BS: Middle East Continued

Subject: BS: Response to CarolC
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:49 PM

This thread is in response to CarolC's post here

I would like to point out that what she references above is NOT a link to Flapan, but a link to "desip," a vanity website run by one person, Ronald Bleier. Bleier, according to his bio, is a "writer and researcher," but has published only 30 items in the last ten years, most of which are letters to the editor, book reviews on little websites, and occasional articles in tiny anti-Israel newsletters. In other words, he is neither a scholar of the Middle East nor a professional journalist. How he makes a living by running desip I don't know, since it does not disclose any source of funding.

Bleier DOES quote and paraphrase Flapan occasionally, to wit:

Flapan argues that it was not the Arab invasion which brought on war, but rather the decision by the Jewish leadership to declare statehood on May 14. Flapan contends that documents show that the "Arabs had agreed to a last minute American proposal for a three-month truce on the condition that Israel temporarily postpone its Declaration of Independence. Israel's provisional government rejected the American proposal by a slim majority of 6 to 4."

Now this is pretty weak stuff.   The war began not with the Arab invasion, but with Israel declaring that it existed. The existence of Israel was so intolerable that three Arab countries invaded, but it was Israel that was at fault, for existing.

As I said in the previous thread, it's always possible to blame Israel if you choose to declare that one of Israel's actions was the one that started the war. This is but a particularly absurd example of that tactic.

The ethnic cleansing section was entirely invented by Bleier; Flapan's book was written in 1987, before that term was known or the Bosnian conflict was underway. So when Bleier asserts or alleges that Israelis practiced rape to subdue Arabs, who knows where the information comes from? It's just so much blather.

Getting back to citations from Flapan, the numbers in the next section are pretty obviously cooked. He takes the highest estimates of Israeli numbers and the lowest estimates of Arab numbers and states them as though they are generally accepted. Bleier says that Flapan "cites figures" but does not say where the figures came from, which is a bad sign.

Can these figures be real? I suppose it's possible, but extremely unlikely. After all, one has to wonder: why would a country as large as Egypt, which has the most populous city on the African continent, choose to invade Israel with so few troops? If this was truly a war for Arab survival, as they alleged, why not draft some more soldiers? They could, obviously, have invaded with far more than 10,000 troops, and if they did not it was a massive tactical error. So I don't believe those figures can be real.

What are we left with? Some unconvincing arguments from a historian (Flapan) surrounded by rhetoric from a professional anti-Israel Internet polemicist. Not the most convincing evidence, I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Response to CarolC
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:56 PM

Yes. I realized after I posted that I should have probably phrased the bit about it being "from" Flapan badly.

Having said that, I feel disinclined to participate in this thread as long as my name is in the title.

Subject: RE: BS: Response to CarolC
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:57 PM

Correction: "that I did phrase that part badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Response to CarolC
From: Nerd
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 05:59 PM

Oops, sorry, CarolC. I was not thinking when I created the title. I shouldn't have called it that. I don't start too many threads, so obvious points of etiquette like that sometimes escape me.

Subject: RE: BS: Response to CarolC
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 04 - 06:02 PM

Maybe you can get Joe or one of the clones to change the title. Until then, you're on your own in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 08:50 AM

I still have not been able to find the exact questions of the survey that has been mentioned in the other thread. But from what I have read now I know that the one result cited so often, 59 % of all EU citizens believe that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace, more than any other country in the world, is very misleading. I believe the EU did well to retract the study for many reasons.

(1) Only fifteen countries were listed to chose from, no free responses were possible.
(2) Palestine was not listed by the way and wasn't a possible response(the authors of the study said that it was not listed for it is not a recognised country but that argument is nonsense for they also had listed the EU which also is not a country)
(3) They had listed several Arab countries more or less near to Israel (from Syria via Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to mention just a few), so someone thinking that the largest danger for world peace comes from the Arab/Muslim world had to chose between at least 7 different countries, splitting the votes.

That survey that nearly had derailed the other thread should not get any more coverage except as a bad example.

Just as a little exercise in Goebbels style twisted propaganda: If you combine the percentages from the predominant Muslim countries, from Iran (53 %), Irak (52%), ...down to Sausi-Arabia (36%) then even when you overlook that most Arab/Muslim countries and in particular Palestine were not listed you'll get a combined percentage of over 95%. Therefore,

close to 100% of the Europeans in a survey said they saw Muslim countries as the biggest threat to world peace.

That would make a good headline too. It is technically correct but so twisted and due to tricky data processing remote from what was actually asked that it is a demonstration how you can effectively lie with a technical truth.

(BTW, Carol, being without you does not necessarily mean one is on one's own)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 11:27 AM

(BTW, Carol, being without you does not necessarily mean one is on one's own)

I realize that, Wolfgang. Although I don't really see what your post has to do with the subject of this particular thread, if Nerd's opening post to this thread is any indication of what this thread is about.

Ok, Nerd. I'll get to work on it a bit later today.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: greg stephens
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 11:36 AM

"BTW, Carol, being without you does not necessarily mean one is on one's own"

OOOOh Wolfgang, you definitely get my vote for the bitchiest remark on Mudcat this year. And not a swearword in sight!

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 11:54 AM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:21 PM

I don't really see what your post has to do with the subject of this particular thread (Carol)

Carol,

I was just trying to oblige: I agree with Nerd that this thread should not become a thread about Israel (Carol). So I answer to Israel related points made in that thread here. Is that wrong? And me trying all I can to please you.

Greg,

for swearing he knew was a sin, a sin,...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 12:31 PM

Is that wrong? And me trying all I can to please you.

Is that what you were doing? LOL!

And here I am just trying to oblige Nerd. But really, your post is not about Israel. It's about Europe.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 07:21 PM

My post is in response to the second post in that thread linked above. Maybe you do not read the posts when you see the name of that poster. I can't blame you for that. That's good for the nerves and the blood pressure. I envy you if you can do that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 09:57 PM

Indeed, Wolfgang.

Here's a start on your points and questions, Nerd. I'll get to them as I have time.

Now this is pretty weak stuff.   The war began not with the Arab invasion, but with Israel declaring that it existed. The existence of Israel was so intolerable that three Arab countries invaded, but it was Israel that was at fault, for existing.

It wasn't the existance of Israel that was intolerable. It was the fact that those Palestinian Arabs who had been made refugees would not be repatriated that caused the issue to be so in need of a cooling off period. And the Arabs did agree to the three month ceasefire. Isreal did not.

When you say "invaded", you are using innacurate terminology. Because three Arab armies did not invade any land that had been given to the Jewish State in the UN partition plan. They fought almost exclusively in areas that had been allocated to the Palestinian Arabs in the UN partition plan, to prevent them from being taken by the Israeli forces. Unfortunately for the Palestinian Arabs, Jordan had formed an alliance with Israel to divide up, between Jordan and Israel, the land that was supposed to go to the Palestinian Arabs (those whose families had been living and making their livihood for centuries in what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza), thus distroying any hopes the non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs had of getting the independent state that had been promised to them by Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: GUEST,Josephus XXVII
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 10:28 PM

Unfortunately for the Palestinian Arabs, Jordan had formed an alliance with Israel to divide up, between Jordan and Israel, the land that was supposed to go to the Palestinian Arabs (those whose families had been living and making their livihood for centuries in what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza), thus distroying any hopes the non-Jewish Palestinian Arabs had of getting the independent state that had been promised to them by Britain.

So Israel was in an alliance with Jordan to stop the Palestinians from getting their independent state back in '48.

Do you write this fiction yourself?

Israel was on one side in that conflict. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. were her enemies.

The Arab collectivity refused to have a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel. The goal was to "drive the Jews into the sea" and eliminate Israel altogether.

After the '48 war, Gaza became part of Egypt and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, became part of Jordan.

If the Arabs, including the Palestinians, had any desire to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, they could have done so easily at any time from 1948 to 1967. They chose not to.

When Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979, Israel gave back the Sinai and dismantled every one of its settlements there. However, Egypt did not want Gaza back. Egypt washed its hands of the Palestinians rather than take back Gaza and pave the way for a Palestinian state.

When Jordan and Israel made peace in 1994, Jordan did not want the West Bank back. They too washed their hands of the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Middle East Continued
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 04 - 10:47 PM

No. I didn't write that myself. It's based on declassified Israeli documents from people such as Golda Meir and many of the other key players of that time. Golda Meir was the one who brokered the deal with Jordan, and there are letters from her to other key players on the Israeli side in which she writes about her successes in this regard.

Israel was not beset upon by Arabs in that war. Israel was doing everything it could to gain as much land as possible beyond the boundaries of what had been allotted to it by the UN partition plan. Most of the major players in Israel at that time have admited this fact. And Jordan was assisting them in doing this. Jordan kept it's fighters scrupulously within the area that was allotted to the Palestinian Arabs by the UN partition plan. And Jordan got the West Bank as its share of the booty. That's why Israel occupies a much larger area than what was allotted to it in the UN partition plan today, even if we are only talking about what lies within the Green Line. I'll post some documentation tomorrow or the next day.