Seven Deadly Myths...
http://sevendeadlymyths.webs.com::
The seven myths:
1) The Zionists accepted the UN partition resolution and planned for peace
2) The Arabs rejected the partition and launched the war
3) The Palestinians fled voluntarily intending reconquest
4) The Arab states had united to expel the Jews from Palestine
5) The Arab invasion made war inevitable
6) A defenseless Israel faced destruction by the Arab Goliath
7) Israel subsequently sought peace but no Arab leader responded.
posted by Gert @ 8:13 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
It's true that most of these seven statements are not accurate and some are outright myths, but things are more complicated. The exact opposite of these statements isn't exactly true, either.
1) The Zionists didn't like the partition plan, but begrudgingly decided to accept it. They hoped Arabs would reject it and start a war so the Jews would be able to conquer more land , which is what eventually happened. What would the Zionists have done had Arabs also accepted partition? There's no real way to know.
2) The Arabs did reject the partition plan. Plus, the first shots of the war were fired by Arabs on a Jewish bus the day after the UN voted on the plan. Of course, Jewish forces responded with violence of their own and didn't try to compromise with the Arabs, so you could say both sides are equally responsible for the war (but certainly not the Jews alone are to blame).
3) There was a mixture of Palestinians fleeing on their own, mostly because of fear and not in order to clear the way for conquest, and Palestinians being deported by Zionist forces. If I remember Benny Morris's book correctly, only a minority of the refugees were the result of expulsions. In any case, we Israelis can't say we aren't responsible in any way for the refugee problem.
4) The Arab states indeed weren't totally committed to expelling the Jews, but the Zionists of the time truly did believe that the Arab countries were an existential threat and feared catastrophic consequences for the Jews if these countries won.
5) Well, the first part of the war, which was a civil war between the Jews and Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine, started before the invasion, so I'd say this is indeed a myth - though neither did the Arab states do anything to avoid war by trying to start negotiations between the Jews and Arabs of the Mandate.
6) Israel was stronger throughout the war, yes, but again, contemporary accounts show that the Jews honestly thought they were outnumbered, which might explain some of their actions.
7) Neither side was really ready for peace for the first twenty years of the existence of Israel. This only changed in the early 1970's when Egypt's Sadat showed willingness to negotiate with Israel. One exception in the first 20 years was Jordan, which Israel had unofficial relations with (Kings Abdullah and Hussein feared isolation in the Arab world if they made official peace with Israel).
According to Emmanuel,
the exact opposite of myths aren't exactly true either.
S/He then goes on to argue why these zionists myths are actually true.
Typical hasbara.
"The exact opposite of myths" - in this context the myths are that the Israelis were the righteous side and the Arabs were evil, and the opposite of that would be that the Palestinians were the righteous side and the Israelis were evil. The truth is that neither side was either righteous or evil in 1948. Hence, the opposite of the myth isn't true either.
"S/He then goes on to argue why these zionists myths are actually true."
Did you actually read what I wrote? Some of these are indeed myths (like the Jews being at a disadvantage), some are true (like the Arabs rejecting partition) and some are somewhere in the middle (like the Zionists' approach towards partition).
By the way, I'm a he.
"Typical hasbara."
How is dismissing whatever I say as hasbara helping anything? Attack my arguments, not me or what you see as my "evil Zionist hasbara tactics".
Where would we be without agents of hasbara to explain what is they meant when the first tried to explain what it was they meant.
The opposite of a myth would be empirically verifiable facts of the truth of an event, not merely replacing one myth with another myth.
Simply replacing one hasbara lie by the opposite of that lie is merely replacing one hasbara lie with another hasbara lie.
You don't have any arguments merely a never ending stream of zionist propaganda and lies.
I see you're sticking to ad hominem attacks and generalizations instead of presenting your point of view on specific arguments I made. If I'm a liar (or a fool who believes his government's lies) - please enlighten me and show me where I'm wrong.
The same old hasbara tactics of wilfull ignorance.
Time and again people have to waste their time explaining the facts of history to them anew and afresh.
They never tire of wheeling out the same old rubbish, the same old pose, that somehow they have a valid point of view and that they're being victimised unreasonably.
Let me know when you discover that the zionists who emigrated to British Mandate Palestine had absolutely no intention of integrating themselves into the local native communities. They used the British Empire to shield their racist exclusionist activities behind.
Zionist racist European incomers also exploited the fact that the British Authorities refused point-blank to allow native Palestinians any democracy or any say in the running of their own country.
Zionist incomers had already set up their own state in waiting. They were already practicing a form of apartheid before they formally began their ethnic cleansing campaign, The Nakba, in 1948.
Anybody that thinks these matters of historical fact are in any doubt are mere zionists spreading hasbara about. Nothing more
I am sure the zionist racists and Israel war criminals were wary of what the victims of their violent racist ethnic cleansing campaign might be capable of. Same with Hitler. He also was always very wary about any backlash or resistence from the victims of his ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. So what? They're still both racist ethnic cleaninsing war criminals.
And so I could go on repeating the facts of history to yet another agent of hasbara lies and zionist disinformation.
I don't know whether or not the United Kingdom (and the Ottomans before them) actively acted against local Palestinian Arab democracy, but it certainly isn't Zionism's fault that a unified Arab national leadership didn't emerge.
"Zionist incomers had already set up their own state in waiting. They were already practicing a form of apartheid before they formally began their ethnic cleansing campaign, The Nakba, in 1948."
You're referring to the Jewish Agency, I assume. It's certainly news to me that a community can't form an organization to represent itself because that would be racist.
"Let me know when you discover that the zionists who emigrated to British Mandate Palestine had absolutely no intention of integrating themselves into the local native communities."
You're right that they didn't mean to integrate in the sense of people from the two communities marrying and having children. Nobody will tell you that was ever the plan. As for integrating in other ways, there were many different approaches. One extreme approach was total separation, but the dominant approach early on was to have friendly ties with the Arabs and strong economic ties.
"...that somehow they [Zionists] have a valid point of view..."
Maybe it was stupid of me to continue debating you even after you wrote something like this. I find it quite amusing that you complained about how commenters at Harry's Place treated you, completely shutting down debate, and here you are doing the same thing as they did. Ain't hypocrisy grand?
Emm:
Since as I've missed all the action and you two seem to have hit it off so well, I'll limit myself to commenting on this:
"The exact opposite of these statements isn't exactly true, either."
Correct but the website should be seen in its entirety, not this summary of a synopsis.
Joe:
Not too hard on my Zionist-in-residence, Emm is amenable to fair and open discussion. As far as Zionists go, with more of his persuasion peace would be a real possibility.
And careful with overuse of the 'H-word', overuse can render it valueless, a bit like the 'A-word'...
Thanks Gert.
I haven't met a zionist yet who isn't a liar. Emmanuel just wants us to think his lies are reasonable and he's a nice chap. Although I'm sure he is a nice chap but that's got nothing to do with anything
It took you a bit of a while to come up with more hasbara.
I didn't say it was zionism's fault that Arab's weren't unified although, to read Israel hasbara on the subject, one gets the impression that they were.
I didn't say it was crime that the Yeshiv had organised itself. So how it can be racist me merely pointing out the facts of history I've no idea. But then, calling people antisemites is a staple of hasbara.
Blah blah blah, on and on and on.
Joe, just two last points, since I don't see any sense in continuing to engage in debate with someone who automatically thinks I'm a liar:
"I didn't say it was crime that the Yeshiv had organised itself."
You said the very existence of the de facto government-in-waiting (which was made up of the Yishuv's self-organized institutions) was already racist in and of itself and that it was practicing appartheid, so you contradict yourself. Was it racist or not?
"So how it can be racist me merely pointing out the facts of history I've no idea. But then, calling people antisemites is a staple of hasbara."
I didn't say you or your arguments were racist or anti-Semitic.
Gert:
I looked around the website and look forward to watching the movie, even though I have a feeling I won't like it. On the one hand, I do believe Israelis should recognize the dark side of Israel's establishment, but on the other hand, I don't think it should make us feel we're the evil side (neither side was evil) or that Israel has no right to exist. The website makes it look like the film is taking the "we Israelis are evil" approach, but I hope I'm wrong.
Pre-Nakba community of immigrant zionist europeans were racists to the core, but it wasn't a crime.
Nazis were racist but weren't breaking any laws. In fact, nazis were conforming to laws they actually made for themselves.
The wilful blind Israeli-supporting bigots with their never-ending, never-learning relentless hasbara efforts to portray the racism they support as somehow less vulgar and more liberal than that of the BNP or EDL/SDL.
Let me know how vulgar you find it debating racists such as nazis and I'll let you know how vulgar I find it debating, not only nazis, but other racists as well, such zionists.
I'm not shutting down any debate because there isn't any. Merely repeating the same facts of history to the same wilfully blind supporters of a violent racist state. It isn't a debate, merely a history lesson.
Hey Joe!
Off topic: I just noticed that in my email notifications you pop up as 'andrew r', is that the same andrew r that contributes to Hasbara Buster? That would be great...
I don't believe Zionism is any more insidious than any other nationalism.
Both sides have legitimate fears that have to be resolved.
As Gert knows, I don't believe in the 21st century, there can be a nationalist solution. If Israel was formed in 1776, things would be different. No room for new countries that can be independent.
It's not helpful to say. "All Zionists are liars." People interpret reality from their circumstances. It goes the other way as well.
Sentinel:
You're now officially banned.
Post a Comment
<< Home