For one thing, you're making on a micro scale the same mistake other authors make on a general scale: conflating Jews of very different backgrounds as if all of them shared one and the same history. The Jews of Aden, which numbered about 5,000, were a different group than the Jews of Yemen, which totaled about 44,000.
For another thing, I already stated that much has been made of a few isolated incidents. The "creation" of Israel by the UN, which allocated 55% of a disputed territory to a people which hardly owned 6%, did spark anti-Jewish violence in several Arab countries, but it was a limited phenomenon that had no continuity in time.
Those Jews were by no means refugees in the same way that the Arabs that fled Israel were refugees. They were not subjected to continued gruesome violence. Although the bombing of the King David is mistakenly believed to be the only terror attack by Jews, the reality is that more than 50 big massacres of Arabs were committed, Arab buses were machine-gunned every day, and sometimes four and five times a day (see here for a sample list), loudspeakers were used to warn villagers of the dire consequences if they didn't leave, and in some cases explicit eviction orders were given. None of that was true for the Mizrachi Jews.
As both historian David Cesarani and Yemenite Jewish leaders in Israel have noted, the main factor behind their aliyah was the idea of redemption, not persecution back home.
The Jews of Aden, which numbered about 5,000, were a different group than the Jews of Yemen
I never said otherwise.
I already stated that much has been made of a few isolated incidents
You're being vague. What was "isolated" about them? Why shouldn't "much" be made of them?
Those Jews were by no means refugees in the same way that the Arabs that fled Israel were refugees. They were not subjected to continued gruesome violence. Although the bombing of the King David is mistakenly believed to be the only terror attack by Jews, the reality is that more than 50 big massacres of Arabs were committed
Wartime conditions are characterized by death and destruction. Large numbers of massacres were committed by the Arab side, especially in the phase that Morris calls the "Civil War." Nobody argues that only wartime refugees are refugees.
As both historian David Cesarani and Yemenite Jewish leaders in Israel have noted, the main factor behind their aliyah was the idea of redemption, not persecution back home.
The idea of redemption did play a part, but you have been quite shallow so far about what this means. Redemption and escape from persecution are not contradictory ideas. Citing writers and politicians who agree with you doesn't make your case.
Citing writers and politicians who agree with you doesn't make your case.
No, it doesn't, but it does show that serious (not fringe) people dispute the refugee claim.
Since you seem to know a bit about fallacies, I'd like to ask you, what's the name of the fallacy of claiming that an assertion is true because it is made by a member of a group that, supposedly, would be harmed by the assertion?
For instance, if someone says "the Arabs were not expelled from Israel; Wafa Sultan is an Arab and she says they were not." What's the name for that fallacy?
What's the name for that fallacy?
It would be a sub-type of the Argument to Authority, but I don't know of a specific name for the case in which harming one's presumed group interests is seen as a source of veracity. One sees it quite a bit.
Certainly, and it works both ways. E.g. many people hasten to underscore that Finkelstein is Jewish, or that Pappe is Israeli, as if it had anything to do with the merits of their cases.
On a related topic, and I don't mean to flatter you, but you seem to be the only Zionist blogger prepared to rationally debate issues.
Some bloggers I've tried to debate seem to be more interested in what my obscure motivations may be, or who I am, rather than in the points I make. Others don't want any debate whatsoever on their blogs.
You're the only one who responds to arguments with other arguments. Which I ascribe to your awareness of what a fallacy is -- and your intellectual honesty not to use them.
Can someone tell me what the rational counter-argument to "Jews are pigs & dogs", "Allahu, akbar! Die, Jew!" or "Israel must be destroyed"? There are Arguments 7.62mm, .50 Cal, or 120mm, but I'm kind of partial to Argument 5.56mm. This one keeps things on a personal level.
The counterargument to "Jews are pigs and dogs" is "Arabs are beasts and asses and the scum of snakes," which was said by a state-paid Israeli rabbi -- and it was not Lior.
Is Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi ready now to condemn the words of those state-paid Muslim employees for whom I've provided links for? Otherwise, his complaints against Rabi Lior, et.al. are completely false and baseless. Is he now ready to condemn the actions of Hossam Duwayit, who actually said "Allahu Akbar"? Until he does, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi is no less a pig than this murderous Israeli-Arab who turned on his fellow-citizens in favor of his Phakestinian brothers?
I also note that Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi has no other kind of argument for hateful statements that truly lead to dead Jews, other than some weak attempt at moral equivalency. Too bad his Islamo-fascist buddies don't feel like speaking pretty phrases, huh? They deserve Argument 5.56mm, applied right between the eyes...Meanwhile, Ibrahim continues to execute his role of taqquiya.
Hossam Duwayit, who actually said "Allahu Akbar"
Did he? We have no independent confirmation. We don't know if the man who killed him is not an Islamophobe zealot who took advantage of the situation to smear the Muslim faith.
But even if he did, that means nothing. Generalissimo Francisco Franco killed Communists in the name of Jesus Christ. Concluding anything about Islam or Christianity from Duwayit's or Franco's words is a fallacy -- Yitzchak surely can tell us the name for it.
some weak attempt at moral equivalency
IF an Israeli school has a program to teach its female students not to get romantically involved with Bedouins, on the grounds that it would be "sleeping with the enemy," even when Bedouins faithfully serve in the IDF, that's education for hate, the theoretical grounds for which have been layed out by Rabbi Lior and company.
That's morally equivalent to the alleged Palestinian education for hate, yes, sir.
No problem, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi, you give the benefit of the doubt to the nutcase Israeli-Arab Muslim who was smashing cars and crushing 33-year-old mothers to death, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who stopped him from killing more people.
And now your faux humanity and Jew-hate is exposed for all to see...You must really like JewWatch.com, huh?
"IF an Israeli school has a program to teach its female students not to get romantically involved with Bedouins, on the grounds that it would be "sleeping with the enemy," even when Bedouins faithfully serve in the IDF, that's education for hate, the theoretical grounds for which have been layed out by Rabbi Lior and company."
So tell me, Ibrahim, would you marry a Religious Jewish woman? Especially if she would not convert to Argentine Atheist Anti-semitism, and would be raising Religious Jewish children? No moral equivalency between not marrying people because they're not Jewish and killing people who are not Muslims, but nice try...
You're hung up on Rabbi Lior, again, aren't you? Pathetic...
"That's morally equivalent to the alleged Palestinian education for hate, yes, sir.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 12:34 pm"
Only a morally blind individual like you would see Hamas TV's children's prgram as "just another kids' show". The Ibrahim Jew-Hate-o-meter goes wild on that one...
would you marry a Religious Jewish woman?
Of course I would, so long as she doesn't insist on the hole-in-the-sheet thing.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp
My goodness, do I need to say "just kidding"! I'm a cultured man. I know that religious Jews don't make love through a hole in the sheet, and that the only problem with them is that they're hook-nosed and greedy.
Just kidding!!
do I need to say "just kidding"!
OK, but you never know who's reading, and the cultured people are the ones
who know and believe all the urban legends. Think of the Snopes link as a footnote.
but you never know who's reading
You've got a point there, since we don't write to convince each other, which we know ain't gonna happen, but to make our arguments available to other people.
the cultured people are the ones
who know and believe all the urban legends
I understand that you don't want false myths about your religion to be spread. But what about the false myths that favor your position?
For instance, it is often claimed that Jewish terrorists back in the 30s and 40s targetted military objectives only, and that they didn't intentionally attack civilians.
What's your reaction when you read such a blatantly false claim, which is believed by many cultured people?
it is often claimed that Jewish terrorists back in the 30s and 40s targetted military objectives only, and that they didn't intentionally attack civilians.
What's your reaction when you read such a blatantly false claim, which is believed by many cultured people?
You mean the LHI and IZL? In my experience they tend to be mentioned in one of two contexts: detailed discussions of that period and Israel-bashing. Link to an example or two of the claim you are talking about.
Actually, I don't have any link handy, but I can quote from Alan Dershowitz' Chutzpah. I'll back-translate from the Spanish version (Buenos Aires, 1991), but if you have the book, it's in the chapter titled "Israel":
In response to this [i.e. criticism of Arafat's terrorism] it is often claimed that Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir were also terrorists during the British Mandate years. It is a false analogy. Begin's and Shamir's terrorism (in my opinion, unjustified) was of a very different nature than Arafat's. The former was basically aimed at British and Arab military targets, not at families travelling on civilian airliners. Neither Begin nor Shamir were rewarded for their terrorism; actually, they paid a heavy price as they were relegated into a minority position within the Israeli political system for decades. And even today, they don't get standing ovations at the UN.
We have already seen a list of the IZL's machine-gun attacks on Arab civilian buses -- sometimes up to four and five times in the same day. Also, Folke Bernadotte wasn't a British or Arab military target.
The claim of "only against military targets" Jewish terrorism is so, so frequently made I can't believe you've never heard of it.
Let's also note that the accompanying claim (that Begin didn't win elections because of his terrorism) is also false. Labor was a hegemonic party, just like the Christian Democrats in Italy or the Liberal Democrats in Japan, and it based its power on the control of the Histadrut and other powerful organizations. When Begin finally came to power in 1977 it was not because the people forgave his terrorism, but because of the Sephardi revolt against the Labor establishment.
The claim of "only against military targets" Jewish terrorism is so, so frequently made I can't believe you've never heard of it.
Your only example so far reads "basically aimed at British and Arab military targets." "Basically" doesn't mean "only."
First of all,Rachel Chabi needs a crash course on the history of Jewish refugees from Arab Countries, and I'd be glad to offer her the course, but I'd say, she's old enough to have known better.
I am one of those refugees. And refugees they were, whether they immigrated to Israel (zionism or other), or other countries. When they arrived in Israel, they lived in CAMPS. Read slowly, CAMPS. They were marginalized to the outskirts of the cities, as they were considered ignorant, non-European, and people of "color". So much for your Zionists.
I consider myself one of the lucky refugees in that my family eventually resettled in the US through the help of Jewish philanthropies. One need not go searching for precedents in Jewish history, as there are too many to enumerate.
Unfortunately, for the arabs and other Jew haters, we are like weeds. Just can't kill us off, no matter how hard you try. I'd think by now some of your refugees would follow our example, educate themselves and their children, and become productive members of society.
Enough Said.
Aimée Kligman
http://womenslens.blogspot.com
Can either Tarek or Ibrahim explain to us what's going on here? Is this what is taught in Islam?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0.../0/0/0/
1805.htm
"Title of Video: Al-Jazeera TV Dedicates a Program to Palestinian Terrorist Dalal Al-Maghrabi. Al-Maghrabi's Sister Salutes Jerusalem Bulldozer Terrorist Who Murdered Three people"
I really need clarification here, as this seems to contradict what you two say about your religion. Thanks, and Shabbat Shalom to all!
I'd think by now some of your refugees would follow our example, educate themselves and their children, and become productive members of society.
Enough Said.
Hahaha... I like puns. Did you know that piling up hay is a stable job?
But Palestinians who share your experience (i.e. emigration to other countries) do become productive members of their societies. Zogby does your polls, Shakira is a top Latin music singer, Palestino is one of the best soccer teams in Chile, Paulo Maluf is the founder of Brazil's wood-fiber panel industry.
The only problem is in Palestine itself. Land theft, water theft, Israeli-only roads, beatings at the checkpoints, settler violence, are all Israeli actions hindering the Palestinians' progress.
Your only example so far reads "basically aimed at British and Arab military targets." "Basically" doesn't mean "only."
Of course, Dershowitz covers his ass saying an ambiguous word, but however you interpret it, it's simply false that Begin's attacks were "basically" against military objectives. I gave you a link to 40 Zionist attacks on civilian buses just between January and March 1948. Attacking vehicles with the only aim of killing civilians was part and parcel of Zionist terrorism.
To Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf:
I cannot engage in verbal sparring with an unarmed man.
Aimee Kligman
Excuse me now; I'm going to spray some detergent into the outer space -- my wife just asked me to do the vacuum cleaning.
"The only problem is in Palestine itself. Land theft, water theft, Israeli-only roads, beatings at the checkpoints, settler violence, are all Israeli actions hindering the Palestinians' progress.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.11.08 - 7:40 pm | #"
And exactly where is this "Palestine"? I've not been able to find a map that has this mythical Independent Arab-Muslim Nation-State, either pre-1967 or post-1967; can anyone here provide this information? Then, I might be bale to buy this BS...
"I gave you a link to 40 Zionist attacks on civilian buses just between January and March 1948. Attacking vehicles with the only aim of killing civilians was part and parcel of Zionist terrorism.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.11.08 - 7:50 pm | #"
I tell you what; you disavow the former and active terrorists Yassir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and Khalid Meshal as legitimate leadership for your Phakestininan buds, and I'll disavow Menachem Begin. Fair enough?
Of course, Dershowitz covers . . . I gave you a link to 40 Zionist attacks on civilian buses just between January and March 1948.
Dershowitz's statement doesn't seem so precise or informative, but your list doesn't seem to be the last word on what was happening during the whole period when the LHI and IZL were active. Begin took over leadership of the IZL in 1944. The history of this period goes through various phases. In any event, you have been asserting that a certain claim is "common." Dershowitz seems to making a claim vaguely like what you are talking about, but if the claim is so common, you ought to find more exact examples easily.
I can provide a couple of links that show how extended the "military-only-targets" notion is among Israel supporters.
See the part highlighted in yellow here.
See also the part highlighted in yellow here.
"But Irgun's targets were military targets, with no exceptions that I'm aware of. Even the King David hotel bombing (a subject of great controversy all by itself)..." See here.
"All military targets, except for Count Bernadotte. Because of that, the Stern gang was disbanded and outlawed. Besides, were any of these in public? For example, a bomb in a bus station?" See here.
"However, Ms. Halamish does refer to the Irgun as '...the terrorists.' (...) When (...) the heroic Irgun and Stern gang attack British MILITARY targets, that is NOT terrorism." See here.
(In response to someone who said "I too noticed Robert ommitted the terrorism of the Irgun...") "What "terrorism" would that be? What deliberate attacks on entirely civilian targets, as opposed to military targets (including that headquarters for the British military, the King David Hotel) were ever deliberately attacked?" See here.
As you can see, many pro-Israel people (not the scholars, who know the truth, but the rank-and-file Zionist) not only are not aware that the Irgun attacked civilian buses on a regular basis, but seem to believe that the only Irgun action in which civilians ("unintendedly") died was the King David.
That's the kind of things you come to believe when you've been brainwashed from the crib.
I reiterate my request to the disgusting individual known as Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf AKA Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi AKA Avraham Ben-Yosef to openly and unequivocally disavow the terrorists that he supports who openly target innocent Jewish civilians and children. This specifically includes Yassir Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Khalid Meshaal. Otherwise, his womanly crying and flaccid protests against so-called Jewish "terrorists" has the substance of a soup sandwich...
Unless he agrees with these "gentlemen" when they have acted in so heinous a fashion. In which case, he is a piglet, like them...
That's the kind of things you come to believe when you've been brainwashed from the crib.
I see you came up with some examples from online discussion forums and comment threads and that sort of thing. These kinds of sources are good for misinformation from any point of view and for any polemic you want. But OK, the assertion you are talking about is out there. When you say a particular assertion is "common," that's a relative term. How common is the assertion that the Irgun only targeted military targets compared to the assertion that, say, Israel or "Zionism" was behind 9/11? Which belief is more susceptible to correction? Who would be easier to convince that he is wrong?
The two assertions are not comparable. They're both false, but while the antisemitic assertion is rejected by everyone in the sane community, the Zionist one enjoys respectability and is disseminated by Israeli envoys without any outcry whatsoever.
No, I don't have any link to this, but I've attended some 200 lectures by Sochnut (Jewish Agency) officials and I can assure you that the "military-targets-only" assertion is customarily made -- even when the Sochnut webpage itself acknowledges Jewish terrorism against civilians!
As to who would be easier to convince that he is wrong, my experience is that when you tell the truth, especially to Diaspora Jews, first they react in disbelief, claiming for instance that my sources are Arab, antisemitic and Nazi. When I direct them to the Sochnut page and other kasher sources, they react weirdly, claiming, for instance, that the Sochnut itself is antisemitic!
But when the reality dawns on them that Jewish terrorists attacked civilians, and not occasionally, but customarily, then, then, they try and shut me up -- if in person, by shouting louder than me; if over the web, by blocking me from commenting on their blogs.
An anecdote; when my eye-doctor, who lived for a few years in Israel, learned about my Hasbara-busting activities, he refused to see me anymore. When it comes to censoring anti-Zionism, nothing is off-limits.
"When it comes to censoring anti-Zionism, nothing is off-limits.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.15.08 - 2:58 pm | #"
Naah, maybe they just don't want to serve your Terrorist-lovin' ass...
Come to think of it, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi, don't ever slip on a banana-peel in front of me! Not only would I laugh hysterically, I may even run over and kick you in the head...you shmuck.
So will you now condemn or disavow Yassir Arafat, et. al. as vehemently as you condemn so-called Jewish "terrorists"? Or are you willing to be so blatant in your Anti-Semitism?
The two assertions are not comparable.
I was deliberate in contrasting one assertion with the other. Not knowing that the Irgun targeted civilians (often in retaliation for Arab attacks on civilians) could be the result of bias or intellectual laziness or just ignorance or failure to be up on the facts. I would reserve terms like "brainwashed" for people who insist that 9/11 was an "inside job" and similar beliefs. You refer to the "sane community" but there is a kind of anti-Zionist front which involves solidarity between the the relatively sane and the insane. Here is an example from Lawrence of Cyberia, a website I think you approve of:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.c...tw-
toynbee.html
Do you think the author of that post is making a good point? I'm not ignoring your tales of being shouted down; we can discuss who is more likely to censor whom at a later point.
Will Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi celebrate the release of Sami Kuntar, the 'heroic' murderer of 4-year old Israeli girls, or will he tell us what a absolute outrage Kuntar's release is? I'm betting on his celebrating...
Will Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi celebrate the release of Sami Kuntar
I addressed that here. Please drop by and feel free to leave a comment.
"I addressed that here. Please drop by and feel free to leave a comment.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 11:30 pm | #"
I'll say you did! So, did you cry with tears of joy when you saw Sami Kuntar walk into Lebanon?
There are no innocents in Gaza, or the West Bank, or among Phakestinians. Especially the children....
http://switch5.castup.net/frames...1468wmv&
ak=null
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=E...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Z...feature=related
There are no innocents among the Phakestinians...
There are no innocents in Gaza, or the West Bank, or among Phakestinians. Especially the children....
Well, y know, anti-Zionists have put up a few videos of their own. See, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=F...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Z...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D..._TvskP6HJ4&
NR=1
As you say, there are no innocents in the West Bank -- and that includes the Jewish settlers.
Are you ready to disavow your terrorists now, then? My disavowal is on record, but you have never done so. I'll make it easy for you; do you now disavow and condemn the actions of Sami Kuntar, the "Hero" of Hezbollah? Do you now disavow and condemn the Hamas Terrorist Group? Until you do so on your website, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi, you're just pissing in the wind...
I don't have any terrorists of my own. Why should I disavow anyone? Have I ever "avowed" any terrorist? Am I asking you to disavow the Tibetan terrorists who set fire to Han-owned businesses a few months ago?
It's not difficult to find people on the web who justify Palestinian terrorism. Who claim that because Israel occupies the West Bank it's somehow acceptable to kill civilians in the West Bank or even in Israel itself, or at least it is justified to kidnap and/or kill Israeli soldiers.
Those are the people you should go after. But I have never justified those actions, so I don't see why I should "disengage" myself from people I never supported in the first place.
That's rich. An Argentine Anti-Semite Atheist takes on the name 'Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef', argues that Israeli Jewish 4-year old girls deserve to die at the hands of Arab squatters, and runs a blogsite entitled "El anti Hasbará", but, yet, doesn't feel he's 'avowed' anyone! Go ahead, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi, keep talking, you're making a perfect A*s of yourself. You just can't bring yourself to disavow those you clearly agree with, vehemently, can you? Nor can you find unacceptable the results of these people's actions, can you? Dead Jews are a good outcome by you. I think it's funny that you have such problems with the actions of Jews (some of which I have disavowed, may I remind you), but not even the obviously much worse actions of Arabs? Such as the killing of a 4 year-old Israeli girl by Sami Kuntar, which you can not even bring yourself to condemn...
"It's not difficult to find people on the web who justify Palestinian terrorism. Who claim that because Israel occupies the West Bank it's somehow acceptable to kill civilians in the West Bank or even in Israel itself, or at least it is justified to kidnap and/or kill Israeli soldiers.
Ibrahim Ibn Yusuf | Homepage | 07.20.08 - 5:44 am | #"
You're so right, Ibrahim Ibn-Yousef al-Kalbi Arabi! Check this blogsite out, for a good example of what you
're talking about...
http://ibrahimibnyusuf.blogspot.com/
Commenting by HaloScan
