Turkey in Cyprus vs. Israel in Gaza





Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. This piece appeared in the Washington Times on July 20, 2010, and is accessible at Mr. Pipes's website, www.danielpipes.org.

In light of Ankara's recent criticism of what it calls Israel's "open-air jail" in Gaza, today's date, which marks the anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, has special relevance.

Emine Erdoğan, wife of the Turkish prime minister.

Turkish policy toward Israel, historically warm and only a decade ago approaching full alliance, has cooled since Islamists took power in Ankara in 2002. Their hostility became explicit in January 2009, during the Israel-Hamas war. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan grandly condemned Israeli policies as "perpetrating inhuman actions which would bring it to self-destruction" and even invoked God ("Allah will … punish those who transgress the rights of innocents"). His wife Emine Erdoğan hyperbolically condemned Israeli actions as so awful they "cannot be expressed in words."

Their verbal assaults augured a further hostility that included insulting the Israeli president, helping sponsor the "Freedom Flotilla," and recalling the Turkish ambassador.

This Turkish rage prompts a question: Is Israel in Gaza really worse than Turkey in Cyprus? A comparison finds this hardly to be so. Consider some contrasts:

  • Turkey's invasion of July-August 1974 involved the use of napalm and "spread terror" among Cypriot Greek villagers, according to Minority Rights Group International. In contrast, Israel's "fierce battle" to take Gaza relied only on conventional weapons and entailed virtually no civilian casualties.
  • The subsequent occupation of 37 percent of the island amounted to a "forced ethnic cleansing" according to William Mallinson in a just-published monograph from the University of Minnesota. In contrast, if one wishes to accuse the Israeli authorities of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, it was against their own people, the Jews, in 2005.
  • The Turkish government has sponsored what Mallinson calls "a systematic policy of colonization" on formerly Greek lands in northern Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots in 1973 totaled about 120,000 persons; since then, more than 160,000 citizens of the Republic of Turkey have been settled in their lands. Not a single Israeli community remains in Gaza.
  • Ankara runs its occupied zone so tightly that, in the words of Bülent Akarcalı, a senior Turkey politician, "Northern Cyprus is governed like a province of Turkey." An enemy of Israel, Hamas, rules in Gaza.
  • The Turks set up a pretend-autonomous structure called the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." Gazans enjoy real autonomy.
  • A wall through the island keeps peaceable Greeks out of northern Cyprus. Israel's wall excludes Palestinian terrorists.

A sign on the fence around Varosha, Cyprus.

And then there is the ghost town of Famagusta, where Turkish actions parallel those of Syria under the thuggish Assads. After the Turkish air force bombed the Cypriot port city, Turkish forces moved in to seize it, thereby prompting the entire Greek population (fearing a massacre) to flee. Turkish troops immediately fenced off the central part of the town, called Varosha, and prohibited anyone from living there.

As this crumbling Greek town is reclaimed by nature, it has become a bizarre time capsule from 1974. Steven Plaut of Haifa University visited and reports: "Nothing has changed. … It is said that the car distributorships in the ghost town even today are stocked with vintage 1974 models. For years after the rape of Famagusta, people told of seeing light bulbs still burning in the windows of the abandoned buildings."

Curiously, another Levantine ghost town also dates from the summer of 1974. Just 24 days before the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Israeli troops evacuated the border town of Quneitra, handing it over to the Syrian authorities. Hafez al-Assad chose, for political reasons too, not to let anyone live in it. Decades later, it too remains empty, a hostage to bellicosity.

Signs on a metal gate in the capital city of Nicosia.

Erdoğan claims that Turkish troops are not occupying northern Cyprus but are there in "Turkey's capacity as a guarantor power," whatever that means. The outside world, however, is not fooled. If Elvis Costello recently pulled out of a concert in Tel Aviv to protest the "suffering of the innocent [Palestinians]," Jennifer Lopez canceled a concert in northern Cyprus to protest "human rights abuse" there.

In brief, Northern Cyprus shares features with Syria and resembles an "open-air jail" more than Gaza does. How rich that a hypocritical Ankara preens its moral plumage about Gaza even as it runs a zone significantly more offensive. Instead of meddling in Gaza, Turkish leaders should close the illegal and disruptive occupation that for decades has tragically divided Cyprus.


comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Arnold Shcherban - 8/9/2010

Israeli governments together with the US Israeli lobby has been conspiring for long time to launch a military attack on the only viable, though incomparably weaker (that's the main reason they dare) country left in Middle East that may cause trouble for total Western-Israeli domination in the region - essentially racist domination.
The enormous and fierce anti-Iranian propaganda campaign continuing for years by now does not have a goal to
get rid of the regime of religious fanaticism and deny power to sheiks, kings, mullahs, etc. (it is only sufficient to look at the regimes the US-UK imperialist tandem installs, sponsors and supports in Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan), but to establish firm political and economic control over Muslim countries of the region through subservient regimes, thus suppressing the will of those countries' majority - the economic, political, and social structure traditionally named "democracy" or, at the least, "fledgling democracy" by Western ideologues.
Iran has not committed an aggression, in its modern interpretation, against any country in the course, of minimum, the last 100-150 years!
It has only been aggressed on by some of its neighbors and Western imperialist powers.
Iran does not currently possess nuclear weapons and the Atomic Energy Commission - the chief international body that monitors and regulates the usage of nuclear materials - in its multiple reports clearly stated that
it is found and unaware of any piece of solid evidence that indicates that Iran is making any.
We know now that Israel is ready (just waiting for a formal US nod) to launch devastating bombing strikes
on Iranian territory that will undoubtedly lead to many civilian casualties, not mentioning already a
destruction of Iranian infrastructure,
which most certainly will have terrible consequences on Iranian economy, and consequently on the welfare of Iranian populus.
American Jews along with the people of good will all over the world HAVE to raise their voice NOW against Western-Israeli aggression that very possibly can ignite the flames of a large scale war in the entire Middle East region, and eventually lead to the use of nuclear weapons by Israel.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/8/2010

Arnold, for a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who favors proletarian rule of the world, you are rather soft, aren't you on the bourgeois great powers that dominate the UN security council [unsecurity council?]?? Here you dare to tell us that security council votes, indeed any UN votes, have any positive moral value rather than being the expression of power politics, logrolling, bloc politics, anti-Jewish bigotry, and so on. So, do you really believe that those --pardon my language-- imperialistic powers that dominate the UN SC consider all the moral merits of a case before voting on it?? Doesn't the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] which initiated the notorious goldstone report, controls 56 or 57 votes in the UN general assembly [more than 1/4 of the total] serve to skew voting in favor of the OIC and its member states, while skewing vote against Israel?


Arnold Shcherban - 8/8/2010

Israeli governments and people have to feel forever indebted and thankful to the only country in the world, the USA, for not only protecting them from overwhelming international condemnation, censure, sanctions, and quite possible, international military interventions, in a sharpest contrast with the respective measures taken against many other countries, some of which had not committed a single violation of the international law, but just was considered a nuisance or potential threat by the the world superpower or/and by its foreign lieutenants.

Lacking support for Israel even from its close allies, Washington used its veto 32(!) times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half (!) of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N.

That's the single reason Israel enjoys the climate of total impunity for its undeniable aggressions, war crimes, ethnic cleansing policies, and multiple violations of international laws.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/6/2010

I smacked you too in the face with dozens of undeniable FACTS (in the course of our numerous debates), the facts recognized as ones by the overwhelming majority of the world, by the great majority of governments, and most of human rights organizations that enjoy world-wide respect, and when their
conclusions fit the shekel, praised by Israeli officials and press themselves.
And now you dare to tell me that I'm the one who ignores facts?!
You, miscreant amateur lier and coward along with the bunch of your ultra-nationalist facts-bending supporters, and that's why I quit debating with your ilk and will post only my comments and facts, using every opportunity to embarrass the enemies of honest discussion and
snatch a mask of objective, factual observers off their faces.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/6/2010

I smacked you too in the face with dozens of undeniable FACTS (in the course of our numerous debates), the facts recognized as ones by the overwhelming majority of the world, by the great majority of governments, and most of human rights organizations that enjoy world-wide respect, and when their
conclusions fit the shekel, praised by Israeli officials and press themselves.
And now you dare to tell me that I'm the one who ignores facts?!
You, miscreant amateur lier and coward along with the bunch of your ultra-nationalist facts-bending supporters, and that's why I quit debating with your ilk and will post only my comments and facts, using every opportunity to embarrass the enemies of honest discussion and
snatch a mask of objective, factual observers off their faces.


N. Friedman - 8/6/2010

Arnold,

The problem here is:

(a) your "undeniable FACTS" are not undeniable but, instead, LIES - e.g., the recent event on the Lebanese border regarding which even the UN sides with Israel and multiple quotes which are fake -; and

(b) your unexplained use of these alleged "undeniable FACTS" such that, were they even true - which they are not -, there is no apparent connection (and not even an effort by you to create a connection) between them and the article or anything posted on this board.

So, the logical interpretation of what you have done is to post stand-alone LIES in order to advance a propaganda objective.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/6/2010

I smacked you, "professor", in the face with dozens of undeniable FACTS (in the course of our numerous debates), the facts recognized as ones by the overwhelming majority of the world, by the great majority of governments, and most of human rights organizations that enjoy world-wide respect, and when their
conclusions fit the shekel, praised by Israeli officials and press themselves.
I even challenged you twice with the money bet, on the clearest conditions possible, for all HNN public to see and judge, but you cowardly refuse to take it.
And now you dare to tell me that I'm the one who ignores facts?!
You, miscreant professional lier and coward along with the bunch of your ultra-nationalist facts-bending supporters, and that's why I quit debating with your ilk and will post only my comments and facts, using every opportunity to embarrass the enemies of honest discussion and
snatch a mask of objective, factual observers from their faces.


art eckstein - 8/6/2010

Arnold writes that "facts speak for themselves". I doubt he would know a fact if it smacked him in the face.

Example: Arnold's claim that the firefight a couple of days ago on the Lebanese border was Israeli imperialist aggression. Sure, that's why the Lebanese sniper fired first, fire into Israel, killed a soldier who was within Israel, while being filmed by journalists from--wait for it--Hezbollah! I guess those Hezbollah journalists just *happened* to be there, Arnold, in case there was an Israeli imperialist aggression...

Facts matter, Arnold. But I forgot--like Butler and Omar, you don't really do the fact thing. Too difficult.


N. Friedman - 8/6/2010

Mr. Butler,

You write: "I'm curious. Who's an American? (I am.) I trust I won't be offending the tender sensibilities of gentlemen who defend a state whose reason for being revolves around identity."

And, you write: "Y'all are such transparent Zionist racists. You keep pulling that anti-semitic ripchord as reality pulls you and your Eretz fatherland motherland homeland (Yes America is guilty) closer to the truth."

Your position is no different from the traditional Christian view that Jews should be condemned to wander the Earth. Consider, if Jews are not real Americans - which is what you insinuate -, why ought Jews not be supportive of the one place on Earth where they actually are welcome (i.e. Israel)? How is your view any different from traditional Christianity's view of Jews?


N. Friedman - 8/6/2010

Mr. Butler,

You write: "I'm curious. Who's an American? (I am.) I trust I won't be offending the tender sensibilities of gentlemen who defend a state whose reason for being revolves around identity."

And, you write: "Y'all are such transparent Zionist racists. You keep pulling that anti-semitic ripchord as reality pulls you and your Eretz fatherland motherland homeland (Yes America is guilty) closer to the truth."

Your position is no different from the traditional Christian view that Jews should be condemned to wander the Earth. Consider, if Jews are not real Americans - which is what you insinuate -, why ought Jews not be supportive of the one place on Earth where they actually are welcome (i.e. Israel)? How is your view any different from traditional Christianity's view of Jews?


art eckstein - 8/6/2010

1. Butler, here is what you wrote, below, contrasting yourself (Who's an American? I am), with the those who spend their time defending another country (and whom you'd early referred to as the Borscht-belt people).

"James joseph butler on August 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM

I'm curious. Who's an American? (I am.) I trust I won't be offending the tender sensibilities of gentlemen who defend a state whose reason for being revolves around identity."

It's slander, Butler. That's an accusation of disloyalty. I'm as American as you, my father's blood shed on Iwo Jima proves it, and I'm as patriotic as you and maybe more.

You wanted proof of your attitude before, and I posted this before. But you just continue your slanders as if no one has refuted them.

2. And yet right above, in the very posting where you deny that Jews aren't real Americans (or anyway, all the Jews who post here are not real Americans), you write THIS:

"Y'all are such transparent Zionist racists. You keep pulling that anti-semitic ripchord as reality pulls you and your Eretz fatherland motherland homeland (Yes America is guilty) closer to the truth."

That's vile. Never mind my reasoned repies to your slanders; can't you read or understand what you yourself are writing?




james joseph butler - 8/5/2010

Art I've decided to be a 10 year old like you. What can I say I have too much time in the summer time. You stated that "Congress condemned the Armenian genocide." Art I'm literal minded I like to have my words mirror the public understanding. So do you but because your hopelessly leveraged to that neo-colonial entity that speaks to your sense of self, you compromise.

Israel, the brave boat in a sea of deceit, corruption, and bigotry. Men ready to defend the faith, the truth, the history. Heroes, stalwart defenders against temporal pretenders. Art you lift my soul.


james joseph butler - 8/5/2010

Omar, true fax, 44 out of the 45 signers of Israel's declaration of independence were born elsewhere. But you knew that.

"jjb, who likes to throw out insinuations that the Jews are not, real Americans." Not to be like academic or particular or true but I await the quotation cited here that can back up your slime.

Y'all are such transparent Zionist racists. You keep pulling that anti-semitic ripchord as reality pulls you and your Eretz fatherland motherland homeland (Yes America is guilty) closer to the truth. Is Emily Henochowicz a self hating Jew?


N. Friedman - 8/5/2010

Again, this is unrelated to the topic.

However, here are relatively some recent photos from the so-called prison camp. They show something quite different.

From a mall (July 17, 2010): here, here, and here.

From a market (May 25, 2010): here, here and here.

Here is a video from Roots, the club, in Gaza. Looks like a really nice place.

Here is a photograph of the Al-Deira Hotel in Gaza, taken in June, 2010.

Here is a video of a Gaza market, taken in June, 2010.

The above are all courtesy of journalist Tom Gross.

Is life tough for some in Gaza? No doubt. However, calling the place a prison camp is a big fat LIE.


N. Friedman - 8/5/2010

And, Arnold, your point about your alleged facts is what?

Again, this has exactly nothing to do with the article.

And, as noted before, legally speaking, there is no case, within existing International law, to claim that Gaza is occupied by Israel. But, even if it were, it is irrelevant.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/5/2010

Facts are undeniable.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/5/2010

Facts speak for themselves.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/5/2010

Although Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, it continues to be designated "the occupying power" in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations. Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 and the Golan Heights in 1981 has not been recognized by any other country.

Facts speak for themselves.


art eckstein - 8/5/2010

Elliott, looking in your notes would be a good thing to do! I can send the info to Benny Morris, who would appreciate it.

my email is ameckst1@umd.edu.

As for Omar's rant: it's wrong in every historical aspect. As usual.


omar ibrahim baker - 8/5/2010



1-Thanks gentlemen you hereby confirm that none of you is indigenous to Palestine and as such that both of you, together with some million Jews presently residing in Palestine, are ALIENS to Palestine.

This reminds of a cardinal fact;
according to the Israeli Census bureau:
when Israel declared its "independence" , actually its official colonialist takeover of 72% of Palestine, in 1948 approximately SEVENTY FIVE PER CENT (75 %) of its then JEWISH population was foreign born ie ALIEN by any sense of the word you may choose, and since the takeover was undertaken by ALIEN colons , having forced their way and entered the land against the will and opposition of the land's indigenous population, Israel was, still is, indisputably a Zionist Jewish colony of Aliens.

(Elliott : your reference to my mention of Eckstein's father military career with the USA army is truly childishly vacuous and inane .)

2- From a strict historical point of view the Zionist/Jewish conquest of Palestine is no different, in essence, from the mongoal and particularly of the Crusaders conquests.
It is particularly more apt with the Latter since they did settle the land for some time but were eventually thrown out as ALIEN colonialists.

The liberation of South Africa having not yet taken place then Azzam could not refer to it, however NOW it would be the most apt analogy to the state and future of Israel .

Here, I guess , we have a common perception in that you seem to agree that the Palestinian/Arab-Zionist/Jewish conflict is one of those millennial conflicts that will endure decades, possibly centuries, and engage generations to come until both the aggressors, ie Jewish emigrants into Palestine, and their offspring are repulsed and Palestine deZionized ie liberated from Zionist colonialism and domination.

I , for one, have absolutely no doubt that it will end this way and that a Zionist nation/state in Palestine will never be the hoped for safe haven for Jews no matter how long it endures.
Depending on how that, the deZionization of Palestine, will come about, whether by implosion or explosion, the adoption of the Zionist cause by a majority of Jews will prove to be one of the worst things that ever happened to ALL the Jews that future Jewish generations will come to bitterly regret!


Elliott Aron Green - 8/5/2010

I will look if I have time for my note on a contemporary source in a newspaper or newsweekly that reports the quote.


art eckstein - 8/5/2010

Elliot:

My uncle (Uncle Sam!) was, like your Dad, in the Battle of the Bulge: a gunner for Patton on a self-propelled howitzer during the battle. Maybe that will help shut up jjb and his "I'm a real American" meme.

Re Azzam in Karsh, the quotation on p. 105 is based on a book in Arabic published in 1976 (n. 11), i.e., not to a contemporary document in n. 11. What is the basis for that Arab book's assertion, I do not know; one can argue that it is an admission against interest, and so carries some weight even though it is a secondary source. Of course, the book actually could be citing a contemporary primary source, but from Karsh's fn 11 we cannot tell.

The second Azzam quote, on p. 209, goes back in fn. 36 to Roni Gabbay's 1959 book, which is precisely the book that (he tells me) Benny Morris found wanting when he checked the footnote for the contemporary primary sources. It may be that Karsh is also citing Sir Alec Kirkbride, Amman Memories (published in 1976): it's hard to tell, because Karsh may be citing Kirkbride not for the Azzam quote on p. 209 but an equally vicious quote from Taha Hashemi. That's the way Karsh does fn's, grouping sources in large groups; this makes it hard sometimes to tell what is a source for what.


art eckstein - 8/5/2010

Elliot:

My uncle (Uncle Sam!) was, like your Dad, in the Battle of the Bulge: a gunner for Patton on a self-propelled howitzer during the battle.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/4/2010

Art, about the quote from Azzam Pasha.
I was looking over Efraim Karsh's recent book, Palestine Betrayed [New Haven: Yale Univ Press 2010]. Even Omar might find something that he likes in it.

Anyhow, on p105, Karsh quotes Azzam talking about driving Jews into the sea.
On p 209, Karsh has the same quote from Azzam threatening "Mongol massacres" and "Crusades", that you quoted. Karsh gives the date of 5-15-1948, as I recall.

I believe that Azzam made the Crusaders/Mongol massacres threat a few times, the first that I know of being in the Fall of 1947. I think that newspapers and news magazines of that period have the quote, perhaps for more than one date. Also, as I said before, I believe that it appears in IF Stone's book, This Is Israel. If I had time to look it up in my own notes, I would do so.

As to Omar complaining about your mentioning your father's war service in the US Marines, he might understand better why you did so in order to respond to jjb, who likes to throw out insinuations that the American Jews are not "real Americans." Indeed, since Omar believes that Jews are alien to the Land of Israel, what Arabs traditionally saw as southern bilad ash-Sham, then he should be the first one to attack jjb and remind him that Jews are really true blue Americans at a rate of 110%. Or maybe he would like to insist, like Helen Thomas, that all the Jews in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany.

I think your response to him ought to shut him up, but he will probably change the subject and find something else. For the record, my father landed at Normandy beachhead on D-Day plus 30. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of the Ardennes Forest, etc. Where was jjb? Was he demonstrating his profound patriotism by energetically moving his jaw up and down??


Elliott Aron Green - 8/4/2010

Art, about the quote from Azzam Pasha.
I was looking over Efraim Karsh's recent book, Palestine Betrayed [New Haven: Yale Univ Press 2010]. Even Omar might find something that he likes in it.

Anyhow, on p105, Karsh quotes Azzam talking about driving Jews into the sea.
On p 209, Karsh has the same quote from Azzam threatening "Mongol massacres" and "Crusades", that you quoted. Karsh gives the date of 5-15-1948, as I recall.

I believe that Azzam made the Crusaders/Mongol massacres threat a few times, the first that I know of being in the Fall of 1947. I think that newspapers and news magazines of that period have the quote, perhaps for more than one date. Also, as I said before, I believe that it appears in IF Stone's book, This Is Israel. If I had time to look it up in my own notes, I would do so.

As to Omar complaining about your mentioning your father's war service in the US Marines, he might understand better why you did so in order to respond to jjb, who likes to throw out insinuations that the American Jews are not "real Americans." Indeed, since Omar believes that Jews are alien to the Land of Israel, what Arabs traditionally saw as southern bilad ash-Sham, then he should be the first one to attack jjb and remind him that Jews are really true blue Americans at a rate of 110%. Or maybe he would like to insist, like Helen Thomas, that all the Jews in Israel should go back to Poland and Germany.

I think your response to him ought to shut him up, but he will probably change the subject and find something else. For the record, my father landed at Normandy beachhead on D-Day plus 30. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of the Ardennes Forest, etc. Where was jjb? Was he demonstrating his profound patriotism by energetically moving his jaw up and down??


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

Arnold writes, "Facts speak for themselves."

It would be good if he ever had any.

But, like Butler and Omar, Arnold isn't into the fact thing.


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

1. "I'm a real American" is the implication of what you wrote below, contrasting yourself (Who's an American? I am), with the those who spend their time defending another country (and whom you'd early referred to as the Borscht-belt people).

"James joseph butler on August 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM

I'm curious. Who's an American? (I am.) I trust I won't be offending the tender sensibilities of gentlemen who defend a state whose reason for being revolves around identity."

It's slander, Butler. That's an accusation of disloyalty. I'm as American as you, my father's blood shed on Iwo Jima proves it, and I'm as patriotic as you and maybe more.

2. Fahrettin destroyed you on "the white colony" meme, and Elliot destroys you again here today on your use of that meme. But you never are able to absorb anything. You never could respond to Fahrettin's argument, and it's perfectly proper to refer to your failure.

3. Your first position on the H.R.'s was that there were no resolutions on Armenia until this year, which showed the power of the Jewish Lobby which supported Turkey. That was a lie, as well as a slander. Your second position was that only the Foreign Relations Committee passed them. That was a lie too. Your current (third) position is that the fact that the House passed resolutions about Armenia in 1975, 1984, 1996, 2007 and 2010 doesn't mean that "Congress" passed them. But this isn't a LAW, Butler, that requires both parts of the bicameral legislature to pass it.


N. Friedman - 8/4/2010

Arnold,

Again, Arnold, this has nothing to do with the issues in the article.

By the way, it is nearly certain that, legally speaking, Gaza is not occupied. There is, in fact, a legal definition in International law for occupation. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations provides:

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Israel has no army, hostile or otherwise, in Gaza. Hamas has an army in Gaza. So, if the US (or any other authority) claims that Gaza is occupied, they are not speaking law. They are playing politics.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/4/2010

Although Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in September 2005, it continues to be designated "the occupying power" in the Gaza Strip by the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and various human rights organizations. Israel disputes it is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 and the Golan Heights in 1981 has not been recognized by any other country.

Facts speak for themselves.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/4/2010

Facts speak for themselves.


james joseph butler - 8/4/2010

It's sad to see a "full professor of history and loaded with honors" embarrassing himself in public.

Apart from his habit of belittling my name like a needy 10 year old there's his habit of creating quotes, "I'm a *real* American". Art, where did you find this? I never wrote it. Mr. Professor the way quotations work is I have to either write it or say it before you put it in my mouth.

Art, where are you a professor of history? You keep stating that the House of Representatives equals Congress. America has a bicamerial legislature. You know, balance, that's how I learned it. One more time, Congress has never "condemned" the Armenian genocide. President Obama received an update after he was sworn in just like his predeccesors, genocide is politics.

"Fahrettin Tahir destroyed Butler", Art. Apart from sounding like the aforementioned 10 year old does a professor need someone else to fight his fights?

"Jimmy how about you're apologizng for "quotes" that really ARE inaccurate." Well Art I hate to disappoint you at this, I'll show you mine moment, but, sorry cowboy, I don't have any apologies to offer. I'm not about to apologize for a Ben-Gurion, Dayan, or Barak quote because I respect them and the fact that they wanted to let their fellow Zionists know why their enemy fought. If you have evidence to refute any of these quotes, bring it on. Thanks W.

Israel doesn't deserve pre-1967 Israel but it's the price that everyone from Hamas to Mossad will pay tomorrow if it means peace and dignity. Unless of course you're a "full professor and loaded with honors" who knows better.


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

Very good points, Elliot.

AE


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

Butler was accusing me of not being an American, Omar. My credentials are quite good, I'd say. They should be obvious even to idiots.


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

Arnold, you disgraced yourself again!

By

1. Shifting the topic to something irrelevant, rather than admitting your error about the slanderous quotation under discussion,
and
2. In opening the new and irrelevant topic, you manage to purvey yet another slander!

An amazing performance.


omar ibrahim baker - 8/4/2010

There seems to be a problem with this man.
What is it?
Is it not high time for him to digest the, by now all too obvious, fact that neither his erudition as a scholar nor his objectivity as a professor ever shows in what he has to say to the extent that neither is perceived, recognized nor respected by his readers despite his repeated reference to his professorship and his recent unadulterated resounding and full throated call to every body’s attention that :
“ as a full professor of history and loaded with honors from my university.. “ ??

That seems to have proved to be NOT enough so now we have another vibrant and seemingly unchallengeable call to attention with his assertion ( that neither I, nor presumably anybody else, have cause to doubt) that:

"…., my father served with the Fifth Marine Division on Iwo Jima, and half his unit were killed, ….”

That both calls are ultimately the symptoms of a pathetic dire, almost existential, need for external reassurance and recourse, seemingly also missed by him, serves only to accentuate the gravity of the situation.
However it is inconceivable, to me at least, that by now he still fails to grasp the ultimately pathetic and grossly ridiculous state of this condition; which calls for an attempt at an explanation/justification for this inane posture(s) not uncommon with most "scholarly" Zionist propagandists.
1-Re the former: the unrelenting effort to remind us that he is a Professor etc etc,
The only explanation that I can think of is that by now he realizes, or at least seriously suspects, that his, self imposed?, duties as a Zionist propagandist which leads him to defend the indefensible ( the aggressive, expansionist and racist nature of Israel etc etc ) and justify the totally unjustifiable (negation of the inalienable Right of Return of the Palestinians to their homeland etc etc, defense of the Deir Yassin massacre etc), and the way he goes about it does not only belie any scholarly, professor like, perception and handling of the issues he comments on but ultimately actually negates it!
Hence the need for a periodic reminder !

2-however the latter, the reference to his father’s undoubted American patriotism, is more tricky in that it seems that it/ he thereby, unconsciously or semi consciously, betrays, with the question of dual loyalty and possibly dual citizenship upper most in many minds , an inner grave doubt about his own!

Be that as it may be and with which ever, non personal, interpretation one can look at it with the patent need for reassurance and the constant recourse to external factors seem to me to be totally out of place here at HNN where erudition and objectivity invariably show and commands respect WITHOUT recourse to external factors!


N. Friedman - 8/4/2010

Arnold,

Again: your post is unrelated to the article.

Be that as it may, the UN has confirmed and the US agrees, that the Israelis were attacked inside of Israel, where they were cutting trees. Such is what The New York Times reports, in an article titled U.N. Supports Israeli Account of Border Clash.

Is there a purpose, other than publishing calumnies, for your posts?


Elliott Aron Green - 8/4/2010

Art, the Jews' skin color is an object of mutable perceptions in the Judeophobic mind. When "white" and "Nordic" were good, the Jews were perceived as swarthy [actually many are, including most of my family]. Now that "non-white" is good and white is bad, the Jews are perceived as white, indeed as ultra-white, the whitest of white.

When I was a kid in Philadelphia I sometimes overheard the remark: "Jews are Niggers turned inside out" [once I heard it said of Italians]. The Enlightenment philosophers and foolosofs considered the Jews in Europe to be Orientals, Asiatics, certainly not Europeans. The foolosopher Kant described the German Jews --ironically from today's perspective-- as: "The Palestinians who live among us." Not only were Jews explicitly described by Kant as Orientals but because they were Oriental, they could not have contributed to the development of philosophy or science. Kant drew up a hierarchy of religions with Judaism at the bottom.

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/10-issue/green-10.htm

In fact, the Jews are Oriental [= Middle Eastern] in origin. However, whereas the Judeophobes at one time, around 1900 let's say, pointed to the Jews' Oriental origin as a proof of the Jews' inferiority, now, at least since the 1960s, they have been pointing to the Jews' alleged "whiter than white" nature as proof that they have no rights to govern or even to live in the ancient Jewish homeland, the Land of Israel. Some Arab spokesmen & more recently, some "leftists", have decided that the Jews in Europe are really Khazars while some add that the North African Jews are really Berbers. The purpose of this is to discredit Zionism.

Whereas the pre-WW I Judeophobes labelled the Jews as not quite white, swarthy [see the British novel Trilby by George DuMaurier], and alien to Europe, the post-1948 Judeophobes claim --as does jjb-- that the Jews are superwhite and quintessentially European. The Jews are still perceived as alien, but the locus of their alien nature has been transposed from Europe to the Middle East.

The Arab nationalist movement favored Nazi Germany during WW2, although Nazism was, among other things, a movement believing in white, Nordic racial superiority. Arab leaders such as Amin el-Husseini, Rashid Ali al-Gailani, Nasser and Sadat were all Nazi collaborators. The first two spent most of the war years in Nazi Germany, apparently accepted by the believers in Nordic racial supremacy. Husseini had blue eyes and reddish hair, if I am not mistaken. But he was "non-white" jjb would no doubt tell us, but my mother who was olive-skinned [shvarts-kheynev-dik = darkly attractive, is how she was described in Yiddish], and her father who was actually light-brown-skinned --probably as dark as Rev J Wright-- would be labelled "white colonists" by jjb, if they had lived in Israel.

What jjb says is an expression of prejudice, not of any scientific, empirical knowledge.


art eckstein - 8/4/2010

1. Mr. American Butler, my father served with the Fifth Marine Division on Iwo Jima, and half his unit were killed, so let's have no more of this "I'm a *real* American" crap from you.

2. "Israel is a white colony." Like Butler's continuing insistence that there were no Armenian resolutions passed by Congress until recently, despite being given the HR numbers (!), Butler here too simply cannot learn. Half the Jewish population of Israel are refugees from the Middle East itself. Fahrettin Tahir destroyed Butler when he employed this line on another thread. But he simply cannot learn, and just repeats the propaganda, repeats the propaganda, repeats the propaganda.

3. Quotes are quotes, Jimmy, but there are scholarly ways of determining their accuracy. You evidently don't know or care what they are. I immediately apologized when it turned out that Benny Morris has recently revised his opinion and now is uncertain whether the Azzam quote is accurate, because of source problems (he's not saying it's inaccurate). Jimmy, how about you're apologizng for using "quotes" that really ARE inaccurate?

(Oh, who am I kidding.)


Arnold Shcherban - 8/4/2010

New Aggression against Lebanon.

<Brig. Gen. Avi Benayahu, the Israel army spokesman, told Israel Radio, "Our forces, in one of our positions, inside our own territory, were carrying out a task that was notified in advance to UNIFIL.>

<Andrea Tenenti, a UNIFIL spokesman, said the the peacekeeping force was investigating whose version was correct and added that the important thing was to restore quiet.>
Not a word about the alleged Israeli notification.
I guess, Hezbollah infiltrated not only Lebanese military forces (according to the latest Israeli suggestion), but UNIFIL, as well...


Elliott Aron Green - 8/3/2010

I believe that the Azzam quote can be found in press articles from the period. In fact, I once searched for it and found that Azzam had said similar things --not exactly the same-- already in the Fall of 1947.

I believe that I F Stone quoted it in his book This Is Israel. Of course, a quote by IFStone is not necessarily proof. I would also check press in languages other than English for the quote. You could look at Le Monde for dates around May 15, 1948, for instance.

Maybe you can check the easy way by doing a google search using: azzam crusades mongols massacre.


james joseph butler - 8/3/2010

Wow, Art do you really know Benny? Gentlemen your unerring ability to distill the truth, scary. Ok, we agree, quotes are like everything else out of our mouths, open to interpretation and revision. Why is it that generals speak the truth more often than politicians do?

Ok, just the facts or land or holy books or obligations, says Joe Sabbath. The gist of your arguement: Yahweh said it's ours, we were there 2,000 years ago, we won it fair and square the old fashioned boy way with blood and guts n' brains n' friends.

Ok, Yahweh gave it to you, you're good at killing and intimidation and self-justification. Who was it who said? Ok,Israel sunk the Liberty. Get over it, that's war dude. Collateral, intentional shementional, it's all fair.... NF.

In your quintessentially human desire to keep what you have (and improve and enlarge) you become the Palestinians. Which is why this entire spectacle is insane. America, for the most prosaically predictable of reasons, power and familiarity, has chosen sides in an old world property dispute. George Washington is doing 360s because history's lessons endure. What does America have to gain? NOTHING. What does it stand to lose? thousands and trillions.

I'm Irish American. I would never want America to fight or finance a war that had anything to do with Catholics vs. Protestants. Duh! because it has nothing to do with anything other than the most provincial property disputes involving the Old World. William of Orange leaves Holland to replace James and supplant the Papists, yada yada yada. They left Ireland so they could leave that hoohah behind. (Here's the part where you guys suddenly become indigenous advocates. I support indigenous property rights, we all know Israel needs bioligical weapons.)

Israel is a white Western colony. I love "Lawrence of Arabia" and yes I read 7 Pillars, I came across a quote of his today intended for his superiors regarding the would be Arab states, "a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion" and it put me in mind of the San Remo Conference,1920,22, whatever, it's an obviously racist colonialist act. Or maybe the idea that foreigners know best is correct. (Speaking of sovereignty Israel needs to recognize Hamas as a sovereign entity before it can invoke nautical law.) It's little different from the UN establishment of Israel. A group of men whose votes were largely bought via influence and favor decided the fate of those whom they had virtually no knowledge.

More of the same then and now. Americans, who don't know squat, daily determine the fate, via joy stick or congressional vote, of people who can't afford K Street lobbyists.


N. Friedman - 8/3/2010

Please let me know what you learn.

thanks.

NF


N. Friedman - 8/3/2010

Arnold,

It might help if you were to admit making an error. You will find that you are in good company on this page.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/3/2010

No comments needed.


art eckstein - 8/3/2010

Quite right, N.F.

Meanwhile, I've emailed Benny Morris (whom I know), so we may end up knowing more.


N. Friedman - 8/3/2010

Art,

I do not know. Morris indicates that he chose, in his book 1948, not to use the quote. He does not say the reasons for his doubts and, I note, he used it previously, as you note.

Of course, doubting the pedigree of something is quite different from indicating that the quote is not genuine. Which is to say, Morris is indicating possible doubts, enough for him to discontinue using the quote for the moment. The quote may well be genuine and it has certainly appeared in serious research, with scholars believing the quote genuine.

By contrast, Arnold, uses quotes which, on their surface, are suspect and, so far as I know, have not found their way into serious books. They are part of the hate Israel set of fake quotes, not part of the materials which most scholars take as genuine.


art eckstein - 8/3/2010

Oh, then I apologize.
What is wrong with the pedigree of the quote? Do you know?


art eckstein - 8/3/2010

Oh, then I apologize.
What is wrong with the pedigree of the quote? Do you know?


N. Friedman - 8/3/2010

Art,

Regarding Azzam, I note that Benny Morris now indicates that he doubts the pedigree of the material you quote, writing:

I myself in the past have used the one divergent quote, by Arab League Secretary-General Abdul Rahman Azzam from May 15, 1948, in which he allegedly spoke of a “war of extermination” and a “momentous massacre” à la the Mongols. But in my recent history of the war, 1948 (Yale University Press, 2008), I refrained from reusing it after discovering that its pedigree is dubious.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/3/2010

In those days, when the Arabs still often used Turkish titles, Azzam was often or usually called "Azzam Pasha."

It is interesting that he went on behalf of the Arab League to Yugoslavia to persuade the new Yugoslav govt after WW2 to take the name of Haj Amin el-Husseini off of the UN's list of war criminals. Yugoslavia was the only member state that put Husseini's name on the list. This was because he had helped recruit Bosnian and Kossovo Muslims into SS units. These units were called the "Handschar" [khanjar] for the Bosnian Muslims and the "Skanderbeg" for the Kossovo Albanian Muslims. Both units became notorious for atrocities, especially the Handschar SS division.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/3/2010

jjb, General Keegan, former head of US Air Force intelligence, once said that the Liberty was giving information on Israeli military moves to Arab parties in the war. I don't have his statement handy. You can check up just exactly what he said.


art eckstein - 8/3/2010

Typo: that's Abdul Rahman Azzam

AE


art eckstein - 8/3/2010

Wow--now BOTH Arnold AND Jimmy look like idiots who don't know what they're talking about!

And so, they join Omar.

As for quotes, how about this one, folks?

"This war will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades"--

Abdi; Rahman Azzam, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, May 15, 1948 (the day after Israel declared its indepedence).

And unlike the quotes from Jimmy and Arnold, this quote is real, from an actual scholarly source (rather than, say, some anti-semitic website):

Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict (2001), p. 219.


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

Mr. Butler,

In 1967, when the Liberty was sunk, the US was not Israel's number one ally. In fact, the US did not sell Israel military equipment, much less support Israel. The two countries were cordial but not allies.

Contrary to your assertion, Israel has never been the number one ally of the US. That said, Israel has become an important ally of the United States.

If attacking the US in the past were the mainstay of how Americans view foreign countries, I suspect that Americans would have little to do with the British, the Germans, the Italians, the Mexicans, the Japanese, etc., etc., who have killed countless more Americans than the Israelis have. So, it seems to me that you are focusing on a minor incident - unfortunate as it was - in a war.

One might ask, from an Israeli point of view, why the US had a ship in a war zone. Surely, the US knew that it is common in war to bomb any ship which might been seen as spying or assisting an adversary. Which is to say, it strikes me that, even on the worst telling of the event, there is little substance.

So, I do not think that the issue is a cover up. I think the main issue here is the relatively minor significance - other than to those harmed - by the incident. Presumably, the US government thought that improving relations with Israel after the war was the wiser course of action, since the Six Day War is widely seen (and was by the US government) as among the most extraordinary military campaigns in memory.

Your theory is that the Israelis and, evidently, Americans are doing something bad here. I do not see it. What I see is that the Israelis operate, for the most part - not all the time but surely most of the time-, in self-defense. By contrast,the US acts as a large power (which would explain the presence, now or at the time of the Liberty incident, of a US ship in a war zone), the most conspicuous benefit of which is the relative peace that US power has kept in the world over the last number of decades.

So, I think your interpretation of events is, frankly, bizarre. And, I see in your focus on a minor incident, all things considered, of the Israelis an unhealthy focus by you, one not driven the significance of the event but, instead, by a need to find reasons to assert for your views about the dispute.


james joseph butler - 8/2/2010

NF, "the event occurred during a major war, where such things occur not infreqently. So, that is probably the reason why most people shrug." Actually most Americans know nothing about it because the US govt. covered it up then and now. Like so many other exercises in foreign diplomacy the sailors were expendable. Ideals are for speeches people are fungible assets.

You're right again NF, this Liberty post has nothing to do Cyprus, except for Israel. Arnold may be like some other Americans who've never heard of the Liberty. It's a bit like my reading of Patrick Tyler's "A World of Trouble" a year ago, in which he describes Henry Kissinger's entirely duplicitious role as Sec. of State regarding his relationship with Israel. I'm entirely cynical about the US Israeli relationship and yet I had no idea just how compromised SuperK's dealings were.

NF it's not as if either Israel or America are doing anything originally bad. And of course you guys are 100% correct about all the other sinners throughout Arabia and the third world, it's the fact that Israel is America's #1 ally, recipient of foreign aid, and all that democracy stuff, when anyone who pays any attention knows that the Liberty is just the same old.... you gotta do what you gotta do. Israel is the emperor with no clothes. Anyone who pays any attention knows that just like America they're the reigning champions of hypocrisy. La di da.


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

Mr. Butler,

It was me who confused the word Congress, by limiting it to the House. It was a mistake, as I noted previously. I note, however, that it is often used to refer to the two year session of the House - and is noted that way in the dictionary (e.g. The American Heritage Dictionary). Still, I admit making an error.

As for the rest of what you write, I shall accept your apology, even if you try to cover it in self-serving language.

I shall also note that any school kid will tell you that 8 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. Yet, you make that assertion twice. The correct number is about 6 million. So, presumably, we all need a bit more humility.

That said, the thrust of what Professor Eckstein stated about Congress condemning the Armenian genocide is correct. I would suggest that, while we are in the mood of reconciliation, you look back so that you will see that what he wrote is correct.


james joseph butler - 8/2/2010

I love how you guys can be world weary intellectuals in one post and then born again idealists in the next. I hate to keep using 'disingenous' but it seems apt.

The reason why I asked about national origin was the Armenian genocide and its lack of an official United States imprimatur of recognition. The Holocaust Museum is on the mall and virtually every school kid in America reads about this hideous event, a far cry from when I was teased in 7th grade for reading a certain girl's diary. Eight million Jews perished, an epochal event in recorded history. What if we decided to not record it? What if only 1.5 million Jews died? What if America said, eeeh, I've got other items on my itinerary, not right now, maybe later? Is evil, a word that you guys waste on me, somebody pecking at a keyboard, different when the number is 8 rather 1.5?

All this is to say; you have got to be kidding me if you think I can believe that anybody who spends time on HNN born in the USA thinks that the House of Representatives equals Congress. Rick Shenkman, who has something to do with this site, asks the question, "Just how stupid are we?" Well boys in my mind you're either foreigners or stupid Americans if you thought the House alone equaled the U.S. Congress. Or maybe you like that same ole disingenous tag.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/2/2010

By the way, Arnold, I translated into English Rafael Eitan's autobiography. This translation was published in the USA by Shapolsky publishers. [the title was something like "Story of a Soldier" or "A Soldier's Story"].

No such words appear in that book. Eitan did make a statement in which he referred to Arab terrorists as hopefully being trapped like roaches or blue bottle flies in a bottle. He was referring to terrorists, not Arabs as such. As his translator, I met him several times. He did not speak in the terms that you put in his mouth. As a matter of fact, he had Arab business associates in his olive oil business.

As to Dayan, he did say something like, We have to live on our swords. He made it clear that that was because of Arab hostility and continuing Arab attacks. As I recall, he said this in his eulogy for a young man named Ro'i who was murdered by terrorists. The eulogy became famous in Israel. Thanks to NF for clearing up that false Dayan quote.

Arnold, can't you and jjb try to check your alleged quotations from Israeli leaders before you make a fool out of yourself by using the anti-Israeli inventions of hostile propagandists??


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

Arnold,

Once again, this has zero to do with the article at hand.

Addressing your alleged Dayan quotation, I found its origin. It is not Dayan but an analysis of Dayan's views called Israel's Sacred Terrorism, by Livia Rokach. Here is what she, not Dayan, states in Chapter 8 of her analysis:

The conclusions from Dayan's words are clear: This State has no international obligations, no economic problems, the question of peace is nonexistent.... It must calculate its steps narrow-mindedly and live on its sword. It must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no-it must-invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge.. . . And above all -let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space. (Such a slip of the tongue: Ben Gurion himself said that it would be worth while to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.) (26 May 1955, 1021)

Also, the Eitan quote is also a fabrication.

Good try, Arnold, passing off phony quotes.


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

Arnold,

Your post has exactly nothing to do with the article.

There have been numerous theories about the attack. It may have been deliberate. It may have been an accident. It may have been a combination of deliberate and accident.

What is clear is that the event occurred during a major war, where such things occur not infrequently. So, that is probably the reason why most people simply shrug.


Arnold Shcherban - 8/2/2010

The observation of Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan clarifies Israel’s specific expansionist objectives to be fulfilled through military confrontation:

“[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no it must, invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation – and revenge…and above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we nay finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.”

Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan similarly described Israel’s longstanding strategy of military aggression and racist subordination:

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel.... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours... When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.”


Arnold Shcherban - 8/2/2010

The U.S.S. Liberty and the Culture of Impunity
Source: Salon.com (6-1-10)
[Philip Weiss runs the website Mondoweiss.]
The attack on the USS Liberty is one of the great enigmas of US-Israel relations. On June 8, 1967, in the middle of the Six-Day War, Israeli planes attacked an American spy ship, the Liberty, that was in international waters off the coast of Egypt, listening in on secret communications. The attacks appeared to be deliberate, involving numerous passes on a clearly-marked American boat, strafing and napalming. The attack killed 34 Americans and produced very little by way of investigation. It was deemed an accident from the start, although many American officials doubted this conclusion.
The following quotes are from the book, "The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel's Deadly Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship" (2009, Simon & Schuster), by James Scott, a longtime journalist living in South Carolina, whose father was an officer on the Liberty:
[With the Liberty] the United States had the capability to intercept and decipher VHF and UHF radio frequencies, common frequencies used for government and military communications...
In the case of the Liberty, the White House, afraid of offending Israel's domestic backers at a time when it needed support for its Vietnam policy, looked the other way....
Hints of disbelief did emerge, often from small newspapers outside the Beltway. Many puzzled over how Israel's exceptional military could make such a blunder...
[T]he overall lack of criticism of Israel baffled some senior government leaders. The dogged press corps consistently challenged the administration on its Vietnam policy and ambitious social programs. In the case of the Liberty, the press aimed most of its critical questions at the American government. Israel in contrast enjoyed a reprieve. Reporters soon adopted the phrase 'accidental attack,' a description that frustrated Pentagon officials, who felt it minimized the ferocity of the sustained assault that had killed or injured two out of every three men on board....


Elliott Aron Green - 8/2/2010

So, Omar, if only the Christians are to blame for antisemitism, then how come Muhammad and his ansar guys, slaughtered, enslaved, and expelled the Jews of Medina and the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in Arabia?? [in the seventh century]


Elliott Aron Green - 8/2/2010

Art & N, what jjb is doing in #144009 is changing the subject --again. If he can't answer, as Art points out in #144014, he throws out an accusation. But he does it rather subtly, at least for him. He insinuates that his opponents in debate are not Americans. This is a red herring. JJB, why don't you try to answer our arguments without insinuating unAmericanness on our part??

Then jjb takes up religion and makes another very big blunder. He says:
Original sin is an idiotic old, world/testament concept in my mind.


As a matter of fact, "original sin" is a Christian concept, not a Jewish concept, although Christian theologians find grounds for the concept in the Hebrew Biblical story of the Garden of Eden. JJB, why don't you ask your priest or minister about that concept?? But be polite with him, please.


omar ibrahim baker - 8/2/2010


Well after all it seems Mutik knows some history and seems to be ready to say it as it is!
I am intrigued by his reassertion of an old well known fact that anti Semitism is a Western , mainly Christian, phenomenon. A fact seldom mentioned by others of the HERD who consistently avoid it.
However his knowledge is deficient and, as always, perverted: his claim that Islam "joined" Christianty in Jew hatred is a fallacy for two reasons well known to everybody except’ seemingly , Mutik:
1-Islam is anti Zionist, not anti Jewish, whether Zionist is Christian or Jewish inspired and supported
2-According to Islam Jews are people of the Book and as such are venerated being the adherents and proponents of the FIRST monotheistic religion.
(That they tried to keep it to themselves by frowning on proselytizing is of course another question)
BUT to expect Mutik to know that also may be too much!


omar ibrahim baker - 8/2/2010


Well after all it seems Mutik knows some history and seems to be ready to say it as it is!
I am intrigued by his reassertion of an old well known fact that anti Semitism is a Western , mainly Christian, phenomenon. A fact seldom mentioned by others of the HERD who consistently avoid that fact.
However his knowledge is deficient and, as always, is perverted: his claim that Islam "joined" Christianty in Jew hatred is a fallacy for two reasons well known to everybody except’ seemingly , Mutik:
1-Islam is anti Zionist, not anti Jewish, whether Zionist is Christian or Jewish inspired and supported
2-According to Islam Jews are people of the Book and as such are venerated being the adherents and proponents of the FIRST monotheistic religion.
(That they tried to keep it to themselves by frowning on proselytizing is of course another question)
BUT to expect Mutik to know that also may be too much!


art eckstein - 8/2/2010

Butler, unable to answer our *facts*, instead charges those who have utterly destroyed him in debate with not being real Americans like him.

Truly disgraceful.


art eckstein - 8/2/2010

NF, you forget that Butler isn't into the fact thing.

Besides, you forget that if you make him look like the ignorant fool he is, then--also--you are not an American.

I thought Omar was the bottom of the intellectual barrel. I was wrong. Not even Omar has ever gone as low as Butler on this thread.


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

So, Mr. Butler, we are not real Americans like you. Is that what you really mean to say?

Are Cuban Americans not real Americans for supporting Cuba? Do you say the same for Irish Americans who support Ireland and favor the IRA?

You support Palestinian Arabs. Does that make you less American?

What about Christians United for Israel - a vast group with few Jewish members? Are members of that group less American than you?

I support Israel because I support the right of Jews to cease being the world's favorite scapegoat and because, as a liberal, I recognize Israel as a country that liberals have, consistent with liberal values, traditionally supported. You, by contrast, join a long line of reactionaries who oppose things done by Jews, failing to see that you attack Jews for doing the same thing you do.


N. Friedman - 8/2/2010

Mr. Butler,

You write: I define a coward as someone who shoots an unarmed person multiple times in the head or back at point blank range. This is how five of the nine "thugs" were executed.

Do you know for a fact that what you write is so? While I was not there, my bet is that such is not so and that you are repeated bald faced lies. My bet is that the soldiers were attacked and, in self-defense, shot back.

And, as for the charge that the IHH thugs were not armed, two Israelis were shot by your unarmed thugs - and not shot with Israeli guns. It was reported that five Israelis required surgery for stab wounds, bullet wounds and for blunt force trauma, caused by your unarmed thugs.

So, maybe the Israelis shot at close range. Perhaps, they were trying not to be killed.


james joseph butler - 8/1/2010

I'm curious. Who's an American? (I am.) I trust I won't be offending the tender sensibilities of gentlemen who defend a state whose reason for being revolves around identity.

I wonder how it is that adults who spend as much time as you all do on HNN could be unaware of the status of "the world's greatest deliberative body". Original sin is an idiotic old, world/testament concept in my mind. In your minds it seems to be admitting that you, or Israel, were incorrect about anything.


art eckstein - 8/1/2010

Elliott, you describe the way JJB behaves exactly, the shifting of the topic away from his original assertion so that he doesn't have to admit that his original assertion is wrong. It's an original ignorance compounded by intellectual dishonesty.

In my case, he's actually called me publicly a "Liar" on this particular Comments session, and after having been PROVEN that I was correct (about the House Resolutions on the Armenian issue) and that he was wrong, he (a) doesn't apologize for the vicious and false insult, and (b) doesn't even admit that he is wrong when faced with the H.R. numbers of the Resolutions.

He's simply an intellectual infant. No wonder Butler and Omar get along.

But in this Comments section here, we've really and definitively shown him up for what he is: ignorant, and intellectual dishonest.


Elliott Aron Green - 8/1/2010

Art, that quote from attorney Philip Roche was helpful. Maybe jjb can read it over several times and memorize it. If he is honest, he would then frankly state that Israel's blockade is legal and that [continuing to go by the San Remo Manual. . .] a blockading power is allowed to board ships on the high seas outside of its territorial waters. That is not piracy, if jjb would like to pin that label on it.

Now what I saw jjb doing in response to my presentation of the Khaybar Khaybar ditty is that he changed the subject. I presented it to show that the Mavi Marmara passengers who attacked the soldiers were not "peaceful" or intending to bring peace or to be humanitarian but that they were religious bigots, glorying in a possible death in jihad battle as proper mujahedin [plural of mujahid].

What does jjb do? He changes the subject, raising the issue of Israel's lack of a formal constitution and claiming that Israel attacked the poor wittle ferryboat only because a few innocuous goons were singing an offensive song. That is ridiculous. Anyway, for everyone's information, Israel has Basic Laws which provide for freedom of speech. Nevertheless, there are restrictions on speech in Israel as in the USA, UK and elsewhere. But freedom of speech is irrelevant to the case at hand. Were the Mavi Marmara passengers peaceful is the issue. The answer is No, for several reasons.

By the way, jjb and everybody, you might look up the photos of several Israeli soldiers held captive on a lower deck of the Mavi Marmara by the IHH thugs, as well as by Mr Ken O'Keefe of the "free gaza" movement.
[O'Keefe was with the thugs by his own word, although I am not sure that he was in any of the photos in Hurriyet].

These photos were first published on the website of the Turkish daily Hurriyet. Chas. Johnson of LGF showed how Reuters falsified/cropped some of the photos in order not to show inconvenient data. Such as a hunting knife in the hand of one of the thugs.


art eckstein - 8/1/2010

1. What's amazing about Butler is that even after being shown to be an ignoramous about the passage of FIVE separate House resolutions condemning the Armenian genocide, complete with the H.R. numbers being given, he STILL denies that this happened!

What a dismal intellectual performance. I think that's what we mean when we say that Butler doesn't do the fact thing.

2. The point about the vile song (and don't forget the video of them practicing with weapons) is that Butler presented these IHH Jihadists as innocent peace activists. Meanwhile, the IHH has been banned in Germany as a terrorist organization. But again, Butler simply doesn't do the fact thing.


3. LONDON | Wed Jun 2, 2010 9:16am
(Reuters)

What is the legality of the Israeli blockade of Gaza? Can Israel impose a naval blockade on Gaze?

Answer:

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

'On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal,' said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose."

The Israelis thus had every right to intercept and board ships whose intention was to break a legal blockade. As for the humanitarian issue, all the aid on the ships was offloaded at Ashdod and after inspection transferred to the Palestinians. The fact that a lot of it was junk tells a great deal about the sincerity of the "humanitarian" aim of Butler's "peace activists."

Oh--but then, again, Butler really doesn't do the fact thing.






N. Friedman - 7/31/2010

Mr. Butler,

I stand corrected but note, again, that normally one speaks of Congress to refer to the House, not the Senate. That goes with the term Congressman (or Congress woman), which usually does not refer to a Senator.

The rest of what you write, I repeat, is interpretation.


james joseph butler - 7/31/2010

NF, regarding your contention that,"in fact, the "US Congress" normally refers to the House.", I'll let your ignorance speak for itself.

"The rest of what you write is interpretation." No, the rest of what I wrote is fact. You can look it up. It was a little difficult at first because Google kept directing me to Armenian sponsored sites that wanted me to think that Congress had officially condemned it but obviously they have their reasons. I was 100% correct when I stated that Congress had never recognized or condemned the Armenian genocide.

I was unaware that the House in 1975 and 1984 had recognized the Armenian genocide. But this issue remains a contentious one for the most obvious of reasons; Congress has never recognized or condemned the Armenian genocide.


james joseph butler - 7/31/2010

Thanks for steppin' right up and takin' that pitch. Eliott I live in the United States, we have something called the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech amongst other freedoms, in our Bill of Rights. Israel doesn't have a similar document because it doesn't believe in equal rights for all of its citizens. What this means is that people can sing whatever they want and the forces of the state are not empowered to respond with lethal force if they find the lyrics objectionable.

This is what freedom looks like Israeli style. The only democracy....


james joseph butler - 7/31/2010

"Mr. Butler does not do the fact thing." I'm always happy to discuss the facts. (Please see my note regarding facts vs. Art's lies re. "Congress condemned".) Eckstein defines a "thug" as someone whose lyrics he and I find wrong.

I define a coward as someone who shoots an unarmed person multiple times in the head or back at point blank range. This is how five of the nine "thugs" were executed. See richardsilverstein.com.

I guess these "thugs", had it coming since the omniscient IDF knew about their taste in music.


N. Friedman - 7/31/2010

Mr. Butler,

Not to be too blunt but, in fact, the "U.S Congress" normally refers to the House. In fact, if you Google search that exact phrase, the very first listing is the official website of the House of Representatives. So, I think you are mistaken.

The rest of what you write is interpretation. One can be condemned without the word appearing in the text.

In any event, the statement by Professor Eckstein - and now what you admit - refutes your position as to what has been expressed by Congress.


Elliott Aron Green - 7/31/2010

jjb & Arnold, I know that you guys are not into facts. But here are some anyway. The seven boats in the "IHH-"free gaza" convoy were not all carrying supplies for Gaza. The Mavi Marmara was carrying passengers, besides "international do-gooders," there were thugs of the IHH. The supplies being carried were not exactly "humanitarian supplies." For your information, jjb & Arnold, Gaza health officials complained:

"Gaza Health Ministry Officials Complain that Medical Donations Supplied by Aid Convoys Are Past Their Expiry Date or Otherwise Useless"
jjb & Arnold, you can confirm that assertion at the link below.

http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2557.htm

Apparently, the supporters of IHH & "free gaza" threw together some junk that others didn't want and loaded it on several of the boats in the convoy. The shipments also included a lot of shrouds. Perhaps they were hoping that a lot of Gaza folk would die in another war with Israel, while also killing Jews.

Now as to the "humanitarians" on the Mavi Marmara, some were shown on al-Jazeera, that is, on an Arab broadcasting station, happily confiding their desire to become Muslim martyrs, that is, shahids [shuhada], warriors who die in a jihad or holy war. Others were shown on Arab TV singing:
Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud
Jaysh Muhammad sa ya`ud

This cute little ditty means:
[Remember] Khaybar Khaybar O Jews!!
Muhammad's army will return for sure.

This is a taunt to Jews, reminding them of the defeat of the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in northern Arabia who were conquered, slaughtered and enslaved by Muhammad's army almost 1400 years ago.

So it is either ignorant or dishonest to call the Mavi Marmara passengers "peaceful" or "humanitarian."


james joseph butler - 7/31/2010

Art these are your words, "The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian genocide in March 2010." You also state that the U.S. Congress "condemned" the Armenian genocide in 2007, 1996, 1984, and 1973. Art the House of Representatives does not equal the U.S. Congress. What did happen was that the House of Representatives "recognized" the Armenian genocide in 1975 and 1984. The word "condemned" is never used and to it reiterate the House does not equal Congress, nor does a single committee or a group of representatives who collectively vote to recognize the Armenian genocide, I imagine these were the actions which led you to misrepresent the truth Art.

Art, Eliot, and NF, these are facts. I look forward to how you'll try and twist them.


Joseph Mutik - 7/31/2010

Mr. Tahir tries draw similarities between what happened to Muslim populations in the Ottoman empire (and former) at the end the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and what happened to other populations during the same time. In almost every case he cites it was an exchange of populations between Muslims and non-Muslims, the ottomans didn't remain indebted to the external powers they cleansed and killed in reaction in most of the cases more powerfully than the others. In Bosnia it wasn't a genocide, it was a sad and extended killing of Muslim population, in thousands, and also it was a pretty healthy Muslim reaction to it against the unarmed non-Muslims. Mr. Tahir has a repeating joke about the "colonial" influence of France in Africa. The only viable unit of the french army, in our days, is the foreign legion with about 10000 (ten thousand) soldiers. Of course France (as many other powers) does extended business in Africa but it's far from colonial power.
In my view the genocide in Rwanda was the first great result of an Al-Qaeda
attack. It happened short time after 18 American soldiers were killed in Somalia during a humanitarian mission and president Clinton couldn't have received the approval of the Congress for sending troops to Rwanda because of the killings of American soldiers in Somalia.
What happened to Muslims after the retreat of the Ottoman empire is similar to the cleansing of the German population from Poland and Czechoslovakia after WWII, the civil population paid the price of a ruthless and cruel occupation but in the German case they couldn't react with their own cleansing.
What happens in Turkey today is the result of the general situation in the Muslim world where 99% (may be 95%) of the countries have a failed social, political and economic system full of incompetence and corruption. The proof of this situation is the millions of Turkish people that have to find work in Europe because the Turkish economy can't provide work for them. As in many other Muslim countries the Turks have chosen the move to Islamic extremism as the solution. My hope is that the Turks wake up before it's too late.


N. Friedman - 7/30/2010

Art,

As I said, Mr. Butler does not do the fact thing.

Consider, Mr. Butler seems to be an indefatigable historical negationist when it comes to facts he prefers not to see. So, people who scream out "Death to the Jews" are peaceful folk, even when such folk claim that they wish to become shahids.


N. Friedman - 7/30/2010

Fahrettin,

You write: "If say Turkey would march in and slaugher 10 % of the population of Greece they would not have let that happen."

That may be correct but it would not be because Greece is Christian and Turkey is Muslim. It would be because NATO countries play a major role in American geopolitical thinking. And, likely, if Greece killed 10% of Turkey's population, the US might intervene to protect Turkey - not because the US loves Muslims but because the US sees Turkey and Greece as important members of NATO.

Consider, as showing the problem with your thesis, the actual example of Sudan (prior to the Darfur horror), where as many as 2 million Christians and animists were slaughtered by the Islamist government's forces, with them taking and selling into slavery more than 100,000 Christians (sold to Gulf State buyers, by the way). In that case, the US did not intervene and, as in your Greek hypothetical, Christians being slaughtered by Muslims.

So, I do not buy that argument. I think it is reading things into US thinking that do not really have much to do with US thinking.

You write: "As far as I am concerned the genocide in Bosnia was what started what the US now calls the war on terror."

That may have some truth to it. In Bernard-Henri Lévy's book, Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, he notes that Omar Sheik may have formed his viewed in connection with that war.

You write: "You in the US have no idea that even moderate Moslems talk of "they" who slaughter "us"."

That may well be true. I do not understand the point. If Muslims, moderate or otherwise, draw false conclusions, does that mean the US must accept those conclusions? In fact, if Muslims, moderate or not, draw correct conclusions, does that mean the US must accept those conclusions.

It would seem to me that the US does itself a disservice by allowing false conclusions and false analysis to control its thinking. We must be, of course, mindful that we are misunderstood. But, that is different from accepting false conclusions.

Lastly, I agree with you that what the US, not Europe, does counts more in today's world.


A. M. Eckstein - 7/30/2010

Butler, a thug is a man who sings "Death to the Jews" songs before he sets out on the voyage to sail into a war-zone, and is shown practicing with weapons while on the way. You can see these videos on youtube.

In the Week of the Flotilla, seven other ships were peacefully boarded by the Israelis, including the large "Rachel Corey", escorted into Ashdod, their goods inspected and sent on to Gaza. There was trouble only on the Mavi--the ship manned by the IHH Jihadists. Get the point?

By the way IHH has now been banned in Germany as a terrorist group, and Fahrettin, who knows Turkish politics intimately, laughs at the idea that this is a different IHH from the IHH Jihadists on the Mavi.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/30/2010

Mr Friedmann

For a super power like the US intervening and equally not intervening are top level political decisions.

I do not think what happened in Bosnia was an American idea. But they knew what was happening and chose to accept what their British poodles wanted to do.

If say Turkey would march in and slaugher 10 % of the population of Greece they would not have let that happen.

As far as I am concerned the genocide in Bosnia was what started what the US now calls the war on terror. So the decision not to invervene was plain stupid.

You in the US have no idea that even moderate Moslems talk of "they" who slaughter "us". All that happens in the relationship between the Christian and the Islamic world matters.

There is a lot to be said of European politics, but they are the had beens, except France in Africa.

It is the US that matters.


N. Friedman - 7/30/2010

Fahrettin,

I am going to address only one of your points, since the US was not at war with Muslims qua Muslims during WWI and did not declare or fight against the Ottoman Empire.

I want to address the issue you raise that the US does not get to pick and choose who it helps. It is certainly true that the US has self-declared interests all over the world. However, the US has not always intervened and certainly has no moral obligation to intervene every time there is an injustice.

Were the US to be the shepherd of human rights everywhere, Americans would be up in arms, since people do not like fighting like fighting other people's battles. Hence, the US did not intervene and/or has not intervened in Rwanda, in Cambodia, in Sudan, in Congo, among other places soaked in blood. Nor should it.

It is one thing, while in a fight, for the US army to stand by while people are slaughtered. It is quite another thing for the US army to travel across the world to choose to fight to end slaughter. The latter, were it to be applied consistently, would be a monstrous proposition, turning American youth into fodder in other peoples' wars. That is an unacceptable proposition and one which no people on earth would agree to take up.

So, I think your proposition is just unfair. You should argue with Europeans who, during the Bosnian War, sat on the sideline and watched being suffer and die. But, it is quite a different degree of responsibility to ask anyone to intervene in a fight that is not his or her own fight. That goes way too far.


N. Friedman - 7/30/2010

Arnold,

I realize that you prefer not to make a fool of yourself.

However, in the world that really exists, we make useful comparisons by examining how similar circumstances are treated. I have presented evidence of basically identical situations treated very differently - one way for Israel and another way for other countries (e.g. Britain and Russia).

In that testing a thesis requires the isolation of a variable, I wonder how your examples are examples of anything other than dissimilar circumstances treated similarly, which means exactly nothing. Do you have any examples of similar circumstances treated similarly? There are some, but there are a lot of situations where different treatment occurs, which is the point made by Israel's friends, namely, they are often treated differently than other countries are notwithstanding seemingly identical circumstances.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/30/2010

Mr. Butler, you really got nerves of steel to keep on debating those enemies
of any honest debate, as long as the latter concerns Israel. I eventually always give up, since it is impossible
to debate with the ones that reject any facts, evidence, and laws that cannot bought for a shekel.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/30/2010

What is not only disingenuous, but outright distortion of the picture as a whole, Mr. Friedman, is to cite exclusively the events that fit the shekels, and deny even the right to cite events of on incomparably larger scale and importance to others.
This makes any debate with the ones like you ("Israel is above all, and always right"), not just difficult but impossible. And you well know that the similar conclusions has been reached not just by me and the ones like me, but by the world's majority
from all walks of life, throughout the entire political and ideological specter.
Amen!


james joseph butler - 7/30/2010

Eliott I'd like to refine your understanding of "thug" as you apply it to Mavi passengers. A "thug" is a man who thinks machine gun wielding commandoes rappelling down from helicopter gunships at night is a disquieting sight. He feels fear. He decides to defend himself with whatever is at hand. This man is a "thug".

This man is on an unarmed vessel carrying humanitarian supplies to people in need. His vessel is in international waters.

If one chooses to resist these ipso facto pirates, even if you're an American citizen, the US will look away provided the pirates are IDF.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/30/2010

Mr Friedman

I tried to make clear that it was the intended policy of the Allies of WW1 to get so many Bosnians killed that there would be no second Moslem state in Europe.

A country which follows so intrusive policies as the USA, poking its nose into everything, really everything the rest of the World does, can not quote George Washington, who was running a small country of 4 Million inhabitants far away from everywhere else.

Especially if it was an ally of WW 1, intimately connected with Britain, where the PM would not go to the toilette if the US told him to piss in his bed.


N. Friedman - 7/30/2010

Fahrettin,

If I understand correctly what you have written, I think it is (1) one thing to act against people (e.g. killing them) and (2) another thing to stand by while other people kill them.

In number (1) above, no one doubts that the killer is to blame, if there is to be blame at all (e.g. self-defense being a legitimate excuse for killing in some instances).

In number (2) above, there must, instead, be a showing of blame and, in most instances, blame does not exist.

Hence, it is one thing to say that non-Serbian Europeans stood by while Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs. It is quite a different thing to say that non-Serbian Europeans are to blame for Serbs killing Muslims. There may be blame but it is, of course, of a different order of blame, unless of course non-Serbian Europeans were complicit in what the Serbs were doing - as opposed to merely ignoring it.

There is, I would think, a sliding scale of blame involved. Wanting a better relationship with Russia as a reason to stay out stopping the fighting suggests, certainly, some degree of blame - assuming that such was what was involved. On the other hand, there is the notion that dying in some other people's war is not a moral obligation.

In the US, there is an old saying which, if I recall correctly, goes back to George Washington. The US is the friend of liberty everywhere but the shepherd of liberty only at home. Which is to say, our version of morality to does not require automatically coming to the rescue when other people act badly although we should side with those wrongly attacked.


Elliott Aron Green - 7/30/2010

Arnold, take what N is saying seriously please. Also note what Cameron, the present "right-wing" prime minister of the United Kingdom, said in Turkey just a few days ago. He called Gaza a "prison camp" while putting the blame for that on Israel instead of on the avowedly genocidal Hamas which tolerates no opposition in its control of the Gaza Strip.

This control --based on Islamic law-- goes so far as to regulate shops selling ladies lingerie and what women can do in cafes, and what people have to wear, etc etc. On the other hand, there is a wealthy or bourgeois class in Gaza that has at its disposal a new shopping mall, olympic swimming pools, gourmet restaurants, etc.

But Cameron groveled before the pro-Hamas, pro-Ahmadinejad Turkish leader, Erdogan, who corrupts his own country's courts in order to persecute his political opponents, kills many Kurds, including civilians, in his war against the Kurdish insurgents/separatists, refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide, creates provocations against Israel [the Gaza flotilla and the IHH attacks on Israeli soldiers], and allies with the murderous Iranian and Syrian regimes.

Note that Cameron, the "right-winger", shed a few tears in front of Erdogan for the IHH thugs who were killed in the assault on the Israeli troops. Arnold, you really should try to see the many videos easily available on the Net, including youtube, that show what happened on the Mavi Marmara. It was NOT an Israeli assault on peaceful humanitarians. Yet both Cameron and the equally slimey Roger Cohen of the NY Times, a capitalist daily, if I'm not mistaken, portray Israel as wantonly attacking innocuous peace and love protestors.

In short, disproving your claim is the fact that both a prominent Western "right-wing", "conservative" politician, Cameron, and a journoscribbler for the NYTimes, R Cohen, smear Israel over the Mavi Marmara incident.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/30/2010

Art,

you are talking about a govenmnet which sends fools to die on the road to Gaza for the show effect as their own country drifts into civil war.

Does that sound like people who understand their job?


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/30/2010

I think we all remember Bosnia.

The Western powers declared that they would accept the independence of Bosnia. Upon that Bosnia became independent. Immediately the Serbs started slaughtering the Moslems. Britain and France landed troops in Bosnia. Any time there was an initiative to help the Moslems the British prevented it saying their troops might behurt by the Serbs if Moslems are given any help. Turkish president Ozal, the most pro western person ever to occupy that office said, it would be easy to stop the slaughter but the British wanted it to happen.

The Economist wrote that the motivation for Britain was to gain Russia’s friendship and confidence. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that the Serbians were presumeing nobody (meaning the christian powers the rest of manking being nobody) was interested in a Moslem state in Europe and they were right in thinking so.

Bosnia was European Turkey until 1908. There were still Moslems there because the Austrians who invaded the place in 1877 did not do a genocide as over the rest of European Turkey.

After enough Moslems had been killed to make the Bosnians accept EU colonial rule the USA intervened and stopped the slaughter.

What we saw had been the allies of WW1 breaking the back of the Moslem population of a part of European Turkey.

In the 1990ies when the whole world was watching.

When the same thing happened on Cyprus in the 1960ies. Turkey stopped it and was condemned by the West. We still get articles like this one here on hnn.

When Turks are told that was what happened in earlier ages, we believe it. When we are told the Armenians were deported to end the genocide they had started in Eastern Turkey with Russian help, we believe it.

There was a discussion here about whether the Ottoman government could not have deported the Armenians without killing so many.

There is never any discussion about whether the Armenians had to join the Russians or the chain of genocides in which Islam was cleared out of Europe.

Art gave a list of congress resolutions about the Armenians. Most allies of WW1 have comparable resolutions condemning their enemies. Several like France have laws preventing Turks from saying what they think. The penal code is used to legislate history.

This is hybris, criminalizing their victims.

An honest look at history necessitates first stopping further genocides. Second looking at what was done to the Moslems of Europe and who initiated the whole misery.

You can not mass murder people when it fits your interests and condemn it when it does not. Take single events out of historical context and use them to manipulate public opinion and expect to be taken seriously.

As far as I am concerned, I saw what happened in Bosnia. The British government who was behind that belongs in the international war crimes tribunal.

After that we talk about the Armenians.


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Arnold,

There is a massive amount of evidence that Israel is not treated the same as other countries - when similar circumstances arise. That does not mean that other countries are not criticized. And, citing countries like Saddam's Iraq, a country run by an openly fascistic regime that has killed huge numbers of people - in the hundreds of thousands - is disingenuous.

We have, just recently, an episode showing how differently Israel is treated when it does similar things to what other countries do.

We have the stolen/forged passports incidents, one vehemently condemned (i.e. when Israel is only supposedly involved) and the other ignored (i.e. when Russia got caught red-handed in the US). Not a peep from the UK and Ireland in the case of Russia while, most especially the hypocritical British condemned Israel.

That is not at all unusual. The condemnation of Israel in the Gazan war dwarfs what is now being said from the Wikileak information about widespread killing of civilians in America and Nato's war. Mind you, the evidence shows that Israel, by a very, very wide stretch and even taking Palestinian Arab evidence at face value, does substantially better at protecting civilians than the US or Nato does - by an order of magnitude better. Yet, Israel was widely condemned for not protecting civilians. The US and Nato - including countries in Nato which condemned Israel in the Gazan war - are rather quiet about their own, rather worse levels of mistake.

So, I think you are in dreamland.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/29/2010

Zionists, including the officials of Israeli governments permanently complain that, allegedly, Israeli authorities and its armed forced have been receiving terrible "treatment', i.e. mistreatment from many foreign governments/countries, their mass-media, the so-called Left, and international human rights organizations in reporting, commenting, and analyzing the violent events with Israel's involvement, relative to all (or almost all) other
countries or groups, being involved in violence.
However, already first several examples that almost automatically come to mind totally destroy that notion: Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
Certainly, recent world-wide (many Arab countries inclusive) fierce campaigns of condemnations and accusations organized, managed and sustained by Western governments (especially by US and UK), their mass-media and human rights organizations against Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan dwarf any all other recent propaganda campaigns combined against Israel.
No elementary objective and honest person in the world can deny that.
But actually what's much more important is the comparison of hard practical (not opinion-wise) consequences of those campaigns for the mentioned above countries and the respective governments there on one hand and the state of Israel and its governments on another.
I don't think that even craziest of Zionists would suggest that the "treatment" hundreds of thousands Iraqis and Afghanis (not already mentioning some Pakistani tribes) and former regimes there received directly from or triggered by NATO forces, or the series of economic and political sanctions against Iran is equivalent or matters less than the VERBAL abuses and accusations against Israel,... unless I severely underestimate the capacity for rejection of facts, evidence, and elementary logic demonstrated by some no-matter-what Zionists.
We, also, are told that persecution of Kurds in Iraq, especially over the reign of Saddam Hussein was disregarded. First of all, this is only partially true. The Western governments, Turkey, and many other states one way or another allied with the NATO superpower, their mass-media, the American ones, in particular, did more or less completely ignore that persecution, since at the time when the persecution of Kurds by Saddam regime
peaked on, the latter was at aggressive war against Iran, and by the common logic: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was promoted to the status of, at least, temporary ally.
At the same time, the hateful Left and some Western human rights organizations did produce numerous reports about the mentioned persecution of Kurds in Iraq; moreover, the Soviet Union and its satellites widely reported those abuses.
Not already mentioning, again, the ultimate difference between eventual "treatment" received by the chief perpetrators of these crimes, accused by the real powers of this world, and no-consequence "terrible treatment" received by Israeli leaders for the crimes they have been accused in by the less powerful of this world.

On the other token, those hateful Left and human rights organizations with the alleged anti-Israeli bias have reported, exposed, and condemned hundreds of countries, governments, and separate groups around the world, regardless of their national, religious, and racial origin for all sorts of human rights violations and crimes.
Perhaps, most notable and suitable in the present context example of such reporting is the myriad of expositions, produced by those same scoundrels, of the violation of the rights of the Soviet Jews to immigrate to Israel, in particular, and many other violations of human rights in the Soviet Union and in other countries of the former Eastern Bloc, the violations not even remotely so violent (in 1970s and 1980s), as the ones Israel is being VERBALLY accused of by practically the same scoundrels.
I could go on and on for many more pages, giving quite explicit examples of virtual non-existence of the anti-Israeli bias among the MOST (though, admittedly, not all) of the countries, governments, mass-media outlets, and human rights
organizations, but one has to stop somewhere.
But already the examples supplied above, render the Zionist claim about
Israel being treated largely unfairly
by the world opinion a myth.
Actually it is a sacred truth,... but only in the sense that Israel does receive the HIGHEST preferential, "no-consequences" practical treatment of ALL states, higher even than the considered to be most preferably treated country - USA.


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Mr. Mutik,

You prefer to make categorical statements that are in incapable of being stated, at the same time, both truthfully and categorically. Which is to say, you overstate your case, as shown by the very evidence you cite.

Now, I agree with you that Israel is, almost always, falsely accused and condemned. We have, just recently, two episodes showing that to be the case.

1. We have the stolen/forged passports incidents, one condemned (i.e. when Israel is supposedly involved) and the other ignored (i.e. when Russia got caught red-handed). Not a peep from the UK and Ireland in the case of Russia while, most especially the hypocritical British condemned Israel.

2. We also have massive piles of evidence of so-called collateral killings by Americans, Brits, etc., in Afghanistan (with hardly a peep about what is shown) while those killed by accident by Israel are said to be war crimes, crimes against humanity and worse under circumstances where Israel has a whole lot better case to fight Gazans than Americans and Nato has to be fighting in Afghanistan.

So, I think that part of what you write is quite correct.


Elliott Aron Green - 7/29/2010

Art & N, jjb has a mind set in concrete that cannot change or even shift by one or two degrees. Whatever else you may think of his openmindedness, he does display the virtue of consistency. Maybe happiness is never having to change your mind.


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Art,

Mr. Butler does not do the fact thing.


art eckstein - 7/29/2010

Fahrettin has a fair point. The scale of murder and forced dispossession where European Muslims were the victims (1877; 1912-1913) was vast, involving millions of people.

These are events not well-known to the western public. The Turks need to take the initiative in making them well-known. It would change perspectives.


art eckstein - 7/29/2010

The 1975, 1984, and 1996 bills all passed in the House of Representatives, Mr. Butler. Not just in the Foreign Relations Committee.


Joseph Mutik - 7/29/2010

Mr. Friedman,
This is a history site so I would not try to remind you the long list of Muslim on Muslim crimes committed during through history but one of them still quite prevalent in our time, honor killing of innocent women. As far as I know the only place where this crime is judicially punished is Israel. So yes I don't think my assertion was "over the line" but a simple statement of facts. King Hussein of Jordan killed in the 1971 black September more Palestinians than Israel did during the entire conflict so don't let geopolitics go against the facts.
I am an Israeli American and my question is still: why blame Israel (and the Jews) for no reason when there is plenty of blame to go around. That's the main idea from the article of Mr. Pipes.


james joseph butler - 7/29/2010

Art I am so sorry for not reading between your obviously well intentioned lines. Why couldn't I figure out that when you stated, "The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian genocide in October 2007." you meant the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I'm sorry that I'm able to recognize Congressional rules of order to the degree that you are which obviously entails passing the same legislation at least five times according to you. Art if this legislation had passed five times previously why is it a big deal in 2010? Riddle me.

Sarcasm aside Art the reason why Rep. Howard Berman is cavilling about the Armenian genocide today is because there has never been a full Congressional, let alone American, "condemn"ation of the Armenian genocide. If there had been one there would be no reason to address this issue repeatedly over the last four decades. Our Nobel Peace Prize Prez, went on record prior to his inauguration that the Armenian genocide was a fact, he now has a more nuanced opinion on this issue. One genocide deserves a museum the other needs a second opinion.


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Fahrettin,

You have asked a fair question. I do not have a good answer.

I think that such events are often seen, as the Greek liberation movement is often seen, as liberating land from Muslim rule that had, before conquest by the Ottoman Empire, been part of the Christian world, with the deaths and refugee flows from such events seen as an unfortunate consequence of an otherwise just cause, if the deaths and refugees are even mentioned. That, of course, is the newspaper version of the world, although there are real scholars, like Bernard Lewis, who have noted with great sympathy towards Muslims the problems that befell the late Ottoman Empire.

You are quite right that the focus on the demise of the Ottoman Empire has sometimes been seen less as a tragedy for those Muslim who died or were forced to flee as the Empire contracted than as something else. For some, it is seen as a victory for those who lived as tolerated infidel under Ottoman rule. On the other hand, we have some modern schools of history which would deny the mistreatment of Christians in Ottoman Europe on the theory that Western imperialism sees Muslims as inferiors such that it is somehow racist to point out man's humanity towards man when Christians are not doing the evil. So, they may criticize the West for attacking the Ottoman Empire but they are careful not to look too deep, lest they find non-Westerners treating people like dirt, just as Westerners have treated many peoples like dirt.

I have noted that many of the refugees from the decline of the Ottoman Empire came to reside all along Asia Minor. Some now call themselves Palestinian Arabs. Some call themselves Turks. Some Lebanese, some Syrians, etc., etc.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/29/2010

Mr Friedman

How come I never hear anything about anybody's role in the destruction of the European Moslems?

A non event.


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Mr. Mutik,

You write: "but, probably, killing being an integral part of the Muslim culture you even don't consider it as an issue but blame the Americans anyway."

While we often agree on things, I think what you have written here is way over the line. You might say that killing is an integral part of some Muslim societies. But, your statement is entirely unqualified. In that Fahrettin is both Muslim and, from what I have seen, without qualification, a modernist anti-Islamist, he is living proof that you are wrong.

Now, I think his defense of Ottoman Turkey's role in the destruction of the Armenians is way off base, he is a reasonable person who deserves better than some others who post on this page.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/29/2010

First Rwanda was under French control in the 1990ies. France has a colonial empire in Africa which was being run by preseident Miterrand's son at that point.

There is scene in full metal jacket where the helicopter gunman shoots vietnamese on the ground and says if they run away them is cong. Then he shoots again and says if they don't run away them is brave cong.

Second without the US in Iraq there would not be such dying. Saddam rule was far less bloody then US rule.

There is of course a lot of hate between Shiis and Sunnites but in one case a team of terrorists was arrested as they were preparing to boms a Shii mosque, and behold, they were British soldiers. So the conflict was being heated by the occupying powers.

There are no war crimes in Turkey now, the AKP does exactly as instructed by the West.

Your hope of feeling superior to Turks won't work when the West puts you next to us on the victim list.

Welcome to the club.
British PM was in Turkey this week attacking Israel because of Gaza. This is for me clear demonstration that the West will now put Israel on the bad guys list to make the Arabs happy to accept their oil theft.

That is how they operate.


Joseph Mutik - 7/29/2010

Mr. Tahir your compiled a list of crimes, of course with a lot of errors, some of them very basic. Rwanda was a Belgian colony independent for for more then 20 years during the 1990s. 99% of the killings in Iraq are Muslim on Muslim killings, but, probably, killing being an integral part of the Muslim culture you even don't consider it as an issue but blame the Americans anyway. Vietnam and Korea wars were a special type of civil war and at least in S.Korea I am sure the Koreans there are happy with the results.
Many other facts you wrote about are true but it doesn't contradict the historic fact that the Turkish nation committed genocide and war crimes during the 20th century and continues to commit war crimes now!
Anyway the question remains: why accuse Israel of imaginary crimes when there is plenty of real crimes against humanity to talk about and condemn?


Elliott Aron Green - 7/29/2010

Another point, Joe, and maybe Arnold can help with this one. How come the "left" that supposedly has --or at least used to have-- a class-based ideology never takes up the cause of the oppressed, exploited, cheated foreign workers in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates??

But they have plenty of time to dream up "freedom flotillas" to help the avowedly genocidal Hamas regime in Gaza.


Elliott Aron Green - 7/29/2010

Joe, your point is well taken. Almost all of the goody goody groups, whether calling themselves "left," or "human rights," or "peace" groups have overlooked all sorts of crimes going on worldwide, to focus only on Israel's sins or the invented sins and crimes alleged against Israel, such as killing Jewish babies, which has been a shameless specialty of both Hamas and Fatah gangs, not to mention PFLP, PDFLP, etc etc.

The most notable of the crimes overlooked --and why bother with incidents that finished quickly when crimes ongoing for years have been disregarded-- are the southern Sudan genocide and the persecution of Kurds in Iraq and Syria. To be sure, President Geo Bush I noticed the Iraqi Kurds' distress in late 1990, as I recall. But the Syrian Kurds' plight is still unacknowledged.

For many years, Iraq under the Arab national hero Saddam Hussein slaughtered Kurds and drove them out of their homes forcing them to leave their homeland in northern Iraq, while Arab settlers were brought in from elsewhere in Iraq to take their place. The process was culminated in 1988-1989 with poison gas attacks against Kurdish villages, many murdered and hundreds of thousands displaced, some fleeing to Turkey.

Much the same has happened to the Kurds in Syria over the years, although without the poison gas as far as I know. The Syrian Kurds' plight remains disregarded. But then Mr Obama, the apostle of Hope & Change, wants to engage mass murderous Damascus in dialogue.

The case of neglecting genocide in southern Sudan is even more egregious. The massacres there began in 1956, the year of independence. The UK had set up independent Sudan as a unitary state dominated by Arabized, Muslims in the north. The interests of the tribal Black African peoples in the south of Sudan were not taken into account and they were left to the tender mercies of Arab imperialism. The Hamas too supports the Islamist govt in Khartoum, while the Arab League rejected the indictment of Sudanese strong man, Omar al-Bashir, for war crimes by the ICC. The genocidal process has gone for some 54 years by now in southern Sudan. It has gone on off and on, as periods of intense massacre alternated with periods of relative respite.

Can somebody tell me why --maybe jjb can-- neither the "Left" nor the "humanitarian" nor the "human rights" nor the "peace" NGOs have ever made a fuss about mass murder in southern Sudan?? Is there a standard NGO policy covering almost all NGOs that forbids criticism of Arabs even for mass murder of Black folk?? Anyhow, since most so-called "non-governmental organizations" [NGOs] are in fact financed by governments, then we couldn't expect them to depart too far from the real policy of their funding govt, could we??

We may also conclude that neither the NGOs nor their funding govts are opposed to mass murder or to genocide. Not against Blacks in Sudan ... nor --could it be?-- against Jews in Israel.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/29/2010

Mr Mutik says:

why all the Jew hating organizations (using humanitarian arguments) don't say much about Turkish crimes in Kurdistan and Cyprus, Chinese crimes in Tibet, Russian crimes in Chechnya, Sudanese genocide in Darfur but make a lot of noise about invented crimes of the Jews and Israel?

This is a list of issues the west loves discussing. Even when fighting they throw these issues at each other’s heads.

Two issues the Islamic world discussing are missing: Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Iraq two figures are mentioned in the Islamic World

Half amillion dead as a consequence of the economic embargo employed to weaken Iraq for ine invasion.

One million dead in the invasion.

I do not know if these figures reflect reality but no alternative figures are proposed and so the Islamic World thinks the USA has murdered 1,5 Million Moslems in Iraq. The proportion to the population of Iraq is thes ame as the proportion of Soviet citizens Hitle rmurdred.

Besides that there was after the invasion a wave of murders killing the potential leaders of the Iraqi Arab and Turks. This was obviously done to prevent these natural leaders of the people of Iraq to oppose the US colonial project.

Look at your discussion: Iraq is not mentioned.

The invasion of Aghanistan did not kill so many but still have been a lot of murders.

2 Million Vietnamese were killed in that war.

4 Million people in the Korean war.

In both cases the figure is very high due to US American strategy of killing people until the other side has enough innocent deaths and gives up.

I read, again the figure could be wrong, but this is what people believe, in 1800 there were 10 million Indians in what became the USAin 900 half amillion. The rest was murdered to make place for European immigrants.

That is never mentioned but the Armenians. The only time victims managed getting rid of a master race group to save themselves.

In Algeria the French murdered 1 million Moslems out of a total of 8 in the 1950ies. President Sarkozy recently said that was not acrime because that was what the interests of France necessitated. They would dothe same again if necessary.

In Rwanda 800 000 people were murdered at atime in the 1990ies when France was effectievly the colonial master and could have prevented this genocide. Mr Miterrand said when his advisors were worried that a gneocide would happen every once in a while there would be a genocide in a country like that, they should not worry.

In Bosnia 250 000 Moslems were kileld to prevent the emergence of a Moslem state in Europe. Because that was horrible the West has falsified the statistic to reduce the number of dead Moslems.

This is the West. Their own crimes they never mention, events in other countries they exaggerate and use for propaganda purposes.

Nobody would ever ask why the US congress does not condemn France for Genocide.

Nor the US itself.

They pick on others. Turkey is a favorite victim.

Sudan which sells oil to China, instead of letting the US steal the stuff like Saudi Arabia does.

Such a crime!

Seems now also Israel.


art eckstein - 7/29/2010

Yes, it was 1975, not 1973. Other than that I was correct:

U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 3540 (1996)
U.S. House of Representatives Resolution 3540 June 11, 1996 104th Congress 2nd Session House Resolution 3540 An Act Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related... [22074 bytes]

U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 247 (1984)
U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 247 September 12, 1984 View image of document 98th Congress 2nd Session H.J. Resolution 247 [House Joint Resolution 247] In the Senate of the United... [22618 bytes]

U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 148 (1975)
U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 148 April 9, 1975 View image of document 94th Congress 1st Session H.J. Resolution 148 [House Joint Resolution 148] In the Senate of the United States... [22528 bytes]


N. Friedman - 7/29/2010

Mr. Butler,

You may want to take back what you wrote.

I believe you will find that Professor Eckstein is basically correct. See this. I believe, however, that he should have said 1975, not 1973. Perhaps I have overlooked such a resolution.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/28/2010

Mr. Green,
To begin with, let me ask you: Why did you address "Lenin and Ataturk" question to me(not to anyone else), on the first place, though either my first response or the discussed article had nothing to do with this issue whatsoever?
Hasn't it been done to conspicuously imply that I'm Leninist or, as one malicious voice from the chorus of your loyal supporters, called me, "old-school Marxist" (and therefore, should be in the know), regardless of my answer?
Don't be shy to answer this in full honesty; I'm not going verbally attack you whatever your response
may be.


Joseph Mutik - 7/28/2010

The reality is that USA and Israel didn't really accuse Turkey for the Armenian genocide, heavy war crimes against the Kurdish people and the Greek population of Cyprus. It's called realpolitik. USA and Israel had geopolitical interests in not touching these subjects.
The real question is why all the red fascist left wing groups attacking the Jews didn't say a word about the Turkish crimes? The hatred of Jews is so high today that even a "humanitarian" organization as Doctors without borders can freely express hatred of Jews.
The only question is: why all the Jew hating organizations (using humanitarian arguments) don't say much about Turkish crimes in Kurdistan and Cyprus, Chinese crimes in Tibet, Russian crimes in Chechnya, Sudanese genocide in Darfur but make a lot of noise about invented crimes of the Jews and Israel?


Joseph Mutik - 7/28/2010

The majority of the world (in this case Christian) accuses the Jews for 2000 years for killing a guy called Jesus (who is probably a fictional or composite historic character). The sick way this "majority" is singling out Israel and the Jews for defending themselves it's only a continuation of the 2000 years. The difference now is that this majority is joined now by the Islamic world. The historic fact is that Europe threw out the remaining Jews, they couldn't kill, after 1945 and the Arabs threw out the Jews, from the Arab countries, after 1948. The Islamic world joined the old western world hate of the Jews to cover up for the many Islamic crimes and failures.
Mr. Shcherban I see that, normally, you have been joined by Omar, who would happily cut some Israeli Jewish throats, if he could.
Last but not least, my good boy Arnold, no one wants you dead so don't suppose things well beyond your understanding. Trotsky was killed because his sins against the Marxist religion. You Arnold are an old and old style brainwashed Marxist so you are very safe with your religious beliefs.
I have no university honors beyond master and not in history.


james joseph butler - 7/28/2010

Art states in his "Blind nationalism" post, July 26, that, "The US Congress condemned the Armenian genocide in 1973." as well as 1984, 1996, 2007, and this past March,4th, 2010. Never happened. A "resolution" passed the House Foreign Affairs committee in 2007 and 2010 by a narrow margin both years but a resolution passing the entire US Congress, never happened.

Art, you're a grownup so I can't give you the benefit of the doubt, not with the net at our tips. Why do you lie?


james joseph butler - 7/28/2010

Art, if you would spend a little more time on facts rather your characterizations of my character you might begin to see the light. Please cite the number of the official act of the U.S. Congress recognizing the Armenian genocide.

The U.S. Congress has NEVER officially recognized, let alone condemned, the Armenian genocide. That, my good man, is a fact. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs does not equal the U.S. Congress. Small wonder that that particular committee waited until March 2010 to recognize the truth by a margin of one vote overriding the objections of our Nobel Peace Prize Prez. Lest you forget Art, P.M. Erdogan hadn't exactly endeared himself to the Israeli, or American, governments to that point.

Art, I can't say I'm surprised at your reaction to anything pejorative regarding Israel but this isn't really about Israel it's about our Congress. You and I agree that the Armenians were victims of genocide during WWI. Congress which issues ceremonial proclamations with every breath won't do it because they're electoral droids. Nothing matters more than power and reelection.

For one more facet of the 'truth' Google; Mark Arax, LA Times, and Armenian genocide.


omar ibrahim baker - 7/28/2010

"Wow: as a full professor of history and loaded with honors from my university, .... "
What is it that makes the Prof repeat that, one way or another, from time to time?
The knowledge, objectivity and lucidity of a scholar and of a man of erudition , not to mention a real genuine Professor worthy of the title , should show without recourse to anything.
Obviously there is need for recourse!


Elliott Aron Green - 7/27/2010

permanent occupation of foreign territories

Arnold, not only are you grossly wrong in charging Israel with "apartheid," but your accusation in italics above is also false and ignorant, though it may not be so obvious. That requires knowledge of history that you may not have.

Firstly, Judea-Samaria and other parts of the Land of Israel were parts of the ancient Jewish homeland. This historic Jewish right was recognized in the preamble to the League of Nations mandate of 1922. Indeed, two years earlier, the San Remo Conference had erected the Jewish National Home in international law, confirmed by the League in 1922, confirmed in the UN charter [article 80], and not revoked by any subsequent act of international legislation and it could not have been so revoked. Bear in mind that the 11-29-1947 UN general assembly partition plan --approved by the US, France, and USSR-- was a mere recommendation [see UN charter, articles 10-14]which was rejected by the Arab side in any case [indeed the Arabs made war to prevent realization of that plan]. This left the previous legal situation intact to this day.

Secondly, after WW 2, the USSR annexed vast areas of Poland, Germany, the Baltic states, Finland, Rumania, Czechoslovakia and Japan. Nobody or almost nobody complains about that annexation or prolonged "occupation" as you might call it. There were other sizable annexations which we will not go into for lack of time. Germany, though, lost about 1/3 of its prewar territory as punishment for its aggression and as compensation for its victims.

Even if the territories of Judea-Samaria that Israel took in 1967 had not been parts of the Jewish National Home, then Israel still should have kept them with international approval on the grounds of punishment for the Arab aggressors and compensation for Israel as the victim state. When we think of Israel as the victim of the Arabs, we should also bear in mind the more than 1000 years of Arab-Muslim oppression, exploitation and humiliation of Jews, sometimes mitigated somewhat in the Ottoman period. To this should be added Arab collaboration in the Nazi Holocaust of Jews, particularly by Haj Amin el-Husseini [have you heard of him, Arnold?].


Elliott Aron Green - 7/27/2010

Arnold, let's be clear about the charge of "apartheid" applied to Israel. It is a lie. It is a Big Lie worthy of Goebbels. It is a Nazi lie. Of course, not everyone who makes that false charge is aware that it is a lie, but Arnold can come to Israel and look around. There are those who say it knowing that it is a lie. Others say it unwitting that it is a lie. The first group can be said to be consciously slandering and smearing Jews and Israel. Those who employ that falsehood knowing that it is a lie are knowingly working to help the Arabs finish Hitler's work. If a former President, distasteful to decent people, insists on employing that lie, then . . . .

Arnold, I am willing to assume that you are just very ignorant and don't know that you are retailing a gross falsehood. But you are welcome to come here and travel through Israel's cities and towns, including the Arab towns, and judge for yourself if anything like the South African apartheid system is at work in Israel. You ought to of course also learn just what the South African system was in order to be able to make informed distinctions.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/27/2010

They invaded Cyprus at a point when Russia was mass murdering Turks in Bulgaria to make the Christians a majority.

In 1960/61 at the independence of Cyprus treaties were signed which make Turkey a guarantee power.

These treaties are still valid.

Goog morning!


Arnold Shcherban - 7/27/2010

The most "disgusting" folks are such pseudo-professors as Ekstein and Mutik and other of their ilk, who use their academic or other higher positions in a society to propagate racist, ultra-nationalist, and anti-humane Zionist views ("Jews above all"), slamming and labeling "antisemitic" all Jews and non-Jews (which together represent the overwhelming majority in the world) even for the slightest critique of the state of Israel and some Zionist organizations.
And if someone knows even a bit of my previous debates with those enemies
of really honest academic discussion and Zionist zealots, over which they called me (victim of the Soviet regime) "Stalinist", "antisemitic",
"Jew-hater", and so on, only because I criticized Israeli governments and their supporters for what have been widely recognized by the majority of the world as apartheid, permanent occupation of foreign territories, and crimes of their military (while also acknowledging and condemning the crimes of the terror against Israeli citizens), will certainly understand my reference to being a JEW.
As far as Mutik's remark about him being sure (but certainly would not be against) that I'm not going to share Trotsky's destiny, i.e. I'm not going to be murdered by the agents of "some" intelligence service..., this shows one more time really murderous hatred his ilk emanates towards any person (and especially of a Jewish origin) who does not support their racist and chauvinistic agenda.
And these human beings call themselves humanists and intellectuals?!
The bottom of moral and ideological degradation, indeed.


Joseph Mutik - 7/27/2010

I found the term non Jewish Jew in "A history of the Jews" by Paul Johnson (a book that I would make a mandatory reading in any Jewish school in Israel or outside Israel). I found on the internet that the term is attributed to the Jewish historian Isaac Deutscher in a 1954 essay. Leon Trotsky is an example of a non Jewish Jew. Arnold Shcherban is a disgusting example of the same. Mr. Shcherban displays a disgusting example of old Marxist ideology so I am sure he isn't going to share Trotsky's destiny for his anti-Marxist religious sins.


Lewis Bernstein - 7/27/2010

The British bought Cyprus from the Turks in 1875. Enough fantasy.Wake up


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/27/2010

The IHH was banned in Germany as a terrorist organisation.

In Turkey they keep playing the role of heroes and claim they had nothing to do with the IHH Germany.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/27/2010

In the 100 years to 1914 around 5 Million European Moslems were murdered to make Islam disappear from Europe.

In Anatolia around 2,5 Million Moslem civilians died in the attempt first by Armenians and then by Greeks to carve out ethnic pure areas for their planned empires.

As a Turkish reaction several hundred thousand Armenians and Greeks (each) also died.

If the USA wants to have a look at this period in history, they can.

They could start with calling what they did to the Indians of North America a genocide and then deciding what to call the murder of millions of European Moslems.

Ignoring all that and condemning Turkey for genocide is saying "it was good that we killed so many Turks, too bad the rest got away"

That is for us not acceptable.

The US can do so if they have had enough of the alliance with Turkey and want to see her on the side of their enemies.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/27/2010

Lenin was fighting imperialism as at that point Ataturk. By supporting Turkish independance he was fighting hisown enemies.

The Bolsheviks had the hope Turkey would join them in the long run but after defeating the Greek invasion of Turkey the British plan for partitioning Turkey in colonies of England, France, Italy, Greece and Armenia would no longer work so Ataturk and the English reached an arrangement at Lausanne.

This arrangement still holds.

What does all that have to do with being Jewish?


art eckstein - 7/27/2010

Wow: as a full professor of history and loaded with honors from my university, I just love A.S.'s capitalized JEW.

I guess anyone who disagrees with him on Israel, or has to tell him facts he doesn't know or won't acknowledge because of his enormous ideological blinders--why, that person must be a JEW first of all.

Pretty disgusting.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/27/2010

First of all, Mr. Green, I "feel about
Turkey" the same way as I feel about any other country: when according to the facts and evidence I have a country does/did wrong on occasion I tell so, if it does/did not - I tell so too.
This has been the cardinal principle I use in "feeling" about ANY country, since I'm a human being and amateur historian first, and a JEW only second.
As to the essence of the question you asked, I honestly had no knowledge about the position Lenin and bolsheviks took that time, and therefore, unable to comment on the reasons behind such position, whether you're correct about it or not.
Nor I apologize Bolsheviks and Soviet Russia for numerous anti-humanistic actions (as you clearly imply by just asking the question.)


Arnold Shcherban - 7/27/2010

I think, Mr. Butler, the main reason the US governments has declined to officially recognize Armenian genocide by Turks for decades was Turkey's being a member of NATO and loyal US ally, closely following this organization's (headed by the US) aggressive imperialistic policies.
On the other token, you're certainly right about the vicious double standards employed by Israeli governments, in which the latter turned out to be excellent pupils of Western imperialistic teachers, often eclipsing their professors (considering the relatively small number of the pupils) in the campaigns of provocations and lies.


Elliott Aron Green - 7/26/2010

Arnold, seeing how you feel about Turkey, how do you explain that Lenin and the bolsheviks supported Turkey in the war with the Greeks??


Elliott Aron Green - 7/26/2010

jjb also thinks that there was a "massacre" on the Mavi Marmara. That ship, for jjb's info, was chartered by the IHH, a jihadist body loathed by many educated Turks. Before Turkey came under the rule of the present Islamist govt, close to the IHH leadrship, Turkish police searched the IHH headquarters and found various weapons, possibly in preparation for a coup d'etat.

Israeli military planners made the mistake of taking at face value the promise by certain leading passengers in the flotilla that there would not be violent resistance to boarding by the Israeli navy [a legal action, for jjb's information]. The IHH thugs on the Mavi Marmara were lying in wait on the upper deck [the roof of the main passenger area of the ferry]. They caught the naval commandos as they came a rope from a helicopter one by one. This incident has been captured on several films that can be viewed on youtube. See also the still photos in the Turkish daily Hurriyet, of three or four Israeli soldiers held captive below deck. Also to be seen on LGF [little green footballs].

A group of members of the Italian Chamber of Deputies has called on the EU to list the IHH as a terrorist organization.


art eckstein - 7/26/2010

What I'm about to say has nothing to do with whether there was an Armenian genocide at Turkish hands or not. I'm not addressing that issue. What I'm about to say has to do merely with Congressional actions on that issue.

JJButler's ignorance (and sense of Jewish conspiracy) strikes again when he says that for many years the U.S. Congress (influenced by the Israeli lobby) has rejected a ceremonial condemnation of the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

Here are the facts:

1. The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian genocide in March 2010 (that was two months before the "death to the Jews!" jihadists sailed on the Mavi).

2. The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian genocide in October 2007.

True, in the summer of 2007 Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League agreed after a personal meeting with President Gul of Turkey to plead with Congress not to pass the resolution that passed in October 2007. At that time, relations between Turkey and Israel were good. Foxman's ADL statement did say that Turkish actions in 1915 were "tantamount to genocide."
a. Foxman ran into a strong opposition in the ADL for his action, though it remained in place.
b. Congress passed the resolution anyway (so much for the power of the Jewish Conspiracy)

3. The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian Genocide in 1996.

4. The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian Genocide in 1984

5. The U.S. Congress condemned the Armenian Genocide in 1973


I wonder, after this howler from Mr. Butler about how Congress, under Jewish influence, ignored the issue of the Armenian genocide: I wonder whether Mr. Butler will think more carefully about what he writes. Oh--who am I kidding?


james joseph butler - 7/26/2010

Pipes is representative of many of Israel's supporters who, post Mavi massacre, suddenly find themselves tormented by Turkey's human rights sins. The US Congress has for many years rejected ceremonial condemnations of the Turkish Armenian genocide, with Aipac leading the way. Now that Turkey is no longer Israel's buddy the tides of history will soon wash ashore on the floor of Congress.


Arnold Shcherban - 7/26/2010

Mr. Tahir has been known for his ultra-nationalist (Turkish) absolutism from
other discussions on this page.
According to him Turks have never ever done anything wrong, unless in self-defence, thus driving the validity of his interpretations of history (especially involving Turkey) to zero.
In this sense he is Turkish Pipes, since for the latter Jews have never ever done anything wrong, unless in self-defence.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/26/2010

North Cyprus is an independant democratic state with its own laws which are different from those in Turkey.

They are dependant on subsidies from Turkey because the Turks of Cyprus are under an economic embargo since 1963 which intends to starve them into emigration leaving the island to the Greeks. The European union and the US enforce this racistic embargo poisoning their relations with Turkey. One reason why Turkey is now moving towards the other Islamic states.

Turkish property in Greek controlles areas have been confiscated in 1963 and remain confiscated until today.

This is the only example of ethnic confiscation which the European Union finds acceptable in a member state. The situation is entirely comparable to the confiscation of Jewish property in Nazi Germany.

The treaties of 1960 and 1961 signed by Greece and Britain and binding for the European Union explicity prohibit Cyprus from joining a multinational organsiation unless both Turkey and Greece are members of this organisation.

As long as Turkey is not a member of the European Union Cyprus membership of thios union is as legal as Hitlers annexation of Czech country.

Such piracy is poisoning Turkey realtionship with the West forcing her to look for alterantives.

The alternatives are:
1. Arabs and Iran
2. China and Russia


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/26/2010

Jennifer Lopez was engaged to hold a concert in the Turkish part of Cyprus.

The Greeks of Cyprus put her under enormous pressure to pull out and she decided the trouble was not worth it.

The Greeks hate the Turks so much that they can not even stand them listening to music and enjoying life.

The episode is evidence that the two grousp must remain divided and Turkish troops are needed to protect the Island Turks against people who hate them.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/26/2010

Turkish forces are on Cyprus as a guarantee power because the treaties of 1960 and 1961 say she is a guarantee power with a legal right to send military forces to Cyprus.


Fahrettin Tahir - 7/26/2010

Cyprus was Turkish territory until 1924, then a British colony, then an independant bicommunal state after 1961.

The Greeks hated the bicommunal constitution, a coup in 1963 led to a Greek state without Turkish participation.

This state is against the treaties of 1961/61 signed by Turkey Greece and Britain and is illegal.

The island was divided into a Greek part and Turkish ghettoes in 1963.

Pogroms against Turks, which the Western world would not stop in the 11 years to 1974 led to the war and partition.

The two communities go they way.

The similarity to Israle/Palestine is that the potential of Greek terrorism prevents living together.

Greek terrorists still treated as heroes murderd 400 British troops in the 1950ies and were responsible for the pogroms of 1963 to 1974.

I can understand Jewish frustration over Mr. Erdogan's unwarranted attacks on Israel but starting a Turkish Jewish fight over Cyprus is a bad idea guarented to lose Israel Turkish sympathies she has without gaining anything in return.

It might be more useful to mention the Annan plan as a peace solution for Cyprus, proposed by the UN, which the Turks accepted and the Greeks refused.

This plan has elemenst which might help solve the Palestine/Israel issue.