Endless Battle

Almost a Century of Conflict Resulting From the Effort to Establish Israel as a Jewish State

Since the Biblical Diaspora some twenty centuries ago, Jews have survived as a small minority repeatedly driven from one host community to the next, isolated from each because of endogenous marriage customs as well as perceived differences in dress, culture, and religious belief. By both choice and necessity, Jews have inhabited urban ghettos, interacting with others in such useful roles as doctors, merchants, jewelers, and moneylenders. Some have attained remarkable wealth and status for their services, most notably such powerful bankers as the Rothschilds since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Most others have endured far more modest circumstances as peddlers and small shopkeepers.

For much of its history, the Jewish community has depended on the gratitude of kings and autocratic governments that were subsidized by Jewish bankers, but now and again this unique reciprocity has aggravated relations with the rest of society, especially during periods of war and extreme poverty. The resulting persecution of Jews has sometimes led to severe repression, even massacres, for example during the 15th century in Spain, during the 17th century in Poland, and during the pogroms preceding World War I. The Holocaust imposed by Hitler during World War II involved the systematic extermination of six million Jews justified by the contradictory arguments that Jews were an inferior race and, on the other hand, that they were greedy and manipulative, having somehow profited from World War I as well as the inflation and two depressions that followed.

Since the turn of the twentieth century, assimilation between Jews and the non-Jewish European population seems to have both aggravated and mitigated the prejudice against Jews. Many gentiles have been grateful for the plenitude of Jewish contributions to modern civilization, but others have felt threatened and were therefore more hostile. There has also been a substantial trend toward secularization among the Jewish population, with Jews excelling in virtually every calling they entered–journalism, education, medicine, law, art, fiction, music, entertainment, etc. Most Jews have accepted modern science and the materialist perspective without abandoning Judaism, but others have taken the hitherto unthinkable step of emancipating themselves from all orthodox belief. In various fields of inquiry such figures as Freud, Einstein, Bohr, Durkheim, Mannheim, Boas, and Popper have made significant theoretical contributions unencumbered by religious conviction.

Still other Jews have focused themselves on politics with enormous success, usually (but not always) supportive of a progressive agenda. Disraeli and much later Kissinger were conservative, but such figures as Marx, Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg played leadership roles in the pursuit of radical change, presumably toward the creation of societies free of racial and cultural prejudice. On the other hand, Jews who continued to retain their full adherence to Hebraic custom were more likely to join in with the Zionist cause inspired by such figures as Herzl and Weizmann. They preferred the creation of a truly Jewish state instead of trying to integrate themselves into more populous societies that have in the past been capable of extraordinary violence at their expense.

With the establishment of the state of Israel in 1947-48, Jews identified as Zionists sought to liberate themselves from anti-Semitism once and for all without compromising their Jewish identity. This was attainable, they felt, only by building their own nation, and what better site could be found for doing this than Israel, where they had been expelled nineteen hundred years earlier. Once again they could enjoy all the benefits of a landed society entirely their own and without fear of hostile persecution by others. However, it soon became evident that this was only possible if they could somehow neutralize, if not eliminate, the presence of Palestinians, whose remote ancestors, like ancient Jews themselves, had arrived in the Levant during the second millennium preceding Christ. Unlike the Jews, however, Palestinians had continued to populate this region without anybody having challenged their right to do so. Their number was small in 1947 — in the range of 1,300,000, but it was roughly twice the size of the Jewish community at the time, and just as deserving of a national identity as Jordan, Syria, and the other Near Eastern states that had been created from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

As David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, repeatedly insisted, Zionists who sought a genuine independent state were thus confronted with the unpleasant necessity to eliminate Palestinians as much as possible from the territory they themselves wanted to occupy. Brutality was not the primary issue. The singular concern was the establishment of a permanent Jewish state, whatever it took.

Unfortunately this task has been pursued with scant concession to the need for genuine accommodation. Palestinians who escaped for their lives in 1948 automatically forfeited their property and citizenship rights, and those able to remain in their homes were limited to second-class status with the threat of confiscation at a later time. Palestinians who lived outside Israel in Gaza and the West Bank were confronted with the same choice after the 1967 war, when Israel began to expand the construction of new Jewish settlements throughout the region. For the problem was simple enough. Unlike the U.S. and all other post-industrial states in the world today, Israel needed more territory, but with full citizenship limited to Jews alone. To challenge this unique aspiration has often treated as a violation of Jewish rights tantamount to the Holocaust.

Crucial to this effort has been the suppression of Palestinian demands at one time or another for (1) the restoration of Palestinian society preceding the two World Wars in an Arab state tolerant of its minorities, or (2) full citizenship for Palestinians in Israel, or, as a last resort, (3) full sovereignty for Palestinians in their own nation adjacent to Israel. The first choice has been the least realistic, but the second could also be rejected as a plan for the destruction of Israel, since the full citizenship of Palestinians would terminate the privileged status of Jews in a nation of their own. Moreover, the return of Palestinian refugees with the guarantee of full political rights would reduce the Jewish population of Israel to a minority. As for the third choice, it prevents the further expansion of Israel into the West Bank in order to provide the eventual settlement of Jews from elsewhere in the world. It would also establish a potentially hostile state at the edge of Israel, preventing full control of the border region for the better protection of Israel. All of these choices have therefore been unacceptable to Israeli leaders since the beginning.

To forestall, if not avoid, all these options, Israel has perpetuated conflict with Palestinians to such an extent that useful negotiations have been virtually impossible. In what seems an endless cycle of retribution, Palestinians have been provoked into mounting guerrilla operations that could be publicized to justify devastating retaliatory strikes, often with kill ratios highly favorable to Israel. Palestinian attacks could be featured in the media to justify counterattacks that led to further attacks and counterattacks. And when Palestinians have tried to withdraw from this cycle of violence, unprovoked attacks by the Israeli have bought new counterattacks quickly enough to renew the tradeoff in hostilities once again. As a useful byproduct of this strategy, reinforced by a steady use of political assassinations, a hostile, battle-weary Palestinian leadership has been kept in power, as best illustrated by Arafat, leader of the PLO, who presumably could not be trusted in negotiations.

The best and most obvious precedent for this strategy occurred in the United States during the nineteenth century, when Native Americans were driven from their lands supposedly because they did not possess the soil they occupied and could therefore be driven into barren reservations useless to American settlers. When Indians attacked to assert their rights, they could be described as savages; and when they themselves were attacked the effort was justified because, after all, they were nothing better than savages. The tautological justification for this asymmetrical strategy was specious at the time, and it is even less valid today relevant to the situation of Palestinians.

Because of a sustained pro-Israeli bias by the U.S. media, our government has been able to support Israel’s campaign against Palestinians over the past sixty years, most obviously by providing generous financial backing to Israel’s government, especially during periods of conflict with Palestinians and adjacent nations. For the most part our aid has seemed justified by the Arab threat to Israel’s continuing existence, though this perceived threat has now and again seemed no less useful in justifying our financial assistance, which has supported what has become a permanent wartime economy. Muslim societies in the Near East have been hostile against Israel since the beginning, and opposition has spread elsewhere in the world as indicated by the repeated use of the veto by U.S. delegates in the UN Security Council (at least 42 times since 1970) in order to thwart overwhelming votes of condemnation. None of the nearby states, including Greece and Turkey, has been openly friendly with Israel, and to offset its diplomatic isolation Israel has developed world-class military capabilities that dwarf those of everybody else in the region. However, the sacrifice incurred by doing this seems hardly justified by the acquisition of limited desert acreage unworthy of subsidization by U.S. taxpayers.

Here, then, is a brief chronology of what has happened to date in this extraordinary history of the Jewish people.


Israel’s area: 8,019 sq. mi. (slightly larger than New Jersey).
Population: 6,352,117 (roughly three-fourths that of New York City).
Ethnic groups: 80% Jewish; 20% Arab and others.
Religions: 77% Jewish; 15% Sunni; 2% Christian.

Foreign Aid: appx. $3 billion per year from the U.S. ($500 per capita).
With an estimated $2 billion per year in private donations additional to grants, loan guarantees, and various perks, the total amount probably approaches $6 billion, approximately 3% of its 200 billion GDP. The 2007 GDP growth rate for Israel, as high as 5.2%, has been one of the highest in the industrialized world.

It is estimated that there are more than 13 million Jews throughout the world. Slightly more than 6 million live in the United States, slightly less in Israel, 1.5 million in Europe, and with the rest scattered elsewhere. On the other hand, approximately 10 million Palestinians live across the Near East: one million in Israel, 3.8 million in Gaza and the West Bank (1.4 million in Gaza alone), and approximately 3 million live as refugees in Jordan, over 400,000 in Lebanon, 1/2 million in Syria, etc.


586-538 B.C. Babylonian captivity initiates the Diaspora as a dispersion of Israel’s Jewish population throughout the Mideast and beyond. This vast exodus culminates when the Roman emperor Hadrian bars Jews from living in Palestine in 135 A.D. Sephardic Jews migrate across Africa into Spain and Portugal, and ultimately the rest of Europe. During the 9th century, A.D., Ashkenazim Jews first settle in the Rhineland, then disperse, some to the west and others eastward into Poland and Russia. Oriental Jews remain in Arab lands, migrating to Iraq, Iran and even India.

1290 A.D. Jews are expelled from England, and in 1306 from France.

1492 In 1391 enforced conversions begin in Spain, and in 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella expel all Jews from Spain.

1878 The Ottoman’s census of the Jerusalem, Nablus, and Acre districts (including area beyond the present border of Israel) shows a population of 403,795 Muslims (87.3 percent of the total), 43,659 Christians (9.4 percent) and 43,659 Jews (9.4 percent), not including 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship. By 1922, the Muslim population slips to 78 percent of the total), whereas the Jewish population has risen to 83,790 (11 percent of the total). A decade later, in 1932, the Jewish population has risen to 192,137 (18 percent of the total), and by 1942 it has risen to 484,408 (30 percent of the total).

1881,1905 The two peak years of pogroms (organized massacres) in Russia, the first of them after a female terrorist, Gesya Gelfman, is implicated in the assassination of the Tsar Alexander II. In response to the pogroms there is heavy Russian Jewish migration into central Europe as well as the United States starting in the early 1880s.

1894 Dreyfus Affair in France. Falsely accused of being a traitor, the Jewish military officer Dreyfus is finally (and fully) exonerated in 1906. Extreme anti-Semitism mounts in France at the time, largely fueled by publicity about the Dreyfus case.

1896 Der Judenstaat, by Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), advocates the creation of a Jewish state in response to hostile public opinion in France provoked by the Dreyfus Affair.

1897 Herzl organizes the First Zionist World Congress, which in turn creates the World Zionist Organization (WZO). The primary issue under consideration is the best location for an exclusively Jewish state in which anti-Semitism would no longer play a role. Several locations are considered, including Uganda, but the decision is finally made to return to Israel.

1917 Great Britain’s Balfour Declaration promises a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This is primarily advocated by Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952), a chemist who has developed a synthetic acetone used in the manufacture of explosives. He is said to have provided his invention to England during World War I in exchange for its future support of Israel. He later serves as director of the WZO from 1920 to 1946 and becomes the first president of Israel in 1948.

1918 At the end of World War I the allies carve up the remains of the Ottoman Empire, giving Palestine and Iraq to Britain.

1920 In early July Britain appoints Sir Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner of Palestine with the task of overseeing the immigration of Jews into the country.

On July 24, the Zionist Conference meets in London to create a Jewish National Fund for purchasing lands for kibbutzim and the formation of Jewish villages in Palestine. This concerted effort to bring Jews to Palestine leads to Arab riots in 1921, 1929, and 1936-39.

After the 1920 Arab riots and 1921 Jaffa riots, Hagana, a Jewish paramilitary organization, is created to defend Jews in Palestine. In response to the Arab massacres of 1929, it enlarges to include almost all the men in Jewish settlements. In 1936, the Haganah fields 10,000 combatants as well as 40,000 reservists to help British troops to defeat the 1936-39 Arab revolt.

1929 Palestinian extremists massacre 60 Jews in Hebron, driving the Jewish population from the city, Judaism’s second holiest site.

1939 Britain issues the White Paper promising the independence of Palestine as an Arab nation within ten years.

1940 Zionists sink the Patria, killing 267 passengers, 250 of whom are central European Jews deported to Palestine. They have been rerouted by the British to Mauritius and Trinidad, and Zionists want to prevent this from happening. They later claim their intention was to disable the ship, not sink it.

1941-1945 The Holocaust is undertaken by the Nazis during World War II. Estimates vary, but as later confessed by Adolph Eichmann, chief of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo, roughly six million Jews are killed, two-thirds the total number of Jews living in Europe. Inspired by Houston Chamberlain’s prediction of a “struggle for life or death” between Jews and Aryans [vol. 1, p. 578], Hitler apparently seeks to “liberate” Europe from the Jews. When deportation is no longer possible because of the war, he resorts to organized slaughter in concentration camps as a ”final solution.” Paradoxically, Hitler himself might be partly Jewish by an unidentified paternal grandfather.

1944 The Irgun (sometimes described as the Etzel), an offshoot of Hagana in 1939, initiates an anti-colonial revolt against the British. Among its earliest feats is the assassination of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, who is considered hostile to the Zionist cause.

1946 Zionist terrorists identified with the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, destroy the King David Hotel, killing 91 people. Their attempt to pin the blame on Palestinians fails, and five members of the Irgun are executed.

1947 President Truman promotes the creation of the State of Israel with the help and encouragement of Clark Clifford, Ed Jacobson, and David Niles despite the objections of Kermit Roosevelt as well as George Marshall, Robert Lovett, and George Kennan of the State Department. Encouraged by Truman, the UN votes to partition Palestine into Jewish, Arab, and international areas. Fifty-six percent of the territory is given to the Jews to provide them with their own homeland, though 1,350,000 Palestinians inhabit the territory at the time, almost twice the Jewish population of 650,000. Truman’s choice to promote the creation of Israel seems partly the result of his upcoming campaign strategy in the 1948 election against Thomas Dewey, the governor of New York. This tactic would be suggested by Truman’s speech supportive of the Zionist plan for Israeli partition in New York City on October 28, 1958, just ten days before the election. Truman loses the state of New York, but wins 75% of the Jewish vote nationwide as well as the election itself by a narrow margin. [see Ball, p. 22]

1948 Deir Yassin Massacre. On April 1, Zionists identified as the Stern Gang, led by Yitzhak Shamir, invade the village of Deir Yassin and kill more than 250 Palestinians. Soon afterwards Jacques de Ruyner of the Swiss Red Cross counts 254 dead, including 145 women, 35 of them obviously pregnant. Later, Israeli scholars later claim that only 110 have been killed. Zionist sound trucks actually publicize this massacre to induce the flight of refugees from Palestine. At least 250 towns and villages are abandoned, and the final number of Palestinians who flee the region totals roughly 780,000, over half the original population. Through what amounts to a terrorist version of compulsory transfer, as recommended by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, Israel is thus able to gain control of 77% of the Palestine territory.

On May 14, Israel declares its independence as a sovereign state, thus preempting the UN Security council resolution requesting the General Assembly “to consider further the question of future government of Palestine.” British troops complete their withdraw from Palestine on May 15. The State of Israel is thus created as a fait accompli to avoid reconsideration by the UN Weizmann becomes President and David Ben Gurion becomes the Prime Minister. Truman immediately gives Israel diplomatic recognition, followed by the Soviet Union.

Also on May 14 the armies of five Arab states invade Palestine supposedly to protect the Palestinian population from the Zionist invaders. Later most historians and journalists claim that Israeli troops are vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the invading troops. However, reports at the time by diplomats such as Harold Beeley, Pinckney Tuck, and George Marshall, among many others, indicate exactly the opposite, that Israeli forces enjoy an overwhelming 4-to-1 military superiority from the very beginning of hostilities [Ball, pp. 23-26]. Moreover, unlike their opponents, the Israeli substantially augment their supply of military equipment during the first cease-fire imposed by the UN Security Council, between June 11 and July 9, enabling them to defeat the Arab forces without difficulty afterwards.

On September 17, the Stern Gang assassinates Count Bernadotte, the official UN mediator in Palestine, just a day after he submits a progress report on the conflict that recommends granting Palestinians the right to return to Israel.

1949-1956 Palestinian Fedayin (“redeemers,” or “freedom fighters”) organize in Arab refugee camps and mount attacks on Israeli targets across the border, causing a steady escalation of Israeli reprisals.

1953 The Qibya Massacre. Israeli troops led by Sharon attack the village of Qibya, destroying 42 houses and killing at least 66 Palestinians. Three-quarters of the victims are women and children.

1954 The Lavon Affair. In Operation Suzannah organized by Colonel Binyamin Gibli, the chief of Israel’s military intelligence, Israeli agents carry out bombings and other acts of sabotage in Egypt in order to discredit Egypt with both Britain and the U.S. On July 2, these agents bomb a post office in Alexandria, followed within two weeks by a British-owned theater and U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo. The operation is soon exposed by an Israeli double agent Avraham Seidenberg. Secretary of Defense Lavon correctly denies any knowledge of it, but is forced to resign from his position. Before the investigation is over many months later, Moshe Sharrett and David Ben-Gurion are forced to resign as prime ministers.

1956 Suez War. Israel combines forces with England and France to capture the Suez Canal in a surprise attack that is unanticipated by the U.S. government. However, President Eisenhower forces them to withdraw their armies.

The Kafr Qasim massacre. Israeli border police set a new curfew for Palestinian farm workers at the time of the Suez attack, but do not inform them of it. When these workers unwittingly break the new curfew, Israeli police kill 48 of them, including 6 women and 23 children.

1959 Yasser Arafat founds the Fatah movement in Kuwait. It begins its first armed attacks in 1965.

1964 Palestinians establish the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) both to defend themselves and restore the homeland of the Palestinian people. Arafat becomes the chairman when Fatah gains control in 1969.

1967 The Six-Day War takes place in which Israel launches supposedly pre-emptive invasions of the Golan Heights, Gaza, the Sinai, and the West Bank, including Jerusalem. This three-pronged attack substantially increases the territory under Israeli control. Israeli apologists insist the attack has been a pre-emptive strike to thwart Israel’s invasion by surrounding nations. Actually, Soviet diplomats have tried to broker a ceasefire, assuring Nasser and his allies that U.S. diplomats working in conjunction with this effort have obtained the guarantee of the Israeli government that it would not attack as long as it is not attacked. Informed that the Arab states have accepted this modus vivendi, Israel is able to launch a surprise attack against surrounding armies with devastating effectiveness.

Destruction of The Liberty. Apparently to thwart U.S. intelligence of the war in progress, Israeli air attacks kill 34 American sailors and wound 170 more aboard the Liberty, a U.S. intelligence-gathering ship. It seems the strategy of the attack is to strafe the ship’s deck, forcing the crew inside, then to sink it with all aboard. Specifically, this seems intended to prevent the disclosure of an impending Israeli attack on the West Bank, the final stage of Israel’s multiple invasion.

Six months later, UN Security Council’s Resolution 242 calls for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and a just solution to the refugee problem. Nevertheless, Israel begins establishing Jewish settlements in captured territory, and these become a growing problem over the years. In 1980 Israel gives them top national priority, and by 2000 there are 225,000 settlers occupying about 10 percent of the occupied West Bank.

In December, George Habash, a 1948 Palestine refugee, founds the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In June 1968, the Front hijacks an Israeli El Al airline, then undertakes a series of bombings and hijackings of civilian targets. The Front might also be responsible for helping to organize a machine-gun attack at the Tel Aviv International Airport in May 1972 by Japanese Red Army terrorists, killing 26 civilians. And the Front hijacks an Air France airliner in June 1976, flying it to Entebbe, Uganda, where it is recovered by Israeli troops in a dramatic rescue mission with the loss of lives limited to four civilians. Habash steps down as the leader of the Front in 2000 and spends the rest of his life as an invalid in Jordan.

1968 Israel begins full-scale nuclear production at Dimona, producing more than twenty-five bombs by 1973. Israeli officials have insisted earlier that they had no intention of producing the atomic bomb. However, a variety of nuclear physicists, most notably Zalman Shapiro, the president of a small U.S. Nuclear Services corporation, provide it with needed help. In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, an engineer at Dimona, reveals to the Sunday Times the existence of the secret Israeli nuclear program. He is lured to Italy by a female agent, then kidnapped, brought back to Israel, tried and convicted for disclosing the information, and imprisoned for 18 years. He is released from prison in 2004, then imprisoned once again because he breaks his agreement with Israeli authorities to avoid interviews.

1969 Israeli war planes raid an Egyptian school Bahr al Baker in southern Egypt, killing 75 children and wounding over 100.

1970 The Black September. Armed conflict between Palestinian organizations and Jordanian troops lasts from September 1970 to July 1971, resulting in the expulsion of the PLO as well as thousands of Palestinian civilians from Jordan. Starting in 1968 there are frequent clashes between Jordanian security officers and Palestinian guerrillas. In June 1970, Habash’s Popular Front captures 60 foreigners as hostages in two downtown hotels, and in September it hijacks three Western jet airliners, taking them to an airstrip outside Amman. Several hundred passengers and crew members are eventually released, but all three planes are blown up. Assassination attempts against King Hussein fail in September, and, in order to restore his sovereign authority, he declares martial law. During the ten days or so of combat starting September 16, from 3 to 5 thousand combatants are estimated to die. In the entire conflict that follows, which costs from 7 to 8 thousand lives, King Hussein drives the guerrillas as well as numerous Palestinian civilians into Lebanon and Syria.

1972 In an operation also described as Black September, Palestinian terrorists kill eleven Israeli athletes and coaches at the Munich Olympics. The next day Israel retaliates with Operation Spring of Youth whereby F-4 Phantom jets kill approximately 100 Palestinians and Lebanese. Also in retaliation, Operation Wrath of God involves an ongoing effort over a couple decades of assassinating all Palestinians involved in the Munich attack.

1973 On February 21, Israeli commandos attack two Palestinian refugee camps near the Lebanese city of Tripoli, killing 35. The same day Israeli war planes shoot down a Libyan airliner that accidentally passes over the Sinai Peninsula during a sand storm, killing 113 passengers.

On April 10, Israeli commando units invade East Beirut to kill three PLO leaders, Yusef Al Najjar, Kamal Adwan, and Kamal Nasser along with several dozen others.

The October 6 Yom Kippur War. Egypt and Syria launch surprise attacks against Israel in the Sinai and Golan Heights, but hostilities are suddenly brought to a close after a successful counterattack by Israeli troops, some of whom, under the command of Major General Sharon, penetrate Egypt within a hundred kilometers of Cairo. On October 22, UN Resolution 338 calls for an immediate cease-fire negotiated by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. However, with the excuse that Egyptians continue to attack Israeli tanks, Israeli troops finish their drive south, trapping the Egyptian Third Army east of the Suez Canal. Accused of betrayal by the U.S.S.R. and aware of possibilities for forcing peace negotiations among all parties involved, U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger insists the Israeli pull back their troops without destroying the Egyptian Third Army. On October 23, Syria also accepts the terms of the ceasefire, and Israeli troops can be withdraw.

1978 Arranged and hosted by President Carter, the Camp David Accords between Egypt’s President Sadat and Israel’s Prime Minister Begin result in Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as well as increased U.S. financial support to both nations — more for the two combined than for all other foreign nations combined. Israel is thus compensated for the loss of Gaza and Egypt for abandoning the coalition of Arab nations opposed to Israel.

1981 Israel bombs an Iraq nuclear reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad in a surprise air attack. The reactor is near completion but has not yet been stocked with nuclear fuel.

1982 Invasion of Lebanon. On June 6, 60,000 Israeli troops led by General Sharon, Israel’s Defense Minister, mount Operation Pines (or “Peace for Galilee”), invading Lebanon supposedly in order to drive the PLO 40 kilometers from the border, thereby terminating its rocket attacks into Israel. Instead, however, Israeli troops continue their drive northward toward the city of Beirut. Apparently Sharon’s intention is to expel both Syrian and Palestinian combatants from Lebanon and install Bashir Gemayel of the Christian Phalange Party as president of Lebanon sympathetic with Israel.

From July 3 to August 21, Sharon conducts a Siege of Beirut, Beirut having become the de facto Palestinian capital in exile. Israeli troops cut off the city’s electricity and conduct seven-weeks of intensive shelling by tanks, artillery, fighter planes, and warships anchored offshore. On August 12 alone (“Black Thursday”), air attacks kill 128 inhabitants. Over 250,000 flee the city in response to this siege. After 70 days, Arafat accepts defeat, and beginning August 21, he, the PLO leadership, and 7,000 PLO fighters are shipped into exile abroad. Casualty estimates vary widely, but as many as 6,776 are killed in Beirut and as many as 18,000 altogether in Lebanon, not counting the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Israeli troops killed in action are 344, suggesting roughly a 20-1 kill ratio.

On August 23, Gemayel is elected President of Lebanon, but he is assassinated by Syrian agents on September 14. One day later, Israeli troops encircle the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps to permit a four-day massacre by 1,500 Christian militiamen identified as Falangists. All Palestinian refugees are killed, including women and children, with estimates ranging from 700 to 3,500 victims Palestinians who try to escape during this period are forced by Israeli troops to return to the camps in order to be with the rest. Sharon is later found personally responsible and forced to resign as Israel’s defense minister, but he is permitted to remain in parliament.

The militant Lebanese organization known as the Hezbollah is established by Shi’ites in response to the invasion. Its purpose is to provide self-defense against future attacks by Christian Falangists as well as Israeli troops. The Hezbollah also promotes an Islamic government of Lebanon, and it is organized to provide a variety of social services to its constituency, the Shi’ite population.

1983 President Reagan sends U.S. troops to Lebanon to help impose order on Beirut after the withdrawal of Israeli troops, but he withdraws U.S. troops after 241 American servicemen are killed by a suicide bomber on October 23. Israel mostly completes the withdrawal of its troops by mid-1985, retaining a 10 km security zone it can patrol on the Lebanese side of the border.

1985 Jonathan Pollard, a civilian naval intelligence analyst from an American Jewish family is arrested after three years of spying for Israel. He has acquired for Israel many thousands of pages of sensitive intelligence — estimated to be as much as 6 cubic feet of records. In 1986, he is sentenced to prison for life, but there is a substantial effort by the American-Zionist community since then to obtain his release and give him sanctuary in Israel.

Led by Abu Abbas, Palestinian terrorists seize the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and shoot and throw overboard a 69-year old Jewish passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, who is confined in a wheelchair. The excuse for doing this is that he has been trying to incite other passengers against the terrorists. The other 15 passengers are freed unharmed.

1987 In December, Palestine’s so-called “First Intifada” (uprising) erupts in the occupied territory and continues until March 1993, six years later. Its activities include civil disobedience, strikes, boycotts, graffiti, and, most effectively, stone throwing by teenagers. The kill ratio for this period has been estimated in the range of 7-1, with 1,162 Palestinians (including 241 children under 16 years of age) killed by the Israelis and 162 Israelis killed by Palestinians.

The militant Palestinian organizations Hamas and Islamic Jihad take root and quickly gain popularity in providing leadership for the Intifada. The Palestinian Jihad has been formed in the Gaza Strip during the early 1970s as a militant branch of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Like Hezbollah, Hamas provides social services additional to military protection. Its founder, Ahmed Yassin, has had a checkered life. During the seventies and early eighties, Israel’s government tolerates him as a devout Islamic leader hostile to the secular agenda of the PLO. In 1984, he is sent to prison for a minor offense, then released in 1985, and in 1987, possibly with help and support of the Israeli government, he creates Hamas as an Islamist movement competitive with the Fatah. However, when the Hamas charter is drafted, calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, Israel outlaws the organization and once again imprisons Yassin in 1989, this time with a life sentence.

1990-92 Serving as Israel’s Minister of Housing, Sharon gives the highest priority to the creating of Jewish settlements in the west bank in order to enlarge Israel’s control of the territory, if not its total ownership. Sharon’s emphasis on the creation of settlements continues in 1996 when he becomes Minister of National Infrastructure, and it becomes a top priority in 1999 when he assumes leadership of the Likud Party.

1991 The three-day Madrid Peace Conference is held including Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Russians, and representatives of the border states. This conference initiates the diplomatic effort to forge a peace treaty that might finally reconcile the differences between the Israeli and Palestinians.

1993 In April 1993, Palestinian militants begin resorting to the use of suicide bombers. By March 2004, slightly more than a decade later, 139 suicidal attacks occur against Israeli targets, accounting for 474 of 918 Israeli deaths, roughly half the total, though the suicide bombers account for only 1% of the total number of attacks. Over this decade, 46 percent of the attacks by suicide bombers are carried out by Hamas, 29 percent by the Islamic Jihad, 22 percent by Fatah.

Signed in Washington, D.C. on September 13, the Oslo Peace Agreement culminates with an agreement between Israel and the PLO for mutual recognition and a five-year plan to resolve all remaining differences according to guidelines already established. Unfortunately, the Agreement is never carried out. The expansion of Israeli settlements soon increases to five times its earlier rate and hostilities persist. 405 Palestinians are killed as opposed to 256 Israelis in the five years that follow.

1995 Israel’s Prime Minister Rabin is assassinated by an Israeli right-wing fanatic opposed to any compromise with Palestinians.

1996 Arafat wins presidential elections in January and conflict intensifies with Israel. Israel manages to assassinate Yahya Ayyash, who has perfected the use of the suicide bomb, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad retaliate with new bombings through February and March.

In April, Israeli army bombards South Lebanon in response to Katyusha rocket attacks. Its shelling of Qana on April 18 kills 106 Lebanese civilians who have taken refuge in a UN compound to escape the fighting. Israeli apologists argue that Hezbollah troops have been located as close as possible to this site, so the hits were accidental, but a later UN investigation indicates that the shelling was intentional. In 2006, ten years later, a single three-story building is destroyed in the same Lebanese town, killing 28 civilians, half of them children.

1997 In January, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu agrees to withdraw from four-fifths of Hebron, retaining a corridor of Israeli-held territory to give access to 500 settlers in the center of the city. The following month he initiates construction of a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem, provoking riots and international criticism.

Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas, is released from prison and exiled to Jordan. However, he is permitted to return to Israel as one of Israel’s concessions to Jordan in a brokered deal. This becomes possible after a botched attempt by Mossad, the Israeli secret service, to assassinate Khalid Mishal, the de facto leader of Hamas, by having a Mossad agent disguised as a Canadian spray poison in his ear while standing outside his house.

2000 President Clinton convenes the Camp David Summit to obtain a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine. This time negotiations are held between Arafat of the PLO and Israel’s Prime Minister Barak. Despite intense effort by Clinton, the summit turns out to be unsuccessful. Subsequently, scrutiny of the terms offered by Barak discloses such demands as the lack of full sovereignty in East Jerusalem for the Palestinians, the absence of control over borders, air space, and water resources, the retention of some Israeli settlements, and Israel’s continuing control over a wedge-shaped territory from Jerusalem to the Jordan River Valley, dividing Palestinian territory into two or three “cantons” isolated from each other.

Ariel Sharon visits the Palestinian zone of the Temple Mount surrounded by more than 1,000 Israeli police. This sets the stage for Sharon’s election campaign to become Israel’s next Prime Minister, but it also intensifies hostilities between Palestinians and Israelis.

The Second Intifada begins in response to Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount, and it persists through 2007. Its primary cause seems to be Arab dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Palestinians once again resort to suicide bombings, most notably of a crowded bus in Jerusalem on August 19, 2003, killing 23 Israelis, including 7 children. The overall kill ratio is nevertheless more than 4-1, with 4,300 Palestinians killed as opposed to 1,000 Israeli.

Negotiations between Israel and Palestinians shift to a new site, Taba, on the coast of Egypt, and many new compromises are forged, for the first time making an acceptable resolution seem possible. However, Barak ceases participating in the talks because they obviously stir a public reaction supportive of Sharon’s election campaign in Israel.

2001 George W. Bush becomes President of the United States, and just a couple weeks later Ariel Sharon becomes Israel’s Prime Minister after having won a 62% landslide victory as opposed to 37% support for Barak. Sharon does not bother to resume Taba peace negotiations (he actually says in a radio interview that he appreciates their accomplishment but feels more can be obtained from the situation before imposing a final settlement). His intention to resume hostilities against Palestinians is signaled by an unprovoked air strike of Israeli helicopter gunships against a vehicle containing Massoud Ayyad, a major in a Palestinian security service.

On March 16, for the second time in three months, Palestinians press the UN Security Council to send troops into the occupied territories in order to keep the peace between Israeli and Palestinian combatants. The U.S. lobbies heavily against this resolution, and the 9 votes needed for its passage by the 15 member Council cannot be mustered.

Bush makes it plain that unlike previous U.S. administrations he intends not to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in the expansion of foreign aid to Israel. He also brings many neoconservatives into his foreign policy establishment, including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Abram Shulsky, and David Wurmser. All of these are dedicated to close ties between Israel and the U.S. on the assumption that Israel is our nation’s closest ally in the Near East.

On September 11, al-Qaeda terrorists attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing 3,000 Americans. The FBI captures five Zionists led by Sivan Kurzberg, who have been seen doing high-fives and photographing the burning World Trade Center buildings at the edge of a New Jersey highway on the other side of the Hudson River. When accosted by police officers, Kurzberg exclaims, “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.” All five are held in custody for 71 days before being returned to Israel. Each is found to have two passports, Israeli and European, and two of them can be identified as Mossad agents. Their vehicle has been obtained from a front business for Mossad in New York City, whose owner, Dominick Suter, takes flight to Israel just a day or two after 9-11, suggesting the likelihood that Israeli intelligence has been aware of the attack before it was planned, letting it happen in order to increase U.S. support for Israel.

In his October 7 public statement on TV, Osama bin Laden features Palestinians among the Arab victims of western nations he claims to have revenged by means of the 9-11 operation: “As I speak, Israeli tanks and bulldozers are going in and wreaking havoc and sin in Palestine — in Jenin, in Ramallah, in Rafah, in Beit Jala — and other parts of the domain of Islam, and we do not hear anyone protesting or even lifting a finger to stop it. But when after eighty years the sword comes down on America [the 9-11 attack], the hypocrites rise up to lament these killers who have scorned the blood, honor, and holy places of Muslims.” [Messages to the World, ed. by Bruce Lawrence, p. 104].

Hostilities mount between Palestinians and the Israeli army in the Occupied Palestinian Territory on the West Bank. Palestinian suicide bombers resume their activities, and in December Israeli troops react by besieging Chairman Arafat’s Ramallah compound with troops and tanks. Isolated in his headquarters, Arafat remains unhurt, but an Israeli sniper kills a Palestinian security officer standing in his dining room through a window. Israeli troops destroy all other buildings and offices in the compound, and Sadat remains a virtual prisoner surrounded by rubble until his death three years later.

2002 An Arab League summit meeting endorses a Saudi Peace Plan. Largely based on earlier negotiations at Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, and Taba, the Saudi plan guarantees full trade and diplomatic acceptance of all Muslim states in the region in exchange for Israel’s compliance with UN Resolution 242 toward the restoration of the pre-1967 border between Israel and adjacent territories with minor adjustments. Both Israel and the U.S. ignore the proposal.

Israel begins building a Security Fence (otherwise described as a separation barrier or wall) that separates Israel from the West Bank. As much as 8 meters high and with a 60 meter exclusion zone at its edge, it is scheduled to be completed by 2010 more or less along the 1949 “Green Line.” It turns out to reduce Palestinian attacks on Israeli citizens by from 70 to 85 percent, but its construction also enlarges Israeli territory wherever this is found convenient, often by separating Palestinian farmers from their crops and hampering Palestinians in their travel on the traditional roads.

In early April Israeli troops attack the town of Jenin for having been a hotbed of terrorism. Israeli sources claim that not more than 50 Palestinians have been killed, but according to Palestinian sources the conflict has been a massacre (described as the Massacre of Jenin), in which more than 500 Palestinians have been killed, then either buried by bulldozers or trucked away to be disposed of elsewhere.

On July 22, a missile strike by an Israeli F-16 scuttles a proposed Palestinian cease fire by killing Sheikh Salah Shehadeh as well as 20 others including 13 children. The leader of the military wing of Hamas, Shehadeh has been held responsible by Israeli authorities for hundreds of terrorist attacks within the previous two years.

2003 On March 16, the 23-year old peace activist Rachel Corrie is killed by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to block it from destroying a Palestinian home on the Gaza strip. Her notebooks are later compiled to write a controversial play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, which is successful in London, New York City, and wherever else the pro-Zionist effort to suppress it can be surmounted.

On March 19, the U.S. launches its invasion of Iraq without the support of the Security Council as specified by Article 42 of the UN Charter. The Bush administration tries to justify the invasion with the argument that Iraq is trying to develop the atomic bomb and gas and chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that Saddam Hussein has close ties with al Qaeda. The real reasons probably involve taking control of Iraq’s huge oil reserves and, perhaps most important of all, the effort to eliminate Iraq as a potential military threat to Israel. With convincing documentation, Mearsheimer and Walt emphasize the latter as having been the single most compelling reason [pp. 229-53]. Israeli public figures such as Avineri, Barak and Netanyahu actually publish editorials in the U.S. press advocating the invasion, as do American neoconservatives such as Krautheimer, Zuckerman, David Saperstein, Gary Rosenblatt, and Michelle Goldberg. Other neoconservatives such as Abram Shulsky, Michael Rubin, David Schenker, and Michael Makovsky serve on the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Apparently their purpose is to help justify the invasion by processing the misinformation provided by Chalabi, others of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), and the notorious liar “Curve Ball” in order to enhance its credibility with the State Department, the White House, and various international bodies, most notably the UN.

On April 30, the U.S. State Department announces the agreement of the Quartet Group (the United States, United Nations, European Union, and Russia) to promote a three-stage Road Map toward a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. As emphasized by England’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, the elimination of Iraq as a military threat to Israel would finally justify the pursuit of a genuine final solution to hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians. Once again, Palestinians pledge full support, but Israel rejects key points. Sharon later undercuts the Road Map by proposing his own strategy of Unilateral Disengagement.

On May 1, one day after the Road Map has been proposed, Israeli troops surround the home of Yusef Abu Ghin, a top Hamas leader, and in an extended exchange of gunfire with air support by helicopters they kill him, his two brothers, and ten others including two children. This is supposedly done in response to earlier rocket attacks from Gaza as well as three Israeli killed the day before at a bar in Tel Aviv. However, its significance as a hostile response to the Road Map cannot be ignored. Earlier, Israeli troops ambush and kill Riyad Abu Zayd, a senior leader of Hamas, and one week later, on May 8, an Israeli attack helicopter kills another top Hamas leader, Eyad Al Beik,

On June 2, President Bush attends an Arab summit meeting in Cairo and consults with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas among others about the possibility of a peace settlement. Shortly after Bush’s return to the U.S., Israel assassinates seven Hamas leaders over a period of five days. The first of these, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of the founders of Hamas, fails, but the significance of the attempt relevant to Bush’s diplomatic gesture is obvious to all.

2004 On March 22, an Israeli helicopter gunship assassinates Sheikh Ahmedd Yassin, the co-founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, along with six worshipers while they leave a mosque after early morning prayer. Yassin is 68 years old, a blind paraplegic who has been confined to a wheelchair since he was 12 years old. He is replaced by his co-founder, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who is in turn assassinated by a helicopter attack on April 17.

Arafat dies on November 11.

2005 On January 9, Abbas is elected the new president of the Palestinian Authority with 62 percent of the vote. His primary agenda is to end violence and work toward a peaceful settlement. Hamas boycotts the election, and on January 12 it launches an attack killing one Israeli. On January 13, it launches a suicide attack killing another 6 Israelis. Sharon himself refuses to negotiate with Abbas, making it impossible for him to take credit for any benefits to the Palestinian people. The Bush administration pays lip service to Abbas, but without taking any steps supportive of his peace efforts.

On January 23, Abbas is able to announce that Hamas and Islamic Jihad agree upon the imposition of a 30-day ceasefire, but nothing comes of it. On April 9, he complains to Israel about the gratuitous killing of three Palestinian boys playing soccer.

During a February 8 conference with Sharon, Abbas proclaims a formal end of fighting with Israel. However, Israeli and Palestinian militants still engage in skirmishes. On June 21, Israeli forces round up dozens of suspected West Bank militants, and on July 15 Israeli helicopters attack Gaza, killing four Palestinians after a Palestinian rocket attack on Israel killing one. The Israeli counterattack provokes fighting between militants and Palestinian police about the most appropriate response to Israeli aggression.

From August 17 to 24, Israeli troops force the evacuation of Jews from Gaza as obliged by Sharon’s strategy of Unilateral Disengagement despite the desperate resistance of Jewish settlers heavily publicized by the U.S. press. Israel also withdraws its troops from Gaza and partially terminates its control except for airspace, borders and ports. However, it does nothing else in compliance with the Road Map as earlier promised beyond dismantling four of its settlements from the West Bank.

On Sept. 26, Israel resumes missile attacks on Gaza in response to rocket fire from Palestinian militants. The next day Palestinian militants announce their renewed commitment to a truce, but Israel launches several air raids that knock out electricity in Gaza City, and it initiates cross-border raids to halt rocket attacks. Hostilities resume on the same scale as before.

In summer, 2005, Larry Franklin, a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, who works in Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), is arrested by the FBI in a Washington restaurant while in the act of passing classified information to two officials of AIPAC (the Israel Public Affairs Committee), Steve Rosen, its foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its top Iranian specialist. These prominent American Zionists apparently intend to send this sensitive intelligence about Iran to Israeli intelligence. Eighty-three other such documents have been found in Franklin’s possession, apparently for the same purpose. It seems, however, that Franklin has already been caught and is cooperating with the FBI in a sting operation at the expense of Rosen and Weissman. Many other agents and government employees also seem involved in the case, including Michael Ledeen and David Satterfield, the second ranking Middle East officer in the State Department as well as Douglas Feith and Richard Perle. Unfortunately, CBS’s public disclosure of the arrest thwarts further investigation, and the story is forgotten as soon as possible by the U.S. press.

2006 On January 5, Sharon suffers a massive stroke and remains comatose through the end of 2007. Ehud Olmert becomes acting Prime Minister, and after 100 days, on April 16, 2006, becomes Interim Prime Minister.

On January 25, Palestinians hold their first parliamentary election in a decade. Despite millions of dollars spent on the election by the U.S. government, Hamas gains a surprise victory over Fatah, taking 76 of 132 seats by campaigning on the twin issues of security and corruption. Ismail Haniya becomes the new Prime Minister.

Hamas declares a unilateral cease-fire with Israel and calls for a temporary truce. It also advocates the establishment of an independent state with its capital in Jerusalem and offers a 10-year truce in exchange for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territories. In response, however, Israel continues to denounce Hamas as a terrorist group and demands that it renounce armed resistance and recognize the full sovereignty of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel also confiscates Palestinian tax revenues and, along with the U.S. and UK, imposes an embargo on Gaza and the West Bank. Hostilities intensify and 29 Palestinians are killed in February.

Thirty-one Palestinians are killed in April, 42 are killed in May, and 34 in the first two weeks of June. On June 8, Jamal Abu Samahadana, the general director of the Palestinian Ministry of Interior, is assassinated despite (or perhaps because of) his ability and willingness to serve in the negotiation of a ceasefire with Israel.

On June 9, Israeli artillery makes a direct hit on a Gaza beach party far from any significant military target, killing eight Palestinian bathers, all of them members of the Ghalia family. A day later, Hamas withdraws from its official cease fire, and initiates Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. On June 13, the Israeli air force thereupon escalates the conflict by attacking Gaza City.

On June 24, for the first time since their 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, Israeli commandos break into a house in Gaza and take into custody two brothers, Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, as suspected terrorists. In retaliation Palestinian militants attack an Israeli defense post the next day. Two Palestinians and two Israeli troops are killed in the gunfire, and a third Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, is captured and brought back to Gaza to be held in captivity (Hamas’s single prisoner of war, as opposed to approximately 10,000 POWs held by Israel). The western press focuses on the kidnapping of Shalit, totally ignoring the kidnapping of two Palestinian students just the day before.

On June 28, Israel launches Operation Summer Rains, an attack on Gaza to secure the release of Shalit. Israeli aircraft destroy several bridges and bomb a power station, cutting off electricity to more than half of Gaza’s 1.4 million residents. On June 29, Israeli forces arrest 64 Hamas officials, including eight Palestinian Authority cabinet ministers and up to twenty Legislative Council representatives. On June 30, the Israeli army begins to bombard Gaza more fully with missiles, air strikes, and naval gunfire. More kidnappings and killings follow on both sides. At least 50 Palestinians are killed in the operation as opposed to one Israeli soldier.

On July 12, Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon who are sympathetic with Hamas create a second front with Israel by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others in an operation on the border between Israel and Lebanon. In an immediate counterattack generally recognized to have been planned beforehand on a contingency basis, Israeli planes destroy much of Lebanon’s infrastructure (roads, bridges, electric power plants, etc.). They also saturate populated areas with a variety of bombs, including cluster bombs, despite restrictions imposed by the U.S. to prevent their use in populated areas. Cluster bombs are also dropped in great numbers within seventy-two hours before the ceasefire. More than a million bomblets are dispersed, and a significant number of them remain unexploded, easily detonated by accidental contact. By the end of 2007, eighteen months after hostilities have ended, more than 30 Lebanese have been killed by them.

Over 900 Lebanese are killed during the two-war as opposed to 36 Israeli soldiers and 18 Israeli civilians, the latter by means of rocket attacks across the border. In all, the kill ratio is between 18-1 and 20-1. Despite its disproportionate losses, Hezbollah is conceded to have conducted effective tactics and is considered the victor simply by having avoided defeat at the hands of the Israeli.

In late summer, Olmert abandons unilateral disengagement, arguing that it would be more effective to pursue a two-state solution through negotiations.

On November 1, a large force of Israeli tanks and troops invade the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun in retaliation for a single Israeli woman killed by a rocket attack. Hundreds of men are rounded up and imprisoned in Israel. Israeli troops occupy the town until November 7, and their heavy shelling the following day kills 18 Palestinians. Thirteen are from the same family, 6 of them children. Altogether perhaps 350 residents of Beit Hanoun are killed, and virtually every house is destroyed.

On December 16, Abbas calls for new legislative elections to end the parliamentary stalemate between Fatah and Hamas in forming a national unity government.

2007 On February 8, Hamas and Fatah agree to end their factional warfare that has led to the deaths of nearly 200 Palestinians. They form a coalition with the expectation that this step might encourage western powers to lift sanctions imposed on the Hamas-led government.

On March 17, a Palestinian National Unity Government is created combining Hamas and Fatah under the leadership of Haniyeh as the Hamas Prime Minister additional to the authority of Abbas as the Fatah President.

On March 29, the Riyadh Summit for the Arab League reissues its 2002 peace plan that couples Israel’s withdrawal from all territory occupied in the 1967 war with open trade relations and full recognition of Israel by all 22 members of the League. A just settlement for Palestinian refugees who seek a “right to return” is also called for but without imposing any specific demands. Olmert does not take interest in the plan, and specifically rejects the right to return for 3.7 million refugees who live in surrounding Arab nations.

The Battle of Gaza. Between June 7 and June 15 fighting occurs between Hamas and Fatah that results in Hamas winning control of the Gaza Strip. At least 116 are killed. On June 14 Abbas fires Haniya as the Prime Minister and dissolves the unity government formed only three months earlier. Palestinian territory divides into two separate entities–the government of Gaza led by Hamas and the government of the West Bank led by the Palestinian National authority. Abbas remains president of the West Bank and appoints Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister.

On June 18, Israel, the U.S., and EU resume their support to the West Bank under the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority and resume direct aid. Israel announces it will release $562 in tax revenue for this purpose, and the U.S. similarly promises to release tens of billions of dollars it has withheld since the election three months earlier. On June 19, Fatah cuts off all ties with Hamas pending the return of Gaza under the authority of the Palestinian unity government.

The Siege of Gaza. Once the Fatah has fled Gaza, Israel imposes severe restrictions that amount to a siege. Once again it demands that Hamas recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish nation, thus by implication reducing Arab inhabitants to second-class citizenship. Hamas refuses, and by October only one crossing (Karem Shalom) is open. Fishermen cannot leave the harbor. The supply of diesel fuel drops by 47 percent, and the amount of goods supplied from Israel decreases by 71%, from an average of 253 truckloads per day in April to an average of 74 in October. Food is running out, and the supply of electricity has been reduced by half, preventing water and sewage from being processed at acceptable levels. Per capita income has decreased by 40 percent over the last three years, and the poverty rate has reached 70 percent. There is insufficient medicine and hospitals are overflowing, a hardship worsened by continuing casualties, mostly from Israeli air and artillery strikes. On the average eight Palestinians are now estimated to be killed daily by these attacks.

The West Bank is not much better off. There continue to be 133 Israeli settlements almost all of which are illegal according to UN Security Council Resolution 242. Meanwhile, travel among Palestinian towns is impeded by 562 military checkpoints and an additional 610 “flying checkpoints.” The Israelis destroy Palestinian orchards and substantially reduce the water supply. On average, Palestinians are allowed to use no more than 50 cubic meters of water per year, while an occupant of an illegal settlement can use up to 2,400 cubic meters, almost fifty times as much. Palestinians also pay double the price for water as well as electricity. All in all, Israel takes possession of 800 million cubic meters of water out of 936 million cubic meters available to the West Bank. Moreover, the depth of Palestinian wells is limited, permitting Israeli wells to remove water at deeper levels. As an additional aggravation, the Palestinian government must transfer its tax income to Israel for its determination as to what can be spent on such services as health and education.

On November 27, a hastily convened Annapolis Conference is held so delegates from 40 nations can listen while President Bush declares that negotiations will be conducted for up to a full year in order to settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute once and for all under the exclusive sponsorship of the U.S. government. Abbas and Olmert are both present, but conspicuously uninvited are representatives of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the state of Iran. Conveniently, deliberations would end just after the November, 2008, election, thus neutralizing the stigma of failure for the Bush administration if nothing comes of the effort once again. Also expedient is the limitation of sponsorship to the U.S. alone, replacing the Quartet Group that also includes the U.N., E.U., and Russia.

On November 28, a day after the Annapolis Conference, Israeli troops accompanied by approximately a dozen tanks invade southern Gaza, penetrating about two miles and killing at least 6 Palestinians. The signal seems plain that Israel is only willing to negotiate with Abbas, of the Palestinian National Authority, and will continue to deal with Hamas and the Gaza population as enemies. Israel’s announcement just days after the conference that a couple hundred new homes are soon to be added to one particular west bank settlement can also be interpreted as a willful limitation of the agreement from the very beginning, in this instance relevant to the West Bank.

2008 On January 8, President Bush arrives in Israel to spend two days in separate conferences with both Abbas and Olmert in order initiate negotiations toward a diplomatic settlement, supposedly one of his top priorities in the final year of his presidency. Bush offers extravagant financial incentives to both the Israeli and the Abbas governments: a $30 billion package of military aid to Israel over the next decade plus a $400 milllion package to the Palestinians for a variety of social programs.

On January 15, negotiations begin as requested by Bush, but before dawn the very next morning the Israeli army enters the Gaza strip to launch an unprovoked “routine operation” in which at least 18 Palestinians are killed, including Hussam Zahar, son of Mahmoud Zahar, a senior leader of Hamas. Hussam is apparently killed by an air strike while driving his vehicle toward the conflict. Palestinians quickly initiate a rocket attack in response to this raid, killing a foreign laborer on an Israeli kibbutz. The entire story of the Jan. 16 attack, buried on p. 8 in the next day’s issue of The New York Times, effectively obscures the sequence of events, thus minimizing Israel’s responsibility for the attack. The article ends with an Israeli spokesperson’s suggestion that the operation has been justified as a means of preventing future such “tragedies” as the death of the foreign laborer by rocket fire. The broader relevance of the attack to the prospect of successful peace negotiations is totally ignored. The reader has no way to determine whether Bush has already given the go-ahead for the operation in confirming his peace strategy to the exclusion of Gaza or the Olmert government has launched the attack to dramatize once again its insistence on the omission of Gaza.

By January16, it is obvious that sustained rocket fire has resumed between Israel and Gaza resulting from the January 15 attack. Over the next couple of days as many as 40 Palestinians are killed by bombs and rocket fire, compared to the single farm laborer killed on January 15. In fact, as disclosed in a NYT story the next day, only 13 Israeli have been killed by Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza since 2001, seven years earlier, an insignificant number compared to the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli for this period of time.

On January 18, Israel closes all border crossings to Gaza, totally sealing its one and a half million residents from access to all necessities beyond those they themselves can provide. This radical measure is repeatedly justified in the media, even on the floor of the U.N., as a necessary step to terminate rocket fire from Gaza and force Hamas to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

On January 22, Hamas destroys the wall constructed by Israel to separate Gaza from Egypt at the Rafah crossing, and as many as 350,000 Gaza resident (a fifth of its total population) flood into Egyptian territory within the next two days, desperate for food, fuel, medical supplies, and other necessities. Both Israel and the U.S. demand that Egypt restore the border, thus sustaining the siege. As quoted by the NYT, Olmert has the audacity to declare, “As far as I’m concerned, the residents of Gaza can walk if they don’t have gasoline for their cars, because they have a murderous terrorist regime that won’t let people in the south of Israel live in safety.” But a day later Israel promises to open the border crossings. As the Zionist spokesperson Sari Bashi explains in the January 28 NYT, “This is part of a stop-start game that continually pushes Gazan residents to the brink, pushing them over, then pulling back temporarily… For the last seven months, Israel has been slowly reducing Gaza residents to desperation.”

And what do Israeli strategists now emphasize in addition to the avoidance of negotiations? As perhaps to be expected, their primary concern has shifted to the nuclear threat posed by Iran now that Iraq has been demolished as a potential enemy. Just as Israel’s insistence on a nuclear threat helped to initiate the 2003 invasion of Iraq, its similar concern about Iran focuses on the need for an air attack regardless of whether it might generate a full-scale escalation of warfare in the region. Zionists repeatedly demand such an attack despite no less repeated assurances by Mohammed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that Iran has no active program today to develop an atomic bomb. Prime Minister Olmert himself actually warns before a joint session of U.S. Congress on May 24, 2006, of the future crisis in the region if and when Iran possesses the atomic bomb. AIPAC lobbyists continue to press this argument with members of Congress, and Israeli officials warn that they might take preemptive action themselves if the U.S. does not launch the needed attack on Iran.

On December 3, a New York Times front-page article discloses that the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, is in agreement that Iran very probably suspended its nuclear weapons program as early as 2003, four years ago, and that it cannot produce enough uranium for an atomic bomb until 2010 at the earliest. This conclusion is heatedly denied by Zionist intelligence experts as well as journalists friendly to Israel, for example Thomas Friedman in his December 12 New York Times column. In an apparently hasty meeting brought about in Israel on December 10, a week after the NIE disclosure, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak tells Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Israeli intelligence indicates Iran probably resumed its effort to produce an atom bomb in 2005 and continues to enrich uranium to such an extent that this might be possible earlier than 2010. As reported in The New York Times, Mullen expresses his sympathy with Israel’s concerns, so a military venture might still be launched against Iran in the near future. As a perhaps useful precedent, Israel’s September 6, 2007, air attack on a potential nuclear facility in Syria has provoked little outrage in the international community. So perhaps a similar strike can still be launched against Iran within the next year or so.

* * * * * * *

Over the past sixty years, Israel has played a dominant role in the Near East thanks to the collaborative support of a news media able and willing to give voice to its non-stop shibboleth of victimization. Unfortunately, the cost has been too high for everybody involved. Most obviously, Palestinians have been racked by their ordeal, perhaps never to recover their full potential as a modern self-sufficient society. Likewise, Israel’s various frontier nations have been beset with numerous problems that would undoubtedly have been easier to cope with without having been dragged into the recurring Israeli-Palestinian hostilities. And of course the United States has paid an enormous price both in subsidizing this endless battle and in having antagonized an entire Muslim population stretching from Casablanca to Bali. Some of the world’s most productive oil fields are located across this region, and many of our nation’s difficulties with its oil supply can be traced to the lack of a consistent foreign policy because of its connection with Israel. Zionist apologists repeatedly emphasize the harmony and interdependence between Israel and the United States, but the relationship has been far more lopsided, dare one suggest parasitic.

In the long run, the biggest loser is Israel itself. Granted, its population has shaken off its history of ghetto survival preceding World War II, but only to create a new and bigger version of ghetto existence as a small nation with a very uncertain future, given the mounting animosity of most other nations in the region. Moreover, having served as scapegoats for Nazis resentful of Germany’s defeat in World War I, Israeli Zionists have victimized Palestinians to redress their own history of grievances, thereby intensifying their isolation that much further among nearby countries flooded with Palestinian refugees. As already indicated, most Americans continue to support Israel’s agenda, but few others do elsewhere in the world. The Israeli government is even beginning to antagonize the most enlightened segment of its public as well as concerned Americans including a large minority of secularized Jews who keep abreast with what is going on beyond the predictable story line promoted by Zionists. So the nightmarish aspect of ghetto existence persists after decades of conflict, and as much through choice as necessity. The question is how such a gifted population can extricate itself from its present role with the least damage to everybody involved.


Mearsheimer, John, and Stephen Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007). Already the standard reference upon Israel’s control of American foreign policy.

Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (Simon & Schuster, 2006). A lucid summary of the current situation based on personal experience.

La Guardia, Anton. War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land (Thomas Dunne Books, 2001). A pro-Israeli summary of events up until the book’s publication. Its 11-page bibliography includes none of the texts included in this bibliography.

Finkelstein, Norman. The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (Verso, 2000).

Ball, George, and Douglas Ball. The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present (W.W. Norton, 1992). Really excellent, written by an experienced diplomat fed up by the lies and distortions.

Cockburn, Andrew and Leslie. Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the US-Israeli Covert Relationship (HarperCollins, 1991). Emphasizes the link between the CIA and Mossad (its Israeli equivalent).

Hersh, Seymour. The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (Random House, 1991). Explores the origins of Israel’s atomic program resulting from U.S. foreign policy.

Fisk, Robert. Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon (Atheneum, 1990).

Ostrovsky, Victor, and Claire Hoy. By Way of Deception (St. Martin’s Press, 1990). Confessions of a Mosssad agent.

Neff, Donald. Warriors against Israel: How Israel Won the Battle to Become America’s Ally 1973 (Amana Books, 1988).

Geoffrey Aronson. Israel, Palestinians and the Intifada (Kegan Paul, 1987). How Harsh Israeli policies led to the Palestinian resistance.

Findley, Paul. They Dare to Speak Out (Lawrence Hill, 1985). The stories of U.S. politicians driven out of politics by Zionist pressure because of their refusal to go along with its demands.

Neff, Donald. Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (Linden Press, 1984). A thorough summary of the 1967 war.

Chomsky, Noam. The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (South End Press, 1983). An early but thorough assessment of the Israeli conflict.

Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: A Reappraisal (Lawrence Hill, 1983). A highly controversial study of the relations between Zionism and Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

Timerman, Jacobo. The Longest War: Israel in Lebanon (Knopf, 1982). An account of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon that lays most of the blame on Israel.

Neff, Donald. Warriors at Suez: Eisenhower Takes America into the Middle East (Linden Press, 1981). A full account of the 1956 Suez crisis.

The intense anti-Semitism in currency at the beginning of the twentieth century is best exemplified by J. Cameron and Henry Ford’s series of articles published between 1919 and 1927 in The Dearborn Independent and later compiled under the title, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Hitler’s early hostility to Jews is plain in vol. 1, chap. 11 of Mein Kampf, and he expresses his later views in passim. in Hitler’s Table Talk, ed. by Hugh Trevor-Roper. The most interesting defense of anti-semitism on an historic basis is to be found in Houston Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1911), vol 1, Division 2, chap. 5 — one of Hitler’s favorite books.

Useful website chronologies that are critical of Israel include:

(1) palestinehistory.com,

(2) “Who Invented Modern Day Terrorism”

(3) “Encyclopedia of the Palestinian Problem,” by Issla Nakhleh

Livia Rokach’s book, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, with an introduction by Noam Chomsky (Association of Arab-American Graduates, 1980, 1982, 1986), is also available on the Internet in its entirety.

Names and dates are emphasized as much as possible to simplify the use of popular search engines such as Google, and websites such as Wikipedia to submit the data presented here to further investigation.

Edward Jayne is a retired English professor with experience as a '60s activist. He can be contacted at: edward.jayne@wmich.edu. Visit his website at: www.edwardjayne.com. Copyright © 2008 by Edward Jayne Read other articles by Edward, or visit Edward's website.

60 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. lance watson said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:41am #

    I find it curious that there is no reference to The Hidden History of Zionism, Veritas Press, Santa Barbara (Calif.) 1988.
    Copyright (c) 1988 by Ralph Schoenman
    All Rights Reserved
    The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman is presented online for personal use only.
    No portions of this book may be reprinted, reposted or published without written permission from the author.

  2. Maien said on January 29th, 2008 at 10:44am #

    Question: My understanding is that Ashkenazi Jewish people did not settle anywhere… but were a created/converted community satisfying the political needs of the time in ‘Rhineland’, situated between a Muslim nation and a Christian nation. This particular Jewish group were not Semites but rather Europeans. It is from this group that Zionism began.
    This becomes significant as the racist demands of these european colonists …. are difficult to hide.

    I beleive that for readers to have a more honest history and understanding of this movement, they must be exposed to the deep involvement and influence that this group maintained in Russia and then in Germany. Their success laid the groundwork for the current situation.

    It is heartening to learn that many who subscribe to the Jewish faith, have also understood ‘Zionism’ and do not wish to be included in its’ aims and aspirations.

    This article represents a good introduction to begin learning. Readers do need to look further, for significant history which was not addressed in this article.

  3. Michael Kenny said on January 29th, 2008 at 3:57pm #

    Very interesting and well-written article. The crucial point to remember is that the behaviour of the modern Israelis and, indeed, of Jews in general in regard to Israel, is, if you will, a psychological perversion caused by their unhappy experience in Europe. That explains the sense of victimisation, the ghetto mentality, with its emphasis on mutual protection, and the paranoiac over-reaction to, and frantic lashing out at, perceived (but often merely imaginary) enemies.

    But the start of the spiral was the European experience: the delusion, the blunder, the misapprehension, the disaster and the conundrum. In the beginning was the delusion: the Jewish master race delusion. Mr Jayne says it better than I: “the plenitude of Jewish contributions to modern civilization”, “Jews excelling in virtually every calling they entered”, “such a gifted population”. Sounds arrogant, doesn’t it? Even racist! Very odd to see any people on God’s green earth being so described (and so unselfconsciously!) in 2008!

    That led to the blunder: the Jews should never have put a foot inside Europe! Here in Europe, tribe and territory go together. The Jews were a tribe with no territory. Those who wished to preserve their Jewish identity were condemned to be permanent interlopers on someone else’s land. For that reason, the masses hated them. So the Jews acquired wealth and used it to “buy” protection from the mighty, making the masses hate them even more and setting up a vicious circle.

    The came the misapprehension. The European Jews saw their emergence from the shadows in the 19th century and the prosperity of some of their number as signs of acceptance. That misapprehension was in fact their undoing. European do not like “outsiders” but the one thing dislike even more than outsiders is rich outsiders! Their success was thus the cause of their downfall. Every time a Jew signed a cheque, he was, potentially, signing his own death warrant!

    Hence, the disaster. The Holocaust was not an inexplicable aberration. It was a disaster waiting to happen. It happened when it did because the whole of Europe blamed the Jews, whether rightly or wrongly, for WWI. It happened in Germany because the peace imposed on it at Versailles (itself a consequence of US intervention in the war, but that’s another story!) was particularly harsh and unfair. The Jews were trapped in Europe because practically nobody would give them visas (not even the US!). Frustrated by their inability to get rid of the Jews, the Nazis ended up killing them.

    And the disaster aggravated the conundrum. By coming to Europe, the Jews largely abandoned their homeland and that vacuum was filled by others, the modern Palestinians. Zionism is a “photograph” of European nationalism, freezing a moment in time which no longer exists. In 1896, people like the Palestinians quite simply didn’t count in European eyes, so Herzl just swept them under the carpet. The Zionists are still stuck in an 1896 time warp. Zionism reflects the mentality of people born 150 years ago! By 1948, it was too late to put it into practice.

    Thus, the modern Israelis are stuck with the conundrum. They have jumped out of the European frying pan and landed in the Middle Eastern fire. “Israel” is an impossible dream. An unreal and unworkable concept from the word go. But there is no going back to Europe!

  4. Paul Foer said on January 29th, 2008 at 4:35pm #

    Jewish master race delusion???? Jews should never have set foot in Europe? And then to say “the whole of Europe blamed the Jews, whether rightly or wrongly, for WWI.” Whether rightly or wrongly?

    What a bunch of anti-Jewish, hateful speech cloaked in pseudo analytical BS. You simply hate Jews. Jews should not be in Europe! Jews think they are the master race. Jews may have caused World War l. What?????

    Apparently you completely misunderstand everything about the Jew’s place in history. Think about this one. The Trotskys make the revolutions and the Bronsteins pay for them. (Maybe you did not know his real name was Lev Bronstein?) Your attitude gives the Jewish people absolutely no way to exist but you bend over backwards to cry about the poor Palestinians. Boo hoo. I am sorry this happened, but what do we do? Destroy Israel? If Arabs would simply accept the right of this tiny, oil-less state to exist, maybe we could solve this issue once and for all and deal with it as a border problem. Do you know nothing of the millions of Jews who lived as second class citizens in Arab countries for centuries? Do you know nothing about how they were expelled?

    I am not even sure I could carry on an in intelligent discussion with you … And then you wonder why many chose Zionism? It was the fully assimilated Herzl, a comfortable and educated journalist who having heard the calls to “Kill the Jews” in the wake of the Dreyfus trial who determined the need for Zionism–and he was not even intent on returning to the Holy Land.
    So, according to your world view, which is bizarrely Judeo-centric, Jews should not have been in Europe. They cannot assimilate and they cannot return to their ancestral homeland. Hmmmm…

    And then you play this stupid game that nobody knows the truth of this because Jews control the media. Give me a break!

    Perhaps you should read a bit more on this topic. May I suggest Telushkin and Prtager’s book “Why the Jews” and then perhaps Wistrich’s “Anti-Semitism.”

  5. bill rowe said on January 29th, 2008 at 5:02pm #

    Simply put,the Israelis stole and continue to steal Palestinian indigenous people’s land. There never has been, or is any legal or moral justification for this. The contiued support of the US and others for Israel undermines the very basis of International law,peace,and justice, ie respect for human dignity and rights.The very concept of a “Jewish” democratic state is by its very nature racist. Eventually the Israeli and US people will come to realize the undesirability of the zionist goal, and the abomination will collapse. When and how I cannot say.I hopw sonner rather than later.

  6. dan e said on January 29th, 2008 at 6:25pm #

    This is a very strange article. While the author makes numerous important points, and seems to generally intend to debunk the prevailing mythology, he unfortunately in many places accepts Zionist or “Zionism-serving” versions of events. Maybe he finds it necessary, as some suggest Walt/Mearsheimer found it, to lean over backwards not to be perceived as “anti-Semitic”; whatever the motivation, in several places he presents an off-balance picture slanted in favor of the Zionist Enterprise.

    His bibliography displays his limitations very clearly. One can’t quarrel to much with the selection of Walt/Mearsheimer’s Israel Lobby expose to head that category, then following with Carter’s book, but leaving out Jas Petras’ “The Power of Israel in the US” and Grant Smith’s “Foreign Agents” can only spring from a “Liberal” bias, either in what the author chooses to mention or one affecting his choice of information sources.

    On the positive side, he does cite Lenni Brenner’s “Zionism in the Age of…”, but labels it as “controversial”. Anything about Zionism is “controversial” to the Zionists and their US stooges, so what is he trying to convey by singling out Brenner? Why does he mention this early work, instead of Brenner’s “51 Instances of Nazi-Zionist Cooperation” which is more recent and probably more accessible to the general reader?

    The “chronology” should be useful to many new to these issues, but is full of questionable assumptions. Schoenman’s “Hidden History” cited in the comment above would restore a lot of balance, as would “Our Roots Are Still Alive” which should be obtainable from your local FPA representative. (If you don’t have an FPA rep in your locality, try asking the nearest Al Awda or ANSWER Coalition activist).
    Or compare with Rabbi Elmer Berger, Israel Shahak, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod.
    Any biblio covering the Israel Lobby should include Lee O’Brien’s “American Jewish Organizations and Israel”, which anticipates Walt/Mearsheimer by two decades in providing a clear look at the gorilla in the TV set.

    Professor Jaynes got off the track right at the beginning, in his description of the inception of the modern zionist movement, so far off that I started to assume this was just another piece of Zionoid flackery. Later of course I began to grasp the direction he was trying to go.
    Which contains much that is positive, but there’s too much that reminds me of Benny Morris and his ilk: Zionist progandists who try to get out from under the corniest “Exodus” version mythology, while salvaging the ultimate conclusions.
    For instance, it’s ludicrous to describe Zionism as “a response to European anti-Semitism” without mentioning that it was even more a response to the threat posed by the popularity of Socialism and Marxist ideology to Judaic religious ideology and the social position of the Rabbinate.
    Zionism has NEVER been about “saving the Jews” from oppression: it was and still is about establishing and perpetuating a state controlled by a certain class of Ideological Entrepreneurs who conceived a plan via which they could install themselves as a Ruling Class in control of a certain territory.
    Repeat: the priority has never been the welfare of Jews as such; the priority has always been and remains the establishment and perpetuation of a Settler-Colonialist Apartheid State, wherein a Zionist Elite could lord it over a population of persons defining themselves as Jewish, who would value the opportunity to lord it over a subject population of Natives more than they’d resent exploitation by said Elite.
    Prof. J. would be well advised to consult the writings of Israeli expatriate Gilad Atzmon for help if he wants to expound on the “psychology of Zionism” or/and the Ideological Hegemony of same among Israeli Jews. For US Jews, Dave Rovics and an old book by Hilton Obenzinger, “Neither This Year or the Next, I Will Never Be In Jerusalem”.
    Much more could be said, but my addiction to survival demands my focussed attn to other matters. I’ll check back, see who else has a cpl cents to put in on this one:)

  7. jaime said on January 29th, 2008 at 7:09pm #

    No, the article above IS Antisemitic enough.

    And of course, ends with a double oxymoron:

    “a large minority of secularized Jews”

    Just some more mutterings from another nutty Professor, I suppose. Academia is littered with clods like this.

    The fact is that most Jews around the world feel an affinity with Israel. And Israel happens to be here to stay for a long time. It’s easy to throw around yuppie-Commie agitprop phrases like: “…establishment and perpetuation of a Settler-Colonialist Apartheid State… Zionist Elite”….

    Are you honest to say the same things about every other country in the world? Try the USA? Is every American supposed to wear sackcloth and ashes today because of how the US was founded?

    Or how about Belgium?

    Haven’t heard a word about Belgium on this entire forum. What Beligium did to the Congo. 10,000,000 dead for the rubber trade.

    You clowns just can’t accept that the Jews are a people who have suffered every privation and horror and mass murder and have returned to rebuild a life in their indigenous home, where they have lived continuously for 3,000 years.

    Can’t make room for that, can you?

    It’s OK, as Mao Tse Tung once wrote: History is made at the end of a gun barrel. We know that.

    The Palestinians who won’t accept the existence of Israel will have a miserable existence themselves.

  8. dan e said on January 29th, 2008 at 8:17pm #

    I’m delighted by Jaimie’s candor: “History is made at the end of a gun barrel. We know that. …The Palestinians who won’t accept the existence of Israel will have a miserable existence themselves.”

    This is what the whole Zionist version of “history” comes down to:

    Might Makes Right.

    Someday there’ll be a plaque bearing those words, with the attribution:

    “Jamie the Honest Zionist, 2008”

  9. Lenny said on January 29th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    The accusations of Israel are really ludicrous.

    Israel had begun the piece process, allowed the terrorist PLO with its bloody chief Arafat to return to West bank and Gaza and rule their people. Israel even collected taxes from Arabs and handed them to the PLO. And what was the Arab response? As usual, terror, terror and more terror against the Israelis. They blew up the Jewish children, women and elderly in buses, restaurants and streets.

    The peace process to be successful requires building trust and respect for the other side. And how did the Arabs do that? They taught their children in schools, kindergartens and at home to hate the Jews and kill them. Their maps did not even show Israel but only Arab Palestine in her place.

    Israel left Gaza and how the Arabs reciprocated? They launch rockets at Israeli towns daily. They go on with their nonsense about occupation while not a single Israeli is in Gaza.

    On West Bank the Arabs complain about roadblocs but the Israelis many times began removing them and each time the Arab terrorists took advantage of that and started terrorist attacks.

    The Arabs openly declare that their goal is destruction of Israel.

    About the occupation itself. On the eve of the Six-Day War in 1967 the Arab leaders and whole nations alike were uttering murderous slogans and bloodthirsty predictions about destroying Israel and annihilating the Jews. And they lost the war. After the war, Israel offered to return most of the territories in exchange for normalized relations and peace. What was the Arab answer? The infamous Khartum Summit of Arab nations responded with three no: No negotiations with Israel. No peace with Israel. No recognition of Israel. In this case what do you want? Arabs must pay the price. After Germanu had been defeated in WWII, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and Denmark all took possession of parts of previously German land. And that happened after all wars. The Arabs are no exception. They initiated hostilities against Israel. They lost the war. And they were punished for that. That is only fair. They also possess huge territories whereas Israel is very small. The Arabs will survive even if Israel keeps some tiny portions of previously their land. Next time they will not be so warmongering. They must be taught a lesson.

    Anyway, there is already one Palestinian state which is Jordan. They want another? They are too much. Too bad. Jordan is situated in eastern part of historical Palestine and three quarters of her population are from western Palestine. By any yardstick Jordan is Palestine.

    The Arab anti-Israeli propaganda is vicious, virulent, a real Nazi-type propaganda. Most Arab states are dictatorships and are ruled by fascist regimes. And they have the nerve to accuse Israel, a true democracy, of their own evils. Shame on them!

  10. Paul Foer said on January 29th, 2008 at 8:56pm #

    Please! There is right and wrong to go around on all sides, but this constant and vociferous, nasty barrage of anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist rhetoric is just mind boggling. When someone says that Israel is simply some kind of entrepreneurial colony, calls it a “Settler-Colonialist Apartheid State, wherein a Zionist Elite could lord it over a population of persons defining themselves as Jewish,” and uses terms such as ziooid flackery, I find it so disgusting, I don’t know where to begin. The whole Zionist version of history does not come down to might makes right as one letter writer said, but the whole version of Jewish history might come down to the fact that without a state or an army, you’re gonna keep getting killed. Dan E. sees everything through his hate-Israel glasses and has no understanding of subtlety or nuance in history. And he probably does not even know he hates Jews. And he probably has no idea about the historic Muslim mistreatment of Jews or how many were expelled from Arab lands.
    Terrible things are being done to people all over the world yet many people turn a blind eye to that, preferring to focus on blaming the Jews instead. They ignore or even worse, whitewash terrorism as long as it is being done against Zionists. Or did I mean to say against Jews? The UN wastes most of its time and energy condemning Israel. People have been fighting over the middle east and what has been called Canaan, the Holy Land, Palestine, Judea, Samaria, Israel for thousands of years.
    To single out the Jewish people and Zionism and to condemn the entire movement and an entire nation, damning its right to exist and blaming it and it alone for so many evils is……well, I know what I’d call it.
    Stop hating. Stop condemning and stop denying that so much of it is based on the fact that you hate Jews. And finally, please suggest what should become of millions of Jews in Israel? (I fully expect you to write some really mean and disgusting letter back calling me all kinds of Zionoid names….Zionoid! Like from another planet? As if Jews and Zionist don’t even belong on Earth–you probably think that. Excuse me I have a meeting with the heads of the major media corporations–and then we’re going out to drink some Christian blood, as soon as I shine my horns!

  11. hp said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:02pm #

    These psychotic Jewish Nazis have indeed progressed. To the point where practically every nation on earth despises them and secretly or not so secretly wishes Israel would cease to exist.
    In this event, the applause would be so loud as to be heard on the moon.
    Just remember Jaime, you said it about the gun barrel. We ain’t played cowboys and Zionists. Yet.

  12. Gene said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:03pm #

    Relatively short documents on Zionism that may be of interest:

    In the Shadow of the Holocaust

    A Threat From Within

    Historiography of Pre-State Zionism [Original link no longer working!]

  13. Lenny said on January 29th, 2008 at 9:20pm #

    It is Mao Tse Tung who said it, not Jaime who just quoted him. And it is you, hp, who is a psychotic Antisemite. Just re-read what you had written about the Jews. You are a Nazi, my friend, no less than that! We know that many psychotics like you would be happy if we cease to exist but you know what, you are not gonna live to see that.

  14. jaime said on January 29th, 2008 at 10:24pm #

    Thank you Paul,
    First time I’ve seen you post here on this topic. Yes you’ve wandered into the hate the Jews channel. These dolts haven’t got their own lives together, how are they going to sort out someone else’s? Many times before, when tiring of their childish hate barrage, and shallow sympathy for terrorists and murderers, I challenged them to look past the moment to the day the guns fall silent between Jews and Arab. The final question is how would they settle the conflict between those two peoples? By war until extinction, or a negotiated settlement followed by normalization of relations… and none of these idiots knows what to say.

    Leaving that for a moment, this Gaza “breakout” has been very interesting, and no doubt a welcome shopping break, but perhaps the biggest eye opener for those 700,000 people who went across the border was to see how the Egyptians live compared to the Gazans.

    Nobody had been more at war with Israel than Egypt. And the peace in place is a cold peace. It’s not perfect. But the Egyptians are not at war with Israel. And they have a lot more freedom, and are certainly better off than their cousins across the line who are fed hatred and gall and taught that mass murder and martyrdom are preferable to a comfortable productive life.

  15. Endless Battle by Edward Jayne (Israel) « Dandelion Salad said on January 30th, 2008 at 3:17am #

    […] much more coming.’On the Death of Heath LedgerAn Open Letter to the Writers Guild of AmericaEndless BattleThe Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous […]

  16. PS said on January 30th, 2008 at 5:24am #

    Dear Dissident Voice,

    I have just finished reading “Endless Battle”.
    What a sad, sad story – I’m crying as I write to you.

    Just thank you for publishing this most comprehensive history.
    I would love to place a link on my ‘reasonably high profile’
    site dedicated mostly to Melbourne’s poetry community.

    I have a personally chosen ‘Political SideBar’ down
    the right side of the page – which is where I would place
    your link, if you are agreeable.

    Wishing you all the very best

    — P

  17. sk said on January 30th, 2008 at 10:01am #

    FYI, a useful talk and workshop given by Norman Finkelstein in London last week.

  18. Denis MacEoin said on January 30th, 2008 at 3:02pm #

    I don’t have time to waste in responding to this diatribe, and several other commentators have said much what I would have said. Just one thing, though. Please forget this claptrap about the Paalestinians being descendants of an ancient people who have been living there since time immemorial. The truth is, they aren’t. The Arab invasion of this region took place in the 7th century, and after that there were all sorts of movements of people through the different Islamic empires that controlled the region. During the 19th century, under the Ottomans, there were various influxes of Egyptians, Syrians, bedouin, Greeks, and others. All in all, there was never much of a ‘native’ population, and 19th-century Southern Syria was considered an uncultivated backwater. As for the Jews ‘stealing’ land, do us the favour of learning the facts. Land was mostly bought from Arab landowners (many absentee), who screwed the Jews by selling marsh and desert at high prices. When Israel was created as a sovereign state, it was done so quite legitimately, by a majority vote of the UN, a body to which the Arab states also belonged. It was the Arabs who acted illegitimately by launching a war against Israel, contrary to their obligations under the UN. Tell me a single reason wy the Jews are the only people on eareth always to be denied a homeland of their own.

  19. paul foer said on January 30th, 2008 at 3:49pm #

    They used to hate Jews, now they only hate Zionists, or Zionoids as one has called us. Unfortunately people on both sides think that war and endless war is the only way, but in Israel, as among world jewry, there are deep divisions and many in the “peace camp” although they (we?) keep getting disillusioned because land for peace continues to NOT WORK! But where in the Arab world do we hear of conciliation in English AND Arabic? Where and when do we hear voices who are willing to give up war and their zero sum demands? When will the Arabs with all their land and people and oil and say “Okay–we’ll abandon our nightmarish vision of killing all the Jews and we’ll figure out how to live with them.

    Just stop the killing., The world gets smaller every days. Let’s figure out how to make this work. Peace, baby. …

  20. Lenny said on January 30th, 2008 at 7:41pm #

    By the way, why not recall that the land of Israel had been stolen from the Jews by the Romans. So when the Jews returned to the homeland of their ancestors, they only came home, after all. The Arabs conquered that land by force and therefore have no moral right to blame the Jews who in their turn re-conquered their true motherland.
    The land without a nation re-united with a nation without land.

  21. Gene said on January 30th, 2008 at 8:17pm #

    But where in the Arab world do we hear of conciliation in English AND Arabic?

    I don’t know about Arabic but certainly in English: Arab summit to renew Israel offer. More here.

  22. Edward Jayne said on January 31st, 2008 at 10:32am #

    It’s time for my own comments in reply to some of the letters after two days of response to my piece, “Endless Battle.” Interestingly, few respondents have taken into account the information I have gathered and instead have reiterated arguments they have probably been making for decades by now. As a result, they overlooked the fullest implications of my presentation, which was intended as an appeal to Israel as well as a list of specific complaints in the tradition of the Declaration of Independence. My wife unfortunately insisted on my eliminating the two admonitions, “enough already” and “enough is enough” from the very end of my text, but they perfectly expressed my message–that enough is indeed enough, that there should be honest and meaningful negotiations to end the war once and for all. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it is Israel that holds disproportionate power, and its government seems to be providing the primary obstacle to a fair negotiated settlement.

    First of all, in response to the persistent assumption by Zionist apologists that I am anti-Semitic, I want to insist that this is simply not true. Half of my closest family is Jewish, as were many of my professors, fellow students, and good friends at both the undergraduate and graduate levels when I attended college. And the same is true today. The three members I chose for my Ph.D. dissertation committee–Lionel Abel, Leslie Fiedler, and Marcus Klein–were all eminent Jews, and the “Jewish influence” can be observed in my published articles, especially reflective of the thinking of Freud, Marx, and Fiedler. It is true that I vigorously reject Judaism as a religion, but, as again can be seen on my website, I also reject all religion without exception. The god concept is total nonsense in my opinion, and any belief system rooted in this concept is too often more harmful than beneficial to civilization–again in my opinion. You are welcome to peruse a couple hundred pages of my prose explaining why.

    Am I therefore willing to identify myself as an anti-Zionist? To a large extent, yes, but not to such an extent that I want Jews to be driven from Israel, nor that I would insist that all displaced Palestinians be restored to their homes preceding 1948, nor even that I oppose the wall between Israel and the Palestinian state to be located on the West Bank. I am willing to accept the permanent settlement of Palestinians outside Israel IF they receive sufficient remuneration for their losses, some of whose funding can be deducted from hefty U.S. annual aid packages to Israel. And I am willing to accept the wall as necessitated by the current level of hostilities between Zionists and Palestinians. However, as with the construction of fences on private property, the wall should be located on Israeli territory, not Palestinian territory, and it should be laid out according to the final negotiated settlement ultimately based on Resolution 242 of the U.N. Security Council.

    Obviously, a variety of plans have already been formulated based on Resolution 242, starting with the 1991 Madrid Conference, the 1993 Oslo Conference, the 2000 Camp David Summit, the 2000 Taba negotiations, the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan, and now the Annapolis promise (at least a promise) by President Bush. There should be no trouble in finalizing the cumulative design featured by these plans, of course with modifications acceptable to all parties.

    The problem, however, is that Israel has repeatedly sabotaged the effort. Most recently, as recounted in my chronology, this can be seen in the armed attack by IDF forces on Gaza early in the morning, January 16, the very day after negotiations began between Israel and Abbas’s representatives as requested by Bush in his visit to the region three days earlier. Eighteen Palestinians were killed, and when Hamas responded with rocket fire, Israel immediately unleashed a broader attack, killing more than twenty over the next couple of days. Israel also closed the border to Gaza because of Hamas’s presumably irresponsible rocket attacks, though in fact only one individual was killed by any of them, as compared to over 40 Palestinians killed by Israeli planes and rockets in the exchange. The same thing happened on a much bigger scale when Hamas won the January, 2006 election, and declared a unilateral cease fire as well as calling for a temporary truce. Israel replied by intensifying its attacks on Gaza, culminating on June 24, when Israeli commandos kidnapped two brothers as suspected terrorists (which they were not). The next day Palestinian activists retaliated by kidnapping an IDF soldier, after which Israel launched Operation Summer Rains, totally eliminating any chance for negotiations. And finally, the same thing happened back in 2001, when Sharon, was elected Israel’s Prime Minister. Instead of returning to negotiations, which were all but completed, the Israeli government used an unprovoked air strike against a Palestinian major driving his car to signal that hostilities were once again in order.

    Add it all up, and the conclusion is quite simple–Israel avoids negotiations, probably because it wants to win a slow, grinding war whereby the maximum number of Palestinians not killed in combat are driven from the West Bank so it can be inhabited as much as possible by the Israeli Jewish population. This, I think, is unspeakable, little more than a Zionist-lite version of Hitler’s effort to displace Jews from Europe. Amazingly, few in the media are willing to talk about it, but it’s happening, and it’s unacceptable to me and to many others as well.

    Quickly in response to the letters more specifically, I’m mostly in agreement with Michael Kenny. Our differences are minor. Paul Foer seems to be attacking Kenny instead of me, but I can’t be sure. Maybe it doesn’t really matter. I don’t include don E’s list of books in my bibliography because I’m frankly not familiar with them, but I will certainly look into them. Lenny repeats the canard about Palestinians trying to destroy the state of Israel. What they seek is a change in Israel’s government that eliminates the theocratic bias favorable to Jews at the expense of everybody else. This is exactly the situation we have today in ALL advanced industrial nations, most obviously the U.S. Denis MacEoin substitutes his own history of the Levant different from mine, but no problem. Undoubtedly there was heavy migration in the region, as there was everywhere else. As descendents of everybody who came through, Palestinians undoubtedly have ancestors who go all the way back to the second millennium, B.C. Denis also talks of Jews as the only people on earth without a homeland of their own. Literally hundreds of exceptions can be cited beginning with the Kurds and Spanish Basque separatists. As for the U.N.’s acceptance of Israel’s status as a nation–yes it happened, but also as a fait accompli, as explained in my piece.

  23. dan e said on January 31st, 2008 at 4:18pm #

    Oh boy. These Zionoids are so far in denial, the only comparison I can think of in my own experience is dinner conversation in Waco TX, 1957: “Now now, don’t say Nigger, it’s not nice, say Nigra. But you’re right, it beats me: what do these Nigras want, the moon?”

    One problem with these characters seems to be that they really haven’t investigated the origin of the modern Zionist movement, so they continue to buy all the nonsense about “a refuge from antiSemitism”.

    But Herzl himself was remarkably candid about his intentions: he aimed to create a State, a center of power able to relate to the existing Racist Colonialist Powers as a full member of the group. Jabotinsky echoed and clarified the same set of priorities: “We are going to steal this country from its present inhabitants, so forget all this Peace-Love-Socialism crap: we gonna kick some ass with a wall of bayonets”.

    Which is exactly what the historical record shows happened, and continues to happen. But there’s no point in arguing with racists & fascists, so let me sign off and go read something by an intelligent Jew of genuine goodwill who is NOT a racist like these bastards: lemme see, how about a Rabbi? Elmer Berger? American Jewish Alternatives to Zionism?

  24. Lenny said on January 31st, 2008 at 5:13pm #

    Gene, in the article you gave they very wily forgot to mention one more Arab demand: The right of return for the Arab refugees to Israel which means the end of Israel as a Jewish state. It is obviously unacceptable to the Israelis who are in no mood to commit a national suicide.

    Another trick is about Jerusalem. The Arabs never mention that when the city was in possession of Jordan, they never allowed the Jews to get to the Wall and pray there. They even built houses by the Wall so that people could not even reach the Wall. After Israel got Jerusalem, the muslims had free access to their mocque Al-Aksa there. This is the difference. The Arabs destroyed the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem. They have no religious tolerance to other religions. Jews and Christians alike. They destroyed those magnificent Buddist statues in Afghanistan. They kill a muslim who decided to convert to another religion. They want to murder writer Salman Rushdie. They don’t recognize any freedom of expression, speech and press. Their treatment of women is most horrible. Even though most muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists in the world are muslims. They hate Israel no matter what Israel does. No less, however, they hate Christians as well.

    Ecosmo, you either pretend to be totally ignorant or you are malicious. You probably never heard of pogroms and Holocaust? Or you simply deny that?

    Dan, you are a fanatical Jew-hater and it is really no use talking to a moron like you.

  25. sk said on January 31st, 2008 at 5:14pm #

    Or, as Perry Anderson put it:

    Zionist objectives had been laid down well before Hitler came to power, and were not altered by him. Ben-Gurion once said he was willing to sacrifice the lives of half the Jewish children of Germany, if that was the price of bringing the other half to Palestine, rather than leaving them all safely in England. Of how much less account was the fate of the Arabs, children or adults. The goal of a Jewish national state in the Middle East admitted of no other solution than that which was forcibly realized by the Nakba. After the event, the Judeocide has served as pretext or mitigation, but it had no immediate bearing on the outcome. In Europe and America, it gained external sympathy for the Zionist war of independence, but this was never a decisive factor in its success.

  26. jewboyantichrist666 said on January 31st, 2008 at 6:25pm #

    Oh good grief. Some maniacs just want to fight and condemn and pull apart every last vestige from the historical record out of context to make a point (as if Jabotinsky words could speak for more than a small minority?), but the nasty, hateful folks who are calling me and others on this site “Zionoids” and other such garbage just hate. They see this entire issue in black and white. Jews bad. Palestinians good. Period. They understand nothing. They only wish to continue war and bloodshed. They will not rest until all Jews are gone. And they believe they are good people fighting evil. They need deep therapy. Oh psychiatry you say? Here is how they “think”:
    “Psychiatry is just another Jewish invention, like physics or religion, like socialism or capitalism. It’s all Jewish crap! But when we destroy Israel, all the world will live in peace as brothers and sisters! Down with imperialist, colonial settler Zionists. Long live the peace-loving and freedom loving people of Palestine. Together we shall destroy the Jews and build heaven on earth.”

    Now if you’ll excuse me, we have a world conspiracy conference call and I have to drink some Christian blood. Tomorrow, interest ates will drive the world into recession and we will make glorious profits and more profits!!
    One question–if we are so darn powerful, how did we let ourselves get murdered by the millions?? (or is it just a lie we made it up for sympathy?) And if we are so darn smart and powerful, how come we have all the sand, all the desert, all the grief while the Arabs have all the oil? Please tell me!

  27. Lenny said on January 31st, 2008 at 8:32pm #

    The goal of the Arab states has been openly pronounced and many times repeated: Destruction of Israel or rather of ‘Zionist entity’. After that, any comments on Zionist goals are ludicrous. Anti-semitic claims are laughable. Arabs can walk anywhere in Israel and nobody is gonna touch them. But if a Jew appears in an Arab area, he becomes subject to grave danger. And if we recall what the Arabs do to black Africans in Darfur, Sudan. That’s where the hell is. And where the true brutality takes place. Compared to that the Palestinians live in Paradise. They have no idea what is real cruelty. Or how Lybia expelled from her territory black Africans. And I don’t see anybody blaming them for that. I remember how Arab teenagers in Gaza played soccer using the head of a killed Israeli soldier as a ball. Or as vicious Arab barbarians killed a Jewish mother and her little baby-girls in their own house. Or how those bastards killed a 12-year-old Jewish boy who played in a cave near his house. There is no end to the list of crimes of those bloodthirsty Arab devils in human appearance. I am only surprised how the Israeli people continue to be humane to those beasts of pray. That Israeli humanity is evidently self-defeating. Their enemy understands only one language – force, and nothing else.

  28. jaime said on January 31st, 2008 at 8:35pm #

    I stand by my previous remarks.
    Academia is littered with clods like this.

    Which printing shop did you buy your diploma at ….”Professor?”

    The absolute corker (which also seals your inestimable value to this DV fantasyland ) was your “some of my best friends are Jewish” invocation.

    No really, that was my best yuk of the day today.

    Heck, not even Finkelstein brings that one out anymore!

  29. Deadbeat said on January 31st, 2008 at 10:15pm #

    They see this entire issue in black and white. Jews bad. Palestinians good.

    No sir. They see Zionism as having co-opted Judaism. In fact some of the loudest critics of Zionism are Jews. Therefore your rhetoric doesn’t wash.

  30. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 1st, 2008 at 11:34am #

    Oh–so the universal, millennial dream of Jews to return to Zion co-opted Judaism? DO you think maybe it had something to do with centuries of repression and hatred that culminated in genocide? Did Nazism seek to destroy Jews because they were Zionists? Did thousands of years of Christian and Muslim hatred against Jews occur because of Zionism? And as far as some of the loudest critic of Zionism being Jewish, so what? It’s part of their own sickness. They just want to be liked in the vain hope that you will like them back so when you kill Zionists, you’ll spare them.

    Those misguided Trotskys of history are labeled as Bronsteins and killed. Arabs that dare to speak for peace are threatened and murdered and silenced, but we Jews are so damn nice that we tolerate these maniacs such as Finkelstein, Chomksy, Brenner et al. They are fixated, obsessed, monomaniacal.

    Lefties, and artists, non-conformists, liberals, freethinkers, atheists, secular humanists, and dissenting intellectuals would last about a minute in any Arab country–but Israel, despite its flaws remains the only country in the middle east, save maybe Turkey and at one time Lebanon, where they would be tolerated.

    The whole thing is not a Zionist ploy. It’s a ploy by monarchs and despots to keep their people united in anger against somebody else!!

    Again–the only question is this;

    Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? The first option opens up the possibility of peace and the second can only continue to lead to war. Which one do you choose?

  31. Ekosmo said on February 1st, 2008 at 4:12pm #

    the original is to be seen above in all its clarity — sans ambiguity — in a post dated January 31st, 2008 at 8:32 pm#

    here it is again — paragraphing it in all its “glory” :

    1. The goal of the Arab states has been openly pronounced and many times repeated: Destruction of Israel or rather of ‘Zionist entity’.

    2. After that, any comments on Zionist goals are ludicrous. Anti-semitic claims are laughable.

    3. Arabs can walk anywhere in Israel and nobody is gonna touch them. But if a Jew appears in an Arab area, he becomes subject to grave danger.

    4. And if we recall what the Arabs do to black Africans in Darfur, Sudan. That’s where the hell is. And where the true brutality takes place.

    5. Compared to that the Palestinians live in Paradise. They have no idea what is real cruelty. Or how Lybia expelled from her territory black Africans. And I don’t see anybody blaming them for that.

    6. I remember how Arab teenagers in Gaza played soccer using the head of a killed Israeli soldier as a ball. Or as vicious Arab barbarians killed a Jewish mother and her little baby-girls in their own house. Or how those bastards killed a 12-year-old Jewish boy who played in a cave near his house.

    7. There is no end to the list of crimes of those bloodthirsty Arab devils in human appearance.

    8. I am only surprised how the Israeli people continue to be humane to those beasts of pray.

    9. That Israeli humanity is evidently self-defeating. Their enemy understands only one language – force, and nothing else.

    well folks, its translation time again
    — specifically, making direct “re-translations”
    from the insane to the sane,
    from the bloodcurdling hysterical and the racially tortured
    to the hard factual, with added commentary in brackets…

    here goes, from 1 to 9 :

    1. “The goal of Zionism has been openly pronounced and many times repeated:
    Exile or Destruction of Palestine’s Muslim-Christian population.”

    [….or (quote) of “the bloodthirsty Arab devils in human appearance” (unquote — see below)
    — says this two-legged Nazi we can assume to be a “democrat”…]

    2. “After that, any comments on Zionist goals are ludicrous. Anti-semitic claims are laughable.”

    [Indeed they are — thats exactly why sane posters “round here” collapse into paroxysms of guffawing laughter each and every time a hard core, mentally defective, egregious and blatant racist like this particularly disgusting and rancid specimen accuses them of it….]

    3. “Jews, even Zionists, can walk anywhere on this planet and nobody is gonna touch them. But if a Jew heists Arab territory, he becomes subject to grave danger.”

    [human nature — you take from me — I’ll take it back, or die trying…]

    4. “And if we recall what they (and their Amerikan paymasters) do to dirt poor, brown-skinned Muslim men, women and children in Palestine and Lebanon, or in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s where the hell is. And where the true brutality takes place.”

    [Indeed it does — as witnessed in Gaza, Iraq, or Afghanistan daily, or in Lebanon [passim] — when an entire country was subjected by the marauding Hun’s Lufftwaffe to one month of massive, indiscriminate terrorist bombardment
    — aka “collective mass punishment”
    – just another Zionist war-crime to add to the many financed by the US taxpayer…]

    5. “Compared to that the Zionists live in Paradise. Their Amerikan collaborators have no idea what is real cruelty. Or how Zionism expelled some 1.1 million Arab civilians from a territory now called “Israel”. And I don’t see anybody blaming them for that.”

    [nor do I — on the contrary, these acts [1948 & 1967] have been systematically applauded by ‘western civilization’s’ upright, beyond reproach, “democratic” leaders, and their media kommissars — prior to being airbrushed outa all imperial history…]

    [note: the following’s in its original form — i.e. not “re-translated”]

    6. “I remember how Arab teenagers in Gaza played soccer using the head of a killed [sic] Israeli soldier as a ball. Or as [sic] vicious Arab barbarians killed a Jewish mother and her little baby-girls in their own house. Or how those bastards killed a 12-year-old Jewish boy who played in a cave near his house.”

    [here, ‘our’ wannabe Dr. Joseph Mengele discusses killing children
    — well, among many many others, I remember this —


    and this —


    …both of the above straight outa the Israeli press,

    or this —


    a US-based NGO, where all the disproportionate killing statistics are freely available from Israeli & Palestinian sources…
    but don’t let such unpalatable hard facts upset you, mein petite leetle Josef Goebells… thus…]

    7. “There is no end to the list of crimes of those bloodthirsty Zionist “devils in human appearance.”

    [I’m paraphrasing here — natch…
    the wannabe Joseph Mengele — in his original text — has now mutated into a wannabe Julius Streicher, employing a lexicon of racial or religious hatred that coodabeen lifted straight outa the 1930s pages of the Jew-baiting ‘Der Sturmer’…]

    8. “I am only surprised how the Palestinian people continue to be humane to those beasts of pray.” [sic] — [paraphrasing again]

    9. “That Palestinian humanity is evidently self-defeating. Their enemy understands only one language – force, and nothing else.”

    [“re-translations” end]
    following Herr Goebells-Mengele-Streicher’s logic [sic] thru to its endgame — the Arab “enemy” of today is to be treated by their racial superiors like the “Jewish enemy” of the 1930s–40s was, with
    — “only one language — force, and nothing else”.

    Ahhh… what goes round — comes round…

    the ugly rancid face of Zionist race-hate reveals itself with utmost clarity

    so be it…!

    So spare me – and the rest of the sane in here – of all your earnest and plaintive Zionist cries for “Peace.”

    Put simply,
    I dont give a damn for Judaism, or Islam, or any other religion.

    if the ACTIONS of the Israeli state
    “A Light Unto the Nations” — [sic]
    in both its historic and in its continuing push for Zionist “Lebensraum”,
    are consistently comparable to the actions of German Nazi-ism [1933-45], or to those of the former South Afrikaan state [1948-1991]

    then it and its US support-systems will be treated as such…

    got that…?

  32. jaime said on February 1st, 2008 at 5:24pm #

    Jewboy wrote: “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”


    Well, you’ve got your answer, Jewboy.

    The knuckleheads on DV are for perpetual war.

    Pathetic, isn’t it?

  33. Ekosmo said on February 1st, 2008 at 6:45pm #

    Jewboy wrote:
    “Arabs that dare to speak for peace are threatened and murdered and silenced.”

    lets also hear it for Israelis,
    “that dare to speak for peace [and] are threatened and murdered and silenced..,”

    by fanatical land-heisting Zionist settler “knucklehead/s” — who retain this extraordinary inexplicable preference for “perpetual war”…


    or at

    … Oh — and would you believe — it was during a “Peace Rally” [sic]

    Pathetic, isn’t it?

  34. Lenny said on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:37am #

    Ecosmo, your replacement of “Arab” by “Zionist” in my words is idiotic and nothing more. You play with words and theories but the reality is different. Let me point to just two false and crucial points in your argument:

    1. All of the Israeli attacks were really counterattacks in response to the preceeding Arab attacks which actually caused the Israeli reaction. What next nonsense you can bring up for the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza completely but the Arabs go on with launching rockets at Israeli towns from there?

    2. Arab states proudly announce that they are Islamic and people of other religions have no chance of being on a par with the muslims. But they want Israel to give up its Jewish heritage and become secular. This is a very wily and dangerous demand. Arafat proclaimed it long ago that the main Palestinian weapon is the womb of the Palestinian woman. Their birth rate is so high that they would soon outnumber the Jews and Israel would lose its Jewish character. So my opponent thinks that the Jews have to give up their state just because the Arabs multiply like rabbits. No, my friend, this is not gonna happen. Your trick is not gonna work. The Arabs must leave Israel and enjoy life with their Arab brothers. They must be expelled. The Jews fled from persecutions in Arab countries. Now is the turn of the Arabs to go.

    And one more remark. You mentioned another lie of yours about Israel’s actions against the Christians. The reality is, however, quite different. It is the Arab muslims who drive the Arab Christians from Palestine constantly and viciously. This is a well-known fact which one more time exposes the true nature of the Arab muslim aggression and expansionism.

  35. sk said on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:20am #

    FYI, a recent article and the interesting ensuing debate.

  36. Edward Jayne said on February 2nd, 2008 at 8:06am #

    Again it seems necessary to emphasize that, contrary to Eskomo (1-1) and others, the current official Palestinian goal is NOT to destroy Israel, but to negotiate toward an acceptable settlement that lets Palestinians live their lives in relative peace. The Fatah might be more willing to compromise than Hamas at this point, but there is no doubt that both seriously pursue negotiations. Of the two options that present themselves, the two-state approach seems the more acceptable, but there are still Palestinians who seek to be integrated in Israeli society. Both options are no less dependent on negotiations.

    It is the Israeli who seek to prevent negotiations, and they do this by provoking Palestinians to attack them in order to justify disproportionate counter-attacks that make negotiations impossible. I mention at least three instances of this tactic in my previous contribution, so I would hope and expect that Zionists who think otherwise would check my argument here and then my specific treatment of these instances in the chronology.

    The one instance of Israel aggressively seeking negotiations, preceding the 1967 Khartoum Summit, as mentioned by Lenny (1-28), was in fact an attempt to lure Jordan into terms of surrender after the Six Day War–terms that would probably have ceded much of the West Bank to Israel as well as the city of Jerusalem. The Arab League quickly convened in Khartoum soon afterwards to prevent such an outcome by emphasizing their solidarity and imposing the famous three Noes: no negotiations, no recognition, and no peace. Led by Arthur Goldberg (Jewish and a former Supreme Court Justice), the U.S. quickly interceded to calm the situation, and on November 22, after a month or so of intense haggling, Lord Carandon’s draft of the Security Council’s Resolution 242 was accepted by all parties. The Israeli insistence on eliminating the word “the” from the phrase, “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict,” exemplified its version of “constructive ambiguities” in negotiations, since it could thereafter argue that Israeli troops did not need to be removed from all occupied territory, but just some of it. [Ball, pp. 61-63] Their pursuit of their case accordingly advanced from an aggressive pursuit of single-party negotiations to Talmudic word play in multilateral negotiations.

    It should also be mentioned here that all of the wars between Israel and the Palestinians beginning in 1948, with the exception of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, were initiated by Israel, not the Palestinians. Since the beginning of history, the first task of nations on the attack has more often than not been to make it seem as if they are merely defending themselves against either an attack they have provoked or one that is immediately about to happen. This is par for the course, and everybody over the age of forty who keeps track of international affairs takes it for granted. Hitler used this technique to justify invading Poland, and David Hoggan has shown how it has happened in U.S. wars since the very beginning in his neglected book, The Myth of the New History (Craig Press, 1965).

    The pattern becomes obvious after a while. Almost inevitably, there is a great hullabaloo in the press about an impending assault by vicious enemies, a swift and effective “counter-attack” is launched with a highly favorable kill ratio, and, lo, the nation ends up owning or controlling more territory than before, also righteous as hell about its successful mission against evil forces abroad. It’s almost like winning a football game. My explanation of all of Israel’s wars except Yom Kippur gives a preliminary indication how this happened in each particular case, and with sufficient names and dates for the reader to check out fuller accounts on Googol and other such search engines.

    Lenny (1-29) and others go to great length citing hearsay evidence of excessive cruelty by Palestinians. I myself tend to judge this kind of evidence based on probabilities–that it’s probably true but almost as probably not, hard to tell. Zionists must recognize, though, that Jews, and Zionists in particular, have been the subjects of hearsay evidence for a long time now–all the stories of “tricky, greedy Jews,” of sadism at checkpoints, etc. The question that poses itself is which of the two parties, Israelis or Palestinians, engage in greater violence and acts of despicable outrage than the other. Here I would suggest the value of criminal justice research that uses the number of homicides as a base total against which all the rest can be compared, since the total incidence of rape, assault, and other such infractions is much more difficult to ascertain. A dead body is after all a dead body, as opposed to the tentative judgment calls relevant to other crimes. Specifically relevant to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, this approach would entail the calculation of kill ratios–the number of Israeli killed in any situation as compared to Palestinians. Add up the dead bodies, then divide one total by the other.

    My argument, simply enough, is that Israel has maintained a disproportionately high kill ratio since the very beginning–sometimes in the range of 20-1 or even 25-1. The principal reason why the recent attack on Lebanon has been treated as a disaster is because the kill ratio was a mere 7-1 despite the air power and large number of Lebanese civilians who were killed, thus padding the total favorable to Israel. Comparisons strictly among soldiers could only have been far smaller favorable to Israel, and this wasn’t sufficient, especially taking into account the 33 IDF troops killed in their botched surprise attack on the last day of the war (as compared to previous surprise attacks in 1967 and 1973).

    So I’m not convinced by hearsay evidence. Kill ratios are what interest me, as should be evident in the chronology I’ve compiled. They’re especially important to me relevant to the number of children killed, and here again I would assume Israel enjoys an enormous advantage.

  37. Ekosmo said on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:56am #


    October 16, 1941:
    In response to Hitler’s plea that ALL Jews must leave Germany the first of twenty trains leaves Germany for the East. Jews from Luxemburg and Vienna are part of the deportation. Within the next month 19,827 Jews from the Riech would be sent to Lodz.

    [source — http://www.neveragain.org/1941.htm%5D

    — dated February 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 am
    Para 3 – lines 8 — 9

    “The Arabs must leave Israel” [quote]

    Moreover – “the Arabs who multiply like rabbits” [quote]

    “must leave Israel” [quote]
    Add to the above the following:

    these “bloodthirsty Arab devils in human appearance”. [quote]

    and [quote] – “those beasts of pray.” [sic] et al, et al…

    Let no DV “knucklehead” forget the above words or the sentiments they reveal

    a grotesque, hideous, unacceptable “Der Sturmer”-ist face of Zionism 2008 — and its support systems that will yet — no doubt — be ‘rationalised’ [sic] with even more lurid, hysterical Hasbara-fuelled rhetoric of what “those beasts of prey” pouring forth from “Arab wombs” intend against those currently militarily occupying THEIR land by sheer force of arms…


  38. Ekosmo said on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:07am #

    Prof. Jayne,

    you write:
    “Again it seems necessary to emphasize that, contrary to Eskomo (1-1) and others, the current official Palestinian goal is NOT to destroy Israel…”,

    perhaps you will kindly point out exactly where “Eskomo” writes these words — or indeed — anything even vaguely resembling them…

  39. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 2nd, 2008 at 5:06pm #

    Professor Jayne just wants to be liked and takes the Palestinians at their word that they are really negotiating in good faith and accept Israel, and let us not forget, some of his best friends are Jewish! You see, in his world, and that of many other deluded people, the only reason that people dislike Israel is because of what Israel does to them! Its’ all the Israelis fault. If they were only Jewish and not Zionist, we would love and welcome them, as we have done for centuries! It’s just too bad that some of these Jews have become Zionists, but we like the “good” Jews such as Finkelstein and Chomsky and Elmer Berger who are anti-Zionist.

    So once again I’ll ask and see what kind of answer we can get:

    “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”

    And now ladies and gentlemen, let’s open the floor for more diatribes from the hateful, “sphinctered” idiots who are so incapable of understanding how much they hate Jews.

  40. jaime said on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:15pm #

    Well at least he calls himself a retired English “Professor” and not one of history.

    So Doktor Jayne,

    have you ever heard of the organization called….Hamas?
    Seen their charter lately?


    Well their charter, which sets the tone and aims of their movement, states that they are explicitly dedicated to the annihilation of Jews everywhere.

    Their words, not mine.

    Where did you get this notion about your

    “official Palestinian goal is NOT to destroy Israel, but to negotiate toward an acceptable settlement?”

    I know, I know…your specialty was CREATIVE writing….

  41. Gene said on February 2nd, 2008 at 7:20pm #

    Oh! Do stop the victimization hysteria! I do not hate you. There!

    And I do not hate “Zionists” either. What I hate is THIS, even more so because I, as a citizen of the country that support the genocidal policies of Israel, is thus made to be a participant in those atrocities. I hope that you can understand that.

  42. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 3rd, 2008 at 8:10am #

    Gene! Victimization hysteria? Hey pal–it’s not every day someone goes out and murders six million of your people. You need to get ove OUR VICTIMIZATION HYSTERIA….ANDYou prove our point. You send readers to a Hebrew/English website published by an Israeli human rights organization. You prove how Israel is so different than all of its Arab neighbors because you have the ability to refer to a human rights organization in that country! Yes–Israel is a flawed democracy–a place where an organization such as Betselem can exist. Name one Arab country where there is a semblance of human rights or where a human rights dissident group can exist freely! Please–show us the web site. We’re waiting. Not only do they now have dissident groups or human rightrs groups, but they use the state sponsored media to daily defame Jews. Not Zionists–but Jews.

    Again–I will ask this to all Israel bashers:
    “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”

  43. Gene said on February 3rd, 2008 at 9:26am #

    And THAT gives YOU (!) the right to do THIS and THIS?

    B’selem is there IN SPITE of you and trying to hide behind Arabs is NOT an argument that justifies crimes against Humanity. Such behaviour is an INSULT to the memory of those who were truly victimized in the Shoah.

    Other voices in condemnation can be found here and here.

  44. Edward Jayne said on February 3rd, 2008 at 10:53am #

    Frankly I’m astonished (but shouldn’t be) by the extraordinary hostility of my Zionist critics in response to my article. Aware of the unpleasantness others have been exposed to in the same situation, I knew something of the sort was going to happen when I submitted the piece last week, but I hadn’t experienced it before, not having written anything specifically addressed to Israelin the past. So everything occurred just as expected, but I found I was surprised anyway. It’s like having sex for the first time–perhaps that’s the best analogy. Perhaps a better analogy would be having bad sex for the first time.

    More specifically, I’m astonished by the extent to which my detractors ignore the ample information provided in my article. I seriously wonder if they have bothered to read the piece in more than a couple of places. Instead, they rant about tried and true Zionist issues from fixed stance that I suspect they have held for many decades by now. Also they have engaged in sniping against each other relevant to topics important to them in previous confrontations well before I’ve written my article. I have the strong impression they could actually have written the same words and sentences two, five, or thirteen years ago.

    I’m also amazed by their eagerness to attack me with ad hominem insults, going after my character with utter disdain based on almost no information beyond what I’ve provided in one of my paragraphs two letters ago. Almost as a pro forma obligation, they bait me with the same insults they have probably used against many dozens of others in the effort to avoid dealing more specifically with the abundance of information I provide relevant to the present conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (a good deal of which I doubt they are familiar with). This is not to mention the disastrous war that neoconservative Zionists fomented against Iraq to benefit Israel, as so effectively demonstrated by Mearsheimer an Walt, and the potentially ruinous war they are now trying to foment against Iran with the same purpose

    And I am amazed by the verbal incompetence of my critics–perhaps this amazes me the most. Their rhetorical invective is stretched to such an extreme that a barrage of paratactic recriminations take precedence over the hypotactic sense of obligation to keep readers abreast of their ideas–to clarify what they are saying and to bring them with relative ease to the next stage in their thinking. Having taught freshman English for several decades at a variety of colleges and junior colleges, I am well acquainted with writers having problems at this level. Few survive their first semester of college.

    Finally, I am amazed by their blatant hostility against Arabs, and Palestinians in particular. These Zionist exponents rejoice in informing me that my type of person would be accepted in Israel, but not in the surrounding Arab nations. As an atheistic quasi-Marxist with ample Freudian proclivities, I have been fully aware of this paradox for the past four decades–make it five. I do realize that I would be persona non grata in most Arab nations, but that does not mean that I am willing to deprive them of their rights as people who are no less deserving of having families, jobs, political stability, and religious beliefs no less ridiculous in my opinion than either Judaism or Christianity (the latter somewhat mitigated by its emphasis on charity). I might be slightly happier living in Israel than Yemen, for example, but only marginally happier. Much more acceptable would be the multi-ethnic cities of Amsterdam, New York, or San Francisco.

    The issue emphasized by my critics to justify their bias (call it bigotry) is the hideous violence of Palestinians capable of playing soccer with the decapitated skulls of Israeli soldiers, etc. As already indicated in my previous letter, (a) there is at least as much hearsay evidence of this sort against the Israelis, and (b) I am much more impressed by kill ratios that are overwhelmingly supportive of the advantage enjoyed by Israel in this category. I hear of an entire division (or was it a platoon) of captured Egyptian soldiers being forced to take off their shoes and return to Egypt over hot sand, all of them having died as a result. Is it true or not true–I’m not certain, though I do remember a photograph many years ago. But I’m also shocked by the story of the 1967 attack on the Liberty intelligence ship that was obviously intended to kill everybody aboard. That did happen as indicated in my chronology. Also obnoxious was the July 25, 2006, artillery attack on a U.N. observation post during Israel’s hostilities with Hezbollah. The commander of the U.N. post repeatedly telephoned the Israeli who were doing the shelling to indicate the “mistake,” but the shelling continued without letting up. After the Israeli finally indicated by telephone that a rescue convoy would be permitted to remove the dead and wounded from the post, the convoy was suddenly attacked by fighter planes and destroyed. That also happened. Today Zionist apologists make the excuse that it was a mistake. But it was no mistake, any more than the Liberty attack was a mistake.

    I am not suggesting here that Israel should execute or imprison the individuals involved in these two “mistakes.” What I would like to suggest, however, is that Zionists have been no more innocent than the Palestinians they have victimized over the past six decades, as might be suggested by these three instances as well as many others indicated in my chronology. So Israel would not sully itself by finally giving negotiations a chance. As indicated in my last letter, its single presumably honest effort to negotiate in 1967 was a bogus strategy to render permanent the capture of the West Bank. Let the government of Israel finally do what needs to be done: negotiate to fix boundaries and terminate hostilities. U.S. aid payments to Israel might diminish as a result, but it would be worth the loss. As Jerry Rubin once insisted, DO IT.

  45. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 3rd, 2008 at 11:24am #

    Professor Jayne Your first “problem” is that you boil everything down to sex, as shown in the long list of topics about which you have written as well as your statement in the first paragraph above which reads, “It’s like having sex for the first time–perhaps that’s the best analogy. Perhaps a better analogy would be having bad sex for the first time.”

    Your second problem is as I stated before–you want to be liked by bad people. You have trouble believing that there are bad people and therefore must find fault constantly in things that Israel has done in order to justify the extreme hatred of Israel. But beyond that, you’ve spent your life in academia, musing on about deconstruction, narrative discourses and who knows what else in cities such as the ones you have cited above–Amsterdam, New York, or San Francisco. These cities have had long histories of heavily Jewish influence–meaning intellectual, cosmopolitan, modern, subversive–all good old jewish qualities that English professor usually like. The problem is that every time in history that Jews make such a place happen, we have been expelled or murdered for doing so–IN SHORT WE CAN’T WIN— An furthermore, Israel is not balmy San Francisco–it’s in a bad neighborhood–a very bad neighborhood. It acts with remarkable restraint, civility, humanity and compassion when one considers what it is up against. The goal of Zionism was not to expel or repress Arabs, it was to create a homeland for Jews in what was their historical homeland and where there has been a presence for thousands of years, including a majority in Jerusalem during Ottoman and British times. But I digress and will one again as the question:

    “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”

    Using terms such as neocon Zionists who brought about the war in Iraq is a scurrilous and false claim. Referring to the much discredited Mearsheimer and Walt does further damage to your credibility.

    You and so many others are fixated on Israel. Obsessed. It’s time to use your academic skills and analyze yourself. You and so many other anti Zionists and Israel bashers just have trouble believing there are bad people in the world–unless they are Jews.

    And you really think that hostilities wo8uld end if Israel just pulled back to 1967 borders??? Sure the would, just like there were no hostilities against Israel before then. You’re deluded! Try living in a bad neighborhood sometime.

  46. Lenny said on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:21pm #

    Edward Jayne> Again it seems necessary to emphasize that the current official Palestinian goal is NOT to destroy Israel, but to negotiate toward an acceptable settlement that lets Palestinians live their lives in relative peace.

    Wrong. They state that but accompany that with unacceptable conditions leading to the destruction of Israel through its loss of its Jewish character. Their demand for the right of return cancels all of their “peaceful rhetoric”. Period.

    Edward Jayne> The Fatah might be more willing to compromise than Hamas at this point, but there is no doubt that both seriously pursue negotiations.

    A total lie. Hamas is willing to compromise? Where did you see that? Is it a temporary hudna? You think there are fools who can accept that temporary cease of fire? They deny the basic thing – the right of Israel to exist. And you call it “…both seriously pursue negotiations”? There is nobody to negotiate with. Shame on you.

    Edward Jayne> … there are still Palestinians who seek to be integrated in Israeli society.

    Too bad. They hate the Jews and want to destroy them through integration in Israel (not society at all) through demographic factors.

    Edward Jayne> It is the Israeli who seek to prevent negotiations, and they do this by provoking Palestinians to attack them in order to justify disproportionate counter-attacks that make negotiations impossible.

    One lie on top of another.

    The Arabs calls anything a provocation. Usually they don’t need even that. I gave you some perfect examples. Israel left Gaza, completely. So what is the reason for launching rockets at Israeli towns. I have not got an answer for that.

    Israel allowed the PLO to return and rule their people. As soon as it happened the Arab terror began rise instead of decline. What is the answer to that?

    And about disproportionate Israeli responses.
    If the Arabs toss stones at Israeli soldiers (usually for no reasonable cause), do you expect the soldiers to toss stones back? This is ridiculous. Of course, the soldiers will shoot back with bullets, not stones. And that is absolutely right. If Israelis kill more Arabs than the other way it only means that they fight better. What do you expect them to do? To count the Arab casualties and avoid surpassing them? This is laughable. The Arabs can easily avoid any casualties on their side at all – stop terror. Did the Brits and Americans try not to cause more casualties to the Germans than the other way around? Did they not bomb the German population? You are saying ridiculous things. Why don’t you speak up against the Arabs murdering Jewish civilians? You don’t have strong words for those rocket launches at Israel. You are totally biased against Israel.

    Edward Jayne> It should also be mentioned here that all of the wars between Israel and the Palestinians beginning in 1948, with the exception of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, were initiated by Israel.

    One more lie. The Six-Day war in 1967 was a preventive war against the much more numerous enemy on the verge of attack. Even if we accept for a moment the idea that it was only an Arab provocation, the answer is that they have no right for such provocation when the survival of a nation is at stake. And if they are still willing to take the risk, then they must be ready to pay the price.

    To Eskomo. I repeat, it was the words of Arafat, not mine, that the womb of the Palestinian woman is the main Palestinian weapon. Period. All questions to him. But he only said the truth. And this truth requires an adequate response to neutralize the danger. And you speculations with Nazi notions you can keep for yourself and your folks as nobody else would buy that nonsense. I have nothing to apologize for. I’m not gonna shoot around the bush. Our enemies have no moderation. We will have none either.

  47. Lenny said on February 3rd, 2008 at 1:34pm #

    Edward Jayne> Also obnoxious was the July 25, 2006, artillery attack on a U.N. observation post during Israel’s hostilities with Hezbollah.

    You conveniently forgot that the Hezbollah were launching rockets at Israel right next to the UN post. The UN troops had to either prevent that or move away themselves. The fault there was not Israeli. Israel was at war and the enemy wanted to be untouchable using the UN as a human shield. This cannot be allowed to work.

  48. sk said on February 3rd, 2008 at 6:31pm #

    Frankly I’m astonished (but shouldn’t be) by the extraordinary hostility of my Zionist critics in response to my article.

    Dr. Jayne, This is why you might consider going through the workshop given by Norman Finkelstein (link in my earlier post) to better understand the tactics of those whose mission in life is to deflect attention from the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine (Finkelstein has been dealing with these “Holy Rollers” for 25 years and is well versed in the traps and pitfalls that await anyone who dares question their twisted theology).

  49. jaime said on February 3rd, 2008 at 8:12pm #

    Hey Perfessor!

    Please allow me to recommend an EXCELLENT full service printing shop for ALL of your diploma needs:

    Top Printing
    354 Passaic St
    Passaic, NJ 07055, United States
    (973) 777-1505

    They have a special… $24.95 Tastefully framed:


    Something to impress everyone!!!

  50. Ekosmo said on February 4th, 2008 at 6:37am #


    May I draw your attention to where the above post emanates from?

    Mental Health Clinic of Passaic
    Z ward
    1451 Van Houten Avenue
    Clifton, New Jersey 07013
    973-473-2775 ext. 109

    I need hardly add that flowers, condolences, messages of sympathy etc. are always welcome.

  51. jaime said on February 4th, 2008 at 9:07am #

    Perfessor Jayne’s graduates enter Israel on Peace mission:

    (Live and let live…eh Perfessor?)

    February 5, 2008
    Israel Hit by First Suicide Attack in a Year
    By ISABEL KERSHNER New York Times

    DIMONA, Israel — One of two suicide bombers from Gaza who may have sneaked into Israel from the Egyptian Sinai blew himself up at a shopping center in this southern desert town on Monday, and medical officials said he killed an Israeli woman and wounded 11 other people. It was the first suicide attack in Israel in more than a year.

    The second bomber failed to detonate his explosive belt and was shot dead by a police officer at the scene, a police spokesman said.

    Militant groups in Gaza made the names of the attackers public later Monday, saying the attackers had come from Gaza. The militant group Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a militia loosely affiliated with the mainstream Fatah movement headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Fatah, claimed responsibility, and said it carried out the attack with another militant faction, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and another unknown group calling itself the United Popular Brigade.

    Over the previous 11 days, residents of Gaza had been able to move in and out of Egypt with relative ease because of a temporary breach in the sealed Gaza-Egypt border, which the Egyptian military resealed on Sunday.

    The Israeli authorities had warned in recent days that Palestinian militants took advantage of the breach of the border between Gaza and Egypt, which occurred after members of the Hamas movement that runs Gaza blasted sections of a wall between the two on Jan. 23.

    The Egyptian authorities have reported the arrest of more than a dozen Palestinian militants carrying weapons and explosives in the Sinai Peninsula, close to the border with Gaza, over the past few days.

    The last suicide attack in Israel came in January 2007 in the southern city of Eilat, killing three Israelis.

    In the hours after Monday’s attack, police officers lined the streets of Dimona and closed off the area of the bombing to the public.

    Esther Peretz, 41, who had been running an errand at the shopping center, said she heard the bomb explode around 10:30 a.m. and arrived at the scene a few minutes later to see people gathering outside the City Hall. “It’s the first time a bomb has gone off like this in Dimona,” she said. “I can’t quite absorb it. There is a very hard feeling today.”

    Kobi Moor, 34, the police officer who shot the second attacker, said he approached the man as he lay on the ground, apparently injured from the first blast, then shot him when he moved his hand toward an explosives belt strapped to his abdomen.

    “His hand was twitching,” Mr. Moor told reporters. “He raised it again. So I shot four bullets into his head and neutralized him.”

    After the bombing, the police services went on high alert in various areas of the country, and near Dimona police officers were stationed at main junctions on roads leading to the city.

    Dimona, a remote working-class town in the Negev desert, is best known for its proximity to Israel’s nuclear reactor. The attack took place several miles from the heavily guarded reactor.

    “Palestinian terror groups continue to strike at Israeli civilians,” said David Baker, an Israeli government spokesman, after the attack Monday. “Israel will continue to take the requisite steps to defend its people,” he said, without elaborating on any likely response.

    Earlier Monday, Israeli forces killed two Islamic Jihad militants in an exchange of fire during an arrest raid in the village of Qabatiya in the northern West Bank.

    Mr. Abbas’s Palestinian Authority issued a statement on Monday condemning both the Qabatiya raid and the attack in Dimona.

    The Israeli air force later said it had also carried out an attack in Gaza against militants it said had been responsible for rocket attacks on Israel. Reuters reported that a senior Palestinian militant and several others were injured in the attack, citing a source in Hamas.

    At Sunday’s cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service warned that militants had smuggled advanced weaponry into Gaza while the border was down, including long-range missiles and antitank and antiaircraft missiles.

    The defense minister, Ehud Barak, told the cabinet there was an urgent need to build a fence along the porous border between Israel and Egypt.

  52. jaime said on February 5th, 2008 at 9:44am #

    Hey where’d everybody go?

    Don’t you peace activists want to kill some babies and old people to free the Palestinians anymore?

  53. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 5th, 2008 at 12:32pm #

    Let us turn our attention to the news story:

    “Kobi Moor, 34, the police officer who shot the second attacker, said he approached the man as he lay on the ground, apparently injured from the first blast, then shot him when he moved his hand toward an explosives belt strapped to his abdomen.

    “His hand was twitching,” Mr. Moor told reporters. “He raised it again. So I shot four bullets into his head and neutralized him.”

    Ummmm….he got neutralized. The police inspector got promoted to major. Good for him. I wonder, does this mean when this martyr gets to heaven, there will will only be 71 virgins for him? 70? 69? 68? Or will his hand be perpetually twitching as he tries to stroke their soft breasts, unable to move for eternity while the virgins taunt him, just centimeters from his fingertips? Or will Allah not allow him into paradise because he let the Zionist cop put four shots through his head before he could use himself as a weapon?
    Imagine the discussion:

    Allah: You have failed me my miserable follower. I sent you to kill Zionist pigs.

    Martyr: Hey, gimme a break of merciful one. I tried. I really did. Can I have my virgins now?

    Allah: No, you will be forced to spend eternity as a female virgin, subject to the whims of Zionists who will touch you however they feel. Now, here is your veil and burka. My, what pleasant breasts your have.
    Allah is pleased.

    Martyr: Oy, vey–woe is me. I should have been a Zionist!

    Remember–we are dealing with an enemy that uses themselves as weapons. They have such little respect for life, knowing how much we Jews respect and love life. They have such hatred and fear of women that they cover them up on earth, and make them walk behind them, but are willing to kill women and children here so they can have 72 virgins after death for their own pleasure. What do the 72 virgins have to say about that?

  54. Edward Jayne said on February 7th, 2008 at 11:12am #

    First of all my apology to Eskomo. Indeed he has not advocated the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel (euphemistically described as their “transfe,)” nor has he suggested the elimination of Jews from Israel, often exaggerated by Zionists as a matter of bloodthirsty extinction. The culprit, of course, was/is Lenny, to whom Eskimo was replying with good success in his earlier missive.

    I do want to express my concern in response to Eskomo’s revelation, of February 4, that Jaime’s email address is Ward Z of a mental health clinic. If indeed Jaime is in confinement and finds gratification in trashing my ideas, I want her to continue her unique therapy with full permission on my part. Whatever helps. As for the letter Z, of course, referring to her ward, it sometimes refers to Zionist, as has often been suggested relevant to the mysterious scientist, Dr. Z, who just might have launched the anthrax attack just after 9-11. Dr. Z, who was very bigoted indeed against Arabs, was supposedly out of the country just then, but that’s always a convenient excuse–supposedly used, for example, by Winston Churchill, England’s young navy secretary, when the Lusitania was held in position to be sunk by German submarines in order to bring the U.S. into World I. In any case, no doubt about it, the sudden anthrax attack just after 9-11 produced enormous public indignation against American Arabs UNTIL it was discovered that the strain of anthrax used could only have been from the U.S. laboratory where Dr. Z worked. Very quickly the anthrax issue ceased to get press coverage. To avoid a lawsuit, I refrain from mentioning Dr. Z by name, but it can be resurrected with ease on google. The lack of solid information is my primary reason for having excluded this incident from the chronology.

    Lenny’s list of my lies in his February 3 contribution i in itself quite remarkable, since each of the lies he cites happens to be true, whereas its refutation turns out to be the lie–not Lenny’s lie, of course, but the lie of Zionist propagandists he unfortunately believes in. Let me take his borrowed lies one at a time.

    To begin with, Lenny rejects my notion that the Palestinians are now willing to negotiate toward a compromise settlement rather than seeking the destruction (i.ethnic integration) of Israel. But Lenny is very wrong. As I make plain in my 2005 entry, when Abbas was elected on January 9 as the new president of the Palestinian Authority, he declared a unilateral cease-fire with Israel and called for a temporary truce to end violence and work toward a peaceful settlement. It was Sharon who refused to negotiate with Abbas, after which Hamas resumed fighting. An excellent assessment of Abbas’s plans upon his election is to be found in Greg Myre’s article, “Mandate in Hand: Abbas Declares He’s Ready for Talks,” NYT, Jan 11, 2005, p. 3. Also useful is the quotation of Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s closest advisor, when he admitted in an unfortunate moment of candor, “The significance of what we did [the termination of Roadmap negotiations toward a two-state solution] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely.” (Mearsheimer and Wallt, p. 217] Thank you Dov Weisglass, but could you try to explain what you’ve just said to your gullible acolyte Lenny?

    It’s certainly true that Hamas has been far more militant than the PLO under Abbas’ authority. However, when Hamas won the general election January 25, 2006, its spokesmen were quoted as having indicated they might be willing to participate in negotiations involving the use of a third party as an intermediary. This alone was a major concession on their part. They also indicated their willingness to accept a long-term truce, effectively a modus vivendi, if Israel pulls back to its 1967 border. [see Steven Erlanger’s front page NYT article on January 27, 2006, “Hamas Routs Ruling Faction, Casting Pall on Peace Process”] Ismail Haniya, by reputation the most pliable of the Hamas leadership, became the Prime Minister of the newly elected Palestinian government, and with the formation of the Palestinian National Unity Government a year later, in February, 2007, Abbas and Haniya were reportedly 99% in accord with each other, and with negotiations at the top of their agenda. However, Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert totally refused to cooperate despite the March 29 Riyadh Summit for the Arab League having submitted a new version of their peace plan in late March. By June Hamas and Fatah partisans break up with each other once again, and Abbas’s flight from Gaza to the West Bank was gladly subsidized by Israel and the United States. At this point Gaza could be put under siege, and everything followed much as had been intended by Israel. But don’t kid yourself, Lenny — Hamas was far more interested in negotiations throughout this period than Israel was, just as Dov Weisglass had earlier indicated.

    I’ve already spent two enormous paragraphs belying Lenny’s list of charges, and frankly, I’m becoming impatient with the task. Fortunately, however, his other charge has been refuted that Israel has never tried to provoke acts of hostility in order to justify major invasions. I’ve already explored several instances of this particular tactic in earlier letters, and the outline takes a large number of these incidents into account. it’s tricky business, but it works time and again against easily angered opponents.

    In a second missive on February 3,Lenny also expresses his disagreement with my account earlier on February 3 of how Israeli artillery was used against a UN observation post during the 2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. My account, it turns out, is far more likely. The NYT story by Warren Hoge on July 27, 2006, p. A14, specifically states there were no Hezbollah military sites near the observation post.. Also supportive of my argument is Ian Austen’s NYT article of February 2, 2008, “Canadian Inquiry Blames Israelis for Deaths in 2006,” whose title speaks for itself. So what exactly are Lenny’s sources that indicate a nearby Hezbollah target. Whoever they are, , I would suggest are the liars.

    On Feb. 3, 11:24 a.m., jewboyantichrist666 displays his acquaintance with my other writings, but it’s obviously a very partial acquaintance (pun intended). He mentions my obsession with sex, but the half dozen articles in which I once dealt with the topic (mostly during my forties, over three decades ago) were written on what might be described as a Freudian-Fiedlerian basis to explain the denial of sex as an overlooked source of literary form. I never published anything in the field of deconstructionism, though I taught it at the graduate level, and my response to the critical theory of Roland Barthes, sometimes identified with deconstructionist theory, did apply my Freudian-Fiedlerian analysis to Barthes’ entire career from start to finish. It’s a highly intricate piece, and I’m still proud of it. These articles comprise only about a tenth of the sixty-to-seventy articles and papers now to be found in my website, and their total word-count is about the same as the three pieces I later wrote explaining the early history of judicial review in the U.S. I consider the largest of these, “Accidental Conspiracy,” to be probably the most demanding of all my writings. Other topics of interest to me include Kondratieff theory, grammar (with 3 pieces), cultural relativism (with 4 or 5 pieces), the dubious value of religion except as a source of psychological gratification (maybe a dozen pieces), and American foreign policy since the sixties (also about a dozen pieces).

    It is in the latter category, listed under Iraq on my webpage, where I repeatedly criticize U.S. foreign policy with a tenacity I find totally lacking in Jewish authors who identify themselves with the Zionist cause. Despite my recent piece attacking patriotism, especially when linked with religion, I can identify myself with the U.S. perhaps more than I should (one of my ancestors actually having proposed naming our country the United States at the Constitutional Convention). Our nation has been doing very bad things during the past six decades, and I take it personally–this is not what my ancestor wanted. I expect the same from Zionists who identify with the state of Israel. Israel, too, has been doing very bad things–at least as bad as those of the United States–and truly patriotic Zionists should have the guts to take a similar stance against its policies. Indeed, such figures as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Seymour Hirsh, and Amy Goodman have done this, and the many hundreds of other Jews attacked in the despicable website SHIT (which can be found by typing these letters on Google) are also to be commended for their rejection of Zionist excesses. However, most all of these people are already secularized. It is the religious Jews, the hard-core Zionists, who must realize that enough is enough–that their country must make big changes soon.

    More specifically, jewboyantichrist666, I fully realize Amsterdam, New York City, and San Francisco have always had large Jewish minorities. This is my point–it’s exactly what I want–a truly integrated society, not a “gated” population constantly at war with its neighbors. If Israel can figure out how to gate itself without causing bloodshed at unacceptably high kill-ratios, I’m perfectly willing to let if happen. If not, I’m to be treated as an enemy (as I already am).

    Finally, you reject the Mearsheimer and Walt book as having already been exposed for its inaccuracies. This would suggest you haven’t read it yet. Do try reading it. Just about everything they say is footnoted–with 106 pages devoted to these footnotes at the end of the book. I’ve seen and/or heard Mearsheimer debating supposedly expert Zionists, and he almost literally dances on their corpses. They don’t know what they are talking about, and he bombards them with information they either don’t know or don’t want to admit knowing. One of the many things Mearsheimer and Walt demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Israel and its neoconservative agents in the United States played a very big role in producing the invasion of Iraq. Their book also demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that neoconservatives are at it again with Iran. This is one of the reasons why I’ve written my piece “Endless Battle.” The situation is getting entirely out of hand–the tail is wagging the dog–and those individuals, whoever they are, who think they might be able to refute Mearsheimer and Walt, are playing their own roles in the effort to make it happen. I myself would be happily at work with the rest of the topics that interest me, the denial of sex included, if it weren’t for these developments so effectively documented by Mearsheimer and Walt.

    In response to the February 4 and 5 responses of Jaime and jewboyantichrist666’s use of articles of Palestinian atrocities, I want to emphasize that these perfectly illustrate my thesis. Of course the attacks were horrendous, but if you check out the presumably tank and air attacks on Gaza over the previous several months, the disparity will be obvious that they have produced a very small fraction of the number of deaths caused by Israel. Israel killed over 40 Palestinians in the week or so before these attacks. Add it up, and you get something on the order of the 20-1 kill ratio, as has been maintained now and again over the years. The use of suicide bombers begun in 1993 helped to bring down the kill ratio, but it remains pretty much at about 6-1, as far as I can tell, over the past couple of years. Again my point: do not jabber with great indignation against the behavior of suicide bombers. Instead, calculate the kill ratio involved and recognize the necessity of bringing the conflict to a close. Again as Jerry Rubin insisted, DO IT–end the endless battle so you can live in a truly decent society.


  55. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 8th, 2008 at 6:41am #

    Yes–enough is enough already. It does not surprise that the good professor has a fascination with conspiracy theories.
    As far as relying on Finkelstein, Chomsky, Goodman, Hersh and their ilk, I suggest you employ some of your psychoanalytical skills to them as well.

    However, again I will ask what an earlier writer posed: “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”
    The only other alternative is endless war. And I still think you are obsessed.

  56. Edward Jayne said on February 8th, 2008 at 11:24am #

    Just a postscript to Jewboy’s postscript. After everything I’ve said, he’s still got it wrong. It’s Israel that stands to benefit from endless hostilities. “Cui bono?” Cicero once asked, which is the most basic question of all in politics: to whom the benefits, or more expressively, exactly who is it that cashes in? In other words, who sits dirty in the gutter as a result? Who wipes his lips with cloth napkins after the third course? The three principal reasons why Israel is the primary beneficiary of its conflict with the Palestinians may be listed as follows:

    1. They are steadily demolishing Palestinian society with any claim to official status as a nation. After another decade or two Palestinians will be scattered to the winds if the Zionist leadership of Israel have anything to do with it, just as Ben Gurion first recommended.

    2. Incessant conflict provides an excellent source of emergency aid from the U.S. We’re already sending too much money and military equipment to Israel, and reports of Palestinian hostility that supposedly indicate a major threat to Israel’s existence, actually serve to pump more subsidization from Congress, which is totally intimidated by the Zionist lobby at this point.

    and 3. As in the U.S. the perpetual state of winning wars does a fine job of uniting a nation, at least among its less educated population. It’s like rooting for a football team. Everybody pulls together, the macho big guys take control, and the money people get exactly what they want. The only problem is that the strategy doesn’t last forever. Sooner or later it breaks down, and the sooner the better. Already for the U.S. it might be too late. And the same might be true of Israel.

    So it’s Israel that keeps pushing for warfare, just as Dov Weisglass confesses in the passage I quote in the third paragraph of my last letter. However, as indicated in one of my earlier letters, THE AGGRESSOR NATION CAN’T SEEM TO BE DOING THIS. As in all conflict, the side that primarily has the task of making it seem that the other side is at fault and to such an extent that it is actually promoting a war that it can only lose (as for example in 1939, when Poland seemed on the brink of invading Nazi Germany).

    The same has been Israel’s basic strategy since 1948. The most recent test of its leadership’s ability to carry it off was the misguided “Roadmap” peace effort of the UN,the U.S., the EU, and Russia. The tradeoff to help lure Israel into such a solution based on Security Council Resolution 242 was plain: (1) all of the benefits offered by the Arab League in both trade and full diplomatic recognition; and (2) the unacknowledged quid quo pro that the U.S. was finally terminating Iraq as any kind of a military threat, thus eliminating the excuse against such dangers during the time of peace.

    What U.S. negotiators didn’t quite realize was that the biggest threat of all for Sharon was the possibility of a peace arrangement during negotiations Israel itself would not be able to dominate. But such was the case as could be seen in Sharon’s almost immediate response. Within a day (May 1, 2003–also June 2), Israel launched various unprovoked attacks on Palestinians, and there was a sustained intensification of hostilities over the months that followed. Sharon announced his substitution of his own strategy of Unilateral Disengagement for peace negotiations, and his unilateral generosity obviously included nothing more than the liberation of Gaza as well as the closure of four Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Indeed, the settlements were dismantled, but with almost hysterical resistance that seemed staged with lots of photo opportunities for the international press. Also, Sharon launched his campaign against Gaza once it was liberated, of course with the justification that relatively harmless rocket counterattacks justified the damage inflicted on Gaza’s infrastructure and the killing of hundreds of Gaza residents. The U.S. press coverage focused on the Hamas rockets, when maybe one Israeli was killed for every thirty used, while the devastation wrought on Gaza has simply been ignored. Even you, Jewboy, resorted to this kind of argument in your last letter–the argument that the Gaza residents, instead of being grateful for having been liberated, resorted to unjustified rocket attacks. Gimme a break.

    I admit that Palestinian militants make a big issue of their successful campaign against Israel, but you should have noticed by now that every time there is any traction toward international negotiations to finally settle the conflict, it is the Palestinians who quickly indicate their cooperation, while Israel resists and soon foments hostilities every way it can until the pursuit of negotiations ends once again. This is a universal behavior–the typical unspoken compact between bullies and their victims. Victims feel obliged to show they are still up to the fight, and bullies use this pretense to justify beating them up all the more bloodily.

    You guys emphasize the issue of victimization all the time. It’s become your mantra in fact. So look into to what you are doing, and put it to an end. Again: Enough is Enough.

    Edward Jayne

  57. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 9th, 2008 at 4:01am #

    I love your rhetoric such as “You guys” , “The issue of victimization……your mantra”, “intimidated by the Zionist lobby” and I wonder why you think there is not a Jewish nation but there is a Palestinian nation. You wish to play an endless game of who struck john. He did it. No he hit me first. No I only hit him because he hit me. Quit deluding yourself about the pseudo-Manichean nature of this conflict. If as you say “Enough is Enough” then I will again ask what an earlier writer posed: “Will Arabs accept Israel and then make peace and sort out the refugee issue and deal with borders and security, or will they continue to seek to destroy Israel? … Which one do you choose?”
    The only other alternative is endless war. And I still think you are obsessed. …but I am so relieved to hear that some of your best friends are Jews. How nice. As long as you are obsessed with the Zionists bad-Palestinians good mentality, there can be no hope for you to move your position in any meaningful direction. I would be considered among the most “dovish” or conciliatory of Zionists, but unless I totally repudiate the belief in a Jewish state, you’ll continue to fight and argue with me.
    I think you’ve probably led a comfortable and contemplative life and perhaps have always lived in nice neighborhoods with nice people. I had a legitimate, legal conflict with a neighbor over a property line dispute. I was unaware there was even an issue until they sent me a threatening letter. After many months of hassles, thousands in legal fee and much grief, they finally settled with me and agreed to the original terms I tried to negotiate before it went to litigation. Let me tell you something. Good fences do not make good neighbors. Good people make good neighbors. But when neighbors do not get along, and one goes through the proper process as I did, and the other does not, it can only lead to conflict. Sometimes fences are the best way and sometimes fences, while they may not make good neighbors, may at least allow for coexistence. Have you ever had a bad neighbor? Lived in a bad neighborhood? Been a victim? The problem with weeny liberals is that they don’t think there are bad people. They think that if you give in, the others will be nice. They love victims. They think it is wrong to blame victims. Unless of course the victims are Jews. Then it is their fault. Then you can also blame them for feeling they are victims. And then you can quote Cicero to explain it to them.

  58. Edward Jayne said on February 9th, 2008 at 8:16am #

    Postscript 3 to Jewboy. Quickly, I’m flattered by your reference to good and bad neighbors, an obvious allusion to my seminal article on Frost’s Mending Wall.” But yes, I have indeed had both good and bad neighbors. In one neighborhood, fourteen felonies including rape and homicide were committed within fifty yards of my house during the three years my wife and I lived there. Every day I jogged past five houses in which there had been unsolved homicides. At the advice of a police inspector, we finally moved elsewhere.

    The bigger question, whether Palestinians can accept the existence of Israel, is to be answered with a qualified yes in my opinion. Of course many can’t, but the majority, including the leadership of both Fatah and Hamas, can. They have also made it plain that they can accept sharing Jerusalem with Israel and would be willing to negotiate some kind of a settlement that pays displaced Palestinians for the property that was confiscated in 1948 and afterwards. What must be provided to them in exchange is a single geographical entity (not cantons) with port facilities having full access to the sea plus an airport of their own and full water rights. The costs for making this happen can be deducted from the relatively generous annual foreign aid provided to both Israel and Egypt in order to guarantee Israel’s success in suppressing the Palestinians. Once this task has been eliminated, much of the aid can be diverted to the Palestinians themselves to expedite their recovery, if such be possible.

    Animosity between Israel and the Palestinians has reached such a level that I actually consider the barrier now being constructed to be a necessity. However, I think it should be located not on Palestinian territory, but on Israeli territory adjacent to the boundary line established by treaty.

    All this, I think, can be accomplished IF Israel is willing to enter serious negotiations, but, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized in this exchange, it has not, and for the obvious reasons on one hand that it doesn’t want to risk the existence of Palestine as an adjacent nation, and on the other that it wants the territory for itself. This should be obvious to everyone, but as once observed, the hardest sleepers to awaken are those who pretend to be asleep.

    This is my final missive, giving Jewboy the opportunity for the last word. But I do want to thank him and everybody else who has participated in this exchange for their vigorous participation. There are now several hundred google hits in response to the chronology plus our arguments, so we’re being heard around the world at a level of debate has been totally excluded from consideration by the orthodox media. This is important in my opinion, giving viewers a two-for-one opportunity to examine a presumably unbiased chronology that turns out to be favorable to Palestinians (which I consider inevitable if it is truly unbiased) and arguments in response to this chronology that unleashes the feelings of both Zionists and anti-Zionists willing to express themselves. Hurrah for us.

    One last consideration. My letter yesterday was inexcusably sloppy, my excuse having been that I rushed it out too quickly because of a variety of tasks and obligations I thought I could ignore. I couldn’t. So here it is, my revision that will sooner or later be included in my final draft available on my website:
    Just a postscript to Jewboy’s postscript. After everything I’ve said, he’s still got it wrong. It is Israel that stands to benefit from endless hostilities. “Cui bono?” Cicero once asked, which is the most basic question of all in politics: who gets the benefits, or more expressively, exactly who is it that cashes in? In other words, relevant to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, who benefits from a continuation of the status quo, Israel or the Palestinians? Obviously, it is Israel. The three principal reasons why Israel is the primary beneficiary may be listed as follows:

    1. They are steadily demolishing Palestinian society with any claim to official status as a nation. After another decade or two Palestinians will be scattered to the winds if the Zionist leadership of Israel have anything to do with it, just as Ben Gurion first recommended.

    2. Incessant conflict provides an excellent source of emergency aid from the U.S. We’re already sending too much money and military equipment to Israel, and reports of Palestinian hostility that supposedly indicate a major threat to Israel’s existence, actually serve to pump more subsidization from Congress, which is totally intimidated by the Zionist lobby at this point.

    and 3. As in the U.S. the perpetual state of winning wars does a fine job of uniting a nation, at least among its less educated population. It’s like rooting for a football team. Everybody pulls together, the macho big guys take control, and the money people get exactly what they want. The only problem is that the strategy doesn’t last forever. Sooner or later it breaks down, and the sooner the better. Already for the U.S. it might be too late, as so effectively indicated by Chalmers Johnson in his most recent article. And the same might be true of Israel.

    So it’s Israel that keeps resisting a peace settlement, just as Dov Weisglass confesses in the passage I quote in the third paragraph of my last letter. However, take it as a rule of thumb, as indicated in one of my earlier letters, THE AGGRESSOR NATION CAN’T SEEM TO BE DOING THIS. As in all conflict, the side that promotes and benefits from hostilities primarily has the task of making it seem that the other side is at fault. We are supposed to believe that Palestinians actually wants a war that they can only lose (as for example in 1939, when Poland seemed on the brink of invading Nazi Germany). But not true. The side with superior military force almost inevitably both seeks and wins the war, and almost always with the excuse that it is an innocent victim that just happened to pull victory out of defeat. Likewise, when war persists endlessly despite a whopping asymmetry between the two combatants, figure it is the dominant combatant that wants to avoid negotiations.

    This in fact has been Israel’s basic strategy since 1948. The most recent test of its leadership’s ability to claim innocence while promoting military victory was the misguided 2003 “Roadmap” peace effort of the so-called “Quartet Group” that was declared just six weeks after the Iraq invasion. The tradeoff to help bring Israel into a new round of negotiations was plain: (1) all of the benefits offered by the Arab League in both trade and full diplomatic recognition; and (2) the unacknowledged quid quo pro that the U.S. was finally eradicating Iraq as any kind of a military threat, so peace negotiations could finally be undertaken without any fear from the presumably most dangerous frontier nation.

    What U.S. negotiators didn’t quite realize was that the biggest threat of all for Sharon was of being forced into negotiations he did not want and would not be able to dominate. But threat it was, as could be seen in Sharon’s almost immediate response. There was a flurry of assassinations within a day the Roadmap was announced (May 1, 2003), followed by another flurry of assassinations on June 2, just after Bush visited the Arab summit meeting in Cairo. And an intensification of hostilities followed over the next year or two.

    But this was not enough to terminate the peace effort. On August 15, 2005, Sharon therefore announced his Unilateral Disengagement Strategy, effectively bypassing Roadmap peace negotiations, which had become moribund but were still festering. However, his unilateral generosity was limited to the liberation of Gaza from Israeli occupiers as well as the closing of four Israeli settlements on the West Bank. “Thank you for Iraq,” he seems to have been saying, but I’ve lost interest in my end of any tradeoff we might have had in mind now that Iraq has been liquidated as a potential enemy. Please to accept Gaza and four settlements as your consolation prize.”

    Indeed, the settlements were dismantled, but with almost hysterical resistance by the Zionist residents that seemed staged to provide lots of photo opportunities for the international press. Also, Sharon liberated Gaza as promised, but then he escalated hostilities that soon culminated in a full-scale attack on Gaza’s infrastructure, the invasion of Gaza by Israeli troops, and the killing of hundreds of Gaza residents. U.S. press coverage focused on the Hamas rockets whereby maybe one Israeli was killed for every thirty rockets used, while the devastation wrought on Gaza has mostly been ignored. Even you, Jewboy, resorted to this kind of argument in your last letter–the complaint that the Gaza residents, instead of being grateful for having been given freedom in a zone of their own, resorted to unjustified rocket attacks that necessitated counter attacks. Gimme a break.

    I admit that Palestinian militants make a big issue of their successful campaign against Israel, but you should have noticed by now that every time there is any traction toward international negotiations to finally settle the conflict, it is the Palestinians who quickly indicate their cooperation, while Israel resists and soon foments hostilities every way it can until the pursuit of negotiations ends once again. This is a universal behavior–the typical unspoken compact between bullies and their victims. Victims feel obliged to show they are still up to the fight, and bullies use this pretense to justify beating them up all the more bloodily.

    You guys emphasize the issue of victimization all the time. It’s become your mantra in fact. So look into to what you are doing, and put it to an end. Again: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

  59. jewboyantichrist666 said on February 9th, 2008 at 10:03am #

    You are right–you unwittingly explain why Israel/Zionists?Jews are so hated:

    “This is a universal behavior–the typical unspoken compact between bullies and their victims. Victims feel obliged to show they are still up to the fight, and bullies use this pretense to justify beating them up all the more bloodily.

  60. b abramsky said on February 11th, 2008 at 5:14pm #

    This seems so one sided I could not read it all. If you wish to make the point it would be useful to present both sides. How you can feel that the Palestinians are just victims is absurd. You fail to mention all the killing of innocents by the Palestinians. Besides – who’s land was it first…