From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
"Democratic" Israel Quashes Antiwar Protests
On Sunday, July 16, 2000 people, Jewish and Arab, marched for peace in Tel Aviv. The Israeli government responded by ending the protest in 2 hours and arresting the organizers for "parading without a permit," demonstrating there is no free speech in Israel.
From: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/isra-j18.shtml
If one were to judge by the international media, the Israeli government’s assault on Lebanon and Gaza enjoys the virtually unanimous support of the Israeli population. In so far as Israeli citizens have been interviewed, they have been invariably in favour of war, insisting that it provides the only means of protecting the Israeli people.
Despite a barrage of pro-war propaganda in the Israeli media, however, visible opposition has begun to appear. Some 2,000 people marched in Israel’s commercial capital of Tel Aviv on Sunday to demand prisoner exchange negotiations with the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, and an end to the offensive against Lebanon.
“Yes to Peace,” “Stop the War Monstrosity,” “Say No to the Brutal Bombardments on Gaza” and “Our Children Want to Live” were among the calls from the mixed crowd of Jewish and Arab demonstrators organised by several Israeli anti-war groups.
They also accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz of murdering children and carrying out war crimes in complicity with American policy. The slogans included “Olmert Agreed With Bush: War and Occupation” and “Peretz, Don’t Worry, We’ll be Seeing You at The Hague.”
For all the claims of democracy in Israel, the rally received almost no coverage in the local and international media and was dispersed by police within two hours. Police arrested three protesters, claiming they were holding a demonstration without a permit.
Some of the marchers interviewed for Ynet, an Israeli web site, expressed their horror at the outrages being committed in their names. Eitan Lerner said: “Israel is entering another cycle of fighting and continues the foolishness of exaggerated aggression. I came here to protest because there’s a link between starving and oppressing the Palestinians and the bombings in Lebanon.”
Manal Amuri, from Jerusalem, said: “What Israel is doing now has resulted in the deaths of civilians, innocent children, and it serves no purpose except for the government’s vindictiveness. I think it’s good we’re showing that there are Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel who oppose the war.”
Abeer Kopty referred to the intensive efforts being made to stampede public opinion. “They keep telling us that there is a consensus in support of the war, and that’s not true. They keep telling the citizens that this is the only way, and I think that there is another way.”
A women’s protest was also held on Sunday, next to the central Haifa train depot where a Hezbollah rocket landed earlier that day, killing eight people. The women said that in the coming days, they would be assembling a new group of Arab and Jewish women against the war.
Several days earlier, only a few hours after the start of the attack on Lebanon, 200 people picketed the Defence Ministry in Jerusalem. According to Adam Keller of the peace movement Gush Shalom, writing on Al Jazeerah on July 15, the demonstrators responded to an e-mail sent by a group of young people.
Under the headline, “ ‘Summer Rains’ Precipitate a Flood of Blood!” the e-mail accused the government of using “cruel military force and collective punishment against the civilian populations of Gaza and Lebanon.”
It continued: “The latest events in Gaza and Lebanon are directly related to the government of Israel’s campaign against the elected leadership of the Palestinian people. This policy prevents any chance of creating a channel of communications and diplomatic negotiations with our neighbours, and leaves the arena to those who want endless fighting.”
On the picket, the slogans chanted included: “Peretz—You Promised Education and Pensions, And All We Got Is Tanks and Dead Bodies!”, “Peretz, Peretz, Minister of Defence / You have Killed Seven Children Today!” and “Jews and Arabs / Refuse to be Enemies!”
Mounting political tensions
These sentiments undoubtedly reflect wider anxieties about being dragged into a wider war, as well as deep-seated distrust in the coalition government cobbled together by Olmert’s Kadima Party and Peretz’s Labour Party after national elections in March. For now, the pro-war atmosphere dominating the media and the political establishment has largely drowned these voices out, but the underlying social and class tensions wracking the Zionist state are building up just below the surface.
Writing on the Arabic Media Internet Network, Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom commented on the stifling of anti-war sentiment. “The public is not enthusiastic about the war. It is resigned to it, in stoic fatalism, because it is being told that there is no alternative. And indeed, who can be against it? Who does not want to liberate the ‘kidnapped soldiers’?... In the media, the generals reign supreme, and not only those in uniform. There is almost no former general who is not being invited by the media to comment, explain and justify, all speaking in one voice.”
Despite this concerted campaign, a number of commentators have drawn attention to the cracks appearing in the official justifications for the military onslaught. On the same web site, Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born musician and writer living in Jordan, noted:
“Although both Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were originally targeting legitimate military targets, Israeli retaliation was clearly aiming against civilian targets, civil infrastructures and mass killing directed against an innocent population. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this is not really the way to win a war or confront that particular sort of combat known as guerrilla warfare.”
Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy wrote on July 17: “Regrettably, the Israel Defence Forces once again looks like the neighbourhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force....
“In Gaza, a soldier is abducted from the army of a state that frequently abducts civilians from their homes and locks them up for years with or without a trial—but only we’re allowed to do that. And only we’re allowed to bomb civilian population centres.”
In a column posted on July 16, Shmuel Rosner, chief US correspondent for Haaretz, pointed out that in October 2000, just months after Israel ended its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, three Israeli soldiers were abducted from the border area. Ehud Barak, Labour prime minister at the time, decided to let it pass—an approach repeated several times by his Likud successor, Ariel Sharon—in order to avoid opening a “second front” in addition to the one in the Palestinian territories.
Rosner attributed the change in policy to the levels of frustration that had built up among Israelis with the country’s political and military leadership. “You can hear them on every street corner, in every cafe, and in almost every living room: people of the right and the left, young and old, from north and south—frustrated, toughened, disillusioned....
“In this atmosphere, no military officer and no civilian decision-maker can even think about restraint. Reaching at least one of the two goals they set for this current operation in Lebanon—bringing the soldiers back home and ‘changing to rules of the game,’ meaning no more Hezbollah militias on the Israeli border—will decide not only the future of the northern front but also the political future of Israel’s leaders.”
This assessment ignores the backing given to the Israeli aggression by the United States, not to speak of the entire cycle of war launched by the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet Rosner’s references to the popular frustration and the uncertain political future of the Olmert-Peretz government are revealing.
A major factor propelling the militarism of the Zionist administration is the need to divert the disaffection and social polarisation generated by the government’s anti-working class programme of “market reforms” and welfare cuts.
Last November, Peretz, a former national trade union chief, unexpectedly defeated the veteran Shimon Peres in a Labour party leadership contest. Peretz won by pledging to end the conflict with the Palestinians through a negotiated settlement and to look after the interests of ordinary Israeli families hard hit by Sharon’s Likud-Labour government.
Peretz withdrew Labour’s cabinet members from Sharon’s coalition, triggering a realignment of Israeli politics. In a bid to regain support, Sharon was joined by Peres in setting up a new party, Kadima, and calling national elections last March. But in what amounted to a stunning repudiation, Kadima—led by Sharon’s successor Olmert—failed to win a majority, while Likud’s rump was routed.
Sharon’s measures had caused such hostility that his finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took over as Likud leader, unsuccessfully sought to apologise during the election campaign for the social pain he had inflicted.
Led by the left-talking Peretz, Labour profited from this opposition, together with a new pro-welfare party, the Pensioners Party, and Shas, whose base is the predominantly working class ultra-orthodox Sephardim (Middle Eastern Jews).
However, having campaigned against the cuts in welfare and family payments implemented by the Sharon government, the three parties promptly joined the Kadima-led government, regardless of Olmert’s stated intention to continue the pro-business measures. In particular, the government is determined to see wages fall further in order to make Israel “internationally competitive.”
This programme has included privatisations and tax handouts to benefit the wealthy, accompanied by cuts in social benefits such as unemployment, child and insurance benefits, and income assistance, and a rise in the pension age as well as restrictions on the right to strike.
These measures have already brought unemployment and poverty to increasing numbers of workers and their families and given Israel one of the highest rates of inequality in the world, second only to the US in the advanced countries. According to the National Insurance Institute, the richest households have 14 times more income than the poorest, while one quarter of the 6 million population live below the poverty level, and 1 in 5 children go hungry every day.
While billions of US dollars have been poured into military spending to sustain the war against the Palestinians and an expansion of subsidised settlements in the occupied territories, most Israeli workers and their families have seen their living standards decline.
Aided by Peretz, Olmert and his military generals are intent on channeling the rising discontent into fratricidal warfare against the impoverished Lebanese and Palestinian masses. But the conditions are emerging for growing numbers of Israeli youth and workers to realise that the Zionist project of a national home for the Jews and refuge from persecution has turned into a nightmarish dead end.
If one were to judge by the international media, the Israeli government’s assault on Lebanon and Gaza enjoys the virtually unanimous support of the Israeli population. In so far as Israeli citizens have been interviewed, they have been invariably in favour of war, insisting that it provides the only means of protecting the Israeli people.
Despite a barrage of pro-war propaganda in the Israeli media, however, visible opposition has begun to appear. Some 2,000 people marched in Israel’s commercial capital of Tel Aviv on Sunday to demand prisoner exchange negotiations with the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah, and an end to the offensive against Lebanon.
“Yes to Peace,” “Stop the War Monstrosity,” “Say No to the Brutal Bombardments on Gaza” and “Our Children Want to Live” were among the calls from the mixed crowd of Jewish and Arab demonstrators organised by several Israeli anti-war groups.
They also accused Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Amir Peretz of murdering children and carrying out war crimes in complicity with American policy. The slogans included “Olmert Agreed With Bush: War and Occupation” and “Peretz, Don’t Worry, We’ll be Seeing You at The Hague.”
For all the claims of democracy in Israel, the rally received almost no coverage in the local and international media and was dispersed by police within two hours. Police arrested three protesters, claiming they were holding a demonstration without a permit.
Some of the marchers interviewed for Ynet, an Israeli web site, expressed their horror at the outrages being committed in their names. Eitan Lerner said: “Israel is entering another cycle of fighting and continues the foolishness of exaggerated aggression. I came here to protest because there’s a link between starving and oppressing the Palestinians and the bombings in Lebanon.”
Manal Amuri, from Jerusalem, said: “What Israel is doing now has resulted in the deaths of civilians, innocent children, and it serves no purpose except for the government’s vindictiveness. I think it’s good we’re showing that there are Arab and Jewish citizens in Israel who oppose the war.”
Abeer Kopty referred to the intensive efforts being made to stampede public opinion. “They keep telling us that there is a consensus in support of the war, and that’s not true. They keep telling the citizens that this is the only way, and I think that there is another way.”
A women’s protest was also held on Sunday, next to the central Haifa train depot where a Hezbollah rocket landed earlier that day, killing eight people. The women said that in the coming days, they would be assembling a new group of Arab and Jewish women against the war.
Several days earlier, only a few hours after the start of the attack on Lebanon, 200 people picketed the Defence Ministry in Jerusalem. According to Adam Keller of the peace movement Gush Shalom, writing on Al Jazeerah on July 15, the demonstrators responded to an e-mail sent by a group of young people.
Under the headline, “ ‘Summer Rains’ Precipitate a Flood of Blood!” the e-mail accused the government of using “cruel military force and collective punishment against the civilian populations of Gaza and Lebanon.”
It continued: “The latest events in Gaza and Lebanon are directly related to the government of Israel’s campaign against the elected leadership of the Palestinian people. This policy prevents any chance of creating a channel of communications and diplomatic negotiations with our neighbours, and leaves the arena to those who want endless fighting.”
On the picket, the slogans chanted included: “Peretz—You Promised Education and Pensions, And All We Got Is Tanks and Dead Bodies!”, “Peretz, Peretz, Minister of Defence / You have Killed Seven Children Today!” and “Jews and Arabs / Refuse to be Enemies!”
Mounting political tensions
These sentiments undoubtedly reflect wider anxieties about being dragged into a wider war, as well as deep-seated distrust in the coalition government cobbled together by Olmert’s Kadima Party and Peretz’s Labour Party after national elections in March. For now, the pro-war atmosphere dominating the media and the political establishment has largely drowned these voices out, but the underlying social and class tensions wracking the Zionist state are building up just below the surface.
Writing on the Arabic Media Internet Network, Uri Avnery of Gush Shalom commented on the stifling of anti-war sentiment. “The public is not enthusiastic about the war. It is resigned to it, in stoic fatalism, because it is being told that there is no alternative. And indeed, who can be against it? Who does not want to liberate the ‘kidnapped soldiers’?... In the media, the generals reign supreme, and not only those in uniform. There is almost no former general who is not being invited by the media to comment, explain and justify, all speaking in one voice.”
Despite this concerted campaign, a number of commentators have drawn attention to the cracks appearing in the official justifications for the military onslaught. On the same web site, Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born musician and writer living in Jordan, noted:
“Although both Palestinian militants and Hezbollah were originally targeting legitimate military targets, Israeli retaliation was clearly aiming against civilian targets, civil infrastructures and mass killing directed against an innocent population. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that this is not really the way to win a war or confront that particular sort of combat known as guerrilla warfare.”
Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy wrote on July 17: “Regrettably, the Israel Defence Forces once again looks like the neighbourhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force....
“In Gaza, a soldier is abducted from the army of a state that frequently abducts civilians from their homes and locks them up for years with or without a trial—but only we’re allowed to do that. And only we’re allowed to bomb civilian population centres.”
In a column posted on July 16, Shmuel Rosner, chief US correspondent for Haaretz, pointed out that in October 2000, just months after Israel ended its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon, three Israeli soldiers were abducted from the border area. Ehud Barak, Labour prime minister at the time, decided to let it pass—an approach repeated several times by his Likud successor, Ariel Sharon—in order to avoid opening a “second front” in addition to the one in the Palestinian territories.
Rosner attributed the change in policy to the levels of frustration that had built up among Israelis with the country’s political and military leadership. “You can hear them on every street corner, in every cafe, and in almost every living room: people of the right and the left, young and old, from north and south—frustrated, toughened, disillusioned....
“In this atmosphere, no military officer and no civilian decision-maker can even think about restraint. Reaching at least one of the two goals they set for this current operation in Lebanon—bringing the soldiers back home and ‘changing to rules of the game,’ meaning no more Hezbollah militias on the Israeli border—will decide not only the future of the northern front but also the political future of Israel’s leaders.”
This assessment ignores the backing given to the Israeli aggression by the United States, not to speak of the entire cycle of war launched by the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet Rosner’s references to the popular frustration and the uncertain political future of the Olmert-Peretz government are revealing.
A major factor propelling the militarism of the Zionist administration is the need to divert the disaffection and social polarisation generated by the government’s anti-working class programme of “market reforms” and welfare cuts.
Last November, Peretz, a former national trade union chief, unexpectedly defeated the veteran Shimon Peres in a Labour party leadership contest. Peretz won by pledging to end the conflict with the Palestinians through a negotiated settlement and to look after the interests of ordinary Israeli families hard hit by Sharon’s Likud-Labour government.
Peretz withdrew Labour’s cabinet members from Sharon’s coalition, triggering a realignment of Israeli politics. In a bid to regain support, Sharon was joined by Peres in setting up a new party, Kadima, and calling national elections last March. But in what amounted to a stunning repudiation, Kadima—led by Sharon’s successor Olmert—failed to win a majority, while Likud’s rump was routed.
Sharon’s measures had caused such hostility that his finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who took over as Likud leader, unsuccessfully sought to apologise during the election campaign for the social pain he had inflicted.
Led by the left-talking Peretz, Labour profited from this opposition, together with a new pro-welfare party, the Pensioners Party, and Shas, whose base is the predominantly working class ultra-orthodox Sephardim (Middle Eastern Jews).
However, having campaigned against the cuts in welfare and family payments implemented by the Sharon government, the three parties promptly joined the Kadima-led government, regardless of Olmert’s stated intention to continue the pro-business measures. In particular, the government is determined to see wages fall further in order to make Israel “internationally competitive.”
This programme has included privatisations and tax handouts to benefit the wealthy, accompanied by cuts in social benefits such as unemployment, child and insurance benefits, and income assistance, and a rise in the pension age as well as restrictions on the right to strike.
These measures have already brought unemployment and poverty to increasing numbers of workers and their families and given Israel one of the highest rates of inequality in the world, second only to the US in the advanced countries. According to the National Insurance Institute, the richest households have 14 times more income than the poorest, while one quarter of the 6 million population live below the poverty level, and 1 in 5 children go hungry every day.
While billions of US dollars have been poured into military spending to sustain the war against the Palestinians and an expansion of subsidised settlements in the occupied territories, most Israeli workers and their families have seen their living standards decline.
Aided by Peretz, Olmert and his military generals are intent on channeling the rising discontent into fratricidal warfare against the impoverished Lebanese and Palestinian masses. But the conditions are emerging for growing numbers of Israeli youth and workers to realise that the Zionist project of a national home for the Jews and refuge from persecution has turned into a nightmarish dead end.
For more information:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
QUASHING ANTI-WAR PROTESTS!!!
Isn't true that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? Maybe if more countries as democratic as Israel, peace might happen in no time??? (This is the myth)
There is no denying of the fact that the Middle East is mostly ruled by autocratic, oppressive, and undemocratic regimes. On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes. It should be noted that the most popular revolts in the Middle East have been ruthlessly crushed by American puppet regimes (whom the West often refer to by "Moderate regimes") in the area. The regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom, Lebanon (before the civil war), Arab Gulf States, Morocco, Iran (prior to the Islamic revolution), Turkey, ... etc., were all funded and directed by the United States of America; the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sadly, many of the so called "moderate regimes" are ten times more accountable to Uncle Sam than to their own public. Ironically, if democracy truly shall serve Israel's national interests in the region, then maybe it should direct its powerful lobby in Washington, AIPAC, to start lobbying on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East; after all promoting "democracy is the key" to a lasting peace in the Middle East?
It's worth noting that soon after the 1948 war, the undemocratic Arab regimes were the central factor in protecting the newly emerging "Jewish state". And any forms of organized local resistance against Israel, similar to Hizbullah's in southern Lebanon, was ruthlessly dealt with in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Actually, many of Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbors transplanted most Palestinian refugee camps inland away from the Israeli borders, to curb the so called Palestinian "infiltration" [ or return] back to their homes in Israel. The so called "Infiltration Problem", which faced Israel between 1949-1955, had become the most pressing and expensive challenge to face the newly emerging "Jewish state". In other words, it's not the presence, but the absence of democracy that greatly serves the Israeli interests in the region, and based on that the United States has systematically shored up these unpopular regimes against the wishes of the people (i.e. the Hashemite Kings in Jordan, the Saudi Kings in Arabia, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, and the Emirates in the Gulf States), and undermined the popularly elected governments (i.e. toppling Musadiq in Iran in the early 1950s, invading Lebanon in the late 1950s, shoring up the Hashemites in Jordan in the late 1950s, and undermining Nasser in Egypt).
It's rarely questioned, by many Israelis and Zionists, how the Jewish minority in Palestine became a majority within few months in 1948. 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)
It's not only that the Zionists deemed it necessary to practice ETHNIC CLEANSING to build their vision of "Jewish Democracy", they have also opted to keep many Israelis in the dark by directly censoring what they read, hear, and see in the Israeli media. Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist, and historian) eloquently described Israeli controlled censorship as follows:
"The [Israeli military] censor exercises draconian power over the content in the media, licenses newspapers, and fines and suspends newspapers if, in his view, they have violated secrecy. He does not have to explain the reasons for his decision; indeed one paragraph in the law obliges newspapers to publish free ads by military censor denying or correcting information that papers themselves published. . . . Thus one of the [Israeli military] censor's main functions is to keep Israelis ignorant of what everybody else knows." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 110)
"By this time [referring to the period prior to the October war in 1973] Israel's system of media self-censorship had begun to backfire. .... the media, voluntarily refraining from publishing the news, helped the IDF in its own assessment [that Arabs are incapable of going to war] and put the public to sleep." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 223)
Israeli censorship on newspapers, radio, and TV networks.
For the moment, let's assume that the above facts, arguments, and quotes are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and let's ask the following questions:
Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?
Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?
The implementation of these apartheid policies resulted in disenfranchising a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.
Finally, it's worth emphasizing that "Israeli democracy" is an incarnation of Apartheid South Africa's democracy. It also could be argued that Apartheid South Africa was for a very long time the only democracy in Africa, however, it was a democracy for the White race only. Similarly, Zionist democracy in Israel was and still is designed to empower Jews only based on their religion. At one point, Israel has to choose between being a "Democratic Jewish State" or a "Democratic State" to all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Eventually, such a facade to democracy will self-destruct, and until it changes, the talk about "Israeli democracy" is nothing but a propaganda that makes good sound bytes in the Western and Israeli medias.
Isn't true that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? Maybe if more countries as democratic as Israel, peace might happen in no time??? (This is the myth)
There is no denying of the fact that the Middle East is mostly ruled by autocratic, oppressive, and undemocratic regimes. On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes. It should be noted that the most popular revolts in the Middle East have been ruthlessly crushed by American puppet regimes (whom the West often refer to by "Moderate regimes") in the area. The regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom, Lebanon (before the civil war), Arab Gulf States, Morocco, Iran (prior to the Islamic revolution), Turkey, ... etc., were all funded and directed by the United States of America; the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sadly, many of the so called "moderate regimes" are ten times more accountable to Uncle Sam than to their own public. Ironically, if democracy truly shall serve Israel's national interests in the region, then maybe it should direct its powerful lobby in Washington, AIPAC, to start lobbying on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East; after all promoting "democracy is the key" to a lasting peace in the Middle East?
It's worth noting that soon after the 1948 war, the undemocratic Arab regimes were the central factor in protecting the newly emerging "Jewish state". And any forms of organized local resistance against Israel, similar to Hizbullah's in southern Lebanon, was ruthlessly dealt with in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Actually, many of Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbors transplanted most Palestinian refugee camps inland away from the Israeli borders, to curb the so called Palestinian "infiltration" [ or return] back to their homes in Israel. The so called "Infiltration Problem", which faced Israel between 1949-1955, had become the most pressing and expensive challenge to face the newly emerging "Jewish state". In other words, it's not the presence, but the absence of democracy that greatly serves the Israeli interests in the region, and based on that the United States has systematically shored up these unpopular regimes against the wishes of the people (i.e. the Hashemite Kings in Jordan, the Saudi Kings in Arabia, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, and the Emirates in the Gulf States), and undermined the popularly elected governments (i.e. toppling Musadiq in Iran in the early 1950s, invading Lebanon in the late 1950s, shoring up the Hashemites in Jordan in the late 1950s, and undermining Nasser in Egypt).
It's rarely questioned, by many Israelis and Zionists, how the Jewish minority in Palestine became a majority within few months in 1948. 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)
It's not only that the Zionists deemed it necessary to practice ETHNIC CLEANSING to build their vision of "Jewish Democracy", they have also opted to keep many Israelis in the dark by directly censoring what they read, hear, and see in the Israeli media. Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist, and historian) eloquently described Israeli controlled censorship as follows:
"The [Israeli military] censor exercises draconian power over the content in the media, licenses newspapers, and fines and suspends newspapers if, in his view, they have violated secrecy. He does not have to explain the reasons for his decision; indeed one paragraph in the law obliges newspapers to publish free ads by military censor denying or correcting information that papers themselves published. . . . Thus one of the [Israeli military] censor's main functions is to keep Israelis ignorant of what everybody else knows." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 110)
"By this time [referring to the period prior to the October war in 1973] Israel's system of media self-censorship had begun to backfire. .... the media, voluntarily refraining from publishing the news, helped the IDF in its own assessment [that Arabs are incapable of going to war] and put the public to sleep." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 223)
Israeli censorship on newspapers, radio, and TV networks.
For the moment, let's assume that the above facts, arguments, and quotes are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and let's ask the following questions:
Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?
Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?
The implementation of these apartheid policies resulted in disenfranchising a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.
Finally, it's worth emphasizing that "Israeli democracy" is an incarnation of Apartheid South Africa's democracy. It also could be argued that Apartheid South Africa was for a very long time the only democracy in Africa, however, it was a democracy for the White race only. Similarly, Zionist democracy in Israel was and still is designed to empower Jews only based on their religion. At one point, Israel has to choose between being a "Democratic Jewish State" or a "Democratic State" to all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Eventually, such a facade to democracy will self-destruct, and until it changes, the talk about "Israeli democracy" is nothing but a propaganda that makes good sound bytes in the Western and Israeli medias.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network