); Palestinians: 64 (1.5%) (Source: B’Tselem)

    The figures for Palestinian deaths are highly conservative, since it is difficult for B’Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths.

    For more information go to: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

  2. Michael Kenny said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:46am #

    A small point about Israeli Arabs. Never forget that they are not all Muslims. To take just the Catholics, there are about 68000 Melkites and 7000 Maronites who are Israeli citizens and are discriminated against like all Israeli Arabs. In addition, there are 77000 Latin Rite Catholics in Palestine, along with a further 6500 Melkites. They get the same treatment as all Palestinians. That explains why there is a certain frostiness between the Vatican and Israel and why, in the US, the Israel Lobby has recently begun to attack the Catholic Church (Foxman over the Tridentine Mass, Dershowitz with DePaul University, for example). Roughly one in four Americans is Catholic. Why do American Catholics vote for candidates who support those who persecute their fellow Catholics or enable such persecution?

  3. jaime said on January 8th, 2008 at 10:06am #

    Dershowitz & Depaul University.
    Thanks Michael, and here I was under the false impression all along that Dershowitz & Depaul was about that eminent scholar Saint Norman .

    Oh and per above “The Jenin Massacre.”

    What Jenin Massacre?

    You mean the pitched battle with heavily armed guerillas who booby trapped the souk in Jenin? That massacre? About 50-60 fighters aside from Israeli soldiers were killed. Fighters. Armed fighters.

    This was the incident that gave rise to the phrase Pallywood.

    Yes, it’s about journalistic fraud.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin

    Derek Holley, a military advisor to Amnesty International, corroborated that there was no massacre. “Talking to people and talking to witnesses, even very credible witnesses, it just appears there was no wholesale killing.” he added.

    In an article about the battle in Jenin, Time ruled out Palestinian allegations of massacre, writing that:

    A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp.

    United States Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Jenin during the month of the battle, and upon returning to the States testified to a congressional panel that there was no evidence of mass graves or a massacre.

  4. Ralph Ray said on January 8th, 2008 at 12:04pm #

    Jenin was definitely a massacre, Zionist denial propaganda that there was “no wholesale killing” to the contrary. Observe that Jaime quotes “a military adviser” to Amnesty International, but not Amnesty International. Selective use of sources is yet another of the commonly employed tactics of Israel Lobby trolls.

    How many of the commonly employed rhetorical techniques of the apologists for Zionism have Jaime and Neal exemplified so far in their comments? Here are a few: denial (with no supporting evidence, however, to support the denial), attack on the credibility of sources (usually no reason is given, however, as to why the sources aren’t credible), insistence that a statement has been taken out of context (with no explanation or evidence to support the charge), selective use of sources, insinuation and innuendo, ad hominem, appeals to popular passions, constant repetition of previously unsupported insinuations and innuendos. How many other such techniques have been employed that I have missed?

  5. Hue Longer said on January 8th, 2008 at 1:57pm #

    Ralph,

    Well poisoning, biased sample, burden of proof, confusing cause and effect , red herring, two wrongs make a right and most shameful!!!-quoting wikipedia

  6. Ralph Ray said on January 8th, 2008 at 1:57pm #

    Hey Jaime,

    You’ve just been caught in another attempt to deceive us. I went to your wikipedia citation on the so-called “Battle” of Jenin. What did I find? The following statement: “This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.” We are also informed that the disputed matters include: “neutrality,” “factual accuracy,” that its neutrality and factual accuracy may be compromised by “weasel words,” and that “it may contain inappropriate and/or misinterpreted citations. ” And, on the basis of this totally inadequate source, you tell us that “there was no wholesale killing” at the Jenin massacre. Aren’t you the one, Jaime, who is continually questioning the credibility of other people’s sources? And here you are trying to pull this grand deception on us. Shame on you!! Will anyone ever beleive you again. You Zionist trolls sometimes get overconfident and careless and end up exposing yourselves.

  7. Espresso said on January 8th, 2008 at 2:15pm #

    Here’s an old letter, dated Dec. 4, 1948, to the NY Times (signed by prominent Jewish leaders in NYC at the time, including Albert Einstein) which compares Begin and the early Zionists to Nazis and telling others in the Jewish community not to support them:

    New York Times, December 4, 1948

    TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

    New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

    The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Beginâs political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

    Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Beginâs behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

    The public avowals of Beginâs party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

    Attack on Arab Village

    A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants (240 men, women, and children) and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

    The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

    Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

    During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

    The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

    Discrepancies Seen

    The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

    In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Beginâs efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

    The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

    ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ,
    HANNAH ARENDT,
    ABRAHAM BRICK,
    RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO,
    ALBERT EINSTEIN,
    HERMAN EISEN, M.D.,
    HAYIM FINEMAN,
    M. GALLEN, M.D.,
    H.H. HARRIS,
    ZELIG S. HARRIS,
    SIDNEY HOOK,
    FRED KARUSH,
    BRURIA KAUFMAN,
    IRMA L. LINDHEIM,
    NACHMAN MAISEL,
    SEYMOUR MELMAN,
    MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D.,
    HARRY M. OSLINSKY,
    SAMUEL PITLICK,
    FRITZ ROHRLICH,
    LOUIS P. ROCKER,
    RUTH SAGIS,
    ITZHAK SANKOWSKY,
    I.J. SHOENBERG,
    SAMUEL SHUMAN,
    M. SINGER,
    IRMA WOLFE,
    STEFAN WOLFE.

    New York, Dec. 2, 1948

    http://www.jfjfp.org/background1_crits_of-Zionism/einstein_et_al.htm

  8. Hue Longer said on January 8th, 2008 at 2:25pm #

    may I answer Esspreso for you, jaime?

    Einstein is old news and his musings are not relevant to the times we live in now. We have modern thinkers to look up to such as Dershowitz…

    Even though Einstein is irrelevant, He may have never signed on to that or I’m sure you’re taking what he said out of context and are presenting it in a mean spirited light.

    So what do we do now? Kill all Israeli’s? You would like that wouldn’t you!? Say it. Say it. Say it

  9. Ralph Ray said on January 8th, 2008 at 2:28pm #

    Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Jenin Massacre

    In its October 13, 2002 report on the Jenin Massacre, Amnesty International “strongly condemned” the brutal policies of the Israeli government and specifically said that Israel had committed “war crimes” at Jenin. Human Rights Watch condemned Israel’s indiscriminate slaughter of Palestinians in even stronger terms, pointing out that the Israeli forces had even used Palestinian civilians as human shields as they stormed through Jenin (the use of human shields is, of course, also a war crime).

  10. jaime said on January 8th, 2008 at 6:59pm #

    Jenin ‘massacre’ reduced to death toll of 56

    Paul Martin
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    Published 5/1/2002

    JENIN, West Bank — Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation.
    The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.
    [Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of “hundreds” massacred, Israeli sources in Washington said they expected the Palestinian toll to reach “45 to 55.”]
    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested yesterday, in the wake of the Palestinian body count, that he may disband a U.N. fact-finding team that was to visit the camp to determine whether a massacre had taken place.
    Mr. Annan was responding to a decision by the Israeli security Cabinet earlier in the day not to cooperate with the U.N. team.
    The U.N.-Israeli dispute appeared unrelated to the Palestinian admission there had been no massacre.
    The Palestinians had suggested that most of the bodies were buried beneath the rubble of houses bulldozed by Israeli troops. No digging for bodies was taking place here, and there was no stench that could have come from decaying human flesh.
    The earlier Palestinian claims had sparked international outrage and prompted the Bush administration to press Israel to accept a fact-finding mission by the United Nations, an organization that the Jewish state regards as having a pro-Palestinian bias.
    Mr. Kadoura yesterday showed a reporter for The Washington Times the official Palestinian list of those who died. It contained 50 names. Six additional bodies, he said, had not been identified.
    He no longer used the ubiquitous Palestinian charge of “massacre” and instead portrayed the battle as a “victory” for Palestinians in resisting Israeli forces. “Here the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson,” Mr. Kadoura said.
    He insisted that Israel had tried but failed, thanks to the heavy fighting, to destroy the entire warren of homes in the camp that had housed 11,000 people.
    The destruction, pictured graphically on television, appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing of the houses from which the remnant of the resistance forces were firing.
    In fact, it covers the size of a large football field and constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp, and a far smaller proportion of the housing in the city, which was largely left untouched by the Israeli incursion.
    The figures shown to The Times included 233 injured persons, mainly men. The figures revealed that 18 persons had been injured and one had died after the fighting had ended, the result of accidentally detonating either shells left after the fighting, or booby traps that were set by Palestinian gunmen throughout the camp.
    A British expert attached to the International Red Cross said these booby traps were almost identical to those used by the Irish Republican Army.
    The British claim suggested to analysts that IRA guerrillas were schooled in terrorist weaponry and irregular warfare, as were many radical guerrilla movements, in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian training camps in Lebanon.
    From behind a desk bedecked by portraits of Mr. Arafat, a string of past “martyrs” and of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Palestinian chief official in the city, who is also the Fatah leader, portrayed in an interview the events as another chapter in a long saga of resistance to foreign invaders — from Crusader times onward — that, he said, had made Jenin “the heart of Palestine” for centuries.
    The propaganda war continues, meanwhile, in the refugee camp itself. Families whose homes had been destroyed were ordered to sit and lie inside tents pitched near the destruction, to be available for interviews and filming with foreign reporters and photographers. At dusk, with the press opportunities concluded, they returned to houses offered to them in the undamaged city or in the rest of the refugee camp.
    Other young men, members of various factions, have been on duty in the camp’s narrow streets, eager to conduct foreign correspondents to places where they say Israelis killed militants after they surrendered or had been captured.
    Others in the city say the resistance to the Israeli incursion had been carried out by only about 10 percent of the militants who had originally been in the area. Most had retreated into the hills or into city back streets as the Israelis entered the area, they said.
    Families living in houses directly opposite the destroyed area have told The Washington Times that Israeli soldiers, who temporarily occupied their houses just before the final battle began, treated them without violence and assured them: “You will not be harmed.”
    They confined the 36 members of the Abu Khalil family to two rooms, allowing them out one by one, and set up a snipers’ point upstairs through two holes in the wall — under a family framed message in Arabic: “There is No God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.”
    They confiscated identity cards but left them on the table before slipping out during the night.
    At the United Nations in New York, Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast said “a thorough, credible and balanced report on recent events in Jenin refugee camp would not be possible without the cooperation of the government of Israel.”
    “Since it appears from today’s Cabinet statement by Israel that the difficulties in the way of deployment of the fact-finding team will not be resolved anytime soon, the secretary-general is minded to disband the team,” he told reporters after briefing the U.N. Security Council.
    Diplomats said Mr. Prendergast told council members that Mr. Annan was leaning toward disbanding the three-member team, which has been joined by numerous advisers. The team, which was to have arrived in Jenin on Saturday, remained in Geneva yesterday.
    The Security Council is to take up the issue of whether or not to disband the mission at a meeting today.
    The United States put forward the resolution adopted by the Security Council welcoming the dispatch of a U.N. team to find out what happened in Jenin during the Israeli military’s attacks.
    Israel initially agreed to the idea, but subsequently raised questions over the composition of the team, its scope of inquiry, who could be called as a witness and what documents would be presented to the panel.
    Mr. Prendergast said that “with every passing day, it becomes more difficult to determine what happened” in Jenin. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Mr. Annan was considering whether to let the fact-finding team begin its work in Geneva or “simply abandoning the mission on the assumption that satisfactory terms of reference could not be worked out.”

    ————–
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=217&x_context=7

    August 1, 2002 by Yehuda Kraut

    BACKGROUNDER: A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference

    Palestinian spokesmen Nabil Sha’ath, Hassan Abdel Rahman, Yasser Abed Rabbo, Ahmed Abdel Rahman and Saeb Erakat took the Western media for a ride last April in loudly proclaiming Israel had committed a “massacre” in Jenin. Yet, despite copious evidence of their blatant lying – the latest proof being United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s August 1, 2002 report refuting their fictitious “massacre”– the credibility of these spokesmen with the American press is apparently unaffected. They enjoy almost unlimited media access to propagate myths about Israel.

    The fact that the American media (with a few exceptions) seem either unwilling to critically evaluate their facilitating of Palestinian misinformation or unaware of their complicity in the phenomenon underscores the importance of a serious presentation of the nature and scope of the problem. What follows is a survey of the blatant distortions of truth foisted on the public by Palestinian spokesmen in April and May of 2002.
    A. Jenin – what was destroyed?

    One of the false contentions repeated by Palestinian spokesmen between March 29 and April 21, 2002, dubbed Operation Defensive Shield, concerned the extent of the damage to the Jenin refugee camp that resulted from the battle in the camp between Israeli soldiers and armed Palestinian forces. During and immediately following the battle at Jenin, Palestinian spokesmen stated, again and again – falsely, each time – that Israel was about to destroy or had already destroyed the entire refugee camp:

    a. At a meeting of the Arab League, Nabil Sha’ath declared that Israeli “soldiers had received orders from the Israeli army chief of staff Shaul Mofaz for the complete destruction of Jenin…”(Deutsche Presse-Agentur, April 6)

    b. Also on April 6, Hassan Abdel Rahman told CNN that Israel was performing “blanket bombing today of the cities of Nablus and Jenin, and it is on television.”
    [The U.S. Department of Defense defines “carpet bombing” (synonymous with “blanket bombing”) as “The progressive distribution of a mass bomb load upon an area defined by designated boundaries, in such manner as to inflict damage to all portions thereof.”]

    c. A few days later, Saeb Erekat told CNN’s Jim Clancy, “You know, the Jenin refugee camp is no longer in existence…”

    d. Erekat repeated the charge one week later to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, stating: “There is no longer a refugee camp there. And maybe the [Israeli] defense minister and the prime minister of Israel want to deny what CNN is showing, that the camp was totally destroyed.” (April 17)

    In response to these Palestinian allegations, Israeli officials contended that only a small percentage of the Jenin refugee camp had been destroyed. The Israelis later backed up their claim with a set of “before-and-after” satellite photographs of Jenin, which clearly demonstrated that only about ten percent of the refugee camp had been destroyed during Operation Defensive Shield. Since that time, Palestinian spokesmen have ceased their proclamations of Jenin’s total destruction, but they have yet to publicly acknowledge the falsity of their previous statements.

    This abdication of responsibility by Palestinian spokesmen for their prior statements is not particularly surprising; it certainly does not serve their interests to admit that they had lied about the scope of the destruction in Jenin. More troubling, however, is the widespread media reluctance to challenge Palestinian spokesmen to account for the untruths they had previously circulated, a failure that will be evidenced repeatedly in this study. For instance, Hassan Abdel Rahman has never been confronted – in at least five CNN appearances since April 6 – regarding his patently false claim that Israel was involved in “blanket bombing” of the cities of Nablus and Jenin. Similarly, although Saeb Erekat told Wolf Blitzer on April 17 that the Jenin refugee camp had been totally destroyed, in four interviews with Erekat since that time, Blitzer has never once challenged Erekat with the transparent falsity of that April 17 statement.
    B. Grave Lies

    The first mention of mass burial appearing in the news in connection with Israel’s Operation Defensive Shield concerned the situation in Ramallah on April 2. It was reported at the time that Palestinians – not Israelis – had been using a “mass grave” to bury their dead, since the local morgue was full. CNN, the Associated Press and Agence France Presse, among other news agencies, each released similar reports regarding this Palestinian-dug mass grave.

    But on April 4, Hassan Abdel Rahman made the following statement on CNN:

    Tell me, how is your security served, Mr. Gissin [advisor to Israeli Prime Minister], by not allowing the Palestinians to bury their dead, and bury them in mass graves? Remember when the last time mass graves were used? They were used in Kosovo. And Milosevic today is tried as a war criminal. Mr. Sharon is doing exactly the same thing. (CNN – Wolf Blitzer Reports, April 4)

    Note how carefully Abdel Rahman words his statements about mass graves. He never specifically identifies who dug the mass graves for Palestinians. He does compare Milosevic’s responsibility for the mass graves in Kosovo to Ariel Sharon’s responsibility for mass graves for Palestinians, clearly implying that it is the Israelis who are burying Palestinians in mass graves, but Abdel Rahman never actually comes right out and says it.

    However, on April 10, the Palestinian News Agency, WAFA, posted the following, shocking accusation on its Arabic-language website:

    The invasive Israeli tanks, planes and bulldozers are demolishing the Jenin refugee camp house by house over the heads of their remaining residents…the heroic resistance men are still holding out…while the Israeli invasion army bulldozers are burying the martyrs in mass graves in order to conceal the massacre. (Translation by BBC Worldwide Monitoring)

    Here, the accusation is explicitly leveled that Israelis were digging mass graves for Palestinians. It was not long before this baseless accusation became gospel for Palestinian spokesmen appearing in the mainstream media:

    a. On April 11, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather reported that “Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat told this reporter [David Hawkins] tonight that the Israeli operation has not inflicted heavy damage on the radical Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations. He also claims the Israelis have buried many Palestinians in mass graves. That has not been confirmed.”

    b. On April 12, United Press International quoted the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, as saying “[that] thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graves or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus.”

    c. Also on April 12, Hassan Abdel Rahman himself told CNN’s Bill Hemmer:

    And I assume that the president of the United States has not seen the massacres and the mass graves that occurred yesterday, or the day before, or in the last two weeks in Jenin and other areas.

    d. On April 13, Agence France Presse reported in the name of Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo “that Israeli bulldozers had dug mass graves for around 500 Palestinians he said had been killed there, half of them women and children, he said.”

    e. On April 14, Nabil Sha’ath told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “There has been a cover-up, and bodies have been taken away to clean up. The six days since Jenin massacre have been just a clean-up attempt, to cover up the massacres.”

    The next day, Sha’ath repeated his charge and amplified it, again to Blitzer on CNN, this time providing intricate details of how Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was attempting to hide the crime:

    SHA’ATH: We don’t know the exact number [of dead], because already a lot of the bodies have been snatched and buried elsewhere in unidentified graves that we learned about during the Jenin massacre. He [Sharon] took six days to perpetrate the massacre and six days for a cover-up. And he will not repeat what he has done in Sabra and Shatila. In Sabra and Shatila, the next morning the 4,000 bodies were still in view. And, therefore, the indictment was very clear. This time he, [sic] took six more days for a cleanup. He didn’t allow anybody to come in. And he will only allow them after he has done the cover-up. We are facing a very, very serious crime.

    f. At an April 16-17 United Nations convention concerning the “Question of Palestine,” Sha’ath delivered an address in which he asked about Israel, “Why did they take bodies away in refrigerated trucks?” (Paraphrased version of Sha’ath speech, in official UN Press Release, April 16)

    As it turns out, of course, Israel neither dug any mass grave for Palestinian dead nor transported any Palestinian dead anywhere. The only mass graves for Palestinians actually dug during Operation Defensive Shield – one in Ramallah and one in Jenin dug on April 19 – were dug by Palestinians. The April 15 statement of Israeli Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer, “We did not bury a single body, certainly not in a mass grave,” has, by all accounts, been proven correct. Certainly, no evidence to the contrary has ever surfaced, despite the best efforts of Palestinians and concerned “humanitarian” organizations to locate just such evidence. As the Associated Press reported three weeks after Palestinians first accused Israel of transporting Palestinian dead in refrigerated trucks and burying them in mass graves, “No evidence has emerged to support either allegation.” (May 5)

    Perhaps the only aspect of this story as outrageous as the fictitious Palestinian accusations of mass graves quoted above is the decision of the news media to ignore the fact that the accusations were ever leveled to begin with. Of all the spurious statements cited above, those of Nabil Sha’ath stand out as being particularly scandalous. Sha’ath falsely accused Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of planning the “snatch”-ing and hiding of Palestinian corpses. Yet, although Nabil Sha’ath has appeared on CNN as a guest of Wolf Blitzer four times since his April 15 statement, Blitzer has asked Sha’ath about his “body-snatching” accusation exactly zero times. The similarly false statements of Erekat, Abdel Rahman, and Abed Rabbo have also escaped media scrutiny.

    It is not wholly clear what motivated the media to ignore false Palestinian accusations about (non-existent) Israeli-dug mass graves. But one thing is clear: if there was a cover-up regarding mass graves, it was not Ariel Sharon who orchestrated it.
    C. The Victims of Jenin

    One issue relating to Operation Defensive Shield that the media did attempt to cover exhaustively and in considerable detail was the question of how many Palestinians were killed in Jenin and other towns during the operation and under what circumstances they died. Soon after the battle at Jenin began on April 2, Palestinian reports of horrific massacres and summary executions of civilians began to surface. By mid-April, Palestinian spokesmen were regularly speaking of Jenin as a catastrophe on par with the 1982 massacres of Arab civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. In order to present a coherent account of the myriad Palestinian claims regarding the human casualties of Jenin, it is useful to divide the Palestinian pronouncements into two broad categories according to subject matter (though some overlap does exist): ‘number of casualties’ and ‘circumstances of death.’ We will examine each category individually, reviewing the Palestinian assertions, which had a tendency to change as more facts became available, and the media’s response to Palestinian claims.

    1. The Number of Dead

    No element of Operation Defensive Shield received as much attention as the number of people, or the presumed number of people, killed during the fighting at Jenin and other West Bank towns. To be sure, this focus was not in itself sinister; all civilized people value human life, and there is nothing dishonorable about reporting on alleged mass killing of innocents. However, the strategic media blitz launched by Palestinian spokesmen regarding the number of dead in Jenin was not a principled mobilization of public opinion in defense of civilian lives. Rather, as we will see, it was a slanderous campaign of libel – based solely on fabrications and unverified rumors – aimed at manipulating American foreign policy through generation of public sympathy on the basis of events that never happened.

    It is difficult to say for certain who in the Palestinian camp initiated reports of Israeli mass killings of Palestinians, but the following appears to be the sequence in which the Palestinian myth evolved:

    a. On April 4, Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, complained in an interview on Palestinian television about “…world silence over the massacres being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.” (BBC Worldwide Monitoring)

    b. On April 6, Nabil Sha’ath delivered a speech at a meeting of the Arab League, in which he charged that “a ‘massacre’ was underway in the Palestinian refugee camp of Jenin.” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur) He also “compared Israeli actions in the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus to the 1982 massacres of hundreds of Palestinans…” (The Associated Press)

    c. Also on April 6, Hassan Abdel Rahman complained on CNN about Israel’s “war of annihilation against the Palestinian people.” He later claimed, “There is a blanket bombing today of the cities of Nablus and Jenin, and it is on television. I’m not lying. Look at the reports coming from the region. There are hundreds of people killed…”

    d. On April 7, Abdel Rahman told NBC’s Tim Russert, “The victims so far has been over 250 Palestinians killed, many of them are children and women.”

    e. On April 10, Sha’ath claimed, “We have 300 martyrs in Jenin in the last few days.” (Agence France Presse)

    f. April 10 was a particularly busy day for Saeb Erekat. He made four statements regarding casualties in Jenin and Nablus, all broadcast on CNN.

    At 10 AM – “I think the real terror is being practiced against the Palestinians… When we were in the president’s office it came to our knowledge that the numbers of people massacred in the refugee camp… they have committed a major crime today in the old city of Nablus and in the Jenin refugee camp. We believe the number of killed is more than 500 people there.”

    At 5 PM – “…the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began.”

    At 8 PM, Erekat sounded more certain of his number – “I’m afraid to say that the number of Palestinian dead in the Israeli attacks have reached more than 500 now. And I think the number may increase once we discover the extent of the damage and the massacres committed in — particular in the Jenin refugee camp and in the whole city of Nablus.”

    At 10 PM, Erekat filed a new accusation – “Some people called me from Jenin, the Israelis are having three major graveyards. They are burying more than 300 Palestinian in Jenin refugee camp alone.”

    Erekat did tell the Associated Press on April 10 that he could not verify the number of Palestinian dead, but one wonders why he seldom, if ever, bothered to mention this fact in his many television appearances.

    g. Erekat echoed his charges, though less specifically, on April 12, suggesting that American Secretary of State Colin Powell tour Jenin “to see the Israeli crimes and massacres that left hundreds of Palestinians dead…” (Agence France Presse)

    h. Also on April 12, Abdel Rahman emphatically restated Palestinian reports of the number of dead in Jenin. He told CNN’s Aaron Brown that “…as a matter of principal [sic], everyone in this world knows that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin in the last week, 400 to 500 people, mostly civilians, that were killed by the Israeli army.” And later in the same interview, “I am saying that there were massacre committed against the Palestinians, 400 to 500 Palestinians, mainly civilians, children, men, and women killed by Israel.”

    i. In the West Bank, a more drastic charge was being leveled. On April 12, as noted above, United Press International quoted the Secretary-General of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Abdel Rahman, as saying “[that] thousands of Palestinians were either killed and buried in massive graves or smashed under houses destroyed in Jenin and Nablus.”

    By April 14, Israel had begun to counter the Palestinian claims, and Palestinian spokesmen began to absorb some heat from the media concerning their figures of hundreds (or thousands) of dead in Jenin and other areas. At first, the Palestinians stuck to their claim.

    j. On April 14, Zalman Shoval, foreign affairs advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister, told CNN regarding Jenin, “Obviously, there was no massacre. Probably about 60-65 people were killed.” In response, Hassan Abdel Rahman retorted, “Mr. Shoval is really perpetuating a lie when he says there is 65 people killed, only.”

    k. Abdel Rahman was just as insistent the next evening with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren:

    VAN SUSTEREN: Israelis say 100 terrorists were killed, and I’ve seen numbers from Palestinians saying as many as 500 women and children. Who is lying?

    RAHMAN: Definitely, it is the Israelis who are lying.

    l. On April 14, CNN’s Bill Hemmer challenged Saeb Erekat about his evidence for the number of dead in Jenin:

    HEMMER: Where are you getting the evidence that shows 500 people were killed there?

    EREKAT: I don’t have evidence, I just really cannot be very (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I said that.

    But Erekat’s admitted lack of evidence did not deter him from telling Wolf Blitzer on April 17 that an international commission must be sent to Jenin “to decide how many people were massacred. And we say the number will not be less than 500.”

    The Palestinian house of cards began to teeter after April 16, when Israel allowed international aid workers to enter the Jenin refugee camp. As witness after independent witness testified that there was no evidence whatsoever of widespread Israeli killing of Palestinian civilians, it was becoming apparent that Palestinian reports of hundreds of dead Palestinians were grossly inflated. Finally, on May 1, The Washington Times broke the story that exposed the Palestinian claims for the contrivance that they truly were:

    Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation….The official Palestinian body count…was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.

    With these two sentences, one month’s-worth of statements delivered by official Palestinian spokesmen had been exposed – for anyone willing to look – as pure, unadulterated propaganda.

    However, as we have already seen, the American media harbors a tendency to turn a blind eye to Palestinian fibbing. In the case of the false Palestinian death toll in Jenin, this predilection manifested itself once again.

    m. On May 2, CNN’s Jim Clancy did his best impression of a “confrontation” with Hassan Abdel Rahman by reading a letter from a viewer in the television audience:

    [CLANCY:] “How about an apology to Israel for the wildly exaggerated reports? Would that not be fair? How about describing it as the massacre that never was”? This was specifically aimed at the media, but it could also be asked of the Palestinians, like yourself, that went on television, and charged massacre?

    RAHMAN: …we never said that 3,000 were killed…Even today, no one knows the exact number of people who were killed…The question of massacre is, how many people do you need to kill in order to call it a massacre? Israel calls the killing of 27 people a massacre, and they are right. I call the killing of 20 Palestinians a massacre also. And I am right…The problem is not the number. I am talking here about the methods. The methods that were used by Israel in the refugee camp and elsewhere…

    And that was it. Abdel Rahman had performed his penance and was absolved. Clancy did not find it relevant to mention, among other points:

    * that, contrary to Abdel Rahman’s claim, Palestinian representatives had claimed that Israel had killed “thousands” in Jenin (as quoted twice above).
    * Abdel Rahman’s bogus assertion – aired on CNN on April 12 – that “as a matter of principal [sic], everyone in this world knows that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin in the last week, 400 to 500 people…”
    * that on April 12, contrary to his current statement, Abdel Rahman did believe that “the number” of dead in Jenin was the problem, and not “the methods” of the Israeli army.
    * Abdel Rahman’s April 14 claim – aired on CNN – that Israeli representative Zalman Shoval “is really perpetuating a lie when he says there is 65 people killed, only.”

    What was the next question Clancy posed to Abdel Rahman? Ironically enough – Are the Palestinians ready “to get a government together based not on terrorism or corruption”?

    Abdel Rahman faced similarly impotent questioning on CNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, although Matthews tried a bit harder – but equally ineffectively – to challenge Abdel Rahman about previous statements. CNN’s Paula Zahn and Wolf Blitzer fared no better, with Abdel Rahman or any other Palestinian spokesman. Most newscasters simply excused the Palestinian spokesmen for the wholesale invention of hundreds of massacred Palestinians or – like Jim Clancy – administered a gentle tap on the wrist.

    2. The Circumstances of Death

    The corollary to Palestinian claims throughout the month of April that Israel had killed hundreds of Palestinians in Operation Defensive Shield was the notion that the hundreds of Palestinians killed were mostly defenseless civilians who were not involved in any sort of military conflict with Israeli forces. This was the implicit message of the ubiquitous Palestinian declaration that Israel had committed a “massacre” in Jenin. It was also the implicit meaning of the constant comparisons drawn by Palestinian spokesmen between the events in Jenin and the 1982 massacre of hundreds of Arab civilians in Lebanon. But we need not rely solely on implications; on numerous occasions, Palestinian spokesmen explicitly charged that the hundreds of Palestinians massacred by Israel at Jenin were largely civilians, killed not in a battlefield but, as Saeb Erekat put it, in “the killing fields.” (CNN April 10)

    a. On April 6, Hassan Abdel Rahman declared on CNN that “Israel is waging a war of annihilation against the Palestinian people.”

    b. On April 7, Abdel Rahman told CNN, “So what you have here is an all-out war directed against every single Palestinian man, woman and child, and it is not a police operation to arrest a few people as Mr. Lancry or Israeli spokesmen want us to believe.”

    c. Also on April 7, Abdel Rahman told NBC’s Tim Russert, “This is a war conducted by the largest military in the Middle East and probably one of the largest in the world. The victims so far has been over 250 Palestinians killed, many of them are children and women.”

    d. On April 7, Betsy Pisik of The Washington Times quoted Saeb Erekat as saying, “This is not fighting between armies, but a massacre in Jenin camp.”

    e. On April 10, Abdel Rahman informed CNN, “You know, there were tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers against civilian population. We do not have an army there. The most that any one Palestinian has, probably, a gun…”

    f. On April 12, Agence France Presse quoted Erekat as requesting that Colin Powell visit Jenin “to see the Israeli crimes and massacres that left hundreds of Palestinians dead, including children, women and old people.”

    g. Also on April 12, Erekat told the Associated Press that Israel was hiding the bodies of civilians killed in Jenin. In his own words, “They want to hide their crimes, the bodies of the little children and women.”

    h. As quoted above, Abdel Rahman told CNN’s Aaron Brown on April 12, “But as a matter of principal [sic], everyone in this world knows that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin in the last week, 400 to 500 people, mostly civilians, that were killed by the Israeli army…” He later stated, “I am saying that there were massacre committed against the Palestinians, 400 to 500 Palestinians, mainly civilians, children, men and women killed by Israel.”

    i. On April 13, Erekat, on CNN, endorsed a Palestinian Authority statement released earlier that day. Part of that statement reads as follows:

    We firmly condemn the crimes and massacres committed by the Israeli occupation forces against civilians and Palestinian refugees in Nablus, the Jenin camp, the church in Bethlehem and other Palestinian zones in the past two weeks. (Agence France Presse)

    j. On April 14, Nabil Sha’ath remarked to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “But you’ve just asked Mr. Peres about the cover-up of the massacres of mostly women and children, and not only fighters, as the Israelis claim.”

    Now, at first glance, it might seem a tad trivial to harp on the manner in which Palestinian spokesmen fabricated the defenselessness of those killed in a massacre that was fictitious to begin with. After all, once we already know that there was no slaughter of hundreds of Palestinians in Jenin, what difference does it make who the people were who weren’t slaughtered? The answer is – quite a bit. As we have seen in Section C1, once it became apparent that Israel had not murdered hundreds of Palestinians, the Palestinian spokesmen began to change the story. It wasn’t the number of people killed that constituted the “massacre,” the Palestinians now claimed (despite their previous reliance on the number of dead to prove their claims of a “massacre”), it was the methods that Israel used, the “indiscriminate killing,” as Abdel Rahman told CNN on April 16.

    At this point, it becomes very important indeed to examine exactly what took place in Jenin. Were the Palestinian deaths – true, not hundreds of deaths, but deaths nonetheless – the result of a wanton Israeli killing spree? Had the Israelis slaughtered even fifty Palestinian civilians? Or could it be that, as the Israelis claimed all along, Jenin was the site of a fierce battle between heavily armed combatants? As shown above, the Palestinian position was very clear. There was no battle. Israel was recklessly mowing down Palestinians, mostly civilians.

    k. When Israeli foreign affairs advisor Danny Ayalon dared suggest to CNN on April 13 that Jenin was heavily booby-trapped with bombs and explosives, making it difficult for Israel to allow international observers into the area, Hassan Abdel Rahman was understandably incensed. Civilians, after all, generally do not plant explosives:

    [RAHMAN:] What Danny Ayalon said about Jenin is an outright lie. How can he say that there are booby traps in the refugee camp of Jenin when the people in the refugee camp are still there? This is absolute nonsense.

    l. Abdel Rahman was equally insistent with CNN’s Larry King the following evening, maligning Israeli consul general in New York Alon Pinkas for suggesting that Jenin was booby-trapped:

    [PINKAS:] What’s been stopping them from getting in until now is the fact that the Palestinians booby-trapped many buildings, including buildings incidentally in which families, whole families, entire families were still in rooms.

    They have booby-trapped the entrances to allies. They have booby- trapped garbage cans. They have booby-trapped an ambulance. So it’s going to take — it took us time before we could clear those buildings and those access roads, in order to allow for the humanitarian aid to pass…

    KING: Mr. Rahman, you want to respond to the statement about Jenin.

    RAHMAN: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, I have heard liars in the past, but like Mr. Pinkas I have never seen, because he is accusing us of killing our own people for heaven’s sake… RAHMAN: You are an absolute liar, and I don’t hesitate to tell you this on television, because you are telling…

    Despite such protestations by Palestinians, evidence began to pile up confirming the Israeli contention that Jenin had indeed been the site of a desperate battle between heavily armed fighters among booby-trapped buildings. The most persuasive evidence were numerous Arabic-press interviews with Palestinians who had fought in Jenin. The following are excerpts from two such interviews (quotes and translation by MEMRI, April 23):

    m. Sheikh Jamal Abu Al-Hija, a Hamas commander in Jenin, told Qatari television channel Al-Jazeera, “[We placed] explosive devices on the roads and in the houses; surprises [await] the occupation forces…The truth is that the fighting is being conducted from neighborhood to neighborhood, like guerilla warfare. The Mujahideen are using automatic rifles, explosive devices, and hand grenades…”

    n. “Omar,” an Islamic Jihad bomb maker, discussed Palestinian tactics in Jenin with Al- Ahram Weekly, an Egyptian government-sponsored newspaper:

    “Of all the fighters in the West Bank we were the best prepared…We started working on our plan: to trap the invading soldiers and blow them up from the moment the Israeli tanks pulled out of Jenin last month…We had more than 50 houses booby-trapped around the camp…We cut off lengths of main water pipes and packed them with explosives and nails. Then we placed them about four meters apart throughout the houses – in cupboards, under sinks, in sofas.”

    These Palestinian accounts – and there were many of them – labeling Jenin as the site of an intense battle were further corroborated when international aid organizations and diplomats who visited Jenin uniformly declined to classify what took place in Jenin as a “massacre” of civilians.

    Under the weight of actual evidence, the Palestinian version of events was exposed, once again, to be entirely imaginary. And, once again, the media declined to hold the Palestinians accountable. No tough questions concerning Palestinian allegations that Israel had deliberately killed civilians. No repercussions for Hassan Abdel Rahman, who falsely branded two Israeli diplomats as unscrupulous prevaricators. And no scrutiny of Saeb Erekat’s outrageous revisionism on April 25, when, after firsthand accounts of the battle in Jenin began to surface, he claimed, “Nobody said there wasn’t fighting…We said that because the people decided to stand up and fight the massacres occurred.” (Global News Wire)
    D. Conclusion

    On June 24, President Bush spoke hopefully about his vision for the future, in which Israel and a Palestinian state will be “living side by side in peace and security.” But the President also called for specific Palestinian reforms that must be instituted prior to the creation of a Palestinian state, reforms meant to ensure that the eventual Palestinian state will be “a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.” One phrase that the President used neatly encapsulates the essence of all the recommendations he advised the Palestinians to implement; that phrase is “honest government.” All of Bush’s prerequisites to a Palestinian state – his call for a Palestinian leadership that rejects terror, respects the law, organizes free elections, respects an independent judiciary, spends its money transparently, encourages private enterprise, etc. – basically come down to that single element, the notion that Palestinian self-government must reflect the values of public service and accountability that all democratic countries demand their elected leaders to uphold.

    President Bush’s counsel to the Palestinians stands in stark contrast to the rather odious status quo in which corrupt, unaccountable Palestinian government officials autocratically rule, rob, and lie to the public. The official Palestinian spokesmen fall squarely into this category of culprits. As we have demonstrated at length, Palestinian spokesmen – Saeb Erekat, Nabil Sha’ath, and Hassan Abdel Rahman in particular – will spin any lie, deny any fact, and denounce any person in order to protect the public image of the Palestinian Authority, a government that, as President Bush rather diplomatically termed it, is “compromised by terror” and rife with “official corruption.”

    The American media does honest Palestinians and the American public a fundamental disservice by providing a platform upon which these unctuous – if eloquent – Palestinian spokesmen broadcast their litany of inane and spurious rhetoric. Put slightly differently: The same individuals who falsely accused Israel of imprisoning Palestinians in concentrations camps, massacring hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and fabricating evidence of PA involvement in terrorism cannot possibly be trusted for material information regarding Palestinian government reforms, a PA-crackdown on terror, or any other significant issue in which a lie might better serve the current Palestinian government than would the truth.

    Now is the time for more responsible Palestinian leadership to assert itself. The fate of proven Palestinian liars should be no different than that of Kenneth Lay, John Rigas, Bernard Ebbers, and the other corporate gangsters whose reputations have been dashed by their betrayal of public trust. The current cast of Palestinian characters is plagued by corruption and deceit. It’s time for them to be swept aside. Surely the best face of Palestinian aspirations lies elsewhere.

  11. Ekosmo said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:15pm #

    thanks Ralph for posting these utterly grotesque and hideous — thus, US-media-silenced — Palestinian-Israeli comparative death statistics, currently being painstakingly assembled and compiled by among others — IF AMERICANS KNEW.org…

    — a site I subscribe to, and a site managed by a wholly courageous and admirable American woman,
    — Alison Weir — and her volunteers,
    who I’m sure [tho I might be wrong] that Foxman, Pipes, Dershowitz and the rest of the Huns at ‘Hasbara Central’ will have a sizable file on by now…

    another resource — hugely influential in this reader’s transformation from a former Israeli sympathizer into one who now challenges the entire legal validity and moral legitimacy of the Zionist state — is Bob and Willie Cork’s site at >>>

    http://www.cactus48.com

    Readers will find there — ‘THE ORIGIN OF THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT’,
    an historical analysis containing well over a century of Zionist political, ideological and philosophical thought along with decades of relentless planning towards what Ben Gurion called “the Revolutionary situation…”

    That ‘great day’ came in May 1948 when, having already uprooted and exiled over 200,000 Muslim and Christian Palestinian natives
    — BEFORE the Arab states’ intervention —
    the “tiny, beleaguered and entirely surrounded nascent Israeli state” [sic] — “will” — as already quoted on these pages:

    “…go over to the offensive with the aim of smashing Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria… [and, moreover] …When we smash the [Arab] Legion’s strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall. If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo.”
    — [Ben Gurion to the General Staff, May 1948]

    these and other revealing insights into the Zionist 1948 myth-fiction business were, to my knowledge, first assembled and written up by the Californian-based — Jews for Justice

    Note — “JEWS FOR JUSTICE”

    […this emphasis for DV’s two embedded revisionists, busily re-engineering Middle East history to suit their amoral ends, and reflexively given to describing here as a “toilet” or an “asylum”
    — or, peopled with hate-filled “bigots” retailing “false quotes” and “propaganda”… yet, who cant seem to live without us….]

    Almost all of the direct historical Zionist quotations Kim P and B.J. Sabri are re-utilizing and re-presenting in this series have hitherto been published in that seminal “Jews for Justice” book…
    ——————–
    Expresso:
    excellent NY Times letter I’d almost forgotten about…
    Einstein, Arendt and other laudable Jews exposing Begin’s nihilistic Jabotinski-ist Fascism — in December 1948 no less — whilst the deranged wannabe Fuhrer was planning his triumphant US tour…

    Well, by December 1948, I guess, the Great Zionist Land Heist was all but over…
    ——————–
    Hue:
    thats the most hilarious post of 2008 so far… ILMAO…!

    ————————————————————————————-
    coda:

    “I and the public know
    What all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done
    Do Evil in return.

    [W.H. AUDEN, “September 1, 1939”]

    [Auden’s poem in full at >> http://www.cactus48.com..]

  12. greybeard said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:16pm #

    What amazes me is the constant assumption by Zionists that the alternative to their racist state is mass murder. This is an exceedingly well nurtured myth, a form of self-delusion. My guess is they are seeing Nazis in every corner–perhaps justifying their crimes. In the case of Palestine, the genuine alternative is a secular, democratic state. This option was offered repeatedly by Palestinians (and subsequently by the British) in the twenties and thirties, and rejected by Zionist leadership. Admittedly, the argument of “statehood or death” is compelling, but a deceptive, false set of alternatives. When asked if he would live in a secular, democratic state with the Israelis, a Palestinian Muslim friend answered in effect, “Yes–if they can abandon their racism”.

  13. dan elliott said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    Okay, our resident troll has rambled on at length, so I guess I can get away with posting the real skinny in full.

    Here it is: this is what Zionism and Isreal is really all about, from the horses mouth.

    Note carefully what Jabotinsky says, then look at the historical record. The Zionist state has done everything he recommended. He wrote the prescription, then Ben Gurion/Meir/Dayan & the rest, down to Begin/Shamir/Nut&yayhoo/Sharon & now this guy “Omelet” have been filling & refilling it.

    After you finish this, go back and read Herzl himself; you’ll see that Jabostinky is more faithful to his original concept than even Ben Gurion. But what Ben G. realized, and Stinky couldn’t get through his head, was that the Yishuv would need to convince the Bolsheviks that the Zionist Experiment had sthg to do with “socialism”. If Stalin had chosen to use the USSR’s UN veto, the whole thing would have had to have been put on hold indefinitely. But Ben G executed his swindle so expertly that even professional terrorist members of the Palmach considered themselves to be “Marxist-Leninists”!

    After 1967 of course the make-believe became redundant, so “Labor Zionism” was soon replaced by the more candid Revisionist Zionists, led by the ever-popular Menachem “Take My Wife” Begin:)
    —————->
    Vladimir Jabotinsky, “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs),”
    Rassvyet (Berlin), November 4, 1923

    [Note: The article 1st appeared in English, captioned as below,
    in South Africa’s 11/26/37 Jewish Herald. ]

    The Iron Wall
    Colonisation of Palestine
    Agreement with Arabs Impossible at Present
    Zionism Must Go Forward
    By Vladimir Jabotinsky

    It is an excellent rule to begin an article with the most important
    point. But this time, I find it necessary to begin with an
    introduction, and, moreover, with a personal introduction.

    I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.

    Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other
    nations: polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by
    two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject
    the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine â
    which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority.

    And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors
    Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities
    living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind
    not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is
    equality of rights.

    I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights,
    and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly
    peaceful credo.

    But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to
    realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this
    question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on
    the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.

    Now, after this introduction, we may proceed to the subject.

    Voluntary Agreement Not Possible

    There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind,
    they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the
    voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting “Palestine” from
    an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

    My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other
    countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which
    they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of
    any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native
    population. There is no such precedent.

    The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly
    resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or
    savage.

    And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved
    decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or (as some
    people will remind us) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians; and they honestly
    believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the
    Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.

    Every native population, civilised or not, regards its land as its
    national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain
    that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but,
    even new partners or collaborators.

    Arabs Not Fools

    This is equally true of the Arabs. Our peace-mongers are trying to
    persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by
    masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to
    abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine, in return for
    cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the
    Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us;
    they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just
    as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened
    like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.

    To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to
    the realisation of Zionism. In return for the moral and material
    conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish
    notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it
    means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt
    mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their
    fatherland for a good railway system.

    All Natives Resist Colonialism
    There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some
    individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab
    people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that
    they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell.
    Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has
    the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being
    colonised.

    That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will
    persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that
    they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the
    “Land of Israel.”

    Arab Comprehension

    Some of us have induced ourselves to believe that all the trouble is due
    to misunderstanding –- the Arabs have not understood us, and that is the only reason why they resist us; if we can only make it clear to them how moderate our intentions really are, they will immediately extend to us their hand in friendship.

    This belief is utterly unfounded and it has been exploded again and
    again. I shall recall only one instance of many. A few years ago, when
    the late Mr. Sokolow was on one of his periodic visits to Palestine, he
    addressed a meeting on this very question of the “misunderstanding.”

    He demonstrated lucidly and convincingly that the Arabs are terribly
    mistaken if they think that we have any desire to deprive them of their
    possessions or to drive them our of the country, or that we want to
    oppress them. We do not even ask for a Jewish Government to hold the
    Mandate of the League of Nations.

    One of the Arab papers, “El Carmel,” replied at the time, in an editorial
    article, the purport of which was this :

    The Zionists are making a fuss about nothing. There is no
    misunderstanding. All that Mr. Sokolow says about the Zionist intentions is true, but the Arabs know that without him. Of course, the Zionists cannot now be thinking of driving the Arabs out of the country, or oppressing them, not do they contemplate a Jewish Government. Quite obviously, they are now concerned with one thing only — that the Arabs should not hinder their immigration. The Zionists assure us that even immigration will be regulated strictly according to the economic needs of Palestine. The Arabs have never doubted that: it is a truism, for
    otherwise there can be no immigration.

    No “Misunderstanding”

    This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very
    large potential absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a
    great many Jews in the country without displacing a single Arab. There
    is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the
    Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically; and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no
    “misunderstanding.”

    The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish
    immigration is what the Arabs do not want.

    This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so
    obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and
    it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab
    question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in
    explaining our colonising aims, Herzl’s or Sir Herbert Samuel’s.

    Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation,
    unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every
    ordinary Arab.

    Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept
    this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular
    regard nature cannot be changed.

    The Iron Wall

    We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in
    return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any
    voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say “non” and withdraw from Zionism.

    Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the
    native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only
    under the protection of a power that is independent of the native
    population: behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot
    breach.

    That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is,
    whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour
    Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that an outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of
    administration and security that if the native population should desire
    to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.

    And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day
    that this outside Power should carry out this task vigorously and with
    determination.

    In this matter there is no difference between our “militarists” and our
    “vegetarians”. Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should
    consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should
    be British.

    We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling
    our own case, by talking about “agreement,” which means telling the
    Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why itis not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest.

    Zionism Moral and Just

    Two brief remarks:

    In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is
    immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just ,or
    it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have
    settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that
    question, and in the affirmative.

    We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just,
    justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or
    Achmet agree with it or not.

    There is no other morality.

    Eventual Agreement

    In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any
    agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary
    agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of
    getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for
    either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a
    rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters
    of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of
    getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not
    till then will they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is
    “Never!” And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will
    approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual
    concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical
    questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal
    rights for Arab citizens, or Arab national integrity.

    And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.

    But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is
    to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab
    pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the
    future is to abandon all ideas of seeking an agreement at present.///

    end

  14. Dissident Voice : Defining Israeli Zionist Racism: Part 12 said on January 10th, 2008 at 9:09am #

    […] also Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, & 11. Since aid is supposed to be for humanitarian or altruistic purposes, it is a […]

  15. greybeard said on January 11th, 2008 at 10:09pm #

    A vital key is, why a Jewish majority? Why ANY particular ethnic majority? The answer is both ugly and clear: in order to achieve ethnic domination over all citizens. Jabotinsky’s rule even, regrettably, applies to Israel proper now: Arabs are tolerated as long as they accept second-class position. That’s not democracy, that is ethnocracy.