An Anti-Zionist is Someone Who Takes Seriously a Tenth of What Hyper-Self-Critical Israelis Say About Themselves

In the previous post, I broached a major topic – the epistemological crisis provoked by the skew of European anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism and their complementary silence in criticizing Islamism because of the unacknowledged intimidation factor that is compounded with a combination of hypocrisy and resentment (the “moral” assault on Israel and the USA). So the reader of the MSM would have virtually no idea (unless he or she paid close attention to the occasional honest remarks and unintimidated analysis that slip through the net), that they were getting a systematically skewed view of reality.

Now I’d like to add to the mix that skews our ability to gauge reality, a problem from the opposite direction — the pathological tendency of Jews (both Israeli and diaspora) to self-criticize. For example, in the discussion of the blood-libel Goya cartoon of Ariel Sharon, those who wished to dismiss the cry of outrage coming from the Jewish community had plenty of Jews to quote in their favor. The MP I cited in my posting who accused the Jews who objected to the cartoon as making “entirely spurious” case, and calling them a “lynch mob” was none other than a fellow Jew, the vehemently anti-Zionist Gerald Kaufman. And he, in turn, had no problem quoting another Jew, the Israeli Amos Oz, to make the case further:

Our sufferings have granted us immunity papers, as it were, a moral carte blanche. After what all those dirty goyim non-Jews have done to us, none of them is entitled to preach morality to us. We, on the other hand, have carte blanche, because we were victims and have suffered so much. Once a victim, always a victim, and victimhood entitles its owners to a moral exemption.

I won’t even go into the problems with this statement, which confuses the carte blanche to demonize the Israelis that the Palestinians want for being victims of their own elites with the exceptional self-criticism that characterizes many Israelis, including people like Amos Oz. What I will point out is the vehemently self-deprecatory tone of the passage, the profound impatience that Oz expresses with his fellow Jews, and the field day to be had by those who wish to dismiss as a Jewish refusal to do any self-criticism, any Jewish concern for runaway anti-Semitic vitriol, no matter how virulent and morally revolting.

I have dealt with the problem of hyper-Jewish self-criticism repeatedly in the past, including issues concerning the Alvin Rosenfeld Controversy. Among other things, I emphasized the role of a kind of “prophetic” criticism that uses high rhetorical excess to “whip” the Jews/Israelis into the right path. When combined with a desire to “please” fellow, non-Jewish progressives by showing how “non-tribal” one is, this produces a lethal combination, documented by Rosenfeld, that makes some Jews willing to confess to anything (racism, apartheid, Nazism, the illegitimacy of the State). They do this not only to urge their fellow Jews to mend their ways, but also to pursue a kind of “therapeutic” dialogue where, if they are sufficiently magnanimous in accepting blame, then maybe their enemies, say, the Palestinians, might also respond by being a bit more self-critical.

Today I’d like to bring into the discussion a wonderful comment I ran into while preparing the introduction to a volume of essays on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    An anti-Semite is someone who takes seriously a tenth of the jokes that Jews tell about themselves.

In this framework, I’d amend that slightly:

    An anti-Zionist is someone who takes seriously a tenth of the “sins” to which Israelis (and Jews) – in their prophetic enthusiasm – confess.

And the problem for outsiders is that, if they don’t understand how eagerly Jews/Israelis self-criticize, how willing they are to engage in prophetic inflation and therapeutic dialogue, they might mistake what Jews/Israelis say about their own sins for a reliable insight into what actually has happened, as a reasonably accurate description of the “reality” they claim to describe. After, all, who admits to something they didn’t do?

The following article criticizes a classic hyper-self-critical Israeli — Ilan Pappé — for his latest. As you read the critique, think about the ways in which Pappé has turned the story inside out in order to be able to confess. Shades of Ariel Toaff. It also illustrates the tendency of the hyper-self-critical Jews to operate in a solipsistic vacuum of “four dimensional Jews and two dimensional gentiles” who are somehow the passive objects of Jewish aggressions. The very self-obsessed focus, the moral narcissism, raises the specter that behind these egregious acts of self-flagellation lies a more profound sense of omnipotence — what I call “masochistic omnipotence syndrome.”

Guest Columnist: Ethnic cleansing in Palestine?

Seth Frantzman, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 16, 2007
As negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at creating a Palestinian state willing to live side-by-side with Israel in peace resume, one of the major sticking points continues to be the Arab refugee issue. Bitter arguments among politicians and scholars continue to surround the creation of the refugee problem during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948.

It has become fashionable in recent decades to frame the 1948 war as one in which the Arabs were victims of Zionist aggression. Anti-Zionist scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Rashid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe have presented the war as if the only important events were Deir Yassin and the flight or expulsion of Arabs from Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, west Jerusalem, Jaffa and numerous villages.

IN THIS context, Ilan Pappe’s work deserves special attention. He was born to a German Jewish family in Haifa in 1954. The former senior lecturer in the University of Haifa’s Department of Political Science recently announced he was moving to the UK because it had become “increasingly difficult to live in Israel” with his “unwelcome views and convictions.”

These views are those of the “new historians” – leftist scholars who in the 1980s began to reinterpret Israeli and Palestinian history. He is the author of six works on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Middle East. In his recently released book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Pappe claims that Israel prepared a special plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine’s Arab population known as Plan D for dalet. Pappe’s “evidence” is derived from his interpretations of files found in the Hagana and Israel state archives.

One of his most damning pieces of evidence is the village surveys carried out by the Hagana’s intelligence units. These surveys go into minute detail about many Arab villages, including the number of armed men, the mukhtar and any anti-Jewish activity in the village. Pappe lends further evidence to his thesis by showing that Jewish forces, whether Hagana, Irgun or Lehi, attacked Arab villages even before the declaration of the state on May 15, 1948.

But Pappe makes one egregious mistake. He never bothers to ask the same question of the Arabs he does of the Jews: What about their lists, their intelligence reports and their ethnic-cleansing plans? What were Arab intentions in the five months between the passage of the UN partition plan on November 29, 1947, and the birth of Israel?

THE ARCHIVES of The Palestine Post, now The Jerusalem Post and then the newspaper of record of Mandatory Palestine, provide some of the answers and tell a very different story from the one presented by Pappe.

Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs in the first week after the UN partition plan was passed, and by May 15, 1948, a total of 1,256 Jews had been killed, most of them civilians. These deaths were caused by Arab militias, gangs, terrorists and army units which attacked every place of Jewish inhabitation in Palestine.

The attacks succeeded in placing Jerusalem under siege and eventually cutting off its water supply. All Jewish villages in the Negev were attacked, and Jews had to go about the country in convoys. In every major city where Jews and Arabs lived in mixed neighborhoods the Jewish areas came under attack. This was true in Haifa’s Hadar Hacarmel as well as Jerusalem’s Old City.

Massacres were not uncommon.

THIRTY-NINE Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifa’s oil refinery on December 30, 1947. On January 16, 1948, 35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion. On February 22, 44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalem’s Rehov Ben-Yehuda. And on February 29, 23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.

Thirty-five Jews were murdered during the Mount Scopus convoy massacre on April 13. And 127 Jews were massacred at Kfar Etzion on May 15, 1948, after 30 others had died defending the Etzion Bloc.

IN ARAB countries more than 100 Jews were also massacred and synagogues were burned in Aleppo and Aden, driving thousands of Jews from their homes.

Back in Palestine many small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks, including Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz – all in December. In January and February, it was the turn of Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Ma’anit.

In March and April these attacks culminated with an assault on Hartuv by 400 Arabs based in the village of Ishwa and an attack on Kfar Darom by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post in February. In March, the Jewish Agency, the Solel Boneh building in Haifa and an Egged bus were also bombed.

SOME OF today’s scholars prefer to present every massacre of Jews as a “response” to some Jewish deed, and to portray as a “myth” the very idea that Israel struggled desperately for existence in 1948.

But it was no myth.

The fact is 1,256 Jews were killed in five months. Even before the first Arab villages were captured in April, 924 Jews had already been killed. Ilan Pappe should have pondered what might have been if those Jews had not been slaughtered.

What if attacks and riots had not been the first Arab reaction to the partition plan?

Plan Dalet was a plan, it was one of many plans. The lists compiled by the Hagana had been cobbled together for a decade before 1948, but they were not blueprints – merely intelligence assessments. The British also kept lists of everything; they knew about weapons in various kibbutzim, about the Hagana and illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Those lists weren’t blueprints for ethnic cleansing anymore than were the Hagana files on Arab villages.

When a Jewish area was overrun – and some were – the homes were looted or destroyed and any survivors were killed, as at Kfar Etzion (only three of the defenders survived the massacre).

The potential for the ethnic cleansing of Jewish Palestine was never realized because of the discipline, determination and sheer luck of the Yishuv.

If the Arabs had not carried out across the board attacks throughout the Yishuv between 1947 and 1948, perhaps the nature of the subsequent Jewish victory would have been different. As it was, the ceaseless attacks against all isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders every reason to see neighboring Arab villages as threatening and to act accordingly.

Scholarship – including that of the “new historians” – on the 1948 war will remain incomplete until methodical studies are carried out about widespread and often well-planned Arab assaults on the Yishuv.

The writer is in the doctoral program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His master’s thesis was on the 1948 war.

In other words, Pappé, like Avi Shlaim, lives in a world where Israelis act in a vacuum — nothing violent their enemies do counts in explaining Israeli actions, any violent Israeli act is measured in the most negative fashion against an absolute yardstick. And anything short of perfection creates such disappointment that they must shout their moral indignation from the highest hilltops. As for outsiders consuming such convoluted products of the Jewish soul — caveat lector. Contents are dangerous to anyone who ingests them with anything less than a barrel of salt. Alas, Europeans and Leftists seem so eager to view Israel negatively, that these twisted cries of a pathological soul become yardsticks of reality.

UPDATETo illustrate just how Pappé’s work can have an impact on demopaths and their dupes, Arnaud de Borchgrave covers the same issue as Frantzman, without any (apparent) independent knowledge (hattip JW). After giving an umediated version of Pappé, he then consults not an Israeli on how accurate, but, taking the revisionism as accurate, goes to an Arab for his opinion:

Commenting on Pappe’s historical research, Rami Khouri, director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut and editor at large of the Beirut Daily Star, writes, “Many Israelis will challenge Pappe’s account. Such a process should ideally spark an honest, comprehensive analysis that could lead us to an accurate narrative of what happened in 1947-48 — accurate for both sides, if it is to have meaning for either side.”

This is actually a good direction if, what Khouri means, is that the Arabs also start an investigation into their myths. For example:

  • the myth that the Naqba originally meant what Israel did to the Palestinians rather than what the Arab leaders whom they blamed from bringing on this catastrophe with their vain and foolish assumption that they would wipe out the nascent state and massacre its population, and then failed to do what they promised.
  • the myth that they were the innocent victims rather than the frustrated aggressors who would have, had they been able to, masscred as many Jews as possible
  • the myth that the Israelis are responsible for the misery of the Palestinian refugees, rather than the Arab leadership who compounded their catastrophic mistake in attacking Israel with an even more catastrophic mistake of imprisoning the refugees in camps so that they could, someday, repair the error by doing what they set out to do in the beginning
  • the myth that Israel is the vicious entity in the area and they just want “justice”
  • the myth that their leaders want a Palestinian state, rather than the elimination of Israel
  • If we have that, then we can work towards a mutually meaningful narrative of 1947-8. But if it’s just Israeli myth-busting, accompanied by Arab myth affirming, we have a recipe for another Naqba.

    An Israeli official textbook for Palestinian third-graders, says Fares, “that fleetingly acknowledges the Palestinian trauma of exile and occupation in 1948 is an intriguing sign of something that remains largely unclear.” The “something” is worth exploring and reciprocating, “if it indicates a capacity to move toward the elusive shared, accurate, truthful account of Israeli and Palestinian history that must anchor any progress toward a negotiated peace.”

    The key word here is “reciprocating. But where is the evidence of that reciprocation? Where in Palestinian or Arab textbooks do we even have the acknowledgment that Israelis are human beings, rather than subhuman demons who deserve to be wiped out?

    The consensus in Israel today, says Pappe, is for a state comprising 90 percent of Palestine “surrounded by electric fences and visible and invisible walls” with Palestinians given only worthless cantonized scrub lands of little value to the Jewish state. In 2006, Pappe sees that 1.4 million Palestinians live in Israel on 2 percent of the land allotted to them plus another 1 percent for agricultural use with 6 million Jews on most of the rest. “Another 3.9 million live concentrated in Israel’s unwanted portions of the West Bank and concentrated in Gaza that has three times the population density of Manhattan,” notes Pappe. Back from the Middle East last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said prospects are good for a two-state solution. A “viable and contiguous” Palestinian state, pledged by the Bush administration, remains a pipe dream.

    It’s too tedious to go over all this nonsense. Pappé’s figures are all gimmicky, as well as his characterization of both what the Israeli consensus is, and what the Palestinians get. The reason why a Palestinian state “remains a pipe dream” is that it’s not the Palestinian leaders’ dream, but the liberal West’s dream.

    44 Responses to An Anti-Zionist is Someone Who Takes Seriously a Tenth of What Hyper-Self-Critical Israelis Say About Themselves

    1. lgude says:

      I know about using hyper self criticism as a defense mechanism in my own non Jewish way. There is a desire to ingratiate one’s self with a tad more Stockholm syndrome than is comfortable to admit to. As an expatriate I have had to face a rising tide of anti Americanism since 9/11. Increasingly I have been forced to recognize that the correct course is to not accept as friends those who persist in delusional projections on the US. Trying to defuse them by indulging in self criticism is like plunging a knife into one’s own guts to gain sympathy. Increasingly, I find myself saying that I don’t want to spend time with people who feel that way about America. I have fewer friends but the remaining ones are real. Besides I don’t have to spend time sewing my guts back together. Masochism hurts and the sense of omnipotence is phony.

    2. shimshon says:

      the jpost article is great. i hope that the author goes on to have a good academic career. we’ll see if anyone pays attention to him.

      Amos Oz is critical of Israel but i would be careful about lumping him in with other jews like pappe who are properly labeled as self hating jews. for any one has read “a tale of love and darkness” or “help us to divorce” it is clear he does not fall into the category of a self hating jew. yes he is critical, but he does not blame isreal for what happened to the palestinian or for the wars that took place in the region. for example, in “love and darkness” he claims to empathize with the palestinian refugees, but he makes sure to point out that “they did not have to start the war.” (thats my paraphrasing) in “help us to divorce,” his first essay is a refutation of the european anti-israel position. he claims that he is not a pacifist and that he is a veteran of both 67 and 73, he is proud of his role in those wars and claims that he would gladly fight them again because they were completely justified. he also shows why jews have a historical claim to the land of israel and why israel needs to exist as a jewish state.

      self criticism is one of the traits that separates the west from much of the arab world. it is a good trait, and it has been key to western, and jewish success. there are people who go to far and become overly critical of themselves and not critical of others. for anyone familiar with oz’s positions, it is clear that he does not fall into this category. he is very critical of the other side.

    3. fp says:

      I am with shimshon on this one.

      And I understand igude too, having lived as a jew in an anti-semitic society (of the left!).

      Here’s wieseltier about judt — another self-hating jew:

      “The reason, I fear, is that Judt has misinterpreted the nature of the hostility that vexes him. Consider his predicament again. He finds himself “implicitly identified” with Israel’s actions in, say, Jenin. But he was nowhere near Jenin. He killed nobody. Indeed, he is ferociously opposed to the killings, and to the policies of the Sharon government in the territories generally. All he has to do, then, is to say so, and then to express his anger at the suggestion that he is in any way responsible for what he, too, deplores. For the notion that all Jews are responsible for whatever any Jews do, that every deed that a Jew does is a Jewish deed, is not a Zionist notion. It is an anti-Semitic notion. But Judt prefers to regard it as an onerous corollary of Zionism (“not least by Israel’s own insistent claims upon their allegiance”). He refuses to place the blame for this unwarranted judgment of himself upon those who make it. Instead he accepts the premise of the prejudice, and turns on Israel. He makes a similar mistake in his evaluation of “the increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe.” He knows that they are “misdirected,” but still he describes them as “efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel.” In what way, exactly, is the burning of a synagogue a method for getting back at Israel? In the anti-Semitic way, plainly. It is the essence of anti-Semitism, as it is the essence of all prejudice, to call its object its cause. But if you explain anti-Semitism as a response to Jews, and racism as a response to blacks, and misogyny as a response to women, then you have not understood it. ***You have reproduced it***.”

      This phenomenon is essentially fear. While this can be, perhaps, understood in history, for the average jew in the street who thought this would save his life or his family (it did not), what we’ve got today is intellectuals (purportedly) who are cowards without any such necessity. But then education does not necessarily build character.

      As to pappe, who would have known of him were it not for his contrarian positions in israel?

    4. Eliyahu says:

      my view is that “leftism,” particularly of the Marxist varieties –which itself has many varieties– has always been Judeophobic, perhaps only latently at times, since “Leftism” grows out of the “Enlightenment” –especially Hegel & Kant & Voltaire. Now all of these carried on the Medieval Christian prejudice against Jews that they were incapable of reason. This was because Jews did not accept the Christian dogmas [the Trinity, etc], whereas Medieval Christian philosophers like Bacon, Anselm of Canterbury, and Aquinas too –as I recall– believed that all of these dogmas had been proven by reason. Therefore, if the Jews continued to reject them, then the Jews were unreasonable, incapable of reason, etc. This attitude still influences many Leftists, especially of the Marxoid varieties. But there are other influences that produce Leftist Judeophobia, one of them being the media policy and educational policy of various pro-Arab Western govts such as the UK.
      The fact that many Nobel prize winners in the sciences have been Jews, disproportionately so, must cause a certain cognitive dissonance in those indoctrinated in the Kant-Hegel-Voltaire tradition. And cognitive dissonance can lead to anger, to hatred, to a belief that diabolical doings are afoot, etc.

    5. Eliyahu says:

      Of course, Marx and his friend Engels and their following were mightily influenced by the Kant-Hegel tradition which was dominant in the Germany of their time.

    6. fp says:

      My guess is that cognitive dissonance is probably underlying most of the modern anti-semitism and that is certainly true for the arabs.

      Put in more mundane term: envy, which was already stated in discussions here.

    7. Eliyahu says:

      fp, cognitive dissonance is most likely at work with the Arabs in regard to Israel in that they have long been taught as Muslims [& some Christian Arabs as well] that the Jews are the lowest of the low, the Jews ought to and indeed must be kept in a state of humiliation –which I believe, according to documentation that I have– even below that of the Christians in Muslim societies, albeit that Christians too were humiliated dhimmis. Bernard Lewis, in The Middle East and the West, writes that Muslims were all the more shocked and outraged and mortified by the victories over them of dhimmi peoples –speaking of Greeks & Jews– than by their defeats at the hands of the empires, British, French, Russians, Austro-Hungarians. In the case of the Greeks, Lewis referred to the Greek victories in their campaign in 1920 in Anatolia. This Greek advance was –not surprisingly– stopped by the Supreme Allied War Commission [or some such name], probably at British instigation. The cease fire mandated by their “Allies” allowed the Greeks’ Turkish enemies, now under Ataturk, to rearm & regroup. Because the Greeks had been stopped along a line difficult to defend in a static defense situation, Ataturk’s Turkish nationalists –still claiming at that time to be Ghazis [fighters for Islam]– were able to defeat the Greeks two years later, also expelling the population of several million ethnic Greeks from Anatolia & massacring Armenians [think of the Smyrna Affair]. To show that the Western powers –like the Bolsheviks– at that time were not opposed to ethnic cleansing or massacres of civilians, they did not try to stop the expulsion of the Greeks or the Armenian massacres of 1922. Instead, Fridtjof Nansen persuaded Ataturk to agree to allow about 400,000 Muslims in eastern Thrace to be expelled [by Greece] as a kind of trade for the three or four million Greeks expelled. So there was a kind of double ethnic cleansing. And for this Nansen won the Nobel peace prize from his fellow Norwegians. But the West in its hypocrisy wants to hold Israel to pristine pure moral standards. [Hemingway wrote about Smyrna & Thrace in In Our Time].

      Lewis also mentioned Muslim horror over the Jewish victory, that is, the rise of Israel. The point is that the victory of dhimmi peoples far more outraged the Muslims than the victory of the Western imperialists on account of cognitive dissonance.

    8. Eliyahu says:

      I agree with RL that the Jewish intellectual in Western society/culture may feel under certain psychological pressures to attack Jews, particularly Zionists and Israel. But I believe that these attacks are to a certain extent organized. For example, back in the 1950s, I remember that Jewish Commies used to severely criticize Israel. Then, to be sure, they did not accuse Israel of controlling US foreign policy. Rather, they accused Israel of serving US policy. One Commie told me that “Israel is an appendage of the State Dept.” Here the Jewish Commies were proving their Communist loyalties, their “anti-imperialist” commitment, by criticizing Israel for being an instrument of the US. I believe that this line was dictated by the Party. The same accusation about serving the US was seldom said, even by Commies, about Saudi Arabia, which has probably been the Middle Eastern state closest to the State Dept since the 1940s.

      To be fair, I also recall some Jewish right-wingers back in the Fifties saying somewhat similar things about fellow Jews in those days. I am referring to Jews who were “right-wingers” in American terms, not in Jewish or Zionist politics. Then, it was “right-wingers” who complained that Israel complicated US relations with the oil-laden Arabs. Today that has somehow become a “leftist” accusation.

    9. Ashley Perry says:

      As someone who has written about Neturei Karta and religious anti-Zionists I thought this might interest you.
      I am sending you my latest blog titled ‘No basis for religious anti-Zionism’. This was written as an antidote to groups like Neturei Karta who spread malicious lies about Judaism and Zionism and covort with our enemies like Iran and Hamas. They claim that Judaism and Zionism are not compatible. These lies are picked up by some of the most unrelenting antisemites and used to prove the lie that they are just anti-Zionist and not antisemitic.
      This is also a good antidote for those who believe that Zionism is a European colonialist scheme based on 19th century nationalism.
      Please send this on to as many people as possible.
      I am alway interested in comments, so post on the blog if you have any.

    10. David M says:

      Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 08/20/2007
      A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

    11. fp says:

      all one has to know is who is dependent on whom to know who is serving whose interests.

      the article i linked to in the thread on w&m argues that one of israel’s mistakes is reliance on technology and sophisticated american weapons and adoption of the us philosophy of war. that distorted israel’s policy away from its interests, not the other way around.

      even today the self-hating jews tend to be leftists/marxists, so there is a link with the past.

    12. EB says:

      …”A “viable and contiguous” Palestinian state, pledged by the Bush administration, remains a pipe dream.”…..

      As I was reading a news report about EU cutting power off to Gaza (I didn’t realize they provided it, how?), I thought: the Palestinian Arab situation is just getting worse and worse. I wonder just how long it will take for some Palestinians to realize that their struggle with the Jews is getting them nothing but more and more pain. I mean, they went from being offered most of Palestine in 1948 by UN to West Bank and Gaza in 2000 and now to Hamas-ruled blacked out Gaza in 2007. How long will it take till at least some of them realize that this is a downward slope? Perhaps some self-criticism will be in their own self-interest.

    13. fp says:

      they will never accept israel, no matter what.

      1. they are indoctrinated since kindergarten with hatred of israel, ***which is always the root of all their problems; they are never responsible***.

      2. Islam cannot tolerate the existence of an infidel — jewish! — entity in the middle east.

      3. The refugees problems cannot be resolved. The arab countries will never accept the refugees as citizens, and israel cannot accept the RoR either. And they cannot be viably absorbed in a pal state (see next).

      4. Whether contiguous or not, a palestinian state cannot be viable. It will not produce anything. Most of its people work for the PA/Hamas/terror which is funded by jiziya from the west. They don’t have an education system, but an indoctrination system.

      5. America is in decline in the ME and the rest of the world sees israel as an inconvenient state.

      Even if a peace agreement is signed, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The pal state will always be a failure and envious of the israelis; it will suck enormous resources from the west; and the agreement will be treated as taquiya by the pals — to be violated as soon as the balance of power — via demographics and militarily will allow it.

      Anybody who does not realize this suffers from wishful thinking, is ignorant or in denial.

    14. Eliyahu says:

      RL, I think that the term Nakba [catastrophe] as applied to the Israeli War of Independence was first used in a significant Arab writing by Constantine Zurayk. He was an Arab nationalist, albeit an Arabic-speaking Christian. As I recall, he and other Arabs were first of all bemoaning their defeat in war at the hands of the base contemptible Jews, who were traditionally treated with humiliation. The Jews were at the bottom of the social totem pole in Arab society, even below their Christian fellow dhimmis, who sometimes were antagonistic towards Jews [especially the Greek Orthodox, if I’m not mistaken], although the Ottoman govt usually protected Jews from Greek hostility. So part of the Nakba was not merely defeat but defeat at Jewish hands. The failure of Arab society, leadership, institutions, and armies was also very bothersome [as you point out]. But the plight of the palestinian Arab war refugees was NOT the main part of the Nakba for Zurayk and other Arab intellectuals at the time, as I recall. Zurayk’s essay on the “Catastrophe” was translated and published in an early issue of the Middle East Journal, maybe in 1949 or 1950, as I recall.

      Speaking of the Fifties, one of the claims made by anti-Israel “right-wingers” was that the Arabs were staunchly anti-Communist. This claim was made in such a way as to insinuate that Israel was Communist & pro-Soviet. Of course, the Mapam/HaShomer HaTsa`ir were pro-Communist & pro-Soviet. But they did not make policy. Ironically, while the “right-wingers,” following the Dulles brothers’ lead, viewed the Arabs as anti-Communist and the US Strategic Air Command set up a base at Dhahran in Saudi Arabia with the presumed purpose of threatening the USSR, the Commies went easy on criticism of Arabs and viewed Israel as a tool of the United States. Now, the ideological cards have been reshuffled, as we all know.

      To support your point Richard about Arab intentions, not only did Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha, sec’y general of the Arab League, threaten the Jews with massacres on a par with “the Crusades and the Mongol massacres,” in his words, but Arab irregular forces inside the country were attacking Jewish civilians and neighborhoods within hours [minutes?] of the UN General Assembly partition recommendation on 11-29-47. Jews were driven out of their homes in south Tel Aviv and in what later became “East Jerusalem” in December 1947. The first neighborhood where the inhabitants were driven out in the war [in Dec ’47] and did not return after the fighting was the Shim`on haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem whence the Jews were driven out by Arabs in Dec 1947.

      What is painful is that not only do Arab spokesmen not acknowledge the Arab aggression and practice of ethnic cleansing at the start of the war, but that the “new Israeli historians” seem to completely overlook the events of Nov-Dec 1947 and Jan-Feb 1948, when the Arabs seemed to have the upper hand in the war, as they themselves claimed.

    15. Shriber says:

      “The MP I cited in my posting who accused the Jews who objected to the cartoon as making “entirely spurious” case, and calling them a “lynch mob” was none other than a fellow Jew, the vehemently anti-Zionist Gerald Kaufman. And he, in turn, had no problem quoting another Jew, the Israeli Amos Oz, to make the case further…”

      Excellent critique of “hyper self criticism by Jews and Israelis.”

      I would like to add that people like Kaufman take the Oz quotation out of context.

      Oz for all his failings is still a Zionist. Kaufman is just an “uncle Tom.”

    16. Eliyahu says:

      Oz is very foolish, and sometimes he gets nasty out of his own ignorance [see some of Aryeh Stav’s writings]. Kaufman is just nasty.

    17. fp says:

      And just to reinforce my argument: Apparently Olmert is now discussing the end-game with Abbas, who demands full sovereignty over the Temple Mound. ***Only after he gets that he will consider jewish access***.

      This should give an idea what negotiations mean to the “moderate” fatah. Any disagreement by Israel will be now interpreted as intransigence inviting pressure to yield. And I would not be surprised at all if the failure Olmert will do. He’s a total gonner.

    18. Rudi says:

      I fully agree with the explanation by Seth Frantzman. Were are the archives from Arab countries and were are their “new-historians”. Only 1 person could qualify for this title in the whole Arab world: A. Razak Abdel-Kader. But they shut his mouth already in 1967.

      A similar exercice of propaganda is done by referring always to Deir Yassin in the book of Jacques de Reynier of the Internation Red Cross. Well the story about Dier Yassin is 3 pages out of a book of merely 200 pages. The crualities from the other site in those other pages are never referred to: selective quoting.

      Your quote about an antisemite taking jewish jokes for real confirms what we wrote about an well-known pro-palestinian publicist in Belgium, Lucas Catherine.

      (those that understand Dutch are suggested to read on
      Lucas Catherine unmasked?).

      An old funny joke made up by Jews themselves “what is a sionist? A German Jew asking money to an English Jew for sending a Polish Jew to Palestine” was used as a fact and even a real definition, not anymore as a joke.

      What we found out about this “anti-sionist” was that he used Nazi’s lies and pictures in his book. Since he knowns he has been unmasked the guy did not even dare to react nor complain because he realized he couldn’t gain anything.

      Thank you Richard for this good post.

    19. fp says:

      Frankly, I don’t really know why things that have been known and written and explained over and over again for more than 60 years must be dissected yet again.
      They are not any revelation and they don’t change reality.

      So what is exactly the point?

    20. Eliyahu says:

      I know the book by this de Reynier [or is it de Regnier?] of the International Committee of the Red Cross. De Reynier’s personal background is not so very appetizing. Check him out. The book is interesting however for its picture of life in Jerusalem and throughout the country between the UN GA partition recommendation and Israel’s proclamation of independence.

      The ICRC also hired one Francois Genoud in the same post-WW2 period. Genoud had been a leader in the Swiss Nazi party before WW2 and later worked for the Abwehr, German Nazi intelligence. Bear in mind that the ICRC [its French initials are CICR] was and is a Swiss govt agency. So the ICRC was in a good position to know who had been in the Swiss Nazi party.

    21. Eliyahu says:

      fp, in a world where huge resources are expended on falsifying and rewriting history & on inventing new “narratives” to replace older and truer ones, it is quite necessary to go over and over info that the younger generation does not have and that the fake scholars that they may have have as grade-assigning teachers in the university are eager to keep from them. I recall a prof friend of mine back in the late 1970s who said to me something much like what you said about going over what is and has long been known. I had mentioned the need to inform the students of that time about Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Arab Nazi collaborator & Holocaust helper. He said: Why bother? Everybody knows that.
      In fact, not everybody knows it. It is an inconvenient fact that powerful interests try to conceal. So it is necessary to stress and repeat that fact over and over.

    22. fp says:

      well, that’s true, but i very much doubt that it makes a difference. and i think it’s hard to accept that.

    23. Rudi says:

      it is Jacques de Reynier. When he describes the Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem his words are very clear: friend of Hitler Nazi Germany, racist en war-criminel. He saved at several times Jewish prisoners from the hands of the Arabs because he knew they would be lynched…. So not completely biaised… but the “World” that did not read the book only heard about it through his Deir Yassin account (7.5 pages) and not about the 210.5 other pages of the book. (Edition 1950)

    24. fp says:

      the “world” hears and reads only what it wants to hear and read. and the less education it gets, the more gullible it becomes and the more amenable to manipulation by propagandists. there is less independent, critical thinking and more indoctrination and conformism.

    25. Cynic says:


      One must constantly repeat the truth to overcome the political distortions and to reach the newer audiences of youth coming into the ‘social’ arena. To make these youth aware before they are indoctrinated.
      The biggest effort must be made to reach them and get them thinking before their minds are swamped in a deluge omission, distortion and plain bald lies.
      Just look how Pappe and co. are starting out revamping Durban 2001 for the new offensive.

    26. fp says:

      i agree as to the need, but not to the feasibility.

      the reason pappe can do what he does is because the world, for a multitude of reasons that I have described here and elsewhere, has put itself in a state where indoctrination by the pappes of the world is effective and the truth is not. the latter can be repeated as many times as you want, it won’t make any difference.

      to reiterate: as far as i am concerned the west is finished and in my opinion, deservedly so. what bothers me is that the islamists, the russians and the chinese do not deserve to win, but they will anyway.

      See for example:

      and the various books on Europe by Bat Yeor, Laqueur, Steyn, Bawer etc.

    27. fp says:

      Here’s an excellent example:

      Iran to Help Plan UN Anti Racism Conference

      Do you think their repetition or ours will win?

    28. fp says:

      And here’s our leaders at their best:

      Hillary to jihadists: Please don’t attack us, or Dems will lose

    29. fp says:

      And here’s our media:

      Is this the forbidden “Opus” cartoon?

    30. fp says:

      And more:

      Robert Fisk: Even I question the ‘truth’ about 9/11

    31. fp says:

      And RL’s fountain of morality, the faith:

      Book Embraced by Mainline Marred With Errors

    32. Eliyahu says:

      fp, I read the article in Asia Times by Dilip Hiro. This character has been around for years and he is a journalistic pimp, like most of the 4th estate. Some of what he says is true or appears to be. Nevertheless, I have to laugh at his description of al-Jazeera as a competitor with BBC and CNN that presents a different view of the world [according to Hiro]. First of all, many of al-Jazeera’s journalists were formerly working for VOA and bbc in Arabic, and other Western press agencies. Now, I don’t have to remind you that VOA is a govt agency. If you’ve ever heard VOA in Spanish, as I have, then you’ll know that it is as hostile to Israel as Radio Havana, for instance. As far as the bbc is concerned, it is also a govt agency, and has long been Judeophobic and Israelophobic. So from that perspective, how does the al-Jazeera world picture contrast with that of VOA or bbc???

      Further, al-J broadcasts from Qatar, as Hiro wrote. Qatar is also the locus of the top HQ of US forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. In fact, I read in an Italian paper, La Stampa, that the US base there is quite visible from the offices of al-Jazeera. Now, how does all that fit in with Hiro’s claim that al-J represents a world picture contrasting with or hostile to that of BBC, VOA, CNN, etc??? Maybe it’s just old wine in a new bottle. So maybe the old powers are hiding behind the new powers. At least, in the case of the Arabs, maybe the Arabs can say things and get away with them that even the bbc doesn’t dare say, yet.

    33. fp says:


      i just noticed you replied.

      I was not referring to the channels stuff, but to the increase in power of russia and china relative to the US. that is so obvious that even Hiro sees it, part. since it fits his anti-american tendency.

      i don’t accept everything I read in an article or book. I am selective — accept what makes sense and ignore or expose the rest.

    34. […] of Israelis who are often proud to be ashamed of their country, skews the field and creates an epistemological confusion among outside observers who don’t understand how much the information they get is skewed by […]

    35. […] have argued repeatedly that Israeli self-criticism creates an epistemological problem for outsiders trying to understand what’s going on. If the Palestinians accuse Israel of […]

    36. […] have to say I agree with the closing statements of this article. The last […]

    37. […] civil society who want that culture of freedom to survive the coming decades of struggle. Because nothing more misleads everyone than very smart Jews trying desperately either to make their fellow Jews act like angels, or, […]

    38. […] written extensively about the remarkable, and now more than occasionally pathological, tendency of Jews and Israelis to be self-critical. I will repeat my claim: no national culture is as self-critical as Israel; no country’s own […]

    39. […] no choice but to be genocidally vicious. Once again Israeli self-criticism contributes to a Western epistemological crisis. Judge Goldstone could have contended that just as Israeli leaders themselves have frequently […]

    40. […] no choice but to be genocidally vicious. Once again Israeli self-criticism contributes to a Western epistemological crisis. Judge Goldstone could have contended that just as Israeli leaders themselves have frequently […]

    41. […] call it moral narcissism. Finally there’s the fact that liberalism has become a politics of easy targets. Liberals have […]

    Leave a Reply

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