The "Nakba" Myth

[Skeptic]

Having an edjumacation is a wonderful thing. You should try it!

How do you say "I'd have the special and a glass of milk" in Hebrew?

How do you say "Can you direct me to the town square please?" in Arabic?

Is Tel Aviv more or less populous than Jerusalem?

What kind of rank does a first sergeant wear?

I'm asking since you seem to be such an incredible expert on the deepest conspiracies of Israel's nefarious plans, so surely you know such things.

And no fair googling stuff.

 

[Skeptic]

That's just nonsense. How old are you? Do you even remember the Oslo accords?

I was already a reservist then.

I clearly, indeed very clearly, remember very well how the Israeli and international left went on and on and on about how the PLO is "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and that the Madrid process was all a huge hoax by Israel to -- waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait for it -- find a Palestinian lackey which will legitimize the occupation.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

 

[Virus]

The failure of the PLO to do **** for people and the current situation of their rule was a Jewish plot all along.

 

[bit_pattern]

I was already a reservist then.

I clearly, indeed very clearly, remember very well how the Israeli and international left went on and on and on about how the PLO is "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" and that the Madrid process was all a huge hoax by Israel to -- waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait for it -- find a Palestinian lackey which will legitimize the occupation.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Source?

 

[Skeptic]

Source?

We can start with the book "Crucial Decisions" from 1984, a very influential book. the left's constant adulation of Aibi Natan, the man who ran Israel's "voice of peace" radio station, for dealing with the PLO when it was illegal. Or most of Ha'aretz's articles from the period. Or the fact that Shamir's government, the Likud, was against legitimizing the PLO, and never did, and its "anarchronistic" and "anti-peace" stance on this issue was much of the reason it lost the election in 1992 to Labor, which legitimized the PLO.

So the evil nefarious plot to make the Arabs look bad by forcing them to blow up Jews on buses must have been secretly planned by Labor, while it was the Likud which was really for peace by refusing to legitimize the PLO.

Gee. Shamir (the ex-Lehi man), Ariel Sharon, & co. being the real peacemakers of Madrid, while those notorious anti-peace thugs like Shimon Peres undermining them?

Who knew?

Wait, don't tell me: they might seem to have fought very bitterly over this all through the 90s, with the public in Israel deeply divided on the issue (as every election result and campaign from the time shows), but in reality they were working together in an awful secret conspiracy, right?

But of course I'm asking for logic from a conspiracy theory whose sole purpose is to somehow, however ridiculously, to blame Israel for the fact that the PLO fooled Israel about its continuously murderous purposes and killed every Israeli it could, "peace" agreement or not, so the discussion is rather pointless, as conspiracy theorists don't do facts and logic.

P.S.

More evidence: the very word the "peace process".

You see, originally when the Oslo agreement was signed, the press in Israel (which is even more left wing from the American press) kept talking about how Israel and the PLO signed a peace agreement. When the buses started exploding, and only then, did the Israeli press, in the usual lockstep of independent minds, declare Israel didn't sign a peace agreement, it is merely a peace "process" -- and you can't expect someone like the PLO who only signed an agreement for a peace "process" to stop killing you before there is actually complete peace, can you?

So apparently the nefarious Israeli plot to make the PLO blow Jews up in buses so as, for some reason, make it seem as if the Arabs don't want peace, must have been not only cooked up by a totally secret cooperation between Labor & Likud despite the fact that they were publicly screaming at each other whether Oslo is a good idea or not daily for a decade (until Arafat's 2001 terror war made it totally clear it was never more than the "staged plan" for Israel's destruction), but it fooled most of the Israeli press, too, for years on end.

But then again, this sort of thing seems totally logical to "blame Israel for having its citizens blown up by the PLO" crowd.

 

[Mycroft]

Having an edjumacation is a wonderful thing. You should try it!

If I had an "edjumacation" like yours, would I also be claiming the PLO was willing to "roll-over" for Israel?

 

[bigjelmapro]

How many of those iraqi refugees in jordan have gained Jordanian citizenship?

Not many, but a great deal do apply for refugee status from places like Jordan and Syria predominantly, where they get accepted to Europeans countries or the US. Not Arab countries (could be a handful, but don't see it in media outlets), as I don't think Arab countries understand the concept of accepting refugees, only exploiting them for various means.

UN chief announces 100,000 landmark in resettlement of Iraqi refugees

And to think that this part of the UN actually actively resettles refugees with a fraction of the funding (Less than a tenth last checked), and in a fraction of the time.

 

[bit_pattern]

If I had an "edjumacation" like yours, would I also be claiming the PLO was willing to "roll-over" for Israel?

Be buggered if I know, but I reckon you would realise that Arafat accepted at Oslo what Dr. al-Shafi rejected at Madrid, and that in doing so made himself leader of the Palestinian's and in a position to feather his own nest through corruption, both of which can be causally linked to the rise of Islamism amongst the Palestinian's and the explosion of violence that was the second Intifada. Which, conveniently suited Israel's ends because they could portray the Palestinian's to the world as blood thirsty fanatics not interested in peace. I remember reading someone (Uri Avnery perhaps? Can't remember now) making a comment about Hamas today that applies as much to Arafat back then; if they didn't already exist Israel would need to create them. It's a pretty simpe tactic of divide and conquer; wedge the moderate forces by legitimising the thugs and fanatics then, when it leads to the inevitable violence, you can claim plausible deniability by simply casting the enemy as fanatical Arabs who aren't interested in peace.

 

[Mycroft]

Be buggered if I know, but I reckon you would realise that Arafat accepted at Oslo what Dr. al-Shafi rejected at Madrid, and that in doing so made himself leader of the Palestinian's and in a position to feather his own nest through corruption, both of which can be causally linked to the rise of Islamism amongst the Palestinian's and the explosion of violence that was the second Intifada. Which, conveniently suited Israel's ends because they could portray the Palestinian's to the world as blood thirsty fanatics not interested in peace.

How does that serve Israel's ends? What is it you imagine Israel has gained over the last 20 years from these imagined Machiavellian machinations you describe?



I

 

[Skeptic]

If I had an "edjumacation" like yours, would I also be claiming the PLO was willing to "roll-over" for Israel?

That's what you get from taking Chomsky seriously. Of course, getting an edjumacation from him about the middle east is about the same as getting an adjumacation from Dr. Kent Hovind about evolution, or from the flat earth society about astronomy.

 

[bit_pattern]

How does that serve Israel's ends? What is it you imagine Israel has gained over the last 20 years from these imagined Machiavellian machinations you describe?



I

Water, land, and a buffer between Jordan and Israel.

 

[Skeptic]

You have not replied to my previous post, bit pattern, which showed you that if your conspiracy theory is correct, you must assume quite a few totally absurd things.

Let's start with the small stuff: on your view, it is really Shamir (the ex-Lehi man) and Ariel Sharon, from the Likud, who were the peacemakers, refusing to deal with the PLO and going instead to the Madrid conference.

It was, on the other hand, Shimon Peres as well as (say) Aibi Natan, the notorious peacenik, who were really part of the nefarious evil secret conspiracy to deny the Palestinians anything by dealing with the PLO.

Does that make the least sense to you?

If and when you explain how that can be, we can move on to the greater absurdity, the claim (without, of course, a shred of evidence) that it makes sense that Israel deliberately had thousands of its citizens killed in terrorist attacks just for propaganda value -- a conspiracy theory on the same level as the 9/11 truthers.

But, as I said, let's start with the small stuff.

 

[Skeptic]

Here is a start of a typical article from 1996, this time from a right-wing publication, noting that it seems that the Israeli left had lost its mind, ignoring Arafat's murderous rampages and goals and giving him what he want in the hope that would bring "peace".

Unfortunately all of those warnings came true.

But the problem for you, bit pattern, is that if you are to be believed, the author was merely a dupe: it was never actually believing Arafat, or thinking he has changed, the left was actually part of a huge conspiracy, involving half the country, or at least a secret society of the left-wing leaders (of whom nobody in the almost 20 years since Oslo ever confessed to the conspiracy) to merely pretend to believe Arafat so as to make the Palestinians look bad by allowing them to kill Jews.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[bit_pattern]

You have not replied to my previous post, bit pattern, which showed you that if your conspiracy theory is correct, you must assume quite a few totally absurd things.

Let's start with the small stuff: on your view, it is really Shamir (the ex-Lehi man) and Ariel Sharon, from the Likud, who were the peacemakers, refusing to deal with the PLO and going instead to the Madrid conference.

It was, on the other hand, Shimon Peres as well as (say) Aibi Natan, the notorious peacenik, who were really part of the nefarious evil secret conspiracy to deny the Palestinians anything by dealing with the PLO.

Does that make the least sense to you?

If and when you explain how that can be, we can move on to the greater absurdity, the claim (without, of course, a shred of evidence) that it makes sense that Israel deliberately had thousands of its citizens killed in terrorist attacks just for propaganda value -- a conspiracy theory on the same level as the 9/11 truthers.

But, as I said, let's start with the small stuff.

Yeah, I have a life outside of JREF, mate, didn't even see your post until I saw this bump in my User Control Panel.

And, no, saying that Israel railroaded moderates like al_Shafi in favour of Arafat doesn't mean that Likud were genuine peacemakers, just that Israel decided a terrorist was a better bet than dealing with moderates who would have insisted on a real peace settlement that didn't involve breaking the WB into bantustans controlled by the IDF. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Virus]

Yeah, I have a life outside of JREF, mate, didn't even see your post until I saw this bump in my User Control Panel.

And, no, saying that Israel railroaded moderates like al_Shafi in favour of Arafat doesn't mean that Likud were genuine peacemakers, just that Israel decided a terrorist was a better bet than dealing with moderates who would have insisted on a real peace settlement that didn't involve breaking the WB into bantustans controlled by the IDF. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

That's some pretty specific knowledge you're claiming. How do you know this? Where did you get it from? It sounds like the sort of stuff Noam Chomsky comes up with. When I suggested that you got all haughty and said it's your "education" and that I should "try getting one".

Are you a scholar of the Middle East?

So I'll ask you a straightforward question; How do you know this stuff is true?

 

[bigjelmapro]

And, no, saying that Israel railroaded moderates like al_Shafi in favour of Arafat doesn't mean that Likud were genuine peacemakers, just that Israel decided a terrorist was a better bet than dealing with moderates who would have insisted on a real peace settlement that didn't involve breaking the WB into bantustans controlled by the IDF. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Sounds to me more like Arafat and Mubarak railroaded the 'moderates' at the on again, off again 1991 Madrid Peace conference and not Israel:

Palestinian Negotiators Quit, Protest PLO Plan

Although the PLO sought to downplay it, the conflict reflected the growing discontent among Palestinians on the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and in Arab East Jerusalem about the negotiations--and more generally about the PLO's leadership.

"They, too, have had enough," said Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi, the Gaza physician who serves as chief delegate but who has been boycotting the talks.
...
Noting with some irony that Israel had for years insisted on negotiating with the "moderate" local Palestinians rather than with the PLO, Beilin added, "It turns out that the PLO in Tunis is more moderate than the PLO here. I think no one, including myself, dreamed this would happen."
...
And a Rabin aide pointedly quoted the prime minister's comments last week on the Palestinians. "Never have I seen such an unstable, splintered and messed-up group," Rabin had told the leadership of the ruling Labor Party. "It is impossible to know whom we should talk to."

And another article, this time the NYT:
3 Palestinians Threaten to Resign From Talks in a Rift With Arafat

Three senior members of the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East peace talks are threatening to resign because of sharp differences with the Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman, Yasir Arafat, the head of the delegation said today.
...
The Palestinian delegation, made up of Palestinian leaders who live in Israeli-occupied territories and East Jerusalem, has chafed at what they see as Mr. Arafat's erratic and dictatorial manner, according to Palestinian officials. And most were incensed when the P.L.O. chief sent them a faxed proposal offering new concessions to the Israelis just an hour before the delegation was to meet with Mr. Christopher in Jerusalem on Tuesday.
...
The delegates were further angered when they learned that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had handed P.L.O. amendments to the United States proposal to Mr. Christopher in Cairo, Palestinians officials said.

So yet again, here and in other threads, where do you come up with this fiction of yours? Everybody has access to articles and books (online and off) regarding the Madrid Peace conference and other items that took place before the advent of the internet.

Care to try again?

 

[Skeptic]

And, no, saying that Israel railroaded moderates like al_Shafi in favour of Arafat doesn't mean that Likud were genuine peacemakers, just that Israel decided a terrorist was a better bet than dealing with moderates

If "Israel decided" it was such a "better bet", how come so many people in Israel opposed it -- first and foremost the people who were for the Madrid conference, which were the right wingers? You'd think the right wingers, of all people, would strongly support such a plan, as "legitimizing the occupation" is precisely what they want, isn't it?

The right tried to go with the Madrid Palestinians. The Left preferred to deal with the PLO. According to you, either:

(a) the left was really part of a huge conspiracy to make the Palestinians look bad by cunningly letting the PLO kill a few thousand Israelies, while the right either opposed this plan or else was kept in the dark about its true purpose, which makes little sense, or else

(b) both the left and the right in Israel were part of the conspiracy to do so, and all the bitter fighting between the two about the Oslo agreement was a big coverup to hide their joint nefarious plan, which makes even less sense.

And, naturally,

(c) all this without anybody noticing: not one person on the Israeli right, which were for a very long time and still opposed to the Oslo "peace" process, guessed the real "secret purpose" of letting the PLO kill all those Israelies is really to advance their (the rights') goals; nor had anybody in the Israeli press; nor had anybody involved in the "let's let the PLO kill us so they'll look bad" conspiracy ever confessed.

All this blatant nonsense, just so that you'll be somehow be able to blame the PLO's murderous rampage on the victims, the Israelies they killed.

It's really on the same level, indeed of exactly the same logical structure, as the 9/11 truthers' conspiracy theories: you both claim that the USA or Israel deliberately allowed murderous attacks killing thousands of its own citizens for propaganda purposes; that this absurd conspiracy somehow fooled everybody and had not produced, even years or decades later, a single confession; and that the conspiracy "proves" it is the victims (the USA or Israel) who are really to blame for the thousands of death, as opposed to, you know, the terrorists who actually caused them.

Sad.

 

[JihadJane]

Hezbollah To Unleash 'Thunder' On Israel

Watch out, Israel!

 

[Thunder]

Hezbollah To Unleash 'Thunder' On Israel

Watch out, Israel!

I am pretty dangerous.



anyways....why is it verbotten to deny the Holocaust...but okee dokee to deny the suffering of Palestinians?

 

[mortimer]

I am pretty dangerous.



anyways....why is it verbotten to deny the Holocaust...but okee dokee to deny the suffering of Palestinians?

Who exactly is denying the suffering of the Palestinians? You might also want to define what you mean by "suffering". Nearly everybody in the world suffers to some extent.