Parallels between Nazism, Zionists striking

By Wendy Campbell

Sept. 10, 2006

This article was inspired by an article by the obnoxious, ubiquitous neoconservative talking head and author Bill O’Reilly. His syndicated article was printed in the local paper today, and the title was “Parallels between Nazism, jihadists striking”.

It was so outrageous I just had to laugh out loud. Honestly. So now I am going to write an article based on it and just interject MY observations which are almost exactly OPPOSITE of his observations. You’ll see what I mean later in the article about how outrageously hilarious his statements get. Of course, he tries to posture that he is completely serious. But does he really think Americans are that dumb? This arrogance will be his downfall along with his cohorts. The lies are becoming so transparent to many Americans. He’ll be laughed out of his high-falutin position for sure. I’m already laughing. Ha ha ha.

Anyway, here it goes. Please note that direct quotes from his article will have quote marks with his name preceding them.

O’Reilly: “Seventy years ago this month, Adolf Hitler began seizing the asset of German Jews. He had waited until the summer Olympics in Berlin were finished and the world had seen the might of the Third Reich. Already, Hitler had established concentration camps for “undesirables” and forced many Jewish professors out of their jobs. He had also harassed Catholics and Protestants who dared speak against his racist policies.”

Hmm.... Sounds an awful lot like what Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians for decades. There are over 10,000 Palestinian people, men, woman and children in what amounts to concentration camps in Palestine-Israel. In fact all of the Gaza Strip and Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank are comparable to open-air prisons. The Israelis dominate, humiliate and basically torture the Palestinians every day, in an on-going ethnic-cleansing campaign against the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians and yet they are still expected to pay taxes to their torturers. It’s truly unbelievable, but you better believe it. It’s true.

Here in the United States, Muslim Arab professors are getting rounded up too, even without any proof or specific charges. Even progressive Jewish professors such as Joel Beinin of Stanford University are being targetted, smeared, harassed and defamed by the NeoConservative Zionist Jews such as Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, simply because Beinin teaches his students the truth about racist, apartheid Zionist Israel. The Neoconservatives have even created a Department of Anti-Semitism whose intended goal is to criminalize any strong critics of the racist, apartheid state of Israel, its Zionist regime and its leaders. And Daniel Pipes runs the censorious Campus Watch, threatening all professors and students who criticize the racist ideology of Zionist Israel.

Many activists such as Alex Jones warn Americans that our government is preparing concentration camps for dissident Americans who challenge the government’s policies, especially those which are supportive of Zionist Israel. Let’s hope he is just being paranoid. However, let’s not kid ourselves: there are many crazy Neocons in and around our government who would love to do just that. If you don’t believe me, check this website out: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm and then check this out: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/departofantisemitsm.html

O’Reilly: “The parallels between the rise of fascism in pre-World War II Germany and the rise of Islamic fascism today are startling.”

Well, um, I would beg to differ with Mr. O’Reilly, precisely for the reasons I stated previously . As most peace and 911 truth activists realize, “our” own government is becoming increasingly fascistic, what with the so-called “Patriot Act”, the wiretappping of citizens, and the beating up by ADL-trained policemen of dissident journalists such as the recent incident with American Free Press’s Christopher Bollyn, for example.

First of all, according to many well-respected polling companies, well over a third of all Americans doubt the official version of 9/11. In fact, in some polls it’s 53% believe that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by rogue elements in “our” government, as well as Israel’s. Let’s get that clear right up front here. The truth-out 911 movement is so big that even the mainstream media can’t ignore it anymore. Much of the credit goes to independent videographers, such as Dylan Avery and his “Loose Change”, which can be seen on the amazing website YouTube.com or www.loosechange.org. But he is just one of hundreds now doing a great job of asking the questions that must be asked and answered. Justice must be done to this crime of the century against the American people. The war in Iraq is not about justice for 911. 911 was the Riechstag or Pearl Harbor the NeoCons needed to roll out the war on Iraq and other Middle East countries, primarily for Israel’s benefit. There were no ties between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even the mainstream media confirms this FACT. There were no WMD. “Our” government couldn’t care less about “democracy”--- not here, and not in Iraq. It’s about fighting wars for Israel’s “security” and actually Israel’s imperialistic ambitions; the American politicians who go along with this criminal scheme get to stay power, and line their pockets with gold from political contributions and lucrative reconstruction and corporate deals. Watch now as Zionist Hollywood goes into overdrive trying to convince Americans of the kosher version of 9/11. Any other version, they and the government claim, are just un-kosher “conspiracy theories.” There is only ONE kosher conspiracy theory that we are told we MUST believe and that is the one that asserts that evil jihadist Arab Muslims who operate out of caves and only have boxcutters for tools did it. Uh huh. Right. Sounds like the “one magic bullet” theory with regards to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

The rogue elements of our government and Israel’s had the motive and the means to make 9/11 happen, according to many. The motive was to re-make over the Middle East primarily in favor of Israel’s ambitions. Something that is happening, although it’s been rough. Wolfowitz and Perle knew it wouldn’t be a “cake walk” like they claimed. They said anything and everything just to make the war on Iraq happen according to plan, which was stated in the Project for a New American Century, which was based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which was based on A Clean Break.

Most of this is common knowledge these days to activists across the country and around the world. Wake up, America! This is now an information war. Lots of propaganda and outright lies being pushed on you via the Zionist-dominated US media.

O’Reilly: “Iran, a nation committed to wiping Israel off the map, is defying the United Nations by refusing to obey the nuclear disarmament treaty.”

To that, I write this: Israel, a nation that has been committed since 1948, and even before that with the birth of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, to wiping Palestine of the map, has been defying well over 70 UN resolutions for decades now as well as continues to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty, which Iran HAS offered to sign along with the other countries of the Middle East. Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East to have nuclear warheads. Double standards don’t breed good will.

O’Reilly: “Hitler defied the League of Nations and rearmed, creating a fierce military threat while openly advocating the diminishment of Jews and “Aryan racial purity.””

To that, I write this: Israel continually defies UN resolutions and peacekeeping efforts, and even deliberately kills UN workers, such as the four recent murders in Lebanon, and previously Ian Hook in Rafah, Gaza. Israel is a fierce military threat bludgeoning beyond all proportion its neighboring Gaza and Lebanon over a few captured Israeli soldiers! Unbelievable! But true! Even when Israel has many Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners! Thousands! And all this while many Israeli politicians, even entire Israeli political parties openly call for the “transfer” of all Arabs and Palestinians out of Israel, out of Palestine. And not many people know this, but Israel does not allow Jews to legally marry non-Jews inside Israel. In other words they advocate for Jewish “racial purity”. Even Israeli-American politician Eliot Abrams wrote a book about how can Jews survive in Christian America, and advocates strongly against Jewish people intermarrying with non-Jews. Many Jewish activists state that marrying non-Jews is tantamount to the Holocaust. It is well understood now someone who is Jewish is a complicated mix of racial ethnicity, culture, mindset and religion, with the religion part being the only expendable element to it. Many Jews are so-called “secular” which means they are not religious Jews and they don’t believe in God.

O’Reilly: “If Iran manages to obtain nuclear weapons, it, too, will become a menace to the entire world.”

To that I write this: Israel has already managed to obtain nuclear weapons, covertly. This truth was revealed to the world by a courageous man by the name of Mordechai Vanunu. He is a Moroccan Jewish man who emigrated to Israel, got a job at the Dimona nuclear plant there, not knowing at first what he was doing. Then he felt a pang of consciousness when he realized what he was doing, and he felt compelled to tell the secret of Israel’s vast nuclear weapons stockpile to the world. He did this in London, where he spoke to an Australian newspaper man, and the news was out. The Israeli Mossad spy organization then kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel where he was sentenced to 18 years of solitary imprisonment where he has only just recently been released. He also converted to Christianity while in prison, which some Israeli Jews consider a worse sin than exposing Israel’s secret nuclear weapons to the world. According to Israeli military history professor Martin van Crevald, Israel has nuclear warheads aimed at every European capital, and if Israel goes down, so too will Europe.

Israel, as the racist, apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Zionist Jewish state, IS a menace to the entire world, especially to the Palestinians and all of the Middle East.

O’Reilly: “But the most unsettling situation is here in the United States. According to polls taken in the 1930s, as many as 80 percent of Americans were against confronting Hitler at that time. Only Pearl Harbor caused public opinion to shift.”

OK. Here we go. As all serious 911 truth movement seekers know, the Neoconservatives actually called for a “Pearl Harbor style catastrophe” to happen in order for the New American Century to begin to happen with the blessing of public opinion, and starting with taking over Iraq. It was actually on their website. I kid you not. If you don’t believe me, do a google search on Project for New American Century and Pearl Harbor. Now the time has come for the average American citizen to become aware of all this. Can you handle the truth? That is the question. Now that you know the truth, are you going to do anything about it?

So it’s clear as day that the Neocons wanted 9/11 to happen to begin the takeover of the Middle East to suit Israel’s strategic interests and security. They had the motive. They had the means. The smoking guns are all over the place. The circumstantial evidence is vast. Just do your homework using Google and key words such as “dancing Israeli spies”, missing Fox News clips on Israeli spying in the US, Odigo workers warned, mistaken identity of Arab hijackers who are still alive, WTC7 pulled, WTC explosives, Israeli company was in charge of US airport security at the time of 9/11, Project for New American Century, Wolfowitz Doctrine, A Clean Break, etc. There are zillions of websites with this information, and if you cross-reference them, pretty soon, you will begin to connect the dots. Really, it doesn’t really take a genius to do this, just some time and objective, unbiased, honest thinking.

O’Reilly: “But five years after Sept. 11, 2001, many Americans still do not understand the worldwide jihad and buy into the false premise that there is no linkage between what is happening in Iraq, the polices of Iran, the murderous actions of al-Qaida, and the lethal anti-Jewish strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah.”

I say, many Americans still do not understand what Zionism is and how it is at the root of all the so-called terrorism, and how indeed it is state-sponsored terrorism, funded by our tax dollars and approved of by “our” government. Zionism is a racist ideology that has been lethal to all non-Jews who happened to have the innocent misfortune of living on land that Jews want for a Jewish state, the Jewish supremacist state of Israel.

O’Reilly: “While there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Islamic fascists, their goals are very similar: Kill Jews and damage America.”

To which I say, while there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Judeo-fascists, their goals are very similar: “Kill Arabs and use American resources to do so”. There is graffiti all over Israel with “Kill Arabs” and other such hateful mottos. I know it for a fact. I have seen it on the video footage from peace activists who have shared it with me, and it is even featured in my documentary “Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism”. See, not all Jews are Zionists, but the NeoConservative Judeo fascists are the ones who are dominating US foreign policy today. By the way, do a google search on the racist Zionist Israeli leaders Meir Kahane and RehavamZeevi, who openly called for the transfer of all non-Jews from Israel-Palestine, and referred to Palestinians as “lice” and “cancer”, and other dehumanizing slurs.

O’Reilly: “So why is history repeating itself? Why can’t we Americans wise up and see the Islamic fascist threat? I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean.”

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... HA HA HA HA HA HA.... HA .. HA ... HA HA HA HA HA... O my God! What a RIOT!!!! :-)))))) :-))))))))))))

Oh that is SOOO FUNNY!

OK. I mean, can you believe that!??

He actually said “I blame the news media”! Soooo funny!!

Mr. Media Bulldog himself blames the media. That is just too cute.

The question really is: why can’t Americans wise up and see the Zionist-Christian-Judeo-fascist threat? By the way, Bush is a so-called Christian, make that a Christian Zionist. Giving billions of our tax dollars to a racist apartheid state such as Israel is just does NOT make sense! Its state-sponsored terrorism is just making the world a more dangerous place and fosters bad karma in the way of blowback in more ways than one. Not only by fostering counter attacks and bad will around the world but our country is going broke while it’s at it. It’s time to treat Israel in the exact same way that apartheid South Africa was treated. In order to dismantle the Zionist apartheid regime in Israel-Palestine, it’s time to boycott and place sanctions on Israel, cutting off all financial and diplomatic aid at the same time. Yep. That’s the way to do it. One way or another. It must be done.

As far as Howard Dean is concerned, he basically went down the memory hole by the so-called “liberal” media precisely because Howard Dean merely called for a more balanced and fair approach towards the Palestine-Israel conflict. So for O’Reilly to make a big deal about Dean is hilarious. Ha. Ha.

O’Reilly: “The hatred the committed left-wing press has for Bush is almost unprecedented.”

It’s a good thing he wrote “almost” unprecedented, because he’d really be showing his ignorance and disingenuousness big-time. After all, the Republican’s hatred for Clinton truly WAS and IS unprecedented and they haven’t stopped hating him yet. Do you think it might have had something to do with the fact that Clinton actually wanted for there to be genuine peace and justice in the Middle East and even had Arafat come to the White House and shook hands with him?

O”Reilly continues whining indulgently, pathetically: “The liberal media is obsessed with Bush and devalue him 24/7. This means that even when the president is correct on policy, the Bush haters will not admit it.”

Gee, I wonder when President Bush ever was correct on policy. What does O’Reilly mean by that? Damned if I know.

O’Reilly snivels on: “They have succeeded, especially overseas, in convincing millions of people that Bush is the world’s greatest threat, not the fanatical Muslim jihad.”

Actually, polls overseas show that they are convinced that the United States, led by Bush, and Israel are the greatest threats to the world, not the Arab countries. Gee, do you think it’s because the on-going, unjustified war campaigns by the world’s only superpower the US and it’s “ally” Israel, with the fourth largest army in the world and piles of nuclear warheads aimed at its capitals, have anything to do with it? Even if 9/11 was actually done by some Arab terrorists all on their own (which most people no longer believe), it was not an on-going war endeavor by some superpower, super-armed country. And everyone knows by now that the war on Iraq is a complete mess and immoral, and that Israel is out of control on its genocidal expansionist military assaults on non-Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and by its proxy US troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and if they get their way, Iran and Syria.

Mr. O’Reilly, it’s not about wanting to win the war in Iraq. It’s about how it never should have been fought in the first place! It’s well past time to bring the troops home now, with hundreds of thousands now dead, but better late than never. We owe the Arab people one HUGE apology! And HUGE reparations as well. And a new era of mutual respect, understanding and communicating. Like, Bush should consider debating the Iranian president. What’s he afraid of? Coming off like the village idiot that most people think he is?

O’Reilly: “The Iranian mullahs, bin Laden, Hezbollah and the rest of the racist killers well understand that America is a divided nation.”

Mr. O’Reilly, are you aware that “our” government and Israel’s have been purposefully trying to foster civil wars in Palestine and in Iraq and in Afghan and other Middle East countries? Don’t you think for a moment that Israelis and Americans who go to kill Arabs and non-Jews are racists??? As it says in the Bible, before you talk about taking the splinter out of someone else’s eye, take the beam out of your own eye! How self-serving and biased of you to only see it from your angle (and your Zionist bosses’ angles as we all know that the media is Zionist dominated. Just happens to be fact. Don’t bother with hurling the knee-jerk typical slur of “anti-Semite” at me. It’s a meaningless junk term anyway.)

O’Reilly: “Time after time, the Islamic fascists have attacked: time after time the United States and world have failed to respond with a knockout punch.”

Mr. O’Reilly, I do believe you are inciting hate-crimes and genocidal warfare against the Islamic Arab people. Say it ain’t so! By the way, if our troops got OUT of Iraq like they should have a long time ago, they would not get attacked “time after time”. I do not recall the Iraqi people inviting American troops over there to “bring democracy” or even get rid of Saddam Hussein. Au contraire, Mr. Potatohead.

O’Reilly: “Americans are certainly entitled to debate the wisdom and effectiveness of the current campaign to defeat Islamic fascism, but defeat it we must. For if we don’t, it’s just a matter of time before more of us lie dead in the streets.”

Last time I looked, Mr. O’Reilly, you were not any kind of leader, just a dopey talking head paid by his Zionist masters to spout their propaganda like an obedient pit bull on a short leash. You do that quite well, Mr. Reilly, but as you concede yourself, no one’s buying it. The only Americans that are lying dead in the street now are the ones who are over in Iraq and shouldn’t be there. They’re not wanted there. They have no right to be there. They need to be brought home now. No one’s paying me to write or say any of this, unlike you. Your shameless, pathetic fear-mongering just isn’t doing the trick like you and your masters wish it would. Pity about that.

O’Reilly: “Like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the jihadists of today are not going to stop until we make them stop. Somebody tell Howard Dean.”

To that I write, like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the Zionist Christian and Judeo-fascists of today are not going to stop until we Americans make them stop.

Get it, O’Reilly?

Somebody had to tell you.



Wendy Campbell is a political writer and film-maker. Her films include: “Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid”, “Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism”, “Rosa Remembers Palestine” and “Syria: Land of Friendly People and Hidden Treasure”. She is also the co-founder (along with Mark Green) and editor of MarWenMedia.com. She can be reached at: info@marwenmedia.com

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=-HlaVpqUXF0& eurl= Part 1

http://www.youtube. com/watch? search=&mode= related&v= ma3rapgzaPY Part 2

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=eHTe1gUit0s& mode=related& search= Part 3

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.

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.

Great site, exposes right wing nut Lee Kaplan for the whack job that he is:

http://kaplanwatch.blogspot.com/



Lee Kaplan's long-awaited account of the Al-Awda convention is now online. It is more restrained than usual, in terms of both its tone and its length. It is not the epic that was his account of the Georgetown PSM conference.

I did not witness the majority of what Kaplan writes about, so I will not attempt to comment on its accuracy.

I am, however, familiar with the goings-on of one workshop he attended. It was the workshop I led, on Student Activism. His account of it is brief:

Ehud Appel, a Jewish boy from UC Berkeley who always advocates for the PLO and Hamas against Israel with the Students for Justice in Palestine, told the roomful of Arab-American students how to revitalize the faltering anti-Israel movement on campuses. Appel always had an excuse for supporting Al Awda’s goals, even making excuses for links to Nazi websites by the so-called “human rights organization,” Al Awda. But at one point when Appel tried to suggest a peaceful alternative that if Israel withdrew to 1967 borders, so then the right of return or compensation could be extended only to areas outside those borders, Dr. Abu Sitta interrupted him and explained to the room that the right of return applied to all of 1948 Israel and could never be compromised; even if an individual Arab agreed to accept compensation and even renounced going back, he still had no right to do so.



First, a couple of factual clarifications:

1). According to Lee, pretty much everyone "advocates for the PLO and Hamas against Israel." I do not support Hamas' ideology. I do not support Hamas' history of anti-Semitic rhetoric. I do not support Hamas' conservatism. And I do not support Hamas's history of utilizing terrorism. I strongly support Hamas' adherence to a cease fire, and I'd imagine most reasonable people who oppose bloodbaths do, too. Berkeley Students for Justice in Palestine also explicitly opposes violence against all civilians, and non-ambiguously states that this includes Israeli civilians as well. Kaplan knows this because it was mentioned in my presentation as an example of a "unifying principle."

2). Lee gives me a surprising amount of credit for "suggesting a peaceful alternative" in which the Right of Return is implemented entirely outside of Israel. In fact, I at no point gave my personal opinion on this matter. I merely discussed how the matter is controversial among activists. What I think Kaplan is referring to is my description of the University of California system-wide campaign which calls for the principle of the Right of Return to be recognized by the Israeli government, followed by a solution to the refugee problem which would be mutually agreed upon in bilateral talks between Israelis and Palestinians. Presumably, such a solution would entail a compromise between what Kaplan claims I advocated, and what Dr. Abu Sitta advocates. Either Kaplan wasn't listening, or he considers the entire UC campaign to be a "peaceful alternative," which means he's finally talking some sense.

3). Dr. Abu Sitta, for that matter, did not interrupt me. He waited until the designated question time, and made his comments then. He was very courteous. He indeed said that the Right of Return cannot be compromised. But Dr. Abu Sitta did not say that "even if an individual Arab agreed to accept compensation and even renounced going back, he still had no right to do so." What he said was that no one else can renounce an individual's right to return for him (that is, it cannot be negotiated away by his political leaders, meaning that Dr. Abu Sitta did indeed disagree with the UC campaign). He said nothing to suggest that he would have any problem with an individual who decides to accept compensation and live somewhere else. Either Kaplan misunderstood, or he deliberately twisted Dr. Abu Sitta's words to make it sound as though he were calling for a forcible return, presumably because that is more evil. Three years ago, a survey of Palestinian refugees in various locales indicated that only about 10 percent of those with refugee status actually wanted to return to what is now Israel. 350,000 Palestinians moving to Israel would not match Kaplan's apocalyptic vision of "overwhelming the Jews in Israel." In order to claim that 4 million Palestinians want to overwhelm and drive out the Israeli Jews, it is necessary to delegitimize the findings of that survey. It seems like claiming that Palestinian refugees have no will of their own and are at the mercy of Evil Overlords like Dr. Abu Sitta is Kaplan's preferred tactic in accomplishing this task.

4). Ah, the Nazi link allegations. Kaplan must have felt like he hit the goldmine about two months ago when he discovered that the website of the American Nazi Party links to a site that links to Al-Awda. Kaplan therefore claims that Al-Awda links to the American Nazi Party site. I fully expect one of his "staffers" to pop up here and explain how the link was made with the approval of Al-Awda, which I would appreciate, because I didn't really understand his original explanation of how this implicates Al-Awda.

Aside from the issue of websites, however, a major theme expressed by Kaplan in the last couple of months has been that pro-Palestinian activists are Nazi sympathizers because Nazis are drawn to some of the campaigns pro-Palestinian activists initiate. In my Rogues Gallery Profile, Kaplan elaborates on his "confronting" me with "the facts":

Next, when confronted with evidence that Al Awda linked its boycott site to the American Nazi Party, Appel defended it claiming it was done without al Awda's knwoledge. It has been months now and Al Awda still links to the Nazi website without objection from Ehud Appel.

I did not attempt to "defend it" by claiming it was done without al-Awda's knowledge. Had I been given the time to respond to his charges in full, I very well might have brought up the sheer illogic in stating that "Site A links to Site B links to Site C" is equivalent to "Site C links to Site A." But I didn't make it to that, because I tried something else. Here's what I started to say: "What you are doing is using guilt-by-association arguments to smear us. If you go to FrontPage Magazine and look up your..." but the security guy shut both Kaplan and me up. So, Lee, I will finish what I was going to say right here:



If you go to FrontPage Magazine and read your article about the film "Jenin, Jenin," of which you are critical, you will notice that one of your sources is a Washington Times article about how only 56 Palestinians died in Jenin. Rather than linking to the Washington Times website, however, you link to another site which happens to post it. The site you link to is rense.com, which, as someone who is proportedly concerned by neo-Naziism, you know is laden with anti-Semitic conspiracies and Holocaust denial. By the very logic through which you are linking all of us to the neo-Nazi movement, you are admitting that you are sympathetic to the deranged ramblings of Jeff Rense. However, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and will assume that you are neither a Holocaust denier nor an anti-Semite. I brought that up only to illustrate the fallacious nature of your logic.

But it goes much deeper than that. Let's take Kaplan's argument one step further: if Kaplan is personally responsible for the words and actions of everyone who might support what he supports, then for what is he responsible?

1). Kaplan writes for Canada Free Press. Canada Free Press is and has been edited by Judi McLeod since 1991. According to Wikipedia,

In 2006, McLeod wrote an article accusing Jewish banking interests of being behind illegal immigrant protests in several American states. She believed the instigators instructed tens of thousands of protesters how to protest and were attempting to create news, political agitation and were trying to prevent laws from being enforced.

The original article by McLeod is here. Judge for yourself. And Lee, remember that if you don't write an article explicitly denouncing McLeod, that means you agree with her.

2) Kaplan's DAFKA links to the Kahanist-oriented Masada2000 site. Now Kaplan has explained before that he is not a Kahanist and by no means supports Kach. We accepted that and made sure there were no allegations here that he supports Kach. But, as I said, I am temporarily discarding the rules of logic and common courtesy and looking at the world through Kaplan's prism. Anyway, Masada2000 not only links back to DAFKA, it also links to the Jewish Task Force, which is way to the right of the Jewish Defense League. The Jewish Task Force is a one-man cable access show based in Queens. Chaim Ben Pesach, its star, says despicable things about Arabs and Muslims, but that is to be expected. He also makes well known his hatred for African-Americans and Hispanic immigrants. According to Wikipedia,

JTF has spent a great deal of time and resources recently on the illegal immigration issues facing the United States. It is believed by JTF that America is being overrun by third world immigrants, whose seemingly backward culture has caused countless social and economic difficulties in the United States.



I don't know if Lee has ever seen the JTF website or listened to its show. But Lee, ignorance is no excuse: now that I've given a link to their site, you should explore it. Listen to one of his radio programs and hear how he talks about African-Americans. If you disagree with Chaim Ben Pesach, then you must DEMAND that Masada2000 stop linking to his site. If Masada2000 does not comply, then you must remove your links to their site and stop furnishing them with photos which you took of me with a camera pen, about which you lied to everyone in the room. Otherwise, you agree with Chaim Ben Pesach.

3). Lee is the Senior Intelligence Analyst and Communications Director for the Northeast Intelligence Network. At the very top of the page, it is stated in no unclear terms:

We SUPPORT the Minuteman Project fighting illegal immigration

Now, since Lee is in NEIN, and since NEIN supports the Minuteman Project, and since Lee has not resigned from NEIN, it must be true that Lee supports the Minuteman Project. This is fine. I disagree with the goals of the organization, but Lee is entitled to his opinion. Guess who else supports the Minuteman Project? The National Alliance. Real, no-foolin' neo-Nazis. People who would not hesitate for a moment to kill me, Lee, and Yaman. I went to the October 29th Minuteman Rally on the steps of the Capitol in Sacramento. Several telephone poles in the park surrounding the building had National Alliance posters stapled onto them. At least a couple Nazis were mingling with the ordinary xenophobes. I do not expect that too many people there in support of the Minuteman Project were happy with their presence. But Lee, would you not agree that, on the issue of immigration, Nazis share the goals of the Minuteman Project? Does this make you a Nazi?

No. It does not. It absolutely does not. The only way one could draw that conclusion is if one subjects the empirical data to Kaplan's brand of deranged analysis. And, even with the Minuteman Project, which I find to be a reprehensible organization, SOME fairness is in order. According to Wikipedia:

The Minutemen denounce white supremacist groups and activists and do not allow them into their ranks. NSM spokesman Bill White called the Minutemen "sellouts." This counterdemonstration received international media attention.

And you know what, Lee? The vast majority of pro-Palestinian activists denounce white supremacist groups and activists and do not allow them into their ranks, either. Why is it just "lip service" when pro-Palestinian groups make that explicit, but assumed to be sincere when anti-immigrant groups do the same?

Why can you continue writing for Judi Mcleod's publication and expect readers to continue taking you seriously?

Why are YOU not responsible for everything that is only two clicks away from your own websites?

With all the pro-war, pro-jizrael, right wing tripe in the mainstream media, I wonder why the rabid, bug-eyed frothing at the mouth zionists panic, trolling, spamming, gatekeeping, lying and quipping on left/radical/alternative media sites?

The answer is obvious: Because we are a threat to their corner on information. They HATE it (picture Schtarker fuming right now) that they have no power and cannot control the debate or information with all their tried and true methods that work so well in stifling criticism in the mainstream.

See, skippy, here, false cries of "antisemite", whine whine whine ad nauseum, won't shout us down. We will not cower like they do in the mainstream.

We will continue to speak truth to power!

You WILL not ever call the shots on indymedia.

Zionists lie because they have to, history and truth are not on their side.

Why is that?

But since we're going there, let's take a look at david gehrig, international indymedia fanatic troll. A quick search reveals almost 14, 000 hits. Wow. These zionazis are real pieces of work...

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22gehrig%22+indymedia&btnG=Google+Search

DAMASCUS, Syria - Armed Islamic militants attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in a brazen attack Tuesday, the government said. Four people were killed, including three of the assailants. There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but an al-Qaida offshoot group was suspected, Syria's ambassador to the United States said. No Americans were hurt in the attack, in which the militants used automatic rifles, hand grenades and at least one van rigged with explosives.

Isn't the al- Queda still a CIA asset?

Palestinians receive their monthly aid from UNRWA in Al-Shate' refugee camp in Gaza City, 10 Sep 2006. (MaanImages/Thaeer Al-Hassany)

GAZA CITY - Gaza City's shopping markets used to be the richest in the Palestinian territories, but six months into a crippling trade embargo, stocks are running low.

"This is the tenth store I approach to buy a single box of powdered milk for my little baby. I do not know what to do. I am ready to pay double price for having only one package, but there is none", said 32-year-old Tareq Omar after he failed to find any powdered milk for his one-year-old baby in Gaza's Al-Zawiya market.

Gaza is a Palestinian-administered strip of land bordering Israel and Egypt. It was fully occupied by Israel from 1967 until mid-2005, when it was handed over to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

An economic embargo by the United States, the European Union (EU) and Israel was imposed on the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) following the democratic election of a Hamas-led Palestinian government in February. Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Israel, the EU and the US, among others, because it has refused to renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist.

While the embargo does not prevent the importing of food or medicines, it has greatly delayed supplies from reaching the Gaza Strip because all entry points are controlled by Israeli authorities and have been tightened or closed.

Israel has intensified its grip on Gaza since 25 June when one of its soldiers was captured by Palestinian militants. Critical entry points, such as the commercial Karni crossing and the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, have remained largely closed for what Israel says are security reasons.

Hussein Mansour, Director of Palestinian Security at the Karni Crossing, said the closures had left Palestinians bereft of goods and money.

"All this has led to a staggering poverty rate. About 85 percent of families in the Gaza Strip are living below the poverty line. This means that more than two out of three Palestinians are trying to live on less than US a day," Mansour said.

Because of the embargo and closures of crossings, Gaza's 1.4 million inhabitants are experiencing severe shortages of food.

"My children are in need of food more than me. They must grow," said Salem Obeid, a Gaza resident who says he barely manages to support his kids with a meal a day.

Obeid's family is like thousands of others in Gaza who face a daily struggle to survive.

According to the World Food Programme (WFP), which distributes food to hundreds of thousands of families in Gaza, the closures of entry points have cut Gazan farmers' agricultural cycle, limiting the supply of vital food products and isolating the Gaza market from external trade.

WFP has said that the destruction of vast areas of agricultural land, as well as irrigation pipes and greenhouses in July has left farmers destitute with no support to re-cultivate their land.

To make matters worse, because power and water supplies remain unreliable, partly as a result of an Israeli military strike on Gaza's main power station on 28 June, farmers are forced to pay more for power and water. This, in turn, has inflated production costs on customers at a time when very few Gazans have any money.

Merchants and traders are also suffering the effects of Israel's tightening of control over Gaza.

"Israel imposes very harsh restrictions on Palestinian merchants. They give priority to Israeli products over Palestinian ones," Mansour said. "Palestinian merchants used to pay US 0 in tax for a shipment coming from abroad in the past months. Nowadays, they pay up to ,000."

Abed Beltaji, 34, an egg trader, said that the closures have cost him thousands of dollars as his products cannot be distributed. "I do not know what to say, it is a real catastrophe. Every day I lose more than ,000. Besides, the eggs will be spoiled if not transported on time," Beltaji said.

Shlomo Dror, Israeli spokesperson for the Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories, said Israel was making sure that enough essential supplies got into Gaza.

He said that Gaza's border crossings were closed because of security threats by Palestinian militants.

"We had to close the Karni checkpoint because we have civilians working there and we don't want them to be killed by the Palestinians," Dror told IRIN. "It's crazy that we are risking our soldiers' lives to protect a checkpoint that they depend on."



This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

It seemed pretty clear. The message was that Palestinians are suffering due to embargoes, restrictions of movements:

"About 85 percent of families in the Gaza Strip are living below the poverty line. This means that more than two out of three Palestinians are trying to live on less than US a day,"

"According to the World Food Programme (WFP), which distributes food to hundreds of thousands of families in Gaza, the closures of entry points have cut Gazan farmers' agricultural cycle, limiting the supply of vital food products and isolating the Gaza market from external trade.

WFP has said that the destruction of vast areas of agricultural land, as well as irrigation pipes and greenhouses in July has left farmers destitute with no support to re-cultivate their land.

Gaza City's shopping markets used to be the richest in the Palestinian territories, but six months into a crippling trade embargo, stocks are running low.

"This is the tenth store I approach to buy a single box of powdered milk for my little baby.

(If the mother nursed, BTW, this wouldn't be an issue)



Because of the embargo and closures of crossings, Gaza's 1.4 million inhabitants are experiencing severe shortages of food.

WFP has said that the destruction of vast areas of agricultural land, as well as irrigation pipes and greenhouses in July has left farmers destitute with no support to re-cultivate their land.

Well, do you remember who destroyed the greenhouses and irrigation system? Beginning to look like a real bad move, eh, Skippy?



Abed Beltaji, 34, an egg trader, said that the closures have cost him thousands of dollars as his products cannot be distributed. "I do not know what to say, it is a real catastrophe. Every day I lose more than ,000. Besides, the eggs will be spoiled if not transported on time," Beltaji said.

I see a logical solution- rather than let the eggs spoil, feed them to the starving Palestinians. Isn't that obvious?

(If the mother nursed, BTW, this wouldn't be an issue)

Did you know that a mother needs to be fed in order to produce milk for her child. A starving mother has no milk.

It's not about race. It's about class. Merchants will almost always choose making profit over helping their fellow countrymen. Money is thicker than blood.

It's true in all countries

A Walk Through the Rubble

Israel's Use of American Cluster Bombs

By FRANKLIN LAMB

Al Sultaneih, Lebanon.

As the initial assessment and clean up of American cluster bombs, estimated at more than 130,000 unexploded bomblets across the south of Lebanon, gets underway, unanticipated findings are emerging:

The breadth and depth of the problem with cluster bombs found in 498 locations in scores of villages as of September 9th was not expected. So far less than 4% have been disposed of, and 0 % of the villages in the south have been certified as safe for domestic or agricultural use by the United Nations ordnance disposal task force.

Even operators of heavy rubble clearing equipment are finding their work is stymied because Israel dropped cluster bombs both before and after many buildings were destroyed by bombs, and therefore cluster bombs are sandwiched between layers of pancaked walls and piles of rubble.

While the M-26 Cluster Bomb Unit may have looked "promising" at military demo shows when observed in ideal conditions of level, obstruction-free open areas, using "polished bomblet" conditions, the reality is very different in villages which are seeing not the military touted "dud rates" in the 1% to 4% range, but rather "dud rates" in the 40-60% range. No weapons with this performance statistic would be taken seriously at arms sale outlets.

The U.S. cluster munitions dropped across Lebanon have been a near total failure as far as their claimed purpose and justification, degrading Hezbollah forces. Lebanese Army, UN, and Hezbollah sources agree the Cluster Bombs had virtually no impact on Palestinian, Amal, and Hezbollah fighters during the recent conflict.

One Hezbollah commander told this observer: "Maybe 3 or 4 [were killed] -- perhaps a few more I didn't hear about -- due to accidents by our forcesbut unlike the civilian population, we have a long history of confronting the Zionist aggressors and we often know what they will do before they do. True, they have your country's latest weapons, but one-on-one they are not impressive at all. Much more cowardly and incompetent than their propaganda claimsplus they are very weak psychologically -- they know they stole Palestine, and they realize that sooner or later they will have to make peace, or they will destroy themselves and disappear from the region."

Another commander added, "My brothers can't wait for their [Israeli] troops to enter Lebanon again on the ground. We are eager to hit them harder next time. The Zionists' training has been used to using tanks against stone-throwing children and harassing pregnant women at check points. We now have the weapons to quickly destroy their tanks. That is why they couldn't enter and finally accepted a ceasefire. We don't respect them either as men or soldiers".

Yet another offered: "When we fire a rocket or series of rockets at their weapon stockpiles or artillery positions in northern Palestine, our brothers know that they have approximately 6-7 minutes to disappear -- usually underground. The Zionists place their weapons next to Arab neighborhoods, where they have not provided shelters for the non-Jews. We are accused of targeting civilians. This is not truewe know where their weapons are exactly. They hide behind the civilians in northern Palestine like they do in Gaza. Using the people as shields."

Other recent findings confirm that Israel may have dropped as many as 60 % of the cluster bombs they used during July-August 2006 in the 72 hours immediately before the ceasefire. Military analysts on the ground offer two explanations:

1. Shear frustration, hatred, and rage by Israel's leadership and its obsession with punishing Lebanon for its more than 85% support (including Lebanon's middle class and Christian citizens) for Hezbollah's resistance to Israel's attempted reoccupation up to the Litani River.

2. A desire by Israel to get rid of as much of its U.S. cluster bomb inventory as possible, which the Pentagon has stipulated must be reduced to a lower level before Israel can reorder newer models like the M-26. This is why the 33 year old CBU-58, almost extinct, was used so widely. Israel was cleaning out its CBU closet for new orders, one Lebanese army source reported.

Senator Ted Stevens and those in the Senate who opposed banning cluster bombs on Sept. 9 might want to reflect on what actual utility the US cluster bombs used by Israel in Lebanon actually achieved.



* * *

According to Israeli soldiers, reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on Sept. 13, the Israeli military launched over 1.2 million cluster bombs into Lebanon, and used phosphorous shells as well -- "the overwhelming majority used in the last ten days of the war." The use of phosphorous, which causes excruciating burns, is prohibited under international law.

An Israeli rocket unit commander stated that because the Israeli rockets are so imprecise, his unit was ordered to "flood" the area with them. The soldiers said that during IDF training exercises live rockets are almost never fired, to prevent leaving duds behind that would "fill the IDF's firing grounds with mines." Yet, the soldiers said, Israeli forces in Lebanon fired the rockets at ranges of less than 15 kilometers, "even though the manufacturer's guidelines state that firing at this range considerably increases the number of duds."

The rocket commander, who said he had complained to Israel's Defense Minister but has received no response, stated: "In Lebanon, we covered entire villages with cluster bombs. What we did there was crazy and monstrous."

Dr. Franklin Lamb, an international lawyer and author of "Israel's War in Lebanon: Eyewitness Chronicles of the Invasion and Occupation," is a research associate at If Americans Knew. He can be reached at fpiercelamb@aol.com

This article was inspired by an article by the obnoxious, ubiquitous neoconservative talking head and author Bill O’Reilly. His syndicated article was printed in the local paper today, and the title was “Parallels between Nazism, jihadists striking”.

It was so outrageous I just had to laugh out loud. Honestly. So now I am going to write an article based on it and just interject MY observations which are almost exactly OPPOSITE of his observations. You’ll see what I mean later in the article about how outrageously hilarious his statements get. Of course, he tries to posture that he is completely serious. But does he really think Americans are that dumb? This arrogance will be his downfall along with his cohorts. The lies are becoming so transparent to many Americans. He’ll be laughed out of his high-falutin position for sure. I’m already laughing. Ha ha ha.

Anyway, here it goes. Please note that direct quotes from his article will have quote marks with his name preceding them.

O’Reilly: “Seventy years ago this month, Adolf Hitler began seizing the asset of German Jews. He had waited until the summer Olympics in Berlin were finished and the world had seen the might of the Third Reich. Already, Hitler had established concentration camps for “undesirables” and forced many Jewish professors out of their jobs. He had also harassed Catholics and Protestants who dared speak against his racist policies.”

Hmm.... Sounds an awful lot like what Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians for decades. There are over 10,000 Palestinian people, men, woman and children in what amounts to concentration camps in Palestine-Israel. In fact all of the Gaza Strip and Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank are comparable to open-air prisons. The Israelis dominate, humiliate and basically torture the Palestinians every day, in an on-going ethnic-cleansing campaign against the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians and yet they are still expected to pay taxes to their torturers. It’s truly unbelievable, but you better believe it. It’s true.

Here in the United States, Muslim Arab professors are getting rounded up too, even without any proof or specific charges. Even progressive Jewish professors such as Joel Beinin of Stanford University are being targetted, smeared, harassed and defamed by the NeoConservative Zionist Jews such as Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz and Robert Spencer, simply because Beinin teaches his students the truth about racist, apartheid Zionist Israel. The Neoconservatives have even created a Department of Anti-Semitism whose intended goal is to criminalize any strong critics of the racist, apartheid state of Israel, its Zionist regime and its leaders. And Daniel Pipes runs the censorious Campus Watch, threatening all professors and students who criticize the racist ideology of Zionist Israel.

Many activists such as Alex Jones warn Americans that our government is preparing concentration camps for dissident Americans who challenge the government’s policies, especially those which are supportive of Zionist Israel. Let’s hope he is just being paranoid. However, let’s not kid ourselves: there are many crazy Neocons in and around our government who would love to do just that. If you don’t believe me, check this website out: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm and then check this out: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/departofantisemitsm.html

O’Reilly: “The parallels between the rise of fascism in pre-World War II Germany and the rise of Islamic fascism today are startling.”

Well, um, I would beg to differ with Mr. O’Reilly, precisely for the reasons I stated previously . As most peace and 911 truth activists realize, “our” own government is becoming increasingly fascistic, what with the so-called “Patriot Act”, the wiretappping of citizens, and the beating up by ADL-trained policemen of dissident journalists such as the recent incident with American Free Press’s Christopher Bollyn, for example.

First of all, according to many well-respected polling companies, well over a third of all Americans doubt the official version of 9/11. In fact, in some polls it’s 53% believe that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by rogue elements in “our” government, as well as Israel’s. Let’s get that clear right up front here. The truth-out 911 movement is so big that even the mainstream media can’t ignore it anymore. Much of the credit goes to independent videographers, such as Dylan Avery and his “Loose Change”, which can be seen on the amazing website YouTube.com or http://www.loosechange.org. But he is just one of hundreds now doing a great job of asking the questions that must be asked and answered. Justice must be done to this crime of the century against the American people. The war in Iraq is not about justice for 911. 911 was the Riechstag or Pearl Harbor the NeoCons needed to roll out the war on Iraq and other Middle East countries, primarily for Israel’s benefit. There were no ties between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even the mainstream media confirms this FACT. There were no WMD. “Our” government couldn’t care less about “democracy”--- not here, and not in Iraq. It’s about fighting wars for Israel’s “security” and actually Israel’s imperialistic ambitions; the American politicians who go along with this criminal scheme get to stay power, and line their pockets with gold from political contributions and lucrative reconstruction and corporate deals. Watch now as Zionist Hollywood goes into overdrive trying to convince Americans of the kosher version of 9/11. Any other version, they and the government claim, are just un-kosher “conspiracy theories.” There is only ONE kosher conspiracy theory that we are told we MUST believe and that is the one that asserts that evil jihadist Arab Muslims who operate out of caves and only have boxcutters for tools did it. Uh huh. Right. Sounds like the “one magic bullet” theory with regards to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

The rogue elements of our government and Israel’s had the motive and the means to make 9/11 happen, according to many. The motive was to re-make over the Middle East primarily in favor of Israel’s ambitions. Something that is happening, although it’s been rough. Wolfowitz and Perle knew it wouldn’t be a “cake walk” like they claimed. They said anything and everything just to make the war on Iraq happen according to plan, which was stated in the Project for a New American Century, which was based on the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which was based on A Clean Break.

Most of this is common knowledge these days to activists across the country and around the world. Wake up, America! This is now an information war. Lots of propaganda and outright lies being pushed on you via the Zionist-dominated US media.

O’Reilly: “Iran, a nation committed to wiping Israel off the map, is defying the United Nations by refusing to obey the nuclear disarmament treaty.”

To that, I write this: Israel, a nation that has been committed since 1948, and even before that with the birth of the Zionist movement in the 1890s, to wiping Palestine of the map, has been defying well over 70 UN resolutions for decades now as well as continues to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferating Treaty, which Iran HAS offered to sign along with the other countries of the Middle East. Israel is the ONLY country in the Middle East to have nuclear warheads. Double standards don’t breed good will.

O’Reilly: “Hitler defied the League of Nations and rearmed, creating a fierce military threat while openly advocating the diminishment of Jews and “Aryan racial purity.””

To that, I write this: Israel continually defies UN resolutions and peacekeeping efforts, and even deliberately kills UN workers, such as the four recent murders in Lebanon, and previously Ian Hook in Rafah, Gaza. Israel is a fierce military threat bludgeoning beyond all proportion its neighboring Gaza and Lebanon over a few captured Israeli soldiers! Unbelievable! But true! Even when Israel has many Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners! Thousands! And all this while many Israeli politicians, even entire Israeli political parties openly call for the “transfer” of all Arabs and Palestinians out of Israel, out of Palestine. And not many people know this, but Israel does not allow Jews to legally marry non-Jews inside Israel. In other words they advocate for Jewish “racial purity”. Even Israeli-American politician Eliot Abrams wrote a book about how can Jews survive in Christian America, and advocates strongly against Jewish people intermarrying with non-Jews. Many Jewish activists state that marrying non-Jews is tantamount to the Holocaust. It is well understood now someone who is Jewish is a complicated mix of racial ethnicity, culture, mindset and religion, with the religion part being the only expendable element to it. Many Jews are so-called “secular” which means they are not religious Jews and they don’t believe in God.

O’Reilly: “If Iran manages to obtain nuclear weapons, it, too, will become a menace to the entire world.”

To that I write this: Israel has already managed to obtain nuclear weapons, covertly. This truth was revealed to the world by a courageous man by the name of Mordechai Vanunu. He is a Moroccan Jewish man who emigrated to Israel, got a job at the Dimona nuclear plant there, not knowing at first what he was doing. Then he felt a pang of consciousness when he realized what he was doing, and he felt compelled to tell the secret of Israel’s vast nuclear weapons stockpile to the world. He did this in London, where he spoke to an Australian newspaper man, and the news was out. The Israeli Mossad spy organization then kidnapped him and brought him back to Israel where he was sentenced to 18 years of solitary imprisonment where he has only just recently been released. He also converted to Christianity while in prison, which some Israeli Jews consider a worse sin than exposing Israel’s secret nuclear weapons to the world. According to Israeli military history professor Martin van Crevald, Israel has nuclear warheads aimed at every European capital, and if Israel goes down, so too will Europe.

Israel, as the racist, apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Zionist Jewish state, IS a menace to the entire world, especially to the Palestinians and all of the Middle East.

O’Reilly: “But the most unsettling situation is here in the United States. According to polls taken in the 1930s, as many as 80 percent of Americans were against confronting Hitler at that time. Only Pearl Harbor caused public opinion to shift.”

OK. Here we go. As all serious 911 truth movement seekers know, the Neoconservatives actually called for a “Pearl Harbor style catastrophe” to happen in order for the New American Century to begin to happen with the blessing of public opinion, and starting with taking over Iraq. It was actually on their website. I kid you not. If you don’t believe me, do a google search on Project for New American Century and Pearl Harbor. Now the time has come for the average American citizen to become aware of all this. Can you handle the truth? That is the question. Now that you know the truth, are you going to do anything about it?

So it’s clear as day that the Neocons wanted 9/11 to happen to begin the takeover of the Middle East to suit Israel’s strategic interests and security. They had the motive. They had the means. The smoking guns are all over the place. The circumstantial evidence is vast. Just do your homework using Google and key words such as “dancing Israeli spies”, missing Fox News clips on Israeli spying in the US, Odigo workers warned, mistaken identity of Arab hijackers who are still alive, WTC7 pulled, WTC explosives, Israeli company was in charge of US airport security at the time of 9/11, Project for New American Century, Wolfowitz Doctrine, A Clean Break, etc. There are zillions of websites with this information, and if you cross-reference them, pretty soon, you will begin to connect the dots. Really, it doesn’t really take a genius to do this, just some time and objective, unbiased, honest thinking.

O’Reilly: “But five years after Sept. 11, 2001, many Americans still do not understand the worldwide jihad and buy into the false premise that there is no linkage between what is happening in Iraq, the polices of Iran, the murderous actions of al-Qaida, and the lethal anti-Jewish strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah.”

I say, many Americans still do not understand what Zionism is and how it is at the root of all the so-called terrorism, and how indeed it is state-sponsored terrorism, funded by our tax dollars and approved of by “our” government. Zionism is a racist ideology that has been lethal to all non-Jews who happened to have the innocent misfortune of living on land that Jews want for a Jewish state, the Jewish supremacist state of Israel.

O’Reilly: “While there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Islamic fascists, their goals are very similar: Kill Jews and damage America.”

To which I say, while there are certainly rivalries and differences among all the Judeo-fascists, their goals are very similar: “Kill Arabs and use American resources to do so”. There is graffiti all over Israel with “Kill Arabs” and other such hateful mottos. I know it for a fact. I have seen it on the video footage from peace activists who have shared it with me, and it is even featured in my documentary “Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism”. See, not all Jews are Zionists, but the NeoConservative Judeo fascists are the ones who are dominating US foreign policy today. By the way, do a google search on the racist Zionist Israeli leaders Meir Kahane and RehavamZeevi, who openly called for the transfer of all non-Jews from Israel-Palestine, and referred to Palestinians as “lice” and “cancer”, and other dehumanizing slurs.

O’Reilly: “So why is history repeating itself? Why can’t we Americans wise up and see the Islamic fascist threat? I blame the news media first, and irresponsible politicians like Howard Dean.”

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... HA HA HA HA HA HA.... HA .. HA ... HA HA HA HA HA... O my God! What a RIOT!!!! :-)))))) :-))))))))))))

Oh that is SOOO FUNNY!

OK. I mean, can you believe that!??

He actually said “I blame the news media”! Soooo funny!!

Mr. Media Bulldog himself blames the media. That is just too cute.

The question really is: why can’t Americans wise up and see the Zionist-Christian-Judeo-fascist threat? By the way, Bush is a so-called Christian, make that a Christian Zionist. Giving billions of our tax dollars to a racist apartheid state such as Israel is just does NOT make sense! Its state-sponsored terrorism is just making the world a more dangerous place and fosters bad karma in the way of blowback in more ways than one. Not only by fostering counter attacks and bad will around the world but our country is going broke while it’s at it. It’s time to treat Israel in the exact same way that apartheid South Africa was treated. In order to dismantle the Zionist apartheid regime in Israel-Palestine, it’s time to boycott and place sanctions on Israel, cutting off all financial and diplomatic aid at the same time. Yep. That’s the way to do it. One way or another. It must be done.

As far as Howard Dean is concerned, he basically went down the memory hole by the so-called “liberal” media precisely because Howard Dean merely called for a more balanced and fair approach towards the Palestine-Israel conflict. So for O’Reilly to make a big deal about Dean is hilarious. Ha. Ha.

O’Reilly: “The hatred the committed left-wing press has for Bush is almost unprecedented.”

It’s a good thing he wrote “almost” unprecedented, because he’d really be showing his ignorance and disingenuousness big-time. After all, the Republican’s hatred for Clinton truly WAS and IS unprecedented and they haven’t stopped hating him yet. Do you think it might have had something to do with the fact that Clinton actually wanted for there to be genuine peace and justice in the Middle East and even had Arafat come to the White House and shook hands with him?

O”Reilly continues whining indulgently, pathetically: “The liberal media is obsessed with Bush and devalue him 24/7. This means that even when the president is correct on policy, the Bush haters will not admit it.”

Gee, I wonder when President Bush ever was correct on policy. What does O’Reilly mean by that? Damned if I know.

O’Reilly snivels on: “They have succeeded, especially overseas, in convincing millions of people that Bush is the world’s greatest threat, not the fanatical Muslim jihad.”

Actually, polls overseas show that they are convinced that the United States, led by Bush, and Israel are the greatest threats to the world, not the Arab countries. Gee, do you think it’s because the on-going, unjustified war campaigns by the world’s only superpower the US and it’s “ally” Israel, with the fourth largest army in the world and piles of nuclear warheads aimed at its capitals, have anything to do with it? Even if 9/11 was actually done by some Arab terrorists all on their own (which most people no longer believe), it was not an on-going war endeavor by some superpower, super-armed country. And everyone knows by now that the war on Iraq is a complete mess and immoral, and that Israel is out of control on its genocidal expansionist military assaults on non-Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and by its proxy US troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and if they get their way, Iran and Syria.

Mr. O’Reilly, it’s not about wanting to win the war in Iraq. It’s about how it never should have been fought in the first place! It’s well past time to bring the troops home now, with hundreds of thousands now dead, but better late than never. We owe the Arab people one HUGE apology! And HUGE reparations as well. And a new era of mutual respect, understanding and communicating. Like, Bush should consider debating the Iranian president. What’s he afraid of? Coming off like the village idiot that most people think he is?

O’Reilly: “The Iranian mullahs, bin Laden, Hezbollah and the rest of the racist killers well understand that America is a divided nation.”

Mr. O’Reilly, are you aware that “our” government and Israel’s have been purposefully trying to foster civil wars in Palestine and in Iraq and in Afghan and other Middle East countries? Don’t you think for a moment that Israelis and Americans who go to kill Arabs and non-Jews are racists??? As it says in the Bible, before you talk about taking the splinter out of someone else’s eye, take the beam out of your own eye! How self-serving and biased of you to only see it from your angle (and your Zionist bosses’ angles as we all know that the media is Zionist dominated. Just happens to be fact. Don’t bother with hurling the knee-jerk typical slur of “anti-Semite” at me. It’s a meaningless junk term anyway.)

O’Reilly: “Time after time, the Islamic fascists have attacked: time after time the United States and world have failed to respond with a knockout punch.”

Mr. O’Reilly, I do believe you are inciting hate-crimes and genocidal warfare against the Islamic Arab people. Say it ain’t so! By the way, if our troops got OUT of Iraq like they should have a long time ago, they would not get attacked “time after time”. I do not recall the Iraqi people inviting American troops over there to “bring democracy” or even get rid of Saddam Hussein. Au contraire, Mr. Potatohead.

O’Reilly: “Americans are certainly entitled to debate the wisdom and effectiveness of the current campaign to defeat Islamic fascism, but defeat it we must. For if we don’t, it’s just a matter of time before more of us lie dead in the streets.”

Last time I looked, Mr. O’Reilly, you were not any kind of leader, just a dopey talking head paid by his Zionist masters to spout their propaganda like an obedient pit bull on a short leash. You do that quite well, Mr. Reilly, but as you concede yourself, no one’s buying it. The only Americans that are lying dead in the street now are the ones who are over in Iraq and shouldn’t be there. They’re not wanted there. They have no right to be there. They need to be brought home now. No one’s paying me to write or say any of this, unlike you. Your shameless, pathetic fear-mongering just isn’t doing the trick like you and your masters wish it would. Pity about that.

O’Reilly: “Like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the jihadists of today are not going to stop until we make them stop. Somebody tell Howard Dean.”

To that I write, like Hitler and his evil ambitions of seven decades ago, the Zionist Christian and Judeo-fascists of today are not going to stop until we Americans make them stop.

Get it, O’Reilly?

Somebody had to tell you.



Wendy Campbell is a political writer and film-maker. Her films include: “Truth: Exposing Israeli Apartheid”, “Neturei Karta: Jews Against Zionism”, “Rosa Remembers Palestine” and “Syria: Land of Friendly People and Hidden Treasure”. She is also the co-founder (along with Mark Green) and editor of MarWenMedia.com. She can be reached at: info@marwenmedia.com