‘State of Terror,’ by Thomas Suárez

Middle East
on 64 Comments

A review of State of Terror: How terrorism created modern Israel, by Thomas Suárez. Published today in the UK, available for pre-order in the U.S.

To introduce the theme of this book, I can do no better than to quote its endorsement by Prof. Ilan Pappé:

A tour de force, based on diligent archival research that looks boldly at the impact of Zionism on Palestine and its people in the first part of the 20th century. The book is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine.

Thanks to Prof. Pappé and other Israeli ‘new’ historians working from Israeli government archives, we now have a good understanding of the extent of the catastrophe which befell the Palestinian people in the 1947-49 period as the Zionist forces fought through Palestine either driving out the non-Jewish population, or, if they fled, taking over their property and destroying empty villages.

Tom Suarez's new book, State of Terror

Tom Suarez’s new book, State of Terror

The less well-known history of the period before this, from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 through the British Mandate of 1922-1948 has now been thoroughly researched in this new book by Thomas Suárez, working largely from British Government archives. He continues the story until the end of the 1956 war in which Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt.

The book is a substantial work of historical scholarship of over 400 pages, including 680 endnotes, some of them long paragraphs quoting several sources. There is also a very comprehensive index, and a few contemporary photographs. Some maps of the territory would have helped the reader follow the story.

The story he tells is of a Zionist elite determined from the beginning to turn all of Palestine into a Jewish state in which the local non-Jewish Arab population would be either subjugated or expelled. The Zionists were quite willing to use violence and terrorism to achieve this aim, and the book traces the resulting unhappy history in detail, to the extent that, in places, it reads like a catalog of Zionist terror attacks. The Zionist policy is made clear in this quote from Menachem Begin, later a Prime Minister of Israel, which appears at the head of the book’s Introduction:

“We intend to attack, conquer and keep until we have the whole of Palestine and Transjordan in a Greater Jewish State”.

The author does not deny or condone the existence of Palestinian Arab terrorism, but shows how it was then (and remains today) “a reaction to Zionist ethnic subjugation and expropriation of land, resources and labour, with non-violent resistance having proved futile”. Whereas the Palestinian terrorists were loose bands of guerillas operating in the country districts, the Zionist terrorists were organized militias operating from within urban centers under the protection of those communities.

As Palestinian terrorism died down after the brutal suppression of the Arab protests in 1936, Zionist terror escalated, particularly after the 1939 White Paper which placed restrictions on Jewish immigration, “targeting anyone in the way of its political objectives – Palestinian, British or Jewish”. During the second world war, the official Zionist militia, Hagana, toned down its attacks on the British. Both Arab and Jewish Palestinians volunteered to join the Allied forces, though the Jews insisted on their own regiment.

From 1942 onwards, when it was clear that the Allies were going to win the war, the Zionists restarted their campaign of wholesale terrorism (as the British described it) to establish a Zionist state by force: a campaign which eventually forced Britain’s decision to abandon the Mandate, leading to the UN Partition Plan, civil war, ethnic-cleansing of the Arab population, and the unilateral declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

Tom Suárez in the West Bank. Photo credit Sainatee Suárez

Tom Suárez in the West Bank. Photo credit Sainatee Suárez

The book makes the important point that in the early days most of world Jewry were opposed to Zionism. In Britain, the Jewish cabinet minister Lord Montagu, supported by other Jewish leaders, viewed the Zionists as collaborators with the anti-semites who were delighted with the idea of the Jews expelling themselves from their current homelands. Montagu was instrumental in changing the aim of the Balfour Declaration from “Palestine AS THE Jewish national home” to the vaguer “A Jewish national home IN Palestine”. Orthodox Jews, including the indigenous Arab Jews of Palestine, thought that the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel could not take place until the time of the Messiah, and rejected Zionism as an attempt to replace Jewish religion with a secular, nationalistic ideology. Liberal Jews did not believe that Jews constituted a national group who needed a political home, and were loyal to their existing homeland. In the USA a group of (mainly Reform) rabbis established the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, still active today.

The book also reveals the Zionist willingness to use violence against their Jewish opponents; their conviction that all Jews had an obligation to leave their homelands to go to Palestine; their willingness to stir up anti-semitism to encourage such migration; and their attempts to prevent displaced Jews going anywhere other than Palestine.

Jerusalem from the north, during the Mandate period, an image from Tom Suarez's book State of Terror

Jerusalem from the north, during the Mandate period, an image from Tom Suarez’s book State of Terror

The coverage of historical events in the book is somewhat sketchy, and might confuse the general reader not already familiar with the topic: for example, the 1917 Balfour Declaration is discussed but the text is not provided. It presents the 1947 UN Partition Plan simply as a division of Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) into two states, Jewish and Arab, as if they were to be independent sovereign states. In fact, they were to be joined in a confederation effectively under UN trusteeship, and created by a process in which there was no place for a unilateral declaration of independence. Ben-Gurion’s attempt in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment to justify it through the Partition Plan was a fraud. We are told that the Declaration did not acknowledge any borders for the new state, but not told that the Zionists were forced to make a formal declaration of borders as proposed by the Partition Plan in order to achieve recognition by the USA. This is significant because it makes it clear that Israel was not invaded by 5 Arab armies on 15 May 1948, as Zionists claim: most of the fighting in the subsequent war was outside its borders, and only Syrian and Egyptian troops entered Israeli territory.

This book is true, and it is important. It proves beyond doubt that Israel is not the perpetual victim of Arab violence that it claims to be, but has been the aggressor throughout the history of the conflict.

Thomas Suárez is to be congratulated and thanked for his work. This book is a tremendous achievement by a writer who is also a talented musician and an expert in historic cartography.

Publication Information

UK Edition published by Skyscraper Publications, 13 October 2016, RRP £20.
Format: Hardcover, 417 pages
ISBN: 978-1911072034
Available on amazon.co.uk

US Edition published by Interlink-Olive Branch, November 23, 2016, $20
Format: Paperback, 288 pages
ISBN: 978-1566560689
Available for pre-order on amazon.com.

Electronic edition forthcoming. The book has its own website at state-of-terror.net

About David Gerald Fincham

Dr. David Gerald Fincham is a retired academic scientist from the United Kingdom. He now writes about the relationships between religion, science, and peace. His website is religion-science-peace.org.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

64 Responses

  1. talknic
    October 15, 2016, 6:46 am

    Point: “In fact, they were to be joined in a confederation effectively under UN trusteeship, and created by a process in which there was no place for a unilateral declaration of independence.”

    Independence is by its very nature unilateral. One cannot be independent whilst under occupation or dependent on another party. The British had to end their occupation (under the LoN Mandate for Palestine) so that either Arab or Jewish party could declare independence, unilaterally. Neither party was obliged to co-sign the others declaration.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 15, 2016, 11:36 am

      Talknic, please re-read the Plan and my Mondoweiss article “Understanding the Partition Plan”. The two-states could not unilaterally declare independence under the plan, they achieved independence by a gradual transfer of powers from the Commission. It was not intended that they should become independent sovereign states in the usual sense. They were required to join the Economic Union, in which foreigners appointed by the UN had a casting vote, and this could not be changed without approval of the General Assembly. They had to allow free transit across the mutual border, and they had to accept agreements which Mandatory Palestine had made with other states. These are the reasons why I describe them as forming a confederation under UN Trusteeship.

      • inbound39
        October 15, 2016, 7:18 pm

        Fact is the UN had no Mandate and still has no Mandate to carve up any Foreign land on its say so or wishes. If it did and did it democratically then it would never have done it because the majority of inhabitants did not want Palestine carved up so the UN acted in violation of the majority’s rights under democracy.

      • Talkback
        October 16, 2016, 3:52 am

        @ inbound39

        Fact is that what matters in international law is also recognition opinio juris (customary law). So if all the world recognizes only the Westbank,Gaza and East Jerusalem to belong to Palastine than international law and ruling will be based on this no matter if this is just or not. The General Assembly and the Security Council even avoided taking the matter to the International Court of Justice back in 1947/48 because they knew they wouldn’t get away with destroying the territorial integrity of Palestine and completely disregarding the right to self determination of its two third majority.

      • talknic
        October 16, 2016, 5:54 am

        There is no article in UNGA res 181 requiring the co-signing of one party’s declaration of independence by the other party. Independence by its very definition is unilateral!

      • inbound39
        October 16, 2016, 12:56 pm

        To Talkback……the UN cannot even leveridge compliance to International Law when it comes to Israel. The UN has allowed it total impunity since its inception with regard to ignoring Resolutions based on International Law. Israel even has no right to be a full member given that hinged on it implementing Resolution 194. At the very least they could have and still need to suspend it until it honours its agreement. 69 Resolutions for decades it has ignored. No sanctions…nothing Yet Saddam Hussein violated 16 for twelve years and he got invaded and Iraq is trashed.

      • echinococcus
        October 16, 2016, 1:57 pm

        Talkback,

        One has to add that opinio juris is not generally accepted currency for occupied, enslaved people. Especially when the switcheroo is as blatant as in this case. The Palestinians know perfectly that this has nothing to do with justice –the recognition comedy by the local US-Zionist puppets did not convince. So, opinio or nopinio, I’ll bet my bottom dollar that it would be rejected by any fairly organized plebiscite.

        Zionism knows this and that is precisely why there are practically no Zionists who will just pull out for any “2-state” solution. All but trace elements are recommending or implementing their recipe for genocide instead.

  2. David Gerald Fincham
    October 16, 2016, 8:28 am

    Second reply to talknic.

    Please read the details of the Plan – it is all there in the text of the resolution. Nothing in the Plan allows for a Declaration of Independence by either party. The ‘independence’ they achieved under the Plan was not true independence in the sense you are using. This is because they were required to join the Economic Union before achieving ‘independence’. The Union was under the control of the Economic Board whose decisions were BINDING on the two states, and on which FOREIGNERS appointed by the UN had a CASTING VOTE. The Union covered all aspects of economic life: agriculture, industry, transport, power, water and other natural resources.

    Your view suggests that the Plan gave some legitimacy to Israel’s unilateral Declaration of Establishment. It did no such thing. There was no justification in law or morality for that Declaration (which also violated UNSCR 46).

    Talknic: you know, I think, how much I respect and admire your work. The day you pointed me to Epstein’s letter to Truman in the Truman Library was a day which literally changed my life. But on this topic you are wrong: please, please, think again.

    If you want to continue this discussion I suggest a better place to do so would be on the page of my article “Understanding the Partition Plan”.

    • inbound39
      October 16, 2016, 1:13 pm

      So…given Israel signed agreement to the Partition Plan and declared its borders and stated it had no sovereignty over East Jerusalem or any area outside its declared borders it should be obvious it is long overdue for sanctions and therefore should be rolled back to within its declared borders and settlements abandoned due to their obvious illegitimacy. No wonder Israeli’s and Americans get attacked by Arabs.

      • talknic
        October 17, 2016, 2:17 am

        @ inbound39 October 16, 2016, 1:13 pm

        ” … … should be rolled back to within its declared borders”

        Israel’s proclaimed borders were perhaps where some arguable justice once lay. They’re an indicator of the once justifiable Palestinian rights to territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        They’re an indicator of how far outside the law Israel has strayed and why UN and UNSC resolutions have been justifiably adopted against Israel’s actions outside of its borders

        They’re also an indicator as to who is actually making territorial concessions. Israeli concessions – 0. Palestinian concessions – accepting only a tiny fraction of their rightful territories.

        However, since the 1988 Palestinian Declaration Statehood outlining its hopes and aspirations for independence from Israeli occupation without actually declaring independence, Palestine has been recognized by the vast majority of the International Comity of Nations as a state, currently under occupation, thus not independent

        In declaring statehood, the Palestinians have forgone their
        A) right of Persistent Objection
        B) claim to territories outside of Palestine’s recognized borders

        Meanwhile Israel in its usual disruptive ‘keep the ball in the air’ manner has not yet legally acquired under any agreement or treaty with Palestine, any of the territories it illegally acquired by war ‘1948/49 and;

        Even tho Palestine is willing to cede those territories to Israel and even tho the ICJ has signified that in its opinion from a Palestinian POV those territories are Israeli, Israel has yet to accept that situation and; until Israel does accept and legally annex, the majority of the International Community cannot acknowledge any legal acquisition of those territories by Israel.

      • echinococcus
        October 17, 2016, 3:54 am

        Talknic,

        Israel’s proclaimed borders were perhaps where some arguable justice once lay. They’re an indicator of the once justifiable Palestinian rights to territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        There was no plebiscite and the partition remains an illegal mass-murder instrument.
        That is the contrary of “justice”.
        Every square inch in Palestine is “outside the State of Israel”, said state being a violation of the imprescribable rights of the Palestinian people, rightful owners of the sovereignty over all of Palestine.

        In declaring statehood, the Palestinians have forgone their
        A) right of Persistent Objection
        B) claim to territories outside of Palestine’s recognized borders

        To make such a revolting statement, you must assume that the Zionist/US puppets that have been installed in Ramallah by the disgraceful Oslo comedy are legitimate representatives of “the Palestinians” instead of the newest edition of Pétain and Co. –and how would you know that? By US-organized “elections” under Zionist military dictatorship?

        70 years of continuous Palestinian resistance to Zionist presence, 100 years of resistance, in fact, to both the British Empire and its tool, insistently written off by your constant, tireless propaganda for justifying the monstrous idea of a legitimate Zionist toehold. Bring a receivable, fair plebiscite before you release your next dose of “non-Zionist” Zionism.
        Or then clearly separate rights from compromises. Giving up basic rights is not likely to make the compromise acceptable: are you really so naive you believe any Zionist government will take it?

      • talknic
        October 17, 2016, 8:31 pm

        @ echinococcus October 17, 2016, 3:54 am

        You’re vitriol is misplaced. Save it for the despicable Zionist Enterprise

        I agree that how the State of Israel came to exist was against the very notions embodied in the UN Charter

        Like it or not, legitimate or illegitimate, the majority of the International Comity of Nations recognize Israel does exist. They should therefore hold it to account from the exact moment of its self proclaimed and recognized existence

        Like it or not, the Palestinians declared statehood in 1988, have been recognized according to their declaration and are considered by the majority of the International Comity of Nations to be occupied by Israel

        Like it or not, in declaring their state, the Palestinians no longer have the right of Persistent Objection re-territories acquired (’47 – 49) thru terrorism and war on behalf of the Jewish State

        “Giving up basic rights is not likely to make the compromise acceptable: are you really so naive you believe any Zionist government will take it?”

        A) I’ve not advocated giving up basic rights. Like it or not, by declaring statehood as they have, Palestinians have forgone their right to Persistent Objection

        B) Of course they won’t. The Zionist pyramid scheme can only survive by going in one direction. The plan to colonize all of Palestine has never changed http://wp.me/pDB7k-l5

      • echinococcus
        October 17, 2016, 9:29 pm

        Talknic,

        I wonder for the howmanieth time you are repeating precisely positions that are being objected to, without ever bothering to rebut the objections.

        I agree that how the State of Israel came to exist was against the very notions embodied in the UN Charter

        If you agree to what you say, that state is totally illegal. Period. Recognition of it is also illegal. Acceptance by a majority or by the entire universe including the outer planets is also irrelevant.

        Like it or not, legitimate or illegitimate, the majority of the International Comity of Nations recognize Israel does exist.

        Existence does not confer legitimacy.

        They should therefore hold it to account from the exact moment of its self proclaimed and recognized existence

        Of course they should do that, but there is no need for that enforcement (compromise goal) to override or cancel the enforcement of justice –a compromise is something agreed to because the goal is unattainable for the moment. Besides, anyone who speaks seriously of compromise with the Zionists –after 100 years of seeing them in theory and action– should be in a nuthouse.

        Now please point out exactly how insisting on some legal or legalistic obligation of the invader entity would interfere with the statement that it is totally illegal and should cease to exist.

        Like it or not, the Palestinians declared statehood in 1988

        “The Palestinians”? How representative is that? If it was “The Palestinians”, where is the plebiscite that goes with it, confirming that the territorial extent of their sovereignty is limited to whatever the Zionist charity leaves them from some unilateral declaration by invaders? The truth of the matter is that the 1988 declaration extends to the entire territory of Palestine (even more, “The State of Palestine is the state of Palestinians wherever they may be”). It is a provisional document awaiting the possibility of a general consultation of the Palestinians. The invitation to discussion and compromise are totally dissociated from the declaration of independence, which is not a State constitution. For the good reason that there was no state, and there is still no state.

        , have been recognized according to their declaration and are considered by the majority of the International Comity of Nations to be occupied by Israel

        The recognition of a Palestinian representation is not conditioned to Darwish’s Declaration of Independence. It is not necessarily conditioned to any restriction of their territorial claim. The Zionist-US puppets made to sign the Oslo accords and put themselves directly under the military occupation as the occupiers’ police force may have given away rights that are not theirs to give away but that is entirely irrelevant.

        Like it or not, in declaring their state, the Palestinians no longer have the right of Persistent Objection re-territories acquired (’47 – 49) thru terrorism and war on behalf of the Jewish State

        Sniveling, lawyerly bullshit. If this or the other government of some Zionist-riddled Ruritanian Republic does not want to recognize a “state” that does not exist, where is the problem? Are you saying that a recognition of the invasion that cannot declare its borders is a sine qua non for being recognized? If it were so, why the hell declare a “state” where there is none?
        Where is the good of pretending to give away rights to territory for the sake of having a totally non-existant “state” recognized, anyway? What is the good of having a fake state? Where is that state? Who does it represent?

        Who is doing the declaring? Where is the full mandate for a state (= in this case, plebiscite of all Palestinians anywhere, including the diaspora and excluding all illegal Zionist immigration since the declaration of hostile intent, in the absence of military occupation and duress.)

        I’ve not advocated giving up basic rights.

        Looks to me as if most of what you write here, day in, day out, consists of just that. Don’t you realize that this only consolidates the well-encrusted lie that the Zionist invaders have a right to a fraction of Palestine?

      • talknic
        October 18, 2016, 12:29 am

        @ echinococcus October 17, 2016, 9:29 pm

        Whether you and/or I think Israel and its International recognition was illegal or illegitimate and/or a gross injustice, will not make it go away

        It won’t undo the lies told by the Zionist Movement thru the Jewish Agency and successive Israeli Governments

        It won’t undupe anyone sucked in by Zionist propaganda and it won’t get an inch of Palestinian territory out of Zionism’s vile clutches. It won’t change anything on the ground

        Showing folk, thru the broken words of the Zionist Movement and it’s representatives, just how deceitful and immoral the Zionist enterprise is and just how low those who promote it are willing to sink, will eventually help bring about change

        BTW The Palestinian Declaration of Statehood was adopted by the Palestinian National Council 253 in favour 46 against 10 abstentions

      • echinococcus
        October 18, 2016, 5:31 am

        Talknic,

        No use trying to discuss anything with someone who never ever reads what’s being said or asked. All you do is repeat your stuff without ever addressing the objections, which remain unanswered across some 10 or so exchanges.

        I won’t insult you by repeating what I asked again in the last message. You can answer when and if you realize that you have never answered the questions. You still ignore them all, including the one about why you wouldn’t be able to both show up the Zionists’ duplicity and at the same time show that they have no rights at all.

        Let me add one thing: you come across as totally ignorant of the existence of a Palestinian people, who still have not been consulted and who have never appointed the PNC (who had a much better understanding than you of the difference between compromise and sticking to one’s rights long-term) or today’s despicable post-Oslo puppets. All that nice talk of showing up the Zionists won’t answer the P. people’s thirst for justice (it never worked with any enslaved peoples until successful genocide, see the US.)

        All in all, your line of pigheaded insistence on “declared borders” and recognition of a non-existent state by a bunch of governments that cannot and will not do anything substantial about it (as a more important goal than whatever the popular request may be) strikes me as highly insidious Zionist propaganda, conscious or not.

      • talknic
        October 18, 2016, 11:02 am

        @ echinococcus October 18, 2016, 5:31 am

        “No use trying to discuss anything with someone who never ever reads what’s being said or asked. All you do is repeat your stuff without ever addressing the objections, which remain unanswered across some 10 or so exchanges.”

        What is there to object to?

        I agree that the state of Israel was was founded on a gross injustice. It never the less now exists, whether you or I like it or not, and as such ought be bought to task in accordance with the obligations it undertook in order to exist.

      • Keith
        October 18, 2016, 11:24 am

        TALKNIC- “I agree that the state of Israel was was founded on a gross injustice. It never the less now exists, whether you or I like it or not, and as such ought be bought to task in accordance with the obligations it undertook in order to exist.”

        Well stated. I agree. Virtually all of the existing states were founded on gross injustice and a lot of blood. Attempts to turn back the clock to some mythical sin-free Garden of Eden merely perpetuate further strife and injustice. Justice absolutely requires dealing with the current reality as best we can.

      • echinococcus
        October 18, 2016, 12:10 pm

        Talknic,

        For fck’s sake, can’t you read?

        When did you answer the question on difference between compromise (which no one is opposing in principle) and long-term abandonment of rights?

        That about legitimate plebiscite vs. fake representatives or self-appointed representatives?

        That about the relative all-importance/unimportance of the recognition of a non-existent / enslaved state as opposed to the recognition of the illegality of any occupation?

        That on the absence of any necessity of abandoning essential rights even for that objective?

        That on the absence of an obligation to avoid any mention of the illegality of the Zionist entity anywhere while you pursue your game of trying to hold the Zionist pirates accountable to their own admissions. A worthwile game, perhaps, but with no obligation to avoid underlining the illegality of its very presence.

        Are you a robot, to repeat the same sentences, no matter the objections?
        One thing I know, most of your output is just helping Zionist propaganda while you continue protesting

      • talknic
        October 19, 2016, 12:55 am

        @ echinococcus October 18, 2016, 12:10 pm

        “For fck’s sake, can’t you read?”

        You’re making accusations. I’m merely presenting, as far as I know, factual information that might help shine light on the situation. If you don’t like the facts, it’s not my problem, I can’t change ’em

        “When did you answer the question on difference between compromise (which no one is opposing in principle) and long-term abandonment of rights?”

        A) I haven’t advocated compromise (with Israel), in fact I’ve constantly advocated against it “Get out of all non-Israeli territories”

        (with Israel) If the Zionists insist Israel must exist as a state, then that state should be held to its legal obligations. My argument is with them, not you

        B) I didn’t advocate anyone abandoning their rights. I merely stated a fact. By declaring their state within the pre ’67 ‘borders’ (1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines) and thru its subsequent recognition, Palestine abandoned the right to Persistent Objection over territories illegally acquired by force thru Jewish terrorism and Israeli forces 1947/48/49.

        As I’ve said all along, those territories have yet to be legally annexed to Israel via an agreement or treaty reached thru a plebiscite/referendum of the rightful (Palestinian) inhabitants of those territories.

        The point still remains, Palestine has forgone its right to persistent objection, which does not necessarily preclude eventual ‘restoration’ of those territories, even, according to Schwebel/Herzog/Lauterpacht, by war! . Not that they have the means nor currently allies willing to commit to war on their behalf

        Meanwhile, thru a long list of conflicting statements the Zionist/Jewish Agency et al lost all right to Persistent Objection long before 1947

        “That about legitimate plebiscite vs. fake representatives or self-appointed representatives?”

        I’ve already covered that issue here on MW and elsewhere. http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=referendum+of+the+legitimate+citizens

        But for argument’s sake Ok. Have it your way. Who does represent the Palestinian people? http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/201218205949656112.html

        “That on the absence of an obligation to avoid any mention of the illegality of the Zionist entity anywhere while you pursue your game of trying to hold the Zionist pirates accountable to their own admissions. A worthwile game, perhaps, but with no obligation to avoid underlining the illegality of its very presence.”

        For fck’s sake, can’t you read? Illegal, illegitimate, like it or not, the State of Israel exists. I’ve never expressed support for Israel as it is and I’ve certainly never expressed support for the Zionist organization or any of its institutions. I consider it to be a 1897 pyramid scheme, requiring more and more territory to survive http://mondoweiss.net/profile/talknic/?keyword=pyramid+scheme

        “One thing I know, most of your output is just helping Zionist propaganda while you continue protesting”

        My banning from the Guardian, Wikipedia and numerous pro-Zionist and even some moderate media outlets has not been for helping Zionist propaganda. They hate factual information revealing the deceit perpetuated by the Zionist enterprise

    • talknic
      October 17, 2016, 1:27 am

      “Please read the details of the Plan – it is all there in the text of the resolution. Nothing in the Plan allows for a Declaration of Independence by either party.”

      F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

      When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D253

      It was written in order of how events were envisioned to unfold.
      1) a transition period wherein the parties were tasked with preparing the machinations of statehood towards independence, after which;
      2) either party could declare effective independent statehood once their respective territories were free of British administration under the LoN Mandate for Palestine . Then, as states;
      3) join the Economic Union

      PART I

      Future constitution and government of Palestine

      A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

      B. STEPS PREPARATORY TO INDEPENDENCE …

      C. DECLARATION …

      D. ECONOMIC UNION AND TRANSIT

      1. The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall enter into an undertaking with respect to economic union and transit.

      • MaxNarr
        October 17, 2016, 9:22 am

        Oh yes, in the world of @talknic, all Israeli “settlers” are ripe for execution and Israel has no right to exist on any borders.

      • amigo
        October 17, 2016, 11:02 am

        “Oh yes, in the world of @talknic, all Israeli “settlers” are ripe for execution” maxnurd

        Max, are you responding to the wrong site.talknic never made such an insinuation.

        ” and Israel has no right to exist on any borders.” maxnurd

        Israel refuses to declare it,s borders so has decided it does no t exist.

        From where I sit , Israel in it,s present format should be torn down and every stone that has the stench of the zionist project should be crushed and scattered far and wide and replaced with a democratic nation that respects the rights of all it,s citizens.That is what peace loving people wish for and then there are pro war/land theft/extra judicial executions/lawn mowings and child beatings and imprisonment ,(just to mention a few ), apologists and bigots like you .

      • Mooser
        October 17, 2016, 1:21 pm

        “Oh yes, in the world of @talknic, all Israeli “settlers” are ripe for execution and Israel has no right to exist on any borders.”

        And in the world of “MaxNarr” every Jew in the world can’t wait to go down the toilet with the squatters and settlers in Palestine and Jerusalem. We will all make any sacrifice just to be associated and support with those brave heroic settlers. We won’t turn our back on them!

      • talknic
        October 17, 2016, 7:26 pm

        MaxNarr October 17, 2016, 9:22 am

        ” … all Israeli “settlers” are ripe for execution and Israel has no right to exist on any borders.”

        If you say so Max. I certainly haven’t

        False accusations such as yours are against the basic tenets of Judaism. That you and your kind purposefully stray from those basic tenets on behalf of the war crimes of the so called Jewish state reveals just how low some folk’ll go

      • Jackdaw
        October 19, 2016, 1:33 pm

        @talknic

        The Balfour Declaration wasn’t about helping the Jews. It was about HMG’s desperate war time gamble to curry favor with wealthy Jews.

        The LoN Mandate wasn’t about helping Jews ‘settle the land’. It was about HMG setting up a quasi-colony to secure oil from Iraq and to buffer the French from the Suez Canal.

        Fincham needs to stop pointing his finger at the Zionists, and consider Perfidious Albion.

      • RoHa
        October 19, 2016, 7:39 pm

        Yes, the Zionists were innocent victims, deceived by the infinite Welsh cunning of Lloyd George.

      • talknic
        October 19, 2016, 8:23 pm

        @ jackdaw October 19, 2016, 1:33 pm

        “The Balfour Declaration wasn’t about helping the Jews. It was about HMG’s desperate war time gamble to curry favor with wealthy Jews.

        The LoN Mandate wasn’t about helping Jews ‘settle the land’. It was about HMG setting up a quasi-colony to secure oil from Iraq and to buffer the French from the Suez Canal”

        Strange. A) The Zionist Federation decided to colonize Palestine .. in 1897, 20 years before B) Zionists wrote the Balfour Declaration and a quarter of a century before C) Zionists agreed to the LoN Mandate for Palestine

        “Fincham needs to stop pointing his finger at the Zionists, and consider Perfidious Albion”

        See A) B) C)

        Your rhetoric is irrelevant to the fact that Israel and its borders were proclaimed in 1948, effective at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and that Israel has been in breach of its obligations to International Law from that moment

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 20, 2016, 4:07 am

        NO,NO,NO.

        The Declaration is not a Declaration of Independence. The states were not to be independent sovereign states. All this was discussed in my article “Understanding the Partition Plan”:-

        “At some point before independence each State must make a Declaration to the U.N accepting a number of stipulations. Two of these, concerning religious sites and religious and minority rights go into the constitution. These cannot be changed without the agreement of the General Assembly. Others cover such matters as citizenship, and acceptance of international agreements and financial obligations previously accepted by Palestine. These are regarded as fundamental laws of the state.

        “Achieving independence. The Plan does not make clear exactly how and when the states achieve independence. My interpretation is the following.

        “After the end of the Mandate, effective sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Palestine Commission. This progressively transferred administrative authority to the Provisional Councils, which operated under its supervision. After the Provisional Council and the Constituent Assembly had produced a Constitution, the Provisional Council was replaced by the Provisional Government. It was at this point that the State became independent.

        The Plan does not say anything about the States declaring their independence. That is unnecessary. The United States had to declare independence from Britain, because Britain did not want to let them go. The two States in the Plan do not need to declare independence from the Commission, because they have already been given it. In the same way, Israel did not need to declare independence from Britain on 14 May 1948, because the Mandate had already ended. Instead it simply declared the establishment of the State.

        “How independent? The two States described in the Plan are not really independent. The Plan has written a major part of their constitutions. The Palestine Commission has chosen the High Command of their militias. An Economic Union has been forced upon them, which cannot be modified for 10 years unless the General Assembly agrees. Decisions of the Joint Economic Board are binding on the States; in taking those decisions foreigners appointed by the UN have the casting vote.”

      • Mooser
        October 20, 2016, 4:50 pm

        David, your plan would obligate the UN to keep Israel from attaining its destined size, and then disappearing.

      • echinococcus
        October 20, 2016, 7:10 pm

        Jack… daw:

        Fincham needs to stop pointing his finger at the Zionists, and consider Perfidious Albion.

        As if nobody had “considered”. Oh no, it’s news that there were any British in this story. Nobody ever tells us anything.

        But then, the English were smart enough to get out while the going was good, leaving the Jack… daws holding the bag. Enjoy the kick.

    • Jackdaw
      October 18, 2016, 1:50 pm

      @Fincham

      ” The day you pointed me to Epstein’s letter to Truman in the Truman Library was a day which literally changed my life.”

      Wow.

      Fincham, Epstein’s letter may have been a lie, but how many times did HMG lie to the Zionists, beginning with Balfour ( when they’d already promised to divide the Levant with the French or give Palestine to the Arabs)?

      • echinococcus
        October 18, 2016, 2:33 pm

        Another defining example for total loss of human decency (“chutzpah” in Yiddish) is to complain that your neighbor stole your bread, the one you were eating while crying for its loss. Not verbatim, but you’ll know it.

        As in:

        how many times did HMG lie to the Zionists, beginning with Balfour (when they’d already promised to divide the Levant with the French or give Palestine to the Arabs)?

      • talknic
        October 19, 2016, 1:16 am

        Jackdaw October 18, 2016, 1:50 pm

        “Epstein’s letter may have been a lie”

        Interesting, tho not unexpected. Must make you feel so proud!

        ” but how many times did HMG lie to the Zionists, beginning with Balfour ( when they’d already promised to divide the Levant with the French or give Palestine to the Arabs)?”

        A) How was it a lie to advocate for a homeland for Jewish folk in Palestine?

        B) It was made quite clear by the British White Papers the HMG didn’t advocate a Jewish state!
        http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#British-White-Paper-1922

        Nor did the LoN Mandate for Palestine http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

        C) They didn’t promise to ‘divide’ the Levant with the French except for the purpose of administrating the respective states towards their eventual independence

        D) Palestine was already majority Arab

        E) You’re talking the usual Zionist sh*te!

        F) Zionists lied

        British White Paper (1922) ” It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

      • talknic
        October 19, 2016, 5:13 am

        @ Jackdaw October 18, 2016, 1:50 pm

        “Epstein’s letter may have been a lie”

        It was obviously a lie. Israel had no intention of “… discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law.”

        Jewish forces were already in breach of International Law the day Israel was proclaimed, invading territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        Incrimination by their own words is the most damning evidence

        Menachem Begin:

        “We intend to attack, conquer and keep until we have the whole of Palestine and Transjordan in a Greater Jewish State”. https://www.google.com.au/search?q=“We+intend+to+attack%2C+conquer+and+keep+until+we+have+the+whole+of+Palestine+and+Transjordan+in+a+Greater+Jewish+State”

        And on the 3rd of June 1948, Ben-Gurion reported to the Provisional Government of Israel

        “In the last three weeks our armed forces have done an excellent job. They are striking at the Arab Triangle and they stand at the gates of Jenin. Tulkarm is under attack and Nablus quivers with fear. ”.

        The last three weeks refers to the period 13th May to 3rd June 1948. They were ‘striking’ Arab territories.

        Israel was never invaded. None of its proclaimed territories have ever been taken. All its wars have been in territories outside the State of Israel and being preemptive, by definition started by Israel

        “ … To the greatest possible extent, we will remain constantly on the offensive, which will not be confined to the borders of the Jewish State. We have already struck at enemy concentrations in Syria and Lebanon; Amman, Abdullah’s capital, has received its first warning in the form of an Israeli air attack. ”

        Already in complete disregard of their self proclaimed obligation to International Law which required states to have ” … respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

      • a blah chick
        October 21, 2016, 11:19 am

        “…how many times did HMG lie to the Zionists, beginning with Balfour ( when they’d already promised to divide the Levant with the French or give Palestine to the Arabs)?”

        The audacity of giving Palestine to the Palestinians! I clutch my pearls and feel faint.

    • Mooser
      October 18, 2016, 3:43 pm

      …Epstein’s letter to Truman in the Truman library

      The “attachments” file is interesting, too.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2016, 11:46 am

        Reply to echinococcus October 22, 2016, 2:19 pm

        Most people in the world (including our friend talknic – see our discussion on this page and my previous article “Understanding the Partition Plan”) think that the unilateral Declaration of the State of Israel was justified by the UN partition plan. That is because they have never actually read the plan carefully, and because they have unthinkingly absorbed the propaganda element in the actual Declaration which claims such justification with the use of 14 lies [ http://religion-science-peace.org//016/07/28/israel-founded-lies/ ].

        If the world knew that there was no legal basis whatsoever for the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, it could add to pressure on Israel to come to a more just agreement with the Palestinians than the miserable 22% of their homeland that the PLO seems willing to accept.

      • Mooser
        October 24, 2016, 2:09 pm

        “If the world knew that there was no legal basis whatsoever for the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine…”

        Umm, excuse me Mr. Fincham, but it is not a “Jewish State”. It is a Zionist entity, a colonial project.

        Don’t give it some kind of validation by calling it “Jewish”.

      • echinococcus
        October 24, 2016, 2:24 pm

        Mooser,

        Who are outsiders to decide, when an overwhelming majority of the interested themselves do not protest –in fact wallow in it?
        Your despair is understandable but statistics are what they are.

      • Mooser
        October 24, 2016, 2:53 pm

        “Your despair is understandable but statistics are what they are.”

        Oh, I lose patience with the assumption that Zionism is essential, necessary, and must be preserved in some form.

    • David Gerald Fincham
      October 22, 2016, 1:41 pm

      @talknic You say:

      “By declaring their state within the pre ’67 ‘borders’ (1949 Armistice Demarcation Lines) and thru its subsequent recognition, Palestine abandoned the right to Persistent Objection over territories illegally acquired by force through Jewish terrorism and Israeli forces 1947/48/49.

      But Palestine in its Declaration said only that the State is established “in our Palestinian territory” without specifying the extent of that territory. It is true that the PLO accepted the Clinton parameters in the Oslo process, which included the idea of a Palestinian state including only the West Bank and Gaza, but that was a concession made in a negotiating process “in the interests of peace”. Since it did not produce peace, they cannot be held to that. When Palestine applied for full UN membership, it did say (foolishly in my opinion) that its borders included only the West Bank and Gaza. However, that application was rejected, and so has no force.

      The only ‘legal’ border between two adjacent states is one that both have agreed upon. The Oslo process always said that the borders were a matter for final status negotiations. Irrespective of ‘Persistent Objection’, I believe that the illegality of Israel’s conquests in 1948-49 would give Palestine at least a strong moral argument for obtaining much more territory that the 22% of former Palestine within Gaza and the West Bank, to add to the practical arguments concerning viability and contiguity of the State of Palestine.

      • echinococcus
        October 22, 2016, 2:19 pm

        DG Fincham,

        I believe that the illegality of Israel’s conquests in 1948-49 would give Palestine at least a strong moral argument for obtaining much more territory that the 22% of former Palestine within Gaza and the West Bank

        The illegality of the invasion and partition itself would give an even stronger moral argument. And possibly be used to make the colonial powers uncomfortable if the international situation produces a sponsor for the argument.

        The chance of any progress, beyond the use of “negotiations” to steal and perform genocide, is zilch comma nada anytime, anyway. So it costs nothing to ask as much as you can.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2016, 7:49 am

        Reply to echinococcus October 22, 2016, 2:19 pm

        Most people in the world (including our friend talknic – see our discussion on this page and my previous article “Understanding the Partition Plan”) think that the unilateral Declaration of the State of Israel was justified by the UN partition plan. That is because they have never actually read the plan carefully, and because they have unthinkingly absorbed the propaganda element in the actual Declaration which claims such justification with the use of 14 lies [ http://religion-science-peace.org//016/07/28/israel-founded-lies/ ].

        If the world knew that there was no legal basis whatsoever for the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, it could add to pressure on Israel to come to a more just agreement with the Palestinians than the miserable 22% of their homeland that the PLO seems willing to accept.

      • echinococcus
        October 23, 2016, 10:03 am

        Fincham,

        Thank you for your work: what your painstaking lie-picking makes most obvious, even before debunking the big hoax of partition and “independence” itself, is that Zionists constantly operate on a basis of incredibly many intentional lies crammed into every word and presented as common-or-garden daily, established truth. From their founding documents to the Yahoo’s statements.

        Not only is there “no legal basis whatsoever for the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine”, as you rightly say; the partition recommendation itself, as a GA recommendation, does not and cannot in any way relieve the British of their mandatory obligation to consult the colonized populations in a credible way –their own declarations of intent are worthless. Priming the mandate area with armed thugs of the Empire’s own making and creating a power void by suddenly getting out is not listed in the LoN mandate document, nor is it part of any definition of a mandate administration.

        Behind the dense, mephitic cloud of lies is nothing but barenaked colonial aggression of a new type by the colonial empires while in the very act of pretending to decolonize. They cannot even, as you say, credibly pretend that their recommendation or wishes replace the UN Charter.

        As you say, “if the world knew”.

        The world has no chance of knowing anything as long as the people and organizations set up to support Palestinians, because their members are indignant about the more egregious aspects of Zionism, continue to believe and spread the Zionists’ own foundational myths.

        Before getting to inform the world, one has to break the pigheaded opposition by the very organizations set up to support Palestinian resistance. Not for nothing are these mostly under the influence or management of either the PLO or of people who consider the Zionists as family members instead of mortal enemies. No wonder the world doesn’t know better.

      • David Gerald Fincham
        October 23, 2016, 3:35 pm

        Further reply to echinococcus:

        I was sorting out some books this afternoon, and came across Procession by John Gunther, the American journalist and writer from the 1930s to the 1960s. He is well known for his books Inside USA, Inside Europe and so on: he traveled widely and met many politicians. In the book I came across a chapter on Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew who was by profession a scientist in Manchester University, England, a leading Zionist who was president of the World Zionist Organisation and later the first President of Israel. The Chapter on Weizmann is based on a personal relationship with Gunther, who describes him as “the finest person I have ever known in public life”.

        The chapter ends thus: Palestine became free in 1948 and entered the the UN as the Republic of Israel on May 11, 1949..

        Witchcraft!

      • echinococcus
        October 23, 2016, 4:02 pm

        Fincham,

        Thanks for the treat. Witchcraft indeed, though without magic. Propaganda at its nakedest.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2016, 10:43 am

        @ David Gerald Fincham October 23, 2016, 7:49 am

        “Most people in the world (including our friend talknic – see our discussion on this page and my previous article “Understanding the Partition Plan”) think that the unilateral Declaration of the State of Israel was justified by the UN partition plan”

        Let me try another way of saying it because I’m obviously not getting thru.

        Despite the lies, deceit, injustice, illegality, illegitimacy and injustice of how Israel came to be in existence, it now exists, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not and; as it does exist as a state, it ought to be adhering to its legal obligations under International Law and the UN Charter.

        “That is because they have never actually read the plan carefully”

        I’ve carefully studied every word, the historical record prior to and after it’s drafting and adoption, its structure, grammar, punctuation

        1) Legal, illegal, right or wrong, I sincerely doubt the drafters of UNGA res 181 used the word “independence” and “independent” if they meant something other than independence by definition. I.e., free from the control of all others.

        2)Neither party could declare independence until their respective territories were free of anyone else’s control. It’s the very reason Israel (right or wrong) waited until 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) after the mandate expired, to proclaim Israel an independent republic.

        3) The Palestinians on the other hand, have never been able to declare independence because they have never been independent of the control of some other party or parties in part or in total. Contrary to Ziospin, there has never been an opportunity for the Palestinians to miss.

        “and because they have unthinkingly absorbed the propaganda element in the actual Declaration which claims such justification with the use of 14 lies ..”

        I’ll add quite a bit more to that tally http://wp.me/pDB7k-D6

      • echinococcus
        October 25, 2016, 11:12 am

        Talknic repeats, tirelessly:

        Despite the lies, deceit, injustice, illegality, illegitimacy and injustice of how Israel came to be in existence, it now exists, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not and; as it does exist as a state, it ought to be adhering to its legal obligations under International Law and the UN Charter.

        for the 181st time (estimated.)

        That sentence is correct.

        It exists, so justice requires that it be made to un-exist.

        It can be requested to adhere “to its legal obligations under International Law and the UN Charter”
        (with the same huge success that all the admonitions to do so have encountered in 70 years!)
        and AT THE SAME TIME, or in parallel,
        forced to reverse the fact of its existence.

        It’s very disappointing to see you defending Zionist invasion as insistently as the Zionist puppets put in charge of containing Palestinian resistance. Also, your lawyering is approximately of the same quality as theirs: your endless invoking of points of pseudo-lawyerly detail instead of the evident requirement of justice makes you an obstacle.

        Very sorry for the unfriendly tone, but you can’t be allowed to go on unopposed, repeating the same phrase like a parrot without ever explaining why the Zionist entity shouldn’t be left without any of its fake justifications.

      • oldgeezer
        October 25, 2016, 11:57 am

        @echinococcus

        In no way does recognizing the reality of Israel’s existance amount to a defense of either it’s creation or existance.

        Similarly recognizing that it will likely continue to exist regardless of the requirements of justice. In practical terms rhe recognition and acceptance of Israel by other nations means there will probably never be any support for your desired outcome. The world and life is filled with injustices.

      • echinococcus
        October 25, 2016, 2:45 pm

        Old Geezer,

        In no way does recognizing the reality of Israel’s existance amount to a defense of either it’s creation or existance.

        That’s what I say, too… provided one offers a refutation of its right to existence anywhere in Palestine along with the admission of the de facto and the obligation the Zionist entity has to observe the rules.

        When all the output is insisting on a non-existent right of the zionist entity to be anywhere in Palestine, that changes the scenery, doesnít it?

        Similarly recognizing that it will likely continue to exist regardless of the requirements of justice. In practical terms rhe recognition and acceptance of Israel by other nations means there will probably never be any support for your desired outcome. The world and life is filled with injustices.

        It’s also filled with lot of “injustice” for the colonialist bosturds that hit them when they least expect it. Ask the French, the English and US. The US is not the Tausendjähriges Reich. Wars happen, alliances change, and pigheaded colonialists get trashed. That’s why they are trying to complete their genocide before that.

        The net effect of propagating that “right to exist” of the Zionist entity is to make as many as possible resigned to the fate accepted by the PA Quislings.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2016, 11:44 pm

        @ echinococcus October 25, 2016, 11:12 am

        ” It’s very disappointing to see you defending Zionist invasion … “

        Quote this alleged ‘defending Zionist invasion’, verbatim. Thx

      • echinococcus
        October 26, 2016, 2:11 am

        Talknic,

        It’s sprinkled throughout your messages. I am attaching a small collection, gleaned randomly.

        They are all factual, verifiable statements by themselves. They stop, however, after having delimited the initial Zionist state and the partition area, without ever coming with an accompanying evaluation of the legality of that partition itself. The “initial” Zionist area is always contrasted to the illegal subsequent acquisitions and accretions but never put into question itself.

        That is the only point I cannot help having a serious problem with, because the effect on any reader is to reinforce the already general (almost universal) impression that the initial Zionist entity in 11/47 was legitimate. In the absence of any word about that, this is certainly a major help to Zionist propaganda. There is nothing that can make me see it in a more favorable light. Please don’t repeat that one has to hold the Zionists to their promises, treaties etc. If you can do so, go for it. But not in exchange for neglecting to denounce the illegality of the entire settlement. Is that clear?

        ================
        If the ‘territory’ in the region isn’t recognized as Israeli, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian or Egyptian, it’s Palestinian,

        They show a 100% success rate for peace when Israel withdraws from territory that’s not its own

        It’s ‘reasonable’ that Israel adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and relative Conventions and get out of all non-Israeli territories for once.

        Withdrawal for peace. Quite simple, get out of other folk’s territories, especially as Israel was already granted, completely gratis, more than enough territory to accommodate everyone of our Jewish fellows on the planet today.

        We were given the territory for a homeland state, with more than enough room for every Jewish person on the planet, even today Since proclaiming its frontiers in the May 15th 1948 in the Israeli Government plea for international recognition, Israel has illegally acquired by force and occupied more and more territory outside of it’s proclaimed and recognized Sovereign territory.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2016, 11:05 am

        @ echinococcus October 26, 2016, 2:11 am

        “It’s sprinkled throughout your messages. I am attaching a small collection, gleaned randomly”

        None of which defend the Zionist invasion.

      • echinococcus
        October 26, 2016, 2:52 pm

        Talknic,

        I DID stipulate that they do not by themselves defend the Zionist invasion.

        And I did write, for the umpteenth time, exactly why I consider the way they are written, all over these pages, as defending and anchoring the idea of a legitimacy of the initial Zionist invasion and partition.

        You never ever deigned read or respond to whatever I wrote there, explaining why all these statements, without any mention of the illegality of the partition, are defending the latter. You prefer playing stupid games (pretending not to read and avoiding all discussion) with people who extend the benefit of the doubt to well-meaning guys. Ad infinitum. So I no longer believe that you cannot read. Blast you –I’ll continue repeating that you are the most effective of the defenders of a general idea of the “legitimacy” of the partition.
        And don’t be surprised or ask for one more explanation you won’t respond to.

      • talknic
        October 26, 2016, 10:35 pm

        @ echinococcus October 26, 2016, 2:52 pm

        You can accuse and demand of me all you like, it won’t change the fact that despite all the Zionist and Jewish Agency lies and deceits and/or the illegitimacy of how it came about, Israel exists. It should therefore be held to account for its illegal activities since coming into existence.

      • echinococcus
        October 26, 2016, 10:43 pm

        Of course it should, Talknic, duh.
        You still didn’t answer why you shouldn’t both do that, and at the same time make clear that entity has no right to exist at all.
        That’s vital information for people at large.

    • hophmi
      October 24, 2016, 12:22 pm

      The Guardian and wikipedia are pro-Zionist media outlets? Lol. You’ve been banned from them because you’re nuts.

      • talknic
        October 25, 2016, 1:51 am

        @ hophmi October 24, 2016, 12:22 pm

        “The Guardian and wikipedia are pro-Zionist media outlets?”

        If you say so hophmi. I didn’t.

        Here it is, verbatim

        My banning from the Guardian, Wikipedia and numerous pro-Zionist and even some moderate media outlets has not been for helping Zionist propaganda.

        Your reading comprehension is such an embarrassment

  3. REALITY CHECK 101
    October 16, 2016, 9:29 pm

    Quote:
    Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” ….But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier.

    Hehazit [The Front] (Summer 1943) Yitzhak Shamir(born 1915-10-15) was Prime Minister of Israel from 1983 to 1984 and again from 1986 to 1992. He was born Icchak Jaziernicki (Itzchak Izernitzki) in Różana, Poland (now Ruzhany, Belarus).

    • Mooser
      October 17, 2016, 1:17 pm

      “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.”

      Sure, you betcha, terrorism, and the overwhelming strength of 180 million Jews supporting it!
      And all rigidly disciplined and compelled by Jewish volunteerism! That’s a winning plan, there.

  4. gamal
    October 16, 2016, 9:45 pm

    ” Whereas the Palestinian terrorists were loose bands of guerillas ”

    ah David” gloryio gloryio to the bold fenian men”, we are not terrorists when we fight back

    https://youtu.be/9426FKqBgag

  5. Kay24
    October 17, 2016, 6:47 am

    Zionist false flagging. Two young guys with JDL connections make up story for fame and to make Arabs look bad in Paris. Even the young ones are good at false flagging. They love to make the Arabs/Muslims look bad.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3796315/Teenagers-sparked-terror-hoax-Paris-face-jail.html?utm_content=buffer67dc3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#ixzz4KmsrRIJg

  6. Stephen Shenfield
    December 4, 2016, 11:10 am

    I have just finished reading this remarkable book. It casts light on many Zionist crimes that are not given the attention they deserve even in critical existing works on Zionism, the Nakba, etc. Let me mention three:

    1) After the war the chief rabbi in the Yishuv organized the abduction and transport to Palestine of Jewish children saved from the Holocaust and adopted by Gentile families. These children were forcibly torn from the only families they knew. The Zionists did all they could to thwart plans for the adoption of surviving orphans even by Jewish families outside Palestine.

    2) Thousands of Palestinians expelled in the Nakba who managed to get across the armistice line to their former homes in order to retrieve belongings or harvest their own crops were killed as ‘infiltrators.’

    3) During Israel’s early years the IDF made numerous cross-border attacks and bombing raids to kill and terrorize expelled Palestinians.

Leave a Reply