The viciously anti-Israel “Irish” has printed the following in its article of today:

The Palestinians are ready to end all historic claims against Israel once they establish their state in the lands occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War, President Mahmoud Abbas said.

The above quote from the Irish Examiner is extremely misleading.
What we have in this case, as expressed above, is the complete re-writing of history. This is a lying narrative which was put about by the Arab propaganda machine after 1967, and which has been adopted by the world in general.
Why should the world take on board as true a narrative which tells lies about history? I can only locate this tendency to accept this lying narrative in a residual antisemitism which bubbles under the surface, during centuries of time, but which bursts out with poisonous venom at particular points.
We know that such a point was the Holocaust, or as Jews tend to say, The Shoah.
But another point was the 1960s, when the Soviet Union Stalinists attacked Israel as a Zionist, therefore Nazi, State.
In other words Zionism, which is the sincere feeling of Jews to return to Zion, their religious and national Homeland, was being equated with Nazism, by the horrible Soviet Stalinists (I should say Russian, because they should not be given the title of “Soviet”, which is a proud title in our books.
In any case the world adopted this Big Lie in different ways.
One of these ways is reflected in the above paragraph I have quoted by the Irish Examiner.
Not that this may be unconscious on their part. In other words the lying narrative of the Stalinists and the Arabs is so ingrained in Irish Media Circles, that they know not of what they write.
Let me return to the above paragraph:
The Irish Examiner use the word “Palestinians”.
They did not exist in 1948. Up to 1948 if you said you were a Palestinian then people would take you for a Jew, a palestinian Jew.
Up to 1948 the Arabs disliked the term “Palestinian” and called themselves simply “Arabs”.
From 1948 to 1967 when Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria, and Egypt Gaza, THEY CERTAINLY DID NOT USE THE TERM “PALESTINIANS”.
Nor was there the merest tiniest suggestion then of creating a “Palestinian State” which would have been the ideal time, when fellow Arabs were in total control.
Amazing thought that, eh!
The Arabs attacked the Jews in 1948, not accepting the UN plans for 2 states.
The Arabs lost in 1948 and there was a ceasefire arrangement.
In 1967 the Arabs attacked the Jews again, but this time they were attacking Israel itself, and they were attacking from those very territories of Judea and Samaria, and Gaza.
They lost again.
I repeat to the Irish Examiner. THEY LOST!
The Arabs lost in a war in which THEY WERE THE AGRESSOR.
The Arabs, and the anti Israel Irish Examiner, want to have their cake and eat it. They want to strike out in a genocidal war against Jews and then after they are defeated in that war they expect things to go back to where things were BEFORE THEY ATTACKED
To me this is the strangest thinking…That there is never any effect following a cause.
This is also the reason why we on 4international will always deny the validity of the word “occupation” because how is it an “occupation” to repulse your genocidal attackers. Just as brian Boru did in Clontarf outside Dublin you take the land on which your enemy is standing, and you deny your enemy the opportunity, or wish, to attack again from that land.
And this was Jewish land in every sense of the term anyway, through the Treaty of San Remo 1920, where this land of Judea and Samaria was set aside for the Jewish Homeland.
The Irish Examiner has another paragraph:
The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem, captured by Israel in 1967. Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, but about half a million Israelis have settled in the other war-won areas.

You can see the utterly snivelling dishonesty of the Irish Examiner in the above. The impression is given to me as a reader that the Jews attacked and captured Judea and Samaria, plus Gaza. But they did not attack anything or anybody. It is they who were attacked.
The Jews were only defending in 1948 and 1967.
By reading the Irish Examiner you would never know, or think that.
This is really terrible journalism. Journalism of a very low level. There is a serious distortion of history taking place here.
Now if this is happening in this very central journalistic outlet in Ireland, how can the Irish people think in true terms about what happened in this vital history?
Or perhaps the Irish Examiner is really saying that History Does not Matter. That all that matters is “The Occupation”, even though this word is a distortion of history


  1. Jesus wept Mr Quigley, what books do you get your history from? First up 1948 was a war of aggression by Zionists. The Arabs were perfectly entitled both legally and morally to refuse resolution 181 as they did. The fact that people like you portray their refusal to give up 56% of their land, most of the best crop growing land with it (as 181envisaged) as belligerence, and the fact zionists accepted 181, as somehow being noble, means you ignore or either are unaware of the injustice of 181and also you wilfully ignore the fact that Ben-Gurion was on record as stating 181 to be a stepping stone to their expanding to Eretz Yisrael. Resolution 181was only a recommendation, it held no enforcement power under international law. If you don’t believe me try reading one of the foremost international jurists of the time, Hans Kelsen, himself a Jew, on the subject. The surrounding Arab armies came to the aid of and at the request of the people who held sovereignty in Palestine, namely the native majority population. Whose welfare were under threat by zionisms decleration of statehood ( commonly referred to as a decleration of independence, but that’s a misnomer as there existed no Israel to liberate). Also, just so you know, it matters not a jot what you are anyone else called the people living in Palestine. Arabs or Palestinians, it matters not a jot what they preferred to call themselves either. There existed an indigenous community who lived on the land, tilled it, loved it and had actual physical real links to it. The fact you think they have no rights to their own land demonstrates a colonial mindset Mr Quigley, in which case you must think Britain should still be ruling all of Ireland and vast swathes of Africa and the Orient.
    Now with regard to 1967.
    One of the things many apologists claim is that Nasser created a casus belli by closing the straits of Tiran, so therefore Israel was justified in attacking Egypt. Several things need pointed out here. First that only 5% of Israel trade was
    at risk from this so called closure (even the record demonstrates the Egyptians rarely enforced it). The major issue for Israel was oil from Iran (believe or not) and that could easily be sequestered through Haifa. Furthermore the navigable channel of the straits is only a mile from Egypt’s shore, well within its territorial waters, and no state has ever been deemed to be enforcing a blockade of foreign shipping in its own territorial waters. Also as Egypt and Israel had been in a state of war since 1948, Egypt was well within its rights to prevent shipping to a belligerent state. Not that it had much effect, because as we’ve seen rarely did israel use the straits and infact in the previous two years no Israeli flagged vessel used the port of Eliat. Furthermore the vast majority of Israel’s commercial trade used Mediterranean ports. Now Egypt had refused to sign the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Territorial Sea and Conitguous Zone because it didn’t agree with the defitnion of ‘strait’. Therefore Egypt was not a signatory, because as commonly understood only a passage between two areas of high seas is a strait, whereas the straits of tiran lead into the Gulf of Aqaba. The US secretary of State at that time John Foster Dulles agreed on the “plausibilty from the standpoint of international law” with regard to Egypt’s stance. Arthur Dean, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva Conference admitted that this was a new interpretation directly aimed at the Straits of Tiran. Therefore the general view was that the convention did not reflect customary law. Even if it was agreed that Israel had a right to use the straits (even though some authorities agreed and others did not), it did not have the right to an armed attack to reslove the issue when there was still peaceful avenues to exhaust. That Israel chose not to pursue these peaceful avenues demonstrates that its attack on Egypt was not defensive and was indeed illegal.
    Another issue which the iraeli apologists regularly trot out is Nasser’s throwing out of the UNEF observers from his side of the frontier. However, those observers were only there with Egypt’s consent in the first place. Israel had refused to allow any observers on its side of the frontier. The fact that Nasser permitted them, demonstrates his own sense of restraint. Would you care to elaborate why Israel refused to allow any observers on its side?

    Also it was not a full removal which Nasser demanded, he allowed the observers to remain at Sharm Al-Shaikh, situated at the gulf of Aqaba, which would allow the observers a view on any Israeli ships. However this offer was rejected by the UN secretary general U Thant, who insisted all or none.
    Nasser’s hand was forced to remove all of the observers (which brought Egypt into line with Israel – who refused any at all) as the chief of staff of the UN forces Odd Bull recalls in his memoir –

    ‘(Nasser) was obliged to act if his reputation in the Arab world was not to suffer, because he had been subjected to a lot of criticism on the ground that he was sheltering behind UNEF’

    Also U Thant acknowledged that Nasser wanted to restart the Egyptin-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission(EIMAC) which was established as part of the agreements ending the 1948 war. Yet this became dead in the water after Israel unilaterally withdrew during the Suez, and whilst Nasser demonstrated willingness to reconvene it, Israel rejected all such approaches. Israel’s belligerence was recalled later by U Thant

    ‘if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted’

    Another senior UN official, Brian Urquhart, when referring to Israel’s refusal to a two week moratorium in the straits (which Nasser agreed to), writes in his memoir –

    ‘Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant’s ideas.’

    The then US Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalls the cycnial surprise attack launched by Israel, instead of trying the diplomatic route, which nasser was open to –

    ‘when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. they attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian Vice President would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opeing the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility’

    Now lets look at the admissions of Israeli leaders –

    “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.” (Mordechai Bentov )

    “The danger of Israel’s extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war.” (General Yeshayahu Gavish)

    “I do not believe Nasser wanted war. the two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14th would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (General Rabin )

    “There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.”(Chaim Herzog)

    “In June l967, we again 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.” (Menachem Begin)

    I’d really love to know what you have been reading Mr Quigley, which quite obviously ignores all the evidence to the contrary and allows you to post a thread so blatanly riddled with lies and propaganda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s