Trending Topics:

Apartheid lives on in Israel, rampant, disguised, and despised — says ‘Le Monde’ correspondent

Israel/Palestine
on 68 Comments
Richard Bole-Richard's book

Richard Bole-Richard’s book

My friend Nicholas Wibberley writes: “You may already know about it, but there is a relatively new book published in France [last spring] by Michel Bôle-Richard ‘Le nouvel apartheid’ which looks pretty powerful stuff.  He was Le Monde correspondent in South Africa during the apartheid period and later stationed in the occupied territories.  He did a piece last Thursday for the paper here which I have given a quick translate (below).  The book is not translated into English yet.  I am ordering a copy though.”

Michel Bôle-Richard in Le Monde: “Nelson Mandela est mort mais l’apartheid est toujours vivant”

After saluting the demise of a “moral leader of the first order ,” Netanyahu decided not to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela because of the cost of the trip. The reason given is surprising to say the least when the world is paying tribute to the heroes of the anti-apartheid struggle. The Israeli Prime Minister perhaps recalled that his country had maintained close economic and military relations with the white regime of South Africa? Did he perhaps remember that one close to Nelson Mandela had quoted him saying on December 4, 1997 that “our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians”?

Perhaps he was afraid of being pointed to as the propagator of an exclusion and segregation system in so many ways similar to that in South Africa until June 1991, when the four main pillars of apartheid were abolished? A crime against which Nelson Mandela fought relentlessly?

The question deserves to be asked. Nelson Mandela is dead, but the apartheid lives on in a uncodified, illegal but very real form, especially in Israel. A disguised apartheid, rampant, despised. Many believe that the use of the term “apartheid” is exaggerated or outrageous for the Jewish state, but they forget that apartheid takes various forms derived from the domination of one group over another or several others and leading to exclusion, marginalization or expulsion. Apartheid is not only the product of the occupation, it is the consequence of the colonisation and the wish to get rid of a group of people by sticking them in particular locations or Bantustans to be replaced by another group. Removing or confining the Palestinians to leave the field open to the Jewish community. Is not that the definition given in 1973 by the UN resolution 3068 which decided that “the crime of apartheid means inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of humans on any other race of human beings and systematically oppressing it”. Who can deny that this is not a reality in Israel today? For years, Western leaders regularly call for an end to colonization, the destruction of Palestinian homes, the brutality of the army at the end of the blockade of Gaza, the release of political prisoners without getting any echo from the Israeli authorities.

Almost every week, new housing programs are advertised in the West Bank or Jerusalem. Almost every week, Palestinians are killed.

Twenty- six from the beginning of the year. The latest on December 7. He was fifteen years old, killed by a bullet in the back to Ramallah[Wajih Al-Ramahi killing here]. The penultimate , November 30, a Palestinian worker in an irregular situation in Israel, shot by a border guard. According to the UN, a third of those wounded in 2013 are children. Military court is about to close an investigation by refusing to pursue a soldier who killed a demonstrator in December 2011 by firing a tear gas grenade just a few feet from his face. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu continues the implementation of the Prawer Plan to settle the Negev Bedouins who, from time immemorial lived as nomads in order to make room for settlers [Update on Prawer plan here]. Naftali Bennett, Minister of Economy, proposed on December 8, annex “the area where 400,000 settlers live and only 70,000 Arabs .”

What term should we use to define such a policy? How describe the restrictions in Area C (62% of the West Bank ) which, if they were lifted, would increase the GDP of the Palestinian Authority of 35% according to the World Bank? What should we conclude from the recent OECD survey which highlights one Arab in two lives under the poverty line while the figure is one in five for Jews? Since the creation of Israel in 1948, no Arab village or town has been built while the population has increased tenfold and 600 Jewish municipalities have been created. More than thirty framework laws that “discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens of Israel” are listed by Adalah, the Human Rights advocacy organization.

What words are there to characterize the 600 kilometers of roads reserved for settlers in the West Bank alone, the hundred different types of permits required of the Palestinians to be able to move, the separate infrastructures for each community and their virtually complete partitioning?

Need we expand the list, give further details? In October 1999, during a visit to Gaza, Nelson Mandela invited the Palestinians not to give up, to continue to fight for, as he had said on his release, “Our march to freedom is irreversible. We can not let fear win.” Fear, that dominates Israeli politics and in whose name all can be justified. Mandela understood. Yitzhak Rabin too. He was murdered. Nobody has replaced him. And if Marwan Barghouti, Fatah leader imprisoned for eleven years , says that ” apartheid was defeated in South Africa, it will not prevail in Palestine,” we do not see that now, we must bring it to an end.

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

68 Responses

  1. just
    just
    December 15, 2013, 11:27 am

    Great piece, Phil.

    Thanks to Michel Bôle-Richard.

    • just
      just
      December 15, 2013, 11:45 am

      I really don’t think that Israel’s Apartheid is disguised at all……as Michel writes: “l’apartheid est toujours vivant”.

      It is ‘rampant’ and ‘despised’, though. It’s just not despised enough by the world– yet.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 15, 2013, 2:01 pm

        I really don’t think that Israel’s Apartheid is disguised at all

        It’s certainly codified, but not as “apartheid”. See “Maybe we should rename apartheid ‘hafrada’?” http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/maybe-we-should-rename-apartheid-hafrada.html

        Long before there were any such thing as “Bantustans”, the model used by the post-Enlightment human rights movement were the Jewish “Ghettos”. Zionist do not use the apartheid analogy to describe them.

        I’d still prefer to see us spend more time discussing why specific examples of openly acknowledged Israeli policies and practices of “Hafrada” constitute that same form of persecution perpetrated by the former victim class – and that in many instances it rises to the level of criminality. You really can discuss persecution, just like the Zionists do, without ever resorting to UN resolutions for a definition.

        In fact, if the tables were turned, the international Zionist movement would be labeling what they, themselves are currently doing to millions of Palestinians as just another example of antisemitic persecution aimed at them.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 15, 2013, 2:37 pm

        “I’d still prefer to see us spend more time discussing why specific examples of openly acknowledged Israeli policies and practices of “Hafrada” constitute that same form of persecution perpetrated by the former victim class …”

        What would that change, Hostage? Hundreds of specific cases have been discussed; a few more cases wouldn’t make much of a difference on those that already don’t care. Hophmi, yrn and Oleg will continue being Hophmi, yrn and Oleg no matter how many specific cases you throw at them.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 15, 2013, 3:13 pm

        What would that change, Hostage?

        I cited an article where Ian Lustick decided to skip a conference on Israeli Apartheid, even though he has written about the situation for years.

        The author of the article above devoted several paragraphs and a lengthy discussion to persuade the readers that Israel is doing something defined in “the definition given in 1973 by the UN resolution 3068”. It’s just as easy to say the Zionists have created a number of small, isolated, and overcrowded Ghettos and are persecuting the non-Jewish inhabitants in ways they used to claim were abhorrent or even criminal when those same things were done to them.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        December 15, 2013, 4:52 pm

        On another note (or five) to Hostage:

        To the best of my knowledge, Hafrada, in hebrew means, simply “separation”. The Israelis use it, however, as a cover , imbuing it with 10 thousand different meanings, depending on the speaker’s inclinations or proclivities. To them it’s spoken as a code, meaning whatever they want it to mean, just like so many words and passages in the old testament. To some, “hafrada’ is a sanitized nomer for establishing a caste system. One where the indigenous people, Palestinians in this case, become for all intents and purposes, untouchables. A leftist may speak the word with secret intensity, churning it over in his/her private laundromat, until neither stain nor garment are left. The rightist will say it, winking as best they can, to mean sequestering the palestinians (and to some extent, other non-Jews) in ghettos, as a prelude to outright expulsion (basically waiting for a moment of the world’s inattention). The centrists mean, more simply, old-fashioned bantustans, a geographically-defined containment system. And many religious mean expulsion – with or without the preceding ghettoization phase, as long as it’s sooner rather than latter, and as long as the “noise” is manageable.

        We, simple-minded dwellers of other, not so holy lands, ones not so well-versed in either legal subtleties of verbiage, or code-speak of the [self] chosen, prefer to use that simple word ‘apartheid”. To us, it’s a perfectly excellent catch-word for all the imaginative scenarios that “hafrada’ labors to hide. Apartheid certainly means something well beyond mere ‘separation” of the ethnically challenged. It can mean, for example, a system of outright division of humans into more and less desirable, with the intent – spoken or not – of keeping the latter in a permanently subjugated state. Not unlike the apt descriptions given by the late, much lauded rabbi Ovadia. To whom great ‘wisdom’ was attributed with no small number of scholarly pearls. Including the pearl sanctioning a n outright caste system, where the “undesirables’ become also “untouchables’. Which is, kind of, what “hafrada” means to many in Israel, be they one of the 700,000 who attended the august Ovadia’s funeral or not.

        The short of it – “apartheid” is a fine word to use for that which many of us find repellant, whether it’s more like jim Crow south or south africa. It goes without saying that the situation in israel is not quite the same as in South Africa because no two places are ever exactly alike. What matters is that the negative connotations bundled in the word ‘apartheid’ are part and parcel of what is conveyed. A negation of some humans in favor of another. So while we may not all have UN definitions at our finger-tips, and are not always as linguistically discerning as we should be, we may be forgiven a little imprecision now and then. Besides, recognizing that intent can be more fluid than rigid definitions, apartheid will not be the first or last word to acquire meanings that go beyond and besides attachment to an original birthplace.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        December 15, 2013, 4:43 pm

        Hostage, you have been fighting tooth and nail against using the word ‘apartheid” to describe Israeli policies – stated or not – for lo these many years. You are now suggesting the hebrew word ‘hafrada’ as more appropriate, if I get your drift. So, as one who doesn’t always know what to ask, I ask nonetheless, why would you be so fiercely opposed to use of one mere word, even going as far as to suggest another, an occupier sanitized version, to describe that which we all agree is abhorrent?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 15, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Hostage, you have been fighting tooth and nail against using the word ‘apartheid” to describe Israeli policies – stated or not – for lo these many years.

        No that’s not correct. I’ve actually taken the time to comment numerous times here at Mondoweiss, and at great length, in order to spell-out the fact that Israel’s policies and practices satisfy the legal definition and amount to constituent acts of the crime of apartheid. I’ve also pointed out the little known fact that Palestine and six or seven other interested states said as much in their submissions to the ICJ back in 2003.

        I’ll leave it to you to determine if all that effort was a waste of time or not. You seem to think that I’ve been against the use of the term for years, and the ICJ never even bothered to acknowledge that apartheid had been included in the pleadings filed with Court. Many Palestinian activists mistakenly thought that the PLO needed to abandon their legal strategy and adopt an anti-apartheid campaign, when the analogy to South Africa’s twin policies of illegal occupation and apartheid were the centerpiece of the PLO’s case. I just think that discussing the crime of persecution happens to be a better strategy and a more direct approach.

        You are now suggesting the hebrew word ‘hafrada’ as more appropriate

        I was actually thinking that we should stop trying to hitch a ride on apartheid and simply criminalize hafrada as a crime against humanity in its own right or simply use other less contentious but appropriate definitions, like the crime of persecution.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 6:19 am

        To the best of my knowledge, Hafrada, in hebrew means, simply “separation”.

        South Africans can argue that, to the best of their knowledge “apart” means “separate” and “heid” is the Afrikaner cognate of the English “hood”, a condition or state of being – and that their state policy of apartheid never included genocide. You see there is a built-in analogy debate through the inclusion of the clause about similar policies and practices as those employed in Southern Africa.

        The UN acted to prohibit both “racial segregation and apartheid” in Article 3 of the ICERD convention. But it did not criminalize either practice. Then the UN decided in Article 1 of the ICSPCA that apartheid is a crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination were also included offenses. Then they threw-in the kitchen sink, just as a precaution, and added the four constituent acts of the crime of genocide to the list – even though they agreed those acts had not been practiced by the South Africans.

        At this point the USA, which had practiced segregation and genocide against indigenous and other peoples, refuse to accept that apartheid actually could actually be made a crime against humanity by a treaty instead of universal acceptance and custom. Many countries agreed and refused to sign or accede for the same reason.

        So you see, the UN can criminalize whatever it is that Israel is actually doing (and anything else to boot) and still call it “the crime of Hafrada”. That’s why I personally prefer to use “the crime of persecution” and simply avoid ill-defined analogies altogether.

        we may be forgiven a little imprecision now and then.

        The problem is that you might not be, and the time spent in lengthy explanations could occur after a probation or banning, e.g. Students Against Israeli Apartheid group banned by University of Manitoba Students’ Union http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/04/14/students-against-israeli-apartheid-group-banned-by-university-of-manitoba-students-union

        My point is that persecution is a crime against humanity that can describe any crime under the jurisdiction of the ICC, including apartheid and genocide. It has been around since the Nuremburg era, but it doesn’t necessitate or even invite a discussion about historical analogies:

        “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

        Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender (as defined in paragraph 3), or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

        http://web.archive.org/web/20130310172833/http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        December 15, 2013, 6:30 pm

        Hostage,

        My apologies if I misunderstood your intent. I don’t always read as closely as I should, and jumping to conclusions is my favorite form of exercise. I will re-read your comment more carefully.

        My second set of notes took on the word “hafrada” (didn’t come up, as of yet), to which I object based on the fact that israelis at least it means any number of things, so it gives them a chance to weasel out of any attempt to broaden – or legalize – a preferred definition.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 16, 2013, 4:18 am

        No reply button for Hostage’s messages so I’m piggy-backing on Danaa’s post here.

        Hostage you said,” It’s just as easy to say the Zionists have created a number of small, isolated, and overcrowded Ghettos.

        Actually, the Zionists apart from instituting a local form of apartheid, created nothing as far as the Palestinians are concerned. Those enclaves that you are calling ghettos were created by the Palestinians themselves after having been expelled repeatedly by the Zionists. If anything, the Zionists were credited with having destroyed villages and preventing those that remained from expanding naturally, which in turn turned them into ghettos.

        The word “apartheid” used rightfully or wrongfully is intended to be a dirty word to describe what the Zionists are doing. Changing it to a more sanitized one would not make it any less dirty.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        December 16, 2013, 4:05 pm

        @ Hostage

        It looks like the Chinese are the only ones who live happily in a ‘Chinatown’ no matter where they settled down are around the globe.

        To a lesser extent [and after internment camps], so did/do the Japanese in ‘Little Tokyo,’ LA.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 15, 2013, 2:08 pm

        Bôle-Richard’s book contains a description of the trip undertaken in 2008 to Israel and the West Bank by 22 people from South Africa, 10 of which were Jews and one at least being a holocaust survivor, Andrew Feinstein, having lost his mother and 10 siblings at Auschwitz. Mostly all the Jews were shocked by the abusive treatment of the Palestinians at the hands of the military. Feinstein said it was very sad this was being done in the name of Judaism.

        Bôle-Richard lived and worked for 6 years in South Africa, so he knows very well what apartheid is all about.

        http://blog.mondediplo.net/2013-06-08-Israel-Afrique-du-Sud-et-apartheid

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 16, 2013, 7:05 am

        ghetto |ˈgetō|
        noun ( pl. ghettos or ghettoes )
        a part of a city, esp. a slum area, occupied by a minority group or groups.
        • historical the Jewish quarter in a city: the Warsaw Ghetto.
        • an isolated or segregated group or area: the relative security of the gay ghetto.
        verb ( ghettoes, ghettoing, ghettoed ) [ with obj. ]
        put in or restrict to an isolated or segregated area or group.
        ORIGIN early 17th cent.: perhaps from Italian get to…

      • ziusudra
        ziusudra
        December 16, 2013, 11:06 am

        Greetings Citizen,
        Ghetto is Italian.
        the origin is from a closed off compound in Italy where the structure included ironworks from whence it stems.
        We, in English using an Italian word can also take on the plural:
        Ghetto / Ghetti as English is a hybrid of old Germanic (AS)as of 441AD & Viking French(latin) as of 1066AD, where they spoke both germanic & romanic for 300 yrs before English won out.
        ziusudra
        PS It is Johan Sabastian Bach & not Joe Brook.
        It is Giuseppi Verdi & not Joe Green.
        I thought that would tickle you.

  2. Cliff
    Cliff
    December 15, 2013, 11:51 am

    Will this be in English?

  3. Krauss
    Krauss
    December 15, 2013, 12:29 pm

    Europe has always been better on this issue than America, but people shouldn’t exaggerate the progressivism on this issue even on the Continent.

    Europe isn’t as close to Israel, and it tends to treat it more sternly, but in the end it keeps giving Israel all these beneficial trade and scientific agreements and treaties.

    So in this sense, the book is welcome relief in as far as it pushes the dialogue where it needs to go; equality vs Apartheid.

  4. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    December 15, 2013, 3:08 pm

    Trouble is that Israeli apartheid is despised by people either lacking the power or lacking the will or lacking the organization to do anything about it.

    BDS is very slow moving and is a wonder of the world and I am glad of it, but so far it has not affected Israel much. The EU has enormous power (to refuse Israeli exports for instance) but does not do so. The USA has enormous power and refuses to use it. (It was thus for African apartheid also for a long while.)

    this article is a good one (if not quite as translated here) and I hope it (and the book) energize Francophones to join the BDS bandwagon.

    • Walid
      Walid
      December 15, 2013, 4:00 pm

      “I hope it (and the book) energize Francophones to join the BDS bandwagon.”

      The half-million French have their own Jewish lobby that’s a combination of AIPAC, the ADL and the AJC all rolled into one organization called “Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (Crif) . This influential group, the second biggest lobby after after AIPAC is there at every opportunity yelling “antisemitism” at anything and everything that is critical of Israeli actions. France has some tough anti-racial discrimination laws and Crif is there to get people critical of Israel charged under these laws.

      Electronic Intifada has links to a dozen articles on BDS in France:

      http://electronicintifada.net/tags/campagne-bds-france

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        December 15, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Hence the odd surprise decision to sabotage the Iran deal by allegedly “Surrender-Monkey” France.

      • Walid
        Walid
        December 16, 2013, 4:36 am

        W.Jones, I think the supposed sabotage was an American-French gimmick to buy a few more days. A week after it happened, Hollande was in Israel giving the bad news to Nettanyahu that France would not block categorically Iran’s nuclear program as Israel wished. And sure enough, France went along with the US and the others in accepting the 6-month deal with Iran. Definitely something bogus in the refusal by Fabius.

  5. mcohen
    mcohen
    December 15, 2013, 3:14 pm

    PARTITION is the word as described by the UN

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 15, 2013, 3:33 pm

      PARTITION is the word as described by the UN

      Partition as described by the UN did not include any population transfer at all. It included an Arab majority in the territory governed by the so-called Jewish state and required that Jews and Arabs be provided with equal constitutional rights in both of the resulting states. The plan also imposed a regional economic union with right of transit. It included revenue sharing, joint management of ports and customs, a common currency, and common transportation and communications networks.

      • just
        just
        December 15, 2013, 6:11 pm

        kerpow!

        Nothing at all recognizable today, eh?

        1S1P1V!

      • mcohen
        mcohen
        December 15, 2013, 10:53 pm

        Hostage says:
        December 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        “It included an Arab majority in the territory governed by the so-called Jewish state and required that Jews and Arabs be provided with equal constitutional rights in both of the resulting states.”

        funny man

        “so called jewish state”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

        Reports of pressure against the Plan

        According to Benny Morris, Wasif Kamal, an Arab Higher Committee official, tried to bribe a delegate to the United Nations, perhaps a Russian.[32]

        Concerning the welfare of Jews in Arab countries, a number of direct threats were made:

        Jamal Husseini promised, “The blood will flow like rivers in the Middle East”.[33] Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, said: “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in”.
        Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not “satisfactory”, “severe measures should [would?] be taken against all Jews in Arab countries”.[33]

        Concerning the welfare of Jews in Arab countries, a number of predictions were made:

        ‘”On 24 November the head of the Egyptian delegation to the General Assembly, Muhammad Hussein Heykal, said that “the lives of 1,000,000 Jews in Moslem countries would be jeopardized by the establishment of a Jewish state.”[34]

        In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred. [35]

        The Arab states warned the Western Powers that endorsement of the partition plan might be met by either or both an oil embargo and realignment of the Arab states with the Soviet Bloc.[32]
        Final vote

        On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote was as follows:

        In favour, (33 countries, 72% of voting):

        feel free to moderate……………………kerpow??????

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 5:22 am

        @McCohen the problem with Zionist trolls is that they fail to tell the whole story.

        re: the “so called jewish state” The fact is President Truman refused to permit American forces to be used to impose the plan on the Palestinian people by force on both UN Charter and Constitutional grounds. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad167.asp

        The fact that Zionists altered the plan by force and imposed a partition violated both the explicit terms of the UN Charter and the terms of the resolution itself. If Zionists hadn’t employed an illegal forcible population transfer, there would have been a huge Arab majority in the 78 percent of Palestine that they managed to seize through means of illegal conquest.

        Jamal Husseini

        On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:
        “The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places.”
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        He only predicted that blood would flow in the streets after the Jewish minority rejected the peaceful proposal for a single democratic state and after the Zionist leadership began telling the UN that they were prepared to see Jewish minority rule imposed by force over territory they didn’t even own, including most of Palestine. I predict that if you came to Kansas and behaved the same way you’d get a more strongly worded response than the one provided by Mr. Husseini that you are complaining about here.

        Concerning the welfare of Jews in Arab countries

        I’ve pointed-out several times recently that the government of Israel expressed disinterest when it was pointed out that children, women and the elderly among the Palestinian refugees – who did not pose any security threat to Israel – would die before the end of winter if they were not allowed to return to their homes. The government of Israel plundered and pillaged their homes and property for the benefit of Jews from Europe, and reserved the right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed a desire to come to Palestine.

        Zionist historian, Walter Laqueur, noted that “Among the Irgun and the Stern Gang there were many youngsters from the Oriental Jewish community, which was not widely represented in the non-terrorist Hagana.” See A history of terrorism, Transaction Publishers, 1977, page 122 link to books.google.com

        One area of the Hagana where they were over-represented was in the Palmach’s corps of assassins. Jewish undercover units, called “The Arabists of the Palmach” or Mista’arvim [literally, “Arab-pretenders”], are known to have been in operation in Palestine and neighboring Arab countries as early as 1942. — See Targeting To Kill: Israel’s Undercover Units, Elia Zureik and Anita Vitullo, The Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC)
        *link to thejerusalemfund.org
        *link to palmach.org.il
        and Zvika Dror, The ’Arabists’ of the Palmach (Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House, 1986)

        It’s a matter of public record that the government of Israel instigated deliberate exodus from the Arab and Muslim states as part of its state building program. See Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Jones), Secret [WASHINGTON,] August 2,1951.
        Subject: Israel’s Concern Re Peace With the Arabs and Other Matters.
        Participants: Mr. Theodore Kollek, Embassy of Israel and Mr. G. Lewis Jones, NE, Foreign relations of the United States, 1951. The Near East and Africa, page 815 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        In late 1954, AJC Executive Vice President John Slawson was critical of Zionists who encouraged the “panic migration” of North African Jews. He said he saw “salesmen for the Jewish Agency actually empty out whole villages. See pages 83-84 of Michael Fischbach, Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries, Columbia University Press, 2008.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        December 16, 2013, 8:05 am

        Kerpow Kerpow

      • RK1
        RK1
        December 16, 2013, 9:03 pm

        The facts are that the primary reason that Israel came into existence in 1948 is that the Arab Nation was not focused on subdivisions .e Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis etc. In fact few Arabs in Palestine saw themselves as Palestinians. Keep in mind the concept of nationalism was invented in Europe Jews became acquainted with it long before the Arabs. Had there been a strong Arab identity in Palestine as Palestinians the Zionist experiment would have failed.
        Life is not fair. The Zionists were ready the Arabs were not. You can look at all the violations here and there but the facts are what they are. If you want to turn the clock back why stop at Palestine, what about Germany and Poland, what about the Tibetans and Chinese. What about America?
        When it comes to Palestine where will you go back to, the UN Partition? (not accepted by any Arab nations and certainly not by the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs). Actually that would be a good solution because it would cause a separation between these two warring parties. The demarcation liens of the UN partition would create, literally, a Jewish state with a very small Arab minority and an Arab state with relatively small Jewish minority.

        Or are you for the putative “democratic” BDS state of Palestine where these two peoples who currently can’t stand each other would be forced to live through a blood bath. Why not accept the full UN resolution 188 which calls for repatriation resettlement and compensation: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;” not just a right to return.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 17, 2013, 1:04 pm

        The facts are that the primary reason that Israel came into existence in 1948 is that the Arab Nation was not focused on subdivisions .e Palestinians, Jordanians, Iraqis etc.

        Whatever helps you get through the night. I notice you have to employ a fictional Arab Nation to use as a straw man. There were actually several independent Arab states. But your lame-assed version of history still doesn’t explain away the Jericho Congress, which declared Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and called for the establishment of a joint kingdom comprised of the two non-Jewish peoples of the former Palestine mandate under a common government. Zionist attempts at Three Card Monty won’t change the fact that Israel invaded another UN member state in 1967.

        You also overlooked the national plebiscite that resulted in the election of a joint Parliament in which half the seats were reserved for the lawmakers from West Bank. You don’t explain why Israel started a war of aggression against Jordan and the neighboring states Jordan turned-to for assistance in the aftermath of the major invasion of the Hebron region in November of 1966. The UN Security Council explicitly condemned Israel for invading Jordanian territory. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the right of self-defense and regional alliances for mutual defense.

        When it comes to Palestine where will you go back to, the UN Partition?

        It isn’t a matter of going back. Fundamental human rights in Palestine, including non-discrimination and legal equality for minorities and religious groups, were placed under LoN and UN guarantees, and those guarantees are still in effect. They were supposed to be entrenched in the constitution of each state from the very outset as a condition for the termination of the mandate regime, the grant of territorial sovereignty and emancipation. It was stipulated at the time, that those rights can’t be altered without the consent of the General Assembly. The representatives of Israel officially agreed to those terms and conditions for the record on more than one occasion.

        The UN also determined that the there was no way to equitably divide-up everything. Accordingly it determined the form of the future government of Palestine would include a regional economic union with right of transit, governed by an equal number or representatives from the two respective states and the international community. The plan provided for joint management of ports, a common transportation system and currency, revenue sharing from the collections of customs and taxes, freedom of movement, and freedom of access to the holy sites.

        Life is not fair.

        That’s sour grapes and a thinly disguised attempt to resurrect the law of conquest. The Zionist’s relied upon the assistance of the international community to obtain their national home, and simply don’t want to live with the terms and conditions of the agreement that was reached concerning its establishment and future form of government. You’re suggesting, that in the alternative, a winner-take-all war of conquest and continued armed conflict that has lasted 65 years will suffice.

        I’m pointing out that your solution isn’t acceptable to the other parties involved and that time has run out for anachronisms, like ethnic nation states, and the excuses Israel is offering for continued illegal aggression and conquest.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      December 15, 2013, 5:31 pm

      Partition is A word used by the UN, and has nothing to do with what has developed since. In fact most Palestinians would probably welcome the kind of partition the UN had in mind. Israel has resolutely refused to recognise the UN’s recommendations and plans, instead choosing to implement a uniquely Israeli form of apartheid – doesn’t matter what you call it, it is the disenfranchisement, dispossession and forced dispersal of the people whose land Israel took, in addition to the ghettoisation of these people with none of the rights the incoming replacement population have been granted. Israel’s apartheid, as South African visitors have affirmed, is way worse than even SA’s implementation of it, containing a sadistic vindictiveness the worst excesses of SA would struggle to match.

    • thankgodimatheist
      thankgodimatheist
      December 15, 2013, 7:38 pm

      “PARTITION is the word as described by the UN”
      And Israel have demonstrated great respect to what the partition stated. It stayed well within the portion allocated to it, n’est-ce pas?

  6. jon s
    jon s
    December 15, 2013, 4:19 pm

    Hostage, the Jewish state envisaged by the UN partition plan in 1947 would have had a significant Arab minority, but not a majority. The Arab state would have had a Jewish minority (Nahariya, for example, would have been in the Arab state.) Aside from that the details you provided are correct. In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted.
    On the discussion of Ben Gurion’s alleged “expel the Arabs ” quote ( I think comments on that thread have been discontinued): it’s been shown pretty convincingly that he wrote the opposite:
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2219

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 16, 2013, 3:54 am

      Hostage, the Jewish state envisaged by the UN partition plan in 1947 would have had a significant Arab minority, but not a majority.

      In fact I’ve pointed out many times that the last, updated figures provided by the British government, cited by the UN Ad Hoc Committee on 11 November 1947, actually envisioned an Arab majority. That was before the Zionists began to implement their longstanding schemes to obtain additional Arab territory through conquest. See the citation above by Ben Ami to the diary of Joseph Weitz, the director of the JNF Land and Forestry Department, to his meeting with Ben Gurion on that subject in February 1948.

      The Ad Hoc Committee reported that according to the British figures:

      “It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.

      See paragraphs 62-64 on pdf file pages 40-42 of A/AC.14/32, 11 November 1947 @ link to un.org

      In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted.

      Well I’ve already documented that they rejected the implementation of the whole plan and that the only part of the plan the Jewish side accepted was the one for the establishment of a Jewish state. Since they rejected or reserved their own position on the constitutional provisions of that part of the UN plan, regarding full equality for other religious and ethnic groups, they really only made a series of counter-offers and never “accepted” a single thing.

      it’s been shown pretty convincingly that he wrote the opposite:

      I don’t find CAMERA very convincing at all. They never established that anything was falsified or that Ben Gurion wasn’t responsible for the penned-in changes himself. After all, according to his own memoirs, Ben Gurion subsequently outlined his complete support for the forcible transfer of the Arab population during a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive in 1938. He said it wasn’t immoral. He also helped prepare the manuscript for publication by Valentine which contained the offending version. Now you expect us to believe that in 1937 he meant to say that ‘we must NOT expel Arabs and take their place, while stipulating that he envisioned using a Jewish army to settle in the remainder of Palestine and neighboring Transjordan, with or without the consent of its Arab government.

      At best it looks like CAMERA is defending a position he later abandoned and tried to conceal, or that he was a sociopath who couldn’t quite make up his mind. In any event the whole question is moot, since Ben Gurion certainly did control the forces that expelled and exiled 750,000 Palestinian Arabs and took their place. See: 100-Year-Old General: We Razed Arab Villages, So What?

      Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Pundak: If we hadn’t done it, there would be a million more Arabs and there would be no Israel………when asked if he feels proud of his country, he said that his pride runs “as high as the rooftop.”

      That’s a matter of public record in Israel, where the Zionist officials have actually promoted that self-confessed war criminal. See: 100-Year-Old Becomes Israeli Major-General: 100-year-old finally gets rank of “Major General” that he earned 60 years ago. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171126

      I don’t know who the boffins at CAMERA think they are fooling, but it isn’t anyone with a IQ higher than room temperature.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 16, 2013, 5:56 am

      In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted.

      As Hostage has explained repeatedly, this is false. The Jewish side only accepted the plan with reservations, meaning, they did not accept it in it’s entirety.

      They conditioned acceptance on being granted immediate control over immigration and on further discussions involving the constitutional and territorial details of the UN plan. In particular, the spokesmen said that no plan that failed to incorporate Western Jerusalem into the Jewish State would be acceptable.

      The documentary record shows that the Jews were planning the military conquest of Palestine ever since the mid-1930s, beginning with the Avnir Plan. It also shows that the neighboring Arab states accepted the principle of partition, but not the ethnic cleansing or massacres that occurred after the UN proposed the plan of partition.

      On the discussion of Ben Gurion’s alleged “expel the Arabs ” quote ( I think comments on that thread have been discontinued): it’s been shown pretty convincingly that he wrote the opposite:

      No because your link to Camera.org has been debunked. Wake us up when you finally post your English translation of the entire three lines of crossed-out text. I notice you’ve avoided doing that so far, and that CAMERA has only translated a fragment of one line. Where is the translation of all the so-called “damaged” text shown in the non-highlighted, scribbled-over lines of the letter CAMERA produced here:
      http://www.camera.org/images_user/ben-gurion%20original%20excerpt%20highlight.jpg

      Véronique Meimoun wrote that:

      “The original document contains a rectification: a sentence and a half are scribbled over in ink.”

      Morris noted in his review of Fabricating History that Karsh claimed Ben Gurion had repeated himself on the use of force and either noticed the redundancy or wanted to rephrase what he had said. Hostage cited his English translation of the entire three lines in one of my comments here:
      http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/we-must-expel-arabs-and-take-their-place-institute-for-palestine-studies-publishes-1937-ben-gurion-letter-advocating-the-expulsion-of-palestinians.html/comment-page-1#comment-439041

      Morris rendered it “And then we will have to use force . . . without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. . . .”

      You and CAMERA are artlessly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that Ben Gurion is discussing the illegal use of force in the event the governments of the Arab States stand in the way of settling tens of thousands of Jews on their own territory after the partition. The question of whether or not there would have been sufficient room to “share the land” is completely irrelevant, since there was no such thing as a “Jewish right” to settle in Transjordan under the mandate or in the Arab States under the Peel partition proposal.

      This extract, with translation provided by Morris, describes a flagrant violation of international law with or without the disputed material:

      Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. . . . it is possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs prefer that the place remains neither ours nor theirs. “And then we will have to use force . . . without hesitation though only when we have no choice. We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place. . . .” But if we are compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will enable us to do so.

      Ben Gurion does not say the choice is about survival but about being able to take land that does not belong to the Jewish State.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 7:51 am

        In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted. . . . As Hostage has explained repeatedly, this is false.

        That’s correct, but let’s give another explanation. The Permanent International Court of Justice had employed the principles of contract law to hold that States are bound to respect any recommendations contained in the resolutions of an international organization, once they had accepted them. See for example, the “Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne” case http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925.11.21_lausanne.htm

        But in this case, the Zionists conditioned their acceptance on new terms and further discussions of the constitutional and territorial provisions. They never accepted the entire UN plan or the parts regarding the constitutional minority rights provisions for the Jewish state and the specific performance to be rendered in that regard, via a declaration of fundamental law.

        The many statements by the Zionists which conditioned their acceptance on reservations, demands for further discussions, and omissions were actually counter-offers, not acceptance. There is a rule of contracts that requires the agreement to be “accepted” in its unmodified form with no new terms or omissions. The proposal of new terms is considered a counter-offer that actually rejects and voids the original agreement. In many cases it even prevents it from being accepted again in the future. See for example the discussion under the heading “Acceptance Under The Common Law, the Mirror Image Rule, and Other International Standards here: http://books.google.com/books?id=WBx8j_hKuvwC&lpg=PA37&ots=xnLNxqhFA_&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q&f=false

        * The entry for the Mirror Image Rule and Hyde v. Wrench (1840) 3 Beav 334 in the Wikipedia Article on Offer and Acceptance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offer_and_acceptance#Counter-offers_and_correspondence

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 8:05 am

        P.S. The link for the Yearbook of the United Nations which contains the reservations, new terms and conditions, and rejection of both the UNSCOP minority and majority reports is here: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5CE900D2DE34AADF852562BD007002D2

        I’ve also provided a link to the FRUS and verbatim minutes of the Security Council meeting elsewhere which illustrate that Rabbi Silver had communicated the same position to the Ad Hoc Committee and had adopted a piecemeal approach and omissions in his statement about the General Assembly resolution to the Security Council.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 16, 2013, 6:40 am

      @jon “In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted”

      Did you have a point? Because your little Hasbara mantra is simply a nonsense designed for idiots to propagate and people who don’t think to swallow. It’s as irrelevant as “we made the desert bloom” or the cherry pickings from Twain or the Balfour Declaration for that matter. The moment Israel was proclaimed, the Balfour declaration was relegated to being of historical interest only.

      Israel was declared and recognized as the Israeli government asked to be recognized

      ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      The non acceptance of UNGA res 181 by the Arab states makes absolutely no difference to Israel’s existence or Israel’s obligations to International law and the UN Charter in respect to how it should treat territories “outside the State of Israel” http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      December 16, 2013, 11:06 am

      In any case, the Arab side rejected the plan, the Jewish side accepted.

      Such a ridiculous statement.

      If the jewish side accepted the plan they would not have invaded and permanently occupied 50% of the Palestinian partition in 1947/48/49.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 5:36 pm

        Such a ridiculous statement. If the jewish side accepted the plan they would not have invaded and permanently occupied 50% of the Palestinian partition in 1947/48/49

        Even Israeli historians, like David Tal, have noted the schizophrenic arguments employed by Zionist officials, like Moshe Shertok. He would take turns arguing with the UN Mediator that Israel accepted the plan of partition as the only binding adjudication when that supported his territorial claims, but dismissed it altogether as being in need of major revisions, in light of facts created on the ground, when that argument put the Arabs who accepted the plan at a disadvantage.

        During the hearings on Israel’s membership application in the UN Abba Eban commented that the Arab States could not be faulted for refusing to recognize Israel, until the UN as a whole agreed to do so.

        Israel had asked to be recognized as a republic created inside the partition lines contained in the resolution of November 1947. The Soviet delegation pointed out that members could simply consult the UN’s map of Israel’s border at any time to settle any questions about the frontiers.

        Historians have noted that on the very day the UN admitted Israel as a member state, the Arab States actually did sign the Lausanne Protocol within a matter of hours and accepted the map from the UN partition plan as the basis for a settlement. Zionist propaganda tries to obscure that situation, while concealing the fact that Israel had always demanded territorial revisions at every step along the way – and still does.

      • jon s
        jon s
        December 19, 2013, 3:03 pm

        The “expel the Arabs ” quote: Ben Gurion wasn’t a dummy, and wasn’t apt to contradict himself from one sentence to the next. If he wrote that we should expel the Arabs , why does he say the opposite in the rest of the letter, in fact in the very next sentence. The “translators” at the Institute of Palestine Studies noticed the problem and resorted to what can only be called a crude forgery: inserting the words “up to now”, so it would look as if BG was in the process of changing his mind . As if he was saying that he used to believe in co-existence, now he thinks that we should expel them.
        As to the UN partition plan: How do we know that the Arab side rejected it?
        They voted against it.
        How do we know that Jewish side accepted it? They lobbied for it, went through all kinds of maneuvers to round up the votes and when the plan was approved – there was dancing in the streets.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 19, 2013, 7:32 pm

        The “expel the Arabs ” quote: Ben Gurion wasn’t a dummy, and wasn’t apt to contradict himself from one sentence to the next. If he wrote that we should expel the Arabs , why does he say the opposite in the rest of the letter

        He didn’t you moron. He told his son that he only accepted partition as a step on the way to redeeming all of Eretz Israel and that he planned to employ Jewish armed forces to settle in the rest of Palestine and neighboring Transjordan by force.

        The only people who deny that Ben Gurion actually did expel Arabs and take their place are liars.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 19, 2013, 8:51 pm

        “As to the UN partition plan: How do we know that the Arab side rejected it?
        They voted against it.”

        And quite rightly, too. It was an immoral plan.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 19, 2013, 10:59 pm

        “As to the UN partition plan: How do we know that the Arab side rejected it? They voted against it.”

        I’ve pointed out several times that the Jewish Agency’s own reports said that the members of the Arab League accepted the principle of partition. They just didn’t support the details of the UN plan, but neither did the Jewish Agency. It formally rejected them all and made counter-offers. When the UN turned them down, Israel imposed them by force anyway, i.e. no plan would be acceptable that didn’t include western Jerusalem in the Jewish state.

        The UN actually did have it’s Commission conduct a national plebiscite on the question of partition, before it went forward with the UN partition of Ruanda-Urundi. We also know that the Arab States did not legally represent the Palestinians and that no plebiscite was ever conducted by UNSCOP or the UN Ad Hoc Committee.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 19, 2013, 11:40 pm

        jon s “As to the UN partition plan: How do we know that the Arab side rejected it?
        They voted against it.
        How do we know that Jewish side accepted it? They lobbied for it, went through all kinds of maneuvers to round up the votes and when the plan was approved – there was dancing in the streets”

        Irrelevant as of the moment Israel informed the International Comity of Nations of its proclaimed frontiers and the International Comity of Nations recognized Israel as it asked to be recognized.

  7. NickJOCW
    NickJOCW
    December 16, 2013, 5:48 am

    A member of the French National Assembly, Jean Lassalle, is about to complete a remarkable journey of discovery, walking around France talking to ordinary folk. What he recounts is interesting but not that relevant here. However, he does have these concerns:

    Worryingly, he also encountered “latent racism” almost everywhere, “even in the smallest villages”.

    “This is racism that seems totally unashamed,” he told Le Monde on Friday. “It is a wholescale rejection of ‘the other’ and often expressed with excessive aggression.”

    Lassalle told Le Monde that he was particularly worried about a return of “anti-Semitic rhetoric” that was particularly “linked to wealth”.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20131213-france-jean-lassalle-walk-tour-france-hope-agriculture-racism/

    While it is encouraging to find books and articles like these, it is discouraging to see this phase paralleled with signs of unfolding racism and its off-spring antisemitism. Racism is fertilized by economic disorder which is rife and worsening in Europe.

    The ME situation is not the source of European antisemitism, which has always been there but of late well confined to the closet; out of sight, out of mind. My fear has always been that revulsion at Israel’s actions in the Holy Land will not so such encourage antisemitism as discourage its voluntary suppression. It’s all very well having laws but if they are ignored by one in a couple of thousand they are completely unenforceable as neither the courts nor the goals are large enough for the number of offenders. The logical irrelevance of Jewish suffering in the past to the situation in Palestine today is becoming ever more clear and Europeans simply won’t continue to accept the one as an excuse for the other.

    Do the Zionists know this and, more importantly, are they relying on it in some way as evidence of the victimization that somehow or other morphs into justification of their actions? If so, we are in for troubled times because moves to aid the Palestinians are separate from the rise in European racism; the one will be slow and steady while the other could well erupt.

    • jon s
      jon s
      December 20, 2013, 1:05 am

      Well , now Hostage is resorting to name-calling. Maybe I’m on to something.
      Thanks, the moron.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 20, 2013, 4:37 am

        Well , now Hostage is resorting to name-calling. Maybe I’m on to something.
        Thanks, the moron.

        As I’ve pointed out the only thing you are “onto” is illiteracy and stupidity.

        Ben Gurion’s letter to his son proved he was practicing deceitfulness and had no intention of abiding by the terms of the proposed British partition. He explicitly stated that it was just the first phase of his plan and that he intended to use military force to settle in the rest of Palestine, and Transjordan – with or without the consent of the Arabs.

        Anyone who says that he didn’t intend to expel the Arabs and take their place needs to explain why a only a few months later he told the Jewish Agency executive “I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it.” There are over a thousand citations in various books and journal articles which attest to that entry, including Ben Gurion’s own memoirs.

        In any event, we know perfectly well that when his General’s specifically asked him during the operations against Lod, that he sure as hell didn’t tell them “We must not expel the Arabs and take their place.” He stood there mute, a gestured in a way that made it clear to Rabin that they should be driven out. See the Appendix A to The Rabin Memoirs, “Passage Censored From the First Edition” http://books.google.com/books?id=Gb8sjKSTvFwC&lpg=PP1&dq=&pg=PA383#v=onepage&q&f=false

        He was hardly alone. General Pundak openly admitted that the militias engaged in ethnic cleansing and razed enough villages to drive off a million Arabs. CAMERA isn’t advertising that now are they? Only a moron would suggest that 400 villages could be destroyed and a three quarters of a million people driven off in a country the size of Palestine without the Defense Minister noticing it: 100-Year-Old General: We Razed Arab Villages, So What?

        Brig. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Pundak: If we hadn’t done it, there would be a million more Arabs and there would be no Israel………when asked if he feels proud of his country, he said that his pride runs “as high as the rooftop.”

  8. mcohen
    mcohen
    December 16, 2013, 6:29 am

    Hostage says:
    December 16, 2013 at 5:22 am

    “Well I’ve already documented that they rejected the implementation of the whole plan and that the only part of the plan the Jewish side accepted was the one for the establishment of a Jewish state”

    page 60-62 lists the un recommendations
    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.14/32

    did the arabs accept it…..yes or no

    this was in dec 1946

    this is what followed

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 16, 2013, 7:04 am

      did the arabs accept it…..yes or no

      Is saying you accept it and then proceeding to violate it accepting it? Yes or no?

      this is what followed

      So did this:

      Around half of the Palestinian Refugees were expelled before the declaration and before any Arab Force set foot on the land. From Israeli records: A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948″, dated 30 June 1948, affirms that: At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases…[50][51][52] According to Morris’s estimates, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[9]:262 Keesing’s Contemporary Archives in London place the total number of refugees before Israel’s independence at 300,000.[53]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus#April_1948_.E2.80.93_June_1948

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 16, 2013, 11:47 am

        In any event, the decision to leave a war zone, whether not one is called upon by radio appeals to do so, is perfectly rational and legitimate. Even more fundamentally, all people have the right to leave their homes and then return without getting the permission of anyone else – that is part of what makes a home different from a prison.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 4:17 pm

        Even more fundamentally, all people have the right to leave their homes and then return without getting the permission of anyone else – that is part of what makes a home different from a prison.

        Many of the commentaries on the Hague regulations of 1907 specifically addressed the prohibition against forcible population transfer under Article 46 on “family honor and rights,” which allowed for no exceptions.

        I’ve often thought about writing an article here about the fact that the principle aim of the UN Charter was to spare “future generations” the scourge of war and how both the US Constitution and the Magna Carta begin with an invocation that secured the fundamental rights for “posterity”.

        There can’t be a more flagrant violation of family honor and rights or the rights of posterity than dying in exile and having your descendants stripped of the benefits of inherited rights to your personal estate, their citizenship, and right of residency without the need for any evidence of wrong-doing through the mechanism of a bill of attainder adopted by insurgents. All of this, in order to deliberately denationalize, permanently exile, and permanently dispossess the family members of a targeted ethnic group, i.e. to violate family honor and rights. None of Israel’s justifications alter the fact that it violated an entrenched customary norm that the Nuremberg tribunal treated as a capital offense.

        At one and the same time, mere converts to Judaism can claim instant citizenship, right of return, and residency through a vicarious “historical connection” to the Land, after the passage of a hundred generations, and everyone politely pretends this is an “in-gathering of exiles”. The contrast could not be more absurd or pathetic.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        December 16, 2013, 4:24 pm

        Very eloquently and elegantly stated. How long, O Lord, how long?!

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        December 16, 2013, 5:09 pm

        At one and the same time, mere converts to Judaism can claim instant citizenship, right of return, and residency through a vicarious “historical connection” to the Land, after the passage of a hundred generations, and everyone politely pretends this is an “in-gathering of exiles”. The contrast could not be more absurd or pathetic.

        Hostage, a couple of years ago the article by Tanya Gold linked below reminded me that something felt terribly wrong about moving to an Israeli artist’s Kibbutz. Friends tried to convince me to do so, they even suggested I could convert if I wanted to stay. ;)

        The sins of their fathers. A relative of Hitler is now Jewish and living in Israel. So is the son of a Waffen-SS man. Tanya Gold talks to the descendants of Nazis who have embraced Judaism

        Thanks, great link: unispal.un.org

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 16, 2013, 2:18 pm

      did the arabs accept it…..yes or no

      You know perfectly well that no national plebiscite was ever conducted to determine if they had accepted or rejected the proposal. That was certainly done in advance in other cases, like the UN partition of Ruanda-Urundi. If you are trying to suggest that Israel was established illegally without Palestinian Arab consent, then you just may be right.

      FYI, only an ignorant person would bother engaging in the semantical exercise of using the definite article, “the Arabs”, while citing a report that wasn’t approved by any Palestinians or by non-Arab Muslim states. The UN Yearbook for 1946-47 noted for the record that “the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arabs” and that the UN offer was not being made to them – http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/6199D7529E2481A385256299006E8E4F

      Members of the UN Security Council specifically stated that the representatives of the Jewish Agency had led them to believe that the Palestinian Arabs had reconciled themselves to the principle of partition and that their acquiescence would permit peaceful implementation of the plan, if not for the outside interference from “the Arab states”. See for example S/PV.271, 19 March 1948 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5072DB486ADF13D0802564AD00394160

      In The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Simha Flapan cited Ben Gurion’s diary and a document from the head of the Arab intelligence section, Ezra Danin, in the State archives, which indicated both men thought the majority of Palestinian Arabs had accepted partition and didn’t pose any threat. See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents” Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979) and The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities, page 55.

      this was in dec 1946

      No, you actually linked to a document prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly, A/AC.14/32 of 11 November 1947, after the Zionists had rejected both the UNSCOP minority and majority reports in the fall of 1947 and conditioned their so-called “acceptance” on the satisfaction of their immediate demand for control over Jewish immigration and other constitutional and territorial reservations, e.g. they said no plan would be acceptable that didn’t include western Jerusalem in the Jewish state. You can read about that here in the UN Yearbook: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5CE900D2DE34AADF852562BD007002D2

      this is what followed

      The Survey of Palestine conducted for the Anglo-American Inquiry indicated that close to a third of the Jewish population weren’t even naturalized and that many had never bothered to apply for citizenship. The Jewish Agency was notorious for combing the DP Camps of Europe for able bodied fighters.

      The Haganah staged terror attacks in the territory designated for the Corpus Separatum both before and after the UN Partition plan was adopted. They bombed movie houses, market places, and the Semiramis Hotel and in many cases blamed their attacks on the Revisionists. Later, during a debate in the Knesset, Ben Gurion was berating Begin and claiming credit for averting the danger to the State of Israel presented by the Altalena Affair and for putting an end to the armed insurrection in Jerusalem. The former Haganah Commander, Moshe Sneh, interrupted Ben Gurion and reminded him he was complicit in the insurrection: “You sent me the cable not to harm the IZL!”. MK G. Meyer responded by threatening him (ala Anat Kam/Uri Blau) : “Moshe Sneh, don’t threaten us with publication!” — See the Minutes of the 8th Sitting of the First Knesset, 8 March 1949, in Netanel Lorach, “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, page 445.

      So it’s laughable when you or anyone else talks about “violence” or a “civil war” after the adoption of the resolution. Jewish terror groups, augmented by a large number of foreign fighters were already conducting a campaign of violence and Ben Gurion had been bragging for several years about his plans for the war. Ben Ami and other historians cited examples that dated back well beyond 1946 in which he stated publicly that the UN bid would give him more time to build up the forces needed to defeat the Arab majority.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 16, 2013, 3:33 pm

      mcohen “did the arabs accept it…..yes or no”

      Irrelevant to the legal status of the already established State of Israel, proclaimed “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      What lay outside of Israel’s proclaimed and recognized borders is not Israeli

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      December 16, 2013, 7:16 pm

      “did the arabs accept it…..yes or no”

      The principles of Zionism are clearly immoral. Since accepting partition would imply endorsing Zionism, accepting partition would have been immoral.

  9. mcohen
    mcohen
    December 16, 2013, 6:48 am

    as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem

    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.14/32

    appendix 1 —-dec 1946— page 63…. population of city of jerusalem 99,690 jews.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 16, 2013, 7:05 am

      as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem

      There as a Palestinian majority in Palestine. Your point?

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      December 16, 2013, 8:25 am

      mcohen’s point is, that majority or majority ruling only counts, if Jews are a majority.

      If the majority of the citizens of Palestine (which rejected the partition of their country) are not Jewish, than it doesn’t count. But if the majority is Jewish (in Israel) than a Nonjewish minority has no right to partition and 55% of the land.

      If Jews are a majority in Jerusalem it counts. If Arabs are a majority in East Jerusalem, it doesn’t.

      Just the usual supremacism.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 16, 2013, 8:43 am

        >> mcohen’s point is, that majority or majority ruling only counts, if Jews are a majority.

        mcohen’s typical Zio-supremacist point ignores the fact that even if Jews are a majority within a geographic region, that does not give them the right to establish a supremacist “Jewish State” in that region.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      December 16, 2013, 2:34 pm

      as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.14/32

      That would be a lot more interesting if the UN had decided to place it in the Jewish State. But Article 28 of the Mandate required a perpetual international trusteeship be established there if the LoN’s British Mandate for Palestine was ever terminated. The UN proposed to retain its international status through the establishment of a Corpus Separatum that wasn’t part of either the Jewish or Arab State.
      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art28
      http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

      I’ve already noted that Ben Gurion had ordered the Haganah commander to give terror groups operating there a free hand long before the UN resolution was adopted and that afterward the Haganah itself carried out terror bombings there in violation of the UN resolution.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 16, 2013, 3:30 pm

      @ mcohen “as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem”

      Uh huh. But Jerusalem was not and still is not in Israel

      “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Israel has never legally annexed any territory to it’s proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent

    • tree
      tree
      December 16, 2013, 4:31 pm

      Hmmm, look like your reading of Appendix 1 is faulty, or deliberately deceiving--December 1946- page 63 of your link shows that the majority population in Jerusalem was non-Jewish.

      Moslems-60,560 Christians-44,850, Druse and others-130 Total Arabs and others-105,540, Jews-99,690

      So if your point was that a simple majority is the determining factor of whether an area should have been part of the UN Partition’s Jewish State, then Jerusalem failed that test. As did the whole of the partition’s Jewish State, as well as the additional 23% that Israel grabbed in its war against the non-Jewish Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 16, 2013, 6:46 pm

        Hmmm, look like your reading of Appendix 1 is faulty, or deliberately deceiving

        Damn you Tree! Just when I was going to point out that “Jewish and democratic” didn’t include the non-Jewish plurality or majority living in Jerusalem.

        Well done anyway;-)

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 16, 2013, 6:36 pm

      mcohen “as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem

      http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.14/32

      FAIL 99,690 of a total population of 205,230

      Simple maths
      205,230 total population
      minus 99,690 Jews
      equals 105,540 Non-Jews
      equals a non-Jewish majority

      Competent personnel must be hard to come by at Hasbara central

      • mcohen
        mcohen
        December 16, 2013, 7:03 pm

        Talknic

        congratulaions,you are absolutely correct there was no arab majority,but there was a jewish one.well done

        that is my point

        feel free to moderate

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        December 17, 2013, 1:23 pm

        Talknic: 105,540 Non-Jews equals a non-Jewish majority Competent personnel must be hard to come by at Hasbara central

        MCohen: congratulaions,you are absolutely correct there was no arab majority,but there was a jewish one.well done that is my point feel free to moderate

        Okay, Talknic was wrong. Finding people who can do the math won’t be enough, Hasbara central will also need to find personnel who can read too.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 20, 2013, 5:24 am

        @ mcohen ” there was no arab majority,but there was a jewish one.well done

        that is my point”

        This was your point verbatim “as this un link shows there was a jewish majority in jerusalem”

        The opposite to being Jewish is non-Jewish, whether Arab or not.
        There was in fact a non-Jewish majority.
        Furthermore many of the Jews of Palestine/Jerusalem were of Arab descent.

        A close look at the Israeli narrative on the issue of Arabs/Palestine, never seems to add up.

        E.g., “20% of the Israeli population was Arab” These kind of statements fail to look closely and attempt to belittle Arab existence

        By 1950 the population of Israel was approx 1,370,000

        There were some 156,000 non-Jewish Arabs in Israel and some 500,000 Arab Jewish refugees from the Arab states

        That’s 656,000 Arabs of a population of about 1,370,000 … about 47% not including the indigenous Arab Jews of Israel!

        Which ever way you hold a piece of sh*t up to the light, it’s still a piece of sh*t

Leave a Reply