From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Palestine
International
Santa Cruz Indymedia
Anti-War
Global Justice & Anti-Capitalism
Racial Justice
How Israel Promotes Anti-Semitism
Today, in an attempt to smear me, posts have gone up all over the internet accusing me of being an anti-Semite. Pieces of the following essay are posted with other words inserted that are not my own. In addition, accusations have been made that I have attempted to delete the following essay from the public record. To contradict this smear tactic, and to prove that opposing Zionism is not anti-Semitic, I am reposting the entire essay in full.
I wrote the following essay early in 2001 as part of a discussion on the violence and repression taking place in Israel at the time. Yet, the essay is still entirely relevant, because it takes a historical look at the roots of the conflict, and discusses how the Zionist movement has been harmful to both Arabs and Jews alike.
I wrote the following essay early in 2001 as part of a discussion on the violence and repression taking place in Israel at the time. Yet, the essay is still entirely relevant, because it takes a historical look at the roots of the conflict, and discusses how the Zionist movement has been harmful to both Arabs and Jews alike.
![123sabra13.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/13/123sabra13.jpg)
Photo: 1982, Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, Palestinians were rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops and their Phalangist Militia allies.
How Israel Promotes Anti-Semitism (Part 1)
In this mailing: Pro-zionist Letter on Israel from Becky Johnson and Response by Steve Argue.
Letter to Editor,
You have to go back and read your history books. Palestine was the name the British gave to the mandate they took over (in typical British imperial fashion) from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Palestinians at the time included everyone who lived there, including the Jews. Palestine ceased to exist when Israel was formed in 1948. The plan
from the UN was to have the state of Palestine right next to Israel. But all the Arab neighbors (and the Arab population within the borders of the new state of Israel) rejected this two state solution and responded by out and out war waged on the Israelis.
The Palestinians (Arabs who live or lived within the boundaries of Israel) didn't even start to call themselves that until 1968--- twenty years after the establishment of Israel. Basically the concept of Palestine is a manufactured one to drum up support for these Arabs and to decrease support for Israel by the claim that Israel is on THEIR land.
Remember, the Arabs and muslims [sic] who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population.
There is no Palestine. And there never was except as a British invention.
---Becky Johnson
Steven Argue responds:
Actually, history is one of my strong points. You state that I need to consult my history books, yet you make statements that are inarguably historically incorrect. Palestine was in existence as a recognized territory of the Ottoman Empire long before British control and even before the beginnings of Jewish colonization by the Zionist movement.
These inhabitants of the region also had Arab nationalist sentiments that opposed the control of the Ottoman Empire before the creation of the Zionist State and have since opposed many of the U.S., French, and British imposed kings, crown princes, emirs, sheiks, etc. that Zionists like to claim represent the aspirations of the Arab people.
Your attempt to deny a people of even the name of their homeland is consistent with an ideology that denies an entire people of the right to their homeland. The fact that bloody repression and horrible discrimination has driven the majority of Palestinians from large parts of their homeland without the right of return is not enough. The Zionist movement wants to wipe away the rightful name of the land they have conquered by re-writing history and denying there ever was a Palestine.
From its beginnings in the eighteen hundreds the Zionist movement had little concern for the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian land they would settle. Instead, they appealed to imperialist powers as potential allies against the Arab people in setting up their Zionist state. For example, Zionist leader T. Herzl stated around 1897: "If his majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could undertake to regulate Turkey's finances. For Europe, we would constitute a bulwark against Asia down there; we would be the advance post of civilization against barbarism. As a neutral state, we would remain in constant touch with all of Europe, which would guarantee our existence" (Rodinson, "Israel a Colonial Settler State?").
By being “neutral”, Herzl is obviously referring to the Zionist dealings with powers of Europe, and not to the colonial "barbarians" already in and around the land he would settle and conquer.
An Arab leader in Jerusalem named Nassif Bey al-Khalidi who tried unsuccessfully to work out an agreement between Arabs and the Zionist movement warned the Zionists with the following statement, "Be very careful, Messieurs Zionists, governments disappear, but peoples remain. The Jewish immigrants came to Palestine believing it to be a desolate, sparsely inhabited country. They were too busy with their own business and too ignorant of Arabic to notice what was going on around them. Since it was the Turks who ruled Palestine, they turned all their attention toward the Turks. This did not make them popular with the Arabs" (Neville Mandel, "Chapters of Arab-Jewish Diplomacy 1918-1922").
The Jewish immigrants never became integrated in any way with the native Arab population. This was true economically, politically, socially, and linguistically. These Jewish immigrants were so separate from the Palestinian people that they were only Palestinian to the extent that they were physically living in Palestine.
It took the weakening of the Sultan during the First World War for Europe (specifically England) to move in and grant the colonial framework for Jewish colonization that aimed itself at the goal of an exclusively Jewish state. This framework was set forth in a British political charter in November 1917 called the Balfour Declaration which stated, "His Majesty's government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Within this framework an exclusive Jewish state was the stated goal of all but a small minority in the Zionist movement, a goal that obviously would be at the expense of the Arab people already living in Palestine. In order to placate the Palestinians, however, the Balfour declaration stated, "It should be clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
While Britain was trying to placate the Arabs, Zionist leader Jabotinsky was very clear on Zionist intentions, stating in 1923 in his Book the "Iron Wall", "There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization took place with the agreement of the native population."
In understanding the existence of a Palestinian people and the struggles yet to come, Jabotinsky went on to state, "They have the precise psychology we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope."
Jabotinsky's view, and the policy that would later be carried out against the Palestinians, could not be made any clearer than his following statement from the same writing: "We can not give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to the other Arabs. Therefore a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the native population. Therefore it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the Arab population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
In explaining the differences between Zionist factions in dealing with the Palestinians Jabotinsky stated, "Force must play its role - with strength and without indulgence. In this, in this there are no differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other prefers an Iron Wall of English bayonets."
On these issues Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University Jerusalem wrote, "by definition a Jewish state means that Jews will govern other people, other people who live in this Jewish state…Jabotinsky knew this long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state...In his early writings he said: 'Has a people ever been known to give up its territory of its own volition? Likewise, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence.'"
On the morals of Jabotinsky's plans and his desire to extinguish all hopes of the Palestinian people he is as clear in the "Iron Wall" as Hitler is of his intentions in "Mein Kampf" with Jabotinsky stating: "To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer 'absolutely untrue.' This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest hope for the Arabs to impede us they will not sell these hopes - not for any sweet word nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall."
In 1940 Jabotinsky states in "The Jewish War Front": "Since we have the moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of the Arabs, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. Herr Hitler has recently been enhancing the popularity of population transfer."
While the Arabs of Palestine were extremely tolerant of the Zionists who were moving in to take their land and their hopes, the Zionist movement was never interested in forming any sort of alliance with the Arab people. Instead, the Zionist movement from its inception was openly anti-Arab and pro-imperialist, even though those same imperial powers were the same ones who were carrying out pogroms against the Jews in the ghettos across Europe. This pro-imperialist policy included close relations with the pogromist leaders of anti-Semitic Czarist Russia who murdered tens of thousands of Jews, and later Zionist support and deals that aided the fascist death camps of Nazi Germany.
Jews, in fact, are victims of Zionism along side Arabs. From the beginning of Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 the Zionist movement lent their support to the Nazis, support which lasted until at least 1944 when they aided Hitler's "final solution" in Hungary killing 800,000 Jews. On the surface, the idea of Zionist relations with the Nazis may sound illogical and seem made up. Those relations, however, are well documented.
Hitler seized power in 1933 with a clear fascistic program that called for the annihilation of all socialists, communists, labor leaders, and Jews. Despite this fact, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent the Nazi Party a memorandum on June 21, 1933 stating: "…a rebirth of national life such as is occurring in German life … must also take place in the Jewish national group. On the foundation of the new [Nazi] state, which has established itself on the principle of race, we wish to fit our community into the total structure so that for us, too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible…." (Brenner, Zionism, pg. 48)
The policy of supporting Hitler was later upheld at the World Zionist Organization Congress in 1933, where a motion to take action against Hitler was defeated 240 to 43. Thus, the Jewish boycott of the German economy at a time of economic weakness and vulnerability was broken with the World Zionist Organization's Anglo Palestine Bank resuming trade. In fact, the World Zionist Organization became the principal distributors of Nazi goods in Northern Europe and the Middle East.
Feivel Polkes was a member of Zionist leader Jabotinsky's Haganah militia. He was sent by Jabotinsky to Berlin to inform Nazi leader Adolf Eichman of his intention to spy for the S.S. in exchange for the release of the money of German Jews for use on the Zionist project. Zionist Feivel told Nazi Eichman, "Jewish Nationalist Circles are very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews would reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs" (Brenner, "Zionism" pg. 99).
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, felt so fond of the Zionist movement and their close working relations that he wrote a 12 part report in Der Angriff (The Assault) praising the Zionist movement, and ordered a medallion struck with a swastika on one side and the Zionist Star of David on the other.
Collaboration included an agreement in Hungary between Zionist agent Dr. Rudolph Kastner and Nazi leader Adolph Eichman. Under the 1944 agreement the Nazis would murder 800,000 Hungarian Jews without Zionist interference and with complete silence from the Zionist movement. In exchange, 600 prominent Jews would be freed from Hungary. The Nazis then opened up a Rescue Department in Hungary headed by Kastner. These facts were exposed by a survivor named Malchiel Greenwald who was subsequently sued by the Israeli government, sued by the same leaders that had fashioned the deal made by Kastner in the first place.
Kastner's collaboration with the Nazis was confirmed with the Israeli court stating, "The sacrifice of the majority of the Jews, in order to rescue the prominents was the basic element in the agreement between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation into two unequal camps, a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the majority of Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand." (Judgment given on June 22, 1955, Protocol of Criminal Case
124/53 in District Court, Jerusalem; cited in Ralph Schoenman’s “Hidden History of Zionism”)
The Zionists subsequently ignored a plan drawn up by the resistance that could have saved many, if not most, of Hungary's Jews. The Zionist silence and lack of action against Nazi atrocities in fact characterizes their stance throughout the entire holocaust. A plan, complete with maps, was drawn up that would blow-up railroad tracks to the death camps and crematoria and airdropped ammunition to the 80,000 Jews in Auschwitz. Part of the plan also included the parachuting of saboteurs to blow up the Auschwitz facility that was murdering 13,000 people a day. Had the Zionist movement not been so intent on fighting the Arabs, rather than the real anti-Semite butchers of Europe, they could have gathered the resources to carry out such operations. Likewise, Great Britain and the United States could have carried out the proposed measures as well, but chose not to save the Jews, and felt no pressure from the silent Zionist movement to do so.
This caused Rabbi Weismandel, who had drawn up the plans against Auschwitz, to ask of the Zionists in July 1944, "this special message to inform you that yesterday the Germans began deportations of Jews from Hungary. … The deported ones go to Auschwitz to be put to death by cyanide gas. This is the schedule, of Auschwitz from yesterday to the end: Twelve thousand Jews - men, women and children, old men, infants, healthy and sick ones, are to be suffocated daily. And you, our brothers in Palestine, in all the countries of freedom, and you ministers of all the Kingdoms, how do you keep silent in the face of this great murder. Silent while thousands upon thousands, reaching now to six million Jews, are murdered? And silent now, while tens of thousands are still being murdered or waiting to be murdered? Their destroyed hearts cry out to you for help as they bewail your cruelty. Brutal, you are and murderers, too, you are, because of the cold bloodedness of the silence in which you watch, because you sit with folded arms and do nothing, although you could stop or delay the murder of Jews at this very hour. You, our brothers, sons of Israel, are you insane?" (Shoenman, "The Hidden History of Zionism?")
The Zionists also opposed the immigration of Jews to other countries where they could escape extermination. Explaining their policy of pressuring Great Britain and the United States not to adopt immigration policies that would have saved the lives of Jews, Zionist leader Ben Gurion stated in 1938, "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I would opt for the second option" (Brenner, "Zionism", pg. 149).
The ability of the Zionist movement to sacrifice the lives of millions of Jews for the settling of Palestine had a consistent inner logic. That logic speaks volumes. While some of the first victims of these Zionist madmen were the Jewish people, the Palestinians were next. And today, the continued Zionist mistreatment of the Palestinian people is one of the biggest threats to the lives of Jewish people because some of the Arab victims of Zionism now do not differentiate between the crimes of Zionism and the Jewish people. In addition, the Israeli government aided in the formation of the anti-Semitic organization Hamas, and today uses their suicide bombings against civilians as a way to gain sympathy and support in the Zionist war against the Palestinian people (more on this later). Objectively, the Zionist capitalist state is, in fact, the common enemy of both Jews and Arabs.
In the 1940s Jews were only one third of the population of Palestine. The Arab majority had not yet been driven from their land. The British, in considering their entire imperial interests in the Middle East and their need for good relations with Arabs had backtracked from their original support of a Jewish state in Palestine. Thus the Zionist minority carried out a war of independence against Britain in order to set up the Jewish state. The Palestinian people, the majority of the population, were not consulted by the Zionists on what kind of future they would like to have for their homeland and had little involvement in the war, although a few did side with British forces.
After independence from the Britain in 1948, the Zionist state began a massive expropriation of Palestinian land that has not ended. Becky Johnson's claim that, "the Arabs and Muslims who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population" is so utterly untrue as to defy common sense. Besides defying the facts, which we shall establish, I ask why most of an entire people would voluntarily flee the land in which they had built flourishing towns, a rich agriculture, and a vibrant cultural life with nowhere else to go? The short answer is that they did not flee voluntarily. They had met the "Jewish bayonets" of Zionist Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall". To deny this fact comes in on the same level as those who deny the Holocaust of Europe.
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote:
"I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?"
Although the Israeli government claims that Palestinians have the right to own property, this is a lie. Ever since 1948, Palestinians in Israel do not have the right to own land, because their land is often confiscated by force for Hebrew speaking settlement and agriculture. Water rights have been systematically cut off and diverted away from Palestinian lands and given to stolen Hebrew owned lands. Palestinian laborers are then denied by law the right to work the Hebrew owned agricultural lands, although they are sometimes illegally employed as cheap labor with no labor rights.
Palestinians do not have the right to freely travel. Reminiscent of chattel slavery, Palestinian families are often separated by Israeli officials who commonly do not grant necessary permits for Palestinians to enter neighborhoods or towns where wives, husbands, or children live. In contrast, the Hebrew speaking population has full rights to travel.
Palestinians often do not have the right to keep their own homes, which are often confiscated or bulldozed. The bulldozing of houses is a common punishment of families whose children are accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Recently, in Jenin, houses were bulldozed with people inside, an act that besides killing people, also made an estimated 4,000 people homeless.
Palestinians do not have the right to freedom of speech and regularly face arrest, torture, and even death for their political views. Even Hebrew speakers who support rights for Palestinians, or an end to Israeli wars, have, at times, had their press shut down by the Israeli government, or had their demonstrations attacked and beaten by Israeli soldiers.
Palestinians do not have the same right to an education as Hebrew speaking people, based on the fact that higher education is paid for through the forced military inscription of Hebrew speakers, while Palestinians are generally excluded from the military. While most Palestinians can’t serve, so-called “Israeli Arabs” have the choice of serving, but it would, in fact, make no sense for Palestinians to serve their military, since humiliation, brutality, and outright terror against Palestinians is a part of every day duty for an Israeli soldier. Likewise, few blacks served in the Apartheid military of South Africa. In Israel, this is used to deny Palestinians their right to education.
Those Palestinians who are then driven out of what was once Palestine usually are not allowed to return, while Jews who have never set foot in Israel are granted automatic citizenship, with the exception of two Jewish supporters of Palestinians named Ralph Shoenman and Mya Shone, who have the honor of not being allowed into Israel because of their excellent writings. Those Palestinians who are forced from Israel are often bombed by Israel in their refugee camps or massacred in other ways. In the 1982 case of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, Palestinians were rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops and their Phalangist Militia allies.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes:
"The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Sabra and Shatila are only one of the massacres of people done by the Israeli government in the past 54 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Today, all of the Palestinian towns of historic Palestine are either occupied by Israeli troops who are killing people, or surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks who are poised to attack. While Israeli troops are claiming that they are only killing combatants, Human Rights Watch has documented the following crimes in Jenin alone: murders of civilians including children, the old, and the disabled; summary executions; the bulldozing of houses with people in them; and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.
The cities of Ramallah and Jenin have been laid to waste by the Zionists just as the Nazis smashed the towns of Guarnica and Lidice in the name of collective punishment. Likewise, the heroic resistance of Palestinian fighters in the face of superior military force is reminiscent of the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and Vilna.
The Israeli offensive will not stop those willing to do suicide missions against civilians, attacks that are futile attempts to combat the genocide Palestinians face. The Israeli offensive does the opposite, in deepening the conditions that created suicide bombers in the first place. The anger created is by escalated Israeli murder is actually more likely to increase the number of tragic attacks on Hebrew speaking civilians. At the same time, Israel has not targeted the main base of the suicide bombers, Gaza, where Hamas is heavily organized. In fact, the murderous Israeli repression really isn't meant to stop attacks on Hebrew speaking civilians because these bombings by Hamas actually play right into the Zionist government's aims and objectives in dividing Arab and Hebrew speaking peoples, diverting international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and potentially pushing for a “final solution” against the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian Authority, who the Israeli government consistently blame for the attacks by Hamas.
Hamas is an anti-Semitic fundamentalist religious organization that killed 150 Israeli civilians through suicide bombings between 1994 and 1998 alone. From its beginnings as the Mujama in the 1970s to this day, Hamas does not face the same kind of repression as any other Palestinian group. In addition, Hamas reportedly receives $28 million dollars a year from another key U.S. ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. and the Saudi Arabian monarchy work together closely to systematically loot Saudi Arabia's oil resources for the profits of U.S. oil monopolies, while the vast majority of the Saudi people live in poverty. In addition, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Hamas worked together closely in the U.S. war drive to destroy the left progressive PDPA government that held power in Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. This was a war where the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia gave billions of dollars of military aid to Osama Bin Laden and the Islamic fundamentalists of the Mujahedin who were waging a holy war against the advances in women's rights, including women's literacy, that were occurring under the PDPA government. Tactics of the Mujahedin included throwing acid in the faces of women liberated from the veil and murdering women for teaching little girls how to read and write. Fearing a Mujahedin government right on its border, and defending the PDPA government from U.S. aggression, the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan in 1979. Although these Soviet troops were invited by the Afghan PDPA, U.S. propaganda called this a “Soviet invasion”.
An estimated 100,000 of the Islamic fundamentalists who fought in Afghanistan were recruited by the CIA outside of Afghanistan. Hamas participated in this activity. As John Cooley from ABC news pointed out on March 13th, 1996 in the International Herald Tribune:
"A key Hamas organizer was Abdallah Azzam. He was a tough, brilliant and charismatic Palestinian from Jordan. He supervised training for the CIA's Afghan guerrillas in Peshawar, Pakistan, where a car bomb killed him in 1989. In the earlier 1980s he toured the United States, recruiting Arab-Americans for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan."
Just as the United States used Hamas against the Afghani people and the leftist PDPA government, Israel has used the religious fundamentalists of Hamas as a club against the socialist and secular nationalist movements in Palestine that Hamas has violently opposed. It is those secular and socialist movements that Israel has seen as more of a threat in terms of winning the masses of people, including Hebrew speakers, over to positions of sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians. Hamas's suicide bombers against civilians instead serve Zionist interests in driving a larger wedge between Palestinians and Hebrew speakers, people who will need to unite against their common oppressor and killer, the Israeli Zionist government.
Early Israeli support for Hamas included in 1978 the granting of Mujama charitable status in Gaza while other organizations, especially political organizations as Mujama was, could not get such status. In 1979, Israeli collusion with the Mujama movement set up the Islamic University of Gaza, whose anti-PLO and anti-socialist slogan was: "How can uncovered women and men with Beatle haircuts liberate our holy places?" Students who did not tow the Islamic line were disciplined through brutal beatings and sometimes had acid thrown in their faces. In addition, Mujama mobs were allowed to violently attack and burn down PLO controlled institutions at a time when other street demonstrations were not allowed or tightly controlled by the Israeli authorities.
In 1979 the Mujama movement burned the Palestinian Red Crescent Society's (PRC) building to the ground. In response, the PRC issued the following statement, "The tacit approval of the authorities, if not their actual connivance in what happened, was displayed in their attitude of non-interference. While they usually display great alertness to combating even peaceful demonstrations of young students within schools, here they stood indifferently watching a violently destructive demonstration march to its objectives."
In 1988 Hamas was formed out of Mujama. While PLO supporters were organizing mass demonstrations in the streets, Hamas was instead focusing on shooting Israeli soldiers. Despite this fact, Hamas had top-level meetings with the Israeli government while that same government would not even meet with the PLO. Milton Edwards in "Islamic Politics In Palestine" noted the relationship:
"The relationship between Hamas and the Israeli authorities was, however, at the strongest during the second year of the Intifada. The Israelis had been quick to extend legitimacy status to Hamas in an attempt to marginalize the PLO. Leaders of Hamas were regularly filmed at meetings with top-level Israeli officials and the message the Israelis were sending out was that they regarded Hamas as the type of people with whom they could work…
"In addition the Israelis continued turning a blind eye to large amounts of money coming into the country destined for Hamas coffers, while at the same time stopping the flow of PLO funds in support of the
Intifada."
In 1994, Hamas began its indiscriminate attacks on Hebrew speaking people through suicide bombings. Those suicide bombings had been stepped up by Hamas in the beginnings of the Intifada 2 uprising in September 2000, but then ended due to an agreement between Arafat's Palestinian Authority and Hamas. While this agreement was in effect world attention became focused on the gunning down of Palestinian children by Israeli sharp shooters on the West Bank. For the Zionist government this was becoming a public relations disaster.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon needed a new provocation he could use as propaganda to escalate the war against the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). To create this provocation he took action to end the truce between the P.A. and Hamas on ending the suicide bombings of civilians. On November 23rd Israeli security forces assassinated Hamas leader Mahmud Abu Hunud. On November 25th, 2001 right-wing Israeli journalist Alex Fishman accurately observed in the "Yediot Achronot", "Whoever gave the green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line."
Of course no one but Sharon could have given the green light for such an important operation. Sharon's provocation against the Hamas anti-Semites had its intended affect. Within days Hamas resumed attacks against Israeli civilians. In March a Hamas bomber killed 25 civilians in the Passover attack that was then used by Sharon as his excuse to attack the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority while leaving the Hamas stronghold of Gaza untouched.
The U.S. government's massive military support to the Zionist State and, to a lesser extent to the repressive Saudi Arabian monarchy, is responsible for the bloodshed in Palestine. The racist state of Israel currently receives 300,000 dollars per hour in U.S. military and economic aid. The F-16 bombers and Apache and Cobra helicopters used in the latest attacks are just some of the weapons used to kill Palestinians that are made in the United States.
Socialists stand for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel and all of the crowned princes, sheiks, emirs, and Islamic fanatics of the Middle East. We understand that these U.S. policies are the policies of both the Democrat and Republican Parties. Imperialist policy isn't the result of some misunderstanding by these parties of the wealthy. Instead, the repressive and genocidal policies of U.S. imperialism flow from the drive for profits by the rapacious U.S. capitalists that rule America and much of the world. From this understanding, socialists know that the only way we will get a just foreign policy, fair treatment of workers and the poor, and sound ecological policies, is through a socialist revolution in the United States.
---Steve Argue, for Liberation News
This is an article of Liberation News, a low volume newsletter, Subscribe free!
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
How Israel Promotes Anti-Semitism (Part 1)
In this mailing: Pro-zionist Letter on Israel from Becky Johnson and Response by Steve Argue.
Letter to Editor,
You have to go back and read your history books. Palestine was the name the British gave to the mandate they took over (in typical British imperial fashion) from the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Palestinians at the time included everyone who lived there, including the Jews. Palestine ceased to exist when Israel was formed in 1948. The plan
from the UN was to have the state of Palestine right next to Israel. But all the Arab neighbors (and the Arab population within the borders of the new state of Israel) rejected this two state solution and responded by out and out war waged on the Israelis.
The Palestinians (Arabs who live or lived within the boundaries of Israel) didn't even start to call themselves that until 1968--- twenty years after the establishment of Israel. Basically the concept of Palestine is a manufactured one to drum up support for these Arabs and to decrease support for Israel by the claim that Israel is on THEIR land.
Remember, the Arabs and muslims [sic] who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population.
There is no Palestine. And there never was except as a British invention.
---Becky Johnson
Steven Argue responds:
Actually, history is one of my strong points. You state that I need to consult my history books, yet you make statements that are inarguably historically incorrect. Palestine was in existence as a recognized territory of the Ottoman Empire long before British control and even before the beginnings of Jewish colonization by the Zionist movement.
These inhabitants of the region also had Arab nationalist sentiments that opposed the control of the Ottoman Empire before the creation of the Zionist State and have since opposed many of the U.S., French, and British imposed kings, crown princes, emirs, sheiks, etc. that Zionists like to claim represent the aspirations of the Arab people.
Your attempt to deny a people of even the name of their homeland is consistent with an ideology that denies an entire people of the right to their homeland. The fact that bloody repression and horrible discrimination has driven the majority of Palestinians from large parts of their homeland without the right of return is not enough. The Zionist movement wants to wipe away the rightful name of the land they have conquered by re-writing history and denying there ever was a Palestine.
From its beginnings in the eighteen hundreds the Zionist movement had little concern for the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian land they would settle. Instead, they appealed to imperialist powers as potential allies against the Arab people in setting up their Zionist state. For example, Zionist leader T. Herzl stated around 1897: "If his majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could undertake to regulate Turkey's finances. For Europe, we would constitute a bulwark against Asia down there; we would be the advance post of civilization against barbarism. As a neutral state, we would remain in constant touch with all of Europe, which would guarantee our existence" (Rodinson, "Israel a Colonial Settler State?").
By being “neutral”, Herzl is obviously referring to the Zionist dealings with powers of Europe, and not to the colonial "barbarians" already in and around the land he would settle and conquer.
An Arab leader in Jerusalem named Nassif Bey al-Khalidi who tried unsuccessfully to work out an agreement between Arabs and the Zionist movement warned the Zionists with the following statement, "Be very careful, Messieurs Zionists, governments disappear, but peoples remain. The Jewish immigrants came to Palestine believing it to be a desolate, sparsely inhabited country. They were too busy with their own business and too ignorant of Arabic to notice what was going on around them. Since it was the Turks who ruled Palestine, they turned all their attention toward the Turks. This did not make them popular with the Arabs" (Neville Mandel, "Chapters of Arab-Jewish Diplomacy 1918-1922").
The Jewish immigrants never became integrated in any way with the native Arab population. This was true economically, politically, socially, and linguistically. These Jewish immigrants were so separate from the Palestinian people that they were only Palestinian to the extent that they were physically living in Palestine.
It took the weakening of the Sultan during the First World War for Europe (specifically England) to move in and grant the colonial framework for Jewish colonization that aimed itself at the goal of an exclusively Jewish state. This framework was set forth in a British political charter in November 1917 called the Balfour Declaration which stated, "His Majesty's government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
Within this framework an exclusive Jewish state was the stated goal of all but a small minority in the Zionist movement, a goal that obviously would be at the expense of the Arab people already living in Palestine. In order to placate the Palestinians, however, the Balfour declaration stated, "It should be clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
While Britain was trying to placate the Arabs, Zionist leader Jabotinsky was very clear on Zionist intentions, stating in 1923 in his Book the "Iron Wall", "There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization took place with the agreement of the native population."
In understanding the existence of a Palestinian people and the struggles yet to come, Jabotinsky went on to state, "They have the precise psychology we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope."
Jabotinsky's view, and the policy that would later be carried out against the Palestinians, could not be made any clearer than his following statement from the same writing: "We can not give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to the other Arabs. Therefore a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the native population. Therefore it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the Arab population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
In explaining the differences between Zionist factions in dealing with the Palestinians Jabotinsky stated, "Force must play its role - with strength and without indulgence. In this, in this there are no differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other prefers an Iron Wall of English bayonets."
On these issues Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University Jerusalem wrote, "by definition a Jewish state means that Jews will govern other people, other people who live in this Jewish state…Jabotinsky knew this long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state...In his early writings he said: 'Has a people ever been known to give up its territory of its own volition? Likewise, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence.'"
On the morals of Jabotinsky's plans and his desire to extinguish all hopes of the Palestinian people he is as clear in the "Iron Wall" as Hitler is of his intentions in "Mein Kampf" with Jabotinsky stating: "To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer 'absolutely untrue.' This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest hope for the Arabs to impede us they will not sell these hopes - not for any sweet word nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall."
In 1940 Jabotinsky states in "The Jewish War Front": "Since we have the moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of the Arabs, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. Herr Hitler has recently been enhancing the popularity of population transfer."
While the Arabs of Palestine were extremely tolerant of the Zionists who were moving in to take their land and their hopes, the Zionist movement was never interested in forming any sort of alliance with the Arab people. Instead, the Zionist movement from its inception was openly anti-Arab and pro-imperialist, even though those same imperial powers were the same ones who were carrying out pogroms against the Jews in the ghettos across Europe. This pro-imperialist policy included close relations with the pogromist leaders of anti-Semitic Czarist Russia who murdered tens of thousands of Jews, and later Zionist support and deals that aided the fascist death camps of Nazi Germany.
Jews, in fact, are victims of Zionism along side Arabs. From the beginning of Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 the Zionist movement lent their support to the Nazis, support which lasted until at least 1944 when they aided Hitler's "final solution" in Hungary killing 800,000 Jews. On the surface, the idea of Zionist relations with the Nazis may sound illogical and seem made up. Those relations, however, are well documented.
Hitler seized power in 1933 with a clear fascistic program that called for the annihilation of all socialists, communists, labor leaders, and Jews. Despite this fact, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent the Nazi Party a memorandum on June 21, 1933 stating: "…a rebirth of national life such as is occurring in German life … must also take place in the Jewish national group. On the foundation of the new [Nazi] state, which has established itself on the principle of race, we wish to fit our community into the total structure so that for us, too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible…." (Brenner, Zionism, pg. 48)
The policy of supporting Hitler was later upheld at the World Zionist Organization Congress in 1933, where a motion to take action against Hitler was defeated 240 to 43. Thus, the Jewish boycott of the German economy at a time of economic weakness and vulnerability was broken with the World Zionist Organization's Anglo Palestine Bank resuming trade. In fact, the World Zionist Organization became the principal distributors of Nazi goods in Northern Europe and the Middle East.
Feivel Polkes was a member of Zionist leader Jabotinsky's Haganah militia. He was sent by Jabotinsky to Berlin to inform Nazi leader Adolf Eichman of his intention to spy for the S.S. in exchange for the release of the money of German Jews for use on the Zionist project. Zionist Feivel told Nazi Eichman, "Jewish Nationalist Circles are very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews would reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs" (Brenner, "Zionism" pg. 99).
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, felt so fond of the Zionist movement and their close working relations that he wrote a 12 part report in Der Angriff (The Assault) praising the Zionist movement, and ordered a medallion struck with a swastika on one side and the Zionist Star of David on the other.
Collaboration included an agreement in Hungary between Zionist agent Dr. Rudolph Kastner and Nazi leader Adolph Eichman. Under the 1944 agreement the Nazis would murder 800,000 Hungarian Jews without Zionist interference and with complete silence from the Zionist movement. In exchange, 600 prominent Jews would be freed from Hungary. The Nazis then opened up a Rescue Department in Hungary headed by Kastner. These facts were exposed by a survivor named Malchiel Greenwald who was subsequently sued by the Israeli government, sued by the same leaders that had fashioned the deal made by Kastner in the first place.
Kastner's collaboration with the Nazis was confirmed with the Israeli court stating, "The sacrifice of the majority of the Jews, in order to rescue the prominents was the basic element in the agreement between Kastner and the Nazis. This agreement fixed the division of the nation into two unequal camps, a small fragment of prominents, whom the Nazis promised Kastner to save, on the one hand, and the majority of Hungarian Jews whom the Nazis designated for death, on the other hand." (Judgment given on June 22, 1955, Protocol of Criminal Case
124/53 in District Court, Jerusalem; cited in Ralph Schoenman’s “Hidden History of Zionism”)
The Zionists subsequently ignored a plan drawn up by the resistance that could have saved many, if not most, of Hungary's Jews. The Zionist silence and lack of action against Nazi atrocities in fact characterizes their stance throughout the entire holocaust. A plan, complete with maps, was drawn up that would blow-up railroad tracks to the death camps and crematoria and airdropped ammunition to the 80,000 Jews in Auschwitz. Part of the plan also included the parachuting of saboteurs to blow up the Auschwitz facility that was murdering 13,000 people a day. Had the Zionist movement not been so intent on fighting the Arabs, rather than the real anti-Semite butchers of Europe, they could have gathered the resources to carry out such operations. Likewise, Great Britain and the United States could have carried out the proposed measures as well, but chose not to save the Jews, and felt no pressure from the silent Zionist movement to do so.
This caused Rabbi Weismandel, who had drawn up the plans against Auschwitz, to ask of the Zionists in July 1944, "this special message to inform you that yesterday the Germans began deportations of Jews from Hungary. … The deported ones go to Auschwitz to be put to death by cyanide gas. This is the schedule, of Auschwitz from yesterday to the end: Twelve thousand Jews - men, women and children, old men, infants, healthy and sick ones, are to be suffocated daily. And you, our brothers in Palestine, in all the countries of freedom, and you ministers of all the Kingdoms, how do you keep silent in the face of this great murder. Silent while thousands upon thousands, reaching now to six million Jews, are murdered? And silent now, while tens of thousands are still being murdered or waiting to be murdered? Their destroyed hearts cry out to you for help as they bewail your cruelty. Brutal, you are and murderers, too, you are, because of the cold bloodedness of the silence in which you watch, because you sit with folded arms and do nothing, although you could stop or delay the murder of Jews at this very hour. You, our brothers, sons of Israel, are you insane?" (Shoenman, "The Hidden History of Zionism?")
The Zionists also opposed the immigration of Jews to other countries where they could escape extermination. Explaining their policy of pressuring Great Britain and the United States not to adopt immigration policies that would have saved the lives of Jews, Zionist leader Ben Gurion stated in 1938, "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I would opt for the second option" (Brenner, "Zionism", pg. 149).
The ability of the Zionist movement to sacrifice the lives of millions of Jews for the settling of Palestine had a consistent inner logic. That logic speaks volumes. While some of the first victims of these Zionist madmen were the Jewish people, the Palestinians were next. And today, the continued Zionist mistreatment of the Palestinian people is one of the biggest threats to the lives of Jewish people because some of the Arab victims of Zionism now do not differentiate between the crimes of Zionism and the Jewish people. In addition, the Israeli government aided in the formation of the anti-Semitic organization Hamas, and today uses their suicide bombings against civilians as a way to gain sympathy and support in the Zionist war against the Palestinian people (more on this later). Objectively, the Zionist capitalist state is, in fact, the common enemy of both Jews and Arabs.
In the 1940s Jews were only one third of the population of Palestine. The Arab majority had not yet been driven from their land. The British, in considering their entire imperial interests in the Middle East and their need for good relations with Arabs had backtracked from their original support of a Jewish state in Palestine. Thus the Zionist minority carried out a war of independence against Britain in order to set up the Jewish state. The Palestinian people, the majority of the population, were not consulted by the Zionists on what kind of future they would like to have for their homeland and had little involvement in the war, although a few did side with British forces.
After independence from the Britain in 1948, the Zionist state began a massive expropriation of Palestinian land that has not ended. Becky Johnson's claim that, "the Arabs and Muslims who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population" is so utterly untrue as to defy common sense. Besides defying the facts, which we shall establish, I ask why most of an entire people would voluntarily flee the land in which they had built flourishing towns, a rich agriculture, and a vibrant cultural life with nowhere else to go? The short answer is that they did not flee voluntarily. They had met the "Jewish bayonets" of Zionist Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall". To deny this fact comes in on the same level as those who deny the Holocaust of Europe.
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote:
"I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?"
Although the Israeli government claims that Palestinians have the right to own property, this is a lie. Ever since 1948, Palestinians in Israel do not have the right to own land, because their land is often confiscated by force for Hebrew speaking settlement and agriculture. Water rights have been systematically cut off and diverted away from Palestinian lands and given to stolen Hebrew owned lands. Palestinian laborers are then denied by law the right to work the Hebrew owned agricultural lands, although they are sometimes illegally employed as cheap labor with no labor rights.
Palestinians do not have the right to freely travel. Reminiscent of chattel slavery, Palestinian families are often separated by Israeli officials who commonly do not grant necessary permits for Palestinians to enter neighborhoods or towns where wives, husbands, or children live. In contrast, the Hebrew speaking population has full rights to travel.
Palestinians often do not have the right to keep their own homes, which are often confiscated or bulldozed. The bulldozing of houses is a common punishment of families whose children are accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Recently, in Jenin, houses were bulldozed with people inside, an act that besides killing people, also made an estimated 4,000 people homeless.
Palestinians do not have the right to freedom of speech and regularly face arrest, torture, and even death for their political views. Even Hebrew speakers who support rights for Palestinians, or an end to Israeli wars, have, at times, had their press shut down by the Israeli government, or had their demonstrations attacked and beaten by Israeli soldiers.
Palestinians do not have the same right to an education as Hebrew speaking people, based on the fact that higher education is paid for through the forced military inscription of Hebrew speakers, while Palestinians are generally excluded from the military. While most Palestinians can’t serve, so-called “Israeli Arabs” have the choice of serving, but it would, in fact, make no sense for Palestinians to serve their military, since humiliation, brutality, and outright terror against Palestinians is a part of every day duty for an Israeli soldier. Likewise, few blacks served in the Apartheid military of South Africa. In Israel, this is used to deny Palestinians their right to education.
Those Palestinians who are then driven out of what was once Palestine usually are not allowed to return, while Jews who have never set foot in Israel are granted automatic citizenship, with the exception of two Jewish supporters of Palestinians named Ralph Shoenman and Mya Shone, who have the honor of not being allowed into Israel because of their excellent writings. Those Palestinians who are forced from Israel are often bombed by Israel in their refugee camps or massacred in other ways. In the 1982 case of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon, Palestinians were rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops and their Phalangist Militia allies.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes:
"The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Sabra and Shatila are only one of the massacres of people done by the Israeli government in the past 54 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. Today, all of the Palestinian towns of historic Palestine are either occupied by Israeli troops who are killing people, or surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks who are poised to attack. While Israeli troops are claiming that they are only killing combatants, Human Rights Watch has documented the following crimes in Jenin alone: murders of civilians including children, the old, and the disabled; summary executions; the bulldozing of houses with people in them; and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.
The cities of Ramallah and Jenin have been laid to waste by the Zionists just as the Nazis smashed the towns of Guarnica and Lidice in the name of collective punishment. Likewise, the heroic resistance of Palestinian fighters in the face of superior military force is reminiscent of the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto and Vilna.
The Israeli offensive will not stop those willing to do suicide missions against civilians, attacks that are futile attempts to combat the genocide Palestinians face. The Israeli offensive does the opposite, in deepening the conditions that created suicide bombers in the first place. The anger created is by escalated Israeli murder is actually more likely to increase the number of tragic attacks on Hebrew speaking civilians. At the same time, Israel has not targeted the main base of the suicide bombers, Gaza, where Hamas is heavily organized. In fact, the murderous Israeli repression really isn't meant to stop attacks on Hebrew speaking civilians because these bombings by Hamas actually play right into the Zionist government's aims and objectives in dividing Arab and Hebrew speaking peoples, diverting international sympathy for the Palestinian cause, and potentially pushing for a “final solution” against the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian Authority, who the Israeli government consistently blame for the attacks by Hamas.
Hamas is an anti-Semitic fundamentalist religious organization that killed 150 Israeli civilians through suicide bombings between 1994 and 1998 alone. From its beginnings as the Mujama in the 1970s to this day, Hamas does not face the same kind of repression as any other Palestinian group. In addition, Hamas reportedly receives $28 million dollars a year from another key U.S. ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. and the Saudi Arabian monarchy work together closely to systematically loot Saudi Arabia's oil resources for the profits of U.S. oil monopolies, while the vast majority of the Saudi people live in poverty. In addition, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Hamas worked together closely in the U.S. war drive to destroy the left progressive PDPA government that held power in Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. This was a war where the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia gave billions of dollars of military aid to Osama Bin Laden and the Islamic fundamentalists of the Mujahedin who were waging a holy war against the advances in women's rights, including women's literacy, that were occurring under the PDPA government. Tactics of the Mujahedin included throwing acid in the faces of women liberated from the veil and murdering women for teaching little girls how to read and write. Fearing a Mujahedin government right on its border, and defending the PDPA government from U.S. aggression, the Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan in 1979. Although these Soviet troops were invited by the Afghan PDPA, U.S. propaganda called this a “Soviet invasion”.
An estimated 100,000 of the Islamic fundamentalists who fought in Afghanistan were recruited by the CIA outside of Afghanistan. Hamas participated in this activity. As John Cooley from ABC news pointed out on March 13th, 1996 in the International Herald Tribune:
"A key Hamas organizer was Abdallah Azzam. He was a tough, brilliant and charismatic Palestinian from Jordan. He supervised training for the CIA's Afghan guerrillas in Peshawar, Pakistan, where a car bomb killed him in 1989. In the earlier 1980s he toured the United States, recruiting Arab-Americans for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan."
Just as the United States used Hamas against the Afghani people and the leftist PDPA government, Israel has used the religious fundamentalists of Hamas as a club against the socialist and secular nationalist movements in Palestine that Hamas has violently opposed. It is those secular and socialist movements that Israel has seen as more of a threat in terms of winning the masses of people, including Hebrew speakers, over to positions of sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinians. Hamas's suicide bombers against civilians instead serve Zionist interests in driving a larger wedge between Palestinians and Hebrew speakers, people who will need to unite against their common oppressor and killer, the Israeli Zionist government.
Early Israeli support for Hamas included in 1978 the granting of Mujama charitable status in Gaza while other organizations, especially political organizations as Mujama was, could not get such status. In 1979, Israeli collusion with the Mujama movement set up the Islamic University of Gaza, whose anti-PLO and anti-socialist slogan was: "How can uncovered women and men with Beatle haircuts liberate our holy places?" Students who did not tow the Islamic line were disciplined through brutal beatings and sometimes had acid thrown in their faces. In addition, Mujama mobs were allowed to violently attack and burn down PLO controlled institutions at a time when other street demonstrations were not allowed or tightly controlled by the Israeli authorities.
In 1979 the Mujama movement burned the Palestinian Red Crescent Society's (PRC) building to the ground. In response, the PRC issued the following statement, "The tacit approval of the authorities, if not their actual connivance in what happened, was displayed in their attitude of non-interference. While they usually display great alertness to combating even peaceful demonstrations of young students within schools, here they stood indifferently watching a violently destructive demonstration march to its objectives."
In 1988 Hamas was formed out of Mujama. While PLO supporters were organizing mass demonstrations in the streets, Hamas was instead focusing on shooting Israeli soldiers. Despite this fact, Hamas had top-level meetings with the Israeli government while that same government would not even meet with the PLO. Milton Edwards in "Islamic Politics In Palestine" noted the relationship:
"The relationship between Hamas and the Israeli authorities was, however, at the strongest during the second year of the Intifada. The Israelis had been quick to extend legitimacy status to Hamas in an attempt to marginalize the PLO. Leaders of Hamas were regularly filmed at meetings with top-level Israeli officials and the message the Israelis were sending out was that they regarded Hamas as the type of people with whom they could work…
"In addition the Israelis continued turning a blind eye to large amounts of money coming into the country destined for Hamas coffers, while at the same time stopping the flow of PLO funds in support of the
Intifada."
In 1994, Hamas began its indiscriminate attacks on Hebrew speaking people through suicide bombings. Those suicide bombings had been stepped up by Hamas in the beginnings of the Intifada 2 uprising in September 2000, but then ended due to an agreement between Arafat's Palestinian Authority and Hamas. While this agreement was in effect world attention became focused on the gunning down of Palestinian children by Israeli sharp shooters on the West Bank. For the Zionist government this was becoming a public relations disaster.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon needed a new provocation he could use as propaganda to escalate the war against the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). To create this provocation he took action to end the truce between the P.A. and Hamas on ending the suicide bombings of civilians. On November 23rd Israeli security forces assassinated Hamas leader Mahmud Abu Hunud. On November 25th, 2001 right-wing Israeli journalist Alex Fishman accurately observed in the "Yediot Achronot", "Whoever gave the green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line."
Of course no one but Sharon could have given the green light for such an important operation. Sharon's provocation against the Hamas anti-Semites had its intended affect. Within days Hamas resumed attacks against Israeli civilians. In March a Hamas bomber killed 25 civilians in the Passover attack that was then used by Sharon as his excuse to attack the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority while leaving the Hamas stronghold of Gaza untouched.
The U.S. government's massive military support to the Zionist State and, to a lesser extent to the repressive Saudi Arabian monarchy, is responsible for the bloodshed in Palestine. The racist state of Israel currently receives 300,000 dollars per hour in U.S. military and economic aid. The F-16 bombers and Apache and Cobra helicopters used in the latest attacks are just some of the weapons used to kill Palestinians that are made in the United States.
Socialists stand for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel and all of the crowned princes, sheiks, emirs, and Islamic fanatics of the Middle East. We understand that these U.S. policies are the policies of both the Democrat and Republican Parties. Imperialist policy isn't the result of some misunderstanding by these parties of the wealthy. Instead, the repressive and genocidal policies of U.S. imperialism flow from the drive for profits by the rapacious U.S. capitalists that rule America and much of the world. From this understanding, socialists know that the only way we will get a just foreign policy, fair treatment of workers and the poor, and sound ecological policies, is through a socialist revolution in the United States.
---Steve Argue, for Liberation News
This is an article of Liberation News, a low volume newsletter, Subscribe free!
https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
So much to disprove, so little time:
Let me start with this
"From its beginnings in the eighteen hundreds the Zionist movement had little concern for the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian land they would settle."
Absolutely not. Quite the contrary:
from Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs by Shabtai Teveth.
I happen to have the book in front of me. It says
"...the Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The Arabs work the land and will remain. Ben Gurion even held that the Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by the willingness to work"
p. 28 With the help of the Jews, the Arabs would prosper.... "We are building and revitalizing the country, wrote Ben Gurion...We will win the land through its reclaimation, and our renewal in this land will come through the renewal of the land itself, and that means the renewal of its Arab inhabitants."
Let me start with this
"From its beginnings in the eighteen hundreds the Zionist movement had little concern for the Arab inhabitants of the Palestinian land they would settle."
Absolutely not. Quite the contrary:
from Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs by Shabtai Teveth.
I happen to have the book in front of me. It says
"...the Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The Arabs work the land and will remain. Ben Gurion even held that the Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by the willingness to work"
p. 28 With the help of the Jews, the Arabs would prosper.... "We are building and revitalizing the country, wrote Ben Gurion...We will win the land through its reclaimation, and our renewal in this land will come through the renewal of the land itself, and that means the renewal of its Arab inhabitants."
From Article:
While Britain was trying to placate the Arabs, Zionist leader Jabotinsky was very clear on Zionist intentions, stating in 1923 in his Book the "Iron Wall", "There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization took place with the agreement of the native population."
In understanding the existence of a Palestinian people and the struggles yet to come, Jabotinsky went on to state, "They have the precise psychology we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope."
Jabotinsky's view, and the policy that would later be carried out against the Palestinians, could not be made any clearer than his following statement from the same writing: "We can not give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to the other Arabs. Therefore a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the native population. Therefore it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the Arab population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
In explaining the differences between Zionist factions in dealing with the Palestinians Jabotinsky stated, "Force must play its role - with strength and without indulgence. In this, in this there are no differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other prefers an Iron Wall of English bayonets."
On these issues Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University Jerusalem wrote, "by definition a Jewish state means that Jews will govern other people, other people who live in this Jewish state…Jabotinsky knew this long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state...In his early writings he said: 'Has a people ever been known to give up its territory of its own volition? Likewise, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence.'"
On the morals of Jabotinsky's plans and his desire to extinguish all hopes of the Palestinian people he is as clear in the "Iron Wall" as Hitler is of his intentions in "Mein Kampf" with Jabotinsky stating: "To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer 'absolutely untrue.' This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest hope for the Arabs to impede us they will not sell these hopes - not for any sweet word nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall."
In 1940 Jabotinsky states in "The Jewish War Front": "Since we have the moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of the Arabs, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. Herr Hitler has recently been enhancing the popularity of population transfer."
While Britain was trying to placate the Arabs, Zionist leader Jabotinsky was very clear on Zionist intentions, stating in 1923 in his Book the "Iron Wall", "There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization took place with the agreement of the native population."
In understanding the existence of a Palestinian people and the struggles yet to come, Jabotinsky went on to state, "They have the precise psychology we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope."
Jabotinsky's view, and the policy that would later be carried out against the Palestinians, could not be made any clearer than his following statement from the same writing: "We can not give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to the other Arabs. Therefore a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the native population. Therefore it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the Arab population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
In explaining the differences between Zionist factions in dealing with the Palestinians Jabotinsky stated, "Force must play its role - with strength and without indulgence. In this, in this there are no differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other prefers an Iron Wall of English bayonets."
On these issues Rabbi Judas L. Magnes, President of the Hebrew University Jerusalem wrote, "by definition a Jewish state means that Jews will govern other people, other people who live in this Jewish state…Jabotinsky knew this long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state...In his early writings he said: 'Has a people ever been known to give up its territory of its own volition? Likewise, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence.'"
On the morals of Jabotinsky's plans and his desire to extinguish all hopes of the Palestinian people he is as clear in the "Iron Wall" as Hitler is of his intentions in "Mein Kampf" with Jabotinsky stating: "To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer 'absolutely untrue.' This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest hope for the Arabs to impede us they will not sell these hopes - not for any sweet word nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall."
In 1940 Jabotinsky states in "The Jewish War Front": "Since we have the moral authority for calmly envisaging the exodus of the Arabs, we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay. Herr Hitler has recently been enhancing the popularity of population transfer."
I have reproduced your article on my blog, as I need as many eyes as possible to see it. I am a Sephardic Jewess, and came to this country as a refugee from Egypt. I have never felt more Jewish, and yet I despise the word "zionist".
For more information:
http://womenslens.blogspot.com
"I find way too many Jews ready to pounce on me and others of a like mind, as they did to this man, for opposing zionism. The two are not mutually exclusive; you can be Jewish, love your people and tradition, and still not agree with the zionist principles."
For more information:
http://womenslens.blogspot.com/2008/01/how...
To me, zionism it means the right of the Jewish people to self determination in their ancient homelend. Its part of Jewish liturgy and culture and has been thoughout time. I am a proud Zionist.
Jabotinsky was a marginal character in Israeli history- he was a writer, and as far as I know, never held an elected position.
Check out that most Zionist of documents: Israel's declaration of Independence:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions
Hows that for pluralistic?
Jabotinsky was a marginal character in Israeli history- he was a writer, and as far as I know, never held an elected position.
Check out that most Zionist of documents: Israel's declaration of Independence:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions
Hows that for pluralistic?
This appears to be Steve Argue's best writing yet. His patience in researching and writing these details is amazing. Contrary to the illusion promoted by the pro-Israel idiot above, Tia, Ben-Gurion was a bloodthirsty Arab killer who would have made Hitler proud. This is described with page cites from Ben-Gurion's diary, in the outstanding history of the US military base to protect US oil profits in the Middle East, Israel, in a book by Ilan Pappe,
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-85168-555-4
The January-February 2008 issue of International Socialist Review, at
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rev-pappe.shtml
has a good review of Pappe's book by Mostafa Omar that highlights the crimes against humanity perpetrated by David Ben Gurion (1886-1973), the first prime minister of the US military puppet state, Israel.
It is also well known and proudly advertised that Israel is a racist, theocratic, anti-women militaristic state, the latest insult being "Jews only" roads. Israel is a good example of why we say all nationalism is reactionary. And of course, all religion is superstition. The religion is a cover for being a cat's paw of US imperialism, all to the detriment of the Jewish and Arab workingclass, both of whom are Semites.
For anyone who wants further reading, including but not limited to Nazi GermanyZionist collaboration, which continues today as Nazi USA-Zionist collaboration, please see:
Israel-Palestine on Record by Howard Friel and Richard Falk
(2007) Verso, ISBN 978-1-84467-109-0 (Contains eyewitness testimony for 2000 to 2006 of Israeli destruction of Palestinians homes and the horrors of daily life in Occupied Palestine due to daily Israeli terrorism, all paid for with $6 billion US tax dollars annually, making Israel the 4th largest military gang in the world).
Zionism in the Age of Dictators by Lenni Brenner at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/
The Iron Wall by Lenni Brenner at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/
The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis edited by Lenni Brenner
(2002) Barricade Books, New Jersey, ISBN 1-56980-235-1
The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
(1984, 2001) Carroll & Graf, NY, ISBN 0-7867-0841-7
The Third Reich and the Palestine Question by Francis Nicosia
(1985) University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-72731-3
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006) Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1-85168-555-4
The January-February 2008 issue of International Socialist Review, at
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rev-pappe.shtml
has a good review of Pappe's book by Mostafa Omar that highlights the crimes against humanity perpetrated by David Ben Gurion (1886-1973), the first prime minister of the US military puppet state, Israel.
It is also well known and proudly advertised that Israel is a racist, theocratic, anti-women militaristic state, the latest insult being "Jews only" roads. Israel is a good example of why we say all nationalism is reactionary. And of course, all religion is superstition. The religion is a cover for being a cat's paw of US imperialism, all to the detriment of the Jewish and Arab workingclass, both of whom are Semites.
For anyone who wants further reading, including but not limited to Nazi GermanyZionist collaboration, which continues today as Nazi USA-Zionist collaboration, please see:
Israel-Palestine on Record by Howard Friel and Richard Falk
(2007) Verso, ISBN 978-1-84467-109-0 (Contains eyewitness testimony for 2000 to 2006 of Israeli destruction of Palestinians homes and the horrors of daily life in Occupied Palestine due to daily Israeli terrorism, all paid for with $6 billion US tax dollars annually, making Israel the 4th largest military gang in the world).
Zionism in the Age of Dictators by Lenni Brenner at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/
The Iron Wall by Lenni Brenner at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/
The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman at
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis edited by Lenni Brenner
(2002) Barricade Books, New Jersey, ISBN 1-56980-235-1
The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black
(1984, 2001) Carroll & Graf, NY, ISBN 0-7867-0841-7
The Third Reich and the Palestine Question by Francis Nicosia
(1985) University of Texas Press, ISBN 0-292-72731-3
For more information:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rev-papp...
Thanks Aimee, I was happy to hear what you had to say, and it's an honor to have this work posted in your BLOG.
And thanks also "+".
And thanks also "+".
![camels_in_the_road.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/14/camels_in_the_road.jpg)
"It is also well known and proudly advertised that Israel is a racist, theocratic, anti-women militaristic state, the latest insult being "Jews only" roads."
You've got to be kidding!
Racist? Yet Israel has Muslim supreme Court Justices, Muslim Doctors, Muslim lawyers. The Counsil General in San Francisco is a Bedouin Arab. The Israeli entry to Miss Universe a few years back was an Arab. Are some Israelis racist? Sure. Is Israel racist? Nope. The emergence from the specific to the general is a sure sign of bigotry
Theocratic? What religion then? Israel recognized 22 different religions.
Anti-Women? President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik- all Israeli women. America should be more like Israel.
"Jew only roads? Just came from Israel. If the raods are "Jew only", why the need to have signage in Arabic and English, too?
You've got to be kidding!
Racist? Yet Israel has Muslim supreme Court Justices, Muslim Doctors, Muslim lawyers. The Counsil General in San Francisco is a Bedouin Arab. The Israeli entry to Miss Universe a few years back was an Arab. Are some Israelis racist? Sure. Is Israel racist? Nope. The emergence from the specific to the general is a sure sign of bigotry
Theocratic? What religion then? Israel recognized 22 different religions.
Anti-Women? President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik- all Israeli women. America should be more like Israel.
"Jew only roads? Just came from Israel. If the raods are "Jew only", why the need to have signage in Arabic and English, too?
"The Zionists were colonialist tools of Western imperialism. "
FACT
"Colonialism means living by exploiting others," Yehoshofat Harkabi has
written. "But what could be further from colonialism than the idealism
of city-dwelling Jews who strive to become farmers and laborers and to
live by their own work" (Yehoshofat Harkabi, Palestinians And
Israel, Jerusalem: Keter, 1974, p. 6)
Moreover, as British historian Paul Johnson noted, Zionists were hardly
tools of imperialists given the powers general opposition to
their cause. Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense
ministries and big business were against the Zionists; (Paul
Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, NY:
Harper & Row, 1983, p. 485).
Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab
nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a
letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the
Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:
"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy
on the Zionist movement.... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome
home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and
our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is
nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both.
Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other"
(Samuel Katz, Battleground- Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, NY: Bantam
Books, 1977, p. 55).
In the 1940s, the Jewish underground movements waged an anti-colonial
war against the British. The Arabs, meanwhile, were concerned primarily
with fighting the Jews rather than expelling the British imperialists.
"Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to
have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders
to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the
land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its
fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the
Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach
them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land -- to
serve it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil
becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no
desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to
dominate them: we want to serve with them....."
-- Martin Buber (From an open letter from Martin Buber to Mahatma
Gandhi in 1939, quoted in Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, (PA:
Jewish Publications Society, 1997), p. 464.
This article can be found at
http://www.jewishvi rtuallibrary. org/jsource/ myths2/Israelsroots.html# a11
Tia asks, "Theocratic? What religion then? Israel recognized 22 different religions."
Jewish if you didn't notice.
Here's a report from the Jewish JTA newsservice on one of many examples of the problems with a theocratic state:
http://www.jta.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007122720071224immigrants.html
Israel's "non-Jewish Jews"
struggle with identity, exclusion
By Dina Kraft Published: 12/27/2007
TEL AVIV (JTA) – In Israel, the “non-Jewish Jews,” as some Israelis call them, are everywhere. They drive buses, teach university classes, patrol in army jeeps and follow the latest Israeli reality TV shows as avidly as their Jewish counterparts.
For these people -- mostly immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jews according to Israeli law -- the question of where they fit into the Jewish state remains unanswered nearly two decades after they began coming to Israel.
At an estimated 320,000 people and with their ranks growing due to childbirth, the question is growing ever more acute.
"They are not going to be religious, but want to be part of what is called the Jewish secular population," said Asher Cohen, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University who has written a book on the subject.
"Thousands are being born here and they are no longer immigrants. They are raised just like their secular neighbors and these children want to know why they are not Jewish because their mother is not Jewish,” he said. “The problem is just getting worse."
In almost every respect, these Israelis live as do their secular fellow countrymen, even marking the Jewish holidays, lighting candles on Chanukah and conducting Seders on Passover. But, because they do not qualify as Jews according to halachah, or Jewish law, they are treated differently when it comes to matters that are the purview of the Orthodox-controlled religious establishment, such as lifecycle events like marriage, divorce and burial.
For some, the real question is about identity and fitting in.
Unlike non-Jews residing in Israel illegally, these are people who qualified to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, which grants the right of Israeli citizenship to all descendents of a Jewish grandparent or those married to such persons. But the Israeli government does not consider them Jews because their mothers are not Jewish. Non-Jewish Israelis constitute almost a third of all immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Some of these people say they've always considered themselves Jewish and were thought as such by others -- until, that is, they came to Israel.
Lilia Itskov, 36, grew up in Siberia with a paternal grandmother who preserved the traditions of her observant Jewish home. She said she is heartbroken when her daughter questions whether they are Jewish because Itskov's mother was not Jewish.
"She studies the Bible in school; it's all she knows," Itskov said of her daughter. "She cannot understand why she is not considered a Jew."
Itskov observed Jewish holidays even back in Siberia, and she says she never tried to hide her Jewishness.
"I want people to understand we are part of this country and where we lived before we were always considered Jews," she said. "And now, after so many years, I am told that I am a goy."
Others are believing Christians who struggle to maintain their religious identity while living in Jewish communities in Israel. Keeping a low profile, many of them attend religious services on Sundays in community members' apartments or go to Arab-run Christian churches in Jerusalem and Jaffa on major holidays. In the Israeli Arab village of Abu Ghosh, near Jerusalem, there are church services held in Hebrew.
"Little is known about them, there is no research about them and they try to hide their faith," Cohen said of the active Christians among the Russian-speaking immigrants. "It's hard for them to be Christians in any overt way here."
For Vera Gorman, 21, whose family immigrated to Israel from Russia seven years ago and whose mother's grandfather was Jewish, the sting of exclusion hit for the first time when it came time to marry.
In Israel, where there is no civil marriage, all citizens must be married by clergymen, and Jewish clergy are not allowed to perform intermarriages. Vera is Jewish but the man she planned on marrying, Maxim Gorman, was not, so there was no way for the couple to get married in Israel. Instead, they had to go to Prague. Marriages abroad are recognized in Israel.
Vera said she and Maxim were angry and bewildered by the rules.
Maxim, 25, who served in an IDF combat unit and twice was injured in fighting in Gaza, said he does not understand why, if he spilled blood for his country, he had to go to abroad on the most important day of his life.
"It was especially hard because although I am not Jewish according to halachah, I do feel Jewish in my heart," he said. "In my opinion, state and religion simply do not go together. Israel needs to be democratic and Jewish, and we need to protect our traditions because this is what unites us. But we live in the 21st century and we need to be going forward.”
Some Israelis, especially religious ones, take issue with the large number of non-Jews able to become Israeli, saying they threaten the Jewish character of the state.
They complain about the rising number of butchers that sell pork and condemn the proliferation of Christmas trees, tinsel and plastic Santa Claus dolls that go on sale at shops around the country around Christmastime to cater to the growing population in Israel that celebrates the holiday.
Russian immigrants -- Jews among them -- say they’re not so much celebrating Christmas as participating in festivities honoring the new year.
A few rabbis and members of Orthodox parties in the Knesset have suggested changing the Law of Return to exclude non-Jews from becoming Israeli. But many secular Israelis argue against such changes and say immigration is vital to the country's future.
Despite the challenges they face in Israel as non-Jews, only a minority of non-Jewish immigrants to Israel choose to convert to Judaism.
Because Orthodox conversions are the only kind accepted by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, which controls religious law in Israel, prospective converts must master Jewish knowledge and pledge to become strictly observant Jews. Most immigrants from the former Soviet Union -- both Jewish and not -- are secular and uninterested in enduring a lengthy, restrictive conversion process.
To try to deal with the problem, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office announced this week that it was adopting recommendations to help restructure the conversion process to increase the number of religious court judges officiating in conversion cases and drop the demand that converts become religious Jews as a condition of the conversion. Olmert's office hopes these changes will prompt more immigrants to choose to convert.
The army is also trying to ease the conversion process. Nativ, a program sponsored jointly by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the government, is known for its welcoming attitude toward prospective converts and focuses on soldiers who are immigrants from the former Soviet Union. To date, it has shepherded about 2,000 soldiers through the process.
Daniel Gordis, vice president of the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think tank, says the question is not so much whether the immigrants are Jews according to halachah but how the state treats them.
"How do we reach out to these people to help them see their connection to Judaism as the unfolding story of the Jewish people in this land?" he said.
Jewish if you didn't notice.
Here's a report from the Jewish JTA newsservice on one of many examples of the problems with a theocratic state:
http://www.jta.org:80/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2007122720071224immigrants.html
Israel's "non-Jewish Jews"
struggle with identity, exclusion
By Dina Kraft Published: 12/27/2007
TEL AVIV (JTA) – In Israel, the “non-Jewish Jews,” as some Israelis call them, are everywhere. They drive buses, teach university classes, patrol in army jeeps and follow the latest Israeli reality TV shows as avidly as their Jewish counterparts.
For these people -- mostly immigrants from the former Soviet Union who are not Jews according to Israeli law -- the question of where they fit into the Jewish state remains unanswered nearly two decades after they began coming to Israel.
At an estimated 320,000 people and with their ranks growing due to childbirth, the question is growing ever more acute.
"They are not going to be religious, but want to be part of what is called the Jewish secular population," said Asher Cohen, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University who has written a book on the subject.
"Thousands are being born here and they are no longer immigrants. They are raised just like their secular neighbors and these children want to know why they are not Jewish because their mother is not Jewish,” he said. “The problem is just getting worse."
In almost every respect, these Israelis live as do their secular fellow countrymen, even marking the Jewish holidays, lighting candles on Chanukah and conducting Seders on Passover. But, because they do not qualify as Jews according to halachah, or Jewish law, they are treated differently when it comes to matters that are the purview of the Orthodox-controlled religious establishment, such as lifecycle events like marriage, divorce and burial.
For some, the real question is about identity and fitting in.
Unlike non-Jews residing in Israel illegally, these are people who qualified to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, which grants the right of Israeli citizenship to all descendents of a Jewish grandparent or those married to such persons. But the Israeli government does not consider them Jews because their mothers are not Jewish. Non-Jewish Israelis constitute almost a third of all immigrants from the former Soviet Union.
Some of these people say they've always considered themselves Jewish and were thought as such by others -- until, that is, they came to Israel.
Lilia Itskov, 36, grew up in Siberia with a paternal grandmother who preserved the traditions of her observant Jewish home. She said she is heartbroken when her daughter questions whether they are Jewish because Itskov's mother was not Jewish.
"She studies the Bible in school; it's all she knows," Itskov said of her daughter. "She cannot understand why she is not considered a Jew."
Itskov observed Jewish holidays even back in Siberia, and she says she never tried to hide her Jewishness.
"I want people to understand we are part of this country and where we lived before we were always considered Jews," she said. "And now, after so many years, I am told that I am a goy."
Others are believing Christians who struggle to maintain their religious identity while living in Jewish communities in Israel. Keeping a low profile, many of them attend religious services on Sundays in community members' apartments or go to Arab-run Christian churches in Jerusalem and Jaffa on major holidays. In the Israeli Arab village of Abu Ghosh, near Jerusalem, there are church services held in Hebrew.
"Little is known about them, there is no research about them and they try to hide their faith," Cohen said of the active Christians among the Russian-speaking immigrants. "It's hard for them to be Christians in any overt way here."
For Vera Gorman, 21, whose family immigrated to Israel from Russia seven years ago and whose mother's grandfather was Jewish, the sting of exclusion hit for the first time when it came time to marry.
In Israel, where there is no civil marriage, all citizens must be married by clergymen, and Jewish clergy are not allowed to perform intermarriages. Vera is Jewish but the man she planned on marrying, Maxim Gorman, was not, so there was no way for the couple to get married in Israel. Instead, they had to go to Prague. Marriages abroad are recognized in Israel.
Vera said she and Maxim were angry and bewildered by the rules.
Maxim, 25, who served in an IDF combat unit and twice was injured in fighting in Gaza, said he does not understand why, if he spilled blood for his country, he had to go to abroad on the most important day of his life.
"It was especially hard because although I am not Jewish according to halachah, I do feel Jewish in my heart," he said. "In my opinion, state and religion simply do not go together. Israel needs to be democratic and Jewish, and we need to protect our traditions because this is what unites us. But we live in the 21st century and we need to be going forward.”
Some Israelis, especially religious ones, take issue with the large number of non-Jews able to become Israeli, saying they threaten the Jewish character of the state.
They complain about the rising number of butchers that sell pork and condemn the proliferation of Christmas trees, tinsel and plastic Santa Claus dolls that go on sale at shops around the country around Christmastime to cater to the growing population in Israel that celebrates the holiday.
Russian immigrants -- Jews among them -- say they’re not so much celebrating Christmas as participating in festivities honoring the new year.
A few rabbis and members of Orthodox parties in the Knesset have suggested changing the Law of Return to exclude non-Jews from becoming Israeli. But many secular Israelis argue against such changes and say immigration is vital to the country's future.
Despite the challenges they face in Israel as non-Jews, only a minority of non-Jewish immigrants to Israel choose to convert to Judaism.
Because Orthodox conversions are the only kind accepted by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, which controls religious law in Israel, prospective converts must master Jewish knowledge and pledge to become strictly observant Jews. Most immigrants from the former Soviet Union -- both Jewish and not -- are secular and uninterested in enduring a lengthy, restrictive conversion process.
To try to deal with the problem, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office announced this week that it was adopting recommendations to help restructure the conversion process to increase the number of religious court judges officiating in conversion cases and drop the demand that converts become religious Jews as a condition of the conversion. Olmert's office hopes these changes will prompt more immigrants to choose to convert.
The army is also trying to ease the conversion process. Nativ, a program sponsored jointly by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the government, is known for its welcoming attitude toward prospective converts and focuses on soldiers who are immigrants from the former Soviet Union. To date, it has shepherded about 2,000 soldiers through the process.
Daniel Gordis, vice president of the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think tank, says the question is not so much whether the immigrants are Jews according to halachah but how the state treats them.
"How do we reach out to these people to help them see their connection to Judaism as the unfolding story of the Jewish people in this land?" he said.
Theocracy: (from dictionary.com)
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
Israel is none of those. Not even close. Look at their Basic laws. Look at their declaration of independence
Do you have a different definition of "theocracy" that you would like to share?
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.
Israel is none of those. Not even close. Look at their Basic laws. Look at their declaration of independence
Do you have a different definition of "theocracy" that you would like to share?
The Israeli "democracy" that the Fundamentalist/Christian Zionists so devotedly support is a theocratic-racist state. It is a Jewish/Zionist state devoted exclusively to the culture, interests, heritage and religion of the Jewish people. Immigration is based on being Jewish. Any Jew can claim citizenship while Palestinians who lived there for decades and were expelled in an ethnic cleansing and to this day are denied the right to return to their homeland. Why does out tax money go to support this?
Haim Cohen, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel stated: "The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel" (quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156)
Marriages and other aspects of civil laws are decided by religious courts who do not recognize marriage between Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli government pays the salary of rabbis and the employee's of municipal rabbinates and religious councils. In 2004 3,000 Rabbi's and employee's of municipal rabbinates and religious councils almost went on strike over back pay issues with the government.
Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Interior ruled that new immigrants who have converted to Judaism will not be allowed to bring non-Jewish family members into the country. The decision is expected to cut in half the number of eligible immigrants to Israel.
Under the emergency regulation from the British mandate which is still in force-- the Press Ordinance of 1933 -- the government can close newspapers at will and without reason.
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um), bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
Haim Cohen, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel stated: "The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel" (quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156)
Marriages and other aspects of civil laws are decided by religious courts who do not recognize marriage between Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli government pays the salary of rabbis and the employee's of municipal rabbinates and religious councils. In 2004 3,000 Rabbi's and employee's of municipal rabbinates and religious councils almost went on strike over back pay issues with the government.
Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Interior ruled that new immigrants who have converted to Judaism will not be allowed to bring non-Jewish family members into the country. The decision is expected to cut in half the number of eligible immigrants to Israel.
Under the emergency regulation from the British mandate which is still in force-- the Press Ordinance of 1933 -- the government can close newspapers at will and without reason.
In Israel Citizenship and nationality are two different things. Citizenship (ezrahut) may be held by Arabs or Jews. Nationality (le'um), bestows much greater rights than citizenship, is for Jews alone. In 1972 the Supreme Court that non-Jews cannot qualify for nationality rights in the state of Israel because there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.
![bahai_gardens_in_haifa.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/14/bahai_gardens_in_haifa.jpg)
"It is a Jewish/Zionist state devoted exclusively to the culture, interests, heritage and religion of the Jewish people."
And yet the centerpiece of Haifa, third largest city in Israel is the headquarters of the Bahai faith. The Bahai sought refuge in Israel after fleeing genocidal persecution in their native Iran.
What culture would give up prime real estate for the betterment of another? Only Israel
And yet the centerpiece of Haifa, third largest city in Israel is the headquarters of the Bahai faith. The Bahai sought refuge in Israel after fleeing genocidal persecution in their native Iran.
What culture would give up prime real estate for the betterment of another? Only Israel
What race is favored in israel?
Jews aren't a race.
Jews come in black and white and all shades between.
I snapped this in the old city.
Black jewish soldier. Christian Monks. Arab merchants.
What diversity. What pluralilty. What a magnificent country.
Jews aren't a race.
Jews come in black and white and all shades between.
I snapped this in the old city.
Black jewish soldier. Christian Monks. Arab merchants.
What diversity. What pluralilty. What a magnificent country.
Becky Johnson, stick to something you know (besides Israeli propaganda and the Bahai faith).
You can tell its not Becky because she actually pays attention to the rules of grammar and spelling, unlike myself.
She also always signs her real name, address and contact info.
That shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?
She also always signs her real name, address and contact info.
That shows a lot of integrity, doesn't it?
"From the beginning of Hitler's seizure of power in 1933 the Zionist movement lent their support to the Nazis, support which lasted until at least 1944 when they aided Hitler's "final solution" in Hungary killing 800,000 Jews. "
Thats simply wrong. One need only look at the story of Hannah Sennesh, warrior poet, who left the relative safety of pre-state Israel to parachute behind enemy lines in Hungary in an effort to rescue jews. Alas, Hannah and her collegues were caught and tortured and eventually executed.
"On the surface, the idea of Zionist relations with the Nazis may sound illogical and seem made up. Those relations, however, are well documented."
Some Jews did cooperate with the nazis. You can read their testimony at Yad Yashem. In a despair driven attempt to save their families and buy a little more time, some Jews compromised their values. Its hard to judge- would I have done the same? Would you? Would you if it meant saving the ones you loved?
On the other hand, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a personal friend of Hitler, and aided him in his efforts to eliminate Jews throughout the world- the grand Mufti helped train Bosnian SS units
From the Grand Mufti`s own Memoirs:
In his memoirs after the war, Husayni noted that "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: `The Jews are yours`.`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
![123getimage_91_2_93__wa.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/15/123getimage_91_2_93__wa.jpg)
Photo: From right to left: Senbato Tamanu, Said Hanin, Yehuda Peretz, Itai Unger, Boris Blenki and Yisrael Burnstein (Photo: Kobi Quankas)
Tia would claim that the law that makes it illegal for Jews to marry Palestinians is not racist, because Jews are not a race. Likewise, she would claim that the fact that the right to return of Palestinians who were driven from their homeland being denied, while Jews can immigrate, is not racist, because Jews are not a race. Yet discrimination in Israel is both religious and racial. The following article shows examples of this:
Melting pot or not
An Ethiopian, Arab, Russian, strictly Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardi go out to find a job, rent an apartment and enroll a child in kindergarten. Discrimination? Racism? Absolutely
Yuval Kinar Published: 08.31.07, 17:49 / Israel Culture
Ynetnews.com
An Ethiopian, Arab, Russian, strictly Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardi man of the same age group and same educational background were sent by Yedioth Ahronoth to look for a job, find an apartment and enroll a child in kindergarten. Will their ethnicity or skin-color have
an effect in 2007 Israel? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.
The six were chosen to represent the different sectors of society. They approached more than 400 restaurants, cafes, apartments for rent, and kindergartens in 22 cities - from Kiryat Shmona to Eilat – in each conversation the applicant's background was mentioned either directly or in a roundabout way.
The Ashkenazi caller, Itai Unger, received the most positive answers and encountered no expressions of racism. The Sepharadi Yehuda Peretz arrived second while the strictly Orthodox and Russian immigrant arrived in third and fourth place respectively.
Yet, more than half of the calls made by the Ethiopian representative, Senbato Tamanu, resulted in a refusal and dozens contained derogatory remarks. Following closely, with more than 70 percent negative answers and numerous phone-slamming, was the Arab caller Said Hanin.
Following are some examples:
Tel Aviv
In the kindergarten in the upscale Dan neighborhood, Senbato, Itai and the strictly Orthodox, Yisrael, received positive responses. Said, on the other hand, was told that "we're booked, there are no vacancies."
The waiter position was no more relevant when Boris called but magically became available again for Itai.
Jerusalem
The kindergarten teacher from Pisgat Ze'ev in Jerusalem chatted happily with Boris in fluent Russian. Senbato as well was answered positively but when Said called the answer was: "I don't want to hang up on you but you better look for another place."
At 4:50 pm Yehuda was invited for interview in a food stall in the Mall. At 5:00 pm Said was told "we are not hiring at he moment." At 5:15 pm Itai was asked to come in the next day for an interview.
Haifa
Three competed on the waiter's job in a coffee shop: Boris, Yisrael and Itai. Boris and Yisrael received negative answers while Itai was summoned for a job interview.
Said, who had many failures in other cities, received positive answers when trying to enroll a child in kindergarten and when asking to rent an apartment.
Bat Yam
At the café Senbato applied for a job, they asked for an "espresso-machine's operator" certificate and explained "the machine we use is very complicated." Itai, on the other hand, was asked to attend a job interview even though he said he had no experience.
Holon
After many repeated calls, Holon turned out to be racism-free. All six representatives received positive answers. When Said asked the landlord "don't you mind that I'm an Arab?" the answer was: "Not in the least."
The Knesset member tried several times to convince the principal to allow the rejected children admission to the school, but the principal insisted there was “no room” in the institution.
Tia would claim that the law that makes it illegal for Jews to marry Palestinians is not racist, because Jews are not a race. Likewise, she would claim that the fact that the right to return of Palestinians who were driven from their homeland being denied, while Jews can immigrate, is not racist, because Jews are not a race. Yet discrimination in Israel is both religious and racial. The following article shows examples of this:
Melting pot or not
An Ethiopian, Arab, Russian, strictly Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardi go out to find a job, rent an apartment and enroll a child in kindergarten. Discrimination? Racism? Absolutely
Yuval Kinar Published: 08.31.07, 17:49 / Israel Culture
Ynetnews.com
An Ethiopian, Arab, Russian, strictly Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardi man of the same age group and same educational background were sent by Yedioth Ahronoth to look for a job, find an apartment and enroll a child in kindergarten. Will their ethnicity or skin-color have
an effect in 2007 Israel? The answer, unfortunately, is yes.
The six were chosen to represent the different sectors of society. They approached more than 400 restaurants, cafes, apartments for rent, and kindergartens in 22 cities - from Kiryat Shmona to Eilat – in each conversation the applicant's background was mentioned either directly or in a roundabout way.
The Ashkenazi caller, Itai Unger, received the most positive answers and encountered no expressions of racism. The Sepharadi Yehuda Peretz arrived second while the strictly Orthodox and Russian immigrant arrived in third and fourth place respectively.
Yet, more than half of the calls made by the Ethiopian representative, Senbato Tamanu, resulted in a refusal and dozens contained derogatory remarks. Following closely, with more than 70 percent negative answers and numerous phone-slamming, was the Arab caller Said Hanin.
Following are some examples:
Tel Aviv
In the kindergarten in the upscale Dan neighborhood, Senbato, Itai and the strictly Orthodox, Yisrael, received positive responses. Said, on the other hand, was told that "we're booked, there are no vacancies."
The waiter position was no more relevant when Boris called but magically became available again for Itai.
Jerusalem
The kindergarten teacher from Pisgat Ze'ev in Jerusalem chatted happily with Boris in fluent Russian. Senbato as well was answered positively but when Said called the answer was: "I don't want to hang up on you but you better look for another place."
At 4:50 pm Yehuda was invited for interview in a food stall in the Mall. At 5:00 pm Said was told "we are not hiring at he moment." At 5:15 pm Itai was asked to come in the next day for an interview.
Haifa
Three competed on the waiter's job in a coffee shop: Boris, Yisrael and Itai. Boris and Yisrael received negative answers while Itai was summoned for a job interview.
Said, who had many failures in other cities, received positive answers when trying to enroll a child in kindergarten and when asking to rent an apartment.
Bat Yam
At the café Senbato applied for a job, they asked for an "espresso-machine's operator" certificate and explained "the machine we use is very complicated." Itai, on the other hand, was asked to attend a job interview even though he said he had no experience.
Holon
After many repeated calls, Holon turned out to be racism-free. All six representatives received positive answers. When Said asked the landlord "don't you mind that I'm an Arab?" the answer was: "Not in the least."
The Knesset member tried several times to convince the principal to allow the rejected children admission to the school, but the principal insisted there was “no room” in the institution.
DEMONIZATION --- describing a people as evil, Nazis, greedy, murderous, etc.
DOUBLE-STANDARD --- holding one people to higher standards of behavior than another people
DE-LEGITIMIZATION --- failing to acknowledge a people's sovereignty or history
I think Steve Argue passes the 3 D test.
DOUBLE-STANDARD --- holding one people to higher standards of behavior than another people
DE-LEGITIMIZATION --- failing to acknowledge a people's sovereignty or history
I think Steve Argue passes the 3 D test.
From the EU: Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Yep. I think he qualifies.
For more information:
http://fra.europa.eu/fra/material/pub/AS/A...
An irrational focus on Israel over other countries oppressing people could be due to or influenced by antiSemitism but there is also a level of defense of Israel based off false assumptions of antiSemitism which then leads to a focus one wouldnt get in the case of other conflicts.
Burma is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world but one doesnt see as much of a focus on it as on Israel. Why? One reason is because if one writes something denouncing Burma everyone will likely agree with it and then the issue is pretty much over (it takes two sides arguing to hype an issue into something that gets heated arguments going).
Israel is focused on over other conflicts for a variety of reasons. Palestinians abroad focus on it for the same reason that Vietnamese in the US often focus on the repression by the Vietnamese government (family members are being oppressed and they were forced to leave and cant go back). Many Jewish Americans focus on it because the country was a focus growing up for religious/cultural reasons (thus both pro and anti Israel organizations in the US both tend to have many Jewish Americans in them). After 9/11 hatred of the US in the Middle East became a focus and thus Israel became more of a focus since countries like Burma or Zimbabwe are not leading to larger world conflicts. The tendency for proIsrael folks to link the US war on terror to what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza also creates a linkage that obviously increases the antiWar focus on Israel (for those mad at the US the "Israelis are just like Americans" ad campaigns for Israel probably make things worse for similar reasons).
The occupation also has some unique aspects to it (in terms of duration and the mixture of lack of annexation or clear path to separation) that causes those worried about human rights focus on it more than conflicts in other parts of the world. Chechens and Tibetans are occupied and oppressed but are still technically Russians and Chinese respectively. North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe have more oppressive governments but its not a matter of appealing to a democracy in those cases (since it is up to leaders as to the future and they are unlikely to listen to outsiders). Many of the reasons for a focus are the same as South Africa (an actual liberal Democracy oppressing a large population with divisions being along ethnic lines) even though there are differences (Israel giving rights to those already in the country and basing the worst oppression based off a lack of citizenship that is denied to those in the West Bank and Gaza but allowed to outsiders from the US, Russia etc...)
Burma is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world but one doesnt see as much of a focus on it as on Israel. Why? One reason is because if one writes something denouncing Burma everyone will likely agree with it and then the issue is pretty much over (it takes two sides arguing to hype an issue into something that gets heated arguments going).
Israel is focused on over other conflicts for a variety of reasons. Palestinians abroad focus on it for the same reason that Vietnamese in the US often focus on the repression by the Vietnamese government (family members are being oppressed and they were forced to leave and cant go back). Many Jewish Americans focus on it because the country was a focus growing up for religious/cultural reasons (thus both pro and anti Israel organizations in the US both tend to have many Jewish Americans in them). After 9/11 hatred of the US in the Middle East became a focus and thus Israel became more of a focus since countries like Burma or Zimbabwe are not leading to larger world conflicts. The tendency for proIsrael folks to link the US war on terror to what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza also creates a linkage that obviously increases the antiWar focus on Israel (for those mad at the US the "Israelis are just like Americans" ad campaigns for Israel probably make things worse for similar reasons).
The occupation also has some unique aspects to it (in terms of duration and the mixture of lack of annexation or clear path to separation) that causes those worried about human rights focus on it more than conflicts in other parts of the world. Chechens and Tibetans are occupied and oppressed but are still technically Russians and Chinese respectively. North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe have more oppressive governments but its not a matter of appealing to a democracy in those cases (since it is up to leaders as to the future and they are unlikely to listen to outsiders). Many of the reasons for a focus are the same as South Africa (an actual liberal Democracy oppressing a large population with divisions being along ethnic lines) even though there are differences (Israel giving rights to those already in the country and basing the worst oppression based off a lack of citizenship that is denied to those in the West Bank and Gaza but allowed to outsiders from the US, Russia etc...)
"Chechens and Tibetans are occupied and oppressed but are still technically Russians and Chinese respectively"
The Tibetans don't consider themselves Chinese at all. Their country has been occupied for over 60 years- that fact that China illegally annexed Tibet is irrelevant
Since 1950, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese. China has ratified a number of UN conventions, including those related to torture and racial discrimination, and yet has repeatedly violated these in China and Tibet.
The 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religious belief, but China seeks to restrict the numbers of monks and nuns entering monasteries and is working to discredit the Dalai Lama.
Wide spead ethnic cleansing is happening, with Chinese settlement in Tibet deliberately encouraged so Tibetans are in the minority in many areas.
And yet, without the influx of cheap goods from China our fragile economy would collapse, so the US and the world is silent. Is it hypocracy? Damn straight it is.
The Tibetans don't consider themselves Chinese at all. Their country has been occupied for over 60 years- that fact that China illegally annexed Tibet is irrelevant
Since 1950, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese. China has ratified a number of UN conventions, including those related to torture and racial discrimination, and yet has repeatedly violated these in China and Tibet.
The 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religious belief, but China seeks to restrict the numbers of monks and nuns entering monasteries and is working to discredit the Dalai Lama.
Wide spead ethnic cleansing is happening, with Chinese settlement in Tibet deliberately encouraged so Tibetans are in the minority in many areas.
And yet, without the influx of cheap goods from China our fragile economy would collapse, so the US and the world is silent. Is it hypocracy? Damn straight it is.
"And yet, without the influx of cheap goods from China our fragile economy would collapse, so the US and the world is silent. Is it hypocracy? Damn straight it is."
Bush isn't exactly silent about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7048284.stm
Bush isn't exactly silent about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7048284.stm
An irrational focus on Israel over other countries oppressing people could be due to or influenced by antiSemitism
That’s part of it- I think the rense/stormfront/ attacks are anti-Semitic in nature, but the attacks from the left are somewhat different
I think Israel doesn't fit into a neat little socialist/Marxist cubbyhole so the leftists need to define it in different terms
Burma is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world but one doesnt see as much of a focus on it as on Israel.
Absolutely- what was fascinating on Indymedia and some of the far right/far left sites was the vain attempts to link Israel with Burma
Israel is focused on over other conflicts for a variety of reasons. Palestinians abroad focus on it for the same reason that Vietnamese in the US often focus on the repression by the Vietnamese government (family members are being oppressed and they were forced to leave and cant go back).
And that’s understandable. But if you've ever gone to street demonstrations, there are very few Palestinains/Arabs around. Part of the issue, once again is the inherent prejudice of some "progressives". A Progressive leader was overheard saying at a conference in Oakland last year "The worst part about promoting Palestinian rights is working with the Palestinians". He was talking about their chants of "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs" that unfortunately was recorded and made it to you-tube, but nonetheless, it was a shocking thing to say to a room full of liberals.
That’s part of it- I think the rense/stormfront/ attacks are anti-Semitic in nature, but the attacks from the left are somewhat different
I think Israel doesn't fit into a neat little socialist/Marxist cubbyhole so the leftists need to define it in different terms
Burma is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world but one doesnt see as much of a focus on it as on Israel.
Absolutely- what was fascinating on Indymedia and some of the far right/far left sites was the vain attempts to link Israel with Burma
Israel is focused on over other conflicts for a variety of reasons. Palestinians abroad focus on it for the same reason that Vietnamese in the US often focus on the repression by the Vietnamese government (family members are being oppressed and they were forced to leave and cant go back).
And that’s understandable. But if you've ever gone to street demonstrations, there are very few Palestinains/Arabs around. Part of the issue, once again is the inherent prejudice of some "progressives". A Progressive leader was overheard saying at a conference in Oakland last year "The worst part about promoting Palestinian rights is working with the Palestinians". He was talking about their chants of "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs" that unfortunately was recorded and made it to you-tube, but nonetheless, it was a shocking thing to say to a room full of liberals.
Likewise, she would claim that the fact that the right to return of Palestinians who were driven from their homeland ....
Nope. The purpose of giving the Palestinians a homeland is the same as the purpose of giving the Jews a homeland- so they will have a safe haven free from persecution.
Thats the purpose of a two state solution- a Palestinian homeland for the Palestinians, a Jewish homeland for the Jews. The Palestinian homeland will be free for the ingathering of all the Palestinian exiles, just as the Jewish state is free for the ingathering of the Jewish exiles.
Sadly, however, the hushed words from the Palestinians are that the Palestinian state wil be SOLELY for the Palestinians- no other group need apply, (Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-quds university in Jerusalem, said on Palestinian television recently that Jews shouldd never be allowed to live in a future state of Palestine). while the Jewish state will continue to allow Muslims, Christiians, Bahais, etc.....
Nope. The purpose of giving the Palestinians a homeland is the same as the purpose of giving the Jews a homeland- so they will have a safe haven free from persecution.
Thats the purpose of a two state solution- a Palestinian homeland for the Palestinians, a Jewish homeland for the Jews. The Palestinian homeland will be free for the ingathering of all the Palestinian exiles, just as the Jewish state is free for the ingathering of the Jewish exiles.
Sadly, however, the hushed words from the Palestinians are that the Palestinian state wil be SOLELY for the Palestinians- no other group need apply, (Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-quds university in Jerusalem, said on Palestinian television recently that Jews shouldd never be allowed to live in a future state of Palestine). while the Jewish state will continue to allow Muslims, Christiians, Bahais, etc.....
"The Tibetans don't consider themselves Chinese at all. Their country has been occupied for over 60 years- that fact that China illegally annexed Tibet is irrelevant"
I would bet a good portion of Tibetans now do consider themselves Chinese. Most Tibetans are more worried about surviving as farmers than who rules other them since the area is and has been one of the poorest in China. The occupation is several hundreds years old although there were periods of independence (most notably when China fell apart after the last emporer but before the Communists).
I think outsiders tend to confused aspects of conflicts. Palestinian occupation to Israeli rule is close to universal but is more a result of daily roadblocks, curfews etc... than abstract nationalism that tends to only be felt by minorities of populations. The suppression of a small-scale uprising in the 80s added to independent desires but more recent economic development has somewhat submerged such desires especially by the young who are faced with an outside Chinese/Western culture that waters down any real meaning to Tibet being separate.
It is worth remembering that Altan Khan, an outsider of Mongolian decent, bestowed the title Dalai Lama on Sönam Gyatso in 1578 and:
...
The Qing put Amdo under their rule in 1724, and incorporated eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese provinces in 1728.[31] The Qing government sent a resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa. Tibetan factions rebelled in 1750 and killed the ambans. Then, a Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and installed an administration headed by the Dalai Lama. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2,000. The defensive duties were partly helped out by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before.
In 1751, the Manchu (and Qing) Emperor Qianlong established the Dalai Lama as both the spiritual leader and political leader of Tibet who lead a government (Kashag) with four Kalöns in it.[32]
In 1788, Gurkha forces sent by Bahadur Shah, the Regent of Nepal, invaded Tibet, occupying a number of frontier districts. The young Panchen Lama fled to Lhasa and the Manchu Qianlong Emperor sent troops to Lhasa, upon which the Nepalese withdrew agreeing to pay a large annual sum.
In 1791 the Nepalese Gurkhas invaded Tibet a second time, seizing Shigatse and destroyed, plundered, and desecrated the great Tashilhunpo Monastery. The Panchen Lama was forced to flee to Lhasa once again. The Qianlong Emperor then sent an army of 17,000 men to Tibet. In 1793, with the assistance of Tibetan troops, they managed to drive the Nepalese troops to within about 30 km of Kathmandu before the Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure they had plundered.[33]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
Tibet has a history closely tied to that of China and while the region is poor those who do well in school can end up at Universities in places like Bejing and rise to almost any level in Chinese society. This may be true for Muslim Israelis but definitely is not true of Palestinian living in the West Bank and Gaza.
I would bet a good portion of Tibetans now do consider themselves Chinese. Most Tibetans are more worried about surviving as farmers than who rules other them since the area is and has been one of the poorest in China. The occupation is several hundreds years old although there were periods of independence (most notably when China fell apart after the last emporer but before the Communists).
I think outsiders tend to confused aspects of conflicts. Palestinian occupation to Israeli rule is close to universal but is more a result of daily roadblocks, curfews etc... than abstract nationalism that tends to only be felt by minorities of populations. The suppression of a small-scale uprising in the 80s added to independent desires but more recent economic development has somewhat submerged such desires especially by the young who are faced with an outside Chinese/Western culture that waters down any real meaning to Tibet being separate.
It is worth remembering that Altan Khan, an outsider of Mongolian decent, bestowed the title Dalai Lama on Sönam Gyatso in 1578 and:
...
The Qing put Amdo under their rule in 1724, and incorporated eastern Kham into neighbouring Chinese provinces in 1728.[31] The Qing government sent a resident commissioner (amban) to Lhasa. Tibetan factions rebelled in 1750 and killed the ambans. Then, a Qing army entered and defeated the rebels and installed an administration headed by the Dalai Lama. The number of soldiers in Tibet was kept at about 2,000. The defensive duties were partly helped out by a local force which was reorganized by the resident commissioner, and the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before.
In 1751, the Manchu (and Qing) Emperor Qianlong established the Dalai Lama as both the spiritual leader and political leader of Tibet who lead a government (Kashag) with four Kalöns in it.[32]
In 1788, Gurkha forces sent by Bahadur Shah, the Regent of Nepal, invaded Tibet, occupying a number of frontier districts. The young Panchen Lama fled to Lhasa and the Manchu Qianlong Emperor sent troops to Lhasa, upon which the Nepalese withdrew agreeing to pay a large annual sum.
In 1791 the Nepalese Gurkhas invaded Tibet a second time, seizing Shigatse and destroyed, plundered, and desecrated the great Tashilhunpo Monastery. The Panchen Lama was forced to flee to Lhasa once again. The Qianlong Emperor then sent an army of 17,000 men to Tibet. In 1793, with the assistance of Tibetan troops, they managed to drive the Nepalese troops to within about 30 km of Kathmandu before the Gurkhas conceded defeat and returned all the treasure they had plundered.[33]
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
Tibet has a history closely tied to that of China and while the region is poor those who do well in school can end up at Universities in places like Bejing and rise to almost any level in Chinese society. This may be true for Muslim Israelis but definitely is not true of Palestinian living in the West Bank and Gaza.
The author's ideas are based on distorted History and on some rather strange and unsupported assumptions. Its quite clear that he has no idea of where "Palestinians" originated and so, therefore he assumes that they must be "indigeneous." The truth of course, is far different as the vast majority of today's self-identified "Palestinans' are descended from economic migrants from other areas within the Ottoman Empire in recent, historic times. Similarly, the author doesn't understand land trenure systems under Turkish law, and so, as an American arrogantly presumes that the American style of land tenure was in place. Once again,the truth is quite different, and most of the ancestors of today's "Palestinians" share cropped land that they rented from often absentee owners. Most of the land of pre-state Israel was purchased at exhorbitant prices. Another mistaken premises is that the ancestors of today's "Palestinians" were chased off of their land. History hasshown that these people chose to aid the Arab war effort by clearig the battllefields in order to permit a "slaughter like none seen since the time of the Mongols." The Arabs that actually owned their land stayed and become Israeli citizens. As fond as the author appears to e of Jabotinsky, one must remember that he was only a writer and never held any position of authority. Lets try to imagine where the "Palestinians" would be were there no state of Israel to define themselves in oposition to. Simply, we would have never heard the words "Palestinian", or "Palestine" or the phrase "third most holy city in Islam." Jerusalem would be a forgotten backwater and "Palestine" would be divided between Syria, Egypt and Transjordan.
Palestine was not completely separate from the rest of the Ottoman Empire so obviously an firm identity didnt exixt preOttoman collapse and many people moved in and out of the region over the centuries.
That said you are distorting history in that you are conflating a claim of being indigenous (something almost nobody can really claim anywhere) with a claim that people who lived in villages (some for several generations... many for longer) that became Israel, the West Bank or Gaza and just wanted to continue living without being disturbed were in many cases uprooted when Israel was founded. The reason people fled was because there was a war and people tend to flee during wars. Many who fled wanted Israel defeated but that wasn't why they fled. Most who left assumed that when fighting ended they could come home and many assumed they would only be away for a short amount of time, leaving behind many of their belongings. Some people didn't flee and became Israeli citizens, but it is distorting history to see fleeing fighting as an act of war (of those who fled and those who stayed I doubt there was a huge difference in views on which side people supported in the war... I would guess a large majority supported neither side and just didn't want to die or just didn't want to leave their homes).
Ignoring Palestinians for a second, it is interesting to think that many European and US Jews preWII opposed Israel because they saw it as a threat to Jews in Europe and the US (in the sense that moving to Israel reduced the size of communities in Europe and the US). It was also a threat to Eastern European Jewish culture where decisions to ressurect a dead language killed off Yiddish and a lot of aspects of what people in the early 1900s and late 1800s would have seen as Jewish identity. For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past. This fact has been lost in recent years as the religious-right aims to link Jewish identity with religion even though many of our relatives who died in Germany were atheists (with the ethnic cleansing being based off ethnicity more than religion).
The problem with discussions of Israel is that both sides in the 40s and the 60s are completely understandable (opposing Israels creation or supporting it made personal sense to both sides) but recent views by supporters of Israel are not. Israel's oppression of Palestinians is the worst it has ever been today. It is impossible to imagine growing up in the West Bank or Gaza and not hating Israel just due to things like road blocks, curfews etc... (even if nobody around you taught you to do so ). For those in Israel hatred of Palestinians is somewhat related to attacks in 90s (it is worth remembering that suicide bombings didnt really take place before then) but the psychology is much closer to that of modern racism in the US (the one fanned by nightly news reports on crime that focus on minorities) than due to things that directly impact on daily life. I guess the point Im trying to make is that for all the talk of history the current conflict is very recent and especially on the Palestinian side a direct and predictable reaction to current treatment (the Occupation in the abstract mainly creating anger among intellectuals and nationalists but the current harsh policies creating anger by everyone).
That said you are distorting history in that you are conflating a claim of being indigenous (something almost nobody can really claim anywhere) with a claim that people who lived in villages (some for several generations... many for longer) that became Israel, the West Bank or Gaza and just wanted to continue living without being disturbed were in many cases uprooted when Israel was founded. The reason people fled was because there was a war and people tend to flee during wars. Many who fled wanted Israel defeated but that wasn't why they fled. Most who left assumed that when fighting ended they could come home and many assumed they would only be away for a short amount of time, leaving behind many of their belongings. Some people didn't flee and became Israeli citizens, but it is distorting history to see fleeing fighting as an act of war (of those who fled and those who stayed I doubt there was a huge difference in views on which side people supported in the war... I would guess a large majority supported neither side and just didn't want to die or just didn't want to leave their homes).
Ignoring Palestinians for a second, it is interesting to think that many European and US Jews preWII opposed Israel because they saw it as a threat to Jews in Europe and the US (in the sense that moving to Israel reduced the size of communities in Europe and the US). It was also a threat to Eastern European Jewish culture where decisions to ressurect a dead language killed off Yiddish and a lot of aspects of what people in the early 1900s and late 1800s would have seen as Jewish identity. For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past. This fact has been lost in recent years as the religious-right aims to link Jewish identity with religion even though many of our relatives who died in Germany were atheists (with the ethnic cleansing being based off ethnicity more than religion).
The problem with discussions of Israel is that both sides in the 40s and the 60s are completely understandable (opposing Israels creation or supporting it made personal sense to both sides) but recent views by supporters of Israel are not. Israel's oppression of Palestinians is the worst it has ever been today. It is impossible to imagine growing up in the West Bank or Gaza and not hating Israel just due to things like road blocks, curfews etc... (even if nobody around you taught you to do so ). For those in Israel hatred of Palestinians is somewhat related to attacks in 90s (it is worth remembering that suicide bombings didnt really take place before then) but the psychology is much closer to that of modern racism in the US (the one fanned by nightly news reports on crime that focus on minorities) than due to things that directly impact on daily life. I guess the point Im trying to make is that for all the talk of history the current conflict is very recent and especially on the Palestinian side a direct and predictable reaction to current treatment (the Occupation in the abstract mainly creating anger among intellectuals and nationalists but the current harsh policies creating anger by everyone).
1. Palestine was not completely separate from the rest of the Ottoman Empire so obviously an firm identity didn’t exist pre-Ottoman collapse and many people moved in and out of the region over the centuries.”
Response: No, it was far more than that., The area wasn’t stable or productive. It had been de-populated by wars (including the Mongols), famine, plague (twice), and locust. ,When the Turks instituted the Tanzimat land ownership reforms of the 1840s, even more sharecropping peasants were driven off of the land. In response the Ottomans re-settled other peoples from around the Ottoman Empire, such as the Circassians and the Bosnian settlers of Caesaerea (The modern settlement of Caesarea was established in 1884 by Muslims from Bosnia who built a small fishing village on the ruins of the Crusader fortress on the coast. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea).
2. Ignoring Palestinians for a second, it is interesting to think that many European and US Jews preWII opposed Israel because they saw it as a threat to Jews in Europe and the US (in the sense that moving to Israel reduced the size of communities in Europe and the US).
Response: Actually, due to te anti-semitic climate of the time, they were afraid of being FORCED to emigrate.
3. It was also a threat to Eastern European Jewish culture where decisions to resurect a dead language killed off Yiddish and a lot of aspects of what people in the early 1900s and late 1800s would have seen as Jewish identity.
Response: That’s not at all correct. Yiddish was a vibrant language until the Holocaust wiped out 2/3 of the speakers.
4. For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past. This fact has been lost in recent years as the religious-right aims to link Jewish identity with religion even though many of our relatives who died in Germany were atheists (with the ethnic cleansing being based off ethnicity more than religion).
Response: Interesting statement as Israel’s early governments were secular and socialist. It seems that its education that’s missing.
5. The problem with discussions of Israel is that both sides in the 40s and the 60s are completely understandable (opposing Israels creation or supporting it made personal sense to both sides) but recent views by supporters of Israel are not. Israel's oppression of Palestinians is the worst it has ever been today. It is impossible to imagine growing up in the West Bank or Gaza and not hating Israel just due to things like road blocks, curfews etc... (even if nobody around you taught you to do so ).
Response: Shall we remember that the check points, security fence etc were the result of the current intifada and wave of suicide bombings? 1967-1993 were the height of the Palestinian economy. Its incorrect and misleading to discuss “Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians”without understanding the history of Palestinian terror beginning in 1921. History did not begin in 1993 with The Oslo Accords and Arab terror did not begin with the suicide bomber.
6. For those in Israel hatred of Palestinians is somewhat related to attacks in 90s (it is worth remembering that suicide bombings didn’t really take place before then) but the psychology is much closer to that of modern racism in the US (the one fanned by nightly news reports on crime that focus on minorities) than due to things that directly impact on daily life. I guess the point Im trying to make is that for all the talk of history the current conflict is very recent and especially on the Palestinian side a direct and predictable reaction to current treatment (the Occupation in the abstract mainly creating anger among intellectuals and nationalists but the current harsh policies creating anger by everyone).
Response: In Israel the mood towards Palestinians isn’t best described as “Hate”. Rather than being “Hated”, they are simply considered “dangerous”.
Response: No, it was far more than that., The area wasn’t stable or productive. It had been de-populated by wars (including the Mongols), famine, plague (twice), and locust. ,When the Turks instituted the Tanzimat land ownership reforms of the 1840s, even more sharecropping peasants were driven off of the land. In response the Ottomans re-settled other peoples from around the Ottoman Empire, such as the Circassians and the Bosnian settlers of Caesaerea (The modern settlement of Caesarea was established in 1884 by Muslims from Bosnia who built a small fishing village on the ruins of the Crusader fortress on the coast. Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea).
2. Ignoring Palestinians for a second, it is interesting to think that many European and US Jews preWII opposed Israel because they saw it as a threat to Jews in Europe and the US (in the sense that moving to Israel reduced the size of communities in Europe and the US).
Response: Actually, due to te anti-semitic climate of the time, they were afraid of being FORCED to emigrate.
3. It was also a threat to Eastern European Jewish culture where decisions to resurect a dead language killed off Yiddish and a lot of aspects of what people in the early 1900s and late 1800s would have seen as Jewish identity.
Response: That’s not at all correct. Yiddish was a vibrant language until the Holocaust wiped out 2/3 of the speakers.
4. For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past. This fact has been lost in recent years as the religious-right aims to link Jewish identity with religion even though many of our relatives who died in Germany were atheists (with the ethnic cleansing being based off ethnicity more than religion).
Response: Interesting statement as Israel’s early governments were secular and socialist. It seems that its education that’s missing.
5. The problem with discussions of Israel is that both sides in the 40s and the 60s are completely understandable (opposing Israels creation or supporting it made personal sense to both sides) but recent views by supporters of Israel are not. Israel's oppression of Palestinians is the worst it has ever been today. It is impossible to imagine growing up in the West Bank or Gaza and not hating Israel just due to things like road blocks, curfews etc... (even if nobody around you taught you to do so ).
Response: Shall we remember that the check points, security fence etc were the result of the current intifada and wave of suicide bombings? 1967-1993 were the height of the Palestinian economy. Its incorrect and misleading to discuss “Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians”without understanding the history of Palestinian terror beginning in 1921. History did not begin in 1993 with The Oslo Accords and Arab terror did not begin with the suicide bomber.
6. For those in Israel hatred of Palestinians is somewhat related to attacks in 90s (it is worth remembering that suicide bombings didn’t really take place before then) but the psychology is much closer to that of modern racism in the US (the one fanned by nightly news reports on crime that focus on minorities) than due to things that directly impact on daily life. I guess the point Im trying to make is that for all the talk of history the current conflict is very recent and especially on the Palestinian side a direct and predictable reaction to current treatment (the Occupation in the abstract mainly creating anger among intellectuals and nationalists but the current harsh policies creating anger by everyone).
Response: In Israel the mood towards Palestinians isn’t best described as “Hate”. Rather than being “Hated”, they are simply considered “dangerous”.
I agree with much of what you say- but not this
"For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past."
I felt exactly the opposite- for the first time in my life, I felt like I was home- yes, Jews have it really good in America, but when you ask your American employer for a Jewish holiday off .... you really feel like an outsider.
One of the most moving experiences I had in Jerusalem was walking past a homeless encampment on Friday evening- they were lighting Shabbat candles. Things that are quaint or odd in America- like having prayer scrolls on your door- are routine in Israel. Going to museums I recognized names and places from childhood stories. I'm secular- I thought going to the Western Wall would be like visiting Stonehenge- instead, when I touched the wall, I burst into tears- this physical structure has been the focal point of our ancestors worship literally for millennia. I felt like part of the ages, part of the generations that loved and lost Jerusalem.
Its interesting that we had such different reactions.
"For those of us who are Jewish and non-religious visiting Israel really is visiting a foreign country with little connection to our own past."
I felt exactly the opposite- for the first time in my life, I felt like I was home- yes, Jews have it really good in America, but when you ask your American employer for a Jewish holiday off .... you really feel like an outsider.
One of the most moving experiences I had in Jerusalem was walking past a homeless encampment on Friday evening- they were lighting Shabbat candles. Things that are quaint or odd in America- like having prayer scrolls on your door- are routine in Israel. Going to museums I recognized names and places from childhood stories. I'm secular- I thought going to the Western Wall would be like visiting Stonehenge- instead, when I touched the wall, I burst into tears- this physical structure has been the focal point of our ancestors worship literally for millennia. I felt like part of the ages, part of the generations that loved and lost Jerusalem.
Its interesting that we had such different reactions.
You guys just can't stand up to a fair debate!! You have to cheat to win an argument.
Why is Steve Argue sacrosanct?
He gets to spout his lies, anti-semitism, and propaganda without fear of
any critical commentary.
You guys suck!!! Volunteers like you SHOULD QUIT!!!
Why is Steve Argue sacrosanct?
He gets to spout his lies, anti-semitism, and propaganda without fear of
any critical commentary.
You guys suck!!! Volunteers like you SHOULD QUIT!!!
Read the comments- they are allowing polite and respectful dialog.
Its quite refreshing.
Its only through dialog that we understand and appreciate our diffferences and our commonalities
Its quite refreshing.
Its only through dialog that we understand and appreciate our diffferences and our commonalities
There is no point in arguing with leftist anti-Zionists on the issue of anti-Semitism. They are convinced they are not, while the vast majority of Jews are convinced they are.
IMHO, most are simply unable to examine history (or anything) coming from a perspective that challenges their narrative of the way the world works. Witness the links to people like Leni Brenner whose research has been thoroughly discredited by legit. historians.
IMHO, most are simply unable to examine history (or anything) coming from a perspective that challenges their narrative of the way the world works. Witness the links to people like Leni Brenner whose research has been thoroughly discredited by legit. historians.
For more information:
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com
The links are there pretty muich as a link farm- they weren't relevant to the actually story- they are there to bolster the google rankings of such sites. Its insidious, but the IMC's have been used this way for quite a while now- there are often posts that just consist of links.
Re: Lenni Brenner: The lie that is told a million times is still a lie. Context is everything, yet context is excluded. You could call Oskar Schindlar a Nazi collaborator too...if you excluded the context. (Can you visualize the headlines in your local IMC - "Nazi collaborator honored by Zionists" ?) Those of us who are familiar with history are becoming familiar with propaganda, as well.....and those that distort history to promote an agenda.
Re: Lenni Brenner: The lie that is told a million times is still a lie. Context is everything, yet context is excluded. You could call Oskar Schindlar a Nazi collaborator too...if you excluded the context. (Can you visualize the headlines in your local IMC - "Nazi collaborator honored by Zionists" ?) Those of us who are familiar with history are becoming familiar with propaganda, as well.....and those that distort history to promote an agenda.
Leni Brenner has not been discredited, but we would expect such statements from people who have no problems with the theocratic and racist Israeli state.
![123monkey-typing.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/17/123monkey-typing.jpg)
The above pro-Zionist comments contain so many absurdities as to barely deserve a response, but a couple comments are in order.
The person who calls themself "scholar" refutes any such claim of scholarship by using Wikipedia as their source in claiming that Palestine did not have a vibrant thriving culture and agriculture before Zionist colonial settlement. Any scholar would know that Wikipedia is not a source. Workers Vanguard recently ran a fairly good article on why they do not use Wikipedia as a source:
Wikipedia: A Million Monkeys Typing
http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/888/wikipedia.html
WikiScanner, a list anonymous Wikipedia edits from interesting organizations including the CIA and Coca Cola:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
On another point, absurd definitions are posted of what anti-Semitism is, yet dictionaries clearly disagree.
American Heritage Dictionary
an•ti-Sem•i•tism (ān'tē-sěm'ĭ-tĭz'əm, ān'tī-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.
Since no such definitions apply to me, clearly I am not an anti-Semite.
The person who calls themself "scholar" refutes any such claim of scholarship by using Wikipedia as their source in claiming that Palestine did not have a vibrant thriving culture and agriculture before Zionist colonial settlement. Any scholar would know that Wikipedia is not a source. Workers Vanguard recently ran a fairly good article on why they do not use Wikipedia as a source:
Wikipedia: A Million Monkeys Typing
http://www.spartacist.org/english/wv/888/wikipedia.html
WikiScanner, a list anonymous Wikipedia edits from interesting organizations including the CIA and Coca Cola:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/
On another point, absurd definitions are posted of what anti-Semitism is, yet dictionaries clearly disagree.
American Heritage Dictionary
an•ti-Sem•i•tism (ān'tē-sěm'ĭ-tĭz'əm, ān'tī-)
n.
Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
Discrimination against Jews.
Since no such definitions apply to me, clearly I am not an anti-Semite.
Actually, the picture above is mislabeled, it is a Chimp and not a monkey.
Interesting. I referred to Wikipedia for your sake as I was trying to keep it simple for you. However, despite apparently not caring for Wikipedia, (of course any history of Caesarea would mention these same facts!) no mention has been made refuting the historic re-settling of Bosnians by the Ottoman Turkish in Caesarea. Its just a historic fact as was the re-settling of Circassians and so on. The point is to highlight the diverse ethnic origins of todays self-identified Palestinians in direct counter point to the recently circulated myth that they are "indigeneous" to Palestine.
Any other questions?
Any other questions?
Virtually every people have a multi-cultural history. That background is irrelevant to the question being discussed. One could argue that Native Americans are not indigenous either, and the only indigenous people live in Africa where the human race evolved.
The once flourishing majority Palestinian population were terrorized, conquered, discriminated against, and forced into exile in massive numbers without the right to return by the racist theocratic Zionist government, a government that at the same time allows and encourages Jews to immigrate; this is the point that matters.
The once flourishing majority Palestinian population were terrorized, conquered, discriminated against, and forced into exile in massive numbers without the right to return by the racist theocratic Zionist government, a government that at the same time allows and encourages Jews to immigrate; this is the point that matters.
I supposed that right after WWII, with Europe overwhelmed with 'displaced persons', and various countries still maintaining colonies overseas, the Allies got persuaded by Zionists to move a lot of Jewish Europeans out of wherever they were (including concentration camps) to British-occupied Palestine.
Zionists argued to the Allies that Jews could not live in Europe any more. There is a remarkable letter by King Abdullah I of Jordan, in which he mentions that Jewish Austrians who wanted to go back to their homes were prevented from doing so, and were shipped to Palestine instead!
Over the lat 60 years, the Zionist premise has turned out to be false. Israel has only existed by using brutality and violence as state policy, and that has angered so many of its victims that it is obviously false to claim that Jewish Europeans colonizers are more safe in Israel than back in their ancestral Europe.
In contrast, Jewish Europeans have lived in peace and prosperity, just like Jewish Americans. France's foreign minister is Jewish, and even its president would qualify as one under the religious law. Note that Israel stirs up so much shit that more Jewish Europeans get attacked in Israel than in France.
So why the ongoing cat & mouse with poor Palestinians? What for?
Paranoid Zionists don't have a leg to stand on. So when you confront them with logic, they can only offer you insults, blackmail and slander.
Zionists argued to the Allies that Jews could not live in Europe any more. There is a remarkable letter by King Abdullah I of Jordan, in which he mentions that Jewish Austrians who wanted to go back to their homes were prevented from doing so, and were shipped to Palestine instead!
Over the lat 60 years, the Zionist premise has turned out to be false. Israel has only existed by using brutality and violence as state policy, and that has angered so many of its victims that it is obviously false to claim that Jewish Europeans colonizers are more safe in Israel than back in their ancestral Europe.
In contrast, Jewish Europeans have lived in peace and prosperity, just like Jewish Americans. France's foreign minister is Jewish, and even its president would qualify as one under the religious law. Note that Israel stirs up so much shit that more Jewish Europeans get attacked in Israel than in France.
So why the ongoing cat & mouse with poor Palestinians? What for?
Paranoid Zionists don't have a leg to stand on. So when you confront them with logic, they can only offer you insults, blackmail and slander.
the Allies got persuaded by Zionists to move a lot of Jewish Europeans out of wherever they were (including concentration camps) to British-occupied Palestine.
*The Brits actually discouraged Jewish immigration into this area. Remember the White paper?
Zionists argued to the Allies that Jews could not live in Europe any more.
* Read Hitler's Willing Executioners. It wasn't just the SS that killed Jews- it was their neighbors and countrymen. The Jewish communities were completely destroyed- 2/3 of the Jews dead. What was there to go back to?
There is a remarkable letter by King Abdullah I of Jordan, in which he mentions that Jewish Austrians who wanted to go back to their homes were prevented from doing so, and were shipped to Palestine instead!
*Lets see a link. Full text. Were they prevented by the German Austrians? Context matters.
Over the lat 60 years, the Zionist premise has turned out to be false.
*What is the Zionist premise? Self determination? Self reliance? How is that wrong?
Israel has only existed by using brutality and violence as state policy
* Israel is a beacon of democracy in a very bad neighborhood. The state of Israel has accomplished a great deal considering its been in a pertpetual state of war with its neighbors. All Israel wants is to be left alone to live in peace
and that has angered so many of its victims that it is obviously false to claim that Jewish Europeans colonizers are more safe in Israel than back in their ancestral Europe.
*Maybe not. After all, Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah , has declared "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us thh trouble of going after them world wide"
In contrast, Jewish Europeans have lived in peace and prosperity, just like Jewish Americans.
*Uh- World War II? Remember? Peace and prosperity until your neighbors turn on you to the tune opf 6 million dead?
France's foreign minister is Jewish, and even its president would qualify as one under the religious law. Note that Israel stirs up so much shit that more Jewish Europeans get attacked in Israel than in France.
* Anti-Semitism is way up in Europe and all over the world. Its no wonder. 1 and a quarter billion Muslims, 14 million Jews
Re: anti- Semitism: Sorry, Steven- no matter how I look at it- three cherries-you come up anti-Semitic. Just because you'll polish Norman Finkelsteins' shoes doesn't exempt you.
There is a dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical. Anti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel.
Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?
Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.
Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting.
Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”
*The Brits actually discouraged Jewish immigration into this area. Remember the White paper?
Zionists argued to the Allies that Jews could not live in Europe any more.
* Read Hitler's Willing Executioners. It wasn't just the SS that killed Jews- it was their neighbors and countrymen. The Jewish communities were completely destroyed- 2/3 of the Jews dead. What was there to go back to?
There is a remarkable letter by King Abdullah I of Jordan, in which he mentions that Jewish Austrians who wanted to go back to their homes were prevented from doing so, and were shipped to Palestine instead!
*Lets see a link. Full text. Were they prevented by the German Austrians? Context matters.
Over the lat 60 years, the Zionist premise has turned out to be false.
*What is the Zionist premise? Self determination? Self reliance? How is that wrong?
Israel has only existed by using brutality and violence as state policy
* Israel is a beacon of democracy in a very bad neighborhood. The state of Israel has accomplished a great deal considering its been in a pertpetual state of war with its neighbors. All Israel wants is to be left alone to live in peace
and that has angered so many of its victims that it is obviously false to claim that Jewish Europeans colonizers are more safe in Israel than back in their ancestral Europe.
*Maybe not. After all, Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah , has declared "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us thh trouble of going after them world wide"
In contrast, Jewish Europeans have lived in peace and prosperity, just like Jewish Americans.
*Uh- World War II? Remember? Peace and prosperity until your neighbors turn on you to the tune opf 6 million dead?
France's foreign minister is Jewish, and even its president would qualify as one under the religious law. Note that Israel stirs up so much shit that more Jewish Europeans get attacked in Israel than in France.
* Anti-Semitism is way up in Europe and all over the world. Its no wonder. 1 and a quarter billion Muslims, 14 million Jews
Re: anti- Semitism: Sorry, Steven- no matter how I look at it- three cherries-you come up anti-Semitic. Just because you'll polish Norman Finkelsteins' shoes doesn't exempt you.
There is a dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical. Anti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel.
Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?
Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.
Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting.
Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”
The once flourishing majority Palestinian population...
Ok. I tried really hard not to laugh when I read this.
Ok Steven- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Tell me about this once flourishing people.
What was the boundaries of their civilization?
Who were there leaders?
Where were their universities?
What books came out of their civilzation? What art? What architecture?
Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
Ok. I tried really hard not to laugh when I read this.
Ok Steven- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Tell me about this once flourishing people.
What was the boundaries of their civilization?
Who were there leaders?
Where were their universities?
What books came out of their civilzation? What art? What architecture?
Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
I probably dont agree with those you are arguing with but your argument that there wasnt a thriving people living in Palestine in the 1800s has an element of denial of existence which rightfully makes Palestinians angry. It is equivalent to justifying S Africa by arguing that there was no civilization in the Southern part of the country south of the Zulu or the aboriginal Australians were somehow rigthfully occupied by the British because they dindt have literatire and history has lost the names of the various leaders.
in the 1800s Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and people locally had very little power but there was a thriving population in the various cities even if a tourist from the US at the time could easilly have gone though other parts of the country and said nobody was there (just as you could walk hundreds of miles in the Gobi dessert and conclude the Chinese population doesnt exist). Can you name a novel written by someone in what is now Iraq in the 1800s? If you cant does that mean that Iraq was largely unpopulated or didnt have thriving cities?
You can lookup the history of various Israeli cities and see that people did live there and there was a thriving culture in those cities througout the 1800s:
Haifa
------
Haifa's population increased from 1,000 in 1800 to 2,000 by 1840, 6000 in 1880, 20,000 in 1914 and 24,600 in 1922.[6]
At the beginning of the 20th Century, Haifa had emerged as an industrial port city and growing population center, reflected by the establishment of facilities like the Hejaz railway and the Technion. At that time, the Haifa District (which included a number of Arab locales surrounding the city of Haifa itself) was home to approximately 20,000 inhabitants, comprised of 82% Muslim Arab, 14% Christian Arabs, and 4% Jewish residents. Jewish population increased steadily with immigration primarily from Europe, so that by 1945 the population had shifted to 33% Muslim, 20% Christian and 47% Jewish.[7] In 1947 its population was estimated to consist of 41,000 Muslims, 74,230 Jews and 29,910 Christians. The Christian community was composed mostly of Greek Orthodox Church (Arab Orthodox).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa#Early_history
Jaffa
------
Jaffa was well known for its cash crops such as citrus and bananas. Until the establishment of Tel Aviv and the era of the Mandate for Palestine, Jaffa had the most advanced commercial, banking, fishing, and agriculture industries in Palestine. It had many factories specializing in cigarette making, cement making, tile and roof tile production, iron casting, cotton processing plants, traditional handmade carpets, leather products, wood boxes for Jaffa oranges, textiles, presses and publications. The majority of all publications and newspapers in Palestine were published in Jaffa.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the population of Jaffa had swelled considerably and new suburbs were built on the sand dunes along the coast. By 1909, the new Jewish suburbs north of Jaffa were reorganized as the city of Tel Aviv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa#History
Not being a Palestinian or able to read arabic I dont know of any authors or leaders in the 1800s in Jaffa of Haifa but they did exist. Not that it matters since as with most poor regions of the world the bulk of the population and the bulk of those who became Palestinians probably lived as rural farmers and were unable to read. The bulk of India and China today consists of rural farmers and in India at least most are still illiterate. While one can claim that such peasants do not make a civilization it seems strange to say that only the rich in the cities are what define civilization and the peasants count for nothing (especially when the Communist revolution in China consisted of poor peasants).
in the 1800s Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and people locally had very little power but there was a thriving population in the various cities even if a tourist from the US at the time could easilly have gone though other parts of the country and said nobody was there (just as you could walk hundreds of miles in the Gobi dessert and conclude the Chinese population doesnt exist). Can you name a novel written by someone in what is now Iraq in the 1800s? If you cant does that mean that Iraq was largely unpopulated or didnt have thriving cities?
You can lookup the history of various Israeli cities and see that people did live there and there was a thriving culture in those cities througout the 1800s:
Haifa
------
Haifa's population increased from 1,000 in 1800 to 2,000 by 1840, 6000 in 1880, 20,000 in 1914 and 24,600 in 1922.[6]
At the beginning of the 20th Century, Haifa had emerged as an industrial port city and growing population center, reflected by the establishment of facilities like the Hejaz railway and the Technion. At that time, the Haifa District (which included a number of Arab locales surrounding the city of Haifa itself) was home to approximately 20,000 inhabitants, comprised of 82% Muslim Arab, 14% Christian Arabs, and 4% Jewish residents. Jewish population increased steadily with immigration primarily from Europe, so that by 1945 the population had shifted to 33% Muslim, 20% Christian and 47% Jewish.[7] In 1947 its population was estimated to consist of 41,000 Muslims, 74,230 Jews and 29,910 Christians. The Christian community was composed mostly of Greek Orthodox Church (Arab Orthodox).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haifa#Early_history
Jaffa
------
Jaffa was well known for its cash crops such as citrus and bananas. Until the establishment of Tel Aviv and the era of the Mandate for Palestine, Jaffa had the most advanced commercial, banking, fishing, and agriculture industries in Palestine. It had many factories specializing in cigarette making, cement making, tile and roof tile production, iron casting, cotton processing plants, traditional handmade carpets, leather products, wood boxes for Jaffa oranges, textiles, presses and publications. The majority of all publications and newspapers in Palestine were published in Jaffa.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, the population of Jaffa had swelled considerably and new suburbs were built on the sand dunes along the coast. By 1909, the new Jewish suburbs north of Jaffa were reorganized as the city of Tel Aviv.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa#History
Not being a Palestinian or able to read arabic I dont know of any authors or leaders in the 1800s in Jaffa of Haifa but they did exist. Not that it matters since as with most poor regions of the world the bulk of the population and the bulk of those who became Palestinians probably lived as rural farmers and were unable to read. The bulk of India and China today consists of rural farmers and in India at least most are still illiterate. While one can claim that such peasants do not make a civilization it seems strange to say that only the rich in the cities are what define civilization and the peasants count for nothing (especially when the Communist revolution in China consisted of poor peasants).
Figured I'd respond to one question you asked of someone else:
"What was the boundaries of their civilization? "
There are several answers to that:
1. the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire
2. the cities of Palestine
3. extended families and ethnicities within towns and cities
The Ottoman empire wasn't a nation-state and few nation-states existed before the mid-1800s anywhere (nationalism usually being considered a phenomena that emerged in Europe in the last 1800s). Italy, Germany, and most Eastern European countries didn't exist before the rise of nationalism. There were empires that ruled over regions and individuals in those regions had ties to people with similar cultural background as well as loyalty to their towns and villages.
Iraq clearly never existed until the British created it. One can say it is therefore an artificial identity but this isnt the same thing as saying people wouldnt resist if you went in and occupied Iraq. In the North of Iraq there has been a Kurdish identity for hundreds of years but it was never independent , it didnt have fixed boundaries and for most of its history there were not individuals who claimed to be leaders of all the Kurds. In Southern Iraq there were Sunni tribes in the early 1800s that got converted in Shia Islam in the mid and late 1800s. With all that change one could claim there wasnt a fixed identity but there was (it was tied to tribes and the culture had more to do with fishing and living in the marsh region of what is now S Iraq than it had to do with religion).
Palestinians obviously existed in what is now Israel in the 1800s. If they didnt there wouldnt be any conflict today between their descendants and the Israelis and early Zionists wouldnt have written so much about the Palestinians (from Baron Rothschild mainly hiring them over Jews from Europe in the factories he built during the first Aliyah to Hertzl writing about the population of Palestine being relatively friendly to Jews)
"What was the boundaries of their civilization? "
There are several answers to that:
1. the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire
2. the cities of Palestine
3. extended families and ethnicities within towns and cities
The Ottoman empire wasn't a nation-state and few nation-states existed before the mid-1800s anywhere (nationalism usually being considered a phenomena that emerged in Europe in the last 1800s). Italy, Germany, and most Eastern European countries didn't exist before the rise of nationalism. There were empires that ruled over regions and individuals in those regions had ties to people with similar cultural background as well as loyalty to their towns and villages.
Iraq clearly never existed until the British created it. One can say it is therefore an artificial identity but this isnt the same thing as saying people wouldnt resist if you went in and occupied Iraq. In the North of Iraq there has been a Kurdish identity for hundreds of years but it was never independent , it didnt have fixed boundaries and for most of its history there were not individuals who claimed to be leaders of all the Kurds. In Southern Iraq there were Sunni tribes in the early 1800s that got converted in Shia Islam in the mid and late 1800s. With all that change one could claim there wasnt a fixed identity but there was (it was tied to tribes and the culture had more to do with fishing and living in the marsh region of what is now S Iraq than it had to do with religion).
Palestinians obviously existed in what is now Israel in the 1800s. If they didnt there wouldnt be any conflict today between their descendants and the Israelis and early Zionists wouldnt have written so much about the Palestinians (from Baron Rothschild mainly hiring them over Jews from Europe in the factories he built during the first Aliyah to Hertzl writing about the population of Palestine being relatively friendly to Jews)
The boundaries of British palestine extend far beyond the boundaries of Israel today. That missing chunk is what is known as Jordan, today= which many people believe to be the second state in a two state solution.
![ottpal2.gif](/uploads/2008/01/18/ottpal2.gif)
I think the posters point was that there was never an independent nation of Palestine in this region- not that there weren't any non-Jewish people. The land was never completely empty- it was just sparcely settled.
Are you saying that many people support Israel annexing Gaza and the West Bank and expelling all Palestinians to Jordan?
On the surface that is ethnic cleansing but in practice it would mean genocide since Jordan wouoldnt accept or be able to accept the population and most people would not move without force being used.
Saying Jordan should annex the West Bank is something a bit different but again I dont think Jordan would agree and right now Israel would definitely not agree either.
I would certainly hope there are not a lot of people who support the mass genocide of the Palestinian population in the West Bank.
On the surface that is ethnic cleansing but in practice it would mean genocide since Jordan wouoldnt accept or be able to accept the population and most people would not move without force being used.
Saying Jordan should annex the West Bank is something a bit different but again I dont think Jordan would agree and right now Israel would definitely not agree either.
I would certainly hope there are not a lot of people who support the mass genocide of the Palestinian population in the West Bank.
There was never an independent nation of Kurdistan ever. Does this have any relevance over the concerns of the Kurds today?
Before the 1860s there was never an independent nation of Italy, Germany... Does this have any relevance over the concerns of those in Europe today?
Before the British there was never a united nation of India and most of the country had been ruled by Muslim Turks for hundreds of years. Does this make Indian somehow less of a country?
Before the 1860s there was never an independent nation of Italy, Germany... Does this have any relevance over the concerns of those in Europe today?
Before the British there was never a united nation of India and most of the country had been ruled by Muslim Turks for hundreds of years. Does this make Indian somehow less of a country?
It's funny how people who often try to label anti-apartied advocates as anti-semetic, and are often the least familiar with the history of Israel/Palestine.
Apartheid is the wrong word to describe the situation in Israel today.
Its a one person one vote democracy- people of all colors, races, religions mingle freely.
I just spent quite a bit of time in Israel. I played in the water hole at Ein Gedi with Israelis in Speedos, with naked Euopeans, and with Palestinian women dressed head to toe in black. No separation. No separation in the parks, in the malls, in the resturants, in the buses. The precise reason the suicide bombings were so devastating is because there was no separtion. In Hadassah hospital, Jewish doctors treat Palestinian patients- Palestinian doctors treat Jewish patients. No separation. (There were nominated for a Nobelpeace prize, btw)
Re: Jordan. Yes, a small group feel Jordan is Palestine. A small group believes in transfer (The political party espousing these views has been banned from participating in Israeli politics, btw) But no- Jordan wouldn't take the Plaestinians in- remember Black September- Jordan killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has killed in years of conflict?
Many Muslims don't feel they can live with Jews. Some Jews feel they can't live with Muslims. They represent the extremists on both sides.
Its a one person one vote democracy- people of all colors, races, religions mingle freely.
I just spent quite a bit of time in Israel. I played in the water hole at Ein Gedi with Israelis in Speedos, with naked Euopeans, and with Palestinian women dressed head to toe in black. No separation. No separation in the parks, in the malls, in the resturants, in the buses. The precise reason the suicide bombings were so devastating is because there was no separtion. In Hadassah hospital, Jewish doctors treat Palestinian patients- Palestinian doctors treat Jewish patients. No separation. (There were nominated for a Nobelpeace prize, btw)
Re: Jordan. Yes, a small group feel Jordan is Palestine. A small group believes in transfer (The political party espousing these views has been banned from participating in Israeli politics, btw) But no- Jordan wouldn't take the Plaestinians in- remember Black September- Jordan killed more Palestinians in a single month than Israel has killed in years of conflict?
Many Muslims don't feel they can live with Jews. Some Jews feel they can't live with Muslims. They represent the extremists on both sides.
Steven -I think the evidence points to you as a bigot. Sorry. The movement from the specific to a general is the hallmark of bigotry- and you are very comfortable travelling that path. You've done it several times on this thread.
Re: Wikipedia. Its for those who can't get off their butts. I'm a librarian. I like directing people towards books. Nonetheless, there is a certain charm to Wikipedia- thesis-antithesis- synthesis- as a way of arriving at truth. But I would use it as a jumping off place for research- not as a final destination
Re: Wikipedia. Its for those who can't get off their butts. I'm a librarian. I like directing people towards books. Nonetheless, there is a certain charm to Wikipedia- thesis-antithesis- synthesis- as a way of arriving at truth. But I would use it as a jumping off place for research- not as a final destination
It is how people describe the West Bank as part of Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have voting rights in Israel...
"It is how people describe the West Bank as part of Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have voting rights in Israel..."
The West Bank and Gaza are nothing but Bantustans set up by Israel and certain Palestinian capitalist "leaders" who sold out the struggle.
In addition, the Palestinians who have been removed from their homeland do not have the right to vote nor the right to return.
And Tia continues to claim that I am an anti-Semite, but that’s because she's a racist who hates Palestinians.
The West Bank and Gaza are nothing but Bantustans set up by Israel and certain Palestinian capitalist "leaders" who sold out the struggle.
In addition, the Palestinians who have been removed from their homeland do not have the right to vote nor the right to return.
And Tia continues to claim that I am an anti-Semite, but that’s because she's a racist who hates Palestinians.
![123-tutu.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/18/123-tutu.jpg)
From Article:
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote:
"I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?"
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote:
"I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon?"
Aside from the similarities between the West Bank and Gaza and S African "homelands" under apartheid another reason for the close link between the anti-apartheid struggle and the struggle for Palestinian rights is because Israel backed S African apartheid between 1973 and 1987 more than most other countries.
---
Israel-South Africa relations
---
By the mid 1970s, Israel's relations with South Africa had warmed. In 1975, increasing economic co-operation between Israel and South Africa was reported, including the construction of a major new railway in Israel, and the building of a desalination plant in South Africa.[7] In April 1976 South African Prime Minister John Vorster was invited to make a state visit, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.[5] [8] Later in 1976, the 5th Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in Colombo, Sri Lanka, adopted a resolution calling for an oil embargo against France and Israel because of their arms sales to South Africa. [7] In 1977, South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha visited Israel to discuss South African issues with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan.
In 1981, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon visited South African forces in Namibia for 10 days[9], later saying that South Africa needed more weapons to fight Soviet infiltration in the region.
In 1984, Pik Botha again visited Israel but this time only for an unofficial meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir. [10]
By 1987 Israel found itself alone among the Western nations in still maintaining strong, even strategic relations with apartheid South Africa (Among African nations, Malawi and the Ivory Coast maintained diplomatic relations with South Africa throughout the Apartheid era ).[11] On March 18, 1987 the Inner Cabinet of the Israeli government denounced the Apartheid policy of South Africa and limited Israel's security ties with Pretoria. On September 16, 1987 the Israeli Cabinet approved a series of measures designed to limit trade, sports and cultural ties with South Africa. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations
---
Israel and South Africa
---
lsrael's ties with South Africa seem to be especially disturbing to many who follow Israel's international activities. Perhaps it is natural that Israel has been castigated more harshly for its arms sales to South Africa than for its sales to other countries: first, because there has been for a decade an arms embargo against South Africa; and second, because of the unsurpassed criminality of the white regime and the uses to which it puts the Israeli-supplied weapons.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html
Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html
----
South Africa and weapons of mass destruction
----
An article at the Federation of American Scientists website claims that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s "were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel." [5] However, United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of November 4, 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all States to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons".[6] This prohibition on co-operation led David Albright to write in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
"Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." Albright continued: "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant co-operation."[7]
According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium in exchange for 50 tons of South African uranium and in the mid-80s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 ballistic missile. [8] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs. [9]
Chris McGreal has claimed that "Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs".[10] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa. [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Collaboration_with_Israel
---
Israel-South Africa relations
---
By the mid 1970s, Israel's relations with South Africa had warmed. In 1975, increasing economic co-operation between Israel and South Africa was reported, including the construction of a major new railway in Israel, and the building of a desalination plant in South Africa.[7] In April 1976 South African Prime Minister John Vorster was invited to make a state visit, meeting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.[5] [8] Later in 1976, the 5th Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in Colombo, Sri Lanka, adopted a resolution calling for an oil embargo against France and Israel because of their arms sales to South Africa. [7] In 1977, South African Foreign Minister Pik Botha visited Israel to discuss South African issues with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan.
In 1981, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon visited South African forces in Namibia for 10 days[9], later saying that South Africa needed more weapons to fight Soviet infiltration in the region.
In 1984, Pik Botha again visited Israel but this time only for an unofficial meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir. [10]
By 1987 Israel found itself alone among the Western nations in still maintaining strong, even strategic relations with apartheid South Africa (Among African nations, Malawi and the Ivory Coast maintained diplomatic relations with South Africa throughout the Apartheid era ).[11] On March 18, 1987 the Inner Cabinet of the Israeli government denounced the Apartheid policy of South Africa and limited Israel's security ties with Pretoria. On September 16, 1987 the Israeli Cabinet approved a series of measures designed to limit trade, sports and cultural ties with South Africa. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-South_Africa_relations
---
Israel and South Africa
---
lsrael's ties with South Africa seem to be especially disturbing to many who follow Israel's international activities. Perhaps it is natural that Israel has been castigated more harshly for its arms sales to South Africa than for its sales to other countries: first, because there has been for a decade an arms embargo against South Africa; and second, because of the unsurpassed criminality of the white regime and the uses to which it puts the Israeli-supplied weapons.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Israel_SAfrica.html
Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html
----
South Africa and weapons of mass destruction
----
An article at the Federation of American Scientists website claims that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s "were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel." [5] However, United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of November 4, 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all States to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons".[6] This prohibition on co-operation led David Albright to write in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
"Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." Albright continued: "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant co-operation."[7]
According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium in exchange for 50 tons of South African uranium and in the mid-80s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 ballistic missile. [8] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six atom bombs. [9]
Chris McGreal has claimed that "Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs".[10] In 2000, Dieter Gerhardt, Soviet spy and former commander in the South African Navy, claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa. [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Collaboration_with_Israel
"It is how people describe the West Bank as part of Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank do not have voting rights in Israel..."
The West bank is not part of Israel. The residents have not asked to have it annexed. I have read no impassioned pleas from Palestinians asking for Israel to take over this land and to make them citizens. What nation gives rights to non-citizens?
"The West Bank and Gaza are nothing but Bantustans set up by Israel and certain Palestinian capitalist "leaders" who sold out the struggle. "
Abbas hasn't sold out the struggle- he's exploting it for what its worth. You and I know its just a matter of time before his guns are turned against Israel
"In addition, the Palestinians who have been removed from their homeland do not have the right to vote nor the right to return."
Once again, why would they? There are 4 generations since 1948. What nation gives non-citizens a vote? Do undocumented workers in America have the right to vote in AMerican elections? Do I have the right to vote in France? Does my friend Ruti have the right to vote in Yemen, where she was expelled from 60 years ago? (Yes, children, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab land in recent years)
"And Tia continues to claim that I am an anti-Semite, but that’s because she's a racist who hates Palestinians. "
Using the evidence on this thread, since I assume we've never met, what do you base that assumption on? I base my assumption on your willingness to take a specific and move it into a general... "Some Israelis are racist, ergo Israel is a racist state...."
So, go ahead- what I have written to back up your accusation?
The West bank is not part of Israel. The residents have not asked to have it annexed. I have read no impassioned pleas from Palestinians asking for Israel to take over this land and to make them citizens. What nation gives rights to non-citizens?
"The West Bank and Gaza are nothing but Bantustans set up by Israel and certain Palestinian capitalist "leaders" who sold out the struggle. "
Abbas hasn't sold out the struggle- he's exploting it for what its worth. You and I know its just a matter of time before his guns are turned against Israel
"In addition, the Palestinians who have been removed from their homeland do not have the right to vote nor the right to return."
Once again, why would they? There are 4 generations since 1948. What nation gives non-citizens a vote? Do undocumented workers in America have the right to vote in AMerican elections? Do I have the right to vote in France? Does my friend Ruti have the right to vote in Yemen, where she was expelled from 60 years ago? (Yes, children, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab land in recent years)
"And Tia continues to claim that I am an anti-Semite, but that’s because she's a racist who hates Palestinians. "
Using the evidence on this thread, since I assume we've never met, what do you base that assumption on? I base my assumption on your willingness to take a specific and move it into a general... "Some Israelis are racist, ergo Israel is a racist state...."
So, go ahead- what I have written to back up your accusation?
![bantustans.jpg](/uploads/2008/01/18/bantustans.jpg)
The entire nation of Israel can be driven across, west to east in an hour. When the Palestinians accept their own nation, Israel will be 8 miles wide at its waist. This doesn't sound like a defensible border, but Israel is willing to give it a try.
Its not like these discontiguous bantustans, huh?
Its not like these discontiguous bantustans, huh?
Israel and South Africa- yep that was regrettable.
Israel was (and is) desperate for friends.
I did peace corp a while back. I was stationed on a ridiculously small island.
One day there was a knock on my door- Israelis. They had come to donate desalinization and solar energy equipment to this tiny nation. (They said to me, "We heard there were other Jews here..." it was rather amusing- we used to say about the island "Its not the end of the world, but you can see it from here")
Over the years, Israel has sent a multitude of doctors to this tiny country- the last batch taught the local doctors how to read x-rays.
And no, this didn't make it into any newspaper or TV program.
Israel took in Vietnamese boatpeople. Israel took in Darfurian refugees.
Israel is the only nation I can remember that brought Africans over, not as slaves but as brothers. Today, there are over 120,000 black Israelis.
Israel was (and is) desperate for friends.
I did peace corp a while back. I was stationed on a ridiculously small island.
One day there was a knock on my door- Israelis. They had come to donate desalinization and solar energy equipment to this tiny nation. (They said to me, "We heard there were other Jews here..." it was rather amusing- we used to say about the island "Its not the end of the world, but you can see it from here")
Over the years, Israel has sent a multitude of doctors to this tiny country- the last batch taught the local doctors how to read x-rays.
And no, this didn't make it into any newspaper or TV program.
Israel took in Vietnamese boatpeople. Israel took in Darfurian refugees.
Israel is the only nation I can remember that brought Africans over, not as slaves but as brothers. Today, there are over 120,000 black Israelis.
Tibetans did not ask China to be annexed but they were and have most of the righst of other Chinese citizens (they can got to Universities in Bejing, have Chinese passports etc..) For the limited number for human rights in China the difference in opportunity for those in Tibet vs West Bank is still large.
Chechens probably dont want to be part of Russia either but again they have rights of citizenship.
You can blame Palestinian leaders but there has been enough time with enough changes in leadership (especially since the influence of the PLO in the West Bank was rather minimal until the 90s) it seems like a bit of a cop out. China doesnt tell Tibetans that their suffering would end if the Dalai Lama were to just recognize the Chinas right to Tibet since to do so essentially admits that one is administering collective punishment based off the actions of an individual. China's strategy to solidify occupation is similar to Israels in that it includes building roads and encouraging ethnic Chinese to settle in Tibet but unlike the West Bank China also aims to coopt the Tibetan youth with job opportunities and a relatively good government run eductation system (and unlike Israeli settlements Chinese who move to Tibet dont wall themselves off and instead integrate in with the population and work at the same factories)
China's aim in Tibet is rather obvious. Tibetans may not want to be Chinese but they have little choice and Chinese policy is in some ways a form of cultural genocide since until recently there seemed to be a goal to wipe out many aspects of Tibetan culture (now the Chinese government sees it as a tourist attraction and is funding monestaries to some extent... as long as they have control)
Israel's aim in the Occupation is far less clear. With the settlements and no move to annexation the only logical future one could think of (before the 90s) was a S African like society with the West bank consisting of Israeli citizens with rights and Palestinians with few rights. Only after the uprisings has talk of 2 states emerged. There were several decaded before then and it really isnt clear what Israel's goal was in the West Bank. It also isnt clear why Likkud enoucraged settlements even through the 90s peace talks. What was to be gained. If there wont eventually be 2 states what will there be? Occupying a region and denying the population citizenship rights in any state is quite a it worse than what China is doing in Tibet and it also creates a dynamic that can only get worse.
China hopes economic prosperity will eventually make Tibetans think of themselves as Chinese but Israel's occupation never created a dynamic where Palestinians could ever accept it. Both are cases of oppression but for all that Tibet seems like a struggle that almost nobody outside of China defends the situation in Tibet for Tibetans at least gives Tibetans a visible future wheras the Israeli occupation from its start was designed (Im guessing more out of racism and stupidity than concious thought) in ways to piss off both Palestinians and the rest of the world.
Chechens probably dont want to be part of Russia either but again they have rights of citizenship.
You can blame Palestinian leaders but there has been enough time with enough changes in leadership (especially since the influence of the PLO in the West Bank was rather minimal until the 90s) it seems like a bit of a cop out. China doesnt tell Tibetans that their suffering would end if the Dalai Lama were to just recognize the Chinas right to Tibet since to do so essentially admits that one is administering collective punishment based off the actions of an individual. China's strategy to solidify occupation is similar to Israels in that it includes building roads and encouraging ethnic Chinese to settle in Tibet but unlike the West Bank China also aims to coopt the Tibetan youth with job opportunities and a relatively good government run eductation system (and unlike Israeli settlements Chinese who move to Tibet dont wall themselves off and instead integrate in with the population and work at the same factories)
China's aim in Tibet is rather obvious. Tibetans may not want to be Chinese but they have little choice and Chinese policy is in some ways a form of cultural genocide since until recently there seemed to be a goal to wipe out many aspects of Tibetan culture (now the Chinese government sees it as a tourist attraction and is funding monestaries to some extent... as long as they have control)
Israel's aim in the Occupation is far less clear. With the settlements and no move to annexation the only logical future one could think of (before the 90s) was a S African like society with the West bank consisting of Israeli citizens with rights and Palestinians with few rights. Only after the uprisings has talk of 2 states emerged. There were several decaded before then and it really isnt clear what Israel's goal was in the West Bank. It also isnt clear why Likkud enoucraged settlements even through the 90s peace talks. What was to be gained. If there wont eventually be 2 states what will there be? Occupying a region and denying the population citizenship rights in any state is quite a it worse than what China is doing in Tibet and it also creates a dynamic that can only get worse.
China hopes economic prosperity will eventually make Tibetans think of themselves as Chinese but Israel's occupation never created a dynamic where Palestinians could ever accept it. Both are cases of oppression but for all that Tibet seems like a struggle that almost nobody outside of China defends the situation in Tibet for Tibetans at least gives Tibetans a visible future wheras the Israeli occupation from its start was designed (Im guessing more out of racism and stupidity than concious thought) in ways to piss off both Palestinians and the rest of the world.
Except everything Israel does seems designed to alienate friend not make them.
Israel's support for S Africa alienated most of the world and didnt really result in any long term friends. Israel does a lot to try to make people support it but that is different from doing anything that can really make long term friends.
Israel's support for the Iraq wars (both of them) didnt help win many friends either.
Israel is frankly bad at making friends because its foreign policy mainly consists of kissing up to those in power (the US) and accepting anyone as a friends as long as they say they support what Israel is doing to the Palestians.
Taking another Chinese example of how to make friends and enemies compare the West Bank with Xinjiang. On the surface they seem similar. Both are Muslim groups occupied by much more powerful nonMuslim countries. Xinjiang was very poor and illiterate with China occupied it as was most of the West Bank. Both China and Israel enouraged nonMuslims to move into the occupied territory to solidify occupation...
Now look at a city like Ürümqi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urumqi_panorama.jpg
(ok a picture doesnt say everything but based off stuff Ive been recently reading it sounds like a booming city with a large high-tech sector)
It is still majority Muslim but it si very prosperous now and many people in the Eastern part of China move there to get jobs.
Muslims who resist or even speak out are brutally suppressed but if someone focuses on school or work just being from the region and not being ethnic Chinese wont prevent one from getting a good job, into the best Universities etc...
Now look at the West Bank. Did Israel invest to try to create a "silicon valley" in the ares it occupied hiring and training the occupied populations? Israel aimed to gain influence with settlements but did nothing to win over the population.
This makes a difference externally too. Central Asia doesn't hold the same hostility towards China as the rest of the Middle East does towards Israel since it is far easier to accept a forced annexation (usually people don't want to be annexed after all) with economic development as opposed to an endless occupation where the occupied are not given the same rights as those living in the occupying country.
Israel's support for S Africa alienated most of the world and didnt really result in any long term friends. Israel does a lot to try to make people support it but that is different from doing anything that can really make long term friends.
Israel's support for the Iraq wars (both of them) didnt help win many friends either.
Israel is frankly bad at making friends because its foreign policy mainly consists of kissing up to those in power (the US) and accepting anyone as a friends as long as they say they support what Israel is doing to the Palestians.
Taking another Chinese example of how to make friends and enemies compare the West Bank with Xinjiang. On the surface they seem similar. Both are Muslim groups occupied by much more powerful nonMuslim countries. Xinjiang was very poor and illiterate with China occupied it as was most of the West Bank. Both China and Israel enouraged nonMuslims to move into the occupied territory to solidify occupation...
Now look at a city like Ürümqi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urumqi_panorama.jpg
(ok a picture doesnt say everything but based off stuff Ive been recently reading it sounds like a booming city with a large high-tech sector)
It is still majority Muslim but it si very prosperous now and many people in the Eastern part of China move there to get jobs.
Muslims who resist or even speak out are brutally suppressed but if someone focuses on school or work just being from the region and not being ethnic Chinese wont prevent one from getting a good job, into the best Universities etc...
Now look at the West Bank. Did Israel invest to try to create a "silicon valley" in the ares it occupied hiring and training the occupied populations? Israel aimed to gain influence with settlements but did nothing to win over the population.
This makes a difference externally too. Central Asia doesn't hold the same hostility towards China as the rest of the Middle East does towards Israel since it is far easier to accept a forced annexation (usually people don't want to be annexed after all) with economic development as opposed to an endless occupation where the occupied are not given the same rights as those living in the occupying country.
Having a small poor state split apart into pieces is very different than having a rich country with Alaska and Hawaii both accessible via direct routes that cross no other country and with only one friendly country inbetween.
Pakistan is a better case to look at. It didn't manage to exist very long as two discontiguous states. Realistically there will probably be a 3 state solution with Gaza and the West Bank becoming seperate countries. Moving borders could make for one state but those who propose such things ignore the strong feelings all people hold for their towns and homes. Since the entire Palestinian identity and conflict is closely tied to personal feelings of oppression and loss more than ideology, forcing more people to move would only work with a huge amount of economic compensation (and even then as with the Israeli settlers in Gaza people would resist moving).
Pakistan is a better case to look at. It didn't manage to exist very long as two discontiguous states. Realistically there will probably be a 3 state solution with Gaza and the West Bank becoming seperate countries. Moving borders could make for one state but those who propose such things ignore the strong feelings all people hold for their towns and homes. Since the entire Palestinian identity and conflict is closely tied to personal feelings of oppression and loss more than ideology, forcing more people to move would only work with a huge amount of economic compensation (and even then as with the Israeli settlers in Gaza people would resist moving).
Why Zionism Is Racism
Zionism is a racist and irredeemable movement, like Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.
By Rabee' Sahyoun
Posted: 11 Rabi-u-Thani 1422, 3 July 2001
(Note: This article is a direct response, using the same format, on a line by line basis, to an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on April 26, 2001, written by Gil Troy, a Professor of History at McGill University.)
On this, the 53rd anniversary of the Nakbe' (the Catastrophe of the Palestinian people), it is all too tempting for friend and foe alike to define Israel, and zionism, solely by the Americans' proclamations of its enlightened democracy. To do so is to miss the normal atrocities that occur in Israel daily, the millions who are under curfew and blockade, starving and brutalized, in the Middle East's only colonized state. To do so is to feign the reality of zionism, a racist and irredeemable movement, that survived the twentieth centuries' other genocidal and seemingly passing revolutions such as Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.
A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine.
The sad truth is that over a century after its founding, zionism seems to be grander and more honorable than its reality. Arabs have suffered from Zionism's belligerence and exclusivity, and many have blamed the United States, and the West, for this because of their unshakeable support of zionism. Israeli aggression over the past seven months has finally renewed international recognition that zionism is racism.
On this anniversary of the Nabke', it is now up to all Jews to follow in the footsteps of the brave few, and denounce the racist and separatist nature of zionism, while the world should encourage them to do so. The world should not allow the torchbearers of zionism to silence and quell the idealism of these few. No nationalism is pure, no movement is perfect, no state is ideal, but today, Zionism persists as a menace, a militaristic and dictatory movement to me and to most Palestinians. A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine; today, as in the rest of the world, colonialism must be ideologically purged from Palestine.
I believe that zionism is racism, because 53 years after being exiled from their homeland, in defiance of the four Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions 181, 194, 242, 338, and others, and other multilateral and international human rights conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the disinherited refugees of Palestine, continue to endure merciless punishment from the Zionist entity, most recently in the bulldozing of makeshift homes in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza.
I believe that zionism is racism, because I am a Palestinian, and without recognizing the colonialist component in zionism, I cannot explain its racist character, a western movement uprooting the native peoples of Palestine, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Samaritan alike, a people bound to their land, through centuries of raising orange groves, and herding sheep, lending grace to the Hills of God, historically, religiously and culturally.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to appreciate or acknowledge the Palestinians' ties to their homeland, their love for their historical capital, Jerusalem, and the 53-yar plight they have endured as refugees worldwide, in Europe, in North America, in camps Dheishe, Shatila, Wehdaat and others, never giving up hope or struggle in yearning to return home.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to admit the reality that the minority indigenous Jewish community in Palestine, that lived there for the last two thousand years, was an undistinguishable people from its Christian and Muslim Palestinian brethren, and that the leader of the Jewish community of the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem, Rabbi Lamram Blau, stood on the side of his Palestinian brothers and sisters being exiled in 1948.
I believe that zionism is racism because in modern times, the promise of liberal democracy and justice is a double-edged sword, preached by the Western powers, yet only paid lip-service to in the case of Israel, where Palestinian are continuously expelled, ethnically cleansed, and subjugated, and in the cases where they are assimilated, they are granted, limited, if any, civil rights.
I believe that zionism is racism, because in establishing the racially exclusive state of Israel, in 1948, and expelling the indigenous Palestinians from the land, the zionists severed a relationship that people had to the land for over 4,000 years, uninterrupted, since before Abraham.
I believe that zionism is racism, because in building Israel, the zionists were revising history, embracing the notion of racial superiority, an ideology that has empowered them to discriminate, with all of its associated social ills, injustices, and moral bankruptcy.
I believe that zionism is racism because it fails to distinguish between the nationalism of the American, based on multi-cultural harmony, and the racial exclusivity, separatism, ethnic cleansing, and brutality of zionism, that stands in clear violation of the most basic elements of international law and human rights practices, as most recently highlighted by reports issued by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
I believe that zionism is racism because in our world of post-modern identities, I know that we do not have to be "either-ors", we can be "ands and buts" – a zionist and a settler, an American citizen of Polish heritage but a soldier in the Israeli army.
I believe that zionism is racism because it self-propagates itself as a democratic movement. However, a democracy, cannot, by definition, only be representative of one community in a bi-national and tri-religious contiguous geographic area. A democracy cannot exist for one people and not for another. This as called Apartheid in South Africa, and is now called zionism in Palestine.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it espouses an independent and sovereign Jewish state, in a land where there is no Jewish majority. It espouses that such a sovereign state be at peace and harmony with its neighbors without allowing the Palestinian refugees dwelling within their borders, who were expelled from their homes in Palestine by zionist militias, as is clearly documented by numerous sources including the memoirs of David-Ben Gurion himself, to return to their homes, which is a basic human right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I believe that zionism is racism because it is presented by its champions, from Gil Troy to Elie Wiesel, as a romantic movement, which allowed zionists to reclaim the desert and build a model nation-state. This is racism at its most acute, since there was no desert in Palestine, other than the Negev in the South. This is simply a myth that has been propagated by racists who have supported Israel for the last 53 years, and economic data on agricultural exports to Europe from Palestine dating to medieval times easily rejects and exposes this as a blasphemous claim.
Yes, it sounds far-fetched today. But as Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist zionism said in a racist boast in 1923, "There can be no discussion of a voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs… Any native people…view their country as their national home… They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner… Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible… colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."
And thus, Gil Troy and zionists abound are exposed as nothing more than unabashed racists.
[Mr. Rabee' Sahyoun is a economic development policy researcher, human rights activist, and columnist residing in Beirut, Lebanon. He is affiliated with the global grassroots Palestine Right To Return Coalition.]
Zionism is a racist and irredeemable movement, like Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.
By Rabee' Sahyoun
Posted: 11 Rabi-u-Thani 1422, 3 July 2001
(Note: This article is a direct response, using the same format, on a line by line basis, to an editorial that appeared in the Montreal Gazette on April 26, 2001, written by Gil Troy, a Professor of History at McGill University.)
On this, the 53rd anniversary of the Nakbe' (the Catastrophe of the Palestinian people), it is all too tempting for friend and foe alike to define Israel, and zionism, solely by the Americans' proclamations of its enlightened democracy. To do so is to miss the normal atrocities that occur in Israel daily, the millions who are under curfew and blockade, starving and brutalized, in the Middle East's only colonized state. To do so is to feign the reality of zionism, a racist and irredeemable movement, that survived the twentieth centuries' other genocidal and seemingly passing revolutions such as Bolshevism, Nazism, and Apartheid.
A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine.
The sad truth is that over a century after its founding, zionism seems to be grander and more honorable than its reality. Arabs have suffered from Zionism's belligerence and exclusivity, and many have blamed the United States, and the West, for this because of their unshakeable support of zionism. Israeli aggression over the past seven months has finally renewed international recognition that zionism is racism.
On this anniversary of the Nabke', it is now up to all Jews to follow in the footsteps of the brave few, and denounce the racist and separatist nature of zionism, while the world should encourage them to do so. The world should not allow the torchbearers of zionism to silence and quell the idealism of these few. No nationalism is pure, no movement is perfect, no state is ideal, but today, Zionism persists as a menace, a militaristic and dictatory movement to me and to most Palestinians. A century ago, zionism extended Western colonialism to Palestine; today, as in the rest of the world, colonialism must be ideologically purged from Palestine.
I believe that zionism is racism, because 53 years after being exiled from their homeland, in defiance of the four Geneva Conventions, UN Resolutions 181, 194, 242, 338, and others, and other multilateral and international human rights conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the disinherited refugees of Palestine, continue to endure merciless punishment from the Zionist entity, most recently in the bulldozing of makeshift homes in the Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza.
I believe that zionism is racism, because I am a Palestinian, and without recognizing the colonialist component in zionism, I cannot explain its racist character, a western movement uprooting the native peoples of Palestine, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Samaritan alike, a people bound to their land, through centuries of raising orange groves, and herding sheep, lending grace to the Hills of God, historically, religiously and culturally.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to appreciate or acknowledge the Palestinians' ties to their homeland, their love for their historical capital, Jerusalem, and the 53-yar plight they have endured as refugees worldwide, in Europe, in North America, in camps Dheishe, Shatila, Wehdaat and others, never giving up hope or struggle in yearning to return home.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it fails to admit the reality that the minority indigenous Jewish community in Palestine, that lived there for the last two thousand years, was an undistinguishable people from its Christian and Muslim Palestinian brethren, and that the leader of the Jewish community of the Jewish quarter of Old Jerusalem, Rabbi Lamram Blau, stood on the side of his Palestinian brothers and sisters being exiled in 1948.
I believe that zionism is racism because in modern times, the promise of liberal democracy and justice is a double-edged sword, preached by the Western powers, yet only paid lip-service to in the case of Israel, where Palestinian are continuously expelled, ethnically cleansed, and subjugated, and in the cases where they are assimilated, they are granted, limited, if any, civil rights.
I believe that zionism is racism, because in establishing the racially exclusive state of Israel, in 1948, and expelling the indigenous Palestinians from the land, the zionists severed a relationship that people had to the land for over 4,000 years, uninterrupted, since before Abraham.
I believe that zionism is racism, because in building Israel, the zionists were revising history, embracing the notion of racial superiority, an ideology that has empowered them to discriminate, with all of its associated social ills, injustices, and moral bankruptcy.
I believe that zionism is racism because it fails to distinguish between the nationalism of the American, based on multi-cultural harmony, and the racial exclusivity, separatism, ethnic cleansing, and brutality of zionism, that stands in clear violation of the most basic elements of international law and human rights practices, as most recently highlighted by reports issued by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
I believe that zionism is racism because in our world of post-modern identities, I know that we do not have to be "either-ors", we can be "ands and buts" – a zionist and a settler, an American citizen of Polish heritage but a soldier in the Israeli army.
I believe that zionism is racism because it self-propagates itself as a democratic movement. However, a democracy, cannot, by definition, only be representative of one community in a bi-national and tri-religious contiguous geographic area. A democracy cannot exist for one people and not for another. This as called Apartheid in South Africa, and is now called zionism in Palestine.
I believe that zionism is racism, because it espouses an independent and sovereign Jewish state, in a land where there is no Jewish majority. It espouses that such a sovereign state be at peace and harmony with its neighbors without allowing the Palestinian refugees dwelling within their borders, who were expelled from their homes in Palestine by zionist militias, as is clearly documented by numerous sources including the memoirs of David-Ben Gurion himself, to return to their homes, which is a basic human right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I believe that zionism is racism because it is presented by its champions, from Gil Troy to Elie Wiesel, as a romantic movement, which allowed zionists to reclaim the desert and build a model nation-state. This is racism at its most acute, since there was no desert in Palestine, other than the Negev in the South. This is simply a myth that has been propagated by racists who have supported Israel for the last 53 years, and economic data on agricultural exports to Europe from Palestine dating to medieval times easily rejects and exposes this as a blasphemous claim.
Yes, it sounds far-fetched today. But as Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist zionism said in a racist boast in 1923, "There can be no discussion of a voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs… Any native people…view their country as their national home… They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner… Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible… colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."
And thus, Gil Troy and zionists abound are exposed as nothing more than unabashed racists.
[Mr. Rabee' Sahyoun is a economic development policy researcher, human rights activist, and columnist residing in Beirut, Lebanon. He is affiliated with the global grassroots Palestine Right To Return Coalition.]
I have. They are threatened by any alternative to the status quo--the usual right wing mainstream media that supports u.s. and israeli state sponsored terror. They are always cowed by false cries of antisemitism that is ALWAYS used by the pro-israel fanatics in an effort to stifle legitimate criticism of the terror state of israel.
Their other favorite method is deflection. Just like all supporters of powerful terror states, they blame the victim.
Don't buy it.
Here's a great resource:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Has a great analysis of the right wing pro-israel mainstream media.
Read for yourself
Their other favorite method is deflection. Just like all supporters of powerful terror states, they blame the victim.
Don't buy it.
Here's a great resource:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Has a great analysis of the right wing pro-israel mainstream media.
Read for yourself
NOT A RIGHT WING WRITES: "They are always cowed by false cries of antisemitism that is ALWAYS used by the pro-israel fanatics in an effort to stifle legitimate criticism of the terror state of israel."
BECKY: The modern-day anti-semites use "Zionist" when they mean "Jew" and "Zionist entity" when they mean "Israel." They use DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DE-LEGITIMIZATION, and DEMONIZATION as tactics. In Steve Argue's case, the shoe fits. He is an anti-semite.
As for the stifling of legitimate criticism, why is it that MY articles were censored??
BECKY: The modern-day anti-semites use "Zionist" when they mean "Jew" and "Zionist entity" when they mean "Israel." They use DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DE-LEGITIMIZATION, and DEMONIZATION as tactics. In Steve Argue's case, the shoe fits. He is an anti-semite.
As for the stifling of legitimate criticism, why is it that MY articles were censored??
Hmm, I don't equate being anti-Israel with being anti-Jewish. While no doubt there are those who oppose BOTH Israel and the Jewish people, it is far from automatic.
I oppose Israel and it's aggressive terroristic imperialist agenda -- however, far from being anti-Jewish, I admire Judaism, married a Jew, my kids are Jewish, and according to my mom recently, probably AM a Jew.
A lot of these heated debates come down to semantic shizzle, so let's clarify some terms.
Zionism
From Wikipedia
Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.[1] Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by a Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl (Herzl Tivadar in Hungarian) in the late nineteenth century. The movement was eventually successful in establishing the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for the state and government of Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[2] Described as a "diaspora nationalism,"[3] its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4]
While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE),[5][6] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[7] It constituted a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[8] At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and after the Holocaust became the dominant Jewish political movement.
I oppose Israel and it's aggressive terroristic imperialist agenda -- however, far from being anti-Jewish, I admire Judaism, married a Jew, my kids are Jewish, and according to my mom recently, probably AM a Jew.
A lot of these heated debates come down to semantic shizzle, so let's clarify some terms.
Zionism
From Wikipedia
Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.[1] Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by a Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl (Herzl Tivadar in Hungarian) in the late nineteenth century. The movement was eventually successful in establishing the State of Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. It continues primarily as support for the state and government of Israel and its continuing status as a homeland for the Jewish people.[2] Described as a "diaspora nationalism,"[3] its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4]
While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood is thought to have first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE),[5][6] the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[7] It constituted a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[8] At first one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism gradually gained more support, and after the Holocaust became the dominant Jewish political movement.
...contain blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or other hateful material intended to objectify, intimidate, or injure traditionally oppressed or under-represented groups or that link to websites that advocate the same, may be hidden. And I appreciate when they are.
A READER WRITES: "I notice posts that contain blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or other hateful material intended to objectify, intimidate, or injure traditionally oppressed or under-represented groups or that link to websites that advocate the same, may be hidden. And I appreciate when they are."
BECKY: Then put them in a HIDDEN section like other IMC's do (see http://www.la.indymedia.org) so that READERS can decide if the post is racist or sexist etc. not some unknown "monitor" who has his own agenda. To do otherwise is censorship. If this were a personal journal by the monitors, then it would only be "editing." But Indymedia is supposed to be a people's media where we don't need to beg for space on a mega-media, available only to those with the big bucks. I'm just one little person here in Santa Cruz who barely gets by financially. I have just as much of a right to express my point of view here as the next guy. To stifle my voice repeatedly, as SC IMC has done to me, is to violate your trust to keep indymedia "transparent" "democratic" and to express "diversity."
Jewish people ARE a "traditionally oppressed" group. Hate crimes against Jews remain more frequent than hate crimes against Arabs or Muslims in the USA. see: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
and http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf
Eliminating my defenses of Israeli policy because the Palestinians are "a traditionally oppressed group" is a flimsy excuse for censorship at best, and a blatant example of anti-semitism at work at Indybay.org/santacruz
BECKY: Then put them in a HIDDEN section like other IMC's do (see http://www.la.indymedia.org) so that READERS can decide if the post is racist or sexist etc. not some unknown "monitor" who has his own agenda. To do otherwise is censorship. If this were a personal journal by the monitors, then it would only be "editing." But Indymedia is supposed to be a people's media where we don't need to beg for space on a mega-media, available only to those with the big bucks. I'm just one little person here in Santa Cruz who barely gets by financially. I have just as much of a right to express my point of view here as the next guy. To stifle my voice repeatedly, as SC IMC has done to me, is to violate your trust to keep indymedia "transparent" "democratic" and to express "diversity."
Jewish people ARE a "traditionally oppressed" group. Hate crimes against Jews remain more frequent than hate crimes against Arabs or Muslims in the USA. see: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
and http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc05/preface05.pdf
Eliminating my defenses of Israeli policy because the Palestinians are "a traditionally oppressed group" is a flimsy excuse for censorship at best, and a blatant example of anti-semitism at work at Indybay.org/santacruz
"I have just as much of a right to express my point of view here." Who gave you that right Becky? AIPAC? DAFKA? FrontPageMag? HonestReporting? Friends of the IDF?
"Now look at the West Bank. Did Israel invest to try to create a "silicon valley" in the ares it occupied hiring and training the occupied populations? Israel aimed to gain influence with settlements but did nothing to win over the population. "
Actually, it did. The first thing Israel did aftyer the war in 1967 was innoculate the population- and as a result the common childhood diseases that devastated the population were eradicated. Israel established over 2000 industrial plants - and unemployment in the territories dramatically decreased.
Israel built over 150 clinics and schools. The Palestinian Gross national Product rose from $165 per capita to $1715 between 1968 and 1991. Life expectancy rose from 48 years to 72 years.
When you look at actual facts and statistics, you see why terms such as "genocide" or ethnic cleansing are so wildly innapropriate.
No one thinks the Israelis are blameless in this arena. But you need to look at all the facts. A lot of what appears on Indymedia, for example, is wildly biased- to talk about the situation in Gaza out of the context of what is happening to S'derot, for example gives a very distorted picture.
Imagine if Seattle was bombed a dozen times a day from Vancouver. What if the Canadian government refused to do anything about it? What should the US response be? What would the US response be?
UM WRITES: "Palestinians obviously existed in what is now Israel in the 1800s. If they didnt there wouldnt be any conflict today between their descendants and the Israelis..."
BECKY: The ancestors of the current Palestinians obviously existed but they weren't necessarily living where Israel now is. The population of Ottoman Empire Palestine region in the 1800's was a tiny fraction of what it is today. Since this was a Turkish empire, much of the population was Turkish. Rulers were concentrated in Istanbul and Damascus, not Jerusalem which remained largely Jewish, even in the 1800's. The migration patterns of Jews and Muslims to the area show that as the Jewish population increased, the jobs created attracted Arab Muslims dramatically increasing their numbers. The definition of a Palestinian refugee in 1950 by UNRWA was someone who had been living inside Israel for at least TWO YEARS before being displaces. see: http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html
That included a lot of recent immigrants from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. However, these Arab Muslim immigrants were NOT called "Palestinians." Nor were their ancestors from the area. That national identity and nomenclature came to us AFTER the bitter defeat of the Arab armies in 1968 by Arafat. Can you name a single Palestinian leader prior to Arafat?
Watch "Exodus" again with Paul Newman. The film came out in 1960.
They call the JEWS "Palestinians" and the ARABS "Arabs."
Thats because at that time there WERE no Palestinians.
Why is this important? Because people like Steve Argue will try to convince you
that the Palestinians are the indigenous people and that the Jews are not.
He must deny 3,500 years of Jewish history in the region, a nation-state for nearly 1,000 years in antiquity, and the entire existence of the Mizrayim Jews who have lived continuously in Israel, Gaza, and the W. Bank thousands of years before there was a single Muslim.
Jews are from Judea. Arabs are from Arabia. Steve would have you believe otherwise. that is because his goal is to DE-LEGITIMIZE the right of the Israelis to Israel. He would have you believe that the Jewish state is somehow located on "Palestinian land." Only historical revisionism can accomplish this feat---and shows yet another mark of an anti-semite.
BECKY: The ancestors of the current Palestinians obviously existed but they weren't necessarily living where Israel now is. The population of Ottoman Empire Palestine region in the 1800's was a tiny fraction of what it is today. Since this was a Turkish empire, much of the population was Turkish. Rulers were concentrated in Istanbul and Damascus, not Jerusalem which remained largely Jewish, even in the 1800's. The migration patterns of Jews and Muslims to the area show that as the Jewish population increased, the jobs created attracted Arab Muslims dramatically increasing their numbers. The definition of a Palestinian refugee in 1950 by UNRWA was someone who had been living inside Israel for at least TWO YEARS before being displaces. see: http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html
That included a lot of recent immigrants from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. However, these Arab Muslim immigrants were NOT called "Palestinians." Nor were their ancestors from the area. That national identity and nomenclature came to us AFTER the bitter defeat of the Arab armies in 1968 by Arafat. Can you name a single Palestinian leader prior to Arafat?
Watch "Exodus" again with Paul Newman. The film came out in 1960.
They call the JEWS "Palestinians" and the ARABS "Arabs."
Thats because at that time there WERE no Palestinians.
Why is this important? Because people like Steve Argue will try to convince you
that the Palestinians are the indigenous people and that the Jews are not.
He must deny 3,500 years of Jewish history in the region, a nation-state for nearly 1,000 years in antiquity, and the entire existence of the Mizrayim Jews who have lived continuously in Israel, Gaza, and the W. Bank thousands of years before there was a single Muslim.
Jews are from Judea. Arabs are from Arabia. Steve would have you believe otherwise. that is because his goal is to DE-LEGITIMIZE the right of the Israelis to Israel. He would have you believe that the Jewish state is somehow located on "Palestinian land." Only historical revisionism can accomplish this feat---and shows yet another mark of an anti-semite.
I'm not going to waste much time with Becky Johnson. But thought I 'd help her out with this one since it's already in my article:
She asks, "Can you name a single Palestinian leader prior to Arafat?"
Nassif Bey al-Khalidi.
An Arab leader in Jerusalem named Nassif Bey al-Khalidi who tried unsuccessfully to work out an agreement between Arabs and the Zionist movement warned the Zionists with the following statement, "Be very careful, Messieurs Zionists, governments disappear, but peoples remain. The Jewish immigrants came to Palestine believing it to be a desolate, sparsely inhabited country. They were too busy with their own business and too ignorant of Arabic to notice what was going on around them. Since it was the Turks who ruled Palestine, they turned all their attention toward the Turks. This did not make them popular with the Arabs" (Neville Mandel, "Chapters of Arab-Jewish Diplomacy 1918-1922").
She asks, "Can you name a single Palestinian leader prior to Arafat?"
Nassif Bey al-Khalidi.
An Arab leader in Jerusalem named Nassif Bey al-Khalidi who tried unsuccessfully to work out an agreement between Arabs and the Zionist movement warned the Zionists with the following statement, "Be very careful, Messieurs Zionists, governments disappear, but peoples remain. The Jewish immigrants came to Palestine believing it to be a desolate, sparsely inhabited country. They were too busy with their own business and too ignorant of Arabic to notice what was going on around them. Since it was the Turks who ruled Palestine, they turned all their attention toward the Turks. This did not make them popular with the Arabs" (Neville Mandel, "Chapters of Arab-Jewish Diplomacy 1918-1922").
Notice how desperate right wing pro-israel propagandists can't stand to have one section of media--even alternative media!--that doesn't have their slimy lies in it. They flock to indymedia sites because they are threatened by the truth/
Keep up the good work combating and balancing the mainstream right wing media's pro-war, pro-israel lies!
You got em squirming!
Try this for something you don't get in the right wing mainstream pro-war pro-israel media:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Keep up the good work combating and balancing the mainstream right wing media's pro-war, pro-israel lies!
You got em squirming!
Try this for something you don't get in the right wing mainstream pro-war pro-israel media:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
I see my critical comments on If Americans Knew... has been deleted again.
So Alison Weir gets a free pass here?
Too hard to actually have to counter arguments or deal with actual facts.
Much easier to censor.
Figures. YOu guys are not interested in the truth.
Readers should demand better.
So Alison Weir gets a free pass here?
Too hard to actually have to counter arguments or deal with actual facts.
Much easier to censor.
Figures. YOu guys are not interested in the truth.
Readers should demand better.
no one here is interested in truth, on any side of the argument. everyone here has an agenda, including the readers.
Rick Shaw claims, "no one here is interested in truth, on any side of the argument. everyone here has an agenda, including the readers."
When I wrote this I was only interested in the truth. I do not support the Israeli government, P.A., nor Hamas. I, however, see that the oppressed people are the Palestinians. I challenge you to find any statement I made that is untrue.
When I wrote this I was only interested in the truth. I do not support the Israeli government, P.A., nor Hamas. I, however, see that the oppressed people are the Palestinians. I challenge you to find any statement I made that is untrue.
Steve Argue says he does not support the Israeli government, the PA, or Hamas. Yet his vast majority of writings are anti-Israel and anti-Jewish.
Even the photo he posted above does not show a victim of Israeli violence. The victims of Sabra and Shatila were killed by the Lebanese Phalangists which the Israelis allowed to go into the Palestinian refugee camp to look for the killers of their recently elected Maronite president who had been assassinated on Sept 14th. Steve Argue neither condemns the Lebanese militia nor mentions the terrorism and assassination which gave rise to the attack.
No Israeli soldier killed anyone that day. But Argue brings it up because he has very few items in his bag of tricks which which to smear the State of Israel. He will use whatever he has.
Steve Argue will never discuss the PLO's plot that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, provided financing for the terrorist attack and Arafat directed it.
Steve Argue will never discuss Black September where King Hussein of Jordan fought Arafat's PLO which resulted in 3,500 deaths. More Palestinians were killed in 3 weeks than Israel has killed in 8 years since the intifada. But Argue is only interested in Jewish violence.
What does it mean when Argue says "I don't support the Israeli government, the PA, or Hamas?"
Does this mean he doesn't support the right of the residents of this mideastern land to create their own national homelands, establish their own governments, institute their own rules of law?
Argue makes this blanket statement for political cover because he knows the PA is corrupt and covertly supports terrorism against Israeli civilians. He also knows that Hamas supports an Islamic theocracy which is devastating to the rights of Jews, Christians, gays, the press, and women. All of these practices give the Israelis good reason to defend themselves.
Steve, if you don't support the PA or Hamas, then you have basically exonerated the Palestinian people for the governments they have elected in free and open elections.
Even the photo he posted above does not show a victim of Israeli violence. The victims of Sabra and Shatila were killed by the Lebanese Phalangists which the Israelis allowed to go into the Palestinian refugee camp to look for the killers of their recently elected Maronite president who had been assassinated on Sept 14th. Steve Argue neither condemns the Lebanese militia nor mentions the terrorism and assassination which gave rise to the attack.
No Israeli soldier killed anyone that day. But Argue brings it up because he has very few items in his bag of tricks which which to smear the State of Israel. He will use whatever he has.
Steve Argue will never discuss the PLO's plot that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, provided financing for the terrorist attack and Arafat directed it.
Steve Argue will never discuss Black September where King Hussein of Jordan fought Arafat's PLO which resulted in 3,500 deaths. More Palestinians were killed in 3 weeks than Israel has killed in 8 years since the intifada. But Argue is only interested in Jewish violence.
What does it mean when Argue says "I don't support the Israeli government, the PA, or Hamas?"
Does this mean he doesn't support the right of the residents of this mideastern land to create their own national homelands, establish their own governments, institute their own rules of law?
Argue makes this blanket statement for political cover because he knows the PA is corrupt and covertly supports terrorism against Israeli civilians. He also knows that Hamas supports an Islamic theocracy which is devastating to the rights of Jews, Christians, gays, the press, and women. All of these practices give the Israelis good reason to defend themselves.
Steve, if you don't support the PA or Hamas, then you have basically exonerated the Palestinian people for the governments they have elected in free and open elections.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Instead of being forced to waste my time answering Becky Johnson's racist slanderous lies, she should not be allowed to post here. She knows full well that what she says about me and the Palestinians, as an oppressed people, are all lies. Her rightwing role here is to confuse people by pretending there is debate on the left on issues which the left already is already well aware. Becky Johnson, unlike the those of us for Palestinian human rights, has her racist point of view constantly printed in the American corporate media. Shutting down her hate speech here would not be censorship, it would be good editing, Indymedia is under no obligation to make her type of hate speach available to readers.
Here is one of her many, often repeated lies about me that she has just posted again:
Becky Johnson claims, "Steve Argue will never discuss Black September where King Hussein of Jordan fought Arafat's PLO which resulted in 3,500 deaths. More Palestinians were killed in 3 weeks than Israel has killed in 8 years since the intifada. But Argue is only interested in Jewish violence."
Yet she knows full well that I have raised the question many times in response to her, as well as in other articles.
On 8 March, 2008 I said in response to her:
Johnson writes, "Speaking of Jordan, since its already 60% Palestinian Arabs, why not make it a democracy, and then you'd have your Palestinian state overnight!!"
Looking at past posts, it is I, not Becky Johnson that calls for an end to U.S. military aid to Jordan. Likewise, there is no room for the racist murderous state of Israel in the world.
As I just said:
The West Bank and Gaza, denied the economy Palestinian labor has built in Israel, are not a viable Palestinian homeland. They are actually Israel’s giant open-air prisons. The borders of the Palestinian and Hebrew speaking federated republics will need to be radically redrawn at the time of the socialist revolution against the Zionist Israeli government and the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan.
End U.S. military aid to the murderous and repressive governments of Israel and Jordan!
My criticisms of Arafat were always from the left. When Arafat negotiated for the current "two state solution" I pointed out that it would not work because Palestinians would only have control of the poorer areas of Palestine where there was/is no real basis for an independent economy. Instead of being a truly independent nation the Palestinians continued to be forced to work for racist Zionists for employment while the Palestinian Authority took on the role of capitalist government administrators of the new Israeli Bantustans/open air prisons.
I oppose all capitalist governments, including the PA and the Kingdom of Jordan. This, however, doesn’t mean that I’m neutral when it comes to Israel’s murderous invasions of Jenin and Gaza etc.
The current state of the situation has shown that Yasir Arafat's strategy of negotiations with the Israeli government has achieved nothing, that the Israeli government can not even keep their word on earlier agreements, and that there will not be peace for either the Palestinian or the Hebrew speaking population until the Israeli state is abolished and in its place a socialist and democratic secular nation is built with federated republics of Palestinian and Hebrew speaking nationalities that have a separation of church and state where the civil rights of all nationalities are guaranteed. Only a socialist movement that represents the rights of the entire working class and speaks uncompromisingly against the discrimination and violence meted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli State will be capable of making such a revolutionary transformation. Likewise such a movement cannot see the Hebrew speaking population as the enemy and must instead target the repressive apparatus of the Zionist state.
A first step toward ending the oppression of Palestinian people and the war that is being carried out by Israel is to end U.S. military aid.
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16513/index.php
Here is one of her many, often repeated lies about me that she has just posted again:
Becky Johnson claims, "Steve Argue will never discuss Black September where King Hussein of Jordan fought Arafat's PLO which resulted in 3,500 deaths. More Palestinians were killed in 3 weeks than Israel has killed in 8 years since the intifada. But Argue is only interested in Jewish violence."
Yet she knows full well that I have raised the question many times in response to her, as well as in other articles.
On 8 March, 2008 I said in response to her:
Johnson writes, "Speaking of Jordan, since its already 60% Palestinian Arabs, why not make it a democracy, and then you'd have your Palestinian state overnight!!"
Looking at past posts, it is I, not Becky Johnson that calls for an end to U.S. military aid to Jordan. Likewise, there is no room for the racist murderous state of Israel in the world.
As I just said:
The West Bank and Gaza, denied the economy Palestinian labor has built in Israel, are not a viable Palestinian homeland. They are actually Israel’s giant open-air prisons. The borders of the Palestinian and Hebrew speaking federated republics will need to be radically redrawn at the time of the socialist revolution against the Zionist Israeli government and the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan.
End U.S. military aid to the murderous and repressive governments of Israel and Jordan!
My criticisms of Arafat were always from the left. When Arafat negotiated for the current "two state solution" I pointed out that it would not work because Palestinians would only have control of the poorer areas of Palestine where there was/is no real basis for an independent economy. Instead of being a truly independent nation the Palestinians continued to be forced to work for racist Zionists for employment while the Palestinian Authority took on the role of capitalist government administrators of the new Israeli Bantustans/open air prisons.
I oppose all capitalist governments, including the PA and the Kingdom of Jordan. This, however, doesn’t mean that I’m neutral when it comes to Israel’s murderous invasions of Jenin and Gaza etc.
The current state of the situation has shown that Yasir Arafat's strategy of negotiations with the Israeli government has achieved nothing, that the Israeli government can not even keep their word on earlier agreements, and that there will not be peace for either the Palestinian or the Hebrew speaking population until the Israeli state is abolished and in its place a socialist and democratic secular nation is built with federated republics of Palestinian and Hebrew speaking nationalities that have a separation of church and state where the civil rights of all nationalities are guaranteed. Only a socialist movement that represents the rights of the entire working class and speaks uncompromisingly against the discrimination and violence meted out to the Palestinians by the Israeli State will be capable of making such a revolutionary transformation. Likewise such a movement cannot see the Hebrew speaking population as the enemy and must instead target the repressive apparatus of the Zionist state.
A first step toward ending the oppression of Palestinian people and the war that is being carried out by Israel is to end U.S. military aid.
http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16513/index.php
![2_sabra_and_shatila.jpg](/uploads/2008/02/01/2_sabra_and_shatila.jpg)
Radical Zionist and Dafka (Hebrew for “in your face”) member Becky Johnson wrote:
"Steve, so you have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a massacre to pin on the Israelis. And you have to fudge the facts to make even THAT work. They were not "innocent Palestinians" since a day or two before a group of them went into a Lebanese camp and murdered 65 men, women, and children. When the Lebanese Phalanx came up the road to the camp where the murderers were hiding, Ariel Sharon let them through. It was the Lebanese army that killed the Palestinians. Not a single IDF soldier killed anyone. Sharon was later disciplined by his own govt. who ruled that he should have known what the Lebanese were about to do and he should have tried to stop them."
********************
Steven Argue responds on responds On Sabra and Shatila
Becky Johnson seems to think that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is not worth discussing because 1982 is supposedly ancient history. 1982 is hardly beyond the statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. I’m sure you don’t have the same attitude towards Nazi butchers of the Third Reich. While I could, and have, written about the most recent crimes of the Israeli government in Jenin and elsewhere, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still worth talking about since the current crimes are only a continuation of the past. Likewise, Sharon’s guilt in the Sabra Shatila massacre is worth mentioning.
Becky Johnson shows here extreme ignorance by claiming that this massacre was carried out by the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government had nothing to do with it. The massacre was carried out both by the Israeli military under the command of Sharon and by Israel's allies in Lebanon, the Christian Phalangists.
With the testimony Mrs. Sersawi in the Belgium appeals court on the Israeli government’s war crimes, which I’ve posted twice, I've provided Becky Johnson with clear evidence of the involvement of both the Israeli government and Lebanese Christian Phalangists in this mass murder of unarmed civilians, many that had been slaughtered after being taken prisoner by Israel. Among the dead was Mrs. Sersawi’s husband. Yet you Becky have chosen to ignore this evidence I have provided you to absurdly claim that this mass murder was only the killing of combatants and that it was the work of the Lebanese government.
I will post Mrs. Sersawi’s testimony here once again at the end of this writing.
Prior to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon both Ariel Sharon and Bashir Gemayel had declared that they would create a panic amongst Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon that would reduce the numbers living there from 500,000 to 50,000. The Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of this stated goal of ethnic cleansing.
Ha’aretz reported on September 26, 1982: “A long-term objective aimed at the expulsion of the whole Palestinian population of Lebanon beginning with Beirut. The purpose was to create a panic to convince [sic] all the Palestinians of Lebanon that they were no longer safe in that country.”
As such the people of Sabra and Shatila facing the Zionist slaughter of innocents, were to meet the same fate as the Palestinian towns of Dueima, Kibya, Kfar Qasim, and Deir Yassin from 1947 to 1950.
As Time Magazine admitted on October 4th, 1982, “On several occasions Gemayel told Israeli officials he would raze the camps and flatten them into tennis courts. This fits in with Israeli thinking. The Christian militia forces that were known to have gone into the camps were trained by the Israelis.”
Major Saqr of the Phalangist Militia bragged after the massacre, “The only way you will find out how many Palestinians we killed is if they ever build a subway under Beirut ... A good massacre or two will drive the Palestinians out of Beirut and Lebanon once and for all.” (Jonathan Randal of the Washington Post).
Yet the massacre was not just carried out by these murderous Phalangist militia trained and allied with Israel, Israeli forces were also directly involved.
On February 14, 1983 Der Spiegel carried an interview with one of the killers at Sabra and Shatila, who described direct Israeli participation along side his own. The article, entitled “Each of You Is An Avenger”, is a first person account of crimes against humanity:
“We met in the Schahrur wadi, in the valley of the nightingales Southeast of Beirut. It was Wednesday, the fifteenth of September ... We were approximately three hundred men from East Beirut, South Lebanon and the Akkar Mountains in the north ... I belonged to the Tiger Militia of ex-President Camile Chamoun.
“Phalange officers summoned us and brought us to the meeting place. They told us that they needed us for a “special action” ... “You are the agents of good,” the officers told us repeatedly. “Each of you is an avenger.” ...
“Then a good dozen Israelis in green uniforms without indication of rank came along. They had playing cards with them and spoke Arabic well, except that like all Jews they pronounced the hard “h” as “ch.” They were talking about the Palestinian camps Sabra and Shatila ... it was clear to us what we were to do, and we were looking forward to it.
“We had to swear an oath never to divulge anything about our action. At about 10 p.m. we climbed into an American army truck that the Israelis had given over to us. We parked the vehicle near the airport tower. There, immediately next to the Israeli positions, several such trucks were already parked.
“Some Israelis in Phalange uniforms were with the Party. “The Israeli friends who accompany you,” our officers told us “... will make your work easier.” They directed us not to make use of our firearms, if at all possible. “Everything must proceed noiselessly.” ... We saw other comrades. They had to do their work with bayonets and knives. Bloody corpses were lying in the alleys. The half-asleep women and children who cried out for help put our whole plan in danger, alarming the entire camp.
“Now I saw once again the Israelis who had been at our secret meeting. One signaled us to move back to areas of the camp entrance. The Israelis opened up with all their guns. The Israelis helped us with floodlights.
“There were shocking scenes that showed what the Palestinians were good for. A few, including women, had taken shelter in a small alley, behind some donkeys. Unfortunately we had to shoot down these poor animals to finish off the Palestinians behind them. It got to me when the animals cried out in pain. It was gruesome.
“A comrade entered a house full of women and children. The Palestinians screamed and threw their gas stoves on the ground. We sent the hard-hearted rabble to hell.
“At about four in the morning my squad went back to the truck. When there was morning light we went back into the camp. We went past bodies, stumbled over bodies, shot and stabbed all eyewitnesses. Killing others was easy once you have done it a few times.
“Now came the Israeli Army bulldozers. “Plow everything under the ground. Don’t let any witnesses stay alive.” But despite our efforts, the area was still teeming with people. They ran about and caused awful confusion. The order to “plow them under” demanded too much.
“It became clear that the pretty plan had failed. Thousands had escaped us. Far too many Palestinians are still alive. Everywhere now people are talking about a massacre and feeling sorry for the Palestinians. Who appreciates the hardships that we took upon ourselves ... Just think. I fought for twenty-four hours in Shatila without food or drink.”
Many of the mass graves were never opened, but over 3,000 people were murdered at Sabra and Shatila.
In addition to the scenes described above, Palestinians were also rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops in a Lebanese stadium.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes, "The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Dafka Member Lee Kaplan, Zionist Stooge For War
By Steven Argue
In his pro-war and anti-Arab diatribes Dafka leader Lee Kaplan claims, “And as for the guy [Steven Argue] suggesting America is just in Iraq for profit, get a life. We can buy the oil cheaper than the cost of waging war.”
The obvious point that Kaplan doesn’t want us to see here is that the billions spent on war and occupation do not come out of the pockets of those that profit off of it. The war is being paid for by us taxpayers, not Halliburton and the others. As such it is not just those American capitalists that are looting and privatizing the Iraqi economy that are gaining big profits, but also those who sell the hardware to the U.S. military.
Agent Kaplan claims, “Israel is a Jewish state, yes, but also a secular democracy ranked as democratic as the US and the UK.”
Who gives such rankings? The United States with its violations of the 1965 voting rights act, rigged elections, and political prisoners is far from democratic. Israel is much worse.
Palestinians do not have the right to freely travel. Reminiscent of chattel slavery, Palestinian families are often separated by Israeli officials who commonly do not grant necessary permits for
Palestinians to enter neighborhoods or towns where wives, husbands, or children live. In contrast the Hebrew population has full rights to travel.
Palestinians often do not have the right to keep their own homes, which are often confiscated or bulldozed. The bulldozing of houses is a common punishment of families whose children are accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Recently in Jenin houses were bulldozed
with people inside, an act that besides killing people also made an estimated 4,000 people homeless.
Palestinians do not have the right to freedom of speech and regularly face arrest, torture, and execution for their political views. Even Hebrew speakers who support rights for Palestinians or an end to Israeli wars have, at times, had their press shut down by the Israeli government or had their demonstrations attacked and beaten by Israeli soldiers.
Although the Israeli government claims that Palestinians have the right to own property, this is a lie. Ever since 1948 Palestinians in Israel do not have the right to own land, because their land is often confiscated by force for Hebrew settlement and agriculture. Water rights have been systematically cut off and diverted away from Palestinian lands and given to stolen Hebrew owned lands. Palestinian laborers are then denied by law the right to work the Hebrew owned
agricultural lands, although they are sometimes illegally employed as cheap labor with no labor rights.
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote: "I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in
South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home;
it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment
In the 1940s Jews were only one third of the population of Palestine. The Arab majority had not yet been driven from their land. After independence from the Britain in 1948 the Zionist state began a massive expropriation of Palestinian land that has not ended. Becky Johnson's claim that, "the Arabs and Muslims who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population" is so utterly untrue as to defy common sense. Besides defying all facts, I ask why most of an entire people would voluntarily flee the land in which they had built flourishing towns, a rich agriculture, and a vibrant cultural life with nowhere else to go? The short answer is that they did not flee voluntarily. They had met the "Jewish bayonets" of Zionist Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall". To deny this fact comes in on the same level as those who deny the Holocaust of Europe.
Also See:
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed
santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php
"Steve, so you have to go all the way back to 1982 to find a massacre to pin on the Israelis. And you have to fudge the facts to make even THAT work. They were not "innocent Palestinians" since a day or two before a group of them went into a Lebanese camp and murdered 65 men, women, and children. When the Lebanese Phalanx came up the road to the camp where the murderers were hiding, Ariel Sharon let them through. It was the Lebanese army that killed the Palestinians. Not a single IDF soldier killed anyone. Sharon was later disciplined by his own govt. who ruled that he should have known what the Lebanese were about to do and he should have tried to stop them."
********************
Steven Argue responds on responds On Sabra and Shatila
Becky Johnson seems to think that the Sabra and Shatila massacre is not worth discussing because 1982 is supposedly ancient history. 1982 is hardly beyond the statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. I’m sure you don’t have the same attitude towards Nazi butchers of the Third Reich. While I could, and have, written about the most recent crimes of the Israeli government in Jenin and elsewhere, the Sabra and Shatila massacre is still worth talking about since the current crimes are only a continuation of the past. Likewise, Sharon’s guilt in the Sabra Shatila massacre is worth mentioning.
Becky Johnson shows here extreme ignorance by claiming that this massacre was carried out by the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government had nothing to do with it. The massacre was carried out both by the Israeli military under the command of Sharon and by Israel's allies in Lebanon, the Christian Phalangists.
With the testimony Mrs. Sersawi in the Belgium appeals court on the Israeli government’s war crimes, which I’ve posted twice, I've provided Becky Johnson with clear evidence of the involvement of both the Israeli government and Lebanese Christian Phalangists in this mass murder of unarmed civilians, many that had been slaughtered after being taken prisoner by Israel. Among the dead was Mrs. Sersawi’s husband. Yet you Becky have chosen to ignore this evidence I have provided you to absurdly claim that this mass murder was only the killing of combatants and that it was the work of the Lebanese government.
I will post Mrs. Sersawi’s testimony here once again at the end of this writing.
Prior to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon both Ariel Sharon and Bashir Gemayel had declared that they would create a panic amongst Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon that would reduce the numbers living there from 500,000 to 50,000. The Sabra and Shatila massacre was part of this stated goal of ethnic cleansing.
Ha’aretz reported on September 26, 1982: “A long-term objective aimed at the expulsion of the whole Palestinian population of Lebanon beginning with Beirut. The purpose was to create a panic to convince [sic] all the Palestinians of Lebanon that they were no longer safe in that country.”
As such the people of Sabra and Shatila facing the Zionist slaughter of innocents, were to meet the same fate as the Palestinian towns of Dueima, Kibya, Kfar Qasim, and Deir Yassin from 1947 to 1950.
As Time Magazine admitted on October 4th, 1982, “On several occasions Gemayel told Israeli officials he would raze the camps and flatten them into tennis courts. This fits in with Israeli thinking. The Christian militia forces that were known to have gone into the camps were trained by the Israelis.”
Major Saqr of the Phalangist Militia bragged after the massacre, “The only way you will find out how many Palestinians we killed is if they ever build a subway under Beirut ... A good massacre or two will drive the Palestinians out of Beirut and Lebanon once and for all.” (Jonathan Randal of the Washington Post).
Yet the massacre was not just carried out by these murderous Phalangist militia trained and allied with Israel, Israeli forces were also directly involved.
On February 14, 1983 Der Spiegel carried an interview with one of the killers at Sabra and Shatila, who described direct Israeli participation along side his own. The article, entitled “Each of You Is An Avenger”, is a first person account of crimes against humanity:
“We met in the Schahrur wadi, in the valley of the nightingales Southeast of Beirut. It was Wednesday, the fifteenth of September ... We were approximately three hundred men from East Beirut, South Lebanon and the Akkar Mountains in the north ... I belonged to the Tiger Militia of ex-President Camile Chamoun.
“Phalange officers summoned us and brought us to the meeting place. They told us that they needed us for a “special action” ... “You are the agents of good,” the officers told us repeatedly. “Each of you is an avenger.” ...
“Then a good dozen Israelis in green uniforms without indication of rank came along. They had playing cards with them and spoke Arabic well, except that like all Jews they pronounced the hard “h” as “ch.” They were talking about the Palestinian camps Sabra and Shatila ... it was clear to us what we were to do, and we were looking forward to it.
“We had to swear an oath never to divulge anything about our action. At about 10 p.m. we climbed into an American army truck that the Israelis had given over to us. We parked the vehicle near the airport tower. There, immediately next to the Israeli positions, several such trucks were already parked.
“Some Israelis in Phalange uniforms were with the Party. “The Israeli friends who accompany you,” our officers told us “... will make your work easier.” They directed us not to make use of our firearms, if at all possible. “Everything must proceed noiselessly.” ... We saw other comrades. They had to do their work with bayonets and knives. Bloody corpses were lying in the alleys. The half-asleep women and children who cried out for help put our whole plan in danger, alarming the entire camp.
“Now I saw once again the Israelis who had been at our secret meeting. One signaled us to move back to areas of the camp entrance. The Israelis opened up with all their guns. The Israelis helped us with floodlights.
“There were shocking scenes that showed what the Palestinians were good for. A few, including women, had taken shelter in a small alley, behind some donkeys. Unfortunately we had to shoot down these poor animals to finish off the Palestinians behind them. It got to me when the animals cried out in pain. It was gruesome.
“A comrade entered a house full of women and children. The Palestinians screamed and threw their gas stoves on the ground. We sent the hard-hearted rabble to hell.
“At about four in the morning my squad went back to the truck. When there was morning light we went back into the camp. We went past bodies, stumbled over bodies, shot and stabbed all eyewitnesses. Killing others was easy once you have done it a few times.
“Now came the Israeli Army bulldozers. “Plow everything under the ground. Don’t let any witnesses stay alive.” But despite our efforts, the area was still teeming with people. They ran about and caused awful confusion. The order to “plow them under” demanded too much.
“It became clear that the pretty plan had failed. Thousands had escaped us. Far too many Palestinians are still alive. Everywhere now people are talking about a massacre and feeling sorry for the Palestinians. Who appreciates the hardships that we took upon ourselves ... Just think. I fought for twenty-four hours in Shatila without food or drink.”
Many of the mass graves were never opened, but over 3,000 people were murdered at Sabra and Shatila.
In addition to the scenes described above, Palestinians were also rounded up and systematically slaughtered in the thousands by Israeli troops in a Lebanese stadium.
As survivor Mrs. Sersawi testified in a Belgium appeals court on the Israeli governments war crimes, "The Lebanese forces militia [Phalangists] had taken us from our homes and marched us up to the entrance of the camp where a large hole had been dug in the earth. The men were told to get into it. Then the militiamen shot a Palestinian. The women and children climbed over bodies to get to this spot, but we were truly shocked by seeing this man killed in front of us and there was a roar of shouting and screams from the women. That's when we heard the Israelis on a loudspeaker shouting, 'give us your men.' We thought, 'thank God, they will save us.'
"We were told to walk up the road to the Kuwaiti Embassy, the women and children in front, the men behind. We had been separated. There were Phalangist Militiamen and Israeli soldiers walking alongside us. I could still see Hassan (her husband with whom she was 3 months pregnant) and Faraj (her brother-in-law). It was like a parade. There were several hundred of us. When we got to Cite Sportif, the Israelis put us women in a big concrete room and the men were taken to another side of the stadium. There were a lot of men from the camp and I could no longer see my husband. The Israelis went around saying 'Sit, sit.' It was 11 AM. An hour later we were told to leave. But we stood outside amid the Israeli soldiers, waiting for our men.
"Some men came out, none of them younger than 40, and they told us to be patient, that hundreds of men were still inside. Then about 4 PM an Israeli officer came out. He was wearing dark glasses and said in Arabic: 'What are you waiting for?' He said there was nobody left, that everyone had gone. There were Israeli trucks moving out with tarpaulin over them. We couldn't see inside. And there were jeeps and tanks and a bulldozer making a lot of noise. We stayed there as it got dark and the Israelis appeared to be leaving and we were very nervous. But when the Israelis had moved away, we went inside. And there was no one there. Nobody. I had been only three years married. I never saw my husband again."
Dafka Member Lee Kaplan, Zionist Stooge For War
By Steven Argue
In his pro-war and anti-Arab diatribes Dafka leader Lee Kaplan claims, “And as for the guy [Steven Argue] suggesting America is just in Iraq for profit, get a life. We can buy the oil cheaper than the cost of waging war.”
The obvious point that Kaplan doesn’t want us to see here is that the billions spent on war and occupation do not come out of the pockets of those that profit off of it. The war is being paid for by us taxpayers, not Halliburton and the others. As such it is not just those American capitalists that are looting and privatizing the Iraqi economy that are gaining big profits, but also those who sell the hardware to the U.S. military.
Agent Kaplan claims, “Israel is a Jewish state, yes, but also a secular democracy ranked as democratic as the US and the UK.”
Who gives such rankings? The United States with its violations of the 1965 voting rights act, rigged elections, and political prisoners is far from democratic. Israel is much worse.
Palestinians do not have the right to freely travel. Reminiscent of chattel slavery, Palestinian families are often separated by Israeli officials who commonly do not grant necessary permits for
Palestinians to enter neighborhoods or towns where wives, husbands, or children live. In contrast the Hebrew population has full rights to travel.
Palestinians often do not have the right to keep their own homes, which are often confiscated or bulldozed. The bulldozing of houses is a common punishment of families whose children are accused of throwing stones at Israeli soldiers. Recently in Jenin houses were bulldozed
with people inside, an act that besides killing people also made an estimated 4,000 people homeless.
Palestinians do not have the right to freedom of speech and regularly face arrest, torture, and execution for their political views. Even Hebrew speakers who support rights for Palestinians or an end to Israeli wars have, at times, had their press shut down by the Israeli government or had their demonstrations attacked and beaten by Israeli soldiers.
Although the Israeli government claims that Palestinians have the right to own property, this is a lie. Ever since 1948 Palestinians in Israel do not have the right to own land, because their land is often confiscated by force for Hebrew settlement and agriculture. Water rights have been systematically cut off and diverted away from Palestinian lands and given to stolen Hebrew owned lands. Palestinian laborers are then denied by law the right to work the Hebrew owned
agricultural lands, although they are sometimes illegally employed as cheap labor with no labor rights.
The humiliating conditions of the Palestinian people were recently observed by former anti-Apartheid fighter Archbishop Desmond Tutu who wrote: "I have been very deeply distressed by my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in
South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young police officers prevented us from moving about.
"On my visit to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?
"I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: 'Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home;
it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.'
"My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment
In the 1940s Jews were only one third of the population of Palestine. The Arab majority had not yet been driven from their land. After independence from the Britain in 1948 the Zionist state began a massive expropriation of Palestinian land that has not ended. Becky Johnson's claim that, "the Arabs and Muslims who did not flee in 1948, but stayed in Israel have full citizenship, have freedom to practice their religion, own property, vote, have representation in the Knesset, and compose 18% of the population" is so utterly untrue as to defy common sense. Besides defying all facts, I ask why most of an entire people would voluntarily flee the land in which they had built flourishing towns, a rich agriculture, and a vibrant cultural life with nowhere else to go? The short answer is that they did not flee voluntarily. They had met the "Jewish bayonets" of Zionist Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall". To deny this fact comes in on the same level as those who deny the Holocaust of Europe.
Also See:
Lee Kaplan, Dafka Exposed
santacruz.indymedia.org/feature/display/13401/index.php
Oops! I hate typos.
STEVE ARGUE WRITES: "Instead of being forced to waste my time answering Becky Johnson's racist slanderous lies, she should not be allowed to post here.
BECKY: You've proved my point exactly. You can't stand a fair fight. I want the opportunity to dialogue and debate. You want to smear and censor. There is no requirement for you to try to answer my arguments and points. You don't even have to read my posts, if you don't want.
You attack Mayor Ryan Coonerty for banishing everyone from his store and the parking lots. Then you turn around and call for MY banishment.
That's called cowardice and hypocrisy.
BECKY: You've proved my point exactly. You can't stand a fair fight. I want the opportunity to dialogue and debate. You want to smear and censor. There is no requirement for you to try to answer my arguments and points. You don't even have to read my posts, if you don't want.
You attack Mayor Ryan Coonerty for banishing everyone from his store and the parking lots. Then you turn around and call for MY banishment.
That's called cowardice and hypocrisy.
The Palestinian people are oppressed and the Israeli government is the oppressor.
Period.
The purpose of Becky Johnson here is to poison the well with her lies, to make it look like there is actually debate on an issue that has already been resolved by thinking people.
End U.S. aid to Israel!
Period.
The purpose of Becky Johnson here is to poison the well with her lies, to make it look like there is actually debate on an issue that has already been resolved by thinking people.
End U.S. aid to Israel!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network