A Plan for Peace in Three Parts - Part II

[theaustinescorts]

In 1948 President Truman was widely expected to lose re-election. Uneducated, uncouth, ignorant and corrupt, he was considered a virtual laughing stock by the media.

In Palestine British rule was slated to end on May 15, 1948. In anticipation the Jewish agency there worked out a plan with President Truman to recognize a new Jewish state, Israel, within the first few minutes after 6pm New York time [the moment at which British rule would formally end]. President Truman made no plans whatsoever to recognize any Arab state in Palestine. Truman made this decision in league with Jewish supporters of Israel in the US in exchange for critical support in the upcoming Presidential election. However the US Department of State and the intelligence services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force were all opposed to the establishment of Israel.

In anticipation, Arabs living along the road to Jerusalem closed off the Jewish section of the city. Jewish groups used this as a pretext to attack and destroy Arab villages along the road to Jerusalem. One such village, Deir Yassin, was considered an easy target by the Jewish terrorists. No one from Deir Yassin was ever thought to have been involved in blocking the road, and it was thought to be defenseless. However when the Jewish terrorists attacked they were shocked to find that the village fought back. Several Jewish terrorists were killed thereby, and the Jews became enraged. They finally subdued the village, rounded up numerous Arabs there and then murdered them - a massacre.

The next day Arab radio reported that not only had the village been massacred, but that women there had been raped [which was untrue]. Thereafter, large numbers of Arabs in villages and cities all over Palestine fled their homes and land to seek refuge elsewhere until the situation was settled.
The Jewish Agency sent out teams to occupy the Arab properties.

As planned by Truman, at one minute past 6pm [New York Time] on May 15, the Iraqi representative to the UN took the podium there and announced that the British mandate in Palestine was over. Moments later the US representative followed by announcing that the US was recognizing the new state of Israel. Shortly thereafter the USSR representative, Andre Gromeko, announced that the USSR was also recognizing Israel.

The next day armies from 5 Arab countries [Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon] entered Palestine and attacked Jewish villages. With very few arms the Jewish army [Haganah] lost battle after battle and had to continue to retreat. Whenever Arab soldiers cleared a Jewish village the Jews were removed, and sometimes killed.

Israeli leaders and their supporters in the US begged Truman for help, but he completely refused. Having created the conditions which sparked the war he watched gleefully as the Jews of Palestine were being defeated. Their aspirations for a state, which Truman claimed to have sought, were quickly turning into a nightmare as Arab armies advanced to within twenty miles of Tel-Aviv.

After three weeks a shipment of arms finally arrived - from Czeckoslovakia, arranged entirely by Stalin in Moscow. With the arrival of the arms the military situation reversed immediately. The Jewish army went on the attack and the five Arab armies were routed entirely out of Palestine. The leaders of each of the five Arab nations threw in the towel.

None of the Arabs who fled Palestine after the Deir Yassin massacre were allowed to return. They never have been. The Israeli government formally seized their properties and distributed them.

In Washington the feckless Truman was dismayed. The Joint Chiefs and the State Department were livid at him. What Truman had done for his own gain had created a new Soviet outpost in the middle east - Israel.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

In 1948 President Truman was widely expected to lose re-election. Uneducated, uncouth, ignorant and corrupt, he was considered a virtual laughing stock by the media.

In Palestine British rule was slated to end on May 15, 1948. In anticipation the Jewish agency there worked out a plan with President Truman to recognize a new Jewish state, Israel, within the first few minutes after 6pm New York time [the moment at which British rule would formally end]. President Truman made no plans whatsoever to recognize any Arab state in Palestine. Truman made this decision in league with Jewish supporters of Israel in the US in exchange for critical support in the upcoming Presidential election. However the US Department of State and the intelligence services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force were all opposed to the establishment of Israel.

In anticipation, Arabs living along the road to Jerusalem closed off the Jewish section of the city. Jewish groups used this as a pretext to attack and destroy Arab villages along the road to Jerusalem. One such village, Deir Yassin, was considered an easy target by the Jewish terrorists. No one from Deir Yassin was ever thought to have been involved in blocking the road, and it was thought to be defenseless. However when the Jewish terrorists attacked they were shocked to find that the village fought back. Several Jewish terrorists were killed thereby, and the Jews became enraged. They finally subdued the village, rounded up numerous Arabs there and then murdered them - a massacre.

The next day Arab radio reported that not only had the village been massacred, but that women there had been raped [which was untrue]. Thereafter, large numbers of Arabs in villages and cities all over Palestine fled their homes and land to seek refuge elsewhere until the situation was settled.
The Jewish Agency sent out teams to occupy the Arab properties.

As planned by Truman, at one minute past 6pm [New York Time] on May 15, the Iraqi representative to the UN took the podium there and announced that the British mandate in Palestine was over. Moments later the US representative followed by announcing that the US was recognizing the new state of Israel. Shortly thereafter the USSR representative, Andre Gromeko, announced that the USSR was also recognizing Israel.

The next day armies from 5 Arab countries [Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon] entered Palestine and attacked Jewish villages. With very few arms the Jewish army [Haganah] lost battle after battle and had to continue to retreat. Whenever Arab soldiers cleared a Jewish village the Jews were removed, and sometimes killed.

Israeli leaders and their supporters in the US begged Truman for help, but he completely refused. Having created the conditions which sparked the war he watched gleefully as the Jews of Palestine were being defeated. Their aspirations for a state, which Truman claimed to have sought, were quickly turning into a nightmare as Arab armies advanced to within twenty miles of Tel-Aviv.

After three weeks a shipment of arms finally arrived - from Czeckoslovakia, arranged entirely by Stalin in Moscow. With the arrival of the arms the military situation reversed immediately. The Jewish army went on the attack and the five Arab armies were routed entirely out of Palestine. The leaders of each of the five Arab nations threw in the towel.

None of the Arabs who fled Palestine after the Deir Yassin massacre were allowed to return. They never have been. The Israeli government formally seized their properties and distributed them.

In Washington the feckless Truman was dismayed. The Joint Chiefs and the State Department were livid at him. What Truman had done for his own gain had created a new Soviet outpost in the middle east - Israel.

You should really try and hide your bias a little better. Apparently only the Jews were considered terrorist.

[shazzan]

Don't really know why Deir Yassin is the center piece of the 1948 war. I guess you are trying to say it typified Jewish behavior during the war. It was the massacre that got the most air time, and was the most wildly embellished event reported on Arab radio at the time. The exaggerated reporting on the massacre by the Arab media was a big factor in convincing the local Arabs to flee. If you look you can find interviews of Arab radio personalities at the time wishing they had not inflated the event and added the rape stories, because instead of rallying the Arabs it had the opposite effect. There where a number of similar massacres by both sides during the war. The massacre of the Mt. Scopus medical convoy comes to mind.

You have left out the months of Fedayeen attacks that were occurring before the declaration of independence. Thousands of irregular Arab forces slipped into the British Mandate and started low level attacks against Jewish communities and forces. What really bothers me about this skeleton of history you have thrown together, is your laying out events like all Israel bashers do. Jews massacre innocent civilians, while the Arabs do nothing but defend themselves. While no side was Angels, there never are in war, the Arabs were the losers, not the hapless victims.

The shipment of Czech arms was vital in turning the tide of the war. The Jordanian forces were well armed, trained, and led by experienced former British officers. The size of the territory they were able to hold onto attests to that. But, the main factor in the Jewish victory of 1948 was motivation. They had nowhere to flee to, and after the Holocaust they had a very dark view of how they would be treated by their enemies. It was a very much fight or die mentality. The Arab forces didn't have the sea to their backs, and when the war turned they had families and homes to go back to. The Arab refugees didn't stay and fight to the death to defend their villages, because they could simply get up and leave to take shelter in other Arab communities while the Arab armies cleaned out the Jews. In fact, this is exactly what they were told to do by invading Arab armies. The "Palestinians" could flee 20 miles and take refugees among people who where exactly like them in literally every way except location. The culture shock would be like fleeing from Austin to Roundrock. Many had extended family living in the areas they fled to. To bad so many were locked up into refugee camps for generations and treated like crap by their brothers for 60 years.

I have often thought that the best way for Israel to solve the Palestinian refugee issue is by taking the Palestinian demand for a right to return as literally as possible. If you were a 1948 refugee and could prove it, Israel would take you in and give you status similar to an East Jerusalem Arab. When I say 1948 refugee I don't mean spouse or descendant. I mean you were literally alive and living in Israel controlled territories in 1948 and you have Mandate records showing this. Then you, and only you, could come live in Israel. There aren't more than a 150,000 senior citizens that would fit that bill, and I doubt most of them would leave their families to take up the offer. Neither side would except this, but it would fulfill Palestinian demands in the most literal sense and would not be demographic suicide for Israel.

[theaustinescorts]

I have no disagreement with your account of history. The 2000 talks in Camp David broke down largely over the right to return. No Israeli government, Likud, Labor or otherwise will accept it.

My little account was long enough without digressing into smaller issues which would have made it appear more "balanced." I do believe though that the Jewish agency, Haganah and the Jewish terrorist groups, were all working hand in hand. The Jewish agency would say they opposed the terror attacks by Irgun and Lehe but then would seize the land which resulted. I think it's rather like that today, as every Israeli government claims they have no expansionist intentions while they continue to foster settlements all over the west Bank. You have to rely on what they do, not what they say.

My larger point was to explain that Israel started as anything but our ally, and the existing assumption of a right to exist was considered at the time to be rather ridiculous - now however it's sacred policy. What happened in 1948 was a cruel ploy by Truman which backfired when Stalin saw an opportunity. Thereafter in order to limit Soviet influence in Israel the CIA assigned James Angleton to manage clandestine Israeli-US affairs. Angleton succeeded in fostering a special intelligence relationship with Israel which blunted Soviet penetration, but it came at an enormous cost. When Israel accepted the US the Soviets switched to supporting the Egyptians, and armed them to the hilt in the early 1950s, which led the Israeli's to attack Egypt in 1956. When they did so [in collaboration with France and the UK] President Eisenhower was enraged, but couldn't do anything except throw the matter to the UN. This set a pattern of Israel doing outrageous things which harmed US interests, but US politicians couldn't do much about it. Recently though they probably wouldn't want to do anything about it. None of them are old enough or schooled enough to know the history.

I believe that until the myths surrounding Israel are broken down here it will not be possible for the US to foster an any real agreement. And it's vital to our security that an agreement be reached.

I believe it's the only real national security issue we have.

[theaustinescorts]

I didn't mention the terror attacks by the Arabs because they were historically inconsequential.

In contrast, the terror employed by the Jews was purposeful, organized, and
successful.

Most Americans identify terrorism with the Arabs, and are unaware of its successful use by the Israelis.

For the Jews in Palestine the use of terror yielded them a state.

For the Arabs the use of terror only gave them a bad name.

[shazzan]

Wow! I suppose the terror employed by Muslims today is inconsequential. They haven't restored the Caliphate or toppled any Western nation, or Eastern ones, yet. The terrorist attacks by groups like the Stern Gang in the British Mandate, except for a few massacres during the 1948 War, were more akin to the IRA, and mostly directed at the British military. The worst was the King David Hotel Bombing, and just like the IRA they called in a warning before the bomb went off. The large loss of life in that one was because the warning was ignored. Those groups were disbanded during the war, and most Israelis are rightly embarrassed about their actions. In character they are significantly different from Palestinian terrorists.

I have little doubt that if the Palestinians get a state in the West Bank and Gaza, terrorism will continue. It will be for the same reason there are terrorist organization in almost every Islamic nation on earth. The nationalist ideology is only part of what drives these groups. The religious ideology is just as influential, if not stronger, and no peace agreement is ever going to make that go away. Heck they name streets and soccer fields after suicide bombers who blew up pizza parlors and Seder dinners. And before you talk about Israeli military men with streets named after them who killed civilians during wars, let me stop you. Those guys like, Ariel Sharon, were actual war heroes responsible for winning wars, in which civilian deaths were almost exclusively unintended consequences. They were honored for their victories, and not for unintended or shameful events that occurred. In fact most Israelis consider those shameful events, stains on the reputations of these military men, and the hardcore leftists don't think of them as heroes at all. On the Palestinian side you have suicide bombers who accomplished nothing, but purposefully blowing up families eating pizza. These bombers are considered heroes by virtually everyone in there society. Heck, children trade suicide bomber cards like US kids do with baseball cards.

[shazzan]

As long as I'm at it I'll respond somewhat to your previous post. A pattern of Israel doing outrageous things starting with the 1956 war...really? Do you simply not know what you are talking about, or are you just so ideologically biased that you ignore history that contradicts your views? The 1956 war was going to happen regardless of the British or French collaboration. Egypt had blockaded all Israeli shipping to and from the port of Eliat through the Straits of Tiran. This constituted a complete blockade of Israel's only southern port. It would be like China blocking all shipping to and from the Pacific coast of the US. Under international law this is a well established act of war.

The western nations and UN failed to break the blockade despite Israel's pleas. War was going to happen because the only way Israel could lift the blockade was by taking the eastern Sinai. Nasser's nationalization of the Suez just proved a convenient way to get French and British cover. When the withdraw was forced by the US and UN, part of that included the opening of the Straits of Tiran. Israel made clear that any future blockade would be considered a casus belli for war. They even got guarantees from the US administration that if any future blockade happened the US would lead a flotilla to break the blockade.

Guess what happened in the months leading up to the 1967 war? Yup, Egypt blockaded the Straits again and the US failed to lead a flotilla to break it. That was the real first shot of that conflict. Does Israel commit outrageous behavior? They may overreact or act disproportionately in some peoples opinions. But, there is completely justifiable logic and reasons behind almost every one of those actions. This is of course if you are looking at it from an Israeli perspective of defending their citizens, territory, and deterring their enemies. If you look at it from a realpolitik US centric view in which OPEC countries are simply of more value, and dealing with the blow back from the OIC and leftist countries is too much of a pain, then I can understand how you see things a little bit, even though I find the view deplorable.

[theaustinescorts]

This thread is about the Arab-Israeli conflict so the Arab terrorism to which I refer is only that involved there, not elsewhere, which is of course very consequential. My point is that the use of terror by Palestinian Arabs has been counter-productive - both before and after Israeli independence, whereas the Jewish terror used to gain their independence was highly successful. Irgun and Stern actually studied terror campaigns used by the Irish decades earlier and modeled themselves thereby.

I agree completely that an Arab state on the west Bank and Gaza will not end terror attacks, but for completely different reasons than you argue. I don't accept at all that the use of terror is necessarily a part of their culture anymore than it was a part of the Jewish culture when they used terror. It is used by everyone...and I mean everyone....who sees a utility in using it.
You may wish to impart morality to this question, but I tell you, no one really involved in these matters as anything more than a spectator sees these issues in the moralistic terms the public and media employs. History shows that anyone sufficiently motivated is capable of using terror. Clearly the use of strategic bombing by the US was a use of terror directed against civilians, and that is only one example.

Also I think you mean to be referring to terror by Muslims, not just Arabs. The bulk of terror today is committed in South Asia, by Muslims involved in issues relating to conflicts in and between India and Pakistan. None of those terrorists are Arabs, though they are Muslim.

In terms of the 1956 and 1967 wars and their causes I'm afraid you and I are going to vastly disagree.

The closure of the straits was a factor in the media only...not something any historian or figure on record would give any weight to.

To understand the causes of these two wars you must look to the background.

In 1956 Israel was scared shitless by the Soviet-supplied arms build-up in Egypt after the military coup there in 1952 - which was a result of the army's humiliation in 1948. Israel needed the Sinai as a buffer, and entered into a conspiracy [all you conspiracy debunkers take note] with France and the UK.
The Prime Ministers of the three conspiring countries met outside of Paris, at Sevre, and agreed that Israel would attack in the Sinai and England and France would invade the Suez and depose Nasser under the pretext of a "peace mission." Please look up "Protocol of Sevre," because this conspiracy was actually put into writing at the insistence of Ben-Gurion. They didn't count on Eisenhower's livid reaction though, and the matter was thrown to the UN, which placed a peace-keeping force in the Sinai after the Israelis withdrew per UN demands.

Regarding the '67 war, this too was the product of a conspiracy, this time by the USSR, and this is only recently been exposed.

The Soviets tried to prompt the Arabs into attacking Israel by feeding them false intelligence that Israel was preparing to attack Syria. This is what led the Arabs to make various DEFENSIVE preparations which the Israeli's wrongly interpreted as preparations for an attack. Israel's strategic situation was terrible so they did what such countries often do - they pre-empted.

Afterwards however mossad's analytic branch studied the events leading to war and concluded that the Arabs DID NOT INTEND TO ATTACK, and this led to many procedural changes within the Israel Defense Forces.

Some of these changes caused them to err on the other side however and strongly contributed to the Arab's surprise attack [and mossad's intel failure] in 1973.

[shazzan]

All I'll say is you must read different history books than I do, because from what I've read the blockade was taken very seriously by Israel. You are correct about the Soviet actions that contributed to the 1967 war. I disagree completely about the lack of necessity for that one, and the concept that it was just maneuvers on the part of the Arabs. Egypt violated the 1956 cease-fire by both blockading the Straits once more, and forcing the UN peace keepers out reoccupying the Sinai. If nothing else that would have been enough.

Israel had a completely justifiable logic behind their policy of preemption at the time. Both Egypt and Syria had their armies fully mobilized on Israels borders, and their media was full of propaganda about the coming war to wipe out the Jews. Israel has no strategic depth. In a land battle it is either fight it in the Sinai, or risk fighting it in Israeli cities and towns. Further the only way to counter the massed Arab armies was to call up the reserves and position them for battle. Israel has a tiny population compared to it's neighbors. Mobilizing the reserves literally paralyzed the nation at the time. All the butchers, bakers, accountants, etc., were in front line positions instead of working. The Arabs could afford to keep their armies massed almost indefinitely on Israel's border. Their nations weren't brought to a standstill by this. It was either beat those massed armies back, or have the country collapse waiting for them to strike first.

I really have no comprehension of why you would think the Arabs DID NOT INTEND TO ATTACK. The Arab media in all the surrounding nations, especially Egypt, was full of lets go to war rhetoric. The Arab citizenry was certainly sure there was going to be a war, and that they would win. Arab countries like Iraq and Libya sent troops to participate in the war to remove the stain of 1948 from Arab honor. Israel begged Jordan not to join the Arab coalition against Israel, but King Hussein felt that if he didn't his own people would rise up against him. That's how strong the drums of war were beating in the Arab world. Nasser had a stamp designed even before the war started to commemorate the great victory to come. What are you smoking? Were the Arabs fed a bunch of bull by the Soviets, and did they completely misjudged their military situation? Boy did they ever. Regardless Israel couldn't afford to keep its army indefinitely mobilized waiting, nor could they afford to fight in Israeli territory. Maybe Egypt and Syria began with the idea of defensive measures, but once their troops were massed and every other Arab nation in the region started joining in, it took on a life of it's own. I don't see how you can look at the statements made in the Egyptian media at the time and the Arab coalition that was built, and conclude what you did. As far as I'm concerned your view of events is based on focusing on one small part of history (false Soviet intelligence), and ignoring everything else surrounding it. Bottom line is, you are wrong.

I'll end this with what my best history teacher said in class once. This applies to you, me, or anyone else debating historical events. "History is a whore, ready to be used or abused by anyone."

[theaustinescorts]

History in this case is not problematic because all the players have been interviewed on camera and agree completely. I have many films and tapes of these interviews by Abba Eban, Shimon Perez, etc. upon which my statements are based.

No one in government in Israel has contended that the Arabs intended to attack in 1967 for a very long time. Mossad studied this issue exhaustively, and many procedures were implemented seeking to avoid another intelligence failure such as what happened in '67, but they erred in the other direction and then were caught by surprise in '73 - which was nearly a disaster.

The blocking of the Straits in both cases was a defensive procedure along with general mobilization by Egypt because they were convinced [correctly as it turns out though for different reasons] that they were facing an attack.

War can often occur because of misperception of others' intentions when mobilizations occur - such as the First World War. Actions which are intended as defensive are often interpreted otherwise as individuals see what they expect to see and feed it into their existing conclusions [which are usually completely wrong].

I do want to add just one statement regarding the role of terror in Israeli society. Beginning in the 1970s the far-right Likud party started winning national elections and forming governments. Likud was the political follow-on to the Jewish terror groups of earlier years. Therefore Israel's Prime Ministers all during that period were all hard-core terrorists themselves who were wanted men during the British mandate. Prime Ministers Menachim Begin and Itzack Shamir were Irgun and Lehe leaders responsible for many massacres and killings. Ariel [Arik] Sharon is a revered military general certainly, but he was also a sociopathic killer who volunteered for as many Lehe village massacres as they could fit him in for. I have a chilling film of him after one such massacre with Ben-Gureon, who congratulated him for such, and calls him "a good boy." Make no mistake - although they said otherwise all Israeli leaders were in on the terror. It was a "good cop/bad cop" charade. When was in charge of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982-83 Sharon ordered the massacre of the Shabra and Shatila refugee camps in which all the families there were butchered. Sharon believed that the only good Arab was a dead Arab. I actually met him in 1984 in San Antonio at the Mossad base there, which was at that time located in the Ashford Oaks building and the "Ariel Club" building next door. The San Antonio resident/Israeli agent who built them [he was a real estate developer among other things] was the chief contributor to the Mossad Monument in Israel [the "maze"] and had Sharon over in 1984 when he was seeking money to save his businesses there [1984 was a bad year for commercial real estate in Texas].

Sharon was a scary guy.

[shazzan]

I guess we all see what we want to. I hope you don't mind that I take everything you have written with a mountain of salt. I've read a few books on the war history in Israel, and in none of them did they ever mention that the Arabs never intended to attack. On this one I'll believe my own lying eyes instead of you. I'll give you that the Israeli military planners in the know were fully confident they would wipe the floor with the Arabs. The Israeli public was in near panic over the massed Arab armies. You make it sound like the Israeli planners regretted the 1967 war. What? They were thrilled. In one fell swoop that got the defensive barriers of the Sinai and Golan. They had been waiting for the Arabs to do something stupid like this for years. If committing an act of war by blockading the Straits of Tiran was a defensive measure, then I don't know what an aggressive one is.

Nothing I said in my previous statement is untrue. Israel couldn't keep it's army fully mobilized forever, and Egypt's action were tantamount to declaring war. There would have been no need for a 7 state Arab military coalition for "defensive measures", and the war rhetoric in the Arab media was fierce. You sound relatively knowledgeable so I'll ignore the feeling that your just making crap up, but your interpretation of events is so warped I think it is almost the same thing.

As far as your "terrorist" lable, I still stand by the opinion the likes of Begin and Shamir were akin to the IRA, not Hamas or Fatah. Just look at the return of the Sinai for peace. That was not the actions of a bloody fanatic. I don't deny there were a few massacres in the war, and that the Haganah looked the other way cause they viewed clearing the population of strategic areas as necessary, but most of them were real battles that ended with massacres. Not the same as blowing up teenagers waiting in line to get into a club, or riding to school on a bus.

Ariel Sharon was a brutal guy, but he was not a sociopath. The man was a warrior used to being in the front lines, and the safety of civilians never trumped winning in his mind. I always find it funny how whenever the Israel hater crowd mentions Sabra and Shatila they always fail to mention that it was committed by the Lebanese Christian Phlangist militia. Yes Israel allowed them into the camps to clear out any remaining PLO fighters, and Sharon should have known that a massacre could have happened considering how much all the Lebanese militias hated the PLO. Ordering it is a novel view of events, but if your on the other side I can see why you choose to believe that. Sharon was deemed indirectly responsible for allowing the massacre to happen and exiled from Israeli government for 20 years until Arafat decided to torch the peace process along with the Israeli peace camp. Since every Israeli action since and including it's founding seems to be a crime in your eyes, I really don't think we are going to find any common ground here.

I'm pro-Israel and make no apologies for it. What I'm not is a religious fanatic who believes you can hold on to all of the West Bank forever. There really is no alternative to a Palestinian state. At the same time I have no illusions about Israel's enemies. Most Arab/Muslim in the Middle East are taught from the moment they start school that Israel is the Satanic enemy that will eventually be wiped out. This is true even of Arab states that are at peace with Israel. Anti-Semitic rhetoric that we only expect from neo-Nazis in America and Europe, is accepted as truth throughout the Muslim world. If the Palestinians wanted a peaceful state side by side with Israel , they would have had one at Camp David. So hopefully a piece of paper will be signed bringing peace and a Palestinian state into existence, but it will be a frigid peace just like with Egypt. The children of the surrounding states will still be taught to hate Israel regardless, and Israel will still never be able to let its guard down.

Just write your unrealistic one state solution in Part III, and be done with it. Be sure to include the part where within a generation it is renamed Palestine, and the Jewish population starts emigrating because it start turning into an unstable shit hole like Lebanon.

[theaustinescorts]

Arik Sharon was a remorseless killer who murdered children and families as they begged for their lives. All Israeli's know that. Some in Isreal hated him for that, while others loved him. That's what the truth of Israel is about. It is not what Americans think it is. It is a brutal, savage situation where people murder each other's families for revenge. It is not the noble melodrama you portray.

I have to say that I'm losing respect for your posts because your assertions are so far out of line with the admitted truth that it's hard for me to believe that you're sincere in your claims. Particularly your assertions about the '56 and '67 wars are completely nonesense. You simply could not have gained what you claim to know from any reputable historian. I am not a lending library but anyone who wants to see my library and judge my sources is welcome to borrow whatever they want.

Everyone knows that the blocking of the Straits was not the real cause of any war, and
I've explained what the Israeli leaders on record and in filmed interviews have stated their motives were - and yet you continue to assert otherwise. Everyone knows about the Israeli intelligence failure of 1973 and what brought it about and why. Everyone knows that in 1967 the IDF was very doubtful about their abilities to defend against a combined attack.

There are cogent, articulate ethical defenses for Israel's aggressions. One is in the book, "Right to Exist, A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars." But this book begins by incorporating all the simple facts that those of us who know them accept as our basis for discussion. You however appear to accept none of these facts, and assert a very fanciful, moralistic, slanted, and melodramatic view parsed with acrimonious insults directed at myself.

In the US there are legions of propaganda mongers who are pro-Israel and seek to slant the awareness of opinion here. Many of these people are Likud or mossad agents, such as the ones I used to work with in the Ashford Oaks building in San Antonio. Before he lost it in bankruptcy, its owner lent it [and the Ariel House next door] to mossad for a base - and it was one hellofva base. They had everything there, and ran psychological warfare, arms trafficking and money laundering operations as well as a host of other things. Little did the accountants and dentists who shared that building know what else was going on LOL!. Many of their clients could not have failed to notice though the really tight security at the main entrance. It was well known to Israel's enemies though, and games were played. One afternoon I showed up and found the Israeli security chief ["Moishe"]
re-decorating one of the stairwells where someone had gained access the night before and painted some swaztikas. We [the American government people] used to call that building "Tel-Aviv Tower."

As I've stated before, only by informing the American public of the simple facts [which all Israeli's are aware of but which are denied by their supporters here] can a basis be made for peace.

Peace however is exactly what the far right in Israel
does not want to see. They know that the Arabs can do nothing to regain Palestine. They know that they can continue their occupation indefinitely. They know that the US will continue giving them over $3 billion a year in military aid to pay for their defense burdon.
They love the idea that the US destroyed the Ba'ath Party in Iraq because it was Israel's biggest security problem. They love the fact that the US is entangled in conflict with Iran, a government Israel had close links to until very recently. They love it that the US is bankrupting itself in useless wars with Israel's enemies all over the muslim world. But it is not all Israelis who feel that way - only the Likud and their neocon minions in the US.

[greymouse]

While you and Shazzan appear to be enjoying throwing verbal rocks at each other I think it is time for Part III where you pull the very large rabbit of Middle Eastern Peace out of the very small hat of centuries old animosities and millennium old aspirations. I for one am eager to see that done.

I recently had an interesting (and odd) conversation with a beautiful and smart Austin provider during the preliminaries on the couch at the beginning of a session. Somehow, I cannot remember how, she began to talk about the Arab-Israeli impasse and made it clear she did not sympathize with Israeli government policy. Most Americans neither know nor care about this perennial powder keg unless they are Jewish, very self-consciously On the Left or End Time Fundamentalist keen on going to Heaven in a group. I said that I thought it was an insoluble problem and suggested we take our clothes off and wrestle with each other instead. And so we did. I still think it is a problem without a good solution, one of many such. But I would love to hear a proposal.

[shazzan]

Everyone knows? If by everyone you mean you, then ok. Your a partisan interpreting events to support your views. I'm a bit biased too, but I think your raving is going a little bit off the rails here. You're about 1 degree away from a Mel Gibson "the Jews (Just say Zionists. When you replace the word Jew with Zionist it magically transforms bigotry into acceptable speech.) are responsible for all the wars in the world" rant. So let me guess, the Mossad was behind 9/11? Yup Israel just loves that the US is bankrupting itself, and incapable of stopping their good buddy Iran from obtaining nukes. They just love that the US gives $2 billion a year to Egypt so it can have a large modern military which mainly trains to fight an unnamed force to the East. This whole time I've been thinking you were a Ron Paulian; hardcore leftist just seemed unlikely. It's starting to look a little uglier than that too me.

[theaustinescorts]

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is recent, it's players all on record, and is not subject to "interpretation."

The fact that you would seek to tag me a bigot, or a conspiracy theorist, etc. in light of everything I've said to the contrary points to your agenda.

I have not even criticized Israel. On the contrary I've made parallels between the Israelis and my our American ancestors in the conquest of north America. I do however point out that the Likud, and mossad, have an agenda regarding the U.S. This should not be a surprise to anyone. That agenda is based on their perceptions of what is in the interest of Israel - NOT OURSELVES. In my experience it is mossad policy to foment conflict between the U.S. and the enemies of Israel. That involves such things as rallying American opinion regarding such issues as the Iraq war, conflict with Iran, etc. Those kinds of operations are what we used to do, what I used to do, in the cold war against communism. These operations are of course unattributable and are not as yet a matter of historic documentation. My own career in government began when I was recruited by a neocon, Walt Rostow, and some of my career involved interacting with such people, including mossad officers. I harbor no rancor in any of this, but what they do here is not in America's national interests...that's all. The only thing that distinguished mossad from other services was their ruthlessness and indifference to their non-Jewish agents. It was understood within that community that mossad assassinates their own agents [they kill their own] if they are not Jewish. The only blood they care about is Jewish blood, and they take it to an extreme.

I never make moral judgments in international matters. I leave that to others - and it's usually the pro-Israeli Americans who seek to cast their case in moralistic terms. I've posted extensively that I consider morality to be a misleading guide in international affairs and should be avoided.

Sorry if the history does not comport with your cherished beliefs.

I can say however that there is no one in Israel itself, on the left or the right, that agrees with the fanciful notions held by their boosters here in the U.S.