America's Middle East Policy, 71 Years On

America's basic Middle East policy hasn't changed in over 70 years.  At least.

Here:

The American Christian Palestine Committee, chaired by Senator Robert Wagner (D, New York) and including a number of distinguished non-Jews, was requesting all members of Congress to have the president endorse unlimited Jewish immigration and statehood in Palestine now that the war in Europe had ended. Palestine, Grew noted, may be included among the dependent areas for which a system of trusteeship was evolving at San Francisco, and definite arrangements regarding specific territories were to be considered later. Given the current crisis in Syria and Lebanon and renewed outbreaks of terrorism in Palestine itself, any action by the U.S. government along the lines desired by the American Christian Palestine Committee would “increase the prevailing tension in the Near East.” Truman agreed that such an endorsement would have “most unfortunate” repercussions. Tat evening, at his first official dinner, Truman received the regent of Iraq, who would be publicly told by Special Departmental Assistant William Phillips that the government welcomed the Arab League’s formation on 22 March as not only benefiting the Arab countries but making “important and constructive contributions to the great tasks awaiting the United Nations.” Te following day, Truman “approved in principle” the efforts of the departments of State, War, and the Navy, sanctioned by Roosevelt in January, to seek congressional aid for Saudi Arabia’s urgent financial requirements.

Need I add more?

^

Think 'Shiloh'. Think 'Settler'. Think 'Horn'.

No, that headline is not a lede about me blowing a shofar here in Shiloh, Israel.

Here:

Part of the story:

I wouldn't let a story like that pass.

^

How Important is the Temple Mount?

By important, I mean central, even crucial, to Israel's position within the context of how the powers look at the conflict with the Arab world that Israel is forced to confront.

For example, here is Henry Kissinger as recorded in the Minutes of a Bipartisan Leadership Meeting that was held in Washington, November 27, 1973:

A way must be found to remove the Arab holy places from Israeli control. 

Attending were, among others, Senate Majority Leader Michael J. Mansfield, Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott (R–Pennsylvania), and Senators J. William Fulbright, John C. Stennis, Milton R. Young (R–North Dakota), and John L. McClellan (D–Arkansas); Speaker of the House Carl Albert, House Majority Leader Thomas P. O’Neill (D–Massachusetts), House Minority Leader and Vice President-designate Gerald R. Ford, and Congressmen William S. Mailliard (R–California) and Samuel S. Stratton (D–New York).

That would make continued Israeli control a central, even crucial, issue, no?

Oh, there was this there, too:

Scott: Are the Israelis more or less intransigent than American Jews?
Kissinger: Less. Israel’s problem now is the election campaign. Since October 22, Israel’s position has evolved and they are willing to talk about things. But the American Jews are so tough and tend to hypo the Israelis and give them illusions.
Fulbright: Isn’t that an illusion?
President: It is in this Administration.
Fulbright: Not in Congress.
Kissinger: Let’s make clear: We are trying to preserve Israel’s security. We have no intentions of sacrificing Israel, and some day they will thank us.
Albert: Why do the Europeans think the destruction of Israel would end the blackmail?
Kissinger: This is a sad chapter in the history of Europe. There is no good answer.
Mailliard: Are you going to Europe?
Kissinger: I am going to the NATO meeting and the President has told me to lay it out cold. There will be screaming.
Scott: Do the American Jews know the extent of Israeli losses?
Kissinger: We will be working with the American Jews. The President is the best friend Israel ever had. In time they will realize that. Israel can’t go on with military solutions. They cannot win a war of attrition.

She's Bad for the Jews

In a defense of the thinking of Hannah Arendt against an attack by Eva Illouz, Ada Ushpiz writes, in passing, that we cannot exempt ourselves:

from examining common principles that define evil. Benjamin Netanyahu’s election-campaign flaunting of the slogan, “Good is what is good for the Jews, bad is what is bad for the Jews,” a slogan that appeared in the 1940s in the Nazis’ notorious newspaper Der Stürmer – the one difference being that instead of “Jews” Der Stürmer wrote “Germans” – does not mean that Netanyahu is a Nazi, but it does mean that all the warning lights should be lit up.

Before I get on to this, let's just recall Hanna Arendt on Menachem Begin in the infamous letter that appeared in the New York Times in December 1948:

...Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties...

... It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents...[and]...the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement...they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state...Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

Of course, they were expressing the Labour/Socialist Zionism line of anti-Revisionism of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.  This element is also core to Peter Beinart's "Crisis of Zionism" in which he battles Jabotinsky through ignorance, misrepresentation and falsifying elements in his life, his outlook and his accomplishments. 

But to return to Ushpiz.

The 1996 slogan of Netanyahu was 

Netanyahu: It's Good for the Jews

Anyone who actually lives among Jews knows that when a Jew is presented with a situation in which he has to decide, his instinctive humorous reaction is: 'nu, is it good for the Jews?'

After all, why should anything be done if it is bad for the Jews?

Netanyahu gave it a modern political spin that had nothing to do with Nazism, Der Sturmer or fascism.  Or racism.  It simply meant, a good choice for Israel, the Jewish state, is Netanyahu.

But allow an extreme leftist an opening and anyone to the right of them will become a Nazi.

So bad for the Jews.

^

Judea and Samaria in the Selichot Prayers

Did you ever pay attention to the number of places geographically located in Judea and Samaria, including "East Jerusalem", there are in the "Mi Sh'Anah..." prayer in Selichot?

Think about that.

^

Let's Pretend to Be a Journalist

I see/receive this item:

NABLUS, October 10, 2016 (WAFA) – Israeli settlers on Monday attacked Palestinians harvesting olives near the village of Qaryout, south of Nablus, according to local sources.  Ghassan Daghlas, who monitors settlement activities in the north of the West Bank, told WAFA that dozens of Israeli settlers attacked Palestinian olive pickers and smashed the windshields of their vehicles.

If I am here more than a year or so, this is what I should be doing:

a) call up Daghlas for more details.

b) in checking back, I realize that the man has lied and/or exaggerated in the past.

c) to be careful, I ask for a picture or the name of a contact on the site to speak with.

d) I check the map after asking him exactly which grove was the site of the reported violence.

e) I call up local health services and ask, like I do with Israel's Magen Adom, for details.

f) I call up someone from either Shiloh or Eli which are the two closest Jewish communities or, if I have actually done item "d", I can see which community is closest, maybe Achiyah, and call there.

g) if I do not have contacts there, because I haven't developed any, I call up Miri who is the foreign media spokesperson, actually, Director, International Desk, Binyamin Regional Council, and make sure I got a reaction/response/clarification and make sure to include that in my report.

h) if I have the time, realizing that a report like this falls into the annual "olive harvesters attacked by Jews" template and even may be an attempt to draw attention away from more serious Arab terror acts, I'd drive out there.  I'd even take the opportunity to talk about the "new settlement" in the Shiloh Bloc the State Department attacked, viciously, and expand the story.

Well, let's wait and see what happens.

__________________

UPDATE

Miri told me our emergency HQ hadn't heard anything.

I see now a clip of a smashed car in Qaryut.  Seems in the village.

From an olive grove.

___________________

NEW UPDATE

Ma'an claims Eli residents involved.


^

State Department Geography

Let's review the State Department's geography.

Mark Toner declared this week, among other things, in connection with the new construction in the Shiloh Bloc, that

this settlement's location deep in the West Bank, far closer to Jordan than Israel, 

I will admit, he's correct:

From Shiloh to Fatza'el, where a friend hails from, quite near Highway 90, the Jordan River Valley road, is almost 27 kilometers.

To Jerusalem, at the bottom, from Shiloh, it's 46 kms.

To Elad, in the west, near the Green Line, it's 85 kms. or so.

But, of course, that's by the existing roads.

Once the rail line is finished, time-wise, we'll be there almost in no time, we trust.

And as a rocket flies, Shiloh acts to make sure those dangerous armaments stay far away from Israel's main population centers.  And that's quite an important "distance" factor.

One more thing, as I've told almost every single journalist who has interviewed me here in Shiloh, my community village is not far or distant from anything.  

It is right in the middle of the Land of Israel.  We are not "deep in the West Bank".

That is it's main geographic factor.

Remember that Mr. Toner, and State Department officials in Washington and in Jerusalem.

^

George Soros, You Forgot Sderot

I received this in my email from George Soros and I asked myself: why isn't Sderot, bombed from Gaza, a concern of his?

(So I added in brackets to his statement)

__________

Statement on the Bombing of Aleppo

The world is witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions. It is happening in Syria [and Israel]. It is being perpetrated by the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, in support of his protégé, Bashar al-Assad [and by Islamists in Gaza]. Russian planes are bombing the civilian population of Aleppo, the country’s second-largest city, to assist Syrian government forces on the ground [Islamist rockets are tareting Israelis civilian population centers] . The combined assault has, among other things, put the city’s remaining hospitals out of commission and deprived the population of drinking water.

President Putin is moving aggressively to exploit the four months between now and the January 20 U.S. presidential inauguration, based on a callous political calculation. As the New York Times puts it: “Mr. Putin calculates that the departing President Obama will be unlikely to intervene in the escalating Syrian conflict and a new American president who might consider a tougher policy will not yet be in office…The next American president will face a new reality and will be forced to accept it.” When the facts are fully established, Putin’s bombing of Aleppo will be viewed as among the modern world’s most egregious war crimes.

I appeal to the people of Russia, Europe, and the rest of the world not to stand idly by, but to spread the word and voice their outrage. An outpouring of public opinion could induce President Putin to put an end to his heinous crimes against humanity.


George Soros

^

How Many Homes, Mr. Toner?

An excerpt from the Press Statement of Mark C. Toner, spokesperson of the US State Department, October 5, 2016: -

We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank.

Proceeding with this new settlement, which could include up to 300 units, would further damage the prospects for a two state solution. The retroactive authorization of nearby illegal outposts, or redrawing of local settlement boundaries, does not change the fact that this approval contradicts previous public statements by the Government of Israel that it had no intention of creating new settlements. And this settlement's location deep in the West Bank, far closer to Jordan than Israel, would link a string of outposts that effectively divide the West Bank and make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state more remote.

300 units?

Hmm.

These 300?

Israel gave final approval on Wednesday for plans to build 300 new homes in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, announcing the move as it carried out a court demolition order against two vacant apartment blocks in the same enclave.

Oh, sorry, that was in late July 2015 at Bet El.

These 300?

Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz...gave approval for the construction of 300 new homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The construction was planned for Maale Adumim, the largest Israeli settlement in the West Bank, and further expansion was anticipated for the smaller settlements of Nokdim and Bracha. 

No.  That was back in December 2005. Eleven years ago.

These 300?

Moves jeopardise any hope of peace talks, say Palestinians.  Israel to build 300 new settlement homes in West Bank

Nope. That was in May 2013.

These 450 perhaps?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has approved the marketing of land for the construction of 454 homes in two settlements

No.  That was last November in Jerusalem.

Maybe it was this announcement of "hundreds" in early July 2016?

The Israeli government has approved the construction of hundreds of new housing units in West Bank settlements and neighborhoods in the eastern part of Jerusalem, the Prime Minister's Office confirmed to CNN.Of those settlements, 560 will be built in Ma'ale Adumim, which is already one of the largest settlements in the West Bank.Another 240 will be built in Jerusalem in neighborhoods that Israel says are Jewish but Palestinians claim as the future capital of a Palestinian state in the eastern part of the city.

These 300?

Israel has authorised construction of 300 new homes at a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank,

No, that was at Talmon in June 2009.

Oh, by the way, did you know there's this address in Lafayette, Louisiana

300 Old Settlement Rd,

Lafayette, LA 

Is the State Department being wagged by Peace Now, who claims it is all near me?

Or maybe Netanyahu is making the same announcement of approval year-in, year-out?


____________

Caught this twitter tweeting:

But it's not settlements. It is an idea about moving a settlement that the people in question have rejected.

Worse: Not homes. Possible plans about homes likely to not be realized, for years if ever.

But here there is condemnation of building that has high chance of never happening, and not about new settlers, but moving old ones.

And also this:

missing #Obama renouncing #Bush-#Sharon 2004 deal.

And now, this:

'We're not building a new settlement'
The Foreign Ministry responded to the American attacks on building in Judea and Samaria earlier.

 "98 units in Shilo do not constitute 'a new settlement.' The units will be built on state land within the confines of the existing community of Shilo. They are meant to solve a housing problem for the residents of Amona who were forced to leave their homes in accordance with a demolition order by the Supreme Court," the Ministry said.
The Ministry also emphasized: "Israel is still obligated to the Two-State solution, in which a proclaimed Palestinian State recognizes Israel as the Jewish State. The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements, but the continual Palestinian rejection of Israel's existence."

________________

Today's comeback:

Verbal clashes between Israel and the U.S. over resettlement plans of the illegal outpost of Amona escalated Wednesday evening, after a Foreign Ministry statement rejected American criticism and claimed that the construction plans approved last week do not constitute the creation of a new settlement."The settlements are not the obstacle to peace," said the Foreign Ministry statement.The Prime Minister's Office did not issue an official response, but Haaretz has learned that the Foreign Ministry statement was worded and approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisers alongside Foreign Ministry staff.The 98 housing units approved in Shilo do not constitute a "new settlement," read the statement. "This housing will be built on state land in the existing settlement of Shilo and will not change its municipal boundary or geographic footprint. The units are intended to provide a housing solution for the residents of Amona who must leave their homes in accordance with the demolition order issued by Israel's High Court of Justice."The Israeli Foreign Ministry statement added that Israel remains committed to the two-state solution, "in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel.""The real obstacle to peace is not the settlements – a final status issue that can and must be resolved in negotiations between the parties - but the persistent Palestinian rejection of a Jewish state in any boundaries," said the statement.

^

Q. Where Was Shimon Peres Buried?

Tel Aviv.

And where is Jerusalem?

It's crossed out:

^

On Inappropriate

Reviewing the events of Friday at the funeral of Shimon Peres, I uploaded this poster:

One reaction I received from someone I admire was

Inappropriate. I expect better of you.

My first response was 

sorry. must have been reading & listening & watching too many Tel Aviv cultural events & their freedom of expression content

The Left can denounce Jewish religious observance and customs, malign the nationalist camp in articles, plays, speeches, films, songs and other cultural events and acts but I was "inappropriate". They can defame and denigrate but when a rightist takes liberties, it's "inappropriate".  I could have added that Haaretz caricatures on similar subjects, like Bibi waving goodbye to Obama, etc., or attacks on the religious camp were no less "inappropriate".

I do not think, even after a full day has gone by that that poster I created was in anyway inappropriate.

I could even make the case that Bibi very well could have been thinking that.

But there is another aspect to this, a bit parallel.

In a radio interview conducted by Amit Segal and Yaron Dekel with MK Ayman Odeh, who has been hailed by the progressive liberal Jewish-and-barely-Zionist left as a near savior, who was a guest at the Haaretz Conference in 2015 and who someone even like Jane Eisner, editor of The Forward, pointed out the "inconsistency in the American Jewish left" in its worship of him, he was asked why he had not issued any words on Peres' passing.  

I'll disregard his response but Segal reacted saying, "I am sure that if something had happened to you, Peres would have released a statement" and Dekel added, after Odeh said that Peres is stronger than him and that he (Odeh) considers himself still an underdog, "it is being simply humane".  Here's the Hebrew for doubters:

 "אני בטוח שאם היה קורה משהו לך, פרס היה מפרסם הודעה"
"כנראה שהוא יותר חזק ממני, אני אנדרדוג".
דקל הוסיף,: "זה להיות אנושי".

 I doubt if my critic knew this but would the critic now come out and note how "inappropriate" and perhaps how disappointing Odeh's attitude is?

^

When Judea Became "Ancient Palestine"

Haaretz:

Caves in which Jewish rebels hid from Romans 2,000 years ago found in Galilee.As the First Jewish War raged in ancient Palestine, villagers would hide in impressively inaccessible cliffside caves as the Roman armies marched through.

Both the Jews and the Romans actually called the territory Judea, like in this Roman victory coin:

It reads the Judaea.

And "Palestine" as the name for the country came after 135 CE, some seven decades later.

But Haaretz knows better.

^

Careful When a Journalist 'Explains' Something to You

Here's a description of the latest incident in which Binyamin Netanyahu is portrayed in a scandalous fashion, a descritpion which I think is fair :

On Saturday evening, Netanyahu gave interviews to Israeli television channels from New York....One of the issues raised during the interviews had to do with values. Netanyahu was asked if he regretted the phone call he had made to Charlie Azaria, the father of Sgt. Elor Azaria, who is on trial for manslaughter after being filmed shooting a seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist to death in Hebron. He replied that he had no regrets.
 Channel 2's Udi Segal asked him if he had telephoned parents of other soldiers who allegedly disobeyed the army's orders, and Netanyahu replied: "No, but I did call many parents who were in distress over the fact that their sons had been killed or had gone missing."

But then the writer, Nahum Barnea, "explains" the scandal:

The comparison between the parents of a soldier who is on trial for manslaughter and the parents of missing soldiers Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul is outrageous, not least because of the unbridgeable abyss between fighters who sacrificed their life for the state and a soldier accused of a serious crime. It is outrageous because of the abyss separating between the parents...And it's outrageous because it offers Israelis in general, and those who serve in the army in particular, a distorted value system which must not be accepted. Soldiers are not children. They are adults,

However, it is Barnea making a bad comparison.

Netanyahu was asked about making a phone call to relieve distress of a parent who is concerned his child, while in uniform, is perhaps not being treated fairly, in a lawful fashion or, because of the situation the parent finds himself in, physically. medically, economically or psychologically.

Let's not forget that in that phone call to the soldier on trial, the Prime Minister did not identify with the soldier's action but informed the father that he must trust the system.  

“I have full faith in the IDF and its chief of staff, and that I think you, too, should have faith in the commanders and examination, just as the people of Israel need to stay united around its army. We only have one army, with many more challenges ahead of us,” Netanyahu added. 

If anyone, it was the former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon who injected a prejudicial tone into the public discourse, saying then

when someone has his hands up, or is already neutralized, that’s when you arrest,” he added. “Whoever supports these kinds of acts [the soldier’s] is damaging the values of the Israel Defense Forces.”

in what was a blatant attempt to subvert justice and interfere with the future trial and the then on-going investigation.

But the media went into a shark frenzy, Yedioth Ahronot plastered the above column on page 1 and Netanyahu had to clarify 

The Prime Minister’s Office issued a clarification on Sunday, in which Netanyahu stated, “I am sorry if my words were misunderstood.” He continued to say that “In no way did I compare the suffering of bereaved families—a suffering I am very familiar with—to that of other parents who are also suffering. There is no comparison and can be no comparison.”

Haaretz went further, of course:

Prime minister openly supports Elor Azaria and demonstrates empathy toward his family, even if it's seen as challenging the military justice system.

wrote Amos Harel and Gili Cohen.

Netanyahu, declares the first principle of Israel journalism, is guilty.

The second principle is he can never be correct.

And if he isn't guilty and is correct, then the third principle is that he must be doing it for an ulterior reason.

^

Just a Bit of Anti-Semitism

Note the features of the Jew in this caricature by E.H. Shepard in the UK 'Punch', September 18, 1946:

^

Intellectuals or Immoral Dummies?

This letter has been published and is being trumpeted by this Haaretz headline:

Over 70 American Intellectuals Call for 'Targeted Boycott' of Israeli Settlements

We, the undersigned, oppose an economic, political, or cultural boycott of Israel itself as defined by its June 4, 1967, borders. We believe that this 1967 armistice line, the so-called Green Line, should be the starting point for negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian parties on future boundaries between two states. To promote such negotiations, we call for a targeted boycott of all goods and services from all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, and any investments that promote the Occupation, until such time as a peace settlement is negotiated between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.
We further call upon the US government to exclude settlements from trade benefits accorded to Israeli enterprises, and to strip all such Israeli entities in the West Bank from the tax exemptions that the Internal Revenue Service currently grants to American nonprofit tax-exempt organizations. The objects of our call are all commercial and residential Israeli-sponsored entities located outside the 1967 Green Line. It is our hope that targeted boycotts and changes in American policy, limited to the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, will encourage all parties to negotiate a two-state solution to this long-standing conflict.

My comments: 

a.  On June 4, 1967, Israel did not include the Western Wall or any other portion of the Old City where there was a Jewish population for centuries that had been ethnically cleansed.  They really uphold Israel redividing its capital? Jerusalem is a "settlement"?

b.  If there is no action called against the Palestinian Authority, only Israel is considered by these intellectuals as "guilty". That is an immoral position. To disregard the terror, the support of terror and the incitement, for example, is dumb.

They are targeting the wrong side.  Why should this boycott encourage the Palestinian Authority to do anything but wait?

_____________

Why not boycott something of the Palestinian Authority to encourage them to negotiate after, for example, Netanyahu's construction moratorium?

See here for roots of this letter. And earlier.


^

Isn't There a Law?

As reported:

A cabinet resolution that will likely be debated this week would require the World Zionist Organization’s Settlement Division to consult with the attorney general over its work plan. Agriculture and Rural Development Minister Uri Ariel objects to the proposal.The coalition agreement signed in 2015 gives Ariel responsibility for the quasi-governmental agency. The Settlement Division has not received state funds for two years, after Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber ruled that the agency was in fact a nongovernmental entity carrying out governmental activities.

Odd.

According to the Law of the Standing of the WZO/Jewish Agency, a covenant of cooperation is established, among other things, to further the tasks of these two bodies which include:

 הפעולה המעשית של ההסתדרות הציונית העולמית וארגוניה למילוי תפקידיה ההיסטוריים בארץ ישראל

the fulfilment of their historic tasks in Eretz-Israel 

I guess I am just asking?

Judea and Samaria are in Eretz-Yisrael.

^

Palmach vs. Palmach and What About That Castration?

I caught this in Haaretz this week:

“Have a little sensitivity. Our generation may be nearing the end of the road, but we have children, grandchildren and families,” said Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Horev, 92, on Wednesday.Horev, a Palmach veteran, has joined the Palmach veterans’ protest against a cabinet decision to build a permanent memorial to former minister Rehavam Ze’evi at the national memorial site at Sha’ar Hagai, near Jerusalem – one of the symbols of the Palmach generation and its Harel Brigade.“The Israeli government did a terrible thing; this isn’t wise or fair,” said Horev, who took part in Palmach battles near Jerusalem in the War of Independence.

A "terrible thing"?

Not "wise"?

Not "fair"?

No "sensitivity"?


A little research will reveal something interesting about Horev, who waves about now the banner of "purity of arms".

In 1945 a series of sexual assaults troubled the Jewish inhabitants of Beit She’an Valley [and] motivated the regional commander of the Haganah to react. The suspect was identified shortly after the first incident...[as] Aref Ben Ahmad Esh Sharida, a nineteen year old Arab from Biesan, was arrested, identified [ Amos Nevo, a journalist who interviewed Palmachniks who participated in the operation, identifies the rapist as Mohammad Tawash. This indiscrepancy might be attributed to the fact that the rapist had an accomplice. Amos Nevo, "The Punishment," Yediot Ahronot April 30, 1993]...members of the Palmach, the striking forces of the Haganah, made their own inquiries about the identity and whereabouts of the suspect, and resolved to castrate him (after two more sexual assaults had occurred). The operation was approved by the Palmach’s chief commander, Isaac Sadeh, who decided they should teach a lesson, but not kill. A Palmach unit prepared for the operation. Undercover agents gathered information about the suspect and consulted with a doctor [Mendele of the Kupat Holim Clalit] who instructed them how to use ether and which veins to cut. Disguised as Arabs, they came to the suspect’s house and lured him to come with them to a wadi. Despite the anaesthesia their victim remained confused and active, and was therefore stunned with a club’s blow on his head. The primitive operation was performed with a shaving knife and the veins were tied with a shoe lace...The brutal castration was commemorated in a popular Hebrew song “We castrated you, Mohammed!”...

Two members of the Palmach unit were Yochai Bin-Nun and ... Amos Horev, himself. A book by Gamliel Cohen, “Undercover: The Untold Story of the Palmach’s Undercover Arab Unit,” published by the Ministry of Defense and the Galili Center for Defense Studies, provides more details.

Would Ze'evi had done this?

__________________

UPDATE

To be fair to the Hagana:

A similar occurrence took place in late 1946, when a mentally-ill Jewish woman was raped near Ramat Gan by an Arab greengrocer from Sheik Munes, who was consequently arrested, but released on bail despite his admission. (HA 173-23, HA 177-27).  The Haganah abducted the man, Mahmoud Mohammad Shoulabi, upon his release. The castration was performed in a forest near a governmental hospital (Bellinson Hospital, in Petach Tiqva), by Dr. Reuven (Rudolph) Meir, a psychiatrist. After the operation, an anonymous caller notified the police about a wounded Arab in the forest. Mahmoud was hospitalized. He was eventually convicted, but given a short sentence in consideration of what he had gone through. One Haganah member indicated that after a while the castrated victim became their informant, and was subsequently murdered by fellow Arabs who suspected him.  A critical Jewish newspaper article titled “Rascals take the law into their own hands” denounced the operation.

^

When Did The Partition Plan of 1947 Become Impotent?

What happened after the November 29, 1947 partition proposal was rejected by the Arabs, diplomatically?

And what possible ramifications were there in the process?

Well, there was U.N. General Assembly Resolution 186: Appointment and terms of reference of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine; May 14, 1948

186 (S-2).
The General Assembly
Taking account of the present situation in regard to Palestine,
Strongly affirms its support of the efforts of the Security Council to secure a truce in Palestine and calls upon all Governments, organizations and persons to co-operate in making effective such a truce;

...1. Empowers a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, to be chosen by a committee...to: (i) Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine; (ii) Assure the protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Palestine; (iii) Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine;

...Relieves the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.

The Arabs of the former territories of the Mandate of Palestine mst certainly did not do what was asked in that decision.

This was followed by the establishment of a Palestine Conciliation Commission [PCC] in December 1948 but as this article suggests, even before the PCC

Following Israel's emergence, some U.S. officials were openly prepared to jettison the Partition Resolution as obsolete. Philip Jessup, a member of the Policy Planning Staff and the deputy U.S. representative on the Security Council in the summer of 1948, was one of them. He was not the only one who believed that the Resolution was no longer applicable; that its proposal for a Palestinian state and an economic union with Israel was unlikely; and that Israel and the United States would be better served by promoting an increased role for Transjordan's King Abdullah in Palestine.

So, the position that the partition was a dead letter less than a year after it was proposed and cannot be now entered into the diplomatic discourse as, for example, that Jerusalem's fate is till undetermined since the last effective act was its declaration as an international regime, as the US maintains, is contradicted by its own diplomats at that time.

^