57 thoughts on “Bibi Played Elections Race Card, Implying Obama, Israeli “Arabs” Conspired to Defeat Him – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Bibi ‘manned up’ and apologized to the Arab citizens of Israel for his remarks.

    Did any American politician ever apologize to Black America, or Gov. Michael Dukakis, for Willie Horton?

    1. In addition to being a Tea Party-style racist and Islamophobe, Bibi is also a professional liar. His “apology” to the Arab citizens could not be more disingenuous and false. It doesn’t take much to know what he’s thinking as he makes his “apology” to Israeli Arabs: Gullible suckers!

      My hope is that Obama uses this blatant racism by Bibi to completely disengage from him and his government. Time will tell.

    2. @ Hefe: Bibi “manned up??” Are you nuts? He did nothing of the sort nor did he apologize directly to the “Arab” [sic] citizens of Israel. If you read his so-called apology it was not directed to them. In the “apology” he mentioned there are Israeli citizens and members of the Arab community who were offended. Note he separated Israeli citizens from “Arabs.” He simply continued the same offensive racist meme he’d been evoking all along.

      American politicians apologize virtually every week for some stupid racist offensive comment or other. But unlike Israel, if the apologies are fake, American voters see through them.

      1. Richard, your translation isn’t accurate.
        What he said exactly was:
        “I know that what I said a few days ago hurt the Israeli-Arabs, I didn’t have any intention is doing so and I’m sorry for that”
        The link with the video of what he said (I guess you know hebrew)
        http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4640206,00.html
        He didn’t separate anyone and wasn’t vague about who he was apologising to.

        1. “I know that what I said a few days ago hurt the Israeli-Arabs, I didn’t have any intention is doing so and I’m sorry for that”

          An apology requires an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

          He does not express that what he said “a few days ago” was wrong, he merely says that he is sorry if people were “hurt” by what he said.

          That is, indeed, merely an “expression of regret”, and an expression of regret is not an “apology”.

          1. “An apology requires an acknowledgment of wrongdoing” – his comments wasn’t outright wrong or even racist. Can’t Obama call Democrats to vote b/c “Republicans are flooding the ballots”?

            The tone in much of the elections was distasteful on both sides. “Just not Bibi” on one hand and “post-Zionist campaign” on the other. But the left in Israel made stronger comments about both Jews and arabs. A worthy opinion piece from BibiTimes http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12037

          2. @ Tankist: Bibiton publishes a “worthy” article? According to whom? If you believe the Israeli left said or wrote anything remotely as racist or troubling as Bibi you’re seriously deluded. And if you think anyone here will agree that anything in Bibiton is “worthy” or true, again, you’re deluded.

          3. “Can’t Obama call Democrats to vote b/c “Republicans are flooding the ballots”?”

            He could, because “Republicans” and “Democrats” denote political affiliation, not race.

            That you can’t see that fundamental difference is, du’oh!, your problem, not mine.

          4. The fact you can’t differentiate between a racist comment to generic naming of a group of people, is your problem.
            Israeli arabs are a big group of voters and Israelis aren’t busy laundering words like folks in the US are.

          5. The statement was this
            Bibi: “The right-wing government is in danger, Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”

            Tankist’s American analogy is this
            T: ” Can’t Obama call Democrats to vote b/c “Republicans are flooding the ballots”?”

            That’s not even close to being analogous.

            This one is, tho’….
            John McCain, 2008 Election Day: “Republican government is in danger, Black voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Democrat organizations are busing them out.”

            You wouldn’t consider that a racist comment, correct?

            Apparently not…..
            T: “The fact you can’t differentiate between a racist comment to generic naming of a group of people, is your problem.”

            This is a “generic naming of a group”: oh, look, those people over there are Arabs.
            This is a “racist comment”: Danger! I Am In Danger! Arabs are votinnnnnnng!!!

          6. What should they be called? “voters of the combined/united party”?
            This is a usual blackwashing nonsense!

          7. T: “What should they be called?”

            Dude, have one more look at this sentence:
            Bibi: “The right-wing government is in danger, Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out.”

            Because in your last post your read that sentence and – apparently – the only think that came to your mind was this question: would it have been more acceptable if he had used a dog-whistle euphemism for “Arab” instead of using the actual word “Arab”?

            The answer: No.

            The reason why the answer is “No” is this: regardless of whether or not he had used your suggested euphemism the ENTIRE SENTENCE would still be exactly what it has always been i.e. racist scaremongering.

            Your very question misses the point i.e. Netanyahu deliberately and knowingly engaged in hyperbolic racist scaremongering, and so there would have been no point – none whatsoever – in him being subtle about it by using a euphemism.

            After all, when was the last time you saw the words “Netanyahu” and “subtle” being used in the same sentence?

        2. @ yonathan: I’ve researched this further and it’s not “my translation” which was “inaccurate.” It’s actually the official Likud translation of his remarks as published in the NY TImes & elsewhere. I was only reading it there & conveying what I read. You are right that the original Hebrew does not say what the Likud translation claims. As to why that is, you’ll have to ask the Likud. No doubt there’s some conniving reason why they mistranslated it.

          As for why Jodi Rudoren couldn’t verify the translation was accurate & why she trusted what the Likud told her about what Bibi said, a zoch in vay: don’t get me started. Learn some Hebrew, Rudoren or find someone who does & vet this stuff before you publish it.

    3. He “apologized” because he wants people to stop talking about it. It’s the exact same thing as with the minor back-tracking on “there will be no Palestinian state while I’m in power”– he’s not sorry for what he said and does not want to allow any Palestinian state, he just wants to have people off his case and he wants to try and continue to perpetuate this false image that some amazingly still are willing to buy into.

  2. While in all likelihood Netanyahu received more foreign money for his campaign than any other contenders, he turned matters topsy turvy by claiming that foreign governments, particularly Scandinavian ones, had spent millions of dollars to have him ousted. He must have reckoned that this lie would be a bit more credible than his other porkers because of Sweden’s recent decision to recognise the Palestinian state.

    Sweden’s English language newspaper Local wrote:

    “ “Scandinavian governments have spent millions of dollars on a campaign to remove me from power,” he said on the station Kol Israel.
     
    “Western governments, but mostly Scandinavian…They know perfectly well why they prefer Buji and Livni to me,” he added, referring to his opponents.
     
    In a separate interview with Rega Radio he was reported to have said that “foreign governments, specifically Scandinavians, are part of a worldwide campaign to topple me”, according to a translation posted on Twitter by Israeli blogger and journalist Tal Schneider.
     
    Sweden in particular has had strained relations with Israel in recent months after becoming the first western European country to formally recognize the state of Palestine.
     
    The decision led to Israel temporarily recalling its ambassador from Stockholm and claims that Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallström had been snubbed by Israeli government officials, after she cancelled a planned visit to Jerusalem.
     
    But Netanyahu’s comments about Scandinavian governments have been met with strong criticism from some social media users in Israel.
     
    “What the hell has Scandinavia done to Benjamin Netanyahu?”, wrote Jerusalem-based journalist Noga Tarnopolsky.
     
    Israeli historian and writer Gershom Gorenberg posted: “last refuge of the fading strongman: accuse outside agitators, foreign governments”” “.

    http://www.thelocal.se/20150313/scandinavia-accused-of-meddling-in-israel-vote

    1. This is funny because Israeli’s often try to illustrate that they live in a bad neighborhood by saying that they “do not have Swedes as their neighbors”.

    2. No great surprise that Netanyahu accused others of doing what he does himself. The question is why the opposition didn’t react straight off, but rather remained silent. After all, they’re politicians too, and they should know what effect statements will have.

  3. “I know….and I’m sorry for that”
    Richard: ” An apology requires an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.”

    Absolutely! Netanyahu wants to see, if he can get away with this, downplay it, get off the hook, etc. It’s not the first time.
    He said what he meant, and everybody knows it. Any real, sincere apology, would mean that Netanyahu would be a changed man. He is not.
    Thanks, Richard

    1. This is an “expression of regret”: I’m sorry that you have taken offense to what I said.
      This is an “apology”: What I said was wrong, and I’m sorry that I said it.

      Bibi’s “apology” was the former, not the latter, and so it was a “non-apologetic-apology”.

      An “expression of regret”, in other words.

      1. Israelis do so love to play the game of “let’s pretend”, don’t they?

        Just grab some territory off some poor schmuck, wave a magic wand over your head, and suddenly its like “well, that’s that, it’s mine now!”.

        1. Syria was a ‘poor schmuck’?
          Are you serious?? Syria contributed it’s more than fair share to the conflict with Israel. Blaming the ‘winning’ side for the current reality as if the ‘loser’ side had no effect on how things played out is ignorant.

          1. “Syria contributed it’s more than fair share to the conflict with Israel.”

            There was no justification for the IDF seizing the Golan Heights at the end of the Six Day War.

            None. Zip. Zero.

            The only “offensive” action that had been taken by the Syrian Army had been a few pathetic attempts to take out some water plants that had been a major source of tension between the two countries for years.

            Apart from that the Syrians did… almost nothing except dig in.

            Oh, yeah, they did do one other thing: they agreed to the UN’s call for a ceasefire.

            Soooooo, what did Israel do, knowing that the Syrians were never a threat and were already agreeable to an end to the fighting?

            Why, the Israeli’s launch a ground offensive to seize the Golan Heights.

            Soooo, why did the Israeli’s do that?

            They wanted to that territory with every intention of keeping it for themselves.

            Good farm land, apparently…..

        2. @Yeah

          ‘poor schmuck’

          Syria sponsored fedayeen terror attacks into northern Israel during the mid 1960’s.

          1. “Syria sponsored fedayeen terror attacks into northern Israel during the mid 1960’s.”

            OOOOOOOOooooooooowwwwww, scary.

            Oh, wait, no, it wasn’t that scary at all, certainly not according to Moshe Dyan, and he was the man who ordered the IDF to seize the Golan Heights.

            So why did he give that order?
            Was it because he was scared of the Syrians?
            Was it because of all that “Fedayeen sponsorship”?

            Nah, none of that.

            He ordered the IDF to seize the Golan Heights even after the fighting had died down because….
            “But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights’ land. Listen, I’m a farmer, too. After all, I’m from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land.”

            That’s the reason why the IDF seized the Golan Heights when the opportunity arose i.e. because Israeli farmers wanted that farmland for themselves.

            Nothing more. No less.

  4. “Syria sponsored fedayeen terror attacks into northern Israel during the mid 1960’s.”

    One would have thought that this bit of Israeli propaganda had by now been thoroughly debunked. But no, new generations of gullible Israelis fall for the same old lies. The truth is that the great majority (Dayan spoke of 80 %) of pre-1967 border provocations came from Israel.

    I have posted this testimony of the then Dutch UN observer Jan Mühren before but it seems relevant again on this thread. Mind also what that Israeli journalist says about Dayan’s testimony. The video is in two parts.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLVoSdg_AE8

      1. Unbelievable.

        No, really, f**king unbelievable.

        Arie quotes the ISRAELI GENERAL WHO ORDERED THE SEIZURE OF THE GOLAN telling you that “fedayeen terror attacks” were not the reason why he ordered his army to capture that territory and Hefe still insists on arguing that: yeah, yeah, it was to!!!!!!

        Hefe, sunshine, when it comes to the conflicting arguments of:
        a) the Israeli general who ordered the attack versus
        b) some pinhead Israeli academic
        over what Moshe Dayan was thinking when he ordered that assault then, so sorry, the source material trumps the pinhead any day of the week.

        Moshe Shemesh didn’t order the IDF to seize the Golan.
        Moshe Dayan did.

        So who to believe…. who to believe…?

        1. @ Yeah, Right: Not to mention that I’ve never heard of Moshe Shemesh. He’s quite obscure. Do you get the feeling there’s someone standing over El Hefe’s shoulder feeding him this detritus hasbara material? Turns out Shemesh teaches at Ben Gurion University & served with Aman. But as you wrote, Dayan is a far more trustworthy, credible source on this matter. BTW, “Shemesh” means “sun,” so ironic that you called poor El Hefe “sunshine.”

    1. This video could be just as well made by Max Blumenthal. How can anyone present it as informative or objective?

      1. @ Tankist

        I find Max Blumenthal generally very informative. That many Israelis don’t share that view is simply because they don’t like his information.

        That holds also for Colonel Mühren and even Dayan. Israelis prefer that mechanical Miss who lies to tourists about those Syrian attacks. You have grown up with these comfortable myths buddy – and just can’t let go of them.

      2. @ Tankist: Max’s videos are informative and objective. Can you rebut anything in them or point out any errors? Max’s ideological views can be a bit strong at times (though not nearly as strident as Finkelstein), but as a journalist he’s first-rate.

  5. For the time being I would rely more on what General Dayan said. His remark on how most of these border incidents were provoked completely tallies with the observations of Dutch UN observer Colonel Mühren:

    From the New York Times, May 11 1997

    JERUSALEM, May 9— It is an article of faith among Israelis that the Golan Heights were seized in the 1967 Middle East war to stop Syria from shelling the Israeli settlements down below. The future of the Golan Heights is central to the search for peace in the Middle East, and much of the case against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria rests on the fear of reviving that threat.
    But like many another of Israel’s founding legends, this one has come under question lately, and from a most surprising quarter: Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan.
    General Dayan died in 1981. But in conversations with a young reporter five years earlier, he said he regretted not having stuck to his initial opposition to storming the Golan Heights. There really was no pressing reason to do so, he said, because many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland.
    General Dayan did not mean the conversations as an interview, and the reporter, Rami Tal, kept his notes secret for 21 years — until he was persuaded by a friend to make them public. They were authenticated by historians and by General Dayan’s daughter Yael Dayan, a member of Parliament, and published two weeks ago in the weekend magazine of the newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

    ”Look, it’s possible to talk in terms of ‘the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,’ and other such talk, but that is not policy,” General Dayan told Mr. Tal in 1976. ”You don’t strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.”
    According to the published notes, Mr. Tal began to remonstrate, ”But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and . . . ”
    General Dayan interrupted: ”Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was.”
    General Dayan’s resistance to storming the Golan Heights in the first days of the 1967 war is established history, as is his abrupt change of mind on June 9, the fourth day of the war, when he called the northern commander directly — bypassing the Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, and the Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol — and ordered him to go to war against Syria.

    Read more:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=1

    1. @ Arie Brand: Let’s not also forget that Syria’s leadership TWICE was prepared to settle its outstanding differences with Israel: once under Hafez al Assad & once under Bashir. Barak had a peace deal on his desk but refused to sign it. Olmert was in talks under Turkish mediation & instead started a war on Gaza. So you want to blame Syria for this? I don’t think so. Fault is all Israel’s.

      Our hasbarapals Hefe & others need to keep these inconvenient facts in mind.

        1. Hefe: “You have to include Prime Minister Netanyahu’s efforts to find a land for peace deal with Syria.”

          After which Hefe links to an article that includes…..
          NYT: “The negotiations never came to a head. ”

          Funny that.

          Am I the only person who notices a pattern to Netanyahu’s “negotiations”?

          As in: they always start with …”a detailed list of Israeli demands meant to serve as a basis for a peace agreement”… and then proceed from there into negotiations that never progress beyond being a….”work in progress”.

          That Bibi! He sure does love his talks about talking about talks about talking about talks.

          But they are always talks that lead nowhere, so much so that you’d *almost* start to believe that this was always his intention. He just…. talks and talks and talks and talks and talks.

          But the appearance of talks – even if they are meaningless Seinfeld talks – seems to keep the Americans happy, apparently. So I suppose from Netanyahu’s PoV that’s all that matters.

  6. @Yeah @Richard @Arie

    The Syrian sponsored fedayeen cross-border attacks are historical facts, no matter what the reason for the conquest of the Golan.

    That being said, here is another irreducible fact for you to digest.

    “Israel’s Cabinet first discussed the question at length on June 18-19th, a week after the war. The minsters decided the Sinai and Golan would be returned to Egypt and Syria for peace. Jerusalem would not be re-divided. The deliberations about the West Bank were not concluded.”
    http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/19th-june-1967-israels-peace-plan.html

    1. hefe: “The Syrian sponsored fedayeen cross-border attacks are historical facts, no matter what the reason for the conquest of the Golan.”

      Then you have just admitted that your original point of order was the epitome of pointless.

  7. @Hefe

    That decision, if I remember correctly, was taken with a majority of one vote and Dayan, who was then at the height of his influence and power, argued that a decision about such an important matter couldn’t be taken seriously if there was only a one vote majority. Well, it wasn’t taken seriously because very soon the cabinet changed direction, in spite of its own earlier decision. Peace feelers from Jordan (undertaken with the approval of Egypt’s Nasser) were ignored and lied about.

    As far as the West Bank is concerned: it was Israel that, against the advice of Ben Gurion, decided to hang on to it by immediately devising plans for settlement there and annexing East Jerusalem. This happened before the famous “three no’s of Khartoum” the ostensible reason for holding on to the occupied territories. When the cabinet decision you referred to was officially shelved, after Khartoum, it had already been a dead letter for some time. The West Bank offered too seductive military perspectives . The main culprits here were Dayan and Allon, in that order. They both had a convincing plan for settlements on the West Bank. Abba Eban was apparently originally lukewarm about holding on to these territories and the then Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, had stated publicly, at the beginning of the war, that Israel was not intending to keep any conquered area. Dayan, who had gained great prestige in the war, wanted it otherwise. When the then American Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, reminded Eban of Eshkol’s statement a few months after the war, Eban merely shrugged his shoulders and said: “We have changed our mind”. (See Rusk’s memoirs “As I Saw It” ). He notably didn’t say “We could find nobody to talk to”.

    I have devoted a six or seven part series to this topic on the Australian webdiary under the title “The Olive Branch and Khartoum”. I could make use there of the archival records of the American State Department over this period that are now online. If you want to react to this post I suggest that you look at my earlier writings first. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:x–Yh62MBvcJ:webdiary.com.au/cms/%3Fq%3Dnode/805+the-olive-branch-and-Khartoum&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph
    Or, even better, look at these records yourself. Also, the main Israeli historian to read on this is the Oxford academic Avi Shlaim.

    Uri Avnery has once devoted a very perceptive article to the Israeli strategy in dealing with peace feelers. It is a double game. You have to keep these guys of at the same time giving the impression that the difficulty lies with them.

    1. @Arie

      “Dayan… argued that a decision about such an important matter couldn’t be taken seriously if there was only a one vote majority”.

      The Eshkol government decision was taken very seriously and passed on to the US in secret by Abba Eban.

      “Well, it wasn’t taken seriously because very soon the cabinet changed direction,”

      No. A positive answer to Israel’s ‘occupied land for peace’ offer was not received from either Egypt or Syria.
      So on 2 September 1967 when the Arab leaders meeting in Khartoum reached a decision known as the “three nos”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, there was a natural erosion of Israel’s willingness to give up Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace treaties and security arrangements.

      1. Hefe: “No. A positive answer to Israel’s ‘occupied land for peace’ offer was not received from either Egypt or Syria.”

        There was no “offer”. The Israeli cabinet informed the USA government that it had “decided” on a land-for-peace-offer, but never actually, you know, kinda’ bothered to go to the trouble of telling the Arabs whose land it was that a trade was possible.

        Kinda’ like me telling you that I’ve decided to write a letter to Richard Silverstein, and when you ask what his response was I explain that, shucks, I never *actually* got around to sending it.

        Bad enough, I suppose, but then compounded by blaming that third party for not responding positively to the contents of a letter that was never sent and, therefore, they never received…….

        Hehe: “So on 2 September 1967 when the Arab leaders meeting in Khartoum reached a decision known as the “three nos”: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, there was a natural erosion of Israel’s willingness to give up Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace treaties and security arrangements.”

        So, basically, the lack of a positive response to a letter that was never sent reinforced the Israeli governments determination never to send that letter.

        Something like that, right, but somehow it’s all the Arabs fault for not responding positively to a letter that was never sent?

        BTW, are you one of the trillions of hasbarah trolls who much-mentions the Khartoum Declaration without having ever once gone to the trouble of reading it?

        Apparently so, because if you had read it you’ll see that it doesn’t say what you claim it says.

        1. @Yeah

          “There was no “offer”.”

          Abba Eban say’s different.

          Abba Eban, An Autobiography
          (London, 1978 ), 435 – 36

          No living soul knows what happened to the offer. That information died along with Dean Rusk.

          1. “Abba Eban say’s different.”

            Abba Eban said many things, a goodly proportion of them being total invention.

            This is a fact: the Israelis never made any “offer” to the Egyptians regarding the return of the Sinai in exchange for peace.

            This is also a fact: the Israelis told the AMERICANS that they had agreed to propose just such an offer.

            This is also a fact: when Dean Rusk wanted to know when the Israelis intended to make that offer then Abba Eban responded with a shrug of his shoulders and a brisk “We changed our minds”.

            This is pure invention: the Israeli claim that they told the State Department to pass that “offer” on to the Egyptians.

            That never happened, precisely because the Israelis never, ever told the State Department to pass that message on.

          2. “No living soul knows what happened to the offer. That information died along with Dean Rusk.”

            Quite untrue.

            http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/rusktranscript.pdf

            Transcript of interview with Dean Rusk, May 17, 1989
            “On the first day of the ’67 war, Eskol said on radio that Israel had no territorial ambitions. A few months later I saw Abba Eban and reminded him of this. Eban said: ‘We changed our minds.’ Thus Israel made a liar out of the U.S. because we had been telling the Arabs for years that Israeli had no territorial ambitions”

            Now, so sorry, that doesn’t sound like a man who had been handed a super-secret message from the Israelis that was to be handed to the Egyptians, does it?

            Indeed not. It sounds like a man who was totally mystified about the Israelis’ intention, and who finally realized that the reason for his mystification was because… he was being lied to.

            Which was Abba Eban’s speciality, apparently.

      2. @ hefe: This is at best a case of historical amnesia, and at worst a lie. Sadat in 1972 told Golda he was willing to sign a peace treaty upon return of Sinai. Golda ignored him. Another example of Israel never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity…

        And 3,000 Israeli boys died because of Golda’s stupidity.

        1. Richard,
          Sadat demanded pre-condition to the peace talks that were worse than before the six-days war in Israeli terms as if he was on the winning side!
          Golda agreed to negotiate without any pre-conditions, and eventually the talks failed.
          Sadat wife’s said that he wasn’t ready to seriously negotiate with Israel because of how it would be portrayed by his people anyways.
          Right before the 1973 war, another american proposal was offered which Golda agreed to but Sadat haven’t replied.

          1. @ yonathan: One of the important comment rules here is NOT to state opinions on controversial or disputed subjects unless you back them up with facts. You have not done that. I doubt there were Sadat pre conditions. If there were I’m sure one of them was that the Sinai be returned to Egypt as part of the agreement. That hardly seems an unreasonable pre-condition.

            I’d like to see any proof Golda agreed to negotiate. I’ve NEVER heard such a claim & I will take it as a lie unless you support it with a credible source. One of the big No-Nos here is making claims that aren’t supported. If you do this you run the risk of being moderated.

            Nor do I trust anything you claim regarding Sadat’s wife. Besides, she isn’t necessarily a trustworthy source.

            The supposed “American proposal” is also a claim lacking in credibility. I put you on notice: I want you to back up EVERY claim you make. Every single one. If you don’t, you may face the consequences. And don’t play fast & loose with the historical record.

          2. y: “Sadat demanded pre-condition to the peace talks that were worse than before the six-days war in Israeli terms as if he was on the winning side!”

            Total invention.

            The Jarring Mission report was issued in 1971, and Sadat signalled that he was agreeable to negotations on the basis of that report.

            Golda Meir was having nothing to do with it. She had absolutely no interest in negotiating anything, let alone entering into any negotiations based upon UNSCR242’s formula of “land-for-peace” (as the Jarring report was).

            The rejectionism was entirely from the Israeli side.
            The obstructionism came entirely from the Israeli cabinet.

            Y: “Golda agreed to negotiate without any pre-conditions, and eventually the talks failed.”

            Again, total fiction.

            There were no “talks” that “failed” because Meir would not agree to any talks whatsoever, precisely because she would not even agree on what the talks were supposed to be a.b.o.u.t.

            Y: “Right before the 1973 war, another american proposal was offered which Golda agreed to but Sadat haven’t replied.”

            Again, total invention.

            There was no “offer”, because that would require the proposal to be “presented” to both the Israelis and the Egyptians.

            What you are referring to was a unilateral side-deal stitched up entirely between Henry Kissinger and Golda Meir i.e. a “deal” that existed only between the USA and the state of Israel, and about which the Egyptians were not only unaware but were, indeed, completely excluded.

            Hard to be labelled as a “rejectionist” if you weren’t actually offered the deal that you supposedly “rejected”.

            Unless of course you are a Zionist propagandist, in which case Up is Down, Left is Right, and Grass is Blue and the Sky is Green.

            Oh, yeah, and the Egyptians were utter rejectionists because they “refused” to agree to a “proposal” that was kept secret from them.

  8. Yeah,

    “Syria sponsored fedayeen terror attacks into northern Israel during the mid 1960’s.”

    OOOOOOOOooooooooowwwwww, scary.”

    So fedayeen attacks oooooooooooowwwww not scary, but a TRACTOR! Holy s#%t!!
    That was the most of the Israeli provocation that Dayan talked about.

    1. Compare and contrast: Israel sent a tractor, and the Syrian Army took shots at it, but the Syrians DIDN’T attempt to seize that territory because Israel insisted on sending in those Holy s#%t! tractors.

      Apparently the Syrians have way more self control that the Israelis, who see some cultivated land that doesn’t belong to them and can’t help but start salivating.

      Must be a cultural thing…

      1. Richard,
        there’s some sort of bug in the comment section – I can’t see the comment I writing.

        yeah,

        “Israel sent a tractor, and the Syrian Army took shots at it, but the Syrians DIDN’T attempt to seize that territory because Israel insisted on sending in those Holy s#%t! tractors.”

        Two false here: first of all they didn’t ‘just’ shoot at the tractor they also shelled the civilian villages killing 140 people. They had also fired on fisherman at the sea of Galilee – I didn’t realise Israel had amphibian tractors at the time.
        Secondly, apparently the Syrian had ‘some’ territorial appetite at the 1948 war. They didn’t succeeded, but an appetite none the less.
        About Moshe Dayan, the skirmishes between Israel and Syria weren’t something that started at 1967 – or the shortly prior to the war. It goes as back as 1949.

        1. @ yonathan: Your comments have long since stopped having any connection to the post. Do NOT deviate from the post otherwise you are going off-topic, another comment rule violation.

          I have absolutely no interest in fighting past wars, nor in scoring points for each side, as you do. So stay on topic in future.

  9. Yes- there never was an offer . Eban spoke to Rusk et al about “tentative conclusions”. And there is no record whatsoever in the archives of anything on that score having been transmitted to the Arab States.

    1. Exactly.

      The Israeli idea of “making an offer” is that a whole lot of Zionist get in a room and argue amongst themselves about what they will and won’t keep for themselves.

      Quite how that amounts to an “offer” to anyone else OUTSIDE of that room is, well, it’s an invention.

      Israel: We’ve decided to make an offer to the Arabs!
      ….. time passes….
      USA: Well?
      Israel: Well, what?
      USA: Well, how did the Arabs respond to your offer?
      Israel: The who… the what… huh?

  10. Richard, last time you gave an ultimatum I’ve answered it and you didn’t even bother to publish it and just said you are no longer interested to talk about the subject. so even if I prove my claims, what different will it make if it won’t be published.
    Just for references of what I said and what Yeah wrote,
    the Jarring Mission and the pre-conditions:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarring_Mission
    The peace talks (or no-talks) in hebrew
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8_%D7%A1%D7%90%D7%93%D7%90%D7%AA

    I won’t comment in this thread anymore

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *