The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, signaled flexibility last month by saying that military attacks on Gaza would stop if its Hamas rulers stopped cross-border rocket salvos.
Israel dismissed a proposal by the Palestinian group Hamas for a six-month truce in the Gaza Strip…
So, let’s get this straight: Olmert says if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israel that he’ll stop IDF attacks on Gaza; then Hamas offers to do precisely that and Israel refuses. Curiouser and curiouser…
Ah, but Israel can afford to play the tough guy on this one. Its current policy toward Hamas is going so swimmingly. 1.5 million Gazans subsisting on UN food rations. Qassams raining down on Sderot. Israelis killed in cross border infiltrations. Shalit still in his kidnappers’ hands. Hamas holding onto power with no dent made in its popularity by Israel’s tough love approach. Yes, it’s going so well there’s absolutely no need to meet Hamas halfway. Take the high road. They’ll come around. They always do.
And don’t forget those media talking points–Israel is the one who wants peace. Israel is the one open to compromise. It’s just those nasty terrorists who you can’t trust as far as you can throw ’em.
No doubt tomorrow’s headline in Israeli dailies will trumpet how Hamas is rearming and preparing for all-out war; how Iran is resupplying Hamas with bigger and better rockets. All part of the IDF-intelligence apparatus spin machine trying to spook Israelis into believing they have no recourse but to continue with the same bankrupt policy which has produced no results for so long.
Look at what Israel’s UN ambassador did to Jimmy Carter yesterday. For having the temerity to meet with Hamas, encourage a deputy prime minister to meet with Hamas, and for urging Israel to meet with Hamas–Gillerman took out the long knives and put a shiv in Carter’s gut calling him “a bigot” with “blood on his hands.” Wow. That’s pretty good knife play for a mere diplomat. Maybe he learned to rough his victims up verbally with some prior training in the Israeli Border Police.
Are you saying it’s untrue to suggest that Hamas would use a six month truce to re-arm/consolidate etc?
”And don’t forget those media talking points–Israel is the one who wants peace. ”
Richard, since when has any \’hudna\’ (ceasefire) between Hamas/Fatah and Israel led to peace in this region? Do you believe a 6 month ceasefire with Hamas equates to peace?
“1.5 million Gazans subsisting on UN food rations”
The United Nations says it has had to halt food distribution in the Gaza Strip because it has run out of fuel, due to Israeli restrictions on vehicle fuel deliveries.
Distributions to 15,000 refugees took place on Thursday, but were then halted. Officials said deliveries due on Saturday will also not take place.
The Nahal Oz attacks are directly related to the fuel shortage. UNRWA had to cease some services recently in the W.Bank also due to palestinian attacks. Of course, when palestinians attack their helpful distributors it’s always Israel’s fault.
Predictions are never true or untru.
On the other hand. I find it highly plausible that when you have been banging your head against the Wall for 60 years it would be wise to try some thing new.
Richard Silverstein says
I’m saying that Hamas & Israel may both use it for that purpose. But I believe in karma & if Israel negotiates in good faith for a final status settlement w. Abbas & ceases military operations in Gaza that Hamas would reciprocate in kind. There was an 18 mo. ceasefire that worked quite well until Israel mounted offensive operations that killed it. Hamas & other militant groups also contributed to the end of the ceasefire. But Israel’s actions were more determinative.
Richard Silverstein says
See my comment about the most recent 18 mo. ceasefire which Hamas honored. Isn’t it interesting that people who view Israel as all right & Palestinians as all wrong are so quick to forget anything that might reflect well on the latter?
Richard Silverstein says
There were fuel shortages well before the Nahal Oz attack. To what do you attribute those? Ah, yes to Qassam attacks on Sderot. If you want to justify inflicting suffering on innocent Palestinian civiilans you can always find a reason, can’t you?
Which 18 months in particular are you referring to? Thanks.
Any fuel shortage pre-Nahal Oz was incomparable to what is happening now, as supplies are half of what they were before Nahal Oz. I’m not justifying suffering on innocents at all. It’s their elected govt. Hamas who is to blame for continuing attacks. No such fuel shortages existed before the Gaza pullout in August 2005. Lastly, Gaza could get their fuel from Egypt, and ergo, no fuel crisis.
Richard Silverstein says
Is that facetious or serious? If serious, do a search in my blog for ‘Hamas ceasefire’ or similar keyword search & you’ll find references to the ceasefire. You can also search Google News if you like.
Richard Silverstein says
Gaza has been suffering for a year or more under siege like conditions. The latest fuel shortage is merely the nadir of what was already a horrendous situation.
The mess that is going on there is not solely the fault of Hamas, nor solely the fault of Israel. But Israel is FAR MORE responsible than Hamas is.
Israel is responsible for Gaza, not Egypt.
Serious question. I did what you advised but couldn’t find anything about Hamas honoring any past 18 month hudna or ceasefire.
I can’t see why Israel is “FAR MORE” responsible than Hamas. The Gaza occupation ended nearly 3 years ago. Hamas has bombed Sderot and other parts of Israel ever since, rather than try to build a genuine, free state. Also, if Tikkun Olam is truly your goal – why would you not implore Egypt to assist Palestinians and try reducing their suffering? Egypt is fully capable of bringing Tikkun Olam faster by helping rather than waiting for Israel to help what they perceive to be a hostile enemy.
I wonder how much “Einstein” knows about world politics. The Egyptian government tortures and imprisons its own subjects, including bloggers who say things critical of the government. This is the government that you are calling on to provide healing and reduce suffering?!
There’s no reason Egypt cannot supply power and fuel, or allow UN aid into Gaza and be reimbursed from other nations for their trouble. If people who really care for Palestinians want to help Palestinian women and children, this is a no-brainer.
A whole World wants to help the people in Gaza and are appalled by Israel is doing to these people. Personally I think that they are fed up by Isreal’ demand of exceptionalism. Regarding international law, and regarding acceptable human behaviour. Israel has, as the occuping/sieging power obligations which are iindisputalbe under the Geneva comvention. The wellbeing and health of people in Gaza are their responsiblity, and theirs alone.
Richard Silverstein says
I’d say it IS a “no-brainer” but in the literal sense of the phrase rather than the meaning you intended.
Gaza is Israel’s problem, not Egypt’s. If Israel wanted Egypt to take responsibility for Gaza it shouldn’t have conquered it in 1967. SInce it did it would be awfully convenient for Egypt to take the problem off Israel’s hands. But I’m afraid that’s not in the cards.
And yr comment implies that Egypt should really “care for” the Palestinians while Israel has no responsibility to or for them–which is in fact both unfortunate & wrong. Again, Israel is the occupying/controlling power acc. to international law, not Egypt.
So if the world is appalled and fed up at Israel, why not bypass Israel and make life better for arabs in Gaza by going through Egypt and making it as easy as possible for Egypt? It doesn’t seem that being appalled and fed up at Israel is doing innocent Gazans much good. Besides, arabs are less likely to attack at the Egypt border as they are Israel’s. Why would Israelis be motivated to keep trying to assist and aid people who are attacking them?
How can you say Israel shouldn’t have conquered Gaza/Egypt in ’67 after Egypt clearly provoked the war by amassing its troops at the Sinai/Israel border and closing the Staits? Are you implying Israel should have immediately gone back to dangerous pre-67 borders and just allowed Egypt to try again – maybe send much more Fedayeen through Gaza?
I never said Israel shouldn’t care for Palestinians. They seem to be the only ones who do despite all the attacks, as Israel sends tons of food and aid daily, cares for Palestinians in their hospitals, employs Palestinians, etc.
Israel disengaged from Gaza almost 3 years ago. There is no occupation there any longer. Rather than blame Palestinian misery solely on Israel, maybe the world needs to step in and bring true Tikkun Olam if it really cares more for Palestinians than it does blaming Israel. Or is the world concerned that Hamas will attack their volunteers and distributors at the Gaza/Egypt border – so it may as well be Israel taking the brunt, and the blame?
Richard Silverstein says
Oh Lord how I hate people who insist on refighting wars & battles of 50 years ago. I was alive in 1967. Were you? Egypt didn’t provoke the war. Israel actually initiated the war through a pre-emptive air attack. Whatever actions Egypt took before the war were more than matched by Israeli actions.
Besides, Israel conquered Gaza plain & simple. You conquer you’re responsible plain & simple. If they didn’t want to be responsible they shouldn’t have conquered. Now they’re stuck w. it.
And pls. do tell us how Israel is “caring for” Palestinians. Fr. what you say, Israel must be the most charitable nation on earth. How does its charity manifest itself?? Israel sends in “tons of food” daily. So that’s why 80% of Gaza subsists on UN food rations. Israel cares for Palestinians in its hospitals? Aren’t you leaving out the hundreds of Palestinians refused entry to Israel for emergency life-saving treatment by the Shin Bet who denies them permission. Would you care to tell us exactly how many Palestinians are being treated in Israel.
Of course, if Israel allowed in the medicines, fuel & other things hospitals needed to function then Gazans wouldn’t need to travel to Israel for treatment. But that never crossed yr mind, did it?
Gaza is occupied. Even now. According to international law. Go look it up. Or are you a specialist in the subject with superior knowledge to international law experts, including Israelis, who accept this fact as a given.
Egypt initiated the 1967 war in May by amassing its troops at the Sinai border after tossing out the UN, blockading the straits of Tiran, and convincing the Syrians to amass their troops along the Golan Heights. These acts alone were a declaration of war, by all UN and Geneva definitions.
Are you claiming Israel provoked such actions? Or is it that Israel shouldn’t have acted until the arab forces started physically attacking?
This is crucial. I can understand better your position if you believe the 1967 war was all or mostly Israel’s doing – and therefore the OT are Israel’s problem, not Egypt/Jordan or the arab world.
Rewriting history is a zionist speciality,but you are extreme..and..sorry to say so ,a phoney and a fool. Commander of the air force General Ezer Weitzman said Egypt posed no threat, Moshe Dayan said in his memoirs the same, and most important Menachem Begin said ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’
You said that according to UN and Geneva “definitions” (???????) is build up of military forces tantamount to declaration of war. First of all ..the Geneva conventions are about humanitarian aid during conflict. Haag convention states that preemptive strike is a war crime. I understand your confusion.. Why should you have any knowledge of conventions Israel refuse to abide by ?
I suggest you change your “nick”. I hate to see the name of a great man (and antizionist) dragged into the mud.
If you want to believe in Noam Chomsky’s distortions and falsehoods which artfully transforms victims into aggressors and vice-versa, that’s up to you. Maybe you should seriously investigate Chomsky by matching his rantings and screeds with actual primary sources.
I recommend Michael B. Oren’s book on the 1967 war. Unlike Chomsky, Oren is an respected historian who has done his homework and backed up his work with primary sources.
Two more things.
1. Einstein was a zionist. Maybe ‘cultural zionist’ is confusing to you, but that’s what he was.
2. If rewriting history is a “zionist specialty” (can you feel the love) and our very own Richard S. here describes himself as a zionist, what does that say about his views on history? Do you agree with Mr. Silverstein’s account of history, despite the fact he describes himself as a progressive zionist?
I dont intend to discuss Noam Chomsky with you, ..His works speaks for themselves so do your lies and “ad hominem” attack instead of adressing the issue. Is it your assertion that neither Moshe Dayan nor Menachem Begin have stated what the link showed..that an academic of Chomsky’s caliber would stoop to falsifying ..and such banal and easily controllable statements? I dont think so, and neither can you.
It is true that Einstein was a cultural zionist in the early 20ties. His idea, was to create a jewish univerity. I was also an ardent supporter of Israel untill I realized what maiignant cancer the West had implanted in Palestine. Always destructive, always demanding more “Lebensraum” under the guise of state security.
In -48 Einstein ,Arendt and a dozen other leading jewish intellectuals wrote an open letter in NYT, ending :
“The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.”
So: Einstein called you and your comrades-in-arm fascists, still you use his name,,I find your behaviour quite bizarre.
Richard Silverstein says
First, Chomsky is one of the world’s most respected linguists AND political analysts. Second, Michael Oren is an intellectual partisan of the Israeli right. He works at the Shalem Center funded by supporters of Bibi Netanyahu. It is the equivalent of the American Enterprise Institute though farther to the right. Third, Oren favorite publication is the Wall St. Journal where he published regulary. To think I would let that one slip by, Einstein, is pretty pathetic on yr part.
If Einstein was a Zionist then why did he refuse Israel’s offer to be its first president? If he was a Zionist he was not your kind. He was much more of the Buber-Magnes mold which held that the Zionist movement must avert a full-scale violent confrontation with the Arabs at all costs.
1. Chomsky has been caught many times fabricating and distorting facts while rarely ever citing legitimate primary sources. Need I point to anything more than Chomsky endorsing Robert Faurisson’s holocaust denying book, as proof of Chomsky not being anyone who remotely resembles a respectable scholar? On the other hand, Michael Oren’s latest Six Day War book, no matter his political persuasion (and he worked for Yitzhak Rabin, mind you), is comprehensive and exhaustive, reviewed as very evenly balanced (by Benny Morris for one), and footnoted meticulously with legitimate primary sources and interviews. It’s a joke to compare Chomsky’s op-ed screeds with Oren’s scholarly research.
2. Einstein was clearly a zionist. Here’s the proof with actual citations:
And like Einstein, I would have condemned the Irgun’s terrorist actions as well – but remained a staunch zionist regardless. Human life is far more important than a piece of land. I’d gladly hand over 3/4 of all Israel including the OT if it resulted in genuine peace without anymore bloodshed, and I wouldn’t think twice about it.
you are as usual remarkably cavalier with any idea of truth and decency Einstein
Chomsky did of course not endorse Robert Faurisson’s book. How can any sane person endorse holocaust or naqba denial ? What Noam Chomsky did, and rightly so, was to write ” Some Elementary Comments on the Rights of Freedom of Expression”, as an introduction to Faurisson’s book.
The french philosopher Voltaire emphasized the human rights of criminal suspects, saying to a suspect who was in custody on charges of murder, “I do not agree with your ideas but I will fight for your right to state your opinions.”
To make holocaust denial illegal when blasphemy is legal makes a mockery of the legal system and obscure ordinary peoples sense of justice. Jews might be “The Chosen People”–at least according to their own “folie de grandeur”, but to place themselves above God is to stretch it too far,dont you think ?
I disagree with Chomsky. Writing the introduction was not a good idea. But Im no anarchist,neither am I thirsting for a fight with the zionist nomenklatura in USA.
It is important that freedom of speech is absolute,and not at the whim of the ruling elite. So we need more Chomskys ,people who can breach the compact stupidity,ignorance and compliance of an outfoxed public.
We are ,dear friend,straying away from the issue at hand. Your assertion was that Chomsky was a liar writing what the leadership in Israel have told of the events leading up to the war in 67. You have failed to prove your case-even worse, you prove again and again that you are a liar. You need some self-examination. Ask yourself,” do you want to find the truth, or are you wasting your time defending a failed state and a lost case ?
2. Your proof of Einstein’s love for zionism is zionism-israel’s website ?
You must be joking.
Richard Silverstein says
Read my comment rules carefully. If you wish to make a serious charge against someone you MUST provide proof of yr claim. Otherwise, you have zip credibility. That is what you have done. Claiming that Chomsky fabricates evidence is a far cry fr. actually proving it. So prove it or don’t claim it. I don’t know that Faurisson has written a Holocaust denying book and I don’t know that Chomsky has endorsed it. Frankly, it’s not a subject that interests me very much. But the fact that you claim it doesn’t make it so.
I don’t give a hoot who Michael Oren worked for 13 yrs ago or more. He now gets paid by people who fund Bibi Netanyahu which would make him a Likud partisan. The fact that he publishes in the Wall Street Journal does NOT indicate he is a serious, non-partisan scholar. Just the opposite. I always laugh when rightists think they’ve proven something by using Benny Morris as proof. They seem to think that Benny Morris is a legitmate source for a progressive like me because he ONCE was on the left. Benny Morris is just as much a right wing ideologue as Michael Oren. THe former has certainly written important scholarly works, but mostly before he had his ideological conversion.
You’re mischaracterizing Einstein’s views. I believe a good part of the reason he refused the presidency of Israel is because he felt deep discomfort with Israel’s hostile relations with its Arab neighbors. He was a pacifist after all. Not an unqualified pacifist since he supported the resarch that led to the atom bomb. But Israel’s relationship with its neighbors had to have made him extremely uncomfortable.
That’s mighty generous of you. But considering it will take the return of far more than 3/4 of the conquered territory Israel has appropriated, there isn’t a hope in hell that you will ever have to be tested. Israel will end up returning more like 95-98%, while retaining a few major settlement blocs, in any final peace agreement. You’ll have to think more than twice about it since you’ll hate the idea so much. But it will happen.
Daga and Richard,
1. If you’d look at that link from my May 4 post on Einstein’s zionism, you’d see it’s quite ridiculous to continue to claim he was not a zionist. Or do you guys maybe believe the quotes are fabricated and the link is complete rubbish, just because it comes from a pro-Israel source? Why mock the source, or the politics behind the source, when the evidence against your position is so overwhelming? If you have reason to believe that the site’s quotes and letters attributed to Einstein are hoaxes or forgeries, and can prove the site I referenced is terribly misleading, please let me know and I’ll write immediately to the organization responsible.
2. As for Chomsky and Faurisson, you can easily google information on this episode. It is beyond dispute that Faurisson is a holocaust denier. Chomsky signed a petition written by a known neo-nazi that affirmed Faurisson’s alleged “scholarly” credentials. Chomsky went further and stated that Faurisson’s Holocaust denying work was extensive historical research while giving credence to Faurisson’s outlandish lies (stuff that can be found on Stormfront) as “findings”. When questioned, Chomsky found nothing antisemitic about holocaust denial. Chomsky then called Faurisson an apolitical liberal. This episode alone disqulifies Chomsky as a respected scholar. We all know very well that if some rightwing hack did the same as Chomsky, that person’s literary career would rightly be deemed a joke.
If you’ve heard of Israel Shahak, you’d know of Shahak’s screeds against the Talmud, jewish kids supposedly taught to curse when passing nonjewish cemetaries, washing hands = worshipping Satan, etc. You can easily google this information and find it. Of Shahak, Chomsky wrote: “Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.” All this can be googled.
I ask you, what is a respected scholar doing by endorsing antisemitic tripe like that? Why is it Chomsky gets a free pass for this when no one should? As for Chomsky’s ridiculous claims, there are many that can be googled under keywords Chomsky and lies. Since we mentioned the 1967 war, here’s a doozy:
“It is not even controversial that in 1967 Israel attacked Egypt. Jordan and Syria entered the conflict much as England and France went to war when Germany attacked their ally Poland in 1939. One might argue that the Israeli attack was legitimate, but to convert it into an Arab invasion is rather audacious — or would be, if the practice were not routine”. What’s not controversial, in reality, is that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all had their infantry and armor positioned at Israel’s borders. Nasser himself stated just days before the war: “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations”. (May 30, 1967 – Nasser)
I don’t see how anyone can take Chomsky seriously.
You misunderstood me. My offer is more generous than any offered yet. I’d give 3/4 of Israel within the green lines as well as 100% of the OT without thinking twice if genuine peace would be achieved. That means all OT and 3/4 of the Israel that existed from 1948-1967. Life is more important than land.
Richard Silverstein says
Now that’s rich. I don’t believe you for a minute. You’d be willing to retreat to 67 borders AND give up, say, all of northern and southern Israel while retaining say, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in return for peace???? As the wonderful Yiddish saying goes: “You can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.”
Richard Silverstein says
You once again mischaracterize my views. I never said that Einstein wasn’t a Zionist. But if he was he was not the kind of Zionist you are. Period. Full stop.
Once again you have flagrantly violated my comment rules by making unsupported claims back up by nothing more than your own paraphrase of other sources which you neither quote nor link to.
You are not a scholar. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to claim that Chomsky is not a legitimate scholar???! Puh-leeze.
You claim this is a “doozy” w/o describing how this is so. Chomsky is of course describing reality here. Israel began the war pre-emptively by attacking Egypt. Do you dispute this?
Finally, I am giving you a final warning. If you continue to make unsupported charges smearing individuals whose politics you dislike, you may be banned from commenting at this site. I have standards. You may not like them. But if you don’t adhere to them you’ll lose yr privileges here.
I must agree with Richard. You are not a scholar. I’ll go even further..your approach to this debate shows signs of an anti-intellectual attitude. Maybe that explains your dislike of Noam Chomsky. Again and again you are stating his guilt by association, throwing holocaust denials ,even neo-nazism-crap in his direction in hope that some of it will stick.
Wright, Quincy (1949). International Law and Guilt by Association
Another sign is your selective reading. All of your quotes/links are from biased sources. I understand the temptation to have your own ideological views confirmed again and again, but the result of this “mental masturbation” is reduction to a state of stupidity.
Maybe a reading of the General Assembly’s record of 19 June 1967-meeting can lift the fog from your eyes.
Or Security council resolutions 228
Back to topic.
I see no reason to remind you of all skirmishes and bombings along the Israeli borders in late-66 -early 67,or the mutual sabre rattling ,.it is much the same as US-Iran of today. but from there to an all-out preemptive attack is a giant leap, legal and moral.
That is what the German generals were found guilt of in Nürnberg 1946 -To instigate an unlawful war. As Bush and Olmert should be. Maybe that’s why we see so few Israeli and American generals on vacation here in Europe ?
Anyways, stop referring to MEMRI when you write—it’s an insult to every thinking man. A good place to start is wikipedia Remember to check the footnotes (that is how Norman Finkelstein exposed Joan Peters fraudulent book : “From Time Immemorial” )
Looks like this type of debate is hopeless. Here’s why.
1. I realize sources cited by both sides of this debate can be biased. Many articles on both sides of this debate are biased. The problem isn’t bias, however, it’s whether such bias leads to false, omitted, or created facts, superficialities, hyperbole, or outright distortion. Rather than reject a source due to the political affiliation of the author, it’s far more sensible to show how/why the author is disingenuous or wrong and THEN reject their work out of hand. What I’ve noticed here is that whether I quote from Ken Stein, a proIsrael source, or Michael Oren – these guys are rejected wholesale solely on the basis of their presumed political affiliation, not on the content of their works. This is anti-intellectual.
2. I brought up a proIsrael source that proves beyond dispute that Einstein was a zionist, but it’s as if I’ve presented no evidence whatsoever – solely due to the source from which the information comes. Again – if any information from that source is wrong, you have good reason to suspect all other information from that source – but short of that, you’re just in denial. There’s no question Einstein was a zionist. Whether he was like me is another issue entirely. I’d have sided with Ben Gurion against Irgun/Stern just as he and Einstein did, so I’m not certain why it’s assumed I’m not lke Einstein.
3. To say that Israel was not provoked in 1967 is absurd. The casus belli of the 1967 war was Egypt’s blockade of the straits of Tiran, a clear act of war – and the primary cause of the 1956 Egypt/Israel Suez Canal war. If that wasn’t enough, the very fact that this act of war coincided with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon lining their forces and armory along Israel’s borders (similar to 1956 when Egypt’s tripartite agreement put Nassar in charge of Jordan and Syria’s troops) goes to show Israel only had 2 choices. Enjoy the Suez blockade and wait to be attacked and then fight within their own borders – risking massive civilian casualties, or attack. For Chomsky and followers to not only claim that Israel started the 1967 war (as if not provoked) and Jordan and Syria only joined later (like the allies of WW2) is ridiculous – and calls into great question Chomsky’s scholarship.
4. It’s not that Chomsky was buddies with Shahak and Faurisson and therefore toss out Chomsky, it’s that Chomsky trumped up THEIR work as if THAT neo-nazi tripe was credible scholarship. If I or anyone else were to trump up neo-nazi “scholarship”, that would automatically – and for very good cause – put me on the outside looking in in all scholarly circles.
5. As for MEMRI, this is an organization that merely translates arab/muslim media. What’s wrong with this, unless they’re trying to mislead people by falsely translating arab/muslim transmissions?
Richard Silverstein says
@Einstein: No. what I object to is your presenting Stein & Oren as if they were unbiased sources w. sterling academic credentials. I’m willing to concede that they might once in a while have something useful to say. But you’ll have to present ea. individual pt. you wish to quote fr. them up on the page for us to examine. Merely telling us that Oren & Stein say something or other isn’t going to cut it.
Albert Einsteins differs fr. you in far more than opposing the Irgun. He certainly would’ve opposed all aggressive Israeli actions such as the Suez war, the 67 attack on Egypt, the settlement venture, the current Occupation. All of it. I am a Zionist. Why would I argue w. you over whether A. Einstein was a Zionist or not? It’s immaterial. What matters is that he would differ from you in every major judgment about Israeli policy toward its Arab neighbors.
Regarding Israel’s 67 pre emptive attack I find it interesting that virtually every time in its history Israel has a choice bet. a belligerent, aggressive act and a more nuanced, less militant one–it virtually always chooses the former. And so it did in 67. Closing the Strait gave Israel an option: to pre-emptively strike or to see how events might play out & test whether the Arabs really intended to go to war. Israel chose not to wait & strike first. The Arabs did NOT fire the first shot.
You are one lazy-ass commenter. I’ve told you 3 times now if you want to claim anything regarding Chomsky you’ll have to quote chapter & verse about it for it to have any credibility. Again, you haven’t done so. Your word alone is worth NOTHING here. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Either provide real evidence or go somewhere where your ripe prejudices will be more welcome.
You don’t have to worry about how your scholarship would be received. Judging by yr contributions here you’d be welcomed w. open arms by David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Alan Dershowitz, Steven Plaut, maybe Michael Oren & maybe even Ken Stein. Beyond that, I’m afraid you wouldn’t have much in the way of credibility.
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. They misleadingly & sometimes falsely translate Arab sources. Sometimes they just translate out of context. Sometimes they twist a word or phrase. Sometimes they just plain mess up their translations. At any rate, they cherry pick items that make Arabs look as bad as possible & never translate anything that would have a neutral or positive connotation. Look up my comment rules: MEMRI is a treif source for this site.
II must admit I didn’t know of Michael Oren before his name came up here, but a little googling led me to this article The ‘USS Liberty’: Case Closed
This is simply not true. If anything the debate of what happened ,and the discourse have been suppressed in media. USS Liberty Memorial Main Page :
History is never closed. Classified documents are made available, bones are dug up,new technology makes different roads open for exploration.
Of course I understand Orens motives. He is an apologist for the zionist regime and a whitewasher of their crimes.