Unholy War

While some will surely disagree, it is my constitutionally protected opinion that there is an intense Pro-Zionist, Pro-Israel bias in the White House, in Congress and in the media. This is causing the Palestinian perspective to be brutally shoved aside and ridiculed on television, on radio and in the print media. Almost anyone who attempts to give a voice to the Palestinian side is branded an anti-Semite, a terrorist sympathizer, anti-American and worse.

The purpose of this tread is to help that stifled voice to be heard. There is more than one side to any issue. Quite often, there are several. All are welcomed here in warm embrace.

Terms like Zionism and Zionist are used in the context of a secular messianic movement and the adherents to the ideology of that movement.

Political terror, as the calculated utilization of violence to elicit psychological intimidation in an effort to accomplish strategic and political goals, was a major feature of the zionist movement’s modus operandi prior to the establishment of Israel. During this tumultuous period, zionist underground subversive organizations, such as the Haganah, headed by David Ben Gurion, the Irgun Zvei Leumi, headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang, co-headed by Yitzhak Shamir, engaged in a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ to wrest Palestine from its indigenous Arab inhabitants. They unleashed a campaign of terror and violence that deliberately targeted civilians in order to effect an exodus of Palestine’s Arab population.

The zionists’ campaign of terror also targeted their erstwhile British patrons. Foreign dignitaries involved in diplomatic efforts to negotiate a settlement short of the zionists’ maximalist demands were targeted as well. That the murderous acts of violence perpetrated by zionist groups were carried out in accordance with an organized and systematic campaign of terror is borne out by available historical evidence. In the late 1930s, the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang, entered into a pact in which they agreed to coordinate their military operations under the supervision of the Command of the United Resistance Movement. According to the pact, all military operations conducted by the three groups had to be approved by the Command before they were carried out.

Terror tactics employed by the zionists included assassinations, hostage-taking, bombings, and outright massacres of civilians. In his memoirs, The Revolt (London: W. H. Allen, 1983), Begin provides accounts of numerous operations that were approved by the Command. The most notorious of these was the July 22, 1946 bomb attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Masterminded by Begin himself, the attack resulted in the death of about 90 British, Arab, and Jewish men and women. More than 70 others were injured.

Palestinian civilians were the most favored target of zionist terror attacks. In his book, Soldier with the Arabs (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1957), John Bagot Glubb, a British officer in the Jordanian Arab Legion, better known as Glubb Pasha, reports a conversation with a Palestine Government Jewish official which reveals the zionist intention to engage in a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Palestine. In the course of the conversation which took place in December 1947, Glubb Pasha questioned the viability of a Jewish state in Palestine whose demographic makeup comprises a number of Arabs almost equal to that of Jews. To this the Jewish official responded: ‘Oh no! That will be fixed. A few calculated massacres will soon get rid of them (i.e., the Arabs).’

In their drive to bring about a demographic purgation in Palestine, the zionists indulged in attacks on the civilian population with such glee and cruelty that they spread horror and fear throughout the country. The most frightful of these atrocities was the one perpetrated on April 9-10, 1948, by the Irgun against the village of Deir Yassin. The village was captured by the Irgun following a brief battle with its defenders. All the inhabitants of this Arab hamlet to the east of Jerusalem who, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily, had decided not to flee - a total of more than 250 men, women, and children - were brutally and mercilessly massacred. This grisly carnage spread panic among the Arab inhabitants of Palestine accelerating their exodus from their own homeland. The news of Deir Yassin massacre caused Arabs living in other population centers to flee whenever zionist forces approached. In fact, Begin himself described the psychological impact engendered by reports about the massacre in the Arab media and its benefits for the zionist goals, saying: ‘Out of evil, however, came good. This Arab propaganda spread a legend of terror amongst Arabs and Arab troops, who were seized with panic at the mention of Irgun soldiers. The legend was worth half a dozen battalions to the forces of Israel.’

According to some estimates, due to the resulting atmosphere of panic, 200,000 Palestine Arabs had already become refugees prior to the proclamation of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. Understanding the roots of the zionists’ terror strategy to secure for themselves a state in Palestine entails an examination of the nature and ideological foundations of zionism as a ‘settler colonialist’ enterprise. ‘Settler colonialism’ is a more virulent variant of colonialism than the traditional, classical kind which confronted most ‘third world’ countries. Classical colonialism is predicated on an asymmetric relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, or, in the terminology of dependency theory, the core and the periphery. On the economic level, classical colonialism embodies an economically exploitative kind of relationship where the colonialist power drains the wealth and resources of the colonized. On the political level, it constitutes a general asymmetric power relationship, or, to use the Hegelian jargon popularized by the Marxists and neo-Marxists, a master-slave relationship. On the cultural level, classical colonialism seeks to obliterate the Us-versus-Them dichotomy by making ‘Others’ like Us. This is captured by the English poet Rudyard Kipling’s phrase ‘White Man’s burden,’ or the French notion of ‘mission civilatrice’ (the civilizing mission). This brief digression into the various dimensions of classical colonialism is important for understanding the peculiar characteristics of ‘settler colonialism,’ and, in turn, the seriousness of the threat posed by the creation of the zionist entity in the Middle East. Despite its exploitative nature, classical colonialism falls short of physically exterminating the native ‘savages’ living in colonized areas. At best, in its cultural dimension, it wages a form of kulturkampf (cultural war) that, if successful, would ultimately results in a cultural genocide. In contrast ‘settler colonialism’ is predicated on the possession of land and the physical extermination of the native ‘savages’ as a means to establish or legitimate its claim to nationhood in the land. This is the marked difference between classical colonialism and settler colonialism; the difference between mere cultural genocide and a truly physical one or its functional equivalent.

It should be pointed out in this context that zionism was nurtured by a number of sustaining ideological myths. Most notably and relevant here is the one stating that Palestine had been a terra nullius (‘a land without a people for a people without a land’) when the zionist settlers began to arrive there in the nineteenth century - a process known as aliyah (or ‘ascent’) in Hebrew to denote the spiritual elevation that comes along with moving to the Holy or Promised Land. But since Palestine was actually already inhabited, then carrying out the zionist myth required that it be physically depopulated. The notion of the Jewish historical right to Palestine served as another ideological myth underlying demographic purgation. The upshot of this notion is that the exodus of the Palestinians was a prerequisite for the ‘re-establishment’ of the Jewish presence there. In such a scheme of things, driving the ‘native’ Palestinians out of their land was not seen as an act of destroying an indigenous people, society and culture, but rather as a liberating and redeeming act. Beneath this veneer of ideological rationale, however, the message was simple. The Palestinians stood as a nuisance, an obstacle, hindering the redemption of the historical rights of the Jewish people and their ‘ascent.’ Eliminating or subjugating this hindrance is not only justified but necessary as well.

Salaam Shalom Shanti Namaste Peace to all Gods creatures, whoever & wherever they might be.

[sub][Crickets chirping][/sub]

“Secular Messianic Movement”

Folks, we have a new winner for #1 oxymoron!

This gem knocks “Microsoft Works” to the #2 spot.

::yawns::

You do realize that the Irgun and Stern gangs had reasons for fighting British authorities, yes? You do realize that those British authorities were condemning thousands of Jews to concentration camps by limiting immigration to Israel, yes? And, futhermore, IIRC, the deaths at the King David Hotel bombing were exclusively British. Furthermore, the bombers gave a warning to the building in adequete time beforehand that there was an explosive inside. More or less the bombing was meant to destroy the files inside the building, not the people, IIRC.

Followup: By calling Zionism messianic, you are applying a theological aspect. Zionism, however, is largely secular. It should be noted that Theodore Hertzl was not religiously Jewish, for example.

Zionism set out to do in a secular, politcal way what the messiah is expected to do in a spiritual way. It is the messiah that is to re-create Israel. In Judaism the messiah is not God’s son. There are no theological overtones. Yes, secular & messianic should be mutually exclusive. In the mad world of the Zionist they are not.

There is a terrible denial of reality in Zionism.

Okay, I understand what you meant. However, what is this terrible denial of reality about? You sound a bit ambigous there. Israel is a real nation with millions of Israeli denizens. What exactly is the denial of reality here?

Well, thanks for clearing that up Larr

**

Terrible denial of reality you say?

Not …Pit… Must…Fight…Urge…To…Make…Snappy…Comeback…

Instead, let me say that were you to embrace Phi, get uncircumcised and have sex with KayKay, there would be no problem in the world you couldn't solve.

Huh?

So, is like, the OP anti-Israel/pro-Palestine, or pro-Israel/anti-Palestine?

My brain hurts.

You know, most Israelis don’t think of Zionism as a political philosophy. It’s simply the local term for patriotism and love of country.

So, what do I win?

I thought the OP sounded like a Manifesto–and it is. Copy and Pasted, word for word, from this website.

http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/zionterr.htm

Tacky, tacky. Here at the SDMB, Larry, we make it a practice NOT to Copy and Paste entire articles from other people’s copyrighted websites.

Hopefully the Mods are on this then?

So instead of posting a link, LarryDL copied-and-pasted the article. I would have liked to see attribution, but the history is actually correct. While Israel and its backer, the US, decry terrorism, they conveniently sweep the fact of Zionist terrorism under the rug, knowing of the short attention span and abysmal education of most US citizens.

Daoleth said:
You do realize that the Irgun and Stern gangs had reasons for fighting British authorities, yes? You do realize that those British authorities were condemning thousands of Jews to concentration camps by limiting immigration to Israel, yes?

Funny, I don’t recall that the British were in control of Nazi concentration camps or of emigration from Germany. AFAIK–and if I’m wrong, I’d like to see some cites with statistics–those Jews who did flee the Third Reich emigrated not to Palestine, but to the U.S. or other European countries.

From a humanistic/personal standpoint, if my grandfather’s land was taken from him by an invading force, my family massacred, and my parents and I forced into a squalid refugee camp–I know damned well that I’d fight back. This is how suicide bombers are made. ‘Settler colonization’ is what the U.S. did to the indigenous population of the territory it wanted, and who can say that that was just or right?

Like the proponents of Manifest Destiny, the supporters of Zionism and Israel claim, “it was empty land”–false, “they weren’t doing anything with the land”–false, “God wanted us to have this land”–unprovable.

As for Israel’s claim to Palestine as their ancestral homeland, Palestinians have an equal claim.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/questions/

Squish- The British, who were in control of Palestine during the duration of WWII, allowed (IIRC) only 15,000 Jews in annually. In the '30s Hitler basically said, “Here, take these Jews,” and offered them up all around the world. The US took some, and so did the Dominican Republic and some other nations. The Brits allowed only 15k per year into Palestine. It’s because of this that we have 5.8 million dead Jews and not something like 5.5 million.

Furthermore, after WWII, many European Jews had no where to go. Thousands of orphans were produced, and many homes were destroyed. Not to mention, it’s kinda awkward (to say the least) resettling in with your countrymen who had previously tried to annihilate you (applies specifically to German, Austrian and Ukranian Jews). Coincidentally, at the same time, the UN was leading a movement to commission an Israeli state. Thus, we had some 400,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine in less than 3 years.

Now, onto your hyperbolic example of you being a suffering Palestinian child in a refugee camp. For nitpicking sake, how can your ‘family be massacred’ but your parents still alive?

Anyway, something to consider: There was going to be a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, a tactless move by the Arab league initiated a war with Israeli and thus prevented such an entity. Also, it should be noted, is that the 550,000 Palestinians that were made refugees were mostly not forced out of their homes and into refugee camps. While a tragically considerable number were forced, not all were. Many of them were fleeing in terror (i.e. prevention). This is notably different than being dragged out at the barrel of a rifle. Rumors of what happened at Deir Yassin did a lot to contribute to this Palestinian mass emigration.

It’s strange, though, that wealthy Arab neighbors such as Saudi Arabia seemed so reluctant to accept the refugees. Instead, these oil rich nations are allowing the Palestinians to stay in squalid occupied camps in a resource-less but hotly contested area of the Mideast. Methinks they’re not as caring for the Palestinians as their voices dictate.

Lastly, who can forget the peace deal that was nearly brokered in 1998? The Palestinians were offered the entire West Bank and 97% of the Gaza Strip (or was it the other way around?), but Arafat, in all his wisdom, declined. Seems like the suicide bombers should be targeting the PLO instead of teenage Israelis, who, as we all know, are a massive threat to the Palestinian cause.

:rolleyes:

Ah, Duck Duck Goose, 75k was the number I was thinking of, not 15k. Either way, the end result was tragic.

In reference to a posting above regarding Kahlil Osman. As far as I know, he is not the author. Mohamed Ghounem is; he gave me permission to cut and paste it without attribution --as long as it is not being used for profit. He evidently gave Mr. Osman similar permission. I communicate directly with Mr. Ghounem by email so there was noting tacky.

Zionism is a political philosophy. The largest Zionist group on the planet is the world Zionist Organization. The connection between that organization and the Israeli government is laid out in what is called the ‘Status Law’. I can quote from it if that is wished. Many Israeli leaders have also been leaders of the world Zionist Organization.

Where the Zionist denial of reality comes in is the question of how a people who never owned more than 6% of Palestine can claim the whole country as theirs and call it Israel. With respect to land ownership, the Jews then owned 1,491 square kilometers (exclusive of urban property) out of a total of 26,323 square kilometers in Palestine (Appendix IV, to the Report of Sub-Committee 2, UN Doc. A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p. 270.). Thus, Jewish land ownership amounted to 5.6 percent of the total area of the country. In contrast, the Palestinians owned the rest of Palestine, including all the areas that were categorized as public domain.

As far as the 1998 ‘peace deal’ is concerned: "The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN resolution 194, is the key for ending the conflict. So any peace process which does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually will flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this big block within the Palestinian people.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect Palestinians to do the opposite, is a LUDICROUS thought. Keep in mind that it is a well documented fact how the Hashemite Kingdom was a central factor to Israel’s existence since its inception in 1948, which is a fact that is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemite’s rule during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view, since it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, it should be noted that from the political stand point Jerusalem is the most unifying factor among Arabs and Muslims, and this is a fact which cannot be ignored.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusades, to give it up on a silver plate for the Israelis. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling Christian Crusades between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusades. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where were the Zionists were when the Holy Land really needed their help during the Crusade Genocide! Was Palestine a “Promised” or “non-Promised” Land, that is the question?

The Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such arrangement that could hinder its strategic national security and interests.

It is not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed in the Palestinian areas, also its economical, social, and political relations with neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel. " (The preceding 6 paragraphs were quoted from ‘Palestine Remembered’.)

And never mind the Palestinians who were already living there, right? Why, we’ll just use terrorism to scare or murder them so we can take their land–land which was not purchased from them legally.

Easy. My mother and father are both dead, but I have over 100 close relatives still alive. Or don’t you count uncles, aunts, and various degrees of cousins as family?

[/QUOTE]
While a tragically considerable number were forced, not all were. Many of them were fleeing in terror (i.e. prevention). This is notably different than being dragged out at the barrel of a rifle. Rumors of what happened at Deir Yassin did a lot to contribute to this Palestinian mass emigration.
[/QUOTE]

I consider fleeing in terror the same as being forced.

Politically, for other Arab nations to take all the refugees would be to roll over, play dead, and give up all hope of free Palestine.

If you’re referring to the Wye summit, the total agreed Israeli withdrawal consisted of 39%–and those withdrawals were never completed.

Duck Duck Goose: you’re quoting the Simon Weisenthal Center; I wish you had found another source, but in any event, allowing a total of 75,000 people into a small country where only 6% of the land was owned by non-Arabs does not seem irrational. What were the refugees going to live on once they got there? (Apparently Irgun, the Stern Gang and Haganah had already decided theft and murder would solve that problem).

So Israel/US apparently have two choices:

  1. There must be a Palestinian state, and there must be a Right of Return, or
  2. There must be complete genocide of the Palestinian people.

Or can anyone suggest another option?

I just love it, love it, love it.

Sure there were injustices on the Israeli side. Sure certain aspects of Zionism were rather kooky. Combining nationalistic ideologies with large population flux will invariably produce bad incidents and injustice.

But, they are offset by the large injustices on the Arab side. The Arab countries expelled their entire Jewish populations, they tried to wipe Israel off of the map at least 3 times.

UN declaration 181, which provided a mandate for the State of Israel, was passed by the General Assembly on November 29, 1947. This effectively meant that the world supported a Jewish state in the Middle East. Call it good PR, call it what you wish. The world voted on it, and the world wanted it. The Stern Gang, the Haganah, the Irgun don’t change this fact. They don’t change the fact that through the beginning of 1948, the Arab neighbors of Israel systematically tried to sweep the Jews into the sea (thus breaking famous Declaration 181). They don’t change the fact that after the Jews won, there was no Palestinian state created (and Jordan and Egypt occupied that land designated by UN 181). They don’t change the fact that 500,000 or so Jews were expelled from the Arab countries, and were resetteled in Israel. They don’t change the military buildup and rhetoric of 1967, the surprise attack on Yom Kippur of 1973, the murder of Israeli Olympians in Munich of 1972, and the endless bombings and hijackings since then.

Focusing on one particular aspect of history while ignoring all of the surrounding conditions can be used to prove almost anything. All countries have ugly incidents. It doesn’t somehow nullify all of Zionism and all Israeli accomplishments since 1887.