web analytics
September 18, 2014 / 23 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Apartment 758x530 Africa-Israel at the Israel Real Estate Exhibition in New York

Africa Israel Residences, part of the Africa Israel Investments Group led by international businessman Lev Leviev, will present 7 leading projects on the The Israel Real Estate Exhibition in New York on Sep 14-15, 2014.



Home » InDepth » Monitor »

Unarmed Debaters


Fencing-031612

Recently, the Monitor caught a debate between a man from a Muslim advocacy organization and a fairly prominent Jewish communal figure. The subject was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the argument was a rout: the man from the Muslim group won without expending much effort.

He won because he spelled out his positions in articulate, methodical fashion, while his pro-Israel opponent was defensive and shockingly short on facts.

The program was only one instance of a disturbingly common phenomenon: inexplicably passive pro-Israel debaters coming off second best in a public forum. And it’s not as if the facts backing Israel aren’t accessible on countless websites and in books such as Mitchell G. Bard’s comprehensive Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israel Conflict (the entire text of which can be found online at www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org).

Here is how Bard, in a few cogent paragraphs, dispatches the myth that “Palestine was always an Arab country”:

No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time…. ”

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented!…. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said, “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria” and that, “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.”

A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, [said]: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”

A little research – on the Internet or at a good public library – will yield a rich harvest of facts and quotes buttressing Israel’s case and highlighting Palestinian dishonesty and double talk.

From a 1972 interview of Yasir Arafat by the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, here is all one needs to know about the shifting nature of Palestinian claims: Fallaci: But what does Palestine mean…. The Turks were here, before the British Mandate and Israel. So what are the geographical borders of Palestine?

Arafat :…. From an Arab point of view, one doesn’t speak of borders; Palestine is a small dot in the great Arabic ocean. And our nation is the Arab one, it is a nation extending from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and beyond….

Later in the interview Arafat reiterated, “I repeat that borders have no importance. Arab unity is important, that’s all.”

And then there are all the statements by Palestinian leaders, usually delivered in Arabic to Arab audiences, in the aftermath of the 1993 Oslo Accords. A personal favorite: Arafat, still enjoying the world’s adulation for his heroic peacemaking efforts, addressing Arab diplomats Stockholm on January 30, 1996, just a few months after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin: “We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem…. You understand that we plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state…. I have no use for Jews, they are and remain Jews.”

Four years later, Israel was still negotiating with Arafat, and Ehud Barak was prepared to make concessions that Rabin’s widow, Leah, said would have her husband “certainly turning in his grave.” Arafat rejected those concessions and launched the Second Intifada in September 2000.

This is but a tiny sampling of the vast quantities of ammunition available to pro-Israel debaters. Why then do most of them invariably come across as sniveling Milquetoasts?

About the Author: Jason Maoz is the Senior Editor of The Jewish Press.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Unarmed Debaters”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Gidon Saar Resignation Announcement
Minister Gidon Saar Unexpectedly Announces Resignation
Latest Indepth Stories

A little less than 10 percent of eligible Democratic voters came out on primary day, which translates into Mr. Cuomo having received the support of 6.2 percent of registered Democrats.

The reality, though, is that the Israeli “war crimes” scenario will likely be played out among highly partisan UN agencies, NGOs, and perhaps even the International Criminal Court.

Peace or the lack of it between Israel and the Palestinians matters not one whit when it comes to the long-term agenda of ISIS and other Islamists, nor does it affect any of the long-running inter-Arab conflicts and wars.

Rather than serving as a deterrent against terrorist attacks, Israel’s military strength and capabilities are instead looked at as an unfair advantage in the asymmetrical war in which it finds itself.

Sisi:”The religious nature of the Middle East creates challenges for the governing authorities.”

For too long the media and international community have been preaching that “Palestinians” bear no responsibility for the consequences of their decisions and they are passive victims of the conflict.

Iron Dome intercepted over 1,000 rockets aimed at Israel with a success rate of over 90% in 2014

We talked about the responsibility that comes with the pen, its potential to influence and inspire.

Amnesty International:The crippling of the power station was “collective punishment of Palestinians”

Originally scheduled to be held elsewhere, the hotel canceled, pressured by local missionary groups

It’s likely that some of the rebel factions, including US clients, have indeed made pacts with ISIS

Imam Tafsirli of the Harlem Islamic center: “You cannot be a Muslim without believing in Jesus”

If simple fuel choice were implemented, the power of petroleum and those who sell it would cease.

More Articles from Jason Maoz
Charles Krauthammer

Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state

Presidential-Seal-062014

These are not necessarily the best all-around biographies or studies of the individual presidents listed (though some rank right up there), but the strongest in terms of exploring presidential attitudes and policies toward Israel.

The Clintonan “engagement” liberals remember with such fondness did nothing but embolden Arafat and Hamas and Hizbullah as they witnessed Israel’s only real ally elevate process ahead of policy.

What really makes one wonder about the affinity felt by certain Jews for Grant was the welcome mat he put out for some of the country’s most pernicious anti-Semites.

With 2013 marking half a century since Kennedy’s fateful limousine ride in Dallas, the current revels are exceeding the revisionist frenzies of years past, with a seemingly endless parade of books, articles and television specials designed to assure us that, despite everything that has come to light about him since his death, JFK was a great president, or at least a very good president who would have been great had his life not been so cruelly cut short.

As someone who for the past fifteen years has been writing a column that largely focuses on the news media, I’ve read what is no doubt an altogether unhealthy number of books on the subject. Most of them were instantly forgettable while some created a brief buzz but failed to pass the test of time. And then there were those select few that merited a permanent spot on the bookshelf.

George W. Bush has been getting some positive media coverage lately, with recent polls showing him at least as popular as his successor, Barack Obama, and a big new book about the Bush presidency by New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker (Days of Fire, Doubleday) portraying Bush as a much more hands-on chief executive than his detractors ever imagined.

Readers who’ve stuck with the Monitor over the years will forgive this rerun of sorts, but as we approach the fortieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War – and with the stench of presidential indecisiveness hanging so heavily over Washington these days – it seemed only appropriate to revisit Richard Nixon’s role in enabling Israel to recover from the staggering setbacks it suffered in the first week of fighting.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/unarmed-debaters/2012/03/14/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: