The Ethnic Cleansing Party Outpaces Likud

"because Lieberman's party stands for one thing: an Israel finally cleansed of the remainder of the indigenous Palestinian population."

This does NOT help our readers understand the complexities of Israeli politics. Misleading them with statements that are deceptive at best and outright lies on the other does not help.

1) What happened was the collapse of the Likkud coalition. Israeli party politics is complex and not all who prevously would have voted for Likkud went for Kadima. Lieberman's party was an obvious beneficiary of the Likkud meltdown.

2) NO Israeli parties are that one dimensional except perhaps "Green Leaf" (which I beleive won no seats). Why else do you think what to us are identical factions end up split io several parties. Lieberman's party is ALSO very much a party of the "Russian immigrants". Even the "Pensioners" party turns out to be united in other ways (they, BTW, were the real surprise of the election).

What this means to say "a Russian party" is to raise the whole issue of INTERNAL Israeli issues. You will never understand politics until you grasp that "all politics is local" -- well not ALL of course, but mostly people care about what (in their eyes) affects themsleves personally. To Israelis the occupation and conflict with the Palestinians is NOT "the only issue" << the "Pensioners" won seven seats >> Take the Shas party for example (also one of the big winners). Now that's a "relgious" party, also a "left" party, but first and foremost a "sephadic" party ("mizrachim") and you should think of that representing something as opposed to this new party of Lieberman (VERY "ashkenazi") because THAT represents a major contantion within Israeli society.

Especially at the present time while you watch the wheeling and dealing necessary to form a government coalition (one of the direct consequences of "low threshhold proportional representation democracy) you will not understand at all the statements "we won't join a colaition if party X is included" unless you take into account all these factors of "what else" is each party about. Hell, I can't really understand all the complexities of Israeli politics but at least have people available who I can ask.

BTW --- I will make a prediction of HOW Lieberman's proposal will play out. It won't be implemented, of course, but it will be USED. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, it is not illegitimate for the Israelis to make political hay out of in effect requiring the border area Israeli Arabs to "declare for Israel" (make them say "we wat to stay in Israel") and so I predict that however the new government is constituted, that will happen << in other words, the Israelis will OFFER to transfer these areas to the Palestinian state in exchange for the parts Israel will keep as they unilaterally withdraw from most of the West Bank but insist that the people living there get to vote on it. With the expectation that these border area Israeli Arabs will choose economic survival over self immolation in the cause of Palestinian independence.

Shas will demand the communications and housing portfolios, on top of the interior ministry, as its condition for joining the coalition.

Notice --- portfolios unrelated to what YOU might think are the issues buring on the minds of Israelis.

Why "communications"? Knesset sources say giving the communications portfolio to Shas would assist its campaign to restrict porn broadcasts and block access to erotic calls from cellular and regular phones. It would also enable the party to set rules regarding the distribution of televised sermons, such as the weekly sermon delivered by its spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.

Why housing? Besides the communications brief, Shas also wants to head the Housing and Construction Ministry, so it can restore a grant once given to newlyweds to buy apartments in certain areas. << remember -- these are "mizrachim" and there is a certain amount of "ashkenazi" v "sephardi" conflict in Israel over housing --- like we have our own "segregation" issues from "gentirfication, etc. >>

The main brief Shas wants is the Interior Ministry, which it held in past coalitions, as well as the Health Ministry.

The point I am trying to make here is that typifying what the various Israeli parties are all about in terms of what WE think are the driving issues in Israeli society (or better put, what we think the issues SHOULD be) ignores reality. I bet most of us would not have thought PORN was a factor in the elections << remember -- in Israel, their are neighborhoods where "improperly dressed" visitors may have things thrown at them >>

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip is increasing its efforts to infiltrate terrorists into Israel to carry out attacks and establish a front-line terrorist-operative infrastructure in the West Bank .

On January 25, 2006, the day Palestinian Legislative Council elections were held, Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip and candidate for the post of foreign minister, stated that Hamas was committed to the ideology of its 1988 charter . He noted emphatically that “the movement [would] not change a single word in its charter,” which calls for the destruction of the State of Israel , and would not become a purely political movement, but quite the opposite, it would continue its policy of “resistance” (i.e., terrorist attacks) (Reuters, Gaza , January 25).
*
The Hamas charter referred to by Mahmoud al-Zahar was formulated during the first year of the previous round of the violent Israeli-Palestinian confrontations (1987-1993). It was edited and approved by Ahmad Yassin , the movement's founder and leader (who died in a targeted killing in March 2004), and issued on August 18, 1988. It is Hamas's most important ideological document and as of this writing, copies continue to be circulated in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories. It makes extensive use of Islamic sources (the Qur'an and hadith 1) to assure its religious Islamic basis.

• Infiltrating terrorists with medical documents and exploiting Israel's humanitarianism, which allows Palestinians to enter Israel to receive medical treatment: In recent years the Palestinian terrorist organizations have attempted to infiltrate larger numbers of terrorists though the crossing by having them masquerade as ill individuals in need of medical treatment. A prominent example was the female suicide bomber, Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Bas , who in June 2005 was arrested wearing exploding tights. She was stopped at the Erez crossing, where she had crossed with medical documents enabling her to receive treatment at a hospital in Israel . She had been sent by Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades to carry out a suicide bombing attack at the hospital. 1

• Infiltrating terrorist-operatives into Israel through the Sinai and the Negev , and exploiting the lack of physical obstacles along the border: During interrogation, Samih Haddad stated that his attempt to cross though the Erez crossing was not the first and that a number of months previously his handlers had tried to infiltrate him in through Egypt . During the past year there has been an increase in the number of attempts made by the Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip, among them the PIJ, to infiltrate terrorist-operatives into Israel through the Sinai peninsula . For example, on February 8, 2006, two PIJ terrorist-operatives who had arrived from the Gaza Strip were arrested in the Negev . One was a 17 1-year old potential suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest, and the other was his escort. They had come via Sinai to carry out a suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem .

• Exploiting the relatively easy entrance given by Israel to West Bank residents and possessors of West Bank identity cards who temporarily live in the Gaza Strip : That conduit was exposed when Ihad Tity was arrested. He went from the West Bank to study in the Gaza Strip, and as a West Bank resident received a permit to return. Another example was Muhammad Bahisi, who was arrested in March 2005. He was a Hamas terrorist-operative residing temporarily the Gaza Strip and who planned to carry out a suicide bombing attack in Israel after having first gone to the West Bank as a potential kidney donor. He received a permit allowing him to enter the West Bank for medical reasons because on his ID card, place of residence was listed as Qalandia.

Why do Palestinians want to destroy Israel and drive Israeli Jews into the sea?


This is the question asked most frequently by Israelis and Zionists. We will answer the question indirectly by asking the question below:

Are you aware that Israeli Zionists, during the 1948 war, pushed over 150,000 Palestinian refugees into the sea?

For a long time, Zionists have been propagating fear based propaganda to their followers, probably this picture can tell you a bit of the real story, click here for more details. It's misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while the past and present of Palestinians are filled with Israeli war crimes. These types of accusations are meant to deflect and confuse the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The core issues of the conflict are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer) of the Palestinian people for the past five decades. It should be emphasized that the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties had been Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish.

Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:

* In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:

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

* In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)

* And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:.

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

* In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th, 1948:.

"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

* Click here for more "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) quotes from Zionist leaders.

For Israelis and Zionists to excuse themselves from any war crimes, such as compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) and dispossessing the Palestinian people, they've resorted to a myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, businesses, banks, boats, cars, etc. based on their free will, click here to read our rebuttal of this concocted myth.


Jaffa May 1948, Palestinians were being pushed into the see by the attacking Israeli Army

There is no denying the fact that some Palestinians think as many Zionists do (a Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment themselves. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror, and to racism with racism, these are facts that all decent people must accept and deplore simultaneously. No matter what the circumstances are (such as the urge to seek vengeance, revenge, reprisals, etc.), targeting civilians to achieve political or military objectives, in either war or non-war situations, is terrorism. It should be noted that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism (the chief aspect of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinians) for the past five decades.

Finally, the Palestinian mainstream does not and will not condone massive ethnic cleansing such as that which Israelis and Zionists have perpetrated against to the Palestinian people. Palestinians, as Muslim and Arabs, have a long history and track record which proves exactly the opposite. Omar Ibn al-Khatab's and Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem are solid proof of how Arabs and Muslims treated their defeated subjects fairly during the Byzantines and the Crusades respectively. Ironically, many of today's Christian Palestinians trace their roots to the Crusades, such as the famous Rock family of Jaffa. In other words, if freeing Palestine would imply perpetrating war crimes similar to the ones perpetrated against the Palestinian people, Palestinians will wait for another Omar or Saladin to right the wrongs of the past. The Muslim Arabs have their history to prove their tolerance towards their subjects, however, the Israelis and Zionists have their track record to speak for them. Palestine Remembered has been explicitly built to expose and uncover Israeli war crimes and to AMPLIFY the voices of the Palestinian refugees.

And yet with all this evidence of "ethnic cleansing", 20% of Israel remains non- Jewish. Whats your explanation for that? Enquiring minds want to know. Are those Israeli Jews so incompetant? With all their technological superiority and advanced weapondry, wouldn't you think they could do a better job of exterminating an entire population? After all, if you want to kill, rubber bullets and water canons are awfully inefficeient. There must be an explanation...think....think....

...been driving them off more and more of their territory at gunpoint for the past 60 years?
Yes
...been ethnically cleansed from the territory Jewish supremacists have stolen?
Yes
****
Yet the Palestinian population grows at a tremendous rate. How can that be?

est. Palestinian population in 1948- I've seen it quoted anywhere from 250,000 to 750,000.
Now there are nearly 3 million. How is that ethnic cleansing?

I know you follow animal threads

to answer your question here, about "how can that be?", try thinking about it as you might an animal issue.

cows, pigs, chickens, etc keep reproducing at ungodly rates, enough that something like 10 billion of them can be slaughtered a year, in just the US mind you, and they keep reproducing

in this case, you know the conditions they live in are horrible, and you wouldn't wish it on your own cat or rabbit or whatever, so you know that population really is no indicator of health or happiness of a species or contained grouping of a species. this may be somewhat true in the wild, with zero human interference, but not under the thumb of humankind

same with palestinians, just because their population is growing does not mean they are thriving as a people, unless you strictly count numbers and no other factors into that definition. also, consider, as non-humans under a human thumb defy things that seem commonsensical in the wild, so do people in that the least educated and least affluent of peoples generally breed at higher rates than their wealhier breathren

in short, population growth is no indicator of whether a peoples are being mistreated, even to the extremes of genocide. I would argue there is a genocide against domesticated animals in this country, yet there are constantly more to exploit and kill.

also, as I understand it, the term "genocide" actually applies more to those attempting to carry it out than those who are being oppressed.

genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

while motives such as "deliberate" are hard to prove without thought police, I would argue that what is being done to palestinians is indeed systematic and would qualify as a slow-motion genocide over generations as opposed to Hitler's high-speed genocide in trying to pull it off in totality for various peoples he hated or scapegoated in a decade or so.

"I know you follow animal threads

to answer your question here, about "how can that be?", try thinking about it as you might an animal issue.

cows, pigs, chickens, etc keep reproducing at ungodly rates, enough that something like 10 billion of them can be slaughtered a year, in just the US mind you, and they keep reproducing"

Tia: Well, you know this isn't a great analogy, because they are "farmed'- they aren't reproducing "normally'. In the wild, there is a nature balance between predators and prey in any given area. But I see the point you are trying to make.

"in this case, you know the conditions they live in are horrible, and you wouldn't wish it on your own cat or rabbit or whatever, so you know that population really is no indicator of health or happiness of a species or contained grouping of a species. this may be somewhat true in the wild, with zero human interference, but not under the thumb of humankind"

Tia: And in fact, the areas of the world that are most deperately poor tend to have the highest birthrate. Children are the ultimate in "social services"- they take care of you when you are no longer able to work. And the birthrate is high, because infant mortality is. The more babies you have, the greater the odds for the overall family survival.

same with palestinians, just because their population is growing does not mean they are thriving as a people, unless you strictly count numbers and no other factors into that definition. also, consider, as non-humans under a human thumb defy things that seem commonsensical in the wild, so do people in that the least educated and least affluent of peoples generally breed at higher rates than their wealhier breathren

Tia: Yep. But when you look at other factors, such as female literacy, the Palestinians are doing much better than their counterparts in Arab lands. My post was meant to be ironic- there are constant claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing at this site. If the issue was "Are the Palestinians thriving as a people and a culture"- I'd say no.

in short, population growth is no indicator of whether a peoples are being mistreated, even to the extremes of genocide. I would argue there is a genocide against domesticated animals in this country, yet there are constantly more to exploit and kill.

Tia: If there is a true genocide- there will be no population growth. Births will not outpace deaths.

also, as I understand it, the term "genocide" actually applies more to those attempting to carry it out than those who are being oppressed.
genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
while motives such as "deliberate" are hard to prove without thought police, I would argue that what is being done to palestinians is indeed systematic and would qualify as a slow-motion genocide over generations as opposed to Hitler's high-speed genocide in trying to pull it off in totality for various peoples he hated or scapegoated in a decade or so.

Tia: I'd disagree here. Israel built schools. Israel built medical clinics (166 of them). Israel provided universal health care coverage for years, until the PA took over. Israel continues to provide electricity, sewers, waters and other basic services. Hospitals within Israel, including the world reknown Hadassah Hospital (nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize last year) continue to treat the seriously ill, be they Christians, Jews or Arab. And Israel is a democracy. The governmental policies change with whoever/whatever party is in charge. Its hard to imagine how there could be any slow motion long term plan under those circumstances. Remember- before Sharon, 97 Percent of the West Bank was offered to the Palestinians at Camp David. They turned it down

always pinning it on the palestinians when the israelis hold all of the keys to palestinian sovereignty. how convenient to say "their fault" when israelis are living a life of luxury conpared to palestinians

israel built this, built that. they built plenty more for themselves. plenty more

if israel stepped back for real and allowed it, the palestinians would have their own country TOMORROW and would be able to vote just like israelis about things like defense, trade partners, and whatnot

then israelis could sit on their high horse and judge the palestinians (after a fair amount of time and billions of military and financial subsidies from the US). until the israelis get out of their way in running their own affairs, until the israelis stop building more and more settlements and acting unilaterally against palestinians interests, until the israelis stop occupying what should be by now a palestinian state, the israelis have no moral high ground to stand on and judge anyone

as for genocide, it does not matter if the people attempting to carry it out are actually successful at it or not, or how long it takes to destroy a people, it only matters that they try. and while the israelis have had several different elected leaders there has indeed been a theme of "systematic destruction" of palestinians' ability to really, truely, once and for all control their own affairs. it's not like israel just magically becomes a different country every election -- there are trends that are identifiable, patterns established. it is systematic. and the palestinian people suffer and are denied the same rights israelis have enjoyed for generations.

blame the palestinians while the israelis keep them down, if that helps you sleep at night, but the israelis hold the keys to palestinian sovereignty. it would be like white americans saying that african slaves just weren't up to being free and had to prove they were first, they needed white massa's approval. NO, DAMMIT! the slaves deserve to be free, not to be slaves, on their own right and do not have to "earn" it

"they turned it down"- poorly worded statement- Arafat turned it down. I wonder if Camp David was presented dirctly to the Palestinian people if they would have accepted it- what do you think?


always pinning it on the palestinians when the israelis hold all of the keys to palestinian sovereignty. how convenient to say "their fault" when israelis are living a life of luxury conpared to palestinians

I don't blame the Palestinian people- just the Palestinian leadership. The PA under Arafat was rampant with corruption- Al Jeezera reported that 6 BILLION dollars wqas missing fromPAlestinian treasuries after Arafats death. Imagine if that money had been used for school and infrastructure? If people have hope and opportunity- its not so easy to convince them to blow themselves up....

israel built this, built that. they built plenty more for themselves. plenty more

Of course....

if israel stepped back for real and allowed it, the palestinians would have their own country TOMORROW and would be able to vote just like israelis about things like defense, trade partners, and whatnot

Do you have any idea how tiny Israel is? Its about the size of Conneticut or New Jersey- our second and third smallest state. If Israel relinquishes control of Judea and Sameria- the disputed territories- the distance from its east to west borders will be less than 10 miles. And Israel will do this- they've offered many times, begining when they expressed their willingness to accept a non-contiguous state in 1948

then israelis could sit on their high horse and judge the palestinians (after a fair amount of time and billions of military and financial subsidies from the US). until the israelis get out of their way in running their own affairs, until the israelis stop building more and more settlements and acting unilaterally against palestinians interests, until the israelis stop occupying what should be by now a palestinian state, the israelis have no moral high ground to stand on and judge anyone

Seems to me settlements are being disbanded. Israel has the right to self defense- if its borders are under assault, it has hte right to secure them. Maybe Hamas will work to rein in terror- not likely though, since their charter explicity calls for the distruction of Israel and the establishment of a Moslem Wadkf in the area.

as for genocide, it does not matter if the people attempting to carry it out are actually successful at it or not, or how long it takes to destroy a people, it only matters that they try. and while the israelis have had several different elected leaders there has indeed been a theme of "systematic destruction" of palestinians' ability to really, truely, once and for all control their own affairs. it's not like israel just magically becomes a different country every election -- there are trends that are identifiable, patterns established. it is systematic. and the palestinian people suffer and are denied the same rights israelis have enjoyed for generations.

The Arabs in Israel are full citizens- they vote, and have full representation- 11 Arabs have seats in hte new Kenneset. Israel recognizes 15 languages, and has two official state religions. The PA has one. Want to guess which one? All over the Arab world- 20 countries- 56 million people-Jews are excluded from all aspects of life. After 1948, 850,000 Jews were expelled from their homes in Egypt, Morocco, Iraq, etc- these are the forgotten refugees from this period.

blame the palestinians while the israelis keep them down, if that helps you sleep at night, but the israelis hold the keys to palestinian sovereignty. it would be like white americans saying that african slaves just weren't up to being free and had to prove they were first, they needed white massa's approval. NO, DAMMIT! the slaves deserve to be free, not to be slaves, on their own right and do not have to "earn" it

The worst enemy of the Palestinian people has always been the Palestinian governmnet. When the government is truly commited to change, then it will occur. Blaming Israel is a smokescreen.

yeah, that sure let's isreal off the hook

israel, with the real military, jets, tanks, nukes, etc

palestinians, with rocks and suicide bombers

israel, who gets to decide where to build, when, and enforces it with that military

israel, who gets to decide where palestinians can travel, when, and enforces it with that military

again, palestinians could have sovereignty TOMORROW if israelis would step out of the way. but they don't

as for the self-defense ruse, didn't the israelis prove long ago that they could defend themselves just fine with that military? how short was that one war? that's a bunch of BS, and just another excuse for denying palestinians equal rights, the rights israelis enjoy every day

yeesh, again with the masters blaming the slaves for their lack of freedom. "they just don't act right." or "their pseudo-government, non-empowered 'leaders' just don't act right."

when israelis step out of the way and allow palestinian sovereignty, then, and only then, can israelis say squat from a moral position about palestinians or their government (when it is a real government that can do real nation things). until that time, the masters blaming the slaves is just weak

"until that time, the masters blaming the slaves is just weak"

Tia: Getting back to the animal thread- Some of us do believe that those with greater resources ie: power, intelligence, influence, opposable thumbs, etc have a moral obligation to take care of those who are less able. Our relationship should defined not as exploiters, but as caregivers. (Clearly , those who regard rabbits as "meat" or "fur" disagree). Others regard the concept of "stewardship" as exploitive, even racist on its face- and that non- interference is the best policy in general. However, the matter isn't as simple when you are dealing with people/nationalities as opposed to bunnies or redwood trees. Do we have an obligation to intercede in Darfur? Did we have an obligation to intercede in Rwanda? What do you think? Anyway- I do understand what you are saying, but it almost has a "white man's burden" tone to it- implying that the Palestinians are incapable of handling this on their own.


yeah, that sure let's isreal off the hook

Tia: No one is letting Israel off the hook-
According to Dennis Ross, who was at Camp David and at Taba- 97 percent of the West Bank would go to the Palestinians. There would be about a 3 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 3 percent swap of Israeli land to the Palestinians.

In Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state. There would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

Thats a tremendous sacrifice. No one is letting Israel off the hook. Do you think the Palestinian PEOPLE (not the gov't) would have accepted that offer if it had been given directly to them? You didn't answer me. Do you think that was a fair offer?


israel, with the real military, jets, tanks, nukes, etc

palestinians, with rocks and suicide bombers

israel, who gets to decide where to build, when, and enforces it with that military

israel, who gets to decide where palestinians can travel, when, and enforces it with that military

Tia: Every country gets to enforce their border. We are building a fence on our the border with Mexico. There are dozens of border fences around the world. But the fence and the checkpoints didn't exist until the start of the current wave of violence.
When the violence ends, perhaps the fence will come down. We can only hope.

again, palestinians could have sovereignty TOMORROW if israelis would step out of the way. but they don't

Tia: What I really think will happen is that no matter how many concessions Israel makes, the bar will continue to be raised- the demands will never end. And I'm basically an optimist. Israel has always been willing to accept a non-Jewish presence within its borders. The Arabs nations have never been willing to accept a Jewish presence. What have you seen historically that would make you believe otherwise?

as for the self-defense ruse, didn't the israelis prove long ago that they could defend themselves just fine with that military? how short was that one war? that's a bunch of BS, and just another excuse for denying palestinians equal rights, the rights israelis enjoy every day

Tia: The Arab citizens within Israel have equal rights. No country in the world gives rights to non-citizens. Why should Israel?

Historical Background

The Zionist movement arose in late nineteenth-century Europe, influenced by the nationalist ferment sweeping that continent. Zionism acquired its particular focus from the ancient Jewish longing for the return to Zion and received a strong impetus from the increasingly intolerable conditions facing the large Jewish community in Tsarist Russia. The movement also developed at the time of major European territorial acquisitions in Asia and Africa, and benefited from the European powers' competition for influence in the shrinking Ottoman Empire.

One result of this involvement with European expansionism, however, was that the leaders of the nascent nationalist movements in the Middle East viewed Zionism as an adjunct of European colonialism. Moreover, Zionist assertions of the contemporary relevance of the Jews' historical ties to Palestine, coupled with their land purchases and immigration, alarmed the indigenous population of the Ottoman districts that comprised Palestine. The Jewish community (yishuv) rose from 6 percent of Palestine's population in 1880 to 10 percent by 1914. Although the numbers were insignificant, the settlers were outspoken enough to arouse the opposition of Arab leaders and induce them to exert counter pressure on the Ottoman regime to prohibit Jewish immigration and land buying.

As early as 1891, a group of Muslim and Christian notables cabled Istanbul, urging the government to prohibit Jewish immigration and land purchase. The resulting edicts radically curtailed land purchases in the Sanjak (district) of JERUSALEM for the next decade. When a Zionist Congress resolution in 1905 called for increased colonization, the Ottoman regime suspended all land transfers to Jews in both the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Wilayat (province) of Beirut.
After the coup d'etat by the Young Turks in 1908, the Palestinians used their representation in the central parliament and their access to newly opened local newspapers to press their claims and express their concerns. They were particularly vociferous in opposition to discussions that took place between the financially hard-pressed Ottoman regime and Zionist leaders in 1912-13, which would have let the world Zionist Organization purchase crown land (Jiftlik) in the Baysan Valley, along the Jordan River.

The Zionists did not try to quell Palestinian fears, since their concern was to encourage colonization from Europe and to minimize the obstacles in their path. The only effort to meet to discuss Palestinian and Zionist aspirations occurred in the spring of 1914. Its difficulties illustrated the incompatibility in the aims of both sides aspirations. The Palestinians wanted the Zionists to present them with a document that would state

* Zionists precise political ambitions,
* Zionists willingness to open their schools to Palestinians, and
* Zionists intentions of learning Arabic and integrating with the local population.

The Zionists rejected this proposal.
The British Mandate

The proclamation of the BALFOUR DECLARATION on November 2, 1917, and the arrival of British troops in Palestine soon after, transformed the political situation. The declaration gave the Zionist movement its long-sought legal status. The qualification that: nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine seemed a relatively insignificant obstacle to the Zionists, especially since it referred only to those communities': civil and religious rights, not to political or national rights. The subsequent British occupation gave Britain the ability to carry out that pledge and provide the protection necessary for the Zionists to realize their aims.

In fact, the British had made three mutually contradictory promises for the future of Palestine. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 with the French and Russian governments proposed that Palestine be placed under international administration. The HUSAYN-MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE, 1915-1916, on the basis of which the Arab revolt was launched, implied that Palestine would be included in the zone of Arab independence. In contrast, the Balfour Declaration encouraged the colonization of Palestine by Jews, under British protection. British officials recognized the irreconcilability of these pledges but hoped that a modus vivendi could be achieved, both between the competing imperial powers, "France and Britain", and between the Palestinians and the Jews. Instead, these contradictions set the stage for three decades of conflict-ridden British rule in Palestine.

Initially, many British politicians shared the Zionists' assumption that gradual, regulated Jewish immigration and settlement would lead to a Jewish majority in Palestine, whereupon it would become independent, with legal protection for the Arab minority .The assumption that this could be accomplished without serious resistance was shattered at the outset of British rule. Britain thereafter was caught in an increasingly untenable position, unable to persuade either Palestinians or Zionists to alter their demands and forced to station substantial military forces in Palestine to maintain security.

The Palestinians had assumed that they would gain some form of independence when Ottoman rule disintegrated, whether through a separate state or integration with neighboring Arab lands. These hopes were bolstered by the Arab revolt, the entry of Faysal Ibn Husayn into Damascus in 1918, and the proclamation of Syrian independence in 1920. Their hopes were dashed, however, when Britain imposed direct colonial rule and elevated the yishuv to a special status. Moreover, the French ousted Faysal from Damascus in July 1920, and British compensation-in the form of thrones in Transjordan and Iraq for Abdullah and Faysal, respectively-had no positive impact on the Arabs in Palestine. In fact, the action underlined the different treatment accorded Palestine and its disadvantageous political situation. These concerns were exacerbated by Jewish immigration: the yishuv comprised 28 percent of the population by 1936 and reached 32 percent by 1947 (click here to view map of Palestinian vs. Jewish population distribution as of 1946). The British umbrella was critically important to the growth and consolidation of the yishuv, enabling it to root itself firmly despite Palestinian opposition. Although British support diminished in the late 1930s, the yishuv was strong enough by then to withstand the Palestinians on its own. After World War II, the Zionist movement also was able to turn to the emerging superpower, the UNITED STATES, for diplomatic support and legitimization.

The Palestinians' responses to Jewish immigration, land purchases, and political demands were remarkably consistent. They insisted that Palestine remain an Arab country, with the same right of self-determination and independence as Egypt, Transjordan, and Iraq. Britain granted those countries independence without a violent struggle since their claims to self-determination were not contested by European settlers. The Palestinians argued that Palestinian territory could not and should not be used to solve the plight of the Jews in Europe, and that Jewish national aspirations should not override their own rights.

Palestinian opposition peaked in the late 1930s: the six-month general strike in 1936 was followed the next year by a widespread rural revolt. This rebellion welled up from the bottom of Palestinian society-unemployed urban workers, displaced peasants crowded into towns, and debt-ridden villagers. It was supported by most merchants and professionals in the towns, who feared competition from the yishuv. Members of the elite families acted as spokesmen before the British administration through the ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE, which was formed during the 1936 strike. However, the British banned the committee in October 1937 and arrested its members, on the eve of the revolt.

Only one of the Palestinian political parties was willing to limit its aims and accept the principle of territorial partition: The NATIONAL DEFENSE PARTY, led by RAGHIB AL-NASHASHIBI (mayor of Jerusalem from 1920 to 1934), was willing to accept partition in 1937 so long as the Palestinians obtained sufficient land and could merge with Transjordan to form a larger political entity. However, the British PEEL COMMISSION's plan, announced in July 1937, would have forced the Palestinians to leave the olive- and grain- growing areas of Galilee, the orange groves on the Mediterranean coast, and the urban port cities of HAIFA and ACRE. That was too great a loss for even the National Defense Party to accept, and so it joined in the general denunciations of partition.

During the PALESTINE MANDATE period the Palestinian community was 70 percent rural, 75 to 80 percent illiterate, and divided internally between town and countryside and between elite families and villagers. Despite broad support for the national aims, the Palestinians could not achieve the unity and strength necessary to withstand the combined pressure of the British forces and the Zionist movement. In fact, the political structure was decapitated in the late 1930s when the British banned the Arab Higher Committee and arrested hundreds of local politicians. When efforts were made in the 1940s to rebuild the political structure, the impetus came largely from outside, from Arab rulers who were disturbed by the deteriorating conditions in Palestine and feared their repercussions on their own newly acquired independence.

The Arab rulers gave priority to their own national considerations and provided limited diplomatic and military support to the Palestinians. The Palestinian Arabs continued to demand a state that would reflect the Arab majority's weight-diminished to 68 percent by 1947. They rejected the UNITED NATIONS (U.N.) partition plan of November 1947[click here for a map illustration], which granted the Jews statehood in 55 percent of Palestine, an area that included as many Arab residents as Jews. However, the Palestinian Arabs lacked the political strength and military force to back up their claim. Once Britain withdrew its forces in 1948 and the Jews proclaimed the state of Israel, the Arab rulers used their armed forces to protect those zones that the partition plans had ALLOCATED to the Arab state [click here for a map illustration]. By the time armistice agreements were signed in 1949, the Arab areas had shrunk to only 23 percent of Palestine. The Egyptian army held the GAZA STRIP, and Transjordanian forces dominated the hills of central Palestine. At least 726,000 of the 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs fled from the area held by Israel. Emir Abdullah subsequently annexed the zone that his army occupied, renaming it the WEST BANK.
The Zionist Movement

The dispossession and expulsion of a majority of Palestinians were the result of Zionist policies planned over a thirty-year period. fundamentally, Zionism focused on two needs:

1. to attain a Jewish majority in Palestine
2. to acquire statehood

irrespective of the wishes of the indigenous population. Non-recognition of the political and national rights of the Palestinian people was a KEY Zionist policy.

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, placed maximalist demands before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919. He stated that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine. When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine and would become: "as Jewish as England is English". Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south. He argued that:

"the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind."

Weizmann offered the Arab countries a free zone in Haifa and a joint port at Aqaba.

Weizmann's policy was basically in accord with that of the leaders of the yishuv, who held a conference in December 1918 in which they formulated their own demands for the peace conference. The yishuv plan stressed that they must control appointments to the administrative services and that the British must actively assist their program to transform Palestine into a democratic Jewish state in which the Arabs would have minority rights. Although the peace conference did not explicitly allocate such extensive territories to the Jewish national home and did not support the goal of transforming all of Palestine into a Jewish state, it opened the door to such a possibility. More important, Weizmann's presentation stated clearly and forcefully the long-term aims of the movement.

These aims were based on certain fundamental tenets of Zionism:

1. The movement was seen not only as inherently righteous, but also as meeting an overwhelming need among European Jews.
2. European culture was superior to indigenous Arab culture; the Zionists could help civilize the East.
3. External support was needed from a major power; relations with the Arab world were a secondary matter.
4. Arab nationalism was a legitimate political movement, but Palestinian nationalism was either illegitimate or nonexistent.
5. Finally, if the Palestinians would not reconcile themselves to Zionism, force majeure, not compromise, was the only feasible response.

First

Adherents of Zionism believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel. Secular Zionists relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism. Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs:
"The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem. ...The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants."
This perspective took its most extreme form with the Revisionist movement. Its founder, Vladimir Jabotinsky, was so self-righteous about the Zionist cause that he justified any actions taken against the Arabs in order to realize Zionist goals.
Second

Zionists generally felt that European civilization was superior to Arab culture and values. Theodor Herzl, the founder of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in the Jewish State (1886) that the Jewish community could serve as:
"part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism."

Weizmann also believed that he was engaged in a fight of civilization against the desert. The Zionists would bring enlightenment and economic development to the backward Arabs. Similarly, David Ben-Gurion, the leading labor Zionist, could not understand why Arabs rejected his offer to use Jewish finance, scientific knowledge, and technical expertise to modernize the Middle East. He attributed this rejection to backwardness rather than to the affront that Zionism posed to the Arabs' pride and to their aspirations for independence.
Third

Zionist leaders recognized that they needed an external patron to legitimize their presence in the international arena and to provide them legal and military protection in Palestine. Great Britain played that role in the 1920s and 1930s, and the United States became the mentor in the mid-1940s. Zionist leaders realized that they needed to make tactical accommodations to that patron-such as downplaying their public statements about their political aspirations or accepting a state on a limited territory-while continuing to work toward their long-term goals. The presence and needs of the Arabs were viewed as secondary. The Zionist leadership never considered allying with the Arab world against the British and Americans. Rather, Weizmann, in particular, felt that the yishuv should bolster the British Empire and guard its strategic interests in the region. Later, the leaders of Israel perceived the Jewish state as a strategic asset to the United States in the Middle East.
Fourth

Zionist politicians accepted the idea of an Arab nation but rejected the concept of a Palestinian nation. They considered the Arab residents of Palestine as comprising a minute fraction of the land and people of the Arab world, and as lacking any separate identity and aspirations (click here, to read our response to this myth). Weizmann and Ben-Gurion were willing to negotiate with Arab rulers in order to gain those rulers' recognition of Jewish statehood in Palestine in return for the Zionists' recognition of Arab independence elsewhere, but they would not negotiate with the Arab politicians in Palestine for a political settlement in their common homeland. As early as 1918, Weizmann wrote to a prominent British politician:
"The real Arab movement is developing in Damascus and Mecca. ..the so-called Arab question in Palestine would therefore assume only a purely local character, and in fact is not considered a serious factor."

In line with that thinking, Weizmann met with Emir Faysal in the same year, in an attempt to win his agreement to Jewish statehood in Palestine in return for Jewish financial support for Faysal as ruler of Syria and Arabia.

Ben-Gurion, Weizmann, and other Zionist leaders met with prominent Arab officials during the 1939 LONDON CONFERENCE, which was convened by Britain to seek a compromise settlement in Palestine. The Arab diplomats from Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia criticized the exceptional position that the Balfour Declaration had granted the Jewish community and emphasized the estrangement between the Arab and Jewish residents that large scale Jewish immigration had caused. In response, Weizmann insisted that Palestine remain open to all Jews who wanted to immigrate, and Ben-Gurion suggested that all of Palestine should become a Jewish state, federated with the surrounding Arab states. The Arab participants criticized these demands for exacerbating the conflict, rather than contributing to the search for peace. The Zionists' premise that Arab statehood could be recognized while ignoring the Palestinians was thus rejected by the Arab rulers themselves.
Fifth

Finally, Zionist leaders argued that if the Palestinians could not reconcile themselves to Zionism, then force majeure, not a compromise of goals, was the only possible response. By the early 1920s, after violent Arab protests broke out in Jaffa and Jerusalem, leaders of the yishuv recognized that it might be impossible to bridge the gap between the aims of the two peoples. Building the national home would lead to an unavoidable clash, since the Arab majority would not agree to become a minority. In fact, as early as 1919 Ben-Gurion stated bluntly:

"Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this gulf. ...I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews. ...We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs."

As tensions increased in the 1920s and the 1930s Zionist leaders realized that they had to coerce the Palestinian acquiesce in a diminished status. Ben-Gurion stated in 1937, during the Arab revolt:

"This is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs. ... This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews. ...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."

This sober conclusion did not lead Ben-Gurion to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs: instead he became more determined to strengthen the Jewish military forces so that they could compel the Arabs to relinquish their claims.
Practical Zionism

In order to realize the aims of Zionism and build the Jewish national home, the Zionist movement undertook the following practical steps. They:

1. Built political structures that could assume state functions
2. Created a military force.
3. Promoted large-scale immigration.
4. Acquired land as the inalienable property of the Jewish people
5. Established monopolistic concessions. The labor federation, Histadrut, tried to force Jewish enterprises to hire only Jewish labor
6. Setting up an autonomous Hebrew-language educational system.

These measures created a self-contained national entity on Palestinian soil that was ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the Arab community.

The yishuv established an elected community council, executive body, administrative departments, and religious courts soon after the British assumed control over Palestine. When the PALESTINE MANDATE was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, the World Zionist Organization gained the responsibility to advise and cooperate with the British administration not only on economic and social matters affecting the Jewish national home but also on issues involving the general development of the country. Although the British rejected pressure to give the World Zionist Organization an equal share in administration and control over immigration and land transfers, the yishuv did gain a privileged advisory position.

The Zionists were strongly critical of British efforts to establish a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL in 1923, 1930, and 1936. They realized that Palestinians' demands for a legislature with a Palestinian majority ran counter to their own need to delay establishing representative bodies until the Jewish community was much larger. In 1923, the Jewish residents did participate in the elections for a Legislative Council, but they were relieved that the Palestinians' boycott compelled the British to cancel the results. In 1930 and 1936 the World Zionist Organization vigorously opposed British proposals for a legislature, fearing that, if the Palestinians received the majority status that proportional representation would require, then they would try to block Jewish immigration and the purchase of land by Zionist companies. Zionist opposition was couched indirectly in the assertion that Palestine was not ripe for self-rule, a code for not until there's a Jewish majority.
To bolster this position, the yishuv formed defense forces (Haganah) in March 1920. They were preceded by the establishment of guards (hashomer) in Jewish rural settlements in the 1900s and the formation of a Jewish Legion in World War I. However, the British disbanded the Jewish Legion and allowed only sealed armories in the settlements and mixed Jewish-British area defense committees.

Despite its illegal status, the Haganah expanded to number 10,000 trained and mobilized men, and 40,000 reservists by 1936. During the 1937-38 Arab revolt, the Haganah engaged in active defense against Arab insurgents and cooperated with the British to guard railway lines, the oil pipeline to Haifa, and border fences. This cooperation deepened during World War II, when 18,800 Jewish volunteers joined the British forces. Haganah's special Palmach units served as scouts and sappers for the British army in Lebanon in 1941-42. This wartime experience helped to transform the Haganah into a regular fighting force. When Ben-Gurion became the World Zionist Organization's secretary of defense in June 1947, he accelerated mobilization as well as arms buying in the United States and Europe. As a result, mobilization leaped to 30,000 by May 1948, when statehood was proclaimed, and then doubled to 60,000 by mid-July-twice the number serving in the Arab forces arrayed against Israel.

A principal means for building up the national home was the promotion of large-scale immigration from Europe. Estimates of the Palestinian population demonstrate the dramatic impact of immigration. The first British census (December 31, 1922) counted 757,182 residents, of whom 83,794 were Jewish. The second census (December 31, 1931) enumerated 1,035,821, including 174,006 Jews. Thus, the absolute number of Jews had doubled and the relative number had increased from 11 percent to 17 percent. Two-thirds of this growth could be attributed to net immigration, and one third to natural increase. Two-thirds of the yishuv was concentrated in Jerusalem and Jaffa and Tel Aviv, with most of the remainder in the north, including the towns of HAIFA, SAFAD, and Tiberias.

The Mandate specified that the rate of immigration should accord with the economic capacity of the country to absorb the immigrants. In 1931, the British government reinterpreted this to take into account only the Jewish sector of the economy, excluding the Palestinian sector, which was suffering from heavy unemployment. As a result, the pace of immigration accelerated in 1932 and peaked in 1935-36. In other words, the absolute number of Jewish residents doubled in the five years from 1931 to 1936 to 370,000, so that they constituted 28 percent of the total population. Not until 1939 did the British impose a severe quota on Jewish immigrants. That restriction was resisted by the yishuv with a sense of desperation, since it blocked access to a key haven for the Jews whom Hitler was persecuting and exterminating in Germany and the rest of Nazi-occupied Europe. Net immigration was limited during the war years in the 1940s, but the government estimated in 1946 that there were about 583,000 Jews of nearly 1,888,000 residents, or 31 percent of the total Seventy percent of them were urban, and they continued to be overwhelmingly concentrated in Jerusalem (100,000) the Haifa area (119,000), and the JAFFA and RAMLA districts (327,000) (click here for a map illustrating Palestine's population distribution in 1946) . The remaining 43,000 were largely in Galilee, with a scattering in the Negev and almost none in the central highlands.

The World Zionist Organization's purchasing agencies launched large-scale land purchases in order to found rural settlements and stake territorial claims. In 1920 the Zionists held about 650,000 dunums (one dunum equals approximately one-quarter of an acre). By 1930, the amount had expanded to 1,164,000 dunums and by 1936 to 1,400,000 dunums. The major purchasing agent (the Palestine Land Development Company) estimated that, by 1936, 89 percent had been bought from large landowners (primarily absentee owners from Beirut) and only 11 percent from peasants. By 1947, the yishuv held 1.9 million dunums. Nevertheless, this represented only 7 percent of the total land surface or 10 to 12 percent of the cultivable land (click here for a map illustrating Palestine's landownership distribution in 1946).

According to Article 3 of the Constitution of the Jewish Agency, the land was held by the Jewish National Fund as the inalienable property of the Jewish people; ONLY Jewish labor could be employed in the settlements, Palestinians protested bitterly against this inalienability clause. The moderate National Defense Party , for example, petitioned the British in 1935 to prevent further land sales, arguing that it was a: life and death for the Arabs, in that it resulted in the transfer of their country to other hands and the loss of their nationality.

The placement of Jewish settlements was often based on political considerations. The Palestine Land Development Company had four criteria for land purchase:

1. The economic suitability of the tract
2. Its contribution to forming a solid block of Jewish territory.
3. The prevention of isolation of settlements
4. The impact of the purchase on the political-territorial claims of the Zionists.

The stockade and watchtower settlements constructed in 1937, for example, were designed to secure control over key parts of Galilee for the yishuv in case the British implemented the PEEL PARTITION PLAN. Similarly, eleven settlements were hastily erected in the Negev in late 1946 in an attempt to stake a political claim in that entirely Palestinian-populated territory.

In addition to making these land purchases, prominent Jewish businessmen won monopolistic concessions from the British government that gave the Zionist movement an important role in the development of Palestine's natural resources. In 1921, Pinhas Rutenberg's Palestine Electric Company acquired the right to electrify all of Palestine except Jerusalem. Moshe Novomeysky received the concession to develop the minerals in the Dead Sea in 1927. And the Palestine Land Development Company gained the concession to drain the Hula marshes, north of the Sea of Galilee, in 1934. In each case, the concession was contested by other serious non-Jewish claimants; Palestinian politicians argued that the government should retain control itself in order to develop the resources for the benefit of the entire country.

The inalienability clause in the Jewish National Fund contracts included provision that ONLY JEWS could work on Jewish agricultural settlements. The concepts of manual labor and the return to the soil were key to the Zionist enterprise. This Jewish labor policy was enforced by the General Foundation of Jewish Labor (Histadrut), founded in 1920 and headed by David Ben-Gurion. Since some Jewish builders and citrus growers hired Arabs, who worked for lower wages than Jews, the Histadrut launched a campaign in 1933 to remove those Arab workers. Histadrut organizers picketed citrus groves and evicted Arab workers from construction sites and factories in the cities. The strident propaganda by the Histradut increased the Arabs' fears for the future. George Mansur, a Palestinian labor leader, wrote angrily in 1937:

"The Histadrut's fundamental aim is 'the conquest of labor' ...No matter how many Arab workers are unemployed, they have no right to take any job which a possible immigrant might occupy. No Arab has the right to work in Jewish undertakings."

Finally, the establishment of an all-Jewish, Hebrew-language educational system was an essential component of building the Jewish national home. It helped to create a cohesive national ethos and a lingua franca among the diverse immigrants. However, it also entirely separated Jewish children from Palestinian children, who attended the governmental schools. The policy widened the linguistic and cultural gap between the two peoples. In addition, there was a stark contrast in their literacy levels. In 1931:

* 93 percent of Jewish males (above age seven) were literate
* 71 percent of Christian males were literate
* Only 25 percent of Muslim males were literate.

Overall, Palestinian literacy increased from 19 percent in 1931 to 27 percent by 1940, but only 30 percent of Palestinian children could be accommodated in government and private schools.

The practical policies of the Zionist movement created a compact and well-rooted community by the late 1940s. The yishuv had its own political, educational, economic, and military institutions, parallel to the governmental system. Jews minimized their contact with the Arab community and outnumbered the Arabs in certain key respects. Jewish urban dwellers, for example, greatly exceeded Arab urbanites, even though Jews constituted but one-third of the population. Many more Jewish children attended school than did Arab children, and Jewish firms employed seven times as many workers as Arab firms.

Thus the relative weight and autonomy of the yishuv were much greater than sheer numbers would suggest. The transition to statehood was facilitated by the existence of the proto state institutions and a mobilized, literate public. But separation from the Palestinian residents was exacerbated by these autarchic policies.
Policies Toward the Palestinians

The main viewpoint within the Zionist movement was that the Arab problem would be solved by first solving the Jewish problem. In time, the Palestinians would be presented with the fait accompli of a Jewish majority. Settlements, land purchases, industries, and military forces were developed gradually and systematically so that the yishuv would become too strong to uproot. In a letter to his son, Weizmann compared the Arabs to the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared to make the path smooth. When the Palestinians mounted violent protests in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, and the late 1940s, the yishuv sought to curb them by force, rather than seek a political accommodation with the indigenous people. Any concessions made to the Palestinians by the British government concerning immigration, land sales, or labor were strongly contested by the Zionist leaders. In fact, in 1936, Ben-Gurion stated that the Palestinians will only acquiesce in a Jewish Eretz Israel after they are in a state of total despair.

Zionists viewed their acceptance of territorial partition as a temporary measure; they did not give up the idea of the Jewish community's right to all of Palestine. Weizmann commented in 1937:

"In the course of time we shall expand to the whole country ...this is only an arrangement for the next 15-30 years."

Ben-Gurion stated in 1938,

"After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

A FEW EFFORTS were made to reduce Arab opposition. For example in the 1920s, Zionist organizations provided financial support to Palestinian political parties, newspapers, and individuals. This was most evident in the establishment and support of the National Muslim Societies (1921-23) and Agricultural Parties (1924-26). These parties were expected to be neutral or positive toward the Zionist movement, in return for which they would receive financial subventions and their members would be helped to obtain jobs and loans. This policy was backed by Weizmann, who commented that:
"extremists and moderates alike were susceptible to the influence of money and honors."
However, Leonard Stein, a member of the London office of the World Zionist Organization, denounced this practice. He argued that Zionists must seek a permanent modus vivendi with the Palestinians by hiring them in Jewish firms and admitting them to Jewish universities. He maintained that political parties in which Arab moderates are merely Arab gramophones playing Zionist records would collapse as soon as the Zionist financial support ended. In any event, the World Zionist Organization terminated the policy by 1927, as it was in the midst of a financial crisis and as most of the leaders felt that the policy was ineffective.

Some Zionist leaders argued that the Arab community had to be involved in the practical efforts of the Zionist movement. Chaim Kalvarisky, who initiated the policy of buying support, articulated in 1923 the gap between that ideal and the reality:

"Some people say. ..that only by common work in the field of commerce, industry and agriculture mutual understanding between Jews and Arabs will ultimately be attained. ...This is, however, merely a theory. In practice we have not done and we are doing nothing for any work in common.

* How many Arab officials have we installed in our banks? Not even one.
* How many Arabs have we brought into our schools? Not even one.
* What commercial houses have we established in company with Arabs? Not even one."

Tow years later, Kalvarisky lamented:

"We all admit the importance of drawing closer to the Arabs, but in fact we are growing more distant like a drawn bow. We have no contact: two separate worlds, each living its own life and fighting the other."

Some members of the yishuv emphasized the need for political relations with the Palestinian Arabs, to achieve either a peacefully negotiated territorial partition (as Nahum Goldmann sought) or a binational state (as Brit Shalom and Hashomer Ha-tzair proposed). But few went as far as Dr. Judah L. Magnes, chancellor of The Hebrew University, who argued that Zionism meant merely the creation of a Jewish cultural center in Palestine rather than an independent state. In any case, the binationalists had little impact politically and were strongly opposed by the leadership of the Zionist movement.

Zionist leaders felt they did not harm the Palestinians by blocking them from working in Jewish settlements and industries or even by undermining their majority status. The Palestinians were considered a small part of the large Arab nation; their economic and political needs could be met in that wider context, Zionists felt, rather than in Palestine. They could move elsewhere if they sought land and could merge with Transjordan if they sought political independence.

This thinking led logically to the concept of population TRANSFER. In 1930 Weizmann suggested that the problems of insufficient land resources within Palestine and of the dispossession of peasants could be solved by moving them to Transjordan and Iraq. He urged the Jewish Agency to provide a loan of £1 million to help move Palestinian farmers to Transjordan. The issue was discussed at length in the Jewish Agency debates of 1936-37 on partition. At first, the majority proposed a voluntary transfer of Palestinians from the Jewish state, but later they realized that the Palestinians would never leave voluntarily. Therefore, key leaders such as Ben-Gurion insisted that compulsory transfer was essential. The Jewish Agency then voted that the British government should pay for the removal of the Palestinian Arabs from the territory allotted to the Jewish state.

The fighting from 1947 to 1949 resulted in a far larger transfer than had been envisioned in 1937. It solved the Arab problem by removing most of the Arabs and was the ultimate expression of the policy of force majeure.
Conclusion

The land and people of Palestine were transformed during the thirty years of British rule. The systematic colonization undertaken by the Zionist movement enabled the Jewish community to establish separate and virtually autonomous political, economic, social, cultural, and military institutions. A state within a state was in place by the time the movement launched its drive for independence. The legal underpinnings for the autonomous Jewish community were provided by the British Mandate. The establishment of a Jewish state was first proposed by the British Royal Commission in July 1937 and then endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.

That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with its own national aspirations. The right to create a Jewish state-and the overwhelming need for such a state-were perceived as overriding Palestinian counterclaims. Few members of the yishuv supported the idea of binationalism. Rather, territorial partition was seen by most Zionist leaders as the way to gain statehood while according certain national rights to the Palestinians. TRANSFER of Palestinians to neighboring Arab states was also envisaged as a means to ensure the formation of a homogeneous Jewish territory. The implementation of those approaches led to the formation of independent Israel, at the cost of dismembering the Palestinian community and fostering long-term hostility with the Arab world.

Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David? (typical pro-israel/right wing assertion)

At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)

So to claim that:

"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"

is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".

All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:

* The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.
* To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.
* Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.
* Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?
* According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.
* It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.

Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

* The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,
* Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,
* Unemployment has tripled, and above all
* Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.

It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding The Camp David Peace Proposal of July, 2000 and the so-called Barak's Generous Offer.

Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?
No. Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease". However, the issue is not one of percentages—the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95 percent of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners—cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities—but the remaining 5 percent is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population.

Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.

Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?

The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise.

How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?

Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.

How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?

The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.

Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David—especially at the Taba talks—the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated.

Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it wants to annex Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees' their right of return. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them.

Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?

Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration—i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives.

However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?

Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory—not including East Jerusalem—increased by 52 percent since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace—not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.

Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?

The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine (23 percent more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22 percent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.

Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?

The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution however is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement—already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens.

Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?

The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.

>No country in the world gives rights to non-citizens. Why should Israel?

israel should either get out of the way and let palestinians be citizens of their own palestinian country, with full sovereignty, or make them full voting citizens of israel

as it is, palestinians are in purgatory and citizens of no where, for generations on end. it's simply wrong, and all the excuses in the world don't make it right. only citizenship one way or the other will make it right

Why do Arabs ONLY understand the language of force? (typical zionsit propaganda assertion)

It's really astonishing how such a small racist remark could affect all sectors of the Israeli society, especially its effect in the Israeli Army where most of Israel's policy makers graduate. It's also astonishing how often Israelis, Zionists, and many Jews repeat this racist question without comprehending its racist and dangerous ramification. For example, if the question was slightly changed, but instead of saying Arabs, let us use Israelis or Jews instead, the statement would become:

"Why Israelis or Jews do not understand but the language of force?"

If any person dares to publish such a racist statement, he or she will be automatically Black Listed and tagged for being an anti-Semite.

The hard truth is that all people, regardless of their color or religious backgrounds, understand the language of force. It's true that Arabs, like many others in the past, submitted to the language of force. On the other hand, many other people submitted to the Arabs force as well, i.e. the Crusaders, Persian, Byzantium, and Mongols to name a few. Similarly, the French, Russian, Greek, Polish Jews during the famous Warsaw uprising or Intifada, ... etc. submitted to the Nazi might during WW II. In other words, force does not and will not discriminate between an Arab nor a Jew.

For the moment, let's assume that this racist question is TRUE, and you are in charge of the Israeli Occupation Force (I.O.F.), do you believe that:

* Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon was a mistake?
* Israel should reinvade Lebanon again to prove a point to all Arabs?
* Israel should cancel the peace treaties it has signed with both Egypt and Jordan? After all Egyptians and Jordanians are also Arabs too!

To demonstrated to the reader how this belligerent attitude toward the Arab population was deeply rooted among early Zionists, let's contemplate the following Zionists quotes:

* Ahad Ha'Am, the leading Eastern European Jewish essayist, wrote after his three months visit to Palestine in 1891:

" ....[the Zionists pioneers believed that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force ..... [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.7)

*

Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice:

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


* Moshe Dayan, one of the early founders of the Haganah and the Israeli Defense Force, wrote in 1955:

"The only method that proved effective, not justified or moral but effective, when Arabs plant mines on our side [in retaliation]. If we try to search for the [particular] Arab [who planted mines], it has no value. But if we harass the nearby village . . . then the population there comes out against the [infiltrators] . . . and the Egyptian Government and the Transjordan Government are [driven] to prevent such incidents because their prestige is [assailed], as the Jews have opened fire, and they are unready to begin a war . . . the method of collective punishment so far has proved effective." (Righteous Victims, p. 275-276)

* Israel's leaders drew the wrong lessons from the War of Attrition with Egypt in 1969. Mordachai Gur, who became chief of staff in 1974, wrote in the IDF monthly (July-1987 edition):

"There is no doubt that our victory in the War of Attrition was very important, but did only one conclusion follow from it---to sit and do nothing? That we are strong and if the Arabs want peace, they have to come to us on their knees and accept out terms? . . . This was the great political and strategic mistake---the reliance on force as the almost exclusive factor in the formulation of policy." (Iron Wall, p. 297)

* As Nahum Goldmann wrote, once president of the World Zionist Congress, in his autobiography, that Israel's reliance on force is becoming the center of its political problems for many years to come, he stated:

" . . . The [1948 war] victory offered such a glorious contrast to the centuries of persecution and humiliation, of adaptation and compromise, that it seemed to indicate the only direction that could possibly be taken from then on. To brook through nothing, tolerate no attack, but cut through Gordain knots, and to shape history by creating facts seemed so simple, so compelling, so satisfying that it became Israel's policy in its conflict with the Arab world." (Simha Flapan, p. 186)

It's unfortunate that many Israelis and Zionists often justify their TERROR and RACISM, which sadly generates Arab terror and racism in response. It's even more tragic that an increasing number of Palestinians and Arabs have started to believe that "Israelis and Zionists understand the language of force" as well. In general, all civilized people, regardless of their backgrounds, should deplore such racist remarks regardless who says it. As long Israelis and Zionists continue to look at the barrel of the gun as a communication tool with their Arab neighbors, Palestinians' version of Zionism will continue be on the rise. Not among Palestinians only, but also all over the Middle East. It is very sad, but often true:

Racism breeds racism, and terror breeds terror.