Another Round Begins in The Middle East

[Sirotnikov]

Anyway, to wash the nasty taste of Oerdin's post out of your mouth, watch this "real-life" video of Palestinian victims from CNN. The CPR looks totally real!

Lest anyone is mistaken, this is NOT a CNN production.

It is a production by "World News and Features" (http://www.worldnf.tv/) - A self proclaimed journalist that has done several videos covering Hamas operations including participating in the shooting of rockets from Gaza (from his website).

There's criticism on two major points
- the lack of realism of the CPR procedure medical setting
- the rooftop claimed to be hurt by a "small Israeli missile" is intact, with hardly a sign of actual attack besides 3 broken bricks that are laying on the roof...

[Dinner]

Looks like yet another fake Paliwood video.

[TCO]

Push them in the sea. The Europeans will do nothing. They are neutered non-people.

[Sirotnikov]

Still, Siro's "leaving b/c you're (justifiably) worried the Jews might show up and massacre you = free will" argument is ludicrous.

-Arrian

Let's get this argument clear. I've never argued against the notion that war refugees are either poor, innocent or misfortuned. I never argued that their life was superb and they had plenty of wonderful options to choose from.


But we have to come to some sort of agreement about the terms used and their meanings.

Would you say that Jews who left Israel during the 2000-2004 intifada did not leave out of their own choice, but were driven out by Palestinian terrorists? In March 2002, there were 120 Israelis killed. This is a similar amount to the casualties of an average month in the 1947 civil war.

Would you say that Palestinians who left the west bank and Gaza during the same period did not leave of their own choice?


The popular argument sadly is that Israel forcefully drove hundreds of thousands people away via force.

I'm not denying that during the actual 48 war there were plenty of cases where Israeli forces actually evacuate arab villages. I am denying that it is the only significant reason worth mentioning, as to why refugees were created.


You can not equate a scenario where people run away from a war zone, be it dangerous as it may be, with a forceful evacuation initiated and enforced by Israeli forces, as Drake (intentionally or inadvertently) does in his original comment.


I have demonstrated that large portions of the population left prior to the beginning of major war operations by Israel, and prior to significant events of mass killing (such as Deir Yassin which drake used as an example) that could justify mass hysteria.

People who left in the Dec 47 to April 48 period left because Palestine was dangerous for them. But this situation was identical for the Jews who lived in Palestine, yet no one claims they were evicted.

You can not take a two sided conflict that existed in the 'civil war' period, where both populations were put to constant and similar risk, when a group of people decided to leave, and describe that event, as if it was a one sided, intentional (or even planned) Israeli action aimed at driving the population away.

The first scenario describes refugees from a conflict area, which is what really happened. the second one describes a population evicted which does not fit reality for some 150K+ who left prior to Israeli war operations in late spring 1948.

[TCO]

So let them come back?

[Naked Gents Rut]

You can not equate a scenario where people run away from a war zone, be it dangerous as it may be, with a forceful evacuation initiated and enforced by Israeli forces, as Drake (intentionally or inadvertently) does in his original comment.

Given that I've been distinguishing between actual eviction and fear (of eviction, attack or massacre) from my very first post, I have to say that you've officially gone full ****** in this thread.

describe that event, as if it was a one sided, intentional (or even planned) Israeli action aimed at driving the population away.

Never did that, either.

[Sirotnikov]

Actually it turns out that the "Arab High Committee" was a self-proclaimed organization formed with the express goal of opposing the formation of a Jewish state out of Palestinian lands. Asking them to bless the partition would have been sort of like asking Martin Luther King to give his approval of "seperate but equal".

Which is completely immaterial to the fact that there was infact a local palestinian body that faithfully (and firmly) represented the ineterests of local arabs, and that this body was formally and factually consulted and asked for opinion, by the british, us, and UN committees. Which makes your original claim doubting that wrong.

Yes, and I'm sure ypur sources will include scant referrrence to activities against the Palestinians.

Which is again a red herring.

If you've got evidence of violent activities taken by Jews against palestinian residents that coincides, or predates the 1920, 1921, 1929 massacares of Jewish population, bring them forth.

Otherwise, stop trying to murking up history by comparing events which happened in different decades.

I've already read that. My quotes did not come from that document.

FALSE.

Your quote

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah,

[...]
"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

The quote, attributed to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, is actually a quotation of the text of Plan D brought in that book.

This again proves the problem of your reliance on third-hand sources, to the point where the actual origin of the text is unclear, the original context is omitted and often intentionally misquoted / misattributed .

Karsh has his critics too.

Yes, and neither one of them had the guts to try and disprove his points, word by word, as he did.

You need to examine the nature of his arguments (comparing word by word in misquotes to the original historical documents) to the non-specific nature of arguments by his critics, who rely mostly on ad-hominem attacks, and lack examples that support their accusations.

I invite you to honestly read the links I provided and come to your own conclusions.

I was waiting with a response ready:

http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/faculty/bios/Pubs/survivalletter.pdf

and also this text:

http://www.meforum.org/article/207

[...]
Even when criticism of Fabricating has ostensibly moved from the personal to the professional sphere, it has never genuinely attempted to grapple with the book's central thesis, let alone refute its factual assertions. Instead, the critics have misrepresented its substance altogether. Consider, for example, the assertion by Joel Beinin of Stanford University (now president of MESA), that "by returning the debate to the arena of intellectual history, Karsh … avoids engaging [Benny] Morris's archival discoveries."

In fact, my book has nothing to do with intellectual history, its exclusive concern being to engage the new historians' archival discoveries. Indeed, after both The Economist and The Times Literary Supplement cited a number of Morris's factual falsifications exposed by my book, he begrudgingly conceded the validity of my claims, while simultaneously seeking to disguise their real nature.

"Karsh has a point," Morris wrote to The Times Literary Supplement. "My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial." He also acknowledged my refutation of his misinterpretation of an important speech made by David Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947: "[Karsh] is probably right in rejecting the ‘transfer interpretation' I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in that speech."

He also admitted elsewhere that "Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I ‘stretched' the evidence to make my point." But then, the issue is not the misinterpretation of a specific sentence in Ben-Gurion's speech, or even the stretching of evidence. It is the deliberate and complex attempt to misrepresent the contents of the speech so as to portray a false picture of the moral and political worldview of Israel's founding father.

Shlaim resorts to cruder means to discredit my rebuttal of his conspiracy theory of an Anglo-Transjordanian-Zionist collusion to disinherit the Palestinians. Rather than engage my archival discoveries, he dismissed my criticism as based on a single "unimportant and insignificant document," written by "a middle-level career civil servant" and deemed "not suitable for circulation outside the Foreign Office."

This is an incredible charge indeed, given that two full chapters in Fabricating, containing hundreds of documents from official British archives, are dedicated to the rebuttal of the conspiracy charge.

[...]

[Sirotnikov]

So let them come back?

sadly, no.

with the hostility level today, and the complete political and social differences between them and Israelis, this would amount to destroying Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

Given that I've been distinguishing between actual eviction and fear (of eviction, attack or massacre) from my very first post, I have to say that you've officially gone full ****** in this thread.

Perhaps I don't understand what you meant, and I read into it.
Let's recap.

Here's what I said:

The arabs who left during 1947 (As most did) did so on their own initiative.

I subsequently retracted my statement "(As most did)" based on evidence, and cleared up that I meant the time until the start of military operations in spring 1948.

Here's what you said in response:

The residents of a great number of Arab villages were either forced out by the Haganah or fled in fear of eviction or massacre like that suffered by the Arab residents of Deir Yassin at the hands of the Irgun. Some Arabs did leave on the own initiative, but they were decidedly in the minority.

How does almost 175,000 people, most of whom left prior to Deir Yassin, all of whom left prior to the Haganah evictions, amount to "a decided minority" out of a refugee count of 400-500K? Even 600?

What purpose has the mentioning of Haganah forcing out people or fear of Deir Yassin like massacares, in response to my statement about those who fled before any of the specifics you mentioned occured?

In my view, that statement ties Haganah actions and Deir Yassin to a great number of people who fled unaffected by either. The fleeing of whom I consider voluntary, even if out of a feeling of fear.

describe that event, as if it was a one sided, intentional (or even planned) Israeli action aimed at driving the population away.

Never did that, either.

How does "forced out by the Haganah or fled in fear of eviction" not imply intentional Israeli action aimed at driving population away?

How does "Some Arabs did leave on the own initiative, but they were decidedly in the minority." not imply Israeli initiative at their driving away?

this quote

The vast majority of Arabs fled after the civil war broke out at the end of November, 1947, mainly as a result of Jewish action or the fear of them.

specifically addresses those who ran away as a result of an ongiong civil war which had two sides who had similar casulaties numbers, while labeling it "Jewish action".

If by chance you also meant to include the Israeli-initiated actions post April 1948, then your quote is problematic because it would incorrectly lump together those who fled a civil war, with those who were forcefully evicted by Israeli troops.

[Sirotnikov]

And for change, here's an on topic issue:

Israel says it seizes night-camera bound for Gaza
Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:59am EST

KEREM SHALOM, Israel, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Israel said on Monday it was investigating how a night-vision security camera and other electronics ended up on humanitarian aid trucks bound for the war-torn Gaza Strip.

The equipment was seized at the Kerem Shalom border crossing before entering the coastal enclave along with truckloads of food, medicine and other humanitarian goods, said defence official Peter Lerner.

Photographs taken by Reuters showed the boxes contained at least one infra-red camera, a remote control unit for security cameras and a swivel-mount for such a camera, along with other devices and software.

"Of course we can't let night-vision items get into the hands of Hamas," Lerner said. "This was not on the list and was not approved. We're investigating it."

He said it was not yet clear who was trying to bring the equipment into the Gaza Strip, where Israeli forces and Hamas militants fought for a 17th straight day.

[snoopy369]

Maybe they wanted to make sure their humanitarian aid wasn't stolen?

[Naked Gents Rut]

How does "forced out by the Haganah or fled in fear of eviction" not imply intentional Israeli action aimed at driving population away?

Evictions, attacks and massacres don't have to stem from an intentional plan of action. Duh. The Jews were attacking Arabs and clearing out Arab villages in an ad-hoc fashion for months before they started evicting Arabs in a methodical fashion.

In my view, that statement ties Haganah actions and Deir Yassin to a great number of people who fled unaffected by either.

This doesn't make any sense unless you choose to be deliberately obtuse, overlooking all the Haganah actions before April 1948 and all the massacres and terrorist attacks like Deir Yassin that happened before that most infamous event.

[Dr Strangelove]

Which is completely immaterial to the fact that there was infact a local palestinian body that faithfully (and firmly) represented the ineterests of local arabs, and that this body was formally and factually consulted and asked for opinion, by the british, us, and UN committees. Which makes your original claim doubting that wrong.

Again, the Arab High Commission was never a representative body, but instead an early Palestinian resistance group. How foolish was it to ask them to give approval to the very events they feared, the deliberate carving up of Palestine in order to create a state in which they would be guarenteed minority status?

Which is again a red herring.

If you've got evidence of violent activities taken by Jews against palestinian residents that coincides, or predates the 1920, 1921, 1929 massacares of Jewish population, bring them forth.

Otherwise, stop trying to murking up history by comparing events which happened in different decades.



FALSE.

Your quote

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah,

[...]
"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

The quote, attributed to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, is actually a quotation of the text of Plan D brought in that book.

This again proves the problem of your reliance on third-hand sources, to the point where the actual origin of the text is unclear, the original context is omitted and often intentionally misquoted / misattributed .


Yes, and neither one of them had the guts to try and disprove his points, word by word, as he did.

You need to examine the nature of his arguments (comparing word by word in misquotes to the original historical documents) to the non-specific nature of arguments by his critics, who rely mostly on ad-hominem attacks, and lack examples that support their accusations.

I invite you to honestly read the links I provided and come to your own conclusions.

I was waiting with a response ready:

http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/faculty/bios/Pubs/survivalletter.pdf

and also this text:

http://www.meforum.org/article/207

[...]
Even when criticism of Fabricating has ostensibly moved from the personal to the professional sphere, it has never genuinely attempted to grapple with the book's central thesis, let alone refute its factual assertions. Instead, the critics have misrepresented its substance altogether. Consider, for example, the assertion by Joel Beinin of Stanford University (now president of MESA), that "by returning the debate to the arena of intellectual history, Karsh … avoids engaging [Benny] Morris's archival discoveries."

In fact, my book has nothing to do with intellectual history, its exclusive concern being to engage the new historians' archival discoveries. Indeed, after both The Economist and The Times Literary Supplement cited a number of Morris's factual falsifications exposed by my book, he begrudgingly conceded the validity of my claims, while simultaneously seeking to disguise their real nature.

"Karsh has a point," Morris wrote to The Times Literary Supplement. "My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial." He also acknowledged my refutation of his misinterpretation of an important speech made by David Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947: "[Karsh] is probably right in rejecting the ‘transfer interpretation' I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in that speech."

He also admitted elsewhere that "Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I ‘stretched' the evidence to make my point." But then, the issue is not the misinterpretation of a specific sentence in Ben-Gurion's speech, or even the stretching of evidence. It is the deliberate and complex attempt to misrepresent the contents of the speech so as to portray a false picture of the moral and political worldview of Israel's founding father.

Shlaim resorts to cruder means to discredit my rebuttal of his conspiracy theory of an Anglo-Transjordanian-Zionist collusion to disinherit the Palestinians. Rather than engage my archival discoveries, he dismissed my criticism as based on a single "unimportant and insignificant document," written by "a middle-level career civil servant" and deemed "not suitable for circulation outside the Foreign Office."

This is an incredible charge indeed, given that two full chapters in Fabricating, containing hundreds of documents from official British archives, are dedicated to the rebuttal of the conspiracy charge.

[...]

Interesting, you accuse Morris and Shlaim of not providing explicit rebuttal, then provide examples of explicit discussion, but so carved up as to make it impossilbe for the me to discern Morris' and Shlaim's original meaning.

Anyway, the important thing is the result of this current campaigns, like the last one in Lebanon, and the last previous few. You (Israel) are losing us. Israel is losing previous supporters in the US and Europe. If that's what Israel wants, then so be it. The question is, will Israel run out of supporters before the Palestinians do, and if the power on their side begins to rise will Israel have the will to use those last final weapons? If Israel does use them, what will Israel be?

[Dr Strangelove]

Lest anyone is mistaken, this is NOT a CNN production.

It is a production by "World News and Features" (http://www.worldnf.tv/) - A self proclaimed journalist that has done several videos covering Hamas operations including participating in the shooting of rockets from Gaza (from his website).

There's criticism on two major points
- the lack of realism of the CPR procedure medical setting

Yes, they faked this because they have such a dearth of child corpses in Gaza.

Maybe they've run out of ambu bags and IVs? Maybe there's actually no sense to do real CPR on someone who has exsanguinated, especially when the hospital has no IV fluids, blood, or an ICU? Of course, the AMA would say that doing a "slow code" on someone to satisfy the family when the medical staff knows that attempts to resuscitate the victim is futile is bad medicine and perhaps unethical, but something tells me those guys are outside of the AMA's jurisdiction.

- the rooftop claimed to be hurt by a "small Israeli missile" is intact, with hardly a sign of actual attack besides 3 broken bricks that are laying on the roof...

Or maybe the filmakers aren't soldiers and haven't the slightest idea what kind of ordinance was used?

[Naked Gents Rut]

The video is totally fake. The CPR is laughable.