Martial Law: Imminent Arrival?

[Greg Burnham]

In my "not-so-politically-correct" opinion: Israel's major flaw is in its Public Relations ineptitude. Israel either just doesn't know how to make itself look good or it cares not
about appearances. In any event, preferring to emphasize its core values over "spin" has come at a cost to Israel's reputation. Don't misunderstand, I don't think Israel is
perfect, but neither are we Americans. Overall, I have supported and continue to support Israel. I firmly believe that Israel has come a long way. From its struggle to even
survive there remain reactionary elements both in the Israeli military as well as in Parliament. Who can blame them? Or better: Would a rational person really expect anything
different? I think not. Her neighbors' charters include the provision: "Drive the Jews into the sea" -- which is not an idle threat as evidenced by several wars initiated not by
Israel, but by those wishing to follow their charter. I'll stop there rather than attempt to over simplify a very complex region of the world.

[Lauren Johnson]

In my "not-so-politically-correct" opinion: Israel's major flaw is in its Public Relations ineptitude. Israel either just doesn't know how to make itself look good or it cares not
about appearances. In any event, preferring to emphasize its core values over "spin" has come at a cost to Israel's reputation. Don't misunderstand, I don't think Israel is
perfect, but neither are we Americans. Overall, I have supported and continue to support Israel. I firmly believe that Israel has come a long way. From its struggle to even
survive there remain reactionary elements both in the Israeli military as well as in Parliament. Who can blame them? Or better: Would a rational person really expect anything
different? I think not. Her neighbors' charters include the provision: "Drive the Jews into the sea" -- which is not an idle threat as evidenced by several wars initiated not by
Israel, but by those wishing to follow their charter. I'll stop there rather than attempt to over simplify a very complex region of the world.

Greg,

The very fact your position regarding the current Israeli fault as being one of public relations is misinformed.

If indeed you are open to looking at things differently, I suggest reading Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 by Benny Morris. (Morris is an Israeli historian who access to newly released documents at the time.) His argument is simple fortified with first rate scholarship: there were two peoples, Zionist Jews and Arabs (Christian and Muslim) who both wanted the same thing. Zionists from the very earliest days of the movement recognized the need to dispossess the land of its Arab population. And as the Arabs realized the agenda, they fought back, with each group becoming a righteous victim.

The perfect analog to driving the Jews into the sea, was the word "transfer," which would mean driving the Arabs into the desert. From the very earliest days, Morris quotes from a letter from two of the first Zionist leaders, Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines:

We have made it a rule not to say too much, except to those...we trust....The goal is to revive our nation on its land...if only we succeed in increasing our numbers here until we are the majority[Empahsis from the original]....There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones. (49)

My read of Morris is that this attitude existed in a subterranean way and only became explicit as time passed and tensions grew. Witness the father of Revisionist Zionism, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, from his manifesto, The Iron Wall.

Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.


Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.
All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians." One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad's bayonets a strange and somewhat risky taste' but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion. (http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm)

In fairness to Jabotinski, his position on transfer was not to engage in a military final solution to the Arab question. He saw the Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets as a precursor to partition and the separation of populations. The military solution came with Plan D in the 1948 war, which intended to drive out the Muslim Arabs from their dwellings and villages using terror. It now is called ethnic cleansing. The cover story told to a gullible Israeli populace was that the Arabs left voluntarily.

As Jobotinski was the leader of the Revisionist Zionists and their military wing, the Irgun, which was composed special forces (death squads), the mainstream of Zionism was led most notably by David Ben Gurion. This is what he said about "transfer" at a the 1937 Zionist National Congress:

Transfer...is what will make possible a comprehensive settlement program. Thankfully, the Arab people have vast, empty areas. Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of the a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs. (p.143)

Regarding the 1948 civil war and well as the '67 war, even though the Israeli's tended to see themselves as the underdogs, they in fact enjoyed significant advantages. He even says the '67 war was a well planned operation on the part of the Israelis against Arab "punching bags." The war was anticipated and carefully mapped. The '72 war was the only war, Greg, which matched your description a nation surrounded and besieged by hostile neighbors just trying to survive. The goal of the Israeli state was consistently to displace Arabs and to take possession of their land.

One more thing. I don't hate Israel. I don't want them driven into the sea, as if that would or could happen. But we shouldn't confuse ourselves thinking Israel wants peace with someone who only wants war. Israel is ever the master at manipulating minds. The core of Zionism is peace at the end of an Iron Wall of bayonets. How Israel came to this point has a history. Israel certainly has had willing partners in this dance of death. The USA has certainly been one of them.

Finally, while I was traveling through Israel and the Occupied Territories last January, I chose to read Exodus by Leon Uris. The book is the writing of mythology--the story of a nation of righteous victims. It reminded me how powerful that myth is. Once it takes hold of one's mind and the mind of a people, it is hard to let it go. When we went to the Western Wall for the sabbath, I prayed that whatever remnants of that myth that still lives in my heart be burned away.

[Mark Stapleton]

A turnoff for you maybe but I agree with what he says.

No doubt,you're an anti-semetic extremeist also.

So a critic of Israel equals an anti-semite, eh.

Apologists for the bloodthirsty regime in Tel-Aviv often hide behind that old chestnut when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

[Magda Hassan]

Ilan Pappe is also a good read on Israeli history. [URL="http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/iais/staff/pappe/"]http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/iais/staff/pappe/

[/URL]

[Magda Hassan]

A turnoff for you maybe but I agree with what he says.

No doubt,you're an anti-semetic extremeist also.

So a critic of Israel equals an anti-semite, eh.

Apologists for the bloodthirsty regime in Tel-Aviv often hide behind that old chestnut when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

So a critic of anti Semitism equal a supporter of Israel, eh.
Apologists for anti Semitism often hide behind that old chestnut when they have nothing of substance to contribute.

[Mark Stapleton]

So what if his newsletter is called veterans today? He is a veteran. You claim he doesn't reflect the vast majority of veterans, but who made you spokesman for the vast majority of veterans?

Okay,you didn't understand my point.Maybe only Veterans can grasp it.I'm not a spokesperson for anything,but common sense is on my side.

I haven't seen any common sense from you yet, so I can't agree it's on your side.

I'm not a veteran, but I would guess that many share Duff's antipathy towards Israel. The USS Liberty incident in 1967 wouldn't endear Israel to many veterans, imo.

[Mark Stapleton]

So Mark,tell me just what difference there is between say,Pam Geller hate preaching that Islam is taking over America,and Gordon Duff preaching that Israelis are taking over America.

I see little difference,and I wouldn't doubt both are Psy-ops of some sort.

There's heaps of difference.

Duff is basing his claim on evidence. If you don't believe the US Congress is controlled by the Israel Lobby then you are ill informed. They are currently trying to circumvent the President in order to start a war with Iran, for Christ's sake. No hate speech from Duff, just analysis of the facts.

[Greg Burnham]

Lauren,

You need not direct me to sources that will allegedly improve my understanding of Israel. I have already read the work you suggested. You have no idea who you are
attempting to school here. My understanding of the region might be more than you could possibly have guessed. Cryptic statement? Yes, I know. Live with it. Condescending
remarks, patronization, and ill-advised cites to authorities that are themselves dubious will not work with me. Try again.

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren,

You need not direct me to sources that will allegedly improve my understanding of Israel. I have already read the work you suggested. You have no idea who you are
attempting to school here. My understanding of the region might be more than you could possibly have guessed. Cryptic statement? Yes, I know. Live with it. Condescending
remarks, patronization, and ill-advised cites to authorities that are themselves dubious will not work with me. Try again.

No, clearly do not know who I am dealing with. Nevertheless, your initial statement irregardless of who I am dealing with is still just as dumb.

What was that W.C. Fields line: Ahh yes. And tomorrow I'll wake up sober and you'll still be crazy.

[Greg Burnham]

Lauren,

You need not direct me to sources that will allegedly improve my understanding of Israel. I have already read the work you suggested. You have no idea who you are
attempting to school here. My understanding of the region might be more than you could possibly have guessed. Cryptic statement? Yes, I know. Live with it. Condescending
remarks, patronization, and ill-advised cites to authorities that are themselves dubious will not work with me. Try again.

No, clearly do not know who I am dealing with. Nevertheless, your initial statement irregardless of who I am dealing with is still just as dumb.

What was that W.C. Fields line: Ahh yes. And tomorrow I'll wake up sober and you'll still be crazy.

The "word" you chose to employ: "Irregardless" -- is not even a word. At best it is a double-negative which cancels out your own point. Do your homework before you challenge me again or I will get nasty. A word to the wise.