The Hypocritical Zionist: A Debate with a Defender of Israel’s Crimes

by Jul 21, 2016Foreign Policy78 comments

Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion unilaterally declares the existence of the "Jewish state" on May 14, 1948

The hypocrisy of Zionist defenders of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians never ceases to amaze.

Want to learn how to effectively debate with Zionists who try to justify Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians? My book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict will empower you with the knowledge to stand up to these hypocrites.

Here’s an email exchange I recently had with one of them, named Harrison. He’d read my recent article “The No-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict“, in which I point out that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in a 2004 advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly that Israel’s annexation wall and settlement regime in the occupied West Bank are illegal. He emailed me in response to the piece. What follows is our full exchange. May you find it educational — and perhaps also entertaining.

Harrison

Don’t you see a little hypocrisy in the fact that this decision was announced by a Chinese judge?  The Chinese invaded Tibet at about the same time that the State of Israel was established.  China justified its invasion by saying that the people of Tibet were being wrongfully governed by religious reactionaries.  The Chinese killed about one-sixth of the Tibetan population during its invasion. It then proceeded to move tens of thousands of Chinese into Tibet, and now consider it part of China.  Compared to the daily outcries and condemnation you hear about the “occupied” West Bank, the world utters barely a peep of protest about China’s ACTUAL occupation of Tibet, which, as opposed to the war launched against Israel by neighboring nations in 1967, never presented ANY kind of threat to Chinese security.

Me

No, I don’t see hypocrisy in the fact the judge happened to be Chinese (if that is so). He was representing the ICJ, not the Chinese government, and I have no knowledge that this individual holds a hypocritical view with respect to the occupation of Tibet.

Where I do see hypocrisy, on the other hand, is in your own comments. For starters, this accusation is grounded in bigotry against the individual simply for the fact he’s of Chinese nationality. Moreover, you rightly condemn China for its actions while referring to “the ‘occupied’ West Bank”, the quotation marks intended to imply that it isn’t really occupied, as though this land belonged to Israel when in fact it’s a simple and uncontroversial point of fact under international law that all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory. Finally, the 1967 war was begun by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Egypt despite Israel’s own intelligence assessing that Nasser would not be so foolish as to attack Israel, an assessment shared by the CIA, which informed President Johnson that a war was looming and that it would be Israel that would start it.

So if you want to see a hypocrite, just have a look in the mirror.

Harrison

This judge was acting as a representative of the Chinese government – an ambassador to the ICJ.  Obviously it is not bigotry to accuse him of hypocrisy on that basis.  His own personal views about the invasion of Tibet are irrelevant. Of course you don’t even mention that Israel was not a signatory to the treaty establishing the ICJ.  For this ruling to have had any actual legal effect, a nation had to have acceded to the court’s jurisdiction.  Does that show a bias, or an attempt to report the historical facts truthfully?

In what possible sense was the West Bank and Gaza “Palestinian” land before Israel took over those areas in 1967? Before that, they were occupied by Jordan, and Egypt.  Did you, or anyone else refer to the areas then as being “occupied” by Egypt and Jordan, from 1948 to 1967?  Obviously the Palestinian residents did not.  That is because they thought of those areas not as Palestinian land, but merely as Arab land, or as part of the “ummah.”  And before 1948, they were lands occupied by other foreign powers: the UK, under the Mandate, and the empire of the Turks before that.  Of course the PLO was established in 1965, before there was any occupation, and Mahmoud Abbas himself refers to Israel proper as being “occupied.”  That is why, I think, it is appropriate to put the word in quotation marks.

Blaming Israel for the 1967 war shows your true bias.  Nasser had moved tanks and troops across Sinai to the Israeli border.  He had blocked the Straits of Tiran (Israel’s only water access to the South for oil imports, being denied access to the Canal).  That was a causus belli under the agreement ending the Suez crisis, and one even without such an agreement. He had expelled UN Peacekeepers (who dutifully departed, rather than actually doing anything to keep the peace; “Peacekeepers” also belongs in quotation marks).

And, most importantly of all, Egypt was making radio broadcasts of the most extreme and bellicose promises about the final destruction of Israel.  Of course it knew that Israel was monitoring those broadcasts — that is the nature of radio.  Israel is the Jewish state, and if there is one imperative from Jewish history, it is this:  When people say, “I’m coming to kill you now,” you take this seriously, at face value.  If Nasser, secretly down in his heart somewhere, intended only a feint or bluff, this was a bad miscalculation on his part.  He knew Jewish history as well as anybody else.  Any action takes place in a context.

Me

No, the ICJ does not represent the governments of its members. It is an independent body. So, yes, it is extremely bigoted of you to accuse him of hypocrisy simply for being Chinese.

Israel is party to the Geneva Conventions. It is an Occupying Power and its wall and settlements are illegal. Period. The only bias here is your willfully ignorant rejection of this completely uncontroversial point of fact.

Yes, Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively, between 1948 and 1967. It certainly does not follow that it is therefore not Palestinian territory! This is absurd logic. Again, it is a completely uncontroversial point of fact under international law that all of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are occupied Palestinian territory and so your use of quotation marks around the word “occupied” simply exposes your prejudice.

And, again, 1967 war was not begun by Egypt. Yet another completely uncontroversial point of fact is that it was started by Israel on the morning of June 5 with a surprise attack on Egypt. Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric was just that: rhetoric. Again, the Egyptian forces in the Sinai had taken up defense positions, as observed by the CIA, and Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Nasser posed no threat and would not attack. It’s also instructive that Israel refused the proposal for UNEF troops to be stationed on its side of the border.

Like I said, if you want to find a hypocrite, go look in the mirror.

Harrison

It would be helpful if you would explain just how Israel was supposed to know that it was merely rhetoric.

Me

I already have. The question assumes Israel couldn’t possibly have known Egypt wouldn’t attack when, again, Israel did know this. Again, its own intelligence community assessed that Egypt would not attack.

The CIA, of course, shared that assessment and informed Johnson that a war was coming, but that it would be Israel that would start it.

This is all documented in my book Obstacle to Peace:

www.obstacletopeace.com

I urge you to read it to be able to see through the standard propaganda and become better informed about the true nature of the conflict.

The mainstream media perpetually lie to you, adopting the Israeli narrative of Zionist hasbara in they’re role of manufacturing consent for US foreign policy. My book, which contains over 1,900 endnotes, documents the real story.

Harrison

An intelligence assessment is only a prediction based on imperfect information (such as, that Iraq has WMDs).  When it comes to protecting your teeny-tiny country against what seems to be an imminent attack by neighboring countries with whom you’ve already been at war, and fairly recently, there is a pretty huge price to pay if your intelligence community happens to be wrong.  It’s not like war against it would have been some kind of wildly improbable event. In its War of Independence, Israel’s enemies killed about one-tenth of the Jewish population at the time (think of, on a proportionate basis, 3.2 million Americans killed).  Nasser was a pretty hostile neighbor.

Since you seem pretty confident of how future events will transpire, could you please give me some stock market advice.

Me

Did you fall for the transparent lies about Iraq, too? That seems to be the problem here: you simply are too gullible and fall for all these blatant lies and propaganda.

The simple fact of the matter is such “preventative” war as the US war on Iraq and Israel’s attack on Egypt in June 1967 is synonymous under international law with “aggression”, defined at Nuremberg as “the supreme international crime”.

I notice you adopt Israel’s name for the 1948 war, “War of Independence”. In fact, the Jewish community at the time owned less than 7 percent of the land in Palestine, and the “Jewish state” was established through violence and the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population – hence known as the Nakba to Palestinians, their “Catastrophe”. It wasn’t a war of independence, but, as Israeli historian Benny Morris has described it, a “war of conquest”.

You are unfortunately heavily indoctrinated in Zionist propaganda. Again, I urge you to read Obstacle to Peace to become properly informed.

www.obstacletopeace.com

Oh, and you might think twice about buying stocks. An economic collapse is coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park. Physical gold would be a good option. Here’s another book of mine you can read for insights into the coming crisis:

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/ron-paul-vs-paul-krugman/

Harrison

It shows how one-sided you are, that you mention only that the Jews owned a small percentage of the land. Do you think that the remainder was owned by Palestinians? Of course not, and you omit this because it doesn’t fit your simplistic, anti-Israel narrative – the truth is too difficult for you. The rest of the land was owned by the previous conquering, foreign power, which happened to pick the wrong side in the Great War.

You are obviously not interested in the truth, only in polemics. This isn’t at all unusual, when it comes to this particular conflict. So I must decline your invitation to read your books.

Thanks for the investment advice. Predicting a catastrophe is safe, because if you wait long enough the prediction will come true.  It is absolutely true that there will be a highly destructive earthquake in Oregon. But that prediction, alone, is not particularly helpful.

Me

Harrison, it’s highly instructive that you’re incapable of pointing to even a single error in either fact or logic on my part (while I’ve repeatedly shown you your own errors).

Here yet again you are simply demonstrating your willful ignorance, prejudice, and extraordinary hypocrisy by asserting that Arabs owned no land in Palestine. In fact, Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa.

If you ever decide to set aside your prejudice and cease being willfully ignorant, the truth is available to you:

www.obstacletopeace.com

Your area always welcome to educate yourself, cease being part of the problem, and join the fight for Peace.

Harrison

OK I stand corrected on that point.  I should have wrote that the vast majority of the land was not owned locally, but by a foreign power.

You can be misleading without any actual error in fact or logic, because a half-truth is as good as a lie.

Writing that Israel must have known that Egypt would not have attacked it, is not an “error in fact or logic,” but it’s still just plain wrong, because nobody knows for sure what will happen in the future.  Every nation has to make its best prediction, based on the imperfect information it has available to it, and act accordingly.  Some parts of the Israeli government were predicting one thing, and other parts were predicting another.  That is far less than a showing that Israel must have known that Egypt had no plans to attack.  You don’t know what Egypt would have done had Israel not made its preemptive strike, and I don’t know.

I see no point in any further exchange, because obviously neither of us is going to make one inch of progress with the other.

Me

The facts with regard to Israel’s attack on Egypt are as I’ve stated them. Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Egypt would not attack, the CIA informed Johnson of the same and told him Israel would start the war, and even if Israel had believed that Egypt might attack, such “preventive” war (not “preemptive” as you claim) is synonymous under international law with “aggression”, defined Nuremberg as “the supreme international crime”.

We agree on one thing: continuing this discussion is pointless, in light of your willful ignorance and your clinging to your mistaken, hypocritical view despite my having repeatedly pointed out to you your numerous factual and logical errors every step of the way.

Harrison

I also want to discontinue our exchange because I find you to be a very unpleasant person.

I can live with this Zionist hypocrite finding me to be “a very unpleasant person”. Indeed, I take considerable pride in making people like him feel uncomfortable about being confronted with their own hypocrisy.

If you want to empower yourself with the knowledge to take on these Zionist hypocrites, or just quickly get up to speed on what the Israel-Palestine conflict is all about and why it persists, head on over to ObstacleToPeace.com and sign up to read a free excerpt of my just-published book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In addition to getting the entire first chapter (as well as Richard Falk’s Foreword and Gene Epstein’s Introduction), you’ll receive an email primer course on the conflict.

LEARN MORE

Did you find value in this content? If so and you have the means, please consider supporting my independent journalism.

About Jeremy R. Hammond

About Jeremy R. Hammond

I am an independent journalist, political analyst, publisher and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, book author, and writing coach.

My writings empower readers with the knowledge they need to see through state propaganda intended to manufacture their consent for criminal government policies.

By recognizing when we are being lied to and why, we can fight effectively for liberty, peace, and justice, in order to create a better world for ourselves, our children, and future generations of humanity.

Please join my growing community of readers!

 

My Books

Related Articles

78 Comments

  1. Guy

    The person by the name of Harrison seems to take the opinion that it was OK for Israel to attack Egypt on the suspicion that it would attack . So by this logic ,Russia should be attacking the Baltic states , not that they want to , but because of the rhetoric and downright threats by NATO against the Russian country . Cheech ,these people will never understand reality , no matter what is said . Hasbara at it’s finest.
    And while we are on the subject of the 1967 war ,no mention of the USS Liberty .

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      Yes, it is absurd logic indeed to argue that the mere suspicion of a possible attack, no matter how unlikely, justifies the use of armed force. This is logic that delights every aggressor state that ever existed, needless to say.

      And, yes, then there is the matter of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty…

      Reply
      • Alphaenemy

        israel gave back sinai for peace…

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The Sinai want Israel’s to give, and I’d Israel wanted peace, it shouldn’t have invaded Egypt and occupied it in the forest place.

      • jjs110

        Check your typos, Jeremy, you end up making no sense. I hope your book has been edited by someone more competent. You seem to forget that Israel was not interested in “invading Egypt”. It just wanted to be left alone and live in peace, but since Egypt insisted on trying to destroy it while promising to exterminate its population, the Israelis had every right and every reason to take preventive action. If you can’t understand that, there is little else you will understand at all. Too bad they didn’t do the same in 1973.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I didn’t write Obstacle to Peace on my phone. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to figure out what I meant.

        If Israel wasn’t interested in invading Egypt, it wouldn’t have invaded Egypt.

      • jjs110

        Except that Egypt (and Syria, and Jordan) was interested in invading Israel. So by your inane logic, it should just have waited until they did so?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You’re begging the question. Once again, Israel’s own intelligence assessed that there was no threat of an imminent attack from Egypt (or any other state, for that matter).

      • jjs110

        Oh yes, how clever. So in 1973 the Israelis took the kind of stupid criticism like the one you’re still voicing into account… and the result was the Yom Kippur war, which was a much closer call thant the 1967 war, with over 2700 Israeli casualties left on the battlefield (instead of 750 in 1967). I say it’s better to delight every aggressor than delight stupid pacifists who in the end cause more deaths than would have happened if Israel had attacked first in 1973, too, instead of waiting for the Arabs to strike the first blow and only respond afterwards.

      • moosehorn

        A shameless hypocritical Zionist defending the Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people.

      • jjs110

        If you paid more attention to the more shameful and far more numerous and egregious Palestinian crimes against the Palestinian people, maybe their lot would improve a lot more. Stop blaming the Israelis when the Palestinians are entirely responsible for their misery. “Stupid is as stupid does” has never found a better illustration than with these guys. But of course, like all losers, it’s always far more easy to blame others than look at oneself in the mirror. Keep it up and you’ll find that you’ll still go nowhere but down.

      • moosehorn

        Why don’t you educate yourself by reading Mr. Hammond’s book “Obstacle to peace”,you might cease being part of the problem.

      • jjs110

        I’ve dowloaded it and tried to read it, but I couldn’t go very far. It’s nothing but yet another apologist for the entire lie that is the so-called Palestinian narrative. No wonder he’s giving it away: no one would spend a penny on this drivel. If anyone wants to learn something based on facts rather than fiction, I recomment instead “Palestine Betrayed” by Efraim Karsch. See here: http://tinyurl.com/o57kocd . Order it and learn. Then read Hammond and have even more fun.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I challenge you to produce an actual argument to support your criticism of the first chapter of my book.

      • jjs110

        OK, challenge taken. I’ve just read it and was not surprised to see one misrepresentation of historical facts after another. Too much to comment on, but my absolute favorite one was your statement that the “right of return” is guaranteed by international law. Don’t talk about stuff you don’t know anything about, Jeremy… So there is a right of return? Really? Where? I have searched high and low for many years for the source of this myth, and I still haven’t found it. I even confronted once Prof. Richard Falk and asked him specifically to point me to the international treaty that allegedly guarantees this fictional right of return. All he could do, meekly, was to admit that there was NO international convention that mentioned it, but he added that its source lies in Resolution 194. At that point, I could only laugh out loud, for the following reasons: 1. Res 194 is a General Assembly resolution, meaning it has no legal validity. 2. nowhere in there does it talk about a “right of return”. 3. it doesn’t mention ‘Arab refugees’ or ‘Palestinian refugees” but just ‘refugees’, meaning that it covered Jewish refugees as well. 4. the Arab states at the time all voted AGAINST Res 194, so they have some nerve to come back today and claim to support it. 5. Res 194 created a commission that was to discuss how to arrange for the return of the refugees. An Israeli delegation went to Geneva to attend the first meeting of that commission, but guess what? The Arabs never showed up! So who in his right mind can still be talking about a completely invented “right of return” except sad ignoramuses? And you wrote a book? Pathetic.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Let’s be clear here, before turning to the subject of international law: so you reject the right of Jews who fled or were expelled from areas in the West Bank during the 1948 war to return to their former homes?

        Eagerly awaiting your answer.

      • jjs110

        Sorry I’m late to respond to your eagerness. Your thirst for knowledge is commendable. That said, you probably think you’ve come up with a clever gotcha, but you fail again because you are comparing two entirely different situations. The Arabs were the aggressors, they were defeated and rebuffed and Israel had consequently every reason to consider them a security risk (a suspicion proven correct time and agin since thousands of time), therefore preventing them from returning was the sensible thing to do, whereas the Jews never attacked nor aggressed anyone. You really thought I’d fall into that obvious a trap? Try again. And I’m eagerly waiting your answer to my demolition of your notion that there is such a mythical concept as a Palestinian “right of return”. There ain’t any.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So your argument is that a right of refugees to return to their homes does exist, but only for those who share ethnicity with the party that was the victim of aggression; but if innocent people happen to share the same ethnicity as the party who is the aggressor, then ethnic cleansing them is justified and, further, they forego their right to return on account of having the wrong genes?

        Is that correct?

      • highlanderjuan

        You’re right. jjs110 really is a part of the problem.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians are of an incomparably greater scale than vice versa.

      • jjs110

        You didn’t have much credibility to start with, but with this statement you’ve lost whatever chances you had to be taken seriously. Go watch this movie and get an education: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/warcrimesingaza .

      • moosehorn

        There is little sense in arguing against an unsympathetic approach Zionist.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I’m afraid it’s you who can’t be taken seriously.

        Please tell us which side has suffered far greater civilian deaths: Israel or Palestine?

        Please tell us which side has repeatedly launched full-scale military attacks on a defenseless territory with the intent to punish the civilian population and in doing so killing thousands of mostly civilians: Israel or Palestine?

        We’ll be eagerly awaiting your answers.

      • jjs110

        Answers to your transparently loaded (but still stupid) questions: 1. the side that has suffered the greater number of civilian deaths is the side that puts its civilians systematically in harm’s way, that cowardly hides its “combatants” behind its civilians, that fires rockets incessantly towards its adversary’s civilian centers hoping that return fire will likely kill and maim many of its own civilians caught in the firefights (because it’s so good for international PR), that builds tunnels and underground command centers for its combatants while letting its civilian take the brunt of the other side’s response, that prevents its civilians from evacuating areas where bombing had been announced by an extraordinarily magnaminous and concerned “enemy”, etc… The Palestinians’ total lack of concern for the misery they have caused to their own civilians should make you vomit, but instead you’re still trying to deny reality. What do you eat in the moring that your brain has turned so mush? Oh, question 2: full-scale military attacks on a defenseless territoyy is what happened when China invaded Tibet in 1950. Is that what you were referring to? If not, then I’m stumped. I don’t remember that the Tibetans had build huge amounts of rockets that they fired for years on China before the Chinese ran out of patience and gave the Tibetans a lesson. Or do you know something in this respect that I don’t? Kidding aside, it is your intellectual dishonesty that makes me want to hurl: I admire the fact that you have the nerve to not say a word about the thousands of rockets Hamas fired on Israel for almost TEN FREEKING YEARS before it finally had enough and gave Hamas the lesson it deserved. Unfortunately, they didn’t finish the job and defeat them completely, so of course Hamas came back for more. Twice so far. Some people are a little bit on the thick side. And so are you.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        So you acknowledge that a far greater number of Palestinian civilians have been killed than Israeli, but your argument is that these killings were justified? Because all these civilians were being used as human shields at the time? Is that correct?

        As for your non-answer to question 2, in fact it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated the ceasefire in place prior to “Operation Cast Lead”. It was Israel, not Hamas, that violated he ceasefire in place prior to “Operation Pillar of Defense”. And it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated the ceasefire in place prior to “Operation Defensive Edge”.

      • jjs110

        Anyone proferring such nonsense must be suffering from a high fever. Since its beginnings, Israel has had only one ambition: to be left alone and to live in peace. Your friends the Palestinians on the other hand cannot accept the idea that Jews can live in the same area that they themselves invaded and far more brutally occupied since the 7th century, and their intolerance and incapacity to live in peace with non-Muslims that they don’t and can’t dominate is what has been driving them to attack relentlessly, committing in the process a long procession of abominable crimes. They are the savages, and if you have decided to remain blind to their savagery, it means that you are on their side, which is your privilege, but don’t come here and try to distort history.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It was not Arabs who ethnically cleansed 700,000 Jews from Palestine to establish an “Arab state”.

        It was not Egypt who attacked Israel on the morning of June 5, 1967 despite its own intelligence assessing that there was no imminent threat of attack from Israel.

        It is not the Palestinians who have implemented a policy of collectively punishing the entire civilian population of Israel with an illegal blockade.

        It was not the Palestinians who violated the 2008 ceasefire in order to launch a full-scale military attack with one of the world’s most modern armies against a completely defenseless civilian population of Israel; not the Palestinians who killed nearly 1,400 Israelis during that operation, mostly civilians.

        And who has suffered the far greater number of civilian deaths both prior to and since “Operation Cast Lead”? Would you care to give us those numbers? (I’d be happy to if you decline.)

        Etc.

      • Mike

        But there is no “they” because in the modern West we treat the other as individuals, as per Jewish human rights advocacy groups in America and Europe. Right?

        As per your own human rights advocacy, there should be no segregation between the group known as the Palestinians and Israelis. You can jail terrorists, as we jail them here, but you can not defend a broad categorization and the resultant segregation of the entire group.

        But you know this. I’m simply pointing out the bold ever-continuing Jewish hypocrisy that the entire world is aware of, including yourself.

        At this time, its amusing to observe millions of diaspora zionist Jews kvetch about the election of Donald Trump, a man who will not achieve a faint shadow of the racial politics that Israel achieves.

        Keep posting your hypocrisy online. Please. The world needs to witness.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        All you are accomplishing is revealing your own extreme prejudice.

      • jjs110

        My “extreme prejudice”? Good one, Jeremy. Because your own beliefs are not equally “extreme prejudice”, I presume? Who are you to allocate moral value to someone else’s opinion that happens to differ (very) widely from yours? I know that may hurt your inflated ego, but you really are nobody. You are entitled to your opinion, as idiotic and inaccurate as it may be, but you are in no position to define other peoples’ views.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I would merely observe how you’ve yet to point to even a single error in fact or logic on my part, preferring instead to resort to hypocritical ad hominem argumentation.

      • jjs110

        I would merely obsserve that if you were honest enough to read my previous posts in which I systematically demolish your intentionally false statements, you wouldn’t have to ask that kind of quesion, but since you prefer to pretend you haven’t seen them, let alone understood them, it’s of course considerably easier to claim I never answered in the first place. You belong in a kindergarten.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        my previous posts in which I systematically demolish your intentionally false statements

        No such posts exist. As I noted in my previous comment, you’ve yet to point to even a single error in fact or logic on my part, preferring intead to resort to hypocritical ad hominem argumentation — in violation of the terms of use of the comments section, I might add/warn.

        You are welcome, of course, to state what I’ve said you charge is false and to explain why you think it’s false. Good luck with that. Further comments like this in violation of the TOU will get you banned, as I’ve no time for trolls.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        In 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli troops occupying Egyptian and Syrian territory, respectively.

      • jjs110

        Oh, that’s rich. And how did it come to pass that Israeli troops were occupying Egyptian and Syrian territory, pray tell? Once again, your very selective memory omitted to mention the multi-pronged aggression (prohibited by the UN Charter) that these to countries launched against Israel before they were repulsed and defeated. THAT’s why they lost some of their territory. If you think naked aggression is in any way justifiable, that’s fine with me, but don’t you dare come complaining later when these aggressors got their just dessert, i.e. their asses duly kicked.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Israel came to occupy Egyptian and Syrian territory because it invaded Egypt and Syria, obviously.

        And the 1967 war was started by Israel on the morning of June 5 with an attack on Egypt despite Israel’s own intelligence assessing that there was no threat of an Egyptian attack on Israel.

      • MuslimJew

        “Oh yes, how clever. So in 1967 the Israelis took the kind of stupid
        criticism like the one you’re still voicing into account… and the
        result was the Yom Kippur war, which was a much closer call thant the
        1967 war, with over 2700 Israeli casualties left on the battlefield
        (instead of 750 in 1967).”

        Oh yes, how shamelessly ziofascist of you.

        So, in 1967 your greedy, warmongering, Zionist-fascist colonizers willfully took it upon themselves to start another illegal war of aggression and conquest, against multiple countries, when they chose to “preemptively” invade Egypt and “preventatively” belligerently occupy and illegally colonize Egyptian, Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian territory—an illegal and criminalwar of aggression and conquest that resulted in thousands upon thousands of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians being murdered by your Jew-baiting zionist colonizer murderers…and the result of that was your “Yum Kipper war”, a small payback for your covetous zionist colonizer criminals and murderers willfully choosing to start their illegal war of aggression and conquest in 1967. I say it’s better not to willfully choose to start illegal wars of aggression and conquest, which result in thousands upon thousands of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Syrians being murdered, and territory belonging to the Egyptians, the Lebanese, the Palestinians and the Syrians being belligerently occupied and illegally colonized, if you don’t want thousands of zionists to end up in body bags.

    • highlanderjuan

      I agree. Illegal zionist israel did militarily and intentionally attack the USS Liberty in international waters in an effort to force the USA into war against Egypt. Even LBJ wanted the Liberty sunk and did not want israel embarrassed by the exposure of its attacks on an American ship.

      Our American enemies have been zionists for decades. If we ever hope to save this country, we need to remove the israel firsters and the israeli dual nationals from our shores, and that means getting them the hell out of our government and out of our economy. The Rothschilds and the zionists israelis are the single most destructive forces on earth. In my opinion.

      Reply
      • jjs110

        You’d better start by removing the Muslim Brotherhood operatives infiltrated all over this administration thanks to our Muslim-in-Chief, you moronic anti-Semitic relic. If you can get past your primitive hatred, try to compare what the Jews have brought to Western civilization vs what the Arabs have. It’s day and night for anyone who is able to see clearly. What this country is in dire need of rather is to get cretins of your caliber to get the hell out of here. Go live in Libya and call it a day.

      • highlanderjuan

        Ah, the typical immature zionist retort. When are you people going to grow up?

        There is a difference between the religion (Judaism) and the political ideology (zionism), and there is a difference between the Ashkenazi Jews who are not Semites and the Sephardi Jews and the Palestinians who are Semites. Also note that israel is a zionist state, not a Jewish state, and certainly not any kind of Semite state.

        You need to do some studying if you want to play in this game. Right now you are a complete failure simply because you just don’t ‘get it.’

      • jjs110

        Look who’s talking… Lol. Look in the mirror if you want to look at a failure. Now, answer my simple question: what is it that the Arabs have brought to civilization compared to the Jews? Yes, that’s what I thought: nothing but silence, which is quite eloquent in itself. Thank you.

      • highlanderjuan

        It’s not the Jews, stupid – it’s the zionists. Even many of the Jews don’t like what the zionists are doing. Why are you bringing religion into this discussion when this is a political problem?

        Here, read this and learn something. Just so that you do not continue to act ignorant of the truth about Jews, zionists, and the illegal state of israel.

        https://www.scribd.com/document/267780878/A-Discussion-of-Israel-Jews-And-Zionists

      • jjs110

        Israel is perfectly legal in every conceivable way. Only hate-filled ignorami who (by definition) know nothing about international law are still barking that Israel is an illegal state. By repeating this idiocy, they just point you to the public how ignorant they are, and therefore how little credibility they have no matter what they keep barking around.

      • highlanderjuan

        Sorry, Charlie, I’ve read the UN subcommittee notes and I’ve read the other documents described in the linked doc. I know that israel was never created legally. Wait – you never read the linked doc, did you? How long have you suffered from cognitive dissonance?

      • jjs110

        Well, Einstein, since you’re so smart and knowledgeable, maybe you can enlighten us and describe what makes a country legal and what makes one not so legal? I’m not holding my breath.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        When a minority who owns less than 7 percent of the land declare the existence their own state rolling over the Arab majority and ethnically cleanse most of the Arabs from the land in order to establish that state, that is “not so legal”, as you put it.

      • jjs110

        Your bad faith (or abysmal ignorance) is staggering. The UN didn’t offer a partition plan which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected? Hello? Aren’t you forgetting a few not-so minor factors here? And when you’re the aggressor, as the Arabs were, you’re not entitled to anything if you lose. And that’s legal under the Charter of the UN since every nation has the right to defend itself (read Article 81 and weep).

      • moosehorn

        No shame for the willfully ignorant and the galactically stupid, that you are, to keep regurgitating the same nonsense.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The UN partition plan was inherently prejudicial and explicitly rejected the right of the majority Arab population to self-determination.

        Furthermore, by the time the neighboring Arab states managed to muster a military response after the Zionist’s illegitimate and unilateral declaration of the existence of their “Jewish state”, 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed from Palestine.

        So we see it’s you who’s either arguing in bad faith or demonstrating abysmal ignorance.

      • jjs110

        Not true at all. Parition means division into two areas: one Jewish and one Arabic. Both with the same chances to start off on the right foot and determine their own fate, which is what the notion of self-determination means. The Arabs blew it (pun intended) because they were more interested in hating and killing the Jews than in building their own country (and that is still the case today, sadly enough). As for your allegations that 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed, I’d like to know your sources for this ridiculous statement (probably Palestinians, in which case you should know by now that they are completely unreliable as they mix fiction with facts with gusto). At any rate, it could simply not have been possible for logistical reasons in that short period of time. And even if it did, it was the local Arabs who attacked immediately all over and were repulsed almost everywhere, causing quite a few casualties among the Jews in the process. And you’re unhappy that the Jews should have kept these nice Arabs who had just tried to kill them? Are you demented?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Not true at all. Parition means division into two areas: one Jewish and one Arabic.

        Yes, I know what the partition plan called for. Hence I repeat: The UN partition plan was inherently prejudicial and explicitly rejected the right of the majority Arab population to self-determination.

        As for your allegations that 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed, I’d like to know your sources for this ridiculous statement (probably Palestinians, in which case you should know by now that they are completely unreliable…

        So, before I answer this question, what do you think about Israeli sources? Are they reliable? Or are they completely unreliable, too?

        And you’re unhappy that the Jews should have kept these nice Arabs who had just tried to kill them?

        You’re simply ignoring the fact that by the time neighboring states sent their armies to intervene, 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine in order for the “Jewish state” to be established.

      • jjs110

        > I repeat: The UN partition plan was inherently prejudicial and
        > explicitly rejected the right of the majority Arab population to
        > self-determination.

        Every partition or peace plan is seen as “inherently prejuicial” ex post facto by one party or the other. You forget to mention that it is exactly what the Arabs wanted to deprive the Jews of. And it was not prejudicial, it was fair. It was only prejudicial as seen by Arab (or pro-Arab in your case) maximalists who wanted everything and give nothing. To this day, the Palestinians have still not internalized the fact they need to make concessions also, not just the Jews.

        > So, before I answer this question [allegations that 300,000 Arabs
        > had already been ethnically cleansed], what do you think about
        > Israeli sources? Are they reliable? Or are they completely
        > unreliable, too?

        Nice try, but no. You don’t get to answer a question with another question. Cite your sources first and we’ll discuss their validity later.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        No, the UN partition plan was emphatically not “fair”, for the reasons I’ve already given you. Again, even the drafters of the partition plan recognized how unjust it was; hence their explicit rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination.

        The Palestinians have accepted the existence of Israel and seek to establish their state on just 22% of historic Palestine. That is an enormous territorial concession. The amount of concessions on for Israel’s part has always been negative. You will hard-pressed to cite even a single concession on the part of Israel.

        When you answer my question about whether Israeli sources are completely unreliable, too, then I will provide you my sources. If you don’t wish to answer the question, that is your choice. I would merely observe that the only reason not to answer my simple question is fear of exposing your own hypocrisy.

      • moosehorn

        You lack conscience and morality. By defending the Zionist state despite its transgressions of international laws and violations of human rights, you chose to be morally impervious.

      • moosehorn

        FYI, For the duration of 600 years, the Muslim Arabs led the civilized world in all aspects of sciences, mathematics, physics, alchemy, philosophy ect.. and paved the road to western renaissance.

      • moosehorn

        Is that how you react every time you Lose an argument? The hasbara training didn’t work well on you.

      • jjs110

        Anyone how has no other recourse than the argument of “hasbara” is the real loser. You lost the argument, so there has to be a reason. But why, of course, it’s hasbara’s fault. You guys are so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you. Gerbils who think they are tigers. Too funny.

      • moosehorn

        Your hypocrisy is unprecedented, and your ignorance has no bound. Look in the mirror, you will see what a loser looks like.

    • jjs110

      Your logic is flawed, not surprisingly. As is common for intellectually dishonest pseudo pundits of your sort, you’re comparing apples and pineapples and of course you end up drawing the wrong conclusions. Egypt WAS threatening Israel in 1967, not just with the blood curdling promises of annihilation, but also with columns of tanks racing through the Sinai towards the Israeli border. How are the rhetorics from the Baltic States anywhere near the Egyptian ones? And where are their armored divisions? Racing towards the Russian border? And you really hope people will not notice how inane your comparisons are? You failed, As for the USS Liberty, it was a tragic accident, that’s all. The Israelis believed it was an Egyptian ship masquerading as American, and they went at it based on that assumption. Friendly fire is nothing new in warfare. Get over it instead of beating a long dead horse.

      Reply
      • highlanderjuan

        You are coming across as a really stupid zionist apologist. Is that what you are?

      • jjs110

        You live in a strange world, where logic is called stupid if it doesn’t reach your completely illogical conclusions. I believe the technical word for the affliction you’re suffering from is called being delusional. Sounds like you forgot to take your pills again. Keep it up.

      • highlanderjuan

        Naw, unlike you, I’m a truth teller.

        Bantering with you is really boring. You have nothing truthful to say, and you refuse to learn. Have a nice day – we’re done here.

      • jjs110

        You lose.

      • moosehorn

        No, you are the loser.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        That’s enough, you two. Contribute substantively to the discussion or I’ll ban you both.

      • moosehorn

        Sorry Jeremy, People like jjs110 make it so hard to bite one’s tongue.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Don’t I know it! Thanks for respecting my site’s terms.

      • highlanderjuan

        I get it – you are a zionist troll. Crap – why didn’t I see your idiocy earlier.

      • moosehorn

        The right description, short and simple and straight to the point.

      • moosehorn

        You don’t have the slightest idea what logic is. hypocrite Zionist troll

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        There was no imminent threat of an Egyptian attack, as both the CIA and Israel’s own intelligence assessed.

      • jjs110

        I take it that you have the documents from the CIA and Israel’s intelligence in hand to make that kind of demented statement?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        My sources are the CIA and former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael B. Oren.

        This is all in my book Obstacle to Peace, which contains 1,900 endnotes, which I welcome you to look up for yourself.

        http://www.obstacletopeace.com

      • jjs110

        Then surely you must know them by heart and you can point me right away to save me time: I have all of Oren’s books, so in which one did he write that, and where? As for the CIA, everyone and his dog claim their story is allegedly backed by the CIA, but until the exact source is mentioned and verified… so which one is it? You have already proven that you cannot be trusted one bit, so I’m not about to take anything you say at your word.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Here are the sources I cite in my book:

        Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York: Presidio Press, 2003), 55, 59-60, 356 (footnote 52).

        David S. Robarge, “Getting It Right: CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War,” CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, Vol. 49, No. 1 (2005), Posted April 15, 2007.

        I suggest you pick yourself up a copy so as to be able to deprogram yourself from all this Zionist hasbara you’ve been so deeply indoctrinated into:

        http://www.obstacletopeace.com/#buy

  2. moosehorn

    Mr. Hammond, thank you for honestly publishing this great debate which exposed the hypocrisy of hasbarist Zionists.

    Reply
  3. sab1053

    Jeremy, you crushed this hypocritical thug.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This