Exposing a Zionist Liar Attempting to Challenge My Book “Exposing a Zionist Hoax”

by Jul 12, 2018Foreign Policy91 comments

Sunrise over Jerusalem (Pixabay/Public Domain)

Zionists pile lie upon lie to sustain their defenses of Israel's egregious crimes against the Palestinian people. Don't they get that truth will prevail?

Last month, a new book was published titled What Justice Demands: America and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Elan Journo. It is a work of propaganda that I thoroughly debunked in my e-book response, published the same day, Exposing a Zionist Hoax: How Elan Journo’s “What Justice Demands” Deceives Readers about the Palestine Conflict.

A blogger named Sheri Oz has published a post claiming that my own book is the hoax. Yet to support her attack on my work, she does what Journo does and simply lies. The fact is that she fails to identify even a single factual or logical error in Exposing a Zionist Hoax.

It Doesn’t Take a “Mind-Reader”!

Her first complaint against me is that I write in the book:

Demonstrably, Journo’s aim is not to clarify, but to obfuscate the conflict’s essential nature, and to muddy its moral significance. Nay, his aim is not merely to obfuscate, but to systematically deceive his readers about the causes of the conflict, the reasons for its persistence, and the requirements of a just peace. Taking justice seriously, we find that the facts tell a very different story from the fictional narrative Journo presents.

To her, this represents me attempting to be a “Mind-Reader”. Yet no mind-reading is required to ascertain Journo’s intent. The key word there is “Demonstrably”! That it was Journo’s intent to deceive his readers is evident from the demonstrably willful deceptions contained throughout the book, as my book Exposing a Zionist Hoax demonstrates at length.

That’s not to say that Journo doesn’t believe most or even all of his own propaganda. But, then, if we assume this to be the case, it is due to his demonstrably willful ignorance of the facts.

How many factual or logical errors on my part has she identified so far? Zero!

Dismissing Source Materials

Oz next complains that I cite sources that are not peer-reviewed or primary source materials, which, she asserts, means that the information I provide cannot be trusted. Of course, this is a non sequitur fallacy. She dismisses anything I write for which I provide a source like the New York Time or the Israeli daily Haaretz, but it does not follow from the fact that these are neither peer-reviewed academic journals nor primary source materials that therefore we may glean no truth from them.

And, of course, I also cite peer-reviewed and primary source materials.

Furthermore, it is equally true that Elan Journo, the author of the hoax Oz is trying to defend, cites sources that are not peer-reviewed or primary source materials! By Oz’s logic, that means we cannot trust what Journo writes in his book!

Oz further complains that I cite previous works of my own. The reason for that is simple: each of those previous works provides extensive documentation to support what I wrote in Exposing a Zionist Hoax. No need to repeat the work I’ve already done! Oz simply dismisses any arguments I make for which I do not cite a peer-reviewed or primary source, regardless of what the documented facts actually are.

How many factual or logical errors on my part has Oz identified so far? Zero!

Lying About the Peel Commission Report

Her next attack on my book is the only one that has even an appearance of identifying a factual error on my part. She notes that I do cite primary source materials, but the thing I wrote that she next takes issue with is this:

The truth is that, naturally, during the Mandate period, when the British controlled the formerly Ottoman territory of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish inhabitants were called “Palestinians”.

She doesn’t provide the context for that statement, which is how Elan Journo denies that the Palestinians had a discernible self-identity, culture, and history until fairly recently — he even denies that they were known as “Palestinians” until the 1960s!

That is an absurd lie, of course, as I demonstrate. Here’s how Oz continues her attack on my book:

His footnote shows this is supported by the Peel Commission Report. The real truth is that, in the entire document neither Arabs nor Jews are called “Palestinians”. There is not even one instance in which the term “Palestinian” appears in the text. Jews and Arabs are simply referred to as Jews or Arabs living in Palestine. What do you conclude when someone prefaces a statement with ”the truth is” and then writes something that anyone who wants to make the effort to check up on it can see it is not true at all?

Oz’s claim that the word “Palestinian” does not even appear in the text of the Peel Commission report is a lie. Its a rather curious lie, given the fact that I even cite a page number for her. On page 43, the commission referred to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew”!

That single reference suffices to prove that what I wrote is true: that during the Mandate, both Arabs and Jews were referred to as “Palestinians”. There are, of course, other proofs of this in the Peel Commission report:

  • Page 5: the report refers to “Arab men of learning” as “Palestinians”.
  • Page 22: refers in the same sentence to the “Arabs of Palestine” as “Palestinians”.
  • Page 35: the report cites the Palestine Mandate, which spoke of “Palestinian citizenship”.
  • Page 39: the report notes how Article 7 of the Mandate “provides for a Palestinian citizenship common to Arabs and Jews”.
  • Page 43: in addition to the above noted reference to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew”, also refers to “the Arabs, who constituted the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people”.
  • Page 54: the report refers again to “Palestinians, Arab and Jew.”
  • Page 55: refers to “Arabs and Jews” sharing “a common Palestinian citizenship.”
  • Page 56: explains how the Arabs “refused to co-operate in any form of government other than a national government responsible to the Palestinian people.”
  • Page 59: refers to “The sympathy of the Palestinian Arabs with their kinsmen in Syria…” and notes how the Syrian Congress “included Palestinians”.
  • Page 60: refers to “the Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 61: refers again to “the Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 82: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 94: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 104: speaks of “an open rebellion of Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 116: refers to “Palestinian Jews”.
  • Page 119: speaks of the idea “that Arabs and Jews are members of one Palestinian society.”
  • Page 126: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 135: refers again to “Palestinian Arabs”.
  • Page 138: again refers to both Arabs and Jews as “Palestinians” with varying allegiances.
  • Page 153: refers to “Palestinian subjects” under the Ottoman Empire.
  • Page 158 speaks of “Palestinians possessing the necessary qualities” to participate administrative duties.
  • On page 159, we see district officials being referred to as “Palestinians” and “Palestinian”.

That brings us nearly halfway through the report. There’s no need to present an exhaustive list. You get the point. Look again at what I wrote that Oz is attempting to challenge:

The truth is that, naturally, during the Mandate period, when the British controlled the formerly Ottoman territory of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish inhabitants were called “Palestinians”.

I have just proven to you that this is a true statement. Now look again at what Oz states in order to support her argument that my book Exposing a Zionist Hoax is itself a hoax:

The real truth is that, in the entire document neither Arabs nor Jews are called “Palestinians”. There is not even one instance in which the term “Palestinian” appears in the text.

I have just proven to you that these statements of hers are lies. Her rhetorical question that follows, about how silly it is to lie when anyone can easily check the source, is certainly ironic!

Here’s a link to the Peel Commission Report so you can verify for yourself that I’m telling the truth and Oz is lying.

You have page numbers!

Obfuscating My Purpose in Citing the Shaw Commission Report

The next statement of mine from Exposing a Zionist Hoax that Oz attempts to challenge followed immediately after the one about how, contrary to what Journo claims in his hoax, both Jews and Arabs were known as “Palestinians”. Here is what I wrote next, with Oz’s bold emphasis:

And, of course, the Arab Palestinians had a very strong sense of nationalism dating back to the earliest origins of the conflict. One of their main objections to the League of Nations Mandate forced upon them after World War I was the fact that the British occupation regime was forcibly preventing them from exercising their right to self-determination despite Britain having promised the Arabs that if they supported the war effort against the Ottoman Empire, their reward would be independence. As the British Shaw Commission of 1929 observed, “active recruiting was carried on in Palestine for the Sherifian Army, our allies, the recruits being given to understand that they were fighting in a national cause and to liberate their country from the Turks.

So how does Oz attempt to rebut these observations? She writes, “Yet, on page 6, the Shaw Report itself says the following…”

The “Yet” is intended to indicate that the excerpt from the Shaw Commission report she is about to quote somehow shows that what I wrote is false. Yet it does not! Here is the quote she provides from the report, with her bold emphasis:

Viewed in the light of the history of at least the last six centuries, Palestine is an artificial conception. Under the Ottoman regime it formed part only of an administrative unit, the remainder of which consisted of areas now coming within the jurisdiction of the Governments of other neighbouring mandated territories. Its frontiers, too, are largely artificial. In many parts they are frequented by nomad tribes who by intergovernmental agreement are allowed unhindered passage across these frontiers for the purpose of exercising rights of grazing which they have acquired by long usage. In Turkish times the members of all these tribes were Ottoman subjects; today some are technically of Palestinian, some of Trans-Jordanian, and some of Syrian nationality, but it is at least doubtful whether they themselves recognize distinctions of this character.

Does the Shaw Commission’s observation that Palestine was “an artificial conception” belie my statement that “the Arab Palestinians had a very strong sense of nationalism dating back to the earliest origins of the conflict”? No, it does not!

Furthermore, notice what Oz does not emphasize with bold text: “In Turkish times the members of all these tribes were Ottoman subjects; today some are technically of Palestinian, some of Trans-Jordanian, and some of Syrian nationality…”

There you see again more proof — provided by Oz herself — that her denial that the Arabs were known during the Mandate as “Palestinian” is untenable! Right there in front of her is another proof from another British report dating to the Mandate era showing that what I wrote is true!

Talk about cognitive dissonance!

So how does she attempt to use the above quote from the Shaw Commission to disprove what I wrote? She accuses me of having cherry-picked from the report. I quoted the report showing that Palestinians joined the British war effort against the Ottomans, but “left out” how the report in the same place goes on to say (her bold emphasis):

These men, it is believed, actually took part in the offensive against the Turk. The tendency of the evidence is to show that in spite of the fact that nothing had been said about Palestine being included in the Hedjaz Empire and the fact that the Balfour Declaration had been published in 1917, the real impression left upon the Arabs generally was that the British were going to set up an independent Arab State which would include Palestine.

Oz then argues:

“Which would include Palestine” and not an independent state of Palestine.

From all of this we can understand that the Arabs never saw themselves as Palestinians and they never saw what was referred to as Palestine as a unit separate from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. The Peel Commission Report also makes this claim on page 6. After having helped free the land from the Turks,the Arabs residing in Palestine were upset at the splitting up between Britain and the French of what they had considered indivisible. They were supposed to have been citizens of a Greater Syria. Not a Palestine that had never existed for them as a separate entity.

Yet, once again, nothing here actually belies what I wrote! It remains true that Arab Palestinians joined the war effort in order to obtain their independence from the Ottomans! It remains true that they had a very strong sense of nationalism!

Further demonstrating the truth of what I wrote, I cite both the Peel Commission and Shaw Commission again later in my book (p. 87) as follows:

While Journo would have his readers believe that no Palestinian national movement existed until the 1960s, the Peel Commission remarked how, by 1925, “Te dominant force in the mind of educated [Palestinian] Arabs was the spirit off Arab nationalism.” 

As the Shaw Commission observed, the Arabs maintained “that they were entitled to expect, if not the creation of an independent State, at least the establishment of a representative government in Palestine.”

It’s true that, early on, the Arabs of Palestine viewed themselves as part of the larger region of Syria, but as illustrated in the quote from the Shaw Commission report immediately above, they eventually came to demand that Palestine’s independence be recognized. (The idea of Palestine being part of a greater Syria essentially became moot in 1943, when the independence of Syria and Lebanon was recognized.)

So, in sum, what I wrote remains true — Oz’s attempt to obfuscate that truth notwithstanding.

Conclusion

And that’s it! Those few vain attacks on my book are the best that Oz could do to try to defend Elan Journo’s hoax. To be precise, it is not Journo’s book she is trying to defend (she actually criticizes it in prefacing her attack on my rejoinder), but the standard Zionist propaganda that Journo regurgitates, which Zionists like Oz rely on to try to justify Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

Specifically, both Journo and Oz are here trying to justify the British and Zionists’ rejection of the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination — which culminated in the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population from their homes in order for the “Jewish state” of Israel to be established.

I, for one, am not going to sit by and watch people like Journo and Oz resort to outright lying in order to defend egregious crimes against humanity!

Are you?

Take a stand against this hypocrisy! Only by understanding the truth about the nature of the conflict can we hope to ever resolve it. Arm yourself with the knowledge to become an effective voice for a just peace.

Exposing a Zionist Hoax: How Elan Journo's "What Justice Demands" Deceives Readers

Get Your Copy of Exposing a Zionist Hoax

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!

 

Related Articles

91 Comments

  1. Jimmy

    I believe your depiction of 6 day war is seriously misleading.
    In your book the israel palestine conflict page 11 you quote Rabin.

    “The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.” Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time”

    This seems misleading as on the eve of 6 day war, I believe Egypt had 7 divisions deployed which were sufficient to launch an offensive had nasser so chosen. The time it takes to change deployment from defensive to offensive is a few hours and Israel had no choice but to call up the reserves. Once the reserves are called up, Israel’s economy soon goes into free fall and it became a war of no choice. Either you attack or you send them home. Sending them home will lead to massive needless casualties which Israel could ill afford if Egypt attacks first even when Israel prevails.

    Despite Idf assesments, Eshkol was terrified that in his words Jewish blood would flow like water and was terrified as was the Israeli public.

    The egyptian public was being wipped up into a frenzy by state radio, which meant Nasser was constrained in what he could do.

    Your peaceful Nasser set in motion a series of manouevers which he believed would lead to the destruction of Israel.

    For some reason you want to ommit all these facts. why ?

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      First off, this post is about my e-book Exposing a Zionist Hoax” not my collection of essays e-book.

      Beyond that, you are arguing that that other e-book of mine is “misleading” on the grounds that you “believe” that Rabin was mistaken about the number of divisions. Whether 6 or 7, it doesn’t matter. The fact remains that Rabin acknowledged that there was no imminent threat of an Egyptian invasion. The fact remains that Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Nasser would have to be insane to attack Israel, given Israel’s military qualitative military superiority, and that Nasser wasn’t insane. The fact remains that the US intelligence community likewise assessed that Israel would quickly defeat the combined Arab armies in the event of war, that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions, and that it would be Israel that would start the war — which is, of course, exactly what happened.

      You further argue that Israel had no choice but to attack Israel because to not do so would have cost Israel economically. You inquire why I don’t mention that in my e-book. Well, the answer to that question is that it’s also irrelevant since the cost to Israel of its own actions does not justify its aggression against Egypt.

      Reply
      • jimmy

        sorry for posting in wrong place but If I have any queries about your ebook where is the best place to post ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        We can have this discussion here now that you’ve begun it. I was just clarifying so that there is no confusion about which e-book we’re talking about.

      • jimmy

        The person with ultimate responsibilty to decide whether Israel was under threat of attack is the prime minister not the army,( who like any institution do not always get it right.)

        Eshkol (unlike the army) took the view that Israel was in great danger from Nasser. How can one take a view on the legitimacy of Israel’s attack, without mentioning Eshkol’s assesment.?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I could just as well ask you how you can try to argue that Israel’s attack was justified despite all the facts I’ve just given you.

      • Jimmy

        (1) Assuming you are right that objectively speaking it was not justified, but Eshkol and the cabinet with all the facts available before him believed nasser was going to attack, so it was justified for him to go to war. You cannot with hindsight retroactively delegitimise a legitimate decision.

        The impression one would get from your ebook. Is that the government went to war despite knowing that it was under no risk of attack

        (2) In fact there were good grounds for eshkol rejecting rabin’s interpretation that nasser would not go to war.

        (A)Rabin’s estimate was based to a large extent on nasser’s capablities that he did not have the force to do so. ie 2 divisions are not enough to start a war. This was a big error. He had 7 divisions. Plenty to start a war. Israel was not in position to risk a ruinous war, based on nasser’s good will

        (B) Not all of Israel’s military experts agreed with Rabin that egypt was not going to start a war. I read that Dayan,IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv, and elazar thought that egypt was going to start a war with Dayan going as far as to estimate that if Israel will not pre-empt than Israel will lose the land of Israel.

        (C) on june 4th the cabinet received a report that Egypt was moving its army from a defensive to an offensive disposition, apparently with the intention of occupying Eilat.
        (D)Egypt’s eviction of un peacekeepers and a defense pact with his old enemy King Hussein, and battalions of Egyptian troops were flown to Jordan, all the while knowing of Israel’s peaceful intentions, would also be prima facie evidence of nasser’s hostile intent.
        (E)Those who say that Nasser never sought to attack Israel in May/june 67 are wrong. On may 27 Egypt planned to attack Israel

        Oren has this to say

        ” The plan, codenamed “The Dawn ” (or al-Fajr), was set to be implemented on May 27 but was blocked when the United States and the Soviet Union together pressured the Egyptians not to attack. The danger of an Egyptian offensive against Israel remained. However, with hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers gathered on its borders, Israel could not respond to even a minor Palestinian guerilla attack without precipitating a general Arab assault. Pre-emption was the only option.

        The cia unencumbered by Johnson’s political constraints, agreed that israel had no choice but to preempt considering it a mistake not have attacked earlier.

        (F)soviet union disagreed with usa about who would win such a war.

        (3)assuming rabin was right and nasser had no intention to go to war. Does that mean Israel was in no danger of being attacked by Egypt.? Not all. There was massive war fever in egypt to erase Israel from the map and nasser would not have been able to stand up to the public pressure for war. Egptian radio broadcast to the Israeli public “Nasser, Nasser, we are behind you. We’ll annihilate you, we’ll incinerate you.” Had Israel not attacked in june 67, Nasser would have been forced to attack Israel within a couple of weeks or risk losing face if not worse.

        (4)Assuming there would have been no war if Israel had not attacked, Does that make the war an act of agression.?
        Imo it would still have been an act of defense. That is the opinion of oren and cia.

        (A)nasser sought Israel’s destruction at a time best suited to him. If he would not have attacked then he would have attacked at a later time when he was confident he could win. For Israel to survive nasser it had to attack him when it could win the war, not wait to be attacked and lose the war.
        (B)Egypt and other countries were continually sending terrorists to Israel to kill its citizens. Israel lost hundreds to these attacks. Israel was entitled to defend itself and stop this.
        (C) Egypts’s illegal naval blockade was considered a casus belli and Egypt knew this.

        http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/crucial_quotes.htm

        “If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent, maritime passage must be preserved for all nations” – US President Lyndon Johnson

        “Our intention to regard the closing of the Straits as a casus belli was communicated…to the foreign ministers of those states which had supported international navigation in the Straits in 1957 and thereafter. There can be no doubt that these warnings reached Cairo. One thing was now clear. If Nasser imposed a blockade, the explosion would ensue not from ‘miscalculation’, but from an open-eyed and conscious readiness for war.” – Abba Eban

        “When the organs of Arab propaganda raised the contention that Israel is concentrating forces in order to attack Syria, I invited your Ambassador in Israel to visit the frontier to find out for himself that there was no truth in this allegation. To my regret, the Ambassador did not respond to our invitation. The Chief of Staff of the UNTSO checked these claims and informed the Secretary-General of the UN and the capitals of the region that there were no Israel concentrations on the Syrian border. The Secretary-General even included a statement to this effect in the Report he submitted on May 19th to the Security Council.”- Levi Eshkol, Prime Minister of Israel, to Russian Premiere Kosygin [17]

        https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Q-and-A-with-Michael-Oren

        https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d79

        The most likely course seems to be for Nasser to hold to his present winnings as long as he can, and in as full measure as he can. As of the moment he has vastly enhanced his own prestige in Egypt and throughout the Arab world, diminished the standing of Israel and, at least for the moment, administered a serious setback to the US. Moreover, by simply standing where he is he places the Israelis in an extremely difficult position. He keeps the crisis at high pitch, and as long as this continues the Israelis must remain mobilized. This they cannot do for long without adverse effects upon their economy.
        5.
        The Israelis face dismaying choices. Surprised and shaken by Nasser’s action, they failed to take the instant military counteraction which might have been most effective. If they attack now they will face far more formidable opposition than in the rapid campaign of 1956. We believe that they would still be able to drive the Egyptians away from the entrance to the Strait of Tiran, but it would certainly cost them heavy losses of men and materiel. We are not sure that they have sufficient stockpiles of ammunition and equipment for a war lasting more than three or four weeks, and it is possible that they would not embark upon a major campaign without prior assurances from the US of adequate resupply.
        6.
        But the alternative for the Israelis is perilous. To acquiesce in the permanent closing of the Strait of Tiran would constitute an economic

        and political setback from which no early recovery would be foreseeable. The Israelis would expect, correctly we believe, that the Arabs over the long run would be encouraged to undertake new and still more dangerous harassments. We are inclined to believe that unless the US and other major powers take whatever steps are necessary to reopen the Strait, the Israelis will feel compelled to go to war.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Eshkol and the cabinet with all the facts available before him believed nasser was going to attack, so it was justified for him to go to war

        This is the essence of your whole argument, and it is false.

        For one, the premise may be false. Israeli officials were publicly speaking as though under threat, but the reality is, again, that even Israel’s own intelligence assessed Nasser would not be so insane as to attack Israel.

        Even assuming Eshkol actually believed Egypt would attack, this was just that: a belief. Just because he may have believed Israel was under threat does not mean Israel was truly under threat. There was no imminent threat of Egyptian attack — as acknowledged by Rabin, Begin, and others. I explain this further in this article:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2017/06/05/who-started-the-six-day-war-of-june-1967/

        If you’d like to discuss that specific issue (i.e., whether Israel’s attack was justified), please do it there.

  2. jimmy

    on page 12 israel-palestine conflict you write:


    It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a “Jewish State” – something which could be finally accomplished later through force of arms. When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”. Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”. The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”

    This is seriously misleading and you quote ben-gurion out of context. Are you able to put the full quote in your book.? You try to imply that Ben gurion was saying he intended to take the rest of Plaestine by force of arms, which he ruled out.

    http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/08/distorted_quotes_to_defend_dis.html

    Out of Context: Ben-Gurion: “I favor partition because when we become a strong power we will abolish partition and spread throughout Palestine.” In fact, in the meeting in question Ben-Gurion stressed that expansion would occur via “mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement.” The relevant part of the actual protocol reads:

    Mr. Ben-Gurion: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish State is, in his view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement; he supports [the establishment of] the Jewish State [on a small part of Palestine], not because he is satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we constitute a large force following the establishment of the state – we will cancel the partition [of the country between Jews and Arabs] and we will expand throughout the Land of Israel.

    Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

    Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. So long as we are weak and few the Arabs have neither the need nor the interest to conclude an alliance with us… And since the state is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it must prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement – we are obliged to run the state in such a way that will win us the friendship of the Arabs both within and outside the state. (from Efraim Karsh, “Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ’Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53)

    Reply
    • Jeremy R. Hammond

      To clarify for other readers, this post is about my e-book Exposing a Zionist Hoax, not my collection of essays e-book, which is what you are referring to.

      You claim that Ben-Gurion “ruled out” the establishment of the envisioned “Jewish state” by force of arms. No, he did not. To support this assertion, you cite the Zionist organization Camera, which cites a paper by Efraim Karsh, which in fact confirms that it was Ben-Gurion’s belief that if the Arabs did not concede to the aim of the Mandate — which was to deny the inhabitants self-governance until the Jews established a majority through mass immigration — “then we will have force at our disposal.”

      On June 12, 1947, your own source’s source confirms, Ben-Gurion expressed his support for a “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of whatever area he envisioned for the “Jewish state”: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral….”

      His only hesitation about so ethnically cleansing Arabs was that it wasn’t feasible for the Zionists to carry it out; rather, the British would have to do it, which was unlikely to occur.

      The situation changed later that year, however, when the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which Ben-Gurion seized on as the political leverage necessary to put into effect his favored solution of “compulsory transfer”. The means by which the “Jewish state” in fact came into existence was ethnic cleansing.

      Reply
      • jimmy

        when you say On June 12, 1947, I assume you mean June 12, 1938 re peel/woodhead

        (1)notwithstanding ben gurion’s support of force to expand the tiny state granted by peel if peace talks fail. In that particular speech to shapria, ben gurion ruled out force. so it is still a misquote.

        (2)you seem to compare un partition to in 47 to the ‘unique context of peel partition’. karsh (in Falsifying the record: Benny Morris, David Ben‐Gurion, and the ‘transfer’ idea) note 19 and other places says the 2 are not comparable.
        (even then it was only for the negev areas which are vacant of arabs, not a general expansion and then only if all voluntary efforts failed)

        (3)you say Ben-Gurion seized on as the political leverage necessary to put into effect his favored solution of “compulsory transfer.

        karsh rules this out and say nowhere did ben gurion favour compulsory transfer by Jews. not in 37 or 47.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        When I say June 12, 1947, I mean June 12, 1947.

        1) I did not misquote Ben Gurion. Those were his words, and he did not rule out the use of force. On the contrary, as those quoted words indicate, he viewed use of force as a means to an end. This is also indicated by the quote from June 12, 1947, where he advocates ethnic cleansing.

        2) I can’t translate your gibberish. So if you have a point, you’ll have to restate it intelligibly.

        3) I have just quoted from Karsh quoting Ben-Gurion advocating “compusory transfer”, i.e., ethnic cleansing. It makes no sense therefore to argue that Krash says Ben-Gurion didn’t advocate compulsory transfer.

      • jimmy

        (A)I do not quite understand the ‘I don’t see in it anything immoral’ was said regarding a discussion of the peel plan. the peel plan was long dead by
        June 12, 1947 which is the reason I gave the date of June 12, 1938.

        copy paste from karsh.

        page 13/57

        The agenda of the JAE meeting of 7 June 1938, in which Ben-Gurion
        proposed his ‘Lines of Action’, included eight items, of which the
        question of the Arabs in the prospective Jewish state – not their transfer
        from that state – ranked sixth on the list.25

        ….

        It was only in the JAE meeting of 12 June that transfer was discussed.(page 17/61)

        (page 18/62)
        (b) Ben-
        Gurion was categorically opposed to compulsory transfer as a concrete
        policy option. Morris cites Ben-Gurion as saying: ‘I support compulsory
        transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.’40 The meeting’s protocol
        reads as follows: ‘I saw in the Peel Plan two positive things: the ideas of
        a state and compulsory transfer… I support compulsory transfer.

        I don’t see in it anything immoral,

        but compulsory transfer can only be effected
        by England and not by the Jews… Not only is it inconceivable for us to
        carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.’41 Hence the
        Woodhead Commission’s above-noted comment that ‘on behalf of the
        Jews it was made clear to us that Jewish opinion was opposed to the
        exercise of any degree of compulsion’.
        To sum up, in contemporary Zionist thinking transfer was an integral
        part of the Peel Partition Plan.

        (1)Just to clarify dates.

        when Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the
        result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand
        to the whole of Palestine”.

        this took place JAE meeting of 7 June 1938 ? (page 8/52)

        when ben gurion said “then we will have force at our disposal.” this was a letter to his son amos on 5 October 1937?

        copy paste (page 10/54)

        In the letter, written to his son Amos on 5 October 1937 from London, Ben-
        Gurion defended his decision to support the Peel Commission partition
        proposal. ‘I do not dream of and do not love war’, he wrote,
        ..
        (page 11 /55)

        A: And then we will have to use force and will use it without
        hesitation – though only when we have no other choice. We do not
        wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place [‘ein anu
        rotsim ve-ein anu tsrihim legaresh aravim ve-lakahat mekomam’].
        All our aspiration is built on the assumption – proven throughout
        all our activity in the Land [of Israel] – that there is enough room
        in the country for ourselves and the Arabs. B: But if we have to use
        force – not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but
        to guarantee our own right to settle in those places – then we have
        force at our disposal.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Apologies. You are correct the date was 1938, not 1947, for the quote. My excuse is overtiredness.

        But more to the point, as I said, you can clearly see that Ben-Gurion supported the idea of ethnically cleansing the area of the envisioned “Jewish state” of its Arab population. Again: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral…”

        And, again, his only reservation about the idea was that at that time, the Zionists would not have been able to accomplish it, but would have had to rely on British guns to do the job.

        By 1947, that had changed. Perhaps that is why my mind was transfixed on ’47 when I mistakenly cited that as the year of that Ben-Gurion quote.

      • jimmy

        (1)Just to clarify. when you quoted ben gurion. you say you quoted him correctly and it was not a misquote ?
        (2) you say ‘his only reservation about the idea was that at that time, the Zionists would not have been able to accomplish it,’
        are you aware that ben gurion had other reasons besides lack of military ability for Jews not to implement transfer (page 18/27)

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I did not misquote Ben-Gurion, as explained above.

        When Ben-Gurion expressed his support for “compulsory transfer”, his only reservation was that the Zionists would not be able to effect it; they would need British guns for that: “I saw in the Peel Plan two positive things: the ideas of a state and compulsory transfer… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews… Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.”

      • Jimmy

        (1)ben gurion said the following on 7 June 1938 (which was nothing to do with transfer)

        **********************************
        “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”.

        ..

        Mr. Shapira [a JAE member]: By force as well?

        Mr. Ben-Gurion: [No]. Through mutual understanding and Jewish-Arab agreement. )

        **********************************

        His comments on transfer by the british and only by the british were said 5 days later on 12 june 1938.

        **********************************
        but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews…

        ‘I saw in the Peel Plan two positive things: the ideas of a state and compulsory transfer… I support compulsory transfer.

        Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it

        **********************************

        Are you trying to negate what ben gurion said would be done by the zionists on 7 June 1938 by what ben gurion said would be done by the british and only by the british on 12? June 1938 ?

        (2)You say Ben gurion’s only reservation to transfer was that the Zionists would not be able to effect it; they would need British guns for that:.

        The idea that the Jews would need british guns to implement the transfer is your interpretation of what Ben gurion meant. (During the short period of time when the british supported transfer, I am not sure why you are so sure the zionists could not affect transfer with british active and passive help. They were not to know that the british cabinet on 8 dec ’37 would secretly reject peel partition)

        But It was not what Ben gurion said. Ben gurion said it was inconceivable for us to propose it ( transfer)

        You do not need military ability to propose transfer. So in ruling out Jewish transfer of arabs to the arab part of palestine, he must have had other concerns besides military capabilty. (if indeed that was a concern of his during that short period ).

        *******************
        but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews… Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.’41 Hence the Woodhead Commission’s above-noted comment that ‘on behalf of the Jews it was made clear to us that Jewish opinion was opposed to the exercise of any degree of compulsion’.

        ********************

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Are you trying to negate what ben gurion said would be done by the zionists on 7 June 1938 by what ben gurion said would be done by the british and only by the british on 12? June 1938 ?

        No.

        If you are still challenging something I wrote, please identify what it is, specifically.

      • jimmy

        you write in e-book.

        “It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by
        many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included
        David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic
        step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a
        “Jewish State” – something which could be finally accomplished later
        through force of arms. When the idea of partition was first raised years
        earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a
        strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish
        partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”. Partition should be
        accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the
        whole of Palestine”. The Jewish State would then “have to preserve
        order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if
        necessary.” ”

        Are you claiming that on 7 june ’38 ben gurion proposed to abolish partition by force of arms?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Your question doesn’t even make sense. How could I be saying that Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition” when partition was never implemented except, as I have repeatedly observed, through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

        It is as tough you were exerting a tremendous effort not to understand what I have written.

      • Jimmy

        My apologies for being slow but the phrase “abolish partition” is in your ebook myth #3

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        My apologies for being slow but the phrase “abolish partition” is in your ebook myth #3

        And? Do you have a point?

      • Jimmy

        you asked ‘How could I be saying that Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition”
        when partition was never implemented except, as I have repeatedly
        observed, through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?’

        Since the phrase occurs in your ebook, then you do indeed say Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition”. The fact that there was never a partition or what ben gurion proposed was not logical does not mean that ben gurion did not propose it.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Since the phrase occurs in your ebook, then you do indeed say Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition”.

        Non sequitur fallacy.

        Quoting somebody saying something is not the same thing as saying the same thing oneself. I could quote someone saying they believe that pigs can fly, but that is not the same thing as me saying that I believe that pigs can fly.

        My patience with this nonsense is at its end. I’ve become convinced you are simply trolling.

        The fact that there was never a partition or what ben gurion proposed was not logical does not mean that ben gurion did not propose it.

        I never argued otherwise. Again, you have my final warning about trolling.

      • Jimmy

        certainly no intention to troll. Just trying to understand your position and see if there is anything I can learn from it.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You seem rather to be making a tremendous effort not to understand what I’ve said.

      • jimmy

        I am just a bit slow in understanding.My apologies.

      • Jimmy

        Just to clarify when Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition” . He was referring to the upcoming peel plan when Israel was to be given what he regarded as a tiny sliver. Ben gurion was proposing that in the event the peel plan was implemented , Israel would attempt not to accept the borders alloted to it by the British, but to go beyond them and take what was alloted to the arabs, but all with their agreement.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Just to clarify when Ben-Gurion proposed to “abolish partition” . He was referring to the upcoming peel plan when Israel was to be given what he regarded as a tiny sliver. Ben gurion was proposing that in the event the peel plan was implemented , Israel would attempt not to accept the borders alloted to it by the British, but to go beyond them and take what was alloted to the arabs, but all with their agreement.

        There was no “upcoming peel plan”. The Commission proposed the idea, but there was never any plan by the British to actually implement it.

        Beyond that, you are correct to say Ben-Gurion had his sights on all of Palestine, not just the area proposed by the British for the Jewish state, but it is just more literal nonsense to say that he favored “compulsory transfer” only if the Arabs agreed to it! (By virtue of the definition of “compulsory”.)

        You are really trying my patience.

      • Jimmy

        I never said that he favored “compulsory transfer” only if the Arabs agreed to it! which would indeed be nonsense. I said he favoured expanding the borders of Israel beyond the ones allotted to it by the peel plan, when it came to fruition. (which would have been the working assumption at the time)
        but only if the arabs agreed to it. on the 7 june ’38 comments there was no call for ethnic cleansing. That is what I mean by a misquote. Unless I have misunderstood you, you seem to say that on 7 june ’38 ben gurion was calling for forced ethnic cleansing of Arabs. That was not the case and is a misquote.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I never said that he favored “compulsory transfer” only if the Arabs agreed to it!

        The whole context of this discussion is how Ben-Gurion favored “compulsory transfer” as a means to establish the “Jewish state”. So when you spoke of the Zionists expanding the territory under their control, I assumed you meant it in that context.

        on the 7 june ’38 comments there was no call for ethnic cleansing. That is what I mean by a misquote.

        For the umpteenth time, I did not misquote Ben-Gurion. Again, his words: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral…”

        And, yes, “compulsory transfer” is equivalent to ethnic cleansing.

        I like to assume good faith, but you are really bordering on trolling behavior here.

      • Jimmy

        We seem to talking at cross purposes here, and no I am not trolling just trying to nail down what we agree and disagree on.

        imo “compulsory transfer” is not equivalent to compulsary ethnic cleansing. The words mean different things.

        ben gurion said on june 12th “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral…”

        I think you are combining 2 different statements of ben gurion said at different times, which makes into a misquote.

        The dates are very important here. do you accept ben gurion said “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral…” on 12th 1938 ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        imo “compulsory transfer” is not equivalent to compulsary ethnic cleansing. The words mean different things.

        How is forcibly expelling a people due to their being the wrong ethnicity not ethnic cleansing? THINK!

        I think you are combining 2 different statements of ben gurion said at different times, which makes into a misquote.

        I don’t know what it is I wrote that you are even referring to. Please quote the thing I wrote that you are claiming is a “misquote”, then specify which two different statements you are saying were from different times.

        do you accept ben gurion said “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral…” on 12th 1938 ?

        Why do you ask a question you already know the answer to? We have already established the date:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2018/07/12/exposing-a-zionist-liar-attempting-to-challenge-my-book-exposing-a-zionist-hoax/#comment-3996012346

      • Jimmy

        I meant to say forced displacement of a population within its country is not the same as forced ethnic cleansing of a population outside its country.

        displacement and ethic cleansing are different things.

        The Jews suffered massive ethnic cleansing from arab countries.in 48/49. The arabs on the whole did not suffer from ethnic cleansing, but mainly displacement.
        I think there is some debate regarding the exact percentage of forced and non forced displacement of palestinians

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I meant to say forced displacement of a population within its country is not the same as forced ethnic cleansing of a population outside its country.

        displacement and ethic cleansing are different things.

        This is complete gibberish. Let’s bee clear: The “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of the envisioned “Jewish state” would by definition constitute ethnic cleansing.

        Furthermore, while not all displacement is due to ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing is by definition displacement. And in this case, we are not talking about just any kind of displacement, but ethnic cleansing.

        The arabs on the whole did not suffer from ethnic cleansing, but mainly displacement.

        False. They were ethnically cleansed from their homes, as I establish in the book you are trying to challenge evidently without even having read!

        You’re done wasting my time.

      • Jimmy

        you say The whole context of this discussion is how Ben-Gurion favored “compulsory transfer” as a means to establish the “Jewish state”. So when you spoke of the Zionists expanding the territory under their control, I assumed you meant it in that context.

        I should have been clearer here. I did not mean it in that context.

        compulsary transfer is not the same as expanding borders by force. Imo each one can be done without recourse to the other.
        I believe it is your conflating of the 2 is part of the reason there was a misquote.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        compulsary transfer is not the same as expanding borders by force

        I think what you mean to say is that expanding borders by force is not necessarily compulsory transfer. Because creating a state through compulsory transfer is indeed the same as expanding borders by force.

        I believe it is your conflating of the 2 is part of the reason there was a misquote.

        You are wasting my time. I did not misquote Ben-Gurion, as we have already established by examining the documentary record.

        You have been trying and failing for days and days to support this accusation of a “misquote” on my part, and yet you still have yet to substantiate that accusation.

        Last warning. You have a final opportunity to either withdraw or substantiate your accusation, failing which you will be banned for trolling. I do not like having my time wasted.

      • Jimmy

        thanks for the correction. you are right there was no “upcoming peel plan”. I should have said Ben gurion’s comments were made regarding the peel plan in the event it was implemented which seemed to have been a working assumption both by Arabs and Jews.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Wrong. Ben-Gurion’s comments were made regarding the solution to the problem of how to establish their “Jewish state” irrespective of what the British decided to do. This is evidence from the context where he says he favors “compulsory transfer” (borrowing the Peel Commission’s term for ethnic cleansing), but that it wasn’t feasible for the Zionists to implement it on their own, that it would require British guns to do that.

        We have been over that already ad nauseum.

      • Jimmy

        Do you have a link to your article that partition was never implemented except, through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

        If 90% or more of palestinians who lost their homes in the fighting in 48, were displaced within palestine, how would the 10% or less of those who lost their homes who either fled or were ethnically cleansed to foreign countries, prevent partition. ?

        the reason why partition was only 50% implemented was because the arabs refused to give the palestinians a state of their own.

        http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D07513_3.gif

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Do you have a link to your article that partition was never implemented except, through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?

        What article? I didn’t refer to any other article of mine. I was speaking of this article and my book Exposing a Zionist Hoax.

        If 90% or more of palestinians who lost their homes in the fighting in 48, were displaced within palestine, how would the 10% or less of those who lost their homes who either fled or were ethnically cleansed to foreign countries, prevent partition. ?

        What? This question is gibberish.

        the reason why partition was only 50% implemented was because the arabs refused to give the palestinians a state of their own.

        Again, more gibberish. What do you mean that partition was only half implemented? It was never implemented at all. Instead, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the “Jewish state” was created through war and ethnic cleansing.

        Trying to communicate meaningfully with you is becoming exhausting. You are beginning to try my patience.

      • Jimmy

        I appreciate your patience.

        What do you mean by the “Jewish state” was created through war and ethnic cleansing. ?

        Israel declared statehood on land where it had been previously been sovereign while the arabs had never had a sovereign independent state there. The Jews right to reconstitute their homeland had long been recognised by the league of nations. The arabs by contrast prior to un 181 had never been granted any political rights there by the international community. (legal ownership of land does not grant sovereignity). The Un being the successor organisation to the League of nations recognised the Jews’ right to their homeland in its charter.

        The arabs did not accept the Jews right to self determination and believed that the Jews had no right to a state not within the 181 proposed borders or any borders at all.

        To quash Jewish self determination, the Arabs declared war on the Jews and threatened to throw the Jews into the sea. This attempted genocide coming just a few years after the holocaust.

        So the “Jewish state” was created despite arabs waging war on it and it was not created through war.

        http://maurice-ostroff.tripod.com/id45.html

        But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter,

        “the Palestine article,” which provides that “nothing in the Charter shall be construed … to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments….”

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        What do you mean by the “Jewish state” was created through war and ethnic cleansing. ?

        I mean the state of Israel was established through war and ethnic cleansing.

        Beyond that, your understanding of the origins of the conflict is based on Zionist propaganda. I recommend you just read my book, in which I debunk every bit of the nonsense you just spouted:

        https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/exposing-a-zionist-hoax/

        No need to repeat myself here in the comments when I’ve literally written a whole book showing how everything you think you know about it is fiction.

        One quick point, though, that also totally undermines your whole argument: rights are not “granted” to people by governments; they are inherent. The Arabs didn’t require world powers to “grant” them the right to self-determination.

        It’s instructive, though, that you argue they didn’t have that right since it was never “granted” to them, just another falsehood that undermines your whole belief system about the subject.

      • Jimmy

        (1) In your opinion do the the Jewish people have the right to self determination?

        (2)do you have any comments to Azmi Bishara’s view that there was never a palestinian nation only an arab nation ?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3n5-yG-6dU&feature=youtu.be

        Professor Azmi Bishara: There Is No “Palestinian Nation”, Never Was

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        (1) In your opinion do the the Jewish people have the right to self determination?

        Have I written anything suggesting to you that don’t believe in the equal rights of all human beings?

      • Jimmy

        I ask because the palestininian do not recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination.

        I believe they do not even recognise the esistence of the Jewish people, but consider only that there are Jews who practise judaism, but there is no Jewish people as such.

        Is that the palestinian’s position ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I ask because the palestininian do not recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination.

        False.

        On the contrary, the Arabs’ position during the Mandate was that the independence of Palestine should be recognized and representative government established under a constitution protecting the rights of minorities. It was the Zionists’ that rejected the democratic solution. The whole purpose of the Mandate, which was drafted by Zionists, was to deny self-determination to the Palestinians until the Jews managed to gain a numerical majority through mass immigration.

        Furthermore, the Palestinians have since 1988 accepted the two-state solution, whereas Israel has rejected this solution since its inception following the 1967 war.

      • Jimmy

        You say It was the Zionists’ that rejected the democratic solution. but in 1947 the zionist position had evolved that there should be 2 states for 2 peoples a Jewish state and arab state as stated in un 181. So there would be self determination for Jand self determination for arabs. so jews recognised arab right to self determination but arabs did not recognise jewish self determination.

        why was I wrong to say that in 1947 the palestininians do not recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Your premise is false. The UN “partition plan” to which you refer was not a democratic solution of any kind. On the contrary, is was the anti-democratic solution. The democratic solution was that of the minority report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, which was rejected in favor of the majority anti-democratic partition plan.

        And that misunderstanding of yours explains why you were wrong to have said that in 1947 the Palestinians rejected Jews’ right to self-determination. It was just the opposite. The partition plan was the manifestation of the rejection of the Arabs’ right to self-determination.

      • Jimmy

        So you believe the Jewish people do not have the right to self determination ?( I thought you said before self determination is an inherent right)

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Of course they have a right to self-determination. I never suggested otherwise. On the contrary, as you’ve just pointed out yourself, I’ve already explicitly stated that this right is an inherent right of all human beings. I would direct you to this site’s terms of use. Leveling an ad hominem attack in the form of a strawman argument violates the terms.

      • Jimmy

        I certaInly never intended Leveling an ad hominem attack in the form of a strawman argument. I was just a bit confused regarding your position. I am sure it is crystal clear and obvious to you, but it was not to me. so please accept my apologies.

        (1)you say the partition plan was based on an acknowledgment that for Arabs
        to exercise this right would be contrary to the Zionist project and
        therefore had to be rejected.

        but the partition plan granted the arabs the right to a state, which means it gave the arabs the right to self determination.The Arabs were not happy with the amount of land granted by the un , but the un 181 never rejected the rights of the arabs to have their own state. So the un (and Israel) accepted the principle of self determination for the Arabs.

        (2)If you say the arabs rejected the creation of Israel because it awarded 55% of the land to a 1/3 of the population, then why do we not hear of any arab counter offer telling the un that the Jews are entitled to 33% of the land or 5% or whatever the arabs considered equitable.

        The reason we do not hear of any such counter offer, is because in 1947 the arabs rejected the jews to have any state of their own , even in the most miniscule borders. All they would grant jews was as you say the right to live as a minority in a palestinian state.

        which would mean an Arab rejection of the Jewish right to self determination.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I certaInly never intended Leveling an ad hominem attack…

        So you just “accidentally” launched a personal attack on my character? An ad hominem attack was most certainly your intent. I had already been crystal clear that every human being has an equal right to self-determination, and your charge of anti-Semitism was completely baseless. You’ve been notified of the terms of use of this site and have been warned about violating them. Any further abuses and your privileges will be revoked. (Actually, I think you are the same person I banned recently for trolling, back under a different identity, but remarkably similar in style.)

        but the partition plan granted the arabs the right to a state, which means it gave the arabs the right to self determination.

        No, it did not. The Arabs already had a right to self-determination. This is an inheerent human right, not some privilege bestowed upon the Arabs by member states of the UN.

        We’ve already been over that! What is so hard about this concept for you to grasp?

        The partition plan was premised upon a rejection of the Arabs’ right to self-determination, as I already told you.

        why do we not hear of any arab counter offer telling the un that the Jews are entitled to 33% of the land or 5% or whatever the arabs considered equitable.

        Because there was no contiguous territory that could comprise such a state. It wasn’t as though there was a specific area that could have been a viable state where Jews were both a majority of the population and owned most of the land.

        The fact is that the Zionists and their Western partners rejected democratic principles, and Israel was founded not on any kind of legitimate political process, but through the ethnic cleansing of most of the Arab population from their homes in Palestine.

      • Jimmy

        (1) The arabs never had a sovereign independent state in Israel only the jews did, the fact that they owned almost half the land of present day Israel is no reason why the jews should not have a state of their own in Israel where they were a majority. the arabs could keep the land and the jews would be sovereign, one has nothing to do with the other.

        (2)I should have said
        but the partition plan granted the arabs the right to a state, which means it recognised the arabs right to self determination.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The arabs never had a sovereign independent state in Israel…

        You’re revealing your prejudice. It wasn’t “Israel”. It was “Palestine”. And the fact it wasn’t an independent state does not mean the Arabs did not have a right to self-determination, which right was denied to them by the Zionists, and also infringed upon by the UN partition plan, as I’ve already explained.

        You are trolling.

      • Jimmy

        Also how can you say ‘The partition plan was the manifestation of the rejection of the Arabs’ right to self-determination.’

        when the partition plan was proposing self determination for both jews and arabs by granting each one a state of their own ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The premise of your question, again, is false. The partition plan was not premised on the idea that both Jews and Arabs had an equal right to self-determination. It was, on the contrary, premised on an acknowledgment that for Arabs to exercise this right would be contrary to the Zionist project and therefore had to be rejected. It was a reflection of a racist colonialist mentality and was absurdly inequitable.

      • Jimmy

        The minority report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, stated that the jews were not to have a sovereign state of their own.

        Why does that not make it a racist proposal because it denied the Jewish right to self determination.?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Why does that not make it a racist proposal because it denied the Jewish right to self determination.?

        The premise of your question is false. Again, the proposal was that representative government be established with constitutional protections for minorities. The Jews, too, would have had a voice in how they were governed.

      • Jimmy

        The right to self determination means the right to statehood when you are in the majority. Having a voice in how you are governed, is not self determination. Maximum it is some form of autonomy. The Jews for good reason rejected arab rule, who detested zionists.

        So why was the minority report of the UN Special Committee on Palestine,not being racist when it denied the right of the jews to self determine through statehood in their ancestral lands.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        The right to self determination means the right to statehood when you are in the majority.

        By your own definition, then, what should have happened was that Palestine’s independence should have been recognized.

        You just deftly defeated your own argument trying to defend the rejection of Arabs’ right to self-determination.

      • Jimmy

        In 1964 I believe the plo did not recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination. Do you have evidence that the palestinian position was different in 1948?

        http://www.mideastweb.org/plocha.htm

        4. Denial of
        Jewish peoplehood and of the right to self-determination of the Jewish people:

        Judaism,
        being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute
        a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states
        to which they belong.

        This statement
        should be borne in mind when considering the outraged and self righteous
        protests by Palestinian Arabs when some Israelis deny that there is a
        Palestinian people or that there was a Palestinian people before 1948.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        In 1964 I believe the plo did not recognise the Jewish people’s right to self determination. Do you have evidence that the palestinian position was different in 1948?

        You are confused. The PLO did not recognize Israel in 1964. That does not mean that the Arab leadership rejected Jews’ right to self-determination. It just means that they recognized that ethnically cleansing Palestine to create a “Jewish state” was not a legitimate exercise of that right of the Jews.

        Nor did the PLO’s observation that Judaism is a religion, not a nationality, equate to rejection of Jews’ right to self-determination; nor did its observation that, at that time, Jews lived as citizens of the states in which they resided, not as members of a nation of their own with their own national identity.

        The Arab position in 1948 was, again, that the independence of Palestine be recognized and a representative government established under a constitution protecting minority rights.

        The Zionists rejected the democratic solution, rejecting absolutely democratic principles and instead establishing their “Jewish state” by ethnically cleansing most of the Arab population from their homes in Palestine.

        You are trying to defend and legitimize that crime.

      • Jimmy

        Why do you think the arabs only considered the jews as a members of a religion and not as a people.? It is because peoples’ have a right to self determination and members of a faith do not.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Why do you think the arabs only considered the jews as a members of a religion and not as a people.?

        The premise of your question is false. You are trolling.

      • Jimmy

        (1)You refer to the crimes of the zionists who ethnically cleansed most of the Arab population from their homes in Palestine.

        When the arabs ethnically cleansed all the Jews from their countries,(and as opposed to what the zionists were facing, there were zero security risks from the Jews.) was that also a crime. ?

        (2)Does what you call the illegal origin of the creation of Israel have any ramifications for today.? Would you say Israel has an obligation to hand it’s country back to the Palestinians , if they make such a request?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        When the arabs ethnically cleansed all the Jews from their countries,(and as opposed to what the zionists were facing, there were zero security risks from the Jews.) was that also a crime. ?

        Yes, of course ethnic cleansing of Jews is a crime, just as the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine was a crime — a crime that you have been trying to defend.

        And, yes, of course the ethnic cleansing of Palestine has ramifications for today. The people of Palestine have a right to return to their homeland.

      • Jimmy

        You say that ethnically cleansing Palestine
        to create a “Jewish state” is not a legitimate exercise of that right
        of the Jews.

        India and pakistan etnically cleansed in far greater numbers in it’s creation than did Israel and the arabs.

        Arab countries recognise the creation of both without legitmising the ethnic cleansing that took place at it’s creation.

        Why should Israel be any different ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        You say that ethnically cleansing Palestine
        to create a “Jewish state” is not a legitimate exercise of that right
        of the Jews.

        The fact that you are arguing that it was “legitimate” for the Zionists to ethnically cleans Palestine of Arabs in order to create the “Jewish state” speaks for itself.

        You expose your own hypocrisy.

      • Jimmy

        http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/08/history-is-irrelevant-why-palestinian.html

        In the Palestine Papers we find that, already in 2007, the PLO created a memo to fight against the very concept of a Jewish state. It gives a number of reasons, but one stands out:

        Recognizing the Jewish state implies recognition of a Jewish people and recognition of its right to self-determination. Those who assert this right also assert that the territory historically associated with this right of self-determination (i.e., the self-determination unit) is all of Historic Palestine. Therefore, recognition of the Jewish people and their right of self-determination may lend credence to the Jewish people’s claim to all of Historic Palestine.

        Notice the cynicism on display by the PLO. The actual truth that there is a Jewish people is too inconvenient for them, because if there is a Jewish people then they have the right to self-determination, which conflicts with the Palestinian Arab version of history. So it is better to pretend that there is no such people.

        Facts and history are thrown away so that the PLO can strengthen their supposed claims.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        In the Palestine Papers we find that, already in 2007, the PLO created a memo to fight against the very concept of a Jewish state.

        Israel’s demand of the Palestinians to recognize it “as a Jewish state” is simply an ultimatum that they must accede that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by which Israel came into existence was legitimate.

        Naturally the Palestinians don’t accept that. They are right not to.

      • Jimmy

        If one cannot recognise the legitimacy of the creation of Israel, without legitimising the ethnic cleansing that took place of the Arabs, then how is it possible to recognise the legitimacy of the creation of India and Pakistan , without legitimising
        the ethnic cleansing that took place of the Muslims and Hindus. ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Ethnic cleansing has no legitimacy wherever it occurs. It is a crime for which there is no possible justification.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        It certainly is. Just as denying the Arabs their right to self-determination is a racist endeavor. Just as ethnically cleansing Palestine of Arabs in order to establish the “Jewish state” was a racist endeavor.

      • jimmy

        I would appreciate it if you could respond to question (2)

      • jimmy

        (1)You say rights are not “granted” to people by governments; they are inherent.
        but legal rights are “granted” to people by governments, even if they are inherent.
        The right to self determination was only granted legal status (as opposed to political status) in the united nation charter in 1945

        “However, self-determination as a general principle did not form part of the Covenant of the League of Nations and therefore was, for the duration of the League of Nations, a political rather than a legal concept.”

        http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873

        (2)If historically there was never a palestinian nation how can they have had a right to self determination?

        (3)As the arabs were never sovereign on present day Israel, it is not for the arabs to claim sovereignity. It is up to Israel to allocate the amount of land consistent with the palestinian present right to self determination. So under self determination rules, the palestinians would have no automatic right to the whole of the west bank.

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        (1)You say rights are not “granted” to people by governments; they are inherent. but legal rights are “granted” to people by governments, even if they are inherent.

        This is what is known in psychology as “cognitive dissonance”: the belief in two different views at the same time despite their being mutually self-contradictory.

        If rights are inherent, then by definition they are not “granted” to individuals by governments. If they are “granted” to individuals by governments, then by definition they are not inherent.

        So which is the case?

        Rights are inherent. They are not “granted” to individuals by governments.

        The right to self determination was only granted legal status (as opposed to political status) in the united nation charter in 1945

        It does not follow that people living in 1944 did not have the right to self-determination.

        The UN Charter did not “grant” the world this right. It merely recognized the right that all peoples of the world already had inherently.

        (2)If historically there was never a palestinian nation how can they have had a right to self determination?

        The logical syllogism your question implies is: since Palestine was not an independent state, therefore the people of Palestine did not have a right to self-determination.

        Which is obviously nonsense. The establishment of a state, assuming it is established through a legitimate political process, is the manifestation of the exercise of its inhabitants’ inherent right to self-determination.

        The Arabs of Palestine had a right to self-determination, just like everyone else in the world, and the fact that this right of theirs had never been manifested as the existence of an independent state of Palestine does not mean that they had no such right.

        It is instructive, however, that to try to justify the means by which Israel was established, you are adopting the very same rejection of the right of the Palestinians to self-determination as Israel’s founders.

      • Jimmy

        you say “And, again, his only reservation about the idea was that at that time,
        the Zionists would not have been able to accomplish it, but would have
        had to rely on British guns to do the job.”
        …..
        Is this an interpretation of what you believe Ben gurion meant. Or are you quoting Ben gurion’s words. ?

      • jimmy

        I made a search on karsh and could not find the phrase British guns. do you have a reference for it ?

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Did I use quotation marks around “British guns”?

        How else do you think the forcible expulsion of a population would occur?

        THINK!

      • Jimmy

        I made a search on guns in the karsh paper. they were all said on 7 june 38. when the topic of discussion was not transfer according to karsh

      • jimmy

        My point was ben gurion never used the word guns with reference to transfer on june 12 1938. He used it with reference to keeping order on june 7 1938. where there was no talk of transfer

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        My point was ben gurion never used the word guns with reference to transfer on june 12 1938.

        So? I never said he did.

        Nevertheless, the use of guns is exactly how “compulsory transfer” would necessarily be implemented.

        THINK!

      • jimmy

        you say ‘His only hesitation about so ethnically cleansing Arabs was that it
        wasn’t feasible for the Zionists to carry it out; rather, the British
        would have to do it, which was unlikely to occur.’

        are you talking about the peel plan when the british advocated transfering arabs from jewish part of palestine to arab part and presumably vice versa. so why was it unlikely to occur. It was only rejected by the british at a later stage

      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        I don’t understand why you ask why it was unlikely to occur. It was just a proposal. There was never any move to implement it. Except, of course, when the Zionists did implement the “compulsory transfer” by force of arms in 1948.

    • Jimmy

      This was my first query on you ebook. I should have put in the date.

      All the above quotes were said by ben gurion on 7 june ’38. Karsh says ben gurion on 7 june ’38 was not talking about transfer but about “expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement”

      In reply you quote what ben gurion said on 12 june ’38 about ben gurion supporting british compulsary transfer.

      do you accept that by saying Ben gurion’s 7 june statements were by the use of force, you are disagreeing with karsh ? (page 8/52)

      Reply
      • Jeremy R. Hammond

        Look, let me make this real simple for you. In my e-book, I wrote:

        When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that “after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine”. Partition should be accepted, he argued, “to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine”. The Jewish State would then “have to preserve order”, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, “by machine guns, if necessary.”

        You charged that this paragraph “is seriously misleading” because I allegedly quoted Ben-Gurion “out of context”. Your argument was: “You try to imply that Ben gurion was saying he intended to take the rest of Plaestine by force of arms, which he ruled out.”

        But what do you think it means when he said that, if the Arabs didn’t acquiesce to their taking control of the Negev, they would have to use “machine guns” to “preserve order”? That is the use of force to expand territory.

        It is also obvious that Ben-Gurion did not “rule out” the use of force from the fact that his preferred solution was the “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of the envisioned “Jewish state”.

        As you know, he was saying that he favored the Peel Commission’s partition plan because it would help them gain a foothold in Palestine from which to later expand their control over all of Palestine.

        So, ask yourself: how could that be accomplished without the use of force, given the reality on the ground, i.e., the existence of a majority Arab population already living there?

        It is true he was asked whether he meant the Jewish state should be expanded by force, and it’s true that he answered “No”. But he gave a reason for that answer, which was that the Zionists were too “weak and few” to try to take the land by force of arms.

        Then he clearly stated that, to achieve their aim of establishing control over all of Palestine, they would need to become “a major power”.

        Now THINK: What would it mean for them to be a “major power”? He’s not just talking about increasing the Jewish population, but building an army.

        Ben-Gurion says once they’ve become “a major power”, then “the Arabs recognize the need to reach an agreement with us”.

        So THINK: Why would the Arabs of Palestine see a “need” to “agree” to the Jews establishing a “Jewish state” of all of Palestine if the existing hypothetical Jewish state was militarily powerless?

        He’s talking about accepting the partition as a temporary step to increase their numbers, consolidate their control over a small territory, and grow their military power to the point that they can threaten the Arab population into acquiescence with Zionist control over all of Palestine.

        Sure, he says that from the time the “Jewish state” is established through partition until the time they are ready to expand their control over the rest of Palestine, the Jews would have to maintain friendly relations with the Arabs. But he was no fool. Do you seriously think he was deluded that the Arabs could be simply befriended into agreeing to the establishment of a “Jewish state” over all of Palestine?

        It’s absurd! Ben-Gurion knew the situation on the ground, and he knew the Arabs would never accept that. Hence the need for the Zionists to become “a major power” and to use “machine guns” to preserve order within the hypothetical temporarily small “Jewish state”.

        And then what? Karsh ends there, but Ben-Gurion had not finished explaining how they would get from a small “Jewish state” maintaining good relations with the Arabs to expanding their control over all of Palestine.

        Ben-Gurion only “ruled out” the use of force while the Zionists were weak.

        Now THINK: What would that mean once they had become “a major power” possessing “machine guns”? Do you really think Ben-Gurion thought the Arabs would just love the Zionists’ government so much that they would willingly agree to be ruled by it?

        Do you take him for a delusional fool?

        And how can you maintain that Ben-Gurion “ruled out” the use of force when your very own source (Karsh), right after talking about the above quotes from Ben-Gurion, also quotes him saying that if the Arabs would not agree to their territorial expansion, they would “have to use force” to expand their territory!

        Your own source! The source you are citing to try to maintain your accusation that I “misquoted” Ben-Gurion — on the supposed grounds that he “ruled out” the use of force!

        See, you already know that your accusation is false because you know already from your own source that Ben-Gurion did not rule out the use of force to establish a “Jewish state” over all of Palestine.

        And, as you already know, and as we’ve been over and over and over, just a few days after saying they would need to maintain friendly relations with the Arabs until they’d become a “major power” possessing “machine guns”, on June 12, 1938, Ben-Gurion explicitly advocated the “compulsory transfer” of Arabs outside of the territory of the envisioned “Jewish state”!

        Seriously! How willfully blind can you possibly be to try to maintain your accusation I’ve misquoted him on the patently false premise that he’d “ruled out” the use of force?!

        Your own source clearly establishes that he very much kept the use of force on the table as a means to the end.

        You have deliberately wasted my time long enough. I have been more than patient with you, and I warned you that you had one final opportunity to either withdraw or substantiate your accusation. Yet you’ve insisted on maintaining the accusation, despite knowing full well that your own source shows that Ben-Gurion very much kept open the option of using force to establish the “Jewish state” over all of Palestine.

        You are banned for trolling.

    • Blake

      Oh come on its not rocket science: colonize; amass arms and dispossess.

      Reply

Share your thoughts.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This