Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Bulldozers begin Ariel barrier in another land grab by Israel
Don Rizzle:
well from what i have read the person who lead to israel to independence didn't want to be confined by the UN boarders and had bigger ambitions for israel hence taking out references to UN boarders. then in 67 it was redefined and israel wants another redefinition now.
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: Don Rizzle on June 28, 2004, 10:38:21 AM ---well from what i have read the person who lead to israel to independence didn't want to be confined by the UN boarders and had bigger ambitions for israel hence taking out references to UN boarders. then in 67 it was redefined and israel wants another redefinition now.
--- End quote ---
don't really know what is that you read, and who is that mysterious person you're talking about, but point is that Israel's original boarders back in 48 are the boarders they want us to retreat to nowadays(if you believe what they say) and under which we were atacked by the whole Arab world on the first day to our existance...
Don Rizzle:
David Ben-Gurion learn the history of ur own country he was ur first prime minister
--- Quote ---From the inception of Zionism, the Zionist leaders have fed their people false propaganda. Probably the picture above can tell you a bit of the real story. It is misleading and unfair to focus on what Palestinians might allegedly do in the future, while Palestinians' past and present 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, and the conflict would have been on the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties were Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish.
From the start, the Zionist leaders were keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on "Jewish majority" by immigrating Jews to Palestine in mass numbers, which was primarily motivated by the fleeing European Jews from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When it became increasingly clear to the Zionist leaders at the time (such as Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl) that it was impossible to achieve Jewish majority solely based on immigration and natural growth, they concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to 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." 1
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%." 2
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." 3
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." 4
For Israeli 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.5
There is no denying of the fact that some Palestinians think exactly like the Zionists (which is the Palestinian version of Zionism), and very possibly they do so because they were the victims of such treatment. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, you have to agree that it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism, which 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 is worth noting that the Palestinian people have been on the receiving end of Israeli terrorism, the chief of which are the collective DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of 8.5 million Palestinian for the past five decades.
Finally, the Palestinian mainstream does not and will not condone massive ethnic cleansing the way Israeli Zionists have done to the Palestinian people. Palestinians, as Muslim and Arabs, have their long history and track record to prove exactly the opposite. Omar Ibn al-Khatab's and Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem are solid proof of how Arabs and Muslims fairly treated their defeated subjects, 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 shall imply perpetrating war crimes similar to the ones perpetrated against the Palestinian people, Palestinians shall 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 Israeli Zionists have their track record to speak for them.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Are you aware that in March 1948 the United States, along with China and France, was withdrawing from its earlier commitments to partition Palestine, and was pressing for "trusteeship" - an extension of Great Power rule- in Palestine beyond May 15th, 1948? 14 And on March 19th, 1948, Ben-Gurion responded to the idea of UN trusteeship in a press conference in Tel-Aviv with the following:
"It is we who will decide the fate of Palestine. We cannot agree to any sort of Trusteeship, permanent or temporary. The Jewish State exists because we defend it." 15
It should be noted that since November 1947 the UN GA failed to reaffirm the 1947 U.N. partition plan.
Are you aware that the 20th Zionist Congress, which convened in Zurich in August 1937, almost UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED the British proposed partition plan of Palestine (which became known as the Peel Commission Partition plan)? 16. Although the proposed Peel Commission's partition plan was rejected because the areas allocated to the "Jewish state" was "too small," the concept of partitioning the country was adopted by the 20th Zionist Congress. Consult the Peel Commission map (URL available at footnote 17) which was rejected by the 20th Zionist Congress, and the map proposed by the U.N. in 1947 (available at footnote 18). While inspecting both maps, note the following:
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---We call upon your sense of fairness while contemplating the following questions:
1) If the Peel Commission plan was accepted by the Zionists in 1937, how many Jews might have been saved from the Nazi holocaust? In that respect, it is worth quoting Ben-Gurion, who wrote twenty years later:
"Had partition [referring to the Peel Commission partition plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel."19
2) If the Zionist Jews rejected such an offer, which could have "saved" many Jews from the Nazi holocaust, why are the Palestinians often blamed for rejecting a plan which allocated them much less land in 1947?
3) Why is the same excuse accepted by Zionists for rejecting the 1937 Peel Partition plan, but not accepted when used by Arabs for rejecting the 1947 UN GA Partition plan?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Are you aware that the 1947 UN GA proposed partition in favor of creating a "Jewish State" in Palestine was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations? Nowhere in the UN's charter was there the power to partition any country, especially based on racial or religious grounds. Even if the UN had such power to partition a country, such a resolution is not binding since it was indorsed by General Assembly rather than Security Council.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Assuming in 1947 Israeli Jews constituted a 2/3 majority, and owned and operated 93% of Israeli lands, contributed 55%-60% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), would you accept a U.N. imposed partition of Israel in favor of an alien settler minority?
It should be NOTED that currently Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20-22% of the total population, so is it acceptable for the United Nations to partition Israel in a favorable way to its Palestinian minority? As an Israeli Jew, would you accept a UN GA proposed partition of Israel?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for "Jewish state" on part of Palestine only as a stepping ground for a complete conquest when he wrote:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." 27
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Ben-Gurion wrote in his dairy on November 30, 1947 after the UN's vote to partition Palestine into two states:
"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs."
--- End quote ---
sounds like co existance huh?
--- Quote ---On February 7th, 1948, while addressing the Mapai Council he responded to a remark that the "Jews have no land in the Jerusalem corridor" with the following:
"The war will give us the land. The concept of 'ours' and 'not ours' are only concepts for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning." 34
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---Ben-Gurion addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th 1948, just a few days before the implementation of Plan Dalet which signaled the official Zionist offensive against the Palestinians:
"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." 36
Note the premeditated plan to occupy and ethically cleanse areas, such as Galilee and Jerusalem, which were not allotted to the "Jewish State" by the 1947 U.N. Partition plan. 37
Finally, it seems often hypocritical when on one hand many Israeli Zionists use UN GA partition plan as a pretext to legitimize "Israel's" existence, and on the other hand they've rejected almost every other UN resolution since "Israel's" creation, chief among them U.N. GA resolution 194 which calls for the immediate Right of Return of all ethnically cleansed Palestinians to their homes, farms, plantations, businesses, banks, boats, buses, ... etc. To suit "Israel's" political agenda, Israeli Zionists have deliberately chosen to ignore most, if not all, UN resolutions, of course with the exception of withdrawing from occupied southern Lebanon in May 2000. Sadly, Israel has accepted the UN resolution to withdraw its occupation forces out of southern Lebanon not because it was influenced by the UN, U.S., or even European diplomatic pressure, but because it was compelled to do so by the heroic Lebanese resistance.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the Intifada I), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:
"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement."100
In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of Intifada I:
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." 101
--- End quote ---
i can get a ton more quotes which will go into the arab attacking forces (almost totally in areas not allocated to jews by the UN)
on the note of the actual topic tho the ruling of israels court to change the route of parts of the barrier is a step in the right direction, but further construction shud cease until all cases have been heard, and i also believe it shud be an international body who shud have the final say who arn't going to have any bias to either palestinians or israelis to come up with a work able solution.
I TO DA GEEZY:
Actually the writer of the first article could've been more convincing if it wasn't for one thing that immediatly engages him with the anti-Jewish propoganda- defining Zionism as some kind of a Rasially hatefull philosophy. One of The few true things he notes however, is that it was based on creating a Jewish state based on a Jewish majority(at least it was one of it's directions- Zionism had many theories and viewes, it wasn't a single opinion ideology, just like today's Israel is-everyone wants peace but there are diffrences on how to achieve it), since it was the only way to make it democratic and Jewish at the same time(The Jewish state was declared to be a Democratic Jewish state), what is more interesting though is this, Ben Gurion, one of the first people to pioneer the Transfer idealogy is a prototype of today's left wingers, I'll run it by u again, he's the guy who created the ideology that lead Israel to Oslo a couple of decades later, Rabin and Perez as followers of Ben Gurion wanted to grant Palestinians with a state, their own state, striving to achieve Ben Gurions original goal, seperating Palestinians from Israel to support the idea of a Jewish majority on Israel's territory(including all territory under Israel's control), by preforming that exact" free willed transfer" . May I remind you that this was an idealogy widely excepted by the Palestinians on their side(to the public eye)? Of course that was not before they corrected the Palestinian Declaration by changing the paragraphs in which the Palestinian people dencline The Jewish State's right to exist at all. On the other hand the population of Israel that Objected this agreement all this time were of course the right wingers, whose idealogical forefathers at the times of Ben Gurion supported the Zionistic idea of a "bi-national state", and although this theoretical bi-national state would've been granted a much bigger slice of territory, it couldn't have been Jewish and Democratic at the same time, and why?- because the Arab population would overweight, So it could be a bi-national democratic state or a Jewish "not so democratic" state.
All in all though, this article has little to do with our isue, since it's main arguement concerns only the Arab Citizents of Israel itself and not the vast Palestinian majority in the Palestinian Authority or even the territorial isue, Israel as it started it's way in 48 was sitting on a very small territory, Ben Gurion's transfer policy concerned the Palestinians that were sitting on Israel's original territory, those who could effect it's national character- If a Palestinian state would start it's existance the Arabs that "occupy" legal Israeli territory would be pleasently asked to move their asses to their newfound state-this should sum it all up. The article you posted is pointless and is filled with arguemental propoganda, since some of the aspects the writer allegedly opposes are the basics to the concepts of Palestinian independence, and the democratical characteristics of both states. The main goal of your article is again to present Israel as a nazi-dectaroship inspired state (off topic statements like this one prove it: "which was primarily motivated by the fleeing European Jews from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany"), and to moraly juestefy terroristic millitant actions by Palestinians, quotes:
"they do so because they were the victims of such treatment">>(Actual transfer never was preformed)
" it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism"
"The Muslim Arabs have their history to prove their tolerance towards their subjects">>(So now we're talking about history, The Jews have their history to prove Israel belonged to them from the times of the bible).
Don Rizzle:
--- Quote ---" it is human nature to respond to terror with terror and to racism with racism"
--- End quote ---
that statement is true its not their oppinion its just a fact. when applied to this conflict the mistreatment of palestinians have lead to a resistence of israeli occupation.
they are saying in the thousands of years it hasn't been a jewish state the arabs havn't mistreated the jews in the way the jews are to them today. and to base your who case on your ancestors with near untraceable family tree once owned that land do u really think they have a right to take it back now all these years later? we see the how the state of israel conducts its business maybe they had it right all those years ago, like i said before you should gotten part of germany.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version