Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
No Country has a 'Right to exist' and certainly not Israel
...
No country has a "right to exist." Certainly not one that was founded through the destruction of another country. Was Palestine ever afforded a "right to exist?"
That does not mean Israel should be dismantled. But Israel has no right to exist as an exclusionary Jewish state that gives special rights to Jews to the detriment of the indigenous population.
And the reason this should be of particular interest to all American citizens is because we flip all of Israel's bills. Without the massive aid we give Israel, none of this would be possible and peace would have been attained long ago without all this bloodshed which has gone on for one reason -- to expand Israel's borders to encompass ever more of the land that's belonged to Palestinians for millenia while pushing them into more and more crowded ghettoes.
There is a plethora of canards surrounding this conflict. One of which is that the UN Partition Resolution of 1948 gave Israel that land. First, that UN resolution was a General Assembly resolution not a Security Council resolution. Second, the UN at the time consisted of around 50 countries and did not include the Arab states or many other third world countries. Third, the US used enormous pressure to force Latin and Central American countries to vote in favor of it. Fourth, it gave 55% of the land to Jews. Israel expanded far beyond that to 78% of Palestine and one of Israel's leaders at the time even said that this was only a base of operations from which they could procure even more land later.
Another myth is the so-called "Arab Broadcasts" in which Arab leaders supposedly told Palestinians to leave their homes. Edward Said investigated this and found no evidence of any Arab leader saying any such thing. In fact, he found broadcasts but they said the exact opposite -- they implored the Palestinians to stay put.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/calderon2.html
Palestinians did not leave of their own free will but fled in a panic because of massacres that Jewish terrorists had conducted in at least 30-40 villages. Some historians go even further and insist that a massacre took place in every village in which there was a battle.
See Ilan Pappe's article:
http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/021020_pappe.html
Arab armies came to the defense of Palestinians but did not enter the 55% of Palestine allotted to the state of Israel. In fact, they did not enter the foray till after practically all the massacres which led to the Palestinian exodus had taken place. Most of the massacres occurred before May 1948. Arab armies came to the Palestinians' defense in the middle of May 1948. By most accounts, the Arab armies were outnumbered by the Jewish forces (60,000 Jewish forces vs. 40,000 Arabs).
As for the other supposed attacks by Arabs against Israel, Israel (along with Britain and France) attacked Egypt in 1956.
Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 and then after the cease fire, attacked Syria taking over the Golan Heights.
Israel started colonizing the Egyptian Sinai by brutally razing Egyptian villages in Yamit in 1971. Anwar Sadat proclaimed "this means war" in context with that brutal ethnic cleansing but was ignored. (Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle).
In 1973, Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai but did not enter Israel.
In 1978, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon killing 2,000 people (almost all civilian) where they remained till the year 2000.
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again and left around 25,000 dead (the actual casualty figure is probably much higher, but many bodies were blown to bits or unrecoverable under the rubble of collapsed high rise apartments).
See Tony Clifton's "God Cried," Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle" and "Pirates and Emperor's" and "Race and Class" Vol. XXIV (Volume 24), No. 4, Spring 1983 (an academic journal found in most good research libraries).
As usual, the reasons given for Israel's invasion of Lebanon are completely fictitious.
See Noam Chomsky's analysis and compare that with the standard version of events:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1621818.php
That does not mean Israel should be dismantled. But Israel has no right to exist as an exclusionary Jewish state that gives special rights to Jews to the detriment of the indigenous population.
And the reason this should be of particular interest to all American citizens is because we flip all of Israel's bills. Without the massive aid we give Israel, none of this would be possible and peace would have been attained long ago without all this bloodshed which has gone on for one reason -- to expand Israel's borders to encompass ever more of the land that's belonged to Palestinians for millenia while pushing them into more and more crowded ghettoes.
There is a plethora of canards surrounding this conflict. One of which is that the UN Partition Resolution of 1948 gave Israel that land. First, that UN resolution was a General Assembly resolution not a Security Council resolution. Second, the UN at the time consisted of around 50 countries and did not include the Arab states or many other third world countries. Third, the US used enormous pressure to force Latin and Central American countries to vote in favor of it. Fourth, it gave 55% of the land to Jews. Israel expanded far beyond that to 78% of Palestine and one of Israel's leaders at the time even said that this was only a base of operations from which they could procure even more land later.
Another myth is the so-called "Arab Broadcasts" in which Arab leaders supposedly told Palestinians to leave their homes. Edward Said investigated this and found no evidence of any Arab leader saying any such thing. In fact, he found broadcasts but they said the exact opposite -- they implored the Palestinians to stay put.
http://www.mediamonitors.net/calderon2.html
Palestinians did not leave of their own free will but fled in a panic because of massacres that Jewish terrorists had conducted in at least 30-40 villages. Some historians go even further and insist that a massacre took place in every village in which there was a battle.
See Ilan Pappe's article:
http://www.bintjbeil.com/articles/en/021020_pappe.html
Arab armies came to the defense of Palestinians but did not enter the 55% of Palestine allotted to the state of Israel. In fact, they did not enter the foray till after practically all the massacres which led to the Palestinian exodus had taken place. Most of the massacres occurred before May 1948. Arab armies came to the Palestinians' defense in the middle of May 1948. By most accounts, the Arab armies were outnumbered by the Jewish forces (60,000 Jewish forces vs. 40,000 Arabs).
As for the other supposed attacks by Arabs against Israel, Israel (along with Britain and France) attacked Egypt in 1956.
Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 and then after the cease fire, attacked Syria taking over the Golan Heights.
Israel started colonizing the Egyptian Sinai by brutally razing Egyptian villages in Yamit in 1971. Anwar Sadat proclaimed "this means war" in context with that brutal ethnic cleansing but was ignored. (Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle).
In 1973, Egypt attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai but did not enter Israel.
In 1978, Israel invaded Southern Lebanon killing 2,000 people (almost all civilian) where they remained till the year 2000.
In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon again and left around 25,000 dead (the actual casualty figure is probably much higher, but many bodies were blown to bits or unrecoverable under the rubble of collapsed high rise apartments).
See Tony Clifton's "God Cried," Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle" and "Pirates and Emperor's" and "Race and Class" Vol. XXIV (Volume 24), No. 4, Spring 1983 (an academic journal found in most good research libraries).
As usual, the reasons given for Israel's invasion of Lebanon are completely fictitious.
See Noam Chomsky's analysis and compare that with the standard version of events:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1621818.php
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$240.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
But the Palestinians have not accepted this as the end of their story...
Gee, I was under the impression that just about ALL countries are "occupations" of land that was once somebody else's. Including that of the writer of the orginal piece and those commenting.
So let me ask you something. WHY should I believe you don't have "another" motive for objecting to Israel's existence than "no country has a right to exist"? You expect me to believe that it's a random selection? You just somehow didn't notice the existence of all these other countries stretching from where you are all the way over to Israel? B.....S.....
Right you are. Nationalism is a disease. We are all its victims.
The article presents tons of falsehoods:
> Palestine as a country has not existed for over four hundred years
No such country EVER existed. Prior to Ottoman rule, the area was governed by about a dozen FOREIGN EMPIRES: Mamluks, Mongols, Kurds, Crusaders, Seljuks, Arab (3 different Dynasties: Baghdad, Syria & Egypt), Persians, Byzantines, and Romans.
The last (and only) independent local nation-states to EVER exist in this region were Judea and Israel.
> Certainly not one that was founded through the destruction of another country.
Israel wasn't. See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/06/1623475.php
In fact, the region was not even locally known as "Palestine". This term was the European name which was later adopted by Arab immigrants who entered the territory.
Conder & Kitchener's "Survey of Western Palestine" helped establish Palestine as a meaningful geographical area in western politics and scholarship. Yet, in a letter date 7 March 1875, Kitchener wrote "what a glorious land this is when one can see it through the spectacles of imagination." Again we see that the land was not self-defined, and that it was glorious only in their imagination (based on Biblical stories). Indeed, Keith W. Whitelam of the University of Sheffield writes "The British fixed the scope and character of the region in dialogue with the Bible." As such, Palestine "was being defined by Jewish history. See also this 1849 map:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/palaestina_1849.jpg
> Israel has no right to exist as an exclusionary Jewish state that gives special rights to Jews
Israel provides full and equal citizenship to all its people, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, sex, etc.
So please drop the very tired right-wing argument of "special rights".
> to the detriment of the indigenous population.
Jews are the indigenous population, having lived there CONTINUOUSLY for 3300+ years.
True, foreign Arab empires conquered the Jewish homeland in the 7th century C.E., but they only held the region for 400 years -- a shorter period and less recently than Spain was Arab. Yet no one would dare claim that Spain is "Arab land" or that Arabs who arrived in Spain in recent centuries are "indigenous", right?
> Without the massive aid we give Israel, none of this would be possible and peace would have been attained long ago without all this bloodshed
Israel didn't start to receive significant US assistance until after the 1967 war. Yet for 20 years before that the Arab states refused to make peace. Why was that?
> has gone on for one reason -- to expand Israel's borders
Following the 1956 war, Israel withdrew from all territories it had captured as a sign of good faith. Despite this, the Arab League refused to negotiate peace.
At Camp David 2000, Israel was willing to withdraw from 97% of the disputed territories. That's hardly "expansionism".
Following the 1973 Arab attack on Israel, Israel withdrew from all territories it gained in that war. Yet the Arab League continued to refuse peace negotiations.
> to encompass ever more of the land that's belonged to Palestinians for millenia
As above, this was not "Arab land". Yes, some Arabs lived there and owned private property, but the vast majority of the land was not owned by anyone. It had been Turkish land for 400 years prior to WW I, which predates the arrival of Arabs (who would later take their name from the land upon which they settled).
> while pushing them into more and more crowded ghettoes.
Israel did not create the "refugee" camps. There are no such camps in Israel proper. Israel inherited such camps in the disputed territories when it legally gained control over them in 1967.
Certainly it is shameful that such camps existed within "Palestine" itself. That rather than resolve this humanitarian problem the "refugees" were quarrantined by Arab governments for use as pawns against Israel.
Palestinian Arabs living in Arab countries are routinely denied the rights enjoyed by all other refugee populations. The right to education, work, relocating, resettlement and citizenship.
As I believe I've previously related, following the 1967 war the quality of life in the disputed territories improved dramatically. Refugees were moved into fixed housing (rather than tents and mud hovels), the introduction of plumbing and electricity, along with hospitals and schools, was of great benefit to the population, and with modern farming techniques (from crop rotation to irrigation and use of tractors) agricultural output grew and the region prospered financially,. too.
> There is a plethora of canards surrounding this conflict.
Yes, let's see if you'll manage to miss any rather than mind-numbingly regurgitated one after another.
> One of which is that the UN Partition Resolution of 1948 gave Israel that land. First, that UN resolution was a General Assembly resolution not a Security Council resolution.
Did you have a point to make? The UN Charter granted the General Assembly authority over trust (mandate) territories.
> the UN at the time consisted of around 50 countries and did not include the Arab states
Not true. There were a handful of Arab state who voted on UNGAR 181. But no Jewish states. So what? The UN voted based on the recommendations of an international commission which investigated the matter.
> it gave 55% of the land to Jews.
UNGAR 181 allocated 54% of WESTERN Palestine, where Jews formed a majority, as the Jewish state. 80% of this territory was the Negev desert. Since 80% of Palestine had been made an exclusively Arab state in 1923, Israel was allocated 54% of 20% or about 11% of "historic Palestine".
> Israel expanded far beyond that to 78% of Palestine.
Following the violent Arab rejection of the UN compromise and attack on the newly created State of Israel which was meant to destroy it and "throw the Jews into the sea", Israel managed to repel the invasion and ended up gaining land. War has consequences. If you start a war and lose, one doesn't have a right to return to the status quo ante.
> Edward Said investigated this....
Said can't even be honeset about his own history. He is out of his field of expertise here and isn't exactly an objective commentator.
> Palestinians did not leave of their own free will but fled in a panic
Exactly. They FLED but were NOT FORCIBLY expelled. They often did so without any imminent threat, without ever seeing a Jewish soldier. As Glubb Pasha, commander of the Arab Legion, wrote:
|| Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war.
Arabs have come to define a "massacre" as any battle in which even a single Arab (even if armed) was killed. The truth of the matter is that there was one massacre (at Deir Yassin) which took place after many Arabs had already fled. As a study conducted at the Bir Zeit Arab University showed, this massacre was greatly exaggerated by the Arab High Command (the representative body of the Arabs of Palestine, who had not yet self-identified as "Palestinians"). The reason for the exaggeration was to demonize Israel and draw the Arab states to attack it, which is quite different than the spin placed on this above:
> Arab armies came to the Palestinians' defense in the middle of May 1948
Not true. Again quoting Glubb Pasha:
|| Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria.... They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.
> but did not enter the 55% of Palestine allotted to the state of Israel
Their military failure to hold lands into which they did enter is of no consequence. They attacked, they were repelled. As the UN Palestine Commission reported in mid February:
|| Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
Let's face it. The simple reality is that there was violence because the Arabs violently rejected the UN compromise and attacked the Jewish community, as the Secretary-General of the UN wrote :
|| From the first week of December 1947, disorder in Palestine had begun to mount. The Arabs repeatedly had asserted that they would resist partition by force. They seemed to be determined to drive that point home by assaults upon the Jewish community of Palestine.
Once again we see that what was openly stated by Arab leaders at the time is subverted by posters here. Consider the words of Azzam Pasha, the secretary of the Arab League, speaking against the proposed compromise in September 1947:
|| The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely... that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine.
Note the Arab determination to fight rather than compromise.
Note that he didn't consider "Palestine" any more Arab than Spain or Persia. All were nothing more than lands which were once part of Arab empires.
After the fighting had errupted, Jamal Husseini openly told the UN Security Council:
|| The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight.
Jews survived the last Holocaust for one reason and one reason only, the Diaspora. The Diaspora has turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to Jews. Being dispersed the way they are makes it impossible for even a Hitler to kill them all. Being all in one place only makes them vulnerable. Israel is a death trap for Jews. It just hasn't snapped shut yet.
Wise up. Come to America, where you're welcome.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/01/1568297_comment.php#1569361
If the diaspora is such a good thing, then why are the Palestinian Arabs complaining?
The Jews already have a state. If you think this is misguided, perhaps you should direct your commentary to help prevent the potential "disaster" of a Palestinian Arab state.
Once the danger of forming new states is precluded, we can turn our attention to creating reserve diasporas for other peoples, too. The Jews still have a diaspora, so Israel would be at the bottom of the list. I think maybe Tibet and Armenia should be at the top of the list....
I would gladly send you there.
That Arab terrorists target and murder innocent Jews in Israel isn't really an argument that backs your position. You might as well argue that pretty dresses (and not rapists) endanger women.
KL: "My location is not relevant to this discussion."
JA: I see. KL IS *SAFELY* IN THE *U.S.*-- crowing about what a great place Israel is.
KL: "Obviously 6 million Jews feel perfectly safe in Israel."
JA: Oh yes. *Perfectly* "obvious"! [??? Still on crack, ehh???]
(KL is *obviously* safely here in the U.S.)
Isn't it ironic that there are now about 6 million Palestinian refugees/exiles who were made to pay--by *Jews*--for *Europeans'* crime of genocide against 6 million Jews? And now (using KL's figure), 6 million *Jews* have brutally and semi-genocidally displaced 6 million Palestinians.
KL: "others [Jews] around the world move there precisely because they don't feel safe where they are."
JA: Yeah, *none* of them--even Jewish Holocaust survivors--were coerced and pressured and even blackmailed to go to Israel, were they? And *none* of them have tried to use Israel as the immigration back door to really get to the U.S., Canada, Western Europe or even Australia, huh? (Like some of the Russian Jews that I know.)
I SEE THAT THE DIASPORA IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR *YOU* KL !!!
KL: "[some kind of non sequitur]"
JA: ...that I won't bother to debate.