AccuWeather.com creates a Palestinian homeland in Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut


(This post was revised at 14:05 BST to correct an error regarding the historical boundaries of Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut. CiF Watch apologizes for the mistake)

A guest post by Gidon Ben-Zvi, who blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind and Times of Israel

It must be a surreal experience to go to sleep in one country and wake up in another – without leaving your bed, mind you.

Yet, this is precisely what happened to the citizens of Modi’in Maccabim-Re’ut, specifically those who may have recently logged on to the AccuWeather.com website.

It turns out, much to the amazement of most of its residents, that Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut is now part of Palestine. Were we asleep at the wheel when the Palestinian Authority pitched its flag over the approximately 75,000 inhabitants currently living in Modi’in Maccabim-Re’ut and lowered Israel’s?

What we appear to have here is a failure to separate fact from narrative. And it’s the Palestinian narrative, a manufactured self-image nurtured since Israel’s founding, that has been picked up, processed and regurgitated as immutable history.

Sadly for those in the throes of delusions about a capital-free Israel, however, history tends to leave fingerprints.

Modiin itself is completely within Israel’s pre-67 boundaries. Parts of Maccabeam and Reut, which were joined to the Modiin municipality several years ago, are over the Green Line, but are located in what was no-man’s land. The city was henceforth known as Modi’in Maccabim-Re’ut.

Now, this is all well and good but doesn’t directly address the central question: whose city is it? Well, a city by definition is a series of complex systems for sanitation, utilities, land usage, housing and transportation. Furthermore, a city’s concentration of development greatly facilitates interaction between people and businesses, benefiting both parties in the process.

Regarding “occupied” Modi’in, it was little more than a pit stop between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv until the decision to was made by the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to break ground on a brand new city, located on the ancient site that was the Jewish Hasmonean seat of power when it ruled Judea in the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE and where the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Greeks started.

Back to our time, it has been Israeli tax payers, not the European Union and not the United States, who have largely financed the flowering of Modi’in. And the results have been staggering: an employment zone extending over 1,300,000 square meters, central railway station and accessibility to public transportation that enables residents to travel to their jobs throughout the center and south of Israel are but three accomplishments that are a source of much civic pride. Modi’in residents enjoy an usually high quality of life and the city continues to develop at a dizzying rate.

In the meantime, the financial problems of real Palestinian cities, that is to say those under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority, continue to grow. Outside of Ramallah, government spending and living on credit at all levels of Palestinian society is rampant and may prove to be the economy’s undoing.

While aid for the donor-dependent Palestinian Authority has slowed to a trickle, salaries for a swollen public sector again cannot even be paid in full. The productive base for the economy is shriveling while unemployment climbs along with poverty.

And foreign aid continues to wane partly because of global economic conditions and partly in a backlash to the Palestinians’ abortive bid for statehood at the United Nations last fall.

Around these parts, one man’s suburb is another man’s settlement. Ultimately, the final status of the disputed territories is best left for Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to iron out. However, it is worth noting that over two-thirds of the Jews in the West Bank live in five settlement blocs that are all near the 1967 border. Most observers believe that these blocs will become part of Israel when final borders are drawn.

While the mystique of objective news coverage has long since faded, the battle of competing worldviews has evidently spilled over into the field of meteorology. After all, if Modi’in is in Palestine, who’s to say whether London is the capital of Northern Ireland, Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China or if Northern Cyprus even exists?

AccuWeather.com would be well advised to spend more time on the dazzling Northern Lights and less on remapping Israel.  By politicizing the weather, the website’s own forecast can be summed up as: partly misleading with chance of torrential bias.

(You can Tweet Accuweather.com here)

106 comments on “AccuWeather.com creates a Palestinian homeland in Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut

  1. Pingback: AccuWeather.com creates a Palestinian homeland in Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut « Jerusalem State of Mind

  2. Modiin is an Israeli city in Israel.

    Modiin Illit is an illegal settlement, built by Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territory in violation of international law.

    Settlers should never have been authorized to call the settlement of Modiin Illit “Modiin”, as they expose the Israelis who live in Modiin lawfully to this kind of mistake.

    • Modi’in Illit is not part of the Modi’in-Re’ut conurbation anyway.
      This is plain malice on the part of Accuweather, which has also, it would seem, recognized “Palestine” as an independent state, sola fide .
      Hummm, too bad the Quartet has not learned yet that it’s been superseded by Accuweather, in the realm of unilateral decisions.
      While I have you Nat, would you mind apologizing for your recent logorrhea of lies?(Tel Aviv being Israel’s biggest city, 1+ million refugees, etc)?
      Need I remind you how reprehensible the Hague conv. and IVth GC find fibbers? :D

      • Palestine is a state, it’s been recognized by 130 countries the world and it has all the charateristics of a state: it has a people, it has a defined territory and it has engaged in relations with other Governments in the world.

        • If this is the case, where was the international call for Palestinian statehood i 1948? 1967? 1973? When Gaza was occupied by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan, I don’t recall a concerted effort by well-funded NGOs to push the agenda of statehood. That’s not to say that Arabs calling themselves Palestinians didn’t desire a state of their own. However, the location of this “defined territory” seemed to shift every few years. After the Palestinians failed to topple King Hussein and turn Jordan into a Palestinian state, Arafat and his hench men fled to Lebanon. After Israel drove out the PLO from southern Lebanon, the PLO took time to catch its breath in Tunis, before “returning” home. In other words, Palestinian statehood is only a much-discussed option after every option, namely destroying Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, failed. Then, after the PLO couldn’t even take over a territory, Jordan, that is even today approximately 70% Palestinian, did a Palestinian state in the West Bank become an option. Lastly, the fact that the P.A. is “engaged with other governments in the world.” is irrelevant. Nazi Germany engaged governments around the world, allied and axis alike. And? Thank you for reading and responding to my essay.

    • Nat, Avi, Bashful, Doc, Sleepy, Grumpy or Dopey whichever one you are today.
      Your record is stuck.
      You are writing nothing that hasn’t already been demonstrated to be false by other posters.
      Regurgitating the same old rubbish will not make it correct, it does prove how correct the verse in Proverbs is, Proverbs 26:11 “Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.”

  3. “Modi’in is located just over the Green Line”

    So it’s not in Israel at all then, All the blather about being ” located on the ancient site that was the Jewish Hasmonean seat of power ” and paid for by “Israeli tax payers” counts for nothing. Modi’in Maccabim-Re’ut is in illegally occupied territory. I could build sand castles in the grounds of Buckingham Palace but it wouldn’t make me king.

    As for the map showing “Israeli Settlement Blocs annexed to Israel” – well the mind boggles. We can all draw maps to show anything belongs to anyone.

    • Modi’in Maccabim-Re’ut is in illegally occupied territory.

      It’s status changed 45 years ago. It was illegally occupied territory before 1967. It is liberated Israeli territory now.

    • Regarding Modi’in being “just over the Green Line”, this was an inaccurate representation of the facts, for which I apologize. Regarding the rest of your comment, Modi’in, as it turns out, is within the Green Line. As such, by asserting its illegality, you seem to be advocating a return NOT to the pre-June 5 1967 borders but rather the pre-1948 borders. Is this correct? Regarding land captured in 1967, no one doubts that they are disputed – and hence the subject of ongoing, if fitful, negotiations between the P.A. and Israel. However, illegal these territories are not. Land captured in a defensive action is recognized by international law as being the just spoils of a just war. Had Israel not pre-empted in 1967, it would have been eviscerated. Would that have soothed your moral outrage? Thank you for reading and responding to my essay!

      • “Land captured in a defensive action is recognized by international law as being the just spoils of a just war.”

        Me first, me first!!

        Please, explain why the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice are wrong.

        Then cite the law which supports what you write.

        • Please, explain how you will UNDERSTAND the international law (let’s ignore the UN General Assembly which is a joke)

    • Why on earth do Israeli taxpayers have to pay for illegal settlers living in illegal settlements located outside the Jewish state, some of whom refuse to live in Israel?

  4. “Modi’in is located just over the Green Line…”

    So…in Palestine?

    If not, perhaps Adam can furnish us with a map showing Israel’s borders.

    • So now Avi, Nat, Benyamin and others have morphed into another Jewish name to post antisemitic comments!

      • Biodegradable, I fail to see how international law and respect for human rights can be “antisemitic”.

        However I do see how accusing everyone of being “antisemitic” because you know you’re wrong is dumb.

        • To quote Lord Jenner, quoting his father, “you can’t always see antisemitism, but you can always smell it”.

  5. For those who were absent during history class: Israel = Palestine and Palestine = Israel.
    Palestine was the name given to Judea by Hadrian in 135 CE after the Bar Kochba Rebellion to erase the name of Judea. He also changed the name of Jerusalem to Alea Capitolina. Maybe AccuWeather should go back to school.
    For those who claim that the settlements in Judea & Samaria are illegal, should also consider that many countries established in the last 300 years are also illegal.

    • The right of conquest ended after WWII when everyone realised that it wasn’t a very good idea. Seems a little perverse that the “Jewish state” should be so resolute in opposing the lessons of a war which nearly destroyed European Jewry.

      • You’re revolting…
        Back to “Israel is the Nazis” analogies, are we?
        Don’t you have “Mondoweiss” and/or “Stormfront” to attend?

      • Seems a little perverse that the “Jewish state” should be so resolute in opposing the lessons of a war which nearly destroyed European Jewry.

        What a nasty little comment. Shame on you.

        • You feel that it is not offensive for it to be true? But it IS offensive for me to point it out? Interesting…

            • WWII and the horrors of the Final Solution should have served as a lesson for the entire of humanity. Do you disagree?

                • Please clarify. Do you or do you not think that WWII and the horrors of the Final Solution should serve as a lesson for all humanity?

                • I agree, “Avram”. So why is it that the only country that seems to need to learn this “lesson” is the one country for whom that “lesson” is burned into its very soul?

                  It’s a pity that this “lesson” is not preached to the despots in Gaza and the West Bank (not to mention their UN protectors) whose education, TV, press and culture are soaked in the same sort of dispicable antisemitism that made it possible for the horrors of the Holocaust to take place.

                  Let me tell you “Avram”, Israel has very clearly learned the “lesson”. It is the only place in the World where Jews are not reliant on the shaky good will of others, the only place where Jews are masters of their own destiny.

                  And frankly, for you, “Avram”, whoever you are, to dream of even thinking of attempting to “teach” Israel “lessons” about the Holocaust, shows what a contemptible and arrogant creature you are.

      • International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.” Let’s not forget that prior to 1967 the West Ban was Illegally occupied by Jordan. Thank you for reading and commenting on my piece!

        • “International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense.”

          Can you cite an institution of international law which agrees with you? The UNGA, UNSC and ICJ expressly disagree with you, so we will await with interest.

          • “so we will await with interest.”
            Another one who loves to misuse the Royal ‘we’
            Except in your case there is no we, Avram/dubitante.
            For those who have forgotten Avram/dubitante is the one who even Richard Silverstein told to sod off back to Mondoweiss.

            When you are rejected by the likes of Silverstein there is no more to be said, other than close the door on your way out.

  6. “Modi’in is located just over the Green Line that marks the territory captured by Israel in a war of survival – 1967’s Six-Day War.”

    War of survival?? A war which Israel and the Americans knew that Israel would win without breaking a sweat? A war that Israel started?

    Mythistory is fun.

    • If you live in Israel – or even if not – your comment is disgusting.

      Not only did many break a sweat, they died or were permanently injured fighting for survival against three other countries, starting with Egypt which had brought up its forces to attack Israel and, as I assume you know, had mad its determination to destroy Israel and kill as many Israelis as possible clear on radio, TV, and the press.

      • That’s a fallacy that has been air brushed into place after the fact. The Israelis knew there was no imminent attack, they knew Nasser did not intend to attack, and they knew there was no possibility of anything approximating defeat.

        You have been tutored to believe in this non-existent threat to condition you to accept Israel’s expansionist endeavours.

        • So, Nasser didn’t block the Straits of Tiran, to Israel shipping, crippling it economically?
          Nasser didn’t demand the evacuation of UN Peace keepers in the Sinai, stationed there?
          Nasser didn’t threaten Israel with annihilation?
          Syria did not start mobilizing its forces along the border with Israel?
          You need help… Methinks someone’s been biting into Soviet propaganda too much… Would be a terrible shock for you to learn that the USSR is no longer with us?

          • “So, Nasser didn’t block the Straits of Tiran, to Israel shipping, crippling it economically?”

            No, he didn’t. It’s a myth. Israel made little use of the straits, and the little use it made of them was for transporting oil, of which Israel had ample stockpiles. And the blockade was never enforced. Try again.

            “Nasser didn’t demand the evacuation of UN Peace keepers in the Sinai, stationed there?”

            He did. Last I checked that’s not a cause for a massive war.

            But don’t take my word for it, take the word of some leading anti-Semites:

            1. Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfolio:

            “In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
            (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

            2. General Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:

            “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
            (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )

            3. General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General’s Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

            “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
            (Le Monde, June 3, 1972)

            4. General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

            “There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.”
            (Ha’ aretz, March 29, 1972)

            5. General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command:

            “The danger of Israel’s extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war.”
            (Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, p. 558)

            6. General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air Force:

            “Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it.”
            (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559)

            7. General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces:

            “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
            (Ma’ ariv, April 4, 1972)

            8. General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

            “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger. ”
            (Ma’ ariv, April 4, 1972)

            9. Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

            “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
            (Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 1971)

            10. Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and Member of Prime Minister Eshkol’s Military Advisory Committee:

            “Begin and I want Jerusalem.”
            (Eitan Haber, Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man, New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 , p. 271)

            11. General Meir Amit, the former head of Military Intelligence who was head of Mossad in 1967:

            “There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. But we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don’t have the manpower right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions… If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light…”
            (Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau, The Mossad: Israel’s Secret Intelligence Service, New York: New American Library, 1978 , pp. 160-161.)

            Now, which one of us is swallowing propaganda?

            • 1. Israel didn’t use the straits? Really? And its exports and imports from Asian countries; as for Oil, you’re not one to decide whether Israel had enough or not.
              Furthermore, even Eisenhower(hardly an “Israel-Firster” in your favourite jargon) said this:
              “…[Eisenhower]went so far as publicly to recognize that reimposing a blockade in the Straits of Tiran would be seen as an aggressive act which would oblige Israel to protect its maritime rights in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter…”(See this).
              So clearly Israel was not alone in that assessment. The blockade was in contravention of Intl. Law, of the UN charter, and that’s really all there was to it.
              2. The Removal of UN Peacekeepers was not casus belli ?
              Really? Why was there a need to do that? What do you think was going to happen? Nasser was going to shower Israel with candy?
              And what ofOperation Dawn?
              Lastly, I come to the most troubling aspect of your little (manufactured) rant:
              There’s no denying that Israel attacked first. But without the above belligerence of Nasser’s, there would’ve been no need for a war.
              Without constant Fedayeen strikes at Israeli civilians, there would’ve been no war;
              Without Tiran, there would’ve been no war.
              Without the removal of UN forces, again there would not have been a conflagration there.
              Israel was perfectly justified, under the prevailing circumstances, to defend itself.
              The fact is, that Israel returned every inch of the Sinai to Egypt. So that defeats your thesis about “expansionism”.
              You’re an anti-Semite… why not just admit it?

              • “Israel didn’t use the straits? Really? And its exports and imports from Asian countries; as for Oil, you’re not one to decide whether Israel had enough or not.”

                The shipping logs form part of the documentary record. I’m on holiday so I’m operating from memory, but the Straits accounted for something like 1 or 2% of Israeli shipping. Israel was not breathing with one lung.

                Consider the fact that Israel was escalating hostilities against one of Egypts allies – Egypt was not under any obligation to allow Israel to transport oil to supply their war effort. Even today, shipping rights apply only to “innocent passage”.

                And Eisenhower, a source of international law?? The Israeli right of passage was not unlimited and unequivocal. As stated on the same page:

                “The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran. First it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway…. [Secondly]… a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: ‘Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state… taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R’s action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case…”

                In other words, Egypt is not under obligation to allow Israel to supply oil for its war effort using the Straits. Secondly, the blockade was never actually enforced. Ships were passing through them within a couple of says of the announcement.

                “The Removal of UN Peacekeepers was not casus belli ?”

                They were removed from Egyptian territory. One can hardly argue that exercising sovereignty of Egyptian territory…by Egypt…is a casus belli.

                Don’t get me wrong, Nasser gave a master class in Arab bluster. But bluster is not the same as a casus belli.

                I notice how you failed to tackle any of the esteemed Israeli sources on the non-existence of a casus belli. There was no casus belli. This was clear from the position of the UN where the members were split 3 ways:

                - There were those states who sought to condemn Israel alone as the aggressor.

                - There were those states who sought to condemn both sides for sharing in the blame for starting the conflict

                - There were those states who felt that it was not useful to condemn either side.

                It is interesting to note that at the UN, not one state – NOT ONE STATE – not even the US condemned the Arab side for initiating the conflict. Not quite the picture of a clear cut casus belli you paint is it?

                • “Israel was escalating hostilities”? You mean the same Israel who worked tirelessly to keep Jordan out of the war(but I guess that was only part of rouse, to support your idiotic claim “territorial expansionism).
                  Syria(Is this the “ally” you’re referring to?, by 1967 the UAR had already split), was bombing waterways, Kibbutzim, and making life a living hell for Israel’s northern frontier… How was Israel ramping up the conflict, is beyond me…(Maybe “Stormfront” could explain).
                  Secondly, regarding the removal of Peacekeepers; it was expressly THAT which Israel sought to achieve after the 1956 Seuz crisis. The Peace Keepers were there to ensure the cessation of Fedayeen attacks against Israelis.
                  Furthermore, Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, in 1957, was conditioned on the maintenance of free passage in the Tiran Straits.
                  How Nasser thought anything else was forthcoming(after he had done that), is truly a mystery, but since you’re a quintessential Nasserist, maybe you could explain.
                  Eisenhower, why won’t he be?(A leader of the World’s foremost superpower…)Certainly beats Roger Fisher, that minuscule jurist you cite.
                  Lastly, all your mumblings about the UN aside, the fact is, that UNSC 242, specifically omitted any Israeli requirement for a full surrender of all territories occupied, at least without “land-for-peace”(and we’ve been over this, Lord Caradon, Goldberg, Stewart, Sisco, and finally, LBJ himself).
                  So there you have it. “Not one state”(blah-blah-blah), but the UNSC still adopted 242 unanimously.

                • I think you’ll find that Lord Caradon, who was arguably the main framer of 242 and is the authoritative source, agrees with me on it. Land for peace doesn’t appear in 242. It emphasises the inadmissibility of territory acquired by war. Israel struggles with this bit.

                  It was the intention of 242 (as emphasised by Caradon) that the two sides should negotiate minor and mutual land swaps to create a more sensible border. Israel has never accepted it as it puts an end to its territorial ambitions.

                  Eisenhower doesn’t become a source of international law just because he was the leader of the world’s foremost superpower. Unless you’re going to argue that Hitler was also a source of international law. You’re on shaky ground there sonny.

                  I am pointing out that there was no consensus whatsoever that Israel even had a right of innocent passage through the straits – and if they did, it applied only to innocent passage. An interpretation backed up by legal analysis and the reaction of the UN to Israeli aggression. The denial of an unestablished right does not amount to a casus belli.

                • Let’s start with Caradon:
                  “…And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized…”
                  And also:

                  “We didn’t say there should be a withdrawal to the ’67 line; we did not put the ‘the’ in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew – that the boundaries of ’67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier… We did not say that the ’67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity…”

                  And A.J. Goldberg:

                  “Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal. If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties…

                  If you agree with that, then, congratulations, we’re in full accord here.
                  Then, you utter another one of your “whoppers”: Israel firmly accepted UNSC 242, 338, during the Madrid Conference, and the Oslo accords.
                  As for this, “straight-out-of-Stormfront” claim about territorial ambition, I’ll ask again: Did not Israel surrender the Sinai to Egypt, in exchange for very unstable, flaky(in the sense that the Egyptian public still rejects “normalization” with Israel), in ACCORDANCE with “land-for-peace”?
                  No- you probably think it’s all a sham. And that Israeli tanks still roll through Sharm el-Sheikh… (I wonder what sort of stuff you’ve been smoking…What do they give you over there, on Stormfront/Mondoweiss?)
                  Secondly, Eisenhower was merely an example. Israel’s right, peaceably(of course, that is, the passage of COMMERCIAL ships), was enshrined as opinio juris .
                  You, however, take the word of an insignificant lawyer, probably, a paid mercenary of the UAR. (Just like yourself, though probably, taking Assad’s cash, in this century).
                  Furthermore, we have the case of UK v. Albania, to state that a control of straits, does not automatically grant the holding power exclusivity in determining safe-passage(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corfu_Channel_Case_%28United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_v._People%27s_Republic_of_Albania%29)
                  So you’ve effectively nullified a prior decision by your beloved ICJ; that’s nice.
                  Next, “Sonny”, Israel withdrew, after 1957 conflict, in 1957, specifically with the assurance that safe transit would be guaranteed(it wanted nothing else from Egypt, and even YOU can’t deny that).
                  But, being an expert Nasserist, can you explain, WHY Nasser closed off the Straits specifically in 1967(in May(!), recall Operation Dawn, supra), evicted the UN Peacekeepers, and lastly, constantly threatened to exterminate Israel, even though he had no territorial dispute with it? Was it just his “Peaceful Spirit” percolating? Was it his irenic, Quaker, serenity beaming forth?
                  I am sure that Assad/Ba’ath(in general) recompense well for such apologetics.
                  Finally, a serious problem, that I must highlight with your bravado:
                  You listed a series of quotations earlier, some which, like I demonstrated, were by anti-Zionist “crusaders”(therefore, biased, and unusable), but most of all, some, were entirely fabricated.
                  (Like Herzog, in Ma’ariv, on April 4th, 1972).
                  A quick search revealed them to emanate from some spurious website, and well, you guessed it: Stormfront too.
                  I approach every interlocution, with anyone, in good faith. I scoured in vain, for any confirmation of your claims, believing that you were at least, while misguided, an honest and trustworthy person.
                  I had to waste my time, to unravel your lies;
                  I hope, you’ll at least apologize.

                • Caradon and I agree completely. Its just that Zionists are EXTREMELY selective when it comes to quoting Caradon, as you ably demonstrate.

                  There was no call for Israel to return to the 67 borders because they are ridiculous. But he also stressed the inadmissibility of territory by war. Rather than paraphrase, allow me to quote the man himself – but allow me to include the bits that you deliberately left out.

                  “Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent.

                  Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent “secure and recognized” boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the “inadmissibility” principle.

                  The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section.”

                  He even went as far as to say that without the inclusion of the inadmissibility clause, “there could have been no unanimous vote”. Still, good to know we agree on something!

                • As for “selectivity”, you demonstrate mendacity very well…
                  Why not INCLUDE the passages that I wrote(coupled with A.J. Goldberg, whom you, bafflingly dismissed), without overriding what those citation you brought yourself?
                  I never insisted on overruling one, or superseding the other; rather, to get a full picture, I complemented the fairly lopsided image you tried to paint, by adding a very important stroke of realism, and the vital considerations that were provided in the conjectures of both Goldberg, and Caradon.(Notwithstanding what you had written, which I welcome).
                  If you accept that the ’67 borders were untenable, and therefore, Israel has legitimate security concerns, then why do you try to traduce the word “Zionists” by highlighting it so maliciously?
                  Is Zionism anything but self-determination for the Jewish people, a right guaranteed by the UN charter?(If you don’t know(the def. of Zionism), consult a dictionary).
                  I am waiting for an apology(not that I actually expect you to man-up, and give one) regarding your shoddy & baseless quotes of various Israeli officials(some of which were entirely trumped up-by you, or your fellow goons at Mondo/Stormfront/etc), and the rest, provided by notorious anti-Zionists, with penchants for Radio Islam(Malcolm X, anyone?)
                  Furthermore, you don’t deny that Nasser, in a callous act of belligerency toward Israel, did precipitate war by his actions.
                  Nothing(as expected), on UK v. Albania.
                  Finally, don’t you ever tire of trolling, or providing half-assed excuses of the dictator-of-the-day?
                  When will we hear you sermonize about S. Hussein’s glorious contributions to society, Nasser’s excellent Autarky(and of course, your favourite, anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism)?
                  And who can forget comrade Assad’s slaughter of his own folk(both father & son, to be sure), but one accompanied with such staunch denunciations of organized Jewry Zionism, so that it’s all made right in your eyes?

            • Brilliant, Avram. I was going to look up some of those quotes but you have done a fantastic demolition job and saved me the bother….

              • Yes he did really demolish his own nonexistent reputation using falsified quotes. But I understand your happiness seeing that you don’t have to bother to fabricate your own.

            • As for your “sources”, sorry, it took me a while to skim through them, turns out, like I expected, they’re very paltry:
              The quotes of the Begin & Rabin, ALL point out to one site(which is more than a little suspicious):

              http://www.nmhtthornton.com/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.php

              The NYT archive, contains, on the other hand, nothing of the sort.
              http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/21/world/excerpts-from-begin-speech-at-national-defense-college.html(The full article is behind a pay-wall).
              2. The use of Alfred M. Lilienthal, a notorious anti-Zionist, a collaborator with the anti-Semitic radio Islam is hardly a valid “source”…
              I’ll tell you what, why don’t you just cut short to your friend, David Duke?
              I am sure he could castigate Zionism(not just the Six-Day War), Jews, everyone whom you loathe, without even a semblance of decency.
              3. Herzog was not in any active duty during the 6-Day-War… and HE was definitely NOT published in Ma’ariv on April 4th, of the year you mention, I , unlike you, checked the Archives(Hebrew ones, to be sure).
              So, you’re not only quoting radicals(like Peled), but you’ve also got no compunction about bald-faced lying.
              Congratulations, you’ve thoroughly discredited yourself. Have fun with David Duke on your “holiday”… Say “Hi” to everyone on “Stormfront”(and ask for plausible citations, next time).

              • I said:

                “”In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
                (New York Times, August 21, 1982)”

                You said:

                “The quotes of the Begin & Rabin, ALL point out to one site(which is more than a little suspicious):

                http://www.nmhtthornton.com/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.php

                The NYT archive, contains, on the other hand, nothing of the sort.
                http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/21/world/excerpts-from-begin-speech-at-national-defense-college.html(The full article is behind a pay-wall).”

                The only question that I can think of asking is this: “do you not tire of me knocking you down?”

                For Begin, here is a link to a Storm Front sister site to back up the citation:

                http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National

                You can insert your grovelling apology here.

                As for Rabin, the citation is from an interview with Eric Rouleau, the article was called “Le Régime Nassérien en Question”, p.4 if you get stuck.

                If you want scholarly citations, try here:

                http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22believe+that+nasser+wanted+war%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

                For books, try here:

                https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22believe%20that%20nasser%20wanted%20war%22&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp&authuser=0

                Insert your grovelling apology here.

                We can do more later when I get back from surfing, providing your grovelling apologies are waiting for me.

                • Now what was that point regarding selective quoting?(Not that I expect you to remember?)
                  From Begin(your link):

                  “This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

                  While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.”

                  And of Rabin:

                  “While Rabin did not believe that Nasser wanted war[your conniving paraphrasing], a momentum was gathering that could seriously erode Israel’s deterrence power, to the point where the Arabs felt free to attack…

                  Finally, from your “scholarly” department(I actually LOLed here):
                  Journal of Pal. Studies(an “impartial” source if there was one, and YES, I tried not to laugh, but I couldn’t), “wallstreetsurviors.com”- no doubt, classical conspiracy nutjobs(your favourite, and you buy every word): WWIII, “USS Liberty”, Ah, sublime! :D.
                  From the assorted mesh:
                  Alan-”Zionism is racism”-Hart(no bias there, right?), Cheryl-”Deir Yassin Remembered” Reubenberg, and others of their sorts… no doubt, your “dreamteam”…
                  And of course, who can forget, Stormfront(your home page).
                  Finally, my point re Peled, Lilienthal, stands… I am sorry, but Radio Islam groupies are sort of disqualified in my list, for objective analyses.
                  Lastly(giving you the benefit of the doubt), I checked with Ma’ariv for 3 cons. years, 1970-1973. Not a single mention of Herzog(that is, personal interviews, direct quotes, that are in any way relevant to what you tried to depict).
                  You lie, and then you lie some more…
                  I believe, interestingly enough, you said it best:
                  “Insert YOUR grovelling apology here”, & “Don’t you ever tire of ME knocking you down?”
                  P.S.
                  If you are indeed surfing, lookout for the USS Liberty(it might be right behind you :O) and other assorted false-flags,… I hear Mossad is extra-cunning these days(disguising itself in sharks(per Egypt), Eagles/Doves(per Turkey), Hawks(Saudi-Arabia));
                  Stay safe out there :D

                • Oh… And just to ascertain:
                  A quick search, in either google.com or google.fr for “Le Régime Nassérien en Question” reveals, surprise-surprise: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING…
                  I expect that “grovelling” apology any minute now…

                • Wait, just so we’re clear – you’re categorically stating that “Le Régime Nassérien en Question” is a fabrication?

                  I love how the Internet scholars cannot conceive of a world outside the Internet :P

                • That’s it’s specifically YOUR fabrication, at least to the extent of what it was meant to portray, certainly.
                  I love it how Internet scholars love to quote out of context, wouldn’t you say :D?

                • So what’s the difference?

                  “While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli”

                  He’s making a legal argument. An argument that gained little or no support outside Zionist circles.

                  The quote I gave was an admission from Begin that he knew full well that there was no impending attack. His thread bare excuse for aggression? Israel’s deterrence capacity could be eroded. You couldn’t make this up. I think you’re kind of making my point for me. Thank you.

                  Rabin was similarly clear that the Egyptian troops in the Sinai were there to deter Israeli aggression against Syria, and garner sympathy from the wider Arab world – no one in the Israeli leadership viewed them as a threat against Israel – only a threat against Israeli deterrence.

                  And your slur against the Journal of Palestine studies – given that they recently owned CiFWatch and Camera by outing their lies – you’d think they actually deserved just a smidgeon of credit.

                  If I suggested that a respected scholarly publication had to be discounted because it was Jewish, I’m sure you can imagine the rabid foaming’s we’d now be reading. Strangely, it’s OK when it’s Palestinian.

                  So, if I read between the embarrassed lines correctly, was that your apology?

                • “J of Pal. Studies” owned CifWatch and CAMERA? Where? In your lurid fantasies?
                  That’s not what I’d call an apology… more like digging yourself deeper…
                  You, of all people, with your “surfing”(the web) expertise, should know the difference :D…

                • Also, if you had bothered to read, the deterrence reference was uttered by Rabin, NOT Begin… and that was not the actual end result that worried the Israeli, because, due to your short attention span(typical of Baathist propagandists and cheerleaders), you skipped over: “…to the point where the Arabs felt free to attack…”

                • And can we also be clear that you refute Alan-”Zionism is Racism”-Hart as an authority in any matter, much less Middle East History?(He’s a prominent feature in the list you provided)…
                  Maybe Pigs do fly…

                • Furthermore, is that finally an admission that you falsified the record, regarding Herzog(Ma’ariv 1972…),
                  And that you finally revoke the validity of (Radio Islam)Lillenthal?

                • You’re squirming, so I just want to be clear – you’ve climbed down and accepted the Begin quote…yes?

                • I am going to pry it out of you yet(I can see you’re writhing under the weight of your own lies):
                  Do you accept that you irrevocably fabricated a Herzog quote from Ma’ariv, in 1972?
                  And that you, in fact, under the pretence(poor one, at that) of scholarship, cited a Radio Islam groupie(aka, Malcolm X & Co.)?

                • Now now, let’s be civil. You made a number of allegations of fabrication, so let’s tackle them one at a time. We can go through all of them, but’s let’s just go slowly.

                  First of all, the Begin quote: real or fabricated? If you’re not going to admit it’s real, there is no honesty in your discourse and you are no longer a worthy interlocutor.

                • “A worthy interlocutor”? Says the person willing to lie, and cheat, for the sake of “beating a dead horse”, literally.
                  What I can certainly acknowledge is that you reference strictly out of context; Directly underneath that purported “bombshell” of Begin’s was really all you need to look for: War WAS unavoidable. It was the question of June 4th, with X casualties for Israel, or(hypothetically speaking) July 4th, with 10X causalities; it was a defensive war; Therefore, ANY attempt to hoist Begin as some sort of “aggressor” vanishes IF you take into account the ENTIRE statement; NOT that you would do that. You’d lie to yourself, if it helped you to further bash Israel.
                  You know, Hitler, in a 1936 speech to the Reichstag also said he “wanted peace”… going by your method: “Hitler wants peace”-NYT 1936(a single sentence) should really mean that Hitler was a misunderstood soul, and DID want peace… Of course, he wasn’t & he didn’t.
                  I expect a retraction of the scurrilous, and utterly fictitious statements you made: Herzog(for example), AND that you accede that bringing Radio-Islam Lillenthal into the discussion was an act of sheer duplicity.(You would’ve done yourself far more credit, by bringing Malcolm X. He had MUCH more to say about Jews & Israel, and his scholarly ethics stand just about on par with Lillenthal-i.e. nil).
                  Until then, seriously, there’s nothing to discuss… Whereas once, I would’ve considered your views at least worthy of rebuttal, now, they’re just the rantings of (an obviously) bored, and/or obsessed anti-Semite…
                  When the next’s Stormfront Confab, to relieve you of your lethargy?

                • So even when I refute your allegations of fabrication with a link to the Israeli MFA – you still cannot bring yourself to accept, or at least articulate that you were wrong in your allegation. And you certainly cannot bring yourself to apologise.

                  As I have said before, what Israel considered grounds for war, and what the rest of the world considered grounds for war are two separate things. Erosion of deterrence capacity is not a casus belli. Denial of an unestablished right does not become a casus belli just because Israel says it’s a casus belli.

                  I was hoping to have a fun examination of the documentary record, but with someone who cannot retract a simple dishonest allegation or offer an apology, I see little point.

                • “I was hoping to have a fun examination of the documentary record, but with someone who cannot retract a simple dishonest allegation”…
                  Ditto… you really have a talent for these things, stating exactly what must be said, with regards to yourself.
                  I’ll say this, again:
                  Retract Herzog(Which you concocted without batting an eye), retract Lilienthal, and STOP quoting a single sentence, and then pretend it stands for the whole…(such idiocy is really only seen on the fringes of the anti-Semitic camp, on the lines of “He said/She said”).
                  About Rabin, it’s not the erosion of deterrence(and I KNOW you refuse to read on principle, but for MY sake(though I know you hate me :D), do TRY) but:“…to the point where the Arabs felt free to attack…”, was the necessary adduction…
                  Again we get back to the Denial of an Established right…
                  Strangely you were silent on the UK v. Albania, which had already ruled by then, on this exact case; you forget Israel’s condition for withdrawal in ’57(therefore, Nasser knew exactly what he was getting into), the removal of UN Peacekeepers, and why Nasser had done such a thing, precisely in 1967(May), with Operation Dawn in mind?
                  (And I am only referring to commercial passage, nothing military in the mix).
                  The sheer level of your arguments(What’s Casus Belli for this, what’s casus belli for that), is that of a school child…
                  Has such a contingency been tested? Has the UK(outside of WWII) blocked anyone’s passage through the Strait of Gibraltar(for example, there are others), or declared like Nasser: “Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba”(this would be Gibraltar in the case of the UK), in a blatant show of Racism, might I add?
                  The fact is, Israel WAS threatened… and the cumulative, and utterly aggressive actions by Nasser, which came, conjoined, and at a critical juncture, warranted an Israeli response.(Israel worked tirelessly to keep Jordan out of the fray-sadly, it failed).
                  Of course, since you’re a shill for Nasser, we shall soon hear Odes to the impeccable character of Nasser & Co.(al-Attasi in Syria, the UAR, FYI had split by then).
                  I hope you’ll comply with the former…(Herzog, Lilienthal)… Then, we could have something to talk about.

                • ““…to the point where the Arabs felt free to attack…”

                  You are citing Michael Oren’s interpretation of what Rabin imagined the Arabs were feeling? That’s some lame ass defence you have there. Even Oren isn’t saying here that there was going to be an attack, just that Israel’s deterrence was perceived by Israel to be decreasing to a point where they imagined the Arabs could feel like they could attack.

                  Read that back. The argument that you’re making is that Israel can start a war whenever it feels like it isn’t feared enough.

                  I don’t dispute that Israeli leaders felt justified in their aggression (as did Napoleon, Hitler, Bush and Blair), but I am illustrating that there was no fear of an imminent attack, thereby dispelling the defensive war myth. This is also born out by the declassified US diplomatic record, which shows the US and Israelis in agreement that there was no threat of attack.

                  Claims of being “on the eve of a second holocaust” or “facing annihilation” have been added very much after the fact. Their fear was of losing their deterrence, as you have outlined yourself. The war was in no way defensive, unless defending your fearsome reputation counts as defensive.

                  The quote, which you still haven’t admitted is genuine, illustrates this.

                  Accept it, then we can move on to the next allegation.

                • A. You’re comparing Israeli officials to Hitler? I think, after this, we’re pretty much done here. Not only is this the most ridiculous thing you could do(In terms of historical gravity, acuity), but it’s also the most vile, and personally offensive…
                  “You’re citing Michael Oren…”… Well I am certainly NOT citing Rashid K.’s tabloid-”J. Pal Studies”…(Where’s that explosive CAMERA/CifWatch expose, again? :O). Oren is a distinguished academic(Princeton & Columbia), and is Israel’s Ambs. to the US. He’d know a thing or two.
                  So far, we only have a single, dubious quote from you, of Rabin’s, in that obscure Le Monde piece. We don’t have the entire article article to
                  go on, where Rabin could, and would have further explained his positions.(You’re a fan of those one-liners, like I said, NYT-1936:”Hitler wants peace”).
                  Now, no word(obviously), on why Nasser(Gee, I’d’ve thought they paid enough to shill for that… Ba’ath must be low on cash), provoked Israel, by simultaneously evacuating UN Peacekeepers, and in a brush of masterful Racism, declared that “Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba”(Still nothing on UK v. Albania; And again, just to clarify, we’re talking about the peaceful passage of ships, commercial and civilian cargo, &c).
                  And again, Begin; If you had read past the sentence that ignited within you some boyish glee, you would have seen that war was inevitable . A choice sure, of NOW or LATER(with later being with far more disastrous results for Israel- therefore, perfectly justified…)
                  And about those “recently unclassified documents”? I suppose you have a direct channel to the CIA/NEA(in the US State Dept.)? Or have they been “unclassified” in your head(more likely, INMHO :D)?
                  Congratulations, you have just added another item to your list of necessary recantations:
                  Herzog(brazen lie), Lilienthal(a professional, debased, anti-Zionist, hardly a “source”)-of Radio Islam, and comparing Israeli officials to Nazis.(Even Napoleon is a stretch, certainly can’t see how Bush/Blair have anything to do with it).
                  Seems to me, that you must’ve swallowed too much water on that “surfing” excursion of yours…
                  Try not to lie, or conjure up Nazi-analogies next time; I know the Stormfront handbook calls for it, and you can’t help it, but make an effort? :D (Pretty please?)

                • You do enjoy the straw man don’t you?

                  “You’re comparing Israeli officials to Hitler?”

                  I don’t believe I did. I compared the feeling of self-justification felt by some of history’s other aggressors to that felt by Israeli officials. You also cited Hitler to make a comparison – I’m guessing it’s OK when you do it though. Shocker.

                  “Well I am certainly NOT citing Rashid K.’s tabloid-”J. Pal Studies”…”

                  Again with the slurs against a respected scholarly journal simply because it concerns itself with Palestine. Is this just vanilla racism? Or do you have anything substantial to justify your slur? I will challenge you to point to something substantive to show you’re not simply racist.

                  “(Where’s that explosive CAMERA/CifWatch expose, again? :O).”

                  If you’re genuinely interested, it’s here:

                  http://palestine-studies.org/files/correct_JPSresponds.pdf

                  Basically Camera and CiFWatch did a victory dance when they pointed out a typo in a JPS article, with Benny Morris chiming in for good measure. CiFWatch wrote:

                  “The quote in question appeared in an article Pappé wrote for the Autumn 2006 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies and in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

                  Turned out that the typo did not appear in his book at all, this was a CiFWatch/Camera fabrication. JPS published DBG’s translated letter in full, vindicating Pappe’s assertion of DBG’s sentiments. I’m not aware of a CiFWatch response and the CiFWatch article, as of today, still contains the false accusation.

                  “Oren is a distinguished academic(Princeton & Columbia), and is Israel’s Ambs. to the US. He’d know a thing or two.”

                  And as someone whose job it is to represent Israel’s interests, presumably you will claim he is entirely unbiased? Respected scholarly journal? Biased! Israel’s ambassador to the US? Totally fine! lol

                • And just for clarity – your citation of Oren’s interpretation of what Rabin imagined Arab leaders were feeling is still one of the worst justifications for a war I’ve seen. And I’ve seen some humdingers!

                  Now, for accuracy, I must offer an apology as I mistakenly gave you the wrong title of the article for the Rabin quote. The correct title was “Le général Rabin ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre”.

                  Yesterday I asked Professor John Quigley to assist in confirming the veracity of the quote. He was happy to oblige. He has cited the article previously, and has confirmed with the article’s author that the quotation is authentic. The relevant section of his response, for completeness:

                  “The article starts at p. 1 and continues to p. 4. In my book “The Case for Palestine,” I cited it at p. 4. In a new book I am writing (The Six-Day War and Israeli Self-Defense), I am citing it at p. 1. The author is Eric Rouleau, and the title: Le général Rabin ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre, Le Monde, February 29, 1968, at 1.

                  In my new book, I cite an e-mail message I got from Rouleau last year in which he confirms the accuracy of the Rabin quote.”

                  So we can now put the first two allegations of fabrication to bed. Should we wait for a retraction and apology? Or just move on? I’m guessing the latter….?

                • You know, I must thank you… you do my work for me:
                  Let’s tackle your JPS source… And boy-oh-boy, what a pleasurable read it makes:
                  Firstly, CAMERA sent this:

                  “CAMERA informed JPS editors that the quote[in question] could not be found in Pappé’s footnoted source.“.

                  This is a major problem. Imagine a “peer-reviewed” journal where such errors take place…
                  And the response from Khalidi’s tabloid? A grovelling apology(one you’re adapt at):
                  “According to the letter we received from CAMERA, “the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion does not appear in the citation provided.” Verification by JPS revealed that this indeed is the case…”
                  No typos. Nothing. A false citation was introduced by Pappe… GRAVE misconduct for a “researcher”…
                  Then, the typo:
                  From JPS’ own words:
                  “In checking the passage as printed in JPS against the correspond-
                  ing passage in Pappé’s hardcover edition, however, we discovered a yet more serious error in the JPS text…”
                  …(Humm… why am I not surprised?)
                  What ensued? The JPS admitted that the latter interpretation of the text was Pappe’s own paraphrasing… In other words, NEVER UTTER BY DBG himself..

                  “Thus, the corrected punctuation in the latter version distinguishes
                  between Ben-Gurion’s own words and Pappé’s paraphrasean essential distinction that does not exist in the JPS article…”

                  In the end, JPS even thanked CAMERA for their efforts… Genuflection if there was one…
                  Next about the letter itself, CAMERA did respond, not that you would care:http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2219
                  Look at the original Hebrew:
                  We do not want to and we do not have to expel Arabs and take their place… In other words, JPS knowingly lied, and mistranslated…
                  Final sentence:

                  “In short, the scholars mentioned by JPS have all endorsed, or otherwise rely on those who endorse, the complete version of the quote. (We could not find a reference to the quote by Michael Bar-Zohar.)
                  (4/18 Update: After this article was published, Bar-Zohar let CAMERA know that “There is no doubt in my mind that Ben-Gurion never wrote the sentence: ‘We must expel the Arabs and take their place.’) ”

                  And you ask why I distrust Khalidi’s tabloid… Incidents like this come to prominence.
                  If this your version of “thrashing CifWatch/CAMERA”… May all thrashing be like this!
                  Now, let’s get back to Rabin… I’ve once again searched for:
                  “Le général Rabin ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre”…(How good of you, however, to apologize).

                  https://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Le+g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral+Rabin+ne+pense+pas+que+Nasser+voulait+la+guerre&btnG=

                  Here, do it yourself…
                  What sort of sources come up? “Palestinet”… Uh-huh… Nothing unbiased there… surely. Not A SINGLE, neutral, or otherwise reputable publication carries them.
                  As for you, contacting Quigley… I don’t know what’s sadder, that you think one would actually believe that, or that you seriously do?
                  It’s also strange(although possible), that Quigley didn’t feel it necessary to include your relish of “starts at page 1. continues on page 4.” in his original work(a shoddy one to be sure):

                  Still, no reputable origin for that quote.(I hope you would contact Le Monde itself, and ask for a copy).
                  And finally we come to Oren, your most hated individual(I blame jealously… but it’s probably your general manifestation of anti-Semitism, rearing its ugly head again)…
                  All his books, scholarly works, were written before he had ever set foot in Israel’s foreign ministry… So your argument that he represented Israel’s interests even BEFORE he had ever worked for it, falls apart at first sight.
                  Still… That quasi-retraction of yours, was not enough…
                  Where’s the due apology for Herzog, comparing Israel officials to Hitler(and no matter how you may spin this around, this is what you do/ have done)?. I compared no one to Hitler… just the idiocy of your arguments, by taking ONE sentence, and making it stand for the whole volume of one’s convictions.
                  What about, then, Lilienthal, a notorious bigot, promoted by Radio Islam?
                  And again, Herzog?
                  And where ARE those “recently declassified documents”? :D
                  Probably where JPS’ dignity rests, after that kowtowing to CAMERA, in “a galaxy, far, far away” :D

                • I have more bad news.

                  I’ve just been reading about a case of scholarly misconduct followed by a retraction at Ben Gurion University.

                  Now although I think BGU is a pretty good institution, using the guidelines you’ve laid out, we have to discount everything you say.

                  If you relocate to a better institution, we will be able to listen to you again.

                • You see, this, here, is what we in the business call an abject, complete, unmitigated prostration.
                  You have been soundly beaten, and now, all you can mewl about “[having] read about scholarly misconduct”…
                  Let me help you with that: you read absolutely nothing(I am not convinced, still, that YOU EVEN can read).
                  Just like your phony “conversation” with Quigley, so goes this story about BGU… You are a shameless, cowardly liar(typical of anti-Zionists/anti-Semites).
                  I have addressed you, without my professional capacity; I only mentioned it to exemplify Gordon and his sub-academic credentials.
                  I have my fair share of criticism against BGU – Gordon is an integral part of it. It is however, a respectable institution, unlike your lauded Rashid K.’s Feuilleton… Seriously, “NotW”(“News of the World”) carried more veritable news than Rashid-”Whoops, there goes the citation, let’s mistranslate and purposefully prevaricate”-Khalidi.
                  But we’re not done here, not a by a long shot:
                  Where’s your “mea culpa” for Herzog?
                  For ever mentioning that cretin Lilienthal?
                  What about comparing Israelis to Nazis?
                  Repent now, so that your soul may still be saved!
                  As for switching to a different University… Has Mossad chased you back to “Cambridge” yet?(Now, honestly, couldn’t you have come up with something A BIT more cogent? Like some third-rate diploma mill?, Did you actually think someone would buy that? From a meaningless troll? :D)

                • Thanks for proving what I posted, Nazi.
                  The links for Rabin, what he calls “scholarly citations”, refers to Palestian, anti-Semiic or right-extremist sites, one to a “Palestinian Studies”. The usaual cabale of forgers, not to forget the anti-Zionistis like McMahon, of course.
                  But nowhere a direct link to the quote at a serious site. We see the Nazi find his sources in anti-Semitism, Right Extremism and Palestinian forgeries.

                  I recommend the fantastic books by Laqueur about this subject:
                  “The Road to Jerusalem; The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”
                  “The Road to War, 1967 : the Origins of the Arab-Israel Conflict”

                  By the way, during those days of decisions in the Israeli cabinet of 1967 Rabin was sick. He didn`take part in the discussions and decisions. The cabinet considered the closure of the Straits as the casus belli. Begin was kept informed by the cabinet, but had neither the informations nor was part of the decision taking.

                  I recommend to do something with the postinsg of these forgers Avi/Avram and Nat/Ben.
                  Maybe giving a subtext to their postings like: Warning, caught liars or caught forgers.

                • Correction to Begin:
                  Eshkol formed a National Unity Government, under heavy pressure, including Rafi and Herut, so Begin took part in the discussions of the enlarged government.

            • As usual Avram/Dubi/Laughton is using fabricated quotes, he took them from here.

              On the Israelforum site a poster called David (no last name) gave the same list with the same quotes. When asked how he came across this collection of 30-40 years old newspaper columns whose contents would have been absolute explosive at their time he simply disappeared from the discussion. But this is Dubi well known modus operandi. He used falsified Ben Gurion quotes on an other thread on Cifwatch he went away with tail between his legs.

              • Thanks for that, Peter.
                I have already started debunking his so-called “evidence”, piece by piece, and after Tisha B’Av, I even had plans to contact the Ha’aretz and Ma’ariv archives directly, to get a copy of those printed editions;
                But, since he’s among the most callous of liars, I don’t suppose that it’ll matter much, once he’s exposed.

                • You don’t have to bother Fritz. Dubi like other trolls’ goal is to throw in some lies forcing us to verify quotes not available on the web only in archives or libraries causing a lot of work and expenses. He is a worthy descendant of the authors of the Protocols and similar falsifications.

                • Oh, certainly Peter, I couldn’t agree more…
                  Though I must say, I am not Fritz. Fritz has been doing a terrific job identifying those brazen anti-Semites himself, but these ones are mine, and I think we should give credit, where credit is due… :D

                • Yes, you did.
                  I posted that these are forgeries out of my experience with such quotations, especially when listed without reference, since ten years.
                  They often lead to Palestiniain sites with no evidence and are spread by “antizonistic sites of western NGOs. Partly they are also cited at Wikipedia.

                  It is just the continuation of the antisemitic forgeries before WW2.

                • Well, Fritz, we couldn’t have done it without…
                  So thanks for all your help again, and like I told Peter, you’ve done sterling work in debunking the allegations of these fellows, above. :D
                  Thanks again!

                • There should be a fund for editing a well researched reader about the most popular forgeries against Israel.
                  These forgeries are spread throughout the world. I know them from German and Austrian websites and realize now that they are also common at British and American sites.

      • Not only did many Palestinians break a sweat, they died or were permanently injured, including children, by the Israeli army.

  7. I sense that after single-handedly destroying the Guardian (lol) CiFWatch is setting its sights on the next colossus of Islamist hegemony – AccuWeather.

    I await the rebrand to AccuWeatherWatch with much mirth.

  8. The essence of this post: “we occupied the land, we built on it, fuck you. Oh – and let’s gloat at the Palestinians’ economic woes for good measure.”

    it has been Israeli tax payers, not the European Union and not the United States, who have largely financed the flowering of Modi’in

    What – you want a medal for that?

    All in all a really mean-spirited piece.

  9. For all the posters above(Sencar, Avram, our usual suspects, and sadly Pretzel, who has joined the parade as well), who are geographically challenged:
    Modi’in is NOT a settlement. It is located in Israel proper(and I believe the author referred to Modi’in Illit in his article, not Modi’in per se(different cities altogether)).
    (You can look it up on Google Maps, for God’s sake).
    Re’ut & Maccabim were constructed in the DMZ(See around the “Latrun Salient”; that wedge of segregated land ‘twixt the West Bank and Israel), which according to the 1949 Armistice agreements WAS to be part of Israel, but the Jordanians made it, before 1967 untenable, just like the Syrians did, around the Sea of Galilee.
    Neither Modi’in, nor Macabim, nor Re’ut are settlements. All are in Israel proper.
    See for yourselves.

    • I was referring to this bit of the article: “Parts of Maccabeam and Reut, which were joined to the Modiin municipality several years ago, are over the Green Line” … plus, erm, wasn’t there a map included earlier on, featuring the settlements east of the Green Line that the author is claiming as part of future Israel?

      • Uhm, yes, like I said: “Modi’in Illit” is beyond the Green Line(But within the so-called “settlement blocks”.
        Modi’in-proper, Maccabim, Re’ut are within Israel, and hence faultless.
        You can see now that the article has been amended, to reflect that.

    • Modi’in is in Israel.

      Modi’in is an illegal settlement built in the Palestinian territory in violation of international law.

      Israelis living in Modi’in often shun settlers living in Modi’in Illit because of this. The former are Israeli citizens living in Israel, the latter are settlers.

      • “Ben”/ “Nat” chap, we’ve been over this:
        If you’re going to lie, at least make up a theoretically plausible story.
        Now then, tell us though “Ben”, how do decide when to unfurl either “Nat”, or “Ben”?
        Does it depend on your mood? What you had for breakfast? The drugs you ingested?
        Such cognitive dissonance, all packed into one, imbecilic troll…

    • Sanity – (this is getting tiresome, repeating the same old thing on thread after thread). This is Adam Levick’s blog. He can publish anything he damn well likes. He certainly doesn’t need YOUR permission.

      • You’ve said it: this is Adam Levick’s personal blog, not a news media. So please leave serious journalists alone, they have work to do and no time to write a blog filled with their fantasies.

        • Then why don`t you leave this blog alone? Or are you suffering from a certain obsession?

Comments are closed.