[net.politics] The REAL Final Solution, reply to Sherman, long but informative

mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (09/26/85)

Subject: Re: The REAL Final Solution
Quoted from: Dave Sherman

> The fact that the Jews persisted is testimony to two things: the
> deep-rooted Jewish affiliation for the Land of Israel, and the
> stark realization that it was the absence of an independent
> state for the Jewish people which sealed the fate of the Jews of Europe.

I don't know how true this claim is. There is strong evidence indicating
that since 1946 Israel has had total military superiority over *all* the
Arab states combined. According to US military and intelligence estimates
there has never been the slightest chance that the Arabs could "drive the
Israelis into the sea." It is not very difficult to persist with these 
kinds of odds working for you. 
  
In early 1948, Irgun (the military arm of Zionist extremists) was involved
in "recruitment" drives in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Europe.
Those who refused to "volunteer" to fight the Arabs in Palestine were beaten
and threatened with death. Perhaps not all jews had a deep-rooted affiliation
for the land of Israel.
  
> Israel got underway in 1948 with no support whatsoever from the
> United States government, which imposed an arms embargo.

This is as far from truth as it can be! Three former Israel Prime ministers
who were deeply involved  in the diplomatic, military and financial aspects
of the creation of the state, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett and Golda Meir,
have paid elaborate homage in their writings to the US assistance and most
particularly President Truman for his critical role in the creation of the 
new state. They had good reason. Examples:
 
a) Truman intervened repeatedly to assist the Zionist leaders.
b) Pressured  Britain to accept more refugees in Palestine.
c) Supported the original UN partition plan.
d) Appointed an ambassador to Tel Aviv who strongly favored Israel over Arabs.
e) Arranged the Export-Import Bank loan and a temporary credit in response to
   a Jewish Agency request.
f) At the end of the British mandate, appealed publicly to the Arab nations 
   not to attack the new Jewish state.
g) The US delegation at the UN repeatedly took Israel's side in disputes over
   successive armistice lines that gave Israel ever larger portions of Arab
   Palestinian land.
h) The Truman state department lobbyed hard for UN membership for Israel which
   was granted quickly.
     
>                                                          Israel's
> survival in her early years was due to scrounging arms from wherever
> they could be found (Czechoslovakia was an early supplier), and a
> fighting force made up of the entire population, which knew that
> if Israel did not survive, there would be another mass destruction
> of Jews.

The fighting force also included American military officers (more than 1300 of
them) who were recruited by the Haganah and paid considerably to fight for
Israel. In fact, a substantial portion of Israel's command structure and
virtually all of its Air Force were composed of foreign volunteers. In 1948-49,
the Arabs were fighting the combined forces and resources of the international
Jewish community. 
  
Israel got much of its arms during that period from the US which was by no means
enforcing its own embargo. 
  
> The U.S. does not risk a single one of its men in defense of Israel.
  
The U.S. has risked and lost men for the sake of Israel. 34 men of the U.S.S.
Liberty died when it was attacked by *Israeli* forces during the Six-day war
of 1967. Liberty was a very advanced spy ship but it had no defences. Israel
had every opportunity to verify the ship's identity but claimed that the 
whole thing was a "mistake". There is reason to speculate that they felt
uneasy about the ship's surveillance capabilities. 
 
> The UN hardly "allowed the Jews to take Palestine". The UN approved
> a plan to divide 23% of Palestine into two parts, one a homeland for
> Arabs, the other for Jews. The UN offered no support to the Jews
> whatsoever when the Jews followed up on the plan and formed the
> State of Israel.

The UN did not vote on any detailed procedure for the creation of  the two
new states. The jewish agency just decided to go ahead and  announce that a
provisional government was being formed. After that the Irgun ( leader of
which was Menahem Begin ) started a campaign of terror in order to force
mass movement of Arabs outside Palestine. An example is the attack on Deir
Yassin by 100 Irgun and Stern gang members in which 250 men, women and
children were blown up with dynamite inside their own stone houses. A proud
moment. 
  
Let me conclude by saying that I have no anti-jewish feelings whatsoever but
I believe we needed a more balanced picture of the story.
  
Main Reference: Taking Sides, America's Secret Relations with a Militant
		Israel.      By Stephen Green, William Morrow and Co., Inc.
		New York 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
"I feel a concentration of evil thought here."
  

martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (09/28/85)

/* csd2:net.politics / mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) /  1:16 am  Sep 26, 1985 */
>Subject: Re: The REAL Final Solution
>Quoted from: Dave Sherman

>> The fact that the Jews persisted is testimony to two things: the
>> deep-rooted Jewish affiliation for the Land of Israel, and the
>> stark realization that it was the absence of an independent
>> state for the Jewish people which sealed the fate of the Jews of Europe.

>I don't know how true this claim is. There is strong evidence indicating
>that since 1946 Israel has had total military superiority over *all* the
>Arab states combined. According to US military and intelligence estimates
>there has never been the slightest chance that the Arabs could "drive the
>Israelis into the sea." It is not very difficult to persist with these 
>kinds of odds working for you. 

I am unsure what this means.  If the meaning is weapons, heavy
equipment like planes and tanks, and number of men, Mokhtarian is
bananas.  If quality of men and officers is meant, the statement is
obviously at least in retrospect true.

>In early 1948, Irgun (the military arm of Zionist extremists) was involved
>in "recruitment" drives in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Europe.
>Those who refused to "volunteer" to fight the Arabs in Palestine were beaten
>and threatened with death. Perhaps not all jews had a deep-rooted affiliation
>for the land of Israel.

True the Irgun did recruit in the DP camps.  As for the rest of the
statement, I have read such things about the Arabs who volunteered to
fight against the Jews in Palestine.  I would tend to consider such
reports all mutual fantasies although supposedly the Israeli
government will show you pictures of dead Iraqi recruits who were
chained to their weapons during the 1948 war.  In any case beatings in
the DP camps would have required complicity of the allied authorities
and of the labor zionist representatives who considered the Irgunists
basically criminals.

The statistics on Irgun membership which can easily obtained show more
than half were Sefardic and Oriental Jews who came from N. Africa, the
Middle East, and Southern Arabia.  Consequently, any such recruitment
drive as Mokhtarian describes must have been a failure.

>> Israel got underway in 1948 with no support whatsoever from the
>> United States government, which imposed an arms embargo.

>This is as far from truth as it can be! Three former Israel Prime ministers
>who were deeply involved  in the diplomatic, military and financial aspects
>of the creation of the state, David Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett and Golda Meir,
>have paid elaborate homage in their writings to the US assistance and most
>particularly President Truman for his critical role in the creation of the 
>new state. They had good reason. Examples:

The arms embargo is a record of law.

>a) Truman intervened repeatedly to assist the Zionist leaders.

Non-specific reference with no examples.  What does Mokhtarian mean by
assistance? 

>b) Pressured  Britain to accept more refugees in Palestine.

Not specifically support for the Jews but rather a preference that the
DP's did not come to USA.

>c) Supported the original UN partition plan.

Might be an expression of fairness.  Depends on your perspective.  If
you think as Mokhtarian apparently does that Jews should not have a
country, this is a pro-Jewish act.  If you think as I do, that Muslims
should not be permitted to rule nations, the act is also unfair.

>d) Appointed an ambassador to Tel Aviv who strongly favored Israel over Arabs.

This takes place  somewhat after the time  period Sherman referred to.
Appointing an anti-Israel ambassador might also be slightly de gouton.
Since Mokhtarian considers  supporting  partition  a wildly pro-Israel
position,   I  must wonder   about  the characterization  of  strongly
favoring Israel over the Arabs.

>e) Arranged the Export-Import Bank loan and a temporary credit in response to
>   a Jewish Agency request.

Also much later.

>f) At the end of the British mandate, appealed publicly to the Arab nations 
>   not to attack the new Jewish state.

Basic Islamic bias seems to show here.  By American standards
appealing to potential combatants not to start fighting is just an
expression of decency.  But from the Islamic standpoint, I guess,
since Muslims are obligated to make holy war on unsubjugated non-Muslims
who can probably be defeated, such an appeal seems almost an affront
to God as well as an act of immense assistance to Israel.

>g) The US delegation at the UN repeatedly took Israel's side in disputes over
>   successive armistice lines that gave Israel ever larger portions of Arab
>   Palestinian land.

Rather later than Sherman's statement and not exactly true.

>h) The Truman state department lobbyed hard for UN membership for Israel which
>   was granted quickly.

Rather later than Sherman's statement and I guess Mokhtarian has a
different sense of the flow of time than I do.  Also Communist block
nations supported Israel's admittance and probably would not been
susceptible to American "pressure."  Anyway Mokhtarian is again
expressing Islamic bias.  From the standpoint of American decency,
supporting Israel's admittance is perfectly reasonable.  It is new
nation.  There are some disputes over territory and some problems have
to be addressed but the UN would be a good forum for this.  The US
also supported the admittance of Egypt, Iraq and Iran.  The
governments of all these countries had had major flirtations with the Nazis.

>>                                                          Israel's
>> survival in her early years was due to scrounging arms from wherever
>> they could be found (Czechoslovakia was an early supplier), and a
>> fighting force made up of the entire population, which knew that
>> if Israel did not survive, there would be another mass destruction
>> of Jews.

>The fighting force also included American military officers (more than 1300 of
>them) who were recruited by the Haganah and paid considerably to fight for
>Israel. 

I know there were a few demobilized  and discharged officers  who went
to Israel.  It is illegal for active  American officers to  fight in a
foreign army.  1300 seems large.  I doubt of the total demobilized and
discharged officers, there were 1300 who could speak Hebrew.

>	 In fact, a substantial portion of Israel's command structure and
>virtually all of its Air Force were composed of foreign volunteers. 

1300 would have been a large part of the command force and Mokhtarian
just stated they were hired for considerable money.  If the
mercenaries are present why the volunteers?  If the volunteers are
present, why the mercenaries?

>							     In 1948-49,
>the Arabs were fighting the combined forces and resources of the international
>Jewish community. 

Sounds a lot like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no?  Well, 6
million Jews had just been murdered which was a third of all Jews.
The power of the rest must be considered minor because they had been
able to nothing to prevent the murder.  If Mokhtarian is talking about
financial resources, he is being anachronistic.  Even nowadays the
financial resources of the American Jewish community is overestimated.
At that time American Jews still lived around the poverty level.

>Israel got much of its arms during that period from the US which was by no means
>enforcing its own embargo. 

I am not sure which period is being referenced.  During the 50's, most
Israeli arms I believe came from France which had its own reasons for
anti-Muslim hostility.

>> The U.S. does not risk a single one of its men in defense of Israel.

>The U.S. has risked and lost men for the sake of Israel. 34 men of the U.S.S.
>Liberty died when it was attacked by *Israeli* forces during the Six-day war
>of 1967. Liberty was a very advanced spy ship but it had no defences. Israel
>had every opportunity to verify the ship's identity but claimed that the 
>whole thing was a "mistake". There is reason to speculate that they felt
>uneasy about the ship's surveillance capabilities. 

Hardly contradicts Sherman's statement.  Congressional investigation
absolved Israel of malicious intent.  Israel formally apologized and
made restitution.  A surveillance ship has another name -- a spy ship.
Spy ships typically do make themselves hard to identify and are
reluctant to answer inquiries about identity.  And they were in a
battle zone.  American units firing on American units was hardly
unknow in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII.

>> The UN hardly "allowed the Jews to take Palestine". The UN approved
>> a plan to divide 23% of Palestine into two parts, one a homeland for
>> Arabs, the other for Jews. The UN offered no support to the Jews
>> whatsoever when the Jews followed up on the plan and formed the
>> State of Israel.

>The UN did not vote on any detailed procedure for the creation of  the two
>new states. The jewish agency just decided to go ahead and  announce that a
>provisional government was being formed. 

Which seems hardly unreasonable.  If the partition plan were accepted,
there would have to be a Jewish government to negotiate.

>					  After that the Irgun ( leader of
>which was Menahem Begin ) started a campaign of terror in order to force
>mass movement of Arabs outside Palestine. An example is the attack on Deir
>Yassin by 100 Irgun and Stern gang members in which 250 men, women and
>children were blown up with dynamite inside their own stone houses. A proud
>moment. 

From Lebanon, there is strong evidence that Muslims are willing to
place combat forces among the residences of non-combatants and then
scream foul when non-combatants are killed.  This was apparently the
modus operandi at Deir Yasin.  I have not made an in depth
investigation of this particular incident.  But I do have the
impression that in general Muslims do not get terribly upset about the
attrocities they inflict on non-Muslims but should the non-Muslims
fight back, it is a sin against God and an international crime.

>Let me conclude by saying that I have no anti-jewish feelings whatsoever but
>I believe we needed a more balanced picture of the story.

I am not so sure that you have no anti-Jewish feeling.  I have a lot
of anti-Muslim bigotry but I am upfront about it.  I am also willing
to describe my background which I think is someone involved in any
Mediterranean conflict (I am including Greeks and Turks) should do
when writing on the issues.  How can one judge a book like Fouad
Ajami's Arab Politics without knowing ethnic background especially
when the book specifically states the importance of knowing the
ethnic-religious background of role-players.  I suspect from the name
he is a Lebanese Shiite.  Mokhtarian may be Armenian but could be an
Iranian Muslim.

>Main Reference: Taking Sides, America's Secret Relations with a Militant
>		Israel.      By Stephen Green, William Morrow and Co., Inc.
>		New York 1984.

This is the second time Mokhtarian refers to this book.  It is hardly
scholarly  but rather Green (who I suspect is of European Jewish
background and has some sort of neurosis about his heritage) states it
is "a collection of historical vignettes that have been ... carefully
selected. "

The book has major factual errors and omissions.  He states that
Israel violated the UN truce in the 1948 war.  The CIA report
"Possible Developments from the Palestine Truce, " July 27, 1948
mentions Muslim and Jewish violations of the truce. (Oh, I forgot the
US is totally biased on the Middle East).  The figure for the massacre
at Hadassah hospital on Mount Scopus, is ridiculously small.  The
Sochnut (official political organ of the Jewish Agency) and not  an
"elite, paramilitary group within the Haganah." Jawaharlal Nehru was
never the president of India (a minor point but someone should have
corrected this).

Green also places too much emphasis on declassified military
documents.  Brit and USA military intelligence did not want their
troops sent to the M.E. and had reason to overestimate Jewish
strength.

The charge that since 1953 Israel has controlled American foreign
policy is preposterous especially given the Eisenhower admin. record.

Claiming USA planes provided reconnaissance during 1967 is somewhat
inconsistent with the claims about the Liberty.  Muslims have a lot of
difficulty dealing with having been defeated by such a low and
disgusting people as Jews, believing that the USA was really beyond
the defeats is a psychological mechanism for coping.  Green seems to
have absorbed some of these attitudes.

martillo@csd2.UUCP (Joachim Martillo) (09/30/85)

That should be The Arab Dilemma by Fouad Ajami.

I believe Arab Politics was a rather mindless book by Michael Hudson.