The Other Side of the Story
By Joharah Baker for MIFTAH

It is that time of year again. Oversized Israeli flags fluttering above buildings, homes and cars, firecrackers lighting up the night May sky and Israelis packing up their cars with picnic baskets and beach balls as they kick off the 58th anniversary of Israel’s independence. In a place full of contradictions, double standards and hypocrisy, for many Palestinians, this occasion represents the worst hypocrisy of them all.

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence. Although it is not unprecedented in history that countries gain their independence through war, either by conquest or by flinging off the yoke of colonization, there are few examples in history that match the circumstances under which Israel was created.

The Palestinians, the people at whose expense the Jewish state was established, have another word for Israel’s Independence Day – Al Nakba or The Catastrophe. In a matter of months, over 800,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes throughout Palestine. Hundreds of others were massacred by Jewish gangs in Deir Yassin and Ein Al Zaytoun as a tactic to terrorize people into fleeing. Villages were destroyed, people killed and homes left behind as horrified Palestinians fled the fighting between Jewish troops, Arab armies and Palestinian resistance groups, believing they would be allowed to return home in a matter of days.

That was not to happen. As Jewish troops continued to launch attacks against both Palestinian resistance groups and unarmed civilian populations, pushing back the much weaker and far less organized Arab armies, more and more people fled the battle scenes, crossing borders in the north into Lebanon and Syria, across the river into Jordan and into the West Bank and Gaza in the south. As the fighting raged on, little did the Palestinians, the Arabs or even the international community realize a deep-rooted problem that would prove to be one of the thorniest issues in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, was in the making.

Still, even after the war ended and Israel declared its independence, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had left behind their entire lives still believed they would be allowed to return home. Thinking they would only be away from their homes for a few days at most, people took the bare minimum, trudging across the borders with thin mattresses slung over their backs, children on their hips and the keys to their homes securely hanging from their necks.

The journey was to become the Palestinians’ worst nightmare. After months of sleeping in makeshift tents with whatever provisions they could scrap up or were provided them by their unexpecting host countries, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 in December, 1948 which, “declared that in the context of a general peace agreement ‘refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so’ and that ‘compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return.’”

And as history will later lend evidence to, this was just one of the many hypocrisies perpetrated by the international community and Israel against the Palestinians. Not only was the resolution disregarded by the fledgling Jewish state, it was swept under the rug by the West and the rest of the world. Fifty-eight years later, Palestinians across the board are asking for no more than for UN resolutions to be enforced as they so often are in other areas of conflict.

However, as it became apparent that the refugees would not return to their homes in Palestine, now either destroyed or inhabited by new Jewish immigrants, the world was at least obliged to deal with the disaster that had come into being. On December 8, 1949, UN General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) called for the establishment of UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. The agency has since provided homes, schools, food and work for the approximately 4.3 million registered Palestinian refugees throughout its areas of operation.
Now, 58 years later, the double standards of Israel – the self-proclaimed democracy of the Middle East – and the world at large have never been so stark. As Israel celebrates its day of independence, the Palestinians continue to languish in sprawling refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza under extremely poor living conditions and even poorer political horizons. The right of return for Palestinian refugees has been a “national constant” for the Palestinian leadership and people for over half a decade and a most serious sticking point for Israel, which claims it cannot allow the refugees to return to their prior homes for fear that this would sabatoge the demographic composition of its Jewish majority.

In addition to the refugee problem, Israel has little to be proud of when it comes to its neighbors, the Palestinians. Crammed into demeaning cantons, each city severed from the next, fighting off poverty, unemployment and international condemnation for resisting 39 years of Israeli military occupation, the Palestinians are clear proof that Israel is a country based on racism and double standards. As it oppresses, occupies and aims to annihilate the national cause of an entire people, it portrays itself to the world as a democracy and a peace-loving nation under fire.

Even Israelis themselves have truly come to believe this fallacy. On May 3, as Israelis marked the beginning of independence celebrations, Acting Knesset Speaker Shimon Peres said Israeli citizens can look back on their past with satisfaction. Peres was also quick to add the Palestinians into the mix as well.

"I turn, first and foremost, to our neighbors the Palestinians. This evening too we are proffering beautiful days of peace, the squeeze of a handshake of peace rather than a squeezing of the trigger," he said.

After 58 years of displacement, expulsion and oppression, when will the world finally realize that the Palestinians have and continue to be on the receiving end of the gun?

Joharah Baker is a Writer for the Media and Information Programme at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She could be contacted at mip@miftah.org

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=10148&CategoryId=5

My Nakba ...After 58 years of Al Nakba
By: Fadi Abu Sada *

Bethlehem – The hour was approaching 10:00 at night, and as usual I was updating the Palestine News Network site, with what was the latest news. My child snored quietly in his sleep after a long day playing with the children in the house. At the same time I was keeping my eye on one of the political programs on a satellite channels. This is what I remember.

And in a moment, split seconds, huge explosions began and violent shooting hit near the house. Our home is just meters the expanding Israeli Abu Ghoneim (Har Homa) Settlement and Bethlehem on the other side. Often Bethlehem resistance fighters exchange fire with the settlement. But this time was different because the shooting was thicker, the sound fuller with noisier explosions.

The first thing that flashed through my mind was my child asleep in his bedroom which is in the general direct line of fire when there is an exchange between the Israeli soldiers at the settlement and the Bethlehem area resistance. I ran quickly and seized my small son from his bed, waking him from his free childhood dreams, so that I could put him in a safer place in the house. Usually I chose the kitchen as it is the safest room.

I was thinking that as usual the shooting would stop within moments and life could go back to normal, as with regret I say that this is routine and part of our daily life.

But my thoughts suddenly seemed out of place and I was filled with doubts about what I had become accustomed to because the shooting was increasing with a peculiar sharpness, and the sound of explosions rose in volume. Nothing came to my mind about what was happening outside other than the first night of the war on Iraq when American planes began to rumble through the sky, directing their fire on to what they turned into a battle field.

I felt that I did not possess many choices and that I was not moving quickly enough to decide what to do, considering the time-factor extremely important. I was trying to clear my mind in order to know if I wanted to leave the house and my family, taking a huge risk, in order to see which direction the firing was coming from, still having no idea of the truth of what really was taking place outside.

In my decision-making it came to me alone that I must go outside to the main balcony, directly in the line of fire between Abu Ghoneim’s settlers and Bethlehem. This seemed my only option as to go outside blindly with my entire family was impossible without knowing the exact direction of the shooting.

All of this took place in just a few moments, while the shooting and explosions seemed to be coming from all sides. I began sneaking several meters toward the gate leading to the main balcony, the line of fire, but still sticking to the wall that would soon end and leave me exposed to the line of fire. But at least if I knew, I could make a clear decision.

For a few moments I could see the settlement and what can I describe other than that I found the sky lit up as if it were Doomsday. And then it came to me. I knew what was taking place. And as I stood, still feeling the terror that had seized me, I realized the painful truth that my last moments were in vain. In that moment I did not know whether to laugh at the intensity of my stupidity or to weep from the pain I had felt from what I saw.

But the truth is I could not hold back my tears because I realized then that Israel, through a beautiful display of fireworks in all colors, was lighting the sky. They were celebrating their Independence Day, while I am still living in the Nakba, my Disaster, that I toil to forget, and do often forget. But even if I can and do forget the creation of their state, which is our Nakba, our Disaster for 58 years, they will remind me of it, even in this way.

* The director of the Palestine News Network site.
http://www.amin.org/eng/uncat/2006/may/may4-0.html

Learn more about Israeli aparthied terrorism at http://www.voicesofpalestine.org and http://www.palestineremembered.com

1. “The first group of our fifth column consist of those who abandon their homes…At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle” -- Ash-Sha’ab, Jaffa, 1.30.48



2. “(the fleeing villagers)…are bringing down disgrace on us all… by abandoning their villages” -- As-Sarih, Jaffa, 3.30.48



3. "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in

Battleground by Samuel Katz).



4. "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." -- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25



5. “The Arab streets (of Palestine) are curiously deserted (because)…following the poor example of the moneyed class, there has been an exodus from Jerusalem, but not to the same extent as from Jaffa and Haifa”. -- London Times, 5.5.48



6. "The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war." -- General John Glubb "Pasha," The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948



7. “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph 9/6/1948. (same appeared in The London Telegraph, 8.48)



8. The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

-- London Economist Oct. 2, 1948)



9. “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem”. -- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, 4.3.49



10. "[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel." -- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949



11. “The military and civil (Israeli) authorities expressed their profound regret at this grave decision (taken by the Arab military delegates of Haifa and the Acting Chair of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee to evacuate Haifa despite the Israeli offer of a truce). The Jewish mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation (of Arab military leaders) to reconsider its decision”.

-- Memorandum of the Arab National Committee of Haifa, 1950, to the governments of the Arab League, quoted in J. B. Schechtman, The Refugees in the World, NY 1963, pp. 192f.



12. Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians: “ They say ‘we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)’, declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over”.



13. "The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.



14. "The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property to stay temporarily In neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of invading Arab armies mow them down." --Al Hoda (a New York-based Lebanese daily) June 8, 1951.



15. "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it." -- The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.



16. "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

-- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in “Sir An-Nakbah” (The Secret Behind the Disaster) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952



16. "The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."

– The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.



17. The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in. (Quoting a refugee) -- Al Difaa (Jordan) Sept. 6, 1954.



18. “The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states, and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and re-take possession of their country”. -- Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League, London, The Arabs, 1955, p. 183)



19. “The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die”, -- Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA, 1956



20. "As early as the first months of 1948, the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes ... and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property." -- Bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957.



21. "Israelis argue that the Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to flee. And, in fact, Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city." -- Newsweek, January 20, 1963.



22. "The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." -- The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.



23. In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that “…the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it (Palestine) and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes...” -- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973.



24. "The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable." -- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin

el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976.



25. “Since 1948, the Arab leaders have approached the Palestinian problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used to Palestinian people for political purposes; this is ridiculous, I might even say criminal...” -- KING HUSSSEIN, Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, 1996.



26. “Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem” (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003):



 Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) penned an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra (cf. supra), the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe" (emphasis added).



 As Abu Mazen alluded, it was in large part due to threats and fear-mongering from Arab leaders that some 700,000 Arabs fled Israel in 1948 when the new state was invaded by Arab armies. Ever since, the growing refugee population, now around 4 million by UN estimates, has been corralled into squalid camps scattered across the Middle East - in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank.



 In 1950, the UN set up the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as a "temporary" relief effort for Palestinian refugees. Former UNRWA director Ralph Galloway stated eight years later that, "the Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die." The only thing that has changed since then is the number of Palestinians cooped up in these prison camps.”

Truth ends the thread. This tells us alot about "anti-zionism."

Zionism And Its Impact By Ann M. Lesch eMail to a friend



Posted on AUGUST-13-2001

By Ann M. Lesch

The Zionist movement has maintained a striking continuity in its aims and methods over the past century. From the start, the movement sought to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine and to establish a Jewish state on as much of the LAND as possible. The methods included promoting both mass Jewish immigration and acquiring tracts of land that would become the inalienable property of the Jewish people. This policy inevitably prevented the indigenous Arab residents from attaining their national goals and establishing a Palestinian state. It also necessitated displacing Palestinians from their lands and jobs when their presence conflicted with Zionist interests.

The Zionist movement-and subsequently the state of ISRAEL-failed to develop a positive approach to the Palestinian presence and Palestinian aspirations. Although many Israelis recognized the moral dilemma posed by the Palestinians, the majority either tried to ignore the issue or to resolve it by force majeure. Thus, the Palestine problem festered and grew, instead of being resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to attain a Jewish majority in Palestine
to acquire statehood
irrespective of the wishes of the indigenous population. Non-recognition of the political and national rights of the Palestinian people was a KEY Zionist policy.

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

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

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

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

These aims were based on certain fundamental tenets of Zionism:

The movement was seen not only as inherently righteous, but also as meeting an overwhelming need among European Jews.
European culture was superior to indigenous Arab culture; the Zionists could help civilize the East.
External support was needed from a major power; relations with the Arab world were a secondary matter.
Arab nationalism was a legitimate political movement, but Palestinian nationalism was either illegitimate or nonexistent.
Finally, if the Palestinians would not reconcile themselves to Zionism, force majeure, not compromise, was the only feasible response.
First
Adherents of Zionism believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel. Secular Zionists relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism. Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs:
"The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem. ...The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants."
This perspective took its most extreme form with the Revisionist movement. Its founder, Vladimir Jabotinsky, was so self-righteous about the Zionist cause that he justified any actions taken against the Arabs in order to realize Zionist goals.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"This is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs. ... This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews. ...But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."

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

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

Built political structures that could assume state functions
Created a military force.
Promoted large-scale immigration.
Acquired land as the inalienable property of the Jewish people
Established monopolistic concessions. The labor federation, Histadrut, tried to force Jewish enterprises to hire only Jewish labor
Setting up an autonomous Hebrew-language educational system.
These measures created a self-contained national entity on Palestinian soil that was ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the Arab community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The economic suitability of the tract
Its contribution to forming a solid block of Jewish territory.
The prevention of isolation of settlements
The impact of the purchase on the political-territorial claims of the Zionists.
The stockade and watchtower settlements constructed in 1937, for example, were designed to secure control over key parts of Galilee for the yishuv in case the British implemented the PEEL PARTITION PLAN. Similarly, eleven settlements were hastily erected in the Negev in late 1946 in an attempt to stake a political claim in that entirely Palestinian-populated territory.

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

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

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

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

93 percent of Jewish males (above age seven) were literate
71 percent of Christian males were literate
Only 25 percent of Muslim males were literate.
Overall, Palestinian literacy increased from 19 percent in 1931 to 27 percent by 1940, but only 30 percent of Palestinian children could be accommodated in government and private schools.

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

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

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

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

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

Ben-Gurion stated in 1938,

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

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

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

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

How many Arab officials have we installed in our banks? Not even one.
How many Arabs have we brought into our schools? Not even one.
What commercial houses have we established in company with Arabs? Not even one."
Tow years later, Kalvarisky lamented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ann M. Lesch

When the Arabs fled lands that later would become Israel, they planned to return in a few weeks and take over the homes, businesses, and farms of the Jews who lived there.

They failed. That was the catastrophe. The Arab armies failed in their attempt to create the 2nd Jewish holocaust.

We should celebrate their failure!

L'chayim!!

Un fucking believable .
'When the Arabs fled( spured on no doubt by the rampant slaughter of future leaders of 'israel' ) lands that later ( as soon as villages, bodies and records were destroyed by the invading zionazis ) would become Israel, they planned ( dreamed preyed and never gave up hope ) to return in a few weeks ( oh, Ms. BJ even knows this detail and of course can furnish a quote on this revelation of our all knowing miss-information of the hearts and minds of the refugees ) and take over ( you mean re occupy? ) the ( their ) homes, businesses, and farms of the Jews who lived there ( after moving right on in just like they do here..).

They failed. That was the catastrophe. The Arab armies failed in their attempt to create ( without, of course, this time, the full understanding from the zionist leadership and Adolph Eichmann) the 2nd Jewish, Gypsy, Jehovah's Witness, and other political target) holocaust.

SHEEPDOG doesn't even get it a little bit right. He assumes some Israeli army forcing out Arabs at gunpoint, and fails to acknowledge that the Zionists had been coming since the 1880's and buying land, draining swamps, cultivating fields, planting orchards, building homes and businesses. These were Jewish accomplishments, sometimes performed with some Arab labor.

He expects his readers to be uninformed enough to believe him. Well, please read this article by David Meir-Levi which carefully documents 8 separate waves of Arab migration in 1948---and includes ample documentation from the media and the experts of the day.

http://santacruz.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10895/index.php

Or you could read chapter three of
The Hidden History of Zionism
by Ralph Schoenman
-Collaborating with British Colonialism

With the forging of a tacit alliance with the British, the Zionists now received support on the ground for their conquest of the land. The process was described by the Palestinian poet and Marxist analyst, Ghassan Kanafani:

Despite the fact that a large share of Jewish capital was allocated to rural areas, and despite the presence of British imperialist military forces and the immense pressure exerted by the administrative machine in favor of the Zionists, the latter achieved only minimal results with respect to the settlement of land.

They, nevertheless, seriously damaged the status of the Arab rural population. Ownership by Jewish groups of urban and rural land rose from 300,000 dunums in 1929 [67,000 acres] to 1,250,000 dunums in 1930 [280,000 acres]. The purchased land was insignificant from the point of view of mass colonization and of the settlement of the “Jewish problem”. But the expropriation of one million dunums – almost one third of the agricultural land – led to a severe impoverishment of Arab peasants and Bedouins.

By 1931, 20,000 peasant families had been evicted by the Zionists. Furthermore, agricultural life in the underdeveloped world, and the Arab world in particular, is not merely a mode of production, but equally a way of social, religious and ritual life. Thus, in addition to the loss of land, Arab rural society was being destroyed by the process of colonization. [33]

British imperialism promoted the economic destabilization of the indigenous Palestinian economy. The Mandatory Government granted a privileged status to Jewish capital, awarding it 90% of the concessions in Palestine. This enabled the Zionists to gain control of the economic infrastructure (road projects, Dead Sea minerals, electricity, ports, etc.).

By 1935, Zionists controlled 872 of a total of 1,212 industrial firms in Palestine. Imports related to Zionist industries were exempted from taxes. Discriminatory work laws were passed against the Arab workforce resulting in large scale unemployment and a substandard existence for those who were able to find employment.-

[33]
Ghassan Kanafani, The 1936-1939 Revolt in Palestine (New York, Committee for a Democratic Palestine)

after chapter 3 here's a bit from chapter 4
-
In 1947, there were 630,000 Jews and 1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs. Thus, by the time of the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947, the Jews were 31% of the population. [38]

The decision to partition Palestine, promoted by the leading imperialist powers and Stalin’s Soviet Union, gave 54% of the fertile land to the Zionist movement. But before the state of Israel was established, the Irgun and Haganah seized three-quarters of the land and expelled virtually all the inhabitants.

In 1948, there were 475 Palestinian villages and towns. Of these, 385 were razed to the ground, reduced to rubble. Ninety remain, stripped of their land.



Removing the Mask

In 1940, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department, which was responsible for the actual organization of settlements in Palestine, wrote:

Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left. [39]-

[38]. Hadawi, pp.43-44.
[39]. Joseph Weitz, A Solution to the Refugee Problem, Davar, September 29, 1967. Cited in Uri Davis and Norton Mezvinsky, eds, Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.

Interesting
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm
Why?
THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST
Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann - Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Spiritually and Physically Responsible "

From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, "Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu" - "Because of our sins we were expelled from our land".

We have been forsworn by G-d "not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time", "not to rebel against the nations", to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; "not to leave exile ahead of time." On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed.

(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.



THE UNHEEDED CRY

Read the gripping story of Rabbi Weissmandl, valiant holocaust leader who battled both Allied indifference and Nazi hatred.
Available in our BookstoreAll of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who "decided" that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish "nation". In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce "amendment" or "innovation" without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to "modernize" ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.


Grand Rebbe TeitelbaumThis charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism "the work of Satan", "a sacrilege" and "a blasphemy". He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER'S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.

But it doesn't end there. It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.

"No Shame"


President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]

On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables." [Source]

Read "The Millions That Could Have Been Saved" by I.DombIt is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]

On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, "when they asked me, "couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!...one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]

During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]

These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed "Jewish leaders" did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons "would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees". He replied "the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel....does not wish us to do so". [Source]

In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source]
The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.

There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).

2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.

3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler


It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.



The Seventh Million

The Israelis and the Holocaust "The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People."

but fooling nobody cuz everyone knows only Zionists are autoblocked at my site. I'm a hopeless buffoon. Heil Hitler!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm seeing things in a new light
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/scriptures/index.cfm
No more hypocrisy for me.

I'm not even original. Poor me. I'm a hopeless buffoon

It's getting confusing. It looks like some zionist whack job is forging posts all over the place. Canb't tell who's who.

After I've been forging 'autoblocked'. I can't stand anymore the heat I started creating by forging Zionists and then lying about that and have lost control of the situation. People are on to my childish games.

Who is who? Am I a zionist cockroach, or am I a thinking rational person in support of Palestine????

After I've been forging 'autoblocked' again. I can't stand anymore the heat I started creating by forging Zionists and then lying about that and have lost control of the situation. People are on to my childish games.

I am an irrational anti-zionist anti-Semitic unthinking cockroach, in support of Palestine!!!!! Heil Hamas!!!!!

He sounds like a real zionist nut!

Who is who?
I can't tell who the zionist basket cases are and who the sane pro-Palestinian people are?

Its easy, the sole anti-zionist poser is an idiot. The supporters of Eretz Yisroal make reasoned, cogent arguments.

I am an irrational anti-zionist anti-Semitic unthinking cockroach, in support of Palestine!!!!! I want the Jews in Israel to be dhimmis forthwith and forever!!! Heil Hamas!!!!!

Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a pro-Hamas fanatic spammer nutcase!!!!

I am an irrational anti-zionist anti-Semitic unthinking cockroach, in support of Palestine!!!!! I want the Jews in Israel to be dhimmis forthwith and forever!!! Heil Hamas!!!!! I am a fanatic for Palestine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I

Zionist Lies Exposed
Zionists claim that Jews built the pyramids in Egypt when they were slaves there. When that claim failed, they said that the Egyptian kings had had the pyramids built by slaves. They went too far in their lies and scientists made fun of them. In their continuous hysterical effort to find a history for themselves in the Arab region, they have tried to erase Palestinian history and invent their own history to support their claim that they are returning to their land.
They established many scientific missions and committees to search and dig for Jewish history in Palestine. After years of searching, many scientists participating in the search have come to doubt the Torah's account of Solomon's Temple and the Wailing Wall. Many of them rejected the Torah's claims which led them to this search.
On Oct. 29, 1999, an Israeli newspaper carried an article by an archeologist at Tel Aviv University. The article was a death sentence for the claims in the Torah and the denial of all the Torah's myths. The article said, "After 70 years of intensive searches, we found the following. We (the Israelis) did not invade the land (Palestine) as mentioned in the book and there is no mention of the empire of David and Solomon."
The Torah describes the period--that of David and Solomon--as the peak of Israeli political, military and economic power. Yet discoveries in many locations stand witness that the two empires did not exist at that time. No buildings or remains were found--only broken pottery shards.
In other words, in the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was a small town and not the capital of an empire as described in the Torah. David and Solomon were the leaders of two tribal kingdoms that controlled small areas. That means that the great united kingdom is the product of someone's imagination.
Israel attended a meeting in Jordan in late 2003. A few countries attended the meeting to discuss certain locations along the Rift Valley and placing them on an international heritage list. Israel's goal was to establish cooperation between Israel and countries located along the Rift. Egypt discovered this Zionist plot and took advantage of the 17th Convention for Cultural Heritage, which was held in Mauritania and presented recommendations to destroy the Israeli plot.
One of the recommendations was to contact the International Culture Center within UNESCO in the name of Arab countries that disapproved the Israeli project because of the Jewish state's continuous aggression against the Palestinians and because current situations are not suitable for such projects. It is important for Arab and European scientists to launch a campaign to expose Israeli intentions and to prove that Israeli intentions are not good. They also need to discuss Israel's failure to respect the holy sites in occupied Palestine.
ARABNEWS.COM



Days of Plunder
001845.jpg
Local workers painstakingly recreate the ramp leading up to the Nergal Gate using the authentic Assyrian cobblestone pattern, near the northern Iraq city of Mosul, June 27. (Reuters File Photo)
The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban was met with an outcry in the United States, Britain and the countries that form the coalition in Iraq. Yet the coalition forces can now claim, among other things, the destruction of the legendary city of Babylon.
Ironically, the bombing campaign of 2003 had not damaged archeological sites. It was only in the aftermath, during the occupation, that the most extensive cultural destruction took place. At first there was the looting of the museums under the watch of coalition troops, but that was to be followed by more extensive and active destruction.
Active damage of the historical record is ongoing at several archeological sites occupied as military camps. At Babylon, I have seen the continuing construction projects, the removal of and digging into the ancient mounds over the past three months, despite a coalition press release early in June stating that work would halt, and the camp would be removed.
A helicopter landing zone, built in the heart of the ancient city, removed layers of archeological earth from the site. The daily flights of the helicopters rattle the ancient walls and the winds created by their rotors blast sand against the fragile bricks.
Between May and August, the wall of the Temple of Nabu and the roof of the Temple of Ninmah, both sixth century BC, collapsed as a result of the movement of helicopters. Nearby, heavy machines and vehicles stand parked on the remains of a Greek theatre from the era of Alexander of Macedon.
Iraq is ancient Mesopotamia, otherwise called the "cradle of civilisation". It has more than 10,000 listed archeological sites, as well as hundreds of medieval and Ottoman Muslim, Christian and Jewish monuments. The coalition did not establish a means of guarding the sites, though they would be protected in any other country rich in antiquities. As a result, archeological sites are being looted to an extent previously unimagined.
The looting supplies the appetites of an international illicit trade in antiquities, and many objects end up in places like Geneva, London, Tokyo and New York. The lack of border controls has only added to the ease with which the illegal trade in Mesopotamian artifacts functions. The looting leaves the sites bulldozed and pitted with robber holes. Ancient walls, artifacts, scientific data are all destroyed in the process.
But it is not only the stolen artifacts that are lost. The loss of this data is the loss of the ancient history of this land. Many important Sumerian and Babylonian cities have been irreversibly damaged in this way already. Passive destruction of this kind has been widespread under the occupation, but antiquity is not the only area of concern.
In the midst of the disasters of Iraq under occupation, the condition of its cultural heritage may seem a trivial matter. But, as a historian of antiquity, I am painfully aware that there is no parallel for the amount of historical destruction that has taken place over the past 15 months in Iraq. The Geneva and Hague conventions make the protection of heritage the responsibility of the foreign powers during occupation. Instead, what we have seen under the occupation is a general policy of neglect and even an active destruction of the historical and archeological record of the land.
Zainab Bahrani is professor of ancient Near East art history and archeology, Columbia University
GUARDIAN.CO.UK



Syria's Ace Card
By keeping open the door for another term for Lebanese President Emile Lahoud whose mandate expires in November, Syria is trying to provoke a dialogue with the United States and maintain its influence over Beirut.
The United States has rejected another six-year term for Lahoud and has taken an increasingly blunt tone with Syria over its domination of Lebanon, indicating George W. Bush's administration is losing patience with Damascus.
But Damascus, which has defied US sanctions, apparently believes it can play the Lahoud card. A columnist with Beirut's An Nahar newspaper, Samir Kassir, said, "Damascus has opted for the wrong choice in raising the possibility of keeping Lahoud and believing it can push the Americans to negotiate."
But the Americans "are not interested," because they have made a commitment to Lebanese sovereignty under the Syrian Accountability Act, which implemented the sanctions and set the stage for even tougher measures.
Washington is unhappy with Lahoud for exactly the reasons that Damascus sees him as an ally. For one, he accepts the continued Syrian military presence in the country. Syrian troops have been in Lebanon since they intervened in the civil war in 1976 and some 16,000 are still deployed on Lebanese soil with the approval of Beirut. The United States calls that an occupation.
He also refuses to disarm the Shia Hizbullah militia which holds sway in southern Lebanon and which Washington and Israel consider a terrorist group.
Pro-Syrian Lebanese MP Nasser Qandil says that US opposition to keeping Lahoud in power has spooked Damascus into thinking that it absolutely "must have a [Lebanese] president which firmly cultivates the trust of Syria."
Certain parties "want to create a breach in relations between Syria and Lebanon, between the state and the resistance [Hizbullah], and it is not a coincidence that an American delegation called for... the implementation of the Taif agreement," Qandil said, referring to a 1989 peace deal which calls for the Syrian troops to leave.
A US congressional delegation recently met with both Lahoud and Syria's president, Bashar Al Assad, and pressed for the Lebanese to take control of their own security.
But a member of Lebanon's anti-Syrian Christian opposition thinks that Damascus could be waging a losing battle: "The Syrians are maneuvering to protect their presence in Lebanon, which is vital for the very survival of their declining Baathist regime. But it's in vain because the Americans want to keep the pressure on Damascus."
In any case Damascus "knows very well that whoever the new president is, they will be chosen from among its numerous followers and execute without hesitation its instructions and that the renewal of Mr. Lahoud's mandate would be unpopular and costly," the opposition member, who asked not to be named, said.
Many Lebanese, including Prime Minister Rafiq Al Hariri, have rejected any amendment of the constitution to enable an extension of Lahoud's mandate.
And while Lahoud is widely seen as Assad's preferred candidate, Lebanese press reports indicate the Syrian leader would be happy as long as the next president continues his policies.
UPI.COM



Understanding the Contemporary West
Gaining objective knowledge about the social world is always a challenge. Trying to acquire it through a fixed ideological lens is all the more difficult and the results even less reliable. Unfortunately a highly emotional and ideologically charged way of perceiving the West dominates Islamist ideologues and debaters. Most typically they feel that a Christian (or Christian-Jewish) conspiracy is underway to subvert the world of Islam and establish the supremacy of Christianity.
In recent times some voices have indeed been heard in the USA advocating an aggressive missionary policy to convert Muslims and others to the Christian faith and thus try to bring to an end what they believe is the Islamic menace of terrorism. Without denying that like Islam Christianity considers it a sacred duty to convert people to its fold, my submission is that such a project does not enjoy priority with any of the Western states.
The dominant paradigm in Western thinking with regard to the Muslim world is fashioned by a combination of realism and enlightened humanism. By realism I mean that the West would not want to come to harm in any relationship with the Muslim world. Therefore security is uppermost in its concerns and maintaining superiority in weapons and military preparation a priority. On the other hand, in terms of enlightened humanism the West has developed enough confidence in its institutions and practices to believe that with proper policy it can make the Muslims appreciate that they stand to gain by adhering to the rules of the game it has established.
Proceeding from such assumptions, it has a number of economic, political and security concerns in its policy calculus. Such concerns are most concrete about geopolitical realities, supply of essential minerals including oil, and a search for markets. The USA, Britain and France have many regional and global concerns and sometimes back dictatorial and corrupt regimes and the USA has even subverted elected ones. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Canada and other smaller players take more moral positions on international matters.
The general rule is the following: as long as the West does not feel threatened militarily or faces terrorism its priority is to expand trade, make profit and increase its prosperity.
In terms of domestic policy the Western democracies have from the 1960s onwards been liberalising their citizenship policy. The idea has been to make Muslims feel that as immigrants they are entitled to the same social and economic rights as any other permanent residents, and when they become citizens they are entitled even to contest pubic office. No doubt serious opposition exists to such policy at all levels in the society because letting go of power is not easily conceded by existing structures and actors, but among the democratic majority a consensus obtains on this matter. However, there can be no guarantee that the experiment will not go awry.
We need to understand the West as it is actually perceived by Muslims rather than rely on what Islamists imagine it to be. There can be little doubt that the Western states believe that their social and political systems are the best because they are based on universal, non-discriminatory and inclusive citizenship. Equally, there should be no doubt that they will resolutely and firmly defend their interests against any threat.
Ishtiaq Ahmed
DAILYTIMES.COM.PK



Divided House of Chirac
001842.jpg
French President Jacques Chirac reviews the troops during
ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the Liberation of Paris, Aug. 25. (Reuters Photo)
Chaotic all over the territory, warned a French weather forecast recently. This was not, however, the remake, feared by so many, of the August 2003 heat wave, which contributed to 15,000 extra deaths that month.
The government had sworn that everything would be done in hospitals and retirement homes this year to allay the effects of weather, but everyone knew that, in most cases, conditions had not been improved enough to eliminate all possible surprises. Sales of hundreds of thousands of electric fans and air conditioners in early April fed speculation of shortages, so companies ramped up production. But as the summer bowed to heavy rains, violent winds and relative coolness, big stockpiles of these appliances are on now sale at supermarkets.
Last summer's heat wave had been held largely responsible for losses suffered by the government's supporters in the spring regional and European elections--a double setback so heavy that a lot of people thought Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin would retire. But President Jacques Chirac quickly made clear that he was determined to keep him on for the time being.
Does the reshuffling of his team mean that Raffarin will stay in office until the presidential and general elections in 2007? Nothing is less certain. His recent decision to run next month for a seat in the Senate seems to comfort skepticism. Widespread opinion has it that he will leave after the referendum on the European draft constitution due in 2005. A more dynamic and fighting personality will then be appointed to give rightists hope for an electoral victory that they obviously could not pull off today.
Will that new man be Finance Minister Nicolas Sarkozy? Sarkozy apparently thinks so. He is by far the most popular rightist politician. He showed dynamism and efficiency when he was in charge of home affairs. He could claim credit for a sudden improvement in the economy, given the prospect of 2.3 percent growth for the year--up from the 1.7 percent expected until recently. That means increased revenue from tax returns. Unfortunately, unemployment remains close to 10 percent.
Sarkozy has not formally made known his intentions, but he has a separate decision to make--this one in the near future. Former Prime Minister Alain Juppe, who until recently was chairman of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP)--the pro-Chirac party that controls the National Assembly--has resigned over allegations of past electoral irregularities. His successor is supposed to be elected in a few weeks by party members. The great majority of those who have already made their preferences known favor Sarkozy. The problem is that Chirac openly opposes Sarkozy's candidacy, probably because Chirac sees him as a possible challenger in the 2007 presidential election.
During his traditional TV interview for the National Feast on July 14, Chirac said bluntly that his role is to give orders, and that the minister's task is to execute them. He ruled out the possibility of the same man chairing UMP and belonging to the government. Apparently Chirac hopes that having to leave the Finance Ministry will pose the biggest obstacle in the French political landscape to Sarkozy's running for the party chairmanship.
The Bible says that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." No doubt the less and less concealed rivalry between a 75-year-old head of state and a daring challenger of 49 does little to spruce up the image of the so-called majority or lift the confidence of party activists.
JAPANTIMES.CO.JP

Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a pro-Hamas fanatic spammer nutcase!!!!

I am an irrational anti-zionist anti-Semitic unthinking cockroach, in support of Palestine!!!!! I want the Jews in Israel to be dhimmis forthwith and forever!!! Heil Hamas!!!!! I am a fanatic for Palestine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I

I wish the zionists would stop their vulgar forgeries.

Toady, you are just pitiful. Its comforting to know that the anti-zionists seem happy to be represented by an idiot though. This guy is dumber than JA.

SHEEPDOG WRITES:

Project Mockingbecky-"I know Ralph Shoenman"
by Sheepdog Wednesday, May. 17, 2006 at 7:12 PM

BECKY: Sheepdog likes to kid me about this. Since I have met and worked with Ralph Shoenman, who has written some very old and poorly substantiated works on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I'm not sure what he finds so remarkable about this. To me, activists can work side by side on some issues, and take a different track on others.

While I was thrilled to have Ralph come to Santa Cruz and speak out against a case of police violence against a woman holding a very small child, this doesn't mean his flawed work on Israel has any more value.

Ralph talks about other Israeli massacres (other than Deir Yassin) which are not verified in any other source. This doesn't mean they didn't happen, but one would think that in the past 12 or 15 years he could have found at least one other source to sustantiate his claims.

Here is something from CAMERA which should give pause to anyone reading Ralph's writings on Israel"

from: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=775

MIFTAH (http://www.miftah.org)

Of the “memorable quotes” featured on MIFTAH’s Web site (some of which have already been debunked in Part I), the following is attributed to one Chairman Heilbrun:

We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.

Source given: Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983

Investigation: The quote is found on numerous anti-Israel sites, in addition to MIFTAH’s, but the facts do not check out. While Shlomo Lahat was indeed re-elected as mayor of Tel Aviv in 1983, no record was found of any “Chairman Heilbrun.” The quote was traced to a 1988 book, The Hidden History of Zionism, by radical Marxist Ralph Schoenman (dismissed by mainstream historians as a crazed conspiracy theorist), and is one of many bogus quotes in the book attributed to Israeli leaders. According to Schoenman’s footnote, the quote by Heilbrun was hearsay relayed to him in private conversations:

Cited by Fouzi El-Asmar and Salih Baransi during discussions with the author, October 1983

Needless to say, Schoenman’s scholarship, upon which many anti-Israel Web sites depend, leaves much wanting.

The references I took from his work is sourced.
That's why you didn't address anyone of them and instead pointed elsewhere.
Typical zionazi tool.

Israel is blind to its own legacy
By Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based commentator on Palestinian affairs and proprietor of http://www.abunimah.org. This letter was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6 March 2001

As a Palestinian who has lived virtually all his adult life under Israel's nefarious military occupation, I can testify that Zionist leaders, academics, and propagandists are actually professional, malicious liars as much as they are violent, merciless murderers.

In fact, from over thirty five years of observing and monitoring Israeli-Zionist hazbara (propaganda) both in Israel and the United States, I could safely conclude that everything and anything said or written by the official Israeli-Zionist establishment, whether on Palestinian refugees, or on "the only democracy in the Middle East," or, indeed, on "the" holocaust, should be thoroughly doubted and questioned, for Zionists are liars until proven otherwise.

Indeed, Israel's infamous and nefarious lies about the Palestinian plight and here continued misrepresentation of truth and reality about her genocidal torment of the Palestinian people, which transcends reality, should force all truth-seekers to think a hundred times before giving any Zionist story or narrative the benefit of the doubt.

Lying, of course, is not confined to Zionist Jews, and no body can claim that mendacity is an exclusively Jewish-Zionist monopoly.

However, unlike the world's other lying murderers, the big lie in the Israeli case happens to be the main structural component of the misbegotten entity.

In fact, one could seriously claim that mendacity makes up the backbone of the Israeli state, which if thoroughly exposed and dissipated, the "moral" justification for the state's very existence would collapse like a house of cards.

Moreover, unlike elsewhere in the world, concocting false statements and accounts about events, such as crimes committed by Israeli occupation troops and settler cutthroats, is a systematic, institutionalized and organized task for which hundreds of millions of dollars are allocated every year and hundreds of mercenary writers, parroting columnists, and unethical apologists are recruited and mobilized, all for the purpose of hallowing the unholy and converting the lie into a "truth" believed and accepted by millions of unsuspecting people around the world.

Take for example, the indelible story of Muhammed Al- Durra, the poor Palestinian kid who was so-callously murdered by trigger-happy Israeli army soldiers last October as he was seeking, in vain, to escape the inescapable bullets of the heroes of Zionism.

In the beginning, the Zionist mill of mendacity claimed that Al-Durra was actually killed deliberately by Palestinian "gunmen" in order to besmirch Israel's "fine" image on the world's arena.

When the lie proved to be too brash, the same mill fabricated the Satanic and cheap claim that Palestinians were pushing their kids to the front lines in order to embarrass the Israeli "defense" forces which killed them inadvertently and regretfully.

And even today, nearly five months after the monstrous crime, and far from saying a simple and genuine "sorry" for the vile deed, Israeli propagandists and apologists, including supposedly respectable diplomats, are still unashamedly ruminating and parroting the crass lie that Al-Durra was pushed into the fire-line by his father (his father, too, was nearly killed) in order to score a propaganda victory for the Palestinian cause!!

I don't know why I chose to stress the case of Muhammed Al-Durra as a classical Zionist lie, as there are thousands, perhaps millions of graver Zionist lies about every demolished house, every uprooted tree, every obliterated village, and every atrocity the lying murders carried out.

Maybe because the specter of his phantasmagoric death is still haunting us whenever the murder is re-enacted by Israel's born-to-kill soldiers. Maybe because we unconsciously or subconsciously feel that we have to do something to compensate or atone for our collective guilt as humans for not doing enough to save the child from the ugly claws of a preventable death. Or just maybe because his death is still so vivid and so fresh in our exhausted individual and collective memories.

Of course, the Zionist robe of lying is so long, so much that it takes a voluminous encyclopedia to record and document Zionist lies, particularly those disseminated since the Palestinian Nakba of 1948.

We all are aware of their classical lies, such as "the Arabs left their hometowns and villages voluntarily in 1948 and were not expelled by the Jews," "a land without a people for a people without a land," "What Palestinians," and that "we may forgive Arabs for killing our children, but we shall not forgive them for making us kill theirs!!"

Luckily, there are conscientious Jews who have exposed some of these lies. Their efforts should be greatly appreciated.

However, it should be equally stressed that the portion of unexposed lies still exceeds that of the barely-exposed lies by a million to one, at the very least. Why? Because the history of Israel and Zionism from Hertzl the infamous to Sharon the war criminal is actually a long concatenation of lies.

Recently, the Israeli army protested and eventually succeeded in preventing the proposed release of historical documents dating back to 1948 about Palestinian refugees. Israel's intelligence and defense establishment argued, rather convincingly, that the release of the "documents" to the public "now" would cause Israel's political stance and image irreparable damage and would vindicate many of the Palestinian claims? One doesn't have to read between the lines; the message these words carry is clear, perhaps too clear for those whose job is to maintain the lie and perpetuate the myth for as long as possible.

But the big lie goes on, unabated.

Last week, two Canadian rabbis castigated a conscientious fellow Jew for writing an article in which he rightly argued that Zionism was giving a very bad name to Judaism and that Judaism and the Torah of Mosses were innocent of what Israel was doing in the Jews' name.

The two Zionist rabbis claimed that Israel, not the Palestinians, was under siege in the West Bank, and that Jews, instead of criticizing Israel, should rally behind Sharon, the hero of Sabra and Shatilla.

Why do Israel's supporters lie in such a brash and primitive manner?

How could Israel, the fifth nuclear power in the world, be under siege when her occupation army is encircling every town, village, hamlet and refugee camp in the West Bank, effectively pushing the Palestinians to the brink of starvation, or maybe to the brink of Auschwitz?

Do these rabbis live in this world, or are they just talking to themselves? Indeed, how do they read the Biblical commandment "thou shall not lie"? Do they read it as "Thou shall lie when and if it is expedient for you?" Isn't this Israel's and Zionism's ultimate golden rule?

But if f lying is Israel's best policy, and it is in a certain sense, shouldn't the world, particularly those who have been exposed and victimized by Zionist lies, doubt the Zionists' official stories about other issues, such as the holocaust, for example?

In short, couldn't Zionism, through its powerful propaganda machine, which has succeeded in thoroughly penetrating and engulfing much of the world's media, show business, and even in the academic world, lie about the events which the Jews of Europe encountered during the Nazi era, as, indeed, it has been lying so abundantly and so "successfully" about the Palestinian plight?

As a Palestinian, an Arab and a Muslim who has been among the premier victims of Zionist mendacity, I believe I have the right to and am justified in doubting, questioning and even not believing much or most of what the Israeli and Zionist propagandists have been saying about the holocaust?

Indeed, If Zionists could lie about their present and ongoing torment of my people, usurpation of my homeland and arrogation of my rights, and they do it rather obscenely, couldn't they likewise lie, equally obscenely, about the holocaust, an event that took place over half a century ago?

Don't forge.

@%<

I did not post that crap. I am working hard on controlling my trolling behaviors.

@%<

speaking of massacres.
From chapter 4
The Hidden History of Zionism
by Ralph Schoenman
-Murder in Gaza

The program of massacre did not end with the formation of the state. Meir Har Tzion’s diary describes the massacres in the refugee camps and villages of Gaza during the early 1950s:

The wide, dry riverbed glitters in the moonlight. We advance, carefully, along the mountain slope. Several houses can be seen ... In the distance we can see three lights and hear the sounds of Arab music coming out of the homes immersed in darkness. We split up into three groups of four men each. Two groups make their way to the immense refugee camp (Al Burj) to the south of our position. The other group marches toward the lonely house in the flat area north of Wadi Gaza. We march forward, trampling over green fields, wading through water canals as the moon bathes us in its scintillating light. Soon, however, the silence will be shattered by bullets, explosions, and the screams of those who are now sleeping peacefully. We advance quickly and enter one of the houses - “Mann Haatha?” [Arabic for “Who’s there?”]

We leap towards the voices. Fearing and trembling, two Arabs are standing up against the wall of the building. They try to escape. I open fire. An ear-piercing scream fills the air. One man falls to the ground while his friend continues to run. Now we must act – we have no time to lose. We make our way from house to house as the Arabs scramble about in confusion.

Machine guns rattle, their noise mixed with a terrible howling. We reach the main thoroughfare of the camp. The mob of fleeing Arabs grows larger. The other group attacks from the opposite direction. The thunder of our hand-grenades echoes in the distance. We receive an order to retreat. The attack has come to an end. [58]
[58]. Meir Har Tzion, Diary (Tel Aviv: Levin-Epstein Ltd., 1969). Cited in Livia Rokach, Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (Belmont, Mass.: Association of Arab American University Graduates Inc. Press, 1980) p.68.

That story was obviously made up as Gaza was part of Egypt in the 1950's and there was no mention of any names, places or people. Like the fake Tantura or Jenin massacres.

If that's you, do you realize you weren't acting smart by offering to move to NC-IMC or Ohio-IMC in English and Latin font? hmmm? It's one thing to throw your hands up in the face of brute Nazoid pressure if you're not a tough person, quite another to act without forethought giving toady an advantage from the outset by betraying where you want us to move to.

You are clearly the fanatic that the anti-zionists accuse you of being. You are bringing this IMC down, too.

It's one thing to throw your hands up in the face of brute Nazoid pressure if you're not a tough person, quite another to act without forethought giving toady an advantage from the outset by betraying where you want us to move to.

I'm as tough as I need to be, but this is a colossal waste of time. This isn't about dialog, or information, or anything productive. This isn't about "speaking truth to power". This isn't even about "brute Nazi pressure" . This is sheer stupidity and we shouldn' t drag ourselves down to Toady's level by engaging him.

I don't feel that I'm backing down or giving in- I'd "engage" this weasel in the street at any point- but the jasmine's blooming and the sun is shining and life is too short to waste our time so unproductively.

Toady's ignorant- and engaging him in this manner really isn't worthy of our energy or our time. I'm not a creature of ego- let him pat himself on the back and claim he drove me away. I'll be back.

"Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, lest you also be considered like him." Proverbs 26:4

So, really. Go for a walk. Feel the sun on your face. Listen to some really good music. Just don't feed the trolls.

Shauvah tov, chever shel'li. Megafauna's going to come over and perhaps we'll "visit' Nessie again. Bigger fish to fry.

I am renouncing zionsim, it is racist and I will not be a part of that filth anymore. It's too nice outside to continue pursuing the way of the blind defender of Israel's terrorist policies.

I got the juice!

The "special" juice? Much thanks! Its difficult to get around here. I bet there won't be anything left when we're through.


Giggling unconTROLLably.....


No, Nessie. We are NOT up to anything.

Confused inside sources have informed me of such laughter.

I am sure they called it cackling.

So you are multi-tasking, I see?
Alas, small turnout anticipated. Oh, well. We's got what we's got

It's good to know the zionist really raise the bar around here.....LOL
Maybe you can speak some hebrew when 'autoblocked' is done being grounded and turn this into a zionist love fest site.....just like a chatroom!

Just doing our best to promote peace love and understanding in this deeply troubled world.

And using Indymedia as a chat room is still more producutive than how its been used for the past few days.

NOT-deep writes: "It's good to know the zionist (sic) really raise the bar around here.....LOL "

BECKY: Versus Toady spamming pages and pages of "I am a Zionist idiot?" Or Nessie endlessly trying to send a few readers BACK to SF.IMC from whence he drove everyone away? Or perhaps by the imposter who repeatedly posts under another's name? Or how about the porno-poster who delights in gross photos attached to the names of Zionists?

who is lowering the bar?
Why the lying zionazis like you, Ms. BJ.
So when did I mention David Duke again, Ms. BJ? Since you want a higher bar, one would think you wouldn't be concerned that it would bar you.

Its quieted down a bit ...Think they blocked Toady?
I hate the auto-blocking function, but he's show a clear disrespect for process and policy. Maybe its better this way.

"Its quieted down a bit ...Think they blocked Toady?"

Well, when someone goes so far out of his way to show that he has no respect whatsoever for the site -- let alone anything else in life -- it wouldn't surprise me if they gave him the bum's rush.

@%<

It was me who they threatened to autoblock permanently. There was no indication they viewed 'toady' as the origin of the problem.

Nonetheless, we are still here, and Toady's gone. As much as I'd like to break into a chorus of "he's gone, gone and nothings gonna bring him back", I also doubt its permanent.
I guess a chorus of "Ding Dong, the witch is dead" would also be premature.

Perhaps it will prove to the doubting Thomas's here that it was an anti-Zionist responsible for overwhelming the site with trash. The editors certainly figured it out with their access to the dreading IP tracking.....

Which old witch?
The wicked witch!

Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below, ,below, below!

We're not supposed to gloat, ya know. Moral highground and all that.

All right, one more and then I'll stop. I can stop anytime I want. You know that, right?

Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him
Like I told you
What I said
Steal your face
right off you head

Now he's Gone
Lord he's gone
Like a steam locomotive
rolling down the track
He's gone
He's gone
and nothing's gonna bring him back

Moral high ground? Who the hell cares? TOADY'S GONE!!!

Ever notice how the zionist fanatics give lip service to things like "moral high ground" and "elevating the level of debate", ect. ad nauseum, yet when left to play in their sandboxes, their hypocrisy is revealed.
They let their own spam and make psychotic threats and turn their heads, but when the other side does it, it's a whole different song and dance. So telling.

Ever notice how the mouth foaming anti-zionist fanatics give lip service to things like "moral high ground" and "elevating the level of debate", ect. ad nauseum, yet when left to play in their sandboxes, their racist hypocrisy is revealed. Just take a peak at Indybay.org. They allow anti-Jewish racism and delight in it. They let their usual spam and make psychotic threats and turn their heads, but when the other side does it, it's a whole different song and dance. So telling. But we won't leave and ain't givin' up here -- we'll keep speaking truth to power -- anti-Zionist power. We won't succumb to the misinformation spouted by the mainstream media and Indybay Indymedia. We come to LA-IMC for alternatives to the shit being promulgated in Indybay.

Hey, face it. You lost your propaganda battle at Indybay. You may play here (w/in reason)
You are dismissed, clown

Another example of a zionist raising the bar, "You can suck my balls dry. I'm going out for the meantime so the floor is yours to defecate all over the site in your usual racist hatist manners." and "Hey fuckface"

You may go now. it's obvious that the comment about Indybay struck a chord.......

He's right, Toady, and you're wrong. The only way you could "win" on Indybay was to cower behind editorial censorship. And Indybay decided they would rather cripple their own site and ignore open publishing standard that Indymedia was founded on than allow anything like a real dialogue with supporters of Israel.

But you can't hide behind your mommy's skirts here, so -- because you're intellectually incapable of actual argument -- you're trying to drown everyone one with the length of your cut-and-paste bombs.

@%<

They haven't "crippled" their site. They've taken the first step towards healing it.

This is typical anti-Zionist newspeak. They have crippled their site. They've taken the decisive step towards killing it.

Sadly mistaken: "They haven't "crippled" their site. They've taken the first step towards healing it."

They have proven that open debate and discussion does not serve their purpose. They have proven then their version of the news can't stand up to the bright light of sunshine. They have proven they would rather block dissent than allow it, because the agenda must advance, at the expense of the truth.

Indybay is on life support. It is being kept alive by artificial means.

While I understand Yid's exasperation over what toady has been doing to this site, I'm disappointed at his withdrawal or whatever you prefer to call it. He repeatedly stressed he saw no reason to leave any forum to Jew hatred or tolerate it anywhere. He withdrew from a site whose editorial policy hadn't been infested with Indybayism. If toady has his way every forum Yid goes, which forum will Yid post in? Of course it's he who must answer this question. In the meantime I'm disappointed in his inconsistency with his stated intent.

nessie: "They haven't "crippled" their site."

Really? Point me to the "latest comments" page. Oh, wait, they took it out of the code base. No matter where you stand on Israel and Palestine, the "latest comments" page is gone.

And point me to the "hidden comments" page. Oh, wait, they took it out of the code base. Same deal.

And point me to the flag on the search page that allows you to search for hidden comments. Oh, wait, they took it out of the code base. Same deal again.

Three ways they've crippled it for all users, not just the users you revile because you're an antisemite, nessie.

But in the meantime, nessie, there's a question you've been dodging -- or else your answer was washed away in a flood of anti-Zionist spam.

Is Wendy Campbell an antisemite?

@%<

I'll 'talk" to him. Now that things have calmed down at this site maybe he'll be back. There are few jihadi street actions up here we need to deal with in the immediate future (we aren't all talk, no action types, in case you were wondering), and I know that I, for one, need to focus on them.

I keep inviting Toady to come over and introduce himself- he never does, you know. Either he's just a kid, or he's genuinely scared of me. Or both.

If you want to see the jihadis (and us) in action check out http://www.zombietime.com The Jerusalem bus 19 footage is particularly interesting. Yes, these American born Palestinians are chanting "2, 4, 6, 8 We are martyrs, we can't wait"

Notice the hypocrisy of the zionist trolls. They talk about elevating the level of discussion and not spamming, but fail to call their own on it (see comments like "fuckface", ect. ect. for examples)
Also notice Tia's eagerness to use right wing nut sources to support who fanaticism (Fox news, zombietime, ect.)

We notice your eagerness to use loony and faulty ultra leftwing sources in your bid to distract from the threads' real topics and your inability to offer real rebuttals to the other side's arguments. When you'll stop quoting from your rabid loony sources, I'll be willing to consider your gripes about the validity of Tia's sources.

Photos and videos of current events are primary resources of supreme value to researchers trying to undercover the truth.
http://www.zombietime.com is very useful to people taking the pulse of the street.
Its documentation of our struggle, and the response. Are you in any of the videos Toady? Or were you hiding behind the healing blue rays of your computer again?

We notice your eagerness to use loony and faulty ultra rightwing sources in your bid to distract from the threads' real topics and your inability to offer real rebuttals to the other side's arguments. When you'll stop quoting from your rabid loony sources, I'll be willing to consider your gripes about the validity of anyone's sources.
Notice he's so glad to see someone post any source. Too hard for him, interrupts his gatekeeping on every thread.

he expects his complaints about Tia's usage of sources and alleged Zionist spamming to even be considered.

We notice your eagerness to use loony and faulty ultra rightwing sources in your bid to distract from the threads' real topics and your inability to offer real rebuttals to the other side's arguments. When you'll stop quoting from your rabid loony sources, I'll be willing to consider your gripes about the validity of anyone's sources.
Notice he's so glad to see someone post any source. Too hard for him, interrupts his gatekeeping on every thread.

remember the catastrophe.
When the terror reined and the blood ran and the grief and pain lived on.

The wind tells of the wailing of pain.

....then just burn out the reporters cars!! That's the way the Palestinian people handle bad publicity!

See:

Jazeera Cars Torched in Ramallah

- Khaled Abu Toameh
from the: Jerusalem Post

Three cars belonging to the al-Jazeera news network were torched in Ramallah on Saturday night.
Sources said Fatah was responsible. Its supporters were angry because al-Jazeera had not covered an anti-Hamas demonstration by Fatah earlier in the day.

I think this quote sums it up, "then just burn out the reporters cars!! That's the way the Palestinian people handle bad publicity! "
Yep, "those people"

I've changed my mind. Toady couldn't possibly be an Indybay editor, beccause no organization -- even a quasi-organization like an IMC collective -- could possibly be dysfunctional or desperate enough to give him any kind of responsibility.

@%<

I think you've mad a good point. The Jews are just the better race, more civilized. That's why they are the cholsen ones, right?

I have never heard a Jew say that, only Jew bashers.

Look at just how hard 'toady' the racist is trying to jam these strawmen into Johnson's mouth. Is the lad trying to outdo his obsessed LA-based Becky basher?

that photo you pulled out your ass.
Did you notice the one with the AK47 in the foreground is laying down covering fire for the children?
If he was 'behind' the children, he would be crouching down.
Stop[ making an idiot of yourself.
It's too easy to expose you for a tool.

Debate is not an appropriate response to racist aggressors.

And,yes Nessie, you are a racist

You see, he said it himself. Despite all the ostentatious chest pounding he does wherever he follows "zionists" on Indymedia trying to exude an air of importance, significance and influence that really menaces "Zionists" and makes them quiver iun their boots, he implicitly admitted two days ago he's rather inconsequential:

" "Who with a modicum of intelligence
by better question • Monday May 22, 2006 at 07:51 PM



would spend so much time talking about so inconsequential a character as nessie? "

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/hidden.php?id=42870#43089

What an arch-buffoon extraordinaire.

He's forgotten this thread is about Nakba, not a spit wad barrage from behind a keyboard from another country.
Obsessive pathology, that's for certain.

Let's debunk the myth:
Why did seven well equipped Arab armies attempt to destroy the poorly armed and newly founded 'Jewish State'?
Here's the dissection of this propagandist lie:

The baseless myth, of how the Arab armies wanted to destroy the 'Jewish State', has been propagated in all sectors of the Israeli society, especially in its school system, military boot camps, and media. As it will be proven below, this myth was deemed necessary by most Zionists to legitimize their continued USURPATION of the Palestinian people's political, civil, and economic rights.

Often when Israelis and Zionists are confronted with facts contrary to their liking, they counter by accusing the sources of fabrication or being part of the "anti-Semitic" Arab propaganda. To avoid such a "confusion", we'll directly quote two of the most prominent pro-Israeli historians, Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist and historian) and Martin Gilbert, who wrote:

"In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ..... were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews' favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)

"Senior Hagana commanders met with committee [UN Special Committee On Palestine-UNSCOP] members in Jerusalem's Talpiot quarter in similarly surreptitious circumstances to express confidence that Jewish forces, which they numbered at 90,000, including 35,000 reservists, could overcome any Arab assault should it come to war." (Jerusalem Post)

"Ben-Gurion made serious efforts, shortly before the United Nations vote on the Partition proposal, to seek the neutrality of King Abdullah of Transjordan, whose British trained and officered army, the Arab Legion, was the STRONGEST fighting force in the Middle East. The king had long been at loggerheads with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, for the moral leadership of the Arabs of the whole region. Abdullah's secret interlocutor was to be Golda Meir:"' ...... He [King Abudullah] soon made the heart of the matter clear: he would not join in any Arab attack on us. He would always remain our friend, he said, and like us, he wanted peace more than anything else. After all, we had a common foe, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.'"(Israel: A History, p.149-150)

"As for Abdullah's Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95)

".... there was no common military headquarters, no attempts at coordinating the offenses of the Arab armies, and ... not even a regular liaison service for sharing enemy intelligence." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 83)

"Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo ..., in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF's expertise." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)

Soon after the execution of Operation Dani in the first half of July 1948, Yigal Allon wrote a Palmach (Haganah's strike force) report stating that the expulsion of Lydda's and Ramla's inhabitants had:
"clogged the routes of the advance of the [Transjordan Arab] Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of "maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralization in every Arab area [the refugees] reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors." (Israel: A History, p. 218 & Benny Morris, p. 211)

Although we disagree with the Arab armies' statistics (30,000 men) that was presented by Mr. Creveld, the reader could conclude the following:

The strongest Arab army to enter Palestine was in cahoots with the Israelis from the start. Based on H.M. King Abdullah's orders (who also commanded the Iraqi Army in addition to Transjordan's), the strongest Arab armies did not even encroach on the areas allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. On the contrary, the truth was the exact opposite, for example:

1- Lydda, Ramla, and the Triangle Areas were handed over to the Israelis without a fight. Although Transjordan's Army withdrew based on the orders of H.M. the King, the Iraqi Army (which was positioned few kilometers north in Ras al-'Ayn) was given explicit orders not to intervene (their motto in Arabic was: maku 'Awamer). It should be noted that these areas used to be densely populated with Palestinians, were fertile, and were strategically located for both Arab and Israeli supply lines.

2- When the Israeli Army attacked the Egyptian (south) and Syrian (northeast) armies in mid-October, 1948, the Iraqi and Jordanian armies were forbidden from opening a third front in the middle and south. The Iraqi Army was capable of splitting Israel in half if it was given the orders, and the Jordanian Army watched from the sidelines as the Israeli Army mauled the Egyptians in southern Hebron and Beersheba areas (Righteous Victims, p. 244). Note that the Iraqi Army was well positioned in the Tulkarm-Jinin areas (southeast of Haifa) which is only 12-14 kilometers from the Mediterranean,
The other strongest Arab armies, Egyptian and Iraqi, had long supply and communication lines away from their bases in their respective countries.

Saudi Arabian and Sudanese armies contributed few thousand soldiers in the middle of the war to shore up the exhausted Egyptian army in southern Palestine.

Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army was sidelined from the start, and it did not even cross the international borders. At the most, the Lebanese army provided a mediocre artillery cover to some ALA [Arab Liberation Army] volunteers at the beginning of the war. (Righteous Victims p. 233-234)

When the Arab armies entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees were already ethnically cleansed out of their homes, and they clogged the roads, burdened local economies, and demoralized the Arab populations and armies, as it was admitted by Yigal Allon. In other words, the Palestinian refugees were used as a weapon against Israel's enemies.

The Arab armies neither coordinated their military operational plans, nor shared military intelligence among themselves. In fact, it wasn't until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies' chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. It's worth noting that this plan was later wrecked by H.M. King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133 & Iron Wall, p. 35)

According to a Jewish Agency assessment of the Arab intentions and capacities, submitted in March 1948, reported that the Arabs chiefs of staff had warned their government against an invasion of Palestine and any lengthy war because of the internal situation in most of the Arab countries. For example, revolt in Yemen kept the Saudis at bay and there was a mass riot in Iraq against the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, (Simha Flapan, p. 123-124)

Yochai Sela of Tel-Aviv University, has provided the following breakdown for the number of Israelis killed during the 1948 war:
Fatality Category Value Percentage of Total
Civilians killed*
1,150 20.15%
Military killed 4,558 79.85%
Total
5,708
100%
Soldiers killed between
Nov. 30, 1947 - May 15, 1948 1,345** 23.56%
Soldiers killed between
May 15, 1948- March 10, 1949 3,213** 56.29%
Killed within the
areas designated by the UN 1,581 27.70%
Killed outside the
areas designated by the UN 2,759*** 48.33%
Killed defending
Jewish settlements 984 17.24%
Killed attacking
Arab settlements 1,212 21.23%

Source: Simha Flapan, p. 198-199.
* Majority died in Jerusalem
** The number of Israelis killed while fighting the Arab Legion 1,367; the Palestinians, 1,092; the Egyptians, 910; the Syrians, 238; the Iraqis, 241; the Lebanese 129; Qawukji' ALA, 336, the British 30.
*** Mostly soldiers, non-civilians.

These statistics clearly show that the number of Israeli soldiers killed in offensive actions were well over 60% (2,759/4,558) of the total Israeli soldiers killed between November 30, 1947 and March 10, 1949. So from the Israeli prospective, the so called "War of Independence" was more offensive than defensive in nature.


The Israelis maximally exploited the rivalry between H.M. the King Abdullah of Transjordan and al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini. For example, before the entry of any Arab armies to Palestine on May 15th, 1948, al-Hajj Amin (who resided at the time in Tyre-southern Lebanon) wanted to declare a provisional Palestinian government in the Galilee, with Safad being its capital. To preempt such a plan, H.M. the King pulled out Transjordan's irregulars troops out of Safad on May 11th, 1948, which was the primary reason for its falling into Israeli hands few days later (Benny Morris, p. 105). Another good reason that enticed H.M. the King to collaborate with the Jewish Agency was the promise of future payments of $4 million a year for the next subsequent 5 years. (Simha Flapan, p. 138)

Although there was an arms embargo on the warring parties in the Middle East, the embargo negatively affected the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were depleting their arms and ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a huge arms shipment from Czechoslovakia that arrived in early May, 1948.

By October 1948, the Israeli army had 90,000 armed men, while the Arab armies had 68,000 armed men.

It's a fabricated myth that seven well equipped, organized, and coordinated Arab armies attempted to PUSH the poorly armed Jews into the sea, Click here for a detail map illustrating the standing of the Israeli and Arab armies on May 14th, 1948.
Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, recognized that Palestinian nationalism created the very danger he was most afraid of. He knew that the victory in 1948 was achieved not because the Israeli Army was more heroic but because the Arab armies were corrupt and the Arab world was divided. He became obsessed with the fear that a charismatic leader would modernize Arab education, their economies, and unite all the Arab states. He wrote on November 11, 1948:

"The Arab people have been beaten by us. Will they forget it quickly? Seven hundred thousand people beat 30 million. Will they forget this offense? It can be assumed that they have a sense of honor. We will make peace efforts, but two sides are necessary for peace. Is there any security that they will not want to take revenge? Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever? The situation in the world beckons towards revenge: there are two blocs; there is fear of world war. This tempts anyone with a grievance. We will always require a superior defensive capability." (Simha Flapan, p. 238)

Finally, we like to end this article by directly quoting the famous Israeli historian Avi Shlaim who stated in his famous Iron Wall book:

"This popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war has been used extensively in Israeli propaganda and is still taught in Israeli schools. It is a prime example of the use of a nationalistic version of history in the process of nation building. In a very real sense history is the propaganda of the victors, and the history of the 1948 war is no exception." (Iron Wall p. 34)

"Despite all the political miscalculations and failures of those who planned the Sinai Campaign, it is their version that became firmly entrenched in the mind of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. The popular perception of the 1956 war in Israel is that it was a defensive war, a just war, a brilliantly executed war, and a war that achieved nearly all of its objectives. This version of the war was propagated not only by members of the Israeli defense establishment but by a host of sympathetic historians, journalists, and commentators. However deeply cherished, this version does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of the evidence now available. It is a striking example of the way in which history can be manipulated to serve nationalist ends. The official Israeli version of the 1956 war, like that of the 1948 war, is little more than the propaganda of the victor." (Iron Wall, p. 185)

From my buddy Mark- whose dad, Walter, was a volunteer in the Israeli War for Independence in 1948

"Point of fact, Israel possessed no up-to-date fighters and bombers. Up to date, at this point were jet aircraft, developed and used at the end of WWII by Germany and used extensively in Korea just 2-3 years after the Israeli War of Independence. The first Israeli Air Force, of which my father was a member, used any type of plane they could find (and absolutely no jet aircraft) to resist the onslaught of combined Arab forces that completely outnumbered those defending the new state of Israel.

Some of these planes were single-engine Piper Cubs from which they threw hand grenades (I guess this is Weir’s “up-to-date” bomber) and surplus Messerschmitts SOLD, not given, to Israel by Czechoslovakia, one of a very few countries that would sell arms to Israel. The US, at that time, would not provide arms to Israel. Sprinkled in and amongst were a hodge-podge of aircraft left over from WWII.

As for the “vastly superior army”, Israel faced a crack army in that of Jordan’s, for example, elite forces trained by the British. And they were vastly outnumbered by the sheer amount of manpower at the disposal of all of the Arab countries that attacked.

I’d like to know what credentials Weir has for her “expert” opinion on the issue. I certainly don’t think she was there. By contrast, my father, and a handful of other foreign volunteers, were. Had it not been for their involvement and the mustering of every able-bodied member of the new state of Israel INCLUDING WOMEN, the state of Israel might not exist today. Again, by contrast, how many Arab women were forced to take up arms to defend their homeland in 1948? Answer: O. "

Does this sound familiar?
Y'know how israel always claims its "self-defense" when they assasinate, murder and bulldoze??

Back to Story - Help
U.S. says Taliban strength is growing By NOOR KHAN, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago



Fighting in rugged southern Afghan mountains killed at least 24 militants and five Afghan forces, while the U.S. military acknowledged Wednesday that the Taliban have grown in "strength and influence" in recent weeks.

The violence came after a week of some of the deadliest violence since the Taliban regime's ouster in 2001. As many as 336 people have died, mostly militants, according to Afghan and coalition figures.

The Afghan military commander for southern Afghanistan, Gen. Rehmatullah Raufi, said up to 60 rebels had died in the latest fighting in Uruzgan province, which involved ground forces and a U.S. airstrike. The U.S.-led coalition, however, said 24 militants had died.

It was not immediately clear why there was a discrepancy in the numbers, which were impossible to confirm independently because the scene of the fighting was remote and insecure.

The fighting erupted after militants hiding in a mountain compound in a small village in Tirin Kot district fired small-arms, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars at a joint Afghan-coalition patrol late Tuesday, according to two separate U.S. military statements.

The troops fought back for six hours, forcing the militants to retreat before they tried to bring in reinforcements from two nearby compounds, the statements said.

The forces then called in air support. American bombers and unmanned Predator aircraft, along with French and British fighter jets, dropped bombs and fired rockets at the militants.

Besides the troops and police that were killed, six Afghan soldiers and three police were wounded, one of the statements said.

In the past year, Uruzgan's largely inaccessible mountains have been the site of some of the heaviest fighting, but militants suffered high losses in multiple battles with coalition forces, and the violence there had subsided in recent months.

Uruzgan was one of three southern provinces where U.S. military spokesman Col. Tom Collins said the insurgents have bolstered their numbers.

"We know for a fact that in recent weeks they have grown in strength and influence in some parts of Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan," he told a news conference in Kabul. "There is a hard-core group of Taliban fighters, certainly numbering in the hundreds."

He said the militants are recruiting poor villagers.

"They prey upon people who don't have a lot of hope. They recruit people to join their cause," he said. "These people may not believe much in the cause, but they need a job."

Meanwhile, a British military C-130 cargo aircraft carrying the British ambassador caught fire while landing at an airstrip in Helmand, said Sgt. Chris Miller, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition.

He said one of the plane's tires burst when it hit the ground at the airstrip in Lashkargah in Helmand province, sending debris into an engine, which then caught fire. No one was hurt and there was no hostile fire involved, he said.

Separately, a district chief, a judge and two guards from the Shahrak district of Ghor province were killed by a group of armed men who ambushed their car Tuesday evening, said Karimuddin Rezazada, the deputy governor of Ghor province.