Zionism and History

by **AlicetheCurious** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries. There have been numerous reports from reliable sources of large-scale looting, pillaging and plundering, and of instances of destruction of villages without apparent military necessity. The liability of the Provisional Government of Israel to restore private property to its Arab owners and to indemnify those owners for property wantonly destroyed is clear, irrespective of any indemnities which the Provisional Government may claim from the Arab States. Count Folke Bernadotte, UN Mediator on Palestine, 1948 (Later assassinated by Zionist terrorists) <a href="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa!OpenDocument">domino.un.org/unispal.nsf...enDocument</a> <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The exodus (of the Palestinian Arab population) was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighbouring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary (!!!!). The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently? In the opening pages of "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire. By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. "There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons)." ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with "severe punishment". As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda. In "1948 and After" Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948". This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases... In short, as Morris puts it, this report "undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership". Neither, as he points out, "does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population." However, he says that "the circumstances of the second half of the exodus" - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - "are a different story." One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: "I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10)." The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees "at any price" (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on "abandoned properties" - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were "absent" - "legalised" this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11). In "1948 and After" (chapter 4), Benny Morris deals at greater length with the role played by Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: "It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe." Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of "a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible". This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the "Transfer Committee" which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas. ... ... Benny Morris contrives to make two seemingly contradictory statements within two pages of each other, namely that "Plan D was not a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestine’s Arabs" and that "from the beginning of April, there are clear traces of an expulsion policy on both national and local levels". ("The Birth...", pp. 62 and 64) ... As Morris himself admits, "Ben Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals ’understand’ what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the ’great expeller’" ("The Birth...", pp. 292-3). The fact that the founder of the State of Israel took advantage of the impressive extent of his powers and worked towards the maximum enlargement of the territory allocated to the Jewish state by the United Nations, and towards reducing its Arab population to a minimum, is a matter of historical fact. Morris devoted an important article (17) to Ben Gurion’s long-term support for the transfer project. As he writes in his preface to "1948 and After...", "Already from 1937 we find Ben Gurion (and most of the other Zionist leaders) supporting a ’transfer’ solution to the ’Arab problem’ (...) Come 1948, and the confusions and deplacement of war, and we see Ben Gurion quickly grasp the opportunity for ’Judaising’ the emergent Jewish State" ("1948 and After..., p. 33). Prior to this, he tells us that "the tendency of military commanders to ’nudge’ Palestinians’ flight increased as the war went on. Jewish atrocities - far more widespread than the old histories have let on (there were massacres of Arabs at Ad Dawayima, Eilaboun, Jish, Safsaf, Majd al Kurum, Hule (in Lebanon), Saliha and Sasa, besides Deir Yassin and Lydda and other places) - also contributed significantly to the exodus" ("1948...", p. 22). Ilan Pappe, a professor at the University of Haifa, devotes two chapters of his book "The Making of the Arab- Israeli Conflict, 1947-1951" to these issues. Eschewing the caution of Morris’s position, he concludes that "Plan D can be regarded in many respects as a master plan for expulsion. The plan was not conceived out of the blue - expulsion was considered as one of many means for retaliation against Arab attacks on Jewish convoys and settlements; nevertheless, it was also regarded as one of the best means of ensuring the domination of the Jews in the areas captured by the Israeli army" ("The Making...", p. 98 ). Furthermore, the actual text of Plan D leaves very little doubt as to the intentions of Ben Gurion and his friends. It spoke of "operations against enemy population centres located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be carried out in the following manner: either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up, and by planting mines in their debris), and especially of those population centres which are difficult to control continuously; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village, conducting a search inside it. In case of resistance, the armed force must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state" ("The Making...", p. 92). <a href="http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine">mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine</a><hr></blockquote> For a map of the population distribution in Palestine as of 1945, AFTER a large-scale influx of Jewish immigrants from Europe, see: <a href="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/a73996728ba8b94785256d560060cd1a!OpenDocument">domino.un.org/unispal.nsf...enDocument</a> For a map of Jewish settlements set up in what was left of the Palestinian territories, as of 1996, see: <a href="http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/96fd41bb37e40f8685256b98006ec72a!OpenDocument">domino.un.org/unispal.nsf...enDocument</a> Please note that this map is 10 years out of date, and that most of those Jewish settlements have dramatically expanded, both in terms of population and territory, since then. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's stupid to argue that it's not a duck. The same goes for ethnic cleansing.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:08 pm

Let us begin . firstly the descendants of Shem, from which we derive the term "Anti-semitic" ; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The word "Semitic" is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible<hr></blockquote> Link;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic</a> So, we have a basically Shem referring to the biblical descendents of the original 12 tribes..........who should , one would imagine, look something like this ; <img src="http://racialreality.sitesled.com/jews_yemen.jpg" style="border:0;"/> You will I trust notice the skin colour. However, let us have a closer look at the proponents of Modern day Zionism. Heres one here; <img src="http://www.global-elite.org/elitewiki/images/Perle_Richard.jpg" style="border:0;"/> And heres another ; <img src="http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/photos/us/paul_wolfowitz.jpg" style="border:0;"/> And another ; <img src="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/images/ind/header-image_zakheim.jpg" style="border:0;"/> And one last one - the right hand side ; <img src="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20060909/capt.sge.lva87.090906223352.photo01.photo.default-512x330.jpg" style="border:0;"/> I could of course go on and on, but I hope you get my point. That being, do you see any descendants of Shem in there ? I thought not. Now then, I find it interesting, indeed truly helpful that you posted your map indicating the original "agreement" drawn up between the Arabs and Israelis. Particularly when you compare it to the modern map. Lets have a look at that shall we ? ; <img src="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/conflict/images/israel_map.gif" style="border:0;"/> This is actually a rather flattering map to the palestinians, when looking at the areas they actually control. It is actually far worse than that. But no doubt ( providing your eyesight is OK ) you can see that little prison camp called Gaza in the corner ? A place who's borders incidentally are completely under Israeli control. So, let us move on, and use a couple of infamous Nazi Terms ; Lebensraum ; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.<hr></blockquote> Link ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum Here is Lebensraum in 2006 ; <img src="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/middleeast/gfx/israelisettlements_westbk2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Heres what it looks like "up there" ; <img src="http://www.middle-east-online.com/pictures/big/_7233_west-bank-settlements-2-10-2003.jpg" style="border:0;"/> Nice huh ? - Especially with their Jewish only roads, which divide the farmlands of the Palestinians and cut of their routes to visiting neighbours etc. And finally, let us never forget the Untermenschen ; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Untermensch" is usually back-translated into English as "sub-human." A leading Nazi attributing the concept of the East-European "under man" to Stoddard is Alfred Rosenberg who, referring to Russian communists, wrote in his Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (1930) that "this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the 'under man.'"<hr></blockquote> Heres the last time I heard that term; <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs">www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs</a> But of course if you wander amidst the "Jewish only" ( too funny ) settlements of the West Bank and ask a few of the "Jews" who the local untermenschen are, they will quickly point down into the valleys ( all the illegal settlements are on the hills) So in effect, what do we have here. We have a bunch of white supremacist assholes who have actually managed to hijack an entire religion in order to create their own little White supremacist colonial project in the Oil rich Middle East, under the pretexts of their "promised land". The fact that they had never previously been near the said "promised land" ever since they had a hole in their asses is neither here nor there in the history books. I dont need to remind one of the parallels with native Americans , or the Aborigines, or the Native Africans, or blablabla, prior to the KKK bigots arriving on their shores. Same modus operandi basically. Dont know about you DE, but Im fucking sick of it. "Qui Bono" I wonder ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 9/26/06 5:20 pm

by **AlicetheCurious** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:46 pm

Hey, slimmouse, I really think it's worth repeating: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's stupid to argue that it's not a duck. The same goes for ethnic cleansing.<hr></blockquote> To which, the Zionist response is: "Who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?"

by **yathrib** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:30 pm

Slimouse, you make some decent points, but that "descendants of Shem" garbage undermines the credibility of anything you've got to say after that. First, the term "semite" didn't even exist until it was coined by a German scholar in the nineteenth century as a linguistic term. I've met Arabs--esp. Palestinians--who woudn't look at all out of place in Paris, or even Copenhagen. And BTW, a majority of Israeli Jews came there from the Arab/Islamic world. What does a descendant of the (probably fictional) Shem look like? I don't know, and neither do you. You may not be one of those Americans who doesn't know anything about the Mideast beyond some half-remembered stuff from Sunday School, but this certainly makes you seem that way. BTW, not all Muslims are "descendants of Shem" either. Technically speaking, the Iranians are as Aryan as Richard Wagner.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:59 pm

Heres what Ive got to say. Follow the "official story", and dont believe your own lying instincts or eyes. Do you know what colour an Arabs skin looks like ? Do you know what colour an Africans skin looks like ? Do you even know where "Israel" is ? You do ? It sits between africa and the middle East, where, it may have escaped your attention, but the 'overwhelming majority' ( sarcasm) of people have a dark skin. If so , then tell me, what should an Descendant of those we are biblically asked to believe are returning to their "promised land" look like ? Richard Perle ? Paul Wolfowitz ? Dov Zakheim ? John Bolton ? Libby Lewis ? Larry Silverstein ? Queen fucking Elizabeth ? Or do you not see this whole Isreal deal , unlike me, as a pathetic front story sold to the Goyim, or Bovi, by the very people who's fucking descendants edited "The good Book" ? Ive had it with the so many of the so called "Rigorous " thinkers on this forum. They dont know their fucking arse from their elbow. I didnt see a controlled demolition on WTC 7 . It was my imagination Boss. I dont know what a native of Israel truly would look like. He might look like an Ayryan fascist murdering thieving asshole, but then again he could be an indigenous descendant of the biblical 12 tribes, despite not having any of the expected pigmentation in his skin. In fact, he can even be CHINESE ( get that ) as long he says hes jewish, and he has more rights than the indigenous Arabs who lived their ever since. Do me a fucking favour mate will ya ?

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:06 am

Thank you, yathrib, for the comment to slimmouse. I'd simply add that there was no agreement about partition drawn up between Arabs and Israelis. There was a UN partition plan to which the Arabs and the more rightwing Zionists did not agree. The main Zionist representatives accepted it reluctantly. As soon as it was announced, things went downhill fast and soon after Israel declared independence from Britain and was attacked soon after. Resulting negotiations, I don't think, were based really on the partition plan at all. The racial analysis by photo is...um..well embarrassing, actually. Especially after Alice's substantive post. So I'll just stick to that. Benny Morris gets some stuff wrong (such as some quotes) but on the other hand, I think that even mainstream Israel is coming around to the nature of the Palestinian exodus...at least the one I quoted originally did. Because I don't have a huge amount of time for awhile, I think I can stipulate to this paragraph: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...<hr></blockquote> I don't mean the numbers...I have no ready way to look into those..but this mix. I have seen similar delineations in pro-Israel sources, though without percentages attached. However, I do think I'd seen some firmer evidence of Arab calls for flight, but I'll have to let that slide for now as well. In fact, I'm actually surprised to see the 2% as the figure for direct expulsions. At least one pro-Israel sight I've read made it sound as if this number would be higher. The 55% doesn't really tell me much as I would assume that anytime an army is coming to occupy your area people might flee in droves. And I'd be interested to track down the notion that Arabs threatened those who left with punishment. That seems an odd thing to do with battles looming. Anyway, the article is a very good starting place for looking at the history starting right at 1948. I'm wondering, Alice, what your take is on the the time the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab control (Jordan and Egypt). Anyway, except for the little slip into weird racial analysis by photograph by slimmouse, I'm glad the thread got back on track. Sorry I'll be slow to post a more substantive response. Could be a few days.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:25 am

I was hoping it wouldnt be, but unfortunately I was intuitively right. Having any kind of discussion with a myopic IS a complete waste of time. Dreams End. Just have a look at that picture of the West Bank and Gaza today, and stop trying to lie to all and sundry.

by **yathrib** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:35 am

All this talk about "semitic and "antisemitic." The term antisemitic was coined by Wilhelm Marr, himself someone who would fit any reasonable person's definition of the term. He liked it because he thought it sounded more "scientific" Than "Jew-hater." ANtisemitism itself became disreputable because of the actions of antisemites, so now antisemites whine when they're branded with their own term. Not to say that the term isn't used unjustly to stigmatize critics of Israel/Zionism, but that is precisely because Zionists know that most people of good will have every reason to consider what the term legitimately refers to as repulsive. So no more of this stuff about how Arabs are semites too, etc. In fact, if I had my way, there would be a moratorium on any use of the term except to refer to Semitic languages, and then only advisedly.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:29 am

Well, the Zionist claim to Palestine is based on a racial myth that all Jews are the descendants of the biblical Hebrews, to whose "seed" God gave the Promised Land. Let's face it, Zionism stands on three pillars: 1) That booga-booga one above; 2) That the Nazi holocaust justifies any means for the Jews to obtain and hold onto a homeland, no matter what the cost to anybody else (ie 1 wrong + 1 wrong = infinite right); 3) That Israel is a shining beacon of democracy and Western civilisation among the savages and fanatics of the Arab world. Despite the well-oiled hasbara behemoth, and the dedicated efforts of scribblers like our very own DE, number 3 is becoming really threadbare, what with the mass murders, the kidnappings and incarceration, the other war crimes, the concentration camps, the demolishing of homes and orchards and groves, etc. Even though Israel has made it pretty much impossible for foreign witnesses to be in the Occupied Territories, even journalists, humanitarian aid workers, foreigners married to Palestinians or even Palestinians with a foreign passport, yes, even so, the news is still getting out, via refusenik Israeli soldiers, local journalists, and all kinds of brave people who risk incarceration, destitution or even death, to make sure we know what is being done behind closed doors. As for slimmouse's detour into pigmentation analysis, that's just the looking-glass version of the Zionist claim that the Jews are the rightful owners of the Arab lands because their racial ancestors got this promise from God. I don't think people should have to show their pedigree like dogs, so that they can have their human and legal rights upheld.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:41 am

Well, still don't have time to respond to Alice's previous post... Alice, I wouldn't recommend allying with someone pushing racial theories like slimmouse. There's nothing "left" about it, believe me. The word "semitic" of course, refers to a language group. The etymology of semite is, indeed, from "shem" but that is not to say that "semite" is used in any scholarly or scientific way as literally meaning descended from Shem. Judaism is a religion...and people convert. White people don't look like the first Christians, either, but they are still called such. slimmouse doesn't get to decide who is truly Jewish based on their skin color and Alice probably shouldn't go there if she wants to continue holding up her argument that leftists are not allying with fascists in this political issue. and the term "semite" is also understood, via just about any dictionary, to have, in one useage, the meaning of "Jew" as it has been used that way for a long time. Even words that get used in a mistaken fashion can take on the new meanings...that's how language works. The rest will have to wait...still happy to see the other post from Alice, just don't have time to do it justice.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>White people don't look like the first Christians, either, but they are still called such. slimmouse doesn't get to decide who is truly Jewish based on their skin color and Alice probably shouldn't go there if she wants to continue holding up her argument that leftists are not allying with fascists in this political issue.<hr></blockquote> My argument is this ; Israels current rulers are using a rehashed Biblical claptrap in order to justify colonisation. If that in itself werent bad enough, they are using Biblical claptrap that doesnt even apply to them. Namely they are not even those indigenous peoples with whom God allegedly made this real estate deal. Of course one can argue that the Arabs use similar claptrap taken from the readings of their own religious texts. Except of course that it wasnt that kind of claptrap which got their backs up back then, nor continues to get their backs up today. Back in 1948 it was the colonial invasion of the largely Eastern European converts. Today it is the ongoing illegal occupation of the West Bank.It isThe continuing policies of Lebensraum, coupled with collective punishment, and wanton cruelty and murder on the Gaza strip of the Untermentchen. Today it is the dropping of a million cluster Bombs in Lebanon. It is the bombing back 20 years of the said country. Both of whom , it should be added have democratically elected leaders.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:20 am

From a Nazi, Islamo-fascist article written by a self-hating Jew in 2002: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The bulldozer certainly deserves to take its rightful place alongside the tank as a symbol of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. The two deserve to be on the national flag. The tank as symbol of an Israel "fighting for its existence," and for its prowess on the battlefield. And the bulldozer for the dark underside of Israel's struggle for existence, its ongoing struggle to displace the Palestinians from the country. For Israel has always treated the Palestinians as an enemy, never as a people with collective rights and legitimate claims to the country with which it might someday live in peace. In 1948 Israel played an active role in driving 75% of the Palestinians from the Land. Over the next four or five years the bulldozer, following the tank, systematically demolished 418 Palestinian villages. Since 1967, as Israel's tanks suppress Palestinian resistance to the Occupation with increasing frequency and ferocity, its bulldozers (aided by artillery and missiles) have demolished more than 9000 Palestinian homes and counting. Even as I write this, a day after the Israeli High Court of Justice gave its consent to demolishing houses of families of terrorists without warning or a chance to appeal to the court, houses are being bulldozed in Bethlehem and Gaza with dozens more threatened throughout the Occupied Territories. And not only. Throughout Israel proper, in the "unrecognized villages" and Palestinian neighborhoods of Ramle, Lod and elsewhere, houses continue to be demolished 54 years later. Jews now live in Palestinian houses in Israel's major cities and Palestinian villages have long disappeared under the agricultural fields of kibbutzim and moshavs. Amidst this destruction 150,000 housing units have been built for the 400,000 Jews living across the 1967 border. The bulldozer remains at the center of the "action" for the simple reason that repression and control alone do not secure the country for those the Jews whose claim excludes all others. Those with competing claims the Palestinians must be displaced if the Jews are really going to take possession, or at least confined to small islands where they cannot interfere with or challenge Israeli dominion. (The announcement this week by the Ministry of the Interior that Palestinian Israelis would be stripped of their citizenship if proven "unloyal" to the State extends the work of bulldozers.) But just as Israel cannot insulate itself from the Occupation, so too it cannot escape the ravages of its own house demolitions policy. Fear that the displaced might yet rise again and claim their patrimony prevents Israelis from enjoying the fruits of their power. The country has been seized by rising xenophobia and national--religious fanaticism. Polarization characterizes the relations between the right and left, Jewish and Arab citizens, Jews of European and Middle East origin, the working and middle classes, religious and secular. Israelis are "hunkering down," increasingly isolated from the world. Young Israeli men and women are themselves brutalized as they are sent as soldiers to evict Palestinian families from their homes. Even the beauty of the land is destroyed as the authorities rush to construct ugly, sprawling suburbs and massive highways in order to "claim" the land before Palestinians creep back in. Aesthetics, human rights, environmental concerns, education, social justice these are the finer things of life that cannot coexist with displacement and occupation. "Fortress Israel," as we call it, is by necessity based on a culture of strength, violence and crudity. Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and a Professor of Anthropology at Ben Gurion University. He has lived in Israel since 1973. <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/halper0813.html">www.counterpunch.org/halper0813.html</a> <hr></blockquote> This one's from another self-hating Jewish Nazi-collaborating Islamofascist sympathizer, published in 2002: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> In The Name Of Us All Gideon Levy HA'ARETZ 18 March 2002 At about 6 A.M. last Monday, an Israeli army megaphone called on all the men and male youths in Deheisheh refugee camp to come out of their homes and assemble in the area of the nearby Nassar stone quarry. It's estimated in Deheisheh that between 1,000 and 1,200 men from the camp and from the adjacent village of Artis came to the quarry, which became a stockade. The men and boys - aged 14 and up - were blindfolded and their hands were bound. According to descriptions given by Palestinians who were there, they remained in the quarry until night, wearing only their underclothing, without food and without medicines for those who needed to take them. Late at night nearly all of them were released and only a few dozen were taken away for interrogation by the Shin Bet security service. There were no top wanted individuals among the men. Those who were released were ordered to return to their homes holding their hands up. For them it was a day of humiliation and torture, which they will not soon forget. Who among us can imagine enduring this kind of false mass arrest? Can we imagine our children, aged 14 and 15, being taken at dawn to a quarry, being tied up and then being humiliated for so many hours, even though they had done nothing wrong? Would we not develop a feeling of hatred and a desire for revenge against those who behaved in this way? Last week, thousands of Palestinian men throughout the West Bank, from Jenin to Bethlehem, were subjected to this kind of mass false arrest. How many were arrested? Who's counting? The spokesman of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said, after checking the matter, that he does not know the exact number. He only made sure the humiliation marches were photographed, so that the Israeli public could see the bound, half-naked detainees. But the arrests were not the worst of the blows that have befallen the Palestinian population since Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared that the Palestinians had to be treated roughly. "They need a bashing," Sharon asserted at the beginning of the month in the Knesset cafeteria. The result was that approximately 170 Palestinians were killed, about 10 a day on average. Among the dead, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, are 12 children and teenagers, only 11 members of the security forces, three members of medical teams including two physicians, and one foreign journalist. Staff of Physicians for Human Rights take desperate calls for help every day. On Tuesday, soldiers opened fire at a Red Cross ambulance after shooting at an ambulance in Tul Karm the day before, and the following day the oxygen at the hospital in Ramallah ran out and the IDF refused to allow oxygen to be brought from Jenin. Nurses were evacuated from their residences in Ramallah, physicians did not reach the hospitals in Bethlehem, medical teams did not succeed in evacuating people who were bleeding to death in the refugee camps. The maternity hospital in El Bireh was shelled. In Tul Karm, members of medical teams burst into tears during a visit of representatives of Physicians for Human Rights and said they were afraid to go out in order to evacuate the wounded. Tanks were stationed at the entrance to the government hospital in Ramallah, and a serious shortage of bandages and medicines was registered at the Arab Care Hospital, as in others. Most of the suffering was experienced by the entire population: Hundreds of thousands of residents were kept under terrifying house arrest. Many were evicted from their homes to forced to spend long days with dozens of neighbors who are half-strangers in the same apartment. There were tanks in the streets, bombers and attack helicopters in the skies, frightened children held captive in their homes, old people and the ill who were denied any type of medical assistance, no stores and in some cases no electricity or running water, and violent searches conducted by soldiers in the houses. It was all inflicted on an entire nation - collective punishment on a scale not previously known. Israelis had hardly any knowledge of this suffering and it seems not to have affected them. Insulated in their own suffering, with the fear of Palestinian terrorism lurking in every corner, they really don't care what happens to the other. Most Israeli physicians did not bat an eyelash in the light of the deadly attack on their colleagues; Israeli journalists did not protest the killing of their Italian colleague; and lawyers did not speak out when red lines of international rules of law in war were crossed. The Israeli suffering was widely described in the media, as is proper, but the Palestinian suffering, which is far more severe, was barely mentioned in the media. This insensitivity and this exclusive focus on ourselves and our suffering is nothing new, though in the past few weeks it has deteriorated to new depths of uncaring. There was almost no mention in Israel of the large numbers of Palestinians who were killed, and the fact that just a few minutes from Jerusalem, tens of thousands of people were held captive, bombed from the air and went hungry, was not discussed in the country's lively public discourse. This not only a moral issue, it is also a utilitarian one. In the past two weeks, more and more seeds of hatred against Israel have been sown. In the name of all Israelis, the IDF perpetrated deeds that are intolerable and unacceptable. The fact that the majority of Israelis didn't want to hear or see what was going on does not exempt us from responsibility. Nor does it reduce the intensity of the damage that has been caused to Israel by these pointless actions. Those who were humiliated at the quarry will exact their revenge. We will all pay the price. <a href="http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/levy/020318_deheisheh.html">www.bintjbeil.com/E/occup...isheh.html</a><hr></blockquote> Note the insidious antisemitism, the sneaky implications that there are such things as Arab human beings, and that Israel should have limits in what it can do to them. This kind of attitude must be crushed mercilessly, it presents a fatal threat to the very existence of Israel.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:34 am

From today's Ha'aretz, that self-hating guy is at it again: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Gaza Strip to remain without full electrical power for a year By Gideon Levy, Haaretz Correspondent, and the Associated Press It could take between eight to 14 months to fix a Gaza Strip power plant destroyed in an Israel Air Force strike in late June, and to restore full electrical power to the region. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem has accused the Israel Defense Forces of war crimes for bombing the plant, which has left many areas of the Gaza Strip without full electricitical power the last three months. Electricity in many areas is cut off for half of the day, severely hampering hospitals, the water supply and sewage systems, B'Tselem said in a report. An IAF aircraft struck the power plant on June 28. The attack came at the start of a major IDF offensive in Gaza following the abduction of an IDF soldier and the killing of two others by Palestinian militants linked to Hamas. "B'Tselem determines that the bombing of the power plant was illegal and defined as a war crimes in International Humanitarian Law, as the attack was aimed at a purely civilian object," according to the report. "There was no apparent military basis for the action and it seems that its intention was to satisfy a desire for revenge." Israel could have, instead of taking such drastic military action, cut off the electric supply to Gaza through the Israel Electric Corporation although this would have been illegal as well, the group said. B'Tselem demanded that the government open an investigation into the bombing of the plant. (Good luck!) <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/767933.html">www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/767933.html</a><hr></blockquote> Now, about those Nazi infiltrating Islamofascists -- they are really, really bad.. Zionism is a liberation movement for the Jews. Israel is a shining beacon of democracy and sweetness and light. If only the Arabs could stop teaching their children to hate, there would be peace and falafel for everyone... Ok. I'll go now.

by **yathrib** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:52 am

Alice, you write: "Well, the Zionist claim to Palestine is based on a racial myth that all Jews are the descendants of the biblical Hebrews, to whose "seed" God gave the Promised Land." To be fair, I think you'd find that more among "Christian Zionists" and other religious wackos than anyone else, although the "mainstream" is happy to pull it out when it suits them. I personally have no patience for that pseudo-biblical babble no matter who is spewing it.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:54 am

There was some kind of delay, so I didn't see DE's and slimmouse's latest posts until now. This is what I said about slimmouse's comments on whether or not today's Jews are truly descendents of the biblical Hebrews: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>As for slimmouse's detour into pigmentation analysis, that's just the looking-glass version of the Zionist claim that the Jews are the rightful owners of the Arab lands because their racial ancestors got this promise from God. I don't think people should have to show their pedigree like dogs, so that they can have their human and legal rights upheld.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, let's forget about the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, and let's turn this thread into an infinite (and stupid) argument about who is racially the purest descendents of the biblical Hebrews. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b">

Zionism and History

Re: For the role of Zionism in history......

OK DE.

Re: OK DE.

Descendants of Shem

Heres what Ive got to say.

Re: Heres what Ive got to say.

Complete waste of time.

And another thing...

Re: And another thing...

Re: And another thing...

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Re: Alert! Nazi infiltration of the Left

Re: Alert! Nazi infiltration of the Left

Bible babble

Re: Alert! Nazi infiltration of the Left

Who is online