|July 13, 2010|
|Audio Excerpt (4:43 Mins)|
|…In fact, do a Google search and come up with the Faisal-Weizmann agreement of December 1918 signed in London in the presence of their translator “Lawrence of Arabia,” after which the three of them went over to the Paris Peace Conference with that document. And the text couldn’t be clearer. The agreement called for “Palestine” to be a Jewish state, next door to an “Arab” state; those were the words. Faisal agreed to a Palestine as a Jewish state, with a view to absorbing from his base in Mecca, Trans-Jordan and modern day Syria and even modern day Iraq, in addition to all of the Arabian Peninsula. The British simply did not promise him Palestine. They promised it only to the Jews, and Prince Faisal agreed.
Notice too how Carroll says the “Palestinians” finally mounted resistance, in 1936, with the implication that they attacked British occupying forces the way, say, the Minutemen in American in 1776 attacked uniformed British soldiers.
No. As suggested before, they began by murdering Jews at random. And notice the use of the word “resistance.” Carroll has adopted the word Arabs use to describe their terror atrocities to this very day. Hamas calls its violence against Israel “resistance”; so does Hezbollah; so does Bin Ladin. These paranoiacs perceive the very existence of Western civilization as a threat to them, and therefore they must “resist” it.
Carroll calls the violence of 1936-39 a “London-ordered colonial war”. This too bears no true reflection of that decade’s intifada. Carroll uses the word “brutal” but only to refer to Britain’s response, not the brutality of the Arabs who murdered Jews at random just like today; shot up crowds of Jews exiting movie theaters after the show; shot up medical clinics for Jews and medical clinics for Arabs in which Jewish doctors and nurses provided the service. Carroll reserves the word “brutal” for the British.
He writes of “Political institutions and economic systems…devastated” presumably by the British at that time; presumably “Palestinian” political institutions. The truth is they had no political institutions at that time. Just two years before in 1934 they created their first political parties which weren’t even that: they were fancy names given to the two rival families in Jerusalem, the al-Husseini and the Nashashibi families who gussied up their respective clans with political names.
And as for devastating the “Palestinian economy”: the Arabs did that to themselves by calling that April for a national strike of Arab labor to protest Jews coming into the land fleeing Nazi Europe; which strike only boosted the Jewish economy and crippled their own. They did it to themselves.
Lastly, Carroll writes “The Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never fully to be restitched again.”
This is in a class with the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Arab poetry sucked from a hash pipe. Again, in 1936 there was no “Palestinian” social fabric. In that year the Arabs’ leader Haj Amin was still denying there was such a place as Palestine.
What James Carroll does when he writes about Israel like this is to reflect the “Palestinian narrative” he has downloaded into his head these last 40 years when he should know it is a pile of filthy lies about Jews and the violence here.
He has in his head a false history because he wants to have a false history in which moral equivalence is the background music. He writes “Two peoples who have each defined themselves positively by negative hatred of the other but…each can receive the other’s account of the past and perhaps for the first time, hear it respectfully.”
Yeah, the moral equivalence of our version and their version. For this perverted post-modernist, both sides have a valid memory of history and both sides have a valid claim – and to hell with the historical truth; and I do mean to Hell.
Thus does this post-Catholic priest hang onto a fresh reason for scourging the Jews…