ISRAEL: In Israel, they're masters of lies and deception...

Blogger's introduction

In Israel live many weasels of all colors. They're cunning, deceptive; nothing but sacks full of lies and tricks. They invent their own version of history, which they expect you, or coarse you to believe as they themselves have not already believed, but are also living it. And then they base on it all their categorical logic and come up with the conclusion they desire.

Relying on people's ignorance of history and with the help of their falsification dazzling wraps, their mercury-like lies slips easily into one's mind and becomes facts.

But if one has good perceptive mind that cannot be easily dazzled, one can find holes; a mesh in the Jewish twisted logic. Since logic is only a tool; a matrix by means of which one measure categorically. Such a measure whether it is filled with falsehood or truthfulness, its internal mechanism yields a conclusion which is nor necessarily correct. Garbage in, garbage out, that is how it works. Start with a wrong premise, and your conclusion will be wrong. Nonetheless logic's mechanism cannot be blamed. It is just a tool, after all.

Below is an article in which the writer mentioned numerous lies which are in his twisted mind solid truths, but in light of what I mentioned above nothing but distortion of true history...

Was Mahmoud Abbas's Family Expelled From Palestine?

May 17 2011, 9:55 AM ET

In an op-ed in the Times today (about which more later, if I can get to it), the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas writes the following about himself: "Sixty-three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights."

This statement creates a couple of impressions. One subtle impression is that a certain group of people can't seem to help but oppress little boys from the Galilee. The second, clearer impression that it was the Zionist army that "forced" Abbas's family to leave Safed. This does not seem to be true. On other occasions, Abbas has stated that his family left Safed out of a general fear that Jews would seek "retribution" against the Arabs of Safed for an earlier slaughter of Jews by Arabs. Here is his 2007 recounting of his family's self-exile from Safed: When Abbas was 13, "we left on foot at night to the Jordan River... Eventually we settled in Damascus... My father had money, and he spent his money methodically. After a year, when the money ran out, we began to work. "People were motivated to run away... They feared retribution from Zionist terrorist organizations - particularly from the Safed ones. Those of us from Safed especially feared that the Jews harbored old desires to avenge what happened during the 1929 uprising [Muslim pogroms instigated by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, known later for his Nazi sympathies]. This was in the memory of our families and parents... They realized the balance of forces was shifting and therefore the whole town was abandoned on the basis of this rationale - saving our lives and our belongings."

There is no particular reason to hope for a successful peace process when the leader of the Palestinians is selling a false history of Israel's independence. Abbas writes of the United Nations vote to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab: "In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued."

Reaching a successful settlement of this dispute will require both sides, Arab and Israeli, to grapple with their mistakes. Mahmoud Abbas cannot bring himself to note that the Jews accepted the partition plan, while the Arabs rejected it, and went to war to extinguish the new Jewish state in the cradle, and then lost their offensive war. During this war, many Arabs were expelled from Palestine by Israeli forces; many others fled. This is not a unique historical event; most wars cause massive population dislocations. It is worth noting that some Jews, a smaller number, were also expelled from their towns and farms by Arab forces. Larger numbers of Jews -- 800,000 -- were subsequently expelled from Arab countries, where they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds, even thousands, of years. These Jews are not considered refugees today because they were taken in by Israel and given citizenship. The Arab refugees from Palestine were not treated nearly so well by their brethren.

Reciting this history is depressing, of course, because it means the two sides are still battling it out over what happened in 1948. A more constructive discussion would center on the aftermath of the 1967 war. Mahmoud Abbas won't be returning to Safed. But he could be president of an independent state of Palestine on the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in Jerusalem. If only he -- and, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu -- could find a way to avoid rehearsing old grievances and instead work toward a future in which both parties don't get all that they want, but get enough to live.

Blogger's comment

Convensing, eh! But to the keen mental eye, it a crockpot full stinkness. Read the article and click on the link shown below, to find the truth; a response to the article shown above.Both respondants are Jewish. Hence it is a word coming out of the horse's mouth...

Conflict centres on the myths of 1948

Back to 1948

May 17 2011

Jeremiah Haber

Most Jews of my generation (and younger) were raised with certain myths about the founding of the State of Israel that we now know bear no resemblance to the historical events. Even reciting these myths are embarrassing for the moderately informed. And we now also know that, even granting counterfactually that some of the myths were true, it wouldn’t help the Israel apologist, since the conclusions drawn from the myths are patently invalid.

For example, no educated person seriously accepts the proposition today that the Palestinian refugee problem was created when Arab states declared war on the State of Israel in 1948. That is because it is common and uncontroversial knowledge that half of the Palestinians left in months before the war was declared, when both sides were engaged in riots and skirmishes against each other. No historian, not even Ephraim Karsh, to my knowledge, denies that. But still you will read folks like, say, the Prime Minister of Israel, or, Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who repeat this narrishkeit about the Arab invasion of Israel being the cause of the refugee problem. I am not talking about who is responsible for the exodus. I am simply talking about the fact of the exodus.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote today a particularly scurrilous piece in response to Acting President Mahmoud Abbas’s op-ed in the New York Times. Abbas had written Sixty-three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria.

Goldberg called that a “falsification” because one could understand Abbas to be claiming that he was forced to leave by Israeli soldiers pointing a gun at him, or that Israeli soldiers had it in for 13-year old Palestinian boys. But Mahmoud Abbas himself had said that his family left with many others because they feared reprisals from the Zionists. Goldberg calls this “self-exile”, rather than being forced to leave home. To drive the point home, his piece asks the question, “Was Mahmoud Abbas’ Family Expelled from Palestine?” (Since Abbas never claimed that it was, that is the quintessential straw man.)

So my question for Goldberg is simple: When Jews emigrated from Germany after Kristallnacht, was that “self-exile”? When Jews fled Poland during the Holocaust weeks in advance of the German arriving, was that “self-exile”? When Jews left Palestine in 1947 because they were afraid of Arab reprisals, was that “self-exile”? Or would he say they were forced to leave because of the circumstances.

What is a myth? A myth is a construction of beliefs that allows one to make sense of reality, even though those beliefs themselves are not true, or only part of the picture. For the uninformed Israel supporter, the myth of Israel’s founding is brief and simple. With the adoption of the UN’s Partition Proposal in 1947, the world recognized the historic rights of the Jews to a state in Palestine. The Zionists were willing to agree to a historic compromise that they would clearly honor; the Arabs were not. Instead, the Arabs initiated a war, called upon the Palestinian refugees to leave, so that the Jews could be thrown into the sea. They lost the war. So much the worse for them. Let’s move on.

Now, some of the above is arguably true; all of it is arguably false – but in any event, it is only a partial version of the events. It deliberately leaves out inconvenient truths, and fails to imply the conclusions that that apologists wish to draw from it.

The 1947 UN Partition Proposal did not recognize the historical rights of the Jews to a state; rather, it recognized the historical mess that Palestine had become, and so the UN called for its partition into two states, with an economic union of the two, and which excluded Jerusalem from either people’s sovereignty. The Zionists – to be precise, Ben-Gurion and Co. — accepted partition on paper, and either planned, or acquiesced to the partition of Palestine between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, not the Palestinian Arabs. Even if the acceptance of partition was more than tactical, it was abandoned at the first possible moment by the Zionists, and not because of Arab resistance – but because the Zionists had the upper hand, and they believed (as many do now) that all of Eretz Yisrael belonged to them. In any event, as soon as Arab rioting broke out following the UN acceptance of partition – rioting that quieted down, and then flared up again, with both sides engaging in illegal terrorist activity against the other and against the British, — implementation of the partition plan was put on ice, and UN Trusteeship, and the deferral of the establishment of the states, was put on the table. The Arabs accepted trusteeship (for a limited time); the Zionists rejected it. (This is never mentioned by the mythologizers.)

During this period, the exodus of Palestinians (and Jews, for that matter, but there were fewer of them) continued apace. By the time Israel declared independence partition had become a dead letter, and both the Zionists and the Arab states were ready to continue the land grab. During the interim period between November 1947 and May 1948, Arab states made clear their intention to go to war to protect Palestine (some had their own territorial ambitions) should Israel declare independence. When they did, they were not singled-out and condemned for doing so. Each side blamed the other for the ensuing war; the world blamed both sides equally.

When Israel advocates say, “The Arabs wrongly initiated the war, and hence they should suffer the consequence of defeat,” they are arguably wrong on the premise, and demonstrably wrong on the conclusion. For the declaration of the State of Israel could itself be seen as the casus belli; the fact remains that no international organization or state blamed the Arab states for wrongly initiating the war. But even if we grant that this was an act of aggression, and even granting, against the Fourth Geneva Convention, that territory acquired in a defensive war need not be returned to the aggressor, that would be the case if the territory belonged to the aggressor. But the Arab residents of Palestine were viewed only by the Zionists as the aggressors. Only on the racist premise that all Arabs are responsible for the acts of some, will that work.

And reflect – even if the Arabs were considered the aggressors, like, say, the Japanese, and even if the Zionists were allowed to keep the territory acquired in war — would this justify the large-scale displacement of their non-combatants – or even combattants, after the hostilities cease? Would it have been justified for the US to seize Japan and not let Japanese refugees return? Under what international norm?

It is at this point in the argument that the educated, informed, liberal Zionist, turns and says, “Look. Let’s not go back to 1948. If we do that, we will never get anywhere. That’s old history.”

That move is fundamental to the identity of the liberal or progressive Zionist. They can’t and don’t want to go back to 1948. They want to change the subject. And why not? Because they are educated enough not to buy the lukshen of the hasbaritas, progressive enough not to seem themselves as immoral dispossessors, and Zionist enough not to want to open the can of worms of 1948.

Thanks to Ehud Barak, Bibi Netanyahu, and Avigdor Lieberman, we have now gone back to 1948.

And, you know what? That may very well be a good thing.

Blogger's coclusion

Truthfulness is plain, and wrongfulness is plain, but in between lies a whole array of grey color. This array is the spectrum in which most Jews live. And where they live, they become unable to tell a carrot from a cabbage...attempt and coarse non-jew and jews alike that a carrot is a cabbage. Hence, according to their logic, they reach the conclusion they desire.

What a bunch of weasels they are!