Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Monday, August 09, 2010
Friday, August 06, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Shliam critique: Second Bone of Contention: the Arab Israeli Military Balance Part 3
As already explained the British used the Jordanian government and its armed wing the Jordanian Legion as a proxy to exercise its interests in the coming regional shift of power in 1948. The case with the British in Egypt was even more damning. When the British left Egypt they left intact a supply of heavy and light weaponry along with training advisors to teach the Egyptian army how to use them. This tilted the balance of power severely in the direction of the Arab states during the war of 1948. [1] Egypt alone, if properly trained and with a well disciplined army could have defeated the Jews without the help of any other Arab army. The problem for the Arab states was not Israeli military dominance as historically argued. In the remaining months of 1947 until July 1948, and the end of the first truce, the Jews were severely handicapped and in a serious weakened position militarily. It was Arab incompetence that won the war for Israel not, Israeli superiority. By all customary military standards Israel should have lost the war in those first few weeks, absolutely no later than June 1.
There is the incident of Israel shooting down five British fighters at the beginning of 1949. On January 1, 1949, Egyptian war ships appeared off the coast of Tel Aviv, and fired on the city. On January 2, 1949 an enemy plane, presumably Egyptian dropped three bombs over Jewish Jerusalem. As a result Jewish forces launched a retaliatory raid on El Arish which was the Egyptian staging point for all military operations inside Palestine. The British used the incursion into the Sinai as a pretext to invoke a 1936 agreement in which they were obligated to defend Egypt in case of invasion. Ben Gurion was warned by the British and promptly ordered all Jewish forces removed back behind Israeli lines. By January 3, 1949, all Israeli forces had been removed from Egyptian soil [2] On January 7, Israel shot down five British flown spitfires, killing at least one pilot and taking another prisoner because their aircraft crashed inside Israeli lines. [3]
I agree with Shlaim’s analysis of the Jewish side that he offers in this section.
It would be hard not to acknowledge the above truisms about the ’48 war since these are all established facts but, Shlaim sticks one sentence in this paragraph almost as if he were trying to sneak it in. Right after the ellipses of the above quote, Shlaim says “ Nevertheless, the Yishuv was not as hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned as the official history would have us believe.” I would argue this as hyperbole.
Military generals always think in terms of the other side’s strengths and weaknesses. It is not for them to speculate on how the enemy might utilize those strengths and weaknesses only that they possess the potential for using it. In assessing Arab strength the Hagana command had to consider that they might go up against everything the Arabs had to offer in their war of liberation. Nobody really knows how many Arab soldiers actually fought in the war of 1948. Estimates range from 20,000 to 65,000 depending on the time period we are talking about. “The Hagana… could draw on a large reserve of Western trained and homegrown officers with military experience” (p. 181). Shlaim is talking about the 4000 or so soldiers that the British trained to fight at the end of World War II, known popularly as the Jewish Brigade and did see some action in Sicily. [4]
[1] Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002, p. 15. Pollack lists the Egyptian heavy armor as a battalion of British made Mark VI and Matilda tanks, sixteen 25 pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium machine gun battalion, more than thirty British made Spitfire fighter planes, and four Hawker Hurricane fighters with twenty American C-47 transports which mechanics had made into crude bombers. The Israelis on the other hand had fewer than 900 light mortars, 85 antitank weapons, five “ancient” artillery pieces and four tanks. The Egyptians alone held a huge military advantage over the Jews in this area.
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),FRUS. Vol VI, p. 605
[3] FRUS Vol. VI p. 627.
[4] Refer to note 9
There is the incident of Israel shooting down five British fighters at the beginning of 1949. On January 1, 1949, Egyptian war ships appeared off the coast of Tel Aviv, and fired on the city. On January 2, 1949 an enemy plane, presumably Egyptian dropped three bombs over Jewish Jerusalem. As a result Jewish forces launched a retaliatory raid on El Arish which was the Egyptian staging point for all military operations inside Palestine. The British used the incursion into the Sinai as a pretext to invoke a 1936 agreement in which they were obligated to defend Egypt in case of invasion. Ben Gurion was warned by the British and promptly ordered all Jewish forces removed back behind Israeli lines. By January 3, 1949, all Israeli forces had been removed from Egyptian soil [2] On January 7, Israel shot down five British flown spitfires, killing at least one pilot and taking another prisoner because their aircraft crashed inside Israeli lines. [3]
I agree with Shlaim’s analysis of the Jewish side that he offers in this section.
The heroism of the Jewish fighters is not in question, nor is there any doubt about the heavy price that the Yishuv paid for its victory. Altogether there were 6,000 dead, 4,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians, or about 1 percent of the entire population…It is true that the Yishuv numbered merely 650,000 souls, compared with 1.2 million Palestinian Arabs and nearly 40 million Arabs in the surrounding states. It is true that the senior military advisors told the Political leadership on 12 May 1948 that the Hagana had only a “fifty-fifty” chance of withstanding the imminent Arab attack. It is true that the sense of weakness and vulnerability in the Jewish population was as acute as it was pervasive and that some segments of this population were gripped by a feeling of gloom and doom. And, it is true that during the three critical weeks, from the invasion of Palestine by the regular armies of the Arab states on 15 May until the start of the first truce on 11 June, this community had to struggle for its very survival.
It would be hard not to acknowledge the above truisms about the ’48 war since these are all established facts but, Shlaim sticks one sentence in this paragraph almost as if he were trying to sneak it in. Right after the ellipses of the above quote, Shlaim says “ Nevertheless, the Yishuv was not as hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned as the official history would have us believe.” I would argue this as hyperbole.
Military generals always think in terms of the other side’s strengths and weaknesses. It is not for them to speculate on how the enemy might utilize those strengths and weaknesses only that they possess the potential for using it. In assessing Arab strength the Hagana command had to consider that they might go up against everything the Arabs had to offer in their war of liberation. Nobody really knows how many Arab soldiers actually fought in the war of 1948. Estimates range from 20,000 to 65,000 depending on the time period we are talking about. “The Hagana… could draw on a large reserve of Western trained and homegrown officers with military experience” (p. 181). Shlaim is talking about the 4000 or so soldiers that the British trained to fight at the end of World War II, known popularly as the Jewish Brigade and did see some action in Sicily. [4]
[1] Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002, p. 15. Pollack lists the Egyptian heavy armor as a battalion of British made Mark VI and Matilda tanks, sixteen 25 pounder guns, a battery of eight 6-pounder guns, a medium machine gun battalion, more than thirty British made Spitfire fighter planes, and four Hawker Hurricane fighters with twenty American C-47 transports which mechanics had made into crude bombers. The Israelis on the other hand had fewer than 900 light mortars, 85 antitank weapons, five “ancient” artillery pieces and four tanks. The Egyptians alone held a huge military advantage over the Jews in this area.
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts),FRUS. Vol VI, p. 605
[3] FRUS Vol. VI p. 627.
[4] Refer to note 9
Schlaim critique: first bone of contention: British policy at the end of the mandate, Pt 2
Between November 29, 1947 and May 14, 1948 Shlaim contends that traditional Zionist historiography’s “central charge is that Britain armed and secretly encouraged her Arab allies” p.179. Shlaim credits others like Ilan Pappe with “Britain and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” along with his own “Collusion across the Jordan” to smash this particular myth.
Actually the official records of State in both Great Britain and the United States show an England having a very hard time cutting loose the apron strings that held British imperial territory in the Middle East together for the previous half century. The record clearly shows that while there might have been some well founded trepidation on the part of the Yishuv of British motives, the fears of Jewish expansionism seems to have dominated British thinking during this time almost as much as the possibility of Soviet involvement which both England and the U.S. were loathe to accept. Shlaim’s thesis, minus the Marxist inspired psycho-babble, in “Collusion” was probably well founded. The Jews were not fools. If they could increase their chances of survival by eliminating a major military player like Abdullah, then they would do it. This is what drove Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and the architect of British involvement, especially with Abdullah during that time, to push for a greater Transjordan. This in turn probably pushed the Yishuv into this victim mentality and led to a mistrust of Transjordan’s motives for an agreement. However, Shlaim rejects any notion that England supported the Arab side even though early British apologies allude to that fact. For example, Glubb discusses a meeting with Bevin where the secretary states categorically that he “did everything he could to help (the Arabs) them. [1]
Although Shlaim does not like to admit it, British interests in 1948 were in fact very much with the Arabs and not with the Jews. While there is no evidence to show that the British tried to stop the Jewish state from coming into existence after the UN partition vote on November 29th , one can build a very strong case that the British did financially, militarily, and politically helped the Arabs, and although unsuccessful, this was designed to protect British interests which were perceived to be in direct conflict with nascent Israeli interests.
Bevin insisted that Abdullah’s legion not take their war into Jewish territory, as Shlaim asserts. But British soldiers fought with and commanded the legion during their entire campaign of 1948. For all intents and purposes the Jordanian legion commanded by John Bagot Glubb was a proxy British force in the Middle East and for that reason the evidence shows that Bevin was extremely concerned for its existence and the only thing preventing the Jews from infringing onto British interests in the area according to Bevin’s thinking. The rank and file of the Legion were mostly Arabs, but the officers were British. Some were actually seconded from the British army into the legion. These men were not withdrawn from Legion duties until after May 14, 1948. [2] Weapons were still being delivered to Transjordan as late as May 28th of that year. [3] The English subverted U.N. restrictions which drew consternation against Israel for violating, by insisting that they were only fulfilling commitments made prior to the United Nations embargo to arm the Middle East. [4]
Shlaim relates the Februray 7, 1948 meeting between Abdul Huda, Transjordan’s prime minister, and Secretary Bevin which gave the green light to the legion to move into the Palestinian allotted areas and secure the land for the Kingdom. This in effect wiped out any chance for an Arab state in Palestine and created what Bevin had labeled a “Greater Transjordan.”
“Bevin also warned Jordan not to invade the area allocated by the U.N. to the Jews” p. 179. This shows according to Shlaim that Britain supported the idea of a Jewish State while not supporting the idea of an Arab state. What Shlaim does not tell us is that it would have been tantamount to diplomatic suicide for the British to circumvent the U.N. decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine given its tense relations over the issue with the U.S. position in respect to U.S. public opinion. England certainly did not see the creation of a Jewish State as satisfying British interests in the area and might very well have prevented a Jewish state from coming into existence had the U.S. not been so adamant to allow international law to take its course.
The British also used their forces in a failed attempt to take back Jaffa after Arab forces had been defeated by Menachem Begin’s IZL. Like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was suffering casualties on a daily basis because of the sniping coming from Arab Jaffa. The IZL claimed that the British had colluded with the Arabs to create a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem to cut the proposed Jewish State in two and thereby seal its fate. Therefore, the Haganna agreed to allow the Urgun to take the city. [5] In the ceasefire agreement, between the British and Jewish forces, they both backed off to neutral areas with a no man’s land in between and faced each other down until the British left Palestine on May 14th.. The British involvement in Jaffa was a direct order coming from HMG.
[1] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 180
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), (FRUS) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), p. 1066.
[3] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2 page 1071. In this report from Lovett he mentions that Britain is supplying weapons to Egypt, Iraq as well as British proxy military force in the Middle East, the Jordanian Legion.
[4] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2, Note 4 page 563
[5] H.Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, London: New Brunswick Publishers, 1996, p. 302. I should point out that Boyer Bell’s sources for these accounts rely heavily on personal memoirs and interviews with participants from all sides. There is an index in the back of personal interviews and notes on the memoirs. This is what Shlaim is arguing in this piece which he claims is not valid history writing. For more on this and a Jewish view on Jaffa see, Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, New York: Vintage Books, 1982, p.36.
Actually the official records of State in both Great Britain and the United States show an England having a very hard time cutting loose the apron strings that held British imperial territory in the Middle East together for the previous half century. The record clearly shows that while there might have been some well founded trepidation on the part of the Yishuv of British motives, the fears of Jewish expansionism seems to have dominated British thinking during this time almost as much as the possibility of Soviet involvement which both England and the U.S. were loathe to accept. Shlaim’s thesis, minus the Marxist inspired psycho-babble, in “Collusion” was probably well founded. The Jews were not fools. If they could increase their chances of survival by eliminating a major military player like Abdullah, then they would do it. This is what drove Ernest Bevin, Britain’s foreign secretary, and the architect of British involvement, especially with Abdullah during that time, to push for a greater Transjordan. This in turn probably pushed the Yishuv into this victim mentality and led to a mistrust of Transjordan’s motives for an agreement. However, Shlaim rejects any notion that England supported the Arab side even though early British apologies allude to that fact. For example, Glubb discusses a meeting with Bevin where the secretary states categorically that he “did everything he could to help (the Arabs) them. [1]
Although Shlaim does not like to admit it, British interests in 1948 were in fact very much with the Arabs and not with the Jews. While there is no evidence to show that the British tried to stop the Jewish state from coming into existence after the UN partition vote on November 29th , one can build a very strong case that the British did financially, militarily, and politically helped the Arabs, and although unsuccessful, this was designed to protect British interests which were perceived to be in direct conflict with nascent Israeli interests.
Bevin insisted that Abdullah’s legion not take their war into Jewish territory, as Shlaim asserts. But British soldiers fought with and commanded the legion during their entire campaign of 1948. For all intents and purposes the Jordanian legion commanded by John Bagot Glubb was a proxy British force in the Middle East and for that reason the evidence shows that Bevin was extremely concerned for its existence and the only thing preventing the Jews from infringing onto British interests in the area according to Bevin’s thinking. The rank and file of the Legion were mostly Arabs, but the officers were British. Some were actually seconded from the British army into the legion. These men were not withdrawn from Legion duties until after May 14, 1948. [2] Weapons were still being delivered to Transjordan as late as May 28th of that year. [3] The English subverted U.N. restrictions which drew consternation against Israel for violating, by insisting that they were only fulfilling commitments made prior to the United Nations embargo to arm the Middle East. [4]
Shlaim relates the Februray 7, 1948 meeting between Abdul Huda, Transjordan’s prime minister, and Secretary Bevin which gave the green light to the legion to move into the Palestinian allotted areas and secure the land for the Kingdom. This in effect wiped out any chance for an Arab state in Palestine and created what Bevin had labeled a “Greater Transjordan.”
“Bevin also warned Jordan not to invade the area allocated by the U.N. to the Jews” p. 179. This shows according to Shlaim that Britain supported the idea of a Jewish State while not supporting the idea of an Arab state. What Shlaim does not tell us is that it would have been tantamount to diplomatic suicide for the British to circumvent the U.N. decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine given its tense relations over the issue with the U.S. position in respect to U.S. public opinion. England certainly did not see the creation of a Jewish State as satisfying British interests in the area and might very well have prevented a Jewish state from coming into existence had the U.S. not been so adamant to allow international law to take its course.
The British also used their forces in a failed attempt to take back Jaffa after Arab forces had been defeated by Menachem Begin’s IZL. Like Jerusalem, Tel Aviv was suffering casualties on a daily basis because of the sniping coming from Arab Jaffa. The IZL claimed that the British had colluded with the Arabs to create a corridor from Jaffa to Jerusalem to cut the proposed Jewish State in two and thereby seal its fate. Therefore, the Haganna agreed to allow the Urgun to take the city. [5] In the ceasefire agreement, between the British and Jewish forces, they both backed off to neutral areas with a no man’s land in between and faced each other down until the British left Palestine on May 14th.. The British involvement in Jaffa was a direct order coming from HMG.
[1] John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957, p. 180
[2] United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (in two parts), (FRUS) Volume V, Part 2 (1948), p. 1066.
[3] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2 page 1071. In this report from Lovett he mentions that Britain is supplying weapons to Egypt, Iraq as well as British proxy military force in the Middle East, the Jordanian Legion.
[4] FRUS, Vol. V, part 2, Note 4 page 563
[5] H.Boyer Bell, Terror out of Zion, London: New Brunswick Publishers, 1996, p. 302. I should point out that Boyer Bell’s sources for these accounts rely heavily on personal memoirs and interviews with participants from all sides. There is an index in the back of personal interviews and notes on the memoirs. This is what Shlaim is arguing in this piece which he claims is not valid history writing. For more on this and a Jewish view on Jaffa see, Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars, New York: Vintage Books, 1982, p.36.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A critique on Avi shlaim's "the debate about 1948" Part 1
The following is a critique of Avi Shlaim’s Historiography of the 1948 war, “The Debate About 1948” first published in The International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 27, No.3, (August 1995) p. 287-304 and more recently in “The Israel/Palestine Question: Rewriting histories, edited by Ilan Pappe, Routledge, 1999, which this article uses as its reference.
After spending some time outlining what he calls the “old” history and briefly summarizing the litany of 80s publications exposing Israeli myths and counter myths about the country’s hallowed beginnings, he cites six “bones of contention” that traditional and “New Historian” researchers fundamentally disagree on. They are (1)“Britain’s policy at the end of the mandate, (2) The Arab-Israeli military balance in 1948, (3) the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, (4) the nature of the Israeli-Jordanian relations during the war, (5) Arab war aims, and(6) the reasons for the continuing political deadlock after the guns fell silent.
It is these bones of contention Shlaim concludes that divide the world of Zionist historiography into those that know and those that think they know. Why Shlaim chose those particular six is curious. As “bones of contention” many more issues can be debated than what is listed here. How about Israel’s settlement policy, it’s claim to water in the Levant’s tributaries, racist policies against Palestinian Israeli citizens, the claim to Jerusalem and all the conflict that has caused over the decades, and Jewish interests in general colliding with Palestinian interests. In a conflict this old, brewing with hatreds and long time scores not settled there are too many “bones of contention” to settle on only six. One has only to take his pick, and that is what it seems that Avi Shlaim has done in “The Debate.”
While admitting indirectly to such playful managing of the historical evidence (p. 174*) he concludes that earlier historians were not qualified to write the history of the 1948 war because “Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians, and a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers, and hagiographers” and should therefore be rejected. (P. 173). There is good reason for Dr. Shlaim to reject this kind of evidence which will be argued throughout this piece because most of it is diametrically opposed to what Dr. Shlaim is promoting here.
It is interesting that Shlaim’s quote above about the Israeli favored histories on the war of 1948 is not too different from Avraham Sela’s description of the literature coming from the Arab side of that war in those first few years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab history of 1948 according to Sela who revels in it, is almost exclusively the kind of history that Shlaim wants to reject. Sela describes it as a “large number of first-person accounts, textbooks, memoirs, diaries and polemics.” This can only suggest that most primary source material on both sides during that time came from these kinds of sources. Without it we would have almost no history at all. Does Shlaim suggest that we should disregard Walid Khalidi’s work on “The Fall of Haifa” or his “Documents of the ’48 Conflict” published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, No.3,(Spring, 1998) p. 60-105? I doubt that even Shlaim’s admitted Marxist leanings (p. 189-190) would allow him to disregard such important historical information on the Arab perspective of 1948. It is precisely the Arab history of this time that Schlaim and others draw on to indict Israel’s founders of fabricating Israel’s early history. Could there be a double standard here?
Historical accounts after the war are “not history in the proper sense of the word.” P.172-173. I would argue against professor Shlaim’s assertion here. They are most certainly proper historical accounts, if for no other reason than they are the only sources of that war coming from that time period. That in itself makes them primary and vital to the historical record. Because they were decidedly Israeli or Arab centric, depending on the source you are reading, does not preclude that they are not valid. To reject any written material on any historical event even if it happened yesterday, simply because there are no official documents on which to draw the history, is absurd. The opening of Israeli political and military documents in the 1980s does not invalidate these sources, they only add another important dimension to the debate. Personal histories, eyewitness accounts or even partisan evaluations which lead to “sacred texts” of nations’ beginnings are every bit as important as released military documents in the 1980s.. Ben Gurion’s memoirs for example, offer a partisan view of the leader of Israel’s arguments and justifications for Israeli actions during the war. As the author, he has the inherent right to exclude or include any material that he wished. Is Ben Gurion’s point of view of no importance to the history? Under Shlaim’s present argument it would appear that it is.
Another avenue of history that often seems to be forgotten about this war is the British contribution. Shlaim is not the only historian guilty of this. This seems to follow the New Historian pattern of rewriting Israel’s beginning history. There were many British anti-Zionist apologies for the Arab disaster of 1948. However, they are rarely if ever referred to in modern historiographies on the war. And, that methodological tactic is present in this Shlaim piece. I can only assume that he does not because as an admitted leftist he is not comfortable with the motive of the British and its underlying imperialistic desires over the Middle East during that time, more than he is desiring to show sympathy with the underdog oppressed, persecuted Palestinians. E. O’Balance, Erskine Childers, John Baggot Glubb and others published a British view as to why the Arabs lost are all rejected by Shlaim as bonafied histories. Shlaim does see fit however, to quote A.J.P. Taylor a British Marxist who, unencumbered by Western capitalist influences, wrote a revisionism on the causes of World War II, and is remarkably similar to Shlaim’s thesis on “the Debate”.
No matter how much Avi Shlaim remains true to his Marxist ideology it does not give him license to rewrite history. It is the job of every historian to be as honest as they can otherwise the history they write will be meaningless. With that in mind Shlaim’s bones of contention might be valid but his perspective is suspect here. To me, a more accurate statement about these bones of contention are not so much between “old” and “new” historians, but between Marxist and the more traditional western style democratic influenced historians.
After spending some time outlining what he calls the “old” history and briefly summarizing the litany of 80s publications exposing Israeli myths and counter myths about the country’s hallowed beginnings, he cites six “bones of contention” that traditional and “New Historian” researchers fundamentally disagree on. They are (1)“Britain’s policy at the end of the mandate, (2) The Arab-Israeli military balance in 1948, (3) the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem, (4) the nature of the Israeli-Jordanian relations during the war, (5) Arab war aims, and(6) the reasons for the continuing political deadlock after the guns fell silent.
It is these bones of contention Shlaim concludes that divide the world of Zionist historiography into those that know and those that think they know. Why Shlaim chose those particular six is curious. As “bones of contention” many more issues can be debated than what is listed here. How about Israel’s settlement policy, it’s claim to water in the Levant’s tributaries, racist policies against Palestinian Israeli citizens, the claim to Jerusalem and all the conflict that has caused over the decades, and Jewish interests in general colliding with Palestinian interests. In a conflict this old, brewing with hatreds and long time scores not settled there are too many “bones of contention” to settle on only six. One has only to take his pick, and that is what it seems that Avi Shlaim has done in “The Debate.”
While admitting indirectly to such playful managing of the historical evidence (p. 174*) he concludes that earlier historians were not qualified to write the history of the 1948 war because “Most of the voluminous literature on the war was written not by professional historians but by participants, by politicians, soldiers, official historians, and a large host of sympathetic chroniclers, journalists, biographers, and hagiographers” and should therefore be rejected. (P. 173). There is good reason for Dr. Shlaim to reject this kind of evidence which will be argued throughout this piece because most of it is diametrically opposed to what Dr. Shlaim is promoting here.
It is interesting that Shlaim’s quote above about the Israeli favored histories on the war of 1948 is not too different from Avraham Sela’s description of the literature coming from the Arab side of that war in those first few years after the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab history of 1948 according to Sela who revels in it, is almost exclusively the kind of history that Shlaim wants to reject. Sela describes it as a “large number of first-person accounts, textbooks, memoirs, diaries and polemics.” This can only suggest that most primary source material on both sides during that time came from these kinds of sources. Without it we would have almost no history at all. Does Shlaim suggest that we should disregard Walid Khalidi’s work on “The Fall of Haifa” or his “Documents of the ’48 Conflict” published in The Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 27, No.3,(Spring, 1998) p. 60-105? I doubt that even Shlaim’s admitted Marxist leanings (p. 189-190) would allow him to disregard such important historical information on the Arab perspective of 1948. It is precisely the Arab history of this time that Schlaim and others draw on to indict Israel’s founders of fabricating Israel’s early history. Could there be a double standard here?
Historical accounts after the war are “not history in the proper sense of the word.” P.172-173. I would argue against professor Shlaim’s assertion here. They are most certainly proper historical accounts, if for no other reason than they are the only sources of that war coming from that time period. That in itself makes them primary and vital to the historical record. Because they were decidedly Israeli or Arab centric, depending on the source you are reading, does not preclude that they are not valid. To reject any written material on any historical event even if it happened yesterday, simply because there are no official documents on which to draw the history, is absurd. The opening of Israeli political and military documents in the 1980s does not invalidate these sources, they only add another important dimension to the debate. Personal histories, eyewitness accounts or even partisan evaluations which lead to “sacred texts” of nations’ beginnings are every bit as important as released military documents in the 1980s.. Ben Gurion’s memoirs for example, offer a partisan view of the leader of Israel’s arguments and justifications for Israeli actions during the war. As the author, he has the inherent right to exclude or include any material that he wished. Is Ben Gurion’s point of view of no importance to the history? Under Shlaim’s present argument it would appear that it is.
Another avenue of history that often seems to be forgotten about this war is the British contribution. Shlaim is not the only historian guilty of this. This seems to follow the New Historian pattern of rewriting Israel’s beginning history. There were many British anti-Zionist apologies for the Arab disaster of 1948. However, they are rarely if ever referred to in modern historiographies on the war. And, that methodological tactic is present in this Shlaim piece. I can only assume that he does not because as an admitted leftist he is not comfortable with the motive of the British and its underlying imperialistic desires over the Middle East during that time, more than he is desiring to show sympathy with the underdog oppressed, persecuted Palestinians. E. O’Balance, Erskine Childers, John Baggot Glubb and others published a British view as to why the Arabs lost are all rejected by Shlaim as bonafied histories. Shlaim does see fit however, to quote A.J.P. Taylor a British Marxist who, unencumbered by Western capitalist influences, wrote a revisionism on the causes of World War II, and is remarkably similar to Shlaim’s thesis on “the Debate”.
No matter how much Avi Shlaim remains true to his Marxist ideology it does not give him license to rewrite history. It is the job of every historian to be as honest as they can otherwise the history they write will be meaningless. With that in mind Shlaim’s bones of contention might be valid but his perspective is suspect here. To me, a more accurate statement about these bones of contention are not so much between “old” and “new” historians, but between Marxist and the more traditional western style democratic influenced historians.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
My Life inside the Muslim Students Association
I went back to school after many years of being out to get my degree. I majored in history with a focus on the Middle East and with a particular interest in studying Islamic history. So I took a lot of those kinds of classes where I came in contact with many of the Muslim students at my institution.
I was usually the one dissenting voice in the classroom when it came to things like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war on terror, and the clash of civilizations. Being right after 9-11 we were all so very sensitive on both sides about what the course of the future should bring.
Since I was older it was easier for them to just right me off. After all what do older people know, right? When you’re in early twenties you think you know everything, and political radicals of all kinds well, that’s even worse.
What was that saying attributed to Churchill about liberal thinking? If you’re not a left winger at twenty you’ve got no heart, if you’re still a left winger at forty, you’ve got no brains. Or something like that.
So, I gained a bit of a reputation among leftists and Muslims as being a combination O’reilly devotee and idiot. Ok, fine.
While taking an Islamic history class on the Ottoman Empire 15th-20th century, I saw a poster on the wall of the classroom asking for membership in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
I am reasonably sure that the MSA has a national directive to collect for Islamic charities during their meetings. And, as we have seen through several well researched, published accounts that many times this money ends up in the hands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other al-Queda like organizations, for the express purpose of killing Jews and Christians.
As despicable as that is, they are still allowed to operate under the freedoms granted to them in this country,
I already knew of their activities from the displays and activism they utilized on campus, but still, I would fantasize how cool it would be to be a fly on the drapes during their meetings listening to them wax eloquent about everything from how they are being persecuted as Muslims to what kind of degrading spectacle they can come up with to offend Jews in the community.
As much as I would have liked to have been part of those discussions, I knew that could never be, because my face, if not my name, was too well known to be able to move around an organization like that without being spotted, and then ousted.
However, after giving it some more thought my name was a bit more obscure. Professors would sometimes call on students without saying anything and sometimes it was “Larry,” or “Mr. Hart.” With my name on one of their rolls it still would be difficult to put together who I was unless you were actually looking for it.
After all I didn’t know every Muslim student as the Muslim population in L.A. is quite large and the local campuses sport a sizable population of Muslim students. In order for my name to be spotted it would probably have to be one of the students, or professors who were also sympathetic to Muslim causes, I actually had interaction with. While that was not impossible under the right circumstances it wouldn’t be likely either.
I would be more invisible if I could just get by with my name, even for a little while.
I decided to sign up for the email list just to see what might happen. Email was beginning to get very popular around the turn of the century and universities were using it extensively. I couldn’t attend meetings or functions but with the advance of email at the time I might be able to get a few tidbits of information that way.
I took a fatalistic attitude toward the whole situation, if they busted me, they busted me. Being on an email list is not all that big a thing. Let’s be honest, receiving an email newsletter once a week or so, would not constitute a breech in their security or anything. I thought it would be fun and I would deal with any repercussions if it came to that.
Because I was still an arms distance away from what might have been even more revealing, the kinds of information I received I was not ground breaking. I couldn’t go to the FBI with it or anything like that.
It wasn’t as good as actually getting next to these people up close and personal but so what, I really didn’t want to get any closer to them then they would allow me to anyway.
During my tenure as a name on their email list I received messages on a weekly or semi weekly basis. Most were about upcoming social events, movies they acquired with an Islamic theme, and discussions that would go on at the university from time to time, some political and some technical concerning living arrangements, food preparation, especially Halal, and alerts about cars parked illegally etc.
But, in between all of this mundane twenty-something nonsense I also remember the following items that may be of interest. The quotes are in quotes because that is how I remember them, but it was several years ago so I might not have the actual wording correct.
Once they sent out an email memo reminding all MSA members to bring their favorite anti Zionist picture, story, or video so they could incorporate it into the national MSA anti-Zionist/free Palestine week. They added as a qualifier “remember, showing Zionism as evil is paramount. It is the only way to convince Americans to support the Palestinian struggle.”
Another time they repeated a memo from National MSA headquarters or some other national overseeing agency, (I can’t remember which) asking members to promote the idea of Islam being a “religion of peace” on their perspective campuses. Playing off a president Bush comment and using it to further the idea that 9-11 was not committed by Arab Muslims.
By the way the anti-Zionist week I mentioned showed evidence that it was Jews who brought down the twin towers, not Mohammad Ata and his gang.
Another time they urged MSA members to enroll into Jewish study courses for the express purpose of monitoring those classes for both sympathetic and non sympathetic Jews, so they could line up who is their enemy and who isn’t.
I’m pretty sure I was labeled an enemy.
All toll I was on the mailing list for about eight months before I was discovered. I don’t know who recognized my name or how it happened. No one ever said anything to me, but I was quietly removed from the list. I wrote to inquire why I was not receiving their messages anymore and they never answered. I guess “the jig was up.”
Groups like the MSA, CAIR, The American Muslim Council, The Muslim Public Affairs Council, and others give the outward appearance that they are community based organizations working toward the betterment of the Muslim community.
Well, if you consider the completion of Jihad, the establishment of Sharia law through Dar el-Harb (the world war) as betterment of the community then that would be an accurate statement.
In reality these are mostly front groups who advocate sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely to further the cause of Jihad in the United States. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. But, many, more than you would think an acceptable number are sympathetic toward the suicide bomber’s goals.
They all really need to be watched more closely than they are currently.
The Muslim Students Association in particular might be the most subversive and influential politicized group on campus since the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) almost succeeded in radically changing a generation of young people in the 1960s.
It is extremely important that those of us in the west who want to protect our freedoms that we be aware of these groups, their intentions and believe what they are saying and then act accordingly.
And, especially impress this on your children who are attending university.
I was usually the one dissenting voice in the classroom when it came to things like the Israel-Palestine conflict, the war on terror, and the clash of civilizations. Being right after 9-11 we were all so very sensitive on both sides about what the course of the future should bring.
Since I was older it was easier for them to just right me off. After all what do older people know, right? When you’re in early twenties you think you know everything, and political radicals of all kinds well, that’s even worse.
What was that saying attributed to Churchill about liberal thinking? If you’re not a left winger at twenty you’ve got no heart, if you’re still a left winger at forty, you’ve got no brains. Or something like that.
So, I gained a bit of a reputation among leftists and Muslims as being a combination O’reilly devotee and idiot. Ok, fine.
While taking an Islamic history class on the Ottoman Empire 15th-20th century, I saw a poster on the wall of the classroom asking for membership in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
I am reasonably sure that the MSA has a national directive to collect for Islamic charities during their meetings. And, as we have seen through several well researched, published accounts that many times this money ends up in the hands of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or other al-Queda like organizations, for the express purpose of killing Jews and Christians.
As despicable as that is, they are still allowed to operate under the freedoms granted to them in this country,
I already knew of their activities from the displays and activism they utilized on campus, but still, I would fantasize how cool it would be to be a fly on the drapes during their meetings listening to them wax eloquent about everything from how they are being persecuted as Muslims to what kind of degrading spectacle they can come up with to offend Jews in the community.
As much as I would have liked to have been part of those discussions, I knew that could never be, because my face, if not my name, was too well known to be able to move around an organization like that without being spotted, and then ousted.
However, after giving it some more thought my name was a bit more obscure. Professors would sometimes call on students without saying anything and sometimes it was “Larry,” or “Mr. Hart.” With my name on one of their rolls it still would be difficult to put together who I was unless you were actually looking for it.
After all I didn’t know every Muslim student as the Muslim population in L.A. is quite large and the local campuses sport a sizable population of Muslim students. In order for my name to be spotted it would probably have to be one of the students, or professors who were also sympathetic to Muslim causes, I actually had interaction with. While that was not impossible under the right circumstances it wouldn’t be likely either.
I would be more invisible if I could just get by with my name, even for a little while.
I decided to sign up for the email list just to see what might happen. Email was beginning to get very popular around the turn of the century and universities were using it extensively. I couldn’t attend meetings or functions but with the advance of email at the time I might be able to get a few tidbits of information that way.
I took a fatalistic attitude toward the whole situation, if they busted me, they busted me. Being on an email list is not all that big a thing. Let’s be honest, receiving an email newsletter once a week or so, would not constitute a breech in their security or anything. I thought it would be fun and I would deal with any repercussions if it came to that.
Because I was still an arms distance away from what might have been even more revealing, the kinds of information I received I was not ground breaking. I couldn’t go to the FBI with it or anything like that.
It wasn’t as good as actually getting next to these people up close and personal but so what, I really didn’t want to get any closer to them then they would allow me to anyway.
During my tenure as a name on their email list I received messages on a weekly or semi weekly basis. Most were about upcoming social events, movies they acquired with an Islamic theme, and discussions that would go on at the university from time to time, some political and some technical concerning living arrangements, food preparation, especially Halal, and alerts about cars parked illegally etc.
But, in between all of this mundane twenty-something nonsense I also remember the following items that may be of interest. The quotes are in quotes because that is how I remember them, but it was several years ago so I might not have the actual wording correct.
Once they sent out an email memo reminding all MSA members to bring their favorite anti Zionist picture, story, or video so they could incorporate it into the national MSA anti-Zionist/free Palestine week. They added as a qualifier “remember, showing Zionism as evil is paramount. It is the only way to convince Americans to support the Palestinian struggle.”
Another time they repeated a memo from National MSA headquarters or some other national overseeing agency, (I can’t remember which) asking members to promote the idea of Islam being a “religion of peace” on their perspective campuses. Playing off a president Bush comment and using it to further the idea that 9-11 was not committed by Arab Muslims.
By the way the anti-Zionist week I mentioned showed evidence that it was Jews who brought down the twin towers, not Mohammad Ata and his gang.
Another time they urged MSA members to enroll into Jewish study courses for the express purpose of monitoring those classes for both sympathetic and non sympathetic Jews, so they could line up who is their enemy and who isn’t.
I’m pretty sure I was labeled an enemy.
All toll I was on the mailing list for about eight months before I was discovered. I don’t know who recognized my name or how it happened. No one ever said anything to me, but I was quietly removed from the list. I wrote to inquire why I was not receiving their messages anymore and they never answered. I guess “the jig was up.”
Groups like the MSA, CAIR, The American Muslim Council, The Muslim Public Affairs Council, and others give the outward appearance that they are community based organizations working toward the betterment of the Muslim community.
Well, if you consider the completion of Jihad, the establishment of Sharia law through Dar el-Harb (the world war) as betterment of the community then that would be an accurate statement.
In reality these are mostly front groups who advocate sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely to further the cause of Jihad in the United States. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. But, many, more than you would think an acceptable number are sympathetic toward the suicide bomber’s goals.
They all really need to be watched more closely than they are currently.
The Muslim Students Association in particular might be the most subversive and influential politicized group on campus since the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) almost succeeded in radically changing a generation of young people in the 1960s.
It is extremely important that those of us in the west who want to protect our freedoms that we be aware of these groups, their intentions and believe what they are saying and then act accordingly.
And, especially impress this on your children who are attending university.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Los Angeles water shortage: is it necessary
I'm angry and this article shows it.
Los Angeles is currently under some very strict water rationing controls because of severe drought conditions resulting from low rain fall totals over the last several years. At least that is what City Hall is telling us.
Uh-huh…
In addition several months ago Los Angeles experienced a series of water main breaks at such an alarming rate that it raised enough concern to look into possible causes. At the time the question was raised on whether the current DWP water restrictions could have anything to do with so many serious breaks and subsequent water damage to the community. The head of the Department of Water and Power at the time David Nahai stated that such a notion was “absolute nonsense.” A report released today April 14, 2010, shows that is exactly what happened. Mercury.com http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14880218?nclick_check=1
reported “pressure fluctuated in the city's 7,200-mile water system, straining aging and corroded cast iron pipes until they burst,” commented “University of Southern California civil engineering professor Jean-Pierre Bardet, who led the team of scientists and private-sector analysts.” We’ve lost billions of gallons of water in the process and have spent millions of dollars fixing the problem.
Who’s fault is that? Did we even need water rationing?
Although rain fall totals were slightly under normal over the 2008-2009 season there was no reason to impose water restrictions. Charles Fisk, a meteorologist at Point Magu Naval airbase in Ventura County shows on his website http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ that most of our rainfall during the 2008-2009 season occurred by the middle of February and was by that time less than an inch under normal. Over the previous three rainy seasons we had one the previous season that was like this past year, one poor enough that it did warrant drought conditions, and one that recorded the second highest rainfall in the history of the city since they began recording those kinds of statistics back in 1877. http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm
If we take the previous several years of rainfall and compare that with the last time we had real drought conditions during the 1990s it is clear that much higher rainfall totals currently than the last time have led to the same institutionalized rationing. In the 1980s Los Angeles experienced six out of seven years of drought. The one year that rainfall was above normal was only two inches above. Finally in May of 1990 Mayor Tom Bradley called for water rationing in an attempt to conserve what was by then precious water sources. This was after six years of lower rainfall totals. Water reservoir totals were way down. It was justified then, it isn’t justified now.
The fact that we are experiencing so many breaks has to make some people wonder. I am not an expert on these matters, but you don’t need to be to understand a possible correlation with a review of some of the standard data available on the Internet. Confirming that we really didn’t have rainfall totals over the previous several years to call for drought conditions and therefore install mandatory water rationing a year ago , is definitely suspicious. A desperate set of politicians from the Mayor in collusion with the Department of Water and Power and the City Council have secretly and nefariously imposed water restrictions on a major metropolitan community that did not need it.
As of November 2, 2009 44 serious pipe bursts had occurred in the Los Angeles water system. The result of the Mayor and the City Council decisions has cost the city billions in resources and dollars—dollars the city of Los Angles cannot afford to lose.
Why would they do this?
The level of deceit and dishonesty in this matter is beyond comprehension. In my opinion the city leaders instituted this program of rationing to be able to set up a revenue base from violations that would help in their current budget problems. That is inexcusable. And, if that is not the reason, then they should be made to tell us the reason. The Mayor, his council and all those connected with this sham should be investigated. Elected politicians should be recalled, appointed bureaucrats should be fired without their severance or pensions for their civil service.
By the way, David Nahai is no longer the head of the LADWP, probably seeing the writing on the wall he resigned last fall, to take some other international water running job. That should not save him. He should be penalized through his pension the same as every one else, no matter where he is now.
We don’t have to take this from these guys. They work for us. They answer to us. And, our answer to this incident should be, Your fired, get out!
Los Angeles is currently under some very strict water rationing controls because of severe drought conditions resulting from low rain fall totals over the last several years. At least that is what City Hall is telling us.
Uh-huh…
In addition several months ago Los Angeles experienced a series of water main breaks at such an alarming rate that it raised enough concern to look into possible causes. At the time the question was raised on whether the current DWP water restrictions could have anything to do with so many serious breaks and subsequent water damage to the community. The head of the Department of Water and Power at the time David Nahai stated that such a notion was “absolute nonsense.” A report released today April 14, 2010, shows that is exactly what happened. Mercury.com http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14880218?nclick_check=1
reported “pressure fluctuated in the city's 7,200-mile water system, straining aging and corroded cast iron pipes until they burst,” commented “University of Southern California civil engineering professor Jean-Pierre Bardet, who led the team of scientists and private-sector analysts.” We’ve lost billions of gallons of water in the process and have spent millions of dollars fixing the problem.
Who’s fault is that? Did we even need water rationing?
Although rain fall totals were slightly under normal over the 2008-2009 season there was no reason to impose water restrictions. Charles Fisk, a meteorologist at Point Magu Naval airbase in Ventura County shows on his website http://home.att.net/~station_climo/ that most of our rainfall during the 2008-2009 season occurred by the middle of February and was by that time less than an inch under normal. Over the previous three rainy seasons we had one the previous season that was like this past year, one poor enough that it did warrant drought conditions, and one that recorded the second highest rainfall in the history of the city since they began recording those kinds of statistics back in 1877. http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm
If we take the previous several years of rainfall and compare that with the last time we had real drought conditions during the 1990s it is clear that much higher rainfall totals currently than the last time have led to the same institutionalized rationing. In the 1980s Los Angeles experienced six out of seven years of drought. The one year that rainfall was above normal was only two inches above. Finally in May of 1990 Mayor Tom Bradley called for water rationing in an attempt to conserve what was by then precious water sources. This was after six years of lower rainfall totals. Water reservoir totals were way down. It was justified then, it isn’t justified now.
The fact that we are experiencing so many breaks has to make some people wonder. I am not an expert on these matters, but you don’t need to be to understand a possible correlation with a review of some of the standard data available on the Internet. Confirming that we really didn’t have rainfall totals over the previous several years to call for drought conditions and therefore install mandatory water rationing a year ago , is definitely suspicious. A desperate set of politicians from the Mayor in collusion with the Department of Water and Power and the City Council have secretly and nefariously imposed water restrictions on a major metropolitan community that did not need it.
As of November 2, 2009 44 serious pipe bursts had occurred in the Los Angeles water system. The result of the Mayor and the City Council decisions has cost the city billions in resources and dollars—dollars the city of Los Angles cannot afford to lose.
Why would they do this?
The level of deceit and dishonesty in this matter is beyond comprehension. In my opinion the city leaders instituted this program of rationing to be able to set up a revenue base from violations that would help in their current budget problems. That is inexcusable. And, if that is not the reason, then they should be made to tell us the reason. The Mayor, his council and all those connected with this sham should be investigated. Elected politicians should be recalled, appointed bureaucrats should be fired without their severance or pensions for their civil service.
By the way, David Nahai is no longer the head of the LADWP, probably seeing the writing on the wall he resigned last fall, to take some other international water running job. That should not save him. He should be penalized through his pension the same as every one else, no matter where he is now.
We don’t have to take this from these guys. They work for us. They answer to us. And, our answer to this incident should be, Your fired, get out!
Friday, April 09, 2010
Confessions of a Conservative Jew
Written in response to the onslaught of articles from the Left claiming that the Tea Party is anti-Semitic in nature and for that reason needs to be stopped
There it is, right in the middle of the picture, in pure bright colors, flanked by American flags and contrasted by a deep blue sky in the background. A protest, a democratic ritual, a grass roots staple, nothing more American than that, right? Wrong. The sign states a common canard that develops understandable stomach lumps in one small but very significant group of Americans. It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dangerous historical implications. But, there it is, right in the center of the picture and it reads as clear as day, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds (sic).”
Jews have to be a little uneasy with this kind of statement. As a conservative Jew I am ashamed that this and other photos of certain anti-Semitic slogans are taking any part in a movement that I am highly proud of as an American. Smacking of the 100 year old “protocols of the Elders of Zion” it has no place in American political discourse. Yet, the companion article to this photo makes T-Partiers appear everyone out there is anti-Semitic. But, that is not the case. Of course, liberals, like Glenn thrush of Politico.com who is responsible for the above, would have you believe that because of a handful bigoted slogans, anti-Semitism is running rampant through T-Party thinking. Why?
There is a rash of liberal journalists running interference for the administration because the T-party is beginning to have an impact on American thinking. Their numbers are huge. The demonstrations across the country are very impressive. With the hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part and the millions more supporting them from their homes, businesses and schools, represents the most frightening reality to liberals, that America is waking up from their dream state of November 2008 and they want their country back. So, liberal media, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party is working hard to show that the T-party is not as American as apple pie, but rather something dark, sinister, and hateful, among other things—anti-Semitic.
According to Rob Eshman, the editor in chief of the largest Jewish newspaper in the second largest Jewish population in the world, Los Angeles, devoted his entire column the week of the health care vote trying to discredit the Tea Party influence by insisting that anti-Semitism is the pillar of the movement. He pointed out that Rahm Emanuel had received some hate mail signed with a swastika. He used Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” axiom to show that Americans are going along with this without question. He seemed a little disappointed that after the meteoric rise of the movement to such gargantuan proportions that no single charismatic leader has risen to take charge reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis. He quoted James Bessor from another widely read Jewish periodical “almost all the political scientists I talked to said, the insurgent movement also includes elements that are likely to scare the heck out of Jewish voters. “
What elements? Where?
Conservative and Independent Jews are indeed worried about anti-Semitism but not at Eshman’s and Bessor’s assertions. Understanding that there are a few crazies in the movement which need to be exorcised and put down is not worrisome. Anti-Semitism in the tea party is an anomaly which is being dealt with the way anti-Semitism should be dealt with in a free human rights respected society. For Liberal Jewish voters, the kind that Eshman, Bessor, Thrush and others are speaking for in their hysteria need to be more worried than we conservatives. Anti-Semitism in the Democratic party which is broad and extensive unfortunately has never been checked and now in the beginning of the 21st century has an un-relinquishing grip on the party. It is the ugly little secret that liberal Jews never want to talk about much less do anything constructive to combat it.
This animus toward Jews is propelled mainly by three sources very much entrenched in party workings, the extreme Left wing, the African American community and certain Muslim and Arab groups.
Historically, the pull away from Jewish interests in the Democratic Party can be traced directly to the 1972 platform where they endorsed recognition of Palestinian rights at a time when terror was the Palestinians only negotiating tool. Unchallenged, that cancer has continued to grow over the last four decades turning the Democrats from a party of American inclusion to a prioritize cluster of elite groups underpinned with anti-Semitism.
Aside from its sheer dishonesty and a refusal to face facts and understand history, Jewish liberal hypocrisy on the matter is unforgivable. Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post describes an isolated disgusting poster at a T-Party rally which has nothing to do with T-party politics. The text reads “Uncle Sam Reminds You: KEEP PAYING TAXES. The ongoing extermination of Palestinian Children Can't be Done Without Your Help.” Insinuating through Holocaust imagery that American tax dollars going to the State of Israel are used to murder children is an outright lie that is never challenged by the liberal Jewish left, when leftist demonstrations use the same imagery. Leftists have forever tried to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, claiming that political statements concerning Israel and its survival struggle with the Palestinians are legitimate and should be separated from the Nazi like real anti-Semitism of the right wing. Yet, here Linkins uses it to show anti-Semitism running rampant through T-party motivations.
Can Liberal Jews do anything to reverse this trend? Getting rid of this ugliness is highly unlikely at this point. The time for that is long since past. The only way to purge this viciousness would be to challenge these groups for party supremacy and then remove their constituents from any positions of power they hold. That is not possible at this time. That would destroy the foundations of what the party is, I don’t think even Liberal Jews want that.
What they have done instead with these articles is to draw a moral equivalency between the two major American ideologies thereby diffusing any complicity in the crime. After all, if anti-Semitism exists equally on the right and the left then the issue seems to cancel each other out as criteria for supporting Jewish causes.
Taking the low road and not standing up to this threat when it was possible to do so will cost the Jews as it has at other times in history. European Jewry followed somewhat the same course in Western Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries. We all know how that ended up.
Well, there is one thing they could do, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention it here. Here is my constant message to my Jewish brothers and sisters. Leave the Democratic Party now. It is the conservative thought in this country which now holds the key to our salvation and our freedom. You need to realize and embrace it. It is the only way to continue to flourish and take advantage of the freedoms we are given here.
For some reason I cannot see journalists like Eshman and Linkins or politicians like Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel making those kinds of courageous changes. I just don’t think they have it in them.
It is right that these isolated placards that show an anti-Semitic bent in T-party demonstrations be exposed and put down as quickly as possible. There is no room for that in this country. We do not need to redefine freedom; we just need to extend it to all who are willing to fight for it. It appears that the T-party is just such a group, and this is definitely within Jewish interests. As Jews we need to stay on course, keep freedom alive, and keep America strong.
There it is, right in the middle of the picture, in pure bright colors, flanked by American flags and contrasted by a deep blue sky in the background. A protest, a democratic ritual, a grass roots staple, nothing more American than that, right? Wrong. The sign states a common canard that develops understandable stomach lumps in one small but very significant group of Americans. It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dangerous historical implications. But, there it is, right in the center of the picture and it reads as clear as day, “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds (sic).”
Jews have to be a little uneasy with this kind of statement. As a conservative Jew I am ashamed that this and other photos of certain anti-Semitic slogans are taking any part in a movement that I am highly proud of as an American. Smacking of the 100 year old “protocols of the Elders of Zion” it has no place in American political discourse. Yet, the companion article to this photo makes T-Partiers appear everyone out there is anti-Semitic. But, that is not the case. Of course, liberals, like Glenn thrush of Politico.com who is responsible for the above, would have you believe that because of a handful bigoted slogans, anti-Semitism is running rampant through T-Party thinking. Why?
There is a rash of liberal journalists running interference for the administration because the T-party is beginning to have an impact on American thinking. Their numbers are huge. The demonstrations across the country are very impressive. With the hundreds of thousands of Americans taking part and the millions more supporting them from their homes, businesses and schools, represents the most frightening reality to liberals, that America is waking up from their dream state of November 2008 and they want their country back. So, liberal media, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party is working hard to show that the T-party is not as American as apple pie, but rather something dark, sinister, and hateful, among other things—anti-Semitic.
According to Rob Eshman, the editor in chief of the largest Jewish newspaper in the second largest Jewish population in the world, Los Angeles, devoted his entire column the week of the health care vote trying to discredit the Tea Party influence by insisting that anti-Semitism is the pillar of the movement. He pointed out that Rahm Emanuel had received some hate mail signed with a swastika. He used Eric Hoffer’s “true believer” axiom to show that Americans are going along with this without question. He seemed a little disappointed that after the meteoric rise of the movement to such gargantuan proportions that no single charismatic leader has risen to take charge reminiscent of Hitler and the Nazis. He quoted James Bessor from another widely read Jewish periodical “almost all the political scientists I talked to said, the insurgent movement also includes elements that are likely to scare the heck out of Jewish voters. “
What elements? Where?
Conservative and Independent Jews are indeed worried about anti-Semitism but not at Eshman’s and Bessor’s assertions. Understanding that there are a few crazies in the movement which need to be exorcised and put down is not worrisome. Anti-Semitism in the tea party is an anomaly which is being dealt with the way anti-Semitism should be dealt with in a free human rights respected society. For Liberal Jewish voters, the kind that Eshman, Bessor, Thrush and others are speaking for in their hysteria need to be more worried than we conservatives. Anti-Semitism in the Democratic party which is broad and extensive unfortunately has never been checked and now in the beginning of the 21st century has an un-relinquishing grip on the party. It is the ugly little secret that liberal Jews never want to talk about much less do anything constructive to combat it.
This animus toward Jews is propelled mainly by three sources very much entrenched in party workings, the extreme Left wing, the African American community and certain Muslim and Arab groups.
Historically, the pull away from Jewish interests in the Democratic Party can be traced directly to the 1972 platform where they endorsed recognition of Palestinian rights at a time when terror was the Palestinians only negotiating tool. Unchallenged, that cancer has continued to grow over the last four decades turning the Democrats from a party of American inclusion to a prioritize cluster of elite groups underpinned with anti-Semitism.
Aside from its sheer dishonesty and a refusal to face facts and understand history, Jewish liberal hypocrisy on the matter is unforgivable. Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post describes an isolated disgusting poster at a T-Party rally which has nothing to do with T-party politics. The text reads “Uncle Sam Reminds You: KEEP PAYING TAXES. The ongoing extermination of Palestinian Children Can't be Done Without Your Help.” Insinuating through Holocaust imagery that American tax dollars going to the State of Israel are used to murder children is an outright lie that is never challenged by the liberal Jewish left, when leftist demonstrations use the same imagery. Leftists have forever tried to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, claiming that political statements concerning Israel and its survival struggle with the Palestinians are legitimate and should be separated from the Nazi like real anti-Semitism of the right wing. Yet, here Linkins uses it to show anti-Semitism running rampant through T-party motivations.
Can Liberal Jews do anything to reverse this trend? Getting rid of this ugliness is highly unlikely at this point. The time for that is long since past. The only way to purge this viciousness would be to challenge these groups for party supremacy and then remove their constituents from any positions of power they hold. That is not possible at this time. That would destroy the foundations of what the party is, I don’t think even Liberal Jews want that.
What they have done instead with these articles is to draw a moral equivalency between the two major American ideologies thereby diffusing any complicity in the crime. After all, if anti-Semitism exists equally on the right and the left then the issue seems to cancel each other out as criteria for supporting Jewish causes.
Taking the low road and not standing up to this threat when it was possible to do so will cost the Jews as it has at other times in history. European Jewry followed somewhat the same course in Western Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries. We all know how that ended up.
Well, there is one thing they could do, and I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention it here. Here is my constant message to my Jewish brothers and sisters. Leave the Democratic Party now. It is the conservative thought in this country which now holds the key to our salvation and our freedom. You need to realize and embrace it. It is the only way to continue to flourish and take advantage of the freedoms we are given here.
For some reason I cannot see journalists like Eshman and Linkins or politicians like Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel making those kinds of courageous changes. I just don’t think they have it in them.
It is right that these isolated placards that show an anti-Semitic bent in T-party demonstrations be exposed and put down as quickly as possible. There is no room for that in this country. We do not need to redefine freedom; we just need to extend it to all who are willing to fight for it. It appears that the T-party is just such a group, and this is definitely within Jewish interests. As Jews we need to stay on course, keep freedom alive, and keep America strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)