Zionism And Its Impact
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 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 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 Palestine comprised. 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 their aspirations occurred in the spring of 1914. Its difficulties illustrated the incompatibility in their aspirations. The Palestinians wanted the Zionists to present them with a document that would state their precise political ambitions, their willingness to open their schools to Palestinians, and their 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 contracted 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 whose basis 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 the 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 for Palestine's population distribution per district in 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, 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. By the time armistice agreements were signed in 1949, the Arab areas had shrunk to only 23 percent of Palestine. The Egyptian army held the GAZA STRIP, and Transjordanian forces dominated the hills of central Palestine. At least 726,000 of the 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs fled from the area held by Israel. Emir Abdullah subsequently annexed the zone that his army occupied, renaming it the WEST BANK.
The Zionist Movement

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

1.

to attain a Jewish majority in Palestine;

2.

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

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, placed maximalist demands before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919. He stated that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine. When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine and would become: "as Jewish as England is English". Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south. He argued that: "the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind." Weizmann offered the Arab countries a free zone in Haifa and a joint port at Aqaba.

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

1.

The movement was seen not only as inherently righteous, but also as meeting an overwhelming need among European Jews.

2.

European culture was superior to indigenous Arab culture; the Zionists could help civilize the East.

3.

External support was needed from a major power; relations with the Arab world were a secondary matter.

4.

Arab nationalism was a legitimate political movement, but Palestinian nationalism was either illegitimate or nonexistent.

5.

Finally, if the Palestinians would not reconcile themselves to Zionism, force majeure, not compromise, was the only feasible response.

First

Adherents of Zionism believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine. Religious Zionists stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel. Secular Zionists relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism. Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs: "The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem....The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants."

This perspective took its most extreme form with the Revisionist movement. Its founder, Vladimir Jabotinsky, was so self-righteous about the Zionist cause that he justified any actions taken against the Arabs in order to realize Zionist goals.
Second

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Zionist leaders argued that if the Palestinians could not reconcile themselves to Zionism, then force majeure, not a compromise of goals, was the only possible response. By the early 1920s, after violent Arab protests broke out in Jaffa and Jerusalem, leaders of the yishuv recognized that it might be impossible to bridge the gap between the aims of the two peoples. Building the national home would lead to an unavoidable clash, since the Arab majority would not agree to become a minority. In fact, as early as 1919 Ben-Gurion stated bluntly: "Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this gulf....I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews....We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs."

As tensions increased in the 1920s and the 1930s Zionist leaders realized that they had to coerce the Arabs to acquiesce to 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 in many different realms:

1.

They built political structures that could assume state functions

2.

Created a military force.

3.

Promoted large-scale immigration.

4.

Acquired land as the inalienable property of the Jewish people

5.

Established and monopolistic concessions. The labor federation, Histadrut, tried to force Jewish enterprises to hire only Jewish labor

6.

Setting up an autonomous Hebrew-language educational system.

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

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

The Zionists were strongly critical of British efforts to establish a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL in 1923, 1930, and 1936. They realized that Palestinians' demands for a legislature with a Palestinian majority ran counter to their own need to delay establishing representative bodies until the Jewish community was much larger. In 1923, the Jewish residents did participate in the elections for a Legislative Council, but they were relieved that the Palestinians' boycott compelled the British to cancel the results. In 1930 and 1936 the World Zionist Organization vigorously opposed British proposals for a legislature, fearing that, if the Palestinians received the majority status that proportional representation would require, then they would try to block Jewish immigration and the purchase of land by Zionist companies. Zionist opposition was couched indirectly in the assertion that Palestine was not ripe for self-rule, a code for not until there's a Jewish majority.

To bolster this position, the yishuv formed defense forces (Haganah) in March 1920. They were preceded by the establishment of guards (hashomer) in Jewish rural settlements in the 1900s and the formation of a Jewish Legion in World War I. However, the British disbanded the Jewish Legion and allowed only sealed armories in the settlements and mixed Jewish-British area defense committees.

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

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

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

The World Zionist Organization 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 land ownership 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 [matter] to the Arabs, in that it results in the transfer of their country to other hands and the loss of their nationality.

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

1.

The economic suitability of the tract

2.

Its contribution to forming a solid block of Jewish territory.

3.

The prevention of isolation of settlements

4.

The impact of the purchase on the political-territorial claims of the Zionists.

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

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

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

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

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

*

93 percent of Jewish males (above age seven) were literate

*

71 percent of Christian males

*

but 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 the separation from the Palestinian residents will exacerbated by these autarchic policies.
Policies Toward the Palestinians

The main view point 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."

Two 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
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu Lughod, Janet L. "The Demographic Transformation of Palestine." In The Tansformation of Palestine, ed. by Ibrahim Abu-Lughod. Evanston, Ill.: Northestern University Press, 1971.

Caplan, Neil. Palestine Jew1Y and the Arab Question, 1917-25. London: Frank Cass, 1978.

Farsoun, Samih K., and Christina Zacharia. Palestine and the Palestinians. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1996.

Flapan, Simha. Zionism and the Palestinians. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979.
Granott (Granovsky), Avraham. The Land System in Palestine. London: Frank CaBs, 1978.

Hadawi, Sami. Bitter Harvest Palestine 1914-1979. Rev. ed. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books, 1979.

Hattis, Susan Lee. The Bi-National Idea in Palestine during Mandato1Y Times. Haifa: Shikmona Publishing Co., 1970.

Hertzberg, Arthur, ed. The Zionist Idea. New York: Atheneum, 1969.

Hurewitz, J. C. The Struggle for Palestine. Reprint. New York: Schocken Books, 1976.

Lesch, Ann Mosely. Arab Politics in Palestine, 1917-1939. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1979.

Mandel, Neville. "Attempts at an Arab-Zionist Entente, 1913-1914," Middle Eastern Studies 1 (1965).

----."Turks, Arabs, and Jewish Immigration into Palestine, 1882-1914," St. Antony's Papers 17 (1965).

Mansur, George. The Arab Worker under the Palestine Mandate. Jerusalem: Commercial Press, 1937.

Porath, Yehoshua. The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement 1918-1929. London: Frank Cass, 1974.

----.Palestinian Arab National Movement, 1929-1939. London: Frank CaBs, 1977.

Ro'i, Yaacov. "The Zionist Attitude to the Arabs, 1908-1914." Middle Eastern Studies 4 (1968).

Ruedy, John. "Dynamics of Land Alienation." In The Transformation of Palestine, ed. by Ibrahim Abu- Lughod. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press 1071

The Above article was quoted from Encyclopedia Of The Palestinians, edited by Philip Mattar.

How stupid do you think we are, zionazi?
Like posting this and one minute later
a post to kick this zionaazi spooge into the discussion page stating
1 you read it all, in one minute.
2 implying you didn't post it.
KMA

Its an anti- Semetic creed- with a forgery designed to kick it into the latest comments.

Really dear, try and keep up.

Tia

Ever notice how those obsessed w/ defending Israel (usu. based on religious beliefs) try to stifle dissent by shouting you down w/ false cries of "antisemitism".????

The zionist nut trolls are at it again.

I've just forged 'autoblocked' yet more. But that's just the way I am. Noone expects any different of me.

Now I've got something I'd like to share with y'all:

Terror-Free Oil

“We as American citizens can actually boycott Mid East oil. And the way you do that is you go to a gas station whose company doesn’t import the oil.”
-Bob Bevelacqua, former U.S. Army Green Beret, August 23, 2005, Fox News Channel.


In December of 2001, an e-mail was widely distributed across the internet calling for a boycott of all gas stations that purchase crude oil from the Middle East*. While the e-mail consisted of much emotionally charged language – understandably so, given the proximity to 9/11 – and while some of the information provided was faulty, the point that was being made was a valid one and should be revisited.

The e-mail began: “Nothing is more frustrating to me than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. It turns out that some oil companies import a lot of middle eastern oil and others do not import any. I thought it might be interesting for Americans to know which oil companies are the best to buy their gas from.”

The piece then proceeded to list major gasoline companies that import Middle Eastern oil and those that do not or “do not import much.” Included on the list of importers were Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Marathon. As stated in the e-mail, for the period of September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001, the companies ranged from importing just under 118,000,000 barrels to just under 206,000,000.

Included on the list of non-importers were Citgo, Sunoco, Conoco, Sinclair and Phillips (which merged with Conoco in 2002). BP Amoco made the bottom of the list (as a “not much”) with just over 62,000,000 barrels. [In later versions of the e-mail, further companies would be listed.]

According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its ‘Crude Oil Imports From Persian Gulf** 2001’ report, Middle Eastern oil was indeed purchased by all of the companies listed in the e-mail as importers. However, many of the “non-importers” were listed as importers, as well. In fact, the only two that did not make the official government list for 2001 were Sunoco and Sinclair. And Chevron, which was listed on the e-mail as “not much,” made the top three!

But that was then. With the advent of the War on Terrorism, surely the gasoline companies, especially American-based ones, would begin to recognize and work to rectify this all too important matter. Surely something would be done to curb the amount of Mid East oil these companies import. That’s only common sense, but that never happened.

Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11th, little has changed. The companies that were importing Middle Eastern oil still are, and the companies that weren’t still are not. This is according to the latest information available from the EIA. And it should be noted that, of the companies that are, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon and Shell get crude straight from Saudi Arabia – the same Saudi Arabia that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers – the same Saudi Arabia which gives millions to Hamas – the same Saudi Arabia that actively spreads its radical jihadist/Wahhabist ideology throughout the world, including the United States.

Besides Saudi Arabia, a number of other Middle Eastern nations, where oil is imported from, have dubious track records. Information derived from the U.S. State Department’s ‘22nd annual Report to the Congress on Voting Practices at the United Nations,’ underscores the antipathy towards the United States these nations harbor. The following are facts found within the report:

· Algeria (where Citgo and Shell get crude oil from), in 2004, out of 79 possible U.N. votes, voted against the United States 63 times.

· Iraq (BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon and Shell) voted against the U.S. 51 times [and that was even after liberation].

· Kuwait (ExxonMobil and Marathon) voted against the U.S. 63 times.

· Libya (Shell) voted against the U.S. 65 times.

· Oman (BP and ConocoPhillips) voted against the U.S. 64 times.

· Tunisia (Shell) voted against the U.S. 63 times.

On average these countries voted against the United States, in the year 2004, nearly 78 percent of the time. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it was 81 percent against.

The countries that have been discussed here are more in line ideologically with Iran, which shouts “Death to America,” than they are with the United States. In fact, five of the countries mentioned, along with Iran, make up the majority of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which sets the price of crude for the rest of the world, which tells us how much more money we have to spend on gas any given day.

In October of 1973, our dependence on Mid East oil brought us an embargo from the Arab world. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), which, at the time, consisted of the Arab members of OPEC plus Bahrain, Egypt and Syria, called for an oil embargo against the West to coincide with the war they were preparing for Israel. This had a devastating effect on the economy, as America was held hostage to the whim of our “friends.” Why wait for a repeat performance, embargo or otherwise?

Of course, this money, at least in part, goes to fund our terrorist enemies, as well, both locally and abroad. It is this never-ending cycle – gasoline for money, money for terrorism – that could ultimately lead to our undoing, if nothing is done to stop it. And this problem is multiplied every second of the day, as we sink more and more of our hard earned dollars into our gas tanks. The question we all have to ask ourselves, when we go to the pumps, is are we willing to fund our own demise? And if we’re not, then we have to ask ourselves are we willing to work towards a solution to the problem.

Terror-Free Oil Initiative

The American Center for Democracy (ACD) has developed a new program called the Terror-Free Oil Initiative (TFOI). The purpose of the program is twofold: 1. to cut off the flow of money that goes to terrorists and 2. to decrease America’s dependency on foreign oil. As stated on the ACD website, “This project is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy only gasoline that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.”

While gasoline companies won’t shift their loyalties from Mid East oil overnight, Americans have to start somewhere. Americans must, once and for all, take a stand and support companies like Sunoco and Sinclair that don’t get their crude from ‘the crude.’


So which gas station will you fill up at?


Notes:

**Persian Gulf, as used in this article, includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

These are forgeries

Damn straight.

Zionist Propaganda in Progressive Wool
by Kim Petersen
www.dissidentvoice.org
December 22, 2004






Long-time journalist Jonathan Power recently expounded on whether a Palestinian or Israeli state is justifiable. From the title of his piece -- “History does not justify either Israel or Palestine” -- one would assume not. (1) This begs the question of what state -- granting that states established by colonial power are legitimate -- is justifiable in this region? Power did not answer this question.

Power began, “To be blunt, there is no Israel and no Palestine. At least not in a continuous historical sense, as there is a France or an Egypt, a China or a Thailand. Without the British there would be neither a modern Israel nor Palestine.”

This is not only pure speculation, but also a post-imperialist project aimed at re-interpreting history from a very narrow ideological prism. Likeliest, without Britain, the mandate power over Palestine, Israel would never have come to be, and Palestine would have remained inside Greater Syria as a province. Furthermore, had the British kept their promise to restore sovereignty to the Arabs after World War I, instead of imperialistically imposing a European Jewish immigration upon them, who is to say that a Palestinian state would not have emerged by now?

Power wrote, “The Jews claim that they are merely returning to their roots, unwinding the clock to Old Testament times. But if every group of ethnic kin with an ancient pedigree did this where would we be? The Indians could reclaim North and South America, the Moguls [sic] Russia and the Hottentots South Africa.”

First, Power doesn’t examine whether there is an effective return to the roots. Second, Power is seemingly challenging the notion of the right-of-return from Diaspora. This is seemingly impartial until one considers the ramifications for the Palestinian refugees. But Power’s argument is factually inaccurate. The “Indians” still do claim large swaths of North and South America. The Mogul (aka Moghuls) empire was the Indian subcontinent and not Russia. But perhaps, Power meant the Mongols. They do live in their home territory: Mongolia and in an autonomous province in China. Why would they claim Russia? The Hottentots are considered to stem from northern Africa but still reside in South Africa anyway. The other groups that Power cites here did not “return to their roots,” but still live in their native lands.

Dr Ismail Zayid, an indefatigable advocate for global justice, particularly Palestinian rights, commented factually, by email, on the “twisted logic” of Power’s article:

The Palestinian people of today are the direct descendents of the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Jebusites and other Arab tribes that lived in this land, of historic Palestine, since history began. Professor Maxime Rodinson, Professor of History at the Sorbonne University in Paris, and he is Jewish, stated in 1968: "The Arab population of Palestine was native in all the senses of the word, and their roots in Palestine can be traced back at least forty centuries."

The British historian, H.G. Wells, responding to the Balfour Declaration, stated: "If it is proper to 'reconstitute' a Jewish state, which has not existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there."

In essence, the Palestinian people of today are the indigenous people of this land and, hence, their right to self-determination and statehood in their native land is in complete accordance with international law and the UN Charter.

The Israelis are not the original inhabitants of Palestine. They came as invaders. The land of Palestine, because of its geographic location, was exposed, throughout history, to a variety of invaders including the Hebrew tribes, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Turks and the British and finally the Israelis of today. The Hebrew tribes [The Israelites], as invaders have no more legitimate claim to this land than the Greeks, Romans, Turks etc. If conquering invaders, in occupation for a period of time, have any legitimate claim to a territory or country, then the Romans should claim England as their land, and the Arabs should claim Spain as their land, and so on.

Power mentioned the Diaspora and the converts to Judaism. Although he alluded to, Power does not clearly make the distinction between religious Jews and ethnic Oriental Jews. The distinction is important: only Jews with a genetic lineage to the Middle East can claim a historical bond to the homeland. Do the converts have a legitimate right to live in Palestine? Does this right supersedes the right of the indigenous people? Does a Diaspora gone for millennia have a right that supersedes the right of the indigenous people? Who can prove that the so-called Jewish Diaspora did really happen in the size that Zionists propose, and who made that census and counted descendents and their geographical allocations? Power did not explore these questions.

The colonialist and Zionist sympathies of Power are palpable. He told of a Jewish “settlement” of “Palestine” that led to “a bloody Arab revolt that [the British] had to mercilessly repress.” Power did not delve deeply into how the “settlement” of Palestine was being carried out. A “bloody” Zionist encroachment and annexation is never mentioned. One might wonder as to why the British deemed it legitimate to repress any revolt, and why “mercilessly.”

Power continued, “But if there are reasonable questions to ask about the legitimacy of the Jewish colonisation of Palestine one can also question the roots of Palestinian nationalism.”

Power did not examine “the legitimacy of Jewish colonization of Palestine,” but he resorts to sophistry to equate this with an examination of “the roots of Palestinian nationalism.”

What is the equivalency of Jewish colonialism and Palestinian nationalism? And by what logical parameters does Power feel entitled to establish such a spurious proposition? The answer is none. One is the imposition of itself on a land with another people, and the other is a people’s extreme emotion for a geographical milieu, called home.

To elaborate, if Jewish settlers of Palestine can claim Israeli nationality, why cannot Palestinians claim, Palestinian nationality too, although a recognized Palestinian state does not exist so far? One more thing that has to do with straightforward logic: Why do we call the Palestinians, Palestinians, and not other generic names? The mere nomination of group of people according to a geographical provenance is an accepted fact. For example, a Chinese man necessarily comes from China despite his ethnic lineage; a French woman comes from France although she could have Italian blood coursing through her veins. Likewise, a Palestinian necessarily comes from a land called Palestine despite the composition of his or her ethnic heritage. Therefore, Palestine as geographical entity has always existed throughout time.

Power examined the entity called Palestine: “It was the British who created a formal entity called Palestine with delineated boundaries and made Jerusalem its capital. The absurd logic proffered here is that for a state to justify itself then it must have existed formally as a state by the same name before in history.

Zayid responded:

The argument that the Palestinians have not had an independent state in modern history is irrelevant. How many countries in the world today have not had independence until recent decades? Does that deny India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Ghana etc. etc. a legitimate claim to statehood, according to Mr. Power's argument?

As to the definition of Palestine and its boundaries, the claim that the British Mandate created Palestine is baseless. Palestine acquired its name, instead of the Land of Canaan, from the Philistines, who lived on the Coastline about 1200 B.C. The term Palestine, a Greek word [Palaistine], which means 'Philistine land' was used for the whole country by Herodotus, 5th century B.C. (Everyman's Encyclopedia, 1961). The Romans used the name and it remained. But Palestine as an entity was always there and it is not the British Mandate that created it. Theodor Herzl , at The First Zionist Congress in Basle, in 1897, called for "a legally secured Jewish home in Palestine." Lord Shaftesbury, addressing his colleagues in the British Parliament, in 1876, stated, as part of the Colonial British program: "Syria and Palestine will before long become very important...These countries want capital and population. The Jews can give it both."

As to boundaries, the British and French mandates, over Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, did make few miles' adjustments in the north, but those were minor adjustments by colonial powers and do not change the essential entity of historic Palestine. If such minor border adjustments are enough to deny a country or its people their existence, then where would most countries of the world would be? Today's boundaries of the United Kingdom did not come about until early 20th century. How about the boundaries of most countries in the world including India, Ghana, Italy, the US, Canada, etc.? And how many countries [have] changed their capitals?

The British, in a supreme act of imperialistic arrogance, promised the land of a second people to a third people. This created an untenable situation. If Balfour felt for the Jewish plight in Europe, why did he not give a small part of England or Scotland? Wrote Power: “The British were perpetually strung on the horn of a dilemma. The Arabs were convinced that they had been promised a state of their own if they helped the British overthrow the Turks and dismember the Ottoman Empire.”

Authentic correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner from Egypt, and Hussein Bin Ali of Mecca, do prove that Britain promised the Arabs to establish an independent Arab state in return for help to fight the Ottoman Turks. It seems as though Power has insinuated that Britain had never made such a promise despite its written existence. Neither did Power mention the Sykes-Picot secret pact to partition the Arab lands between Britain and France.

Power’s historical interpretation is that “given the reality of Jewish settlement and Palestinian nationalism, that what the British had ruled as ‘Palestine’ had to be divided in two.” In other words, irredentism is inconsequential, as facts created on the ground become an irreversible reality. This logic posits a wicked quandary for a world seeking stability and peace. There would seemingly be no end to the number of new states that can come about -- realistically, albeit unjustifiably -- through forcible establishment of a population in another territory; hence, the outcome would be a world in a constant and violent statist flux.

Power returned to the British promise, but this time he seemed more certain: “Yasser Arafat for most of his political life held fast to the idea that the Palestinians did not want partition. They wanted it all, as the British had promised them.” Why should the British not be expected to live up to their promise? A keen observer can arrive at a reasonable representation of the kind of world can one expect when national governments’ promises are not always kept.

Power cast unsubstantiated aspersions on the deceased Palestinian leader: “Arafat later appeared to mellow, yet what he told audiences when he spoke in Arabic sometimes suggested that the compromise of partition that he envisaged was but a first step to driving the Jews one day into the sea.”

Power did not respond substantially to my queries. But I wonder as to his proficiency in Arabic? If he is not proficient, then how did Power know whether this "suggestion" of Arafat's is true? Why is there no quotation to back this assertion up?

Power contended that the Palestinian and Israeli parties “must return to the principles of a reasonably fair division as negotiated at Camp David with President Bill Clinton, and refined at the subsequent negotiations at Sharm el-Sheik and Taba.” [italics added]

Apparently, Power still clings to the outrageous notion of a "generous offer" to the Palestinians – an offer requiring the Palestinians to accept a Bantustan-like state. (2) Is there any fairness in this? It is an offer that has been refuted from many quarters including Israeli journalists, scholars, activists, and Diaspora Jews: among others, Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Tanya Reinhart, Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, etc.

Wrote power, “The truth is that neither side has a cast iron claim to their own state on the land the British called ‘Palestine’, and the sooner their leaders tell their people that the sooner there might be honest discussions about a peace.”

Power claimed the perspicacity to know “the truth” about “Palestine” -- a term he used several times in reference to the historical land mass without quotations. He also insinuated the two sides are equally to blame for the violence. Power did not mention the historical origins leading to terrorism and ethnic cleansing by the Zionists; neither did he mention the slew of UN Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions, Geneva Conventions of which the scofflaw state Israel stands in contravention. He failed to mention the ongoing lethal brutality of the Zionists and the ghettoization of occupied Palestine.

One can only surmise that this article is Zionist apologetics clothed in the veneer of a progressive, peace-promoting website.

Kim Petersen is a writer living in Nova Scotia, Canada. He can be reached at: kimpete@start.no.


Notes


(1) Jonathan Power, “History does not justify either Israel or Palestine,” Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, 17 November 2004

(2) Jeff Halper, “A Most Ungenerous Offer,” Media Watch, September-October 2002. The non-contiguous state offered the Palestinians does not necessarily equate with sovereignty. Wrote Halper: “This is where the Matrix of Control enters the picture, and where knowing the ‘lay of the land’ is critical. If anything, Taba revealed how much Israel could relinquish and still retain effective control over the entire country.” Among the problems are a “Greater [Israeli] Jerusalem which would adversely impact Palestinian economic prospects because “some 40 percent of the Palestinian economy revolves around Jerusalem” so as “to call the very viability of a Palestinian state into question.” Ring roads and major highways around Jerusalem will incorporate 10 percent of the West Bank. Israel would control highways and movement. Palestine was to be a demilitarized state with restricted jurisdiction over its borders.

Terror-Free Oil

“We as American citizens can actually boycott Mid East oil. And the way you do that is you go to a gas station whose company doesn’t import the oil.”
-Bob Bevelacqua, former U.S. Army Green Beret, August 23, 2005, Fox News Channel.


In December of 2001, an e-mail was widely distributed across the internet calling for a boycott of all gas stations that purchase crude oil from the Middle East*. While the e-mail consisted of much emotionally charged language – understandably so, given the proximity to 9/11 – and while some of the information provided was faulty, the point that was being made was a valid one and should be revisited.



The e-mail began: “Nothing is more frustrating to me than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. It turns out that some oil companies import a lot of middle eastern oil and others do not import any. I thought it might be interesting for Americans to know which oil companies are the best to buy their gas from.”



The piece then proceeded to list major gasoline companies that import Middle Eastern oil and those that do not or “do not import much.” Included on the list of importers were Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Marathon. As stated in the e-mail, for the period of September 1, 2000 through August 31, 2001, the companies ranged from importing just under 118,000,000 barrels to just under 206,000,000.



Included on the list of non-importers were Citgo, Sunoco, Conoco, Sinclair and Phillips (which merged with Conoco in 2002). BP Amoco made the bottom of the list (as a “not much”) with just over 62,000,000 barrels. [In later versions of the e-mail, further companies would be listed.]



According to the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its ‘Crude Oil Imports From Persian Gulf** 2001’ report, Middle Eastern oil was indeed purchased by all of the companies listed in the e-mail as importers. However, many of the “non-importers” were listed as importers, as well. In fact, the only two that did not make the official government list for 2001 were Sunoco and Sinclair. And Chevron, which was listed on the e-mail as “not much,” made the top three!



But that was then. With the advent of the War on Terrorism, surely the gasoline companies, especially American-based ones, would begin to recognize and work to rectify this all too important matter. Surely something would be done to curb the amount of Mid East oil these companies import. That’s only common sense, but that never happened.



Nearly five years after the tragedy of September 11th, little has changed. The companies that were importing Middle Eastern oil still are, and the companies that weren’t still are not. This is according to the latest information available from the EIA. And it should be noted that, of the companies that are, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon and Shell get crude straight from Saudi Arabia – the same Saudi Arabia that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers – the same Saudi Arabia which gives millions to Hamas – the same Saudi Arabia that actively spreads its radical jihadist/Wahhabist ideology throughout the world, including the United States.



Besides Saudi Arabia, a number of other Middle Eastern nations, where oil is imported from, have dubious track records. Information derived from the U.S. State Department’s ‘22nd annual Report to the Congress on Voting Practices at the United Nations,’ underscores the antipathy towards the United States these nations harbor. The following are facts found within the report:



· Algeria (where Citgo and Shell get crude oil from), in 2004, out of 79 possible U.N. votes, voted against the United States 63 times.

· Iraq (BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon and Shell) voted against the U.S. 51 times [and that was even after liberation].

· Kuwait (ExxonMobil and Marathon) voted against the U.S. 63 times.

· Libya (Shell) voted against the U.S. 65 times.

· Oman (BP and ConocoPhillips) voted against the U.S. 64 times.

· Tunisia (Shell) voted against the U.S. 63 times.



On average these countries voted against the United States, in the year 2004, nearly 78 percent of the time. In the case of Saudi Arabia, it was 81 percent against.



The countries that have been discussed here are more in line ideologically with Iran, which shouts “Death to America,” than they are with the United States. In fact, five of the countries mentioned, along with Iran, make up the majority of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which sets the price of crude for the rest of the world, which tells us how much more money we have to spend on gas any given day.



In October of 1973, our dependence on Mid East oil brought us an embargo from the Arab world. The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), which, at the time, consisted of the Arab members of OPEC plus Bahrain, Egypt and Syria, called for an oil embargo against the West to coincide with the war they were preparing for Israel. This had a devastating effect on the economy, as America was held hostage to the whim of our “friends.” Why wait for a repeat performance, embargo or otherwise?



Of course, this money, at least in part, goes to fund our terrorist enemies, as well, both locally and abroad. It is this never-ending cycle – gasoline for money, money for terrorism – that could ultimately lead to our undoing, if nothing is done to stop it. And this problem is multiplied every second of the day, as we sink more and more of our hard earned dollars into our gas tanks. The question we all have to ask ourselves, when we go to the pumps, is are we willing to fund our own demise? And if we’re not, then we have to ask ourselves are we willing to work towards a solution to the problem.



Terror-Free Oil Initiative



The American Center for Democracy (ACD) has developed a new program called the Terror-Free Oil Initiative (TFOI). The purpose of the program is twofold: 1. to cut off the flow of money that goes to terrorists and 2. to decrease America’s dependency on foreign oil. As stated on the ACD website, “This project is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy only gasoline that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism.”



While gasoline companies won’t shift their loyalties from Mid East oil overnight, Americans have to start somewhere. Americans must, once and for all, take a stand and support companies like Sunoco and Sinclair that don’t get their crude from ‘the crude.’


So which gas station will you fill up at?


Notes:

**Persian Gulf, as used in this article, includes Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.

The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming and forgeriesis boring though

come on, this is getting old and dusty. And simple.
-the same Saudi Arabia that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers -

Oh reeeeaaaaaally?
Can't you do better than reapplying the same white wash to the same lies?
Do you mean the 'hijackers' that trained at secure US military bases?

Good grief.

I'm noxiously anti-Zionist as you can see in my latest post copied below, yet I've got strong irresistable Zionist impulses that often cause me to pose as a Zionist!

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

The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming is boring though
by indybay editor Friday, May. 19, 2006 at 8:56 AM



The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming and forgeriesis boring though

The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming and forgeriesis boring though

I'm noxiously anti-Zionist as you can see in my latest post copied below, yet I've got strong irresistable Zionist impulses that often cause me to pose as a Zionist!

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

The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming is boring though
by indybay editor Friday, May. 19, 2006 at 8:56 AM



The original post was great! The zionist nutcase spamming and forgeriesis boring though

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

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”


Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.

In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.

The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”

One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:

The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.

As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.

As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.

Israel: The Hijack State


Hijack!


How the Zionists seized Palestine
The Second World War effectively broke the back of Britain’s ability to control its empire. Its will to resolve the bloody conflict that it had itself helped to create between the Zionist settlement and the indigenous population of Palestine had been sapped. The USA, the country least exhausted by the war effort, had emerged as the power in the world. And the Middle East was of vital importance to it. The region’s cheap and ever-expanding supplies of oil were now essential not only for the USA’s own domestic supplies but also the key role the US intended to play in investing in Europe’s post-war reconstruction.

So the prospect of a Jewish state, completely dependent for its survival upon American patronage and therefore inevitably devoted to US interests in the region, was extremely attractive to President Truman’s administration. Particularly at a time when there was no other reliable guarantor of US interests in the area.

Then in June 1946 the Zionists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing more than 80 British, Arabs and Jews. The action exposed the bankruptcy of British policy in the area and the Palestine question was passed hurriedly to the United Nations.

The United States was the most powerful voice at the United Nations. Its plans for Palestine could easily be manoeuvred through that flimsily-based organisation. A semblance of “fairness” to both sides was proposed in the US-backed UN scheme for partition.

Close inspection, however, immediately shatters any first impression of fairness. The partition plan granted 55 per cent of Palestine to the Jews who were 30 per cent of the population but owned only 6 per cent of the land (and this land, it should always be remembered, had been purchased before the war from Arab landlords by Zionists who then evicted the peasant farmers). Nearly 400,000 Arabs, a number nearly equal to the number of Jews, were to live in the area assigned to the Jewish state. The Arab state was to include 10,000 Jews and 725,000 Arabs in the remaining 45% of Palestine.

The plan for partition was approved with ease. All European governments approved. The Soviet Union approved. But only three African and Asian states agreed (under massive pressure from the USA).

And, of course, no Arab state agreed. Within days Syrian demonstrators attacked Western embassies. Thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets of Cairo, fighting the police and stoning the British consulate. Lebanese and Iraqis attacked American properties. As a Palestinian leader aptly put it: “We are fighting an advance guard of America.” [1]

In fact the partition agreement, signed in November 1947, was the legal figleaf which immediately triggered the Zionist hijack of Palestine. Partition signalled the end of British rule. Who, then, would oppose the Zionists’ military plans – which had been an open secret for years? Obviously not the Americans. The Arab governments? No, their half-hearted opposition was as spineless and corrupt as it had been since the earliest days of British rule.

The Palestinians were left to fight alone. They had neither the military machine nor, more importantly, the kind of leadership that could match the ruthless training of the Zionists. Nonetheless, as in 1936, many thousands of Palestinians fought back as courageously as they could.

At the heart of the Zionists scheme lay terror on a monumental scale. They would bounce the Palestinians out of their own country by creating such a climate of bloodletting and violence that a fever of fear would sweep the land.

On 9 April 1948, soldiers of the Irgun, a particularly fanatical Zionist militia commanded by Menachem Begin, who was to be Israeli prime minister at the time of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982, entered the Palestinian village of Deir Yassin and told residents that they had 15 minutes to abandon their homes. Then the soldiers attacked. In a few hours the Irgun, in scenes which would be repeated at Shatila and Sabra in Beirut 24 years later, murdered between two and three hundred men, women and children in cold blood. Jacques de Reynier of the International Red Cross went to the village shortly afterwards:

The first room was dark, everything was in disorder, but there was no-one. In the second, amid disembowelled furniture and all sorts of debris, I found some bodies cold. Here the cleaning up’ had been done with machine guns, then hand grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that. The same thing in the next room but as I was about to leave, I heard something like a sigh. I looked everywhere, turned over all the bodies, and eventually found a little foot, still warm. It was a little girl of ten, mutilated by a hand grenade, but still alive; everywhere it was the same horrible sight ... there had been 400 people in this village; about fifty had escaped. All the rest had been deliberately massacred in cold blood for, as I observed for myself, this gang was admirably disciplined and acted only under orders. [2]

Begin himself has described the consequences:

Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of “Irgun butchery”, were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened uncontrollable stampede ... The political and economic significance can hardly be overestimated. [3]

Two weeks later British troops were withdrawn from Haifa. At sundown on 21 April the Zionists hurled sixty pounds of explosives about 300 yards into the crowded Arab quarter. Barrel bombs, which were casks filled with gasoline and dynamite, rolled down the narrow alleys and crashed, creating an inferno of flames and explosions. Loudspeakers of the Haganah, the mainstream Zionist militia, broadcast “horror recordings” that filled the air with shrieks and anguished moans of Arab women, interrupted by a booming sorrowful voice that called out in Arabic, “Flee for your lives! The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons!” As the Palestinians fled Haifa only one phrase trembled on their lips: “Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin”. [4]

Within a week the same psychological blitz emptied the port of Jaffa, a city designated as part of the Arab state. From the fertile fields of Galilee to the fortress city of Acre, Palestinians fled their homes, their villages, their lands.

The above account of events, and particularly the account of the massacre at Deir Yassin, is well-established knowledge amongst Palestinians, and throughout the Arab world. For 40 years the Israeli state denied it. The official Zionist version claims that the Arab countries called on the Palestinians to leave in order to justify a subsequent invasion of the Jewish state by the Arab countries.

Early in 1986, however, an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, published a secret Israeli army intelligence report dated June 1948 that totally confirms the Palestinian version of these events. In an analysis of the intelligence document, Morris writes:

Rather than suggesting Israeli blamelessness in the creation of the refugee problem, the Intelligence Branch assessment is written in blunt factual and analytical terms and, if anything, contains more than a hint of “advice” as to how to precipitate further Palestinian flight by indirect methods, without having recourse to direct politically and morally embarrassing expulsion orders ...

On the eve of the UN Partition Plan Resolution of 29 November 1947, according to the report, there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood – with a total Arab population of 342,000. By 1 June, 180 of these villages and towns had been evacuated, with 239,000 Arabs fleeing the areas of the Jewish state. A further 152,000 Arabs, from 70 villages and three towns (Jaffa, Jenin and Acre) had fled their homes in the areas earmarked for Palestinian Arab statehood in the Partition Resolution, and from the Jerusalem area. By 1 June, therefore, according to the report, the refugee total was 391,000, give or take about 10-15 per cent.

The Intelligence Branch then gives a detailed breakdown and explanation of these factors, stressing that “without doubt, hostile [Haganah/Israeli Defence Forces] operations were the main cause of the movement of population”.

The wave of emigration in each district, explains the report, followed hard upon “the increase and expansion of our [Haganah/IDF] operations in that district”. May brought a major increase in large-scale Jewish operations; so it also witnessed the widespread mass emigration of Arabs. “The departure of the British ... of course helped the [Arab] evacuation, but it appears that the British withdrawal freed our hands for action more than it influenced the [Arab] emigration directly.”

The Intelligence Branch notes that it was not always the dimensions of a Jewish attack which counted: it was “mainly the psychological” factors which affected the rate of emigration. The report cites “surprise”, protracted artillery barrages and use of loudspeakers broadcasting threatening messages as factors which had a strong influence in precipitating flight.

An attack on one village or town often affected its neighbours. “The evacuation of a certain village because of an attack by us prompted in its wake many neighbouring villages [to flee]”, states the report. This was especially true of the fall of large villages or towns. “The fall of Tiberias, Safad, Samakh, Jaffa, Haifa and Acre engendered in their wake many waves of emigrants.”The psychological motive force in operation here was “im ba’arazim nafla shal-hevet” (“If the cedars caught fire ...”, a paraphrase of Kings I, 5/13).

Intelligence Branch cites the “special effect” of the dissident operation in Deir Yassin and of the “abduction [at the end of March 1948] of the five [Arab] notables at Sheik Muwannis [north of Tel Aviv]”.

“The action at Deir Yassin, especially, greatly affected the thinking of the Arab; not a little of the immediate flight during our [Haganah/IDF] attacks, especially in the central and southern areas, caused panic flights because of this factor, which can be described as a decisive accelerating factor.”

The report ends with a look at the manner in which the refugees (by June 1948) had been absorbed in the host countries or areas. The wealthier Arabs, by and large, had no absorption problems. But most of the emigrants were poor; most had left without the bulk of their belongings, and this had led to “severe absorption problems”, says the report ...

Some Israelis feared that the embittered refugees might be turned into soldiers who would return to fight against Israel. The Intelligence Branch analysis dismissed this danger: “The Arab emigrant did not turn into a fighter, his only interest now is in collecting money [philanthropy]. He has resigned himself to the lowest form of life, preferring it to mobilising for battle.” [5]

In a book to be published in Israel later in 1986, a former commander of the intelligence services confirms that Israeli Defence Forces were informed about the Irgun’s intentions to attack the villagers at Deir Yassin, who had in fact signed a peace pact with the local Jewish settlement. The author, Y Levi, requested permission from his superior officer to forewarn the villagers. This was refused. [6]

Could the surrounding Arab countries not have done more? Certainly they went through all the motions of declaring “war”. And the day after Ben-Gurion proclaimed the birth of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, the Arab countries bound together through the Arab League “invaded”.

But it was a totally unreal exercise. There were military clashes – but key Arab governments were already in negotiations with the Israelis. The Arab League was still dominated by the British, who remained a decisive influence.

In any case the ruling feudal families had no stomach for a fight. King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan received Golda Meir as soon as the “war” began. His negotiations with her and later Moshe Dayan soon revealed his true intentions. [7] He was more than content to aid the Zionist sabotage of the UN partition agreement by grabbing the West Bank of the Jordan for himself. Abdullah’s army was the best-trained in the Arab League. His equivocation at the outset undermined morale for the rest.

The sheer depth of incompetence, incomprehension and paralysis in the Arab capitals at the time became only too clear to Musa Alami, a Palestinian leader who went to find out for himself what kind of support his people might expect:

“I am happy to tell you,” the Syrian president assured him, “that our army and its equipment are of the highest order and well able to deal with a few Jews, and I can tell you in confidence that we even have an atomic bomb”; and seeing Musa’s expression of incredulity, he went on, “yes, it was made locally; we fortunately found a very clever fellow, a tinsmith ...” Elsewhere he found equal complacency, and ignorance a little less crass. In Iraq he was told by the prime minister that all that was needed was a “few brooms” to drive the Jews into the sea: by confidants of Ibn Saud in Cairo that “once we get the green light from the British we can easily throw out the Jews”. [8]

Zionist propaganda has made much of the fact that 600,000 Jews were pitted against 40 million Arabs in the 1948 “War of Independence”. The facts, however, suggest a rather different interpretation. Arab League armed forces, representing five Arab countries, mustered a grand total of 15,000 men; their heaviest armour consisted of 22 light tanks and ten Spitfire aircraft. The Zionists had 30,000 fully-mobilised regular troops, at least 32,000 second-line troops, plus 15,000 settlement police and a “homeguard” of 32,000. In addition there were between 3,000 and 5,000 in the Irgun.

If there was any doubt about who would win a war between the Zionists and the Arab armies, the British colonial authorities certainly did not share it. Two years earlier, General D’Arcy, commander of British forces in Palestine, had summed up the position:

“If you were to withdraw British forces, the Haganah would take over all Palestine tomorrow,” he said flatly. But could the Haganah hold Palestine under such circumstances? “Certainly,” he replied. “They could hold it against the entire Arab world.” [9]

In the end the United Nations sent a mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, to try to enforce the partition plan. He arrived to witness the stealing of Arab houses, Arab shops and Arab land on a spectacular scale: 80 per cent of the land, 50 per cent of the citrus groves, 90 per cent of the olive groves, ten thousand shops. Bernadotte did, in fact, try to stem the Palestinian exit. He documented some of the atrocities and challenged some of the Zionist propaganda. The Zionists rewarded him for his efforts. On 17 September he was assassinated by members of the Stern Gang, of which the current deputy prime minister of Israel, Itzhak Shamir, was then a member.

The assassination forced world-wide protest and this brought pressure on Israel to accept a ceasefire in January 1949. It was a little late. Israel now occupied 80 per cent of Palestine. As Weizmann said of the Palestinian exodus, it was “a miraculous simplification of our tasks.” [10]

That is to say, the expulsion of more than three-quarters of a million Palestinians formed the basis of the state of Israel.

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”


Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.

In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.

The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”

One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:

The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.

As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.

As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.

1886-1973

Born in 1886 as David Green (Gruen) in Plonsk, Poland. He is considered one of the three founding figures of Zionism beside Chaim Weizmann and Herzl. Ben Gurion was the major factor behind Yishuv's (a term that refers to the Jews in Palestine prior to 1948) military power and is considered as the founder of the State of Israel. At an early stage, he developed a passion for socialism and Zionism, and in 1906 he immigrated to Palestine. From 1921-1935, he served as the secretary general of the Histadrut, the General Federation of Labor in Palestine, and in 1935 he was elected the chairman of the Jewish Agency which he held until 1948. From 1948 until his retirement in 1963, except for a brief interval in the early 1950s, Ben-Gurion served as Israel's Prime Minister and its Minister of Defense. Ben Gurion displayed a great aptitude for learning languages. In addition to his native Yiddish-Hebrew, he also learned Turkish, English, Russian, French, German, and later in life Spanish and ancient Greek. Ironically, he never bothered to learn the language of the people amongst whom he lived almost his entire life, Arabic.

Palestinians and Israeli often judge Ben-Gurion based on how he had served their interests. Palestinians see Ben-Gurion as a cruel, insensitive, and a racist individual since he was the primary force behind their dispossession. On the other hand, many Jews, Zionists, and most Western people see him as the savior of the "Jewish people" who was the primary force behind the create of the "Jewish state".

Zionism, as any other ideology, required leaders who were astute, articulate, and charismatic to formulate its vision, and in that regard, Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann played the major roles. On the other hand, ideology on its own would become just an idea without the charismatic leaders who could implement its vision, and in that regard Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett played the major roles. After the implementation of the ideology, a new leadership must evolve to manage what has been created, otherwise it would stay stuck in the implementation phase. This is exactly one of the major problems Israelis face, they are stuck in Zionism's implementation phase, and rarely they have produced pragmatic leaders who can get their society to evolve to the next phase. Whenever Israel was able to develop pragmatic leaders (such as Moshe Sharett, Levy Eshkol, and even Moshe Dayan) who were capable of carrying it to the next phase, they were often branded as "appeasers", "cowards", and "naive". In a nutshell, Israel has been missing the Israeli version of France's Charles de Gaulle.

Based on our research, we can show that Ben-Gurion's personality was drastically transformed over the years, which can be broken down into three major phases as follows:

Idealism Phase: This phase started from the time he immigrated to Palestine and ended just before the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933. During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited in building the Histadrut from the ground up as an effective political, military, financial, educational, and social organization that had roots in all sectors, almost a "Jewish state" before May 14th, 1948. During this phase, he made a lot of assumptions, many of which turned to be wrong. For example:
He saw Zionism as just, and thought that Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states would benefit from Zionism, and that therefore, they would welcome the new Jewish immigrants.

He envisioned that Jews from all over the world would immigrate to Palestine in in great numbers, and that over time they would become a majority or a fact on the ground.

He did not think that Palestinians had any collective rights whatsoever, such as the right of self-determination. He did not believe that they had any sense of nationalism, therefore, they could be ignored. Sometimes he argued that even if Palestinian nationalism did exist, that it could be bought or bribed.

He contemplated Palestinian "transfer", where the use of force would not be necessary. He envisioned that Palestinians could be enticed to leaving their country in favor of the new Jewish immigrants.

He did not envision Europe's Jews would die so qucikly, and in such big numbers.
Transformation Phase: This phase dominated most of the 1930s and early 1940s, when Ben-Gurion started to confront events that contradicted many of his earlier assumptions. From the quotes below, you will see how he struggled to transform himself, from an idealist to realist. The primary wrong assumptions that caused him extreme discomfort were:
He felt that the sword was hanging over Europe's Jewish citizens, which forced him to re-examine many of his earlier assumptions.
Jews could not become a majority without infringing Palestinian rights.

Zionists were the primary force behind the maturing of the Palestinian national movement. This became evident when the first popular Palestinian uprising took place between 1936-1939.

Palestinian national movement could not be bought, but it could be curbed.
In other words, he became a believer of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's famous doctrine, that of the IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first came out with his famous doctrine in 1923, Ben-Gurion exploited its racist and inhuman nature to score political points against Jabotinsky (similarly, Deir Yassin's massacre had been used demonize the Herut and Likud parties in spite of Haganah's role in the atrocity, click here for details).

Although he passionately despised Jabotinsky (actually, when Ben-Gurion was the Prime Minister, he had refused to let his remains to be reburied in the "Jewish state"), the evidence shows that Ben-Gurion was one of his major silent admirers.

During this phase, Ben-Gurion is credited with restraining the Haganah in its actions against the Palestinian resistance during the 1st Intifada. Actually, he demanded that the Yishuv play a low key, for almost three years, despite of Jabotinsky's stinging criticisms. This policy was completely reversed during the next phase, where Ben-Gurion transformed himself into a hawk.

Implementation Phase: This phase started soon after WWII ended, and shaped his way of thinking all the way until the early 1960s. During this phase, Ben-Gurion felt guilty for what happened during the holocaust (as Menachem Begin did), and in a way also felt responsible. It agonized him that Jews could be led to the gas chambers without fighting back. This fact drastically changed him, and as a result he became cruel, insensitive, inflexible, undiplomatic, and quick to use force to send a message, especially to the neighboring Arab states. While self-restraint had been his motto during the First Palestinian Intifada between 1936-1939, he now became the complete opposite. As it will be proved from the quotes below, there are ample evidence to show how Ben-Gurion was the primary force behind the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war.
Finally, it should be pointed out that Ben-Gurion's transformation was one of his major assets. However, he never admitted the transformation had happened, and he never credited the Israeli political Right for shaping Israeli politics (regardless if their policies were right or wrong). He was able to change course almost immediately when proven wrong. The questions which beg to be asked are:

What if the holocaust had not happened?
In which direction would Ben-Gurion and Weizmann have directed the Zionist Movement?



Sources

Iron Wall, p. 16-17
Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18

Related Links

More About Ben-Gurion and 'Transfer' by Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
Famous Quotes
In describing the following encounter, Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) briefly summarized Ben-Gurion's relations with the Palestinian Arabs, Teveth stated:

"Four days after the constituent meeting, on October 8, 1906, the ten members of the platform committee met in an Arab hostel in Ramleh. For THREE DAYS they sat on stools debating, and at night they slept on mats. An Arab boy brought them coffee in small cups. They left the hostel only to grab an occasional bite in the marketplace. On the first evening, they stole three hours to tour the marketplace of Ramleh and the ruins of the nearby fortress. Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the [Palestinian] Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine [which was mostly non-Zionist Orthodox Jews prior to 1920]. In all of Palestine there were [in 1906] 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were [Zionists] pioneers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 9-10)

This attitude of ignoring the political rights of the Palestinian people was (and still is) the rule among most Zionists. According to Ben-Gurion's biographer, it's not only that Palestinians were the majority in their homeland as early as 1906, it also should be noted that:

The majority of Palestine's Jews were not citizens of the country, but guests from Tsarist Russia.

The Jews in Palestinian were mostly Orthodox Jews who made up 7.8% of the total population.

At the time, the majority of Orthodox Jews were non-Zionist. Actually, the majority were anti-Zionist.

Zionist pioneers were almost absent in Palestine as of 1906, and constituted only 1% of the total Jewish population in Palestine.

As early as 1914, Ben-Gurion admitted secretly that Palestinian nationalism existed, at least among the working masses. He explained that Palestinians' hatred of Zionism was based on their fear of being dispossessed. Ben-Gurion analyzed this hatred and stated:

"this hatred originates with the [Palestinian] Arab workers in Jewish settlements. Like any worker, the [Palestinian] Arab worker detests his taskmaster and exploiter. But because this class conflict overlaps a national difference between farmers and workers, this hatred takes a national form. Indeed, the national overwhelms the class aspect of the conflict in the minds of the [Palestinian] Arab working masses, and inflames an intense hatred toward the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 18-19)

By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:

"[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 12-13)

What if the average Christian American was more "intelligent and diligent" than his Jewish American, would that justify discrimination in the work force? How could the question of whether someone was more "intelligent and diligent" or not be measured in a fair and a balanced way?

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:

"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87) Click here to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.

In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled "The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine," he conceded that the Palestinian Arabs have the same rights as Jews. He explained that Palestinians had these rights since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of years". He stated in the article:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)


In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights at all, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!

As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the "Jewish state" to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical "Eretz Yisrael"), and limited the "Jewish state's" future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized this decision as follows:

"It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus. . . . This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 34)

If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their "Promised Land" needed them during the Crusaders' genocide!

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and Palestinian Arab relations as follows:

"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)

As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Zionism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:

"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)

From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish societies in all sectors. For example, Jews in Palestine had their separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political sectors that were opened to Jews only. The segregation of Palestine's society was nurtured by the Zionists to make it easier to partition the country when the "appropriate" time comes. In that regards, he stated in the 1920s:

"The assets of the Jewish National Home must be created exclusively through our own work, for only the product of the Hebrew labor can serve as the national estate." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 66)

Similarly, he stated in the early 1920s:

"Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses. Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine Complete, p. 288)

Early on, Ben-Gurion envisioned that Zionism would not be in conflict with Palestinian Arab rights. He stated in 1925:

"I am unwilling to forego even one percent of Zionism for 'peace'---yet I do not want Zionism to infringe upon even one percent of legitimate [Palestinian] Arab rights" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 70)

As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in the early 1930s, the need to save European Jewry became more acute. Ben-Gurion then recognized that Zionism could not be realized without infringing Palestinian rights. The shift in Ben Gurion's opinion becomes clearer as you examine more quotes, especially the ones dated 1930 and onwards. It should be noted that the Palestinian people were a 2/3 majority of the population of Palestine as of 1946, click here for a map illustration. Ironically, the demographic picture persists to this date, but with one exception. 65% of the Palestinian people are dispossessed refugees who live outside Palestine, mostly living in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

As the first popular response against the Balfour Declaration (in which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike in 1922. Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national movement was evolving. He wrote in his diary:

"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the [Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 80)

Similarly in 1929, he also wrote of the Palestinian political national movement:

"It's true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the [Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it."

"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The [Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national movement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)

When it was proposed that the Jews in Palestine organize an army and seize power in November 1929, Ben-Gurion offered these objections, first,

"The world will not permit the Jewish people to seize the state as a spoil, by force." Second the Jewish people did not have the means to do so. And third and most important, it would be immoral, and the Jews of the world would never by this immoral cause. "We would then be unable to awaken the necessary forces for building the country among thousands of young people. We would not be able to secure necessary means from the Jewish people, and the moral and the political sustenance of the enlightened world. . . . Our conscience must be clean . . . and so we must endorse the premise in relation to the [Palestinian] Arabs: The [Palestinian] Arabs have full rights as citizens of the country, but they do not have the right of ownership over it." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 97)

Similarly in 1928, Ben-Gurion stated that there is no contradiction between Zionist and Arab aspirations. He stated that Zionism stands for absolute justice for both parties. He explained that:

"our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single [Palestinian] Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 159)

It is not only that Ben-Gurion was 100% wrong with his earlier assessments, but also:

The world permitted the "Jewish state" to occupy and seize by force the spoils of war.


After the holocaust, most Jews (along with the whole Western World) supported the "Jewish state" regardless of whether it was moral or immoral. This support was successful because of an effective propaganda campaign that carefully exploited the tragedy of the holocaust.


As of 1929, the Palestinian people owned and operated over 96% of Palestine's lands, and as of 1946 they owned 93% of the country, click here for a map illustration.


The mass majority of the Palestinian children, if not all, are even today denied their basic human rights because Zionism had to "attain all that it seeks."

Prior to 1928-1929, we find no evidence that Ben-Gurion intended to dispossess and to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. However, everything changed as the sword hung over the German and Polish Jews in the mid 1930s. Ben-Gurion abandoned the goal of achieving peace with Palestinians in favor of increasing Jewish immigration. As the number of Jews in Palestine doubled between 1930-1936, the Palestinian people feared future dispossession and displacement. This fear triggered the First popular Intifada between 1936-1939, examine the following few quotes for more details. According to Ben-Gurion, the survival of the European Jewry was in question, and he looked at the matter as a life or death one for Zionism (and maybe for the "Jewish people" as well). For example, he stated in the early 1930's:

"If Zionism returns to be what it was ten or fifteen years ago--with Jews entering the country one by one-- then the issue of Palestine is liable to be dropped from the Jewish people's agenda. The Jews of Germany must be gotten out of there, and if it's impossible to bring them to Palestine, then they will go somewhere less, and Palestine will become the hobby of enthusiasts."

"If Zionism over the coming years does not provide an answer to the calamity which has befallen the Jewish people, then it will disappear from the Jewish stage." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 154)

The concept of a "Jewish Majority" in Palestine is one of Zionism's major pillars. This point was eloquently articulated by Ben-Gurion when he stated in 1929:

"A Jewish majority is not Zionism's last station, but it is a very important station on the route to Zionism's political triumph. It will give our security and presence a sound foundation, and allow us to concentrate masses of Jews in this country and the region." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 103)

In the context of the 1929 disturbance, Ben Gurion spoke of the emerging Palestinian nationalism, and the main goal of Zionism (where Palestine's population becomes a "Jewish majority") to the secretariat of the major Zionist groupings. He said:

"The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement . . . . The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to be the majority." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

Since Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) could not become a majority as of 1948 (click here for Palestine's demographic map as of 1946), Zionists resorted to compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) to solve what they referred to as the "Arab demographic problem". To hide their basic goals and intentions, they have concocted the myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, and businesses on the orders of their leaders, click here to read our response to this argument.

Finally, Ben-Gurion admitted the mistake of trying to buy off the Palestinian national movement. In the early 1930s, he stated during a Mapai forum:

"We have erred for ten years now . . . the crux is not cooperation with the English, but with the [Palestinian] Arabs." By this he meant not merely a relationship of friendship and mutual aid, but political cooperation, which he called the "cornerstone" of the "Arab-Jewish-English rule in Palestine. Let's not deceive ourselves and think that when we approach the [Palestinian] Arabs and tell them 'We'll build schools and better your economic conditions,' that we have succeeded. Let's not think that the [Palestinian] Arabs by nature are different from us." In the heat of the argument, Ben-Gurion said to one of his critics and asked: "Do you think that, by extending economic favors to the [Palestinian] Arabs, you can make them forget their political rights in Palestine?" Did Mapai believe that by aiding the Palestinian Arabs to secure decent housing and grow bumper crops they could persuade the Palestinian Arabs to regard themselves "as complete strangers in the land which is theirs?" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 114)

As the numbers of Jews in Palestine (the Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, Palestinians feared future dispossession and displacement. In opposition to this, the Palestinian national movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, Palestinian demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionists' concern. He told his Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

Ironically, often Zionists claim that Palestinian nationalism never existed as a justification for denying them the right of self determination. On the other hand, as we have seen in the previous quote, Palestinian nationalism was alive and well as early as 1936, click here if you wish to learn more about this subject.

When Ben-Gurion heard of the Passfield White Paper in 1931 (which proposed halting the implementation of the Balfour Declaration), he was furious with "these cowardly traitors" who were responsible for the proposed new policy. He stated:

"England is a great power, the greatest empire. But to shatter even the largest stones on earth, it takes only a small quantity of explosive powder. Such powder packs tremendous force. If the creative force within us is capable of stopping this EVIL EMPIRE, then the explosive force will ignite, and we will topple this blood-stained imperium. . . . We will be those who take this war upon ourselves and beware thee, British Empire!" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 111) Ben-Gurion called on his colleagues to "prepare for a long and difficult road, if we are left with no alternatives, a road of alliance with the Arabs against these despicable powers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 112)

Although the British Government nullified the Passfield White Paper soon after, and the alliance between Great Britain and the Zionists continued to flourish until 1945, Ben-Gurion (who commanded the Haganah), Yitzhak Shamir (who commanded the Stern Gang), and Menachem Begin (who commanded the Irgun Gang) all joined forces to wage a war of terror against the British forces in Palestine and the Palestinian people between 1945-1947. Similarly, we predict that when Israel's alliance with the United States outlives its usefulness (especially when the American people recognize that supporting Israel, right or wrong, would not be in their national interests), then the American people will come face to face with a tyrant whom they have armed, financed, and trained. Now Israel has several hundred A-Bombs, and bulling it may not be an option! Time will tell if this "holy alliance" will last and won't collide with America's strategic national interests in the Middle East! In such a case, we wonder how America might react?

Ben-Gurion had strange ideas to justify why Jews have the right to settle in Palestine. He explained that the right of the Jews to Palestine rested on their capacity for developing its resources. He declared in 1930:

"We do not recognize any form of absolute ownership over any country. Any group of diligent persons, every industrious people, is entitled to enjoy the fruits of labor, and do with its talents as it pleases. it has no right to prevent others from doing the same, or to close the doors leading to nature's gifts in the faces of others. The five million inhabitants of Australia have no right to close the gates of their continent--which they alone cannot fully exploit-- and so exclude the masses of desperate people seeking a new place to work. This is the principle behind the right of free migration, championed by international socialism." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37)

If this argument is sound for Jews to settle Palestine against the wishes of its indigenous population, why isn't it a good argument for Germans, Italians, and Palestinian refugees to immigrate and settle Israel? It's worth noting that over 85% of Israelis live in under 14% of the land and that Israel has the highest ratio of urban dwellers in the world, click here for a graph illustration.

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized the role Zionism played in maturing the Palestinian national movement. He explained that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

Ben-Gurion had set down the principal policy for Zionism with the British and the Palestinian people. He stated in January 1930:

"Zionist policy must be in agreement with the English and the [Palestinian] Arabs. . . [However,] without an agreement with the English, there is no point in talking about an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs, as long as we are not a majority." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

To bring the maximum number of Jews to Palestine, Ben-Gurion was prepared to collaborate with the devil (the father of all evildoers). He stated in 1931 that he was prepared to:

"sup with the devil," so he hardly would have shunned a tactic of dissimulation for moral reasons. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xiii, Preface)

In a book Ben-Gurion published in 1931 (titled: We and Our Neighbors), he admitted that Palestinian Arabs had the same rights as Jews to exist in Palestine. He stated:

"The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The [Palestinian] Arabs work the land, and will remain." Ben-Gurion even held that the Palestinian Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by willingness to work." They had the same opportunity to establish that right as the Zionists did. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 5-6)

When Hitler rose to power in 1933, Ben-Gurion predicted a world war. This war might threaten not only the Jewish citizens of Europe, but also the Yishuv as well. The sense of responsibility loosened his tongue, and he began to say things in public that he had kept to himself in the past. He no longer offered convoluted explanations for the Palestinian Arab resistance against Jews and British occupation. He stated in 1938:

"Almost every [Palestinian] Arab" opposed Zionism, "because he is an Arab, because he is a Muslim, because he dislikes foreigners, and because we are hateful to him in every way." The conflict had lasted thirty years, and was liable "to continue for perhaps hundreds more." This was a "real war, a war of life or death."( Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)

As European Jewry's immigration doubled the number of Jews in Palestine, Yishuv , between 1931-1935, Chancellor Judah Leon Magnes (the president of the Hebrew University who favored a bi-national state) asked Ben-Gurion to make concessions to Palestinians over Jewish immigration. Ben-Gurion explicitly told Magnes in 1935:

"The difference between me and you is that you are ready to sacrifice immigration for peace, while I am not, though peace is dear to me. And even if I was prepared to make concession, the Jews of Poland and Germany would not be, because they have no other option. For them immigration comes before peace." Ben-Gurion left no doubt that he identified, heart and soul, with this ordering of priorities. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 159)

Ben-Gurion was impressed with Izz al-Din al-Kassam's heroism in the mid 1930s, and he predicted Kassam's example would have a far-reaching effect on the Palestinian national movement. Ben-Gurion stated two weeks after Kassam's fateful battle with the British occupation nearby Ya'bad-Jinin:

"This is the event's importance. We would have educated our youth without Tel-Hai [an encounter with Palestinians in the Galilee in the early 1920s], because we have other important values, but the [Palestinian] Arab organizers have had less to work with. The [Palestinian] Arabs have no respect for any leader. They know that every single one is prepared to sell out the Arab people for his personal gain, and so the Arabs have no self-esteem. Now, for the first time, the [Palestinian] Arabs have seen someone offer his life for the cause. This will give the [Palestinian] Arabs the moral strength which they lack."

Ben-Gurion also stressed that

"this is not Nashashibi and not the Mufti. This is not the motivation out of career or greed. In Shaykh Qassam, we have a fanatic figure prepared to sacrifice his life in martyrdom. Now there are not one but dozens, hundreds, if not thousands like him. And the Arab people stand behind them." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

During the early stages of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion was not free of ambivalence toward the Palestinian Arabs. He stated:

"I never felt hatred of the Arabs and none of their actions ever awakened vengeful emotions in me." On the other hand, he felt that Jaffa should be defaced: "The destruction of Jaffa, the city and the port, will happen and it will be for the best. This city, which grew fat on Jewish immigration and settlement, is asking for destruction when it swings a hatchet over the heads of its builders and benefactors. When Jaffa falls into hell I will not be among the mourners." (One Palestine Complete, p. 383)

On April 16, 1936, Ben-Gurion informed the Mapai party that no understanding could be reached with the Palestinian people until they reach one with the British. He explained that:

". . . . there is no chance for an understanding with the [Palestinian] Arabs unless we first reach an understanding with the British, by which we will come a preponderant force in Palestine. What can drive the [Palestinian] Arabs to a mutual understanding with us? . . . Facts [meaning achieving Jewish majority through immigration and increased military strength] Only after we manage to establish a great Jewish fact in this country . . . only then will the precondition for discussion with the [Palestinian] Arabs be met." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 155)

In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future "Jewish state" to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and answered:

"So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)

According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who "want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type," said Antonius, "it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow." By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a "matter of life and death" for the Jews. "Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

Before the 1931-1932, Ben-Gurion had once viewed Zionism as a just ideology. As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, he started to lower his moral sight, according to him "these days it is not right but might which prevails". In April 1936, Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice. He stated that :

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

This racist and belligerent remark, about Arabs being respectful of force, became a radioactive cancer that infected all sectors of the Israeli society. Ironically, many Arabs respond to this form of racism with their own version of racism, meaning that "Israelis respect the language of force" as well, click here to read our response to these racist arguments.

After Ben-Gurion's encounter with George Antonius in May 1936, he was willing to concede the existence of a conflict between Palestinian and Jewish nationalisms for the first time. He stated in public that:

"There is a conflict, a great conflict." not in the economic but the political realm. "There is fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

"I now say something which contradicts the theory which I once had on this question. At one time, I thought an agreement [with Palestinians] was possible." Ben-Gurion attached some reservation to this statement. A settlement might be possible between both peoples in the widest sense, between the entire "Jewish people" and the entire Arab people. But such an agreement could be achieved "once they despair of preventing a Jewish Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171)

This statement signaled a shift in Ben-Gurion's mind set. Ironically, his conclusion is in complete agreement with Ze'ev Jabotinsky's IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first published his famous doctrine in the early 1920s, Ben-Gurion and other Zionists in the Labor movement branded him as a "racist". As the previous quote demonstrates, Ben-Gurion finally recognized that Zionism had to rely on the IRON WALL doctrine for it to become a reality. Unfortunately for the Palestinian people, according to Ben-Gurion this was a matter of "life or death" for Zionism and Jews.

Over no issue was the conflict so severe as the question of immigration. On the same subject, he also stated:

"Arab leaders see no value in the economic dimension of the country's development, and while they will concede that our immigration has brought material blessings to Palestine [where exclusively Jewish labor was always the rule], they nevertheless contend---and from the [Palestinian] Arab point of view, they are right-- that they want neither the honey nor the bee sting." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

As the First Palestinian Intifada was erupting in 1936, many Zionists complained that the British Mandate was not doing enough to combat Palestinian resistance (which often was referred to as "terror") to the British Mandate. In that regard, Ben-Gurion argued that:

"no government in the world can prevent individual terror. . . when a people is fighting for its land, it is not easy to prevent such acts." Nor did he criticize the British display of leniency: "I see why the government feels the need to show leniency towards the [Palestinian] Arabs . . . it is not easy to suppress a popular movement strictly by the use of force." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

In rare situations, Ben-Gurion EMPATHIZED with the Palestinian people. He stated in a letter to Moshe Sharett in 1937:

"Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness . . . I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do his math and understand what [Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172)

Ben-Gurion also clearly stated that it was the Zionists who were the aggressors, at least from the political point of view. He stated in the contexts of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1938, :

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

Ben-Gurion stated how Zionists should be self-reliant in response to the Palestinian commercial strike, which was the prelude to the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936. He stated:

"The first and principal lesson of these disturbances. . . is that we must free ourselves from all economic dependence on the [Palestinian] Arabs. . . We must not find ourselves in situation where our enemies are in a position to starve us, to block our access to the sea, to deny us gravel and stones for construction." (Righteous Victims, p. 130)

Soon after the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion explained the reasons why Palestinians feared Zionism. He stated in a meeting with his Mapai party:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Palestinians] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p. 136 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)

On the other hand, he denied the Palestinian any political rights. As a justification, he stated:

"There is no conflict between Jewish and Arab nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 19)

Ben Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor in Jewish run enterprises. He stated in 1936:

"If we want Hebrew redemption 100%, then we must have 100% Hebrew settlement, a 100% Hebrew farm, and 100% Hebrew port." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 24)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that Zionism should seek peace with Palestinians ONLY as means to realize Zionism, not as an ultimate goal. He explained the policy in 1937 as follows:

"We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a mean, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 168)

On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future "Jewish state." He said:

"Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 88)

In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the BRINK of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

Ben-Gurion predicted a decisive war in which the neighboring Arab countries would come to aid Palestinians. He said in 1937 :

"It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped , but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quality and quantity .... the whole younger generation [ from Europe and America]". (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)

Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission, click here to view a map illustrating the areas allocated to the "Jewish State" by the Peel Commission in 1937.

During the tour which the Peel Commission did in Palestine in 1937, Ben Gurion told the commission that the Bible was the Jewish people's "Mandate." (One Palestine Complete, p. 401)

On July 12, 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed by the British Peel Commission):

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

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

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

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

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

And in 1938, he also wrote:

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

In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission's proposal:

"The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan," Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, "is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)

And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that :

"I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

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

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

Similarly, he also stated to his son Amos in October 1937 that a "Jewish state" in part of Palestine was:

"not the end, but only the beginning." Its establishment would give a "powerful boost to our historic efforts to redeem the country in its entirety." For the "Jewish state" would have "outstanding army-- I have no doubt that our army will be among the world's outstanding--and so I am certain that we won't be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or by some other way. . . . . I still believe . . . . that after we become numerous and strong, the Arabs will understand that it is best for them to strike an alliance with us, and to benefit from our help, providing they allow us by their good will to settle in all parts of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

Regarding settling the Negev desert, which was allotted to the Palestinian state according to the Peel Commission, Ben-Gurion stated:

"It is very possible that in exchange for our financial, military, organizational and scientific assistance, the [Palestinian] Arabs will agree that we develop and build the Negev [which as of 2002, the Negev is still mostly populated by Palestinian-Israeli citizens]. It is also possible that they won't agree. No people always behaves according to logic, common sense, and best interests." If the Palestinian Arabs "act according to sterile nationalist emotion," and reject the idea of Jewish settlement, preferring that the Negev remain barren, then the Jewish army would act. "Because we cannot stand to see large areas of unsettled land capable of absorbing thousands of Jews remain empty, or to see Jews not return to their country because the [Palestinian] Arabs say that there is not enough room for them and us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188-189) It is worth noting that the Negev is still a barren desert, and under populated by Israeli Jews.

During a lecture in Tel-Aviv in front of Mapai activists in 1938, Ben-Gurion divided the realization of the "historic aim of the Jewish state" into two stages. The first stage, which would last ten to fifteen years, he called "the period of building and laying foundations." This would prepare the state for the second stage, "the period of expansion." The goal of both stages was the "gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine." And so "from the moment the state is established, it must calculate its actions with an eye toward this distant goal."

When Zionists were debating the Peel Commission's partition plan, Ben-Gurion advised his colleges to accept the concept of partitioning ONLY as a first stage of a complete conquest. He stated in 1937:

"Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

and while addressing the Zionist executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that:

"after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

Similarly he also stated:

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." By 1949 Ben-Gurion had proved that he was as good as his word. (Simha Flapan, p. 52-53)

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

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

And on July 12, 1937 he also wrote how Zionists should insist on implementing the proposed compulsory population transfer, which was suggested earlier by the British Peel Commission. He said:

"the compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state . . . . we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed at the Zionism itself." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

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

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

In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)

He also stated that Arabs would come to terms with Zionism only when faced with a fait accompli. He said:

"This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement .... the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching 'sermons on the mount' but by the machine-guns, which we will need." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 108)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138)

Ben-Gurion explained how the Palestinian Arab citizens of the Jewish state might be treated:

As Ben-Gurion explained, the advantage of the [Palestinian] Arabs having Arab citizenship was that in the event of hostilities, their legal status would be that of resident aliens, and they therefore "could be expelled" from the Jewish state for potential disloyalty. With Israeli citizenship, on the other hand, "it would only be possible to imprison them, and it would be better to expel them than to imprison them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

Despite all the EXPANSIONIST Zionist policies, many Israelis and Zionists wonder why Arabs rejected UN GA proposed partition for Palestine in 1947? Click here to read our detailed response to this Israeli frequently asked question.

The tragedy of the European Jewry eventually strengthened the Yishuv in an unexpected way. In August 1937, Ben-Gurion noted that:

"Jewish suffering is also a political factor, and whoever says that Hitler diminished our strength, is not telling the truth." In one of history's crueler ironies, those words proved prophetic. Millions of Jews did not storm the beaches of Palestine, for they could not rise from the ashes of the death camps. But the Holocaust--they zenith of Jewish agony-- became the same "political force" of which Ben-Gurion spoke before he even imagined the systematic destruction of European Jewry. After the war, the Holocaust was a powerfully influential factor in turning world public in Zionism's favor, and was the decisive factor in defeating the policy of the British 1939 White Paper (which called for a united bi-national Palestinian state no later than 1949 and the cessation of Jewish immigration). Guilt, sorrow, and remorse---what might be called the collective conscience of humanity--led many nations (referring to 1947 UN proposed partition plan) finally to grant survivors, that which might have saved the many victims: a "Jewish state." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 196)

These comments by Ben-Gurion and his biographer (Shabtai Teveth) are a powerful reminder to the Christian West that Palestinians have been crucified for their sins. As the Gestapo slaughtered Europe's Jewish citizens, their fellow Christian European neighbors watched and aided the instruments of death in gassing and burning the Jews of Europe. The holocaust atrocity generated a collective sense of guilt in the Western World which has blinded them to the suffering that came upon the Palestinian people. It should be noted that the great majority of the Palestinian people, almost 10 million people, have been dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from their homes, farms and businesses. From the Palestinians points of view, the Western World has created two problems if not more:

The first was the destruction of most of Europe's Jewish community, and

The second is aiding in the collective dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

Ironically, the so called "civilized world" have pitted two innocent people into a constant state of war for generations to come. And instead of solving one problem, they have created many!

Ben Gurion wrote twenty years after the 20th Zionists Congress, which rejected the Peel Commission partition plan in 1937, and contemplated how many Jews might have been saved, if the Peel Commission's Plan had been adopted. He wrote in 1958:

"Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed---most of them would be in Israel" (One Palestine Complete, p. 414).

A month after the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion provided an interesting mathematical formula for saving German Jewish kids. He stated in December 1938:

"If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter----because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People." (Righteous Victims, p. 162)

Similarly, Ben-Gurion provided another interesting mathematical formula. During the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936, Ben Gurion devised a scheme to increase Jewish immigration to Palestine. He proposed that the Jewish Agency would

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”


Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.

In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.

The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”

One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:

The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.

As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.

As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.

One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.

In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”


Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.

What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.

Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.

Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:

Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.

At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.

In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.

The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”

One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:

The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.

As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.

Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).

Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.

As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.

For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.

If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.

Yawm al-Sabt kareem wa'mubarak ya sahayounee! Ana, toady, ibn el metnake!!

Shitbird!
How many times is this piece of unsubstantiated Zionist swill going to be C & P'ed on the board?
Insane fucking Zionists and their demented obsessions.

Shitbird!
How many times are the pieces of unsubstantiated anti-Zionist swill going to be C & P'ed on the board?
Insane fucking anti-Zionists and their demented obsessions.

Wow, look I've pick up a blood sucking tick. A Zionist parrotbot.
How sweet.

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE THE U.S./ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WAR, ITS LEADERS AND ITS VICTIMS
by Nabila Harb Friday, May. 19, 2006 at 9:01 AM

At the end of the day, the blood of the Iraqi people will demand to be heard and the voice of justice will be louder and reverberate with greater power than any so-called 'weapon of mass destruction' throughout the entire world. The only questions that remain are: Where does each and every one of us stand in this conflict and what do we intend to do about it?

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
THE U.S./ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WAR, ITS LEADERS AND ITS VICTIMS
by Nabila HarbFAV co-editor

The people of the United States are being insulted and yet, they not only accept the insult, but embrace it with enthusiasm. They are being insulted by their leaders and by the media and yet they would rather focus on Saddam Hussein as an enemy, when the real enemies are in their own country. Yellow ribbons in 'support of the troops' and American flags multiply through the country like a cancer, devouring truth and justice and installing propaganda symbols in their place. What is happening in the United States now? Is the U.S. government and media keeping the people informed of the real progress of the invasion of Iraq? The people of the United States evidently believe that they are being given the information and facts that they deserve to have. After all, the government is acting in THEIR name as it murders the Iraqi people, destroys the Iraqi landscape and further weakens the economic structure of the country. The American government and the media are at great pains to provide constant 'updates' of the situation in Iraq, but does any of it bear even the shadow of a resemblance to the truth? In fact, the intelligence and common sense of the people of the United States are being insulted by the most blatant forms of propaganda and a web of deceit that stretches from the United States across the globe. Its victims are not only the Iraqi people but very fundamental rights of freedom and self-determination for people everywhere, including people within the United States itself.

The mainstream media in the U.S. as well as the government, are at pains to define the U.S. aggression against Iraq not as an invasion but as a 'liberation effort', an almost humanitarian action designed to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq by removing their own leaders and government and introducing the enlightened reign of Imperialist Americans and Zionists in their place. After all, the supporters of the Zionists continually claim that the Zionist entity is the 'only democracy in the Middle East'. Through their power and good graces, the future of Iraq as another true 'democracy' is assured.

One need only look at the example of their Occupation of Palestine to see how the Arab Nation fares under a racist, apartheid regime, and how much the Palestinian people have benefited from Zionist 'democratic' rule. To those who rely upon mainstream mass media and government information in the United States, however, the invasion of Iraq is in the nature of a 'holy war', motivated by the duty to destroy the Iraqi government and its leaders, and replace them with a government that will pursue American and Zionist aims and thereby bring 'peace and security' to the region. In fact, the American government attempted to pass a resolution in Congress to dictate a day of prayer and fasting in order to persuade God to grant victory to the troops of the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt. This new 'Crusade' against the Arab Nation must be as repugnant to truly religious individuals as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and yet, the government is trying to add God to the propaganda stew it is concocting. It is merely another demonstration of how this government has abandoned the principles upon which the United States was founded, one of which was a clear separation between Church and State, and another of which was freedom of belief and expression. Despite all of this, the people of the United States apparently remain unaware of the threat to their liberties.

To those individuals and nations with even a passing interest in international history and events, the U.S. 'Coalition' motivation for invading Iraq always was quite clear. American and Zionist led multi-national corporations involved in oil and in the arms industry and their needs prompted the invasion, and indeed plans for this invasion preceded the attacks of 11 September that supposedly set the so-called 'war against terror' in motion. The U.S. international 'war against terror' whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else is fueled by greed and political designs for control of the map.

A hundred years ago, imperialists declared their interests and aims fairly directly, without being obliged to camouflage them too much with claims of idealistic virtues. Imperialism and Empire had not become dirty words, and the fundamental premise upon which they rested, which was that a superior culture and people had the duty to guide and rule an inferior people, still was acceptable in the West and elsewhere in the world.

Now, however, imperialism and beliefs in cultural or racial superiority must be disguised by other more politically correct motives, although the United States does profess a duty to police the globe, allegedly in the name of 'democracy'. Moreover, nations are discovering that they cannot accept American funds without accepting U.S. overseers and an omnipresent threat of U.S. 'police intervention' if any fundamental threat to American/Zionist interests is found.

Not only have Imperialism and Empire lost their ideological pedestals, but governments no longer can simply order their people to obey without offering some sort of satisfying philosophical reason for obedience. Technological advances provide the masses everywhere with information about events throughout the globe and this makes it necessary for governments to create very powerful and effective propaganda in order to enlist their obedience and support. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, the propaganda blitz on the part of the United States and Britain has been of unprecedented proportions. Saturation propaganda is the rule of this war, and apparently the Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt will stop at nothing in order to keep the lies flowing smoothly and unimpeded.

Some of the most significant early casualties of this war from 'friendly fire' perhaps have been journalists. The 'embedded' reporters for the United States and its criminal coalition must rely only carefully sanitised information to the media, or they will be ejected not only from Iraq but from their jobs. Peter Arnett and Geraldo Riviera are two very different sorts of journalists, but both have been victims of 'friendly fire' from the U.S. and both have been removed from Iraq and their jobs as reporters for the crime of having made statements that were not acceptable for one reason or another to the U.S. government.

More difficult to silence or 'purify' are the members of Coalition armed forces who have experienced combat and live to tell about it. This is where the chink in the Coalition propaganda armour is most apparent. Soldiers, returning wounded from the front, are bewildered, confused and thoroughly convinced of the strength and determination of Iraqi resistance to the Coalition efforts at 'liberation'. If people in the United States are to become aware of the degree of deceit to which they are being subjected, it will be through the stories told by the troops they are so eager to support, as they return wounded and disillusioned from the war.

A story from 27 March declared that: 'For them, the war is over. A few U.S. soldiers were half the way home on Thursday, bearing wounds inflicted by Iraqis they thought they were liberating. They recounted to journalists how they came under fire at the weekend from Iraqi troops dressed as civilians at the city of Nassiriya.

'We were very surprised. We were told when we were going through Nassiriya that we would see little to no resistance,' one soldier told a news conference at the U.S. military's medical facilities at Landstuhl, Germany. 'We were more prepared for what happened in the Gulf War when they turned over and surrendered most of the time...'

Another soldier declared: 'They weren't rolling over like we thought they would.'

Beside him, in hospital robes, other soldiers told of being hurled from their Humvee by an Iraqi missile in a separate attack. 'The amount of resistance, some of it I don't understand. I mean we're there to help them to get them out of the regime.'

U.S. and Coalition propaganda, faced with the embarrassment of being forced to explain overwhelming Iraqi resistance to their invasion, revised itself and began to claim that the Iraqis were being threatened by their leaders and forced to fight. When that fails to convince the public, they fall back upon the argument that one must support the troops as they are individuals who are one's parents, spouses, siblings or friends. One of the U.S. soldiers defeated by Iraqi resistance tried to claim that he was only fighting to protect his friends.

'You may be against the war, but don't be against the soldiers there who are fighting it. I joined to serve my country but when I was there I was fighting to protect my friends,' he said.

This spurious and quite absurd argument evidently DOES carry weight with the public, despite the fact that the very raison d'etre for armed Coalition troops in Iraq is to kill Iraqis. They are not sent there to protect their friends, but to wage an illegal war of aggression against the Iraqi people. If they really wished to protect themselves and their friends, they would refuse to serve in the war. Those troops now in Iraq would receive the warm reception U.S. government propaganda led them to expect from the Iraqi people if they surrendered to the people of Iraq, rendering the Coalition invasion impotent.

The bogus argument that the U.S. troops are dealing death to the Iraqis simply to 'protect their friends' is similar to the Zionist argument with respect to Zionist presence in Palestine. Every Zionist in Palestine is an illegal Occupier, and yet they attempt to claim that they are acting in 'self-defence' when they slaughter Palestinians and destroy their homes. The most outrageous claim perhaps is the one of 'pre-emptive self-defence' whereby the Zionists assassinate Palestinians and attempt to justify the murders by claiming that they are acting to 'prevent future acts of terrorism'.

Both Bush and Blair have taken lessons from the Zionists in formulating their propaganda with respect to the invasion of Iraq. Apart from the fact that this invasion is being undertaken in order to further Zionist aims with respect to the Arab Nation, mainstream media actually supports these aims and therefore is willing to exert itself in creating effective propaganda to obscure the realities of the invasion.

In the States, as well as elsewhere in the West, the Zionist influence over the media must not be underestimated. When the attacks of 11 September took place, the situation with respect to the major networks and newspapers was as follows:

Probably the largest media conglomerate is AOL-Time Warner, controlled by Zionists. Not only does this conglomerate own AOL and Time-Warner, but Turner Broadcasting Systems, CNN, CBS, HBO and other television stations as well as Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment and New Line Cinema. Time Warner is the largest periodical publisher in the U.S., and publishes Time, People and Fortune, among others.

Zionist Micheal Eisner, CEO of Walt Disney Company, owns Capital Cities/ABC, which owns the ABC Television Network. ABC owns ten stations outright in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston as well as 225 affiliated stations in the U.S. ABC is part owner of several European television companies. Its subsidiary, ESPN is run by another Zionist, Steven Bornstein, and the ABC network not only controls A & E and Lifetime Television but as ABC Radio Network owns 26 major radio stations in major cities of the U.S.

Viacom, which produces and distributes television progerammes for the three largest networks in the U.S. owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations and produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, run by Zionist Sherry Langing. The Zionist head of Viacom , Murray Rothstein, acquired CBS, in turn run by Zionist Melvin Karmazin. CBS owns 14 major market television stations and 160 radio stations. Its publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press and Pocket Books. It is involved in satellite broadcasting and is the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon and other networks.

The other major network, NBC, founded by Zionist David Sarnoff, is still run by Zionists.

The Associated Press is controlled by Zionist managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs daily reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Executive editor, Jonathan Wolman, is a Zionist as well. The Newhouse media empire, owned by the Zionist Newhouse brothers, publishes 30 daily newspapers, 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable television systems, and publishes periodicals through Conde Nast, owned by them.

The Zionist Sulzberger family owns the New york Times and through the company, 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features and photographs from the NYT by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies and magazines.

The Washington Post is owned by the descendant of Zionist financier Eugene Meyer, partner of the infamous Barnard Baruch. The Washington Post has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, in television and in periodicals, including Newsweek. In a joint venture with the New York Times, the Washington Post publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English language daily newspaper in the world.

Time magazine is published by a subsidiary of Time-Warner. U.S. News & World Report is owned and published by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who owns the Atlantic Monthly and the infamous New York rag, the Daily News.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, to find the media diligently supporting U.S./Zionist aims in Iraq and elsewhere throughout the world. When a reporter dares to make an unsanitised statement, he/she is removed summarily from their positions.

Neither Peter Arnett nor Geraldo Riviera have anything approaching objective attitudes towards Iraq. Their removal therefore will act as a strong threat to any one who allegedly reports 'news' from the front, no doubt silencing any but the most intrepid of independent reporters.

The Zionist link to U.S. political and business interests in the oil, energy and arms businesses are well-documented, but if there were any doubt whatsoever about the Bush administration's plan to give control of Iraq to the Zionists, it would be dispelled by his choice of an administrator to direct the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in 'post-war' Iraq. Bush has chosen retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, former assistant chief of staff in the Army, who travelled with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs to the Zionist entity in 1998. In 2000, he signed a letter that praised the Zionist entity's 'restraint in the face of Palestinian violence' and urged the U.S. government not to allow its supposed role as a 'peace facilitator' to fetter its role as a 'friend to Israel'. His precise words were: 'Friends don't leave friends on the battlefield', referring to the Zionist entity's campaign of genocide and terror towards the Palestinian people and the role of the U.S. in sending generous aid to the Zionists.

Garner, moreover, is president of an arms company that provides crucial technical support to missile systems vital to the US invasion of Iraq.

It is this Zionist and arms dealer that the U.S. has chosen to coordinate the civil administration of Iraq if the U.S. and its Coalition of the Morally Bankrupt manage to defeat the Iraqi people.

Apart from Jay Garner, there are other Zionists and enemies of civil rights who have been appointed very prematurely to serve in what is being conceived as the 'post-Saddam Hussain government' of Iraq.

Michael Mobbs is an influential legal advisor for the Pentagon who will be given charge of civil administration in Iraq if the U.S. invasion is successful. Mobbs is the author of what has become known as the 'Mobbs declaration', an outrageously unconstitutional document presented to the U.S. courts on behalf of the Pentagon claiming that the President has wide powers to detain American citizens indefinitely if they simply are alleged to be enemy combatants. As part of the spurious 'war on terrorism', he is one of those who determines the legal fate of so-called 'terror suspects' and other detainees held by the U.S. military in Cuba and Afghanistan. In the Bush administration's fantasy vision of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq, he will take charge of 11 of the 23 Iraqi ministries.

Another Zionist appointed to the Pentagon-controlled Iraqi 'government-in-waiting' being assembled in a cluster of seaside villas in Kuwait is James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA with connections to the Zionist entity. Woolsey continues to insist, without any foundation whatsoever in fact, that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind who planned the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, a clear indication of his Zionist-driven obsession with the President of Iraq. The fact that Woolsey sits on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs is irrefutable evidence of his Zionist affiliations. James Woolsey is to be given a senior role in the U.S./Zionist puppet government of 'post-Saddam Hussain' Iraq.

This is the true nature of the U.S. and its Coalition's 'liberation' of Iraq. If successful, the country of Iraq and its natural resources will be liberated from the control of its own people, and placed in the hands of U.S. agents of multi-national corporations and Zionists. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people is being spilt for the worst sort of corporate and imperialist greed. Any soldier who fights for the 'Coalition' of the Morally Bankrupt must not be allowed to hide behind media or government propaganda but must accept responsibility for the crimes he or she commits in the name of the United States and its Coalition. The heartsblood of the Iraqi people who are defending their homeland, their honour and their dignity is on the hands not only of the U.S. and Coalition governments and their agents, but every one who does not oppose this invasion in every way possible. Rely upon government and media propaganda at your peril. There is no excuse for ignorance and no excuse for supporting this war against Iraq, which is a crime against humanity and justice. When members of this shameful 'Coalition' die, they are criminals executed in the course of commission of a crime.

The cold-blooded murder of women and children who were killed simply because they refused to halt at the command of a foreign agent is neither an accident, nor is it 'collateral damage'. It is the true face of this war, as much as the systematic genocide of the Palestinian people by the Zionist entity. That is the simple truth, and no amount of propaganda can provide a defence for the Coalition or its agents. They must be held fully accountable for the crimes they commit, and any one who fails to oppose this war must be held accountable as well. In particular, it is the American soldiers who have experienced the reality of the war in Iraq who must repudiate the propaganda and make the truth known, both in the States and abroad. When American troops who fought in Vietnam began to protest against the war, they were able to create effective opposition to the government and its nefarious aims. As more troops return from Iraq wounded and disillusioned, the propaganda machine may find itself unable to control the flow of information and change in public climate.

At the end of the day, the blood of the Iraqi people will demand to be heard and the voice of justice will be louder and reverberate with greater power than any so-called 'weapon of mass destruction' throughout the entire world. The only questions that remain are: Where does each and every one of us stand in this conflict and what do we intend to do about it?

This place is alot better with zionist trolls not rabidly spamming their propaganda and lies. The fanatics must have found another spot to spew.

The above anti-semitic screed proudly presented by
www.freearabvoice.org/ articles/TheTruthWillSetYouFree.htm

"THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE
THE U.S./ZIONIST PROPAGANDA WAR, ITS LEADERS AND ITS VICTIMS"


How many prime examples of anti-Semitism can we find in this tripe?
Shall we start with the lie: "The Zionists control the media"
Zionists used in this sense, means, if you haven't already figured it out "The Jews"

For a balanced objective analysis of who owns what iin the media- see:

http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/nyt.asp
"The Zionist Sulzberger family owns the New york Times"
And known Jew, ooops Zionist, Hussain Ali-Khan is a Vice president. Really . Check it out
http://www.nytco.com/company-executives.html

This is the default for all zionists. Try to shout down critics of the racist terror state of Israel by accusing YOU of being racist.
Don't fall for it.

Now that is a question I have had for some time,
It looks to me as if the Zionist Lobby has not just a few players in the major MS media.
How many and who?
Boycott the Mass Media.

FROM THE LEAD ARTICLE: "This policy inevitably prevented the indigenous Arab residents from attaining their national goals and establishing a Palestinian state."

BECKY: What a crock!!! The Arab leaders in 1947-1948 didn't even consult the Arab population on lands that would later become Israel. They just ordered them around.

There was absolutely NO EFFORT to establish a "Palestinian State" in 1947-1948. The entire effort was to prevent a Jewish State from being established ---no matter how small---no matter if the Arab residents were allowed to stay or not.

The push in those days was for the Pan-Arabic Empire and the decree in Islam that any lands that had EVER been under Islamic control (such as Israel in the 7th century when it was bloodily conquered by the Arab hordes) remain Islamic lands. THAT is the reason for the continued struggle against the Jewish State. THAT is the reason that the partition plan in Nov of 1947 by the United Nations was REJECTED by the Arab leaders.

According to the tenents of Islam, "Islamic" lands must never be surrendered to "infidels" who are anyone who is not Islamic.

Since the author above wants to rewrite history, the anti-Israel agenda is clear. This author is an enemy of Israel and will resort to any low tactic, including producing false propaganda, in an effort to undermine Israel, the Jews, and Judaism.

I don't need to use the "A" word to describe what that makes the author.

Zionism is a boil on the face of humanity. Great article.

Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy
(Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions)

This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy [or "political Islam"]. Local Islamic policies will be drawn up in the different regions in accordance with its guidelines. It acts, first of all, to define the points of departure of that policy, then to set up the components and the most important procedures linked to each point of departure; finally we suggest several missions, by way of example only, may Allah protect us.

The following are the principal points of departure of this policy:

Point of Departure 1: To know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for its planning and execution.

Point of Departure 2: To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

Point of Departure 3: To reconcile international engagement with flexibility at a local level.

Point of Departure 4: To reconcile political engagement and the necessity of avoiding isolation on one hand, with permanent education and institutional action on the other.

Point of Departure 5: To be used to establish an Islamic State; parallel, progressive efforts targeted at controlling the local centers of power through institutional action.

Point of Departure 6: To work with loyalty alongside Islamic groups and institutions in multiple areas to agree on common ground, in order to "cooperate on the points of agreement and set aside the points of disagreement".

Point of Departure 7: To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

Point of Departure 8: To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah's teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always providing a documented opinion. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

Point of Departure 9: To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

Point of Departure 10: To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

Point of Departure 11: To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

Point of Departure 12: To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures, in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of shari’a.

THE FIRST POINT OF DEPARTURE:

Know the terrain and adopt a scientific methodology for [The Project's] planning and execution.

a- Elements:
Know the influential factors in the world, whether they act as Islamic forces, adverse forces, or neutral forces.

Use the necessary scientific and technical means for planning, organization, execution and follow-up.

b- Procedures:
Create observation centers in order to gather and store information for all useful purposes, if need be relying on modern technological method.

Create centers of study and research and produce studies on the political dimension of the Islamic movement.

c- Suggested missions:
Draw up a map of [religious and ideological] doctrines in the world to have a global vision from 100 years ago to our era, and analyze the current situation in light of that configuration, taking account of changes both happening and predicted.

Draw up a map of doctrines of the Muslim world.

Draw up a map of Islamic movements in the Muslim world.

Carry out successive political and scientific studies in varying Islamic areas, those which apply more particularly to current events.

Carry out a scientific study which addresses the history of contemporary Islamic movements, and use it.


THE SECOND POINT OF DEPARTURE

To demonstrate proof of the serious nature of the work.

a- Elements:
Clarity of the principal objectives of the dawa in the eyes of all, as well as clarity of the temporary objectives, necessitates exploitation, channeling and orientation of the energies.

Devote sufficient effort to the service of the workers [for Allah] and coordinate their efforts to the sole and same objective.

Devote sufficient time.

Spend money to the extent possible.

b-Procedures:
Exploit all the energies of the workers to the service of the dawa, each at his level (the criterion of efficiency, given that each must be devoted to the task to which he's assigned).

Mobilize the greatest possible number of supporters and officials.

Collect money efficiently, control expenses and invest in the general interest.

c- Suggested missions:
Carry out a survey of workers (appropriate men and appropriate location)

Establish schedules with the hours of workers and specialists and use their efforts with good judgment and on time (appropriate effort at the right time).

An engagement with economic institutions adequate to support the cause financially.


THE THIRD POINT OF DEPARTURE

Reconcile international engagement with flexibility at the local level.

a- Elements:
To define the guidelines that everyone [worldwide] must follow.

To leave a margin that provides sufficient flexibility at the local level for the issues that do not conflict with the general lines of the global Islamic policy.

b- Procedures:
The Movement, at a global level, will define the Islamic domain and issues in a general way which will require the engagement of all according to previously defined priorities.

The local leadership will define local issues that come within their prerogative, according to the principle of flexibility and according to previously defined priorities.

c- Suggested Missions
Worldwide Islamic engagement for a total liberation of Palestine and the creation of an Islamic state is the mission which falls to the global leadership.

To establish a dialogue at a local level with those who work for the cause according to the global political lines of the Movement. It is up to the local leadership to define the shape of that dialogue.

THE FOURTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To reconcile political engagement with the necessity of avoiding isolation, on the one hand, with permanent education and institutional work on the other.

a- Elements
Liberty to function politically in each country according to local circumstances, without however participating in a process which makes a decision which would be contrary to the texts of Shari’a.

To invite everyone to take part in parliament, municipal councils, labor unions and other institutions of which the membership is chosen by the people in the interest of Islam and of Muslims.

To continue to educate individuals and generations and to guarantee the training of specialists in various areas according to a previously designed plan.

To construct social, economic, scientific and health institutions and penetrate the domain of the social services, in order to be in contact with the people and to serve them by means of Islamic institutions.

b- Procedures
To study the varied political environments and the probabilities of success in each country.

To plan specialized study missions which will concentrate on useful areas such as communications, the history of Islam, etc.

To conduct feasibility studies concerning various institutions and create them according to priorities established in each country.

c-Suggested Missions
To conduct studies relating to the experiences of political Islam and to draw lessons from them.

To give an Islamic policy perspective on the pressing questions of the day.

To keep questions of local importance such as issues concerning workers, unions, etc. within an Islamic framework.

To create a certain number of economic, social, health care and educational institutions, using available means, to serve the people within an Islamic framework.


THE FIFTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To dedicate ourselves to the establishment of an Islamic state, in parallel with gradual efforts aimed at gaining control of local power centers through institutional action.

a- Elements
To channel thought, education and action in order to establish an Islamic power [government] on the earth.

To influence centers of power both local and worldwide to the service of Islam.

b- Procedures
To prepare a scientific study on the possibility of establishing the reign of God throughout the world according to established priorities.

To study the centers of power, both local and worldwide, and the possibilities of placing them under influence.

To conduct a modern study on the concept of support for the dawa and Islamic law, and more particularly on the men of influence in the State and the country.

c- Suggested Mission
To draw up an Islamic Constitution in light of efforts deployed up to now.

To draw up Islamic laws, civil laws, etc.

To work within various influential institutions and use them in the service of Islam.

To use the work of economic, social, and other specialized Islamic institutions.



THE SIXTH POINT OF DEPARTURE


To loyally work alongside Islamic groups and institutions in various areas and in agreement on a common ground in order to "cooperate on points of agreement and put aside points of disagreement".

a- Elements
To coordinate the Islamic work in a single direction as will permit the laying of the foundations of the growth of Muslim society and dedication to the power of God on Earth.

For each to work according to his capacities in his chosen field and to master it, with loyalty and coordination of effort.

b- Procedures
To study the true nature of Islamic movements, to evaluate their experiences and draw up plans to initiate collaboration among them.

To avoid creating new Islamic movements in a country which already has one; there will be but one movement, serious and complete.

c- Suggested missions
To coordinate the efforts of all those working for Islam, in each country, and to establish good contact with them, whether they work in individuals or in groups.

To reduce the differences that exists between workers for Islam and to resolve their conflicts according to shari’a.


THE SEVENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To accept the principle of temporary cooperation between Islamic movements and nationalist movements in the broad sphere and on common ground such as the struggle against colonialism, preaching and the Jewish state, without however having to form alliances. This will require, on the other hand, limited contacts between certain leaders, on a case by case basis, as long as these contacts do not violate the [shari’a] law. Nevertheless, one must not give them allegiance or take them into confidence, bearing in mind that the Islamic movement must be the origin of the initiatives and orientations taken.

a-Elements:

To combine all efforts against the supreme forces of evil in accordance with the principle that one must “battle one evil with a lesser evil”.

To limit the collaboration to the leadership or to a limited number of individuals in order to maximize the benefit and minimize the possible drawbacks.

To work from perspective of the objectives previously defined for the dawa.

b-Procedures:

To make a study to evaluate the areas with the object of mutual assistance between Islamic and other movements and draw lessons from it.

To study the areas which allow cooperation, and define the boundaries.

To study the philosophy and plans of other movements.

c- Suggested Missions:

Each country should study the possibility, in the future, of strengthening internal collaboration.


THE EIGHTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To master the art of the possible on a temporary basis without abusing the basic principles, bearing in mind that Allah's teachings always apply. One must order the suitable and forbid that which is not, always giving a documented opinion [according to shari’a]. But we should not look for confrontation with our adversaries, at the local or the global scale, which would be disproportionate and could lead to attacks against the dawa or its disciples.

a- Elements:

To evaluate the education of individuals and not to excessively use typical modern education that does not correspond to reality, which is devoid of flexibility and could have grave consequences such as the conflict between individuals for a simple comment or a simple failure.

To give a documented and scientific view, in the form of speeches, communiqués and books, that bears on events important to the Ummah.

To avoid the Movement hurting itself with major confrontations, which could encourage its adversaries to give it a fatal blow.

b-Procedures:

To carry out a study to evaluate the experiences of Islamist movements in order to avoid their fatal errors.

To develop educational methods that are at the same time exemplary, realistic and true to our principles, in order to bestow a flexibility sufficient to permit the facing of reality.

c-Suggested Missions:


To develop initiation programs for the faithful and proceed with sensitivity to the foundation of past experience.

To prepare individuals according to modern educational methods.


THE NINTH POINT OF DEPARTURE

To construct a permanent force of the Islamic dawa and support movements engaged in jihad across the Muslim world, to varying degrees and insofar as possible.

a-Elements:

To protect the dawa with the force necessary to guarantee its security at the local and international levels.

To make contact with all new movements engaged in jihad, everywhere on the planet, and with Muslim minorities, and to create links as needed to establish and support collaboration.

To maintain jihad and awakening throughout the Ummah.

b-Procedures:

To form an autonomous security force to protect the dawa and its disciples locally and worldwide.

To study movements engaged in jihad in the Muslim world, as well as among Muslim minorities, to better understand them.

c-Suggested Missions:

To build bridges between movements engaged in jihad in the Muslim world, and between Muslim minorities, and to support them insofar as possible within a framework of collaboration.


THE TENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE


To use diverse and varied surveillance systems, in several places, to gather information and adopt a single effective warning system serving the worldwide Islamic movement. In fact, surveillance, policy decisions and effective communications complement each other.

a-Elements:

To make the policy decisions to collect important and precise information.

To diffuse Islamic policy so that it is largely and efficiently covered by the media.

b-Procedures:

To create a modern surveillance system by means of advanced technology (possibly created at the research centers mentioned earlier).

To create an effective and serious media centre.

c- Suggested Missions:

To warn Muslims of the dangers that threaten them and the international conspiracies directed at them.

To give our views on current events and future issues.


THE ELEVENTH POINT OF DEPARTURE


To adopt the Palestinian cause as part of a worldwide Islamic plan, with the policy plan and by means of jihad, since it acts as the keystone of the renaissance of the Arab world today.

a-Elements:

To provide an Islamic view on all areas, problems and solutions relative to the Palestinian question, based on the precepts of Islam.

To prepare the community of believers for jihad for the liberation of Palestine. [One can lead the Ummah to realize the plans of the Islamic movement above all if victory is ours], if God wills it.

To create a modest nucleus of jihad in Palestine, and to nourish it in order to maintain the flame that will light the road toward the liberation of Palestine, and in order that the Palestinian cause will endure until the moment of liberation.

b-Procedures:

To collect sufficient funds for the perpetuation of jihad.

To conduct a study of the situation of Muslims and the enemy in occupied Palestine.

c-Suggested Missions:

To conduct studies on the Jews, enemies of Muslims, and on the oppression inflicted by these enemies on our brothers in occupied Palestine, in addition to preaching and publications.

To fight against the sentiment of capitulation among the Ummah, to refuse defeatist solutions, and to show that conciliation with the Jews will undermine our Movement and its history.

To conduct comparative studies on the Crusades and Israel, and [the victory that will be that of Islam].

To create jihadi cells in Palestine, and support them in order that they cover all of occupied Palestine.

To create a link between the moujahadin in Palestine and those throughout the Islamic world.

To nourish a sentiment of rancor with respect to the Jews and refuse all coexistence.


THE TWELFTH POINT OF DEPARTURE


To know how to turn to self-criticism and permanent evaluation of worldwide Islamic policy and its objectives, of its content and its procedures in order to improve it. This is a duty and a necessity according to the precepts of shari’a.

a-Elements:

To conduct constructive self-criticism, in order to avoid pitfalls.

To proceed with constant evaluation, on a scientific basis, to permit the further construction of policies.

To improve Islamic policies and to take profit from past experiences must be a clear and essential objective.

b-Procedures:

To evaluate current practices and profit from past experience.

To ask officials in the various countries to give their views on direction, methods and results.

c-Suggested Missions:

To produce an official document on global Islamic policy.

To make the countries, the officials and the people aware of that policy.

To begin to apply the policy, to evaluate it annually and to improve it if need be.

Arthur Ruppin-A Brief Biography & Quotes
1876-1945

Arthur Ruppin was a liberal socialist Zionist who founded the Bit Shalom Kibbutz movement. He was born in Prussia-Germany, and became a lawyer and an economist. He was also one of the founders of Tel Aviv, and until 1925 he was the head of the Zionists' Land Settlement Department.
Famous Quotes

Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1913:

"Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . . . we are bound in each case. . . to remove the peasants who cultivate the land." (Righteous Victims, p. 61)

It should be noted that Zionism (as early as 1908 and up to the present) always claimed that the "Promised Land" was empty of any people, and it had been waiting for over 2,000 years for Zionist Jews to redeem it, click here to read our response to this argument.

Arthur Ruppin, stated that he:

"had come to the conviction and conclusion that there is no way of reaching a peace agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs without abandoning our fundamental demands." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 52)

Addressing Ussishkin, he then went on to say:

"I also entertained dreams like yours. I once said, Iraq will absorb the Arabs of the Land of Israel and all the people of the world would recognize our justified demands ..... But .... how could you conceive that [Palestinian] Arabs would abandon the Land of Israel and go to Baghdad? What is it in for them? In Baghdad the fellah receives 3 or 4 piastre [local currency] as a daily wage. Here [meaning Palestine] the fellah receives 12-15 piastres. There he is living in object poverty, but not here. Why should he go to Iraq? Is this only because it is an Arab country, and he will still fight for its Arabness ... and the condition of the agriculture in Iraq could not be described as the Garden Of Eden." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 52)

In 1930, Arthur Ruppin stated that the dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian Arabs was inevitable if Zionism was to become a reality. He wrote:

"[Palestinian dispossession is inevitable because] land is the vital condition for our settlement in Palestine. But since there is hardly any land which is worth cultivating that is not already being cultivated, it is found that whatever we purchase land and settle it, by necessity its present cultivators are turned away . . . In the future it will be much more difficult to purchase land, as sparsely populated land hardly exists. What remains is densely [Palestinian Arab] populated land." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.11)

Arthur Ruppin wrote a friend on December 3rd 1931:

"At most, the [Palestinian] Arabs would agree to grant national rights to the Jews in an Arab state, on the pattern of the national rights in Eastern Europe. But we know only too well from conditions in Eastern Europe how little a majority with executive power can be moved to grant real and complete national equality to a minority. The fate of the Jewish minority in Palestine would always be dependent upon the goodwill of the [Palestinian] Arab majority, which would steer the state.

To the Jews of Eastern Europe, who form the overwhelming majority of all the Zionists, such a settlement would be completely unsatisfactory, and it would kill their enthusiasm for the Zionist cause and for Palestine. A movement which would agree to such such a compromise with the [Palestinian] Arabs would not be supported by the East European Jews and would very soon become a Zionism without Zionists." (Israel: A History, p. 66)

Arthur Ruppin expressed his belief in the power of "transfer" to realize Zionism in practice as follows:

"I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages." (One Palestine Complete, p. 405)

Please Note: The terms B.C. (Before Christ or Before the Christian Era) and A.D.("Anno Domini" Latin for "In the Year of Our Lord") have been replaced with B.C.E (Before Common, or Christian, Era) and C.E. (Common, or Christian, Era) so as to respect all visitors to this site. The terms are interchangeable and both are based upon the Gregorian Calendar.


These and other questions will be addressed more fully as you go through this website. However, there is a preliminary historical fact that must be established now. There has never been a civilization or a nation referred to as "Palestine" and the very notion of a "Palestinian Arab nation" having ancient attachments to the Holy Land going back to time immemorial is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated upon the world! There is not, nor has there ever been, a distinct "Palestinian" culture or language. Further, there has never been a Palestinian state governed BY Arab Palestinians in history, nor was there ever a serious Arab-Palestinian national movement until 1964... three years BEFORE the Arabs of "Palestine" lost the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] and Gaza as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War (which the Arabs started). Even the so-called leader of the "Palestinian" people, Yasser Arafat, is EGYPTIAN! In short, the so-called Arab "Palestinians" are a manufactured people...a people with no history and no authenticity... whose sole purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish State!

Israel first became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam! Seven hundred and twenty-six years later in 586 B.C.E. these first ancient Jews in the Land of Israel [Judea] were overrun and Israel's First Jewish Temple (on Jerusalem's Old City Temple Mount) was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of ancient Babylon. Many of the Jews were killed or expelled; however many were allowed to remain. These Jews along with their progeny and other Jews who would resettle over the next 500 years, rebuilt the Nation of Israel and also a Second Temple in Jerusalem upon the Temple Mount. Thus the claim that Jews suddenly appeared fifty years ago right after the Holocaust and drove out the Arabs is preposterous!



Then in 70 C.E. (nearly 2000 years ago), it was the Roman Empire's turn to march through ancient Israel and destroy the SECOND Jewish Temple, slaughtering or driving out much of its Jewish population. Many Jews left on their own because conditions for life were made unbearable in many respects... yet thousands upon thousands stayed and rebelled on for centuries in order to once again rebuild a Jewish Nation in this Holy Land.

Over 3250 years, various Peoples, Religions and Empires marched through Jerusalem, Israel's ancient capital. The region was successively ruled by the Hebrews [Jews], Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Maccabeans, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Egyptians, the Crusaders, Mamelukes, the Turks (who indifferently governed the backward, neglected territory from the 16th century until the British drove them out during World War I) and then once again by the Jews in 1948. None bothered, nor were they in the least bit inclined, to build a Nation of their own... EXCEPT the Jews!

It must be noted that in 636 C.E., when the Arabs marauders came to the land and uprooted even more of its Jews, they did not form any Arab nation there... and certainly not a "Palestinian" nation. They were simply "Arabs" who, as did others before them, moved into a geo-political area called "Palestine!" And remember this one fact... it was not the Jews who "usurped" (a favorite word from the Arab propagandists) the land from the Arabs. If anything, it was the Arabs in 636 C.E. who overran and stole it from the Jews!

In Conclusion:

No nation, other than the ancient nation of Israel and later again in 1948 with the rebirth of the 2nd Nation of Israel, has ever ruled as a sovereign national entity on this land. A mighty Jewish empire extended over this entire area before the Arabs --- and their Islam --- were even born! The Jewish People have one of the most legitimate Birth Certificates of any nations in the world. Every time there is an archaeological dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that the Jewish People have had a presence there for well over 3,000 years. The national coins, the pottery, the cities, the ancient Hebrew texts... all support this claim. Yes, other peoples have passed through, but there is no mistaking the fact that Jews have always had a continual presence in that land for over 3,000 years. This predates and certain dwarfs any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the unbroken line to this date that the Jews have. And if you want to talk religion, fine. G-d GAVE the Land of Israel to the Jewish People. And G-d does nothing by accident!

ANCIENT MAPS
The Kingdom of David and Solomon - 1077 - 997 BCE
Kingdom of Herod- 30 BCE to 70 CE
Jewish Communities in the Land of Israel -7th-11th Centuries


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

"PALESTINE?"

The term "Palestine" came from the name that the conquering Roman Empire gave the ancient Land of Israel in an attempt to obliterate and de-legitimize the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The name "Palestine" was invented in the year 135 C.E. Before it was known as Judea, which was the southern kingdom of ancient Israel. The Roman Procurator in charge of the Judean-Israel territories was so angry at the Jews for revolting that he called for his historians and asked them who were the worst enemies of the Jews in their past history. The scribes said, "the Philistines." Thus, the Procurator declared that Land of Israel would from then forward be called "Philistia" [further bastardized into "Palaistina"] to dishonor the Jews and obliterate their history. Hence the name "Palestine."

One more thing. Very often one hears the revisionists and propagandists finding ancient historical links between the "Philistines" ("Invaders" in Hebrew) and the Arab "Palestinians." There is no truth to this claim! The Philistines were one of a number of Sea Peoples who reached the eastern Mediterranean region approximately 1250-1100 B.C.E. They were actually an amalgamation of various ethnic groups, primarily of Aegean and south-east European origin [Greece, Crete and Western Turkey] and they died out over 2500 years ago! Those Philistines were not Arab... and neither was Goliath! The Arabs of "Palestine" are just that... Arabs! And these Arabs of "Palestine" have about as much historical roots to the ancient Philistines as Yasser Arafat has to the Eskimos!

The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 B.C.E. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century B.C.E. Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century C.E., over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive

Even the word "Palestine" has no meaning in Arabic - every word in Arabic has some meaning deriving from the Koran, but the word "Palestine" does not. If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. For example, the "Palestine Post" [forerunner of today's Jerusalem Post] newspaper and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were all-Jewish. The "Palestine Brigade Regiment" was composed exclusively of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab" identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."

THE RETURN TO ZION
A return through both time and space to their ancestral homeland

The Land of Israel was never devoid of Jews, although at times she numbered only in the tens of thousands. This was because the land was virtually uninhabitable when the Jews once again began their God-given right AND duty to return en masse to the land of their forefathers (the Zionist Movement) in the 1880s. The silly rhetoric about a massive Arab presence being overrun by "invading Jews" is quickly dispelled by Mark Twain, who visited the area in 1867. From his book, "The Innocents Abroad"... "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

The Jews did not displace anyone, because very few of the people who were there actually owned the land. Most were absentee owners residing elsewhere. Another fact hardly mentioned by the "new historians" is that the arriving Jews never threw anyone off any land. All land was purchased legally from the original owners... whether they be from "Palestine" itself or elsewhere. Furthermore, top dollar was paid for this land which, in many cases, was uninhabited and hardly more than swamp land and rocky terrain. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that now comprises the State of Israel, Jordan and the so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria] in between. By 1890, the number of Jews who had settled in Palestine reached 50,000 and, by 1907, numbered 100,000. In Jerusalem alone the Jews numbered more than 25,000, out of a total population in the city of only 40,000 Jews, Christians and Arabs. The Arabs did, however, constitute a majority over the sparsely populated countryside abutting Jerusalem.


1880's
Note: For more remarkable early photos of the Holy Land click Here

From 1888 until 1915 there were about six locust plagues that made the land nearly uninhabitable. In the 1915 locust plague alone some 40,000 people died and large numbers of Jews and Arabs left the land. Those that returned did not do so until about 1922 when the Zionist money to reclaim the land started coming in and a pipe line was laid. Then both Arabs and Jews started to come in in large numbers.

Palestine's early Jewish Zionists were idealistic pioneers who arrived in pre-state Israel with every intention of living in peace alongside their Arab neighbors and upgrading the quality of life for all of the land's inhabitants. These pre-Israel Zionists (and later, Israelis) had tried to develop peacefully for the dual benefit of Jews and Arabs in the land. But the Arab leadership always, starting in the earliest days, took the low road of insisting that the only solution was for the Jews to get out, even if that meant continued poverty and stagnation. When Arab demands were not met, they always resorted to violence.

The vast majority of Arabs came to the area after these early Zionist pioneers began draining the malaria-infested swamps (above photo) and plowing the land! In doing so, these Jews created the economic opportunities and medical availabilities which attracted Arabs from both surrounding territories and far-away lands! In fact, over 90% of the Arabs migrated there within the last one hundred years. Most of the Arabs in "Palestine" were interlopers and squatters originating from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and other lands who simply took possession of pieces of land. So much for their unfounded claims that they have been there since "time immemorial!" These Arabs came from disorganized collections of tribes with a tradition of constantly terrorizing each other and trying to seize land from their neighbors. Many of them were social outcasts and criminals who could not find jobs in their own countries so they searched for their luck elsewhere. Unfortunately, those Arab immigrants imported into the Holy Land their age-old culture of terrorizing neighbors in order to seize land. In fact, today's Arab "Palestinians", let by Arafat and his PLO (sanitized to the PA, or Palestinian Authority...which is nothing more than A Network of Murderers Masquerading As Government!) are still nothing more than street thugs, bullies and 'Little Saddams' found elsewhere throughout most of the most Arab world.

Yet while the returning Jews were highly motivated to restore the land, the Arabs seethed with envy and hatred for they lacked both the leadership to inspire and motivate them for they were, in fact, historical strangers to this land! Unlike the Jews, those Arabs who immigrated there had no ancient attachments to or historical memories of this homeland ... this ancient Land of the Jews!

The real problem facing those Arabs today is not the lack of a homeland. The historical root-cause of their problem and frustration is the fact that the countries they came from have not agreed to accept them back in. This is why so many of them live, up until today, in refugee camps, in neighboring Arab countries, lacking fundamental civil rights. In their frustration they feel that the only hope and choice they have is to try and steal someone else's country!

In Conclusion:

There was no "Arab Palestinian" history before the Arabs manufactured one shortly after 1948, and then especially after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli War! In an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trau" (March 31, 1977), PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said, "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. It is also been a "conceptual" war for ownership of the term "Palestinian" which has been transferred over to the Arabs whereas, before 1967, "Palestine" has always been synonymous with Eretz Israel and the Land of Israel.

Archeological sites to this very day continue to yield artifacts with Hebrew writing, not some fictitious "Palestinian" or Arabic text! The so-called "Palestinian" Arabs were simply then, as they are now, Arabs no different culturally, historically or ethnically from other Arabs living in any of the 24 Arab countries from which they emigrated. The suggestion that the "Palestinians" are some sub-group of Arabs with their own unique identity is pure fiction! Great propaganda... but still pure fiction! And had not the Arabs continued to brainwash generation upon generation into believing this HISTORICAL HOGWASH about some ancient "Arab Palestinian" ties to the Holy Land, most could have gotten themselves a real life by now with much less bloodshed and suffering for everyone concerned!

GREED, PRIDE, ENVY!

The Arabs and/or Muslims of today control 22 nations... 99½ percent of the ENTIRE Middle East land mass while Israel occupies only a 1/2 of 1 percent speck on this same map. But that's still too much land for the Arabs to spare. They want it all. How often have we heard their familiar cry, "We will fight to our last drop of blood for for every last grain of sand!" And that is ultimately what all the fighting is about today. And no matter how many land concessions the Israelis might make for "peace," it will never be enough! Any peace treaty between Israel and the Arab world are ultimately meaningless. The most recent 1993 "Oslo Peace Accord" has brought nothing but homicidal bombers into Israel. Even the Israeli-Egyptian and Israeli-Jordanian peace treaties are holding on by a single thread and, if you were to read their government-controlled newspapers, you'd think they were still at war with Israel!

PEACE IS IMPOSSIBLE!
There's No More "Middle" in the Middle East

From the moment the Jewish People re-established sovereignty in their ancient homeland, they sought genuine peace with all of their neighbors. Unfortunately, their neighbors did not wish to share a peaceful existence with them. They, like Bin Ladin today, felt that they had a religious obligation to destroy the non-Arab/Muslim Jewish State (and, for that matter, ALL non-Arab/Moslem governments in the world). The Arab campaign against Israel is rooted not in any negotiable grievances but in a basic opposition to the very existence of Jewish sovereignty in what they perceive as THEIR Middle East! The ultimate intent of the Arabs is to separate out a Jewish history from "Palestine"... and then to separate Israel from the face of the Earth.

When the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) was formed in 1964, its primary goal was to destroy Israel. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, their goal became two-tracked: Either (1) destroy Israel outright (the same pre-1967 goal) or (2) the creation of an Arab-Palestinian state to be used as a launching pad from which to destroy Israel. Different strategies - same ultimate goal... a state not along side Israel, but IN PLACE OF Israel. It's really that simple!


For More Regarding "Palestine" and "Palestinian People"

"Palestinian" People Do Not Exist
and
The History and Meaning of "Palestine" & "Palestinians
and
The History & Meaning of "Palestine" & "Palestinian"

Then take this Quiz


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

The Question of Jerusalem
And the Temple Mount
Click Here for Maps and Photos of
East and West Jerusalem and the Old City


For over 3,300 years of history, Jerusalem has been a capital city for only the Jewish People. Jews have always lived in Jerusalem, except when they were massacred or driven out. There has, however, been a nearly unbroken Jewish presence in Jerusalem for the past 1,600 years. And since the early 1800's, the population of Jerusalem has been predominantly Jewish. Even when the Jordanians captured and occupied Jerusalem from 1948-67, they (the Jordanians) never sought to change it to their capital (replacing Amman) nor make it the capital of all Arab-"Palestinian" people. Even during the 19 years Jordan "occupied" most of Jerusalem, Arab leaders from other Arab countries hardly ever bothered to visit this city! Only to the Jews has Jerusalem ever held special meaning! The reality is that Jerusalem was never an Arab capital and that it never was, until the Jews revitalized it, a dusty provincial city that hardly played and economic, social or political role.

Another myth deals with the issue of Jerusalem and its Temple Mount. The myth is that Jerusalem is really an Arab city and that it is a central focus of Islam. The truth is that the Arabs expressed very limited interest in the Temple Mount before 1967 after the Six-Day War. Besides, Mecca and Medina (both in Saudi Arabia) are Islam's holiest cities!

Islam's Holy(?) Koran mentions Mecca 2 or 3 (implied, but not actually written) times. It mentions Medina 5 times. It never mentions Jerusalem and with good reason. There is no historical evidence to suggest Mohammad ever visited Jerusalem! And if he did visit Jerusalem, it could not have been until 6 years after his death. Therefore, the notion that Mohammed ascended to Heaven from a rock in Jerusalem (today's Dome of the Rock) is even more ridiculous!

One more thing about Jerusalem in general and its Temple Mount in particular. Jerusalem appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823 times in all. The Christian Bible mentions Jerusalem 154 times and Zion 7 times. All told, in the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament, the terms "Judah" or "Judea" appear 877 times, and "Samaria" is used on 123 occasions.

Hold on to your hats, everybody. It gets even better. Upon closer look at their Holy Koran, we have uncovered something quite amazing. These Muslims may actually be more Jewish than Muslim! Get this... the Koran mentions "Israel" [or "Israelites"] 47 times, "Jew" or "Jewish" 26 times! Even "Christian" or "Christians" gets 15 mentions!

OK, so maybe Mohammed just forget to mention "Jerusalem". Maybe he also forgot to mention the Haram-esh-Sharif, their name for Judaism's Temple Mount. Perhaps it was an honest oversight. That desert heat can do strange things to one's brain. But surely "Palestine" is mentioned all through the Koran. After all, the poo' poo' ancient "Palestinians" go way back, right? WRONG. "Palestine" and "Palestinian" are nowhere to be found. Perhaps that's because these so-called Arab "Palestinians" have ancient historical roots going ALL THE WAY back to June 1967! So much for the Arab, Muslim or "Palestinian" ancient religious or physical connections to a single ounce of turf in the so-called "occupied" territories!

From 1948 to 1967, when East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were "occupied" by Jordanian Forces following the 1948-9 Arab-Israeli War, Jerusalem itself was ignored by the Arab world. No Arab leader ever paid a visit, not even to pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock (both located on the JEWISH Temple Mount). Also noteworthy during this 19 year period of Jordanian occupation' no Jews were allowed there... not that there was much for them to see since the Arabs destroyed 58 of Jerusalem's Jewish synagogues! Even the Arabs of "Palestine" placed so low a priority on Jerusalem that the PLO's founding charter, the 1964 Palestinian National Covenant, made no reference whatsoever to it. Only when the Jews recaptured it after the 1967 "Six Day War" (initiated by the Arabs) did the Arab world SUDDENLY grow very passionate about Jerusalem!

Can any Muslim in the world produce any credible evidence for their connection to this holy site, other than Mohammed's dream? Believe it or not, the one and only source for the Muslim's claim to Jerusalem and the site of the Holy Temple, is a mention in the Koran of a dream that Mohammed had about an unknown "place far away". Perhaps this "place far away" is the site of the White House in Washington DC or a Nevada "chicken ranch?"

In truth, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosques are just but two of hundreds of thousands of Muslim mosques around the world. Except for these two minor mosques, Jerusalem itself has no major Islamic significance. In fact, far more Christian shrines are in Jerusalem than Muslim ones!

When a Jew prays from anywhere in the world, he faces the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When a Moslem prays, even while IN Jerusalem, he faces Mecca (2,000 miles away in Saudi Arabia!). So in many cases, even when a Moslem is in Jerusalem, his "hind quarters" are facing these two Jerusalem mosques! What does THIS tell you! And when Islamic suicide bombers try to take apart Jerusalem piece by piece, what does THAT tell you!

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!





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

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!



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

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.



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


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!


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

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!


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


Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.



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

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!


Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?


Jordanian Flag

Proposed Palestinian Flag






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

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!
Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights which, prior to the 1967 war, had been by Syria used solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements. The Golan should never be given back to Israel's most vicious enemy! And of course, Israel still "occupies" the West Bank with its ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and Gaza with its EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND "Palestinian" Arabs. Had Israel done to these Arabs what the Arabs would have done to the Jews had THEY won, she would have expelled these hostile Arabs and made it officially part of a Greater Israel! But by remaining an "occupier," Israel set herself up for a campaign of vicious propaganda, the scope and intensity of which the world has never before seen!

..

More on "Palestinian Nationalism
and the
Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.
The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!





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

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!



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

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.



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


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!


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

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!


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


Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.



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

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!


Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?


Jordanian Flag

Proposed Palestinian Flag






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

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!
Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights which, prior to the 1967 war, had been by Syria used solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements. The Golan should never be given back to Israel's most vicious enemy! And of course, Israel still "occupies" the West Bank with its ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and Gaza with its EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND "Palestinian" Arabs. Had Israel done to these Arabs what the Arabs would have done to the Jews had THEY won, she would have expelled these hostile Arabs and made it officially part of a Greater Israel! But by remaining an "occupier," Israel set herself up for a campaign of vicious propaganda, the scope and intensity of which the world has never before seen!

..

More on "Palestinian Nationalism
and the
Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.
The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!





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

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!



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

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.



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


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!


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

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!


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


Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.



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

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!


Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?


Jordanian Flag

Proposed Palestinian Flag






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

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!
Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights which, prior to the 1967 war, had been by Syria used solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements. The Golan should never be given back to Israel's most vicious enemy! And of course, Israel still "occupies" the West Bank with its ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and Gaza with its EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND "Palestinian" Arabs. Had Israel done to these Arabs what the Arabs would have done to the Jews had THEY won, she would have expelled these hostile Arabs and made it officially part of a Greater Israel! But by remaining an "occupier," Israel set herself up for a campaign of vicious propaganda, the scope and intensity of which the world has never before seen!

..

More on "Palestinian Nationalism
and the
Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.
The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

Take a close look at this PRESENT DAY MAP of the Middle East in which you can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim [Iran is not considered Arab] nations completely engulf Israel. If someone can explain to me how "expansionist Israel" has "taken over" the Middle East, please email me! The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass as does Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. So much for Arab propaganda!

Now notice the TOTAL area of Israel and Jordan. This was referred to as "Palestine" and mandated under British administration following World War I (see next map below). How convenient that today's Arab propagandists forget that land east of the Jordan River was also part of "Palestine" and is, in fact, the Arab-Palestinian State!





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

From 1517-1917 Turkey's Ottoman Empire controlled a vast Arab empire, a portion of which is today Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. During World War I (1914-1918), Turkey supported Germany. When Germany was defeated, so were the Turks. In 1916 control of the southern portion of their Ottoman Empire was "mandated" to France and Britain under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Arab region into zones of influence. Lebanon and Syria were assigned (mandated) to France... and "Palestine" (today's Jordan, Israel and "West Bank") was mandated to Great Britain.
Because no other peoples had ever established a national homeland in "Palestine" since the Jews had done it 2,000 years before, the British "looked favorably" upon the creation of a Jewish National Homeland throughout ALL of Palestine. The Jews had already begun mass immigration into Palestine in the 1880's in an effort to rid the land of swamps and malaria and prepare for the rebirth of Israel. This Jewish effort to revitalize the land attracted an equally large immigration of Arabs from neighboring areas who were drawn by employment opportunities and healthier living conditions. There was never any attempt to "rid" the area of what few Arabs there or those Arab masses that immigrated into this area along with the Jews!



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

In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.
Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.



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


The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [IDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations.
The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, Arab armies launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!


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

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!


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


Throughout much of May 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian armies mobilized along Israel's narrow and seemingly indefensible borders in preparation for a massive invasion to eliminate the State of Israel. The battle cry heard throughout the Arab world was then, as it continues to be... "Slaughter the Jews" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!" But the Jews of Israel, remembering 2,000 years of being butchered, gassed, burned and skinned (eg. The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Arab rampages of early Palestine and particularly the Holocaust), planned and executed a perfect pre-emptive strike against Egypt. Within two hours the Egyptian Air Force did not exist... most of its planes destroyed while still on the runways! Unaware that the Egyptians had no more air force, King Hussein of Jordan, launched his attack from the his West Bank into Israel's belly while Syrian troops prepared to descend down the Golan Heights high ground into northern Israel.

Now for some facts about "occupation." Firstly, the Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians lost Gaza, the West Bank and Golan Heights (respectively) by participating in a failed attempt at genocide against the Children of Israel. Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on and gobbled up all of Israel. Now, 35+ years later and despite the fact that Israel won a war BROUGHT UPON THEM, the Israelis are still willing to allow the Arab-Palestinians to have a state on much of the West Bank and Gaza if only they will stop sending their suicide/homicide bombers into the heart of Israel! (Talk about misplaced compassion!)

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.



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

After ONLY six days of air, sea and hand-to-hand ground warfare, Israel defeated all three Arab armies along three separate fronts, taking control of the entire Sinai Desert from Egypt, the 37mile x 12mile Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem and its Old City) from Jordan. The God of Israel was surely watching over His children! Most importantly was the return to Israel of its holy 3,000 year old capital city of Jerusalem along the western edge of the West Bank... the same Jerusalem from which all Jews had been denied access for the 19 years (1948-1967) following Jordan's seizure and control over it following the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.
Unfortunately, the world saw things differently and considered Israel an "occupier" of this disputed "West Bank" and the Gaza Strip along with the 850,000 Palestinian Arabs living there. These Arabs would refer to themselves as "refugees" and joined the masses of refugees from the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948-9. Once again Israel was forced to fight a battle for survival and, sadly, once again Palestinian [in reality, Jordanian and Egyptian] Arabs becoming refugees by their own actions, the actions of their leaders and from the actions of fellow Arabs from neighboring states!
ISRAEL SCREWS UP TOO!

Israel was responsible for bringing about some of its own problems. The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were packed and ready to leave following their 1967 defeat. Suddenly the victorious one-eyed IDF General Moshe Dayan persuaded them to stay. This singular act stunned no one more than the Arab enemy himself who could not believe such an incredible manifestation of Jewish madness! After all, the Arabs knew what THEY would have done to the Jews if they had won! Dayan's plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment both in the West Bank, Gaza AND inside Israel Proper itself ... living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. Israel is now paying dearly for this typically naive "Leftist" gesture. That "bridge" led to two Intifadas and world-wide Arab-Palestinian terrorism. From a frightened and defeated enemy, these "Palestinian" Arabs under Israel's jurisdiction turned into a confident, hateful and dangerous enemy now on their way toward forming a terrorist state determined to destroy Israel!


Note: When people say Jordan (first called Trans-Jordan) is an Arab-"Palestinian" State, they are correct! Jordan accounts for 3/4 of Palestine's original land mass. Though they may call themselves "Jordanians," they are culturally, ethnically, historically and religiously no different than the Arab-"Palestinians" on the "West Bank." Even the flag of Jordan and the flag of the proposed 2nd Arab-Palestinian state on the West Bank / Gaza look almost identical. So, if the Arab-Palestinians and Jordanians think of themselves as one and the same, why should WE fall for the lie that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River are any different from the Jordanian Arabs on its eastern shore?


Jordanian Flag

Proposed Palestinian Flag






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

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!
Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights which, prior to the 1967 war, had been by Syria used solely for terrorist incursions into and artillery bombardment upon Israel's northeastern settlements. The Golan should never be given back to Israel's most vicious enemy! And of course, Israel still "occupies" the West Bank with its ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND and Gaza with its EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND "Palestinian" Arabs. Had Israel done to these Arabs what the Arabs would have done to the Jews had THEY won, she would have expelled these hostile Arabs and made it officially part of a Greater Israel! But by remaining an "occupier," Israel set herself up for a campaign of vicious propaganda, the scope and intensity of which the world has never before seen!

..

More on "Palestinian Nationalism
and the
Real War Against Israel...

The Middle East war is not now and never was a conflict between Israelis/Jews on the one hand and Palestinians on the other. In fact, the Arab-"Palestinians", while currently the perpetrators of most of the anti-Jewish atrocities, were never a very important part of the conflict. In fact, before about 1970, virtually no one in the world considered the Middle East conflict to be one between Israelis and Palestinians.
The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians. They are all basically Arabs!.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the Land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews!

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

by Shmuel Katz
Graphics & Page Layout by Masada2000.org

The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight.

The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel.

The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did, in fact, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary.

In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.


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


"Zionists" are in hot pursuit? Hardly!

"Ethnic Cleansing?" No Way!

Widespread Massacres? Not a chance!


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

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of the flightlings' retuning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action 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."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "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."

One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramle and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers.

The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN.

The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid.



Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million.

The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list.

To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees."

So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees.

Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel.

There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.


Just Say "No!"

Once and for all, Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime.

Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

It is a hutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever.

Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

HE GREAT REFUGEE SCAM
by Shmuel Katz
Graphics & Page Layout by Masada2000.org

The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight.

The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel.

The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did, in fact, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary.

In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.


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


"Zionists" are in hot pursuit? Hardly!

"Ethnic Cleansing?" No Way!

Widespread Massacres? Not a chance!


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

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of the flightlings' retuning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action 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."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "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."

One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramle and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers.

The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN.

The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid.



Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million.

The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list.

To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees."

So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees.

Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel.

There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.


Just Say "No!"

Once and for all, Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime.

Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

It is a hutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever.

Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

HE GREAT REFUGEE SCAM
by Shmuel Katz
Graphics & Page Layout by Masada2000.org

The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight.

The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel.

The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides - and they did, in fact, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary.

In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.


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


"Zionists" are in hot pursuit? Hardly!

"Ethnic Cleansing?" No Way!

Widespread Massacres? Not a chance!


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

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the `Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of the flightlings' retuning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action 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."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "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."

One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

Later, after the fighting began, many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war." So wrote the British general Sir John Glubb, who commanded the Transjordanian army. Throughout the war there were two incidents - at Ramle and Lod - in which a number of Arab civilians were driven out of their homes by Israeli soldiers.

The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN.

The central, horribly cruel fact is that the Arab states - who had brought about their plight - denied them residence rights; and the idea was born that they should be left in camps and used as a weapon for Israel's destruction. "The return of the refugees," said president Nasser of Egypt years later, "will mean the end of Israel."

It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid.



Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million.

The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list.

To add a touch of mordant humor, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees."

So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees.

Thus - and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return."

While everybody in Israel has rejected the Arab demand for accepting the return of the "refugees," the government has not rejected the idea that if negotiations for a settlement take place the problem of the refugees will be discussed. Moreover, there has been talk of "compensation" by Israel.

There have even been voices suggesting the return of a "symbolic few" of the refugees. Israel must, from the outset and forever, unequivocally reject such ideas.


Just Say "No!"

Once and for all, Israel must remind whoever has to be reminded that the responsibility for the displaced Arabs lies wholly and absolutely on the shoulders of the Arab states. Their utterly unprovoked invasion of the territory of Israel in May 1948 was a crime.

Its declared intent was a crime. Six thousand Israel citizens were killed in that war, and thousands of others were injured. It was the Arab states that called on the Arab population to evacuate, all in order to facilitate accomplishment of their evil purpose.

It is a hutzpa of historical dimensions and significance to ask Israel to even discuss giving an inch or paying a penny of the price of the refugee problem. And it is dangerous for any Israeli spokesman to even agree to take part in any discussion of the subject - at any forum or in any context whatsoever.

Indeed, the Israeli government should long ago have declared - but even now it is not too late: "We shall not participate in any discussion of the so-called refugee problem. This is a problem the Arab nation must solve for itself in its own spacious territories."

"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"

Toady (I assume), or whoever is who's posting those long repetitive rants that get in the way of reading...stop trying to ruin LA Indymedia. We came here for education and dialogue, of course it's not happening, but don't leave something ruined.

We can see the impact of Zionism all over Palestine in the form of stolen land, assasinated Palestinians, bulldozed homes, starvation, poverty and of course, the apartheid wall.

We can see the impact of rabid anti-Zionism all over Palestine in the form of stolen Jewish land and property, murdered Israelis, homes destroyed by Qassams, economic woes, poverty and of course, the apartheid Islamic law being utilized in persecution

We can see the impact of rabid Zionism all over Palestine in the form of stolen Palestinian land and property, murdered Palestinians, homes destroyed by IDF terror squads, economic woes, poverty and of course, the apartheid wall being utilized in persecution of the good people of Palestine.

Explain when it was "Palestinian Land". Name the King, the currency, the national anthem. Tell me about the "history of the Palestinian nation.

Since you are so devout, where's the part in the Torah where it says talking about what a tough guy you are and threatening posters is how to be close to G-d?
Just curious. Or is this yet another example in a long line of zionist hypocrisy????

Who said you're in a position to antisemitically condescend an observant Orthodox Jew this way, as if he must always seek sanction for all his deeds in the Torah? Do you even know his acts may be in line with post-biblical Jewish scripture? Oh wait, that's too complicated an arena for you to ponder as you hardly even know what the Torah proscribes. You're dismissed, Charlie.

Even Tia called Yid on his psycho lunacy

Toady, you are an idiot. You don't know enough about Judaism to ask an intelligent question. Pacifism is not required.

You are a fucking hypocrit nutcase.
Next time you are steaking out an activist meeting, be sure to steak out these nuts coward.
(while you're sitting there too scared to identify yourself)

By the way Toady,an answers to my questions above? Or are you the idiot you seem to be.

We're already privy to your racism. The codewords are futile -- you were already exposed for the racist you are back at Indybay last year when you decried the innocuous Jewish greeting "Shabbat Shalom U'mevorakh" as a "secret Zionist message". Go back to your cesspit. Your outsmarted and outnumbered here.

Excellent original article. Thanks IMC for posting this!

Toady, you are an idiot

Instead of just spamming "Toady, you are an idiot" and further proving that you are no better than those you claim to be against, why don't you go pray to your precious G-d for some serenity...????

Toady doesn't understand Jewish prayer. Don't talk to me as if I prayed like a Christian.

Pray to your G-d, groveler

Toady, you remain an idiot

And you always will be. Nothing better than that. How does it feel to have nop power at indybay?
You lost, bitch. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

1. 'Toady' suddenly went back to bellowing "excellent article! Thanks IMC for posting this". So much for debating skills.

2. Now he's begun denigrating God after he posed as Him. Where do they make these buffoons?

Again, you have been humiliated and proven wrong.
You lied and were caught.
You are being laughed at.
Can you respond. I'll give you 5 more min. and that's it
Here's Tia's quote and there's not much room for interpretation here...she clearly called Yidsky on his nutty shit:

"Come on Yid- now you are getting weird, even by my very loose standards.
The only way to do something that has any intergrity is to do it open and notoriously.
The sneaky thing just doesn't fly. Most times. The threatening thing just doesn't fly. Ever. "
Couldn't have said it bette rmyself.

I'll leave ya with this: an example of even rabid zionists saying enough is enough:
Again, you have been humiliated and proven wrong.
You lied and were caught.
You are being laughed at.
You can't respond
Here's Tia's quote and there's not much room for interpretation here...she clearly called Yidsky on his nutty shit:

"Come on Yid- now you are getting weird, even by my very loose standards.
The only way to do something that has any intergrity is to do it open and notoriously.
The sneaky thing just doesn't fly. Most times. The threatening thing just doesn't fly. Ever. "
Couldn't have said it bette rmyself.

Toady, one day we'll meet.

Yid- I apologize if my words keep coming back to haunt you.

When CM and I went to "visit" nessie, we made sure he knew it was us. Anyuthing less would have lacked integrity.
What I was saying was just do it, tell them who you are and why you are there. Let them say whatever they want to your face. (They can't- haven't you realized? I've offered to meet with Toady several times, and he keeps refusing. What does he have to hide? The fact he'sstill in high school? The fact he's dumb as a dead fish?)
Sneaking around and threatening people doesn't accomplish anything. Showing them you aren't afraid- thats the way to do it.

Toady is afraid to meet with Tia? Wait till he meets me!

"Our" very own Juif Antagoniste appears in one of the photos in the upper right, tight below the words "[The police and security guards separate the two sides.]" on http://www.zombietime.com/bus_19_berkeley/part_2/

Hmmm.
Yep, this is what we go through in Berkeley. I was there- oh, do I have stories.

So how do you know our friend in the black baseball hat?
We should "talk" sometime. Outside Indymedia.

Is that Toady's photo? Thank you. Thats very helpful.

You might have been unfamiliar with the appellation I've pinned on Joseph Anderson.

JA, I'd LOVE to meet JA too, one night.

I sat behind him at a lecture a few weeks ago. He is losing his hair badly, and is using that spray on stuff to give him the illusion of more hair.
Pure lashon hara- sorry- it was amusing that someone who considers himself a revolutionary is so vain about his appearance.
How , may I ask, do you know our Berkeley anti-semites?

Previously I had seen two other JA photos. Aside from him, I know perhaps one other by name as far as my recallection serves -- "Bev". Never seen her family name though.

so this thread about the impact of zionism ( rabid zionazis imbued with their self congratulating masturbatory circle jerk of racial superiority ) has once again degenerated into a stalking fest...

How 'adorable'.

The one with the sign mentioning Barbara Lee is Wehrmacht Wendy Campbell, the one nessie is desperately avoiding answering a question about.

Is Wendy Campbell an antisemite, nessie?

@%<

So you think Wendy Cambell is part of the impact of zionism?

I'll add Wendy to my local field guide to anti-semites, er Anti-Zionists

so... we have spotters stalking Americans who are concerned about the impact of zionism.
I guess maybe sanctions are being considered.
So there could be OTHER impacts of zionism. Here.

Beings like Wendy Klanbell, Juif Antagoniste and yourself aren't the oh-so innocently "concerned about the impact of zionism". True anti-racists know you're using the anti-Zionist thing as a fig leaf for your Jew hatred.

For years I tried to be the voice of sanity, promoting dialog discussion and tolerance. Then I watched Netanyahu on the Berkeley campus being block from speaking. And I watched Daniel Pipes harrassed. I watched the most vicious examples of anti-semitism I'd ever seen on the campus of San Francisco State. I watched as the Dachau survivor who organized the Jerusalem Bus rally had her llife threatened. I watched our elderly, knocked down at a "peace" rally, their Israeli flags snatched from their hands.

Its disillusioning, folks, even for someone who considered herself "progressive". Now I realize the best thing to do is to allow "the other side" to set the ground rules for behavior.
You want to talk to me? Then I'll listen. You want to push me? Then I'll push back.

I'm not entirely comfortable with this- but I don't see any other choice. Its not very sporting when only one side plays by the rules. I find it really disturbing, with most of us being neither Israeli nor Palestinian, and living thousands of miles from the conflict that we can't find common ground to be civil and really communicate.

So I'll make the offer again. I'll try if you will.

Maybe we have seen the impact of zionism right here on this wire as huge efforts were and are mounted to smother, derail and 'muscle in' on the forum here with lies, spam, flame wars forgeries and hateful scree from the fellow travelers of this cause.
After stalking the voices of peace and justice that wish to end the genocide and misery in that blood drenched land, you want to 'open' dialogue?
How adorable.

Tia: "You want to talk to me? Then I'll listen. You want to push me? Then I'll push back."

I've made the same trip -- although at the same time I recognize that it only takes one or two Toadies and Tinkies to make intelligent, respectful discussion of the Mideast impossible in a venue like this.

@%<

The little circle jerk of zionazis are only talking to, spamming and responding to themselves.
Same ol' same ol'.
Obviously the impact of zionism is tunnel vision and hearing and reason.
A twisted tunnel which needs light.

sheep: "zionazis"

And as usual, sheepdog fights his way to the bottom of the credibility pile by using phrases like "zionazi."

@%<

If the zionazi shoe fits...

"Maybe we have seen the impact of zionism right here on this wire as huge efforts were and are mounted to smother, derail and 'muscle in' on the forum here with lies, spam, flame wars forgeries and hateful scree from the fellow travelers of this [anti-Zionist]cause. "

We sure have seen this cluster-worth of negative impact from the rabid anti-Zionist brigages.

"After stalking the voices of peace and justice that wish to end the genocide and misery in that blood drenched land, you want to 'open' dialogue? "

That's what anti-Zionists *wink-wink* regularly do: stalk the voices of peace and justice that wish to end the anti-Israeli genocide and misery in the land of Israel. Then they whine to high heaven when their pretense at open dialogue is exposed as a most ludicrous inversion of reality.

If the zionazi shoe fits...
wear it.

"the voices of peace and justice"

Bahaha! Is that what you call yourselves? Buy a dictionary.

@%<

So you're a 'Jew' wink wink huh?
Dialogue seems to become a festival of apologies for Genocide by international definition when being over run by the crew your running with.
And beside your kind pushing the world into another holocaust in which the people of the Book worldwide will pay because of these policies...
What do you want to talk about?
The impact of zionism on American affairs??

If the zionazi shoe fits..., put it on your smelly feet.

I'm shaking in my boots tough guy!
LOL!
Notice that zionists consistently get sooooo angry when beat down on in these forums, that they resort to threats. Albeit idle ones! LMFAO!

That is hilarious, two peas in a pod. Two coward keyboard warriors telling everyone from the safety of the computers how they are such bad-ass martial arts masters......BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You are truly laughed at.

IMP WRITES: "huge efforts were and are mounted to smother, derail and 'muscle in' on the forum here with lies, spam, flame wars forgeries and hateful scree from the fellow travelers of this cause."

BECKY: It has been the anti-Zionists who have demanded that the LA.IMC monitors censor us! THAT is an attempt to smother debate. They demand it, because they have done it at SF.IMC and now at Indybay.org

They are used to being the bullies who own the ball. You can't play with them unless you play by THEIR rules, which change all the time and are selectively enforced anyway.

As for forgeries, please note that the victims of the forgeries have been Gehrig, Tia, Auto-blocked@indybay.org, Critical Thinker, and myself.

Only Nessie has been the victim of others posting under his moniker, and only AFTER a whole spate of forgeries appeared amongst Nessies postings, leading some to believe they were done by him. These were clearly a response these forgeries.

As I have said before, do not post under someone else's name. It's a form of fraud, it uses the low tactics of character assasination and smear, and it confuses the readers.

As for "muscling in"--- I came here to follow the smear trail left by JA. But why do you think that YOU have any more right to post here than anyone else?

LA.IMC is performing a tremendous service by allowing this contentious debate to play out----one that SF. IMC and Indybay.org have brutally suppressed.

SHEEPDOG continues to call me a liar without actually pointing out any untruth. While I am in no way infallible, I am not dishonest. Let me point out that it was SHEEPDOG who reported that I am no longer an advocate for homeless people. But when I showed him a homeless advocacy article I had published just last SUNDAY, he did not retract his statement or apologise, but instead insisted that I have lost all my credibility, therefore anything I write is without value.

So, am I STILL a homeless advocate or not? Were YOU lying when you said I wasn't? Why would someone who lies call someone who doesn't lie a liar?

This from the same person who says that the IDF is committing genocide against the Palestinian people, and calls me a liar for posting the relative death tolls from the so-called "Palestinian" genocide and the REAL Sudanese/Darfur genocide.

Who is lying then?

See how easy it is to blame everything?
Blame it on the Palistinians, blame it on the anti-zionists, never recognize your own transgressions.

You repeatedly write "G-d", showing that you take the third commandment very seriously . Why? Is this atavistic phraseology an ancestral memory or is it the long repressed product of a religious school education? It doesn't fit in with the rest of your, cosmology.

Just curious, Toady.

"is it the long repressed product of a religious school education?"

LOL!!!... That would go a long distance toward illuminating this babling arch-clown's bountifully irrational behavior.

dogs never ever lie.
unlike humans and particularly you.
again, when did I bring up David Duke? Hmmmmm?
Lying sack of zionazi shit.

I just like to make fun of the whole "G-d" thing.
I was blessed w/ a very liberal approach to religion, but I hold disdain for it nonetheless. See countless examples of insanity in the name of every major religion worldwide... also see the mindless bots taking bullshit on faith rather than thinking for themselves. Big difference btwn the indoctirnation of relgion and spirituality.

show me-
certainly, oh tool of darkness.

Speaking of David Duke...
by Becky Johnson Sunday, Apr. 23, 2006 at 2:04 PM
Santa Cruz, CA.
-I'm glad Sheepdog mentioned David Duke, because Norman Finkelsteins attacks on Israel prompted Duke to laud his new book on his website.-
@
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/154504_comment.php#154669
any questions?

So what? Who likes a book and who doesn't has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. Norman Finkelstein tells the truth about Israel. That's why the Zionist propaganda mill is trying to distract you with ad hominems.

We have yet to hear why you settle for a generic denunciation of uncritical sheep taking their cues from religion but have never once denounced Iranians, Palestinians and other Arab neighbors of Israel that blindly follow religious dictats, thereby creating hell for both compatriots and the Israeli untermenschen. Or you really expect us to believe you that religiously driven insanity can only eminate from the Jewish side?

good one. 'just one'.
Another impact of zionism is the compulsion to lie, threaten and try to 'take over'.
How adorable.

What bullsh*t. They know they're lying with a bald face. They know his books are full of lies. That's why the rabid anti-Zionist propaganda mill is trying to distract you with ad hominems, forgeries, lies and spam. These are tricks. Don't fall for them.

forgery heaped on top of, of course, more transparent lies and spam.

Toady: I just like to make fun of the whole "G-d" thing.
.... also see the mindless bots taking bullshit on faith rather than thinking for themselves.

Tia: Its generally a mistake to take you seriously, but I'll try, one more time.

I don't consider myself "religious"- though I strongly identify and have affiliated.

Organized religion provides an important function in our society. If someone's sick in my shul- we bring them meals until they are well. Someone has a baby- same deal. Society has become monstorously impersonal- organized religion is a way to break it down into a more managable element. It can provide a sense of community to some. It can be a tool to bring people together- unfortunately, often it seems to have quite the opposite effect. Prayer can function as meditation, if done correctly. What I personally like about Judaism is the give and take- the discussion that follows every decison and every policy. What did Rashi say? What did Rambam say? Its less dogmatic than most people think.

My view is that there are acts that help us evolve as people, acts that move us closer to the source of all light. And conversely, there are acts that move us towards darkness. I know that I often fall short of even my own standard of acceptable behavior (ask Nessie) I am a work in progress - you are too, Toady.

Judaism is unusually concerned with trangressions of speech. During our holiest day, we spend time fasting and in prayer and ask for forgiveness for the sins which we may have committed in speech; by false confession ; by impure speech; by denying and lying; by scoffing, by slander; tale bearing; by vain oaths.... The tremendous power of human speech for good or for evil is recognized- we are asked to be conscious of it.

So here's wishing that all of us start moving towards the source of all light, and start using the awesome gift of speech to bring the world closer to peace. We can start here at LA IMC. What do you say?

I've got this uncontrollable impulse to ask you what happened when you came up to 'nessie' (or so I understood) and introduced yourself. Will you please share, if you don't mind?

Gotta watch those "uncontrollable impulses".

Sorry- its between CM, Nessie and me. We didn't actually get a chance to talk to Nessie-he wasn't there.

All things considered, we really weren't bad at all, though, right, Nessie?

SO SHEEPDOG NEVER MENTIONED DAVID DUKE?

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2005/09/135199_comment.php

and you left out
by Sheepdog Tuesday, Sep. 13, 2005 at 12:47 PM

Arayan Nation along with your Vanguard or David Duke lot.

BECKY: It's funny. It almost sounds like you disapprove of David Duke. Funny, for all of your comparisons of Jews with the Nazis----in your love of Norman Finkelstein and when Cindy Sheehan said her son died protecting Israel, David Duke jumped in. David Duke attracts the KKK, the neo-Nazis and just plain, garden-variety Jew-haters like you. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

But it's true, on the link you provided it was "A racist is a racist is a racist" who first mentioned David Duke. My apologies. I apparently mixed you two up.

Once again they demonstrate what fundamentally dishonest people they are:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1692248

(snip)

Sometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it’s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's.

To Scapegoated Jew:

In my old life, as a beloved leftist homeless activist and writer for Street Spirit, my comrade and I visited "Bound Together Books" on Haight St. in SF a few years back.

I was introduced to the infamous "Nessie" and welcomed into the flock with my Free Radio Santa Cruz credentials.

He taught me the secret handshake and all!

Nothing juicy to report. A thinnish, middle-aged man with a smug attitude. Lots of leftist books, but they didn't have the one my comrade was looking for.

Tell us about the secret initiation rite.

Once again he demonstrates what fundamentally dishonest a person he is:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1962248

(snip)

Sometimes he takes something that a Zionist has written, subtlys alter its meaning by changing a few words, and posts it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Deranged anti-Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Ehud Barak's name to, or Irgun's or the Haganah's.

But (you knew there'd be one) I would define your approach as a generally positive spiritual approach, and your interpretation one that takes the good things that religions have to offer, leaving the bad--and that's great. It seems that the Jews against zionism do the same. I don't think basket cases like Yid or autowhiner do that. But I do believe that your intentions are good--ane I will make a committment to stop engaging in the bullshit (at least with you)
"Organized religion provides an important function in our society. " I also believe, that from a sociological perspetive, that religion serves to oppress/suppress/subjugate and acts as a control mechanism that serves the powerful (basic class analysis) but I've certainly seen examples (i.e. Liberation Theology) where religion has done some breaking free (on some issues) of the dominant ideologies and been instruments for good activism.
So---we'll have peace Tia.
(No guarantees to the idiot trolls (Yid, Auto-goat)
I'm too tired to fuck w/ them today. Finals and overtime @work.

"It seems that the Jews against zionism do the same. I don't think basket cases like Yid or autowhiner do that. "

Clearly these two beliefs demonstrate a lack of willingness to study the subject matter with the requisite degree of rigor lest the delicate anti-Zionist ego gets shattered in the face of inconvenient reality. "It seems"..."I think"..."I'd like to believe", yadda yadda. This is same infantile logic which looms behind the brute stifling of any uttering viewed as compromosing to anti-Zionist dogma on Indybay.

Is it true that Bound Together Books carries National Association Man Boy Love Act material? It might not be a ticked off radical Kahanist that breaks his bones, it might be an angry parent!

See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1719246_comment.php#1790227

You crack me up! OOOO, you bought a pea shooter! Just like JA. So what? Unless you have carry permit and can draw your pea shooter lightening fast, no one cares. So go ahead and threaten me. I've dealt with better.

you mean this?

and you left out
'by Sheepdog Tuesday, Sep. 13, 2005 at 12:47 PM

Arayan Nation along with your Vanguard or David Duke lot.'
And that was 'bringing it up?'
In another thread as a response to another asshole?
What a tool.

He talks big on the internet, but he's afraid to face me in real life. The threats have been being made for years, but not once has a single one of these chickensh*t blowards tried to back it up.

What does this tell us about what kind of people they are?

"I've dealt with better."
by all talk and no action Tuesday, May. 23, 2006 at 5:43 PM

He talks big on the internet, but he's afraid to face me in real life. The threats have been being made for years, but not once has a single one of these chickensh*t blowards tried to back it up.


I beg to differ. CM and I were prepared to "talk". We were ready willing and able. The offer still stands. We're more action less talk. You already knew that, right?

Meeting nessie ( *stalking* now and threatening ) is another impact of Zionism?
Like the kill teams from the Mossad?

We offered to buy him a drink. And to watch "Firefly" with him. Its a libertarian space western. You should check it out , too.

So I was wrong reading your threats in previous threads and you're really not *stalking* someone who doesn't wish to see you.
I believe that.
Not.
I think it would be good to prepare for such 'visits' and 'talks' from the type of crew you run with.

turning threads to nessie seems to be some kind of obsession for your fellow zionists.
Perhaps that is the impact of zionism we must endure until all of you are banned from this wire as the noisy dangerous crew you are.

Moi? You are mistaken, mon cherie. I'm a vegetarian feminist pacifist. And a girl scout leader. Really.
I don't cause unnecessary pain to anyone. Unless its a truly concentual part of a relationship.
And they beg : - )

Yeah, not really the most threatening people. Believe me.

ps-- AHEM.

Oops- using Indymedia as chatroom. 10 points off Gryfindor for that transgression.

Yeah right.
a mistake...
no
no
no
You're just a compulsive liar with not very much intelligence. The way you casually lie and then try to lie about a 'mistake' and then provide a wrong out of context thread way before you even infested this site to lie about the reference you lied about me making. The only one being fooled is you. By yourself.

-Didn't you just publish this morning that I was no longer a homeless activist?

I admitted I mixed you up with A Racist is a Racist is a Racist. Can you admit that you were wrong about me no longer being a homeless activist?-

Stop lying! Or being VERY dim.
I said your PRIMARY job which you are being paid to do, from sources you can't discuss is to provide a propaganda platform for the 'cause' you embrace with all the amoral tactics your kind invariably rely upon to spread the lies to cover the Genocide by Israel.
Being a homeless activist seems to take 2nd place here, anyway.
A your support team are assholes.

Get some new inflammatory lying Palinazi balderdash to throw at us.

nothing new to report so why would I?
You're still a judas goat and still doing your bit to drag all Jews into your whirlpool of murder and land theft.
It's never anything new. Like your banal acceptance of the nazi like methods Israel adopts to commit these internationally recognized acts of criminality.

And I take delight in making you bristle with indignation over being exposed as a professionally lying Palinazi genocide supporter and enemy of progress.

It's called wrapping zionism with 'Jewishness' while you emulate nazis.
Change the dance and I'll change the tune.

Stop wrapping your anti-Zionism with diabolic antisemitism by accusing me of imitating Nazis and maintaining that Zionism isn't a real byproduct of Judaism as you laud Palestinian Nazi genocide practitioners. Then I'll get off your back.

You are a broken record. A fanatic. A nutcase.
"diabolic antisemitism" over and over, you say nothing and call everyone "antisemites"
Remember when you spammed Indybay 100 times per night over and over insanely yealling, "Get antisemites off the progressive left..blah blah"???
Luckily we blocked your bitch-ass from disrupting things.
BWAHGAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!
I'll stop toying with you. It's losing its entertainment value.
Class is dismissed now little troll.

What you're doing is frothing about your paranoid demons that your zionazi policies have provoked.
You reap what you sow. Stop sniveling about it and see about getting some therapy.
No one was born a racist as a hardwired genetic tendency. It is learned.
Therefore it can be unlearned. But like the old saying goes you have to want to change.
Being a human is better than crouching in darkness and torment from your own illnesses.

Judas goat now wants anyone to try and verify something he said someone else said.
This is becoming an interesting case study is paranoia/ delusions and perhaps later voices talking in his/her head?
Are you fresca?
This must be another impact of zionism. Insanity.

Professor Finkelstine was on KPFT w/ Amy Goodman. You should catch that when it re-airs.
Oh, and as to your reflexive whaa whaa babble, which usually makes no sense, do you ever talk these 'notions' of yours to anybody else? Besides here, I mean. Or the *other* weasels in the office Perception Advocacy? You know, the Israeli Ministry of 'Truth'.

>I beg to differ. CM and I were prepared to "talk". We were ready willing and able. The offer still stands. We're more action less talk. You already knew that, right?

I have nothing to discuss with *any* racist, be they Zionists, Nazis, Klansmen, Chetniks, or the Interahame. The only way I'm willing to relate them f2f on the ground is self defense. Nothing would make me happier than a legal excuse to put one away.

But talk!?! No way. It would give as much credence to their vile spew as does LA-IMC's deplorable practice of allowing them to broadcast it. Nothing they can say is worth hearing except, "I was wrong. I appologize. I will whatever it takes to undo the harm I have done."

To even *listen* to them say anything less than that is bad politics.

I thought we were engaged in various effects of the impacts of zionism.
We have your whining 'Scape goat "Jew" and I have my mocking ' nothing but an asshole' , hiding behind every real Jew in the world. All for Israel. In other words, you're a judas goat.
You appear to be paranoid and obsessive. I say it's a crime for any child to die by the policies of the 'adults' and you fly off into some twisted chaos of tangled logic accusing me ( what else ) of being what you are.

Hey, nessie, is Wendy Campbell an antisemite?

Are you now in the damage-control stage where you make lame but prolix excuses for your obvious inability to answer a simple, direct question?

@%<

We'll give up any attempt at in person "dialog". I know what you are afraid of. You don't have facts or history to back up your belief system. We do. Your arguments can't hold water, and you couldn't look me straight in the eye and lie. Few can.

We'll communicate the way we did on March 17.

Its zio-anarchy. I knew you'd appreciate it.

Since your team members are still running interference for you and each other. ( as a regular job, it seems now with such dedicated regularity ) I'll repeat the offending post
ahem...
Wait for it
here it is now
ahem...
I thought we were engaged in various effects of the impacts of zionism.
We have your whining 'Scape goat "Jew" and I have my mocking ' nothing but an asshole' , hiding behind every real Jew in the world. All for Israel. In other words, you're a judas goat.
You appear to be paranoid and obsessive. I say it's a crime for any child to die by the policies of the 'adults' and you fly off into some twisted chaos of tangled logic accusing me ( what else ) of being what you are.

An ad hominem is not a rebuttal, but you're still too inconsequential for a Zionist to attack. I only wish you die on a backround unrelated to anything pertaining to Zionism. Death to 'nessie'.

S...dog, what's the issue?


Since your team members are still running interference for you and each other. ( as a regular job, it seems now with such dedicated regularity ) I'll repeat the offending post
ahem...
Wait for it
here it is now
ahem...
I thought we were engaged in various effects of the impacts of zionism.
We have your whining 'Scape goat "Jew" and I have my mocking ' nothing but an asshole' , hiding behind every real Jew in the world. All for Israel. In other words, you're a judas goat.
You appear to be paranoid and obsessive. I say it's a crime for any child to die by the policies of the 'adults' and you fly off into some twisted chaos of tangled logic accusing me ( what else ) of being what you are

people threaten to kill me. They belong to a murderous, terrorist death cult with decades of blood on it's hands. If I didn't take them seriously, it'd be my own fault if they killed me.

(1.) He's trying to change the subject.

(2.) I've answered theat question repeatedly.

(3.) Who is and who is not an anti-Semite has no bearing whatsoever on the guilt of the Zionists. Either way they are still guilty. That's why he's trying to divert your attention onto another subject. It's a trick. Don't fall for it.

"I know what you are afraid of."
by oh, really? Wednesday, May. 24, 2006 at 10:22 AM

Nessie: people threaten to kill me.

Tia: You know, people have threatened to kill me, too. And not just Indymedia paranoid schizophrenics. I've been attacked at street rallies. Perhaps I should take it more seriously.
Nah.
Life is too short to live in fear.

Nessie: They belong to a murderous, terrorist death cult with decades of blood on it's hands. If I didn't take them seriously, it'd be my own fault if they killed me.

Tia: A boat in the harbor is safe, but thats not what boats are for. You can hide and cower if you need to. Not me.
I have work to do.

There he goes again:

(1.) He's trying to duck the question.

(2.) IHe hasn't yet answered that question .

(3.) Who is and who is not an anti-Semite has no bearing whatsoever on the guilt of the anti-Zionists. Either way they are still guilty. That's why he's trying to deflect from the question about Wendy Campbell. It's a trick. Don't fall for it.

Thats nonsense. To pretend that one is "anti-zionists" , a political position, while in fact, you are a racist, and anti-semite, is deceptive and intentionally miselading as to your underlying, true motives. It is however, what we have come to expect from supposed "anti-zionists.".

But that's no surprise. Full of idiotic rhetoric, short on sanity.

We've seen what happens when we bother to hunt down URL's for you. Then you just run and ignore them (i.e. when you were caught re: Tia admonishing Yid, calling him "wierd")
Got that one for you and you failed to respond.....
You are a phoney and a troll.

Or just wearing blinders.
I suspect it's just the usual tactic of inversion of reality
-by speech today Wednesday, May. 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM

We owe a quiet and normal life to ourselves, our children and our
grandchildren. After defending ourselves for almost 60 years against
attacks, all our children should be allowed to live free of fear and terror.

And so I ask of the *Israelis*: How can a child growing up in a Culture of
Hate dream of the possibility of peace? It is so important that all schools
and all educational institutions in the region teach our children to be
hate-free.

The key to a true lasting peace in the Middle East is in the education of
the next generation.

So let us today call out to all peoples of the Middle East: replace the
Culture of Hate with an outlook of hope.

Pussy-coward, you've got negative credibility here. You've spammed, trolled, forged, posted lots of hard porno.
First, you blew Tia's admonition way out of proportion to suit your ridiculous ends.
Second, I'm not even fazed whatsoever by your forgery allegations. You're beneath pathetic. A glance at your scribblings here is enough to realize why the rabid anti-Zionist camp is still so laughable in the US.

You're all allegations and no evidence. Arch-buffoons should go back to mind their own echo chamber playground. You're dismissed, loser.

There's been a spate of bot-spams for casinos and online poker. Perhaps your IP address was compromised and got blocked.

nessie responds:

1) Not an answer.

2) Not an answer.

3) Not an answer.

Now ask yourself, why is nessie so reluctant to answer a simple yes or no question?

Yes or no, nessie. Is Wendy Campbell an antisemite?

@%<

I agree completely that education that teaches tolerance is essential...on BOTH sides. If anything, we should be criticizing the Palestinians, whos actual textbooks are full of racist lies about the Jews. The problem is, if Israel were to try to change it, they would be charged with interfering with the matters of Palestine, and many like the anti-Zionists here would twist that into being racist. But yes, spreading tolerance through the next generation (lets both stop pointing the finger, just to set an example) is essential. Groups like Shalom Achshav (peace now) work for this.

Hey Nessie-- you justify "Zionism is racism" by saying that it supports one group over others in making a state for it. You're pro-Palestine, no? For the rights of Arabs who have moved there even since 1948, I bet. For an entity (PA) that wont allow someone to be buried in its cemeteries if they have sold land to Jews. Just as racist, if you weren't such a delusional hypocrite, by your standards. Do I wish I could kill you? No. I just think you're an intelligent (albeit paranoid) but misguided individual. I'd love to talk. I mean, politically, those I work with for the most part are anti-Zionists. We get over it for the greater good, work together, have some friendly debate after meetings and such. It's humanity. Try it out sometime.

IMHO they're not trying hard enough on the Palestinian side.

In any rate, the entire young Palestinian generation but the toddlers has been a casualty to the PA's inculcation and sactioning of virulent antisemitic and anti-Israeli indoctrination.

He's begging the question. In fact, I've already answered that question repeatedly.

Zionists often use logical fallacy to divert your attention from their guilt. If they *really* wanted to talk about anti-Semitism, they'd start a thread on the subject, or better still participate in the dedicated mailing list:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722251_comment.php#1727998

Or else they'd be complaining on NC-IMC where overt Nazis have taken over the site.

Instead, they attempt to disrupt this discussion with off topic bullsh*t. How typical. It's a trick. Don't fall for it.

And never forget:

(1.) there is not one anti-Semite on earth whose existance justifies a single Zionist atrocity.

(2.) Pro-Semitism is every bit as racist as anti-Semitism. A racist is a racist is a racist. Throw them all out.

Thats remarkably stupid! But whats worse, is the attempted justification of the denial of the right to national self determination on the part of the Jewish people.

Usually duplicious anti-semites pretending to be anarchists start their rant by stating that all national borders must be disarmed and erased, but ......Israel first.

They're begging the question again. There is no such thing as a "national self determination," not for Jews, not for anybody.

Nation states do not exist by "right," but by force of arms.

He's begging the question again. There is such a thing as a "national self determination," for Jews and every other people.

Anti-Semitism's special weight in this world is much greater than philo-Semitism and far more dangerous. A racist is a racist is a racist. Throw all anti-Semites out.

He really was a victim of rape from a Palestinian man. This is why he is so full of viciousness, hatred and racism.
We love you.

nessie: "In fact, I've already answered that question repeatedly. "

But not consistently. For quite a while you defended Wendy at every opportunity, and attacked me at every opportunity for pointing out that she was an antisemite.

So which answer is it now?

@%<

Once again they demonstrate what fundamentally dishonest people they are:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1692248

(snip)

Sometimes they take something that an anti-Zionist has written, subtly alter it’s meaning by changing a few words, and post it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's.

It's obviously not meant to be believed, it's not very subtle. I don't know if you would fall for it, but I would hope that your IQ is above 20. You care so much about what's attributed to your anonymous names, it's incredibly vein. Get over yourself.

Its his way of changing the topic so he doesn't have to address uncomfortable issues.
He is a creature of ego, isn't he?

Once again he demonstrates what fundamentally dishonest a person he is:


http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1962248

(snip)

Sometimes he takes something that a Zionist has written, subtly alters its meaning by changing a few words, and posts it under the name of the original author.

(snip)

* * * * *

Anti-Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Ehud Barak's name to, or Irgun's or the Haganah's.

so tired of spam
spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam etc.
Can't stand to be discussed without messing up any thread they're on.

Piss off and stay away, f--king Z-i-o-n-i-s-t-s.

To Nessie, spam="I don't like what you say"

So which answer is it now, nessie?

@%<

How come virtually any article posted by a Zionist here gets hidden rather promptly? Why look on Zionists as untermenschen? Wouldn't it pay off for you to try to view them as human? (I know I'm being naive on this.)

People who do things like this at all, let alone as a routine matter of policy, can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Its why we disregard your nonsense, Nessie. See you at the Anarchist Book fair!

People who post things like this at all, let alone as a routine matter of policy, can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Its why we disregard your nonsense, Nessie.

To call it " your nonsense" is begging the question. To claim he "disregards" is a patent absurdity, as demonstrated by the very post in which the claim was made.

The original post is excellent and informative. Thank you to the poster.

The original post is shit!

The original post is poor and dis-informative. Thank you to the commenters who've exposed its demerits.

G-d smites far-leftist appeasement meisters, supporters of Palestinian genocide committing Nazis.

from: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/05/158130_comment.php

"by heard it before Thursday, May. 18, 2006 at 5:12 PM "
by there they go again Thursday, May. 18, 2006 at 5:37 PM


Once again they demonstrate what fundamentally dishonest people they are:



http://www.sfimc.net/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1692248

(snip) "


BECKY: Nessie keeps posting this link like its the key to the Arc of the Covenant. It makes me wonder why Nessie is here. Isn't he busy monitoring and posting at his own website: www.sf.indymedia.org or the nearby website he posts at frequently in his own backyard at www.indybay.org?

I mean with two perfectly good websites that have a policy of posting whatever Nessie wants to post or comment on---without deletion or IP blocking---and completely sanitized of an opposing viewpoint, why must Nessie come here?

We have good reason. We were driven out by the censors up north. But for Nessie, he is here hoping to attract his many missing readers BACK to SF. IMC

Thats why he keeps spamming this URL over and over and over again. Hoping he can get a little more traffic on his mostly dead site.

Bradley Allen of indybay.org/santacruz claims that my IP address has been unblocked. Not that I got an e-mail informing me thusly. So I wondered what would happen when I went to post on the homeless issues I have been covering for years here in Santa Cruz. My posts were hidden sometimes within minutes.

Clearly content is not the criteria for the censorship.

My associate, Robert Norse, raised holy hell with the IMC monitors and now I am able to post again.....but on homeless issues only.

Here is the post Bradley Allen ALLOWS to stay posted.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1824550_comment.php#1824738

big of him, isn't it?

I tlooks like another victim of AM right wing nutjob radio.
Hilarious.
"appeasement"

They know exactly why I'm here. This place is infested with racists, and I'm calling them on it. You should, too. Anything less is immoral.

>another Zionist lie. They know exactly why I'm here.

Becky Johnson didn't lie. "Zionist lie" = whatever a Zionist authored that nessie doesn't like reading.

>This place is infested with racists, and I'm calling them on it.

This is a classical logical fallacy. nessie himself is a racist, yet he's here too and hasn't called himself on it. That he dares show his face here to speak ill of anti-racists is the height of immorality.

"They know exactly why I'm here."

Yeah, Nes. You are yet another attention hog.
You want desperately to believe your life hasn't been wasted- that you've had some kind of impact.
I don't know what you've done besides spamming Indymedia but my guess is that no, you've had no impact.
Just another aging hippie.
With an ego the size of Kansas.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1822143_comment.php#1825397

Calling you a closet right wing bircher.
Is it true?
Scratch an anarchist, find a white supremacist?

And now they're telling us that all the forgeries of nessie we get is because they are ignoring him.
They ignore him vigorously, unrelentingly and continuously...
That's because they don't care about what he writes.

Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Osama bin Laden's name to, or Hamas' or the PLO's.

What they are saying at Indybay
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1822143_comment.php#1825416

Sounds like Nessie is a right wing shill

siding with right-wing anti-environmentalists

siding against affirmative action

siding with the corporate medical establishment, even making statements about how you don't care who makes how much money as long as if fits under the rubric of "medical research"

siding with the NRA on guns

rationalizing the overrepresentation of liquor stores in poor neighborhoods with right-wing free market arguments

siding with the FBI in calling the ELF and ALF terrorists

the list goes on and on and on and on

it tires me to count the ways. and you're a big fat liar for pretending for a second that you don't hold countless positions that side all too neatly with the right-wing in this country.

Click here:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722251_comment.php#1728245

Anti-Zionists love to sign other people's names. False flag ops are their specialty. We cannot help but wonder how many atrocities they have signed Ehud Barak's name to, or Irgun's, or the Haganah's.

People who do things like this can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Zionists lie because they have to. There is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing.

People who say things like this can't be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.

Anti-Zionists lie because they have to. There is no honest defense of ethnic cleansing of Jews.

from (the link above): http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/05/1822143_comment.php#1825416

ATEST COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
Listed below are the 10 latest comments of 43 posted about this article.
These comments are anonymously submitted by website visitors.
TITLE AUTHOR DATE
Feinstein and Boxer are cosponsoring the Iran Freedom Support Act in the Senate kim Tuesday, May. 09, 2006 at 8:16 PM
Oh, Goss is WWAAAAYYY dirtier than this TW Tuesday, May. 09, 2006 at 7:50 PM

BECKY: The article which WHEN HE'S NOT AROUND linked to, shows that of the FORTY-THREE comments posted only TWO are allowed to remain posted. Yup, that's the kind of democratic forum I want to volunteer to support, pay money to, and refer all my friends to visit!

On June 1st, we will find out if LA.IMC wants to follow suit.

ASIDE TO SHEEPDOG: If you REALLY want to get us off LA.IMC, talk to the whacko's who monitor Indybay.org and get THEM to stop censoring!

picking on Ms. BJ
I really don't care if you go into n-space. The phantom zone. Shangri-La Brigadoon, or avalon. Even Amber.
I case you may have surmised, I don't like you.
People I don't like, go away.
Eventually.

Chapter 16
Genesis, chapter 16


Compare with King James Version: Gene.16




1: Now Sar'ai, Abram's wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar;
2: and Sar'ai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children; go in to my maid; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sar'ai.
3: So, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sar'ai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.
4: And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.
5: And Sar'ai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my maid to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the LORD judge between you and me!"
6: But Abram said to Sar'ai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sar'ai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.
7: The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
8: And he said, "Hagar, maid of Sar'ai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am fleeing from my mistress Sar'ai."
9: The angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
10: The angel of the LORD also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your descendants that they cannot be numbered for multitude."
11: And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Behold, you are with child, and shall bear a son; you shall call his name Ish'mael; because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
12: He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen."
13: So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "Thou art a God of seeing"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"
14: Therefore the well was called Beer-la'hai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.
15: And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish'mael.
16: Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 17
Genesis, chapter 17


Compare with King James Version: Gene.17




1: When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.
2: And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
3: Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him,
4: "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
5: No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
6: I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you.
7: And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
8: And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
9: And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
10: This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
11: You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
12: He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
13: both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
14: Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
15: And God said to Abraham, "As for Sar'ai your wife, you shall not call her name Sar'ai, but Sarah shall be her name.
16: I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
17: Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
18: And Abraham said to God, "O that Ish'mael might live in thy sight!"
19: God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
20: As for Ish'mael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
21: But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year."
22: When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.
23: Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
24: Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25: And Ish'mael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
26: That very day Abraham and his son Ish'mael were circumcised;
27: and all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 18
Genesis, chapter 18


Compare with King James Version: Gene.18




1: And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.
2: He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the earth,
3: and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.
4: Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree,
5: while I fetch a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on -- since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said."
6: And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes."
7: And Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it.
8: Then he took curds, and milk, and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree while they ate.
9: They said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "She is in the tent."
10: The LORD said, "I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him.
11: Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in age; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12: So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?"
13: The LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, and say, `Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?'
14: Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, in the spring, and Sarah shall have a son."
15: But Sarah denied, saying, "I did not laugh"; for she was afraid. He said, "No, but you did laugh."
16: Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way.
17: The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,
18: seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by him?
19: No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."
20: Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave,
21: I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."
22: So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD.
23: Then Abraham drew near, and said, "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24: Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it?
25: Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26: And the LORD said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27: Abraham answered, "Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.
28: Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?" And he said, "I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there."
29: Again he spoke to him, and said, "Suppose forty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of forty I will not do it."
30: Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there." He answered, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there."
31: He said, "Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there." He answered, "For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it."
32: Then he said, "Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there." He answered, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it."
33: And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 19
Genesis, chapter 19


Compare with King James Version: Gene.19




1: The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth,
2: and said, "My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." They said, "No; we will spend the night in the street."
3: But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
4: But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
5: and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
6: Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him,
7: and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
8: Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
9: But they said, "Stand back!" And they said, "This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them." Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and drew near to break the door.
10: But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
11: And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.
12: Then the men said to Lot, "Have you any one else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or any one you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
13: for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."
14: So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
15: When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city."
16: But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city.
17: And when they had brought them forth, they said, "Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed."
18: And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords;
19: behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die.
20: Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there -- is it not a little one? -- and my life will be saved!"
21: He said to him, "Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
22: Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there." Therefore the name of the city was called Zo'ar.
23: The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zo'ar.
24: Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomor'rah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
25: and he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
26: But Lot's wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27: And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD;
28: and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomor'rah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
29: So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
30: Now Lot went up out of Zo'ar, and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwell in Zo'ar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters.
31: And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
32: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
33: So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
34: And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
35: So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
36: Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
37: The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
38: The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 20
Genesis, chapter 20


Compare with King James Version: Gene.20




1: From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar.
2: And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." And Abim'elech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah.
3: But God came to Abim'elech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man, because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a man's wife."
4: Now Abim'elech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people?
5: Did he not himself say to me, `She is my sister'? And she herself said, `He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this."
6: Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her.
7: Now then restore the man's wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you, and all that are yours."
8: So Abim'elech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told them all these things; and the men were very much afraid.
9: Then Abim'elech called Abraham, and said to him, "What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done."
10: And Abim'elech said to Abraham, "What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?"
11: Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.
12: Besides she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
13: And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to her, `This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.'"
14: Then Abim'elech took sheep and oxen, and male and female slaves, and gave them to Abraham, and restored Sarah his wife to him.
15: And Abim'elech said, "Behold, my land is before you; dwell where it pleases you."
16: To Sarah he said, "Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; it is your vindication in the eyes of all who are with you; and before every one you are righted."
17: Then Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abim'elech, and also healed his wife and female slaves so that they bore children.
18: For the LORD had closed all the wombs of the house of Abim'elech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 21
Genesis, chapter 21


Compare with King James Version: Gene.21




1: The LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did to Sarah as he had promised.
2: And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had spoken to him.
3: Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac.
4: And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.
5: Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
6: And Sarah said, "God has made laughter for me; every one who hears will laugh over me."
7: And she said, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would suckle children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age."
8: And the child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.
9: But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac.
10: So she said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac."
11: And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son.
12: But God said to Abraham, "Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named.
13: And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring."
14: So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
15: When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes.
16: Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, "Let me not look upon the death of the child." And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept.
17: And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.
18: Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation."
19: Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink.
20: And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow.
21: He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
22: At that time Abim'elech and Phicol the commander of his army said to Abraham, "God is with you in all that you do;
23: now therefore swear to me here by God that you will not deal falsely with me or with my offspring or with my posterity, but as I have dealt loyally with you, you will deal with me and with the land where you have sojourned."
24: And Abraham said, "I will swear."
25: When Abraham complained to Abim'elech about a well of water which Abim'elech's servants had seized,
26: Abim'elech said, "I do not know who has done this thing; you did not tell me, and I have not heard of it until today."
27: So Abraham took sheep and oxen and gave them to Abim'elech, and the two men made a covenant.
28: Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock apart.
29: And Abim'elech said to Abraham, "What is the meaning of these seven ewe lambs which you have set apart?"
30: He said, "These seven ewe lambs you will take from my hand, that you may be a witness for me that I dug this well."
31: Therefore that place was called Beer-sheba; because there both of them swore an oath.
32: So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba. Then Abim'elech and Phicol the commander of his army rose up and returned to the land of the Philistines.
33: Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.
34: And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 22
Genesis, chapter 22


Compare with King James Version: Gene.22




1: After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
2: He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Mori'ah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."
3: So Abraham rose early in the morning, saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and his son Isaac; and he cut the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
4: On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off.
5: Then Abraham said to his young men, "Stay here with the ass; I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you."
6: And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together.
7: And Isaac said to his father Abraham, "My father!" And he said, "Here am I, my son." He said, "Behold, the fire and the wood; but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?"
8: Abraham said, "God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together.
9: When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
10: Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11: But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I."
12: He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
13: And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14: So Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."
15: And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16: and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17: I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies,
18: and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."
19: So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beer-sheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beer-sheba.
20: Now after these things it was told Abraham, "Behold, Milcah also has borne children to your brother Nahor:
21: Uz the first-born, Buz his brother, Kemu'el the father of Aram,
22: Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph, and Bethu'el."
23: Bethu'el became the father of Rebekah. These eight Milcah bore to Nahor, Abraham's brother.
24: Moreover, his concubine, whose name was Reumah, bore Tebah, Gaham, Tahash, and Ma'acah.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 23
Genesis, chapter 23


Compare with King James Version: Gene.23




1: Sarah lived a hundred and twenty-seven years; these were the years of the life of Sarah.
2: And Sarah died at Kir'iath-ar'ba (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan; and Abraham went in to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her.
3: And Abraham rose up from before his dead, and said to the Hittites,
4: "I am a stranger and a sojourner among you; give me property among you for a burying place, that I may bury my dead out of my sight."
5: The Hittites answered Abraham,
6: "Hear us, my lord; you are a mighty prince among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our sepulchres; none of us will withhold from you his sepulchre, or hinder you from burying your dead."
7: Abraham rose and bowed to the Hittites, the people of the land.
8: And he said to them, "If you are willing that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hear me, and entreat for me Ephron the son of Zohar,
9: that he may give me the cave of Mach-pe'lah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as a possession for a burying place."
10: Now Ephron was sitting among the Hittites; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, of all who went in at the gate of his city,
11: "No, my lord, hear me; I give you the field, and I give you the cave that is in it; in the presence of the sons of my people I give it to you; bury your dead."
12: Then Abraham bowed down before the people of the land.
13: And he said to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, "But if you will, hear me; I will give the price of the field; accept it from me, that I may bury my dead there."
14: Ephron answered Abraham,
15: "My lord, listen to me; a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is that between you and me? Bury your dead."
16: Abraham agreed with Ephron; and Abraham weighed out for Ephron the silver which he had named in the hearing of the Hittites, four hundred shekels of silver, according to the weights current among the merchants.
17: So the field of Ephron in Mach-pe'lah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave which was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over
18: to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.
19: After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Mach-pe'lah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan.
20: The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as a possession for a burying place by the Hittites.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 24
Genesis, chapter 24


Compare with King James Version: Gene.24




1: Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.
2: And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his house, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh,
3: and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell,
4: but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac."
5: The servant said to him, "Perhaps the woman may not be willing to follow me to this land; must I then take your son back to the land from which you came?"
6: Abraham said to him, "See to it that you do not take my son back there.
7: The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me and swore to me, `To your descendants I will give this land,' he will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there.
8: But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this oath of mine; only you must not take my son back there."
9: So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.
10: Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose, and went to Mesopota'mia, to the city of Nahor.
11: And he made the camels kneel down outside the city by the well of water at the time of evening, the time when women go out to draw water.
12: And he said, "O LORD, God of my master Abraham, grant me success today, I pray thee, and show steadfast love to my master Abraham.
13: Behold, I am standing by the spring of water, and the daughters of the men of the city are coming out to draw water.
14: Let the maiden to whom I shall say, `Pray let down your jar that I may drink,' and who shall say, `Drink, and I will water your camels' -- let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac. By this I shall know that thou hast shown steadfast love to my master."
15: Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethu'el the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder.
16: The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up.
17: Then the servant ran to meet her, and said, "Pray give me a little water to drink from your jar."
18: She said, "Drink, my lord"; and she quickly let down her jar upon her hand, and gave him a drink.
19: When she had finished giving him a drink, she said, "I will draw for your camels also, until they have done drinking."
20: So she quickly emptied her jar into the trough and ran again to the well to draw, and she drew for all his camels.
21: The man gazed at her in silence to learn whether the LORD had prospered his journey or not.
22: When the camels had done drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels,
23: and said, "Tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father's house for us to lodge in?"
24: She said to him, "I am the daughter of Bethu'el the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor."
25: She added, "We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in."
26: The man bowed his head and worshiped the LORD,
27: and said, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the LORD has led me in the way to the house of my master's kinsmen."
28: Then the maiden ran and told her mother's household about these things.
29: Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban; and Laban ran out to the man, to the spring.
30: When he saw the ring, and the bracelets on his sister's arms, and when he heard the words of Rebekah his sister, "Thus the man spoke to me," he went to the man; and behold, he was standing by the camels at the spring.
31: He said, "Come in, O blessed of the LORD; why do you stand outside? For I have prepared the house and a place for the camels."
32: So the man came into the house; and Laban ungirded the camels, and gave him straw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the feet of the men who were with him.
33: Then food was set before him to eat; but he said, "I will not eat until I have told my errand." He said, "Speak on."
34: So he said, "I am Abraham's servant.
35: The LORD has greatly blessed my master, and he has become great; he has given him flocks and herds, silver and gold, menservants and maidservants, camels and asses.
36: And Sarah my master's wife bore a son to my master when she was old; and to him he has given all that he has.
37: My master made me swear, saying, `You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell;
38: but you shall go to my father's house and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son.'
39: I said to my master, `Perhaps the woman will not follow me.'
40: But he said to me, `The LORD, before whom I walk, will send his angel with you and prosper your way; and you shall take a wife for my son from my kindred and from my father's house;
41: then you will be free from my oath, when you come to my kindred; and if they will not give her to you, you will be free from my oath.'
42: "I came today to the spring, and said, `O LORD, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou wilt prosper the way which I go,
43: behold, I am standing by the spring of water; let the young woman who comes out to draw, to whom I shall say, "Pray give me a little water from your jar to drink,"
44: and who will say to me, "Drink, and I will draw for your camels also," let her be the woman whom the LORD has appointed for my master's son.'
45: "Before I had done speaking in my heart, behold, Rebekah came out with her water jar on her shoulder; and she went down to the spring, and drew. I said to her, `Pray let me drink.'
46: She quickly let down her jar from her shoulder, and said, `Drink, and I will give your camels drink also.' So I drank, and she gave the camels drink also.
47: Then I asked her, `Whose daughter are you?' She said, The daughter of Bethu'el, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bore to him.' So I put the ring on her nose, and the bracelets on her arms.
48: Then I bowed my head and worshiped the LORD, and blessed the LORD, the God of my master Abraham, who had led me by the right way to take the daughter of my master's kinsman for his son.
49: Now then, if you will deal loyally and truly with my master, tell me; and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand or to the left."
50: Then Laban and Bethu'el answered, "The thing comes from the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good.
51: Behold, Rebekah is before you, take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master's son, as the LORD has spoken."
52: When Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the earth before the LORD.
53: And the servant brought forth jewelry of silver and of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave to her brother and to her mother costly ornaments.
54: And he and the men who were with him ate and drank, and they spent the night there. When they arose in the morning, he said, "Send me back to my master."
55: Her brother and her mother said, "Let the maiden remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go."
56: But he said to them, "Do not delay me, since the LORD has prospered my way; let me go that I may go to my master."
57: They said, "We will call the maiden, and ask her."
58: And they called Rebekah, and said to her, "Will you go with this man?" She said, "I will go."
59: So they sent away Rebekah their sister and her nurse, and Abraham's servant and his men.
60: And they blessed Rebekah, and said to her, "Our sister, be the mother of thousands of ten thousands; and may your descendants possess the gate of those who hate them!"
61: Then Rebekah and her maids arose, and rode upon the camels and followed the man; thus the servant took Rebekah, and went his way.
62: Now Isaac had come from Beer-la'hai-roi, and was dwelling in the Negeb.
63: And Isaac went out to meditate in the field in the evening; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, there were camels coming.
64: And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she alighted from the camel,
65: and said to the servant, "Who is the man yonder, walking in the field to meet us?" The servant said, "It is my master." So she took her veil and covered herself.
66: And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.
67: Then Isaac brought her into the tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 25
Genesis, chapter 25


Compare with King James Version: Gene.25




1: Abraham took another wife, whose name was Ketu'rah.
2: She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Mid'ian, Ishbak, and Shuah.
3: Jokshan was the father of Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshu'rim, Letu'shim, and Le-um'mim.
4: The sons of Mid'ian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abi'da, and Elda'ah. All these were the children of Ketu'rah.
5: Abraham gave all he had to Isaac.
6: But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.
7: These are the days of the years of Abraham's life, a hundred and seventy-five years.
8: Abraham breathed his last and died in a good old age, an old man and full of years, and was gathered to his people.
9: Isaac and Ish'mael his sons buried him in the cave of Mach-pe'lah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, east of Mamre,
10: the field which Abraham purchased from the Hittites. There Abraham was buried, with Sarah his wife.
11: After the death of Abraham God blessed Isaac his son. And Isaac dwelt at Beer-la'hai-roi.
12: These are the descendants of Ish'mael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's maid, bore to Abraham.
13: These are the names of the sons of Ish'mael, named in the order of their birth: Neba'ioth, the first-born of Ish'mael; and Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam,
14: Mishma, Dumah, Massa,
15: Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Ked'emah.
16: These are the sons of Ish'mael and these are their names, by their villages and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their tribes.
17: (These are the years of the life of Ish'mael, a hundred and thirty-seven years; he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kindred.)
18: They dwelt from Hav'ilah to Shur, which is opposite Egypt in the direction of Assyria; he settled over against all his people.
19: These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham was the father of Isaac,
20: and Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, the daughter of Bethu'el the Aramean of Paddan-aram, the sister of Laban the Aramean.
21: And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22: The children struggled together within her; and she said, "If it is thus, why do I live?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
23: And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger."
24: When her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25: The first came forth red, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau.
26: Afterward his brother came forth, and his hand had taken hold of Esau's heel; so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.
27: When the boys grew up, Esau was a skilful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents.
28: Isaac loved Esau, because he ate of his game; but Rebekah loved Jacob.
29: Once when Jacob was boiling pottage, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished.
30: And Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red pottage, for I am famished!" (Therefore his name was called Edom.)
31: Jacob said, "First sell me your birthright."
32: Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?"
33: Jacob said, "Swear to me first." So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob.
34: Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 26
Genesis, chapter 26


Compare with King James Version: Gene.26




1: Now there was a famine in the land, besides the former famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Gerar, to Abim'elech king of the Philistines.
2: And the LORD appeared to him, and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you.
3: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you and to your descendants I will give all these lands, and I will fulfil the oath which I swore to Abraham your father.
4: I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give to your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves:
5: because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
6: So Isaac dwelt in Gerar.
7: When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, "She is my sister"; for he feared to say, "My wife," thinking, "lest the men of the place should kill me for the sake of Rebekah"; because she was fair to look upon.
8: When he had been there a long time, Abim'elech king of the Philistines looked out of a window and saw Isaac fondling Rebekah his wife.
9: So Abim'elech called Isaac, and said, "Behold, she is your wife; how then could you say, `She is my sister'?" Isaac said to him, "Because I thought, `Lest I die because of her.'"
10: Abim'elech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us."
11: So Abim'elech warned all the people, saying, "Whoever touches this man or his wife shall be put to death."
12: And Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The LORD blessed him,
13: and the man became rich, and gained more and more until he became very wealthy.
14: He had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.
15: (Now the Philistines had stopped and filled with earth all the wells which his father's servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father.)
16: And Abim'elech said to Isaac, "Go away from us; for you are much mightier than we."
17: So Isaac departed from there, and encamped in the valley of Gerar and dwelt there.
18: And Isaac dug again the wells of water which had been dug in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham; and he gave them the names which his father had given them.
19: But when Isaac's servants dug in the valley and found there a well of springing water,
20: the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac's herdsmen, saying, "The water is ours." So he called the name of the well Esek, because they contended with him.
21: Then they dug another well, and they quarreled over that also; so he called its name Sitnah.
22: And he moved from there and dug another well, and over that they did not quarrel; so he called its name Reho'both, saying, "For now the LORD has made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land."
23: From there he went up to Beer-sheba.
24: And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, "I am the God of Abraham your father; fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your descendants for my servant Abraham's sake."
25: So he built an altar there and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there. And there Isaac's servants dug a well.
26: Then Abim'elech went to him from Gerar with Ahuz'zath his adviser and Phicol the commander of his army.
27: Isaac said to them, "Why have you come to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?"
28: They said, "We see plainly that the LORD is with you; so we say, let there be an oath between you and us, and let us make a covenant with you,
29: that you will do us no harm, just as we have not touched you and have done to you nothing but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the LORD."
30: So he made them a feast, and they ate and drank.
31: In the morning they rose early and took oath with one another; and Isaac set them on their way, and they departed from him in peace.
32: That same day Isaac's servants came and told him about the well which they had dug, and said to him, "We have found water."
33: He called it Shibah; therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba to this day.
34: When Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith the daughter of Be-e'ri the Hittite, and Bas'emath the daughter of Elon the Hittite;
35: and they made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah.

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 27
Genesis, chapter 27


Compare with King James Version: Gene.27




1: When Isaac was old and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his older son, and said to him, "My son"; and he answered, "Here I am."
2: He said, "Behold, I am old; I do not know the day of my death.
3: Now then, take your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go out to the field, and hunt game for me,
4: and prepare for me savory food, such as I love, and bring it to me that I may eat; that I may bless you before I die."
5: Now Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau. So when Esau went to the field to hunt for game and bring it,
6: Rebekah said to her son Jacob, "I heard your father speak to your brother Esau,
7: `Bring me game, and prepare for me savory food, that I may eat it, and bless you before the LORD before I die.'
8: Now therefore, my son, obey my word as I command you.
9: Go to the flock, and fetch me two good kids, that I may prepare from them savory food for your father, such as he loves;
10: and you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies."
11: But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man.
12: Perhaps my father will feel me, and I shall seem to be mocking him, and bring a curse upon myself and not a blessing."
13: His mother said to him, "Upon me be your curse, my son; only obey my word, and go, fetch them to me."
14: So he went and took them and brought them to his mother; and his mother prepared savory food, such as his father loved.
15: Then Rebekah took the best garments of Esau her older son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob her younger son;
16: and the skins of the kids she put upon his hands and upon the smooth part of his neck;
17: and she gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
18: So he went in to his father, and said, "My father"; and he said, "Here I am; who are you, my son?"
19: Jacob said to his father, "I am Esau your first-born. I have done as you told me; now sit up and eat of my game, that you may bless me."
20: But Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?" He answered, "Because the LORD your God granted me success."
21: Then Isaac said to Jacob, "Come near, that I may feel you, my son, to know whether you are really my son Esau or not."
22: So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, "The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau."
23: And he did not recognize him, because his hands were hairy like his brother Esau's hands; so he blessed him.
24: He said, "Are you really my son Esau?" He answered, "I am."
25: Then he said, "Bring it to me, that I may eat of my son's game and bless you." So he brought it to him, and he ate; and he brought him wine, and he drank.
26: Then his father Isaac said to him, "Come near and kiss me, my son."
27: So he came near and kissed him; and he smelled the smell of his garments, and blessed him, and said, "See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD has blessed!
28: May God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine.
29: Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be every one who curses you, and blessed be every one who blesses you!"
30: As soon as Isaac had finished blessing Jacob, when Jacob had scarcely gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, Esau his brother came in from his hunting.
31: He also prepared savory food, and brought it to his father. And he said to his father, "Let my father arise, and eat of his son's game, that you may bless me."
32: His father Isaac said to him, "Who are you?" He answered, "I am your son, your first-born, Esau."
33: Then Isaac trembled violently, and said, "Who was it then that hunted game and brought it to me, and I ate it all before you came, and I have blessed him? -- yes, and he shall be blessed."
34: When Esau heard the words of his father, he cried out with an exceedingly great and bitter cry, and said to his father, "Bless me, even me also, O my father!"
35: But he said, "Your brother came with guile, and he has taken away your blessing."
36: Esau said, "Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he has supplanted me these two times. He took away my birthright; and behold, now he has taken away my blessing." Then he said, "Have you not reserved a blessing for me?"
37: Isaac answered Esau, "Behold, I have made him your lord, and all his brothers I have given to him for servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?"
38: Esau said to his father, "Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father." And Esau lifted up his voice and wept.
39: Then Isaac his father answered him: "Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high.
40: By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck."
41: Now Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him, and Esau said to himself, "The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then I will kill my brother Jacob."
42: But the words of Esau her older son were told to Rebekah; so she sent and called Jacob her younger son, and said to him, "Behold, your brother Esau comforts himself by planning to kill you.
43: Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; arise, flee to Laban my brother in Haran,
44: and stay with him a while, until your brother's fury turns away;
45: until your brother's anger turns away, and he forgets what you have done to him; then I will send, and fetch you from there. Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?"
46: Then Rebekah said to Isaac, "I am weary of my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries one of the Hittite women such as these, one of the women of the land, what good will my life be to me?"

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 28
Genesis, chapter 28


Compare with King James Version: Gene.28




1: Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, "You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women.
2: Arise, go to Paddan-aram to the house of Bethu'el your mother's father; and take as wife from there one of the daughters of Laban your mother's brother.
3: God Almighty bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples.
4: May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your descendants with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings which God gave to Abraham!"
5: Thus Isaac sent Jacob away; and he went to Paddan-aram to Laban, the son of Bethu'el the Aramean, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob's and Esau's mother.
6: Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he charged him, "You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women,"
7: and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and gone to Paddan-aram.
8: So when Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please Isaac his father,
9: Esau went to Ish'mael and took to wife, besides the wives he had, Ma'halath the daughter of Ish'mael Abraham's son, the sister of Neba'ioth.
10: Jacob left Beer-sheba, and went toward Haran.
11: And he came to a certain place, and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep.
12: And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!
13: And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your descendants;
14: and your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and by you and your descendants shall all the families of the earth bless themselves.
15: Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you."
16: Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, "Surely the LORD is in this place; and I did not know it."
17: And he was afraid, and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven."
18: So Jacob rose early in the morning, and he took the stone which he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar and poured oil on the top of it.
19: He called the name of that place Bethel; but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
20: Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear,
21: so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God,
22: and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that thou givest me I will give the tenth to thee."

Bible, Revised Standard. Genesis, from The holy Bible, Revised Standard version
Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library


| Table of Contents for this work |
| All on-line databases | Etext Center Homepage |

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

Chapter 29
Genesis, chapter 29


Compare with King James Version: Gene.29




1: Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the people of the east.
2: As he looked, he saw a well in the field, and lo, three flocks of sheep lying beside it; for out of that well the flocks were watered. The stone on the well's mouth was large,
3: and when all the flocks were gathered there, the shepherds would roll the stone from the mouth of the well, and water the sheep, and put the stone back in its place upon the mouth of the well.
4: Jacob said to them, "My brothers, where do you come from?" They said, "We are from Haran."
5: He said to them, "Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?" They said, "We know him."
6: He said to them, "Is it well with him?" They said, "It is well; and see, Rachel his daughter is coming with the sheep!"
7: He said, "Behold, it is still high day, it is not time for the animals to be gathered together; water the sheep, and go, pasture them."
8: But they said, "We cannot until all the flocks are gathered together, and the stone is rolled from the mouth of the well; then we water the sheep."
9: While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father's sheep; for she kept them.
10: Now when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother's brother, Jacob went up and rolled the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother's brother.
11: Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and wept aloud.
12: And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's kinsman, and that he was Rebekah's son; and she ran and told her father.
13: When Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister's son, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him, and brought him to his house. Jacob told Laban all these things,
14: and Laban said to him, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh!" And he stayed with him a month.
15: Then Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?"
16: Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel.
17: Leah's eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful and lovely.
18: Jacob loved Rachel; and he said, "I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel."
19: Laban said, "It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to any other man; stay with me."
20: So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.
21: Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed."
22: So Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
23: But in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to Jacob; and he went in to her.
24: (Laban gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah to be her maid.)
25: And in the morning, behold, it was Leah; and Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? Did I not serve with you for Rachel? Why then have you deceived me?"
26: Laban said, "It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the first-born.
27: Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also in return for serving me another seven years."
28: Jacob did so, and completed her week; then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to wife.
29: (Laban gave his maid Bilhah to his daughter Rachel to be her maid.)
30: So Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban f