Monday, April 09, 2007

'Azmi Bishara's Big Announcement

MK 'Azmi Bishara (Photo: Knesset)

For the past two days, Israeli news reports have been awash with rumours about the intentions of controversial Knesset member and former Balad party-leader, 'Azmi Bishara. One of the most prolific and prominent Arabs in Israel, Bishara is a life-long opponent of the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. His numerous supporters in the West have praised his "unflinching moral stand [for] non-racial democracy" and like to wax poetic about his alleged commitment to "democratic equal rights." More sober-minded observers tend to to note his repeated visits to Damascus and his public statements of support for the human-rights violating al-Asad dynasty. To me, Bishara embodies all the contradictions of Israeli Arab nationalism. Bisharah is a staunch opponent of Zionism, the political expression of Jewish self-determination, yet he is an ardent champion of Palestinian independence, preferably in all of “historic Palestine”. He is also a member of the Israeli legislature with a respectable profile on the Knesset website and a good salary and government benefits, but he has never missed a chance to publicly voice his support for Israel’s enemies, whether in Beirut, Damascus, or Ramallah.

The biggest question in my mind about Bisharah has always been how such an ideologically committed individual nevertheless deigned to become a Knesset member. The only explanation I could muster for why Bishara would choose to run for office in a state whose existence he opposes was that he believed that the interests of his constituency – Israel’s Arabs – exceeded the importance of his ideological beliefs. The news reports of the past days have caused me to completely re-examine this assumption.

On April 6, 2007, the Israeli-Arab, Nazareth-published newspaper al-Sinnara first reported that Bishara would soon be announcing his intention to resign from political office in ‘Amman, Jordan. The article was quickly picked up by Ha’aretz’s Yoav Stern and re-published in the Hebrew news media. The initial news reports were immediately denied by Jamal Zahalqe, Balad’s second-in-command. Following its initial scoop, al-Sinnara’s website published a second article on April 9, 2007, in which it glowed that a “high-ranking source” had confirmed that Bishara would be tendering his resignation on Tuesday (April 10, 2007). According to al-Sinnara’s latest:


ويذكر ان بشارة كان قد ترك البلاد قبل اسبوعين، وعاد يوم الخميس لعدة ساعات للمشاركة في عرس بالناصرة لكنه عاد الى الخارج صباح الجمعة برفقة عضوي الكنيست جمال زحالقة وواصل طه وهناك قرر ارسال كتاب الاستقالة وتقديمه للكنيست بواسطة احد زملاءه.
هذا وسيعلن بشارة عن استقالته في فضائية "الجزيرة" كما سيصدر حزبه نشرة خاصة حول الموضوع.



It will be recalled that Bishara had left the country [Israel] two weeks ago and returned on Thursday [April 5, 2007] for several hours to participate in a wedding in Nazareth, but that he then returned abroad on Friday morning, accompanied by two Knesset members, Jamal Zahalqe and Wasil Taha. There, he decided to send his resignation letter and to submit it to the Knesset through one of his colleages.

[In addition,] Bishara will announce his resignation on the satellite television station “Al Jazeera” according to a special release published about the issue by his party.

These reports, notwithstanding Zahalqe’s initial denials, leave no doubt about the significance of the events likely to unfold in the coming days. Debka’s rumour-mongers have already jumped to the conclusion that Bishara has "fled" Israel together with his family and does not intend to return. According to Debka, Bishara’s flight is linked to “one of the most serious security-related affairs ever exposed by the Israeli security services, including the Shin Beth.” Debka warns, ominously, that it cannot reveal more at this stage, but goes on to imply that the Israeli security services have exposed a serious plot against the state, and that this is the reason why several Arab rights organizations have stepped up their fight against the Shin Beth in the legal and international arenas.

Even though Debka is notorious for its inaccurate predictions, I do believe that something has been cooking in Balad and that a gag order, imposed by the Israeli police, has probably been in effect. I was also impressed by a reference in Debka to several pieces written in Balad’s mouthpiece, "Fasl al-Maqal" last week. In one of these pieces, Zahalqe apparently called on Bishara to recognize that his main achievements have not been as a parliamentarian in Israel, but rather, on the international stage. Could Zahalqe have been trying to distance his party, Balad, from a man that he knew would soon be "defecting"? Or was this a preventive damage control measure aimed at shoring up Bishara’s "legacy" as an international representative of the Palestinian people and to deflect any damage his "flight" may do to his legacy with the Israeli Arabs?

My guess is that Bishara intends to announce on Tuesday, March 10, 2007, that he has decided to retire from Israeli politics and to sever his links to Israel. Part of me thinks that he may decide to become the ‘Arafat of the Israeli Arabs and to lead them into an Intifada from abroad. On the other hand, Bishara might just announce that he has accepted a lucrative job as a commentator at al-Jazeera, complete with Qatari citizenship. Time will tell.

Addendum:
An article by Yoav Stern and others published today, April 10, 2007, in Ha'aretz basically confirms that there is a publication ban on the Bashara Affair:


בשארה, הצפוי כנראה להודיע על התפטרותו מהכנסת בנסיבות שלא ניתן כעת לפרסמן, שוהה בחו"ל זה כשבועיים

"Bashara, who is expected to announce his resignation from the Knesset due to reasons that cannot be published at this time, is presently abroad."

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

good riddance!

Anonymous said...

Good riddance is not an answer, not on this blog, hopefully. AB fits a old proverb "better a fool that knows he is a fool than a genius that knows that he is a genius". Surely AB is among the most clever, bookish and educated MPs in Israel. It must drive him crazy to argue politics or political philosophy with some of the people there. Historicaly he is too late or perhaps too early. He is christian, a lebanese. Now the Baath was a christian production but look what happened in Iraq, once a Baath country. Can a christian politician who know he is genius be something there? In Lebanon? the christians liberal, western educated Leb. once the rulling elite are divided between supporters of the Shia and the Sunni. Can AB the Pal. find a place there? as a short visitor perhaps. The gulf countries are family and tribal business and all are Muslims. He will be accepted there conditionally as a salaried puppet, never in the position he enjoys in Israel. This is not all. He would like to forget, and that others will forget that he is a product of Humbolt U. East Berlin, Shtasi. Is he totally clean? does he have a file? where is the file? who has a copy? good questions. Some body near to Putin may Know, CIA ? mr. crook from the MI5 ? Mosad? who else. Legally if he keep his ID he can live in Jordan, probably not the best but other places are worse. Legally, I checked, he can then visit Israel. Will he be able to run his party from there? It will not work the little Arab. snakes who do not know that they are fools will take care of that. It did not work with Tibi, 2 egomaniacs. Can he be the Israeli-Pal Araft? If 1/3 of what I wrote is true, then not. Mahmud Darwish did it also others, Have you ever heard the name Rustum Bustani? go check. But AB ? tough luck. After all being an Pal. Arab in Israel and MP on top is better than a ref. in any Arab country. So, did they offer him a job in the USA? Columbia? Mich. State? Cal? then it is a dif. story. But soon we will know. Hazbani.

zionism is racism said...

Azmi Bishara is a brave leader opposed to the racist, apartheid state of Israel. His only mistake is entering the Zionist Knesset where no Arab really belongs. The state of Israel indeed has no right to exist. Bishara, if you listen to him, gives you the only chance to survive: a state for all its citizens with the return of the refugees.

What Bishara's realistic, and pragmatic approach demonstrates is the inevitable futility of trying to reason with Zionism. This cannot happen. Zionism must be eradicated.

The only indigenous "israelis" are the Palestinians and yet they NEVER asked to be Israeli. This state was imposed on them by foreign colonial settlers. Zionists are too stupid for their own good. If they listen to Bishara they would have a chance at survival.

Also, its well known that in the racist culture that dominates in Israel, Arab MPs are not considered legitimate. Jewish racists openly state that any majority government that survives with Arab votes is NOT LEGITIMATE. The Jewish racists insist that any Israeli government must have a Jewish majority. Imagine if someone said a US President is not legitimate because he won with the "black vote" or "hispanic vote"? This would not be acceptable. However, this is considered normal in the zionist colony.

Hopefully Bishara has come to his senses and realizes there can be no compromise with Zionism. It must be eradicated.

Amos said...

This is what you can expect to happen in the next few days. Having announced his resignation from the Knesset and his relocation to 'Amman or elsewhere, Bishara will explain that he did not return to Israel because the Shin Bet was going to arrest him upon entering the country. He will cite this as yet more evidence for the impossibility of living in the State of Israel as an Arab. From there, he will spearhead a campaign that will use the United Nations and other international bodies to pressure Israel into granting Israeli Arabs the kinds of rights articulated in the "Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel." Simultaneously, he will work to tie the fate of the Israeli Arabs (or Palestinians) living within the 1967 lines to the Palestinians in the territories, with the final aim of establishing a binational state in the region.

zionism is racism said...

How sad it is to see these kids brainwashed by their parents and teaching curriculam. It ensures we will have atleast two more generations of warfare atleast. In the end, the only solution is the liberation of Palestine from Zionism and the establishment of a single democratic state for the indigenous population of Palestine and the colonial-settlers which the Palestinians have been much more than generous in accepting their presence although they never had a right to colonize in the first place.

Let go of your myths and lies. Its your only chance.

Anonymous said...

Leaders stay with their people, that is all. The rest is pure bla bla and even if all you wrote is true, what has this to do with leaders who run away? tell me why is the leader leaving his people? Is this because this is what was done in 1948 ? is this a reason? Please tell me no bla bla bla Zionist bla bla imberilist bla bla ect. Where is sleeping in Jordan, in what camp? Is AB going to go on the UNRA list? 1/4 of sugar bag per week. Is he going to Iran to learn about weabons? is he going to make money from the suffering of the pal? is he going to come back with the victorious Arab armies? who did better in 1948 those who acted like AB (if he will leave which I hope he would not) or those who did not go. Please tell me no bla bla bla where o where is the place of leaders.

zionism is racism said...

bla bla blah is when you made the most sense. lol. Yes, if he leaves, he will return and all the refugees will return to their homeland. If you behave and work for a democratic secular state, you will be allowed to stay, but if you maintain this racist intransigence, you might be sent back to Warsaw, Berlin, Moscow, and New York.

For a great account of the systematic, pre-planned ethnic cleansing that took place in 1947-8 by the zionist terror organizations (later I"d"F)one should read Ilan Pappe.

Pappe has also left the zionist colony for London. It seems that not only is life miserable for Arabs, but its also miserable for decent, anti-zionist Jews.

zionism is racism said...

Israel has long played on its heroic beginnings to stir up support for its
less than heroic exploits today. �The problem is that those heroic
beginnings have always been a fiction. Israel�s bloody birth and subsequent
actions were crimes against humanity which continue to this day. The veneer
of Israel�s manufactured �legitimacy� cannot hide the rot eating away at the
core of its existence - its original sin of violent dispossession and its
current colonialist and apartheid policies. �And, without acknowledgement
of, and reparations for, the atrocities committed against the Palestinians,
the ghosts of Deir Yassin and elsewhere in Palestine will continue to loom
large in any peace talks.

It was 9 April 1948, that a Jewish terrorist gang entered the quiet rural
village of Deir Yassin on the outskirts of Jerusalem with the express
purpose of destroying it. �There were 750 people living in the village at
the time, mostly stonecutters. Their houses had been built from limestone
with arched doors and windows and these homes had stood that way for
centuries. �The villagers knew that massacres had been carried out earlier
in the year in other villages and had, therefore, entered into a
non-aggression pact with the Jewish Hagana, another terrorist group. �But
this pact was worthless: Deir Yassin had already been marked for extinction
and to avoid being held accountable the Hagana called on two terrorist
groups, the Irgun and Stern Gang, to execute the plan.

Zionist leaders had in March of that year, devised a military strategy they
called Plan Dalet or Plan D, the express purpose of which was to clear all
of the Palestinians from the cities, towns and villages and allow for a
Jewish state to come into being. Their first operation known as Nachshon was
designed to empty the rural villages along the route between Jerusalem and
Tel Aviv by occupying, expelling and/or killing their inhabitants - and Deir
Yassin lay within their plan. ��Although not the largest of the massacres
committed in that year, Deir Yassin became a turning point because the
publicity given to it was designed to spread an atmosphere of terror
throughout the land, hastening the ethnic cleansing that followed. Before
that plan, some 30 villages had already been destroyed, but once it was
finalised, Operation Nachshon served as a blueprint for future Zionist
campaigns which ended up destroying 531 villages and 11 urban
neighbourhoods. �And, in that year alone, the Zionist groups (which
collectively became known as the Israeli Defence Force) committed 33
documented massacres with some historians putting the figure as high as one
hundred. Those Palestinians not killed, either fled or were forcibly
expelled.

And who would not flee given the chance on seeing or hearing of the
atrocities being committed? �Women were raped, men tortured, children made
to watch and no age or gender was spared from being killed, their mutilated
bodies then stuffed down wells or left heaped in mounds of mangled flesh and
blood. �At least a hundred villagers of Deir Yassin suffered that fate,
although the original number was much higher � 254 deaths � the number
supposedly inflated by the Zionists themselves to terrorise Palestinians
everywhere. Regardless of how many died, killings of unarmed men, women and
children were commonplace, so it was no wonder that Palestinians fled once
they heard that bands of Zionist terrorists were in the vicinity of their
towns and villages. �Food was left still warm and uneaten on tables, clothes
left hanging in cupboards, and toys, photos and papers were all left behind
in the rush to escape. But the 750,000 Palestinian refugees, who barely
locked the doors to their homes behind them, all thought that they were
coming back.

Today, in the most tasteless, despicable irony, the Israeli museum
commemorating the Jewish holocaust, Yad Vashem sits on top of a hill
overlooking the graveyard of Deir Yassin, while the limestone buildings of
the former Palestinian village are used as an Israeli mental institution. �
Is it any wonder that the ghosts of Deir Yassin still haunt the collective
memory of Palestinians and all those who know that Deir Yassin was the
catalyst in the plan to create a Jewish-only state of Israel? �In the
meantime, the millions of dispossessed in the camps of Gaza, the West Bank,
Jordan and Lebanon are waiting to return and/or receive compensation for
their immeasurable losses and nobody has the authority to trade away their
human rights in order to submit to a racist state born out of Palestinian
dispossession and misery. To agree to anything less without their consensus
would betray the 60-year Palestinian struggle for recognition and
self-determination in defiance of Apartheid Israel. ��

Amos said...

Hazbani,
Interesting points, as usual. I'm sure he has a file. There is no way they would not have made one. Perhaps he himself informed on some people while he was there - though of course there is no evidence at all to suggest this (I am just speculating). If someone could find out with whom he interacted in East Berlin, and if any of those people agreed, these individuals would be able to request their own Stasi files to check. For anyone who's interested, here are some of the regulations governing access to files for researchers and media.

Anonymous said...

that sounded like a fake post designed simply to register that he ignored a previous post. lol.

Anonymous said...

Ilan Pepe used his students Like Ab used his people. Idialism, Liberalism has nothing to do with such manipulators. To advance a lie he sent a student, fed him with lies and let him publish. When the scape goat fell IP did nothing but nothing. IP did not help him, did not back him, did nothig. Just used the poor sucker like canon fodder and then let him bleed, a sacrifice for the revolution. The poor idiot lost his degree, lost his honor, lost his time, lost a lot of money also. Have had a nervous breakdown and IP just look and laughed. Now because of it he could not get a grad student, not even the most antizionist Arab student in HU, and there are many there, I know... will risk his future for such an SOB. Because IP has no imagination, no new ideas, nothing original he can not publish in a peer reviewed Journal, just look in the net. He is a joke a nothing. Like other nothings he is hidding behind the Arab victims. Selling his antizionizm in a market full of sellers. What do you think he will do in the UK ? Will he get tenured for nothing? Will any normal academic person prostitue his U for such misfit? and a jew on top. Will he get graduate students? Just wait few years and see what will happen, what a jerk.

Anonymous said...

You gotta feel sorry for the decent non-Zionist Jews. Atleast the Arabs expect attacks from their enemies. It makes sense. If you are a Zionist and want to steal another's land, home, and country you need to attack them, lie, and kill. Its expected. I feel sorry for Pappe because here is a decent Jew who wants to expose the mythology surrounding the creation of the Zionist entity, and the lies propogated for decades, and what happens to him? He is attacked viciously and made to leave.

I have nothing but respect for Pappe and all anti-Zionist Jews. Its too sad so many of them are intimidated by their own tribe if they fail to engage in the lies.

Be true to your moral Jewish traditions and let go of your racist Zionist ideology. Its your only chance. Jews yes, Zionism No!!

Anonymous said...

Man you are the biggest fruit cake ever. There are many anti Israeli or a-Israeli historians, some are excellent. Some of these are even Jews. Goldziher was a proto Zionist so I guess he does not count. Just Check the Islamic Encyc. for M. Rodinson, and this is but one example. Take also the a- or anizionist Jewish faculty in HUJ. Take Shulman the Sanskrit man. Here you take a certified jerk. Immoral academician, a man who stubed his student in the back A salaried faculty with zero academic achivements, OK give him zero+ , with no grd. sudents, with no backing from his associates and students no standing in any academic community, and you make him an hero because he dance to your music and compose and publish lies that suit your rabid antihuman fulminations and make him a sample. Man you are nuts. Hopefully but not factually there are still, somewhere, arab scholars unlike you or the no no that wrote about the nature of Leb. without citing even one Israeli or the one that claimed that the Zionists stole the sun dependent solar water heater from the Pal. What a leading elite, sick with hatred, racialism bigotry and idiotic pride.

KA said...

Better he leave than stays!

showmetherules.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Well, an idea. Will share a story with you. This young couple ( Jew? Christian? Muslim?, none of your business) got married. Honeymoon in Club Med. or what ever was great. However life is what it is the young couple went back to their rented house and started with their life. Husband works, wife take care of home. Well monday ev. the husand came home. Wife opens door, a box to her nose, a slap to her face, kick here, box there, in a minute the poor gal is on the floor all black and blue. W h y oh W h y ?!?!? screems she. Why are hitting me? what did I do wrong? Said the husband: How the hell should I know? but you surely know and added a mighty kick.
Hazbani

Jeha said...

Hazabani makes a good point; like him or not, Bishara is a loss to Israel.

When time comes for Israel to make peace with its neighbors, people like him will be sorely missed as the likes of Lieberman stand in the way. He may have been a pain in the neck to most Israelis, but he often said what needed to be said; to paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, better to have him in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in...

Anonymous said...

Thanks J
Sorry no peace prospects in my time. Hoepfully in Yours. Looked at your blog. Think you will get me. It is as if the mechanizms by which societies elect their leaders, especially in the ME, but also in other places, have gone totally wrong. All the leaders, but all, are the the worse since 1940 and they are getting worse every time. They are so bad that even young Asad who got some education and some preparations is begining to look good in comparison to the rest. Look at us then BG and now Ulmart. Look what the Pal. got in place of YA, not that he was such a great bargin. In Arab nationalism the crazies took the place of Camal Abdul N. Think about it, Nazralla took the place of Nassar. Who is leading Leb? Surely the life in Iraq were million times better under the Hashamites and Nurri said. Even in Turkey they rejecting the sound advise of Ata Turk. Seems, unbelivebly, that the only sane Arab leader is Gadaffi,realy. Also Mbarak is better than any thing in prospect. Now add to this problem the world situation. At least Bush senior knew two things, when to get in and when to get out, if only his son knew the one half correct thing, but he only know one,how to get in. Does not look good does it? My elder used to say. Ten wise men will not be able to pull out one stone that a fool dropped into the well, who in the world will be able to pull out ten stones that were dropped by ten wise men, but a fool. Let us hope for able fools.
Hazbani

Jeha said...

Hazabani,

Not in both our times, which I feel are rather close... But there is hope; when Pandora opened her box the second, she released hope onto the world.

Still, it will take a while for us; the only hope is for us to have the courage to look the sad sectarian reality of the Middle East in the face. One day, we will realize that 2 wrongs cannot make 1 right, and we will accept that the end cannot justify the means, no matter how lofty the proclaimed ambitions.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how anti-Arabism on this blog is tolerated, but someone who condemns Zionism as the racist ideology that it is without mentioning Judaism is labeled an anti-Semite. Hypocrisy and lies is not new to zionism.

As for the Arab leaders, well there has never been an Arab leader other than Gamal Abdul Nasser and Saddam Hussein may they both rest in peace. The others are not "leaders" at all. They may be rulers, but leaders is another thing.

In either case, take your colonial, racist, condescending tone and shove it up your murderous, colonizing asses. These rulers were put there by western powers and were never chosen by the people and never represented them. Furthermore, these leaders were installed in power by the same colonial forces that brought about the establishment of the zionist colony called Israel.

Interesing how the butcher of Amman, Hussein, is never mentioned or criticized by supporters of the Israeli nazi state. Why? Because he is a loyal servant of western imperialism and his regime has been collaborating with Zionism from its very inception. Nevermind he massacred Palestinians. Thats ok. We want him to do that. Nevermind that he has oppressed the Arabs of Jordan and his regime continues to do so till today. All this is forgiven. He was a "cuddly little king" that served western imperialism well along with the zionist project.

The real issue here is what kind of people elect a murderous thug like Ariel Sharon.

Amos said...

Where is "anti-Arabism" tolerated on this blog and by whom?

Anonymous said...

The continued denial of the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine in 1948, the continuing support of the apartheid, Zionist regime, and the attempts to defend the Israeli terrorists army as it goes on a murderous rampage directed against innocent Arab civilians is racism.

Destroying homes that belong to Arabs to build illegal, Jewish only colonies on Arab land is racism. I have never read the bloggers on here condemn this policy.

The denial of the refugees right of return to their homes in order to maintain a racist Jewish state (a position supported by those who run this blog) is racism.

Threatening to drop Nukes on Arabs is racism. (see previous comments section, although its just adolescent bravado and does not bother me)

I also have a list of racist laws designed to maintain a racist Jewish state in Palestine. Do yo condemn the following?

Israeli racism only manifests in its flag, its national anthem, and a bunch of laws that are necessary to safeguard Jewish privilege, including the Law of Return (1950), the Law of Absentee Property (1950), the Law of the State's Property (1951), the Law of Citizenship (1952), the Status Law (1952), the Israel Lands Administration Law (1960), the Construction and Building Law (1965), and the 2002 temporary law banning marriage between Israelis and Palestinians of the occupied territories.

Do you condemn or condone this history, these laws and these practices? Neutrality is not acceptable.

mona said...

Excellent comments by “anonymous” & the likes of “Zionism is racism,” who are you guys? My hat’s off to you.
Apartheid doesn’t even near hit the nail on the head. Yes too bad for the God Fearing Jews & Good for the Zionists because what they are doing is so ridiculous & all of us have automatically been put in the right due to their atrocities, they do not believe in God, if they did they wouldn't butcher all those innocent people. If they feel they have a license to kill then why the hell didn't they do it long ago with the Romans or Hitler hehe. The question is not “why did the Palestinians who were being slaughtered leave if it was rightfully their home, but the question is why did the Jews leave their Sacred land in the first place if it was all theirs & nobody else’s?

Jeha said...

Apartheid, racism... Whatever; sloganeering will get us nowhere. We all know the grievances of each one, and we all understand the plight of refugees.

Now that's established. Where do we go from there? Either War or Peace are but means to an end. What "end" do we want to reach?

Anonymous said...

Amos you have to clean this place, please.
To these who want war on both sides from all sides. You do not know what war is all about. And if you do why do you wish it?
To the one who think A war is a brvado no it aint. It is for real. To the one who claim that all the Arab leaders except for 2 were... well they did not even count, they are not even mentioned they are practically nothing. Do you realy belive that? Mubarak ? Kadaffi? Asad? all were put there by whom? you can vilify all and every body and yet when a word is said about the Arabs your infiriority complex say that you are being attacked personally. Some body is living in a dark world of fear and blame, in a one dimension world. He is 100% perfect his adversaries are 100% imperfect, this is by definition racism, bigotry, mental pathology. His complete godliness is not recognized. His enemies are all powerfull and everywhere. An Arab can talk about Israeli leaders but no one but pure Arab is allowed to talk about Arab leaders. An Arab can define Jewes but no body is allowed to say a thing about Arabs. If psychology was not a jewish witchcraft would you use it?
Amos please clean this place, please.

Amos said...

Sorry, we can't. I really don't want to start moderating comments. Please, just ignore them. Don't waste time trying to engage bigots. There are so many more interesting and important things to talk about. Instead, let's try to work on answering Jeha's question. The only way to respond to this junk is to raise the level of discourse.

Anonymous said...

"sloganeering?" "raise the level of discourse?" "bigotry?"

Is this how you avoid answering? I listed a series of events and laws and you did not respond to them. Are you capable of a response? Or do you prefer to simply scream "bigotry"! or "anti-semitism"!

Can you engage in a debate? Can you debate the facts? Can you offer serious evidence? Do you deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 48? Do you deny the laws I listed exist in Israel?

We have the law and the facts on our side, and this is why you are reduced to screaming "anti-Semitism". Its all you have left.

MONA,
I am Zionism is Racism. Anonymous is sometimes me and another friend of mine.

We like all decent Arabs and Jews and decent people everywhere are opposed to Racism, Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, occupation, and violence. We stand with all peace-loving people across the entire world in opposition to the terrorist nazi state of Israel. We are committed to a democracy, rule of law, equal rights, human rights, and social justice. We will NEVER allow Zionism to be legitimate and we will NEVER allow any surrender of the refugee right of return.

We have tried to engage the kids on here and help them let go of their cherised myths and delusions, but they have been trained to run away from debate and simply scream anti-semitism.

We do not respond to this nonsense. We have too much respect for the real victims of anti-semitism to manipulate the suffering of many Jews in order to serve the racist colonial project in Palestine.

As you see, they cannot respond. The laws I listed are there on the books, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is an UNDISPUTED historical fact. The occupation is real and so are the daily killings.

Its much too hard for them to respond. They cant. They simply scream anti-semitism. Its all they have left.

Amos said...

The reason no one responds to you is that you insist on putting up strawmen that don't exist. How many times have you accused us [i.e., the contributors of this blog] of "crying antisemitism," for example? How many times have we actually called you an antisemite? It's very boring, listening to you repeating the same slogans again and again.

I've never denied that many Arab civilians were expelled from Palestine/Eretz Yisrael in 1948. I've read Benny Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, and I accept most of the evidence he presented there. I would also never deny the existence of the Law of Return. I disagree with you on the meaning I ascribe to these events, and I contextualize them quite differently.

The refugees suffered a great injustice, no doubt about it. The civilian population of the West Bank is also suffering daily. Who would deny that? But there is nothing singular about this suffering. Suffering and injustice are not zero-sum games.

More importantly, you think that there is only one conclusion we can draw from the history of the last century - Israel delendam esse. In your twisted worldview, the injustices committed by Israel and the Jewish people are unique in scale and severity. This is an outrageous distortion. If you were honest, you would have to condemn almost any nationalist movement in the world (and most definitely many of the Arab states) to destruction as well. But you don't. Somehow, in your view, only Jewish nationalism is racism. Only the Jewish state is a crime against nature. This is perverse.

J said...

Z is R, you've mastered the art of propaganda and you're a formidable demagogue. You have one master narrative, several mantras, and a lot of anger to keep you going. Please don’t jump to the conclusion that our silence is a sign of intellectual surrender. To do so would be as absurd as a bully who, after whacking people over the head with a giant sledgehammer for their alleged wrongdoings, goes on to "wonder" why they're not engaging in discussion with him.

One big problem I have in debating with you is that I don't want to stoop to your level. I refuse to be a "righteous victim" - I find that pose rather tiresome - but if I were, I'd give you a detailed list of the atrocities committed by Arabs against Jews during the Nebi Musa Riots, in Hebron and in Jerusalem. For every one of your checkpoint anecdotes, there is a story to be told about innocent Israelis – some of them quite close to me - killed at the hands of Palestinians. But, as I said already, I’m tired of this kind of discourse. I guess you’re trying to engage in the wrong kind of discussion with the wrong types of people. Your natural sparring partners would be the Kahanists in Hebron. In the same way that you've constructed an elaborate, monolithic view of Zionism as a racist movement whose "eradication" will somehow result in the establishment of a utopian, democratic Palestinian paradise, your mirror-image, the Kahanist claims that "Islam" or "Arab mentality" is essentially murderous and genocidal and that the transfer of all Arabs remaining in Eretz Yisrael/Palestine is the key to salvation. Where you get your confidence in your ridiculous vision (notwithstanding the total absence of the rule of law or democracy in most of the Arab world, including in the Palestinian territories) is a puzzle to me, just as I am mystified by the lack of realism inherent in the apocalyptic scenarios conjured by the Kahanists.

Getting back to YOU, do you honestly see Israelis packing up their bags and leaving their homeland? Do you seriously think that the dismantlement of Israel and the return of the Palestinian refugees and their children, their children’s children and their children’s children’s children will somehow result in the rise of a paradise of “democracy, rule of law, equal rights, human rights, and social justice” ? Who are you kidding??

Maybe you’ve been reading Ilan Pappé for too long, but Israelis are not about to commit collective suicide because the International Solidarity Movement and a bunch of hypocritical Arab nationalists believe that they’re eternally guilty. The 1948 War was a civil war (a minor one, actually, if you consider the low casualties on ALL sides)- it was NOT a campaign to eliminate or ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. It is true that in a number of instances – many of them assiduously documented by Israeli historians - Palestinians were expelled by force. It is also true, however, that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled in a certain context. The defeat of Palestinian and non-Palestinian Arab irregulars in the first round of fighting (November 1947 to May 1948), which they initiated after the UN resolution in favour of partition, and the defeat of the regular Arab armies that invaded the area starting in mid-May 1948, resulted in the utter collapse of Arab morale. This and a lack of Arab leadership (the Palestinian Arab elites were some of the first to flee in many cases) and the economic hardship created for Palestinian Arab civilians by the war created a climate where fleeing a hundred kilometers north, east or south-west seemed like the most sensible thing to do. These are the reasons why the majority of Palestinians left their home and became refugees, even as other Palestinian Arab communities stayed put. The fact that diary entries by a number of Jewish officials expressed bewilderment and even foreboding at the massive exodus of so many Palestinians is an additional indication that, notwithstanding Walid Khalidi’s fantasies about Tokhnit D and its supposed blueprint of expulsion, there was no grand strategy of ethnic cleansing at play here. There was a WAR and a civilian population that identified with the losing end fled their homes.

The return of the refugees created by this war was later prevented in the same way that the hundreds of thousands of German civilians expelled from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Poland at the end of World War II were barred from returning to their homes after 1945. Was the fate of these refugees unfortunate? Sad? Unfair? Yes, perhaps. But would anyone in their right mind call for the return of German refugees to Bohemia, Moravia or Pomerania today?

There’s plenty more I have to say on your other ramblings, including that gem about the Israeli flag being racist (can you say, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Malaysia??) … but we’ll have to get to that some other day.

Anonymous said...

What the Zionist project did in Palestine (your use of the words "eretz Israel" is historically false and rather silly because beni-Israel was always a reference to a people NOT A LAND prior to the establishment of the modern day state of Israel, go check the Bible if you dont believe me)is UNLIKe any other colonial movement. Yes, there have been many colonial movements, but Zionism is the ONLY ONE that sought to entirely replace the indigenous population with an entirely new population based on religion. This is what makes Zionism unique in its crimes. Nobody denied other people and movements have engaged in crimes, but does that mean its for you to do so?

Also, I have never equated the racist, colonial movement of Zionism with the Jewish people. This is a canard you need to engage because you cannot otherwise respond to my argument. I have always drawn a distinction between Zionism (a political movement began in 1897 by Herzl)and the great moral tradition of Judaism which is thousands of years old. Your attempt to equate Zionism with Judaism is a round about way of accusing me, and other enemies of Israel and Zionism of being anti-Jewish. This is a canard and an insult, first and foremost, to the real innocent Jewish victims that have suffered from anti-semitism in Europe. Do not play this game. It no longer works.

As for the Arab regimes, well, I am not a representative of the Arab regimes. They are all undemocratic, illegitmate, corrupt, and worhtless. I do not need to respond to anything you say about them since they do not represent me. Go speak to them and the western colonial powers that preserve these regimes. I find it interesting nobody mentions the bloody dictators like Sadat and Hussein of Jordan. Why? Because they are pro-Western dictators and willing to accomodate the Zionist project which is a perfect example of your cynicism and hypocrisy. Again, the Arab regimes do not represent us, and we are not responsible for them.

Now if were done with the smokescreens, lets get back to the facts.

1)The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was pre-planned, and the refugees must be allowed to return. The above post about the events of 47-48 is revisionism that only a select few continue to engage in. What happened in Palesitne is different than anything else. An entire people were forced from their homes in order to make room for an exclusivist, Jewish state. This is racism. It will implemented throgh the application of mass violence. I dont have the time now or else I would go back and give you the quotes and references from Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky, and others. You can lie as much as you want, but the early zionists were very clear about what they were planning on doing and never hid their intentions. In zionist speak ethnic cleansing was called "transfer"

The Laws I mentioned above are still on the books and the refugees have not been allowed to return home.

Again, stop cring anti-Semitism. It does not work. We are anti-Zionist and many many Jews are on our side. You are not defending Jews. You are defending Zionism. You are not defending a homeland for Jews. You are defending Israels "right" to be a racist state. You will never have this right, not in Palestine, not anywhere. Apartheid and racism will be illegitimate in every part of the planet.

Let the refugees return home, dismantle the apartheid regime (in all of Palestine and not just the WB as Carter wants), and condemn Zionism so Arabs and jews can live together in peace once again the way they always did in the past before Zionism.

Anonymous said...

TO BE CLEAR:

I have NEVER attributed the crimes of Zionism to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion. Stop the lies. Its intellectually dishonest especially if you really are a student in a PhD program.

Zionism Is Racism said...

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."

It must be emphasized that the concept of "population transfer" was embraced by all shades of opinion in the Zionist movement, from the Revisionist Right to the Labor Left, including the "Moderate" Moshe Sharett and the socialist Arthur Ruppin. Most, if not all, of the below quotes have been researched by Israeli and Jewish historians, who extracted them from declassified Israeli and Zionist archives. For your convenience, each quote has been referenced (along with the page number), and grouped by: the Zionist Leader to whom the quotes is attributed, and by subject matter.

zionism is racism said...

About Us
Maps
Refugee Camps
Acre
Baysan
Bethlehem
Beersheba
Gaza
Haifa
Hebron
Jaffa
Jericho
Jerusalem
Jinin
Nablus
Nazareth
al-Ramla
Ramallah
Safad
Tiberias
Tulkarm
Guest Book
Satellite View
Register
Donate
Contact Us

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Transfer' (Ethnic Cleansing) Zionist Quotes
Post Your Comment! 1 comment eMail to a friend

Posted on DECEMBER-3-2001

BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
The concept of "transferring" European Jews to Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people out is central to Zionism. Ben-Gurion, the 1st Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated this essential Zionist pillar, he stated in 1944:

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionists had concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." To excuse the "Jewish state" from any WAR CRIMES perpetrated against the Palestinian people (specially the ones committed during the 1948 war), Zionists have concocted a myth that the Palestinian people had willingly left their homes, farms, and businesses, and as a result they have forfeited their right to return.

Related Links

Zionist FAQ: Palestinian people in 1948 left their homes based on the orders of their leaders
The Birth Of the Palestinian Refugees Problem By the Israeli historian Benny Morris
Expulsion of the Palestinians, re-examined By French Le Monde
Plan Dalet March 10th, 1948 - Sefer Toldot Hahaganah [History of the Haganah] by Yehuda Slutsky
JNF: Financing Racism and Apartheid
A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947 by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Video: Zionism versus Judaism By Naturi Karata
Famous Ethnic Cleansing Quotes
David Ben-Gurion
Moshe Sharett
Yosef Weitz, the architect of the "transfer" theory
Cleansing Lydda & Ramla
Menachem Ussishkin
Moshe Dayan
Arthur Ruppin
Shmuel Zuchovitzky
Transfer Committee
Miscellanies
David Ben-Gurion
On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"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)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

Anonymous said...

About Us
Maps
Refugee Camps
Acre
Baysan
Bethlehem
Beersheba
Gaza
Haifa
Hebron
Jaffa
Jericho
Jerusalem
Jinin
Nablus
Nazareth
al-Ramla
Ramallah
Safad
Tiberias
Tulkarm
Guest Book
Satellite View
Register
Donate
Contact Us

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Transfer' (Ethnic Cleansing) Zionist Quotes
Post Your Comment! 1 comment eMail to a friend

Posted on DECEMBER-3-2001

BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
The concept of "transferring" European Jews to Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people out is central to Zionism. Ben-Gurion, the 1st Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated this essential Zionist pillar, he stated in 1944:

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionists had concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." To excuse the "Jewish state" from any WAR CRIMES perpetrated against the Palestinian people (specially the ones committed during the 1948 war), Zionists have concocted a myth that the Palestinian people had willingly left their homes, farms, and businesses, and as a result they have forfeited their right to return.

Related Links

Zionist FAQ: Palestinian people in 1948 left their homes based on the orders of their leaders
The Birth Of the Palestinian Refugees Problem By the Israeli historian Benny Morris
Expulsion of the Palestinians, re-examined By French Le Monde
Plan Dalet March 10th, 1948 - Sefer Toldot Hahaganah [History of the Haganah] by Yehuda Slutsky
JNF: Financing Racism and Apartheid
A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895 - 1947 by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Video: Zionism versus Judaism By Naturi Karata
Famous Ethnic Cleansing Quotes
David Ben-Gurion
Moshe Sharett
Yosef Weitz, the architect of the "transfer" theory
Cleansing Lydda & Ramla
Menachem Ussishkin
Moshe Dayan
Arthur Ruppin
Shmuel Zuchovitzky
Transfer Committee
Miscellanies
David Ben-Gurion
On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"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)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas .... I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ..... As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937:

".... because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty .... And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation -- but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption --- which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country -- that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force - not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Ben-Gurion became obsessed about "transferring" the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine, and he started to contemplate the mechanics and potential problems that could arise if "transfer" to be implemented. Ben-Gurion contemplated the "Arab Question" in "Eretz Yisrael" and wrote:

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

Similarly, he also added

"The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities. The war has already brought the resettlement of many people eastern and southern Europe, and in the plans for the postwar settlements the idea of a large-scale population transfer in central, eastern, and southern Europe increasingly occupies a respectable place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)

Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to Partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:

"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 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)

While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:

"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)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Ben-Gurion was enchanted that Jerusalem's neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. 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 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:
"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, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the "Jewish state", the quote above is a classical example how the Bible is used to achieve political objectives.

During the same visit to Haifa, Ben-Gurion was told that Abba Khoushi, a labor leader and an official in the Haifa's City Hall, was trying to persuade Palestinians city to stay. Ben-Gurion reportedly said:

"Doesn't he have anything more important to do?" (Benny Morris, p. 328)

On June 16, 1948, there were calls by members of the MAPAM party for the return of Jaffa's "peace minded" Palestinian refugees, and in response, Ben-Gurion stated during a Cabinet meeting:

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)

Similarly, Moshe Sharett agreed with Ben-Gurion on rejecting Palestinian refugees return, and stated during the same Cabinet meeting:

"Can we imagine a return to the status quo ante?" He asked. It was inconceivable. Rather, the government should now perused the Yishuv (Palestinian Jews before 1948) of "the enormous importance of this [demographic] change in terms of the solidity of the state structure and [of] the solution of crucial social and political problems." Israel should be ready to pay compensation for the abandoned land but "they will not return. [That] is out policy. They are not returning." (Benny Morris, p. 141)

Although an important document dating July 16, 1948 is still classified by the Israeli censorship, there is enough information to indicate the link in Ben-Gurion's mind between the concept of "transfer" and war. It was at the time that Ben-Gurion stated that he:

"was not surprised" at the Arab exodus and that "we should prevent Arab return at any cost." He also cited ones again the Turkish-Greek war crime as an "example" in which the Turks "expelled the Greeks from Anatolia." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 191-192)

It is extremely ironic to point out that this is the SECOND time in history when Turks are cited as an "example" to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. The first was used by the earliest Zionist leaders (such as Chaim Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, and Moshe Sharett), and the second was used by Hitler when he cited the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (during WW I) as a precedent for the holocaust, click here if you wish to learn more about the Armenian genocide.

When Ezra Danin, a Cabinet member, proposed installing a puppet Palestinian Government in the Triangle area (northwest of the occupied West Bank), Ben-Gurion had impatiently declared on October 21, 1948 that Palestinians in Israel were good for one thing, running away. He said:

"The Arabs of the land of Israel [ Palestinians] have only one function left to them -- to run away." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

With no emotions, ten days later, while Ben-Gurion was on a tour of the Galilee, he describes Palestinian exodus in his dairy as follows:

"and many more still will flee." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

On September 26, 1948, he proposed the Israeli provisional government that Israel should attack the West Bank. Again, he had reiterated how a war could be used as an instrument to "transfer" population, and he used Lydda's and Ramla's occupation and the subsequent expulsion of their population as a precedent. According to a detail plan of the operation recorded in his diary, Israeli forces would take:

"Bethlehem, and Hebron, where there are about a hundred thousand [Palestinian] Arabs. I assume that most of the Arabs of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron would flee, like the [Palestinian] Arabs of Lydda, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Safad, and we will control the whole breadth of the country up to the Jordan." In another entry he writes: "It is not impossible . . . that we will be able to conquer the way to the Negev, Eilat, and the Dead Sea, and to secure the Negev for ourselves; also to broaden the corridor to Jerusalem, from north to south; to liberate the rest of Jerusalem and to take the Old City; to seize all of central and western Galilee and to expand the borders of the state in all directions" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 48 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 14)

Ironically, when Chaim Laskov proposed the occupation of most of the West Bank in July 1958, Ben-Gurion objected because in his opinion Palestinians have learned that lesson already, simply they won't run away. He wrote in his diary:

"This time the [Palestinian] Arabs on the West Bank will not run away!," meaning if the Palestinians would flee as a result of war (as what already happened during the 1948 war), he would not mind the occupation and annexation of the West Bank. (Iron Wall, p. 200)

During a meeting for the Mapai party center on July 24, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated his thoughts and attitude towards the Palestinian Arabs, especially in the light of their behavior and flight during the war. He said:

"Meanwhile, [a return of Palestinian refugees] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table . . . and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nevertheless, we did not flee en mass, [And] so far no Arab Einstein has risen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting . . . we are dealing here with a collective murderer." (Benny Morris, p. 331)

So in Ben-Gurion's opinion, the absence of an Arab Einstein, the fleeing of Palestinian Arabs during war, and not fighting are good reasons for not respecting Palestinians' rights? It also could be argued that the Christen Crusaders, in comparison to Jewish Zionism, had said similar things about Muslims and Arabs as well. However, after 200 years of Crusaders' occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, Arabs produced their versions of Einstein (in Cordoba, Seville, Cairo, Toledo, Baghdad, ... etc.), and fought well under Saladin's command. Along with the subsequent Mongol and Tatar invasions, the Crusade genocide became a sad footnote in the human history. If history shall be used as an example, then it's too early to ride off Arabs only after five decades of ethnic cleansing and dispossession.

Moshe Sharett
Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared in 1947:

"Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

And also he added:

"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 254)

In August 18 1948, Moshe Sharett wrote to Chaim Weizmann, explaining the Israeli government's determination to block the Palestinian Arab refugees' return:

"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of 'Israeli' Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis." (Benny Morris, p. 149-150)

Anonymous said...

Yosef Weitz did not only advocate "transferring" the Palestinian people so the "Jewish state" would become a "Jewish majority", he also envisioned the "transfer" as a useful tool that could dispossess them from their lands. He stated in a meeting with the Transfer Committee on November 15, 1937:

"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 94-95)

Weitz was obsessed with "transferring" the Palestinian people to neighboring Arab countries in a way that consumed all his thoughts. He wrote in his diary on December 20, 1940:

"it must be clear that there is no room in the country for both [Arab and Jewish] peoples . . . If the [Palestinian] Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The only solution [after the end of WW II] is a Land of Israel, at least a western land of Israel [i.e. Palestine since Transjordan is the eastern portion], without [Palestinian] Arabs. There is no room here for compromises . . . There is no way but to transfer the [Palestinian] Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Palestinian Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. The transfer must be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan [eastern portion of Eretz Yisrael]. For this goal funds will be found . . . An only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution." (Benny Morris, p. 27 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 131-132)

Amos said...

What the Zionist project did in Palestine (your use of the words "eretz Israel" is historically false and rather silly because beni-Israel was always a reference to a people NOT A LAND prior to the establishment of the modern day state of Israel ... .

Ludicrous. The term "Eretz Yisrael" appears countless times in the Talmud and in Jewish literature from antiquity until the present. It refers very clearly to a geographic entity - though of course its borders do not correspond to those of the modern state of Israel. Any legal discussions in the Talmud about religious obligations incumbent on Jews living in this area referred to the "Land of Israel" (=Eretz Yisrael).

"Bnei Yisrael" of course does not refer to a land but to the Jewish people. The more common term used by the Sages is simply "Yisrael."

My grandfather's passport from the Mandate period lists Eretz Yisrael as the place of issuance and his place of birth. The term is no more "historically false" than the term "Palestine."

I know that you desperately want to deny Jewish connections to the Holy Land, but please stop making a fool of yourself.

J said...

The Weitz quotes prove nothing about what actually happened in 1948. Weitz was not a decisive figure in any case - the people who made the critical decisions were mainly local military commanders. Again, the fact that Weitz saw the transfer of Palestinian Arabs - an option that was also considered by the British Peel commission (!!!) - as a "solution" does not in any way mean that his vision was implemented in 1948.

Amos said...

"Zionism is Racism" ימח שמך:

It is obvious from your responses that while you can cut and paste with the best of them, you have a very weak grasp of the types of thinking skills used by historians. Sorry, you simply don't know what kind of evidence one needs to prove a given historical thesis.

You are a propagandist, a liar, and a major waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Amos,

Actually I did not cut and paste all that well. There was too much garbage included in that there. Sorry. I was in a hurry and should have waited until I had more time.

There is big difference between history and Zionist propoganda. Unfortuntately you have mastered the wrong one.

HISTORICAL FACTS WHICH ANY CREDIBILE HISTORIAN WILL EASILY AND EMPERICALLY VERIFY.

1)The modern Day Israelis are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrew tribes.

2)The ancient Hebrew tribes which came to Palestine from Mesopatamia passed through Palestine and their stay was much shorter than other tribes and did not leave much behind.

3)The ancient Hebrews were not the only ones in Palestine even when they passed through.

4)Jerusalem was built by MY ancestors, the Jebusites.

5) The term Palestine has been used since the 5th Century BC.

6)This entire history (whether we agree or not) is irrelevant to the modern day conflict in Palestine. It is an utter absurdity to trace the modern day conflict back to ancient tribes. Zionism wants to rewrite ancient history, SKIP 2000 YEARS and then rewrite modern history to fit their mythological narrative, and make a connection between the two.

7)There is nothing in history that would justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 by European colonial-settlers.

8)The Palestinian Arabs, the indigenous population of Palestine has agreed to accept the illegal settlers in a democratic, secular state. You are now demanding your "right" to be a racist state and steal a people's land. This is the real conflict.

9)The Jews in Palestine owned less than 6% of the land when the UN decided to "partition"

10) God is not a real estate agent.

Stop the lies.

Anonymous said...

Who are the Palestinian refugees?

Palestinian refugees are the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the majority of whom were dispossessed, were forced to run away or were expelled when the state of Israel was created in 1948. This dispossession and expulsion has continued since with the second largest such event in Palestine taking place during the 1967 war, which Israel launched on its Arab neighbors and which resulted in the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Palestinian refugees generally fall into three main groups: Palestinian refugees displaced in 1948, internally displaced Palestinians who remained within the areas that became the state of Israel, and Palestinian refugees displaced in 1967 from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For the past 58 years, Israel has continued to deny Palestinian refugees their right to return to their ancenstral towns, villages and homes.

Anonymous said...

How did the Palestinian refugee problem arise?

The Palestinian refugee problem arose from a systematic policy of ethnic dispossession and elimination, the results of which are apparent in the Palestinian refugee camps and in the Palestinian Shatat (exile). These policies continue to this day.

Zionist policy sought to create an exclusive homeland for Jews in Palestine, a region that already had an indigenous population with a history stretching back thousands of years. The characterization of Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land" was a myth created to suggest that Palestine was waiting to be populated. Nothing was further from the truth and this has been evidenced by the atrocities of 1948 and since.

Anonymous said...

How did Israel expel Palestinians from their land?

Jewish terrorist groups such as Haganah, Irgun and Stern terrorized the Palestinian street, destroyed villages and slaughtered entire Palestinian families. Thirty four massacres were documented by Zionist historian Benny Morris to have occured within a few months: Al-Abbasiyya, Beit Daras, Bir Al-Saba', Al-Kabri, Haifa, Qisarya. These attacks were part of Plan Dalet and aimed to annihilate the Palestinian population. Approxiamtely 50% of all Palestinian villages were destroyed in 1948 and many cities were cleared from their Palestinian population including Akka, Bir Al-Saba', Bisan, Lod, Al-Majdal, Nazareth, Haifa, Tabaria, Yaffa, and West-Jerusalem among others.

Israeli forces killed an estimated 13,000 Palestinians and forcibly evicted 737,166 Palestinians from their homes and land. Five hundred and thirty one Palestinian villages were entirely depopulated and destroyed.

The tragedy of the refugees continued in 1967. That year, Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and many Palestinians were uprooted for the second time. The refugees found shelter in surrounding countries including Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

Anonymous said...

Again, Im sorry about the confusing zionist quotes. When I have more time, I will re-paste them more succintly and clearly.

HISTORY,

One must begin with a theisis and then look for the evidence. The evidence is supposed to lead you to the conclusions. Zionism works backwards. You have a set of lies, distortions, and propoganda lines, you want to present as truth. You pick your own "false" conclusions and then you go look for facts to support it. If you don't find any then you just make them up.

You have to choose between being a historian and a Zionist propogandist. Its your choice. I really do not care.

what I do care about is your choice between being a good decent Person committed to human rights and social justice for all of humanity and between being a racist, zionist thug who makes it his business to defend the indefensible.

I hope you make the right choice and join us in the struggle against Zionist, racism, and apartheid. Many decent Jews, Muslims, and Christians are involved in this struggle. And secular atheists like me also are involved in this struggle. Its not about religion or land. Its about the human being, and making sure that every human being on every peace of land everywhere on this planet lives in security, safety, and dignity. Nowhwere will racism be tolerated. Never will ethnic cleansing be accepted.

Join us. Its not too late. I know its hard to give up the mythology you were raised on. Its difficult and I understand, but if you want to be a historian, I hope history leads you to the truth and then I hope you have the moral courage to stand up for truth and justice and not for your tribe. Lets have one tribe. The tribe of human family and committ ourselves to human rights, equality before the law, and social justice for every living human being.

shalom

Jeha said...

Amos,

You're wasting your time; when someone gets into circular arguments, there's no beginning and no end, and therefore no thread.

The region is full of atrocities; the road did not begin at Deir Yassin, nor did it end at Sabra-Shatila; there was Van, Damour, Chekka, Hama... In a sense, we may be witnessing the side effects of the 19th Century drive to nationalisms, itself a consequence of the French Revolution. We'll never stop until we step away from hyperboly and slogans, and look at the cold hard facts; what is each side's bottom line? what do we all really want?

And note; there are more than 2 sides to this debate.



It is interesting

Amos said...

One must begin with a theisis and then look for the evidence.

LOL. That's how you write propaganda, not history. This is the problem with your comments, especially the ones with all those quotations - you've already made up your mind, and you are merely looking for "proof" to confirm your starting assumption. This is precisely the opposite of the empiricist methodology used by historians. I don't mean to belittle you, especially since you seem to be a sincere (though quite self-righteous) person. But please do not lecture to us on history.

All of the contributors to this blog oppose racism. If you met any of them in person, you would be ashamed to make such accusations in the first place. Halas. I'm sick of this.

Anonymous said...

Jeha,

Again, crimes happen everywhere and by many people including Arabs, but how does that justify Zionism's monumental crimes in Palestine which I have never attributed to the Jewish people or religion. I really do not understand why you keep pointing out that there are bad Arabs. I agree with that. In fact, Arabs, like all people, are ENTITLED to their own share of criminals, racists, and kooks. I just don't understand how that is a response to the condemnations of Zionism and its bloody history.

Amos,

I am sorry. You are right. I should not have used the word "theisis". What I meant is HPYOTHESIS. That is my mistake and I think now that sentence will make more sense to you. Forgive me, but I think Im doing ok for someone that learned English as 6th langauge. You formulate a hpyo...and then test it and see if you find evidence to support it. I will lecture you on history since I have already have my PhD in history, but only if Im willing to allow you to sit in my classes.

Belittle? Oh do not worry about that. Please try. Its humurous.

its not "halas" Its KHALAS, but you can say HABIBI, and not KHABIBI as you usually do. I'll bet my Hebrew is better than your Arabic and without an accent.

Anonymous said...

I will give you all one more chance. Does anyone want to resond to my arguments? Or Facts presented? Can you? Engage me? Stop attacking me personally. It won't work. Try to respond with evidence, facts, serious analysis. I challenge your false Zionist narrative. Can you respond to me?

If not, personal attacks and shouts of anti-Semitism will not help you. Objective third party observers will immediately come to my side.

Again, where is the response?

John said...

يا رب العالمين, بده يعلمنا عبراني!!!
:)

די ידישע נקמה said...

גיי קאקען אויפן ים.

Jeha said...

Anon 07:46

Nothing justifies crimes. But nothing justifies focusing on a simplistic narrative either; I note that, rather that simply discussing crimes and the facts behind them, you prefer to use words like "Zionism's monumental crimes"...

You also misread others; I do not merely point out that there are bad Arabs, but rather that all sides have good and bad in them. And I also note that it did not all start in Palestine; there were a few killings before that, and if we do not learn the lessons, there will be a few more after that.

Ideologies abound, and disccussing Zionism, Arabism, Syrian National Socialism... is pointless. Stick to the simple facts to understand the world, and the dynamics of either war or peace.

I am no beady-eyed peacenik; to me, peace or war are but means to an end. The end I seek is the happiness of Lebanon. Because of the large number of refugees in our country, a necessary (but insufficient) condition is a dignified solution to the plight of the Palestinians. Because of its military-economic might and its dependence on our water resources, Israel's needs should be properly addressed.

Simple. I happen to think peace is more cost-effective than war, but you're welcome to try war as well.

However, keep in mind that, should you want to enforce a military solution, then you should break the military-economic might of Israel. This means that you need to build one of your own, and build the necessary alliances to do so. You cannot do this by staying in a mental cocoon, or debating the comparative merits of ideologies; Israel was built by engineers, not speech-writers.

Either way, be it war or peace, the Arab world needs to do much work; the road to Hama and Halabja was paved with ideologies. That is why, in a war, you and your fellow ideologues would be poor allies to have; wars are not won by cannon fodder.

Anonymous said...

jeha

stop trying to put up smokescreens. It will not work.

The subject is the Arab-Israeli conflict. That conflict began with the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1947-48 by European colonial settlers with no right to the land.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is the central event that put into motion the war that is still raging today. This is what must be addressed.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a fact, and the racist laws still imposed are a fact, and its also a fact the refugees have not been permitted to return.

Everything else you mention is designed to deflect attention from the real issue. Sorry. Will not work with me.

Nobody has been able to respond to me. They have ignored this reality and have not even dared to attempt to deny the racist laws that still exist.

Im still waiting for a response.

If your Lebanese, you are probably a member of the Lebanese Likud.

Kis ikhtak 3ala ikht al-gemayel w jaja

Anonymous said...

btw,

There is no such thing as Lebanon. Lebanon is just a small mountain that is part of Syria. Like the plastic surgery that is so popular in the shallow Lebanese sub-culture (see Im able to criticize Arabs also), Lebanon itself is an artificial product of a surgical procedure carried out by colonial powers that carved up the Syrian homeland. It also has no future.

Anonymous said...

The only people who "chose war" were the Zionist colonizers of Palestine that applied violence on a mass scale in order to cleanse Palestine and make room for a racist, exclusivist Jewish state.

I did not "choose" war, and neither did the Palestinians, or the Syrians, or any Arabs for that matter. WAR was imposed on them, and resistance is a natural human reaction when someone's home and life is threatened.

Now the real choice is whether or not to resist, and the Arabs have chosen resistance, including the brave resistance of the Lebanese people, east beirut not withstanding.

Ignoring this reality and claiming that the Palestinians or Lebanese that resist occupation "chose war" is not only false, but also immoral. Every religion and secular code of law would allow self-defense including judaism and christianity. The shame if yours.

Jeha said...

Good Job, Anon 11:39, 11:43, 12:17

By resorting to insults and cliches, you've demonstrated that you have nothing new to contribute, and just conclusively proven the points I made above.

Anonymous said...

jeha

I will always insult fascists like gemayel and jaja. Did you think I would not criticize fascists and killers just because they happen to be from my same ethnic or religious background? Of course not! I am opposed to racism, fascism, and murder regardless of who carries it out. I oppose Zionists and the Phalange and the Lebanese forces.

My values are universal. I will criticize all forms of racism. And I will criticize Arabs also. don't ever think I will give an Arab a pass just because I am an Arab.

I only happened to be born Arab. I could have been chinese, and My values will not have changed.

Don't expect me to remain silent about murderous thugs just because they happen to be Arab also.

Are you a French-Fried phoenician? You do know that the claim Lebanon is the modern day Phoenicia is as silly as claiming the modern day Israel is the descendant of ancient Hebrews.

Anonymous said...

regarding the post at 11:15 by anonymous

http://kishkushim.blogspot.com/2007/04/azmi-bisharas-big-announcement.html#c330800872268547197

there are 23, count them 23 arab countries..every single one of them has been (ssentially) ethnically cleaansed of Jews

whose presence in these coutries often preceed the arab conquest and muslim invasions by thousand years

every single arab country has some aspect of shariia in its legal system, if not in its founding documents

and shariia treats all non muslims (who are people of the book) as dhimmis....TOLERATED if the accept the superiority of islam, pay the jizya....protection racket money, or ransom, and are sufficiently humiliated and subdued''koran 9:29

and al you muslims can whine about is Israel

grow up

you come from a base failed culture, whose main charachteristics are profound ignrance, and thinking disorder

and of course violence