I AM A JEW (PART XV - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal)

As the title shows this is the 15th part (actually the 16^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII and Part XIV.

In this segment I find it necessary to re-produce the assertions for the apologists for Israeli expansionist and oppressive policies and to insert the rebuttal after each assertion. I will show the assertions in brown and my response in black type.

The first is entitled: “Israel’s Borders," followed by a sub-heading: “Are they "legitimate"? Should they be changed?” and then the following introduction:

Many in the Arab world insist that the State of Israel is "illegitimate" and that, in order to be considered for "recognition," it must, at the very least, "adjust" its borders. In order to justify that insistent demand, Arab propaganda has created many myths. By dint of constant repetition, some of these myths have come to be accepted as reality.

It is difficult to respond to this because it is not clear, at least from this paragraph, what borders the author is talking about.

So I will pass on to the next part:

What are some of these myths and what are the facts? 

Myth: The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 changed border arrangements that had existed for centuries. 

Fact: The borders in the Middle East were drawn arbitrarily after World War I by Britain and France. In the spoils, Britain got Iraq and Palestine. In 1922, contrary to the Balfour Declaration and to its Mandate from the League of Nations, Britain gave the area east of the Jordan River (77% of Palestine) to the Hashemite tribes.

I will not respond to this because it is a straw man. I know of no source that asserts or believes, “The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 changed border arrangements that had existed for centuries.”

Myth: Israel has been expansionist since its establishment. 

Fact: In 1974, Israel returned to Syria territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 defensive wars. In exchange for a peace treaty, Israel returned the vast Sinai area in Egypt, with flourishing cities, strategic installations, and economic assets. Thus Israel proved conclusively that peace and security -- not extra land — are its top priorities.

Here I assert that the so-called myth, that “Israel has been expansionist since its establishment” is irrefutable. According to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947 “called for the partition of the British–ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state.” And it shows the following map.

Even this partition was objected to by many in the US State Department on the grounds that:

the partition plan, adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. (is) Patently unfair (for), it awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

I, personally think this was the wrong analysis because the land to be given to the new State of Israel was not just for the inhabitants then there residing, but for the expected influx of refugees who were expected to, and did arrive from places where Jews had recently been displaced and places were they continued to face oppression such as Russia.

But to say that the Israel has not been expansionist is to fly in the face of the facts as can be seen from any map. But the claim that Israel has not been expansionist is also repeated by the Jewish Virtual Library, which also describes this as a myth and then sets forth a list of examples showing that Israel has as part of various peace treaties relinquished some territory that it occupied as a result of military conquest.

This is undoubtedly true. Israel has at times withdrawn from previously captured territory, but it is irrelevant to the question. To be expansionist does not mean that a state has to hold onto every inch of territory that it has captured. It simply means that it has expanded, beyond the territory given to it by the UN resolution of 1948, which is the only territory to which it has de jure title.

Reverting now to the Jewish Virtual Library it sets forth a map of Israel as it is now constituted, using it to argue that Israel’s security requires it to further expand. But that is a way of justifying expansion. It does not show either that it has not expanded, or that it does not intent to expand. In fact in arguing for the justification for expansion for security reasons, it admits that ambition.

But beyond that, and If we focus on the issue as stated, is Israel an expansionist state, the answer is obvious from a simply comparison of the map showing the territory that Israel occupies under the so-called 1967 armistice line, or green line, (See the map below) and the land that was granted to Israel by the UN. (See the map below that) Though the Jewish Virtual Library (Ibid) argues that the new 1967 armistice line are not defensible, it is impossible to argue that they do not encompass a territory larger than that granted to Israel by the 1948 UN resolution.

But we need not rely on a comparison of maps. If we look at another web site that argues that the borders that the UN created were indefensible, we find that the original state created and sanctioned by the UN had an area of “5,500 square miles”.

But after the 1948 war according to a pro-Israel article in the Seattle Times, Israel’s territory encompassed 8,000 square miles, an increase 2,500 square miles or almost a 50% increase. But Israel has not been content with this huge increase in its territory. It covets the rest of the West Bank as can be seen from the settlement activity shown on the map below,

An even better map showing the extent of the settlements can be found here, where an article in the Wall Street Journal argues that the settlements require the annexation of most, if not all of the West Bank.

If these are not the acts of an expansionist state it is difficult to imagine what would be. It is difficult to imagine that Israel’s territorial ambitions extend beyond that.

All this is attempted to be justified on the ground that Israel’s 1948 borders were not defensible. That indeed the Armistice or Green line is not defensible. And so Israel has to keep expanding until it reaches a defensible line. It is becoming apparent that this line is the Jordan River, or the complete annexation of the West Bank.

The fear is that if this were to happen as expressed by the US President, the Secretary of State and indeed former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, who according to CNN said as long ago as 2010:

As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.

This fear was also expressed by US Secretary of State John Kerry in February of 2014 as reported by Fox News and I quote:

The U.S. secretary of state himself has started warning Israel that it stands to become a binational state unless it ends the occupation of the lands it captured in the 1967 war. Kerry, who is expected to present a framework for a deal soon, said last month that failure "will make it impossible to preserve (Israel's) future as a democratic Jewish state."

But many discount this danger, as for example, an article in the Boston Globe of June 26, 2013 explains:

In the 1960s, when the fertility rate for Israeli Arabs (9.2 births per woman) soared far above that of Israeli Jews (3.4 births per woman), that demographic challenge certainly seemed plausible. Yasser Arafat liked to say that the ultimate weapon in his arsenal against the Jewish state was “the womb of the Arab woman.” The Palestinian Authority has always understood the propaganda value of population data. As the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics began its first census in the West Bank and Gaza in 1997, the bureau’s director, Hassan Abu Libdeh, assured The New York Times that the results would amount to nothing less than “a civil intifada.” In 2005, the bureau predicted that Jews would be a minority in “historic Palestine” (i.e., west of the Jordan River) by 2010. Now it says the tipping point will come by 2020.

 Don’t count on it.

 Arafat’s boast notwithstanding, Palestinian women, like women throughout the Muslim world, are bearing far fewer children than they used to. Within Israel proper, the birth rate among Muslims has trended steadily downward and stands now at 3.5 children per woman. It is even lower for Palestinians in the West Bank — just 2.91, according to the CIA Factbook. In a 2012 survey by the Population Reference Bureau of family planning attitudes in the Arab world, 72 percent of married Palestinian women (ages 15 through 49) said they preferred to avoid a pregnancy. That was typical of the modern Middle East: The same survey showed most Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians felt the same way.

 But while Palestinian birth rates have dramatically declined, Jewish birth rates in Israel have been heading up. Israel now has the highest fertility level of any modern industrialized nation. The fertility gap between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, a yawning 5.8 in the 1960s, is just 0.5 today. Defying longstanding conventional wisdom, writes former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, it is Israel’s Jewish population that is undergoing a remarkable surge, rising from about 80,000 births per year in 1995 to 130,000 in 2012. (The annual number of Israeli Arab births has held steady at between 35,000 and 40,000). “Anyone suggesting that Jews are doomed to become a minority west of the Jordan River is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading,” Ettinger argues.

But whoever is right on the demographics, the very discussion of the question clearly shows Israel’s designs on all of the West Bank, or to put it another way on all of Palestine.

If this is not the ambition of an expansionist state, it is difficult to imagine what one is, or can be.

I will continue this discussion in my next post.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XIV - The Israeli Propaganda Machine v. The Alleged Power of the Arab Lobby)

As the title shows this is the 14th part (actually the 15^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII and Part XIII.

In response to my post: "I AM A JEW (PART XI - The Israeli Propaganda Machine)," Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia, wrote:

I suggest that you read the articles entitled: “The Arab Lobby – The American Component”, by Mitchell Bard and "The Arab Lobby: The European Component" by Steven J. Rosen as counterbalance to your current campaign against the "Israeli propaganda machine."

I urge my readers to also do so, because one should always be willing to expose oneself to a counterbalance of any viewpoint. But as for me I find myself singularly unimpressed by the presentation set forth in these articles.

Of course all depends on the definition of a “lobby." Webster’s Dictionary on line defines lobby (noun) as “a group of persons engaged in lobbying especially as representatives of a particular interest group” and lobby (verb) “to try to influence government officials to make decisions for or against something” and “to try to get something you want by talking to the people who make decisions”

I agree with that definition and by that definition the article “The Arab Lobby – The American Component” fails to support its claim.

As early as the fourth paragraph of the article the author writes:

Thus, while Louis Brandeis may have lobbied Woodrow Wilson for U.S. support for the Balfour declaration, the president's closest advisor, "Colonel" Edward House, vigorously opposed it. Harry Truman's friend Eddie Jacobson asked for the president's support for Israel but his secretary of state, George Marshall, threatened to vote against Truman if he recognized the newly established state.

Thus the author almost immediately reveals a misunderstanding, or worse a deliberate distortion, of what a lobby is and what lobbying constitutes. Let us look at the definition of a lobby, “a group of persons engaged in lobbying” and the definition of lobby (verb) is ““to try to influence government officials”.

But when we look at the paragraph quoted above we see that the author is not talking about outsiders trying to influence government officials, he is talking about government officials exercising their duties to advise the President as to what they believe is in the interests of the US. That is their duty! That is their responsibility! The fact that they believed that certain policies were in the best interests of the US, which favored one country or another, or one policy over another, does not make their behavior lobbying, or turn public officials into lobbyists. George Marshall, as Secretary of State felt strongly about what was in the best interests of the US, and expressed it in no uncertain terms.

It was Truman who was politically conscious when he said, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs as well as Information Clearing House:

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.

I personally think Truman made the right decision, but to denigrate the many in the State Department who felt that in International Affairs, certain policies, which Bard disapproves of, were both in the interests of the US and fairer than the alternative, is a blatant distortion.

Allow me to quote further from the Washington Report:

 Forty-four years after these events, [Clark] Clifford, Truman's principal domestic advisor, has produced his memoir…

The article goes on to quote Clifford as follows: 

Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state; I did not. Marshall's opposition was shared by almost every member of the brilliant and now legendary group of presidential advisers, later referred to as the Wise Men, who were then in the process of creating a post-war foreign policy that would endure for more than 40 years. The opposition included the respected Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett; his predecessor, Dean Acheson; the No. 3 man in the State Department, Charles Bohlen; the brilliant chief of the Policy Planning Staff George Kennan; (Navy Secretary James V.) Forrestal; and ... Dean Rusk, then the director of the Office of United Nations Affairs... 

To call these dedicated public servants lobbyists is the height of Chutzpa.

There were many reasons for their views. There were far more Arabs in the world than Jews. But at least as important they felt that the partition was imminently unfair for it: 

awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

If there was any lobbying at the time (or since) it was by the “Jewish” lobby. Quoting again from the Washington Report:

"Lovett began by criticizing what he termed signs of growing 'assertiveness' by the Jewish Agency ... Marshall interrupted Lovett. He was strongly opposed to the behavior of the Jewish Agency, he said.

And where does the article go from trying to label public servants and even the Secretary of State lobbyists, It argues that American foreign policy has unwisely catered to the Saudis. This may or may not be sound policy, but it is difficult to see what it has to do with an Arab lobby.

The author writes:

Arab states have benefited in the United States from the support of oil companies, defense contractors, and, perhaps most of all, from Arabists within the State Department.

Oil companies and defense contractors pursue their own interests – if that interest happens to coincide with those of certain countries, that does not make them a lobby for them. As for so-called Arabists in the State Department, they are doing their job, and work for what they believe to be in the best interest of their country, the USA. They are public officials, not lobbyists.

The rest of the article is essentially a polemic criticizing American foreign policy in the Middle East, but this has little if anything to do with proving the existence of an Arab lobby in the United States.

But the author, possibly inadvertently, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no Arab lobby in the US, and in fact why it is impossible for one to exist, when he writes:

… limiting …their influence are the divisions among Arabs and Muslims, which carry over to their expatriates and their descendants in the United States. According to the 2000 U.S. census, 1.2 million Americans were of Arab descent. Unlike the Israel lobby, which can stand up for the strengthening of America's relationship with a single nation, it is difficult, if not impossible for Arab Americans to represent all Arabs because Americans of Arab descent come from no fewer than twenty-one countries with conflicting interests and which are often feuding among themselves. As Jawad George, the executive secretary of the Palestine Congress of North America said, "The same things that divide the Arab world divide the Arab-American world.”

The author goes on to undermine his own argument by admitting that:

Over the last two decades, …(they) have had no discernible impact on policy.

Now when we come to Rosen’s article, we find that he defeats his argument about an effective Arab lobby in relation to US policy toward Israel at the outset, for he writes about: “A Petrodollar Lobby” but then says:

Yet it is difficult to see significant evidence of the impact of the petrodollar lobby in the Arab-Israeli sphere or any major effort on their part to interfere in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel.

Having found no effective Arab lobby anywhere, he like Bard, tries to turn government officials into lobbyists, in this case European ones.

The strongest external force pressuring the U.S. government to distance itself from Israel is not the Arab-American organizations, the Arab embassies, the oil companies, or the petrodollar lobby. Rather, it is the Europeans, especially the British, French, and Germans, that are the most influential Arab lobby to the U.S. government.

But governments are not lobbyists. Governmental officials argue for the policies they believe are in the best interests of their countries. By no stretch of the imagination will the argument that public servants are lobbyists stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XIII - The Death of Klinghoffer & The Israeli Propaganda Machine)

As the title shows this is the 13th part (actually the 14^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI and Part XII.

I have chosen to continue to address the Klinghoffer controversy because it so well illustrates the Israeli propaganda machine.

As I illustrated in my last post this is an invented controversy that exploits the children of the slain Klinghoffer, who would have issued a statement when they first saw the opera in 1991 if they had found it offensive. They issue it now because they have been asked to. The propaganda machine has decided to go into action now, because following Gaza, there is increasing outrage, with the British Parliament (House of Commons) voting 274-12 in favor of a motion for UK recognition of a Palestinian state, and Sweden announcing that it will recognize a Palestinian state.

But it isn’t only the demonstrators; the politicians jump on the bandwagon. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Gov. George Pataki and two U.S. congressmen are among hundreds expected outside the Metropolitan Opera. Did any of them see the opera or is it politically expedient to be there?

Interestingly enough the “The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group, said the play (Opera) is not anti-Semitic …”  

And this is what the editor of The Jewish Week had to say about it: 

Well, I saw it.

 And I’m not sure which was more of a letdown, the hubbub over the show or the show itself.

 Let’s start with the critics and protesters, since they are responsible ultimately for turning the show into the most buzzed about cultural happening in New York (at least since the close of the Jeff Koons retrospective on Sunday at the Whitney Museum).

 By the time I settled into my seat on Monday night — after months of cries of “anti-Semitism” and “glorification/humanization of terrorists” filling my email box — I was expecting Shylock meets “Natural Born Killers.”

 Not even close. Whatever the original intentions of composer John Adams and librettist Alice Goodman when they created the opera about 25 years ago, the latest production casts the killers as not particularly likable, violent thugs and puts Leon Klinghoffer at the moral center. So much so that the show’s effort to provide a measure of absolution for the terrorists near the end comes off as contrived and heavy handed, and is immediately trumped by the final monologue from Klinghoffer’s wife, Marilyn….

 But after actually seeing the production, this seems wrong-headed: Compared to the anti-Semitic fare widely available on the Internet and Arabic television, this show could pass as an anti-terrorism public service announcement.

But while these distractions from what Israel is doing are being orchestrated in New York, the International community is increasingly concerned about continuing, and even increasing building activity on the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

As I have stated above the UK and Sweden have started to react.

Haaretz reports here and here:

The EU’s ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, is set to relay the message to Israel…

The two-page document defines several of the EU’s “red lines” regarding Israeli actions in the West Bank:

 1. Construction in the Givat Hamatos neighborhood, beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem: The document said that construction in that area would jeopardize the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. The EU “cautions the Israeli government not to move ahead with tenders and construction. Such a development would constitute one more grave “fact on the ground” which would be liable to crucially prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations,” the document reads.

 2. Construction in the E1 area between Ma’aleh Adumim and Jerusalem: The document said construction in that area would also jeopardize the possibility of contiguous Palestinian state, and added that it has already publicly and strongly opposed plans for E1’s development.

 3. Further construction in the Har Homa neighborhood in Jerusalem, beyond the Green Line.

 4. Israeli plans to relocate 12,000 Bedouin without their consent in a new town in the Jordan Valley, expelling them from lands in the West Bank, including E1: “The EU strongly urges Israel to put these plans on hold and search for other solutions together with the concerned populations and the Palestinian Authority. The EU underlines that implementing those plans may amount to a serious breach of International Humanitarian Law (IV Geneva Convention),” the document reads.

In the meantime Economy Minister Naftali Bennett told Army Radio that:

...more housing for Jews in the predominantly Arab eastern half of the city as well as a more forceful response from police and security services is the formula for neutralizing the unrest.

 “It’s quite acceptable to think that what motivates our enemies is despair,” he said. “On the contrary, they are driven by the hope and aspiration to evict us from here. And they think that if they commit more terrorist atrocities then we will throw our hands up in despair and flee.”

 “What we need to do is to say, ‘We are staying here, we’re building in our capital,’ and I call on the prime minister to expedite the approval of construction permits,” Bennett said. “Without sovereignty, there can be no security. There’s no need to wait for a terrorist attack in order to put down the iron fist, and we have the means to do so.”

But what is the true nature of Jerusalem? What constitutes Jerusalem?

Jerusalem Online helps us to understand. Israel’s definition of Jerusalem is invented. As the article explains:

Forty-seven years ago… a decision was made that would dubiously be accepted quietly today: to annex the Arab areas of the city that were under Jordanian sovereignty, and several villages nearby along with it… From 6 square miles it has become a city of 70 square miles... since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty have a special status of residents without full citizenship. (Emphasis added)

And even while the Israeli government’s Economics minister talks about more oppression, more confiscation, Gazans can‘t even get drinking water.

From the Times of Israel:

There is a serious humanitarian crisis in Gaza and water is at its center. Holding water issues hostage to the conflict will have dire consequences for Palestinians in Gaza, Israelis and Egyptians. Directly due to the hostilities, an estimated 1.2 million Palestinians in Gaza have no running water. There exists insufficient electricity in Gaza to treat or pump out sewage. This will no doubt result in even higher than present levels of drinking water contamination that risk the outbreak of pandemic disease, such as cholera and typhoid. The health risk is compounded by the present inability to even chlorinate drinking water

 This situation requires an urgent response if the outbreak of pandemic disease is to be avoided. Pandemics risk Palestinian, Israeli and Egyptian populations.

And what’s ahead! More building on Arab land; more confiscation of Arab land; more oppression.

And an unending attempt to distract Americans of all faiths and creeds and political orientations from the crimes being committed by the Israeli government, by having a fabricated controversy over an Opera that will be seen by less than 28,000 people, if its seven performances are sold out to include standing room.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XII - The Death of Klinghoffer)

As the title shows this is the 11th part (actually the 12^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," "I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)," "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)," "I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)", "I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud)" ,"I AM A JEW (PART IX- The Palestinian Diaspora & The Right of Return)", "I AM A JEW (PART X - The Abject Poverty of the Palestinians)" and "I AM A JEW (PART XI) The Israeli Propaganda Machine."

In my last post I said: “I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.”

However, I cannot resist publishing a comment from Bruce Weintraub
who exclaimed: 

“You are the greatest.  You should be the President.”

On October 20, 2014 the opera “The Death of Klinghoffer“ opened at the Metropolitan Opera in Mew York City. It was met by picketing following a barrage of criticism that preceded its opening.

The Met synopsis shows little that one can find objectionable. I wonder how many of the picketers have seen the opera, or have much, if any, knowledge of its story line. The opera’s premiere was in 1991 in Brussels, Belgium and its American and New York premiere was at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. None of these earlier renditions drew protests or were controversial. It is difficult to understand why it has become so controversial now, 23 years after its premiere. 

The children of the murdered Klinghoffer have issued a statement of condemnation now, even though they saw it at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. Why not then? Why now? One cannot help but wonder! Have they been asked to do this by the propaganda organizations referred to in my last post “I AM A JEW (PART XI - The Israeli Propaganda Machine)” to distract attention from the wanton murder of thousands of Gazan Palestinians.

That is not to minimize, or worse, to justify the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. Murder is murder and it can’t be justified. But I come back to my question what about the murder of thousands of Gazans.

Does the comment attributed to Joseph Stalin “A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic” apply? Or is it that Jewish lives have so much more value than Palestinian ones.

Since Israel was founded there have been many massacres. Some I have referred to. Others I have not. There were just too many.  I have written extensively about Deir Yassin in my posts I AM A Jew (Part II) and I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud) but there were so many more. Many, many, by the Palestinians with their roadside bombs and other means. But these have all been well publicized. The Israeli ones not so well.

Wikipedia covers both very well under the title “Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war." 

I quote from the article:

Yishuv (or later Israeli) soldiers killed roughly 800 Arab civilians and prisoners of war. Most of these killings occurred as villages were overrun and captured during the Second phase of the Civil War, Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav.

… the "worst cases" were the Saliha massacre with 60 to 70 killed, the Deir Yassin massacre with around 100, Lydda massacre with around 250 and the Abu Shusha massacre with 60-70. In Al-Dawayima, accounts of the death toll vary. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports 100-200 casualties^] Morris has estimated "hundreds" and also reports the IDF investigation which concluded 100 villagers had been killed David Ben-Gurion gave the figure of 70-80. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports the village's mukhtar account that 455 people were missing following the al-Dawayima massacre, including 170 women and children.

Did it end in 1948? Are my readers aware of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, in which between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites were murdered in cold blood? See here. 

No Israelis were directly responsible, but:

In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. The commission deemed Israel indirectly responsible, and Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge", forcing him to resign. (Ibid)

One might have thought that this was the end of Sharon’s political career, but on “February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister." See here. 

But all this is just statistics, as Stalin might have said.

How about the murder of an individual? Does the name Folke Bernadotte ring a bell? I quote from the Jewish Virtual Library:

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.

Bernadotte, a Swede with family ties to the Swedish King, gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. Bernadotte used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler and saved thousands of Jews from concentration camps, although many argue that he could have done more had he been less cautious in negotiations.

Well, the reader might say, there are always rogue elements, who do outrageous things but surely Israel and its leaders can’t be held responsible.

Allow me to quote the last paragraph from the last paragraph from the Jewish Virtual Library post:

Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and years later was elected as Israel's eighth Prime Minister.

Israeli propaganda has made much of Hamas hiding weapons in Houses of Worship and in schools etc.

Again allow me to quote from Haaretz: See here or here.

Can you believe it? Groups hiding arms in places of worship, schools, even kindergartens. Welcome to pre-state Israel, where comparisons with Gaza are not welcome.

… the British, who were the rulers of the land, prohibited the possession of weapons. They were therefore concealed in a hiding place under the foundations of the first public building. In that building was a grocery, a clinic and a kindergarten. The entrance to the secret weapons storage was underneath the kindergarten toilet.

…The British, by the way, searched Rishpon and found nothing. They did not consider the possibility of blowing up the kindergarten because it might be used to store weapons.

…There was no Jewish settlement in the country that did not have a “slik” – as these storage sites were known – all in the heart of “civilian population concentrations,” of course. At Ein Ganim there was a slik in a synagogue… 

…Schools served as training installations, even as weapons production workshops.

But all we hear is the Palestinians this, the Palestinians that and the slogan "Israel Has the Right to Defend itself."

But maybe, just maybe, it is time for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.