crumbbum before going on and in the same theme of conversations down this same path I want to state that I’m not anti-Semitic. I think basing a prefabricated assessment of someone as a good/or bad person on their chosen path of spirituality is ignorant. Even further I’m not in a place that I can proclaim to judge anyone; nor do I care to be. I don’t know of all the injustices that have happened in the world and I’m probably uninformed to multiple current events of the same. When I do see injustice happening it bothers me. Therefore the actions of people supercede what color, race, religion, sex, financial status, political clout they have. Actions are clear, human ingenuity with reference to selective remembrance has the power change what has happened in the eyes of individual perception.
Conquest, good timing, industrial progress, and similar represent the victors in the social evolution of homosapiens. The people that chose not to accept that reality and replace it with justifications that suit their needs don’t seem to realize that actions such as that carry a price. It becomes an annoyance when power is given to this to expand outside of the sphere it was created in. I'm not saying that’s the case here yet.
I humbly feel I know a great deal about the history of this region, but I also respect there’s a great deal I don’t know. I've started reading where it seems a majority of your views seem to be sourced at
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
I wont be able fully converse until giving a fair read in its entirety. Of the little I’ve read here are some observations:
You commented earlier on why the Israeli government has no reason to lie about Arab demographics: You sound extremely intelligent, so I'll trust you can probably think of a few, even if you don’t agree. It’s a matter of selective perspective. Myths and Facts is a high seller, I’m confident I could take an educated guess on which readers give the book a great review.
I’m not calling Mitch Bard a liar, but is there any aspect about him that suggests the tone and influence of his book may possibly be toward a selective view as opposed to an unbiased researcher? Bard holds a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA and a master’s degree in public policy from Berkeley. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who lectures frequently on U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Bard is also the director of the Jewish Virtual Library, the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture.
One of the first glances was at the Immigration numbers of European Jews to Palestine. I went to the source he used for that data; Yehoshua Porath. He is a professor of Middle East and Hebrew History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of AZURE: Ideas for the Jewish Nation. It clearly states within its own ledgers it’s of Zionist persuasion. That’s his source for that particular bit of data I read in his book. I’m not knocking this person, I’m sure they carry an unbiased view in their historical interpretation, but I’m oddly enough his data conflicts directly with:
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UgDiAsMZ0FesJVubx9lw*X6j2qyVc3vZyfX7SwFX713S29UC3i9wj8OiN8WqLVST0REm*OKnm3AcPyiFBQTSZY6VIdvcoV2UmV90CnrENpEuhQyrbrulLEzTqC1QKNye/SurveyOfPalestine-copy.jpg?dc=4675422122529326675[/IMG]
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwAAAHgSKEbD0lc7bGVqB4AUOoNgoFhvfvAq6QXLg36JFWnAnaOIG1U22W*cYjAmMNjYlinQVcmn9w45ndF0R5bAfe5lB7U7/pop_1.jpg?dc=4675422122526045002[/IMG]
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwDiAnkSYUZOEx0yzHl!OrGFRG3!FlPLnC4OpK2LU3auNY3JxK9yH3bbLhMrbnR6ITF9CWCaA4G*UZLamBnMkT3ekObnT2m0/pop_2.jpg?dc=4675422122527756626[/IMG]
Although its possible many might take old records of the British Government with a grain of salt, I personally give them credibility for my conclusions. In the small amount I’ve read according to him the following which are both records of the British government and the United Nations are not reality. Where is selective perception happening here?
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VwAAAH4bN!hWP1AaQy186JkYRXoG0q0XCkYJC9jzHlbouNkZVR5lSU6OLqfYK9iUqMor2jzLyqfDR*1L06AHENYP*QQGxA8vZGy0hj17vMEaICQZe3eo4pNR2ArYPWVU/PeelPartition1937ParitionPlan.jpg?dc=4675422122523658909[/IMG]
[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwDiAvIeSxMvDWKWkdsnWDMxKpv37fj1mkEsJNxHUK2RqDJ5R4zKCB0fzWp!*4CPFaYg3F0lylZUI!XDy7J0ABn3Odi7aOkYapsLtlbELhwNindiWhxJWHohelZDlTTuOHZVAx!EO6I/Palestine1946DistributionOfPopulation.jpg?dc=4675422122521345990[/IMG]
What would you make of the following: (attempt to be as neutral as possible) This is his an example of the accounting on the views and statements of the founding Zionists- This in relation to Ben Gurion:
Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."
Here’s some of Ben’s quotes he opted not to include
". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale."
"With compulsory transfer we have vast areas .... I support compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them."
That particular statement directly contradicts one of his myths debunkings. This was recorded by Ben’s personal biographer another source used by the author numerous times as his source.
"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland."
"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary."
Other quotes from Moshe Sharett (Shertok), Ukrainian born, was the director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department from 1933 until May 1948 (when the State of Israel was founded), then he became its first Foreign Minister until 1954. For a brief period between 1954-1955, Sharett was Israel 's Prime Minister, and briefly it's Foreign Minster again in 1955-56. After being politically marginalized in the Israeli Cabinet, he resigned office and became the Chairman of the Jewish Agency between 1956-1960.
We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.
This list goes on. Do you see any glimpse of selective perception?
As I stated I need to finish the book, and attempt to keep an open mind. You mentioned a massacre earlier. That is very sad, and tragic. Although you never state it, I’m given the impression you believe there were no massacres done upon the Palestinians. If that’s the case; you haven’t even come close to scratching the surface, but to find such information you’d have to look for it, so if you've chosen not to see or believe they happened, then your belief will continue as it does. (Not right or wrong)
This is how easy selective perception can happen: the list of Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the West Bank and Gaza strip gave you the impression their making such a stance because they are tired of fighting the Arabs. I have to wonder if you read the personal accounts, because the perception I’m left with is they are doing so because they fell what is happening is wrong and contradicts the very values of love and justice they were raised to honor. That doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong IMO, but if such views affect the life and existence of a populous it’s not going to be free. There’s many other points you stated I wanted to comment on, but the overall point I’m trying to make is this there’s innocent people dying on both sides. I see killing people with bombs as a terrible thing, but throwing pebbles didn’t seem to stop settlement growth, Israeli won the war, it should have the right to exist. America’s manifest destiny solved the Indian issue; it should have the right to exist. Due to the fact certain Indian tribes don’t seem to be using their land in a way I judge as effective does that give me the right to move them to . . .to . . .
If you see the settlements as being legal, and common sense shows they will grow, what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle. Go to over crowded Jordan, Syria? Some say that the Palestinians never were or classify as a populous; when does any culture begin to be recognized and by whom? If theres no difference between Jordians, "Palestinians", Lebenese, and Syrians then really what the difference between Canadians, and Americans. Or someone whos British and and someone whos American. It’s not like the term American is an ancient race. Im not stating you have this position, but there have been times with people with similiar views as yours stop short of saying "You've seen one Arab you've seen them all" Lastly if justification is built around how the story goes in the Bible what if that’s not one’s religion? It goes back to he who has the bigger guns. So just say that. It’s a little easier to swallow than selective interpretation, personal justifications, and historical manipulation. (I’m not referring to you personally)