Foreign Policy: Petraeus wasn't the first

[Pirate Smile]

Petraeus wasn't the first

In early February of 2006, I submitted a book proposal about the wartime relationship between Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower to a group of New York publishers. I had worked on the proposal for nine months and believed it would garner significant interest. Two weeks after the submission, I received my first response - from a senior editor at a major New York publishing firm. He was uncomfortable with the proposal: "Wasn't Marshall an anti-Semite?" he asked. I'd heard this claim before, but I was still shocked by the question. For me, George Marshall was an icon: the one officer who, more than any other, was responsible for the American victory in World War Two. He was the most important soldier of his generation - and a man of great moral and physical courage.

That Marshall was an anti-Semite has been retailed regularly since 1948 - when it became known that he not only opposed the U.S. stance in favor of the partition of Palestine, but vehemently recommended that the U.S. not recognize the State of Israel that emerged. Harry Truman disagreed and Marshall and Truman clashed in a meeting in the Oval Office, on May 12, 1948. Truman relied on presidential adviser Clark Clifford to make the argument. Clifford faced Marshall: the U.S. had made a moral commitment to the world's Jews that dated from Britain's 1919 Balfour Declaration, he argued, and the U.S would be supported by Israel in the Middle East. The Holocaust had made Israel's creation an imperative and, moreover, Israel would be a democracy. He then added: Jewish-Americans were an important voting bloc and would favor the decision.

Marshall exploded. "Mr. President," he said, "I thought this meeting was called to consider an important, complicated problem in foreign policy. I don't even know why Clifford is here." Truman attempted to calm Marshall, whom he admired - but Marshall was not satisfied. "I do not think that politics should play any role in our decision," he said. The meeting ended acrimoniously, though Truman attempted to placate Marshall by noting that he was "inclined" to side with him. That wasn't true - the U.S. voted to recognize Israel and worked to support its emerging statehood. Marshall remained enraged.

Edited to conform to DU's fairuse policy for copyrighted material - Lithos, DU Moderator

Mark Perry's most recent book is Talking To Terrorists. He is also the author of Partners In Command: George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower in War and Peace and Four Stars: The Inside Story of the Battle between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's Civilian Leaders.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/01/petraeus_wasnt_the_first

[bemildred]

1. Oh good.

:popcorn:

[Jim Sagle]

2. Marshall was enraged by the prospect of a Jewish state, but he wasn't antisemitic.

Got it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Well, the one is certainly not evidence of the other.

I don't know anything about the man - it's possible he was an antisemite for all I know to the contrary - but opposing the foundation of Israel is certainly not evidence of it.

[Jim Sagle]

4. Certainly not. Why would anyone suggest otherwise?

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

5. Sagle, most of the world's Jewish communities prior to 1940

were not pro-Zionist.

The fact that it became a majority position in those communities after what Hitler did does NOT make opposition to the creation of Israel an antisemitic position.

And having a Jewish state in existence in 1940 wouldn't have prevented the Holocaust. Hitler would just have carpet-bombed that state and no one would have stopped him. Besides, the Zionist movement did almost nothing to help Jews escape from Naziism(unless they agreed to move to Palestine, and why should they have demanded that of people whose lives were in imminent jeopardy?). This is substantiated in "The Seventh Million" by the Israeli historian Tom Segev.

George C. Marshall did not hate Jews. And you know that. Nothing anyone has posted here deserved your "cracking up laughing with contempt" smilie.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Key word here is "enraged." Just my opinion, wnd you're welcome to it.

;)

[Ken Burch]

29. Nothing I've posted should have enraged you.

It's a lie to say that General Marshall was an antisemite.

[Jim Sagle]

30. Nothing you posted here DID enrage me. Gen. MARSHALL was enraged.

Enraged at the prospect of a Jewish state.

And that just seems like a "tell" to me.

[Ken Burch]

32. Why do you assume the only possible reason he could have been "enraged"

was antisemitism?

Couldn't it just as easily have been that he saw the creation of Israel as a destabilizing factor in the Middle East?
Why do you act as if it goes without saying that he could only have felt that way if he hated Jews?

After all, a lot of those who helped create Israel with their actions(like Balfour and Lloyd George), were themselves known to be raving Jew-haters. They wanted a "Jewish state" in order to keep the Jewish population of Britain as small as possible.

It's not so simple as "pro-Zionist=likes Jews/Anti-Zionist=Hates Jews".

[Jim Sagle]

45. Marshall was antisemitic, racist, and (before our entry into the war) a Nazi sympathizer.

Appearing in THE DAVID S. WYMAN INSTITUTE FOR HOLOCAUST STUDIES Letters They Wouldn't Publish section is a page entitled George Marshall, Racism, and the Holocaust and containing a letter written to the Washington Post occasioned by General Colin Powell's expressed admiration for General Marshall. From that letter:

November 13, 2003

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
Dear Editor:

<snip>

Secretary Powell is evidently unaware of Marshall's record of troubling statements and actions regarding Jews and African-Americans during the 1930s and 1940s.

The preeminent expert on the history of racism and anti-Semitism in the U.S. military, Professor Joseph W. Bendersky of Virginia Commonwealth University, has written (in his book The 'Jewish Threat': Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army; Basic Books, 2002) that Marshall used the racial epithet "darkey" in reference to African-American soldiers, and was "hostile to integrating the army, warn that such proposals were pushed by the Communists. Marshall's reservations about the potential of African-American troops stemmed in part from his low estimate of their inherent capacities." (pp.309-310)

Shortly after Hitler's invasion of Poland in September 1939, during which the Germans committed widespread atrocities against Polish Jews and others, U.S. Major Percy Black returned from Germany and accused the American press of spreading unfairly negative reports about the Germans. "There is, among the German people, from top to bottom and among the leaders, a very sincere desire for peace," he declared. Black said he did "not believe any of the atrocity stories" and insisted the Germany army was feeding Polish women and children in soup kitchens. Marshall, then deputy Chief of the Staff of the army, decided to send Black on a speaking tour to U.S. military installations to present his view of the Germans. Black's account "would interest any formal gathering" regarding Germany, Marshall wrote to his colleagues, while cautioning that the speaking tour should not be "publicized" because of the "violent Jewish reaction" to Black's statements (pp.276-278)

Marshall was also alarmingly close to General George Van Horn Moseley, who publicly asserted in 1938 that the U.S. was government was being manipulated by the "alien element in our midst" and that immigrants should be allowed into the U.S. only if they were sterilized before disembarking. After Moseley's retirement later that year, Marshall wrote him to pledge his "loyal devotion to you for what you have stood for ... it makes me very sad to think that I cannot serve with you and under you again." During the next two years, Moseley made a series of virulently anti-Semitic speeches around the U.S. ("The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world," he declared in one such tirade), and was widely-considered the prime candidate for leadership of a proposed nationwide fascist ement--until he told a Congressional committee about his belief that his critics were conspiring to poison him. Gen. Marshall nevertheless continued to maintain a close relationship with Moseley, sharing confidential military information with him and never publicly or even privately taking issue with Moseley's anti-Semitism. (pp.249-255, 309)

<snip>

Sincerely,

Rafael Medoff, Ph.D.
Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

It was a different time when Marshall's views were widely held, and nothing above is meant to detract from his essential wartime service. But he held racist and antisemitic views, no question.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

55. Perhaps. But the underlying problem may not be ill will, but simply fading historical memory.

When Ken and I were debating General Marshall, I didn't know ANY of what I subsequently found out about the General. It was a shocking and dismaying surprise, as it had long ago disappeared in the mists of time.

Few of us are old enough to remember the war years and their aftermath. Quite a few more (like myself) were able to extend their personal understanding of global issues backward to the forties. But I did understand that, after the horrendous slaughter in Europe, that any prominent educated person who was ENRAGED about the establishment of a Jewish state had to have a personal problem.

We all grasp modern history as best we can, but comprehension naturally fades away as events recede.

Consequently we read things here on DU that would never have appeared on a liberal forum a few decades back. One good (or at least handy) indicator is a sample of cartoons by the premier liberal political cartoonist of the fifties, the Washington Post's Herblock, as reloaded by Harry's place:





This is the liberalism I know and remember.

[shira]

57. Facts simply don't matter to many here

[Jim Sagle]

82. And then there's the lack of perspective. People vent as if Israel were a sprawling empire.

The truth is quite the opposite.

[shaayecanaan]

60. I suppose I should congratulate you on your first post...

that isn`t a puerile, one-line gutless gutter snipe. But this post is otherwise absolute rubbish.

With one minor exception, this letter doesnt actually quote any statements by Marshall. It quotes extensively from other people, and then attempts to attribute those remarks to Marshall by saying that they were friends of his.

As you`ve stated, the 1950s was a time when one could express one`s prejudices without much fear of opprobrium. Certainly Marshall held antisocial views towards Blacks which he openly expressed. My guess is though if he was an anti-semite he would have expressed it at some time - certainly many of his contemporaries did so without incident, as youve pointed out.

[Jim Sagle]

68. Your comment is a disgraceful assault on truth and a failed attempt at deflection.

Par for the course.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Because they wish to silence legitimate criticism of Israel, of course. N.T.

[shira]

7. of course it's legit to equate zionism w/ racism and be against Jewish self-determination

[Jim Sagle]

8. Self-determination - it's the new apartheid.

;)

[shira]

9. it's nazi-like, I'm telling ya!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Nonsense - apartheid-like, but in no way Nazi like.

Israel was founded by mass ethnic cleansing, but it's never descended to genocide.

[shira]

14. the apartheid label is just as sinister, dishonest, and repugnant as the nazi label

All part of a deligitimization campaign to destroy the state of Israel.

Just as Naziism and Apartheid had to be destroyed, so does Israel.....

same hate-filled BS, different day

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Apartheid had to be destroyed; South Africa didn't.

Similarly, Israel's discriminatory policies - on immigration, marriage etc - should be ended, but that doesn't mean destroying Israel.

[shira]

17. It means destroying Israel, unless you don't take Israel's enemies like Hamas and the PLO seriously

And it doesn't stop there either, as Hamas and the PLO are supported by neighboring regimes (Iran, Syria, etc..) that are just as devoted to Israel's destruction.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Yep - just a nice-sounding name for the same old bigotry. N.T.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Yes - the same old antisemitism

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I completely agree.

Jews have no more right to self determination than whites or blacks or gypsies do - which is to say, each individual Jew has a right to vote for their government and be an equal citizen of whichever country they live in; no more, no less. Zionism is an explicitly and blatantly racist philosophy, demanding that Jews be given special priviledges not given to other ethnic groups.

Governments must be equally answerable to all the people native to the area they govern, not to one ethnicity.

[shira]

13. You think the partition plan was a bad idea? No one had to move or be uprooted.

Also, I'm assuming the Kurds get no rights to self-determination either in your view?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Yes, I do.

I think that history fairly conclusively proves that the foundation of Israel was morally unjustifiable; what should have replaced the mandate was a single democratic state with equal citizenship for all those born there or who had lived there before a certain date, and constitutional protection for the rights of minorities.

As to Kurds, I support exactly the same for Kurds as for anyone else - the right to vote for the government that rules the area of land they live in. I have mixed feelings about democratic separatist ambitions of areas that have a Kurdish majority in states where Kurds are a minority - the rights and wrongs of democratic separatism are never clear: a majority of a town in blueland want to seccede to redland, but a majority in one borough of that town want to stay blue, but Bob living in that borough wants his house to be red - what do you do?

I think it is vital that if such ambitions are realised then what results is a democratic state with a Kurdish majority, not a state which gives Kurds special priviledges or recognition.

Certainly, I am 100% opposed to the right of collective self-determination for the Kurds as a group, as opposed to self-determination for individual Kurds or areas with a native Kurdish majority.

[shira]

18. Unrealistic expectations

1. How could there have been a single democratic state in 1948 with a popular leader like the Grand Mufti, who worked with Hitler? That would be like expecting Hamas and the PLO to work together with their Israeli counterparts and uphold liberal values, human and civil rights, etc. A pipe dream. Unrealistic.

2. As to the Kurds, when do you expect Utopia to happen for them? Who is advocating for your solution now? When will they be guaranteed to live in a real democracy that protects their own civil and human rights?

[pelsar]

20. on what grounds....

do you believe the arabs of Palestine would have accepted a democratic state (democracy being a western concept)....i understand you believe it, but do you have any information that lends to backup that belief?

btw I think that history fairly conclusively proves that the foundation of Israel was morally unjustified)

quite the opposite, given the history of the world and the latest poll about arab attitudes toward jews (over 90% have a negative viewpoint, whereas arabs who work with jews, its only 35% shows that knowing jews reduces the negative viewpoint), its also clear that anti-Semitism has not gone away and is very much alive and "kicking". which is the basis for israel.

but then thats from a jewish point of view.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. I think that the extent of anti-semitism is evidence that founding Israel was a mistake,

After the holocaust, the world had a chance to drive a nail into the coffin of antisemitism; unfortunately, by creating a large symbol of Judaism which it was entirely rational to abhor, it gave it a shot in the arm instead.

It is very striking to me that in general it's exactly the same people who insist that 1) the foundation of Israel made Jews safer, and 2) Israel must be allowed to do X for its security because Israeli Jews are in so much danger (whereas Jews in the e.g the UK, which Israelis love to brand a cesspit of antisemitism, are completely safe).

It's not clear to me what you're asking me to provide evidence of - if you're saying "Arabs never accept democracy" then look at e.g. Turkey, but I rather hope you aren't.

[pelsar]

34. the post holocaust anti semitism...small fact

post wwII there was a limitation on where jews could immigrate.....i.e. antisemitism was still quite strong-----try another theory


furthermore as per the poll you really dont like....arabs that don't know jews, that have information limited by their govts, dont like jews...whereas arabs in israel who work and live with jews IN ISRAEL are have a very different opinion. Given that the conflict is based in the arab world, that influence is probably world wide.

so what is the obvious conclusion:....those who dont like jews there is a very high percentage because they'e been educated to "not like them"....whereas those who experience working with jewish israelis and have their own experiences have a very different opinion.

seems the problem is not israel...but the arab govts and what they feed their masses.
____

i didnt say arabs never accept democracy...the question was when jews started immigrating to Palestine what were the chances that the locals would have accepted the western concept of democracy?

[shira]

37. It was a mistake? By 1948, could all Jews just immigrate to the USA and UK? No, they couldn't.

They couldn't do it during WW2 when they were practically begging to get away from the Nazis, so why would they just abandon Zionism (which started some 50 years earlier) and put their trust in western powers that utterly failed them at the worst possible moment, Donald? The USA and UK hardly have great records WRT Sudan and Rwanda, let alone recognizing a genocide against Armenians so what makes you think the greatest Western powers would attempt to protect Jews to the best of their ability if Israel never was?

As for Turkey, that took an Attaturk to accomplish, which BTW is what I believe Palestine needs. History shows that from the Grand Mufti to Arafat, Hamas, and now Arafat's cronies in the PA that they simply will not allow an Attaturk to do what needs to be done.

[cali]

50. oh for pity's sake.

now you're blaming anti-semitism post 1948 on the creation of Israel.

Ridiculous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. If you mean "some" then yes, if you mean "all" then of course not.

If you don't distinguish between "some" and "all" then I can't answer you.

I think that it is entirely self-evident that

1) By no means all anti-semitism in the past 60 years was caused by the foundation of Israel.
2) The foundation of Israel was a significant contributing factor to the extent of anti-semitism in the past 60 years.

Before and during the second world war there was a large amount of antisemitism in most countries where Jews were present. The revelation and aftermath of the holocaust massively reduced that; the foundation of Israel gave antisemitism a second wind.

[oberliner]

51. Israel is/was "a large symbol of Judaism which it was entirely rational to abhor"?

It's founding gave anti-semitism a "shot in the arm" ?

You actually hold these beliefs?

That is startling.

[shira]

58. yes, Jews actions bring about antisemitism

Classic trope.

[shaayecanaan]

61. Colour me startled as well...

It's founding gave anti-semitism a "shot in the arm"?

I would say its without question that the founding of Israel contributed enormously to anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the Arab world. Im surprised you would take issue with that, to be honest.

[oberliner]

63. How about the rest of the world?

Clearly the problem of anti-semitism was most acute in Europe during the 1940s.

Do you feel that the founding of Israel gave anti-semitism a "shot in the arm" in places like Europe and North America?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. No, which is why there's so little antisemitism in those places nowadays. N.T.

[oberliner]

69. Another mind-bogglingly shocking comment

Have you been to say, Russia, recently?

[shaayecanaan]

72. Well, I have...

My impression was that many Russians hated Arabs, Turks and Jews. This dislike apparently has its roots in the fact that many Russians perceive that most organised criminal syndicates are made up of these ethnicities. Many Russians also resent the fact that many of the business oligarchs are Jewish.

Which is rather different from resentment against Jews in the Arab world, which principally arose because of the establishment of Israel.

[oberliner]

80. How do you explain the Damascus Affair?

Pretty major anti-semitic incident against Jews in the Arab world that took place over one hundred years before the establishment of Israel?

Or the Allahad incident in Iran that took place during the same time period?

[shaayecanaan]

81. Well, I'd question the use of the word "major"

The Damascus affair came about largely because of provocative and stupid actions on the parts of Christians and Jews. It was fairly commonplace in those times, and in fact it still is now to some extent, for Jews and Christians to try and settle scores amongst themselves by reporting false crimes to Muslim authorities - eg, so-and-so desecrated a Koran on this date, or so-and-so defamed Muhammed on this date. Until recently Afghanistan had two Jews who lived in the only synagogue. The two men apparently hated each other and spent their time dobbing each other in to the Taliban. Usually the Muslim authorities get wise to this after a while and refuse to investigate these complaints.

My understanding of the Damascus affair was that this had been happening for some time - and eventually this escalated to the extent that the Christians started to allege that the Jews had committed blood libels. The Muslims investigated the matter, which in those days involved the use of fairly heavy-handed techniques, and which resulted in the death of a person. Eventually the Turkish authorites recognised it for a sham and issued an edict confirming same.

While unfortunate, it hardly ranks as the Turks' worst hour - in the 1890s for example they killed 300 000 Armenians in the Hammidian massacres. Its also worth remembering that more Arabs died in Jewish massacres in the first year of Israel's existence than Jews killed in Muslim massacres in the previous 500 years.

[oberliner]

83. Thanks for your response

I appreciate the info.

[pelsar]

74. well if it did....its not a compliment to their culture..is it?

or perhaps to their governments...or their education.....hating all jews because of israel?...tsk tsk tsk (what was that poll that had something like 90% of the arabs have a negative feeling toward jews?)

i thought that was a "no no".....so what failed?

are we going to blame israeli jews for this....for increasing anti semitism in the world because we are just so.......(place generalization here)

[shaayecanaan]

76. So if Hottentots had resettled Palestine rather than the Jews...

are you saying that they would have encountered no resentment?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. I'm surprised you're surprised, to be honest.

I would have thought that it was entirely uncontroversial that the foundation of Israel gave anti-semitism a shot in the arm, and while the view that the foundation of Israel was morally abhorrent obviously is controversial one it's hardly a startling opinion (I don't believe that the foundation of Israel made it justifiable to abhor the Jewish people; I do believe that it was utterly inevitable that it would cause its victims to do so).

[oberliner]

67. Very shocking that you feel this way

It is unfathomable to me that you or anyone on a progressive board would put forth this argument.

Do you really believe that the large numbers of anti-semites across Europe and North American in the 1950's and beyond came to their beliefs about Jews because of their opposition to the founding of the state of Israel and their concern for the plight of the Palestinians?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

77. I don't believe that there *are* large numbers of antisemites across Europe and North America.

I certainly believe that most of the few antisemits there are in the west hold their views for reasons entirely unconnected with Israel, but that most antisemitism in the Muslim world is not unconnected to Israel.

[shira]

78. Donald, how do you explain all the following hatred towards Jews pre-1948?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

[Jim Sagle]

24. Your history is bogus and your opinions are of no consequence.

[shaayecanaan]

26. A devastating rebuttal -nt-

[Jim Sagle]

27. As devastating as it had to be.

[Ken Burch]

33. "Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries".

[Jim Sagle]

42. U drool, I rool.

;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I beg to say that I feel gratitude for your frankness,

I beg to say that I feel gratitude for your frankness, compassion for your fears, little dread of your opposition and no want of your support.

[oberliner]

44. Quoting oppresive British colonial overlords?

Not a fan of French Canadians?

[shaayecanaan]

21. Do they get any rights to self-determination in your view?

The Americans are already in Iraqi Kurdistan, and they could take over Turkish Kurdistan fairly easily, the Turks don`t have a lot of hardware there, at least not compared to the US. They could unify Turkish and Iraqi Kurdistan within a couple of weeks.

So what do you say? Should we set up a unified Kurdistan for the poor beleagured Kurds? Would you give the order?

[shira]

23. All oppressed nations should get the right to self-determination

To the extent possible, every upstart nation should be required to be a secular democracy guaranteeing free speech, equal and civil/human rights for all, etc. Otherwise, such a nation doesn't deserve self-determination.

[shaayecanaan]

25. The Arab Israelis were under military administration until 1966

during which time they had very little freedom of movement and most of their property was stolen from them under the Absentee Property laws. I gather then that you think the upstart nation of Israel didnt deserve self-determination?

And you didnt directly answer my question. Do you think Americans should fight with the poor oppressed Kurds against the big bad old Turks to establish a state in their historical homeland?

[shira]

35. Right. Like there was no war started by Arab nations, including Palestinians, vs. Israel

and Israel just put Arabs within the country under military administration for no reason other than racism.

:eyes:

Neither the Americans or anyone else fought for the poor oppressed Jews against anyone to establish Israel. The partition plan was fair and would have required that no one move or be displaced. That's all that's really necessary for the Kurds. Some type of peaceful partition plan.

[shaayecanaan]

38. So you actually approve of Arabs being placed under martial rule and their land stolen?

and on the basis that Israel fought a war with the Palestinians in 1947? Along with your belief that the settlements are legal...well, you do tend to "check the boxes" if you know what I mean.

I guess if Israel could legitimately detain Arabs for nearly twenty years, I suppose America was equally justified in taking Japanese-Americans during WW2 and...ah, fuck it, never mind. If there are any people left who havent already figured out you`re a fascist, they need more help than I can ever give them.

[shira]

39. Nice straw man. And the answer is no.

Love how you try to portray Israel's actions after the 1948 war as if there were no war, no holocaust, no continued Arab threat from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc.... and Jews just decided one day to be mean to the Arabs in Israel because, like, that's what Jews do. Oh yeah, it's Tuesday so let's be mean for no reason to Arabs. Page 94, Protocols, right after the chapter on gathering christian baby blood for Matzas on Passover.

And then you label me a fascist.

Priceless.

[shaayecanaan]

40. So, in other words...

"every upstart nation should be required to be a secular democracy guaranteeing free speech, equal and civil/human rights for all, etc."

See, the funny thing is, I can only assume that your quote above was meant for the Palestinians. And so I can only assume that although Israel can be forgiven for the collective detention and theft of land from its Arab minority for a period of twenty years, the Palestinians need to demonstrate a Switzerland-like level of civil society before they hope to be bequeathed the immense privilege of full human status in their own homeland - their collective history of expulsion, exile, poverty, sanctions, blockade and occupation notwithstanding.

Which does strike one as a bit of a double standard, doesnt it?

Of course, the fact that you are a fascist, which I tend to think is borne out by your sympathetic reception of just about every far-right meme that has ever been applied to Arabs, would seem to me to be categorically rather different to an accusation that every passover Jews gather the blood of Christian babies to make matzah ball soup. Unless of course you harbour some serious delusions of grandeur regarding yourself.

By the way, 6 June is coming up. I still dont see any IDF list of the dead during OCL. Hope you`ve got that bank draft handy.

[shira]

41. Memo: Israel is already a secular democracy guaranteeing free speech, equal and civil/human rights

Did you ever pause to think that if Israel had neighbors like Canada and Mexico, or Wales and Scotland, or Italy and Greece, that things might have played out a little differently these past 60 years? I'm not certain ANY western democracy with neighbors like Syria, Egypt, and the rest of the gang there would act more restrained than Israel has the past 60 years and I'm pretty damned certain you realize that too.

Actually, your views on Israel are indistinguishable from far rightists no matter what you believe on other matters. I challenged you before to show that your views are different from far rightists on Israel (like Pat Buchanon) and you didn't want any part of that debate. In fact, like someone else here all you seem capable of is viciously slandering your opponents here on I/P while hiding to the greatest extent possible your real, honest views on I/P, presumably to avoid criticism for your own nasty far rightwing views on the topic. This is an online game to you.

I'm betting you really and truly believe your views on I/P are leftwing even though they correspond best to the majority view that dominates UNGA resolutions (headed by bastions of human rights like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and other oil rich states). The regressive views held by that influential voting bloc in the UN (which controls most 3rd world countries due to their oil) are decidedly more far rightwing than Avigdor Lieberman will ever be, and that's the worldview on i/P that you endorse. These backwards believing oil barons are finance capitalists who own billions of dollars in assets, exploiting workers as their slaves and are imperialist by any leftwing definition. And you back their anti-human rights, anti-democratic views on I/P 100%. Ever think about that?

BTW if I lose the bet in 2 months, what's the best way to prove I made a charitable contribution?

[shaayecanaan]

49. But you did say "upstart"

Did you ever pause to think that if Israel had neighbors like Canada and Mexico, or Wales and Scotland, or Italy and Greece, that things might have played out a little differently?

So you mean, if a bunch of Jews decided to move to Seattle and annex it from the United States to create their own homeland, would the reactions of Americans and Canadians be more reasonable than the reactions of Arabs? Well, what do you think?

Actually, your views on Israel are indistinguishable from far rightists no matter what you believe on other matters. I challenged you before to show that your views are different from far rightists on Israel (like Pat Buchanon)

My views on Israel, succinctly stated, are that the Palestinians should be given a state on the 1967 borders with the minimum required revisions, and that concerted diplomatic and economic pressure should be applied on Israel in order to attain that goal.

I googled Pat Buchanan`s views on Palestine. I am still not aware of his precise views but you are correct that there is much that he writes with which I agree.

He also opposes the Iraq war, with which I agree. He also opposes free trade within the North American continent and the World Trade Organisation, with which I agree. There is much that he writes that would garner far more support on the political left than on the political right. He is an avid supporter of President Nixon, who in many ways was a more progressive president than either Clinton or Obama.

The upshot of all this is that Buchanan is not a classic, doctrinaire right-wing ideologue, but is eclectic, holding views that would alternately be considered leftist or rightist in todays`s political climate. After all, I take it you agree with Buchanan when it comes to the
Iraq War.

Of course, unlike yourself that doesnt mean I like to spend my time trawling the Little Green Footballs site and the websites of the neo-Kahanist far right.

[shira]

52. and as an upstart, Israel fit the criteria

1. Your analogy doesn't work b/w Jews having a right to part of what was Ottoman/British territory vs. a sovereign nation like America.

2. Thanks for commenting on Buchanon.

3. I think I've spent less than 5 minutes total on LGF and as for Kahane, I can't say that I know much about him other than he was an extremist rightly marginalized by Israeli society. Try again, Ace.

[shaayecanaan]

53. It was your analogy to start with...

regarding the bet, once you have sent your donation to Medical Aid for Palestine you should receive a reply thank-you letter with a tax invoice. If you could please scan and post that on a site like photobucket or similar and post the link here. Obviously feel free to obliterate the name and address details if you please.

[shira]

59. It's insanity to link Israel's actions with other problems in the middle east

I would say that an issue that has led to massive terrorism from Morocco through Iraq, a bloody civil war in Algeria, a serious civil war in Egypt, a civil war among Palestinians, a bloody civil war and continued strife in Lebanon, and a bloody civil war in Iraq, a revolution in (non-Arab) Iran, and an Iran-Iraq war with about one million casualties—and that’s not the whole list—is a bigger cause of instability in the region.

Imagine that the Arabic-speaking world is faced with an onslaught from a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, insurgents in Iraq, Hizballah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood groups, and even Hamas among the Palestinians, but people are really mainly worried about Israel? This is irrational. And even leaving a margin for religious and nationalist passions plus manipulation by regimes and Islamists, the gap between socio-economic and nationalist-versus-Islamist issues on the one hand and Israel on the other is still huge.

Why do people in the West still keep accepting this myth? Well, for one thing, it is a propaganda line and it is what they hear from the Arab elite members that the Western elite talks with:

If only the Palestine issue were settled we’d have….stability, freedom, pro-Western sentiments, and a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and so on.

But this is a rationale for the regime’s policies and failures as well as for not doing things the West wants. The point is that after about a half-century, those who have been paying attention should see through this con-game.

Finally, the strongest argument that can be made for this view is that a settlement of the conflict would undercut the support for revolutionary Islamism. This makes sense if you don’t know much but it’s still flat wrong. Here’s why briefly:

--The compromises necessary to make a peace agreement would open the Palestinian Authority and others to claims that they are traitors, spurring on Islamist activity and enlarging their base of support. The issue of peace is being used by the Muslim Brotherhoods in Egypt and Jordan as effectively as they used the conflict when it was still in a state of war for their countries.

cont'd...

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/04/middle-easts-biggest-con-game-claiming.html

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Sorry for jumping in here, but are you referring to me in that post?

In fact, like someone else here all you seem capable of is viciously slandering your opponents here on I/P while hiding to the greatest extent possible your real, honest views on I/P, presumably to avoid criticism for your own nasty far rightwing views on the topic.


If you are, I gave you a chance to point out what views I hold about the I/P conflict that I'm being dishonest about, and you failed to come up with a single one, which was to be expected, seeing as how I've always been honest about my own views on the conflict. Seeing as how yr so concerned about slander and all, I thought I'd best point that out for any readers :)

[shira]

56. kicks for you

On your aversion to openly discuss I/P topics which expose your views...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x307906#308407

On your problem recognizing how the human rights of millions of other people are ignored...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x307906#308406

Here's where you made a really false claim...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x308108#308403

[Violet_Crumble]

71. But none of those are examples of me lying in order to hide my true views on the I/P conflict...

I was expecting to be blindsided by something along the lines of: *Violet claims to not fall for that Israel controls US foreign policy nonsense, but she's hiding her true beliefs between pages 45-46 in The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion, and in reality she runs workshops on how to fight the global control of those nasty Zionastys!* So, imagine the letdown I feel when I see that the only thing all three 'examples' seem to have in common is I'm quite rightly disagreeing with whatever complete bullshit yr peddling in each thread. It's like finding out that a trailer for a tv show has totally been full of far more promise and excitement than the boring reality of the show is. Not good enough, Shira!

So, in the interests of keeping things honest and real on yr part, might I suggest that you:

1) Change what you said to be more accurate and honest by saying: 'In fact, like Violet, all you seem capable of is hiding to the greatest extent possible your real, honest views on I/P, which of course translates as being that you and Violet deep down totally agree with everything I believe but refuse to come out and say so!.'

or (and this is the preferable one)

2) Stop being such a weird and obsessed loonytune and just stop fucking lying about me in threads I wasn't even posting in...


Ta...

[shira]

48. Oh, as for every 'far right meme that has ever been applied to Arabs'....

Is that your way of silencing any criticism of Arab governments or Arab leadership? I make every effort to distinguish between the Arab populace and their horrendous leadership but for some reason you and your colleagues seem to think knocking Arab leadership is really a knock on all Arabs collectively.

Why is that?

Are you not aware that your attempts to make Arab governments unaccountable for their actions and commonplace antisemitism is a form of neo-colonial mentality?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. For you of all people to accuse others of colonialism is laughable... N.T.

[shira]

70. do the comparison

1. There were always Jews living in Israel for the past 2500-3000 years. Their presence there does not make them colonialists. Even the Jews who immigrated there (LEGALLY) - as well as their ancestors - had a spiritual connection to the land. It's not as if Jews decided to go to Malaysia one day, take it over, and exploit the indigenous people there. Do you believe all the Arabs who immigrated to Israel pre-1948 (and there were far more who did thanks to the British White Paper, etc) - do they also count as colonialists?

2. Low expectations for any people - third world or otherwise - is racist and neo-colonialist (they can't help it, we must treat them like babies or retards who cannot be held accountable like us uppity 'whites'). I suppose this is why the Saudis are never accused of apartheid when they ACTUALLY practice it and they have a population 4X larger than Israel. No one gives a shit about the tens of millions suffering under REAL apartheid there because the retarded, childlike leadership cannot be held accountable for their actions. :eyes:

Incidentally, it's funny how Jews were never considered 'white' (as equal as anyone else) even as late as the foundation of the state in 1948 but at some time between 1948 and now, Jews are seen as 'white' oppressors. When did this 'transformation' from non-white pissant to oppressive 'white' take place, Donald? What year were Jews magically accepted into the world and start oppressing "non-whites"?

[shaayecanaan]

73. The English migrated to Australia legally...

and to America legally, and to Canada and New Zealand legally. At least there was no law stopping them from doing so. And I suppose if it was legal for England to resettle a bunch of Jews in Palestine it was equally legal for them to resettle a bunch of Presbyterians in Northern Ireland.

Indeed, it was even legal for the Spaniards to invade central America and put 90% of the Natives to the sword. I fully concede that there was not a single law that prevented them from doing so at the relevant time. And so, yes, the mass resettlement of Palestine was as legal as any of these things.

had a spiritual connection to the land

Plenty of people have a spiritual connection to that particular piece of land. The Crusaders invaded Jerusalem precisely because it had spiritual significance for them, as it was the birthplace of Christ. Ultimately, however, the fact that Jews had a spiritual connection to the land that went back 2000 or 3000 years did not authorise them to steal said land from the Arabs, many of whom (such as the Bedouin) had been there for 7000 years. Neither did it authorise the Crusaders to attempt the same thing.

Low expectations for any people - third world or otherwise - is racist and neo-colonialist (they can't help it, we must treat them like babies or retards who cannot be held accountable like us uppity 'whites').

Well, let me put your mind at ease. I am a dusky-faced desert treader myself. I would say my skin is roughly caramel-coloured. I do not regard myself as either a retard or baby. Indeed if were to make the comparison I would objectively say my level of intellect compares favourably well with most of the people on this board.

[kayecy]

75. Ah but you never suffered a white/brown transformation. ......

Ah but you, shaayecanaan, never suffered a white/brown transformation. Shira states (without naming her sources) that:

"....it's funny how Jews were never considered 'white' (as equal as anyone else) even as late as the foundation of the state in 1948."

I thought the whole point of Balfour was to make Palestine a permanent white colony at little cost to the Brits.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. There is no such thing as a spiritual connection

Jews had a culture based around a perion millenia before when other Jews lived in the middle east; that's not a "spiritual connection"; nor is anything else. Most of the Jews who immigrated to Israel clearly had a strong desire to go there based on their religion and culture, but had no meaningful moral right to do so.

The foundation of Israel was very much as though Jews had decided to emmigrate to Malaysia, expel most of the natives and oppress the remainder (or, more accurately, as though Europeans had done that in America, Australia, New Zealand etc...)

While it's true that some Jews are descended from people who lived in Israel for a long time, the vast majority of Israeli Jews are descendants of recent immigrants - before the Nakba, Israel's population was something like 70-80% Arab (if my memory serves me - I can't find the source I got that from), while at the turn of the century I think that was more like 90-95%.

The Arabs who immigrated to the Middle East in the 20th century mostly went there with the goal of integrating into the indigenous culture; the Jews mostly with the goal not merely of remaining distinct from it, but of displacing it. It's the latter that makes them colonists rather than just immigrants. Similarly, I am all in favour of most of Israel's settlements being allowed to remain and indeed to continue to expand, but only as part of a Palestinian state.




I can answer your last question reasonably confidently, I think - although it's actually two questions:

1) Most Westerners started perceiving Jews as white in the immediate aftermath of the holocaust; it was nothing to do with magic, and everything to do with having seen where anti-semitism could lead.

2) Jews started oppressing others on a significant scale in 1948 (although obviously there was terrorist activity etc before that).

The fact that these two dates are so close together is of course no coincidence - it was western guilt about the holocaust that lead to the foundation of Israel.





I don't know where you get the idea that "no-one gives a shit about suffering in Saudi Arabia". Ironically, however, you exactly highlight one of the reasons it should be a lower priority than Israel's less oppressive but still utterly unjustifiable actions: "the leadership cannot be held accountable for their actions".

I can see many ways in which changes in Western policy towards Israel could lead to improvements in the situation, and so I advocate this vigorously; I cannot see any approach to Saudi Arabia likely to lead significant improvements in living conditions there, and so, having little to say, I say little.

[azurnoir]

31. So tell me Shira as presumably

your a diaspora Jew living in the US do you feel you have a right to self determination?

[shira]

36. If I do, I'd move to Israel

[azurnoir]

47. Rather nonsensical answer to a yes or no question

really not much of a cop out