The much-awaited moment has come and the League of Arab States has reissued the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan with no changes or amendments.
It is important to understand what this initiative says and the great potential it has for putting the region on a course toward a sustainable peace. It is also important to understand what it is not — a take it or leave it offer with no room for negotiations.
In fact, it’s exactly what Israel has needed for decades–a firm opening offer and invitation to negotiations from the entire Arab world. It’s not only peace with the Palestinians. It’s peace with the entire Arab world that is being offered. And not just peace, but normal relations. This is offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all territories it captured in 1967, the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital and an “agreed upon” resolution to the refugee issue, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
This can’t be stressed enough–the economic, cultural, diplomatic, political and social ties that come with normal relations prevent war and create a peaceful environment that no treaty or agreement possibly can. Israel needs to jump at this offer to negotiate. The Arab states know that Israel would not accept their plan whole cloth. They know Israel’s stance is that they are unwilling to go back to the 1967 borders and are unwilling to take responsibility for the refugees. But if Israel is willing to come to the table with their points and negotiate with the Arabs, progress can be made.
The United States must play a strong role in this. The US needs to be the party that brings Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab league together and gets them all to talk seriously about all of these issues. There was a moment in late March when it seemed Condoleezza Rice was trying to do just that, but she was apparently called off by her boss. This is where Americans, and particularly American Jews must act. The latest buzzword, a “political horizon” that Rice threw around echoing her boss, is simply not sufficient. There needs to be action.
The simple fact is that the Arab League cannot possibly start with a better offer from Israel’s point of view than this one. It is as far as they can go initially and not enrage the Arab populace, especially the Palestinians. But if Israeli accommodations can be secured in exchange for more compromise, they probably will be able to do that.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recognized this reality when he said that the proposal contained “interesting elements” and that Israel understood that an Arab proposal would include full withdrawal and a solution to the refugee problem that would involve Israel. Now, he needs to be urged to move forward in a positive way, something that will not be politically easy for him, but which could, if nothing else, lay the groundwork for a real breakthrough in the near future.
A Ha’aretz editorial on March 28 put it succinctly: “A realistic government would have rushed to embrace this willingness for recognition and reconciliation, expressing reservations for what it does not accept and seeking dialogue on the regional level.”
Presented below is a more in-depth analysis of the Arab League Plan and the reactions, views and politics around it from various players. We’ll start with a summary of the initiative and an examination of some of the key clauses, and then we’ll look at what the initiative means for the various parties involved and how they are responding to it.
The Arab League Offer
The Saudi plan begins by re-establishing UN Resolutions 242 and 338 as the diplomatic basis. It then calls for an Israeli withdrawal from all territories captured in 1967, including the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem and an Israeli acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In exchange, all the member states of the Arab League agree that the conflict with Israel is ended; that peace is established between each of them and Israel; and most importantly, that normal relations will be established with Israel.
The importance of this last point cannot be overstated. Peace is one thing, usually based on a piece of paper. But the threat of war is eliminated not by a treaty but by normal relations between countries. Normal relations includes economic ties, cultural and academic connections and human interactions between people in the different societies. These are the things that calm tensions, build relationships and make war an undesirable option for leaders.
This all sounds great, but as usual, there is much deviltry in the details. The preamble, which makes the statements referenced above hits on some of the points Israel objects to, such as a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders, and sharing Jerusalem. It doesn’t make mention of the toughest issue, that of the Palestinian refugees. That comes later.
Hamas’ Policy of Ambiguity
The Saudi plan puts Hamas in a difficult position. Though they offer various modalities of non-belligerence with Israel, such as a 100-year hudna (truce), they are ideologically opposed to recognizing Israel or making a formal peace with it. On the other hand, they are not interested in blocking a Saudi initiative or standing outside of an Arab consensus.
To deal with this conflict, Hamas has adopted a “policy of ambiguity” where they do not block or accept the Saudi plan. Nor did they oppose Mahmoud Abbas for voting in favor of the plan for the Palestinian Authority. They will remain opposed to a formal peace with Israel or recognition of it. But they have already agreed, as part of the unity government arrangement, to allow Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate for peace with Israel and to abide by any agreement ratified by a referendum of the Palestinian people.
This points up the difference between a party’s stance and a government’s, a difference which has been sadly clouded in recent months when it comes to the PA. When Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party were in power, they opposed the Oslo Accords. They were not able to scuttle the deal altogether, as Netanyahu had wished. But no one demanded that Netanyahu and Likud accept Oslo, merely that they abide by the decision of the government they were now in control of.
Similarly, Hamas being in power (although their control is diminished by the unity government –they share the Cabinet posts with Fatah and independents — they retain a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council) does not mean their ideology completely guides the government. They cannot afford to block a reasonable peace accord that would meet with the approval of most Palestinians. If they try, they will not be in power much longer.
Still, even in their ambiguity, their stances may prove to be problematic. They have repeatedly called on the Arab League not to compromise on their right to violent resistance or the right of return. But Hamas will have to live with compromises on both those points. It won’t be hard to deal with a cease-fire with Israel; that’s something Hamas has already accepted. But negotiations will happen on the refugee issue if peace is pursued at all, and part of their success will be based on an internal Palestinian dialogue on what is and is not an acceptable compromise for peace. Absolutism and rigidity will not serve well.
Still, a major difference in Hamas’ response is visible between today and 2002, when the plan was first issued. In ’02, the plan was barely announced when Hamas executed a devastating suicide attack in Netanya, murdering 30 Jews in a hotel during a Passover Seder. After that, Israel launched its re-invasion of the West Bank called “Operation Defensive Shield” and the Saudi peace plan effectively disappeared.
If progress is to be made, it will be important to view Hamas’ current stance as a marked improvement over their response five years ago and work to ensure that their willingness to stand aside thus far continues and hope that they might even be willing to engage positively in the process by facilitating a national conversation on the parameters of a peace deal with Israel. Hamas will not and cannot openly abandon their ideology. But they will not want to work against the will of the Palestinian and Arab people.
The Israeli Response
Israel has, of course, known for quite some time that the Saudi Peace Plan was to be reaffirmed at this meeting of the Arab League. Their initial efforts were focused on getting the Saudis to remove any mention of the refugees and of a full withdrawal from all territories captured in 1967. This was never a very realistic goal, and it is not surprising that Israel failed to accomplish this.
But now that the plan is out, the Israeli response has been more open than might have been expected. In the March 30 edition of Ha’aretz, Ehud Olmert made the following statements: “There are interesting ideas there, and we are ready to hold discussions and hear from the Saudis about their approach and to tell them about ours…The Riyadh summit is certainly a serious matter. We do not delude ourselves – they want us to go back to the 1967 borders and they also want the right of return. We were not surprised; we understood it would be this way. The content is important, but it is also important to relate to the atmosphere, positioning and direction.”
This is considerably more welcoming than past Israeli statements have been. More consistent with that history is Shimon Peres’ response to the Saudi plan: “Unilateral declarations, in which each side presents its positions, will not achieve anything.” Fortunately, and possibly due to some influence by the US, Olmert is behaving in a more conciliatory fashion than his deputy.
But again, there is a devil in the details. Olmert has been adamant about refusing to talk about the refugees at all, stating that he would never allow a single refugee back into Israel nor, and this is key, would he ever admit to any Israeli responsibility for the refugees. Basically, he is refusing to discuss the matter, a stance which cannot possibly be accepted by the Arabs.
There are simple realities that both sides must deal with. Israel is never going to accept any plan that does not leave Israel with a comfortable Jewish majority for the foreseeable future and the Palestinians and the Arab states are never going to accept a plan that does not address the refugee issue and come up with a solution that the Palestinians can live with.
There’s another potential danger in Olmert’s response. The direction he wishes to take the plan is toward a regional conference between Israel, the Palestinians and “the moderate Arab states.” Well, what does that last phrase mean, exactly?
Obviously the “moderate” Arabs would include the group that is currently being referred to (outside the Arab world) as the “Arab Quartet”, meaning Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Of the 17 other members of the Arab League, most would be generally considered part of the moderate bloc (Morocco, Qatar, Kuwait, Tunisia, Oman, and, since their own change of policies, Libya), minor players likely to go with the flow of events (Yemen, Mauritania, Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros) or countries with their own problems that will be disengaged from this process (Iraq, Sudan, Bahrain, Algeria).
The two countries that won’t fit in any of those categories are Lebanon and Syria. Given the recent war with Lebanon and the generally embarrassing episode of failed attempts to revive peace negotiations with Syria, it seems likely that Israel is trying to isolate these issues from the Palestinian question.
There’s good reason for Israel to do this. Leaving the West Bank is going to cause massive political upheavals in Israel, far greater than anything that happened around the Gaza withdrawal. For different reasons, the Golan Heights is also a sensitive issue — not as sensitive as the West Bank, but far more than Gaza. For this reason, both Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak took great pains to keep the “Palestinian” and “Syrian” negotiation tracks separate. Olmert surely wants to do the same.
The notion of separating the two made sense for Rabin and Barak. This time, however, it would be a mistake.
The essence of the Saudi peace plan is its comprehensive nature. Indeed, much of the value in it for Israel lies in the fact that it includes the commitment of the entire Arab world, including Syria. Even if Syria is not at the table, it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE would allow the separation of the issues of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights.
But the more crucial concern is how Syria, or more to the point, Hezbollah, would respond to an attempt to freeze Syria out of the process. The situation with Syria has deteriorated, and Hezbollah, while still active in the popular uprising in Lebanon, has also lost some of its new-found support in recent months because it has not been able to fulfill its promise of helping to rebuild the areas of southern Lebanon that were destroyed and damaged in last summer’s war with Israel. The best way for Hezbollah to regain its popularity is by hitting Israel. If Syria needs to reassert the need for Israel to deal with her, another attack may well be on the way, something no civilian in Israel, Lebanon or Syria needs.
Olmert’s response is only one of several responses by Israelis. They range from Peres’ utter rejection of the plan, or Netanyahu’s completely ignoring it to more welcoming responses from Defense Minister Amir Peretz and the launching of an Israeli grassroots group to support talks based on the plan called the Israeli Regional Peace Movement.
The Olmert government is likely on its last legs. The Labor Party will soon hold its internal elections, where it is overwhelmingly likely that Ehud Barak will regain the top spot in the party. If not him, then Ami Ayalon, but there is no conceivable scenario where Amir Peretz retains control. Peretz has been unable, due both to his own failings and his scant support in Labor, to lead the party back to a place of strength. Barak, who would surely have his eye on the Prime Minister’s office, would be likely to try to position himself as a peacemaker in contrast to Olmert and Netanyahu, and would probably try to build on the Saudi plan in some fashion.
In any case, the new Labor leader and Netanyahu with Likud will be in a race to see who can gather sufficient political support to try to bring down the Olmert government and hold new elections. The outcome of that race will likely determine whether there is any possibility of Israel engaging constructively with the Arabs for peace, whether based on the Saudi plan or not. Olmert, despite his positive statements, is clearly not inclined to do so.
Why did the Saudis revive the plan at this time?
There were a number of factors that went into the Saudi decision, but probably the most important was the state of Saudi Arabia’s relationship with the United States, which is at a very low ebb right now. Saudi King Abdullah recently canceled a scheduled gala at the White House, without a particularly notable reason, and, of greater importance, he publicly denounced the US occupation of Iraq as illegal.
This indicates a serious strain in the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US, one which is surely born of the failure of American Mideast policy. The Saudis have exercised independent leadership in significant ways in recent months. They brokered the Palestinian unity government, and did it by pushing both Fatah and Hamas hard to accept compromises that neither side was particularly interested in. They worked with their most hated rival, Iran, to restore some measure of order to Lebanon. And now they have taken a bold step to push the Israel-Palestine conflict back into the realm of diplomacy.
The Saudis, of course, have no wish to break away from their relationship with the US. But they also know a sinking ship when they see one, and the Bush Administration’s neo-conservative-inspired Mideast policy is already nestling down close to Davy Jones’ famed locker. They have lost confidence in the Bush Administration’s ability to deal with the threat of Iran as well, and recognize that they need to find a way to unify the Arab
world behind their leadership to counter Iran’s growing influence.
The Saudis surely hope that a new administration in 2008 will bring a new policy, but they can’t afford to just sit back and wait that long. But if diplomacy is to resume as a result of their offer to Israel, it will not be short-term, and it will not be possible to conduct such diplomacy in the manner of Bush and Cheney, a style that is best described as arrogant and aggressive. The Saudis hope that Bush will allow Condoleezza Rice and others of a more moderate bent to guide the US involvement from here on. That hope may well be in vain, but even if so, the Saudis have little choice but to try to take the reins in Mideast diplomacy.
The American failure in Iraq cannot be repaired by the US, and the Saudis know this. In the long run, either Saudi Arabia will lead the Arab world in reconstituting Iraq as a viable state or Iran will do it. Increased Iranian influence in the Arab world is the greatest Saudi fear. In order to counteract it, they are distancing themselves publicly (and surely only temporarily) from the US. They are also trying to lay the groundwork for a resolution of the Palestinian question. If they can make significant progress on the conflict with Israel, they will greatly enhance their leadership position, as well as expanding their own and the entire Arab world’s ability to focus on Iraq.
The US response and its ongoing role
The US has been generally positive about the Saudi peace plan in its public statements. But in practice, the reception has been lukewarm. This was most notable during Condoleezza Rice’s trip to Israel. What was rumored to have been Rice trying to engage in a sort of “shuttle diplomacy” to get the ball rolling on substantive talks between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League produced nothing more than an agreement that Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would hold bi-weekly discussions. And even those talks have no specific focus beyond some immediate security arrangements and ways to “ease the suffering” of the Palestinian people. This is smoke, and not even much in the way of mirrors.
The trip by a congressional delegation headed by Nancy Pelosi and including Tom Lantos, one of the fiercest proponents of supporting the most militant and right-wing stances regarding Israel, to the Middle East, including Syria, offered some hope. The trip clearly did not sit well with the White House, nor with many congressional Republicans. Although
AIPAC was silent about it, they could not have been pleased either. Pelosi was clearly staking out a new direction for a Democratic foreign policy, and doing it with Lantos’ support reveals the extent to which the pro-Israel American public is disillusioned by the abject failure of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.
The rightward and neo-conservative turn AIPAC has taken in recent years has damaged their relationship with the Democrats. It is well known that Pelosi’s message to Syria was essentially along the lines of Bush policy: stop supporting terrorism, both in the Occupied Territories and in Iraq, Israel is willing to talk, and that Syria should help free the Israeli soldiers held by Hezbollah and Hamas. But just talking with Syria at all is a signal that the Democratic leadership is not going to pursue the self-defeating policy of not talking to one’s enemies.
There is a real opening now for action in the US aimed at getting our government to actively promote talks between Israel and the Arab states, including both the PA and Syria.
Palestinian Refugees
The stickiest issue in any discussion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians is the question of refugees. It therefore bears special scrutiny here. The Saudi plan lays out its proposal on refugees in the following clauses:
2b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.
The second clause was added back in 2002 at the insistence of Lebanon, which has one of the largest populations of Palestinian refugees and which has been the most adamant about refusing them entry into Lebanese society. Their stance is based on the fragile and complex demography of Lebanon which serves as the basis for much of their governmental structure.
Any mention of the Palestinian refugees which does not assure that Israel need take no responsibility for them scares the hell out of most Israelis. They see accepting the refugees’ claims as meaning that Jews will soon become a minority in Israel. So Ehud Olmert has taken the problematic stance that Israel will only discuss those parts of the Saudi plan which Israel views positively.
Let’s look at what is actually being proposed here. Clause 4 certainly does not bar resettlement of refugees in the countries where they now reside or any other country. It does say that the solution cannot be found by forcing the current host countries to accept the refugees.
This is a crucial principle–that resolving the most difficult issues will be accomplished through negotiations, not force or blackmail. Just as it would be futile to try to force Israel to accept conditions it is not prepared for, so too would it be disastrous to try to force Arab states to take in Palestinian refugees they are unwilling to accommodate. Similarly, any resolution to the refugee issue will have to be one that is acceptable to enough Palestinians as well as enough Israelis to overcome the hardline minorities among both peoples. If it’s not, it will fail. It’s that simple, and is a principle that holds for any agreement aimed at resolving this conflict.
But the real meat of the refugee portion of the Arab proposal is clause 2b. No doubt, this will cause great anxiety in Israel, and that is understandable. But it has already been widely mis-reported as “requiring” Israel to accept a large number of Palestinian refugees back into Israel. To be sure, the language allows for this as a possibility, and the Arab states would be delighted with such an outcome.
But the Arabs are not trying to push a plan that is doomed to failure, as any plan that had such a requirement would be. Much of the reporting on this provision is missing the key phrase in it: “to be agreed upon.” The Arabs are acknowledging that Israel would never agree to a blanket return of refugees. They have their position, however, and it is about as far as they can go in an initial proposal due to the massive and passionate support for the Palestinian right of return among the Arab people. Anything more would have to come as a result of an agreement with Israel, the results of which might be enough to mollify Arab anger at any compromise on the principle of return of the refugees. At least, such would be the hope.
In any case, Israeli efforts to have the Saudi plan modified by removing reference to the refugees were not only futile, but also misguided. No peace arrangement that involves the Palestinians and does not address the refugee issue is not worth the paper it’s printed on. One way or another, the only way to end the conflict is to come to an agreement on the refugees and trying to ignore the issue is self-defeating. For a fuller examination of this issue, see my recent article here.
Clever diplomacy could take the Arab League’s phrasing on this issue to its most practical destination: working out the contours of an end of the occupation, dealing with borders, settlements, Jerusalem, water rights and all the other sticky issues, and only then, once the Palestinians are a freed people, deal with the question of refugees in a new environment of hope and at least some modicum of trust.
Well-said, Mitchell, as usual. There is much cause for hope here. It’s a sincere invitation to negotiate that by means of tautology leaves the door open on the refugee issue as wide as it can possibly swing: Let’s try to agree on a solution that would be agreeable to you. How could anyone refuse an invitation like that? I am confident this plan will form the basis of talks in the not-too-distant future that will result in lasting peace and normal relations.Carpe diem!
The Royal Exalted order of Trollsteins herewith endorses the concept of negotiations. Mitchell is absolutely right when he asserts that there is everything to be gained and nothing to loose from this offer to begin discussions. And old Russian bubbimeister:
When the Czar was overthrown during the Bolshevik revolution, all the Czars servants were put to the sword. The Bolshevik guards were about to do the same to the stable-master and his assistant. At the last moment, the stable-master offered the Bolshevik officer in charge; that if he and his assistant were allowed to live, they could teach his horse to talk in one week’s time. Upon the officer agreeing, the assistant asked the stable-master what was he thinking by promising that? The stable-master replied, “look it keeps us alive for another week and you never know. . . maybe the horse will learn to say a word or two . . ”
In this case, the “talking horse” is the notion that all sides will ever be able to agree on any key issues. For example, when the Saudi king suggested that U.N. 242 be implemented, which 242 was he referring to? The one which suggests total withdrawal to pre-1967 borders or the more detailed interpretation, supported by numerous quotes from various world-wide heads of state and diplomats, that 242 does NOT insist in pre-1967 borders? That it was intentionally written that way and is no accident. Also, I would like to know how the Arabs would view the introduction of Qur’anic law into the negotiations?? And, which version of Surah-17 (Children of Israel) would be the controlling verse? The version that gives autonomy and ownership rights of Jerusalem to the Jews, or, the (totally opposite) version of 17:104 that speaks of “Judgment day” for those Jews in Jerusalem?? I would actually LOVE to be the Hebrew representative of the peace delegation, who is in charge of arguing Islam on behalf of the Jews.
In summary: Peace is wonderful. The dream of peace is emotionally gratifying. Talking about Peace is a necessity and should be a responsibility. Lets just not start confusing the dreaming with the doing.
BTW:
The Chinese astrological calendar predicted events this year that would mirror 1947 (60 years ago). Both were “The Year of the Ju”. (“Ju” actually means “pig” in Mandarin dialect”) Go figya . .
):>>>={
PS>
I so much wish that people would stop saying:
“The Devil is in the details”
The Devil is NOT in the details.
The TRUTH is in the details and therefore God is in the details.
There is no “Devil”.
We are “the Devil”. We just need to blame it on someone else, so humanity invented this notion of a “Devil”.
which 242 was he referring to?
The proposal does call for return to pre-1967 borders. So I guess the question of which version of 242 is to be used is moot. Right?
John:
Its “moot” for the moment. Since the peace conference is understood to be a starting point and not and ending point, the question of which 242 is bound to come up during the festivities, as the parties debate the pertaniant legal and moral justifications. I used U.N.S.C.-242 as an example. Several other similar examples are also in a (perpetually) disputed condition. There are also factual disagreements regarding if the Jewish (2nd) Temple of Solomon ever stood at the edge of the “Western Wall”. Mr. Arafat also alleged that the “Dome of the Rock” was always the third most holy place in Islam. his was in fact his prime justification for insisting that the Palestinian-Arab government have its capitol in Jerusalem. To me, this is as silly as the Jews insisting that Mecca is the 2nd most holy place in Jewry and insisting on equal status with the Muslim “Sacred Temple”. Or that Medina be returned to Jewish ownership and control (which, unlike Arafat’s demand, is based on the REAL history that Medina was founded as a Jewish “Nation” in Exile). If you were a collecge instructor of Hebrew, then maybe you can tell us what “Medina” means in Hebrew.
Anyway, like I said, I am for the peace conference without pre-conditions. However, people should be equally prepared for the nature of the disputes, both historc, religious and ethical.
“Medina” is a loanword in Hebrew from Aramaic and originally meant “province” or “district,” referring to the satrapies of the Persian Empire. (Aramaic, i.e., Reichsaramaisch, was the official written language of the Persian Empire.) In time, the word “medina” came to mean “city,” as it does in Arabic. Unless there is more to the name of the city in Arabia than simply “Medina” it very likely had that same meaning in Aramaic/Hebrew at the time the city got that name. It would seem odd to name a city “Province.” But maybe what we have is a shortened form of the name.
John:
It is my understanding that the redundancy is not coincidental. I am told by a well read Israeli that the meaning was intended to infer that Medina was a territory of the Jewish nation, or, specifically (from a practical perspective — in the era — 620-CE), a ‘Nation in Exile’. It certainly was a center of Jewish knowledge and except for Alexandria (Egypt) may have had the largest body of Jewish writing in the world. This begins to make successively more and more sense when one reads the obscure volumes of Jewish Apocalyptic. Some of these scripts stem from the Exile period (in Babylon) and were actually an update or improvised interpretation of earlier Bible chapters, such as Ezekiel (say: ‘Ya-ky-el’). These scripts were gloomy and not generally flaunted by the Jews, due to their extreme and somewhat depressing content. Nonetheless, typically, scholars of Islam are unaware that certain Qur’anic verses resemble their Jewish counter-part prophecies. The Jewish scholars equally remain less then versed about this scriptural connection because they do not study Qur’an and generally, do not study obscure Jewish apocalyptic writings either.
Anyway, back to modern politics. The Muslims will often (correctly) point out that the Romans originally evicted the Jews from Judea and the Germans did the dirty deed in the 20th century Europe. However, there is no denying that Media was cleared of its Jewish inhabitants by the Muslim leadership. Since the Arab claim to religious rights at the Temple-Mount stems from exactly the same historical era, any such claim they include in the “peace negotiations” being envisaged should (in my humble opinion) be countered by Jewish claims for return of Medina.
If Israel wanted to advance such a claim as you suggest, they would need to do it on other than linguistic grounds, as there is no evidence that the word ever meant anything like “nation” (in exile or otherwise) in antiquity. The name of the place at the time it was supposedly founded by Jewish tribes, according to legend, was Yathrib; not Medina. And “Medina” might indicate it was the seat of a Persian administrative district or could simply mean “city” in Aramaic or Arabic. [E. Y. Kutscher believed it meant “city” as early as the 5th c. BCE and only later came to mean “province” or “district” btw.]
The fact is that all matters relating to Jerusalem will simply have to be negotiated and evidence presented. Who knows?
BTW:
I came upon something very interesting. I read a claim in a book by Sam Katz (“Battleground”) that although there were numerous newspapers covering the (then unfolding) events in the Mid East, including Arabic newspapers and “Western” newspapers — those who were known to be overtly hostle to Israel, no one can seem to locate any newsprint from the actual time of the Arab exit from Israel, which stated that they were being forced to leave by the remaining Jews. John: Can you reference any news stories written at the contemporary time, which make such a claim? If not, would you agree that this is quite bizzare, if one believes that the expulsions were indeed forced?? So strange is this, that if you can find such newsprint, I would consider switching positions — on this one issue.
You would believe an Arab newspaper if it reported forcible expulsions but not the Haganah? A declassified post-war internal Haganah document says that 73% of 390,000 who had fled by June 1948 did so in response to Israeli military actions.
Why no mention of forced expulsions in initial reports in the Arab press? I dunno. No correspondents on the ground? The fog of war? Probably newspaper reports from Germany did not grasp the dimensions of what had happened there at first either.
Here’s a report from someone who was there, David Ben-Gurion, in a comment to his friend Nahum Goldman,
“If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country…We come from Israel, it’s true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.”
Can you find me a single example in history where an indigenous people voluntarily abandoned their ancestral villages, their homes, their possessions, and fled in the middle of the night, because foreign settlers who wanted their country had moved into it?
John:
I realize that our conclusions are nearly opposite. What I am wondering is if our evidence is at least understood. Lets see if I have the list of evidence strait:
You sight a Haganah “internal document”. May we know which document and where is the reference? Because it seems to be your only piece of evidence. You posted a link to Arab interviews but without any English translations and even with then, 750,000 persons would hardly be accounted for in these interviews of 250 people, done 60 years after the fact and of course, assuming these people said what you purport them to be saying. All maybes. BTW: there are over 250 separate books, written by separate Holocaust survivors, written (more or less) at the time of their liberations, detailing with precision their experiences. Yet, no newspaper articles can be located (either Arab or other) which speak of forced evictions of Arabs. You explain this phenomena thusly:
“The fog of war? Probably newspaper reports from Germany did not grasp the dimensions of what had happened there at first either.”
This above statement is a perfect example of how your thinking drifts into the abyss. You are actually comparing Arab autonomous newspapers, located all over the ARAB Middle East, with Nazi controlled German newspapers, published and controlled by Nazis??? Of course, the Nazi newspapers would only do what was in the German best interest. And the Arab newsprint would be expected to do exactly the SAME. You assert that they would do opposite things. That the German press would be protective of the Germans and the Arab press would be protective of the JEWS ???
You quote Ben Gurian but there is no date (very important) on the quote. Even if the date is logically appropriate to your arguments and even if the quote is accurate he may be using the word “steal” the way you have used it. To describe an inward long-term migration, armed with financial power (not military power) at its roots. Its simply not (even at face value) a factual assertion that Jews forced Arabs to leave, during that 3-month period which we are debating. On the other hand, I have quoted a former Syrian Prime Minister who specified that he and other Arab leaders were responsible for “educing the Arab populations of Palestine to flee”. No one has begun to explain why these populations wound up in a number of countries having no borders with Israel, such as Iraq and Kuwait. That is simply NOT the way that fleeing refugee populations travel. It is more indicative of an orchestrated transfer with the pre-cooperation of the receiving governments.
Lastly, no one has endeavored to explain why the Arabs of the Haifa area departed, when they were very close to the Jewish families. These were secular (in some cases socialist) peaceniks just like Mitchell and yourself.
Have I at least gotten our respective positions (claims) strait?
I have also re-read:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b5
It does indeed paint Ben Gurian as a leftist, which only makes sense and comports with history. The entire rest of the story goes contrary to your repeated assertions. It is only very recently that Jews could even afford to be assertive of anything. For the past 2,000 years, Jews had been summarily hated by Christians and Muslims alike. We can not be certain of the exact reasons. What we do know is that Christianity claims to be a “New Covenant” of Yahweh (God) and so the Old “Covenant” may exist as an annoying reminder of the lack of total persuasion of the “New Covenant”. ‘Refusnicks’ are simply not appreciated. Equally so, the New, New Covenant of Yahweh (Islam) makes no distinction between non-believers (‘Kaffirs’) who are from one or two “Covenants” back. In the mean time, it was only very recently, wherein Jews could afford to be flawed as everybody else. So, that’s another basic reason I dispute many of your allegations. Its just like when the U.S. Justice department accused Jonathan Pollard of CONTINUING to spy on behalf of Israel, FROM BEHIND THE BARS OF THE FEDERAL PENIL SYSTEM.
Nazi controlled German newspapers
I am referring to American newspapers.
“I read a claim in a book by Sam Katz (”Battleground”) that although there were numerous newspapers covering the (then unfolding) events in the Mid East”
The key words here are “then unfolding.” These were initial reports. Wartime reports from war correspondents. Sketchy at best to begin with. But it is now known exactly what happened. The basic facts are now agreed-upon. What Katz claims is an anti-Palestinian libel.
That book was written in 1973, a decade before the declassification of the wartime archives of the IDF and Haganah. Why do you insist on referring to sources so dated and therefore not based on the best evidence?
As Benny Morris said,
“No people likes to feel that its own statehood was built on the ruins of another people’s fortunes.” But it is past time to face the facts that that is precisely what happened.
John:
Thankfully, our society is not controlled by the small percentage of people, found at the far edges of the political spectrum.
You have not provided the reference linkages to these alleged “wartime archives”.
It appears to be your contention that history gets more precise with the passing of valuable time and the passing away of eyewitnesses.
I am unaware that the facts that you and I have been debating have already been “agreed-upon” and therefore, off the table of discussion.
You have now added Samuel Katz to your list of literary frauds, along with Joan peters, Dore Gold, and Princeton University professor emeritus of Mideast history, Bernard Louis. Of course, it is your right to believe and to state whatever you believe.
The Jewish Virtual Library also paints a profoundly different picture of the events which you describe, on almost every level. The people who you are fond of quoting and not necessarily contradict these above referenced authors, more often, their statements are your generalities, pointed in the same general direction that you would like the historical record to reflect.
For example: You quoted Morris:
“No people likes to feel that its own statehood was built on the ruins of another people’s fortunes.” But it is past time to face the facts that that is precisely what happened.”
But Morris does NOT say (in this quote) that Hebrews forced Arabs to flee their homes. He merely concludes that the overall, the Arabs “fortunes” (if one can even call their 1947 level of living a “fortune” at all) became the ‘building-blocks’ of Israel.
I am not stupid John. I can smell Bullsh*t from the next county. You quote more inuendos then facts. When you do assert concrete facts, you generally lack any direct references. So blatent is your lack of tangibles that even if I began this blogging experience believing as you do, listening to you would likely scare me away to the other side. Which is fine. Keepon doin exactly what yer doin.
“Wartime reports from war correspondents. Sketchy at best to begin with.”
This statement is rediculous. The various British newspapers were well represented on the ground inside Palestine and many of them had been hostile to the Jews since WW1 (and before). To you, the total lack of newsprint supporting your alligation of forced expulsions is only natural.
The Jews had been a majority in Jerusalem since 1868 and in 1907, they outnumbered Arabs by about 8/1. All of this in spite of the fact that Jews were legally prohibited from moving to or buying land in Palestine. Whatever “fortunes” the Jerusalem Arabs had to begin with were the direct result of the Jews.
“Morris does NOT say (in this quote)…”
With due respect, you have no idea what Morris says about anything because you have not read his book. You can start with the link Mitchell provided and should find a quote that tells you what he thinks happened to the Arabs:
http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/01-11-26morris-tikkun-interview.pdf
If you will actually read his book(s) on the origin of the refugee problem you will see that he deals with the Arab newspaper claims in this Zionist tract by Sam Katz that you have drug in here before us. Were you aware that Katz is the former head of propaganda for the Irgun?
Read the books. There you will find the references, footnotes, bibliography, all all the documentation you could possibly want. But even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. First, read.
Yes, Isidore, most reasonable do now agree as to the facts of what happened. The Arabs were forced out by the IDF and Haganah, as the Haganah itself reports. The Arabs did not leave of their own volition nor because their leaders recommended it. They only left under direct, immanent threat and, according to Morris, only when IDF troops had actually arrived. What reasonable people do not agree on is whether the Arabs were forced out as the result of a coordinated plan made in advance within the IDF, or whether it was a spontaneous by-product of war, an inevitability. But yes I think even high school textbooks in Israel have begun to dispense with these comfortable fictions that you adhere to. Get up to date on your history reading.
John:
You asked:
“Were you aware that Katz is the former head of propaganda for the Irgun?”
I was firstly unaware that the Irgun had a ‘propaganda’ department, so my answer is naturally no. It could be that to you, ‘propaganda’ is merely anything that you disbelieve.
I repeat my earlier alligation that in any other example in history, an ethnic or religious conflict that involved forced deportations would not end up with a significant population of voting citizens, from the same ethnic or religious group that was said to have been deported forcefully. If your alligations were true, there would be no Arab population in Israel. When certain extreme Jewish elements wanted to deport all the Arabs, such as Meyer Kahene, he had no problem standing up and shouting his desires from the rooftops. Why need a “propaganda” machine when people are unabashed as to their wishes? You fail to appreciate the standard Jewish mentality. The mentality you are assuming was (and is) in play is merely a projection. Jews are typically concensus oriented. Propaganda does not serve concensus oriented people.
“Why need a “propaganda” machine when people are unabashed as to their wishes?”
Guilt. To assuage the guilt. Because “these monstrous accusations” – as they have been called – are substantially true, the remaining question being only whether the expulsions were planned or ad hoc.
Morris explains the situation this way,
“Why 700,000 people became refugees was subsequently hotly debated between Israel and its supporters and the Arabs and theirs. Israeli spokesmen – including “official” historians and writers of textbooks – maintained that the Arabs had fled “voluntarily,” or because the Palestinian and Arab states’ leaders had urged or ordered them to leave, to clear the ground for the invasion of May 15 and enable their spokesmen to claim that they had been systematically expelled. Arab spokesmen countered that Israel had sytematically and with premeditation expelled the refugees. Documentation that surfaced in massive quantities in the 1980’s in Israeli and Western archives has demonstrated that neither “official” version is accurate or sufficient.“
Morris is not of the opinion that the expulsions were pre-meditated or systematic (in the top-down sense). And though he paints a complex picture of what actually happened, he allows no wiggle room for any claim that the expulsions were anything other than forced expulsions, the direct result of military and para-military action against Arab villages. He says,
“In no case did a population abandon its homes before an attack.”
In no case.
John:
Your ‘channel-surfer’ is stuck on this one Morris fellow. OK. Great. We know what his opinions are. Where are his facts? Time after time and post after post, we focus on the allegation that internal “official” Israeli documentation proves these allegations. Speaking as a vegetarian: Where’s the beef??
Having just sat through a 12 day bench trial (civil) with six (6) “Madison Ave” lawyers opposing me, I can tell you with absolute certitude that alleged facts can be fabricated through Orwellian semantics and multiple layers of innuendo, stacked on top of one another. Where are the actual papers that prove these allegations?? Certainly, such a pivotal issue as this, being debated for decades, if there were such documents, they would be available for viewing somewhere, probably on the web or at least at a well stocked public library or college library? We keep hearing about these documents but I have never seen any. Have you? Where are they? Many people have opinions of all sorts. Some people believe that Elvis is still alive and some others believe that Hitler is still alive (even though he would be about 300 years old by now).
BTW: I just watches a PBS special on the Mid East and Prof. Bernard Lewis (the Jewish biased faker) was all over it. He stated that the Arab-Israeli conflict provided the perfect EXCUSE for a perpetual state of civil unrest in the Mid East. I go a (small) step further and state that if there was no Israel, such an ‘invading entity’ would have had to have been invented, to enrage and energize the people and allow their human rights to be continually usurped by corrupt, (often) ruthless and always totalitarian dictators. The Palestinian-Arabs, like the Jews are pawns. Arabs don’t appreciate being pawns. However, they are first tasting what the Jews have been steadily experiencing for over 2,000 years.
“Where are the actual papers that prove these allegations?? Certainly, such a pivotal issue as this, being debated for decades, if there were such documents, they would be available for viewing somewhere, probably on the web or at least at a well stocked public library or college library? We keep hearing about these documents but I have never seen any. Have you? Where are they?”
Isidore, what part of “Read the books” did you not understand???
John:
I told you I would read that one title and I intend to. But I am only asking about a few pages. Can you please tell me which pages of your reference contains the seminal materials? Is it reproduced from its original or, are these alleged “official Israeli documents” merely being explained third hand? You know, any documents I reference; I can scan and post their actual images and provide the URLs.
“Can you please tell me which pages of your reference contains the seminal materials?”
Lest you be disappointed when you read Morris’s book(s) expecting to see actual documents, here’s what I said (post 15, emphasis added)
“Read the books. There you will find the references, footnotes, bibliography, [and] all the documentation you could possibly want.”
First of all, there is a world of difference between documents being declassified and (politically sensitive) documents being made available for publication. The declassification is required by Israeli law because of the passage of time. Making the documents available to the public is a political matter owing to their sensitivity. Some documents, such as Plan Dalet of Hahaganah [transl. from Sefer Toldot Hahaganah], are available on the web (google it). But don’t expect to find the Israeli Defense Force Archive from 1948 in its entirety on the Internet. Secondly, publication of actual documents for practical reasons tends to be in journals for specialists. Of archives best sellers are not made. As I said, in his books Morris provides references, footnotes, bibliography, and documentation. Not documents. You will see references of this sort: “IDFA, File no. 1950/2315 File 47, 11 May 1948.”
Here’s an article from Haaretz, 2001 which may give some insight into the difficulties involved in making materials of this nature available to the general public:
http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0102c&L=fofognet&T=0&F=&S=&P=2043
My copy of Dore Gold’s book The Fight for Jerusalem arrived today from amazon.com. So far, I’ve not found any declassified wartime IDF/Haganah documents in it, nor even any references to such, though it was published this year. (“We know what his opinions are. Where are his facts?”)
When you read Morris’s The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004) – or books by his “revisionist” colleagues, Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, and Tom Segev – you can decide for yourself whether his evidence meets your standards or not.
From the above-referenced article in Haaretz [emphasis added]:
“The majority of these events were described in documents already made public and were published in historical research (including Morris’s book). But the state archivist is opposed to making public the original documents, which would give a formal stamp to sensitive information. Morris surmises that the authorities fear a blow to the image of the state and the Israel Defense Forces, in particular to Ben-Gurion’s historical image.”
The sensitive material requested but not released included:
* The minutes of the government meeting of 16 June, 1948 in which it”was decided not to allow the refugees to return to their homes.
Morris, for example, was interested in what Ben-Gurion had to say with regard to the capture of Jaffa, and statements made by the prime
minister then regarding the need to uproot the inhabitants of Lydda and Ramleh, two months before the Israel Defense Forces captured the
two towns and expelled their inhabitants.
* The report of the government’s legal advisor, Yacov Shimshon Shapira, concerning the massacre that was carried out by the Israel Defense Forces in October and November, 1948.
* Documents of units from the Israel Defense Forces pertaining to internal investigations concerning the massacres and expulsion.
To name a few.
so what’s this blog all about? are we thinking positive thoughts of this saudi peace proposal?
teehee
John:
I’m sorry I am not on the same track as yourself in our agreed to mutual reading list. I am guessing you are retired and have more time. I have a youngster at home and a very long work-day/week.
Re: Dore Gold’s book:
It does contain actual photocopies of some key documents, such as the proof from the British foreign office that Jerusalem became a majority Jewish town in 1868. This fact is extremely highly debated by many Arabs and pro-Arabs, some of whom insist that there were few (if any) Jews in the entire Middle East, prior to WW2. Several other such critical documents are found in his book.
But here’s exactly what I meant by layers of inuendo stacked on top of one another:
You quoted”
” . . was decided not to allow the refugees to return to their homes.”
That is NOT a ‘forced expulsion.’
I (for one) have never denied that the Israelis refused to allow these Arab populations to return. What I have asserted is that they may lack legal and/or moral rights to do so. You have repeatedly asserted that they DO have such rights, precisely because they have been forcefully evicted in the first place.
I have asked to see evidence and thus far have seen nothing. No newsprint, no first-hand commentary (and certainly none which was logged at the time, some 60 years ago). You seem to be basing your claims on quotes upon quotes upon quotes, which, at the end of the day, turn out to be accusations which are indeed agreed upon, namely, that the Palestinian-Arabs were refused the rights of return, NOT the rights to remain.
Am I missing anything?
Please help me to understand, do you have any real evidence of forced EXPULSIONS?
Thank you.
“It does contain actual photocopies of some key documents.”
I saw them. Big difference between 1864 and 1948. Maybe in another 140 years Israel will have published photo plates of the whole IDF Archive.
“I have asked to see evidence and thus far have seen nothing.”
I shouldn’t wonder. You haven’t read the books.
I am not retired though I do have time to read the book you suggested. What I do not have time for is repeatedly having to answer your demands for evidence when you have still not looked where I told you to find it. Thus far I’ve not seen much evidence that you are playing with a full deck.
If you don’t have time to read the book, fine. But quit complaining about not seeing evidence. It’s in the books. Not documents; documentation. Read it and then take it or leave it. It is what it is. I’m tired of your childish game. So quit asking.
John:
Tut-tut. Hostilityyyyyyyyyyy.
You’re like a manic split personality. I will get to the reading after I settle a few pressing issues, such as my taxes.
I have “demanded” nothing, much less from yourself. I have repeatedly REQUESTED that you explain with specificity where you come to assert that PROOF is in your possession that Arabs were expelled by Jews. Can’t you simply provide a chapter-and-verse on this one subject? I guess not.
Example:
Pages 23-26 and 101-102:
Copies of internal memoranda from ‘#&#=#’. They show that in ‘mm-dd-yyyy’ the Israeli ‘so and so’ did ‘such and such’ which cased ‘that-and-this’.
I will read your book because I am a man of my word but if all I find is mumbled inuendo, which is what I am expecting to find, based on your lack of basic respect for ordinary 3-dimentional space and time, then I will be a very disappointed camper . . .
“I’m tired of your childish game. So quit asking.”
Its no game. “Childish” is a subjective concept. Its a simple question. Don’t answer, see if I care.
If it turns out you are being intellectually honest (though coy), I will be surprized.
You have a bad temper.
You have a creative memory.
You have a wishfull concept of reality.
You lack any discernable sense of humor.
Plus, you are an Orwellian linguist, which is fairly common among the educated liberal elite.
You object to this conversation, the solution is simple: Stop having it. You’re like the guy who yells at the wait-person for continuing to bring free food.
In regards to Resolution 242 explictly calls for the “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war.” It does not require an exact return to the pre-1967 borders (since those borders were arbitrarily drawn, as Lord Caradon repeatedly stressed in later interviews) but any changes to those borders must be reciprocal and be the result of free and equal negotiation. Presumably, the Saudi Initiative would allow for mutual, reciprocal and equal exchanges of territory, provided those exchanges were agreed upon by Palestinians & Israelis.
I’d recommend John McHugo’s article on ?Resolution 242, which demolishes
“Copies of internal memoranda from ‘#&#=#’. They show that in ‘mm-dd-yyyy’ the Israeli ’so and so’ did ’such and such’ which cased ‘that-and-this’.”
That is precisely what you will find throughout the entire book(s) – not just pages xx-yy – and footnoted like this, as I said in post 21 above:
“IDFA, File no. 1950/2315 File 47, 11 May 1948.”
Documentation; not documents.
If the New York Public Library has the multi-volume set of Israel State Archives, you should be able to read (in Hebrew) any documents which have been published. Morris lists at least eight volumes in his selected bibliography, in Righteous Victims.
He was also given access to British, American, and UN archives. I don’t know where you could see those documents, but the references are in his books.
Everything is NOT on the Internet or even computerized:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=424188&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
I’d recommend John McHugo’s article
Peter, thanks for that link. The proposal invites negotiations. “Free and equal” as you say. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Olmert is reported to be moving cautiously in that direction:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848249.html
Peter H.:
I have read this linked documentation re: U.N. 242.
Leave it to lawyers to compose a 16,327 word, 32 page synopsis, of an original document comprised of 292 words (U.N. 242).
Maybe when the commentary reaches 35,000 words and 75 pages, someone will realize the very simple truth:
All it (242) NEEDED to say was eight (8) small-little words, to be PRECISELY EXACT in its meaning:
“Israel to withdraw to pre- 1967 national borders”
IT DOES NOT SAY THAT. Why not? If that was the intension of the authors and voters, why not simply say such a strait-forward simple and single sentence??
Normally, with contract law, ambiguity is judged against the favor of the Scribner(s) (authors). That too would solve any lingering doubts, except for two problems:
1. The “Scribner” in this case (of 242) is neither the Arabs or the Israelis. It is the United Nations, which, ironically (through its members) has paid a price for its patent ambiguity.
2. If the ambiguity were to be squeezed out of all U.N. resolutions and all international treaty law, there would be nothing for the United Nations to do. Diplomats survive on their intentional ambiguity.
A couple of other points:
242 DOES NOT say: “Occupied Territories” (using leading CAPITOLS). It DOES SAY: “territories occupied” (all lower case). This may not seem like much but contract litigations have been decided on far less then this. For one thing, no one mentions that the Jordanians were themselves OCCUPIERS and had no legal title to West Jerusalem. Had the 242 script at least said “Occupied Territories” (leading capitols, ‘Occupied’ first) then a small though rational argument might be made that the 242 language was referring to the same ‘Occupied Territories which had been previously OCCUPIED by Jordan. That is NOT the case. Israel can well assert that the Jordanians had been the Occupiers and they the LIBERATORS. So the remaining disputed zones would NOT conform to 242 language, as the Israelis were not the official (captioned) Occupiers (w/large ‘O’).
Also, 242 DOES NOT say:
“Withdrawal of ISRAEL from territories occupied in the recent conflict”
It DOES say:
“Withdrawal of Israel ARMED FORCES from territories occupied in the recent conflict;”
I am sure that Israel would be willing to do just exactly that, upon a final and official agreement, namely, to provide either police (rather then military) or an international contingent to patrol these Israeli areas.
If the meaning of the 242 language is to fall into irreconcilable dispute, the only fair solution is to let the voting members re-cast their votes, after the language is cleaned of its patent ambiguity.
All this other bullsh*t is just bullsh*t.
“a 16,327 word, 32 page synopsis, of an original document comprised of 292 words”
Isidore, Defender of Brevity. (What next?) The article is longer than the Resolution. Big deal. Such extended midrashim would not be necessary if Israel had not tried to squirm out of the plain sense meaning of UNSCR 242, i.e. “Withdraw!”
McHugo gets into that about page 7, pointing out that the fundamental flaw in the tortured interpretation of the far right is that it would put the entire Resolution in conflict with the principle that established by the League of Nations which abolished the acquisition of sovereignty over territory conqured in war (even in self-defence) on the termination of a state of war. As he points out, the Security Council established that as the foundation for 242 in the second clause of its preamble,
Emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…
The golden rule of interpretation is “If the plain sense (peshat) makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
I also liked this point, which is explained in fn. 1:
It seems clear that Resolution 242 now has binding force.
fn 1 says,
“Security Council Resolution 338 ‘calls upon’ the parties to implement Resolution 242 using language generally considered to have a mandatory character. See also VIII below.”
The Occupation (Would Dore Gold call it the Disputation???) is clearly in violation of international law. And of course the blowing up of civilians by suicide terrorists is despicable and a crime against humanity. It’s past time there was an end to both. Maybe this time.
John:
Defender of Orwellian pontifity:
You wrote:
“The article is longer than the Resolution. Big deal.”
Me say:
No. “longer” might mean twice as long or even 5 times as long. In this case, the article is FIFTY-SIX TIMES LONGER. It goes off on all sorts of tangents, dragging in every molecular (alleged) analog, short of discussion of Pamela Anderson’s t*ts.
Then, it (and yourself) have the supreme effrontery to quote from League of Nations jurisprudence!!! This is the same League of Nations who resolved to empower a Jewish National Homeland comprised of 45,000 Sq. miles.
OK. I’ll be happy to go along with your insistence on the impermissibility of “acquisition of sovereignty over territory conquered in war”, just so long as you accept their (proto-Israeli) borders, as the “pre-war” borders. Of course, even though Egypt, Persia and Iraq (as League Members) DID accept these borders, along with Emir Faisal (who was the only real Arab Statesman at the time), you (John the Hebrew teacher) only will accept that portion of the League’s International Law, which can be quoted in support of your lopsided beliefs.
One point re: Katz’ book (“Battleground”) which hit-home with me, is that prior to the recent era, the main opposition to a Jewish Homeland in Palestine was NOT by the Arabs. It was the Christians who were most resentful of this notion. Israel is referred to as “the Promised Land” in Old Testament and Qur’an references. Only the Christian scriptures refer to it as “the Holy Land”. And, I submit that it is people like you who have more to do with the bloodshed in modern Mid-East history then do the Muslims. Throughout the 20th Century, it was the ‘Western’ powers who set the stage for today’s misery, much more so then either the Jews or the Arabs. You claim to be a peacenik but you are the proverbial guy on the sidelines who encourages the cock-fights, by trying your best to convince the chickens of the necessity to claim the other’s ground. The sad part is that you are not alone.
“Maybe this time”
Not with your help.
FIFTY-SIX TIMES LONGER.
The outrage is not the length of the commentary compared to the length of the text, nor even how many such commentaries have been written to explain the obvious. The outrage is that here we are forty years on and Israel is still occupying and claiming sovereignty over the lands it seized through war in violation of international law. Btw, check your CapsLock, Isidore. I think it’s stuck. And shouldn’t you be working on your taxes?
Isidor,
There have been lots of articles published about Resolution 242, some much longer than 32 pages!
If you’re going to say that Jordan had no title to the West Bank, and therefore it should not be considered occupied territory, then what about the territories that were not assigned to Israel in the original 1947 partition resolution but were occupied in 1948-49? As McHugo points out, “if any validity is to be attributed to the designation of the territories occupied in 1967 as ‘disputed territories’, Israel should be aware that the territory on the Israeli side of the 1949 Armistice
Lines must ipso jure be treated as ‘disputed’.”
John:
Your “outrage” is the truth. My “outrage” is your abusive treatment of the truth.
International Treaty Law is, before anything else, ‘contract law’. It is concerned almost exclusively with the intent of the parties to the contract.
U.N. 242 is obviously ambiguous (in parts) and intended to be so when it was ratified. The parts that ARE NOT ambiguous, such as the call for an end to all belligerency, have been ignored by the Arab World for decades.
Its ambiguity is evidenced by the fact that the commentary is 56-times longer then the verse itself. If one subtracts the parts of 242 that are clear and not controversial and compares the remnants with the commentary on those remnants, then we are up way over 100/1. According to Peter H.:
“There have been lots of articles published about Resolution 242, some much longer than 32 pages!”
That only reinforces my point, namely, since the pertinent article is hopelessly ambiguous, further argument will not settle anything.
At least 3 of the permanent U.N.S.C. members who voted on the original resolution made their intentions known and public. Two of which (USA and UK) were supporting the premise that 242 did NOT require Israel to return to pre-1967 borders. The Soviet delegation complained vehemently of the reverse, while affirming the same conclusion as the USA and UK, namely, that the wording of the Resolution would (wrongly, in their view) though legally allow Israel to retain some of the ground it acquired in 1967.
The ambiguity can not be at issue, or the various different interpretations.
Pontificating into perpetuity about the effect of Geneva Convention law (written about 80 years prior) or League of Nations Law (written 40 years prior and only being referenced purposely in fragments) will settle NOTHING and has settled NOTHING over the past 40 years of debate.
If you have any intellectual honesty (which would frankly shock me) you would agree that the only viable course of action is a clarification, followed by a re-vote.
To assert otherwise is an acknowledgement that your legal jurisdiction is and always will be based in the land of: “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is debatable”. This is the same (foreign) legal Jurisdiction that Jews have had to endure since time immemorial. Its exactly the same jurisdiction that one sees when reviewing news-reels of the German (Nazi) Supreme Court, marching into their shared court-bench, all wearing the same ceremonial robes and silly hats, each in synchronized step, and before being seated, all doing a sig-heil in unison.
It’s the John Clese bit about the witch who turned him into a newt. When it was pointed out that he wasn’t a newt, his reply was:
“Well . . . I got better!!”
You will therefore believe anything and say anything that reinforces your predisposed positions.
PS> If my use of capitols annoys you, perhaps you can tell me how you get to use boldface in your postings.
PPS> As it turns out, I don’t owe any money and therefore, have no real fear of missing my tax-filing deadline. Thanks for being so concerned.
Now, don’t you have something better to do . . . like spray-paint a synagogue?
“Now, don’t you have something better to do . . . like spray-paint a synagogue?”
You are over the line.
John:
How would you know where the “line” is, or any “line”? The “line” is wherever your mind places it. Line-swapping is your stock-in-trade.
Never in the history of the world has one side given so much, (over 90% of the land aquired in 1967), in return for so little (basically a continuation of the beligerency and terrorism, and a constant state of military allert) and yet, the side that has given NOTHING gets to demand whatever it pleases, with support from the majority of the world. This is a JEW-HATING state of affairs Mr. line-meister.
“This is the first war in history {1967} which has ended with the victors suing for peace and the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.”
— Abba Eban
Whether or not Israel ultimately decides to trade more land for peace 9of even the hope for peace) is a matter between the Israeli government and its corresponding negotiatiors from the Arab contingent. Should they so decide, I will support their decision, as should you. However, if they do NOT so decide, U.N. 242 is NOT a vehicle for them to be forced to do so, since the parties to the agreement were understood of what the legal meaning of the wording was at the time and the historical record is perfectly clear on (at least) this point. Since any U.N.S.C. resolution can be scuttled by a single veto (not a simple majority rule), people like you seek to re-write history and impose a legal meaning on the Jewish Nation, which was not the intent of the parties voting. Same ‘International law’ as the ‘Inquisition’, either confess or be compelled to do so through torture.
People (like yourself) who wish to continue the 40 year-old argument about the legal meaning of a patently conflicted treaty, only wish to perpetuate the bloodshed. I don’t care one lick how you claim to be a peace-monger. You’re a peace-monger like Howard K. Stern is looking out for the interest of the Smith baby. Like he, you are a litigation-monger and a conflict-monger, disguised as a peace-monger.
People (like yourself)…only wish to perpetuate the bloodshed. I don’t care one lick how you claim to be a peace-monger. You’re a… litigation-monger and a conflict-monger, disguised as a peace-monger.
Isidore, your last two posts have been really offensive. You make lots of you-are-statements claiming or inferring all kinds of terrible things about me. Please stop the personal attacks. Just stick to the topic and avoid saying anything that begins with “you are a [fill in the blank].” I am not the topic, and besides you know almost nothing about me.
John:
I was on topic until you wrote:
:Btw, check your CapsLock, Isidore. I think it’s stuck. And shouldn’t you be working on your taxes?”
Before that you wrote:
“Thus far I’ve not seen much evidence that you are playing with a full deck. . . I’m tired of your childish game.”
When I earlier told you I was offended by your use of the Jewish venacular to describe a negative quality (sometimes associated with Jews themselves) your answer was:
“You choose your words and I’ll choose mine”.
So, everyone has their own egg-timer for what offends them. But please don’t make it sound as if this has been a one-directional offense-fest. Of course, your attempt to do so does not come as a surprize to me either and it should come as no surprize to anyone else.
Isidore, the CapsLock bit was my poor attempt at humor, albeit pointed humor, teasing you for using all caps. I’m sorry.
I tweaked you about doing your taxes because in post #27 you had said,
“I will get to the reading after I settle a few pressing issues, such as my taxes.”
I had no idea either remark would be offensive to you and so I do apologize to you for making them. I seem to be generating more heat than light and not really furthering the cause of peace, so maybe this is a good time to take a leave, do more reading.
Shalom
I owe you an explanation about this too:
“Thus far I’ve not seen much evidence that you are playing with a full deck. . . I’m tired of your childish game.”
You see, I had been telling you since the previous thread that the references to the original documents in the declassified IDF and Haganah archivies could be found in the books of Benny Morris.
In post #11, you asked me where to find said reference.
Again in post #14.
In post #15, I said, “Read the books.”
In post #18, you asked for the references again.
In post #19, I said, “What part of ‘Read the books did you not understand?'”
You asked again for the references to the original documents in posts #20 and #25.
I answered you again in post #21 but lost my patience in #26. That’s when I made the unkind remark quoted above. I sincerely apologize.
I still reserve the right to use the occasional Hebrew word. I’m sorry if that offends you or anyone else. I mean no offense. It’s a habit of long-standing. The word in question is a loan-word in English also.
John:
Yeh. OK. What-ev.
The thing about is is that I am a profusely consistant person. Some people may be annoyed by me but they will be consistantly annoyed.
I get the impression that you are on the opposite side of the spectrum. Your personality seems to morph with the given moment. Its very hard for someone like me to deal with someone like you. Rest assured however, that I have never written anything to you in anger. I have a temper, its just that you have never seen it (as few do). I do feel outnumbered on this blog and can be counted on to react like the ‘underdog’. I knew I was pushing ‘the line’. I did not expect that I had crossed it. Each web-manager has their own sense of what is or is not acceptible. It was originally my notion that we are all adults and should not have need for ‘moderation’, as long as no threats (or other such lawlessness) were involved. I had realized that I was being somewhat offensive but equally I was feeling on the defense, both as far as numbers and because you were having at it as well. Thanks for the reconsiliation effort, however, my preference would be where I can be consistantly assertive (not aggressive) and possibly even annoying (though not offensive). You would empower this process in me if you would:
a. Try not to be nice and equally not to be angry. I don’t need you to be my friend. This whole cycle just disorients me.
b. At times, I will not be able to control my urge to add a humorous comment. Such comments are usually funny and I also have a sense of self-humor and can ‘take it’. If I do direct a humorous comment, feel free to respond, providing that you can do so with humor and not with anger.
Thanks.
Fair enough, Isidore.
I will go back to the request you made in post #11 and see if I can shed some light and no heat on the matter.:
“You sight a Haganah “internal document”. May we know which document and where is the reference? Because it seems to be your only piece of evidence.”
I don’t know if the original is someplace accessible to the general public, but Morris discusses it and gives full documentation in two places. The document in question was produced June 30, 1948 by the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch and is entitled, “The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948.”
The document “analyzes the numbers of refugees, the stages of the exodus, the causes, destination, and the problem of absorption into the host countries. The appendix contains the village by village breakdown in terms of numbers of individual inhabitants, their destinations and the causes of their flight.”
(see: http://nakba48.org/humanliberation/fall05/martin.htm )
I think he first wrote about it in 1986 in a paper published in the scholarly journal, Middle Eastern Studies, vol 22, p. 5., entitled, “The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Force Intelligence Branch Analysis of June, 1948.”
He wrote about it again in his book, 1948 and After (2003).
It was discussed by a French journalist in an article here:
http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine
In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases…
In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus – that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” – which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people – “are a different story.”
From the article by Wm. Martin cited above referring to this same document:
“In direct contradiction to Ben Gurion, the report states “the Arab institutions attempted to struggle against the phenomenon of flight and evacuation, and to curb the waves of emigration”. The Arab Higher Committee imposed restrictions, and issued threats, punishments, and propaganda in the radio and press to curb the emigration, and also tried to mobilize the governments in the neighboring Arab states to assist in this effort, as both shared the same interest.
“More than once”, the report states, “[Haganah/IDF units were forced] to expel inhabitants [after they had returned to their homes]”.
I am sorry for the length of this response. You asked for evidence of expulsions with full documentation. This is the best I can do.
John:
The problems with your referenced story are many. Not the least of which is that no original documents are seen, only quotes — which appear to be exact quotes (not paraphrases). Had they been paraphrases, one might better understand the lack of the original record. My next observation is that the quotes attributed to “official Israel internal documents” are written in the style of a confession, not a timeline or other generic chronicle. See “1984” by George Orwell, in which the prime character (Winston Smith) keeps a diary of his ‘crimes’ against the state. He believes he is not a true ‘criminal’ but can not help ‘incriminate’ himself, according to the morals and ruthless laws of the police state (Oceania). Interesting (ironic) that this entire story stems from guess when? “ . . .the early 1980s”, quoting documents from when? 1948 (the authorship date of “1984”).
Knowing the long and elaborate history of anti-Semitic propaganda, one should rightly question such claims not once, not twice but thrice and perhaps thrice-twice (6x). To this day, a debate continues regarding the authenticity of the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which is supposed to be a manual of discipline for “Zionists”. Soviet history is jam-packed with similar (false) and defaming accusations. Those who relate to the modern fringe-left can often find themselves in sympathy with the “Soviet” social model and therefore, out of favor with the “Jewish cause.” This phenomenon explains much regarding certain still lingering (modern) politics. Including the reliance on Theodor Herzl to explain everything that came after him. As you already know, I consider this reliance intrinsically fallacious and propagandic. Jews, perhaps more so then other groups, can never be expected to hypnotically follow each other in synchronicity. The very existence of the “Jewish Voice for Peace” is a testament to this. However, the opposition (including anti-Jews) needs to rely on some ‘benchmark’ to explain the evil deeds of the Jewish Nation, either in exile (and/or Diaspora) or in factorum (Israel). There would be no other plausible explanation to rationalize how and why these seemingly decent, educated and ethical people (the Hebrews) could possibly conduct themselves in such a dishonorable and dispicable manner. Since everyone has neighbors and friends who are Jewish, or at least has a doctor who is Jewish, an “evil emperor” (‘Scyth lord’) had to be contrived. I don’t know how many times I have heard someone say to me: “You’re not like the OTHER Jews”. Of course not. The “other Jews” only exist in fable. Even the other Jews are nothing like the “Other Jews” to whom they are being compared.
Then we hear about “Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare] aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.” What the hell is a “whispering operation”? To appreciate the context, let us swap the perpetrators and see how it sounds:
[General George A. Custer was discovered to have been guilty of perpetrating “whispering operations” against the helpless Cheyenne]
[The ‘Jangaweed’ of Northern Sudan was discovered to have engaged in “whispering operations” against the Christians in the South]
[“Whispering operations” were found to be at the center of the Genocide activities of the Third Reich]
Sound ridiculous? It does to my ear. Equally implausible is the notion that Jews raped Arabs. I MIGHT be convinced (with sufficient evidence – that has NOT been provided) that Jews were engaged in forced expulsions. I do acknowledge that certain reactionary Jewish groups were, in point-of-fact engaged in limited though well documented acts of RETALITORY massacres, such as ‘Deir Yassin’. Notably absent from the linked document is any mention of the numerous violent provocations for this retaliation, some going back to 1920. I DO NOT condone such violence against civilians. There is no excuse. But any fair assessment should absolutely include the deadly provocations, not just the retaliation. Any assessment that does not, lacks credibility on general principles of objectivity. Once again: Jews do not rape. They never have.
Lastly, (and I could go one for about another page on gathering minutia, which is defective about the linked story), the general circumstances being described are also erroneous in the regard that: The Arabs ARE the sea. They can’t be “pushed into the sea” for it is their seemingly endless ‘sea of humanity’ which has selfishly denied the Jews a peaceful existence for 90 years.
Isidore, you are off track a little. Your response focusses on the story I referenced. I’m glad you read the story, but my point was to give additional information about the specific document in question, which was what you asked about in #11. I quoted from the stories [I referenced more than one] only because they give more detail than I had about what the document says. I don’t necessarily stand by anything else in the stories nor do I want to get into them. I was simply trying to give you as much information as I had about the document, its name and contents.
As I have said many times, I have not seen the original. I don’t know if it has been published. The 1986 article by Morris may have parts of it, but I have not seen that either.
“…no original documents are seen, only quotes”
You imply that the evidence is not acceptable apart from our seeing the documents themselves. This is not the norm in historical writing for practical reasons. Morris’s books are based on hundreds if not thousands of documents. Also, direct quotes are considered preferable to paraphrases in historical writing. Is there some reason you really have to see the original document? Or do you just want to know where it is and its name? Morris is Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University. I don’t think anyone seriously questions his credibility, whether they agree with him or not.
The two articles I quoted from are dependent on Morris. Those authors also have not seen the document itself, I don’t think.
Looks to me like the easiest place to find out what Morris has to say about the document is going to be his book 1948 and After. At this point, I think we must accept the fact that the document exists and come to grips with what the document reveals about what happened. This is only one of a mountain of archival documents which Morris based his conclusions on.
John:
I own a book called: “The Death of Jesus” by Carmichael, published in the 1960s. It contains LOTS of controversial materials, claims, quotes and references (to yet other books) that are also long out-of-print. Yet, I would not expect a devout Catholic to automatically accept all the historical claims made therein.
As I have stated in past postings, it is my belief that a relatively small number of Arab families perhaps 1,000-2,000 had been identified as ‘militant’ and therefore dangerous and most likely also, members of those families had been known to have been behind civil violence against Jews, both before and during WW2. Many of these were also known Nazi sympathizers, if not self-professed Nazis, per-se. These pockets of militancy may well have officially been identified for expulsion. However, as I have also previously asserted, had the situations been reversed, namely, had the Arabs been decimated by Nazis in WW2, it is almost certain that any remaining Nazis would have been lined up and shot and that would have ended the story and ended the controversy. Kicking these pockets of Arabs out of Israel was therefore a profound act of mercy, by the standards of the rest of society. It allowed them to live to fight another day. And fight they did.
Without original documents, I must debate the truth of the allegations. Especially so because I do not buy into the quotes for reasons set forth previously. It sounds far too much like the “Passions”, namely, where the Jews begged Pilate to kill Jesus and promised that their descendants would happily accept eternal punishment for doing so. Simply, no one speaks that way. Not then and not in 1948. The quotes attributed to the 1948 documents seem to make an argument for the injustice that was obviously being referenced by the documents themselves. I don’t buy it. Not every college professor in this world is an honest professor.
Moreover, its not as if this alleged document is but one of many pieces of evidence. There is a CONSPICUOUS lack of evidence overall. No Jews who were part of this alleged systematic “ethnic cleansing” have some forward, even with “death-bed” confessions. No newsprint. No first-hand Arab testimonials (from that era).
The problem with this entire debate is that it is endless and unrelenting and will never be settled and only perpetuates the ongoing conflict. Which (in my humble opinion) is exactly why the debate itself still exists. In any other set of circumstances, there would be no 60 year old “refugee” camps. To this day, the Palestinian-Arab “refugees” of Lebanon are not legally permitted to hold full-time jobs or own land. These years of continued torment are far, FAR more unjust then the circumstances of their arrival in Lebanon to begin with. Made even more unjust because the UNHCR has settled over 20-million Arabs and Muslims in comfortable surroundings, over just the past three decades and seemingly NONE of these has come from the “refugee camps” of the 1948 Arab/Israeli conflict. It is very clear to me where the equity is here John, and where it is not. This conflict continues only because the world and the Arab nations have wished it so. While it is a terrible injustice that Palestinian-Arabs have been pawns in this conflict, their first order of business should be to get their facts strait. People who help them keep their facts in error are not helping them. They are merely stoking the eternal flames that can not subside while two grossly conflicted versions of reality are being pitched, which has now escalated to include denial of the Temple of Solomon and denial of the Holocaust itself.
“Moreover, its not as if this alleged document is but one of many pieces of evidence.”
Nothing could be farther from the truth, Isidore. As I said [did you read all of my post?] this particular document is only one from a veritable mountain of documents. Morris cites references to several thousand.
“There is a CONSPICUOUS lack of evidence overall. No Jews who were part of this alleged systematic “ethnic cleansing” have some forward, even with “death-bed” confessions.”
from the Le Monde article above by Dominque Vidal:
“One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians – almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities – a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (…) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken.”
Zisling, no doubt, had read the very reports in question and believed what they said.
“Without original documents, I must debate the truth of the allegations.”
Do you really want to take this position? If evidence offered by those who disagree with you is inadmissible unless in the form of photo plates of original (Hebrew) documents, it pretty much means “end of discussion.”
I can understand your skepticism. But for the purposes of a blog discussion, it’s just not practical or reasonable.
For one thing, this is not a forum for textual discussion. We are not academics arguing whether such and such a letter in a text is a dalet or a resh. For that kind of discussion, photo plates of the orginal documents are a must, of course. But these IDF/Haganah documents are not the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And suppose the photo plates were available on the web. Would that be ironclad proof of what they said? No, because digitized images are notoriously susceptible to alteration using PhotoShop or some other photo editing software.
Morris published the text of this particular document in an academic journal. You now have the reference where to find that. If you have doubts, by all means check it out to the extent you are able as a private citizen.
But for the purposes of a blog discussion, I think we both have to pretty much take it for granted that documents say what the historians tell us they say and then address our doubts elsewhere. Otherwise, there can be no discussion. Nothing is going to proved here one way or the other anyway. It’s a discussion.
I do hope you will read one of Morris’s books such as Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited or “1948 and After” because in them you will see how he uses archival primary source documents to reconstruct history, and you will see that what he comes up with is complex, multi-layered, nuanced, and not by any means one-sided. The introduction of these archival documents as evidence is meant to occasion the beginning of discussions about what happened; not a final, end-of-discussion portrayal. On the previous thread for example, Dan, has mentioned a book by Karsh which attempts to deconstruct the deconstructionists like Morris.
In short, I hope you will reconsider this insistence on original documents. I can offer documentation, as is only proper; but not original documents.
Missing html tag. Sorry. I hate it when that happens!
Hope that cleared it up.
John:
Three are about 20,000 people in the USA who swear they saw UFOs, some are airline pilots and police.
About 10% of those people swear they saw (or encountered) extra terr.. I happen to disbelieve that the fabled “10 commandments” exist (at least not in God’s handwriting). I also once got bit in the ass by a lion (a REAL lion). Almost no one believes that one. However, I have a photo of my friend with the lion. (It was a play bite, which is why I am still alive, though I almost died on the spot of a heart-attack.)Anyway, I do not draw my factual conclusions based on who my parents were or which side I favor. I favor the side with the best, most complete and most reasonable story. This is not even a close one. There should be a mountain of direct, per-se evidence, if hundreds of thousands of people were evicted at the end of a gunbarrel. However, there are far more people who claim to have been abducted by ETs then those who claimed to have been driven from their homes by Jews. In the 20th century, Arabs have been ‘movie-stars’, as compared with the Hebrews. The very moment that Jews were no longer being hunted for lampshades, they were being vilified as evil-doers.
I will order the Morris title tomorrow and my fear is that I will then need to dissect it piece by piece. A job that I have so little time for.
“I will order the Morris title tomorrow…”
I just noticed that “1948 and After” is going for about sixty bucks. His other books are about half that. An alternative to investing that much time and money would be to go to the New York Public Library and see if they have the journal Middle Eastern Studies, vol 22, 1986, and make a copy of Morris’s paper published therein entitled, “The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Force Intelligence Branch Analysis of June, 1948.”
interesting debate.
isn’t the fact that there are arab citizens of israel, whose families have been there since 48, but there are no jewish citizens of arab countries, strong evidence of who kicked out whom?
SOLVET ET COAGULA…
QUIEN ME VA HA ENTRAGAR LAS LLAVES DE MIS PALACIOS. (yasir arafat)
QUIEN ME VA HA ENTRAGAR LAS LLAVES DE MIS PALACIOS. (yasir arafat)
QUIEN ME VA HA ENTRAGAR LAS LLAVES DE MIS PALACIOS. (yasir arafat)
Gracias, sus datos han sido recibidos con éxito.
Le responderemos lo antes posible.
Nombre: ROBERTO
Apellidos: GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ ALA
Email: cutulu@hotmail.com
Comentarios: INMORTALIDAD SOBRE UNA ROCA. VIVA LA REPUBLICA… ?????? ???????? ???????? ???? : ?????? ?????? 2006 ?? ?????? 5:43 1 -?????? ???????? ???????? ???? : ??? ????? 2006 ?? ?????? 7:07 ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?????????? ???? ????? ???? ??????.?? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????.????? ????? ???????? ??? arcángel ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????.??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ? ????? ?? ?? ????.??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???.??? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????.?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??? ? ?? ????????????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????????? ?? licantropía.?????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ? ?? ???? ??????.????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????.????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????.?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ? ??? ?????????? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????.??? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???????.??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????.????? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ????.??? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????.??? ?????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????? ??????.???????? ??????? ???? ???? ????.?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ??????.?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????.???.???? ???????? ??? ?????? : ????? : ???????? ?????? ??? ??????? : ???? ???????? – ? ?? nombre :?????? ???????? ???????? ROBERTO GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ Says: September 7th, 2006 at 5:43 pm 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez Says: August 31st, 2006 at 7:07 pm Soy la persona que esta dentro de cada cuadro, inclusive se podría decir que son mis pensamientos. En diferentes religiones poseo distintos títulos. Para unos soy un santo, para otros soy un arcángel y para otros cuantos uno de los cuatro jinetes del Apocalipsis, Poseidon, Adan, el Ala que dibuja Leonardo Da Vinci. También se podría decir que mi perro es el diablo, pues estoy dentro de cada cuadro. Desde que nací tuve la decisión de quedarme con mis padres. Los Ángeles o músicos comenzaron a dedicarme todas sus canciones o a develar mis sentimientos por medio de la música, de igual forma comenzaron a dedicarme la mayoría de las películas, pues soy una de las pocas persona que poseen la piedra filosofal o sea cada libro que lea por mas fantasioso que este, comienza a volverse realidad para mi, aunque para algunas personas y religiones también soy un alquimista, se podría decir que mi melena son los cuadros que existen por el universo. Por cada libro que leo por mas fantasioso que este, se me viene un problema y comienza a volverse realidad para mi, aun asi hable sobre vampirismo o licantropía. A veces convierto el agua en vino de la tanta sangre que derramare en un futuro, o en mi nombre se derramo. Gracias a todos mis títulos se podría decir que fui el creador del vampirismo y el primer hombre lobo sobre la tierra. También podría decirles muchas cosas sobre el más viejo de los vampiros, y que algunos como David Copperfild aun siguen con vida, que Buda ni Cristo no están muertos, y que hay otros tres tipos de vampiros en este planeta incluyéndonos a nosotros mismos, pues el que me ve jamás muere. Aunque a veces me sano con las lunas del agua, también me emborracho, o emborracho a las personas con las lunas que aparecen en el agua cuando agito un vaso. De igual forma me protejo y platico con un rayo láser que recibo desde el profundo espacio exterior, que para muchos seria una súper computadora, pues no hay pregunta imposible para el, aunque se puede manipular para que cure a todas las personas, aun no hay personas que financien mis proyectos. Como despedida podría decirles que cuando nací me fui oliendo el cuadro de un personaje pobre, que un tío colgó en la pared de la casa de mi abuela. Talvez por ello los animales todo el día plieguen. Me tengo que financiar para adherir mi existencia con la de los cuadros. Tengo las llaves del vaticano en mi pueblo protegidas por el subcomandante Marcos. Al dalai lama cortando cabezas en mi pais. A Bin Laden tomandose video en el estado. Y decenas de reyes en mi correo. Tambien recibo mis propias ordenes desde el espacio hacia mi ordenador. Bendiciones de Ayatola, Mohamad y Tolomeo. Todas las fotos me las dedican el papa Juan Pablo II y Yaser Arafat. Todo esta planeado por la diferencia de calendario. Desde Oriente Proximo.Atte. ALA Donaciones No. de Cuenta: 5470 4649 4172 0516 Tipo de tarjeta: UNI Santander-K Banco: Santander Serfin Mi nombre: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez ROBERTO GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ Says: September 7th, 2006 AT 5:43 p.m. 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez Says: August 31st, 2006 AT 7:07 p.m. I am the person who this within each picture, inclusively could be said that they are my thoughts. In different religions I have different titles. For I am santo, for others I am arcángel and for other whichever one of the four riders of the Apocalypse, Poseidon, They accept, the Ala that Leonardo Da draws Vinci. Also it would be possible to be said that my dog is the devil, because I am within each picture. Ever since I was born I with my parents had the decision to have left. Los Angeles or musicians began to dedicate all their songs to me or to reveal my feelings by means of music, similarly began to dedicate to me most of the films, because I am one of the few person that has the filosofal stone that is each book that reads by but fantasioso which this, begins to become reality for my, although for some people and religions also I am an alchemist, would be possible to be said that my melena is the pictures that exist by the universe. By each book which I read by but fantasioso which this, a problem comes to me and begins to become reality for, even so it speaks on vampirismo or licantropía. Sometimes I turn the water wine of as much blood that will spill in the future, or my name flare. Thanks to all my titles could be said that I was the creator of the vampirismo and the first man wolf on the Earth. Also it could say many things to them on oldest of the vampires, and that some as David Copperfild even follows with life, that Buddha nor Christ are not deads, and that are other three types of vampires in this planet including us to we ourself, because the one who never see me dies. Although sometimes I heal myself with moons of the water, also me emborracho, or emborracho to the people with the moons that appear in the water when I shake a glass. Similarly I protect myself and platico with a laser beams that receipt from the deep deep space, that stops a many serious super computer, because there is no impossible question for, although can be manipulated so that it cures to all the people, not yet are people who finance my projects. As dismissed it could say to them that when I was born I was smelling the picture of a poor personage, who an uncle hung in the wall of the house of my grandmother. Talvez for that reason the animals all the day fold. I must myself finance to adhere my existence with the one of the pictures. I have the keys of the Vatican in my town protected by the subcommander Marks. To dalai it licks cutting heads in my country. To Bin Laden taking itself video in the state. And tens of kings in my mail. Atte. ALA Donations Not of Account: 5470 4649 4172 0516 Bank: Santander Serfin Type of card: UNI Santander-K Mi nombre: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez DOMINGUEZ de GONZALEZ de ROBE
RTO dit : 7 septembre 2006 CHEZ 5:43 P.M. 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez indique : 31 août 2006 CHEZ 7:07 P.M. Je suis la personne que ceci dans chaque image, inclusivement pourrait être dit qu\’ils sont mes pensées. Dans différentes religions j\’ai différents titres. Pour moi suis santo, parce que d\’autres je suis arc?el et pour l\’autre celui qu\’un des quatre cavaliers de l\’apocalypse, ils acceptent, Poseidon, l\’aile du nez que Leonardo Da dessine Vinci. En outre il serait possible d\’être dit que mon chien est le diable, parce que je suis dans chaque image. Depuis que je suis né I avec mes parents a eu la décision à être partie. Los Angeles ou musiciens a commencé à consacrer toutes leurs chansons à moi ou à indiquer mes sentiments au moyen de musique, a pareillement commencé à consacrer à moi que la plupart des films, parce que je suis un de la quelque personne qui a la pierre filosofal qui est chaque livre par lequel lit mais le fantasioso qui ceci, commencent à devenir réalité pour le mon, bien que pour certains et religions également je sois un alchimiste, seraient possibles pour être dites que mon melena est les images qui existent par l\’univers. Par chaque livre par lequel je lis mais fantasioso pour lequel ceci, un problème vient à moi et commence à devenir réalité, néanmoins il parle du vampirismo ou licantrop? parfois je tourne le vin de l\’eau autant de sang qui se renversera à l\’avenir, ou de ma fusée nommée. On pourrait dire grâce à tous mes titres que j\’étais le créateur du vampirismo et du premier loup d\’homme sur la terre. En outre elle pourrait indiquer beaucoup de choses à elle sur plus vieux des vampires, et que certains comme David Copperfild suit même avec la vie, que Bouddha ni Christ ne sont pas des deads, et ce sont trois autres types de vampires en cette planète comprenant nous nous ourself, parce que celui qui ne me voient jamais des matrices. Bien que parfois je me guérisse avec des lunes de l\’eau, aussi moi emborracho, ou emborracho aux personnes avec les lunes qui apparaissent dans l\’eau quand je secoue un verre. De même je me protège et le platico avec les rayons laser qui acquittent de l\’espace profond profond, ces arrête des beaucoup d\’ordinateur superbe sérieux, parce qu\’il n\’y a aucune question impossible pour, bien que puisse être manoeuvré de sorte qu\’elle traite à toutes personnes, sont pas encore les gens qui financent mes projets. Car écarté lui pourrait dire à eux que quand je suis né je sentais l\’image d\’une pauvre personnalité, qu\’un oncle a accrochée dans le mur de la maison de ma grand-mère. Talvez pour cette raison les animaux tout pli de jour. Je dois moi-même financer pour adhérer mon existence avec celle des images. J\’ai les clefs de Vatican en ma ville protégée par les marques de subcommander. Au dalai il lèche des têtes de découpage dans mon pays. À Ben Laden se prenant visuel dans l\’état. Et dizaines de rois dans mon courrier. Atte. Donations d\’AILE DU NEZ pas de compte : banque 5470 4649 4172 0516 : Type de Santander Serfin de carte : Nombre d\’UNI Santander-k mille : Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez DOMINGUEZ del GONZALEZ del ROBERTO dice: 7 settembre 2006 a 5:43 P.m. 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez dice: 31 agosto 2006 a 7:07 P.m. Sono la persona che questo all\’interno di ogni immagine, potrebbe dirsi complessivamente che sono i miei pensieri. Nelle religioni differenti ho titoli differenti. Per sono santo, dato che altri sono arc?el e per l\’altro quale uno dei quattro riders del Apocalypse, Poseidon, accetta, il Ala che Leonardo Da disegna Vinci. Inoltre sarebbe possibile da dirsi che il mio cane è il diavolo, perché sono all\’interno di ogni immagine. Da quando sono stato sopportato la I con i miei genitori ha avuta la decisione da lasciare. Los Angeles o i musicisti ha cominciato a dedicare tutte le loro canzoni a me o a rivelare le mie sensibilità per mezzo di musica, similmente ha cominciato a dedicare a me che la maggior parte delle pellicole, perché sono uno della poca persona che ha la pietra filosofal che è ogni libro da che legge ma fantasioso che questo, comincia a trasformarsi in nella realtà per il mio, anche se per alcune gente e religioni inoltre sono un alchemist, sarebbe possibile per dirsi che il mio melena è le immagini che esistono dall\’universo. Da ogni libro da cui leggo ma dal fantasioso cui questo, un problema viene a me e comincia a trasformarsi in nella realtà per, nondimeno parla sul vampirismo o licantrop? a volte giro il vino dell\’acqua di tant\’anima che si rovescerà in avvenire, o del mio chiarore nome. Grazie a tutti i miei titoli potrebbero dirsi che ero il creatore del vampirismo e del primo lupo dell\’uomo sulla terra. Inoltre potrebbe dire molte cose a loro su più vecchio dei vampires e che alcuni come David Copperfild persino segue con vita, che Buddha né Christ non è deads e quello è altri tre tipi di vampires in questo pianeta compreso noi noi ourself, perché quello chi non lo vedono mai dadi. Anche se a volte mi guar con le lune dell\’acqua, anche me emborracho, o emborracho alla gente con le lune che compaiono nell\’acqua quando agito un vetro. Mi proteggo similmente e il platico con i fasci laser che fanno una ricevuta dallo spazio profondo profondo, quei arresta i molti calcolatore eccellente serio, perché non ci è domanda impossibile per, anche se può essere maneggiato in modo che curi a tutta la gente, non ancora è la gente che finanzia i miei progetti. Poichè allontanato esso potrebbe dire a loro che quando sono stato sopportato stavo sentendo l\’odore dell\’immagine di povero personage, che uno zio ha appeso nella parete della casa della mia nonna. Talvez per quel motivo gli animali tutto il popolare di giorno. Devo io stesso finanziare per aderirmi la mia esistenza con quella delle immagini. Ho le chiavi del Vatican nella mia città protetta dai contrassegni del subcommander. Al dalai lecca le teste d\’attacco nel mio paese. A Bin Laden che si prende video nel dichiarare. E dieci dei re nella mia posta. Atte. Donazioni del ALA non del cliente: banca 5470 4649 4172 0516: Tipo de Santander Serfin di scheda: Nombre di UNI Santander-K miglio: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez ROBERTO GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ sagt: 7. September 2006 BEI 5:43 P.M. 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez sagt: 31. August 2006 BEI 7:07 P.M. Ich bin die Person, die dieses innerhalb jeder Abbildung, einschließlich gesagt werden könnte, die sie meine Gedanken sind. In den unterschiedlichen Religionen habe ich unterschiedliche Titel. Für bin mich santo, denn andere bin ich arc?el und für anderes welches einer der vier Mitfahrer der Apocalypse, Poseidon, sie annehmen, der Ala, daß Leonardo Da Vinci zeichnet. Auch gesagt zu werden würde sein möglich, das mein Hund der Teufel ist, weil ich innerhalb jeder Abbildung bin. Seitdem ich geboren war, hatte I mit meinen Eltern die Entscheidung zum verlassen zu haben. Los Angeles oder Musiker fingen, alle ihre Liede mir einzuweihen an oder meine Gefühle mittels der Musik aufzudecken, anfingen ähnlich, mir einzuweihen, den, die meisten Filmen anfängt, weil ich einer der wenigen Person bin, die den filosofal Stein hat, der jedes Buch das liest aber fantasioso das dieses, Wirklichkeit für mein zu werden, obgleich für einige Leute und Religionen auch ich ein Alchemist bin, würde sein möglich, um gesagt zu werden, das mein melena die ist durch, Abbildungen ist, die durch das Universum bestehen. Durch jedes Buch, das ich aber fantasioso, das dieses, ein Problem zu mir kommt und, zu werden anfängt Wirklichkeit lese durch, für, allerdings spricht es über vampirismo, oder licantrop? manchmal drehe ich den Wasserwein so vielen Bluts, der zukünftig verschüttet, oder meines Namensaufflackerns. Dank alle meine Titel konnten gesagt werden, die ich der Schöpfer des vampirismo und des ersten Mannwolfs auf der Masse war. Auch sie könnte viele Sachen zu ihnen auf ältestem der Vampires sagen und daß einige, wie David Copperfild sogar mit dem Leben folgt, daß Buddha noch Christ nicht deads sind und die andere drei Arten Vampires in diesem Planete
n einschließlich uns wir ourself, weil das sind, wer mich nie Würfel sehen. Obgleich mich manchmal ich mit Monden des Wassers heile, auch ich emborracho oder emborracho zu den Leuten mit den Monden, die im Wasser erscheinen, wenn ich ein Glas rüttele. Ähnlich schütze mich ich und platico mit den Laserstrahlen, die vom tiefen Weltraum quittieren, diesen stoppt viele ernster Supercomputer, weil es keine unmögliche Frage für, obgleich manipuliert werden kann, damit sie zu allen Leuten kuriert, sind nicht schon Leute gibt, die meine Projekte finanzieren. Da entlassen ihm zu ihnen sagen könnte daß, als ich geboren war, roch ich die Abbildung einer armen Persönlichkeit, die ein Onkel in die Wand des Hauses meiner Großmutter hing. Talvez aus diesem Grund die Tiere alle Tagesfalte. Ich muß selbst finanzieren, um mein Bestehen mit dem der Abbildungen zu haften. Ich habe die Schlüssel des Vatican in meiner Stadt, die durch die subcommander Markierungen geschützt wird. Zum dalai leckt es Ausschnittköpfe in meinem Land. Zu Bin Laden, der video im Zustand sich nimmt. Und 10 Könige in meiner Post. Atte. ALA Abgaben nicht des Kontos: Bank 5470 4649 4172 0516: Santander Serfin Art der Karte: UNI Santander-k Meile nombre: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez 1. Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez diz: Agosto 31o, 2006 em 7:07 pm Cuadro de esta dentro de cada do que do persona do la do Soy, pensamientos inclusivos do mis do filho do que do podr?decir do SE. T?los dos distintos do poseo dos religiones dos diferentes do En. Santo do un do soy dos unos de Parágrafos, jinetes del Apocalipsis de cuantos uno de los cuatro dos otros do arc?el y parágrafo do un do soy dos otros de parágrafos, Adan, Poseidon, dibuja Leonardo Da Vinci do que do Ala do EL. EL diablo do es do perro da milha do que do podr?decir de Tambi?se, cuadro estoy de dentro de cada dos pues. Padres do mis do con do quedarme do decisi?e do la do nac?uve do que de Desde. O comenzaron dos m?sicos dos ?geles o de Los os canciones o de um sus dos todas do dedicarme sentimientos develar por medio de la m?sica de um mis, comenzaron igual do forma do de pel?las dos las de um mayor?de do la do dedicarme, que do persona de soy una de las pocas dos pues poseen o este filosofal do que do fantasioso dos mas do por do lea do que do libro do cada do mar do piedra o do la, comienza um realidad parágrafo milha do volverse, alquimista tambi?soy do un dos religiones dos personas y dos algunas de parágrafos do aunque, que dos cuadros dos los do filho do melena da milha do que do podr?decir do SE existen o universo do EL do por. Este do que do fantasioso dos mas do por do leo do que do libro do cada de Por, SE mim comienza do problema y do un do viene um realidad parágrafo milha do volverse, futuro hable do en un do derramare do que do sangre de en vino de la tanta do agua do EL do convierto dos veces do licantrop? A do vampirismo o do sobre do asi do aun, derramo do SE do nombre do en milha de o. Gracias um tierra do la do sobre do lobo do hombre do primer do EL de EL creador del vampirismo y do fui do que do podr?decir do SE dos t?los do mis dos todos. O sobre EL m?viejo de los vampiros dos cosas dos muchas de Tambi?podr?decirles, aun de David Copperfild do como dos algunos do que de y siguen o vida con, ni Cristo de Buda do que nenhuns est?muertos, incluy?onos do planeta do este de tres tipos de vampiros en dos otros do feno do que de y mismos dos nosotros, que do EL dos pues mim jam?muere do ve. Aunque veces mim sano las con lunas del agua, emborracho do tambi?me, emborracho de o um que con dos lunas dos las dos personas dos las aparecen o vaso do un do agito do cuando do agua do EL do en. O forma igual do De mim exterior do espacio do profundo do EL do desde do recibo do que do l?r do rayo do un do con do platico do protejo y, computadora do s?per do una do seria dos muchos de parágrafos do que, pues nenhum EL imposible de parágrafos do pregunta do feno, cura manipular do que de parágrafos do puede do SE do aunque personas dos las dos todas, aun nenhum que dos personas do feno financien proyectos do mis. O pobre do personaje de EL cuadro de un do oliendo do fui do nac?e do cuando do que dos podr?decirles do despedida de Como, la do t?colg? do un do que pared o abuela de de la casa de milha. O EL do todo dos animales dos los do ello do por de Talvez d?plieguen. Mim con financiar la de los cuadros do existencia da milha do adherir de parágrafos do que do tengo. Subcomandante Marcos do EL do por dos protegidas do povoado indígino de Tengo las llaves del vaticano en milha. Pais do en milha dos cabezas do cortando do lama do dalai do Al. Um estado do EL do en do vídeo do tomandose de Bin Laden. Correo de Y decenas de reyes en milha. Ordenador da milha do hacia do espacio do EL do desde dos ordenes dos propias do mis do recibo de Tambien. Bendiciones de Ayatola, Mohamad y Tolomeo. Fotos dos las de Todas mim papa dedican Juan Pablo do EL dos las II y Yaser Arafat. Por la diferencia de calendario do planeado do esta de Todo. Desde Oriente Proximo. Atte. ALA Donaciones Nenhum de Cuenta: 5470 4649 4172 0516 Tipo de tarjeta: UNI Santander-k Banco: Nombre de Santander Serfin milha: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez ROBERTO GONZALEZ DOMINGUEZ???: 2006?9?7?5:43 p.m. 1?? Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez???: 2006?8?31?7:07 p.m.?? ?????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????? ??????santo????????Leonardo Da?Vinci????????4???????1?????????????????????????????arcángel???? ??????????????????????????????????? ?????????????i???????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????fantasioso??filosofal????????????1????????????????????????????melena??????????????&a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;a mp;# 31169;?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????fantasioso?????????vampirismo?licantropía?????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? ????????vampirismo??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????deads?????????3?????????????????????????????????ourself???????????????Copperfild????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????emborracho??????????????????????????????emborracho? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????platico????????????????????????????????????????????????????| 79;????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????Talvez??????????? ????????????????????????????????????? ??subcommander??????????????????????????? dalai????????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????10? Atte? ??????????: 5470 4649 4172 0516?????: Santander Serfin????????: uni SantanderK mi?nombre: Roberto Gonzalez Dominguez ??????? ???????? ?????? ???????? : 7-? ????????, 2006 AT 5:43 ?. 00 ?. 1. ??????? ???????? ???????? ?????? : August 31st, 2006 AT 07 ?????, ? ??????, ??? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??????????, ???????????? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????. ? ?????? ???????? ? ???? ????????? ????????. ??? ? santo, ??? ?????? ? arcángel ? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ???????????? ?, ?? ?? ????????, ???, ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????????. ????? ????? ???? ?? ???????, ??? ??? ?????? ???????, ????????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ??????????. ? ??? ??? ??? ? ??????? ? ? ????? ??????????, ???? ?? ??????? ? ????????. ???-???????? ??? ????????? ????? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ? ????????? ????? ?????? ??????????? ??????, ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??????????? ???????, ?????? ??? ? ???? ?? ???????? ???????, ??????? filosofal ??????, ??????? ?????? ?????, ??? ??????, ?? ?? ??????? ???? fantasioso, ???????? ????????? ? ????, ???? ? ????????? ??????? ? ???????, ? ? ???????, ????? ???????, ??? ??? melena ????? ??????????, ??????? ?????????? ? ????. ? ?????? ?????, ??????? ? ????????, ?? ??? ??? fantasioso, ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ???????????? ? ??????????, ???? ??? ??? ??????? ? vampirismo ??? licantropía. ?????? ? ???????? ?? ???? ? ????, ??? ????? ?????, ??????? ??????????? ? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??????. ??????? ????, ??? ????? ????? ???????, ??? ? ??? ?????????? ? vampirismo ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????. ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ? ????????? ?? ????????, ? ????
?????, ??? ????? ??? ????????? Copperfild ? ??????, ??? ?????, ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??????????, ? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???????, ??????? ??? ?? ourself, ?????? ??? ???, ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ????, ?????. ???? ?????? ? ??? ? ??????????????? ???????? ????, ????? ??? emborracho, emborracho ??? ? ?????, ??????? ?????????? ??? ? ????, ????? ? ???????? ??????. ????? ??? ?? ? ???????? ???? ? platico ? ????????? ??????, ??????? ?? ????????? ???????? ?????? ???????, ??? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????? ?????????, ?????? ??? ?????? ???????????? ??? ???????, ???? ????? ?????????????? ???, ??? ?? ????????? ???? ?????, ?? ????, ??????? ??????????? ??? ???????. ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??, ???, ????? ? ??????? ? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??????????, ??? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???? ???? ???????. Talvez ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ????. ? ?????? ??? ????????????? ?????????????? ????? ????????????? ? ????? ?? ??????????. ? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ? ??? ????? ?????????? subcommander ?????. ??? dalai ??? ??????????? ????? ?????? ? ???? ??????. ??? ??? ?????? ? ????? ???????????? ? ?????????. ? ???????
cutulu@hotmail.com
8696941481
Consejo Ciudadano del Premio Nacional de Periodismo A.C.
Gob. Francisco García Conde #5, Col. San Miguel Chapultepec, Tels. 5276 4480, 5515 6660; Fax 5276 4427
Isador,
You said:
“There should be a mountain of direct, per-se evidence, if hundreds of thousands of people were evicted at the end of a gunbarrel.”
I am a non-Jewish member of Jewish Voice for Peace and do not know much about anything. But I do believe the many accounts of the atrocities that are being committed today in Palestine by some Jewish settlers and IDF’s against people who want nothing more than to live on their own land and feed their own families. In my opinion this present enlightens that past.
Please forgive me for mis-spelling your name, Isidor.