Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Israel's Grip Tightens Around the West Bank
The Great Wall of Palestine marches on. It is generating direct non-violent resistance and civil disobedience on a scale unprecedented in the struggle against the Ihtilal (literally the ‘Suffocation’, the Palestinian term for the ‘Occupation’). For many months, the International Solidarity Movement and the new Israeli group Anarchists Against the Wall among others have been protesting in solidarity with local Palestinian villagers, attempting by non-violent direct action to block further construction of the Wall and the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees. For numerous families, that land and those trees are their sole means of support and central to their identity.
"As long as there is occupation the resistance should be there. It’s the only dignity we have left." --Said Abu Salah, a Palestinian farmer
The Great Wall of Palestine marches on. It is generating direct non-violent resistance and civil disobedience on a scale unprecedented in the struggle against the Ihtilal (literally the ‘Suffocation’, the Palestinian term for the ‘Occupation’). For many months, the International Solidarity Movement and the new Israeli group Anarchists Against the Wall among others have been protesting in solidarity with local Palestinian villagers, attempting by non-violent direct action to block further construction of the Wall and the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees. For numerous families, that land and those trees are their sole means of support and central to their identity.
As a May 3, 2005 report on www.ainfos.ca stated:
"No. It is not the Makhnovitsa, nor is it the Spanish revolution... It is just the only region in the world anarchists are in nearly daily direct action confrontation with the state - in a non-violent action against Israeli settler colonialism and especially against the apartheid wall/fence used for the creeping transfer of the Palestinians. This morning the main Israeli radio already reported twice about the anarchists against the wall solidarity action at the Palestinian village Bil'in, the apartheid fence is cutting its fields and orchards. The radio reports on the ongoing activity in which the anarchists chained themselves to olive trees - to hinder the uprooting of an olive orchard situated on the route of the apartheid wall/fence."
The struggle against the Wall at the village of Bil’in has become a recent focal point. On April 28, a large peaceful demonstration, including three Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Palestinian civil rights activist Mustafa Barghouthi and veteran peace activist Uri Avnery, head of Gush Shalom (the Peace Bloc) was savagely attacked by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Israeli Knesset member Barakeh was injured by a teargas grenade tossed point-blank at him. In a new tactic, Israeli army provocateurs infiltrated the demonstration, throwing stones to spark IDF fire (rubber and salt bullets) at the protestors. As one eyewitness reported:
"The Israeli army made use of soldiers disguised as Arabs that took part in the demonstration. As a means to initiate a provocation that will provide reasons for the violent dispersion of the demonstration, the disguised Israeli soldiers started to throw stones on the Israeli army. The Palestinian organizers approached them and asked them to stop the stone hurling. From their reaction it was clear that they were indeed disguised soldiers and the Palestinian people therefore tried to force them to stop the stone hurling."
Two Palestinians that attempted to stop the provocation were arrested by the IDF infiltrators.
On May 4, the IDF continued to violently suppress protestors. During a demonstration against the Wall at the village of Beit Likia, two young Palestinians, Camal Assi (aged 14) and Udai Assi (15) were gunned down by Israeli soldiers.
Zionism’s Territorial Imperative
It is useful to put the continuing savagery of the Israeli army at Bil’in, Beit Likia and across the West Bank in perspective. Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, Israel’s military strategy has not been one merely of ‘security’ or ‘counter-terror’ but part of a longer term strategy of spatial demolition and strangulation. This is evident in the dismantling of Palestinian private and public space, the destruction of property, especially family dwellings and Palestinian Authority institutions, the displacement of population, restriction of personal movement and, the most striking instrument of spatial strangulation - the erection of the Separation Wall around and within the West Bank.
The effect of this strategy is to imprison the Palestinian population in sealed pockets. They are creating a kind of archipelago of separated islands of Palestinians in the West Bank interspersed with numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements, within a powerful dynamic of dismemberment of Palestinian space. The northern West Bank is already truncated by the Trans-Samaria Highway, that runs from Tel Aviv east to the Jordan Valley, and services a network of colonies, including the burgeoning Israeli settlement of Ariel, now with its own ‘university’. There are suspicions that Israel is moving to unilaterally annex the entire Jordan Valley corridor to the east of the West Bank, which would then render the West Bank a kind of macro-enclave composed of smaller Palestinian enclaves, completely surrounded by the Israeli army.
That strategy of strangulation, of which the building of the Great Wall of Palestine is a cornerstone, is predicated on two overriding Israeli geopolitical aims: unilateral separation from the Palestinian population and its concomitant territorial dismemberment. Withdrawal from a totally controlled and isolated Gaza, in effect turning Gaza into the biggest jail in the world, a huge enclave, is part of this strategy. Such an enclave will be in effect cut off from another chain of Palestinian ‘enclaves’ in the West Bank. All this is part of the long-term Israeli-Zionist policy of de-Palestinization of Palestine. It is driven by a territorial imperative to control ever more of the land and its water to remove, box in, demoralize and suffocate the indigenous Palestinians. That territorial imperative is as old as the Zionist colonial settler project of the past 120 years that led to the creation of the state of Israel. Ariel Sharon and his oligarchy are only the current administrators of those policies of land grab and ‘cleansing’. Uri Avnery, recently himself brutally attacked at Bil’in, cautioned two years ago to pay heed to the actions of Sharon and his ruling clique, not their rhetoric: "Never (but never!) pay attention to what Sharon says. The sole object of all his utterances is to divert your attention. One has to watch his hands and not avert one's eyes from them for a second.”
Upping the Ante —Ma’ale Adumin
Four months after the election of Mahmoud Abbas, the contours of the true face of Israeli ‘disengagement’ from Gaza are becoming ever more evident. A major plan to expand the Jewish condominium suburb of Ma’ale Adumim east of Jerusalem by 3,500 up-scale housing units - with nearly 30,000 residents it is already the largest Jewish settlement in the Occupied West Bank - threatens to smash all prospects for any meaningful ‘negotiations’ between the Sharon clique and the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority. The PA is, as many critics predicted, looking ever more like a ‘poodle’ on a very short leash for the policies imposed by the expansionist government of Sharon and Peres.
The expansion of Ma’ale Adumim will in effect cut the West Bank totally in two, making it impossible for Palestinians to travel from Ramallah to Bethlehem or Hebron. It will also box Palestinian al-Quds / East Jerusalem in from all sides, making it spatially impossible for East Jerusalem ever to be the capital of a Palestinian sovereign state.
As principal Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a San Francisco State graduate, put it on Jan 14: “If Sharon continues to think that he can dictate to the Palestinians what they must do, impose his plan for a unilateral retreat from Gaza on them, imprison them behind a wall in 40% of the West Bank, never talk about either refugees, borders, settlements, or Jerusalem, and negotiate only when he feels like it, nothing will be possible.” Responding to the announced projected surge in the population of Ma’ale Adumim by 35-40% over the next three years, Erekat said on March 21: “If this is carried out, Israel will be dictating the outcome of negotiations on the future of Jerusalem before they even begin … The land that is supposed to be for a future Palestinian state is being eaten up. With this settlement building, and the wall that is being built, the question for President Bush is: What is left to be negotiated?"
So the radical nationalist politics of Israeli land grab continues unabated. The ‘disengagement’ from Gaza is a kind of smokescreen. It is this which progressives stateside need to expose and denounce while joining with others in Palestine, Israel and across the planet in struggling for justice.
What Can Be Done in the Bay Area?
1. Join the worldwide struggle against the Great Wall of Palestine. The Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign is a good place to begin: www.stopthewall.org.
You can also join the Yahoo group Anarchists Against the Wall: groups.yahoo.com/group/againstwall.
2. Raise demands and add your hand in ongoing efforts to END ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL – military, economic and political -- stopping the flow of all forms of tax dollars from Washington to the Israeli government which has now surpassed the $100 billion mark. It also means ending public and private investment in Israel, in Israeli companies, and in American companies doing business in Israel.
3. Expose and challenge the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., AIPAC, which has much of the U.S. Congress in its stranglehold. AIPAC is also active in California. Its influence in shaping American pro-Israeli policy must be unmasked and denounced. The fear of its wrath is one of the reasons why so many American politicians unquestioningly support Israeli policy.
4. Join Al-Awda in the Bay Area! Mazin Qumsiyeh is the founder of www.al-awda.org, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, which has an active Bay Area chapter, find time to join in:
http://al-awda.org/sanfrancisco/.
The Great Wall of Palestine marches on. It is generating direct non-violent resistance and civil disobedience on a scale unprecedented in the struggle against the Ihtilal (literally the ‘Suffocation’, the Palestinian term for the ‘Occupation’). For many months, the International Solidarity Movement and the new Israeli group Anarchists Against the Wall among others have been protesting in solidarity with local Palestinian villagers, attempting by non-violent direct action to block further construction of the Wall and the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees. For numerous families, that land and those trees are their sole means of support and central to their identity.
As a May 3, 2005 report on www.ainfos.ca stated:
"No. It is not the Makhnovitsa, nor is it the Spanish revolution... It is just the only region in the world anarchists are in nearly daily direct action confrontation with the state - in a non-violent action against Israeli settler colonialism and especially against the apartheid wall/fence used for the creeping transfer of the Palestinians. This morning the main Israeli radio already reported twice about the anarchists against the wall solidarity action at the Palestinian village Bil'in, the apartheid fence is cutting its fields and orchards. The radio reports on the ongoing activity in which the anarchists chained themselves to olive trees - to hinder the uprooting of an olive orchard situated on the route of the apartheid wall/fence."
The struggle against the Wall at the village of Bil’in has become a recent focal point. On April 28, a large peaceful demonstration, including three Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, Palestinian civil rights activist Mustafa Barghouthi and veteran peace activist Uri Avnery, head of Gush Shalom (the Peace Bloc) was savagely attacked by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Israeli Knesset member Barakeh was injured by a teargas grenade tossed point-blank at him. In a new tactic, Israeli army provocateurs infiltrated the demonstration, throwing stones to spark IDF fire (rubber and salt bullets) at the protestors. As one eyewitness reported:
"The Israeli army made use of soldiers disguised as Arabs that took part in the demonstration. As a means to initiate a provocation that will provide reasons for the violent dispersion of the demonstration, the disguised Israeli soldiers started to throw stones on the Israeli army. The Palestinian organizers approached them and asked them to stop the stone hurling. From their reaction it was clear that they were indeed disguised soldiers and the Palestinian people therefore tried to force them to stop the stone hurling."
Two Palestinians that attempted to stop the provocation were arrested by the IDF infiltrators.
On May 4, the IDF continued to violently suppress protestors. During a demonstration against the Wall at the village of Beit Likia, two young Palestinians, Camal Assi (aged 14) and Udai Assi (15) were gunned down by Israeli soldiers.
Zionism’s Territorial Imperative
It is useful to put the continuing savagery of the Israeli army at Bil’in, Beit Likia and across the West Bank in perspective. Since the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September 2000, Israel’s military strategy has not been one merely of ‘security’ or ‘counter-terror’ but part of a longer term strategy of spatial demolition and strangulation. This is evident in the dismantling of Palestinian private and public space, the destruction of property, especially family dwellings and Palestinian Authority institutions, the displacement of population, restriction of personal movement and, the most striking instrument of spatial strangulation - the erection of the Separation Wall around and within the West Bank.
The effect of this strategy is to imprison the Palestinian population in sealed pockets. They are creating a kind of archipelago of separated islands of Palestinians in the West Bank interspersed with numerous Jewish-Israeli settlements, within a powerful dynamic of dismemberment of Palestinian space. The northern West Bank is already truncated by the Trans-Samaria Highway, that runs from Tel Aviv east to the Jordan Valley, and services a network of colonies, including the burgeoning Israeli settlement of Ariel, now with its own ‘university’. There are suspicions that Israel is moving to unilaterally annex the entire Jordan Valley corridor to the east of the West Bank, which would then render the West Bank a kind of macro-enclave composed of smaller Palestinian enclaves, completely surrounded by the Israeli army.
That strategy of strangulation, of which the building of the Great Wall of Palestine is a cornerstone, is predicated on two overriding Israeli geopolitical aims: unilateral separation from the Palestinian population and its concomitant territorial dismemberment. Withdrawal from a totally controlled and isolated Gaza, in effect turning Gaza into the biggest jail in the world, a huge enclave, is part of this strategy. Such an enclave will be in effect cut off from another chain of Palestinian ‘enclaves’ in the West Bank. All this is part of the long-term Israeli-Zionist policy of de-Palestinization of Palestine. It is driven by a territorial imperative to control ever more of the land and its water to remove, box in, demoralize and suffocate the indigenous Palestinians. That territorial imperative is as old as the Zionist colonial settler project of the past 120 years that led to the creation of the state of Israel. Ariel Sharon and his oligarchy are only the current administrators of those policies of land grab and ‘cleansing’. Uri Avnery, recently himself brutally attacked at Bil’in, cautioned two years ago to pay heed to the actions of Sharon and his ruling clique, not their rhetoric: "Never (but never!) pay attention to what Sharon says. The sole object of all his utterances is to divert your attention. One has to watch his hands and not avert one's eyes from them for a second.”
Upping the Ante —Ma’ale Adumin
Four months after the election of Mahmoud Abbas, the contours of the true face of Israeli ‘disengagement’ from Gaza are becoming ever more evident. A major plan to expand the Jewish condominium suburb of Ma’ale Adumim east of Jerusalem by 3,500 up-scale housing units - with nearly 30,000 residents it is already the largest Jewish settlement in the Occupied West Bank - threatens to smash all prospects for any meaningful ‘negotiations’ between the Sharon clique and the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority. The PA is, as many critics predicted, looking ever more like a ‘poodle’ on a very short leash for the policies imposed by the expansionist government of Sharon and Peres.
The expansion of Ma’ale Adumim will in effect cut the West Bank totally in two, making it impossible for Palestinians to travel from Ramallah to Bethlehem or Hebron. It will also box Palestinian al-Quds / East Jerusalem in from all sides, making it spatially impossible for East Jerusalem ever to be the capital of a Palestinian sovereign state.
As principal Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a San Francisco State graduate, put it on Jan 14: “If Sharon continues to think that he can dictate to the Palestinians what they must do, impose his plan for a unilateral retreat from Gaza on them, imprison them behind a wall in 40% of the West Bank, never talk about either refugees, borders, settlements, or Jerusalem, and negotiate only when he feels like it, nothing will be possible.” Responding to the announced projected surge in the population of Ma’ale Adumim by 35-40% over the next three years, Erekat said on March 21: “If this is carried out, Israel will be dictating the outcome of negotiations on the future of Jerusalem before they even begin … The land that is supposed to be for a future Palestinian state is being eaten up. With this settlement building, and the wall that is being built, the question for President Bush is: What is left to be negotiated?"
So the radical nationalist politics of Israeli land grab continues unabated. The ‘disengagement’ from Gaza is a kind of smokescreen. It is this which progressives stateside need to expose and denounce while joining with others in Palestine, Israel and across the planet in struggling for justice.
What Can Be Done in the Bay Area?
1. Join the worldwide struggle against the Great Wall of Palestine. The Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign is a good place to begin: www.stopthewall.org.
You can also join the Yahoo group Anarchists Against the Wall: groups.yahoo.com/group/againstwall.
2. Raise demands and add your hand in ongoing efforts to END ALL U.S. AID TO ISRAEL – military, economic and political -- stopping the flow of all forms of tax dollars from Washington to the Israeli government which has now surpassed the $100 billion mark. It also means ending public and private investment in Israel, in Israeli companies, and in American companies doing business in Israel.
3. Expose and challenge the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., AIPAC, which has much of the U.S. Congress in its stranglehold. AIPAC is also active in California. Its influence in shaping American pro-Israeli policy must be unmasked and denounced. The fear of its wrath is one of the reasons why so many American politicians unquestioningly support Israeli policy.
4. Join Al-Awda in the Bay Area! Mazin Qumsiyeh is the founder of www.al-awda.org, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, which has an active Bay Area chapter, find time to join in:
http://al-awda.org/sanfrancisco/.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Spamming is bad. Nessie doesn't need your help to look foolish -- he does a good enough job of it on his own.
@%<
@%<
"Spam is bad"
But its delicious...its popularity in the South pacific is linked to the fact that it tastes similar to human flesh. Vestiges of the old days of cannabalism. Or maybe thats just urban legend. Truth is flexible on Indy Bay
But its delicious...its popularity in the South pacific is linked to the fact that it tastes similar to human flesh. Vestiges of the old days of cannabalism. Or maybe thats just urban legend. Truth is flexible on Indy Bay
French Court Finds its leading paper GUILTY of slandering Israel and Jews!!
Posted: 6/6/2005 9:50:00 AM
Author: Tom Gross - Wall Street Journal Europe
Source: http://www.standwithus.com
COPY AND PASTE THIS and send it to everyone you know.
Anti-Semitism at 'Le Monde' and Beyond
A landmark ruling by a French court finds its leading paper guilty of slandering Israel and Jewish people.
By Tom Gross
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 2, 2005
A French court last week found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's publisher, guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. In a groundbreaking decision, the Versailles court of appeal ruled that a comment piece published in Le Monde in 2002, "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer," had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion.
The writers of the article, Edgar Morin (a well-known sociologist), Daniele Sallenave (a senior lecturer at Nanterre University) and Sami Nair (a member of the European parliament), as well as Le Monde's publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro to a human-rights group and to the Franco-Israeli association. Le Monde was also ordered to publish a condemnation of the article, which it has yet to do.
It is encouraging to see a French court rule that anti-Semitism should have no place in the media -- even when it is masked as an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ruling also makes it clear that the law in this respect applies to extremist Jews (Mr. Morin is Jewish) as much as to non-Jews.
Press freedom is a value to be cherished, but not exploited and abused. In general, European countries have strict laws against such abuse and Europe's mainstream media are in any case usually good at exercising self-censorship. Responsible journalists strenuously avoid libelous characterizations of entire ethnic, national or religious groups. They go out of their way, for example, to avoid suggesting that the massacres in Darfur, which are being carried out by Arab militias, in any way represent an Arab trait.
The exception to this seems to be the coverage of Jews, particularly Israeli ones. This is particularly ironic given the fact that Europe's relatively strict freedom of speech laws (compared to those in the U.S.) were to a large extend drafted as a reaction to the Continent's Nazi occupation. And yet, from Oslo to Athens, from London to Madrid, it has been virtually open season on them in the last few years, especially in supposedly liberal media.
"Israel-Palestine: The Cancer" was a nasty piece of work, replete with lies, slanders and myths about "the chosen people," "the Jenin massacre," describing the Jews as "a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others," "imposing their unmerciful rule," and so on.
Yet it is was no worse than thousands of other news reports, editorials, commentaries, letters, cartoons and headlines published throughout Europe in recent years, in the guise of legitimate and reasoned discussion of Israeli policies.
The libels and distortions about Israel in some British media are by now fairly well known: the Guardian's equation of Israel and al Qaeda; the Evening Standard's equation of Israel and the Taliban; the report by the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, on how "the Israelis stole Christmas." Most notorious of all is the Independent's Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, who specializes in such observations as his comment that, "If ever a sword was thrust into a military alliance of East and West, the Israelis wielded that dagger," and who implies that the White House has fallen into the hands of the Jews: "The Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens ... [the] very sinister people hovering around Bush."
The invective against Israel elsewhere in Europe is less well known. In Spain, for example, on June 4, 2001 (three days after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 21 young Israelis at a disco, and wounded over 100 others, all in the midst of a unilateral Israeli ceasefire), the liberal daily Cambio 16 published a cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with a hook nose he does not have), wearing a skull cap (which he does not usually wear), sporting a swastika inside a star of David on his chest, and proclaiming: "At least Hitler taught me how to invade a country and destroy every living insect."
The week before, on May 23, El Pais (the "New York Times of Spain") published a cartoon of an allegorical figure carrying a small rectangular-shaped black moustache, flying through the air toward Sharon's upper lip. The caption read: "Clio, the muse of history, puts Hitler's moustache on Ariel Sharon."
Two days later, on May 25, the Catalan daily La Vanguardia published a cartoon showing an imposing building, with a sign outside reading "Museo del Holocausto Judio" (Museum of the Jewish Holocaust), and next to it another building under construction, with a large sign reading "Futuro Museo del Holocausto Palestino" (Future Museum of the Palestinian Holocaust).
Greece's largest newspaper, the leftist daily Eleftherotypia, has run several such cartoons. In April 2002, on its front cover, under the title "Holocaust II," an Israeli soldier was depicted as a Nazi officer and a Palestinian civilian as a Jewish death camp inmate. In September 2002, another cartoon in Eleftherotypia showed an Israeli soldier with a Jewish star telling a Nazi officer next to him "Arafat is not a person the Reich can talk to anymore." The Nazi officer responds "Why? Is he a Jew?"
In Italy, in October 2001, the Web site of one of the country's most respected newspapers, La Repubblica, published the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in its entirety, without providing any historical explanation. It did suggest, however, that the work would help readers understand why the U.S. had taken military action in Afghanistan.
In April 2002, the Italian liberal daily La Stampa ran a front-page cartoon showing an Israeli tank, emblazoned with a Jewish star, pointing a large gun at the baby Jesus in a manger, while the baby pleads, "Surely they don't want to kill me again, do they?"
In Corriere Della Sera, another cartoon showed Jesus trapped in his tomb, unable to rise, because Ariel Sharon, rifle in hand, is sitting on the sepulcher.
Sweden's largest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, ran a caricature of a Hassidic Jew accusing anyone who criticized Israel of anti-Semitism. Another leading Swedish paper, Aftonbladet, used the headline "The Crucifixion of Arafat."
If the misreporting and bias were limited to one or two newspapers or television programs in each country, it might be possible to shrug them off. But they are not. Bashing Israel even extends to local papers that don't usually cover foreign affairs, such as the double-page spread titled "Jews in jackboots" in "Luton on Sunday." (Luton is an industrial town in southern England.) Or the article in Norway's leading regional paper, Stavanger Aftenblad, equating Israel's actions against terrorists in Ramallah with the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Grotesque and utterly false comparisons such as these should have no place in reporting or commenting on the Middle East. Yet although the French court ruling -- the first of its kind in Europe -- is a major landmark, no one in France seems to care. The country's most distinguished newspaper, the paper of record, has been found guilty of anti-Semitism. One would have thought that such a verdict would prompt wide-ranging coverage and lead to extensive soul-searching and public debate. Instead, there has been almost complete silence, and virtually no coverage in the French press.
And few elsewhere will have heard about it. Reuters and Agence France Presse (agencies that have demonstrated particularly marked bias against Israel) ran short stories about the judgment in their French-language wires last week, but chose not to run them on their English news services. The Associated Press didn't run it at all. Instead of triggering the long overdue reassessment of Europe's attitude toward Israel, the media have chosen to ignore it.
(Mr. Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News.)
Posted: 6/6/2005 9:50:00 AM
Author: Tom Gross - Wall Street Journal Europe
Source: http://www.standwithus.com
COPY AND PASTE THIS and send it to everyone you know.
Anti-Semitism at 'Le Monde' and Beyond
A landmark ruling by a French court finds its leading paper guilty of slandering Israel and Jewish people.
By Tom Gross
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 2, 2005
A French court last week found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's publisher, guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. In a groundbreaking decision, the Versailles court of appeal ruled that a comment piece published in Le Monde in 2002, "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer," had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion.
The writers of the article, Edgar Morin (a well-known sociologist), Daniele Sallenave (a senior lecturer at Nanterre University) and Sami Nair (a member of the European parliament), as well as Le Monde's publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro to a human-rights group and to the Franco-Israeli association. Le Monde was also ordered to publish a condemnation of the article, which it has yet to do.
It is encouraging to see a French court rule that anti-Semitism should have no place in the media -- even when it is masked as an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ruling also makes it clear that the law in this respect applies to extremist Jews (Mr. Morin is Jewish) as much as to non-Jews.
Press freedom is a value to be cherished, but not exploited and abused. In general, European countries have strict laws against such abuse and Europe's mainstream media are in any case usually good at exercising self-censorship. Responsible journalists strenuously avoid libelous characterizations of entire ethnic, national or religious groups. They go out of their way, for example, to avoid suggesting that the massacres in Darfur, which are being carried out by Arab militias, in any way represent an Arab trait.
The exception to this seems to be the coverage of Jews, particularly Israeli ones. This is particularly ironic given the fact that Europe's relatively strict freedom of speech laws (compared to those in the U.S.) were to a large extend drafted as a reaction to the Continent's Nazi occupation. And yet, from Oslo to Athens, from London to Madrid, it has been virtually open season on them in the last few years, especially in supposedly liberal media.
"Israel-Palestine: The Cancer" was a nasty piece of work, replete with lies, slanders and myths about "the chosen people," "the Jenin massacre," describing the Jews as "a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others," "imposing their unmerciful rule," and so on.
Yet it is was no worse than thousands of other news reports, editorials, commentaries, letters, cartoons and headlines published throughout Europe in recent years, in the guise of legitimate and reasoned discussion of Israeli policies.
The libels and distortions about Israel in some British media are by now fairly well known: the Guardian's equation of Israel and al Qaeda; the Evening Standard's equation of Israel and the Taliban; the report by the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, on how "the Israelis stole Christmas." Most notorious of all is the Independent's Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, who specializes in such observations as his comment that, "If ever a sword was thrust into a military alliance of East and West, the Israelis wielded that dagger," and who implies that the White House has fallen into the hands of the Jews: "The Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens ... [the] very sinister people hovering around Bush."
The invective against Israel elsewhere in Europe is less well known. In Spain, for example, on June 4, 2001 (three days after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 21 young Israelis at a disco, and wounded over 100 others, all in the midst of a unilateral Israeli ceasefire), the liberal daily Cambio 16 published a cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with a hook nose he does not have), wearing a skull cap (which he does not usually wear), sporting a swastika inside a star of David on his chest, and proclaiming: "At least Hitler taught me how to invade a country and destroy every living insect."
The week before, on May 23, El Pais (the "New York Times of Spain") published a cartoon of an allegorical figure carrying a small rectangular-shaped black moustache, flying through the air toward Sharon's upper lip. The caption read: "Clio, the muse of history, puts Hitler's moustache on Ariel Sharon."
Two days later, on May 25, the Catalan daily La Vanguardia published a cartoon showing an imposing building, with a sign outside reading "Museo del Holocausto Judio" (Museum of the Jewish Holocaust), and next to it another building under construction, with a large sign reading "Futuro Museo del Holocausto Palestino" (Future Museum of the Palestinian Holocaust).
Greece's largest newspaper, the leftist daily Eleftherotypia, has run several such cartoons. In April 2002, on its front cover, under the title "Holocaust II," an Israeli soldier was depicted as a Nazi officer and a Palestinian civilian as a Jewish death camp inmate. In September 2002, another cartoon in Eleftherotypia showed an Israeli soldier with a Jewish star telling a Nazi officer next to him "Arafat is not a person the Reich can talk to anymore." The Nazi officer responds "Why? Is he a Jew?"
In Italy, in October 2001, the Web site of one of the country's most respected newspapers, La Repubblica, published the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in its entirety, without providing any historical explanation. It did suggest, however, that the work would help readers understand why the U.S. had taken military action in Afghanistan.
In April 2002, the Italian liberal daily La Stampa ran a front-page cartoon showing an Israeli tank, emblazoned with a Jewish star, pointing a large gun at the baby Jesus in a manger, while the baby pleads, "Surely they don't want to kill me again, do they?"
In Corriere Della Sera, another cartoon showed Jesus trapped in his tomb, unable to rise, because Ariel Sharon, rifle in hand, is sitting on the sepulcher.
Sweden's largest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, ran a caricature of a Hassidic Jew accusing anyone who criticized Israel of anti-Semitism. Another leading Swedish paper, Aftonbladet, used the headline "The Crucifixion of Arafat."
If the misreporting and bias were limited to one or two newspapers or television programs in each country, it might be possible to shrug them off. But they are not. Bashing Israel even extends to local papers that don't usually cover foreign affairs, such as the double-page spread titled "Jews in jackboots" in "Luton on Sunday." (Luton is an industrial town in southern England.) Or the article in Norway's leading regional paper, Stavanger Aftenblad, equating Israel's actions against terrorists in Ramallah with the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Grotesque and utterly false comparisons such as these should have no place in reporting or commenting on the Middle East. Yet although the French court ruling -- the first of its kind in Europe -- is a major landmark, no one in France seems to care. The country's most distinguished newspaper, the paper of record, has been found guilty of anti-Semitism. One would have thought that such a verdict would prompt wide-ranging coverage and lead to extensive soul-searching and public debate. Instead, there has been almost complete silence, and virtually no coverage in the French press.
And few elsewhere will have heard about it. Reuters and Agence France Presse (agencies that have demonstrated particularly marked bias against Israel) ran short stories about the judgment in their French-language wires last week, but chose not to run them on their English news services. The Associated Press didn't run it at all. Instead of triggering the long overdue reassessment of Europe's attitude toward Israel, the media have chosen to ignore it.
(Mr. Gross is a former Jerusalem correspondent of the Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News.)
COPY AND PASTE THIS and send it to everyone you know.
Influx of compensation requests expected in light of court ruling
Settler land thieves to be compensated by U.S. dollar$.
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies
The Disengagement Administration is expecting to receive an influx of compensation requests from Gaza settlers, in the wake of Thursday's High Court of Justice decision upholding the legality of the disengagement plan and increasing possible benefits for evacuees.
An expanded High Court panel on Thursday removed a major legal obstacle to the government's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank.
The 11-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, also determined that "Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel."
The court also increased the compensation benefits to which Gaza evacuees are entitled.
The panel rejected 12 petitions by opponents to the withdrawal from all Gaza Strip and four northern West Bank settlements, ruling the pullout can go ahead as planned and does not violate the settlers' human rights.
The justices ruled that the disengagement plan as presently envisaged is legal and that its implementation poses no constitutional problems.
Justice Edmund Levy cast the sole dissenting vote in the 10-1 decision, calling for the plan to be cancelled.
The judges ruled that the evacuation of settlements do affect human rights, including "the right to property, freedom of occupation and proper respect for the evacuees," but determined that it was a measured violation, which was not excessive and was aimed at achieving political and security goals.
The justice system was closely studying the ruling, since some of the petitions demanding the retraction of the law, which was passed by the Knesset in February, deal with constitutional issues.
One such issue was the disengagement's perceived infringement of human rights, which are protected by the Basic Laws.
Court orders technical changes
The court rescinded four financial arrangements relating to compensation for the future evacuees.
The court rejected a clause which would have barred recipients of compensation from filing a standard lawsuit for damages.
The court, rejecting a deadline specified by the law, allowed settlers 30 days to choose the nature of the compensation plan they preferred.
The court ruled that settlers under 21 may receive compensation. The law had set 21 as the minimum age for receipt of compensation funds.
The court ruled that the day of actual evacuation will be used as the date used for determination of the elements of the compensation package for each family, rather than June 4, 2004, as stated by the law.
Settlers: Ruling is irrelevant
Yoram Sheftel, an attorney for the settlers, said his expectations were low because the Supreme Court has a tendency of ruling against settlers.
"We didn't expect anything from this court since the petitioners are Jews and patriots," Sheftel said. "This was fully expected. There's no surprise. I'm not disappointed because we didn't have any expectations."
Other settler leaders dismissed the ruling as irrelevant, and vowed to resist the evacuation.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni praised the court's decision, and expressed hope the ruling would defuse potentially violent settler resistance to the evacuation.
"I hope this ruling sends a message to the lone settler that the plan is going ahead," she told Army Radio.
Hints at intervention
The first sign that the High Court might intervene in the law's complicated compensation arrangements was given about two weeks ago in an interim injunction issued by Barak in response to a petition by 136 settlers from Nisanit, Homesh and Sa-Nur to freeze the limitation on the amount of time evacuees can submit a new demand for compensation.
The court ruled that the 30 days the law gives would begin not with the submission of the demand to the Disengagement Administration, but rather from the day the final ruling on their petition was handed down.
The Forum of Jurists for the Land of Israel, representing the Gaza Coast Regional Council, asked the High Court to come to Gush Katif, but the justices declined the request.
The court also rejected the settlers' request to have former military chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon explain to the court the security reasoning behind the disengagement plan, which they said the state had not presented to the settlers.
Influx of compensation requests expected in light of court ruling
Settler land thieves to be compensated by U.S. dollar$.
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent, and Agencies
The Disengagement Administration is expecting to receive an influx of compensation requests from Gaza settlers, in the wake of Thursday's High Court of Justice decision upholding the legality of the disengagement plan and increasing possible benefits for evacuees.
An expanded High Court panel on Thursday removed a major legal obstacle to the government's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and part of the northern West Bank.
The 11-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, also determined that "Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Gaza area are lands seized during warfare, and are not part of Israel."
The court also increased the compensation benefits to which Gaza evacuees are entitled.
The panel rejected 12 petitions by opponents to the withdrawal from all Gaza Strip and four northern West Bank settlements, ruling the pullout can go ahead as planned and does not violate the settlers' human rights.
The justices ruled that the disengagement plan as presently envisaged is legal and that its implementation poses no constitutional problems.
Justice Edmund Levy cast the sole dissenting vote in the 10-1 decision, calling for the plan to be cancelled.
The judges ruled that the evacuation of settlements do affect human rights, including "the right to property, freedom of occupation and proper respect for the evacuees," but determined that it was a measured violation, which was not excessive and was aimed at achieving political and security goals.
The justice system was closely studying the ruling, since some of the petitions demanding the retraction of the law, which was passed by the Knesset in February, deal with constitutional issues.
One such issue was the disengagement's perceived infringement of human rights, which are protected by the Basic Laws.
Court orders technical changes
The court rescinded four financial arrangements relating to compensation for the future evacuees.
The court rejected a clause which would have barred recipients of compensation from filing a standard lawsuit for damages.
The court, rejecting a deadline specified by the law, allowed settlers 30 days to choose the nature of the compensation plan they preferred.
The court ruled that settlers under 21 may receive compensation. The law had set 21 as the minimum age for receipt of compensation funds.
The court ruled that the day of actual evacuation will be used as the date used for determination of the elements of the compensation package for each family, rather than June 4, 2004, as stated by the law.
Settlers: Ruling is irrelevant
Yoram Sheftel, an attorney for the settlers, said his expectations were low because the Supreme Court has a tendency of ruling against settlers.
"We didn't expect anything from this court since the petitioners are Jews and patriots," Sheftel said. "This was fully expected. There's no surprise. I'm not disappointed because we didn't have any expectations."
Other settler leaders dismissed the ruling as irrelevant, and vowed to resist the evacuation.
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni praised the court's decision, and expressed hope the ruling would defuse potentially violent settler resistance to the evacuation.
"I hope this ruling sends a message to the lone settler that the plan is going ahead," she told Army Radio.
Hints at intervention
The first sign that the High Court might intervene in the law's complicated compensation arrangements was given about two weeks ago in an interim injunction issued by Barak in response to a petition by 136 settlers from Nisanit, Homesh and Sa-Nur to freeze the limitation on the amount of time evacuees can submit a new demand for compensation.
The court ruled that the 30 days the law gives would begin not with the submission of the demand to the Disengagement Administration, but rather from the day the final ruling on their petition was handed down.
The Forum of Jurists for the Land of Israel, representing the Gaza Coast Regional Council, asked the High Court to come to Gush Katif, but the justices declined the request.
The court also rejected the settlers' request to have former military chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon explain to the court the security reasoning behind the disengagement plan, which they said the state had not presented to the settlers.
For more information:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/586419...
And lands annexed during warfare are quite legal. There's about 300 years of historical precedence here, i.e. Guadalupe Hidalgo, Texas Annexation, Gibraltar, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
That's right. Lands annexed during warfare are quite legal. I just want all you anti-semites to realize this. Sure, we Jews took land well beyong the UN partition the imperialist powers (the US, the UK and France) gave to us. To be precise, we were still only 30% of the population, due to a massive invasion of Jews from Europe, and yes we did get more than half the land (56%), but we deserved more. That's when we took, through war, terrorism and annexation, 78% of Palestine. We should have gotten it all in the first place. So, we are only doing what God gave us a right to do in the first place: to have a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine. If you don't believe me, go read it in our scriptures.
Yes, Thinker, we are the Chosen People, the light unto the world! That's what I've been trying to tell all those anti-Semites. If you are entitled to take the land, then no one can actually say that you are stealing it. Unless they are anti-Semitic.
"And lands annexed during warfare are quite legal. There's about 300 years of historical precedence here, i.e. Guadalupe Hidalgo, Texas Annexation, Gibraltar, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc."
if you are talking about international law the difference is that Israel hasnt annexed the West Bank and Gaza. Puerto Ricans get US citizenship, thosein the West Bank dont get Israeli citizenship. Annexations are unjust and Puerto Rico is denied certain basic rights (like a real vote for President) but what makes the Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza somewhat unique is that those in the West Bank and Gaza are citizens of no state (while China descrimiates against Tibetans and may not let many go abroad they would still be eligable for a Chinese passport and if a Tibetan were visting the US and got in trouble they would be able to get help form the embasy of China).
if you are talking about international law the difference is that Israel hasnt annexed the West Bank and Gaza. Puerto Ricans get US citizenship, thosein the West Bank dont get Israeli citizenship. Annexations are unjust and Puerto Rico is denied certain basic rights (like a real vote for President) but what makes the Occupation in the West Bank and Gaza somewhat unique is that those in the West Bank and Gaza are citizens of no state (while China descrimiates against Tibetans and may not let many go abroad they would still be eligable for a Chinese passport and if a Tibetan were visting the US and got in trouble they would be able to get help form the embasy of China).
Don't bother with Steve--Steve's a cowardly bitch who simply does hit and run style posting--won't ever engage in meaningful debate.
This is how we live: last week I went to a memorial service for
Eitan Newman, the young soldier blown up in
his tank last year as he patrolled the dangerous Philadelphi road that
separates Gaza from Egypt and weapons smugglers and terrorists.
Only a year ago, I paid a shiva call to his family.
The memorial was held at Himmelfarb, a religious boys' high school where my son went. It was packed with Eitan's family and friends, so many young men and women, many of them married and wheeling baby carriages. Those like myself, who had never met Eitan, spent the evening getting to know him, in what was a celebration of his short,
beautiful life, a life filled with kindness and laughter and
learning and giving. I looked at the videos of him and his friends- such a handsome, charming, clever boy. Beside me sat Esther Waxman,a friend of Sara's, whose own soldier son was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists. She had come to participate in an evening that could not have been easy for her. She had come to remember Eitan with love. Not a word of hatred or revenge or
politics was heard that evening. And we left feeling like family.
A few days later, I rode out to Gush Katif and spent an afternoon speaking with Roz and Paul, friends who are farmers in Netzar Chazani. They have eight kids, seven boys, five of whom are army
officers. I sat in the house they've built, saw the lettuce they
grow in sand that brings in so many export dollars, and spoke with them about how their government is planning to throw them out of their house and land come August in exchange for....nothing. They are filled with faith that it won't happen. Filled with love and
forgiveness for their fellow Jews, who they think are mistaken.
Last night I attended a wedding. The bride was the beautiful young daughter of friends. I didn't know much about the handsome groom. The wedding was held in an elegant hotel. It was special. The dancing was amazing. Then someone said to me:" I don't know how she does it."
"Who?" I asked, puzzled.
"The mother of the groom. You
must know, her daughter and husband..last year, Cafe Hillel..."
I thought about it a minute, and then it dawned on me. The bride who had been killed in a suicide bombing the night before her wedding, along with her father, a well-known physician, who had run the emergency room at
Shaare Zedek, saving the lives of so many terror victims. And
now, a year later, another wedding. The bride's brother.
I looked around the room. Many of these people had no doubt
gathered the year before to attend his sister's wedding, and had instead attended her funeral. And now they had gathered once again, to celebrate with joy, to make the bride and groom joyful, to dance and be happy.
I watched the groom's mother, girlish as a bride herself, as she danced with the bride doing everything she could to make her happy.
I watched as the room swirled around them, everyone laughing,
rejoicing. And then I watched the young groom suddenly break into
the women's circle, taking his bride by the hands and dancing with
her as the room exploded with cheering, and clapping and happiness.
Whenever I think I can't go on one more day, that the cisterns of grief are overflowing, ready to tip over and drown me, I never fail to be touched by the extraordinary spirit of the people of Israel, the most humane, giving, life-affirming people on the planet-- whatever sick propaganda you might have read to the contrary.
I know we are truly God's people. How else can you explain what I've just told you? Our enemies will never win.
Because love is stronger than hate.
Joy is stronger than sorrow.
And those who love life are stronger than those who value death.
Our enemies think they will win because they are willing to die. But I know we
will win, because we are willing, despite everything we've been
through, to go on living joyful, meaningful lives that are full of
love. I don't know how it's possible, but everyday, every hour,
someone else shows me how it's done.
God bless them.
And God bless all of you who love the people of
Israel.
God bless the Palestinian people, they have suffered much under Israeli terror.
"God bless the Palestinian people, they have suffered much under Israeli terror"
LOL!!! Yeah, they were even better off under: Turkish OCCUPATION, Jordanian OCCUPATION, Egyptian OCCUPATION and Syrian OCCUPATION
At least the Israelis built them schools, hospitals and provided water and electricity. Arabs either locked them up, or slaughtered them.
LOL!!! Yeah, they were even better off under: Turkish OCCUPATION, Jordanian OCCUPATION, Egyptian OCCUPATION and Syrian OCCUPATION
At least the Israelis built them schools, hospitals and provided water and electricity. Arabs either locked them up, or slaughtered them.
If “they do it, too” were a valid excuse, Hitler would be off the hook for killing those six million Jews, because Stalin killed six million Ukrainians.
If "they do it too" were a valid excuse, nessie-obsessie, the racist anti-Arab posts that appear here would excuse away your own blatant antisemitism.
@%<
@%<
When neither facts nor logic are on their side, Zionist call people names.
When both facts _and_ logic are against him, poor nessie whines about how he's being persecuted by Thuh Zionists.
In the meantime, he has no moral qualms whatsoever in declaring that 99.5% of American Jews "support evil," "suck the blood of the American taxpayer," etc. -- and believes _you_ folks are stupid enough to see through the antisemitism as long as he sez, "of course, one out of two hundred American Jews -- that is, 0.5% -- _don't_ suck the blood of the American taxpayer, and therefore I'm not an antisemite even though I actively hate and slander the other 99.5%."
There's a very simple way out of this corner you've painted yourself into. All you have to do is say that 99.5% of American Jews _don't_ "suck the blood of the American taxpayer," _don't_ "support evil," and so on.
But your antisemitism won't let you do that, will it, nessie. You'd rather condemn 99.5% of American Jews than have your internal dogma be shaken even slightly -- and _that_ is how you demonstrate your antisemitism.
Now dodge the question one more time, like a good little bigot.
@%<
In the meantime, he has no moral qualms whatsoever in declaring that 99.5% of American Jews "support evil," "suck the blood of the American taxpayer," etc. -- and believes _you_ folks are stupid enough to see through the antisemitism as long as he sez, "of course, one out of two hundred American Jews -- that is, 0.5% -- _don't_ suck the blood of the American taxpayer, and therefore I'm not an antisemite even though I actively hate and slander the other 99.5%."
There's a very simple way out of this corner you've painted yourself into. All you have to do is say that 99.5% of American Jews _don't_ "suck the blood of the American taxpayer," _don't_ "support evil," and so on.
But your antisemitism won't let you do that, will it, nessie. You'd rather condemn 99.5% of American Jews than have your internal dogma be shaken even slightly -- and _that_ is how you demonstrate your antisemitism.
Now dodge the question one more time, like a good little bigot.
@%<
I really don't see shit here about the Gaza pullout. Does that story not meet your standards of news worthiness? is the fact that the IDF and IP fighting and arresting orthodox and nationalist protestors not fit in with your views a reason to skip the story?
How about the fact that Hamas is about to step on it's crank by stirring shit up, hoping for a propaganda victory. "Fuck the people, I want to look like I chased them out." is their battle cry now.
I forgot to add"Kyle, you dirty jew". Just want to fit in with all the other posts.
How about the fact that Hamas is about to step on it's crank by stirring shit up, hoping for a propaganda victory. "Fuck the people, I want to look like I chased them out." is their battle cry now.
I forgot to add"Kyle, you dirty jew". Just want to fit in with all the other posts.
For all the caterwauling about Israel's "illegal occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza, and claims of violations of international law, I find these "experts" really don't know the facts.
The law of the land is UN resolution 242 which was passed in 1967 at a time when Israel was in complete control of the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and much of the Sinai peninsula.
The UN determined that Israel should enter negotiations with all parties involved (there was no "Palestine at the time) an negotiate a peace treaty which would leave all countries with secure borders.
Israel proceeded to negotiate peace treaties with Jordan --which had previously occupied the West Bank (with no protest from any Palestinian people!!) and signed a peace treaty with Egypt which gladly gave up Gaza.
The Israelis tried under Oslo to negotiate with the Palestinians. Arafat, the old liar, made peace in English and preached war in Arabic when the ink was still wet on the document.
Oslo is dead. Arafat launched his intifada. People died. The economy of both Israel and the PA suffered. Tourism died.
So now, under Bush's Road Map, Israel is again trying to make peace. So, under international law, Israel retains control of the West Bank and Gaza until a peace settlement can be reached. The lands are not "Palestinian territories" as some claim. But disputed territories whose legal status is that of unallocated portions of the British Mandate for Palestine.
If the Palestinians would only agree to stop their war on Israel, they would have their own state, and the war would be over.
The law of the land is UN resolution 242 which was passed in 1967 at a time when Israel was in complete control of the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and much of the Sinai peninsula.
The UN determined that Israel should enter negotiations with all parties involved (there was no "Palestine at the time) an negotiate a peace treaty which would leave all countries with secure borders.
Israel proceeded to negotiate peace treaties with Jordan --which had previously occupied the West Bank (with no protest from any Palestinian people!!) and signed a peace treaty with Egypt which gladly gave up Gaza.
The Israelis tried under Oslo to negotiate with the Palestinians. Arafat, the old liar, made peace in English and preached war in Arabic when the ink was still wet on the document.
Oslo is dead. Arafat launched his intifada. People died. The economy of both Israel and the PA suffered. Tourism died.
So now, under Bush's Road Map, Israel is again trying to make peace. So, under international law, Israel retains control of the West Bank and Gaza until a peace settlement can be reached. The lands are not "Palestinian territories" as some claim. But disputed territories whose legal status is that of unallocated portions of the British Mandate for Palestine.
If the Palestinians would only agree to stop their war on Israel, they would have their own state, and the war would be over.
Here's a list of resolutions that Israel hasn't adhered to or has ignored:
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.
Why should Palestinians go to a negotiating table with Israel and America? They would be allowing two criminals to be put in moral equivalency with them: one that's been stealing their lives, liberty and land for 3/4s of a century and the other that funds it.
What "Palestinians"? The PA, Hamas, who? They don't and have never had their act togother and if granted a state because of international pressure, would either create a base for terror or a failed state. People end up with the government that they deserve.
Isn't it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own? eMail
To a Friend
Posted on AUGUST-2-2001
For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?
It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:
Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?
According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.
Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:
"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)
On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized 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)
As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told 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)
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 to begin with, 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!
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)
In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:
"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] 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 the land, but of losing 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)
In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:
"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)
In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:
"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)
So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.
This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:
"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)
In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.
Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.
Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".
To a Friend
Posted on AUGUST-2-2001
For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?
It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:
Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?
According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.
Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:
"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)
On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized 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)
As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told 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)
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 to begin with, 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!
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)
In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:
"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] 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 the land, but of losing 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)
In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:
"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)
In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:
"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)
So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.
This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:
"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)
In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.
Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.
Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".
Prior to 1967, the Palestinians considered themselves Arabs with in theGreaater ArabNation, within the theory of Pan Arabism. Their “state” was the Greater Arab nation, and their culture and language, Arabic.
Its interesting that you selected the examples of true colonies of the Europeans, Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, which in the separate processes of individually de-colonizing themselves, asserted their right of self determination AFTER having expelled, exploited or absorbed the indigenous peoples. It is comparing apples and oranges and even then simplistically.
It is mis-leading to confuse individual property rights with group political rights. Thus while there is no question there are legitimate Arab legal claims for such things as homes, farms, and businesses, that’s a different set of ideas than an independent political right of self determination. There are Arab property claims being addressed through the Israeli court system all of the time. The legal system is the remedy here.
After the Arab people fled modern day Israel at the orders of the Arab High Command, in order to support the invasion of newly independent Israel in1948, they were not permitted to return to their villages because they were allied with and supportive of hostile, alien forces. Similarly, and slightly earlier, the Sudeten Germans were not permitted to return to Czecheslovakia for the same reasons and lost their homes, farms etc. Its not unique or unusual.
As to the question of Arab citizenship, it varies widely. Many Arab residents of the West Bank hold and have always held Jordanian citizenship. For others, accepting any Israeli documentation would have lead to their persecution by the Arab power structure. For those who left in 1948, they had neither Israeli citizenship, and were not permitted citizenship in the Arab countries in which they came to settle. As to their descendants, it is only the Palestinians, unique among the world’s peoples, that assert that their rights as refugees is hereditary. This assertion, that the Palestinians have greater rights than all other peoples is unsupported by international law. Once peaceably re-settled, a person is no longer a refugee and that status does not flow through to their children and grand children
“Zionism” is modern nomenclature for the ancient desire of all of the Jewish people, as expressed in liturgy poetry, song etc, to return to the traditional homeland of the Jewish people. Its not a modern phenomena, its just the modern form of an ancient phenomena. There wa sno equivalent “Palestinian” nationalism at that time, just the beginnings of Pan Arab nationalism in response to centuries of Ottoman domination. Initially there were different Arab responses to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, until the issue was manipulated , for reasons of internal political power struggles by the Grand Mufti Al-Husseini. There came to be competing nationalisms thereafter. Had the Arabs recognized the UN partition plan of ‘47, its far more likely that “Palestine would have been absorbed by its Arab neighbors, that any independence for a Palestinian state.
For the vast majority of Palestinians, once the land owners had sold their land to incoming jews, the Palestinian tenant farmers were landless and displaced. So rather than Jews becoming their masters, it was one master or the other. That was an economic systemic problem.
The statement that the Palestinian people owned 97% of its lands creates a misleading inference of individual ownership. Actually, the vast majority of the land was Government property and other wise un-owned. However, the governments lands (and deserts) are typically lumped together with Arab owned land in order to create a larger number.
The 1936 Arab riots and massacres were prompted by the Grand Mufti in an effort to consolidate his power. Their fear was that the jews would treat them as they intended to treat the Jews if the Arabs were to win.
I very much disagree with your final assertion that Jews have,” no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew". It’s a pleasure to go into any Synagogue in the world and converse and pray in Hebrew, within our acknowledged common culture.
Its interesting that you selected the examples of true colonies of the Europeans, Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, which in the separate processes of individually de-colonizing themselves, asserted their right of self determination AFTER having expelled, exploited or absorbed the indigenous peoples. It is comparing apples and oranges and even then simplistically.
It is mis-leading to confuse individual property rights with group political rights. Thus while there is no question there are legitimate Arab legal claims for such things as homes, farms, and businesses, that’s a different set of ideas than an independent political right of self determination. There are Arab property claims being addressed through the Israeli court system all of the time. The legal system is the remedy here.
After the Arab people fled modern day Israel at the orders of the Arab High Command, in order to support the invasion of newly independent Israel in1948, they were not permitted to return to their villages because they were allied with and supportive of hostile, alien forces. Similarly, and slightly earlier, the Sudeten Germans were not permitted to return to Czecheslovakia for the same reasons and lost their homes, farms etc. Its not unique or unusual.
As to the question of Arab citizenship, it varies widely. Many Arab residents of the West Bank hold and have always held Jordanian citizenship. For others, accepting any Israeli documentation would have lead to their persecution by the Arab power structure. For those who left in 1948, they had neither Israeli citizenship, and were not permitted citizenship in the Arab countries in which they came to settle. As to their descendants, it is only the Palestinians, unique among the world’s peoples, that assert that their rights as refugees is hereditary. This assertion, that the Palestinians have greater rights than all other peoples is unsupported by international law. Once peaceably re-settled, a person is no longer a refugee and that status does not flow through to their children and grand children
“Zionism” is modern nomenclature for the ancient desire of all of the Jewish people, as expressed in liturgy poetry, song etc, to return to the traditional homeland of the Jewish people. Its not a modern phenomena, its just the modern form of an ancient phenomena. There wa sno equivalent “Palestinian” nationalism at that time, just the beginnings of Pan Arab nationalism in response to centuries of Ottoman domination. Initially there were different Arab responses to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, until the issue was manipulated , for reasons of internal political power struggles by the Grand Mufti Al-Husseini. There came to be competing nationalisms thereafter. Had the Arabs recognized the UN partition plan of ‘47, its far more likely that “Palestine would have been absorbed by its Arab neighbors, that any independence for a Palestinian state.
For the vast majority of Palestinians, once the land owners had sold their land to incoming jews, the Palestinian tenant farmers were landless and displaced. So rather than Jews becoming their masters, it was one master or the other. That was an economic systemic problem.
The statement that the Palestinian people owned 97% of its lands creates a misleading inference of individual ownership. Actually, the vast majority of the land was Government property and other wise un-owned. However, the governments lands (and deserts) are typically lumped together with Arab owned land in order to create a larger number.
The 1936 Arab riots and massacres were prompted by the Grand Mufti in an effort to consolidate his power. Their fear was that the jews would treat them as they intended to treat the Jews if the Arabs were to win.
I very much disagree with your final assertion that Jews have,” no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew". It’s a pleasure to go into any Synagogue in the world and converse and pray in Hebrew, within our acknowledged common culture.
"Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine,..."
Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the crushing defeat of the combined Arab armies in the 1967 war.
When military victory seemed unlikely, the subjugated Arab population took a different tact: Palestinian nationalism.
The proof that this was merely a tactic, rather than a true drive for independence and Statehood is there was no such Palestinian nationalistic drive on the West Bank when the population was under the Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967.
Additional proof is the fact that Arab leaders have turned down 13 separate attempts to create an independent State of Palestine starting in 1937. Bush's Roadmap to Peace is the latest which Sharon has accepted but we are still waiting for Abbas to enact the first phrase in the first sentence of the agreement: dismantle the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
This is not to say that there haven't been legitimate and sustained efforts on the part of many Palestinian people to forge their own national identity as Palestinians. But to say it goes back to times immemorial is false.
Palestinian nationalism and independence are ideas which have a strong resonance with Western thinkers. On the ground in the mideast, this struggle for independence is far less palpable. And a bit premature as well. For in reality,no true peace can be achieved until those who would foster the next Jewish holocaust have been dealt with.
Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the crushing defeat of the combined Arab armies in the 1967 war.
When military victory seemed unlikely, the subjugated Arab population took a different tact: Palestinian nationalism.
The proof that this was merely a tactic, rather than a true drive for independence and Statehood is there was no such Palestinian nationalistic drive on the West Bank when the population was under the Jordanian occupation from 1948-1967.
Additional proof is the fact that Arab leaders have turned down 13 separate attempts to create an independent State of Palestine starting in 1937. Bush's Roadmap to Peace is the latest which Sharon has accepted but we are still waiting for Abbas to enact the first phrase in the first sentence of the agreement: dismantle the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
This is not to say that there haven't been legitimate and sustained efforts on the part of many Palestinian people to forge their own national identity as Palestinians. But to say it goes back to times immemorial is false.
Palestinian nationalism and independence are ideas which have a strong resonance with Western thinkers. On the ground in the mideast, this struggle for independence is far less palpable. And a bit premature as well. For in reality,no true peace can be achieved until those who would foster the next Jewish holocaust have been dealt with.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 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