Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Are Muslims being Framed in London Bombing?
Serious questions are being raised about the London bombing. Are these muslims being framed for something they didn't do?
Is a grainy CCTV picture of a swarthy guy with a backpack is all the evidence they need for an 'al-Qaeda did it' verdict.
What happened to "due process," a fair trial, and "a jury of one's peers?" Are these not some of the values that the West claims to champion? OJ Simpson was found with a bloody knife in his car, yet was accorded due process and was acquitted. So far, the only evidence against the accused it that they were Pakistani and were killed in the blasts.
There are many "reasonable doubts":
Their profiles do not fit those of suicide bombers in the least. Why would they have commited suicide when they could've just walked away and let the timed bombs go off by themselves? What does any Muslim have to gain from this - the British were just planning a pullout from Iraq.
The "exercise" done by the security company and the same time and place. Suicide bombers would leave a message detailing why they did what they did, not just leave their ID, which would more than likely be destroyed in the blast. many other valid (and perhaps some invalid) objections can be found at Web sites such as http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Surely the summary dismissal of all "the conspiracy theories" is based on the naive belief that the government and the media would never lie to us. And of course, they never would.
They wouldn't - for instance - say a certain country had stockpiles of nuclear bombs, just so they could declare war, would they? Of course not! A laughable suggestion...
What happened to "due process," a fair trial, and "a jury of one's peers?" Are these not some of the values that the West claims to champion? OJ Simpson was found with a bloody knife in his car, yet was accorded due process and was acquitted. So far, the only evidence against the accused it that they were Pakistani and were killed in the blasts.
There are many "reasonable doubts":
Their profiles do not fit those of suicide bombers in the least. Why would they have commited suicide when they could've just walked away and let the timed bombs go off by themselves? What does any Muslim have to gain from this - the British were just planning a pullout from Iraq.
The "exercise" done by the security company and the same time and place. Suicide bombers would leave a message detailing why they did what they did, not just leave their ID, which would more than likely be destroyed in the blast. many other valid (and perhaps some invalid) objections can be found at Web sites such as http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Surely the summary dismissal of all "the conspiracy theories" is based on the naive belief that the government and the media would never lie to us. And of course, they never would.
They wouldn't - for instance - say a certain country had stockpiles of nuclear bombs, just so they could declare war, would they? Of course not! A laughable suggestion...
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
Mossad may spy ojn Islamic extremist groups around the world but so do other countries; despire all the hype the Mossad is not nearly as powerful as Putin's goons and definitely not as powerful as MI5,MI6 or the CIA.
If those who carried out the bombings had any connections with other known Islamic extemists there is a good chance they were being wtached by many different countries. Perhaps some of those security services knew more than the British and didnt tell them for political reasons (the US, Russia, China, Indian and other countries engaged in brutal actions against Islamic groups woudl have had an interest in the bombs going off) but that doesnt mean that any of those countries were behind the actions or even really thought it would happen without doing anything (its more likely that each security service had some evidence they were not sharing and among those secruity services that had info not shjatred with the BRitish was Mossad)
Mossad is given way too much credit by conspiracy theorists and its partly because of propaganda put out by the Israeli governmen wanting them to seem elite and powerful rather than like the normal bumbling idiots that make up most such services.
See:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1683383_comment.php#1687115
"the Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast"
Source:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3111121,00.html
In the real world, reports of foreknowledge are known as a "clue" (indeed, a glaring one). Real investigators, like Michael Rivero, follow clues, ask questions, and investigate possibilities to solve crimes. Failure to investigate important clues thoroughly is at best shoddy detective work.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
but just too late to do anything but if you dont trust Mossad why should you believe them (it sounds a little like you stereotypical smart ass saying "I knew that was going to happen"; even if the CIA had some clues I doubt they would have gone to the media after the bombing to say so since trying to look smart as others suffer looks disrespectful ). Its likely Mossad did hear that something was going on (maybe they noticed that several of the poeple they had been tracking all left home at the same time and seemed to be up to something) but other security agencies (including the British themselves) most likely had even more clues ahead of the bombing. Wven convincing looking clues after the fact dont always look convincing before the fact (for example if Mossad had received an anonymous call 6 minutes before the bombingh detailing exactly what was going to happen would they have actually believed the caller? Most people dont believe fire alarms or bomb threats since there are enough drills and fakes...)
What's funny is that people say mossad "use deception" - as if that' ssurprising. What, the FBI doesn't use deception? Russian intelligence agents don't use deception? Operatives and spies and intelligent agencies in arab or muslim countries don't use deception? All intelligent agencies are open and honest, except those nasty mossad jews?
It's ridiculous.
Antisemites have no place in the progressive left.
Get people who actively cheer islamic radicals on as they try to kill israeli jews out of the peace movements.
Conspiracy theories about Mossad are very linked to traditional antiSemitic conspiracy myths. Unfortunately in this case Mossad encouraged these conspiracy theories by bragging to the Israeli media that they knew the attacks would happen. One would expect them to be secretive....
But antisemitism leads various people to ALWAYS blame mossad, or israel, or "zionist jews" or just "jews" for ALMOST EVERYTHING, EVERY TIME.
Once in a while they're bound to be right.
Stupidity also makes it so Mossad gets blamed because random agents call the press and brag about how they knew the attacks would happen but.. unfortunatley they just found out minutes before it did so they couldnt do anything. Isnt their a ban on most spys calling the press to say things like that in most countries? It seems like a lie and they didnt know and may have just had a few clues but talking to the press right after a bombing like that is pretty stupid. The fact that some peopel always focus on Mossad is probably due to antiSemitism but in this case did any other spys call their press agencies and claim they knew ahead of time? Even if spys in other countries knew they wouldnt becasue they would be worried about going to jail for the leak (I mean how many peopel would have had access to the info so its not exactly an anonymous leak if they did know).
The "zionists" as you call them feel that palestinian terrorists make it impossible for the palestinian moderates and the israelis to work things out, beacuse israel and the palestinian moderates recognize that israel exists, whereas hamas, islamic jihad and other such groups are against israel existing no matter what and will always fight to destroy it.
There's nothing "racist" here.
To a Friend
Posted on DECEMBER-3-2001
BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
The PLUNDER and LOOTING of Palestinian homes, farms, plantations, banks, cars, ports, railroads, schools, hospitals, trucks, tractors, etc. in the course of the 1948 war were a crime on a massive scale. For example, the looting of Lydda City was described by the Israeli Ministerial Committee for Abandoned Property in mid-July, 1948:
"From Lydda alone, the army took out 1,800 truck-loads of property." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 69)
It should be noted that the great majority of the Palestinian people have been dispossessed for the past five decades, meanwhile, their properties are being used by mostly European Jews (who were victims of similar war crimes committed by anti-Semitic Europeans). Prior to being ethnically cleansed in 1948, the Palestinian people owned and operated 93% of Palestine's lands, and contributed up to 55-60% of its national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Related Links
Map: Distribution of Palestinian and Zionist land ownership as of 1945
Looting, Looting, & MORE Looting by Tom Segev (the renowned Israeli journalist-historian)
Famous Quotes
Ben-Gurion was dismayed by the large "mass robbery" of Palestinian properties by the citizens of the "Jewish state". He said in a Cabinet meeting:
"The ONLY thing that surprised me, and surprised me bitterly, was the discovery of such moral failings among us [Jews], which I had never suspected. I mean the mass robbery in which all parts of [the Jewish] population participated." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 69)
During the 1948 war, the Military Governor of Jerusalem, Dov Yosef, wrote Ben-Gurion describing the "looting" of Palestinian properties:
"The looting is spreading once again. ...I cannot verify all the reports which reach me, but I get the distinct impression that the commanders are not over-eager to catch and punish the thieves. ...I receive complaints every day. By way of example, I enclose a copy of a letter I received from the manager of the Notre Dame de France (a monastery). Behavior like this in a monastery can cause quite serious harm to us. I've done my best to put a stop to the thefts there, which are all done by soldiers, since civilians are not permitted to enter the place. But as you can see from this letter, these acts are continuing. I am powerless." Ben-Gurion promised he would discuss with Moshe Dayan the possible measures to be adopted in order to put an end to the robbery. The subject troubled him greatly. Prior to the occupation of Nazareth he ordered Yadin to "use submachine guns on the soldiers if he saw any attempt at robbery." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70)
On April 8-9 1948 Ben-Gurion told Mishmar Ha'emek representatives to burn and destroy the neighboring villages, he said:
"[They] said it was imperative to expel the Arabs [in the area] and to burn the villages. For me, the matter was very difficult. [But] they said that they were not sure [the kibbutz could continue to exist] if the villages remained intact and [if] the Arab inhabitants were not expelled, for they [i.e. the Palestinian Arabs villagers] would [later] attack them [i.e. Mishmar Ha'emek]." (Benny Morris, p. 116)
"They [Mishmar Ha'emek people] faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this. And they were the first to do this." (Benny Morris, p. 116)
Ben-Gurion was told on February 7, 1948 that "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor", he arrogantly replied:
"The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." (Benny Morris, p. 170 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180)
In a similar vein, Ben-Gurion asked Yosef Weitz in early February 1948 whether the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was ready to buy "from him" land at 25 Palestinian Pounds per dunam. Weitz replied:
"if the land is Arab [owned] and we will receive the deed of property and possession - then we will buy. Then he [ i.e., Ben-Gurion] laughed and said: DEED of property - no possession-yes."
The next day, Weitz and Granovsky lunched with Ben-Gurion. who restated his:
"plan . . . Our army will conquer the Negev, will take the land into its hands and will sell it to the JNF at 20-25 Palestinian pounds per dunam. And there is a source . . . of millions [of pounds]. Granovsky responded jokingly that we are NOT LIVING in the Middle Ages and the army does not steal land. After the war the bedouins [of the Negev] will return to their place---if they leave at all-- and will get [back] their land."
A week later, Ben-Gurion suggested to Weitz that he divest himself of:
"conventional notions . . . In the Negev we will not buy land. We will conquer it. You are forgetting that we are at war." (Benny Morris, p. 170)
It is not only that Ben-Gurion envisioned war as an instrument to change the demographics picture in favor of the Jewish minority, he also envisioned war as a tool to dispossess Palestinians and raise "millions" of pounds in capital.
On June 16, 1948, there were calls by members of the MAPAM party for the return of Jaffa's "peace minded" Palestinian refugees, and in response, Ben-Gurion stated during a Cabinet meeting:
"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)
Moshe Smilansky described the looting that gripped citizens of the "Jewish state" from the whole spectrum of the Israeli society during the 1948 war:
"The urge to grab has seized everyone, Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, bricks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts. ..." He could have also added to the list toilet bowls, sinks, faucets and light bulbs. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70)
During the course of the 1948 war, reports of WAR CRIMES perpetrated by the Israeli soldiers reached the Israeli Cabinet. Such atrocities shocked Aharon Cizling, and during a Cabinet meeting he said:
"I've received a letter on the subject. I must say that I have known what things have been like for some time and I have raised the issue several times already here. However after reading this letter I couldn't sleep last night. I felt the things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here. I could not imagine where we came from and to where are we going. . . . I often disagree when the term Nazi was applied to the British. I wouldn't like to use the term, even though the British committed Nazi crimes. But now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken. . . . Obviously we have to conceal these actions from the public, and I agree that we should not even reveal that we're investigating them. But they must be investigated. . . ." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 26)
On June 16 1948 Aharon Cizling spoke at length about the destruction of the Palestinian villages in a cabinet meeting :
"[Destruction of a site during battle] is one thing. But [if a site is destroyed] a month later, in cold blood, out of political calcualtion . . . that is another thing altogether . . . This course [of destroying villages] WILL NOT reduce the number of [Palestinian] Arabs who will return to the Land of Israel. It will [only] INCREASE the number of [our] enemies." (Benny Morris, p. 163)
Aharon Cizling went on to describe his dismay at the looting of Ramla City (but not at reported cases of rape). He said:
". ..It's been said that . 'there were cases of rape in Ramlah. I can forgive rape, but I will not forgive other acts which seem to me much worse. When they enter a town and forcibly remove rings from the fingers and jewelry from someone's neck, that's a very grave matter. ... Many are guilty of it." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 71-72)
How wide spread was the LOOTING?
Soon after the 1948 war, according to Tom Segev (the Israeli renowned journalist-historian):
[The looting] included a total of 45,000 homes and apartments, about 7,000 shops and other places of business, some 500 workshops and industrial plants, and more than 1,000 warehouses. At the same time, it was necessary to continue harvesting the crops and picking the olives, gathering the tobacco and the fruit in the orchards-a total of over 800,000 acres. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 69)
A secret report, written by the Custodian of Abandoned Property tried to explain how people "succumb to the grave temptation of looting," and why. First there was the massive flight of panic-stricken Arabs who abandoned thousands of apartments, stores and workshops as well as crops and orchards. Second, the property concerned was in the midst of the front-line combat area during the transition from mandatory to Israeli rule. This meant there was no stable authority with which to be reckoned. " ...The moral sense of the few who were attacked by the many and managed to survive, justified the looting of the enemy's property," reported the Custodian. "passions of revenge and temptation overcame great numbers of people. Under those conditions only an extremely firm action by the military I administrative civil and judiciary authorities might have saved, not only the property I but also many people, from moral bankruptcy. Such firm action did not take place, and perhaps could not, given the circumstances, and so things continued to go downhill without restraint." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70-71)
Years later the Custodian removed the veil of secrecy: "The inspectors found most of the houses broken into, and rarely was there any furniture left," he wrote in his memoirs. "Clothes, household effects, jewelry I bedding-other than mattresses-never reached the warehouses of the Custodial authority. ..." More than 50,000 Arab homes had been abandoned, but only 509 carpets reached the Custodian's warehouses. The Custodian attributed it all to the "weak ness and greed of many Israelis, who in normal circumstances would never have permitted themselves to act thus with regard, to other people's property." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 70-71)
Yosef Yaakobson-an orange grower, and later an advisor to the Ministry of Defense-suggested to Ben-Gurion that he expropriate a shoe-making plant from its Jaffa owner and turn it over to the shoe-making enterprise Min'al of kibbutz Givat Hashloshah. Ben-Gurion consulted the Minister of Finance and Kaplan expressed the opinion that the private property of Arabs who remained in Jaffa should not be expropriated. Ben-Gurion disagreed; in his opinion only the property found inside private residences should not be expropriated. Yaakobson told him that the army was removing goods from Jaffa property estimated at 30,000 pounds daily. Attorney Naftaly Lifshitz of Haifa informed him that in the banks of that city there were 1,500,000 [Palestinian] pounds in deposits belonging to Arabs. "The banks are willing to turn this property over," noted Ben-Gurion, and so the government, too, took a hand in the division of the spoils. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 73) It should be NOTED that the cost of building Haifa's port in the mid-1930s was 1,250,000 Palestinian pounds. It should be noted that Haifa's port was the second largest in the Mediterranean after the French port of Marseilles.
Altogether, between 140,000 and 160,000 immigrants were settled in abandoned homes: in Jaffa some 45,000, in downtown Haifa about 40,000, and in Acre about 5,000. The man who was put in charge of resettling Acre was Mordehai Sarid. "We consulted a map," he later recalled. "I knew which houses I was getting and I worked with engineers to determine what we would do with each apartment. One place needed sinks installed, another required a coat of paint, while other places needed flooring and sewage." The expenses were covered by the Jewish Agency . One day Sarid asked about some immigrants and was told that they were "getting organized." "Splendid," he said, "let them get organized." One of his aides explained what the phrase meant. "They are stealing tables and wardrobes from abandoned houses." As Sarid put it, he was "terribly disturbed"; he summoned the most influential persons among the immigrants and demanded that they all return the stolen property. According to him, "almost everything" was restored. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 73)
Why on earth did the JEWISH citizens of the "Jewish state" LOOT Palestinian homes, farms, and business?
The Custodian of "Abandoned" properties, philosophically used the Bible to justify the looting of Palestinian homes, farms, and businesses. He stated:
"Indeed, history repeats itself in all that concerns human nature. In our own chronicles it is stated simply and plainly without any circumlocutions: 'But the Children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing' (sacred loot) (Joshua 7:11. As you travel through the country today, through the towns and in places settled by new immigrants and demobilized soldiers as you observe the teeming life ...your joy is mingled with sadness, the sadness of the shadow of Achan, who took of the accurse thing." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 71)
How was the LOOT divided?
The sale was conducted by special departments instituted for the purpose, staffed, as much as war conditions allowed, by personnel trained in the principal branches of commerce. Other merchandise was sold through negotiation with merchants or industrialists, depending on the type of materials. According to the Custodian of "Abandoned" properties, Shafrir stated:
"The army had the first choice of any goods and materials it might require. Next were the government offices, the war disabled, the Jewish Agency, the local authorities and public bodies, such as Hadassah." The army also needed most of the workshop equipment such as cabinet-making shops, locksmiths-works, turneries, iron-works, tin-works and the like. Industrial plants which could be operated on their existing sites were leased out by contract, "whenever possible," according to Shafrir. Plants which no one wanted to lease were sold to the highest bidder. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 72-73)
"With the intensification of immigration in the summer of 1948, the institutions which looked after the immigrants themselves began to demand that parts of the city which were still under occupation be made available to them. The property included warehouses and shops from which the merchandise had yet to be removed, as well as fully equipped workshops and plants. In Haifa the inspector's office began to issue apartments to the Absorption Department as early as July. The intention was to proceed through the city, quarter by quarter, allocating the apartments and business premises, after the goods had already been taken out of them. But the order was not followed. Hundreds of immigrant families were sent to take possession of apartments, and this caused confusion both in the collecting of goods and in the distribution of apartments. In Jaffa the situation was considerably worse. A certain part of the city was scheduled to be opened on September 10, and a particular allocation of houses was actually agreed upon-to be given to the Absorption Department, the army, the government officials who had been transferred from Jerusalem, and for the children of the settlements who had been evacuated during the war and who had been living in Tel Aviv schools, as well as to the soldiers' families. The Tel Aviv Absorption Department ignored this agreement and went ahead and organized a mass invasion of hundreds of families. ..before the date that was originally agreed upon for the opening of the city to civilians. The government appointed a committee to handle the distribution of apartments in Jaffa. The committee met and reached authoritative conclusions. But once again no heed was paid to the proper agreement. This time the social welfare officers sent hundreds of soldiers' families. Thus the populating of Jaffa was achieved by continuous invasions and counter-invasions [of unauthorized immigrants]." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 75-76)
Was there ROMANCE in LOOTING?
By established custom, whoever succeeded in placing a bed in a room and spending the night in it, acquired the right of possession. One day Avraham Am salem, age 19, entered the house of Mohammed Abu Sirah in the Ajjami [in Jaffa] quarter, and, threatening the Arab with his submachine gun, invaded and occupied the hallway of his house. The man was brought to trial and in court he explained that he was about to get married and had nowhere to live. He was sentenced to five days in prison. A few weeks previously, a few score soldiers, some of them disabled, invaded Arab houses in Wadi Nisnas and Abbas Street in Haifa. Carrying arms, they appeared at six o'clock in the morning, and forcibly ejected the residents. Then they threw out their belongings and brought in their own. The police came and removed them, but by evening they had invaded other people's homes. They, too, had nowhere to live. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 76) We really CANNOT wait to see Hollywood and Steven Spielberg direct and finance a movie to portray such a romantic story.
Was there any dispute on who LOOTED what?
In the Knesset debate about the work of the Custodian, Yaakov Gil, MK, of the centrist General Zionists, claimed that 90 percent of the abandoned property was being given to members of the MAPAI. He stated:
"Other parties, and ordinary Jews who belong to no party," he said, " are left out and have received no benefit from this property. The Custodian handles the property as he pleases, to suit himself and the party of which he belongs, his friends and associates. . . . The entire country has become a single Poltibureau." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 83) Can't we all just get along, what is the difference. Loot is a loot, aren't we all "Chosen People" in front of almighty, praise the lord!
Wasn't it enough to LOOT the Palestinian refugees?
Looting Palestinians' homes, farms, and businesses was not enough for the "Jewish state," it also formulated a bizarre new law to loot the properties of the Muslim & Christian Palestinians who became citizens of the "Jewish state" after the 1948 war. In the early 1950s, the Israeli government enacted the "Law of Present Absentees", which is an oxymoron by definition, to loot the properties of the internal Palestinian refugees who were not ethnically cleansed so as to be outside the "Jewish state."
It's worth quoting the Custodian of the Abandoned Properties , M. Porat, who sent a secret report to the Minister of Finance in September 1951, he wrote:
"The fact that we are holding the property of legal residents of the country, who otherwise enjoy all the normal rights of citizenship, is a source of great bitterness and constant agitation among the Arabs who are affected by it. Most of the complaints made by Arabs against our department are made by ' absentees' who see their property in the hands of others and can't bear it. These absentees try by every means to get their lands back, and offer to lease them even at exorbitant rents. In accordance with the general rule originally established. ..our office does not lease the lands expropriated by the government to the present absentees, so as not to weaken our control over the properties in our charge, and this gives rise to complaints and bitterness. Clearly, this policy does not enhance a spirit of good citizenship among the Arabs who returned, and the question arises whether the state, having allowed certain Arabs to come back, or approved their infiltration de facto, should provoke their extreme resentment and expose them to the inordinate incitement of certain political elements. In my opinion, it should not. That is to say-the government policy should make the legal definition of 'absentee' match the normal connotation of the word's meaning, i.e., a person who is absent. That should be the policy. The question remains, how would the policy be applied. It seems to me that at present there is no practical way of carrying out the policy I have suggested, at least with regard to real estate. The number of 'present absentees' runs into the thousands, most of them owners of real estate. There are already new people living on some of these properties, particularly in the border settlements. Any attempt to return the properties to these absentees would, therefore, adversely affect thousands, or tens of thousands, of settlers, not to mention army camps and installations."
To relieve the resentment of the "present absentees," the Custodian proposed that their bank accounts be released to them, and that a way be found to compensate them for their properties. Attorney General Shapira had made the same recommendation long before, though without any illusions: "In the end we shall both pay compensation and still be considered thieves," he predicted in August 1949. And so it was. The government offered the compensation to only a few of he property owners and its offers were hardly tempting. Only a few accepted them, and the compensation was generally viewed as unfair. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 82-83)
According to Shai (Israeli Internal intelligence) commander Levy reported on April 12, 1948 that the occupation of DEIR YASSIN went as follows:
"The occupation of the village was carried with great cruelty. Whole families---women, old people, children---were killed, and there were piles of dead [in various places]. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors." In a report the following day, Levy added: "LHI [Stern Gang lead by Yitzhak Shamir] members tell of the barbaric behavior [Hitnahagut barbarit in Hebrew] of the IZL [Irgun gang lead by Menachem Begin] toward the prisoners and the dead. They also relate that the IZL men raped a number of [Palestinian] Arab girls and murdered them afterward (we don't know if this is true)." The Shai operative who visited Deir Yassin hours after the massacre, Mordechai Gichen, reported on April 10, 1948: Their [i.e., the IZL?] commander says that the order was: to capture the adult males and to send the women and children to Motza. In the afternoon [of April 9, 1948], the order was changed and became kill all prisoners. . . . The adult males were taken to town in trucks and paraded in the city, then taken back to the [village] site and killed with rifle and machine-gun fire. Before they were put on the trucks, the IZL and LHI men searched the women, men, and Children [and] took from them all the jewelry and STOLE their money. The behavior toward them was especially barbaric [and included] kicks, shoves with rifle butts, spitting, and cursing (people from [the Western Jerusalem neighborhood of] Giv'at Shaul took part in the torture).
It must be emphasized that the Israeli mainstream usually singles out LHI and IZL with war crimes atrocities, yet the Haganah had the lion's share of other suppressed war crimes. For example, the Haganah made great effort to hide its part in the attack (like approving it on April 9, 1948, supplying machine gun cover and two Palmah squads in armored cars) which occupied Deir Yassin, and during the following decades, Menachem Begin's Herut Party and its successor, the Likud, were continually berated for Deir Yassin in internal Israeli political squabbling. (Righteous Victims, p. 205-206)
Soon after the 1948 war, Yosef Lamm, Member of Knesset (MAPAI) stated:
"None of us behaved during the war in a way we might have expected the Jewish people to behave, either with regard to property or human life, and we should all be ashamed." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 71)
During the course of the 1948 war, Ben-Gurion ordered an inspection of all the kibbutzim and moshavim (villages) of Lower and Upper Galilee for an inventory of:
"flocks [cattle, abandoned sheep], and other property 'taken' from the Arab villages during the war and after; crops, furniture and all other objects, were to be presented to the Minister of Defense." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 74)
In September 1948 Ben-Gurion informed the Ministerial Committee for Abandoned Property that the commander of the central front, Tsvi Ayalon, considered it necessary "to demolish partially" 14 Arab villages, for reasons of security, Ben-Gurion wrote:
"As it is extremely difficult to convene the committees," wrote his ministers, "would you please let me have your opinion [on the destruction of Arab villages] in writing. I shall await your answer within three days. ... Lack of response will be viewed as consent." The ministers demanded further information. In September 1949 the Cabinet debated the destruction of the old city of Tiberius. Yigael Yadin (the chief of staff) was quoted as recommending that the entire city, except for the holy places, be destroyed, in order to prevent the Arab residents from returning. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 84-85)
Aharon Cizling wrote Ben-Gurion about the looting frenzy which has gripped the Israelis (civilians and soldiers) :
"Again and again in our meetings we discuss the issue of the abandoned property. Everyone expresses shock, bitterness and shame, but we have yet to find a solution. ..up to now we have dealt with individual looters, both soldiers and civilians. Now, however, there are more and more reports about acts which, judging by their nature and extent, could only have been carried out by (government) order. I ask. ..on what basis was the order given (I hear it has been held back to dismantle all the water pumps in the Arab orange groves). ...If there is any foundation to the reports which have reached me, the responsibility rests with a government agency....Meanwhile, private plundering still goes on, too." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 73-74)
The Palestinian properties in the villages were divided in much the same way as in the towns and cities. While the war was still going on, Levi Shkolnik (Eshkol), head of the Settlement Department of the Jewish Agency, went on a tour of the Palestinian villages which has recently been ethnically cleansed. As he put it, he saw
"the traces of what had been and was no longer" --- the houses broken into, plundered and burned. "The sight sank through my eyes and nostrils into my head, brain, blood, and heart . . . " One day, in the letter half of 1948, Eshkol drove up to Jerusalem. With him were his driver and Raanan Weitz, his aide. They passed near Birieh, a little village perched on top of a rocky hill southeast of Ramlah, overlooking the road to Latrun. "I did not know the details, yet" he related alter, "but I believed that the desolate and abandoned place might solve the problem of settling the nation." He stopped the car and he and Weitz went for a walk through the village. As they proceeded to Jerusalem they drew up a plan. Eshkol related, "That evening I . . . sent for the engineers, asked the Engineer Corps for assistance and began to turn the great wheel which enabled us that very winter to transform more than 45 abandoned villages into lively new settlements." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 83-84)
On June 16, 1948 Yosef Weitz noted in his diary while watching the destruction of a Palestinian village (al-Mughar):
"Three tractors are completing the destruction. I was surprised nothing moved in me at the sight .... no regret and hatred, as this is the way of the world. . . . The dwellers of these mud-houses did not want us to exist here." (Benny Morris, p. 162 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 190)
And on the same date too, Yosef Weitz reported to Ben-Gurion a progress report of the destruction of the Palestinian towns, he wrote:
"[al-]Mughar, Fajja, Biyar Adas have been destroyed. [Destruction of the proceeding in] Miska, Beit Dajan (east of Tel Aviv), [in] Hula [Valley], [in] Hawassa near Haifa, As Sumeiriya near Acre and Ja'tun [perhaps Khirbat Ja'tun] near Nahariya, Manshiya . . . near Acre. Daliyat ar Ruha has been destroyed and work is about to begin at [al-]Buteimat and Sabbarin." (Benny Morris, p. 162)
In August 1948, a report reached the leadership of the Mapam party describing the destruction of the Palestinian villages based on the instruction of the Yosef Weitz and the "Transfer Committee", the report stated:
"The destruction of the [Palestinian] Arab villages has been going on for some months now. We are on the Syrian border and there is a danger that [Palestinian] Arabs will use [the abandoned villages] for military operation if they get the chance. But I spoke to a number of members from [kibbutz] Ma'ayan Baruch and nearby Kibbutzim and I got the impression that there exists the possibility that there is a desire to destroy the villages and [the Palestinian] houses so that it will be impossible for the [Palestinian] Arabs to return to them. A week ago a representative of the JNF [possibly Yosef Nahmani, director of the JNF's Galilee district office and Weitz's agent in the area] came to visit. He saw that in the [abandoned Palestinian] village of As Sanbariya, which is a kilometer from Ma'ayan Baruch, several houses are still standing, albeit without roofs. He told the secretariat of the kibbutz to destroy the houses immediately and he said openly that this will enable us to take tithe village's lands, because the [Palestinian] Arabs won't be able to return there. I am sorry to say the kibbutz agreed immediately without thinking about what they were doing." (Benny Morris, p. 168)
In late November 1948, Yosef Weitz recorded that two of his officials at the Jewish National Fund complained that "the army continues to destroy villages in the Galilee, which we are interested in [settling Jewish immigrants]." In that regards, Weitz commented the following month during a visit to al-Zeeb (north of Acre):
"[The village had been] completely leveled and I now wonder if it was good that it was destroyed and would it not have been a greater revenge if we now settled Jews in the village houses. . . [The empty houses are] good for settlement of [our Jewish] brothers who wandered for generation upon generation, refugees. . . steeped in suffering and sorrow, as they, at last, find a roof over their heads. This was [the reason for] our war." (Benny Morris, p. 169)
As Operation Hiram was being concluded in late October 1948, a Palestinian refugee from Sha'ab (east of Acre) described his experience as the following:
"The Jews grouped us with the other [Palestinian Arab] villagers, separating us from women. We remained all day in the village [al-Bi'na] courtyard . . . we were thirsty and hungry." Two Palestinian villagers, he recalled, were taken aside and shot dead, and the other Palestinian refugees were robbed from their valuables. Some "200" men were selected and driven off, presumably to a POW camp. The refugee went on to say:
"It was almost night . . . [The] al-Bi'na mukhtar asked the Jews to permit us to stay overnight . . . rather then travel [northwards] at night with our old men, women, and children. The Jews rejected the mukhtar's request and gave us [i.e., the refugees] half an hour to leave . . . When half an hour passed, the Jews began to shoot in the air . . . they injured my nine-year old son in the knee. We walked a few hours until we reached Sajur . . . We were terrified, the road was full of people in every direction you looked . . . all in a hurry to get to Lebanon." A few days later, after a brief stay in the Palestinian Druze village of Beit Jann, they reached Lebanon. (Benny Morris, p. 227-8)
As the Israeli Army was entering Eilabun (Palestinian Maronite Christian village) on October 30, 1948, the soldiers went on rampage in the village looting Palestinians properties. In a letter dated January 21st, 1949 sent to the Israeli Minority Affair Ministry by Faraj Diab Surur, the Eilabun's Mukhtar, along with other village notables describing the looting and the ethnic cleansing of their village by the Israeli soldiers as the following:
"When the [Israeli] commander selected 12 youngsters (shabab) and sent them to another place, then he ordered that the assembled inhabitants to be led to [al-]Maghar and the priest asked him to leave the women and babies and to take only men, but he refused, and led the assembled inhabitants---some 800 in number--- to [al-]Maghar preceded by military vehicles. . . . He himself stayed on with another two soldiers until they killed the 12 youngsters in the streets of the village and then they joined the army going to [al-]Maghar. He led them to [al-]Frarradiya. When they reached Kafr 'Inan they were joined by an armored car that fired upon them [refugees] . . . killing one of the old men, Sam'an ash Shufani, 60 years old, and injured three women . . . At [al-]Frarradiya [the Israeli soldiers] robbed the inhabitants of IL 500 and the women of their Jewelry, and took 42 youngsters and sent them to a detention camp, and the rest the next day were led to Meirun, and afterward to the Lebanon borders. During this whole time they were given food only once. Imagine then how the babies screamed and the cries of the pregnant and weaning mothers."
Subsequently, the Israeli Army looted the Palestinian Maronite village of Eilabun. In early 1949, many of these refugees were allowed back to their homes after relentless lobbying by Aharon Cizling (the Israeli Agriculture Minister) in the Israeli Cabinet. It is worth noting that these returnees were among the few hundreds to be allowed back to their homes, farms, and businesses, however, the great majority of the Palestinian people are still dispossessed and homeless and have been since the 1948 war. (Benny Morris, p. 229-230)
As the Israelis rampaged through the friendly Palestinian village of Huj (northeast of Gaza), Yitzhak Avira (an old-time Haganah Intelligence Service officer) registered a complaint against the continued destruction of the village. He wrote Ezra Danin (a member of the 1st and 2nd Transfer Committees and a Haganah Intelligence Officer) on August 16, 1948 that:
"recently a view has come to prevail among us that the [Palestinian] Arabs are nothing. Every [Palestinian] Arab is a murderer, all of them should be slaughtered, all the [Palestinian] villages that are conquered should be burned . . . I . . . see a danger in the prevalence of an attitude that everything of theirs should be murdered, destroyed, and made to vanish."
Danin Answered: "War is complicated and lacking in sentimentality. If the commanders believe that by destruction, murder, and human suffering they will reach their goal more quickly---I would not stand in their way. If we do not hurry up and do [things]---our enemies will do these things to us." (Benny Morris, p. 167)
It is worth noting that Palestinian inhabitants of Huj had collaborated openly with the Haganah and the Israeli Army before and during the 1948 war. However, such good will did not save them from being ethnically cleansed. Similarly, Zarnuqa (the hometown of the Islamic Jihad founder Fathi al-Shikaki) inhabitants had a comparable experience with the Israelis, and paid the price of their collaboration by being driven out of their village under the threat of the gun towards the neighboring village of Yibna. Sadly, Yibna's people, who were not yet occupied, drove them back to the Israeli occupied Zarnuqa. In a nutshell, they became unwanted people by both sides camping in the wadis between the two towns. This is a typical story of collaborators who outlive their usefulness. (See Benny Morris, p. 127 for details)
Soon after the 1948 war, the total value of Israeli exports in 1949 was a mere 40 million dollars. Israel's principal exports were citrus fruit and cut diamond, which between them accounted for 80% of the exports in 1949 (1949, The First Israelis, p. 297). It is worth noting that Palestinians owned and operated the vast majority of Jaffa's famous citrus including citrus plantations, packaging, and exporting to Europe, click here for proof. Happy Loot!!!
According to Benny Morris, the renowned Israeli historian, the first few days after the occupation of Gaza Strip (during the Israeli invasion of Sinai in 1956) went as follows:
"The Israeli conquest and its aftermath were characterized by a great deal of unwarranted killing, especially of retreating or captured Egyptian soldiers. In all, Israeli troops killed about five hundred Palestinian civilians during and after the conquest of the Strip. About two hundred of these were killed in the course of massacre in Khan Yunis (on November 3) and in Rafa (on November 12). Several dozen suspected fedayeen who had fallen into Israeli hands were summarily executed. During and immediately after the conquest, there was a great deal of looting. At least one senior officer, Col. Uri Ben-Ari, commander of the seventh Brigade, was tried and dismissed from his post as a result (an accomplished armored commander, however, he was to be returned to active service in June 1967 and again in October 1973, retiring as a brigadier general). " (Righteous Victims, p. 295) And who said crime does not pay?
A detailed account of exactly how "abandoned" Palestinian property assisted with absorption of the new Jewish immigrants was prepared by Joseph Schechtman, an expert on population transfer who helped create the myth of "voluntary" Palestinian exodus. He wrote in 1952:
"The amount of this property is very considerable: 2,990,000 dunums (739,750 acres) of formerly [Palestinian] Arab-owned land, including olive and orange groves, vineyards, citrus orchards and assorted tree gardens, became totally deserted as a result of the mass [Palestinian] Arab flight. Of this Arab land, 2,070,270 dunums were of good quality, 136,530 of medium quality, 751.730 dunums were poor soil. In addition, 73,000 dwelling rooms in abandoned Arab houses and 7,800 shops, workshops, and storerooms became ownerless in towns and villages." (Simha Flapan, p. 107)
It should be noted that Israel's size is 20,660,000 dunums of which 17% is arable land, and based on the above account, Palestinian owned lands amounted to 60% of the total arable lands. Click here to view Israel's profile at CIA's Worldfact book. Ironically, often Jews all over the world brag about how Israeli Jews made the desert bloom, click here to read our response to this argument.
Bank accounts estimated to a total of 5 million Palestinian pounds left in Palestinian Arab and non-Arab banks were frozen by the Israel government. All of this Palestinian absentee property, movable and immovable, was entrusted to an official "custodian." Schechtman went on detail how the property was utilized:
"It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous role this lot of abandoned [Palestinian] Arab property has played in the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who have reached Israel since the proclamation of the state in May 1948. Forty-seven new rural settlements established on the sites of abandoned [Palestinian] Arab villages had by October 1949 already absorbed 25,255 new immigrants. By the spring of 1950 over 1 million dunums had been leased by the custodian to Jewish settlements and individual farmers for raising of grain crops.
Large tracts of land belonging to [Palestinian] Arab absentees have also been leased to Jewish settlers, old and new, for the raising of vegetables. In the south alone, 15,000 dunums of vineyards and fruit trees have been leased to cooperative settlement; a similar area has rented by the Yemenites Association, the Farmers Association, and the Soldiers Settlement and Rehabilitation Board. This has saved the Jewish Agency and the government millions of dollars. While the average cost of establishing an immigrant family in a new settlement was from $7,500 to $9,000, the cost in abandoned [Palestinian] villages did not exceed $1,500 ($750 for building repairs and $750 for livestock and equipment).
Abandoned [Palestinian] Arab dwellings in towns have also not remained empty. By the end of July 1948, 170,000 people, notable new [Jewish] immigrants and ex-soldiers, in addition to about 40,000 former tenants, both Jewish and Arab, had been housed in premises under custodian's control; and 7,000 shops, workshops, and stores were sublets to new arrivals. The existence of these [Palestinian] Arab houses---vacant and ready for occupation--- has, to a large extent, solved the greatest immediate problem which faced the Israeli authorities in absorption of immigrants. It also considerably relieved the financial burden of absorption." (Simha Flapan, p. 107-108)
Elizer Bauer, a member of Hashomeir Hatzair and the party's Arabs department, described with outrage what was happening in the field, he stated:
"It is self-evident that war materials must be requisitioned, but everything is being taken---metal, wood, building materials, cars, domestic appliances, sewing machines, etc. After the requisitioning is carried out, regulations are issued not take over the property of the [Palestinian] Arabs who remain in their homes." (Simha Flapan, p. 111)
Similarly, Yaakov Haza, one of the foremost leaders of Hashomer Hatzair and Mapam, passionately condemned the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian Arabs. He stated:
"The phenomenon of peasants fleeing from their land is without parallel and didn't take place [in the war] among the Russians, the Poles, or the Germans. All part of the Israeli public, from kibbutz member to the simplest citizen, are involved and we will pay a harsh political and moral price for what is being done." He referred to the village of Abu Shusha, near his kibbutz, Mishmar Haemek, where every house was familiar to him. There were some provocateurs there, but there are others who remained loyal to Israel, he said. "Why were their houses not spared?" (Simha Flapan, p. 111-112)
After the invasion and occupation of Sinai, Israel came under intense American and international pressure to withdraw during the last week of November 1956. Behind the Israeli Army, on Ben-Gurion's instructions, it left scorched earth. All military camps and buildings were destroyed; railway lines were dismantled and carted back to Israel; roads were plowed up and certain areas mined. (Righteous Victims, p. 299)
Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan wrote in his memories regarding the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the 'Imwas, Bayt Nuba, Yalu, and big portion of the West Bank city of Qalqilya:
"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy." (Righteous Victims, p. 328)
To a Friend
Posted on OCTOBER-23-2001
BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
1863-1941
Menachem Ussishkin was one of the leading and founding fathers of Zionism, from 1923 until 1941 he was the powerful chairman and member of the Jewish National Fund, the president of the 20th Zionist Congress, the permanent president of World Zionist Organization's Zionist Action Committee, and a member of the Jewish Agency Executive.
Famous Quotes
In 1904, before Zionism matured into a powerful political force, Manachem Ussishkin stated that:
"[Land is acquired] by force --- that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers." (Righteous Victims, p. 38)
In April 28, 1930 Menachem Ussishkin stated in an address to journalists in Jerusalem:
"We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession .... If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs fellahin [peasants]." (Righteous Victims, p. 141)
On May 19, 1936, Menachem Ussishkin declared:
"What we can demand today is that all Transjordan be included in the Land of Israel. . . on condition that Transjordan would be either be made available for Jewish colonization or for the resettlement of those [Palestinian] Arabs, whose lands [in Palestine] we would purchase. Against this, the most conscientious person could not argue . . . For the [Palestinian] Arabs of the Galilee, Transjordan is a province . . . this will be for the resettlement of Palestine's Arabs. This the land problem. . . . Now the [Palestinian] Arabs DO NOT WANT want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land . . . . because this country belongs to us not to them . . . " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 51)
In 1937 Menachem Ussishkin wrote about the proposed ethnic cleansing by the Peel Commission:
"We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . . Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. And about transferring sixty thousand Arab families he said: "It is most moral ..... I am ready to come an defend ... it before the Almighty." (Righteous Victims, p. 143-144 and Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 37)
In 1938 Menachem Ussishkin commented on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission in 1937:
"We cannot begin the Jewish state with a population of which the [Palestinian] Arabs living on their lands constitute almost half and where the Jews exist on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity .... and the worst is not only the [Palestinian] Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the [Palestinian] Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour ..... The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life..... therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of [Palestinian] Arabs-particularly the peasants- on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 111-112; see also Righteous Victims, p. 143-144)
The Zionist historian Lousis Lipsky wrote describing the personality of Manachem Ussishkin :
"There are many obstinate Zionists in the early days but none had his arrogance. He was rude and despotic, paternal and sentimental. . . . Had he been asked he would have said he could not stomach the Arabs or the English. He ignored them both as long as possible." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 48)
It is worth noting that Ussishkin also stated that the frontiers of the Land of Israel stretched from the "GREAT SEA" [the Mediterranean] to the Euphrates and were not Balfour frontiers. These wider frontiers are clearly "drawn on the wall map of my Jewish National Fund Office." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 85)
See:
Fabricating Israeli History: The `New Historians
by Efraim Karsh
Fabricating Israeli History: the New Historians
by Efraim Karsh
For the last 15 years or so, Post-Zionism has tried to delegitimize Israel's identity as a Jewish state. The politics of Post-Zionism is closely allied with Labor's left-wing and Peace Now. Prior to the current Intifada, they believed that the New Middle East was imminent, and that the Palestinians constitute no strategic threat to Israel's security. Even now, largely marginalized and politically sidelined, the post-Zionists continue to refine their ideology.
The academic wing of post-Zionism has been the so-called "new historians." Led by Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, they seek to undermine Israel's moral standing vis-à-vis the Palestinians. They see Israel as tainted by the original sin of Zionism and the 1947-49 war. Israel deliberately created refugees to dispossess the Arabs; they colluded with Jordan to thwart the national ambitions of the Palestinians; and it was all unnecessary, since they enjoyed the nurturing hand of Ernest Bevin, and the British Foreign Office. Their historical narrative has Israel as the villain.
If all this were true, it would certainly alter the nature of the dispute. Even if it were a legitimate interpretation of extant documents, it might fuel an honest debate about the nature of Israel and its role in the region. Mr. Karsh conclusively shows, however, that these conclusions rest on fabricated documentation. The New Historians repeatedly misread documents, sometimes literally changing "don't" to "do" in their English translations. They omit key passages, sometimes turning the speaker's meaning on its head, other times depriving the reader of key context. They fail to look at entire archives. This naked intellectual dishonesty poisons the well of civilized and informed debate, and is the real target of Mr. Karsh's wrath.
Morris quotes Ben-Gurion as proposing the forcible removal of Arabs to solidify the Jewish majority. In fact, the passage quoted opposes use of force, talks of treating the Arabs inside the Israeli borders as equals, and proposes increasing the Jewish majority through immigration. Morris claims that in a single, secret meeting, Golda Meir committed Israel to an agreement with King Abdullah of Transjordan, whereby Israel agreed to let Abdullah invade the proposed Arab Palestinian state in order to forestall the creation of that state. Neither Meir's report nor those of her aides bear this out, but specifically repudiate it. And Morris's assertion betrays a deep misunderstanding of how international agreements are reached.
As for the British, they could not have blessed such a deal, since it didn't exist. And Mr. Bevin was just about the furthest thing from a guardian angel the Israelis could have had. He limited immigration, and supported its limitation even after Israel's independence. He supported an arms embargo which disproportionately hurt Israel. He proposed that the Israelis make Haifa an open port, with Arab access through a Galilean corridor He fully anticipated and encouraged the Egyptians and the Jordanians to divvy up the Negev. He supported the cease-fire one month into the war, to "save the Arabs from themselves." With friends like these...
Karsh's criticism is academic, not political. He himself supports the creation of some sort of Palestinian state. His attacks are strictly professional, based on his opponents' writings, and never sink to the level of personal invective. His contempt for the New Historians is based on their academic sloppiness and dishonesty, and their need to demonize Israel in order to achieve their political ends. Unlike his opposition, his footnotes are reliable, and his sources not retouched.
As Americans, we are blessed by a short history and short memories. But Israel is a place with long memories. To be valuable, memory must be informed by accurate history. Two people may interpret the same historical documents very differently. But two people looking at different documents have no hope of agreeing. Mr. Karsh is doing yeoman work, trying to move the historical discussion back to common ground.
To a Friend
Posted on OCTOBER-23-2001
BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
Israel Zangwill was a prominent Anglo-Jewish writer often quoted in the British press as a spokesman for Zionism and one of the earliest organizers of the Zionist movement in Britain who visited Palestine as early as 1897.
Related Links
More About Israel Zangwill and 'Transfer' by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Famous Quotes
Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-face with the demographic reality. He stated in 1905 in a speech to a Zionist group in Manchester that:
"[Palestine is] ALREADY TWICE AS THICKLY POPULATED AS THE UNITED STATES" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 10)
And he also added :
"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
In 1920, Israel Zangwill clearly acknowledged the existence of Palestinians, but not as a people since they were not exploiting Palestine's resource. He said:
"If the Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilizing its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 6)
Zangwill also wrote in an article published in "Voice Of Jerusalem" in 1920, that Palestinians' cultural "backwardness" as a justification for the removal of the population. He stated:
"We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction ..... And therefore we must generally persuade them to 'trek.' After all, they have all Arabia with its million square miles .... There is no particular reason for the Arabs to cling to these few kilometers. 'To fold their tents and silently steal away' is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 14, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
In a public meeting in 1919 Zangwill made a remark about the Palestinian Arabs:
"many are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 14)
Uh-huh. So James, what's the distinction here? I've seen this bullshit before and I flat-out don't get. Please spell it out. If Jews are "a PEOPLE," aren't Christians and Muslims and every other body of adherents "a PEOPLE" too?
Mods: please knock it off with the deletions. This is a legitimate question.
By the way, James, all your evasions have really done is reinforce a few things I already said:
Sometimes EVERY zionist post in a long string uses this antizionism=anti-Semitism=Nazi babykillers theme.
There are no other angles from which Israel can be defended? Or do you keep grinding on this Big Lie because you know it's the real secret of Israel's surreal immunity from criticism?
Oh, and as to 'substance,' James, please DIRECTLY address the following instead of slinking around them again:
Every issue, every incident (e.g. Rachel Corrie, Mohammed al-dura) has a standard apologia that's repeated almost verbatim by a certain very recognizable caste of Israel advocates all over the Indymedia network. This is very abnormal. Random people of similar backgrounds usually think differently and rationalize their views in divergent ways. With the zionists who come here, there is a very orchestrated 'talking points' kind of feeling. How is all this not consistent with the idea of conspiracy?
If Judaism-as-race has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish self-image, isn't the "we were there first" bullshit kind of absurd?
Oh, and what's all this about matrilineal descent?
Oh, and please spare us all the "see folks, He's another Hitler!!!!!!" drivel. You keep wearing that shit out, soon even your sympathizers will see through it