John Vause on the Al Jazeera Leaks (with help from Akiva Eldar)

This just up at the Second Draft. Viewing and comments welcome.

NCNN does the Palestinian Leaks 26.01.11

John Vause covers the Al Jazeera PP Leaks from Atlanta. He focuses on the issue of the “right of return” of the Palestinian refugees, numbering some 5 million. He skypes Akiva Eldar to get the Israeli reaction to the document leaks.  This piece has so many things wrong with it, it could be entitled “TV Journalism 101: How not to do it.” Or, “How many mistakes can you find in this one piece of under seven minutes?” Or, “How does our news media manage to be so smart and competent and still get it upside down?” I plan a piece for the VEA on that last theme, dissecting this “story” which I consider emblematic (a thick description) of the Augean Stables. I welcome comment here. Links to good articles very welcome.

View Video

Leave Comment

10 Responses to John Vause on the Al Jazeera Leaks (with help from Akiva Eldar)

  1. E.G. says:

    Welcoming comments is one thing. Nice.
    Taking some things/thoughts into account is another.

    Shabbat Shalom from a non self-despising Jew.

  2. E.G.,

    I appreciate your comment.

    —-

    One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink, and some people cannot punch their way out of a paper bag to save their life, nor to save the lives of their own people.

    However, I’ll now, again, but more skillfully than I have done earlier, lead the horses’ way to water, and, therein, point out the fragility of the paper bag, and therein, point to the path of action that leads to out of the paper bag.

    Western racist anti-Jewish antipathetic bigoted prejudice, and antipathy, directed toward Israel and all Jewish defenders of Israel, is now huge and pervasive – and genocidal – among much of the young ([college-campus-&-college-classroom]-[[anti-Israeli]-[pro-'Palestinian'-Arab]]-indoctrinated) generation in the United States, and is even more so among that in Europe, and is a core part of the current political Left, as a whole – the new Fascist Left – in the United States, and is even more so in Europe, and is propagated by, and promoted by, and incited by, American, and British, and other Western, so-called “academics” and so-called “journalists”. Some of the most fervent propagators of lies that vilify Israel, and the most influential propagators of lies that vilify Israel, which are the lies on which this Western racist anti-Jewish antipathetic bigoted prejudice, and antipathy, which is a core part of the new fascist racist anti-Jewish political Left, is based, *are Jewish* – non-Israeli Jewish and *Israeli Jewish*.

    The genocidally anti-Jewish apocalyptic regime in Iran is currently developing a nuclear weapons program, has been developing a nuclear weapons program for almost a decade, and the members of the genocidally anti-Jewish apocalyptic regime in Iran have repeatedly explicitly declared their intention to annihilate Israel and to destroy the United States of America and to conquer the whole world.

    The members of the governments of Western states are allowing the genocidally anti-Jewish apocalyptic regime in Iran to be developing a nuclear weapons program, and have been allowing the genocidally anti-Jewis Islamic -Supremacist regime in Iran to have been developing nuclear weapons for a decade, because those members of the governments of Western countries believe an untrue narrative about the situation in the Middle East, which is an untrue narrative that is consisted of lies that vilify Israel and that obfuscate the reality of the situation.

    The leaders of the government of Israel have allowed this to happen. This would not have happened if the leaders of the government of Israel had clearly and firmly told the factual history of the situation, and had not collaborated with, and cooperated with, and acceded anything to, the organizations of the genocidally anti-Jewish ‘Palestinian movement’ – the organizations Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas.

    The ‘Palestinian movement’ is a genocidally anti-Jewish political movement whose sole official purpose is the annihilation of the country of the Jewish people, Israel, and was founded for the sole purpose of preventing the re-founding of the country of the Jewish people, Israel, and mass-murdering all of the Jewish people in the Middle East, and, therein preventing the liberation of the Jewish people from the position of governmentally enforced, and societally enforced, official social subserviency – dhimmitude – in the Muslim Arab society of the Middle East, and was founded by Amin al-Husseini, who was the pre-eminent political leader of the Muslim Arab world from the 1920′s to the 1940′s, and who was an adjoined official of the Nazi regime of Germany, and who was a co-architect of the genocide of the Jewish people in Europe by the Nazi regime of Germany, and who was the mentor of, and an uncle of Yasser Arafat (Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini).

    For several decades after the end of World War II, the Muslim Arab racist intendedly genocidal war against Israel was most influentially led by German former Nazi officials who, after World War II, fled to Muslim Arab states in the Middle East, and converted to Islam, and became officials of the regimes of those Muslim Arab states in the Middle East.

    The 1964 PLO Charter, and the revised, currently official, 1968 PLO Charter, which, in August 2010, at the 2010 PLO Conference, Mahmoud Abbas and the members of Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority officially reaffirmed their adherence to, states that the goal of the PLO is the what the PLO Charter calls the “liberation” of what the PLO Charter calls “Palestine” and the destruction of what the PLO Charter calls “the Zionist entity”.

    The Hamas Charter states that the goal of Hamas is the murder of every Jewish person in the world, and the establishment of Islam as the governmental system for the whole world.

    The members of the organizations of the ‘Palestinian movement’ – Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas – consciously use deceit as a strategic tactic in their effort to attain their goal of destroying Israel.

    The use of deceit as a strategic tactic in the effort of waging war against non-Islamic societies is officially sanctioned by authoritative Islam, and, in authoritative Islam, is called Taqiya.

    In order to protect the people of Israel, and in order to protect the well-being of the whole world, the following *must* be done.

    The leaders of the government of Israel need to communicate – need to mindfully, clearly, firmly speak – the following facts to the Western media, and directly to the members of the governments of Western countries.

    Summary of The History of The Situation

    Approximately 2,000 years ago, the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people – the Yehoudi people – in Judea (Yehoudah), and destroyed Yehoudah, and renamed Yehoudah, and the neighboring area called the Shomron (which is called Sameria in English), and other surrounding land, to the name “Falastina”, in reference to the then-extinct, Greco, sea-faring people, the Philistines, who, several hundred years earlier, had attacked and invaded the original country of the Jewish people, Israel (Yisrael), which subsequently diminished into only Yehoudah. The name “Palestine” is the English spelling and pronunciation of the name “Falastina”.

    Some of the Jewish survivors of the genocide committed by the Romans against the Jewish people in Yehoudah migrated to Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and the descendants of those Jewish people are ethnically Jewish-(Middle Eastern)-West-European or ethnically Jewish-(Middle-Eastern)-East-European, and call themselves “Ashkenazi” Jewish. The term “Ashkenazi” refers to a place in Germany, named Ashkenaz, to where some of the surviving Jewish people migrated after the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah.

    Some Jewish people were living in Mediterranean regions of Europe at the time when the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah, and some of the Jewish survivors of the genocide committed by the Romans against the Jewish people in Judea migrated to Mediterranean regions of Europe after the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah, and the descendants of those Jewish people are ethnically Jewish-(Middle-Eastern)-Mediterranean-European, and refer to themselves as Sephardi Jewish. The word “Sephardi” means “Spanish” in Hebrew.

    Some Jewish people were living in the Middle East outside of Yehoudah at the time when the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah, and some of the Jewish survivors of the genocide committed by the Romans against the Jewish people in Yehoudah remained in the Middle East for approximately 2,000 years after the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah approximately 2,000 years ago, and the descendants of those Jewish people call themselves Mizrahi Jewish. The word “Mizrahi” is a Hebrew word, and means “Eastern”.

    Since approximately 2,000 years ago, from when soon after the Romans committed genocide against the Jewish people in Yehoudah, and destroyed Yehoudah, approximately 2,000 years ago, there have always been some Jewish people living in the land that was the destroyed country of the Jewish people, Yehoudah.

    For the past approximately 3,000 years [or, I think, for the past approximately 3,500 years — Daniel Bielak], the only people for whom the land that is now Israel has been a national home are the Jewish people.

    For several hundred years, until 1917, the land that the Romans renamed to “Falastina” was a part of the Islamic Ottoman Turkish empire.

    In 1917, during World War I, Britain took, from Germany-allied Turkey, the area of land that was constituted by what is now Jordan, and by what is now Israel, and by what is now called “The West Bank” (Judea and Sameria (Yehoudah and Shomron)), and by what is now called “The Gaza Strip”.

    Afterward, in 1917, some few British officials who were sympathetic toward the Jewish people who were engaged in the Jewish liberation and national self-determination movement – the Zionist movement – issued the Balfour Declaration, which declared that the Jewish National Home was to be established in that area of land.

    The term “Zionist” refers to the word Zion, which is the English spelling and pronunciation of the Hebrew word Tsiyon (pronounced tseeYOHN), which is the name of the hill on which the founding city, Jerusalem (Yerushalayim), of the founding country, Israel (Yisrael), of the Jewish people (the Yehoudi people), sits, and was built, by the Jewish people, approximately 3,000 years ago [I think that it may, in fact, be approximately 3,500 years - but I'm not sure. -- Daniel Bielak]

    In 1919, in Paris, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Emir Faisal ibn Husseini and Haim Weizmann signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement to create one Arab State in, and one Jewish State in, that area of land that was constituted by what is now Jordan, and by what is now Israel, and by what is now called “The West Bank”, and by what is now called “The Gaza Strip”.

    In 1920, British officials named that area land the British Mandate of Palestine.

    In 1924, British officials created the Arab state of Transjordan in the British Mandate of Palestine, and explicitly exclude Transjordan from the terms of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, in contravention to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement.

    In 1946, Britain granted independence to Transjordan, and Transjordan was renamed Jordan.

    In 1947 [or in 1948 – I’m not sure which — Daniel Bielak], the then-newly-founded United Nations proposed the creation of one Arab state in, and one Jewish state in, the part of the British Mandate of Palestine that had not become Jordan. The Jewish leaders of the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine – the Jewish community called the Yishuv – accepted that proposal. The Arab League, representing the leaders of the regimes of the Muslim Arab states in the Middle East, refused that proposal.

    In 1948, Israel was officially recognized as a country in the United Nations by a majority vote. Britain abstained from that vote.

    In 1948, one day after Israel was officially recognized as a country in the United Nations by a majority vote, the Arab League explicitly declared that they were going to attack and destroy Israel and commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel. On May 14, 1948, at a press conference in Cairo, (reported in the New York Times, May 16, 1948), Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared “Jihad”, religious war, against Israel, and stated that the Muslim Arab states rejected the partition, into one Arab state and one Jewish state, of the part of the British Mandate of Palestine that had not become Jordan, and intended to set up an Arab “United State of Palestine”. At that press conference, Azzam Pasha stated, about the planned Muslim Arab attack on Israel: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades”.

    In 1948, several days after Israel was officially recognized as a country in the United Nations by a majority vote, the armies of five Arab states, joined by British soldiers, attacked Israel. That attack against Israel by those armies of those five Arab states was coordinated by the founder of the ‘Palestinian movement’ – Amin al-Husseini – as the head of the Arab Higher Committee. [I think that, but I am not completely certain that, five was the number of Arab states whose armies attacked Israel. I think that it may have been seven, because, in a video on YouTube that I watched, I heard Dennis Prager say that the number was seven. — Daniel Bielak.]

    In 1949 [I think that, but I am not certain that, it was in 1949 — Daniel Bielak], Israel defeated those attacking armies of those five Arab states.

    From 1949 to 1967, Jordan occupied (annexed as being part of Jordan) the area of land that came to be called “The West Bank” (Judea and Sameria) (the “west bank” of the Jordan river), and Egypt occupied (annexed as being part of Egypt) the area of land that is now called “The Gaza Strip”.

    [I think that the following is mainly accurate, but I am not sure that the following is perfectly accurate. — Daniel Bielak] In 1967, the armies of several Arab states, including the army of Egypt and the army of Jordan, assembled along the borders of Israel in preparation to intendedly genocidally attack Israel.

    [I think that the following is mainly accurate, but I am not sure that the following is perfectly accurate. — Daniel Bielak] In 1967, immediately after the armies of several Arab states, including the army of Egypt and the army of Jordan, assembled along the borders of Israel in preparation to intendedly genocidally attack Israel, the army of Israel attacked and defeated those armies of those Arab states that were assembled along the borders of Israel, and the army of Israel, in doing so, took what is now called “The West Bank” from Jordan, and took the Sinai peninsula from Egypt, and took what is now called “The Gaza Strip” from Egypt.

    [I think that most of the following is accurate, but I am not sure that the following is perfectly accurate. — Daniel Bielak] Immediately afterward, the regimes of Muslim Arab states, and the government of the United States, and the governments of European countries, demanded that Israel give the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, and Israel acceded to that demand and gave the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, and Israel offered to give “The West Bank” to Jordan in exchange for a permanent peace treaty between Jordan and Israel. Jordan refused that offer made by Israel. In response to that offer made by Israel, the Arab League, representing the Arab states in the Middle East, held a summit in which they issued the Khartoum Resolution – which contained the infamous “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel”.

    In the year 2000, Israel offered a ‘Palestinian’ Arab state, consisting of “The West Bank”, and “The Gaza Strip”, and half of Jerusalem, to the then-head of Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority, Yasser Arafat. Yasser Arafat refused that offer on the grounds that he demanded all of Jerusalem to be the capital of that proposed ‘Palestinian’ Arab state.

    Summary of the Current Situation

    The 1948 Muslim Arab attack on Israel created 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jewish refugees from Muslim states in the Middle East, where the families of those Jewish refugees had lived, for hundreds of years, as second-class, and third-class, citizens. Those Jewish (Mizrahi) refugees, and the descendants of those Jewish (Mizrahi) refugees, constitute about 50 percent of the Jewish population of Israel. The still living members of, and the descendants of, the Jewish refugees from Muslim states in the Middle East refer to themselves as Mizrahi, which means “Eastern” in Hebrew.

    The 1948 Muslim Arab attack on Israel created 600,000 to 700,000 Arab refugees from Israel [I think that this range of numbers is accurate, but I think that this range of numbers may be higher than the actual numbers, or may be slightly lower than the actual numbers, and may, therein, be inaccurate. I think that the number is not higher than 750,000. — Daniel Bielak]. The majority of those Arab refugees [I think the majority of those Arab refugees – or, if not the majority of those Arab refugees, then very many of those Arab refugees — Daniel Bielak] had migrated to the British Mandate of Palestine, seeking work in, and finding work in, the Yishuv – the then-thriving Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine – only a few years before the Muslim Arab attack on Israel of 1948. Those Arab refugees, and the, currently several million, descendants of those Arab refugees, began to be called the ‘Palestinian’ Arab refugees – the ‘Palestinians’ – in the 1960′s, and do not live in Israel, and are not citizens of Israel, and live in what is now called “The West Bank”, which is governed by Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority, and in what is now called “The Gaza Strip”, which is governed by Hamas, and in refugee camps in Muslim Arab states, and have been kept as refugees for over 60 years by Arab leaders and by the leaders of the governments of Western countries.

    Since the end of World War II, there have been tens of millions of refugees in the world, almost all of whom have been relocated to, and absorbed into, the countries to which they fled or were expelled (such as several million ethnically German people who, immediately after World War II, were expelled from the Sudetenland of Poland, and who were, subsequently, relocated to, and absorbed into, Germany).

    Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world. The land area of Israel is approximately 1 percent of the land area of the Middle East. The land area of Israel is approximately the size of New Hampshire.

    The population of Israel is approximately 7.5 million people – 7.5 million citizens of Israel.

    The still living members of, and the descendants of, the Arab people who did not flee from Israel immediately before, nor during, and who were not among the few Arab people who were expelled from Israel during, the 1948 Muslim Arab attack on Israel, live in Israel and are citizens of Israel.

    Approximately 20 percent of the citizenry of Israel are Arab.

    Approximately 80 percent of the Arab citizenry of Israel are Muslim.

    Approximately 20 percent of the Arab citizenry of Israel are, in some cases, Druze, and, in other cases, Christian.

    All citizens of Israel have equal rights by the law in Israel, and have equal protection under the law in Israel. Israel is a free liberal democratic country. The only laws in Israel that stipulate about ethnicity and religion are laws about *automatic* citizenship of Israel. Any person in the world can apply for, and be granted, citizenship of Israel in the same way as is the case for most other democratic countries in the world.

    Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the human rights and civil rights of all people are protected by law.

    Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the human rights and civil rights of Gay people are protected by law. Gay people openly serve in the army of Israel.

    In Muslim states, homosexuality is a capital offense punished by death.

    There are 23 [or 20-something-else, or: “over 20″ — Daniel Bielak] Muslim Arab states in the Middle East.

    There are several European states in the world.

    There are several officially Christian states in the world.

    There are many national states in the world (Tailand, Japan, over 20 Arab states, several European states, etc.).

    There is only one Jewish state in the world – Israel.

    Israel is the country of the Jewish people.

    Anyone who is opposed to the existence of Israel is opposed to the existence of the Jewish people.

    Israel provides more intellectual academic resources, and more advances in life-saving medical technology, and more advances in quality-of-life-enhancing medical technology, and more advances in earth-saving, environment-saving, technology, and more advances in high-tech information technology, to the world than does any other country on the world.

    Anyone who is opposed to the existence of Israel is contributing to harming the well-being of all of the people in the world.

    —-

    The government of the United States of America gives 3 billion dollars of financial aid per year to Israel.

    The government of the United States of America gives a total of over 3 billion dollars of financial aid per year to Muslim Arab states in the Middle East. The government of the United States of America gives 2 billion dollars of financial aid per year to Egypt alone.

    The largest, and controlling, voting bloc in the United Nations, and the controlling body of the United Nations, is the OIC (the Organization of the Islamic Conference), which is a coalition of 57 Muslim governments.

    The Human Rights Council of the United Nations is headed by the representatives of the regimes of totalitarian Muslim states.

    Totalitarian petroleum-producing Muslim Arab states in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, are some of the wealthiest states in the world. The total petroleum revenue income of petroleum-producing Muslim Arab states in the Middle East is several hundred billion dollars per year. Petroleum is the foundational commodity of the economies of all of the Western countries of the world.

    Israel produces no petroleum, and receives no revenue from petroleum trade.

    Summary of the History of the Palestinian Movement

    The ‘Palestinian movement’ was founded by Amin al-Husseini. Amin al-Husseini was a member of the Arab aristocratic Husseini family. From the 1920′s to the 1940′s, Amin al-Husseini was the most prominent, and most influential, political leader of the Muslim Arab world. In 1920, Amin al-Husseini incited, and caused, Arab murderous anti-Jewish riots in the British Mandate of Palestine. In 1921, Amin al-Husseini was appointed to the position of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by British officials. In 1928, in Egypt, Amin al-Husseini joined the Muslim Brotherhood (which was founded, that year, in 1928, in Egypt, by Hassa al-Banna, and which was a Sunni Muslim Islamic-Supremacist political organization which was the founding organization of the modern Islamic Supremacist political movement, and which, currently, is the main political organization of the modern Islamic Supremacist political movement). Amin al-Husseini was an early leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1929, Amin al-Husseini organized a massacre of Jewish people in the Jewish town of Hebron – the Hebron Massacre. In 1935, in the British Mandate of Palestine, Amin al-Husseini al-Husseini founded the Nazi-influenced, Nazi-Germany-allied, Palestinian Arab Party. From 1941 to 1945, Amin al-Husseini resided in Germany, and was an adjoined official of the Nazi regime of Germany, and was a co-architect of the genocide of the Jewish people in Europe by the Nazi regime of Germany. During World War II, Amin al-Husseini established Nazi Muslim S.S. divisions in the Balkans which, with Nazi-allied Catholic-Croatian Nazi divisions, called the Ustazi, which were supported by the Catholic Church, murdered approximately 200,000 Serbian people, and approximately 40,000 Roma people, and approximately 20,000 Jewish people. From 1941 to 1945, Amin al-Husseini broadcasted, from the most powerful shortwave radio station that existed in Germany at that time, Radio Zeesen, authoritative-Islam-based, “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”-Jewish-conspiracy-theory-ideology-based, radio programs, in Arabic, and Turkish, and Farsi (the Persian language), to all of the countries in the Middle East, which were radio programs that became popular in Muslim societies in the Middle East, and which were radio programs to which Rohullah Khomeini, the then-future founder of the Shia branch of the modern Islamic Supremacist political movement, and the-then-future leader of the Islamic Supremacist regime in Iran, was, as a young man in Iran, a dedicated, and regular, listener. In 1948, Amin al-Husseini, as the head of the Arab Higher Committee, coordinated the 1948 Muslim Arab attack on Israel by the armies of five Arab states launched several days after Israel was officially recognized as a country in the then-newly-formed United Nations by a majority vote. Amin al-Husseini was the mentor of, and an uncle of, Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat (Mohammed Yasser Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini).

    In 1954, in Egypt, Yasser Arafat, under the guidance of Amin al-Husseini, founded Fatah. In 1964, in Egypt, the then-President of Soviet-supported Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, with members of the Soviet KGB, founded the PLO (the Palestinian Liberation Organization). During the 1960′s, Yasser Arafat was trained in the Balashikha KGB special-ops school in Russia, and was groomed to become head of the PLO. In 1969, Yasser Arafat, as the head of Fatah, took the position of head of the PLO. In 1988, Hamas was created. Hamas was created as, and is, an official arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    The 1964 PLO Charter, and the revised, currently official, 1968 PLO Charter, which, in August 2010, at the 2010 PLO Conference, Mahmoud Abbas and the members of Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority officially reaffirmed their adherence to, states that the goal of the PLO is the what the PLO Charter calls the “liberation” of what the PLO Charter calls “Palestine” and the destruction of what the PLO Charter calls “the Zionist entity”.

    The Hamas Charter states that the goal of Hamas is the murder of every Jewish person in the world, and the establishment of Islam as the governmental system for the whole world.

    The members of the organizations of the ‘Palestinian movement’ – Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority and Hamas – consciously use deceit as a strategic tactic in their effort to attain their goal of destroying Israel.

    The use of deceit as a strategic tactic in the effort of waging war against non-Islamic societies is officially sanctioned by authoritative Islam, and, in authoritative Islam, is called Taqiya.

    Authoritative Islam officially mandates an effort – called Jihad – to wage war against all non-Islamic societies, and to establish Islam as the governmental system for the whole world, by violent means, and by covert non-violent means, and to, as the main part of that effort, establish Islamic law – called Sharia – as the governmental legal system for the whole world.

    Proposition of A Solution to The Problem of Land Distribution Between Israel and A ‘Palestinian’ Arab State

    The following is a proposed solution to the problem of land distribution between Israel and a ‘Palestinian’ Arab state, which is a solution that, I think, would satisfy the security needs of Israel, and which, I think, would satisfy the geographical needs of Israel, and which would provide a congruous whole area of land for each of the two states.

    O The establishment of the borders of Israel as being the following

    The borders of the area of land in what is now Israel, and in what is now part of what is now called “The West Bank”, that was constituted by the Kingdom of Israel (The Kingdom of Yisrael), and by the Kingdom of Judah (The Kingdom of Yehoudah), approximately 2,800 years ago

    This area of land constitutes a North-Eastern area of the land that is within the current borders of the area of land that is constituted by part of what is now Israel, and by what is now called “The West Bank”, and which is an area of land that constitutes a congruous whole area of land.

    O The establishment of a ‘Palestinian’ Arab, initially temporarily Israeli-managed, territory, and eventually ‘Palestinian’-Arab-governed ‘Palestinian’ Arab state, established as being the following, with the establishment of its borders established as being the following

    The area of land whose borders are the borders of the area of land in what is now Israel, and in what is now called “The Gaza Strip”, that is constituted by all of the area of land within the borders of the area of land that is constituted by what is now Israel, and by what is now called “The Gaza Strip”, that is not constituted by what would be all of the area of land that would constitute Israel with the borders of Israel being established as being the borders that are proposed for Israel in this proposition

    This area of land constitutes a South-Western area of land that is within the current borders of the area of land that is constituted by part of what is now Israel, and by what is now called “The Gaza Strip”, and which is an area of land that constitutes a congruous whole area of land.

    • The following is a link to an image of a map of the area of land that I propose as being a solution to the problem of land distribution between Israel and a ‘Palestinian state’, and which is and an area of that that I so proposed as being, in my previous message, and which is the area of land that, approximately 2,800 years ago, was constituted by the Kingdom of Israel (the Kingom of Yisrael), and by the Kingdom of Judah (the Kingdom of Yehoudah).

      I propose that, or something very similar to that.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdoms_of_Israel_and_Judah_map_830.svg

      • That precise area presented in that map may be a little bit too small, or may be more than a little bit too small for the country of Israel, but I propose something very similar to that, which is of an appropriate beneficial size for the country of Israel.

        • I don’t know whether or not the size of the area of land presented on that map that I propose is a little too small, or more than a little to small, or appropriate and beneficial, for the country of the Jewish people, because I don’t know the size and location of that area of land on that map in relationship to what is the current area of land that is constituted by what is now Israel, and by what is now called ‘The West Bank”, and by What is now called “The Gaza Strip”.

  3. Joanne says:

    Hi Richard,

    In response to your request for reactions, I watched the tape through to the end, stopping it as I went along to write my immediate reactions. Except for a quick proof and light editing, what you see below are my spontaneous reactions to this very biased, manipulative, dishonest bit of reporting:

    1. The anchor starts by referring to the hopes of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians that they will be able to return. But it’s actually 5 million, a number which must lead to different conclusions regarding the would-be consequences for Israel. [Also, there is the point that some of the Palestinians were not really Palestinians. In 1948, UNRWA allowed anyone living in Palestine for at least two years to call himself a Palestinian. So the numbers swelled and not only because of the birth rate.]

    2. The reporter states that, if documents are true, few Palestinians would be going back. First of all, there was little question of their going “back” in the first place. Also, it’s implied that the documents are revealing something new here. But this is an issue on which Israel has been steadfast all along, stating publicly that the “right of return” would be suicidal for its sovereignty as a Jewish state. The reporter implies that a reasonable and unarguable right of return was being betrayed in secret, behind the scenes.

    3. The reporter says that Palestinian negotiators accepted a very limited right of return. But if there was any right granted, it was a concession by the Israelis, albeit a tiny one.

    4. Then the reporter mentioned the 5 million refugees and their descendents, not realizing the contradiction with what the anchor said.

    5. The reporter mentions that the Palestinians were driven or fled from their homes. I don’t think that a large percentage were purposely driven out by the Jews, except for some villages, and most of these for tactical military reasons.

    6. The reporter says that the “right of return” is a sensitive topic, and that the making of concessions from either side is a sensitive point on which the peace talks have been stymied. But the notion of lots of Palestinians (some of dubious origins) having a “right” to go back was an artificial Palestinian construct in the first place. Just getting the world to see things in those terms was a Palestinian propaganda victory of enormous proportions. I don’t know of any population in history having a right of return as a result of a war it had lost, especially as a result of a war of aggression it had launched. So a concession by Israel, albeit a small one, is presented as a tremendous defeat by a Palestinian leadership that wants to destroy Israel , and is using the “right of return” as a ruse to do so.

    7. The anchor then speaks of the anger among Palestinians about their negotiating away their “birthright.” SAY WHAT? Who said it was their birthright? What a loaded term to use so casually!

    8. In his interview with the anchor, the editor from Haaretz, Akiva Eldar, says that the Israeli public has lost hope in the negotiations over the last two years since the Israeli government has been dragging its feet. Indeed, the Israeli public has been losing hope, and many people object to Netanyahu’s do-nothing government. But the Israeli public, including many on the left, have been losing hope for a long time because of what happened after the failure of Oslo and Arafat’s launching of the second intifada, the Hezbollah attack after Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and Hamas’ attacks after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Also, I have heard that Israelis are disillusioned with Obama, but for totally different reasons from those stated here.

    9. There have been reports that, in fact, the Palestinian leaders have not been blamed, as Eldar, maintained, for selling out. Instead, there has been anger in the West Bank at Al Jazeera for targeting Abbas. I was surprised at that reaction, and maybe I’m misinformed, but that’s what I have read. I don’t remember where I originally read that, but here are some sources:
    1. http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/30/all-quiet-in-palestine.html
    2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110128/wl_mideast_afp/israelpalestinianspeacemedialeaksprotest\
    3. This New York Times article shows a difference between Hamas in Gaza and PA supporters in the West Bank in this regard: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/middleeast/28jazeera.html
    4. http://www.france24.com/en/20110128-palestinians-protest-over-al-jazeera-leaks

    10. There was some very manipulative video editing going on here. When Eldar starts speaking about a lack of trade-offs, the viewers are allowed to assume that he was including the “right of return” among them, since that is what the video is about. But did you notice that the Haaretz editor never explicitly mentions the right of return? I don’t think that Haaretz (or any pro-Zionist, even a left-wing one) would support the right of return. A quick Google brought up this about the Haaretz newspaper’s rejection of the right of return: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-right-of-return-myth-1.260133. So this bit is dishonest.

    11. It’s interesting how the anchor mentions that successive Israeli governments claimed to have no partners for peace, and dismisses this as cynical Israeli propaganda. Yet Eldar, when agreeing with the anchor, refers in his answer not to Israeli governments, but to the Israeli far right. So there is a bit of a dialogue des sourds here.

    12. Also, this part of their exchange begs the question of how far back the anchor is going when he refers to “successive Israeli governments.” Surely Barak had every right to feel this way after Arafat unleashed the second intifada. Since then, maybe the Israelis and the Palestinians both had to posture to keep the negotiations secret, especially if, as Eldar says, the negotiations were very serious. Yet the anchor never touches on that.

    13. Eldar then says that the margin of maneuver for the Palestinians from the ’67 border is limited. Of course it is. What kind of borders did he have in mind? Then he goes on to say that “they” want 22% of greater Palestine or greater Israel. I was unclear as to who “they” were.

    14. Then Eldar goes on to say that the leaked documents show that nothing has changed since ten years ago, i.e., the Palestinians get almost all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. But wasn’t that considered an excellent deal? He then says critically that, since that offer, “nothing has changed.” But what further changes did he have in mind?

    15. The anchor then concludes that nothing has changed because the Israelis were never going to give ground on anything. But what further ground could there be except for national suicide? Giving up almost (or perhaps all) the territories plus East Jerusalem was tremendous offer by Barak, which the Palestinians spurned. What were the Israelis supposed to give beyond that?

    16. Of course, the anchor could have brought up the bad faith implied by the settlements. Eldar does bring up the issue, saying that they will make a settlement harder. I think that those settlements are a disgrace, but if Israel is still willing to give up almost all of the West Bank, then isn’t it implied that most of those settlements would be dismantled?

    17. As for the settlements in East Jerusalem, that, I’m afraid, may be a valid point. If Eldar is right, and this will mean that the Arabs will give up part of East Jerusalem, then that’s something the Palestinians have a right to be upset about, frankly. However, I would have to know if these were traditionally Jewish neighborhoods, and if the Arabs would be compensated with other territory in return.

    18. Eldar’s idea that buying time to allow more Jewish settlers into Arab territory will result in a completely binational state, because it will be impossible to draw lines, seems to me to be a valid one. Of course, right-wing Israeli commenters say that, just as there are Arabs living in Israel, there is no reason why Jews could not live in a future Palestine. But I’m not sure those right-wing Israelis are stating that in good faith.

    19. At the end, Eldar states that the original deal under Barak “is still there, it’s not going to change, maybe one percent here, one percent there, a few houses in Jerusalem will move from one side to the other, but that’s it.” But I was encouraged by that, by the fact that Barak’s ground-breaking offer, including East Jerusalem, was still on the table. Isn’t that good news?

    20. Perhaps Eldar meant that the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem established in the past decade will stay in place, with no other land compensated to the Palestinians. In this case, it would not really be Barak’s version after all. But this isn’t made clear in the video.

    21. Then the anchor signs off with “as they say in Israel, when it comes to the peace talks, there’s dead and then there’s dead and buried.” This may or may not be a saying in Israel. If it is, however, the anchor is using something true to imply a big, massive lie. Israelis have recently been frustrated with Netanyahu, but their more lasting frustration over the years has been with the Arabs. That’s true even of Israelis on the left. The anchor is making it seem as if the Israelis are blaming themselves totally for the impasse.

    22. Conclusion: I would love to see what Eldar’s response would be if he could see the completed video from the beginning. I think he may have made some good points here, but he was manipulated because of what the anchor and the reporter said before and after his interview.

    23. As for the anchor and reporter…what a slime job!

    What got under my skin about this video was not just the dubious statements made by the reporter and anchor, but the fact that they are presented as self-evident, as bits of conventional wisdom that need no scrutiny. The problem here is that the anchor and reporter are both working from a complete and hermetically sealed mindset, a world view in which Israel is by definition the heavy. Thus, it’s no great leap of logic for them to think that Israel has alone been responsible for the lack of progress in peace negotiations over the past decade, and that Israel’s refusal of the “right of return” is nothing but a lack of seriousness about peace.

    How do you argue against something like this? In order to convince people that they are wrong, you and your listeners have to share a common frame of reference—broadly the same acknowledged set of facts relating to history and current events. Otherwise, your arguments will make no sense to them. Your audience will never be convinced by your conclusions because they will find your premises to be preposterous.

    So, you can’t argue the merits of this or that statement using facts and sources. You have to dig deeper, to the foundations of your listeners’ thought processes. And that is not so easy to do, especially when the mindset of this anchor and reporter is reinforced by the political culture at large, especially by prestigious academic and media sources.

    What’s even more frustrating is when bits of truth are mixed in with the nonsense. I was at a brunch yesterday with two intelligent friends who feel that Israel is using its settlements in the West Bank to nibble away at Arab holdings and eventually claim the whole territory for themselves. I don’t believe this is true, but I’m not 100% sure about that. I know about the “bargaining chip” theory but, as more settlements go up and more neighborhoods in Jerusalem are claimed, it’s harder to believe in that, and it’s certainly harder to argue it convincingly to others.

    Is Israel using the East Jerusalem settlements to claim traditionally Jewish areas that would be compensated with land to the Arabs elsewhere? I don’t know. But these settlements are God’s propaganda gift to the anti-Zionists. They are hard to rationalize or explain, and they give buffoons like the reporter and anchor in this video more credibility than they deserve.

    That’s it! I hope you found this useful.

    • Cynic says:

      Joanne,

      When it comes to getting facts from Akiva Eldar/Haaretz and the NYT the result is, at the best of times, when bits of truth are mixed in with the nonsense.
      One has to acknowledge that one is dealing the whole psychological gamut of beliefs and emotions and people find it very insecure to suddenly have to overthrow a long held belief.
      A recent display of this behaviour was with the AGW fracas with academics refusing to swallow their pride at the loss of prestige when confronted with concocted data etc.
      The charade has been borne by the media for many years and it is now very difficult to change the narrative that they have been indoctrinated with.
      One of the points that go into making up the situation has been the continued political “incitement” from just after the First World War by Britain which carries on even today in its meddling as with the Palestinian Papers brouhaha a few weeks ago
      The fall-out continues

      In a cutting piece, Benny Morris ridicules the paper not only for its apparent credulousness but for hyping up claims whch display a wilful ignorance of history.
      ………………..
      Meanwhile the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs has its own interesting take on the provenance of this material. Similarly wondering just who would have an interest in discrediting the Palestinian Authority so badly, JINSA points the finger at the British government:

      The leaked material came from a unit called the, “Palestinian negotiation support unit (NSU), which has been the main technical and legal backup for the Palestinian side in the negotiations. The British government has heavily funded the unit.
      ……………..
      ..There was a heavy British hand in this – Empire dies hard – between the financial and staff support of the NSU and the leak to a British paper. The British Foreign Office has always been implacably hostile to Israel and may have been determined finally to finish establishing the Palestinian Arab state that didn’t emerge at the end of the mess they made of the Mandate for Palestine. The effort was a failure and the price is being paid largely by the Palestinians – nothing new for the British in the Middle East, but you’d think they’d give it up already.

      During the Cold War the Russians flooded the world with disinformation and a lot stuck. One would not expect the NYT to come out and clarify issues after they had kept wraps on the appalling situation of Jews in Europe during the 40s.
      What, sudden honour and integrity syndrome (SHIS)?

  4. Alcuin says:

    Richard,

    Thank you for bringing an all too rare rational dispassionate view to the Political maelstrom of Palestine – I have followed you for many years. A few thoughts.

    I have watched the tape and I have seen many such interviews here in the UK. We have the BBC, a virtual monopoly in broadcast news, 90% populated with Left-Liberals. Such people hate: America, Irish Protestants, Likud, Serbs, Afrikaaners and Margaret Thatcher. We get a daily dish of soft interviews with their friends and hard interviews with their enemies; panels and audiences stuffed with Lefties; stories that are ignored merely because they do not fit the narrative, and the use of the outrageously specious term “the far Right” to describe devout Christians, racists and patriots. I try to avoid the BBC’s News and Current Affairs output, but you can sample it on their website, if you wish.

    Reporters in Palestine must toe the Fatah/Hamas line, lest they be thrown out, like the Italians, and there is one thing News channels hate even more than having their reporters murdered, it is the loss of access. However, the genuine hospitality of the people seems to completely hoodwink them into believing that such people are incapable of such acts as the Ramallah lynching – unless they have seen such with their own eyes. Even then, they are susceptible to doublethink.

    If we are ever to get answers to why such people are so deluded, it is in the flaws of human nature. An aspect of human psychology that has only recently come to light is that MRI scans show a decision being made a full 7 seconds before the individual is consciously aware of deciding. This suggests that many of our decisions are not the result of rational considerations, but formed by our emotional ties. These may be loyalty to our family, country or ideology. The only thing rational about much of our decision making is the attempt, sometimes risible, to justify the decision after the fact. In choosing our allegiances, we never seem to be able mentally to leave the playground, exhibiting adolescent behaviour as adults so disturbingly illustrated in the Lord of the Flies.

    Ideology is a property of religions and of some political theories – nearly always of the Left. Unlike scientific theories, which, in order to warrant the term “theory”, must be falsifiable, political theories seem to stand after having been shown to be flawed time and again. Capitalism and Freedom, the default position of the Right, are not really ideologies, if anything, they represent the absence of ideology. But that does not mean that they are sacrosanct, indeed they are under constant attack from people who take their gifts for granted, think the world needs remodelling, and that humans and human society are capable of perfection. The changes they want – often for the best of motives – nearly always require coercion and bureaucracy and, when these are seen not to be working according to the theory, to the elimination of the people who are believed to be hindering the Project. The abyss is never far away.

    Ideologues seem quite devoid of self doubt. They have the answers. The answers might not be suited to the questions of the day, but such people have been passing the Law of Unintended Consequences ever since Rousseau – or probably a great deal longer – Sulla comes to mind. Yet those with wisdom and doubts do not have the evidence or arguments to take such people on. As Bertrand Russell said: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Mark Twain also had an apt response, all the more appropriate in these times when news flashes around the world so much more quickly: “A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on.”

    If there was anyone who really understood the moral inversions of ideologues, it is George Orwell – 1984 is replete with semantic inversions designed to undermine the moral judgement of ordinary decent people. I strongly recommend that people read his essays. In particular, he realised that intellect is not an unmitigated good. In fact it is merely a form of gain, as in an amplifier, and is no substitute for experience, judgement and wisdom. It enables the most deranged ideas to be framed in the most seductive and elusive prose. As he said: “There are some notions that only the media and intellectuals are stupid enough to believe.”

    Orwell understood that literary people and orators are not any better than others, they were just more erudite. They know the tricks of rhetoric and logical fallacies and employ them to great effect in gaining status and power. It does not gift them with wisdom or good political judgement, merely the ability to construct political smoke and mirrors, as Socrates realised 2400 years ago. Who was the better statesman – Bush or Obama? Lefties will, or course, spit blood at the mention of Bush. Comedians pilloried his misunderconfusions. But he understood that he had a difficult but straight choice – make sure that Iraq could not threaten the USA, or do nothing and hope that it wouldn’t. Choose the latter and suffer an attack that could be traced to Iraq, and the people would crucify you – rightly. Choose the former and merely earn the opprobrium of the Left and the bien pensants. What would Obama have done?

    Much of Left wing “thinking” in the 20th century has been about how to muddy the waters, how to throw sand in the faces of their opponents rather than argue their case. They called this “critical theory”, and it was all about destructive criticism of … pretty much everything about Western Society. Post-Modernism is another specious piece of political theory designed to confuse the very idea of Truth. You have to wonder exactly what people who intend such confusion can possibly want. The only answer I can come up with is power. They want to play with real societies as though they were Sim City or a model train set. Against such people, we need to construct democratic institutions that make change difficult and tedious, and back them up with committed and loyal armed forces.

  5. Helen says:

    Jolly good could John Vause be writing these replies?

  6. Lilly73 says:

    Could Mr Vause be writing these replies in self defence?

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>