Zionism and History

by **sockmonkey** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:03 pm

President Wilson's King-Crane Commission (1919) reported that : "the Zionists look forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine". This commission added, "by various forms of purchase"; the more experienced British officers heard by it correctly informed it that "the Zionist programme could not be carried out except by force of arms". Mr. Lloyd George's Haycraft Commission (1921) reported that the real root of the trouble then starting in Palestine lay in the justified Arab belief that the Zionists intended to dominate in Palestine. The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for as early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms.” -Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.” According to Jabotinsky's Iron Wall (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they: "look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile." The solution, according to Jabotinsky, was not expulsion (which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]") but to impose the Jewish presence on the Arabs by force of arms until eventually they came to accept it.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:06 pm

I think the last quote may be as written..I can't find another source. Goldmann was Zionist but critical of Israel and other quotes by him seem somewhat in line with that one. It still seems to me as if Ben Gurion is simply speaking in an Arab mindset but I can't find anywhere with more context.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>some concern about whether Zionism was some fascist movement specificaclly conceived to commit genocide or was, instead, a multi-stranded idealistic movement in reaction to continuous worldwide oppression of Jews is important.<hr></blockquote> Dream's End, I think you're trying to put an entire movement into one neat little box, which would make sense if the movement didn't consist of actual PEOPLE. It's like looking at Communists and trying to label them, all of them, with one word, fascist or heroes. I visited Auschwitz a few years ago, and was fascinated by the fact that, according to the historical documentation the Communist prisoners as a category exhibited the greatest solidarity, the strongest will to maintain their principles in the face of terrible suffering and cruelty, and outstanding heroism and sacrifice in the fight against the Nazis. Then, you look at the entire system of the Soviet Union, the terrorist "Shining Path" in Peru, Mao's bloody legacy, etc., etc. Which one is representative of Communism? In the same way, Zionism as a movement involved so many diverse individuals, and nearly as many perspectives. Some great humanitarians there, including Einstein, and some real head-cases, vicious racists and proud terrorists, such as Jabotinsky et al. But then, in view of the fact that Einstein refused to be Israel's president, but Jabotinsky's followers and spiritual heirs in the Likud have produced at least 4 prime ministers of Israel (Begin, Shamir, Sharon and Netanyahu - correct me if I've forgotten anybody), and countless Cabinet Ministers for everything from Housing to Tourism, with the power to create a nightmarish reality for the Palestinians, to kill, to torture, to render destitute, to evacuate, etc., it becomes, not what individual Zionists believed they were doing, but who was calling the shots. Literally. And finally, as the proverb says, "the proof of the pudding is in the taste" -- in the case of Zionistm, if you want to know how it "tastes", don't ask those who have benefitted, or who have lost nothing in its realization, ask those who paid the price.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:48 pm

alice, I was accusing the left of putting Zionism in a little box...that's the whole point. Find a quote by a particular zionist, attribute it to "zionism." It was weird to read your post, actually...that's what I've been trying to say since page one. As for Crane.... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What was the King-Crane Commission of 1919? Following the post-World War I Paris Peace Conference in 1919, President Woodrow Wilson was dissatisfied with the secret diplomacy of the Great Powers, wishing instead to follow a doctrine of national self-determination. Wilson proposed an Inter-Allied commission to visit the Middle East to determine what the people living there wanted: independence, supervision under the proposed League of Nations Mandate system, or other proposals. He appointed Henry Churchill King, president of Oberlin College, and Charles R. Crane, Chicago businessman and trustee of Robert College in Constantinople, to serve as the American representatives. Although the full commission never assembled due to French and British opposition, the American team, known as the King-Crane Commission, visited the area from June to August 1919. Dr. Henry Churchill King was a well known American educator, the president of Oberlin College and the author of numerous volumes on theology, education and philosophy. During 1918-1919 he was director of religious work for the YMCA in France prior to joining the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, now known as the King-Crane Commission. Charles R. Crane was a wealthy American Arabist, a philanthropist who had business knowledge of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. His heavy contributions to Wilson's 1912 campaign led to being named to the 1917 Special Diplomatic Commission to Russia, service as a member of the American Section of the Paris Peace Conference, and the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey in 1919 that now bears his name. Crane later helped finance the first explorations for oil in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and was American Ambassador to China from May 1920 to June 1921. The Commission's work covered all of what had been the Turkish empire in the Middle East, not just Syria (which then included today's Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the disputed territories.) The well-known anti-Zionist predilections of Crane colored the testimony and made its credibility somewhat doubtful. Any question of his objectivity in Palestine was settled by his admiration for Hitler's Germany -- Crane called the Third Reich "the real political bulwark of Christian culture" -- and his approval of Stalin's anti-Jewish purges in Soviet Russia. His biographer described his later life as dominated by: * "... a most pronounced prejudice...his unbridled dislike of Jews." Crane "tried...to persuade ...President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to shun the counsels of Felix Frankfurter and to avoid appointing other Jews to government posts." Crane "envisioned a world-wide attempt on the part of the Jews to stamp out all religious life and felt that only a coalition of muslims and Roman Catholics would be strong enough to defeat such designs." In 1933 Crane actually proposed to Haj Amin Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, that the Mufti open talks with the Vatican to plan an anti-Jewish campaign. It is significant that the book The Arab Awakening by George Antonius was funded by and dedicated "To Charles R. Crane, aptly nicknamed Harun al-Rashid affectionately." The historian James Gelvin in his paper "The Ironic Legacy of the King-Crane Commission" shows how the actions of the Crane team actually suggested the possibility of independence and self-governance to the Arabs of Syria (including Palestine, then known as Southern Syria) leading them to their conclusions, rather than seeking the truth of what their desires were. Given Crane's anti-Semitic predisposition, it is hardly surprising that he found the Zionists unconvincing and the anti-Zionist views persuasive. The reservations expressed by Arab leaders and expatriate Americans, and dismissal of counterarguments from the Jewish delegations, led Crane's Commission to recommend a) the abandonment of American support for a Jewish homeland, b) that further Jewish immigration be severely restricted, and c) that America or Britain govern Palestine. These conclusions were in complete conflict with the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist program. But two technical advisors to the Commission, Dr. George R. Montgomery, a clergyman with long experience in the region, and Captain William Yale, an expert on Arab affairs connected to the US Paris delegation, filed a formal dissent, advocating a Jewish state in Palestine. That is, the politically connected heads of the Commission, after a limited visit and based on known anti-Semitic views, gave advice that opposed a Jewish state. At the same time, the experienced and knowledgable staff supported the opposite conclusion. William Yale was the resident agent for the Standard Oil Company, living in Palestine and employed as an observer for the State Department. Yale's dissent denied the findings of the King-Crane Commission. He felt that Arab nationalism had been manufactured by anti-Zionist zealots, and that the Balfour Declaration ought to be adhered to "because of the many advantages Jewish enterprise would bring to the Middle East." On the day Yale’s paper arrived in America, Wilson collapsed and the brief was kept secret until 1922. The formal Commission report suffered the same fate. Trumpeting the conclusions of the King-Crane Commission -- without revealing its biased origin, unofficial nature, and the significant dissent from its recommendations -- is a favorite tactic of those who favor Palestinian Arab claims. The report was probably never seen by President Wilson and was never officially accepted by the US Government or even published until years later when its conclusions were moot. <hr></blockquote><a href="http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_king_crane_1919.php">link</a> I'd never heard of it...this was simply the very first link I got when I put in "king-crane commission". I can look if you think that's not a reliable source...but you know, it doesn't look good for Mr. Crane. I think that's a dead end for your perspective.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:20 am

On one of the ben Gurion quotes: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>A few examples (relating to Israeli "new historian" Benny Morris". In an October 1937 letter to his son, Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption--proven throughout all our activity--that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine." In The Birth, Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." (Tellingly, in his Hebrew-language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers would check the original for themselves.)<hr></blockquote> This comes from an article that is on Questia, which is a paid service and I can't link to the page. Here's the whole article, which I think is interesting. Just scroll past it if you aren't interested...I don't know any other way to allow people to read the whole thing. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Revisiting Israel's "original sin": the strange case of Benny Morris. by Efraim Karsh THE LATE 1980's saw the rise in Israel of a school of "new historians"--younger, Left-leaning academics whose aim was to place under severe question the accepted history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Basing themselves ostensibly on recently declassified documents from the Mandate period and the early days of the state, they systematically redrew the history of Zionism, turning upside down the saga of Israel's struggle for survival. Scanted in these revisionist accounts were the Arabs' outspoken commitment to the destruction of the Jewish national cause; the sustained and repeated Arab efforts to achieve that end from the early 1920's onward; and the no less sustained efforts of the Jews at peaceful coexistence. Zionism emerged, instead, as an aggressive and expansionist movement, an offshoot of European imperialism at its most rapacious. And if Israel was to be seen as an "aggressive and overbearing military superpower" (in the representative words of one new historian), then the Palestinian Arabs, "by any reckoning, [could] only be seen as the victims." Although never exactly reaching mainstream stares themselves, the new historians nevertheless exercised a profound impact on mainstream Israeli opinion in the years just prior to the 1993 Oslo peace accords and thereafter. Fatigued by decades of struggle, yearning for normalcy, despairing of any resolution of the conflict with the Arabs, and abashed by the growing anti-Israel mood among "progressive" opinion-makers worldwide, many educated Israelis found themselves receptive to the notion that a large portion of the fault for the conflict lay with their own country's actions, and might therefore be rectified by a radical change in behavior. If a historic reconciliation with the Arabs could not be achieved through a policy of military deterrence, might not a new start be made by taking positive steps to accommodate Arab demands, by acknowledging Israeli guilt for Arab suffering, and by striving through political and territorial concessions to mitigate the "original sin" of the Jewish state's very existence? This mindset helps explain, at least in part, the headlong embrace by so many educated Israelis of the Oslo peace process, and the readiness to see in it the long-sought solution to the problem of Arab intransigence. Once having committed themselves to the idea that peace had broken out, moreover, many Israelis proved unable to relinquish it, even in the face of Yasir Arafat's brazen flouting of the solemn obligations he undertook on behalf of the Palestinian people at the September 1993 ceremonies on the White House lawn. Paradoxically, for these true believers in Oslo, Palestinian violence and bad faith made it more necessary than ever to cling to the idea of Jewish culpability. Arab grievance, the thinking seemed to go, being rooted in Israeli aggression, could be overcome only by still further acts of appeasement and concession. As the 90's wore on, the new historians' interpretation of the conflict thus became even more deeply entrenched in Israeli thinking, disseminated widely by the media and making its way into the educational curriculum at every level. Not until Ararat launched his all-out intifada in September 2000 did reality at last begin to intrude, and a serious process of reconsideration begin. AMONG THE new historians, none has been more visible, or more influential, than Benny Morris, a professor at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. Morris's 1987 book, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949, was a sensation, rapidly establishing itself as a definitive account of one of the central issues in the entire Arab-Israeli conflict: the flight and dispersion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs at the end of the British Mandate and during the two years of Israel's war of independence. In Israel's Border Wars (1993), Morris went on to indict Israel's response in the early 1950's to Palestinian and Arab terrorism. More sweepingly, in Righteous Victims (1999), he undertook to describe the entire Palestinian-Zionist conflict ever since 1881 as an anti-colonial struggle by an indigenous population against "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement ... intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." With their seemingly authoritative shifting of the blame for the entire conflict onto Zionist shoulders, Morris's books and essays became powerful weapons in the arsenal of Palestinian propagandists and anti-Israel forces everywhere. But then, suddenly, Morris himself changed. In late 2001, a year into the intifada, he shocked an audience in Berkeley, California by declaring that he now saw things differently. To his stunned listeners, who had come to hear him reinforce his wonted message of Jewish guilt, he announced that the truth was otherwise. Ever since the 1930's, the Jews had been amenable to a negotiated settlement in the Middle East, while the Palestinians had stubbornly spurned every compromise: They rejected the Peel commission partition plan of 1937 (a Jewish state in 20 percent of the territory of Palestine, in the area around what is now Tel Aviv and the Galilee). They turned down the 1947 United Nations partition plan (an Arab state in 40 percent of the territory). They did not want to hear about the autonomy plan of [Anwar] Sadat and [Menachem] Begin (part of the 1978 Camp David agreements but never implemented). They evaded accepting Bill Clinton's generous offer (95 percent of the West Bank). Nor, as it turned out, was Berkeley a one-time aberration. A few months later, in the leftist London Guardian, Morris warmed to his theme, instructing his readers that "the Zionist movement agreed to give up its dream of a 'Greater Israel' and to divide Palestine with the Arabs" as long ago as the 1930's and 40's. "Unfortunately," he went on, the Palestinian national movement, from its inception, has denied the Zionist movement any legitimacy and stuck fast to the vision of a "Greater Palestine," meaning a Muslin-Arab-populated and Arab-controlled state in all of Palestine, perhaps with some Jews being allowed to stay on as a religious minority. In 1988-93, in a brief flicker on the graph, Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization seemed to have acquiesced in the idea of a compromise. But since 2000 the dominant vision of a "Greater Palestine" has surged back to the fore. "One wonders," he ended mordantly, "whether the pacific asseverations of 1988-1993 were not merely diplomatic camouflage." What was going on? Morris himself would subsequently trace his "serious reexamination" of his political assumptions to "Palestinian behavior during the past three years"--i.e., to the intifada. But he also went further, claiming that his "decades" of studying the conflict had instilled in him "a sense of the instinctive rejectionism that runs like a dark thread through Palestinian history--a rejection, to the point of absurdity, of the history of the Jewish link to the land of Israel; a rejection of the legitimacy of Jewish claims to Palestine; a rejection of the right of the Jewish state to exist." But why, then, had it taken him so long to acknowledge a truth he was now claiming to have "known for decades? This is a question Morris has yet to address frankly. And it is not the only question that might be asked of him. Without for a moment discounting the significance of his public turnabout, which, given his prominence, is certainly a very welcome development, one is bound to point out that it has not led him seriously to reassess, let alone to retract, any of his previous writings on the sources of the conflict or its main events. He may have discovered an "instinctive rejectionism" among the Palestinians; he has yet to rethink what this means for the conclusions of his own books and essays. A GOOD place to begin such a rethinking would be with his first and still most influential work, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. A few years ago, Morris made the startling statement that, in preparing this volume, he had had "no access to the materials in the IDFA [Israel Defense Force Archive] or Hagana Archive and precious little t first-hand military materials deposited elsewhere. Nevertheless, he reassured his readers, "the new materials I have seen over the past few years tend t confirm and reinforce the major lines of description and analysis, and the conclusions, in The Birth." This, however, is very damning. What made Morris a "new" historian was precisely the opportunity to study newly available documentary evidence, and on that basis to reevaluate older readings. As Morris himself put it in the introduction to The Birth: "The recent declassification an opening of most Israeli state and private political papers from 1947 to 1949 and the concurrent opening of state papers in Britain ... and the Unit ed States ... has made possible the writing of a history of what happened on the basis of a large body of primary, contemporary source material." Yet now here he was, freely admitting that he had not "had access" to--elsewhere he says he "was not aware of"--the voluminous documents in the archives of the specific Israeli institutions whose actions in 1947-49 formed the burden of his indictment! Misleading his readers, he instead published a book based on partial and thoroughly shoddy research and informed by a preconceived view of his sweepingly revisionist conclusions. Most damning of all, the documents that Morris failed to consult, far from tending "to confirm and reinforce" his analysis, do quite the opposite. What they confirm, in line with all previous evidence, is that "the Palestinian refugee problem" was the creation of Palestinian and other Arab leaders, not of the Zionists. * The issue of the refugees of 1947-49 is tied up with the larger question of Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs--another subject on which Morris had lot to say in his days as a new historian. In fact, he went out of his way to give scholarly credibility to the Arab canard of an age-old Zionist design to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs from their homes. As far back as the mid-1930's, he wrote, Zionist leaders had despaired of achieving a Jewish majority in Palestine through mass immigration and had instead come to view the expulsion of the Arab population--"transfer," as it came to be known--as the best means "to establish a Jewish state without an Arab minority, or with as small an Arab minority as possible." By 1947, despite their formal acceptance of the partition resolution of the United Nations (proposing two states, Arab and Jewish, in Palestine), "large sections of Israeli society" were looking forward to war with the Arabs "as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN-earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." Morris adduced no evidence whatsoever for these claims. Nor could he have, for there is none. ha reality, far from despairing of mass immigration, Zionist leaders in the 30's worried about the country's short-term absorptive capacity should millions of Jews decide to come. In 1947, not one of these leaders evinced the slightest intention of exploiting the UN partition plan as a springboard for territorial expansion. As for an alleged enthusiasm for "transfer," so flimsy is the evidence for this that Morris was forced to adduce a small number of statements, mostly by David Ben-Gurion, that he either ripped out of context or simply rewrote to say what the speaker plainly did not mean. A few examples. In an October 1937 letter to his son, Ben-Gurion said: "We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. All our aspiration is built on the assumption--proven throughout all our activity--that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine." In The Birth, Morris represents Ben-Gurion as saying precisely the opposite: "We must expel Arabs and take their place." (Tellingly, in his Hebrew-language writings, Morris rendered Ben-Gurion's words accurately, perhaps because he knew his readers would check the original for themselves.) Again: on June 7, 1938, Ben-Gurion took part in a meeting of the Jewish Agency executive. Here is a portion of the transcript: The starting point for a solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish state is, in his [i.e., Ben-Gurion's] view, the need to prepare the ground for an Arab-Jewish agreement. And here is Morris's paraphrase of Ben-Gurion's position at that meeting: "The starting point for a solution of the Arab problem in the Jewish state" was the conclusion of an agreement with the Arab states that would pave the way for a transfer of the Arabs out of the Jewish state to the Arab countries. The mention of a transfer agreement is entirely of Morris's invention. Finally, here is Ben-Gurion speaking to an Israeli cabinet meeting of June 16, 1948, a month after the establishment of the state: But war is war. We did not start the war. They made the war. [Arab] Jaffa waged war on us, [Arab] Haifa waged war on us, [Arab] Beit-Shean waged war on us. And I do not want them again to make war. And here is Morris's fanciful rendition, complete with an addition of his own: But war is war. We did not start the war. They made the war. Jaffa went to war against us. So did Haifa. And I do not want those whorled (sic...not quite sure what this typo is supposed to say) to return. I do not want them again to make war. [emphasis added] Now that Morris has acknowledged Zionism's longstanding acceptance of coexistence with the Arabs in a partitioned Palestine, has he disowned the "transfer" canard? That depends on where you look. Already in the late 1990's he was forced to concede that his "treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial" and that he had "stretched" evidence to make his point. But less than a year ago, in the Guardian, he was still writing baldly: The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: there could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants. Morris has squared these contradictory ideas in a novel manner. He now believes, or pretends to believe, that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the notion of a mass displacement of Arabs, as long as it was born of dire necessity. Indeed, he says, over the long term such a displacement might even have been conducive to peace. Thus, he speculates, if Ben-Gurion were alive today, he might "regret his restraint" in 1948, when he "probably could have engineered a comprehensive rather than a partial transfer ..., but retrained." Perhaps, according to Morris, had [Ben-Gurion] gone the whole hog, today's Middle East would be a healthier, less violent place, with a Jewish state between Jordan and the Mediterranean and a Palestinian Arab state in Transjordan. The trouble with these musings is that Ben-Gurion did not engineer a partial transfer in 1948; nor, so far as we know, did it ever occur to him to do so; nor did Morris himself charge him with doing so in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Morris's bizarre latter-day endorsement of such an idea puts him in company not with Israel's founding father but with the late Rehavam Ze'evi, a right-wing advocate of population transfer who similarly considered his policy to be compatible with Zionist thinking. He and Morris make strange ideological bedfellows, but, when it comes to their notion of traditional Zionism, they are both dead wrong. IT IS not just in connection with the more distant past that Morns s political conversion seems less than thorough. Indeed, at the very moment when he was speaking in Berkeley and condemning Arafat and the Palestinians for turning their backs on peace, he was also releasing an updated edition of Righteous Victims that offered an account of the latest intifada much more in keeping with his past writings. Here the organized Palestinian violence appears not as another manifestation of the historic Arab/Palestinian refusal to come to terms with Israel's existence but as a long-overdue act of desperation by a tormented nation against its occupier: At base, the frustrations and slights endured since the signing in 1993 of the Oslo agreement and, more generally, since the start of the occupation in 1967, had now come home to roost. Indeed, the new intifada seemed to give release to the pent-up anger of the Palestinians since their initial confrontations with Zionism and the catastrophic loss of Palestine in 1948. Nor did Morris leave any doubt as to where, in his view, the fault for the intifada lay: Oslo heightened [Palestinian] expectations of an immediate improvement and release from political bondage. But as one government succeeded another in Jerusalem and as partial agreement succeeded partial agreement, nothing seemed to improve; the longed-for sovereignty and economic boom failed to materialize.... By September 2000, the masses apparently had reached a point where they could no longer wait. This happens to be a complete inversion of the truth, as Morris himself obviously knows and as even some prominent Palestinians have had the honesty to admit. * Arafat's war was, in fact, an unwelcome development for ordinary Palestinians, who were in the midst of a healthy recovery after several years of a deep economic crisis. So lacking was the appetite for confrontation that, upon Arafat's return from Camp David in July 2000, his Tanzim militia barely managed to muster some 200 youths in Ramallah for what was supposed to be a "mass welcome for the returning Saladin." Likewise, the attempt to organize a commercial strike in East Jerusalem in protest against Ehud Barak's government ended in embarrassing failure, one of many indications that the vast majority of East Jerusalem's Arab population preferred the continuation of Israeli rule to Palestinian sovereignty. Not only does Morris know all this, he has even said so, including in the selfsame revised edition of Righteous Victims. There he writes, accurately enough, that "for many Palestinians life had been better under direct Israeli rule" than under Arafat's "despotic and corrupt" Palestinian Authority. Commenting last year on the collapse of Oslo, moreover, he offered this description of what really happened at Camp David and immediately thereafter: "Barak, a sincere and courageous leader, offered Arafat a reasonable peace agreement.... Arafat rejected the offer.... Instead of continuing to negotiate, the Palestinians--with the agile Arafat both riding the tiger and pulling the strings behind the scenes--launched the intifada." That he can simultaneously entertain, and express, such wildly discrepant views opens Morris to the charge not just of shoddiness but of doublespeak. THIS PERSISTENT sense of confusion--to use a milder word than doublespeak--reflects the real dilemma in which Morris finds himself. Arafat's war of terror is what drove this new historian to acknowledge truths about the Arab-Israel conflict to which he had will fully turned a blind eye. He has paid a professional price for his apostasy from his former beliefs, coming under vicious fire from his fellow new historians and, in the process, losing his luster as a hero of the academic Left in Israel and abroad. But he has evidently not yet taken in what it means, intellectually, to surrender the paradigm that for so many decades has informed not only his work but his entire view of the world--of who he is and what he believes. And herein lies, as well, the emblenlatic importance of Morris's case. For his is the dilemma of the Israeli Left in general and the "peace" movement in particular: shocked by the intifada into a recognition of the country's true situation, but not yet prepared to embrace wholeheartedly the justice of the country's cause. To this dangerous condition of moral paralysis, the lies and distortions of the new historians have made a significant contribution over the years, and none more significant than that made by Benny Morris. The damage they have done lingers on. * Here are the words of Mamduh Nawfal, a leading PLO thinker and Ararat adviser: "The intifada was neither a mass movement detached from the Palestinian Authority. nor an instinctive popular uprising. Quite the contrary, it was started by a deliberate decision by the highest echlons of the Authority before being transformed into a popular movement." * For more on this, see my articles in COMMENTARY, "Were the Palestinians Expelled?" (July-August 2000) and "The Palestinians and the 'Right of Return'" (May 2001). EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London, and currently a visiting scholar at Harvard. His new book, Arafat's War, is coming out from Grove Atlantic next month.<hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:39 am

Fascinating stuff. I don't have access to the research facilities to prove who is right, but recall above the quote about Ben Gurion and the letter he wrote to his son and the different versions of it. Here's another version, in a Counterpunch article by a guy named William James Martin (anti-Israel folks will like this, and just about any other article on the topic in Counterpunch, so here's a "freebie" for the other side of this debate.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr> And in a letter to his son, also in 1937, he stated: We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places then we have force at our disposal. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/martin03112005.html">link</a> I think it pretty unlikely that there are two completely opposing points of view in two different letters from Ben Gurion to his son. maybe the author of the article I printed is lying, though he suggests very clearly that any reader of Hebrew can easily check this fact, inviting ridicule, I'd imagine, if his version were not true. Oh, but it gets more interesting. My whole point...or one of them, is that CP is particularly pushing the idea that the US has absolutely no vested interests in the Iraq war (this is the same thesis as that Mearsheimer essay...that is...I swear to you...the totality of the logic in that piece...the US is not threatened by terrorism, Israel is, the US has not other vested interests in the Middle East, therefore the war was completely for Israel. The thinking is so sloppy that I simply have no idea how it gained any respect at all. However, this thread is not about the far easier to disprove myth of Israel telling weak and powerless America how to behave, so I digress.) Here's another essay I found by Martin. It's quite short: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Bush's Projection of Israel's Worldview by William James Martin (Friday January 16 2004) "Bush and Wolfowitz were wrong is seeing Iraq as equivalent to the person of Saddam Hussein. That is Israel's perception and the extent of Israel's interest in Iraq. Bush missed out on an adequate understanding of the multilayered complexity of the highly skilled and well educated Iraqi people." Lebanese Parliamentary leader Wallid Jamblatt said of the attack on the El Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in which Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was staying. "We hope the firing will be more precise and efficient (next time), so we get rid of this microbe and people like him in Washington who are spreading disorder in Arab lands, Iraq and Palestine," Paul Wolfowitz was a principle driver of the case for the American attack on Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein. This level of anger and is not new. We heard it from George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, only directed at the Saddam Hussein regime. The administration sees the world through the eyes of Israel; and Paul Wolfowitz's first loyalty is not to the United States, in whose offices he serves, but to the government of Israel. The invasion of Iraq served no ones interest except that of Israel, though paid for with American capital and American lives. The Bush administration told us over and over that American forces would be welcomed with flowers and garlands and opened arms. Bush and Wolfowitz believed the Iraqi people would be so happy to get rid of Saddam Hussein that they would overlook the 10,000 dead Iraqis generated by our invasion, (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), by the general lawlessness that everyday takes 70 to 100 Iraqi lives a day, just in Baghdad alone, by the destruction of 5000 year old artifacts dating from the dawn of their civilization, and ours, and by the 13 year old sanction program directed against Iraq which destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure and the Iraqi health care system, know previously as the "jewel of the Middle East." The destruction of the sanitation and health care system resulted in the deaths of some 5000 children and 7500 people per month over a 12 year period as the studies of several UN agencies concluded. This projection of the Bush administration’s and Israel’s attitude onto the Iraqi people finds a clear expression on the words of invasion apologist John McCain in a March New York Times Op Ed who, after distorting Iraq’s record of compliance with UN Resolution 1442, states, “Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime…? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans…?” But Mr. McCain was wrong in his understanding of Iraq’s compliance with UNR 1442’s proscription of weapons of mass destruction as he was wrong in his prediction of Iraqis celebrating in the street as they heralded the invaders aiming to make the region safe for Israel, as he was wrong in projecting Bush’s and Sharon’s perceptions onto the Iraqis. Nor did George Bush do any better. In the 2003 State of the Union Address he said, “and tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country--your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.” Thus George Bush designated for the Iraqi people that Israel’s enemy was also to be theirs. Iraq was never a threat to the United States, but the Saddam Hussein regime was perceived as a threat to the state of Israel and an impediment to Israel's felt need to control and to dominate the states on its border. (See http://www.jamiat.org.za/news/Jul03/Jus ... Saddam.htm). Israel also saw the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as way of defeating the Palestinian Intifada by eliminating the Iraqi support for the Palestinians and also as a way to leveraging greater power against both Syria and Iran. Much of this strategy is spelled out in a document prepared for the Natanyahu government of Israel in 1996 by present members of the Pentagon. (See “A Clean Break:a new strategy for securing the realm”, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/ instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm.) Israel’s threat to its own hegemony in the region consisted of Iraq, Syria and Iran. That is Israel’s “axis of evil”. Bush and Wolfowitz were wrong is seeing Iraq as equivalent to the person of Saddam Hussein. That is Israel's perception and the extent of Israel's interest in Iraq. Bush missed out on an adequate understanding of the multilayered complexity of the highly skilled and well educated Iraqi people. It was not Saddam Hussein who was despised in the Arab world so much as it was Ariel Sharon, the "butcher of Beirut" who led the 1982 invasion of Lebanon that resulted in the deaths of 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and included the massacres of 3000 Palestinian civilians at the refugee camps of Sabre and Chitila in Beirut. <hr></blockquote><a href="http://usa.mediamonitors.net/layout/set/print/content/view/full/4005">link</a> Does anyone here want to defend the thesis that the Iraq war serves no US interests? Doubt it. Not my interests, of course. But there are certainly parties who benefit quite nicely from this war...the oil companies, the military contractors, and those who have a long term goal of general destabilization of the Middle East. I know that went off topic but I was interested how an apparently completely botched quote got put into an article in Counterpunch by a guy who pushes the "Israel made us do it" theme. I would be really surprised if anyone is still reading this thread. It is serving as a place to collect my own thoughts and links, anyway. Someone feel free to actually put forward an argument of some kind.

by **Dreams End** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:30 am

I hope anyone left reading this thread is starting to see a pattern here. Except for the ben-Gurion quote in which I'm unable to find a definitive reference for the missing words, EVERY OTHER QUOTE I've checked was fucked up. the Herzl one was particularly concerning for me. One on Alice's list: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The removal of Arabs bodily from Palestine is part of the Zionist plan to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry. <hr></blockquote> Original: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.[17] <a href="http://www.meforum.org/article/711">link</a> <hr></blockquote> However, this is the most critical part...and I laughed out loud when I read it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Most importantly, Herzl's diary entry makes no mention of either Arabs or Palestine, and for good reason. A careful reading of Herzl's diary entries for June 1895 reveals that, at the time, he did not consider Palestine to be the future site of Jewish resettlement but rather South America.[19] "I am assuming that we shall go to Argentina," Herzl recorded in his diary on June 13. In his view, South America "would have a lot in its favor on account of its distance from militarized and seedy Europe … If we are in South America, the establishment of our State will not come to Europe's notice for a considerable period of time."[2<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> Indeed, Herzl's diary entries during the same month illustrate that he conceived all political and diplomatic activities for the creation of the future Jewish state, including the question of the land and its settlement, in the Latin American context. "Should we go to South America," Herzl wrote on June 9, "our first state treaties will have to be with South American republics. We shall grant them loans in return for territorial privileges and guarantees." Four days later he wrote, "Through us and with us, an unprecedented commercial prosperity will come to Souh America."[21]<hr></blockquote> I don't know if I need to keep on this. Alice said it was not her intention to get me to look these up. But I think this has been quite instructive. So far, EVERY quote I've looked up has had, at the very least, some dispute about the exact nature of the wording. And most of them are convincingly documented to be grossly inaccurate. I'd like to reprint all of the essay linked above but I tried and the italics, which the author uses to show the excised portions of quotes, didn't transfer. Don't want to do it by hand. Please read this essay. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/16/06 12:31 am

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:07 am

I don't know how to get through to you: chasing quotes is an astounding waste of time. Check facts. What did people DO, not what did they SAY? Just to illustrate my point, here's a challenge to you. Find one quote, just one, in which Hitler, in all his writings and his wordy speeches, where he says that the Nazis plan to kill all the Jews. If you do find such a quote, from the horse's mouth, as it were, I will concede that there's some value to this quote chase you're on. In case, just in case, you don't find one, does that mean that the Nazis didn't plan to kill all the Jews? Was it all some great misunderstanding? Or do YOU concede MY point, that criminals rarely advertise their evil intent, and that criminal courts exist to weigh evidence of crimes rather than bad thoughts. In other words, 'sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me.'

by **Dreams End** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:24 pm

Alice, I think you need to acknowledge that much of the case that is being made, at least by others, is based precisely on these quotes. You are now doing some kind of soft shoe, and I think you should stick with relating that you simply don't have time to be thorough in this discussion. I can understand that....I get a little OCD about things, but it's my learning style. I dive in and immerse in short bursts. Hitler did not advertise his "final solution"...that may be so, but he was very, very clear about his attitude to Jews. Your analogy is completely spurious....it might work if you found quotes from Hitler talking about how Jews and "real Germans" can live alongside each other in peace, because many Zionist leaders said just that about Arabs. I'm actually pretty disappointed that all you have really offered is this list of quotes, which you then say isn't important. It's the sort of shifting standards of debate and scholarship which make your thesis unverifiable. There has been war and death, this is clear. But your thesis is not that the Zionists made war with Arabs (or should I say the reverse...did the Arab League not attack the Jews as soon as partition was decided on by the UN?). Your thesis is that the core of Zionism was to rid Palestine of Arabs. You haven't defended it, accept by tossing out a bunch of quotes. I point out that many of the quotes are bogus and you respond that you just tossed in the quotes to show how hard it is to track down quotes. Actually, it's not. And, if nothing else, you might want to insure the integrity of the anti-Israel perspective by challenging likeminded sites not to publish spurious quotes. In fact, on many similar sites, I've seen much worse examples...quotes from people who don't even exist or quotes lifted from a novel (by Amos Oz) treated as the words of actual leaders. It's like a virus...and believe me, the sites I find this on are not tossing out quotes merely to show the futility of chasing quotes. I offered lots and lots of evidence that the picture painted by many on the left and right was grossly exaggerated, oversimplified and often simply based on lies. No one has responded to any of that. I know I can be a little rough, rhetorically, but I promised to behave on this thread and I feel I have. No sarcasm, nothing but examining evidence...but the silence is deafening. I think some will be happy to see this thread sink to the bottom, so the unsupported statements about the plans of the evil Zionists can flow unchallenged once again. I will continue reading, but this has become a monologue. Meanwhile, I'm interested in what it all means. Specifically, what it means for my country. I will not be flying to the Middle East to sort things out, but I don't have to look past my own Senator to see how these issues are being manipulated by the establishment. And I don't have to look past my own local peace group to see how the left is being manipulated BY THE ESTABLISHMENT. And for me, the Israel made us do it meme is like a chemical marker of contamination. It's not just the anti-Semitism that's the concern but the way Israel is being used in a sophisticated disinformation campaign. And at some point a bit later I'm starting another thread about Israel's alleged control of the US. Maybe someone will offer more evidence for that one.

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:12 pm

ive followed this thread and i must apologize, i come here for the reading, and usually havent the time to do ought other than make smart assed comments, which i tend to do elsewhere as this is more a research type forum. time to bump this one back to the top. this is a very interesting subject. it also deserves a counter thread...

by **johnny nemo** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:23 pm

I wanted to contribute this lil tidbit. It appears that, just as modern Zionism is endorsed/sponsored by religious nutbars, so was the early Zionist movement in Britain. <a href="http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/britisra.htm">mb-soft.com/believe/txn/britisra.htm</a> British Israelitism The ideas of this group can be traced back to John Sadler's book, The Rights of the Kingdom (1649), but its modern form originated with John Wilson's Our Israelitish Origin (1814). The first society to propagate British Israelite views was the Anglo - Saxon Association founded in England in 1879. Today British Israelitism is in decline and only a few scattered groups remain; however, their influence in a somewhat distorted form is to be found in publications like Herbert W Armstrong's The Plain Truth. There is no authorized version of British Israelitism, but the following outline summarizes their main views. In the Bible God promised Abraham that as long as the sun and moon and stars endure Israel would survive as a nation. From promises found in the OT it is clear that Israel must exist somewhere today and must have had a continuous existence as a national entity right back to the time of Abraham. This required continuity means that the state of Israel, which came into existence in 1948, cannot be the nation of Israel. The present state of Israel is Jewish and therefore must not be confused with the historic nation of Israel. Marshaling a variety of arguments from the Bible and history, British Israelitism argues that the Anglo - Saxon people are the true Israel. British Israelites claim that after the destruction of David's kingdom, Zedekiah's daughters (Jer. 41:10) escaped death in Egypt (Jer. 44:12 - 14) and took refuge (Isa. 37:31 - 32) in one of the "isles of the sea" (Jer. 31:10) to which they sailed in a ship with Jeremiah. These "isles" were Ireland, from where their descendants reached England and became the royal house. Thus the British royal family is directly linked to the house of David. The common people, however, reached England after wandering through the continent of Europe, where they were "sifted through many nations" (Amos 9:9). In the course of this sifting some true Israelites remained in western Europe, enabling British Israelitism to claim members in Germany, the Netherlands, and other parts of the Anglo - Saxon world. One of the more colorful of these characters, was Richard Brothers. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brothers">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Brothers</a> In 1793 Richard Brothers declared himself to be the apostle of a new religion. He began to see himself as possessing a special role in the gathering of the Jews back into Palestine. Brothers differed from the Puritans of the last century however, by asserting that he would also gather the ‘Jews’ who were hidden amongst the population of Great Britain. In similarity to modern British-Israelists, Brothers asserted that the ‘hidden Israel’ had no notion of its biological lineage and that part of his role would be to teach them of their true identity and lead them to the land of Canaan. Brothers proclaimed himself to be Prince of the Hebrews, literal descendant of the Biblical House of David, and the Nephew of the Almighty who would rule over Israel until the return of Jesus Christ. Brothers declared he would achieve all this using a rod he had fashioned from a wild rosebush with which he would perform miracles like Moses had done. All this was declared in the first British-Israel publication: ‘A REVEALED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPHECIES AND TIMES, Book the First, wrote [sic] under the direction of the LORD GOD and published by His Sacred Command, it being the first sign of Warning for the benefit of All Nations; Containing with other great and remarkable things not revealed to any other Person on Earth, the Restoration of the Hebrews to Jerusalem by the year of 1798 under their revealed Prince and Prophet (i.e., Richard Brothers). London, Printed in the year of Christ 1794.’ Amazingly Brothers began to attract quite a following, but due to his rejection of organisational work and eccentric nature he did not develop any sort of social movement. In consequence of prophesying the death of the King and the end of the monarchy, he was arrested for treason in 1795, and imprisoned on the grounds of being criminally insane. His case was, however, brought before Parliament by his ardent disciple, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, an orientalist and a member of the House of Commons. As a result Richard Brothers was removed to a private asylum in Islington. While he was in the private asylum Richard Brothers wrote a variety of prophetic pamphlets which gained him many believers. Among, amongst his supporters was William Sharp, the engraver. Some of his political predictions (such as the violent death of Louis XVI) seemed to be proof that he was inspired. But when Richard Brothers predicted that on November 19, 1795 he would be revealed as Prince of the Hebrews and Ruler of the world and the date passed without any such manifestation, William Sharp deserted him to become a religious follower of Joanna Southcott. His followers tended to drift away either disillusioned or embarrassed. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 9/19/06 3:26 pm

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Hitler did not advertise his "final solution"...that may be so, but he was very, very clear about his attitude to Jews. Your analogy is completely spurious....it might work if you found quotes from Hitler talking about how Jews and "real Germans" can live alongside each other in peace, because many Zionist leaders said just that about Arabs.<hr></blockquote> Oh, well... if Zionist leaders said that they want to live alongside Arabs in peace, then that's that, eh? No need to look at what they actually did. After all, who ever heard of a politician lying?! Seriously, Hitler presented 'the Jews', not as his prey, or his victims, but as a threat to the very existence of Germany. He never specifically called for a genocide of the Jews, but it was implied by his constant harping on the existential threat to Germany that the presence of the Jews represented. In the case of Zionism, any resistance to the implementation of the Zionist takeover and colonization of Palestine has been presented as a fundamental, existential threat, either to Israel, or the Jewish people. This explains the concerted campaign of Zionist propaganda to present the Palestinian resistance as motivated, not by a love of freedom, not by a struggle for justice under international law, but by an irrational hatred of Jews. In contrast, the Zionists have portrayed themselves as seekers of peace, as proponents of coexistence, a portrayal that is belied by the actual facts, including the rush to build settlements for Jews only, connected by roads for Jews only, on lands illegally expropriated from Palestinians. The hogging of precious water, the destruction of olive trees and inhumane laws only applied to Palestinians, are evidence of a desire to make life so miserable for them that they will be driven out. Those who won't go, will live in an Israeli-made hell, if they live at all. Face the ugly truth, Dream's End. The Zionist propagandists' focus on words is only an attempt to muddy the waters. We are talking about genocide, get it? Children being shot in the head, people being humiliated and starved and terrorized, an entire people living under a brutal, racist occupation. If you want to play the quote game, and ignore the actual deeds and policies that are eradicating the past, present and future of an entire category of humans, that's your choice. And your choices say a lot about your priorities. Now. If you want to discuss FACTS, I'll be happy to dissect them with you. As our starting point, let's take this portion of a historical timeline, as posted on a Palestinian web-site: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>1845: British Empire and some sympathetic Jews embark on a program for Ashkenazi (European) Jewish colonization in Palestine, with the aim of establishing a Jewish state/homeland (political ideology called Zionism). First Zionist settlement established 1880. First Zionist Congress in Switzerland held 1897. 1916: British and French secretly agree to divide the Arab world while publicly claiming support for independence and self-determination. 1917: French and British Empires issue proclamations in support of Zionism (Jules/Balfour Declarations). 1919: After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, Britain occupies Palestine and lobbies for a "Mandate" from the League of Nations to rule Palestine and implement Zionist program (contrary to the League's charter which supported self-determination). 1920s and early 1930s: Palestine under rule of Zionist British commissioner Herbert Samuel arms underground Zionist forces buttressed by British troops. Non-violent Palestinian resistance IS suppressed by lethal force. "Inter-religious" violence is also initiated, claiming the lives of innocents of all religions. 1936-1939: Palestinian uprising against British rule and Zionist Colonization is crushed violently. Most leaders of the liberation movement are killed or deposed. 1947: In 1919 population is 94% Muslim and Christian, 6% Jewish. By 1947 it is 68% Muslim and Christian and 32% Jewish. Native Jews are opposed to Zionism. UN Partition Resolution 181 pushed for by the US is adopted recommending partition. Natives of all religions reject UNGA 181 because it violates UN Charter's fundamental premise of self-determination of peoples and because of the inherent unfairness of giving sovereignty and rule to Zionists over 55% of the land when Jews represent only 32% of the population and own less than 7% of the land (most were new immigrants). 1947-1949: UNGA 181 is a recommendation that was never implemented. Zionist forces, well equipped by the British begin a process of removing non-Jews in November 1947. Half the Palestinian refugees were ethnically cleansed before May 1948 when Britain withdrew its forces and Israel declared its independence. Between Winter 1947 and Summer 1949, over 530 Palestinian towns and villages are completely destroyed and their residents fled and/or expelled (70% of the native Palestinian Christian and Muslims become refugees). To Palestinians, this is Al-Nakba-" the catastrophe" of loss of their homes and lands. Aida Refugee Camp near Bethlehem is one of dozens of refugee camps in the Middle East where these villagers end up. 1948: December 11, UN passes Resolution 194 reaffirming international law -- including Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- that Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their homes and lands and be compensated for losses. 1949: May 11, Israel admitted to UN—its second application--after agreeing to relevant UN resolutions (including 181 and 194). 1967: "Six Day War": Israeli forces (IDF) attack and occupy parts of Palestine they did not occupy before (West Bank including East Jerusalem and Bethlehem and Gaza, 22% of Palestine). They also occupy the Syrian Golan Heights and Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. The international community unanimously regards these occupations AS illegal and demands an Israeli withdrawal (e.g. UN Security Council resolution 242). Contrary to International Law (Geneva Conventions), Israel instead embarks on a new phase of colonial settlement activity including near Aida refugee camp in Bethlehem. 1987-1993: Large scale non-violent uprising--intifada--suppressed brutally by the Israeli occupation army. 1991-2000: Oslo Process initiated, facilitates further violation of Geneva Conventions and institutionalization of Israeli control over Palestinians ("bantustanization" of Palestinian population centers via closures, checkpoints, Jewish-only bypass roads, de-development of Palestinian economy) 2000-2005: "Al-Aqsa" intifada begins; Israeli army respond brutally. Thus far, nearly 4000 Palestinians (800 Children) and nearly 1000 Israelis (nearly 100 Children) have been killed. Every human rights organization reporting on this has condemned Israeli army and settlers for wide scale targeting of Palestinian civilians and other human rights abuses (also condemned suicide bombings by some Palestinian groups). 2004: The International Court of Justice rules that Israeli settlements/colonies in the occupied areas (including Jerusalem) are illegal and that the Wall Israel is building on Palestinian land is also illegal. This decision is supported by over 160 countries. Today: 9 million Palestinians worldwide, nearly 2/3rd of whom are refugees and displaced persons. Meanwhile the US government sends $3-5 billion of our taxes every year to Israel. The US also vetoed 35 UN Security Council resolutions that attempted to bring peace based on International Law and Human Rights. The "Road Map" advocated by the US is 2218 words but lacks these four words: International Law, Human Rights. <a href="http://qumsiyeh.org/palestinianhistory/">qumsiyeh.org/palestinianhistory/</a> <hr></blockquote>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:09 pm

Dream's End, have you ever considered turning your energies to defending the Palestinians struggling to survive under Israel's racist boot TODAY? Or is that not an option? If not, why not? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I heard similar talk from Effie Eitam, a hard-edged former general who leads the National Religious Party, a coalition partner in Sharon’s government. Eitam, who is Sharon’s housing minister, said, “I don’t call these people animals. These are creatures who came out of the depths of darkness. It is not by chance that the State of Israel got the mission to pave the way for the rest of the world, to militarily get rid of these dark forces.” Eitam told me that he believes there are innocent men among the Palestinians, but that they are collectively guilty. “We will have to kill them all,” he said. “I know it’s not very diplomatic. I don’t mean all the Palestinians, but the ones with evil in their heads. Not only blood on their hands but evil in their heads. They are contaminating the hearts and minds of the next generation of Palestinians.” <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/040531fa_fact2_b">www.newyorker.com/fact/co...fa_fact2_b</a><hr></blockquote>

by **AlicetheCurious** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:09 am

Dream's End, could you just drop a word here, explaining the above quote and whether or not a Cabinet Minister and the head of a governing coalition partner could make such remarks with impunity? Could you explain that? And why the Palestinians are wrong when they say that Zionism is racism, that the killing and expulsion of the Palestinians is a basic requirement for the realization of the Zionist agenda. You're always going on about Mein Kampf, and how it provided ample evidence of Hitler's attitude and intentions. The above quote is only one tiny sample of quotes that are ACCURATE, IN CONTEXT, and leave no doubt about Zionist intentions, which, by the way, are being carried out, even as we write, even as you, and people like Bush, rant about "Islamo-fascism", as opposed to "Israel's democracy". By the way, check out the thread "If links back to UK or US sources are revealed". It provides evidence of a concerted campaign to brainwash people into linking the words Islam with "terrorism", "fascism" and "Nazism", through a network of agents provocateurs and loudmouth infiltrators who push their way to the front whenever a camera is near. It sounds like a lot of trouble to go to, just to blacken someone's name and create anti-Muslim hysteria. Now, why would they need to do this, if the Muslims already were so evil? Couldn't they then simply provide actual evidence? Instead, they brandish laughable cartoons and spin scenarios that would only sound real to their chemically- or tv-addled audiences. And finally, all the threats, accusations and provocations aimed at stirring up hatred and suspicion between Muslims and non-Muslims, emerging from right-wing sources in Europe and the US. Do you consider such a campaign to be as abhorent and/or unacceptable as it would be if it were directed towards Judaism and Jews? Or any other ethnic, religious or racial group? Or even towards, say, women?

by **Dreams End** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:35 am

Thank you for your suggestions about how I should spend my time. Thankfully, I spend it as I please. I don't know what to make of your quote. Last time you tossed out quotes, I started looking into them. Then when I found them wanting, you said you tossed them out to show how pointless it was to chase down quotes. Now you toss out another quote. You claim the context is correct and that you have many others. So I will have to assume you are intentionally trying to waste my time. As for provocateurs, I have been maintaining that the Arab nationalism that HAS BEEN ALLOWED to continue has ties to the underground reich and CIA. It is not inconsistent with this theory that Western intelligence forces would use and manipulate these very same movements. Let me turn it around. If you are acknowledging that there are SOME fake Islamic militant groups, then shouldn't you consider the policy that maybe some of the ones you like could also be fake, or at least infiltrated and manipulated? The "muslims are evil" is not something I ever said and I have explained it, counting this time, three times already. What I am saying is that the west has run a campaign to make sure that all liberation struggles and nationalist movements (not just in the Middle East) if allowed to exist at all, are rightwing in nature. One of the primary reasons for supporting the groups they have secretly supported was to COUNTERACT any inroads Communism was making into the Middle East. This is why initial support of Nasser was withdrawn and the decision made to support Muslim Brotherhood. I've said this repeatedly, yet you ignore it. It's as if you are accusing me of being anti-Nicaraguan for not liking the Contras. Oh, wait, is Central America work on your list of things I should be allowed to work on?

Zionism and History

My contention is that the idea that early Zionists came in w

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Who is online