Adonis Diaries

Archive for November 4th, 2011

British and Zionist terror tactics in Palestine in the 1930’s

In the 1920’s, under British mandated power, the Palestinians delivered countless petition to the British administration to conduct democratic elections for municipal and the Parliament, as did the French mandated power in Syria and Lebanon. The Zionist Jews, in Palestine and their lobbies in England and the USA, blocked any election process, on the ground that since they are in the minority (one Jew to 10 Palestinians), the election would be at their disadvantage.

As England refused to institute democratic laws and representation in Palestine, the Palestinians realized that the mandated power is intent on establishing a Zionist State in part of Palestine.

In Nov. 1935, sheikh Al Qassam and four of his followers moved to the forest of Jenine and started training and preparing for civil resistance.  The British assassinated all of them.

And the “Great Revolt“, as labeled by the British, lasted 3 years.  The British engaged 100,000 troops to quell the civil insurrection by all means of cruelty and brutality.

A British physician on the field, Tom Segev, wrote in his diary: “The brute tactics used by the British forces and the methods of humiliation could be efficiently adopted by Nazi Hitler.  Nazi Germany could learn and assimilate the British terror tactics on smooth running of concentration camps...”

The British initiated and trained Jewish colons to participate in the taming of the Palestinian civil disobedience.

David Niv, the official historian of the terrorist Zionist organization, the Irgun, wrote in “The campaign of the National Military Organization 1931-37”:

The violent attacks of the Irgun are not done in reaction of those who perpetrated acts of violence against Jews, and the random violence were not conducted in localities where violent acts were done.  The principal criteria were:

First, the targets must be accessible, and

Second, the terror attacks must kill the maximum of civilian Palestinians…”

In their National Bulletin, the Irgun displayed their satisfaction of the 3-week-long terror attacks on Palestinians, throwing bombs in crowded markets, Mosques, hand grenades in buses, machine-gunning passing trains…

The 3 weeks spree of random violence killed over 140 Palestinians, a number far greater that the Palestinian resistance movement killed in 18 months…

The leader of the Irgun, the Polish Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, wrote in 1923:

We must develop the colonies behind a “Wall of Steel”, backed by a protective force that could not be broken.  The Palestinians (labelled Arabs) will never accept any Jewish colony as long as they conserve a slight hope of dislodging it.  A voluntary agreement is not thinkable. We have to resume the colonization process without taking into consideration the humors of the indigenous population...”

David Ben Gurion, leader of the Zionist Haganah organization, rallied to that strategy, though he publicly condemned Jabotinsky fascist methods (Jabotinsky was a staunch admirer of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini)

The terrorist Zionist Stern organization, lead by Menahem Begin and Yitzak Shamir, (both later to be elected Prime Ministers in the 80’s), merged with the Irgun as Ben Gurion proclaimed unilaterally the establishment of Israel in 1948.

The Stern and Irgun and Haganah conducted terror attacks and genocides in many Palestinian towns and villages, forcing the Palestinians to flee: The Palestinians believed the leave will be of short-term duration, as the UN will negotiate their return…

Actually, the Zionist organizations started collecting intelligence pieces on the villages and towns they planned to transfer by terror tactics since 1939.  They waited for a war to start to giving the green light for the execution of detailed plans in 1947, the year England decided to relinquish its mandated power over Palestine.

Note 1 : Article inspired from a chapter in “A history of Lebanon, 1860-2009” by the British journalist David Hirst.  Hirst was the correspondent of the British daily The Guardian in the Middle-East for 43 years.  He was kidnapped twice during Lebanon civil war.

Note 2: The British secret services trained French assassins since 1942 during WW2

Note 3: You may read this link on doctoring reports of random violence by Israel establishment

Do we have to win arguments? Do we have to avoid arguments?

How often have you heard “Please, I’m in no mood for arguing?” Why arguing has acquired such a terrible connotation? I read an article on the blog a lengthy post on how to avoid arguing sessions, strong with minute technical details to follow, a step-by-step road map to discourage another party in resuming his endeavor. And yet, Dan Rockwell is very pleased to extend his “The Top 25 Ways to Win Arguments”

  1. Don’t focus on winning or losing; focus on achieving objectives.
  2. Interrupting to make your point is pointless.
  3. Be smart not right. You aren’t finding the right answer; you’re searching for the better alternative.
  4. Focus on progress rather than perfect solutions.
  5. Trying to solve the past is futile; you can, however, move in better directions.
  6. Give ground on peripheral or non-essential points.
  7. Keep things simple. Complexity stalls solutions.
  8. Never tell someone what they think; ask them.
  9. Never let someone tell you what you think.
  10. Your “opponent” will use over-statements and unrealistic conclusions to invalidate your goals.
  11. Your opponent will make you angry. When they do, you lose.
  12. Keep an open posture.
  13. Remove barriers and obstacles. Create a clear path across the table or desk. Better yet step away from the desk.
  14. Physically align yourself with them. Rather than face-to-face, stand beside.
  15. Talk while taking a walk.
  16. Be pleasant but not jovial.
  17. When they raise their voice, lower yours.
  18. Use “and” more than “but” because “but” is an eraser. For example, I agree with you but…, diminish agreements.
  19. Show respect; don’t get personal.
  20. Identify your opponent’s objectives and agree where possible. Help them win before you win.
  21. Explore your opponent’s options.
  22. Address your opponent’s fears.
  23. Use experts and research.
  24. Speak to the heart – if they have one.
  25. Stay on point. Distractions are normal.

Bonus: Solve issues before arguments erupt.” End of tips for winning an argument.

These tips are pleasant and very refreshing: I was expecting aggressive tips. What come to mind was “are those tips related to argumentation”?  For example, are those tips targeting candidates running for election to a public office? I had a feeling that the tips were more related to having productive conversation, a give and take swapping of ideas, concepts, facts, ideas… Sort of getting the most from investing time into talking with another person… How do you feel?

The first tip is “Don’t focus on winning or losing; focus on achieving objectives”, thus, engaging into argumentation implicitly is related to a set of objectives that you want to “relay, win over people, disseminate…”  Does that mean, the other party in the arguing, necessarily has another set of objectives, or he is just reacting to a preempting “invading” opponent who takes pleasure in harassing you and wasting your precious time, and taxing your solid nerves?

Almost every tip is ground for a short essay to build upon.  It is a shame that the fashion is list of top this, top that…

Why should we avoid arguments, or learn Argument Avoidance Techniques?

Is a friendly conversation supposed to be reduced to an exercise of “I poke you” and you poke me back?  When engaging in a conversation, it is fitting to clearing our time schedule, and focus on what is discussed.  All kinds of conversations are opportunities to picking up bits of valid information and ideas:  It is one of the mechanism of restructuring our models on how we view the world, the surrounding, and dealing with people.

Otherwise, all the ideas and information will be stored in the labyrinth of the memory and not available to be used immediately.  Body language, voices, emotions, and heated arguments are expressions of some form of experiences.  Even when we tend to ejaculate truths, we are expressing implicit experiences of society’s  ”stick and carrot” control mechanisms.

Incoherent conversations are expressions  of incoherent mind structure, a state of chaotic sentiment related to the topic under discussion.  Argument Avoidance Techniques are ways of imposing our logic for understanding a conversation; thus, we are robbing the talker his right for his own logic and rational system and diminishing our database of diversification on how the mind works.

It is far more exciting and remunerating if we manage, amid incoherence and mind-sets, to asking pertinent questions that would demonstrate our honest disorientation. Argument Avoidance Techniques are short-term victories that leave bitter tastes after the conversation is over:  We were impressing on the other talker that we are “professional” in conversation but not necessarily interested in learning anything on the topic and kind of disrespectful of emotions and subjective ideas.

Most of us are shy engaging in discussions for many reasons.  I was shy for most of my life, and still is very awkward handling discussions:  My surrounding was not of the talker type and we barely discussed in the family any worthy topic.  Fact is, my ignorance of the world and society and my introvert attitudes were stiff barrier into exposing my ignorance any further; it was better keeping silent so that the audience might be fooled that I am wiser than what I am.

Effectively sharing in a conversation requires practice, a level of learning, and knowledge.  Even asking pertinent question require a good level of knowledge, intelligence, and training.  Thus, expecting people to applying “Argument Avoidance Techniques” and keeping a certain control during conversation is robbing us from valued opportunities coming from people who are knowledgeable but not “intelligent verbally” or trained in confronting audience.

It is not pertinent focusing on diagnosing the structure of the conversation while the topic is ignored or the confused experiences of people are not attended to.  We might as well learn to accepting the facts “as is” and as they come and then remodeling what we have learned into a valid model that suits our logic and rational mind. A conversation is an oral outlet to another perspective in intelligent thinking, of what is rattling our life and concepts.

Argument Avoidance Techniques are great for introvert people:  they initiate them to navigating into uncharted territories and a good training to getting more sociable, openly expressing their ideas (as good as the others’), positions, and emotions.




November 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,513,709 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 820 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: