Israel calls to expel Iran from UN following Ahmadinejad ”wipe off” call

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman, on Thursday asked the rotating president of the UN Security Council to expel Iran from the world body in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call Wednesday for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

Gillerman wrote in a letter that Ahmadinejad's comments require a strong and decisive response from the international community, Israel Radio reported. He said no country that calls for violence and destruction should be allowed membership in the UN.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed "dismay" Thursday over the comments, saying the UN charter is opposed to threats or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of any state.

"Israel is a long-standing member of the United Nations with the same rights and obligations as every other member," Annan said in a statement.

He said he plans to visit Iran in "the next few weeks" and would put the Middle East peace process and the right of all states to live in peace and security within secure borders at the top of his agenda.

Earlier Thursday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Vice Premier Shimon Peres initiated the calls for Iran's expulsion from the UN.

"The prime minister said that a state which calls for the destruction of another people cannot be a member of the United Nations," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement.

"I don't see such a crazy declaration being done by a head of state, a member of the United Nations; it is unbearable," Peres told a news conference. "[Ahmadinejad] cannot remain a member."

Israel's deputy ambassador to Britain, Zvi Rav-Ner, said it was unheard of for a UN member state to call "for genocide and wiping off of another member state of the UN."

"This is a clear contravention and breach of the UN charter and it should be dealt with by the international community," he told BBC radio.

The comments came amid widespread condemnation by European leaders, the United States, Canada, Australia and the Palestinian Authority.

EU rejects calls for violence
EU leaders said no country that claimed to be a responsible member of the international community could make such a call.

"EU leaders ... today condemned in the strongest terms the comments in respect of the State of Israel attributed to President Ahmadinejad of Iran," EU leaders said in a statement issued at a one-day summit outside London.

"Calls for violence, and for the destruction of any state, are manifestly inconsistent with any claim to be a mature and responsible member of the international community," they said.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he condemned the Iranian statement "absolutely." Asked whether he believed Iran should be expelled from the UN, Barroso said: "I will not make any concrete proposal now."

"It is a completely unacceptable statement, of course," Barroso told BBC radio. "We should respect borders and respect the integrity of Israel, and we want Israel to live in peace with its neighbors."

Erekat: Comments not acceptable
Although most Arab leaders maintained silence Thursday over Ahmadinejad's statements, senior PA negotiator Saeb Erekat on Thursday said the comments were not acceptable.

"This is unacceptable to us," Erekat said. "We have recognized the State of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."

Analysts said Tehran's Arab rivals may quietly be pleased to see the radical regime further isolated by its extremism.

Newspapers across the Middle East reported Wednesday's speech without comment, many of them on their front pages.

Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel, which he made at a conference called "The World without Zionism," were originally reported by the official Iranian news agency Wednesday.

Ahmadinejad said a new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy Israel, and he denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it, the media reports said. He also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, and supports Palestinian militant groups such as Islamic Jihad, the group behind a suicide bombing that killed five Israelis Wednesday.

Russian FM to Sharon: Iranian envoy must explain
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who is in Israel for meetings with officials, told Sharon on Thursday that Ahmadinejad's comments are unacceptable to Russia and that the Iranian ambassador to Moscow has been asked to provide an explanation.

"I don't agree that anyone should challenge the right of any UN member to exist," he said earlier in the day. "This is indeed inadmissible."

"I think this does not add to efforts of those who are trying to normalize the situation around Iran," said Lavrov. "Those who insist on transfering the Iranian nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council received an additional argument to do so."

Austria "resolutely rejects" Ahmadinejad's comments, said Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik. Plassnik said her ministry had summoned the Iranian envoy in Vienna for discussions about the matter.

Catholic Action of Austria, a leading Austrian Roman Catholic layman's organization, said in a statement Thursday that it was the responsibility of all Christian believers to defend Israel's right to exist, and it deplored Ahmadinejad's hostility as "intolerable."

"This murderous call from Tehran must not stand without international consequences," the organization said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday he has "never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to ... wipe out another country." He said the comments made him feel "revulsion."

"Their attitude towards Israel, their attitude towards terrorism, their attitude on the nuclear weapons issue, it isn't acceptable, he said at the close of a EU summit outside London. "Can you imagine a state like that with an attitude like that having a nuclear weapon?"

French officials on Thursday told Iran's ambassador to Paris that Israel's right to exist "cannot be contested," condemning the Iranian president's call for the destruction of Israel.

The Iranian ambassador to France, Sadegh Kharrazi, was summoned to the French Foreign Ministry on Thursday morning and asked for "clarifications" of the remarks by Ahmadinejad.

The ambassador "was reminded that the right of Israel to exist cannot be contested. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot serve as a pretext for calling into question this fundamental right," French Foreign Ministry
spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said. "The ambassador took note of this demarche and indicated that he would report it to his authorities."

Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos summoned Iran's ambassador to protest Ahmadinejad's comments.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said the incident "underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions."

"Of course, we are opposed to Iranian policies with regard to Israel, we are opposed with regard to the nuclear policy, with regard to their support of terror, with regard to their negative policies in Iraq," the Voice of America quoted the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmy Khalilzad, as saying.

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, said he wanted to "vigorously condemn the remarks made by Iran's president. We are in the 21st century. Canada will never accept such hatred, intolerance and anti-Semitism. Never."

"The comments are all the more troubling given Iran's nuclear ambitions and its refusal to cooperate fully with International Atomic Energy inspectors," Pettigrew said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/638105.html

Wednesday October 26th 2005, 2:56 pm

Israel’s Likudites could not ask for more: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, has called for Israel to “be wiped off the map,” thus underscoring the Zionist argument that Muslims want to kill all Jews or at least push them into the sea. Of course, this will never happen, nor should it. Most people with common sense simply want Israel to stop punishing the Palestinians for the fact they have lived in Palestine, centuries before European Zionists decided to steal their land. Most rational people want peace between Israel and the Palestinians, that is to say Israel must go back to the 1967 borders and allow the Palestinians to form their own state. This will not happen anytime soon and Ahmadinejad gives the Zionists further excuse to make sure it doesn’t, thus prolonging and extending the crisis in the Middle East.

As F. William Engdahl writes (A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order), the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran was overthrown by British intelligence and the CIA, working on a script devised by the neolib “geostrategic” planner Zbigniev Brzezinski, and Ayatollah Khomeini was installed in 1979 for the simple reason Islam is more easily stage managed than pan-Arab nationalism (as well, the Shah had violated his client status when it was discovered he was about to build German designed nuclear reactors). “Covert connections between the new Iranian theocratic leadership and the incoming Reagan administration in the US were demonstrated by the so-called October Surprise, which spelled the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, and the guns-for-hostages deal, also known as the Iran-Contra scandal,” writes Margo Kingston.

“According to U.S. administration officials, funds for [Hamas] came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel,” Richard Sale of United Press International wrote in 2002. “The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini’s Iran.” It should be noted that Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen), a fanatical Wahabbi organization long ago penetrated by British intelligence and then put to use by the CIA.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood remains an important asset for the United States, as demonstrated by the fact the “State Department has drawn up a memo calling for direct and permanent political dialogue with the banned Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,” according to the Egyptian newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat. “The memo recommends that after reaching common understandings with the Muslim Brotherhood, Washington should pressure the Egyptian government to let the group members speak out their minds freely and play a role on the country’s political landscape, according to the sources.” In other words, the United States would likely support a fanatical Wahabbi government in Egypt, same as they supported a fanatical Wahabbi government in Afghanistan (i.e., the Taliban) prior to nine eleven, the same way Israel supported Hamas. Obviously, a tyrannical and extremist Islamic government in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is preferable to a secular government because the latter is susceptible to democracy—and democracy is the last thing the United States and Israel want in the Middle East, regardless of Bush’s bombastic nonsense about freedom.

And thus an extremist and tyrannical government in Iran is doing precisely what the globalist neolibs, Bush and Sharon want—making sure there is never peace in the Middle East. It took the neocon Zalmay Khalilzad—Unocal flunky and former Taliban cheerleader—about ten minutes to respond, probably having to struggle mightily to contain his glee at Ahmadinejad’s remarks. “Of course, we are opposed to Iranian policies with regard to Israel, we are opposed with regard to the nuclear policy, with regard to their support of terror, with regard to their negative policies in Iraq,” he said, making sure to encapsulate the entire neocon enchilada.

In fact, the entire neocon and kill-the-Muslims community responded post haste to the Iranian president’s useful (as in useful idiot) commentary. “With this tirade coming from the top and going to the youth, it can hardly be believed that the Roadmap to Peace is going anywhere but into the black hole of history,” J. Grant Swank, Jr. wrote on the MichNews site. Not unpredictably, the Horowitz disciple, Steven Plaut, over on the Moonbat Central blog, where warmongers daily chomp at the bit to kill Muslims, has called for Iran to be destroyed. “The reasons why it makes sense to topple [he means bomb] the Iran in Iran [sic] keep piling up.”

As if to send the message all Muslims instinctively hate Jews and want to kill them, at approximately the same time the news of Ahmadinejad’s comments hit the media megaphones, a “Palestinian suicide bomber slipped into a school-holiday crowd lining up for sandwiches at a popular falafel stand today, setting off a thunderous blast that killed five people, wounded more than 20, and dimmed hopes for diplomatic progress in the wake of Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip,” the Los Angeles Times reports. “The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, saying it was carried out to avenge the killing of a senior Islamic Jihad commander by Israeli undercover troops two days earlier during a raid in the West Bank town of Tulkarem.”

Notice the big difference. Iran gets close to having nukes, and starts to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has better tech than the US, and never threatens to wipe its neighbors off the map.

Typical Nazi troll, rooting for the wrong side again and again.

yes, only paranoid crazies are more scared of real live actual nuclear weapons than antagonistic speeches

it is the sane who know that mere words are indeed more threatening than actual nuclear weapons

okay then

of course, the israelis only have the best intentions. and therefore their nukes are not scary in the least, not a prob bob to others in the region

nukes are not scary unless the owners are "bad" (as defined by israelis).

"wicked" -- how easily that flows out of your mouth. typical zionist arrogance and denial of responsibility in anything amiss whatsoever -- always someone elses fault

How about Pakistan? Any of your vitriol spill over to that nation for having nukes or only Israel? Remember that Pakistan/India has come closer to nuclear conflagration than anywhere. Any opinions, or just the purest of hypocracy?

"Most people with common sense simply want Israel to stop punishing the Palestinians for the fact they have lived in Palestine, centuries before European Zionists decided to steal their land."

This is common sense?

Since Jews have had a continuous presence in the region for 3,300 years, and had a nation located there for 1000 years, and since the area is riddled with Jewish artifacts dating back to antiquity, but virtually devoid of any ancient artifacts from anything older than 100 years of Arabic or Muslim origin....

And because the Jewish people were driven off of THEIR land by the Roman occupation in 135 AD (when the Romans renamed Israel, Palestine!).....

And because the Nations of the World (first the League of Nations and then the United Nations) VOTED to form the modern nation of Israel......

And because the Arab nations rejected the UN resolution and instead decided to wage a genocidal war against the Jews in 1948....

And because the Arabs who stayed within Israel in 1948 were not harmed, were not forced to convert, did not have their homes or businesses "confiscated", were granted full citizenship rights, and to this day can vote, own property, and have representatives in the Knesset (Israeli parliament).....

Those with common sense know that Israel is not "punishing" the Palestinians, but instead is using security measures to protect both the Israeli and the Palestinian civilian population....

And they also know that if you are counting centuries, the Jewish people's connection with the land vs. the Arab Palestinians (should be a clue here: the Arab peninsula is decidedly due south of the region!) the Jews win by several centuries.....

The name "Judea" does not translate to Palestinian Arab...

And that the definition of "theft of land" does not include those who lobby for decades, and convince member nations of the League of Nations and the United Nations to VOTE for re-establishing a state as theft.

But then common sense is not that common at Indybay.

"Most rational people want peace between Israel and the Palestinians, that is to say Israel must go back to the 1967 borders and allow the Palestinians to form their own state."

Most rational people want peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza costing the relocation and disruption of the lives of 9,000 people, has not brought anything close to peace, what makes you think withdrawing to the 1967 cease-fire lines (NOT borders) will have a better result?

Won't Hamas parade how they "won" a military victory and announce that they will "finish the job" and kill or expell any remaining Jews?

And why didnt the Arab nations leave Israel alone in 1967 when they didn't "occupy" anything?

And as for "allowing the Palestinians to form their own state", how is Israel stopping them? They have land. They have funding (tax money collected from Israel and delivered to the PA), they have a govt. structure in place (the PA), and they have George Bush in their corner. What is stopping them?

what's so special about the 48 borders????

and besides, it's not the "67" borders, its the pre-67 borders.

BECKY should go home and find her brain, large pieces seem to be missing. but, perhaps they never did???

take two darvon and call your mental institution in the morning.

or wars of aggression? admittedly, it's a hard call. some acts of state terrorism were less violent than others but that was a matter of circumstance not choice.

LEBANON

in this case sugar daddy and his european cousins were involved. The worst single atrocitiy duirng the 80s was the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which, like the murderous and destructive rabin-peres invasions of 1993 and 1996, had little pretense of self-defence. In light of crucial reagan-clinton support, these operations add to washington's sterling record of client state-sponsored international terrorism. in this case, the israelis initially laid blame on an attempted assassination of an israeli ambassador in london: since throughly debunked by the new york times in 2002 (20 years later).

TUNIS

shimon peres's bombing of tunis, killing 75 people, palestinians and tunisians, expedited by the u.s. and praised by secretary of state shultz, then unanimously condemned by the u.n. security council as an "act of armed aggression" (u.s. abstaining, with due modesty of course).

LEBANON AGAIN

peres "iron fist" operations directed against what the israeli high command called "terrorist villagers" in israeli occupied lebanon, reaching new depths of "calculated brutality and arbitrary murder" in the words of a western diplomat familiar with the area, amply supported by direct coverage, total casualties surprisingly "unknown."

CYPRUS - LEBANON - pirates and murderers

the regular kidnappings and killings on the high seas by israeli naval forces attacking ships in transit between cyprus and lebanon. those captured were brought to israel and kept in prison without charge as hostages.

the osirak reactor was bombed by israel in june 1981. after the bombing richard wilson, a prominent nuclear physicist at harvard, inspected the bombing. he concluded that the reactor was not suitable for plutonium production as israel had charged, unlike israel's dimona reactor, which had produced several hundred nuclear weapons.

his conclusions were supported by the iraqi nuclear physicist imad khadduri, who was in charge of experimental work at the reactor before the bombing and later fled the country. he too reported that the osirak was unsuitable for plutonium production, though after the bombing, iraq took the solid decision to go full speed ahead with weaponization, khadduri estimated that it would have taken iraq decades to obtain the required amount of weapons-grade material, had the program not been sharply accelerated as a result of the bombing.

israel's action increased the determination of arabs to produce nuclear weapons, kenneth waltz concluded. "israel's strike, far form foreclosing iraq's nuclear career, gained iraq support from some other arab states to pursue it."

maybe we could pick "becky's brain" on this one - a huge source of facts and wisdom in the middle east?

"and besides, it's not the "67" borders, its the pre-67 borders."

NO SWEETY... It's the pre-1967 armistice lines.

So... it is YOU who should go home and find your brain, most of which seems to be missing.

Take two Xnax and call your mental institution in the morning.

"the osirak reactor was bombed by israel in june 1981. after the bombing richard wilson, a prominent nuclear physicist at harvard, inspected the bombing. he concluded that the reactor was not suitable for plutonium production as israel had charged, unlike israel's dimona reactor, which had produced several hundred nuclear weapons. "

What exactly is/are the source/s for your two contrarian claims? Note that the leading experts on nuclear affairs had estamated Israel's nuke arsenal at 150 items at most at the time.

"his conclusions were supported by the iraqi nuclear physicist imad khadduri, who was in charge of experimental work at the reactor before the bombing and later fled the country. he too reported that the osirak was unsuitable for plutonium production, though after the bombing, iraq took the solid decision to go full speed ahead with weaponization, khadduri estimated that it would have taken iraq decades to obtain the required amount of weapons-grade material, had the program not been sharply accelerated as a result of the bombing. "

Now that's one helluva source...


"maybe we could pick "becky's brain" on this one - a huge source of facts and wisdom in the middle east?"

Better yet to pick yours first. Before you call her brains into question, you ought to produce some real back up for your allegations.

REPSONDING TO TEAM TWIT:


What twit #1 actually said:

<<<<<Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza costing the relocation and disruption of the lives of 9,000 people, has not brought anything close to peace, what makes you think withdrawing to the 1967 cease-fire lines (NOT borders) will have a better result?>>>>>

First of all, Israel DID NOT withdraw from Gaza. Israel still occupies it. Gaza is surrounded by land on all sides and sea with Israeli forces/ships. Again another invention of Becky’s Brain. I recommend a pre-frontal lobotomy followed by bed-rest.

The relocation of 9,000 “people” is another invention of the “Brain.” These “people” illegally settled there in violation of international law with my tax money to begin with. They are now being illegally re-settled, with my tax money again, mostly in the West Bank, a second violation of international law.

<<<<the 1967 cease fire lines>>>> – another bizarre statement touted by our Brain. NOTHING transpired in 1967 except the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Gaza was re-occupied by Israel – taken from Egypt.

<<<<Won't Hamas parade how they "won" a military victory and announce that they will "finish the job" and kill or expell any remaining Jews?>>>>>

I won’t challenge the Brain when it comes to speculation and other fantasies.

<<<<<And why didnt the Arab nations leave Israel alone in 1967 when they didn't "occupy" anything?>>>>>

Again the Brain takes a trip beyond the stratosphere of logical thought entering once again the land of Cinderella and Mickey Mouse.

Let me help the Brain with this one. I’ll quote from the International Court of Justice:.

“In the course of this analysis, the Court mentions the hostilities of 1948 1949, and the agreement of 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan, (which referred to the “Green Line”). At the close of its analysis, the Court notes that the territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan.”

The Brain then expounded:

<<<<<And as for "allowing the Palestinians to form their own state", how is Israel stopping them? They have land. They have funding (tax money collected from Israel and delivered to the PA), they have a govt. structure in place (the PA), and they have George Bush in their corner. What is stopping them?>>>>>

Hold on tight, Becky – The Palestinians formed their own state in 1988. They are also a nonvoting member of the United Nations and are recognized by over 130 other member states – almost all of which are non-Western colonial states comprising over 5.5 billion people out of 6.5 billion world-wide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LET’S MOVE ON TO TWIT #2:

<<<<<NO SWEETY... It's the pre-1967 armistice lines. >>>>>>.

Twit #2 is referring to the ICJ quote above about the 1949 agreement defining the Green Line.

Twit #2 then refers to my quote:

"the osirak reactor was bombed by israel in june 1981. after the bombing richard wilson, a prominent nuclear physicist at harvard, inspected the bombing. he concluded that the reactor was not suitable for plutonium production as israel had charged, unlike israel's dimona reactor, which had produced several hundred nuclear weapons. "

and asks:

<<<<<<What exactly is/are the source/s for your two contrarian claims? Note that the leading experts on nuclear affairs had estamated Israel's nuke arsenal at 150 items at most at the time.>>>>>>>

he's referring ot my previous quote:

"his conclusions were supported by the iraqi nuclear physicist imad khadduri, who was in charge of experimental work at the reactor before the bombing and later fled the country. he too reported that the osirak was unsuitable for plutonium production, though after the bombing, iraq took the solid decision to go full speed ahead with weaponization, khadduri estimated that it would have taken iraq decades to obtain the required amount of weapons-grade material, had the program not been sharply accelerated as a result of the bombing. "

First of all, non-rocket scientists would ask: why is twit #2 not backing his sources? He refers to “leading experts” but mentions none by name. Note that I mention two by name, occupation and experience.

My sources:
Richard Wilson, Nature, 302, no. 31 (march 1983). Michael Jansen Middle East International, 10 January 2003. Imad Khadduri, Uncritical Mass, memoirs (manuscript), 2003. Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons (Norton, 1995), pp. 18-19.

I'll graciously ignore Twit #2's anti-Islamic slur about a noted Iraqi nuclear scientist who escapted Iraq with his life under threat of assassination by Saddam.

So your refutation consists of denying that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and pointing out that the Palestinians already have a state?

Ummmm. I don't think its a disputed fact that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza. I mean it didn't exactly happen in secret.

If the Palestinians already have their independent state, why are they attacking their neighbor ? That's kind of unneighborly! And if they already HAVE an independent state, why are they lobbying to create one?

Then, to further your argument, you deny that the 9,000 men, women, children, teachers, farmers, students, grandmothers and babies who have been living in Gaza ---some for as long as 35 years, and some who were born there---are not people.

Well that's a compelling argument, and one I hadn't thought to refute.

Are you saying Jews aren't people?

Try responding to these first

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1779067_comment.php#1779409

to each their own, Becky.... to each their own.

<<<<<So your refutation consists of denying that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and pointing out that the Palestinians already have a state?>>>>>

I refer back to my response above regarding the inane comments of twit 1 and twit 2. let's use the metaphor of a prison. previously, israel controlled the prison walls and each prison cell. they've now strategically repositioned themselves to guarding the outside walls, not in the interests of peace, but because it is crucial to devote their efforts to the illegal ethnic cleansing of the much more valuable lands in the West Bank.

i'm not going to waste my time responding any further to the comments of twit #1 except to say that there are a lot of things going on in the occupied territories that are REGULARLY IGNORED COMPLETELY by the western press. Perhaps twit 1's ignorance can be traced to her acceptance of the created reality of the new york times and other corporate news sources.

Finally, the Palestinians ongoing experience can best be summed up this way: the IDF "rampaging through Palestinian towns, leveling large areas with bulldozers and tanks, keeping the population under siege for weeks without food or water or access to medical care, destroying cultural centers and the institutions of government and archaeological treasures, making it crystal clear in every possible way that "the whip is held over their head."

Given twit 1 and 2's lack of response to my other numerous recitations of fact, I can safely conclude their acceptance of such assertions.

i would strongly suggest that they pick up a book sometime and familiarize themselves. they should also consult with noted international human rights organizations such as human rights watch, btselem or amnesty international. surprisingly what they will find is that there is virturally total agreement among the rights groups. they will find in perusing the numerous studies of scholars on the subject, when one strips away the propaganda, that the facts have for quite some time been beyond dispute.

i would also strongly suggest that the twit team be """very""* careful what they say, as people with a command of the facts DO ACTUALLY take note once in a while.

".....because it is crucial to devote their (the Israelis) efforts to the illegal ethnic cleansing of the much more valuable lands in the West Bank."

The world recently witnessed the ethnic cleansing of 9,000 Jews from Gaza and the West Bank. Can you name a single example of a village or town that has been ethnically cleansed by Israel in the past 30 years?

The Palestinian population on the West Bank has tripled since 1967, and not all of this was from a high birth rate. There has been a lot of (mostly illegal) immigration over the borders and into the West Bank. If Israel is "ethnically cleansing" Palestinians, they are doing a piss poor job of it.

This is a charge that is repeatedly made, but rarely is an example given. I'd like to see you back this up with the name of a village, town, or city that has been ethnically cleansed of any Palestinians.

I dare you.

(the hidden post wasn't aimed at all anti-Zionists for crying out loud)


on "twits" and the resident nitwit
by was that a threat, Truth Warper? • Tuesday, Nov. 01, 2005 at 7:40 AM



"i would also strongly suggest that the twit team be """very""* careful what they say, as people with a command of the facts DO ACTUALLY take note once in a while. "

On those occasions where professional anti-Zionist cretins get a fact or two right, it's actually like a shot in the dark. Don't flatter or aggrandize yourself.

"by was that a threat, Truth Warper?'

Oh, probably no more than "Shtunk. Boot to the head" or "I'll smash your teeth in" or any of the other violent misogynist gems that have spilled from Truth Warpers trap recently.

Its his fall back debating technique, instead of, oh, lets say, logic or intelligence....

The jurys still out, but majority opinion remains "more goofy than threatening"

Back from my "time out". Thanks to you and Gehrig and others for minding the shop.

You bring up an excellent point re: claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing.
In addition to the tremendous population explosion in both Gaza and the West Bank in the last generation, the birthrate has grown enormously
According to the World Factbook, the birthrate in Gaza is among the highest in the world, with over 40 births per 1000 population.
When MECA trotted Pappe out this weekend, he also discussed "ethnic cleansing and genocide" in the region. It is
important to be informed of the real statistics regarding population and birthrate so we can effectively challenge the propagandists.

You mean patrolling the shop, kinda like and IDF assasin...

You mean patrolling the site for any rational non-flaming Zionist contention, exactly like a run-of-the-mill anti-zionist a**hole.

On the 'defense of all things israel' pa-troll again.
Pathetic.

Birth rate per 1,000 population
Data source: 1999 CIA World Factbook

View this list in alphabetic order View this list in alphabetic order View this list in alphabetic order
1 Niger 52.31
2 Mali 49.50
3 Uganda 48.54
4 Gaza Strip 48.24
5 Somalia 47.98
6 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 46.37
7 Mayotte 46.12
8 Burkina Faso 45.84
9 Sierra Leone 45.62
10 Western Sahara 45.42
11 Benin 45.37
12 Marshall Islands 45.31
13 Togo 44.78
14 Zambia 44.51
15 Ethiopia 44.34
16 Mauritania 44.10
17 Senegal 43.88
18 Sao Tome and Principe 43.31
18 Yemen 43.31
19 Angola 43.11
20 Chad 43.06
21 Gambia, The 42.76
22 Mozambique 42.75
23 Eritrea 42.56
24 Afghanistan 41.93
25 Cameroon 41.84
25 Nigeria 41.84
26 Cote d'Ivoire 41.76
27 Madagascar 41.52
28 Liberia 41.49
29 Burundi 41.27
30 Djibouti 41.23
31 Cambodia 41.05
32 Swaziland 40.80
33 Guinea 40.62
34 Tanzania 40.37
35 Comoros 40.29
36 Laos 39.93
37 Malawi 39.54
38 Sudan 39.34
39 Maldives 39.30
40 Rwanda 38.97
41 Equatorial Guinea 38.49
42 Iraq 38.42
43 Central African Republic 38.28
44 Guinea-Bissau 38.23
45 Oman 37.98
46 Congo, Republic of the 37.96
47 Saudi Arabia 37.38
48 Syria 36.95
49 Bhutan 36.76
50 Solomon Islands 35.92
51 Namibia 35.63
52 West Bank 35.59

The pathetic part is in your twofold assumption: that everyone here defends Israel unconditionally and that every defender of Israel must be concommitantly rightwing and pro-Bush. Never mind the leftwing and anti-Bush Becky Johnson and David Gehrig, or the fact I'm not exactly pro-Bush myself. Why let these facts disturb you in your kneejerk regurgitation of your rabid anti-Zionist buzzphrase claptrap.

You're dismissed.

It looks like the timeout helped your obsessive qualities, usually 11 minutes is a long time for you guys to attempt to shout down any truths around here......Why are zionist/rabid/pro-israel fanatics so threatened by the truth???

Do you mean stifing free debate, like with cartoons?

Or real truth like this;

http://seconddraft.org/home.php

If you got your news only from the television, you would have no idea of the roots of the Middle East conflict, or that the Palestinians are victims of an illegal military occupation.
In May, the Glasgow University Media Group, distinguished for its pioneering media analysis, published a study of the reporting of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It ought to be required reading in newsrooms and media schools. The research showed that the public's lack of understanding of the conflict and its origins was compounded by news reporting, especially on television.
Viewers, says the study, are rarely told that the Palestinians are victims of an illegal military occupation. The term "occupied territories" is almost never explained. Indeed, only 9 per cent of young people interviewed knew that the Israelis were the occupiers and the "settlers" were Israeli. The selective use of language is important. The study found that words such as "murder," "atrocity," "lynching," and "savage, cold-blooded killing" were used only to describe Israeli deaths. "The extent to which some journalism assumes the Israeli perspective," wrote Professor Greg Philo, "can be seen if the statements are 'reversed' and presented as Palestinian actions. [We] did not find any [news] reports stating that 'The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation."'
Given that the central truth of the conflict is routinely obscured, none of this is surprising. News and current affairs programs seldom, if ever, remind viewers that Israel was established largely by force on 78 percent of historic Palestine and, since 1967, has illegally occupied and imposed various forms of military rule on the remaining 22 percent. The media "coverage" has long reversed the roles of oppressor and victim. Is- lsraelis are never called terrorists. Correspondents who break this | taboo are often intimidated with slurs of anti-Semitism-a bleak irony, as Palestinians are Semites, too.
Having long ago recognized Israel's "right" to more than two-thirds of their country, the Palestinian leadership has contorted itself in order to accommodate a maze of mostly American plans designed to deny true independence and ensure Israel's enduring power and control. Until recently, this was reported uncritically as "the peace process." When ordinary Palestinians cried "enough!" and rose up in the second intifada, armed mostly with slingshots, they were put down by snipers with high-velocity weapons and with tanks and Apache gunships, supplied by the United States.
And now, in their despair, as some are turning to suicide attacks, the Palestinians appear on the news only as bombers and rioters, which, as the Glasgow study points out, "is, of course, the view of the Israeli government." The latest euphemism, "incursion," is from the vocabulary of lies coined in Vietnam. It means assaulting human beings with tanks and planes. "Cycle of violence" is similar. It suggests, at best, two equal sides, never that the Palestinians are resisting violent oppression with violence. A Channel 4 Dispatches recently "balanced" the Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp with a Palestinian attack on a "settlement." There was no explanation that these are not settlements at all, but armed, illegal fortresses that are central to a policy of imposing strategic and military control.
On June 9, the Correspondent series on BBC Television broadcast a report about the recent siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. This was an exemplar of the problems identified in the Glasgow research. It was, in effect, an Israeli occupation propaganda film put out by the BBC. It was made as a co-production with an American channel, and the credits listed the producer as Israel Goldvicht, who runs an Israeli production company. That would have been fine had the filmmakers made any attempt to challenge the Israeli military with whom they had ingratiated themselves. "The Israelis were determined not to damage the buildings," began the narrator. "The international press were cleared from Manger Square, but we were allowed to stay and observe the Israeli operation..." With this "unique access" unexplained to the viewers, the film presented one Colonel Lior as the star good guy, guaranteeing "medical treatment to anyone wounded," saying a cheery hello on a mobile phone to a friend in Oxford Street and, like any colonial officer, speaking about and on behalf of the Palestinians.
"Killers" were described by the colonel without challenge by the BBC/Israel Goldvicht team. They were "terrorists" and "gunmen," not those resisting the invasion of their homeland. Israel's right to "arrest" foreign peace protesters drew no query from the BBC. Not a single Palestinian was interviewed. As the sun set on his fine profile, the last word went to the good colonel. The issues between the Israelis and Palestinians, he said, "were personal points of view."
Well, no. The brutal subjugation of the Palestinians is, under any interpretation of the law, an epic injustice, a crime in which the colonel plays a leading part. The BBC has always provided the best, most sophisticated propaganda service in the world, because matters of justice and injustice, right and wrong are simply usurped either by "balance" or by liberal sophistry; one is either "pro-Israeli" or "pro-Palestinian." Fiona Murch, the executive producer of Correspondent, told me that Israel Goldvicht Productions would not have won the "trust" of the Israeli army had the producer asked real journalistic questions. That was the way of "fly on the wall": a candid admission. "It was breaking a stereotype," she said. "It was about a good, decent man" (the colonel). She said I ought to have seen an earlier Correspondent series, which had Palestinians in it.
I think she was trying to offer that as "balance" for "The Siege of Bethlehem"-a film that might be dismissed as cheap PR, were it not for its complicity with a regime that uses ethnic difference to deny human rights, imprisons people without charge or trial, and murders and tortures "systematically," says Amnesty.
Goebbels would have approved.

hi, hello, people

And what does the failure of people in the British Isles to adopt your point of view have to do with Palestinians faking news clips?

http://seconddraft.org/home.php

Truth and fanaticism, to you, is about anything you decide to massage out of the facts.

I repeat what I once iterated, we're hardly threatened by your "truth". We just don't want you to spew it here undisturbed.

Glasgow University Media Group studied the BBC. Here is an alternate viewpoint regarding BBC reporting.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=4&x_outlet=12

This analysis points out prejudicial language as well as content that shows a clear pro-palestinian bias.

Like the blind guys and the elephant, it is.

Here is something from that site claiming bias by the BBBC

in reference to an EDITORIAL it has the following:
"Guerin begins her segment by positing the Palestinian allegation that Israel is precluding a two-state solution by building in and around Jerusalem. The rest of the piece is devoted to lending her highly personalized support to this baseless claim."

But its not a baseless claim. Its hard to see any argument against a claim that settlements make a 2 state solution harder. Most Israelis left, right and center would agree that it makes a 2 state solution harder with the right supporting the settlements exactly becasue they want to prevent a two state solution.

Its also worth noting that CAMERA claims Haaretz is baised against Israel. Thats a little strange when you consider its a left of center newspaper that also carries eidtorials by right-wing Israelis.

The BBC is probably slightly biased against Palestinians for structural reasons (its just easier to report from an Israeli standpoint since there are more safe areas in Israel) but CAMERA and others see any reporting of truth as biased.

repugs in this country have been doing it for decades, that is "working the refs"

by constantly screaming "media bias" and "left wing media" they have successfully cowed many/most media groups to make large moves to the right, quite often to the right of the mainstream

even when the repug position is so far out there as to represent a tiny % of the population, they demand a 50-50 hearing of their issues (you can clearly see this today in efforts to push the non-scientific "intelligent design" as an appropriate and equally-hefty counterbalance to over a hundred years of scientific study on evolution)

a quick overview of the Camera site reveals this same tactic to be in action there. feign nuetrality and fairness while subtlely pushing the debate in the direction you want it to go

****we're hardly threatened by your "truth". We just don't want you to spew it here undisturbed.***
Actions speak louder than words, you would not be interested in us 'spewing undisturbed' unless you felt threatened. You've been revealed...and it's OK, just admit it..

For a great analysis on Pro-israel media bias, check out this site:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org

Now I'll sit back and watch the zionists bash the source--kinda entertaining, like flies to shit...

Its also worth noting that CAMERA claims Haaretz is baised against Israel. Thats a little strange when you consider its a left of center newspaper that also carries eidtorials by right-wing Israelis.

Ah- you are learning what it is like to live in a democracy like Israel now! In a true democracy, you can publish newspapers that criticize the goverenment. You can write letters to the editor that criticize the government. There is a free exchange of ideas.

Don't try this is Egypt, boys.

Just can't resist "hatin' and baitin'", can you? Now is that "trolling" or what?

Its hatin' and baitin' and lying in wait.... Kinda like cyberstalking.

Although all of the statistics provided by ifamericaknew are accurate, the "fact" that the Zionist Support Group hereabouts will call founder Alison Weir an anti-semite should be sufficient to discredit the web site, but only in the eyes of brain dead brutes and similar zio-fascists.

Rightwing Israelis have published not editorials but opinion pieces in Ha'aretz. This papaer is and has been a Yahad (formerly Meretz) bastion and publishes much anti-Zionist material. Some of its reporting suggests a reflection of anti-Zionist slant by some journalists. The token presence of opinion pieces by rightwingers doesn't belie the fact that Haaretz occasionally is slanted against Israel.

In the case of the BBC you have a strange tendency to construe a given bias as almost the opposite. But the fact remains that gobs of instances and occasions have proven pro-Palestinian and also anti-Israeli bias in the BBC. You'd rather avert your attention from them and insinuate that pundits like CAMERA are behaving bizarrely for pointing that bias out.

NOTE: I'm still waiting for your reply to the question you've evaded on http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1774983_comment.php#1776615.

Brighter than Finkelstein, and actually capable of thinking on his feet, he avoided all mention of his failed academic boycott of Israel, but reiterated his desire to turn israel into a "Pariah State". He also expressed his hope for the "One state" solution- known locally as the Rwanda solution. (your neighbors kill you in your beds at night). Israel, land of free press allows someone like Pappe to continue teaching, lecturing and publishing. Are there any Arab states that would allow this kind of dissent?

" Ah- you are learning what it is like to live in a democracy like Israel now!"

Israel has many positive things about it for those who happen to be citizens. South Africa also had great social programs and freedoms for whites but those positive things didnt take away from the larger problem of segregation. With Israel the issue is a little more complicated than S Africa since the segregation is legally by citizenship rather than by religion or race but that doesnt negate the suffering of those in the West Bank who really face no future where they are even citizens of a country, let alone citizens of a Democracy.

The double standard that people claim in terms of reporting about Israel is only a a double standard if you look at the world in simplistic terms. Taking S Africa agains as a comparison, you could probably make an argument that many countries in Africa aside from apartheid S Africa had fewer freedoms and claim that the focus was a double standard. During the struggle for Civil RIghts in the US the right-wing could similarly have asked why peopel were complaining when many other countries had fewer rights for everyone. But oppressing people because of their identity is worse than repressiing everyone even if the repression is less (for example, a 10pm curfew for everyone in one country might be oppressive but it would be a lot less offensive than a 11pm curfew for just peopel of color or peopel who are Jewish)

But other countries in the region treat minorities worse than Israel. Doesnt that make any focus on Israel without a focus on those other countries a double standard. Again one has to get beyond the simplistic notion of fairness and look at why there is or isnt a focus. Palestinians are a focus because Palestinians are suffering, Palestinians are fighting back against the suffering and Palestinians are active in the politics of many neighboring countries making their plight an issue. The same is of course ture of the Kurds in S Turkey, the Bahai in Iran or women in Saudi Arabia.
The Kurds in Turkey may face short periods of worse oppression than the Palestinians but Turkey claims them as citizens so they are much more like Arab Israelis than like Palestinians in the West Bank. Religious minorities in Iran are also citizens and are a small enough group that their plight doesnt resonate among relatives in neighboring countries. WOen in Saudi Arabia are almost noncitizens and are half the population but as of yet dont form a unified political block with a fixed set of demands.

So getting back to media bias.

Why doest the BBC cover attacks on Palestinians more than attacks on Chechens? Because the Palestinian struggle matters to more poeple than the Chechen conflict due to the politicas of the Middle East, Britains involvement in Iraq and the British role in Palestine before Israel was created (Britian also covers Kenya more than Algeria for the same reason).

Why does Haaretz cover stories about Palestinian suffering moire than most papers in the US and why does it cover the Palestinian plight more than the plight of Saudi women? Haaertz is an Israeli paper so it has more local coverage than coverage of other countries.

When antiPalestinian types claim bias against Israel they usually are referring to amount of coverage more than bias in the individual coverage and as I just pointed out this make almost no sense if you think about the BBC and Haaretz.

In terms of actual content the BBC is marginally more sympathetic to Israelis than Palestinians in their English language coverage and Haaretz is extremely more sympathetic to Israelis than Palestinians, with constant ads to help victims of Palestinian attacks with no similar ads to help the larger number of civilian victims of Israelis attack (its always about us and them which makes sense if you take as a given that the West Bank isnt part of Israel which isnt how much of the talk has been going lately with people who used to no sounds rightwing starting to defend settlements that will make 2 states impossible). The bias against Palestinians in the BBC and US media is one of context. Palestinians are always portrayed as part of the conflict with Israel and rarely portrayed as human outside of how it relates to the conflict. One can find business, arts and other stories relating to Israel but very little that makes an audience relate to individual Palestinians. This is partlu because Palestins are living under occupation and have little in terms of an economy to support nonconflict related stories but its also because Israel is culturally much more similar to the UK than are the Palestinians (which also acounts for why reporters spend more time in Israel among Israelis than among Palestinians).

"gobs of instances and occasions have proven pro-Palestinian and also anti-Israeli bias in the BBC"

This sort of proof seems a little strange. If one takes a given week and claims the BBC is more biased towards the Palestinians since more stories were written about Palestinians being killed by Israelis (even if the stories seem to justify the killings) than the opposite you have to at least account for the fact that in the last week more Palestinians were actually killed by Israelis than vice-versa.

The charge of bias is very similar to how the rightwing media in the US uses its charge of liberal bias. A conservative media advocacy group could claim that the US media in the past week has shown a liberal bias by carrying stories about deaths in Iraq, Bush's failed Supreme Court nomination, charges against Libby for lies related to abuse of power, ... But those stories are real stories and just covering whats going on doesnt show bias. The fact is the media has a proBush slant and is forced to cover these stories because they have to since they are major news stories (and to compensate all of them including NPR have more Republicans defending themselves on the air than people who oppose the abuses of power)

Proving bias by counting numbers of times things are covered really provides no proof of anything unless you have something to compare it with and with most things there isnt a neutral yardstick so one can never really prove bias unless its really blatant or the group conducting the study is itself nonbiased (and who is to say who isnt biased)

The anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian biases in the BBC indeed are really blatant. Actually the bias is not proven solely by the number of pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel reports per week, but also by the various ways (through both comission and omission) they make documentaries about things happening in Israel, like its atomic capabilities or arsenal. This was pointed out to you in the past but you've forgotten.

One reason why left-leaning publications cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more than other conflicts is because the reader base is undecided.

How many stories can you publish about Sudan, Chechnya, and Tibet? Most readers already know whats wrong and dont need any more proof. The amount of hard news from these conflicts is low since the conflicts are hard to cover since there arent plush hotels nearby to stay. Without much new hard news all one can do is repeat the same facts over and over again. It doesnt really help the Tibetans any more to have another free Tibet rally since there isnt anybody to convince plus there is rarely any real hard news on Tibet to get out to people.

With the Israeli conflict there is constant news with a variety of viewpoints but usually with agreement on the facts. And everytime an editorial is published there is going to be a response so the debate itself leads to discussion. On Darfur you can write a long diatribe about how horrible it is but with nobody to argue with you dont have anything to respond to in future diatribes except for repetition of the original points. But with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict any article about the plight of Palestinians is meet with a barrage of people defending Israel'ss actions which creates room for more editorials responding etc...

There is always new news about the Israel-Palestinian conflict but the reason it gets so much focus is mainly because unlike other conflicts there is a base of people who will defend every action Israel does. If a site like this had a post every day about brutal actions by the Colombian military it's likely that most such posts would get lost since there may be people who feel strongly in their defense of the FARC but there are less people who would go out of their way to reply to every post with demonization of the FARC and a defense of the Colombian government.
You could try to say the same thing in the other direction but its less true than you might think; there actually are a lot of people in the Bay Area who feel just as stronly about the FARC, the PKK, and other such groups as they do about the Palestinians (there just arent people to argue with online so discussion dies out due to agreement)

Another example of the War on Drugs/Terror acting as a conduit for huge sums of US aid (Mostly military) for a right wing regime....

" they make documentaries about things happening in Israel, like its atomic capabilities"

Israel has nukes and it appears to have obtained them with the help of some in the British military. Are you saying that a BBC story about this shows bias against Israel? How? If the story is true and it relates to Britian you expect Britian to cover it on the BBC so I dont see how complaining about the BBC digging into how British nuclear scientists helped Israel get nukes is anymore anti-Israel than it is antiBritish (its a story that make both countries look bad but its a true story that has new facts that have emerged in the past few months)

If you want to talk about blatant bias you can compare how the BBC has dealt with the Harrari assasination vs Israel's assassination of nonmiliitary leaders of Hamas or the Iraqi governments assassination of Sunnis (extrajudicial executions by the Badr militia). Or you could look at coverage of car bombings of civilians in Iraq vs killings in Israel. Wy does the violence in Iraq get covered so little? Why will one see editorials defending Israel's nukes on the BBC but never see any articles defending Iranian nukes (or Pakistani or Indian nukes) Some BBC journalists may feel sorry for the poor Palestinians but they stay in nice hotels in Israel and socialize more with Israelis than Palestinians so the coverage accused of bias could also be seen as paternalistically biased against the Palestinians (in that the portrayals of them are much more 1-dimensonal than the portrayals of Israelis and while one sees interviews with many Israeli peace activists you never see similar interviews with the majority of Palestinians who oppose violence).

One also has to consider what one means by direction of bias.
One could claim that coverage of Israeli peace activists and Hamas members would be extreme bias (and this isnt what the BBC does) but is it bias against Palestinians or bias against Israelis since it show the world a much more positive view of the Isralis than the Palestinians (even if the words written may be in the opposite direction). Interviewing an extremist on one side and a moderate on the other seems to be a bias in the direction of the cause of the moderate if thats the view thats most likely to resonate with world public opinion.

In your anxiousness to prove me wrong or yourself right, you're making some peculiar statements like Israel apparently has obtained its nukes with help from British military officials. Never mind that it was France that provided Israel with the nuclear reactors way back in the early 1960's from which the nukes were manufactured.

Also, if you wanted, you would have researched on the web exactly how that documentary ended up being biased against Israel. But you're not interested as that would disarm your argumemnt here and you're only too aware of that.

I don't see the point in further debating someone so desperate to avoid the facts so I'll leave the limelight to you.

" Israel apparently has obtained its nukes with help from British military officials."

here is a link to one story
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=117469®ion=3

here it is on the BBC a few months ago

"Britain secretly sold Israel a key ingredient for its nuclear programme in 1958, according to official documents obtained by BBC News.

Papers in the British National Archives show a deal was done to export 20 tonnes of heavy water for about £1.5m.

This was vital for plutonium production at the top-secret Dimona nuclear reactor in Israel's Negev desert.

No "peaceful use only" condition was placed on its use. Officials said imposing one would be "over zealous".

Ministers in Harold Macmillan's government were unaware of the deal. It was also kept secret from the US.

In one of the documents Foreign Office official Donald Cape concluded: "On the whole I would prefer not to mention this to the Americans."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4743987.stm

I mentioned that as an example of nuke coverage not because it makes Israel look better or worse.
Irans nukes make nukes in the Middle East a story now but these documents that were just discovered also explain recent focus in Britain even though the story is much more about Britian than Israel in the case of the heavy water sent to Israel.

"researched on the web exactly how that documentary ended up being biased against Israel."

So you are saying the BBC is biased against Israel, claim that there was a documentary about nukes where the BBC was biased and then dont even provide a link or refer to how it was biased.

I can look but it seems like the usual right-wing attacks on the media as liberal. The charges are always expressed in a vague fashion with no real evidence and its left up to those responding to prove a lack of bias even if many of those who disagree think the BBC is biased in the other direction.
I wouldnt doubt that you can provide a single case of some story that makes the BBC look biased against Israel that I would agree with you on since its a huge organization with thousands of poepel writing stories. One can also find an ocassional liberal slant in the US media even though its more progovernment than even many state run medias in other countries (with fox news sounding crazier than TV in Iraq under Saddam).

The point about Britain nukes and Israel was more a response to an assumption that the charges was in the quantity of coverage rather than the content. Of course a documentary on Israeli nukes is going to make Israel look bad just as documentaries about US nukes or French nukes make the US and France look bad. But just because something makes you look bad doesnt mean its not true and doesnt mean those behind the documentaries have a bias (if the story is one that has a modern hookin and thus demands new coverage)

is that this stuff the BBC's revealing is just the tip of the iceberg. High-level people throughout the West simply HAD to be involved. Since Israel couldn't do any testing, it must have recieved off-the-shelf designs from Western countries with established programs. This is a really short list. Here goes: U.S., U.K, France. We're not hearing 99.9% of this story, and my money says the U.S. was the biggest player by far.

but I thought every last israeli was a super-genious nobel laureate and they built their country straight up on their own from their bootstraps in a barren desert with no help from the outside world, and a big point zionists always make to belittle palestinians is if they did it why can't the palestinians (implying a mental defect or something)

this really changes everything

maybe we should now give palestinians hundreds of billions of US dollars for the next 50 years and hook them up with the bomb as well.

bet the israelis would suddently figure out how to play nice and finally be fairminded about things

The thing is, you have either not read the material or shut it out of your mind. I see little point in giving you the ame link or another only to find you making the same erroneous arguments some time down the road.

". I see little point in giving you the ame link"

The only link I can see is the one from CAMERA.
I dont see anything related to a biased BBC report about nukes on the first few pages of that site and the stuff I can see on the site is very unconvincing since in some cases it amounts to saying that opinion pieces critical of settlements show bias against Israel; those pieces show bias y those who wrote them against the Israeli right but last time I looked at polls a majority of Israel opposed the settlements so I dont see how opinion pieces saying that settlements make a two state solution harder are biased against Israel.

Again we are back to a usual Righty form of argument. A baseless accusation is tossed out mainly as a smear and then when challenged its claimed that its up to those who disgaree with the smear to find the evidence in support of the smear since its obvious and we must be stupid if we cant find it. If you want to smear the BBC (which I think most of the world sees as centrist or even slightly right of center) great, but why should we have to do the work for you when it comes to finding articles that are biased rather than at least having you provide your own evidence?

Of course once you do proivide "evidence" its likely that many of us will have questions about it so you throw that out as a reason that you dont have to back up your claim. Perhaps that is becasue you really are worried about the low quality of the work done by CAMERA and others who claim liberal bias? I can also claim there is hard scientific evidene that the BBC is racist and hates Palestinians and then tell you its pointless to provide links to site but suggest maybe you look at FAIR and MediaMatters. If there actually were reports on those sites (which I dont know if there are) and i provided you a link you could probably come up with arguments as to why the studies were flawed (since proving bias isnt a scientific thing) By not providing you the link and making your look for it I allow myself to never have to argue about specuifics since I can just keep telling you that I meant a different study and accuse you of using a straw man argument by finding such weak studies. Its a common Righty form of argument used all the time by OReilly on Fox News; deny the facts outright, never provide references to backup anything and then cut off the conversation if anyone asks for evidence; if people get really upset and demand evidence then the debate can be shifted to one of whether there is evidence and really low quality evidence can be provided but the argument is already won since the debate was shifted and it can be claimed that so much work went into providing the evidence its not worth defending it since it stands on its own (for example global warming is declared something Scientists agree is a myth and when people claim shoddy reporting one of the few scientists who disagrees with global warming is referenced and the low quality reference is declared in the form of an "I told you so" and then its suggested "those crazy liberals have acused of of lying and we backed up our claim why do we have to waste any more time debating them when they were so clearly wrong")


Here are some links debunking that the BBC was antiWar in the leadup to Iraq:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/newsevents/5309.html
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/156
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,991227,00.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml

"The only link I can see is the one from CAMERA. "

Hint: Patricia Abbatoy's piece on the BBC and the site http://www.bbcwatch.com/. I'd bet you have never even read either of these.

Bye until the next time you "don't remember".

Iran is a pariah, an outlaw state. It doesn't belong in the UN.

Just looked through the links on the left side of http://www.bbcwatch.com
(http://www.bbcwatch.com/ doesnt work for some reason) and cant find an article by Patricia Abbatoy.

The reports on Iraq coverage are strange since they are really about Israel rather than Iraq.

I agree that the BBC was biased towards the Birtihs government in its Iraq coverage and would even agree with statements like:
"The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops. Israeli troops receive totally different treatment"
http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/newreport.html
If that report were just on Iraq I would think that it was a great report showing proWar bias by the BBC.
But somehow Israel gets brought into every paragraph.

If the argument of the paper wast hat the BBC excuses acts done by the British military compared to acts done by any other military (including Israel). I would agree with that. The US media also consistently values American lives over the lives of others and is much more critical of the actions of other militaries but until recently shied away from criticism of the US military.

If you want to do a side by side comparison to show specific BBC bias against Israel the comparison needs to be made between coverage of foreign conflicts not involving Israel like Chechnya, Zimbabwe, the Congo... If you look at storied on those subjects you will see that the bias is pretty proIsrael in comparison. I could point out that the BBC is much more critical of Mugabe than of Sharon and say this proves proIsrael bias (a side by side comparison doesnt prove bvias when the sides being compared are acting differently...)

In any case, could you provide a link to the actual report by Patricia Abbatoy that you are referring to? (its a frame based site so click in the frame and get the url from there since the one at the top of your browser is for the front page)

Do you mean all the media should be biased against Israel?

http://www.jewishdefenseleague.org/israel/bbc_bias.shtml

(yeah yeah, how easy it is to knock the venue hosting her article...and Honest Reporting...and CAMERA... using expected aspersions to the tune of "righty" vs. "liberals")

Gee... this was sooooo hard for you to find through Google.

... what about your opinion? Should the media be biased against Israel? If yes, why? If not, why?

Many thanks for the URL. Sounds good.

My point was that the BBC seems to value British lives over Israeli lives in their coverage but that this doesnt show a bias against Israel but rather a bias towards Britian. The BBC seems to value Israeli lives over Palestinian lives and Palestinian lives over Iraqi lives if you look at how much they cover each civilian death.

Should the BBC value British lives over the lives of nonBritish nationals? No.
Is this specifically an antiIsraeli bias? No

Is the coverage the BBC does of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more biased towards the Israelis or the Palestinians?
Looking at how much coverage each civilian death gets it seems to be more biased towards the Israelis.

But the Palestinians are treated far better than the Iraqis in terms of coverage since civilian deaths at British hands and civilian deaths due to car bombs both get far less coverage per death than the death of an Israeli or the death of a Palestinian. Covergae of deaths in Darfur or Chechnya get even less coverage than Iraq.

The Iraq coverage bias can partly be explained due to a form of nationalism and coverage fatigue that exists in all of the worlds newsorganizations (with car bombs every day a new car bomb in Iraq is less important a story than one in Israel). The BBC also seems to have come under both governmental and probably right-wing public pressure to minimize criticism of British soliders. Some studies show it as more proWar than most other British news sources.

The proIsrael coverage is partly a matter of where reporters live (among Israelis in general rather than among Palestinians) and because attacks on Israeli civilians are rarer than attacks on Palestinian civlians so each attack gets more coverage. Plus it becomes a news story in that Israel is expected to respond whereas Palestinians are expected to let leaders get assassinated and bombs dropped in busy civilian areas without responding (although really this is only a recent trend since Abbas has been able to hold Hamas back from major attacks and the media has only started to assume that Palestinians wouldnt respond when there were no major responses to the Hamas leadership assasinations on the scale predicted at the time by most of the media) I guess you could say that expecting Israel to not have a long term strategy and play the game of the sucide bombers by letting them get in the way of negotiations could be seen as an antiIsrael bias (since it assumes Israel is stupid) but it results in a minimazation of how much the media values the lives of Palestinians killed over Israelis killed (so in that way its a proIsraeli bias but maybe a bias against the government of Israel in terms of expectation of competence?).

Thanks for the link. I'll reposnd to it after work (I have to get offline for a bit)

Being hosted by the JDL doesnt prove bias but "This article was commissioned by the Jewish Defense League." at the end is a little more problematic. I'll judge it on the merit of what it says when I read it later today but I wonder if you would do the same if someone gave you a link to something attacking Israel comissioned by Hamas (since both Hamas and the JDL are classified as terrorist groups...)

The JDL individuals who committed terror acts over the last two decades or so did them in the capacity of American-Jews but not on the JDL's behalf.

i'm sure mr. nobel, the inventor of dynamite, would be impressed by these little memories :::

the fourth geneva convention was instituted to **criminalize** formerly the crimes of the nazis in occupied europe, a core principle of international humanitarian law .

Its applicability to the occupied territories repeatedly been reaffirmed, among other occasions, by UN ambassador george bush (september 1971) and by security council resolutions.........

there have been 100 security council resolutions against israel, 35 of which have been vetoed by sugar-d and none complied with.

let's take a sampling for mr. dynamite:

Resolution 465 (1980), adopted unanimously, which condemned israeli practices as "flagrant" violations of the convention, and

resolution 1322 (october 2000), 14-0 (sugar-d, israel’s master abstained - with due modesty), which called on israel "to abide scrupulously by its responsibilities under the fourth geneva convention."

As high contracting parties sugar-d and his european "cousines" (that's frog talk for "buddies") are obligated by solemn treaty to *apprehend and prosecute* those responsible for such crimes, including their own leadership.

fat chance - right yiddle??

in fact, by continuing to reject that **duty**, sugar-d and his cousines are "enhancing terror" - to borrow W's words condemning palestinians.

sugar-d's stance has shifted over the years from endorsement of the applicability of the conventions to the **occupied*** (not "disputed") territories, to abstention during the clinton years, and finally to undermining them under W.

I'm sure the inventor of one of the earliest weapons of mass destruction would find these facts fascinating as well:

Every leader of israel from the ethnic cleansing in 1948 was a war criminal as defined by humanitarian international law:

david ben-gurion - the nakbah 800,000 cleansed

levi eshkol - conquests of 1967 (including more ethnic cleansing, 300,000)

menachem begin – nobel peace prize for deir yassin and lebanon

yitzhak rabin - nobel peace prize winner in charge of bone breaking of the first intifada and the "evacuation" of 60,000 unarmed palestinian civilians from ramleh and lydda in 1948.

peres - nobel peace prize winner for the destruction of qana

barak - personally took part in the assassination of palestinian leaders, extrajudicial killings in violation of the conventions.

sharon - lead the massacres of qibya and was directly responsible for sabra and shatila and for his control of khiam prison, a medieval torture prison of immense proportions. Recently declared a “man of peace” by W, himself a war criminal for the aggressions and international terrorism in iraq and afghanistan

so there you have it, quite of few nobel peace prize winners later, their crimes well known in the islamic and arab worlds, but hardly a peep in the west.

i'm sure mr. dynamite would be proud, but hey, who's counting, eh yiddle??

personally, yid, not to get all mushi on yuh, but I must say, with this peace-prizing record, one has to wonder.

You missed the UN resolution condemning Israel for rescuing the hostages at Entebbe but not condemning the hijackers. Or my personal favorite, the UNs refusal to pass a resolution condemning violence against Israeli children although a nearly identical one condemning violence agaist Palestinian children had been passd shortly before.

Don't get too excited about UN resolutions, the place is a debnating society, nothing more, and is dominated by dictatorships, Moslem States, Arab States, and their oil dependant followers.

And you've missed my favorite ethnic cleansing/genocide thread.
The Palestinain population went from 600,000 in 1948 to over 4 million today.
The Palestinians have among the highest birth rates in the world. Why is this genocide? How is this ethnic cleansing?

The Palestinain population (in the disputed territories) stands at about 3.6 million at present.

I'm seeing near or over 4 million in several sources, less in others. What source do you use?
The point still stands, though. This is not genocide

Tia

uh Tia, the Palestinians lie about their population to make the demographic timebomb look more threatening and so they can keep using the UNRWA ration cards of dead relatives.

Since the intifada's outbreak there's been an exodus of Palestinians, probably mostly Christian, from the disputed territories.

According to Jewish Virtual Library, the total estimate was about 3.4 million in 2002

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/paldem1.html (see source at bottom)


On 1/17/2005 a commenter on http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/36-18242.asp estimated based on findings of a pretty recent demographic study conducted by an eight-person team that the total was about 2.4 million (!!!). This person seems to be making a compelling argument based on solid facts.

Some elaboration on the manner in which the 2.4 million figure was arrived at is found on http://www.pademographics.com/Palestinian%20overcount%20--%20The%20Washington%20Times.htm. Note the very telling finale:

"The study already has at least one unlikely ally: the Palestine Central Elections Commission. According to the agency's own Oct. 14 press release, a million Palestinians had registered to vote, which represented two-thirds of adults. Of the 1.5 million eligible adults (not counting 110,000 eligible Jerusalem Arabs), the release stated that 200,000 were living abroad.
"This PA-released figure meshes almost exactly with the study's final conclusion that the actual Palestinian population is approximately 2.4 million.
"So now that at least part of the PA apparatus has (unintentionally) agreed with the new demographic study, the question becomes: Will the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Israel finally disown the myth of 3.8 million Palestinians?"

However, you can count on the Useful Idiots reading this to keep clutching onto the inflated 4 million figure.

Rest assured though, I concur that the Arab population in the disputed territories has grown handsomely since 1948.

Also... the lowest estimate of the Jewish population's tally in Judea & Samaria is 200,000... so they've almost achieved parity with the Palis...

The concluding sentence in my post -

"Also... the lowest estimate of the Jewish population's tally in Judea & Samaria is 200,000... so they've almost achieved parity with the Palis..."

was a foolish error on my part.

i see, with a little diligent research, the previously inflated numbers of what some unidentified people around here call "moslem baby factories," seem to be, at this point, subject to serious debate.

personally, i find that slur offensive and racist to the core. from a quick read, it also seems some people have recently been "timed-out" by indybay. i wonder why? i'm sure it couldn't have anything to do with the anti-arabite "moslem baby factories," i know this because i've seen it here **many** times before.

apparently, that little gem doesn't cross the **line** here. i assume it never will. kinda like "breathin air." comes out freely and automatically.

yet when we read the "anti-s" verbiage, somehow it's taken on that **aura** of something complex, almost *mystic,* requiring some seriously "scholarly" tea-leaf readings by the *doctor* caste. pretty impressive, downright *awe inspirin.*

know whatta mean???

A little late and a bit pointless, but I agreed to resond to the JDL article about BBC bias. The article mainly focuses on statements by several jouranlists either outside of their jobs or in editorials.

Aside from the generalization of 1-2 journalists' statements in editorials (and one claim of a statement at a Hamas rally that isnt backed up), the place where the argument breaks down the worst can be seen in the following quote:
" Clearly, her controversial statements were made in during a commentary, but it nevertheless raises serious questions: Is it ever appropriate for a working journalist to inject his or her personal feelings into a news story or commentary, especially one as volatile and divisive as the death of a Palestinian leader?"

If there is one place that mainstream corporate journalist always editorialize its funerals. During the Pope's funder there were journalists talking about their fond memories of him but almost no interviews dealing with issues like abuse in the Church, abortion or condoms. When Reagan died the US media made him out to be a hero (with tears on the national news programs from journalists who seem uneffected by mass deaths in wars) when he was one of the worst leaders this country has ever had. Hirohito's funderal was an even stranger event with journalists on the left and right talking in loving terms about a leader who was behind mass rape camps, medical expirements on prisoners, an alliance with Hitler and other brutal attrocities.

That a few BBC jouranlists in editorials said they were saddened by Arafat's death does not prove bias. It may suggest that those jouranlists liked Arafat but it may equally reflect a mourning of the passing of time or just melodramatic sentimentality one always sees in the nightly news. Given the way the media responds to the deaths of people with much more brutal records (like Hirohito and Reagan) its hard to see the BBC at fault for this and with much criticism of Arafat in the BBC website on the day of his death one would think the double standard was in the other direction (when Sharon dies I would bet the BBC would be more respectly and probably just talk about the positive things).

Anything for a diversion. Anything to keep the world's attention focused away from the illegal, immoral, unjustified, and craven attack on Iraq, and the over 100,000 Iraqi dead, the over 2000 US dead, etc., etc.

Anything to keep the world's attention focused on something other than the brutal ongoing occupation of the terrorist state in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

The comments of Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, were just that. Words. However, it was heaven sent fodder for the Israelis and their supporters. Another chance to have the "poor me/poor us" mentality click in, and blather to the international community that you must remove Iran from the UN, you must make sure it doesn't have nuclear weapons. Ad nauseum.

And then there was Shimon Peres, who masquerades as this peace loving, tolerant individual and is anything but, opening his mouth to show the world how totally asinine he is.

Remember what he said? Yes, dear people, there was Peres, looking suitably mournful (something he does well and often) declaring that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were "a crime against humanity".

We gasped in disbelief. Excuse me? A crime against humanity? Someone take this hypocrite aside and enlighten him, for God's sakes. This coming from the likes of Shimon Peres who ordered the Qana massacre in 1996 wherein the remains of 106 innocent people were splattered around the UN compound, courtesy of Israeli bombing, innocent civilians who had fled to the UN compound expecting safety from the onslaught of Israeli attacks on their towns and villages leading up to the massacre.

Of course, he mournfully described it as an "accident", but given the evidence at the time, no one but a fool would believe it. Israel, as always, got away with it, which only goes to show that the lives of 106 people are, in the eyes of the UN and the world at large, meaningless. And yet - if I may digress - such an uproar over the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

There's a hell of a lot of difference in saying something and doing something. When it comes to wiping towns, villages, people off the map, Israel has a long and brutal history of returning one and all to dust with practised ease..

How it is that this terrorist state continues to be a member of the UN is beyond my comprehension. How it can dare voice a comment about any other nation boggles the mind.

What is Peres saying about the sonic booms that are terrrorizing the Palestinian poeple? Bet he's not calling the ongoing death and destruction and terror against the Palestinina people a "crime against humanity". No, because Israel is the one carrying it out.

And, of course, the international community fell over backwards trying to appease Israel whilst demonizing Iran. If the international community had the guts God gave a flea, it would have called a news conference and listed off every single crime against humanity, every single massacre, every single assassination carried out by Israel. Then ask the world what it thinks.

Both your patent hypocracy and the fact that you chose to post here rather than on SFindymedia is amazing.

One of the great myths that the Palestinians like to propagate is that only their struggle is central. Its jus tone of many conflicts, its just this one has a big oil funded propaganda campaign and a cadre of useful idiots.

Lets highlight your double standards shall we;


1. Any uproar over the assassination of Ze'evi, a sitting member of the Israeli cabinet? Not from Angie.

2. Any comment from Angie about Iran openly going nuclear and threatening to wipe out another UN member? Nope.

3. Any comment from ANgie about over 25,000 Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians since the start of the current intifada while still having the PA ass a UN presence? nope.

4. How it is that this terrorist state, the PA continues to be a member of the UN is beyond my comprehension.

5. What is Angie is saying about the Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks that are terrrorizing the Israeli people? Bet she's not calling the ongoing death and destruction and terror against the Israeli people a "crime against humanity". No, because only Jews are the victims.

6. There's a hell of a lot of difference in saying something and doing something, like for instance, the Paledstinians honoring a single agreement that they've ever signed, including the current "cease fire", complete with never ending attacks.

7.If every single Palestinian crime against humanity, every single massacre, every single assassination carried out by the Palestinians, starting with those commisioned by the Grand Mufti AL -Husseinil. Then ask the world what it thinks.

Quite frankly, I'll post where I like, and as often as I like, and your pathetic attempt to brainwash readers is just that - pathetic.

The vast majority knows the real truth, and the vast majority will judge. Perhaps if you and your supporters of the terrorist state weren't so self-absorbed and forever whining about "poor us and poor me", you would see the situation in a different and more truthful light.

That won't happen, of course,

As for your figures of 25,000 attacks, let's have some documentation, hmm? List them. Go ahead. We're all eagerly waiting. Surely there is intelligence to back this up? Whoops! What am I saying? Flawed and invented "intelligence" is high on the agenda of certain nations nowadays, isn't it?

The terrorist state has taken lying, as well as killing, to new heights, and the sheep are, at least for now, content to follow.

Suffice to say, and I'm happy to say it, it won't last. Just as with everything else in this world, the truth shall emerge, and justice will triumph. I can't wait.

Its nice that you can post when ever and wherever you'd like because I can't. For instance, Sfindymedia instantly deletes any comments that aren't in line with pre-approved opinions. Free speech only for some.

Do your own homework re: 25,000 terror attacks or refute it with something credible. Don't simply believe the lies that the ISM tells you.

If you are neither Jew nor Arab, the only reasons for your involvment in the issue is questionable at best. If you were really interested in "justice" we wouldn't see the strange obession only with Israel would we? Your hate and half truths are begining to show already.

Talk to you tommorrow. Lets see if Sfindymedia instantly deletes my comments then.

The usual trolls on this site must be busy, so they had to rent a new one. (Think she's paid? think the others are paid? All that Arab Oil money floating around...its quite a tempation)

You really want to read about terror attacks on Israeli civilians?
Check out http://www.onefamilyfund.org

Here are some of these horrible attacks by Palestinians:

On January 13th 2005, two Palestinians in a cafe were heard talking about how Sharon was corrupt and using public funds to enrich himself (any attack on Sharon is an attack on Israel)

On January 14th 2005, a Palestinian history professor reportedly wrote something about Palestinians culture in the 1700s (any mention of Palestinians before 1948 is by definition an attack on Israel since "Palestinians" never existed)

On January 15th 2005, a Palestinian computer programmer talking to a friend abroad recommended java over php in an online computer forum (since php was invented in Israel this was essentially calling for a boycott of Israel which is by definition an antiSemitic attack that leads to Nazism)

On January 16th 2005, an Arab Israeli went to visit a relative in Israel (which is against the law in most cases and is considered an attack on Israel)

On January 17th 2005, a Palestinian kid used a tricycle to ride on a Jewish only access road in the West Bank violating Israel right to settle citizens in land that was never annexed and thus consituting an attack on Israel.

On January 18th 2005, an elderly Palestinian had a stroke and tried to get to a hospital and died at a roadblock waiting. His dead body was shown on TV worldwide which consituted an attack on Israel since any negative coverage of Israel is by definition an attack.

There were also some driveby shootings and a few pipe-bombs went off but no more than in any US city during the same time period. None of the violent attacks were really a threat to Israel since Israel has the most powerful army per capita in the world, but the incidents listed above were the types of dangerous attacks we must worry about everyday.

Sept 27, 2000 - Sgt. David Biri, 19, of Jerusalem, was fatally wounded in a bombing near Netzarim in the Gaza Strip.

Sept 29, 2000 - Border Police Supt. Yosef Tabeja, 27, of Ramle was shot to death by his Palestinian counterpart on a joint patrol near Kalkilya.

Oct 1, 2000 - Border Police Cpl. Madhat Yusuf, 19, of Beit Jann, died of gunshot wounds sustained in a gun battle with Palestinians at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus.

Oct 2, 2000 - Wichlav Zalsevsky, 24, of Ashdod, was shot in the head in the village of Masha on the trans-Samaria highway.
Sgt. Max Hazan, 20, of Dimona, died of gunshot injuries sustained near Beit Sahur.

Oct 8, 2000 - The bullet-riddled body of Hillel Lieberman, 36, of Elon Moreh was found at the southern entrance to Nablus.

Oct 12, 2000 - First Cpl. Yosef Avrahami and First Sgt. Vadim Norzhich, 33, two reserve IDF soldiers, were lynched by a Palestinian mob at the police building in Ramallah.

Oct 19, 2000 - Rabbi Binyamin Herling, 64, of Kedumim, was killed when Fatah members and Palestinian security forces opened fire on a group of Israeli men, women, and children on a trip at Mount Ebal near Nablus.

Oct 28, 2000 - The body of Marik Gavrilov, 25, of Bnei Aysh was found inside his burned-out car, between the village of Bitunia and Ramallah.

Oct 30, 2000 - Eish-Kodesh Gilmor, 25, of Mevo Modi'in, was shot and killed while on duty as a security guard at the National Insurance Institute's East Jerusalem branch. Another guard was injured.
Amos Machlouf, 30, of the Gilo neighborhood in Jerusalem, was found murdered in a ravine near Beit Jala.

Nov 1, 2000 - Lt. David-Hen Cohen, 21, of Karmiel and Sgt. Shlomo Adshina, 20, of Kibbutz Ze'elim were killed in a shooting incident in the Al-Hader area, near Bethlehem.

Nov 1, 2000 - Maj. (res.) Amir Zohar, 34, of Jerusalem was killed in the Nahal Elisha settlement in the Jordan Valley while on active reserve duty.

Nov 2, 2000 - Ayelet Shahar Levy, 28, and Hanan Levy, 33, were killed in a car bomb explosion near the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem. 10 people were injured in the blast. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Nov 8, 2000 - Noa Dahan, 25, of Moshav Mivtahim in the south, was shot to death while driving to her job at the Rafah border crossing in Gaza.

Nov 10, 2000 - Sgt. Shahar Vekret, 20, of Lod was fatally shot by a Palestinian sniper near Rachel's Tomb at the entrance to Bethlehem.

Nov 11, 2000 - Sgt. 1st Class Avner Shalom, 28, of Eilat, was killed in a shooting attack at the Gush Katif junction in the Gaza Strip.

Nov 13, 2000 - Sarah Leisha, 42, of Neveh Tzuf was killed by gunfire from a passing car while travelling near Ofra, north of Ramallah.
Cpl. Elad Wallenstein, 18, of Ashkelon, and Cpl. Amit Zanna, 19, of Netanya were killed by gunfire from a car passing the military bus carrying them near Ofra.

Nov 13, 2000 - Gabi Zaghouri, 36, of Netivot was killed by gunfire directed at the truck he was driving near the Kissufim junction in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.

Nov 18, 2000 - St.-Sgt. Baruch (Snir) Flum, 21, of Tel-Aviv was shot and killed by a senior Palestinian Preventive Security Service officer who infiltrated the Kfar Darom greenhouses in the Gaza Strip.
St.-Sgt. Sharon Shitoubi, 21, of Ramle, wounded in the Palestinan shooting attack in Kfar Darom, died of his wounds on Nov 20.

Nov 20, 2000 - Miriam Amitai, 35, and Gavriel Biton, 34, both of Kfar Darom, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded alongside a bus carrying children from Kfar Darom to school in Gush Katif. Nine others, including 5 children, were injured.

Nov 21, 2000 - Itamar Yefet, 18, of Netzer Hazani died from a gunshot wound to the head by Palestinian sniper fire at the Gush Katif junction.

Nov 22, 2000 - Shoshana Reis, 21, of Hadera, and Meir Bahrame, 35, of Givat Olga, were killed, and 60 wounded when a powerful car bomb was denotated alongside a passing bus on Hadera's main street, when the area was packed with shoppers and people driving home from work. 60 were wounded in the blast.

Nov 23, 2000 - Lt. Edward Matchnik, 21, of Beersheba, was killed in an explosion at the District Coordination Office near Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. (The joint DCOs were established at the borders of Palestinian-ruled areas under the interim peace accords and were responsible for coordinating security and humanitarian cooperation.)

Nov 23, 2000 - Sgt. Samar Hussein, 19, of Hurfeish, was killed when Palestinian snipers opened fire at soldiers patrolling the border fence near the Erez crossing.

Nov 24, 2000 - Maj. Sharon Arameh, 25, of Ashkelon was killed by Palestinian sniper fire in fighting near Neve Dekalim in the Gaza Strip.

Nov 24, 2000 - Ariel Jeraffi, 40, of Petah Tikva, a civilian employed by the IDF, was killed by Palestinian fire as he travelled near Otzarin in the West Bank.

Dec 8, 2000 - Rina Didovsky, 39, a Beit Hagai school teacher on her way to work, and Eliyahu Ben-Ami, 41, of Otniel, the driver of the van, were killed when a car full of gunmen opened fire on the van near Kiryat Arba.

Dec 8, 2000 - Sgt. Tal Gordon, 19, was killed when gunmen in a passing car opened fire on an Egged bus traveling south from Tiberias to Jerusalem on the Jericho bypass road.

Dec 21, 2000 - Eliahu Cohen, 29, of Modi'in was shot and killed tonight by Palestinian terrorists waiting in ambush on the road between Givat Ze'ev and Beit Horon.

Dec 28, 2000 - Capt. Gad Marasha, 30, of Kiryat Arba and Border Police Sgt.-Maj. Yonatan Vermullen, 29, of Ben-Shemen, were killed when called to dismantle a road-side bomb near the Sufa crossing in the Gaza Strip. The bomb was dismantled, but another bomb exploded, killing both and injuring two other soldiers. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 31, 2000 - Binyamin Zeev Kahane, the son of the late right-wing leader Meir Kahane, and his wife, Talia, were killed when Palestinian snipers opened fire while they were driving on the Ramallah bypass road. Five of their children, aged two months to 10 years, were injured.

When I was going to work this morning I went into the bathroom at Burger King and wrote my thoughts about how great Israel was on the side of a stall. When I was heading home I checked in for responses and they had cleaned the wall. Talk about censorship. They violated my free speech rights since I have a right to write whatever I want wherever I want. Isnt that what this country is all about?

"2 months worth"
Those were all during the start of the second Intifada.... a lot of Palestinians were killed during that same time. I bet you could come up with a lot longer list of Sunnis killed by Shias and Shias killed by Sunnis in the past month in Iraq. Hell, you could come up with a longer list of people killed by each other in Texas during that same two months; you know what they say about Texas, you can never make peace with them because they are so violent. A few years ago some woman even drove her kids into the water to kill them... I mean its hard to even think of Texans as humans when they do stuff like that.

run, Forest, run

it's smackdown time for Yid

poor fella, thinks he's spending his time productively here

"On September 28, Palestinians riot after Israeli former military and opposition leader Ariel Sharon, with 1,000 Israeli troops, visits the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is also the site of the Al-Aqsa mosque and Sharon proclaims the area eternal Israeli territory. The violence escalates rapidly with many casualties on both sides, although the loss of life falls far more heavily on the Palestinians. Less than a year later, Sharon is elected Prime Minister of Israel"

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1678064.php

I have 26 pages worth- i thought i''d spare you the whole list, but if you really want, just ask, and I can give you a list of every Israeli killed during hte last intifada.

It includes soldiers, as well as kids who happened to be dancing or eating pizza or attending a party, or holding their grandmothers hand at a bus stop. It includes Jews, Christians and Israeli Arabs. They have all been victims. You want the whole list, you've got it. Just ask.


BTW, I'm not Yid.

and you are trying to imply that Israel has ONLY killed adult males of fighting age in the same period as your extensive notes?

I betcha if Palestinians had attack helicopters and missiles that a lot more of the Israeli Army would be dead and less civilians. If they could shoot missiles at Sharon (as Israel does to their leaders), there would be little need for "terrorist" attacks to achieve their goals.

Anyway, does your list include the thousands of individual Palestinians killed in the same period since 2000? Maybe it's too many for you to keep track of? Or do those lives not matter nearly as much to you?

The request was to document terror attacks in Israel during this time period. We were not asked to produce a recipe for chocolate cheesecake, information on changing the brake pads in a 1967 Chevelle or or a list of palestinains killed during this period of time. That would have been irrelevant.

Haaretz Sept 9, 2005

meron benvenisti

Out of some 140 village mosques that were abandoned due to the war in 1948, some 100 were totally torn down. The rest, about 40, are in advanced stages of collapse and neglect, or are used by the Jewish residents for other purposes. In a moshav in the Carmel mountains there is a mosque whose remnants still display its past grandeur. It is in a sad state of disrepair, it's walls are crumbling and it is surrounded by barbed wire fences. The requests of "present-absent" refugees (Palestinian who live in Israel but are classified by the state under the oxymoron `Present Absentees' to prevent them from claiming ownership of their property) to repair the mosque have been refused by the authorities.

A large mosque in the heart of a moshav in the Judean mountains serves as a warehouse and body shop for farming machines. There are 20 additional similar structures on the verge of collapse.

In 1997, when the residents of a community in the Western Galilee wanted to build an extention, they rammed the remnants of the village's abandoned mosque with a bulldozer and demolished it completely. Not far from there the authorities refuse to allow Palestinians to pray in the
ancient mosque of another abandoned village, using the excuse that such prayer is "political organizing, almost a settlement and would set a precedent for agreeing to let the Palestinians return."

Several mosques serve as housing, and others are used for commercial and cultural purposes. The mosque of an abandoned village on the Iron Valley serves a kibbutz carpentry. A mosque in an artists' community in the
Carmel serves partly as a restaurant and bar. Other mosques serve as museums and galleries. The large synagogue in a township near Rehovot is located inside the abandoned village's mosque, whose minaret was destroyed and the symbolic half crescent atop its dome has been replaced
by a menorah.

And we haven't even mentioned yet the tombs of sheikhs that have become graves of holy Jewish figures - the "Dan tomb" that replaced the tomb of Sheikh Gharib, a local holy man, or the tomb of Sit Sakina in Tiberias, which became the tomb of Rachel, Rabbi Akiva's wife. Less than 40 Moslem cemeteries remained out of more than 150 that existed in abandoned
villages. They too are run down and in constant danger of having their tombs smashed and of being violated and expropriated.

The Israeli government knows why it does not want to demand that the Palestinians protect synagogues. What if the Palestinians pose a counter demand - to compel Israel to look after the dilapidated mosques in its territory? And all the good-hearted people, whose heart aches to see the destruction of a synagogue - would they raise a hue and cry to save the mosques of Ijzim, Lajjun and Ghabbasiyah? At least they should acknowledge that the feelings aroused by the destruction of abandoned synagogues are also shared by hundreds of thousands of Israeli Moslems at the sight of their disappearing holy sights. Perhaps, when everyone recognizes that the pain over destruction is universal, the war over the holy places will end.

Interestingly enough, ISM's booklet "Remember the children" indicates that 75% o fthe Palestinian children killed during the 2nd Intifada were older teenage boys, clearly showing the use of these children as teen aged combatants.
Truly a war crime to use children in this manner.

chocolate cheesecake and dead palestinians

definitely irrelevent to this conversation

maybe a baking class on foods to make with walled off and oppressed peoples of this earth, mixed with a little endive. this recipe is quite tasty if you happento be in the oppressor class. it's a tad bitter if you are not so fortunate

trying to distract us from the cold blooded murders of Israeli civilians, I see?

Nice try.

I'll respond with a non-sequitor, too

Remeber what the Taliban did to the Beautiful centuries old Buddhist scuptures in Afghanistan? Sure you do. Islam is just so tolerant of other religions.

you had the nerve to ignore a direct question about palestinian deaths, which I knew you had no idea of in your meticulous notebook, and then you skip off to another country to degrade the muslim faith (" Remeber what the Taliban")

you big fat stinkin' hypocrite

how about if someone here, discussing the Israel/Palestine debacle, went off on a tangent about the Jewish faith? oh, my, you'd be up in arms about anti-semitism this anti-semitism that. if someone even sneezes something about zionism, the zionists here go nutso calling it antisemitism, but it's all good for you to take broadsides at a religion

you big fat stinkin' hypocrite

The Synagogue of Rabbi Yehuda HaHasid -- familiarly known as the Hurva -- was the central Ashkenazi synagogue of Jerusalem. The largest and most magnificent synagogue in the Middle East, it took eight years to build. Its grandiose dome, standing some eight stories high, dwarfed all the other structures of the Old City's Jewish Quarter.

Baron Alphonse de Rothschild laid the foundation stone in 1858, after decades of various Jews' trying to obtain permission to build from the Ottoman (Turkish) Muslim authorities. The synagogue's splendor dazzled everyone who entered. The Hurva provided the setting for all the grand occasions of the Jewish community.

OTHER PEOPLE'S HOLY PLACES

During the first weeks of the War of Independence, on May 27, 1948, the Arab Legion [Jordanian army] captured the Hurva. They flew the flag of the Arab Legion from the Hurva's 24-meter-high dome and then proceeded to place a bomb at the top of the dome and blow it up.


The Arab Legion and the local Arabs proceeded to destroy or desecrate all of the Jewish Quarter's 58 synagogues.


The remnant of the Old City's Jewish residents and fighters, who had held out valiantly under siege for two weeks, wired a final telegram: "THE BREAD IS USED UP. THE HURVA IS BLOWN UP." The next day, vanquished emotionally as much as militarily, the Jews surrendered.

The Arab Legion and the local Arabs proceeded to destroy or desecrate all of the Jewish Quarter's 58 synagogues. Those that remained standing were used as garbage dumps, donkey stables, and public toilets. The victorious Jordanian government also vandalized the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, ripping out three-quarters of its tombstones and using them to pave roads and for the floors of latrines.

What you describe is horrible but you are wording it in a racist way since those who carried out the attacks are guilty not all Muslims. From your own description it even sounds like things were quite good in Jerusalem in the late 1800s and most Jews and Muslims got along pretty well back then.

Still spamming his old crap....Here's some better cut and paste that we haven't seen 1000+ times:

Anything for a diversion. Anything to keep the world's attention focused away from the illegal, immoral, unjustified, and craven attack on Iraq, and the over 100,000 Iraqi dead, the over 2000 US dead, etc., etc.

Anything to keep the world's attention focused on something other than the brutal ongoing occupation of the terrorist state in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

The comments of Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, were just that. Words. However, it was heaven sent fodder for the Israelis and their supporters. Another chance to have the "poor me/poor us" mentality click in, and blather to the international community that you must remove Iran from the UN, you must make sure it doesn't have nuclear weapons. Ad nauseum.

And then there was Shimon Peres, who masquerades as this peace loving, tolerant individual and is anything but, opening his mouth to show the world how totally asinine he is.

Remember what he said? Yes, dear people, there was Peres, looking suitably mournful (something he does well and often) declaring that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments were "a crime against humanity".

We gasped in disbelief. Excuse me? A crime against humanity? Someone take this hypocrite aside and enlighten him, for God's sakes. This coming from the likes of Shimon Peres who ordered the Qana massacre in 1996 wherein the remains of 106 innocent people were splattered around the UN compound, courtesy of Israeli bombing, innocent civilians who had fled to the UN compound expecting safety from the onslaught of Israeli attacks on their towns and villages leading up to the massacre.

Of course, he mournfully described it as an "accident", but given the evidence at the time, no one but a fool would believe it. Israel, as always, got away with it, which only goes to show that the lives of 106 people are, in the eyes of the UN and the world at large, meaningless. And yet - if I may digress - such an uproar over the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister.

There's a hell of a lot of difference in saying something and doing something. When it comes to wiping towns, villages, people off the map, Israel has a long and brutal history of returning one and all to dust with practised ease..

How it is that this terrorist state continues to be a member of the UN is beyond my comprehension. How it can dare voice a comment about any other nation boggles the mind.

What is Peres saying about the sonic booms that are terrrorizing the Palestinian poeple? Bet he's not calling the ongoing death and destruction and terror against the Palestinina people a "crime against humanity". No, because Israel is the one carrying it out.

And, of course, the international community fell over backwards trying to appease Israel whilst demonizing Iran. If the international community had the guts God gave a flea, it would have called a news conference and listed off every single crime against humanity, every single massacre, every single assassination carried out by Israel. Then ask the world what it thinks.
add your comments

"some 100 (mosques) were totally torn down. The rest, about 40, are in advanced stages of collapse"

and you come back with your sad story about 58 mosques?

yes, there have been attrocities on both sides, but ever since 1948 the palestinians have suffered more, lost more, and died more

the israelis are the ones in control and therefore are inherently more responsible for the crappy situation today. it's incredible dishonest to be the ones with the military, nukes, insane amounts of foreign aid, setting the terms for all life in the territories it controls, and then to cry like the sad victim. it's pathetic. and dishonest.

Palestinains have suffered more and died more?

Well, Cupcake, its been a state of war for over 50 years. People are dying. Its awful. But killing civilians in a pizzeria is quite different than killing combatants. Fatality records from the second Intifada show that 36 percent of the Palestinians killed were non-combatents. Howeve, 78 percent of the Israelis killed in the same time period were non combatents. Thats because Israeli civilians are TARGETED, Cupcake.

You know what they say "If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be no more war. If Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more Israel"

every bit of suffering israel has caused for palestinians is soooo morally superior

israelis, who live tremendously more comfortable lives thanks to endless US charity, can surely sit on their moral high horse as millions of palestinians suffer in apartheid-like conditions and watch a far greater number of their own be displaced and killed

"If Israel laid down its arms, there would be no more (palestinian suffering in land controlled by) Israel"

The worse enemy of the Palestinian people has always been the Palestinian leadership. Imagine how the lives of the Palestinian people might have been improved if Arafat hadn't stolen 6 billion dollars from them? Money given to the PA by Israel, by the EU, by other Arab countries- all gone- presumably used by Arafat's "wife" to buy shoes in Paris.

It was in Al jeezera, so you *know* its gotta be true.

if it helps you sleep at night to delude yourself (and repeat meaningless claptrap one-liners)

of course, in the real world, the presence of militaristic expansionist israelis who chose to not allow them to have a country nor citizenship in land controlled by israel has caused by far the most suffering

"The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

An independent state has been offered to the Palestinians 4 times, and 4 times they have turned it down. At Camp David, Israel offered Arafat an agreement that met 95 % of the Palestinians requess. Arafat rejected it. And this is Israel's fault, how?


"A seemingly unimpeachable source appears in Elsa Walsh’s interview with Prince Bandar bin-Sultan (Saudi Arabia’s former Ambassador to Washington). In the interview, Walsh asks the Prince about the Camp David II controversy. Prince Bandar’s answer is unequivocal: during a phone conversation on the eve of the signing, Prince Bandar told Arafat that it was the very best deal any Palestinian leader could hope to get. Then he told Arafat that if he took it there would be peace, and the Saudi royal family would support him. But if he did not take it, he would be committing a crime against the Palestinian people, there would be war, and the Saudis would not support him. Arafat ended the phone conversation with Prince Bandar with his assurance that he would accept Barak’s offer."

"Arafat rejected it. And this is Israel's fault, how? "

The standard Palestinian view is that its Israel's fault but from what Albright has said and from Clinton's own account of camp David (as heard in a recent PBS documentary) it sounds like a lot of the blame was on Clinton. Barak didnt present an offer to Arafat, Clinton forced him to accept one and he negotiated the terms with Barak without involving Arafat and then gave it to Arafat as a take it or leave it offer that he had to accept without making calls since Clinton was heading out of the country. Arafat felt free to negotiate things related to the Palestinians but felt like he would put his position in jepordy if he negotaited away Palestinian claims to the Al Aqsa mosaque since ultimately others in the region cared more about the religious symbols than the Palestinians. The delay happened right before Sharon's stunt at the Temple Mount that started riots that made more negotiations impossible. Sharon probably wanted to prevent the negotiations from going forward but its not like he really knew the details of what was going on at camp David so at least as the negotiations were presented in the PBS documentary it would sound like no side was individually to blame except for perhaps Clinton for not having all factors in mind when he pressured (and even yelled at) Barak to get him to agree to what was presented to Arafat (although can you really balme Clinton for not knowing that Sharon was planning a big PR appearance at the Temple Mount).

<<<<Remeber (sic) what the Taliban did to the Beautiful centuries old Buddhist scuptures in Afghanistan? Sure you do. Islam is just so tolerant of other religions.>>>>>

aside from racist slur here, and then the totally expected slam on *the* major religion on the planet, with the jizzvillia religion comin in about number 10,005, the real question here is "why, exactly, did the taliban do it?"

first of all, who gives a rat's ass if they did it to a thousands of years old decaying relic? the *real question* is what the slime ball greedy western racists were gonna do with it when they got their grimey hands on it?

that's right, poopy, they were gonna carve it up and take it back to london or new york and have a big birthday party for some fat-ass ancient goiter infested failing right wing oligarch with plenty of dollaros, that's what. and the "taliban" KNEW THAT.

and by the way, poopy, that's already happened with other **highly valued treasures** that now are *missing.* got it??

here are some more now mercifully forgotten little memories:

what the flyin frig gave our little cowardly dauphine chimperor bush-tail the right to go and bomb afghanistan in the first place?

he had *no* right whatsoever. countless innocent afghans have died over there and god knows how many fled to pakistan for their lives - likely over a million - rotting there.

in fact, by any rational description of the act, it was a case of international terrorism if not outright aggression to start, both capital crimes by the way. by all rights, bush-tail should be standing on a trap door at the peace palace with a noose around his skinny neck sobbing while the executioner pulls the lever.

what the taliban *actually* needed was food for their people, who's direct responsiblity for was theirs by the way. and, jizz-face, mohamed omar, the head t-man, performed his constitutionally required duty to demand evidence that bin laden *actually* commited the crime. but fuzz faces like you *naturally* swallow every friggin lie that yur supreme leader hollow head says.

and bush-tail's response to a very reasonable question - give me evidence that bin laden actually did it, was droppin cruise missiles by the 12-pack on totally innnocent people.

so my response to your *totally* inane comment is *f*ck off,* twit.

and one other thing, jizzy: mohamed omar was *actually* correct in his suspicion that bin laden DID NOT do it. the guy that DID IT was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

now: little question for ya jizz: you don't think that Bush didn't know that already???

Hardly seems worth responding to that "word salad"- all I can suggest is that you take your medication and go to bed. Its off topic, tangential and just plain nuts.

The Taliban, in their Solomon like wisdom destroyed historic religious sculptures to avoid their being plundered? Thats not even remotely plausible. Thats what happens when you drink and type, dumpling. Nice try though. Snicker . Snicker.

For staters, even the Palestinians had come out and admitted that the intifada had been planned well before Shaon's walk on the Temple Mount. That was just a pretext meant for consumptioon by the mainstream media and for useful idiots.

Then,its very revealing that the mere presence of a Jew is so offensive to the Arabs. Is also quite revealing that the useful idiots condesendingly excuse the Arab response because in their paternalistic racist way, they feel that the Arabs can't control themselves. Its is in appropriate to have different standards of behavior for people because of ones perception of their perceived "race".

Sharon visited the Temple Mount accompanied by the authorities of a mosque.

Speech is free, bandwidth is not. If you are going to preach racism, we're not going to pay your way. Zionism is racism. It's not allowed on SF-IMC. Neither is sexism, misogyny, homophobia, warmongering, gibberish, spam, disinformation, and apologies for exploitation or ecocide.

This policy is called "quality control" and is the combined result of coherent politics, due diligence and elbow grease.

If you are the kind of person who objects to this policy, you're not the kind of person we're talking to. SF-IMC is not for just anyone. It's for activists in the Global Justice Movement, their friends, their allies and their potential allies. Everyone else should stay away.

What do you mean by "racism"? Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount? The fact that he was accompanied by Muslim religious authorities? The intifada planned beforehand?

Terrorists bomb also boom and rumble when they explode.

<<<<<<Free speech only for some."
by SF-IMCista Friday, Nov. 04, 2005 at 8:36 AM

Speech is free, bandwidth is not. If you are going to preach racism, we're not going to pay your way. Zionism is racism.>>>>

exactly, and these racist slime-balls should not only be banned from a single site, they should be booted out of this site *too.*

it's also great having *angie* around here once in a while to counter the racist zionist apologist fluff balls, becky and vicky, prodded on by the other propagandizing schmucks.

. Us "Zionists" will never completely retreat and leave you a podium to spew your vile racism and hatred undisturbed.

And some of us won't sit still while "Angie" has all but overtaken one IMC and then occasionally bursts onto another yapping in her typical drama queeny manner complete with some of her obnoxious properties.

Only drunk cretins addicted to wishful thinking can confuse angie's dazzling prose with coherent and compelling argumentation. But hey... keep doing whatever helps you hold your pen up and keep typing throughout the entire day, cookie...

Racism is the belief that members of one ethnic group have a natural, G-d given right to more power, arms, land and water than do members of other ethnic groups. Typical examples include Nazis, Zionists, Chetniks, Klansmen and the Interahamwe.



>you're saying that you should hate 99.5% of American Jews, at which point narcissie will heartily agree with you,

I'm saying that you should hate 100% of all racists, no matter what their ethnicity. Anybody who would make an exception for one ethnic group is a racist by definition. No, Jews are *not* a special case. The are just another tribe. There are thousand of tribes. None of them are entitled to special rights. None of them have a special exemption that allows them to be racists. A racist is a racist is a racist. We should hate Jewish racists in exactly the same way, and for exactly the same reason that we hate Aryan racists, Serb, racists, Hutu racists or any other racist. A racist is a racist is a racist. Hate them all, or you are one yourself.

Here in America, especially in the Bay area, we should do the same. Lets stand in condemnation of the Iranian President's words, and stand with Israel. If only there were an iranian embassay to protest in front of.

Gehrig has nothing to do with that. And he has every right to be here while "Angie" and Lee Doyle have proven themselves morally unfit to post here - the former through her hateful hit-and-run trolling, the latter by tirelessly undermining IMC's principles whenever he makes a foray out of his dingy sandbox.

Also in Madrid, Santiago de Chile and Buenos Aires.

To stand with Israel is to stand against peace, justice and equality.

I suppose opposing ecocide as you define it does not include protecting endangered species on a national level and fighting against exploitation does not include supporting affirmative action for historically oppressed peoples.

Or is it just "exploitation and ecocide are bad" until you yourself are asked to sacrifice something for the cause?

Here's link showing a certain someone having no problem with ecocide or exploitation if fighting them gets in the way of his personal life

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/09/1767723_comment.php

The biosphere is global. Species cannot be protected nationally. Species are not protected by laws, anyhow, but by individuals. Other individuals ignore the laws.

Affirmative action is, at best, a bandaid on a tumor. Enforcing it with federal power has created at least as many problems as it has solved, not the least of which is the estrengthening of the federal government. We need to phase out affirmative action by phasing out the root causes of the need for affirmative action. The cure for ethnic disparity in the workplace is education. Stop funding war, Fund education. Then we wont need affirmative action anymore.

To stand with Israel is to stand for peace, justice and equality.
To stand with Israel is to stand with the only democracy in the Middle East.
To stand with Israel is to reject the servitude of political correctness and to think for yourself.
To stand with Israel is to reject Arab oil money and influence, in support of freedom.

I stand with Israel
I will always stand with Israel.

"For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace. For Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"

<<<<<<<“I will stand against this brutal occupation until they put me in the ground,” says Barbara Lubin, founder of the Middle East Children's Alliance, which supports the building of cultural centers, clinics, and playgrounds in occupied Palestine.

“And every time the Israelis blow up a playground or center or ransack a clinic, I'll be back there rebuilding it with my bare hands if I have to.”>>>>>

jiminy crickets, don't you just want to go up to barbara and give her a big hug???

here's my greatest fantasy: going up behind her, grabbing her and squeezing her so hard she turns red. then, what i do is turn her around and give her a big wet kiss right on her beautiful forehead. then I kiss her wonderful little hands.

barbara is my love fantasy - she is positively the most beautiful gal on THIS PLANET.

Gorgeous Barbara, heaven sent, is the EXACT OPPOSITE to the slimey, vicious, lying pieces of garbage that DAILY spew their racist bigotry throughout this site.

Catch my drift???

Have i made myself quite clear???

PS: i just wrote another *small* check for $1,000 for barb, which will be used to educate 5 wonderful palestinian youngsters who *cannot* attend their besieged universities in their Palestine - which by the way extends from southern lebanon through the negev, from the med sea to the jordan river.

and this makes me feel *so good* that right this very minute i'm jumping off my chair with joy: cause i got my lovely barbara fightin against the middle east plague of zio-nazi-ism.

Beautiful Barbara- I remember her well from her tumbling in the hay with Gus Newport...oh, spouses be damned, it was a real love match, those two.
A real woman of virtue, one might say.

No collective organization can protect species? Just individuals?

That kind of stinks, as the corporate foes of the environment are quite organized and quite good at killing our "biosphere" for a profit.

So, if someone cares about an endangered species, they should stand vigil next to one single creature and fight all those who come to harm it. What if those who chose to harm it have superior weaponry?

Individually, we can do almost nothing to protect species and our environment.

Berkeley Child Abuse

A putative charity is the latest shill for Palestinian terrorism. The Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA) presents itself as working for peace in the Middle East by helping out children caught in the war-torn nations of the region: Iraq, the West Bank and other Arab areas. However, upon closer inspection, we find that MECA is merely another advocacy organization protesting for Palestinian power.

MECA states it “is a non-governmental organization, working for peace and justice in the Middle East; focusing on Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq. Our programs emphasize the need to educate North Americans about the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, and to support projects that aid and empower communities. We believe in insuring the human rights of all people in the region, especially focusing on the rights of children.” It is interesting MECA chose a name that denotes a humanitarian group helping kids. Yet, MECA clearly states they want to “educate” North Americans about the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy.

Founded in 1988 in Berkeley, California, MECA claims it has delivered more than $8 million worth of humanitarian aid to Lebanon, Iraq and the “occupied” West Bank and Gaza Strip since it was founded. It has also organized “fact-finding delegations to the region.” It has also developed Palestinian and Israeli, and children and women’s grassroots organizations. And it has also educated people in the United States about the Middle East.

According to its IRS filings, MECA’s revenues are $12 million from 1996 to 1999, $3 million in 2000 and $4 million in 2001-a total of $15 million in revenues from 1996 to 2001. If you were to include revenues from 1988 to 1995 MECA has spent less than 60 percent of its total revenues for humanitarian purposes. Despite its altruistic appellation, MECA is spending about half of their funds for non-humanitarian purposes. One would think an organization called the Middle East Children’s Alliance would be spending most of their funds aiding kids?

MECA does help fund some noble and worthy causes. UNICEF and the Nablus Medical Clinic are two such examples of their humanitarian aid. Yet, MECA seems more interested in spreading Palestinian propaganda than healing Palestinian children. For example, they fund the Alternative Information Center (AIC), which collects and publishes distorted information about Palestine and Israel. The AIC website on August 22, 2003, reported such headlines as “Palestinian farmers fear a repeat of 1948 as Israel's apartheid wall separates them from their land” and “Israeli Army Invades…” Never is there any mention of Arab terrorism.

MECA Founder and Executive Director Barbara Lubin and MECA’s entire Board of Directors, and Board of Advisors, are pro-Palestinian, and as such, anti-Israel. She has received numerous awards, including the 2001Aswat Honor Award, the 2000 American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Award, the 1989 and 1990 Appreciation Award of the Palestine Aid Society and the 1990 Union of Palestinian Women's Association of North America. Yet, Lubin has “become increasingly outspoken against Israel,” according to an interview in Moqawama, the website of the Islamic Resistance.

Moqawama quoted Lubin as saying, “If Slobodan Milosevic is tried by the international courts, then Henry Kissinger, (former President) George Bush and Ariel Sharon should be in there with him…They butchered Arabs.” According to this same article, Lubin possesses an “open disgust for the state of Israel” and mentions “her support of organizations like Hizbullah.” The article also quotes Lubin as saying that Hizbullah is nothing more than a resistance movement composed of just plain folks….

MECA’s Board of Directors and Board of Advisors have at one time or another included such liberal luminaries as Leonard Weinglass, Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Maxine Waters, Ron Dellums, Gus Newport, and Maudelle Shirek. Newport (who is the president) and Shirek are Communists. Dellums and Waters are outspoken admirers of Fidel Castro. Clark is the founder of ANSWER, which is affiliated with the terrorist group the Kimist Workers World Party. Chomsky is well known for his anti-Israeli and anti-American beliefs. Weinglass was the attorney for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Another Director, Father William O’Donnell, was recently sentenced to jail for six months for protesting the School of the Americas, which Catholic liberation theologists want to eliminate. Other directors and advisors of MECA include Fathi Arafat, brother of PLO's Chief Yasser Arafat, Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu Lughod (who are members of the Palestine National Council), and co-founders of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, James Abourezk and James Zogby.

Activists, politicians, and ideologues staff MECA. What they have in common is a loathing of Israel and America. This is consistent with MECA’s disturbing relationships with Al-Awda, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, and International ANSWER.

Compare MECA’s operations and staff with Feed the Children (FTC) a charity that provides humanitarian aid to kids both domestically and internationally. FTC spent $514 million of its $553 million in revenues for their programs in 2002, providing food, clothing, medical, education, and community development for kids–including those in Iraq. 89 percent of their funding is for their programs. The FTC board includes theologians, CPA’s, businesspeople, and philanthropists.

Feed the Children did not fund any efforts to educate North Americans about American foreign policy in the Middle East (i.e. criticize Israel and America for helping Israel). FTC is not affiliated with a political party or a political advocacy group. They are not organizing protests or attempting to influence political policy. They simply provide humanitarian aid to the needy.

The Middle East Children’s Alliance represents itself as a humanitarian organization. Whatever humanitarian aid MECA provides seems to be designed merely to provide it with the patina of a nonpartisan, charitable organization while it cements relationships with, and advocates on behalf of, terrorist groups.

What are the educational and grassroots activities of MECA? What does MECA spend for them? Who operates these groups receiving MECA funds? We know about funds for humanitarian efforts, but where does the remainder of the funds go?

MECA needs to be accountable for what they are doing, which is taking advantage of the altruistic under pretenses of charity, then aiding those who destroy the lives of children throughout the world.

Is this the best you can come up with? Ye'ah, I suppose it is, being of such limited brain power and all.

Barbara is just about the same as the slimey, vicious, lying pieces of garbage that DAILY spew their racist bigotry throughout this site. That is, if she isn't on this site already, dear Barbara shill.

Now it's much clearer.

a certain portion of the check you've sent Barbara will be used to further Pali-nazi terror, belligerence and war mongering in general. Those 5 "wonderful palestinian youngsters" will be educated in the sciences of terror and war. The rest will be pocketed by Barbara herself.

Indeed, Palestine extends from southern Lebanon through the Arava prarie (go back and study your geography), from the med sea to the Jordan river, and it'll never be a Palestinian dominion.

Barbara's efforts have and will be eclipsed by those of noble men and women.

Indybay's 3 zionist propagandists post here incessantly.....

PS: i just wrote another *small* check for $1,000 for barb,


Well, check out the MECA financials- your thousand dollars will cover 350 dollars of Barbara's salary, and who knows where the rest wil go? MECA is considered a low functioning charity and is currently under investigation from a variety of sources.

If you follow that link that Gerhig provided earlier, you are likely to run into the following Flash banner advertisement at the top of the page.

While the zionists here will cry all day about how it's all the Palestinian's fault that Palestinians do not have citizenship nor a country (even though Israel is fully in charge and chooses to deny them both), this banner ad reveals the true motivations of so many zionists, that is they want their "pure" Jewish state and the entry of Palestinians as citizens would delute their non-democratic supremacist ideal.

Better to wall millions of people off and deny them the basic rights that the zionists enjoy than to allow the zionists dream of a "pure" nation, with them as eternal dominators, to falter. It worked for the Afrikaners, for a while anyway.

The "solution" the ad points to, by the way, is more Jewish babies and less Jewish abortions in Israel.

The truth IS out there, and ironically the zionists themselves will point you to it inadvertently.

I did not write that post. Some daft idiot with tonnes of times on his or her hands is labouring in vain. The truth shall emerge for the Day of Judgement is near.

1886-1973

Born in 1886 as David Green (Gruen) in Plonsk, Poland. He is considered one of the three founding figures of Zionism beside Chaim Weizmann and Herzl. Ben Gurion was the major factor behind Yishuv's (a term that refers to the Jews in Palestine prior to 1948) military power and is considered as the founder of the State of Israel. At an early stage, he developed a passion for socialism and Zionism, and in 1906 he immigrated to Palestine. From 1921-1935, he served as the secretary general of the Histadrut, the General Federation of Labor in Palestine, and in 1935 he was elected the chairman of the Jewish Agency which he held until 1948. From 1948 until his retirement in 1963, except for a brief interval in the early 1950s, Ben-Gurion served as Israel's Prime Minister and its Minister of Defense. Ben Gurion displayed a great aptitude for learning languages. In addition to his native Yiddish-Hebrew, he also learned Turkish, English, Russian, French, German, and later in life Spanish and ancient Greek. Ironically, he never bothered to learn the language of the people amongst whom he lived almost his entire life, Arabic.

Palestinians and Israeli often judge Ben-Gurion based on how he had served their interests. Palestinians see Ben-Gurion as a cruel, insensitive, and a racist individual since he was the primary force behind their dispossession. On the other hand, many Jews, Zionists, and most Western people see him as the savior of the "Jewish people" who was the primary force behind the create of the "Jewish state".

Zionism, as any other ideology, required leaders who were astute, articulate, and charismatic to formulate its vision, and in that regard, Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann played the major roles. On the other hand, ideology on its own would become just an idea without the charismatic leaders who could implement its vision, and in that regard Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett played the major roles. After the implementation of the ideology, a new leadership must evolve to manage what has been created, otherwise it would stay stuck in the implementation phase. This is exactly one of the major problems Israelis face, they are stuck in Zionism's implementation phase, and rarely they have produced pragmatic leaders who can get their society to evolve to the next phase. Whenever Israel was able to develop pragmatic leaders (such as Moshe Sharett, Levy Eshkol, and even Moshe Dayan) who were capable of carrying it to the next phase, they were often branded as "appeasers", "cowards", and "naive". In a nutshell, Israel has been missing the Israeli version of France's Charles de Gaulle.

Based on our research, we can show that Ben-Gurion's personality was drastically transformed over the years, which can be broken down into three major phases as follows:

Idealism Phase: This phase started from the time he immigrated to Palestine and ended just before the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933. During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited in building the Histadrut from the ground up as an effective political, military, financial, educational, and social organization that had roots in all sectors, almost a "Jewish state" before May 14th, 1948. During this phase, he made a lot of assumptions, many of which turned to be wrong. For example:
He saw Zionism as just, and thought that Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states would benefit from Zionism, and that therefore, they would welcome the new Jewish immigrants.

He envisioned that Jews from all over the world would immigrate to Palestine in in great numbers, and that over time they would become a majority or a fact on the ground.

He did not think that Palestinians had any collective rights whatsoever, such as the right of self-determination. He did not believe that they had any sense of nationalism, therefore, they could be ignored. Sometimes he argued that even if Palestinian nationalism did exist, that it could be bought or bribed.

He contemplated Palestinian "transfer", where the use of force would not be necessary. He envisioned that Palestinians could be enticed to leaving their country in favor of the new Jewish immigrants.

He did not envision Europe's Jews would die so qucikly, and in such big numbers.
Transformation Phase: This phase dominated most of the 1930s and early 1940s, when Ben-Gurion started to confront events that contradicted many of his earlier assumptions. From the quotes below, you will see how he struggled to transform himself, from an idealist to realist. The primary wrong assumptions that caused him extreme discomfort were:
He felt that the sword was hanging over Europe's Jewish citizens, which forced him to re-examine many of his earlier assumptions.
Jews could not become a majority without infringing Palestinian rights.

Zionists were the primary force behind the maturing of the Palestinian national movement. This became evident when the first popular Palestinian uprising took place between 1936-1939.

Palestinian national movement could not be bought, but it could be curbed.
In other words, he became a believer of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's famous doctrine, that of the IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first came out with his famous doctrine in 1923, Ben-Gurion exploited its racist and inhuman nature to score political points against Jabotinsky (similarly, Deir Yassin's massacre had been used demonize the Herut and Likud parties in spite of Haganah's role in the atrocity, click here for details).

Although he passionately despised Jabotinsky (actually, when Ben-Gurion was the Prime Minister, he had refused to let his remains to be reburied in the "Jewish state"), the evidence shows that Ben-Gurion was one of his major silent admirers.

During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited with restraining the Haganah in its actions against the Palestinian resistance during the 1st Intifada. Actually, he demanded that the Yishuv play a low key, for almost three years, despite of Jabotinsky's stinging criticisms. This policy was completely reversed during the next phase, where Ben-Gurion transformed himself into a hawk.

Implementation Phase: This phase started soon after WWII ended, and shaped his way of thinking all the way until the early 1960s. During this phase, Ben-Gurion felt guilty for what happened during the holocaust (as Menachem Begin did), and in a way also felt responsible. It agonized him that Jews could be led to the gas chambers without fighting back. This fact drastically changed him, and as a result he became cruel, insensitive, inflexible, undiplomatic, and quick to use force to send a message, especially to the neighboring Arab states. While self-restraint had been his motto during the First Palestinian Intifada between 1936-1939, he now became the complete opposite. As it will be proved from the quotes below, there are ample evidence to show how Ben-Gurion was the primary force behind the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war.
Finally, it should be pointed out that Ben-Gurion's transformation was one of his major assets. However, he never admitted the transformation had happened, and he never credited the Israeli political Right for shaping Israeli politics (regardless if their policies were right or wrong). He was able to change course almost immediately when proven wrong. The questions which beg to be asked are:

What if the holocaust had not happened?
In which direction would Ben-Gurion and Weizmann have directed the Zionist Movement?



Sources

Iron Wall, p. 16-17
Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18

Related Links

More About Ben-Gurion and 'Transfer' by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Famous Quotes
In describing the following encounter, Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) briefly summarized Ben-Gurion's relations with the Palestinian Arabs, Teveth stated:

"Four days after the constituent meeting, on October 8, 1906, the ten members of the platform committee met in an Arab hostel in Ramleh. For THREE DAYS they sat on stools debating, and at night they slept on mats. An Arab boy brought them coffee in small cups. They left the hostel only to grab an occasional bite in the marketplace. On the first evening, they stole three hours to tour the marketplace of Ramleh and the ruins of the nearby fortress. Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the [Palestinian] Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine [which was mostly non-Zionist Orthodox Jews prior to 1920]. In all of Palestine there were [in 1906] 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were [Zionists] pioneers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 9-10)

This attitude of ignoring the political rights of the Palestinian people was (and still is) the rule among most Zionists. According to Ben-Gurion's biographer, it's not only that Palestinians were the majority in their homeland as early as 1906, it also should be noted that:

The majority of Palestine's Jews were not citizens of the country, but guests from Tsarist Russia.

The Jews in Palestinian were mostly Orthodox Jews who made up 7.8% of the total population.

At the time, the majority of Orthodox Jews were non-Zionist. Actually, the majority were anti-Zionist.

Zionist pioneers were almost absent in Palestine as of 1906, and constituted only 1% of the total Jewish population in Palestine.

As early as 1914, Ben-Gurion admitted secretly that Palestinian nationalism existed, at least among the working masses. He explained that Palestinians' hatred of Zionism was based on their fear of being dispossessed. Ben-Gurion analyzed this hatred and stated:

"this hatred originates with the [Palestinian] Arab workers in Jewish settlements. Like any worker, the [Palestinian] Arab worker detests his taskmaster and exploiter. But because this class conflict overlaps a national difference between farmers and workers, this hatred takes a national form. Indeed, the national overwhelms the class aspect of the conflict in the minds of the [Palestinian] Arab working masses, and inflames an intense hatred toward the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 18-19)

By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:

"[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 12-13)

What if the average Christian American was more "intelligent and diligent" than his Jewish American, would that justify discrimination in the work force? How could the question of whether someone was more "intelligent and diligent" or not be measured in a fair and a balanced way?

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:

"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87) Click here to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.

In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled "The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine," he conceded that the Palestinian Arabs have the same rights as Jews. He explained that Palestinians had these rights since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of years". He stated in the article:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)


In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights at all, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!

As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the "Jewish state" to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical "Eretz Yisrael"), and limited the "Jewish state's" future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized this decision as follows:

"It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus. . . . This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 34)

If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their "Promised Land" needed them during the Crusaders' genocide!

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and Palestinian Arab relations as follows:

"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)

As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Zionism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:

"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)

From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish societies in all sectors. For example, Jews in Palestine had their separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political sectors that were opened to Jews only. The segregation of Palestine's society was nurtured by the Zionists to make it easier to partition the country when the "appropriate" time comes. In that regards, he stated in the 1920s:

"The assets of the Jewish National Home must be created exclusively through our own work, for only the product of the Hebrew labor can serve as the national estate." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 66)

Similarly, he stated in the early 1920s:

"Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses. Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine Complete, p. 288)

Early on, Ben-Gurion envisioned that Zionism would not be in conflict with Palestinian Arab rights. He stated in 1925:

"I am unwilling to forego even one percent of Zionism for 'peace'---yet I do not want Zionism to infringe upon even one percent of legitimate [Palestinian] Arab rights" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 70)

As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in the early 1930s, the need to save European Jewry became more acute. Ben-Gurion then recognized that Zionism could not be realized without infringing Palestinian rights. The shift in Ben Gurion's opinion becomes clearer as you examine more quotes, especially the ones dated 1930 and onwards. It should be noted that the Palestinian people were a 2/3 majority of the population of Palestine as of 1946, click here for a map illustration. Ironically, the demographic picture persists to this date, but with one exception. 65% of the Palestinian people are dispossessed refugees who live outside Palestine, mostly living in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

As the first popular response against the Balfour Declaration (in which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike in 1922. Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national movement was evolving. He wrote in his diary:

"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the [Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 80)

Similarly in 1929, he also wrote of the Palestinian political national movement:

"It's true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the [Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it."

"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The [Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national movement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)

When it was proposed that the Jews in Palestine organize an army and seize power in November 1929, Ben-Gurion offered these objections, first,

"The world will not permit the Jewish people to seize the state as a spoil, by force." Second the Jewish people did not have the means to do so. And third and most important, it would be immoral, and the Jews of the world would never by this immoral cause. "We would then be unable to awaken the necessary forces for building the country among thousands of young people. We would not be able to secure necessary means from the Jewish people, and the moral and the political sustenance of the enlightened world. . . . Our conscience must be clean . . . and so we must endorse the premise in relation to the [Palestinian] Arabs: The [Palestinian] Arabs have full rights as citizens of the country, but they do not have the right of ownership over it." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 97)

Similarly in 1928, Ben-Gurion stated that there is no contradiction between Zionist and Arab aspirations. He stated that Zionism stands for absolute justice for both parties. He explained that:

"our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single [Palestinian] Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 159)

It is not only that Ben-Gurion was 100% wrong with his earlier assessments, but also:

The world permitted the "Jewish state" to occupy and seize by force the spoils of war.


After the holocaust, most Jews (along with the whole Western World) supported the "Jewish state" regardless of whether it was moral or immoral. This support was successful because of an effective propaganda campaign that carefully exploited the tragedy of the holocaust.


As of 1929, the Palestinian people owned and operated over 96% of Palestine's lands, and as of 1946 they owned 93% of the country, click here for a map illustration.


The mass majority of the Palestinian children, if not all, are even today denied their basic human rights because Zionism had to "attain all that it seeks."

Prior to 1928-1929, we find no evidence that Ben-Gurion intended to dispossess and to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. However, everything changed as the sword hung over the German and Polish Jews in the mid 1930s. Ben-Gurion abandoned the goal of achieving peace with Palestinians in favor of increasing Jewish immigration. As the number of Jews in Palestine doubled between 1930-1936, the Palestinian people feared future dispossession and displacement. This fear triggered the First popular Intifada between 1936-1939, examine the following few quotes for more details. According to Ben-Gurion, the survival of the European Jewry was in question, and he looked at the matter as a life or death one for Zionism (and maybe for the "Jewish people" as well). For example, he stated in the early 1930's:

"If Zionism returns to be what it was ten or fifteen years ago--with Jews entering the country one by one-- then the issue of Palestine is liable to be dropped from the Jewish people's agenda. The Jews of Germany must be gotten out of there, and if it's impossible to bring them to Palestine, then they will go somewhere less, and Palestine will become the hobby of enthusiasts."

"If Zionism over the coming years does not provide an answer to the calamity which has befallen the Jewish people, then it will disappear from the Jewish stage." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 154)

The concept of a "Jewish Majority" in Palestine is one of Zionism's major pillars. This point was eloquently articulated by Ben-Gurion when he stated in 1929:

"A Jewish majority is not Zionism's last station, but it is a very important station on the route to Zionism's political triumph. It will give our security and presence a sound foundation, and allow us to concentrate masses of Jews in this country and the region." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 103)

In the context of the 1929 disturbance, Ben Gurion spoke of the emerging Palestinian nationalism, and the main goal of Zionism (where Palestine's population becomes a "Jewish majority") to the secretariat of the major Zionist groupings. He said:

"The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement . . . . The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to be the majority." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

Since Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) could not become a majority as of 1948 (click here for Palestine's demographic map as of 1946), Zionists resorted to compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) to solve what they referred to as the "Arab demographic problem". To hide their basic goals and intentions, they have concocted the myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, and businesses on the orders of their leaders, click here to read our response to this argument.

Finally, Ben-Gurion admitted the mistake of trying to buy off the Palestinian national movement. In the early 1930s, he stated during a Mapai forum:

"We have erred for ten years now . . . the crux is not cooperation with the English, but with the [Palestinian] Arabs." By this he meant not merely a relationship of friendship and mutual aid, but political cooperation, which he called the "cornerstone" of the "Arab-Jewish-English rule in Palestine. Let's not deceive ourselves and think that when we approach the [Palestinian] Arabs and tell them 'We'll build schools and better your economic conditions,' that we have succeeded. Let's not think that the [Palestinian] Arabs by nature are different from us." In the heat of the argument, Ben-Gurion said to one of his critics and asked: "Do you think that, by extending economic favors to the [Palestinian] Arabs, you can make them forget their political rights in Palestine?" Did Mapai believe that by aiding the Palestinian Arabs to secure decent housing and grow bumper crops they could persuade the Palestinian Arabs to regard themselves "as complete strangers in the land which is theirs?" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 114)

As the numbers of Jews in Palestine (the Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, Palestinians feared future dispossession and displacement. In opposition to this, the Palestinian national movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, Palestinian demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionists' concern. He told his Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

Ironically, often Zionists claim that Palestinian nationalism never existed as a justification for denying them the right of self determination. On the other hand, as we have seen in the previous quote, Palestinian nationalism was alive and well as early as 1936, click here if you wish to learn more about this subject.

When Ben-Gurion heard of the Passfield White Paper in 1931 (which proposed halting the implementation of the Balfour Declaration), he was furious with "these cowardly traitors" who were responsible for the proposed new policy. He stated:

"England is a great power, the greatest empire. But to shatter even the largest stones on earth, it takes only a small quantity of explosive powder. Such powder packs tremendous force. If the creative force within us is capable of stopping this EVIL EMPIRE, then the explosive force will ignite, and we will topple this blood-stained imperium. . . . We will be those who take this war upon ourselves and beware thee, British Empire!" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 111) Ben-Gurion called on his colleagues to "prepare for a long and difficult road, if we are left with no alternatives, a road of alliance with the Arabs against these despicable powers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 112)

Although the British Government nullified the Passfield White Paper soon after, and the alliance between Great Britain and the Zionists continued to flourish until 1945, Ben-Gurion (who commanded the Haganah), Yitzhak Shamir (who commanded the Stern Gang), and Menachem Begin (who commanded the Irgun Gang) all joined forces to wage a war of terror against the British forces in Palestine and the Palestinian people between 1945-1947. Similarly, we predict that when Israel's alliance with the United States outlives its usefulness (especially when the American people recognize that supporting Israel, right or wrong, would not be in their national interests), then the American people will come face to face with a tyrant whom they have armed, financed, and trained. Now Israel has several hundred A-Bombs, and bulling it may not be an option! Time will tell if this "holy alliance" will last and won't collide with America's strategic national interests in the Middle East! In such a case, we wonder how America might react?

Ben-Gurion had strange ideas to justify why Jews have the right to settle in Palestine. He explained that the right of the Jews to Palestine rested on their capacity for developing its resources. He declared in 1930:

"We do not recognize any form of absolute ownership over any country. Any group of diligent persons, every industrious people, is entitled to enjoy the fruits of labor, and do with its talents as it pleases. it has no right to prevent others from doing the same, or to close the doors leading to nature's gifts in the faces of others. The five million inhabitants of Australia have no right to close the gates of their continent--which they alone cannot fully exploit-- and so exclude the masses of desperate people seeking a new place to work. This is the principle behind the right of free migration, championed by international socialism." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37)

If this argument is sound for Jews to settle Palestine against the wishes of its indigenous population, why isn't it a good argument for Germans, Italians, and Palestinian refugees to immigrate and settle Israel? It's worth noting that over 85% of Israelis live in under 14% of the land and that Israel has the highest ratio of urban dwellers in the world, click here for a graph illustration.

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized the role Zionism played in maturing the Palestinian national movement. He explained that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

Ben-Gurion had set down the principal policy for Zionism with the British and the Palestinian people. He stated in January 1930:

"Zionist policy must be in agreement with the English and the [Palestinian] Arabs. . . [However,] without an agreement with the English, there is no point in talking about an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs, as long as we are not a majority." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

To bring the maximum number of Jews to Palestine, Ben-Gurion was prepared to collaborate with the devil (the father of all evildoers). He stated in 1931 that he was prepared to:

"sup with the devil," so he hardly would have shunned a tactic of dissimulation for moral reasons. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xiii, Preface)

In a book Ben-Gurion published in 1931 (titled: We and Our Neighbors), he admitted that Palestinian Arabs had the same rights as Jews to exist in Palestine. He stated:

"The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The [Palestinian] Arabs work the land, and will remain." Ben-Gurion even held that the Palestinian Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by willingness to work." They had the same opportunity to establish that right as the Zionists did. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 5-6)

When Hitler rose to power in 1933, Ben-Gurion predicted a world war. This war might threaten not only the Jewish citizens of Europe, but also the Yishuv as well. The sense of responsibility loosened his tongue, and he began to say things in public that he had kept to himself in the past. He no longer offered convoluted explanations for the Palestinian Arab resistance against Jews and British occupation. He stated in 1938:

"Almost every [Palestinian] Arab" opposed Zionism, "because he is an Arab, because he is a Muslim, because he dislikes foreigners, and because we are hateful to him in every way." The conflict had lasted thirty years, and was liable "to continue for perhaps hundreds more." This was a "real war, a war of life or death."( Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)

As European Jewry's immigration doubled the number of Jews in Palestine, Yishuv , between 1931-1935, Chancellor Judah Leon Magnes (the president of the Hebrew University who favored a bi-national state) asked Ben-Gurion to make concessions to Palestinians over Jewish immigration. Ben-Gurion explicitly told Magnes in 1935:

"The difference between me and you is that you are ready to sacrifice immigration for peace, while I am not, though peace is dear to me. And even if I was prepared to make concession, the Jews of Poland and Germany would not be, because they have no other option. For them immigration comes before peace." Ben-Gurion left no doubt that he identified, heart and soul, with this ordering of priorities. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 159)

Ben-Gurion was impressed with Izz al-Din al-Kassam's heroism in the mid 1930s, and he predicted Kassam's example would have a far-reaching effect on the Palestinian national movement. Ben-Gurion stated two weeks after Kassam's fateful battle with the British occupation nearby Ya'bad-Jinin:

"This is the event's importance. We would have educated our youth without Tel-Hai [an encounter with Palestinians in the Galilee in the early 1920s], because we have other important values, but the [Palestinian] Arab organizers have had less to work with. The [Palestinian] Arabs have no respect for any leader. They know that every single one is prepared to sell out the Arab people for his personal gain, and so the Arabs have no self-esteem. Now, for the first time, the [Palestinian] Arabs have seen someone offer his life for the cause. This will give the [Palestinian] Arabs the moral strength which they lack."

Ben-Gurion also stressed that

"this is not Nashashibi and not the Mufti. This is not the motivation out of career or greed. In Shaykh Qassam, we have a fanatic figure prepared to sacrifice his life in martyrdom. Now there are not one but dozens, hundreds, if not thousands like him. And the Arab people stand behind them." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

During the early stages of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion was not free of ambivalence toward the Palestinian Arabs. He stated:

"I never felt hatred of the Arabs and none of their actions ever awakened vengeful emotions in me." On the other hand, he felt that Jaffa should be defaced: "The destruction of Jaffa, the city and the port, will happen and it will be for the best. This city, which grew fat on Jewish immigration and settlement, is asking for destruction when it swings a hatchet over the heads of its builders and benefactors. When Jaffa falls into hell I will not be among the mourners." (One Palestine Complete, p. 383)

On April 16, 1936, Ben-Gurion informed the Mapai party that no understanding could be reached with the Palestinian people until they reach one with the British. He explained that:

". . . . there is no chance for an understanding with the [Palestinian] Arabs unless we first reach an understanding with the British, by which we will come a preponderant force in Palestine. What can drive the [Palestinian] Arabs to a mutual understanding with us? . . . Facts [meaning achieving Jewish majority through immigration and increased military strength] Only after we manage to establish a great Jewish fact in this country . . . only then will the precondition for discussion with the [Palestinian] Arabs be met." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 155)

In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future "Jewish state" to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and answered:

"So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)

According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who "want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type," said Antonius, "it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow." By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a "matter of life and death" for the Jews. "Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

Before the 1931-1932, Ben-Gurion had once viewed Zionism as a just ideology. As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, he started to lower his moral sight, according to him "these days it is not right but might which prevails". In April 1936, Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice. He stated that :

"There is only one thing that everyone accepts, Arabs and non-Arabs alike: facts." The Arabs would not make peace with the Jews "out of sentiment for justice," but because such a peace at some point would become worthwhile and advantageous. A Jewish state would encourage peace, because with it the Jew would "become a force, and the Arabs respect force." Ben-Gurion explained to the Mapai party "these days it is not right but might which prevails. It is more important to have force than justice on one's side." In a period of "power politics , the powers that become hard of hearing, and respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have no cannons." In order to survive in this evil world, the Jewish people needed cannons more than justice. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 191)

This racist and belligerent remark, about Arabs being respectful of force, became a radioactive cancer that infected all sectors of the Israeli society. Ironically, many Arabs respond to this form of racism with their own version of racism, meaning that "Israelis respect the language of force" as well, click here to read our response to these racist arguments.

After Ben-Gurion's encounter with George Antonius in May 1936, he was willing to concede the existence of a conflict between Palestinian and Jewish nationalisms for the first time. He stated in public that:

"There is a conflict, a great conflict." not in the economic but the political realm. "There is fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

"I now say something which contradicts the theory which I once had on this question. At one time, I thought an agreement [with Palestinians] was possible." Ben-Gurion attached some reservation to this statement. A settlement might be possible between both peoples in the widest sense, between the entire "Jewish people" and the entire Arab people. But such an agreement could be achieved "once they despair of preventing a Jewish Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171)

This statement signaled a shift in Ben-Gurion's mind set. Ironically, his conclusion is in complete agreement with Ze'ev Jabotinsky's IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first published his famous doctrine in the early 1920s, Ben-Gurion and other Zionists in the Labor movement branded him as a "racist". As the previous quote demonstrates, Ben-Gurion finally recognized that Zionism had to rely on the IRON WALL doctrine for it to become a reality. Unfortunately for the Palestinian people, according to Ben-Gurion this was a matter of "life or death" for Zionism and Jews.

Over no issue was the conflict so severe as the question of immigration. On the same subject, he also stated:

"Arab leaders see no value in the economic dimension of the country's development, and while they will concede that our immigration has brought material blessings to Palestine [where exclusively Jewish labor was always the rule], they nevertheless contend---and from the [Palestinian] Arab point of view, they are right-- that they want neither the honey nor the bee sting." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

As the First Palestinian Intifada was erupting in 1936, many Zionists complained that the British Mandate was not doing enough to combat Palestinian resistance (which often was referred to as "terror") to the British Mandate. In that regard, Ben-Gurion argued that:

"no government in the world can prevent individual terror. . . when a people is fighting for its land, it is not easy to prevent such acts." Nor did he criticize the British display of leniency: "I see why the government feels the need to show leniency towards the [Palestinian] Arabs . . . it is not easy to suppress a popular movement strictly by the use of force." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

In rare situations, Ben-Gurion EMPATHIZED with the Palestinian people. He stated in a letter to Moshe Sharett in 1937:

"Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness . . . I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do his math and understand what [Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172)

Ben-Gurion also clearly stated that it was the Zionists who were the aggressors, at least from the political point of view. He stated in the contexts of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1938, :

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

Ben-Gurion stated how Zionists should be self-reliant in response to the Palestinian commercial strike, which was the prelude to the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936. He stated:

"The first and principal lesson of these disturbances. . . is that we must free ourselves from all economic dependence on the [Palestinian] Arabs. . . We must not find ourselves in situation where our enemies are in a position to starve us, to block our access to the sea, to deny us gravel and stones for construction." (Righteous Victims, p. 130)

Soon after the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion explained the reasons why Palestinians feared Zionism. He stated in a meeting with his Mapai party:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Palestinians] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p. 136 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

On the other hand, he denied the Palestinian any political rights. As a justification, he stated:

"There is no conflict between Jewish and Arab nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 19)

Ben Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor in Jewish run enterprises. He stated in 1936:

"If we want Hebrew redemption 100%, then we must have 100% Hebrew settlement, a 100% Hebrew farm, and 100% Hebrew port." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 24)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that Zionism should seek peace with Palestinians ONLY as means to realize Zionism, not as an ultimate goal. He explained the policy in 1937 as follows:

"We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a mean, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 168)

On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future "Jewish state." He said:

"Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 88)

In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the BRINK of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

Ben-Gurion predicted a decisive war in which the neighboring Arab countries would come to aid Palestinians. He said in 1937 :

"It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped , but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quality and quantity .... the whole younger generation [ from Europe and America]". (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)

Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.

During the tour which the Peel Commission did in Palestine in 1937, Ben Gurion told the commission that the Bible was the Jewish people's "Mandate." (One Palestine Complete, p. 401)

On July 12, 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed by the British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate on the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, David Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission's proposal:

"The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan," Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, "is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)

And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that :

"I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

Similarly, he also stated to his son Amos in October 1937 that a "Jewish state" in part of Palestine was:

"not the end, but only the beginning." Its establishment would give a "powerful boost to our historic efforts to redeem the country in its entirety." For the "Jewish state" would have "outstanding army-- I have no doubt that our army will be among the world's outstanding--and so I am certain that we won't be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or by some other way. . . . . I still believe . . . . that after we become numerous and strong, the Arabs will understand that it is best for them to strike an alliance with us, and to benefit from our help, providing they allow us by their good will to settle in all parts of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

Regarding settling the Negev desert, which was allotted to the Palestinian state according to the Peel Commission, Ben-Gurion stated:

"It is very possible that in exchange for our financial, military, organizational and scientific assistance, the [Palestinian] Arabs will agree that we develop and build the Negev [which as of 2002, the Negev is still mostly populated by Palestinian-Israeli citizens]. It is also possible that they won't agree. No people always behaves according to logic, common sense, and best interests." If the Palestinian Arabs "act according to sterile nationalist emotion," and reject the idea of Jewish settlement, preferring that the Negev remain barren, then the Jewish army would act. "Because we cannot stand to see large areas of unsettled land capable of absorbing thousands of Jews remain empty, or to see Jews not return to their country because the [Palestinian] Arabs say that there is not enough room for them and us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188-189) It is worth noting that the Negev is still a barren desert, and under populated by Israeli Jews.

During a lecture in Tel-Aviv in front of Mapai activists in 1938, Ben-Gurion divided the realization of the "historic aim of the Jewish state" into two stages. The first stage, which would last ten to fifteen years, he called "the period of building and laying foundations." This would prepare the state for the second stage, "the period of expansion." The goal of both stages was the "gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine." And so "from the moment the state is established, it must calculate its actions with an eye toward this distant goal."

When Zionists were debating the Peel Commission's partition plan, Ben-Gurion advised his colleges to accept the concept of partitioning ONLY as a first stage of a complete conquest. He stated in 1937:

"Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

and while addressing the Zionist executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that:

"after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

Similarly he also stated:

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." By 1949 Ben-Gurion had proved that he was as good as his word. (Simha Flapan, p. 52-53)

And regarding the Peel Commission, he also stated on June 9, 1937:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear GREATEST material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And on July 12, 1937 he also wrote how Zionists should insist on implementing the proposed compulsory population transfer, which was suggested earlier by the British Peel Commission. He said:

"the compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state . . . . we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed at the Zionism itself." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

David Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937:

".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been corroborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

He also stated that Arabs would come to terms with Zionism only when faced with a fait accompli. He said:

"This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement .... the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching 'sermons on the mount' but by the machine-guns, which we will need." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 108)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)

Ben-Gurion explained how the Palestinian Arab citizens of the Jewish state might be treated:

As Ben-Gurion explained, the advantage of the [Palestinian] Arabs having Arab citizenship was that in the event of hostilities, their legal status would be that of resident aliens, and they therefore "could be expelled" from the Jewish state for potential disloyalty. With Israeli citizenship, on the other hand, "it would only be possible to imprison them, and it would be better to expel them than to imprison them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

Despite all the EXPANSIONIST Zionist policies, many Israelis and Zionists wonder why Arabs rejected UN GA proposed partition for Palestine in 1947? Click here to read our detailed response to this Israeli frequently asked question.

The tragedy of the European Jewry eventually strengthened the Yishuv in an unexpected way. In August 1937, Ben-Gurion noted that:

"Jewish suffering is also a political factor, and whoever says that Hitler diminished our strength, is not telling the truth." In one of history's crueler ironies, those words proved prophetic. Millions of Jews did not storm the beaches of Palestine, for they could not rise from the ashes of the death camps. But the Holocaust--they zenith of Jewish agony-- became the same "political force" of which Ben-Gurion spoke before he even imagined the systematic destruction of European Jewry. After the war, the Holocaust was a powerfully influential factor in turning world public in Zionism's favor, and was the decisive factor in defeating the policy of the British 1939 White Paper (which called for a united bi-national Palestinian state no later than 1949 and the cessation of Jewish immigration). Guilt, sorrow, and remorse---what might be called the collective conscience of humanity--led many nations (referring to 1947 UN proposed partition plan) finally to grant survivors, that which might have saved the many victims: a "Jewish state." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 196)

These comments by Ben-Gurion and his biographer (Shabtai Teveth) are a powerful reminder to the Christian West that Palestinians have been crucified for their sins. As the Gestapo slaughtered Europe's Jewish citizens, their fellow Christian European neighbors watched and aided the instruments of death in gassing and burning the Jews of Europe. The holocaust atrocity generated a collective sense of guilt in the Western World which has blinded them to the suffering that came upon the Palestinian people. It should be noted that the great majority of the Palestinian people, almost 10 million people, have been dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homes, farms and businesses. From the Palestinians points of view, the Western World has created two problems if not more:

The first was the destruction of most of Europe's Jewish community, and

The second is aiding in the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

Ironically, the so called "civilized world" have pitted two innocent people into a constant state of war for generations to come. And instead of solving one problem, they have created many!

Ben Gurion wrote twenty years after the 20th Zionists Congress, which rejected the Peel Commission partition plan in 1937, and contemplated how many Jews might have been saved, if the Peel Commission's Plan had been adopted. He wrote in 1958:

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (One Palestine Complete, p. 414).

A month after the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion provided an interesting mathematical formula for saving German Jewish kids. He stated in December 1938:

"If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter----because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People." (Righteous Victims, p. 162)

Similarly, Ben-Gurion provided another interesting mathematical formula. During the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936, Ben Gurion devised a scheme to increase Jewish immigration to Palestine. He proposed that the Jewish Agency would

[Let's try this again - I thought this site accepted Flash uploads.]
<p>
If you follow that link that Gerhig provided earlier, you are likely to run into the following Flash banner advertisement at the top of the page.
<p>
While the zionists here will cry all day about how it's all the Palestinian's fault that Palestinians do not have citizenship nor a country (even though Israel is fully in charge and chooses to deny them both), this banner ad reveals the true motivations of so many zionists, that is they want their "pure" Jewish state and the entry of Palestinians as citizens would delute their non-democratic supremacist ideal.
<p>
Better to wall millions of people off and deny them the basic rights that the zionists enjoy than to allow the zionists dream of a "pure" nation, with them as eternal dominators, to falter. It worked for the Afrikaners, for a while anyway.
<p>
The "solution" the ad points to, by the way, is more Jewish babies and less Jewish abortions in Israel.
<p>
The truth IS out there, and ironically the zionists themselves will point you to it inadvertently.


<p>

<OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0" WIDTH=408 HEIGHT=60><PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/israeli_ynet_racism.swf"> <PARAM NAME=quality VALUE=high> <PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#FFffff> <EMBED src="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/israeli_ynet_racism.swf" quality=high bgcolor=#FFffff WIDTH=408 HEIGHT=60 TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></EMBED>
</OBJECT>
<br>http://www.indybay.org/uploads/israeli_ynet_racism.swf

zionists dream of a "pure" nation.

No, Cupcake- the Zionists - Israeli and not yet Israeli- dream of one thing-:

"As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion,
Then our hope - the two-thousand-year-old hope - will not be lost:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem."

Thats what Zionist dream of. Self determination in OUR ancestral homeland. OUR land of milk and honey.

This "israeli_ynet_racism.swf, application/x-shockwave-flash, x" thing displays nothing, pumpkin.

And, yeah, it's all the Palestinians' fault that thry do not have a country, because the PA is in charge of them and chooses to deny them a country through A.Z. & anti-Israel racist propaganda, intransigence and terror,

The Palis need to be walled off as long as they choose terror, destruction and hate over peaceful coexistence. The PA is the address for providing their basic rights. Israel owes them zilch in the way of work inside Israel.

zionists dream of a "pure" nation

No, Cupcake, this is what Zionists dream of: (Israeli Zionists and not yet Israeli Zionists)

As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart,
With eyes turned toward the East, looking toward Zion,
then our hope - the two-thousand-year-old hope - will not be lost:
To be a free people in our land,
The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

We dream of self determination in our ancient homeland. We dream of a peaceful world to raise our children.
Nation shall not lift sword against nation- that is the Jewish dream. That is the Zionist dream

"what Zionist dream of. Self determination in OUR ancestral homeland. OUR land of milk and honey. "

"yeah, it's all the Palestinians' fault that thry do not have a country"

which is it, fruitcake darling?


purity/OUR

tomato/tomahto


you have to click this link to see it

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/israeli_ynet_racism.swf

the ad takes you to this video (http://www.efrat.org.il/files/efrat_files/internethomeen.wmv) on this site (http://www.efrat.org.il/en/). the URL for the video is probably temporary


THANKS, GERHIG!

another funny thing about this flash ad and the have-more-jewish-babies/anti-Jewish-abortion message behind it is that the zionists here quite often love to remark about the percentage of Arabs within Israel who are actually allowed to vote, as if that proves Israel actually approaches what is commonly understood as a true democracy. the funny part, in a sad way, is that that number apparently is carefully managed so as to not "nullify" the Jewish supremacy in Israel. this ad asserts that 40% Arab is the end of israel

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/israeli_ynet_racism.swf

What Zionists dream of is: Self determination in OUR ancestral homeland. OUR land of milk and honey (not the Palestinians'). And it is all the Palestinians' fault that they do not have a country.

"purity/OUR" only as interpreted by stoned anti-zios. Purity <> "our".

Congrats though on showing you're still able to post cartoons under the influence.

Israel belongs to the Jewish people, and the Druze, Bedouin, Christians and yes, fruitcake, the Arabs, that chose to live there, support her and protect her

no contradictions.

Israel also "belongs" to the Jews of the world, living there or not yet living there, that know that our survival on this planet is inexorably tied with Israels survival. Our feet might be in Canada, or America, or England, but our hearts are in Israel. That is what it means to be a Zionist.

"the funny part, in a sad way, is that that number apparently is carefully managed so as to not "nullify" the Jewish supremacy"

Produce proof.

In case you didn't notice, cracker-barrel, there is more than one Zionist on this thread.

Re: "Purity"- your word, not mine

Need I remind you that Israel is the only country in history that brought Africans in, not as slaves, but as brothers?

it was in that flash banner

it was yelled high on the mountaintop on the top of a site that supposedly fair-minded Gerhig thinks is a credible source of information on israel-related news

there was not shame in the message

it was loud and clear



want more proof? how about the simple fact that israel refuses to grant citizenship to millions of people who live within its borders? that would mess up the "OUR" factor you trumpeted. of course, israel would actually be a democracy if they did that, but the "purity" thing would be in trouble

I would like to get Saudi citizenship. Saudi Arabia doesn't grant it. I am so frustrated.

probably from some fundamentalist anti-abortion group.
Not "proof".
A paid ad.

"within Israel's borders?

Does that mean you recognize Israel's historic borders - including Judea and sameria? This might be a breakthrough people.

You couldn't even ENTER Sauda Arabia , Jon. Not if you are a Jew.

" Does that mean you recognize Israel's historic borders"

it means I understand the shape of the territory they currently control, the shape of the land that includes millions, that's MILLIONS, of non-citizens denied equal rights by the group in control of that territory

as for the smart alec comment about Saudi Arabia, it's just dumb, unless you were BORN within the territories that SA controls and they decided to wall you off and deny you equal rights that so-called citizens enjoyed every day, then you would have a right to be frustrated.

of course, Jewish people from around the world are welcomed, even encouraged, to settle there and enjoy more rights than those who have been under israel's non-democratic and oppressive thumb for generations.

Saudi Arabia is a little off track. And, hey, only 3 min. after "jon" posted, there was an answer to his distracting/avoiding question......hmmmmm
Could it be the same poster answering his own questions?
Naw. What about Israel denying citizenship, though? Since it's a democracy and all?

Quoting you:

"the zionists here quite often love to remark about the percentage of Arabs within Israel who are actually allowed to vote, as if that proves Israel actually approaches what is commonly understood as a true democracy. the funny part, in a sad way, is that that number apparently is carefully managed so as to not "nullify" the Jewish supremacy in Israel."

See, your claim actually was that Israel officially takes care to manage the number of Arabs within Israel eligible to vote. But you've proven no such thing. There's no official Israeli policy to manage the percentage of eligible Arab voters within Israel. Though lying about it till the cows come home is another story and a trait you excell at.

Back to you:

"how about the simple fact that israel refuses to grant citizenship to millions of people who live within its borders?"

Ah, yet another anti-zio fairy tale. Just as I wasn't the one brandishing the OUR refrain. You (plural) need to make your minds up whether Israel = the Land of Israel aka Palestine or not; your discrepancies are getting more peculiar by the moment.

how about the simple fact that israel refuses to grant citizenship to millions of people who live within its borders?

Does any country in the world grant citizenship to *anyone* who happens to be living within its borders?
Does America?

The Arabs that are in Israel have full citizenship. They vote. They have full civil rights.

"You couldn't even ENTER Sauda Arabia , Jon. Not if you are a Jew."

I would like to know if this is racism or not, by anti-Zio standards.

Seetie-pie, we all know the Palis were "walled off" as their PA has encouraged so many of them to terrorize Israel regardless of Israeli concessions over meaningful negotiations and peace making. We see the spectacle of all minorities being denied equal rights and due process by the PA - in fact every segment of the Pali population is a minority.

As for your smart-a** allusion to Jewish rights in Saudi, that's just a bunch of crap and you know it. Israel doesn't come anywhere near the level of oppression and repression in the theocratic Saudi entity. But thanks for sharing your BS for all to see.

if you want to knock down straw men, you don't need me

straw man one: I never said I had hard proof it was "official" israeli policy, although many policies of theirs have the same effect, regardless of what the underlying intentions are, including the denial of equal rights for millions under their control

I said "apparently" considering the brashness of the ad on a news site. could you imagine such an ad on CNN or MSNBC website claiming that America needed more white babies and less white abortions of the dream of a white America would be nullified? I'm not denying that that impulse exists in the US, but it is certainly not so out in the open as it is on a supposedly credible israeli news site, thereby giving credence to the presumption that it is a pretty strong and commonly accepted belief regarding the percentage of Arabs that would ruin israel. why was netanyaho on the banner? is that from something he said? if so, then I would venture that it is a lot closer to official israeli policy than you are willing to admit

straw man #2: "You (plural) need to make your minds up". I can't argue for unspecified others. you want to talk to the wind, go ahead. but dont' pretend your responding to anything I said.

as for needing to make up my mind, no I don't. my mind is made up. denying equal rights to millions of people under your control is wrong. it will never ever be right, no matter how many excuses you make for it

You can acquire Israeli nationality by naturalization if you have resided in Israel for three years.

unless you're palestinian

then they wouldn't let you "in" to naturalize and become a citizen, lest you muck up the ethnic purity quotient and "nullify" israel as a zionists wonderland

better to keep palestinians in a netherworld, pretend they live outside of israel but deny them the right to self-determine as a sovereign people

no citizenship, no country, just as the zionists prefer

The Palestinians have been offered a country 4 times. Each time they turn it down. Makes you wonder, doesn't it , muffin?

There was no strawman. Se, you're unable to keep track with what you type, sweetie-pie. You did claim Israel tries to manage the # of Arabs eligible to vote within its BORDERS (that's NOT = "under its control"). That leaves only 2 possibilities:
1. you're knowingly lying
2. you're heavily stoned or loaded

As a popint of fact, there are no "millions or non-citizens" within Israel proper (that term designates the State of Israel) which does NOT encompass the disputed territories or what some of you anti-Zios dub "Palestine".

So you still need to make your mind up - if you retract your utterance about millioms of non-citizens within Israel's BORDERS, only then you will have made up your mind. Until then you're playing games but fooling noone.

As for your other complaint - you did INSINUATE that it was an official Israel policy. Don't split hairs that aren't there, fella.

Next. You complain about an ad by a fundi group appearing in an Israeli paper online but ignore that Israel never claimed its tradition or system of democracy was identical (or on an absolute par with) to those of the US and Canada. So I fail to see the point of your whining.
Dunno why Netanyahu was on that banner, though I can tell you he is known for having made many utterances for political rating's sake per se and one such utterance was related to the subject of the ad.

could it be zionist chatrooms and clubs are sending people here?

certainly the zionists here are not indybay natives interested in the whole of what this site has to offer

the light at the end of your tunnel is a train coming straight toward you

and your quibbling about borders vs. under their control is disingenuous and only serves zionists interested in the idea of a pure state co-existing with the loony idea that israel is democratic because the millions under its control are not a part of their country

if half the people under the control of your country are slaves with no right to self-determine, you are not a democracy in the slightest

Now why would you care about the fact the Palis are at war with Israel when you could go on pretending any Palestinian trying to apply for Israeli citizenship is just an innocently sweet individual with no ulterior motive/s? Ya know, something to do with outnumbering the Zionists and ultimately subjugating them?

It's anyone's guess what the Palis want in terms of self determination besides perhaps founding a country on top of Israel's ruins. I've got a serious question which I'd like you to finally address, Brainiac - why do the Palis keep turning down every statehood offer that falls short of dismantling Israel?

We know you need serious help in breaking out of your comfort zone where you constantly perpetuate the vicious circle of your never ending whining about the lack of Palestinian statehood.

"The Palestinian attacks were in retaliation for the murder of those resisting the illegal Israeli occupation."

BECKY: The writer asserts that the media fails to inform viewers "the truth" which he/she claims, as undisputed fact, that the CAUSE of the conflict is Israel's illegal occupation of presumably Palestinian lands.

Murder is also a charged word, implying both victim and perpetrator as indisputed fact. The author is wrong.

The author is also wrong in presuming the motivation for Palestinian homicide. The author pitches his argument that the Palestinian para-military groups waging battle against the entire State of Israel (both citizens & govt.) are doing so over a rightful land dispute. Yet the charters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade ALL call for the destruction of any Jewish state in the region and the expulsion or extermination of the entire Jewish people. This kind of cultural hatred cannot be simplified to a simple land dispute.

An executioner carrying out a legal death penalty is not committing murder. A soldier firing his/her weapon killing a combatant is not murder. Self-defense is not murder.

The author is wrong again claiming that Israel is "occupying" "Palestine." In 1993, Israel transferred the civil authority for the Palestinian Arabs (including a huge percentage of foreign citizens who had illegally immigrated into the West Bank from the neighboring Arab countries, predominately Jordan) to the Palestinian Authority. Israel no longer administers the civil or criminal laws within the PA. According to the agreement, Israel maintains responsible for national security and protecting the borders of both Israel and the PA.

The Palestinian Arabs elect officers to the PA.

Hence, Israel is not "occupying" the WEst Bank or Gaza, nor is it doing anything illegal--per the agreement signed in 1993. The Oslo accords --though largely abandoned by both sides---are still the leading international law in the land between the PA and Israel.

Finally, the author is wrong again about the status of the lands involved in the dispute. UN resolution 242 , written when Israel was fully in control of those lands and expected to stay in control for some time, ordered Israel to enter into negotiations with all parties to reach an agreement where a final disposition of borders would be made. Israel has done this with both Jordan and Egypt, the previous occupiers of the West Bank and Gaza respectively.

And it has done this with Arafat and the Palestinians in 1993.

The conflict has come from the genocidal and Jew-hating Palestinian para-military groups, both secular and religious, which have no interest in a negotiated settlement.

I didn't complain about it

I used it to illustrate the point that israel commonly accepts this whole "purity" thing as a proper course of action, even if that means excluding millions of people from the right to self-determine

having a major politicial endorsing such sentiment only proves how close to "official" policy it is, despite the cries of zionists here

it can't honestly be discarded as some random fundamentalist viewpoint that is irrelevent when mainstream news sites think it's acceptable (thanks, again, gerhig, for that link to it)

look at israel's policies. look at the banner. one and the same racist sentiment

"No country gives non-citizen full rights. The Palestinians aren't citizens."

sure, America had a time when a significant portion of it's population weren't citizens -- although not as large a percentage as in israel -- and that was called our slavery days

South Africa had a time when a significant portion of it's population weren't citizens -- although larger a percentage than in israel -- and that was called apartheid

Israel currently has a significant portion of it's population who aren't considered citizens -- about 1/2 of the people under its control -- and that is called zionism

you can try to rationalize it away, but the fact remains that israel looks more like 18th century america or 20th century south africa than any other so-called modern western democracy

You remain unable to discern the truth hiding between the heaps of propaganda lies you've been feeding off.

You don't need to split hairs over whether or not you actually complained about the ad. It only demeans you.

You're now shooting down another strawman you made - that israel "commonly accepts this whole "" thing as a proper course of action, even if that means excluding millions of people from the right to self-determine". Alas to your premise, Israel doesn't accept in realilty a purity concept, though to acknowledge this would undermine the remains of your premise.


"look at israel's policies. look at the banner. one and the same racist sentiment"

Don't think we need to do that through the anti-Israel tinted spectacles you're using.

Look at what the Braininac had to reply:

"sure, America had a time when a significant portion of it's population weren't citizens -- although not as large a percentage as in israel -- and that was called our slavery days
"South Africa had a time when a significant portion of it's population weren't citizens -- although larger a percentage than in israel -- and that was called apartheid "

So, under the influence, what you claim is tantamount to saying the Palis is the disputed territories are part of Israel proper's population... what a deeeep analogy....


He proceeds to confirm my hunch:

"Israel currently has a significant portion of it's population who aren't considered citizens -- about 1/2 of the people under its control -- and that is called zionism "


What else does this Braininac claim?

"you can try to rationalize it away, but the fact remains that israel looks more like 18th century america or 20th century south africa than any other so-called modern western democracy"

Um, what about Spain that controls a few isles off Morocco's shore, remnants of a slendid colonial past, complate with an apartheid security barrier and military occupation, or the UK still possessing Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? He wouldn't agree.

israel by and large and zionists most definitely do accept that

look at the banner, look at people here talking about "OUR" country

"OUR" didn't mean everyone who lives under the control of israel

"OUR" clearly meant the chosen ones, and a sprinkling of others perhaps as longs as the purity, or jewish character, of israel is not jeopardized

it's in your zionist more-jewish-babies adds, it's in your politicians speechs (netanyahu), it's in their policies denying equal rights to millions, and it's even in the comments of zionists here

to assert otherwise is simply dishonest

<<<<<<<<Beautiful Barbara- I remember her well from her tumbling in the hay with Gus Newport...oh, spouses be damned, it was a real love match, those two.
A real woman of virtue, one might say.>>>>>>>

wow, they never cease to amaze me. if you can't have any hope to hurt someone with the truth, better to slander and libel.

this is the kind of filthy mouthed, hitlerian, eichmann-ish, goebbels-ite dirt that is a major cancerous infection on this site. from the depths of hell, the evil empire corrupts all that it touches.

let me clue ya jizzvailia. last night i went to a lecture by a woman who was the victim of "the dirty war" in argentina. she was 16 years old when she was arrested in the night and taken to a torture chaimber for 2 years. handled by people just like you who abet the torture of palestinian little girls.

and 30 years later, she has nearly succeeded in getting her torturers behind bars.

today it looks like she's going to win.

and you know what, jizzy? *that's* how if feel about you. i am more than determined than ever to hunt you and your ilk down and put you behind bars for the rest of your life, you filthy zio-nazi scum of the earth. and i don't care how long it takes me, 30 yrs, whatever.

in the end, i will see justice done, and i will personally teach you the meaning of the words "law" and "morality."

you are gonna pay, it's only a matter of time.

"Our" land- meant the land belongs to all who love it and protect it. Not just those who live on its soil.

Any implications regarding "purity" are your imagination.

"Our" land- meant the land belongs to all who love it and protect it. Not just those who live on its soil.

Any implications regarding "purity" are your imagination.

"We give them Gaza"

and WE take away the west bank

WE deny you equal rights, citizenship, and statehood

talk about hate

anything for the pure fatherland

in actuality, it is the Israelis who deny them statehood and/or citizenship

all the squawking in the world doesn't change that simple fact

zionists and Israelis interested in a pure state benefit from such an arrangement. Palestinians suffer from it.

all the squawking in the world doesn't change that simple fact

That was during negotiations, Brainiac. So these facts complement their effectice self denial of statehood via all their terror and mayhem.

Which brings me to a related question you're too afraid to at least tackle. Why do they keep turning down offers of statehood from Israel that fall short of dismantliing it (and belie your lie)?

"actual" denial comes from israelis

you can make 100,000 excuses, blame it on the palestinians just as many times, but fact remains israel is the one denying statehood and/or citizenship

twist and squirm, qualify things with words like "effective" but facts is facts


Yid -- we "really" know what you are (wink, wink, yid's an oppressive nazi, everything jewish people supposedly used to hate, wink wink)

Sweetie-pie, you just can't help but lie. Unless you're trying to imply that the "Israelis" are denying them a state encompassing all the Holy Land's territory. Is this the correct understanding or just nigh?

Now don't pull any stunts, remain claim and collected; just tell us the truth as you reply to this.

Then we must employ superior tactics. We can do this. It's been done before, many times. As the old adage goes, the spirit of the People is stronger than the Man's technology.

Remember the war between the Mau-Mau and the British? The British had nukes and bombers. The Mau-Mau had zip guns made from plumbing supples, and knives made from car springs. The Brits killed ten Mau-Mau for every Brit who died. By an conventional reasoning, the Mau-Mau should have, and did, lose the war. Nevertheless, they achieved their primary goal. The Brits relinquished control of Kenya.

>Individually, we can do almost nothing to protect species and our environment.

So we must organize. Voting for different leaders wont do the trick. The government is a tool of the corporations. The corporations are a tool of the ruling class. Organize to destroy, not just the ruling class as it is today, but classism itself. Then we'll have peace and plenty, as we live in harmony with our bountiful, garden planet.

Arba rejection of Israel's right to exist is the main cause ot hostilities in the area today. Of the Arab League, only 2 countries have even recognized Israel's right to exist.

In 2002 the chief Justice of the Muslim Trust in Jerusalem said "All Palestine is Islamic land. There can be no compromise on Islamic land"

There is no peace beacuse the Palestinians do not want peace.

There will be no justice till Jew and non Jew are equals.

Are there any Zionists who agree with this statement, or do they all believe in inequality?

Italians in Rome, Milan and Turin demonstrated Thursday against Mahmoud Ahamdinejad’s call for Israel to be wiped off the map

November 4, 2005, 6:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

In Rome, 15,000 Italians protesters held a torchlight procession and waved Israeli flags outside the Iranian embassy. Reform minister Roberto Calderoli was there and the mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni. But foreign minister Gianfranco Fini stayed away – to avoid “damaging consequences for Italy,” although he had promised to come, as did defense minister Antonio Martino “with extreme regret.”

Rome’s chief rabbi Riccardo di Segni addressing the protestors said: “They challenge Israel’s right to exist, but do not do that even to the world’s worst dictators or most bloody governments.”

Two thousand demonstrated at the Iranian consulate in Milan and hundreds in Turin

certainly there are more than 15,000 zionists in all of italy today

what kept more from coming out? even most of the zionists there weren't so gung-ho about this one. maybe many thought it was silly to give that speech more credit than it was worth

that's not a huge turnout for a demo in Italy. several anti-bush/anti-war demos have turned out upwards of a million people

a mere 15,000 probably doesn't represent a broad cross-section of Italians but more likely a mailing list of the most active italian zionists

<<<<<Arba rejection of Israel's right to exist is the main cause ot hostilities in the area today>>>>>

aren't you being a little shrill, darling???

take a deep breath and try to relax. take a walk on the beach.

this'll give you the strength to read some more books on your favorite subject..................

islamophobia !!!!!!