|
A Concise but thorough Primer on State Terrorism "Jews call the tune, the world dances." Introduction
We are not alone in our attempt to set the national conscience on a correct course. After studying this online documentary, we suggest the reading of Noam Chomsky's (1999) powerful and thoroughly documented analysis of the conflict in The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Boston: South End Press, pp. 578). In this work, Chomsky argues: Clearly, as long as the United States provides the wherewithal, Israel will use it for its purposes. These purposes are clear enough today, and have been clear to those who chose to understand for many years: to integrate the bulk of the occupied territories with Israel in some fashion while finding a way to reduce the Arab population, to disperse the scattered refugees and crush any manifestation of Palestinian nationalism or Palestinian culture. . . . there is little basis for condemning Israel when it exploits the position of regional power afforded it by the phenomenal quantities of U.S. aid in exactly the ways that would be anticipated by any person whose head is not buried in the sand. Complaints and accusations are indeed hypocritical as long as material assistance is provided in an unending and ever-expanding flow, along with diplomatic and ideological support, the latter, by shaping the facts of history in a convenient form ("Fanning the Flames," p. 2).Israel has for some time now held a special and reverent place in the American and European psyche. Perhaps this derives from the inherent contradictions in their Judeo-Christian religious heritage. These contradictions predispose Americans to the obviously odious and onerous tendency to block out unpleasant, contradictory memories of their past and ever present anti-Semitic feelings – . . . the interests of the two groups [Jews and Christians] spilt apart. According to prophecy, the Jews must be in control of Israel for Jesus to return. But in the last battle, two-thirds of the Jews perish, and the rest either accept Jesus as the true Messiah or they must be damned, literally. "In my view, any theology that continues to deny the validity of Judaism and to fantasize about looking forward to the conversion or destruction of the Jews is one that should arouse a great deal of caution among Jews," argues Gershom Gorenberg, a leading Jewish expert [on the Biblical apocalypse] (Nancy Gibbs et al, "Apocalypse Now" TIME, May 1, 2002, p. 48). . . .All such memories, save those that in recent times call up sympathetic feelings for the Jews, have been expunged. Indeed, even archaeological knowledge questioning Biblical history is discarded. (More on this Biblical point later.) It is significant to view Israel as a "Jewish" state because Jews consider Israel to be their exclusive homeland, Eretz Yisroel ("Land of Israel"). Indeed, it is this attitude that gives rise to the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis today. Between 1919 and 1940 the Palestinians rioted constantly against the growing Jewish colonial presence in their native land. East-West political considerations must also be factored into the memory loss equation, for Israel represents itself as an island of "democracy" in an Islamic world. Isn't this the viewpoint TV news commentators push in their analyses of the current conflict between Arabs and Jews? Is oppression a valued hallmark of democracy?1dThe East-West political equation encompasses much more than hypocritically supporting Israel's professed democratic claims; the real problem is the United States' geopolitical ideology and policies in support of its interests in dominating Southwest Asia and, in turn, supports Israel in pursuit of its objectives. More about this later. Memories that recall Jewish and American ideological and hegemonic actions are simply washed from the general populace's brain. To cite American ignorance of Southwest Asian history (the correct geographic designation for the "Middle East") and their collective amnesia may be a simplistic understatement of the true problem with Americans. It might be closer to the truth that Americans refuse to read and understand the implications of relevant information. Hasn't it been reported that 40 million Americans cannot read or write above the 4th grade level? Is it unfair to suppose the number of functional illiterates in the U.S. may be much larger. Nevertheless, an example of the American's inability to read, assimilate and, yes, remember history is this sequence of events: The greater the threat of war [in 1933] the more Jews desperately attempted to find a foreign country that would accept them. On 13th May 1939, the Hapag steamer St. Louis, with 937 German Jews on board, departed Cuxhaven, [Germany] on the mouth of the river Elbe west of Hamburg . . . The St. Louis sailed for the Caribbean. The atmosphere on board was gloomy as the refugees had sacrificed everything and their last hope was that Cuba would accept them. Arriving in Havana their worst fears were confirmed. The Cuban authorities refused them entry and compelled the St. Louis to depart their territorial waters. Then began an odyssey across the North Atlantic Ocean. [Not even the United States would allow them entry.] Captain Gustav Schröder sought, in vain, another host country. He steamed perforce towards Europe seeking a safe harbour for the despairing refugees, who had only just escaped the Nazi terror and on no account wanted to return to Germany where the Gestapo awaited to deport them to concentration camps. Captain Schröder, with some of the other officers, developed a plan to strand the ship on the British coast following a bogus engine problem, so as to prevent the return to Cuxhaven. At the last moment, the St. Louis obtained authorization to dock in Antwerp, in the Netherlands, and to put its passengers ashore before returning to Germany. . . . [Germany invaded the Netherlands in 1939. Once again the Jews' fate was sealed, for those who couldn't hide out, were sent to the very concentration camps they had feared].2The above illustrates how the United States, Britain, and other nations within their sphere of influence refused a safe harbor to Jewish refugees from Nazi terror. The anti-Semitism inherent in these refusals is difficult to retain, to discuss, to teach in the nation's schools. It is even more difficult for these nations to admit. The exodus of the Jews from Europe (not Egypt) began as early as 1882 when the wealthy and powerful French Baron Édouard de Rothschild, a Jew, started providing financial backing to Zionist colonists in Palestine as they proceeded to "redeem their land." The methods used to dispossess the native of his land are those of the most implacable colonialism, with an even more marked racist coloring in the case of Zionism. The first stage had the characteristics of a classic colonialism: exploiting the local work force. This was the method of Baron Édouard de Rothschild: Just as he had exploited, on his vineyards in Algeria, the cheap labor of the fellahs, he had simply enlarged his sphere of activity in Palestine, exploiting on his vineyards different Arabs to the Algerians.3From 1896 to 1948 and beyond, the Jewish invasion of Palestine was increased dramatically using terrorist tactics. Remember Leon Uris' novel "Exodus," and Otto Preminger's Jewish propaganda film based on the novel "The Exodus." Remember, too, the terrorism committed in the novel and film by the militant Irgun, Haganah and Stern Gang (see note 17) against the British and Palestinians. Reflect on some additional archaeological and political facts that help to declare false the myth that Yahweh (God) promised the land of Palestine to the Jews. One thing is certain in all this: The United States' government knows exactly what its special ideological relationship with Israel is and how this relationship's design will further its geopolitical aim to dominate the region. The Fabled History of the Jews Zionists and Jews in general claim to have had a long history in the Land of Palestine which includes Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). The Jewish "Torah" ("tôrâ" in Hebrew), they claim, provides evidence of this fact. The Torah is often restricted to the first five books of the Old Testament, also called the Law or the Pentateuch (the Books of Moses). These are the books that recount God's bestowal of ancient Palestine on the "Israelites, His chosen people." The Torah may also be the entire body of Jewish laws, customs and ceremonies. Using the Bible or the Torah as evidentiary proof is problematic, however. Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Old Testament, University of Copenhagen, writes in his "A View from Copenhagen: Israel and the History of Palestine": I think that the first and most central principle in my understanding of the relationship between biblical interpretation and the writing of a history of pre-Hellenistic Palestine is the conclusion that I drew in my Historicity; namely, that these are two quite distinct tasks. A History of Palestine is based on direct evidence from archaeology and historical geography and is supported by analogies that are primarily drawn from anthropology, sociology and linguistics. Contemporary texts are often critical to such historical interpretation, but, nevertheless, must be weighted as much as by what they imply as by what they assert. Secondary literature, on the other hand, such as we find in the Bible, but also in the writings of Manetho, Josephus and other authors of especially the Hellenistic period, must involve an interpretation based on our access to the world of the author. We need to understand the authors’ access to the past they discuss and assert. This, of course, requires that we be satisfied with a fragmented history of Palestine in line with the fragmented nature of our sources. However, it will be one that is both correctable and falsifiable on the basis of continuing research.Recently, a controversy has developed within Judaism no less over the claim that Jews were ever in Egypt, Moreover, it is doubted that there was an exodus of more than 600,000 Jews who "passed over" the Red Sea out of Egypt into the Sinai.4b And that they wandered in the desert for 40 years in search of the "promised land" in Palestine. In reality there had to be close to a million or more people, if you include the women and children who must have wandered with the men. Could the Sinai desert support so many nomads? It's doubtful. Teresa Watanabe, The Los Angeles Times Religion Writer reported on Friday, April 13, 2001: It's one of the greatest stories ever told: A baby is found in a basket adrift in the Egyptian Nile and is adopted into the pharaoh's household. He grows up as Moses, rediscovers his roots and leads his enslaved Israelite brethren to freedom after God sends down 10 plagues against Egypt and parts the Red Sea to allow them to escape. They wander for 40 years in the wilderness and, under the leadership of Joshua, conquer the land of Canaan to enter their promised land. . . . For centuries, the biblical account of the Exodus has been revered as the founding story of the Jewish people. . . .This underscores Professor Thomas L. Thompson's point about the problems inherent in using religious tradition as historical evidence. The point refuses to go away, and well it shouldn't. The Dallas Morning News published on March 30, 2002 the following story by Kristen E. Holmes of The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Jews Grapple with Skepticism about Exodus Story": "Archaeologists and other experts are finding no solid evidence outside Scripture that the Exodus, and the slavery in Egypt, ever really happened. . . . 'The story of the Exodus did not happen the way the Bible depicts it, if it happened at all,' said Rabbi David Wolpe, senior rabbi at Los Angeles' Sinai Temple."6a, 6b . . . The land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. However, this area did not constitute a single political unit. The northern districts of Acre and Nablus were part of the province of Beirut. The district of Jerusalem was under the direct authority of the Ottoman capital of Istanbul because of the international significance of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem as religious centers for Muslims, Christians and Jews. According to Ottoman records, in 1878 there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (Bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. The great majority of the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) lived in several hundred rural villages. Jaffa and Nablus were the largest and economically most important Arab towns.The Jewish people, particularly the Zionists, take the above referenced mythological Bible evidence to secure their claim to the lands west and east of the River Jordan. They believe that the territory they presently control and the lands which they refer to as Judea and Samaria represent their promised land, with Jerusalem as their capitol. The Jews were never promised Palestine, for scholars have never authenticated that the Jews, were ever in Egypt and that the Exodus ever occurred or could have occurred. Furthermore, "on 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 laid down that "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." This fact obviates the Jewish claim to Jerusalem as their capital, now and forever. However, neither the Jews nor the United States apparently wants to remember this and a host of other UN resolutions. Indeed, there are many other U.N. resolutions the Israelis utterly refuse to respect, namely 242, 338, 1402, 1403 and no less than 81 others since 1948.8a, 49a, b We offer here the text of Resolution 242 to demonstrate why it and the others are summarily rejected because of Israeli intransigence and a sophistic semantic dispute. Because the definite article "the" is missing in the phrase "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict," they argue this allows them to keep some of the occupied territories because no definite territory is indicated. How much sophistry must the world community and the Palestinians endure? http://www.sis.gov.eg/jerusalem/html/jeru-un0.htm Security Council Resolution 242
(1967)8b
The Israeli parsing of words and other issues – territorial integrity, control of air space, political independence, Jewish settlements, access to the sea, safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the ability to arm, and other symbols of state sovereignty – surfaced again in the Palestinians' rejection of the so-called Oslo Accord10 and Camp David.11 These are the stumbling blocks that invariably prevent any settlement the Palestinians may want to negotiate. Ehud Barak at Camp David did represent himself as an honest broker; however, in the end, at the Taba, Egypt negotiations which followed, he instructed his chief negotiator, Gilad Sher, to tell the Palestinians that the formerly agreed upon reduction of the settlement area to 5 percent "had no validity." We will revisit this issue later.EXPRESSING its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Zionist Colonization of Palestine The modern history of Jews in Palestine began as far back as 1905 when Theodor Herzl12 (1860-1904), the founder of Zionism13 began buying land in the territory. Theodor Herzl authored a pamphlet in 1896 that advocated the establishment of der Judenstaat14 (the Jewish State). Jews had begun buying land in Palestine as early as 1901. Later the Zionists decided to take advantage of the Balfour Declaration that was promulgated by the British in 1917 and "promised committing Turkish Palestine to a Jewish homeland should the Allies win [World War I]." With Arab help, the British took Palestine from the Ottomans at the end of World War I in 1917-18. The Arabs willingly helped the British because they had been promised independence after the war. Unfortunately, Britain had also made promises to the Jews – and the two sets of promises were scarcely compatible. In the Sykes-Picot agreement made with France and Russia in 1916, Britain had promised to divide the regions and rule it with its allies. In 1917 in the notorious Balfour Declaration, Britain promised, in exchange for Jewish help, a Jewish 'national home' in Palestine.15aThe Zionists seized on this declaration and, with the assistance of Lord Arthur Balfour, manipulated it to advance their aims to solidify not only the creation of a theocratic Jewish state, but also the occupation and desired usurpation of all Palestinian land, including all of Judea and Samaria.15b The Balfour Declaration's original language was mindful of the need to protect the rights of the Palestinians. A critical contradiction arose in its implementation, however. Lord Balfour offered this explanation: The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American [King-Crane] Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder impact than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land (Chomsky, op. cit., p. 90).The Israelis resorted to terroristic tactics to accomplish this fact. Again, any knowledgeable observer should be able to understand from the history of the Jews in British Palestine from 1931 to 1948 and Israeli history since 1967 that Jewish leadership is hell-bent on encroaching not only on the Palestinian's territory but also on their basic human rights on the West Bank and Gaza through the establishment of numerous Jewish settlements using state terrorism and obviating the possibility of the Palestinians ever securing a contiguous and independent state. The colonization process began in 1882, continued during World War I, and reached an all-time high when the war with Germany ended. Following the outbreak of the Second World War it was almost impossible to leave Germany [or any of its occupied territories], . . . and shortly thereafter emigration was officially prohibited. . . . At the end of the war there were many thousands of freed concentration camp prisoners wandering across Europe. Many of those who had survived the Nazi terror had the sole wish to reach Palestine. Thousands of Jewish refugees arrived in ports on the Mediterranean Sea seeking the possibility of sailing to Haifa. The most famous of the numerous ships that attempted to break the British blockade was the Exodus 1947 . . . . The British authorities, who had from 1922 onwards, administered Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, wanted to prevent any more Jewish refugees entering the country as they feared an aggravation of the Jewish-Palestinian conflict. The ship was intercepted and boarded with force before it reached the coast of Palestine. Instead of interning the refugees in camps on the island of Cyprus, as was customary, the British sent the "Exodus" refugees back to France, via a troop transport ship. The ship lay three weeks outside a French harbour in the Mediterranean heat as the French authorities stubbornly refused to allow the British to land the refugees. Thereupon the ship sailed for Hamburg which at this time lay in the British occupied zone of Germany. On 8th September 1947, the refugees were forcibly disembarked in Hamburg, and interned in a fenced camp near Lübeck. It was not until the state of Israel was founded in 1948 that the way was opened for them to enter . . . their ["promised land."]16The Zionists: Illegal Immigration, Terrorism and Collaboration In 1931 the Irgun Zvai Leumi17 (National Military Organization) was founded in Jerusalem. It was led by Avaraham Tehomi and Advocated armed Jewish insurrection against the British and war against Palestinian Arabs. Menachem Begin ,18a the former prime minister of the theocratic Zionist state of Israel, became the leader of this terrorist organization in 1943. In 1946 the Irgun, commanded by Begin bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where the British offices were. This attack killed 91 people; 17 of whom were Jews. Another terrorist act perpetrated by the Irgun was the bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. The British regarded Menachem Begin as the primary Zionist terrorist and posted in the 1940s a reward of £100,000 pounds sterling for his capture. During the Zionist Organization's collaboration with the Nazis, Begin was instrumental in moving East European Jews confined in concentration camps out of Poland via Cyprus and illegally into Palestine. In the course of history, Begin (1977-1983) was preceded as prime minister by other Zionists – David Ben-Gurion (1948-1953 and 1955-1963),18b Moshe Sharett (1954-1955), Levi Eshkol (1963-1969) and Golda Meir (1969-1974). Golda was born in the Ukraine and raised in Milwaukee, WI. Begin was succeeded by Yitzhak Shamir (1983-1984 and 1986-1992), Yitzhak Rabin (1974-1977 and 1992-1995). During his second term as prime minister, Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli extremist. Rabin was followed by Shim'on Peres (1984-1986 and 1995-1996), Benjamin Netanyahu (1996-1999), and Ehud Barak (1999-2001). Ariel Sharon, the butcher who brutally oversaw the 1983 massacre of hundreds of Palestinians living in Sabra and Shatila – two Beirut refugee camps – by Lebanese Christian militiamen (Phalangists) under Israeli command,19a, 19b is elected prime minister in 2001. All of these prime ministers were and the living still are committed to the militant creation and preservation of the Jewish state even if they have to resort to murder, crimes against humanity, and state terrorism. Two respected Jewish scholars provide relevant information on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis: (1) Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Report on the Banality of Evil, Chapter IV (pp. 56-61) and (2) Edwin Black's The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact between The Third Reich and Jewish Palestine.20 In their books, written in 1963 and 1984 respectively, one learns just how scheming and cold-blooded the Zionists can be when it comes to establishing and preserving the state of Israel even if it may mean the elimination of thousands, if not millions of Jews, Africans, Gypsies, and Jehovah's Witnesses in concentration camps in Germany and Poland. In this context, we should also mention the practically unknown Rublee-Wohlthat Jewish emigration treaty formulated with the Third Reich in 1939. Of great importance here is the probability that the Israelis WILL NOT be diffident over eliminating the 3 million or so Palestinians currently residing in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, especially if Israel's existence is threatened. [Author's Note: See note 22 for a free but textually correct English translation of Ingried Weckert's (1996) Die Auswanderung der Juden aus dem Dritten Reich, "KRITIK," ISBN 3-88037-068-0, Kritik-Folge 88, Nordwind Verlag, Molevey 12," DK - Kollund, Denmark. This piece contains a general account of how the "transfer agreement" actually worked financially; how it, the Zionists, and the Irgun movement – the forerunner of the Mossad (Israel's Central Institute for Intelligence and Security, i.e., secret state police) – collaborated with and aided the Nazis in their war with Britain, particularly in North Africa, and how the agreement contributed in no small way to the economic development and population expansion of present-day Israel.]Supporters of Theodore Hetzl's Zionist organizations in Europe, British Palestine and the United States seized on this fact and coldly decided it was better to negotiate with the German Third Reich and secure the European Zionists' ability to emigrate to Palestine, i.e., transfer not only their families, but also their financial holdings and valuables to Palestine.21 Those European Jews who were non-Zionist or who did not want to emigrate to Palestine and could not emigrate to the U.S., England, or Latin America would remain in Europe. The following documents: (1) "Emigration of Jews from the Third Reich,"22 (2) "The Irgun’s Role in Illegal Immigration"23 and (3) "The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"24 will afford extensive accounts of the lengths the Zionists took to bring the current state of Israel into existence. Note Well: "The National Military Organization/Irgun, fully aware of the positive attitude of the German Reichsregierung's policy in regard to Zionist activities inside Germany, and equally informed about the Zionist immigration plans, held the opinion that: (1) a shared interest[s] . . . in matters concerning the restructuring of Europe according to German concepts and the true national aspiration of the Jewish people, represented by the N.M.O./Irgun, may well exist; (2) co-operation between the new Germany and a reborn, folkish-national Hebrew nation would be possible and (3) the recreation of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, treaty connected with Germany and thus strengthening Germany's own position in the future Middle East" (Ingried Weckert, Die Auswanderung der Juden aus dem Dritten Reich). A letter from a survivor of Theresienstadt, [a concentration camp in Poland,] a German Jew, relates that all leading positions in the Nazi-appointed Reichsvereinigung were held by Zionists, . . . because Zionists, according to the Nazis, were "the `decent' Jews since they too thought in `national' terms." . . . There existed in those first years a mutually highly satisfactory agreement between the Nazi authorities and the Jewish Agency for Palestine – a Ha'avarah, or Transfer Agreement, which provided that an emigrant to Palestine could transfer his money there in German goods and exchange them for pounds upon arrival. It was soon the only legal way for a Jew to take his money with him (the alternative then being the establishment of a blocked account, which could be liquidated abroad only at a loss of between fifty and ninety-five per cent). The result was that in the thirties, when American Jewry took great pains to organize a[n international] boycott of German merchandise, Palestine, of all places, was swamped with all kinds of goods "made in Germany" [emphasis added].Strange Bedfellows: Jews and Gentiles Working Together The Zionists were even more duplicitous in that they now are assured of having the holocaust to justify their tactics and help create and preserve Der Judenstaat, a holocaust that could be used to blackmail, bully the basically anti-Semitic Western Christian nations, their allies and any individual or group that criticizes Jews or Israel. Listen to this well known American Jew's argument. "To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote lawyer Alan Dershowitz. Discussing the current rise in anti-Israel sentiments in Europe, a New York Times Editorial (4/20/02) suggests Europeans' anti-Israel sentiments are an ironic twist: Their "guilt over the [h]olocaust may be salved with the thought that Jews, too, can act with cruelty." After all, wasn't it the Jews who crucified Jesus: "The liberal Italian daily La Stampa depicted a baby Jesus looking up from the manger at an Israeli tank, saying, 'Don't tell me they want to kill me again.'" We will be hearing similar criticisms of U.S. corporations and F.D. Roosevelt's administration when Edwin Black's recently updated paperback edition (2002) becomes generally available: IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation, (New York: Crown Publisher, pp. 519). A review published by the American Jewish Historical Society says "Edwin Black has given holocaust history an extraordinary new dimension. Clearly, the destruction of six million Jewish lives, and countless non-Jews, could not have been possible without IBM's Hollerith [punch card] machines." IBM consciously and skillfully aided and abetted the Third Reich throughout WW II with a wink and a nod from the U.S. State Department and other governmental agencies. Like IBM, Zionists and Israelis in general will not be able to deny their complicity in the genocidal horrors of Naziism.25a, 25b They won't be able to because the victims of this slaughter, their decendents and others will continue to point accusing fingers at them. The following statements from Zionists apologizing for their refusal to resist the slaughter of millions of their own people are very enlightening. "Yitzhak Greenbaum justified the Zionist leaders' policy of hiding the facts about the holocaust from the public, in a speech he made at Sokolov House on 1 January 1964. He said: 'Whoever is building the homeland and is battling for the very existence of the homeland, is excused from knowing; for he has another, greater obligation'" (Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld, The Holocaust Victims Accuse, Neturei Karta, USA, New York, 1977, p. 79).How diabolical can a so-called "chosen people" be. It should not be overlooked that the United States, England, France, indeed the Western "developed" world were (are) also complicit in assuring the holocaust ("shoah" in Hebrew) could be efficiently carried out. They did this by remaining silent from 1933 to 1941, even though they knew what Hitler was going to do once he came to power. He told them in his Mein Kampf, first published in 1924. And no sooner Hitler became chancellor, he began to carry out his genocidal threat. The New York Times was full of constant reminders of Nazi atrocities not only in Germany, but also in Poland, France, Holland and Austria. Of great importance here is this point: Palestinians "do not believe they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for the United States' and Europe's crimes against them." In fact, the rest of the world turned a totally deaf ear to the problem. The United States admitted about 100,000 prior to 1939 (during the years from 1933 to 1943, there were 400,000 unfilled slots in the U.S. quota system which had been established by the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924; however, Germany's quota was filled and the quotas were non-transferable! England accepted 80,000, Holland, 22,000, Belgium, about 13,000, Switzerland, 9,000, Argentina, 20,000, other Latin American countries, about 20,000. British controlled Palestine only admitted about 70,000 prior to 1941. These numbers are pitifully small in contrast to the fate which Europe's 11 million Jews faced in 1933 (see note 21 above).History also informs us that the U.S. didn't enter the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941; the U.S. went to war with Japan in 1941 and subsequently went to war with Germany only AFTER Hitler declared war on the U.S. The U.S. has again remained silent while the racist Zionists ravaged and disenfranchised the Palestinian people, taking their lands, driving many into exile in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt or into refugee camps in their own homeland. All of this was done, so that Israel could build a majority, exclusively Jewish state, where they would not have to give basic democratic and citizenship rights to Palestinian people who will outnumber them now or later. This is precisely the reason the Israelis cannot accept the Palestinian demand for the "right of return." Currently, the Israeli birthrate is 2.6 vs the 6.1 birthrate for Palestinians. If the Palestinian birthrate continues a pace, the Palestinian population could double to 6 million by 2016 and out number the Israeli population. There are currently 4.9 million Jewish citizens. Sixty-three percent of the Jewish population was born in Israel and among them, 43 percent are second generation Israelis. According to data published recently by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 3 million Jewish citizens immigrated to Israel, 1 million of whom arrived from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. "Of the 1.1 million Israeli Arabs, 81 percent are Muslim, 10 percent Christian and 9 percent Druze. According to the PCBS survey results, the occupied territory’s current Palestinian population is about 2.9 million, with one million living in the Gaza Strip and 1.9 million in the West Bank. Of that, 47 per cent are below the age of 15, while the areas’ total fertility rate is 6.1 – it is 5.6 in the West Bank and 6.9 in the Gaza Strip. The average household size is 6.4. The figures are based on the actual enumeration of 407,265 households, of which 262,736 were in the West Bank and 144,529 in the Gaza Strip."28 The Israeli government's refusal to grant the Palestinian refugees29 their "right to return"30 is predicated on these numbers. In order to drive the Palestinians out, the Israelis, like the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, resort to terrorism veiled with counterfactual claims of self defense, gunmen, homeland security, preservation of civilization, protection or counterterrorism. The dictionary definition of terrorism is: "ter·ror·ism (tµr“…-r¹z”…m) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." The United States government defines terrorism as follows: "[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping." (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984]). This definition of terrorism is found in Noam Chomsky. (2001). 9-11. New York: Seven Stories Press, p. 16. See also Note 31a for the complete "Department of State: Report on Foreign Terrorist Organizations," Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, October 5, 2001, as reprinted in Chomsky, Ibid., pp. 119-124.According to these definitions, any thinking person should have no trouble coming to the conclusion that the pre-eminent terrorist state in the 21st century is the United States, for it, as the world's only superpower, threatens to use "force and violence," i.e., anything that will "intimidate or coerce" any nation refusing to follow its lead. A current example of this process is the aborted U.S. sanctioned coup in Venezuela. The U.S. arrogantly believes it can use its military and economic power to establish a Pax Americana throughout the world and specifically in Southeast Asia. According to the presidential Texas Ranger, George W. Bush, "You're either with us or against us. If you're against us, be aware of that what we are doing to Afghanistan, we will surely do to you." "Terrorism: Theirs and Ours" by Eqbal Ahmad31a, 31b gives an insightful analysis of terrorism as it should be understood in today's world. Israel follows the United States' terroristic lead. Compare the rhetoric of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condelessa Rice to that coming from the mouths of Sharon and his cohorts. They are strikingly similar. Indeed, Sharon now bullies the United States and the conservative right and left into servile submission by using "Bush speak": viz., war on terrorism, homeland defense, gunmen, terrorists, "homicide" bombers, self-defense, uncivilized barbarians, and other catch phrases bandied about by Bush and company. In an open letter to Ariel Sharon, Breyten Breytenbach is on point when he writes: "It remains to be seen whether the growling of your principals in Washington will inflect your campaign of calculated terror and wanton destruction – or whether it is but a smokescreen behind which to better align the 'free world's' war on 'terrorism.' And for the domination of resources and a global control of markets and cheap oil and 'democracy.'"32a, 32b Moreover, the Bush administration continues to give voice to state terrorism when it adamantly threatens to attack North Korea and Iran, and attack, depose or assassinate Saddam Hussein for their supposed attempts to produce weapons of mass destruction or their support of terrorists. Nothing at all is said, however, about Israel's support of repressive regimes in Latin America and Africa. Furthermore, the U.S. is very tightlipped about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Consider this U.N. resolution: "'The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East': This resolution continues to omit the positive references to the Southwest Asian peace process that it previously used, but omits specific reference to Israel by name. It does refer to "the only State in the Middle East that has not yet signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" and calls upon that State to accede fully to the Non-Proliferation Treaty without further delay, and without any further testing or development of nuclear weapons."33a It is obvious "the only State in the Middle East" is Israel;33b it is also obvious what Western nations – France, for example – provided the technological know-how and fissionable materials. Israel has never signed the Non-proliferation treaty. Is there any reason not to assume Israel will unleash this weapon on the Palestinians and by extension any of the other Islamic nations that may threaten its existence? Of course they will given their previous history. Shouldn't the United States demand inspections is see whether Israel is manufacturing in Dimona and elsewhere weapons of mass destruction – chemical, biological and/or nuclear? Or would such an act frustrate its geopolitical designs in the region? Judea and Samaria The Jewish state was first slated to be placed in a British colony in Africa: "At the Sixth Zionist Congress at Basle on 26 August 1903, Herzl proposed the British Uganda Program as a temporary refuge for Russian Jews who were in immediate danger. In actuality the British offered the Kenya highlands to the Zionists because Uganda and Kenya "were still governed out of Uganda's capital Kampala.") By a vote of 295-178 it was decided to send an expedition ('investigatory commission') to examine the territory." This proposal was rejected at the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905.34a "The Madagascar Plan"34b was proposed much later in 1940. This was a widely publicized plan to ship all German Jews to the island of Madagascar, off the East African coast after the war. Madagascar had formerly been a French colonial possession. There were other similar plans for an African colony in Nigeria or South Africa. The progress of history is complicated with many strange turns. The major one being that the first terrorists in Palestine were the Zionists, who terrorized the British and the Islamic peoples of Palestine to force the British to allow Europe's Jews to enter Palestine and establish an independent and solely Jewish state in Eretz Yisroel, which includes in their view ALL of Palestine, Judea and Samaria and, as greed would dictate, southern Lebanon, Jordan and parts of Syria as well. This is the Israeli's concept of "Greater Israel."
Ariel Sharon, when he was minister of Agriculture, planned the building of dozens of Jewish settlements in far-flung parts of the occupied territories. This was designed to make Israeli withdrawal from these territories impossible whenever Israel may consider compromising its principles. The Settlement Map illustrates categorically that Israel has already placed settlements in practically 50 percent of the West Bank. These settlements along with the return of Palestinian refugees are the primary obstacles to any resolution of the differences between Palestinians and the Zionist Israelis. It can be seen quite clearly on this map the extent to which Israeli settlements cover the mountains of Israel as mentioned in Yechezkel / Ezekiel 38:8: "After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them." The Israeli Settlements Map is from 1993. As of June 1999, there were 117 Jewish settlements in the West Bank with a population of more than 160,000). More, and more Palestinian territory is still being bodaciously "redeemed," what's left are virtual bantustans à la South African apartheid.
Conclusion: This concise but thorough Online Documentary Primer on State Terrorism was developed using no fewer than 105 Internet pages as reference materials. In effect, with the inclusion of these web pages as references, there is a virtual cornucopia of information on the hottest issue of the time. Some of those listed below represent a number of related Internet sources which offer up-to-date information on Israel's terror tactics and other topics. Our mission, as stated in the introduction, has been to present a concise but thorough history of the birth of the "Jewish State." That has been done. We have also offered some insight into the major events leading up to the founding of Zionism, the resultant establishment of a Zionist colony in Palestine, the Zionists' agreement to obstruct an international boycott of Nazi Germany in 1934 and their collaboration with the Third Reich during the holocaust, the myths38a, 38b that support their claims to Palestine, the oft repeated lies and half-truths justifying their repressive tactics, the United States' tendency to condone whatever Israel does to oppress the Palestinians, and why the Palestinians in concert with Islamic and other non-Jewish peoples and organizations are defiantly opposed to Israel's continuation as a racist Jewish state. We have also pointed out how the Zionists use the holocaust and European and American traditional anti-Semitism to blackmail, if you will, the United States, France and Germany into supporting Israel come hell or high water. The problem with this tactic is that the Palestinians "do not believe . . . they should forfeit their land to compensate Jews for Europe's crimes against them." And they and others are determined not to let that happen. We have gone into some detail on the United States' geopolitical interests in the so-called Middle East, but we believe Noam Chomsky's Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, which gives a much more thorough and insightful historical analysis of the Palestinian-Israel conflict, should be read in tandem with the other books cited and especially the numerous Internet references. The information the American public should receive is not communicated by the media. Indeed, Americans are reputed to be the most informed people in the world; nevertheless, they are actually the most uninformed. For instance, they are not informed that citizenship in Israel is reserved for Jews only. Gentiles, Arabs and other ethnic groups, i.e., goyims, can enter and live in the country permanently; however, they cannot attain full citizenship. "Today, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel comprise approximately 19 percent of the total population of the country, numbering close to 900,000. They live predominantly in villages, towns, and mixed cities in the Galilee region in the north, the Triangle area in central Israel, and the Negev desert in the south. They belong to three religious communities: Muslim (76%), Christian (15%), and Druze (9%). . . . Israel never sought to assimilate or integrate its Palestinian citizens, excluding them from public life while practicing systematic discrimination in all fields. Successive Israeli governments maintained tight control over the community, attempting to suppress Palestinian/Arab identity and to divide the community within itself. To that end, Arabs are not defined by the state as a national minority: rather they are referred to as "Israeli Arabs" or by religious affiliation."39 Not having citizenship in Israel presents, as we have seen, a serious problem for non-Jews. There is, however, a more serious problem which is manifested in Israel's response to the Palestinian's projected superior population numbers. Because of this population imbalance, the Israeli leadership has decided to drive them out, turn them into refugees. The status of the refugees is one the hot button issues – the Right of Return – in this conflict between the two nations – one Arab, the other Jewish. The Israelis almost to the man and woman state rather matter-of-factly that to let the refugees return, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Dr. Nur Masalha writes in his monograph The Palestinian Refugee Problem: Israeli Plans to Resettle the Palestinian Refugees, 1948-1972, outlines the problem rather forthrightly: . . . The Arab states and the Palestinians have traditionally demanded that the Palestinian refugees be given a free choice between repatriation or compensation. The official Israeli position, on the other hand, has always been that there can be no returning of the refugees to Israeli territories, and that the only solution to the problem was their resettlement in the Arab states or elsewhere. Since 1949 all Israeli governments have consistently refused to discuss any possible return of refugees to the pre-1967 borders. They did not want the refugees back under any condition. They did not want them to return because they needed their lands and their villages for Jewish immigrants. Nor did they want the repatriation of an Arab population that would question the Zionist-Jewish identity of the state and undermine it demographically [emphasis added]. Israel did, however, consider some form of restitution of refugee property in lieu of repatriation.This statement – "the 'right of return' is an unacceptable maximalist position that “would wipe out the national character of the state of Israel” – confirms what we have stressed though out this documentary primer. When the Zionists first colonized portions of Palestine in 1917, the idea was to render this land "goyim rein." At the close of the 1948 war, and indeed before, native Palestinians were literally forced to flee for their lives (see Related Interent References #32 for maps illustrating where the refugees fled to). And once gone, their homes, businesses, farms and property were confiscated. This plan to drive the Palestinians out also applies to Gaza and the West Bank. This is why Shim'on, Netanyahu and Sharon are intent on speedily building more settlements in these territories and  further
"bantustanize" the West Bank. There will then be no "reasonable and
fair
solution"! When a thief is caught, immediate restitution is the only "JUST"
solution. Shim'on Peres, a former Israeli prime minister, is a member
of
the Labor Party, which is the party of Israel's liberals, the party of
Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin. Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon are
members
of the Likud, Israel’s major conservative
party. But like the Republican and Democratic Parties here in the
United
States, when it comes down to the vital interests of the nation, all
party
differences vanish. Since 1973, the Likud has
either
been the ruling party in the Knesset or the leading opposition party.
Likud’s
leaders Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Bibi Netanyahu have all
served
as prime minister. It would be a serious mistake, however, were we to
accept
Peres as an Israeli politician who can be "trusted." Isn't he the
leader
of the Labor Party that initiated the oppressive regulations? Wasn't he
linked to Ariel Sharon when Sharon invaded Lebanon and massacred the
Palestinian
refugees in Sabra and Shatila? Aren't they two terrorist birds of a
feather?
Won't Peres take the Palestinians to the brink of a "land for peace"
negotiation,
just like Barak did, and then break it off in order to preserve a
Zionist
principle: "All of Greater Palestine is Our Promised Land."41
Anwar Sadat (1971), King Fahd (1981), the Syrians (1982) and Yasir Arafat (1982) offered to accommodate their political and territorial objectives to include the recognition of Israel's right to exist. Indeed, in 1981 the Saudis proposed a peace plan that "called for a two state settlement on the 1967 borders, with recognition of the right for all states in the region to exist in peace" (Chomsky, op. cit., p. 75). lf we are not mistaken, this proposal is exactly similar to their 2002 offer. Israel and the United States rejected the plan out of hand as if it were a "trick," a threat to their driving concept of a "Greater Israel" on the one hand, and the continuation of U.S. domination of the region on the other. All signs point to the Israeli and United States rejection of this "new" Saudi plan as well. The only way out of this impasse for the Palestinians and the Arab World in general is to pursue their objectives forcefully. Unfortunately and, perhaps, irrationally, they may have to forego any temptation to eschew a resort to violence be it with martyrs (shahids), car bombs or well conceived stealth attacks on IDF roadblocks and cabinet ministers. This may be the only way to make a dent when an entire people are deprived of a secure future – economic, political, social, or psychological. In African American Folklore, the old folks used to relate a parable to young people and their elders as well. It went like this: Not too long ago in African America, there was a farmer who needed a mule to plough his fields. The mule he used to use was old, worn out and just refused to plough any more. So the farmer went to see his neighbor who lived down the road a ways. The neighbor, he had heard, had a mule for sale. The neighbor agreed to sell the farmer his mule for a reasonable price. However, before the farmer paid for the mule, he asked his neighbor, "Is this mule good at ploughing large fields?" The neighbor assured, "Of course, that's what I used him for!" So the farmer hustled back to his place, hitched up the new mule, and said: "Ghee! Ghee!" The mule didn't respond. So he said again, "Ghee! Ghee!" Again there was no response. Thinking he had been cheated, he unhitched the mule, and lead it with some difficulty back to his neighbor and complained that the mule wouldn't plough as he was told. Hearing this, the neighbor ran into his barn and returned with an axe handle. He approached the mule, took a great swing, and struck the mule in the front center of its head. To the surprise of the farmer, the mule raced back to his farm, hitched itself up, ploughed not only the farmer's fields, but also those of a man who lived next door. When the farmer saw his neighbor again, he thanked him for the mule. Straight away the neighbor apologized for not telling the farmer about the mule earlier: "You see," he said, "To get this mule to plough, you first have to get its attention!"This is what is advised in dealing with the Zionists and their international supporters. GET THEIR ATTENTION BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY FIRST! The Palestinian martyrs have done just that it appears. The Israeli's feelings of security are now on edge. Unfortunately, Palestinian youth have taken the lead by sacrificing themselves. This is a tragic consequence, indeed, but given the circumstances, understandable. Where are their elders, the Palestinian and extended Arab leadership? Where are the United Nations? Whatever, one thing is objectively clear, these youths have gotten the Israelis' and the world's attention. The 416 (some say 1,000) Israeli IDF (Israeli Defense Force) refuseniks are categorical evidence that the justifiable Palestinian resistance message is getting through.42a, 42b, 43 More evidence of having done so can also be detected from the frustration Ariel Sharon is undoubtedly showing with his resort to unbridled force and violence. Moreover, his violent actions have or will eventually force an embarrassed response from his supporters in Israel and elsewhere. Testimony to this inevitable likelihood is found in the Tikkun Community made up of American Jews who represent "the liberal alternative to the voices of Jewish conservatism and spiritual deadness in the Jewish world." The Jews and others in Tikkun are supporters of Israel, but are deeply distressed by the unethical actions of current Israeli leadership, specifically Ariel Sharon. Already, as alluded to above, anti-Israel protests have increased in the United States, England, France, and Germany. Indeed, protests are heard all around the world. Some have proposed that the Palestinians use non-violent methods to get Sharon's, the Knesset's, the United States' and the general Israeli population's attention. Whatever method works, these Jewish terrorists, along with their supporters in the U.S. government, are human rights violators and war criminals. The Israeli's brutish deprivation of an oppressed people can be tolerated no longer.44 To define this oppression as a war crime under the provisions of Article 85 of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, it must include the following attributes:
It
becomes increasingly clearer when the Protocol's
definition of war crimes is used to analyze the repressive actions of
the
Israeli government, the United States and their partners Shim'on Peres,
Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, to name a few. The primary war
criminal
is Ariel Sharon, who is responsible to date for massacres at Qibya,
Sabra,
Shatila, and Jenin.46a,
46b,
47
We shouldn't, however, take the position that Sharon is the sole war
criminal.
For the criminals are not found just in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem; many
others
are found in Washington, DC, New York and Chicago. Indeed, over the
years
the Israelis have committed no fewer than 58 massacres from 1946 to
2002.48
The United States, having committed genocidal crimes throughout its
history,
hypocritically condemns Israel, but continues to support Israel's
actions.
When will we hear outcries from the U.S. Congress? When will we read
detailed
accounts of these tragedies or mass murders in daily newspapers or on
television.
Finally, when will the international community investigate these
massacres
and bring charges against the alleged perpetrators.
John B. Anderson, member of Congress (R) between 1960 and 1980, comments in "Lonesome Cowboy," The Nation (April 28, 2002) on George W. Bush's refusal on April 11 to submit to the Senate for ratification the Treaty of Rome that establishes an International Criminal Court. This treaty, according to Anderson, has been signed since July 17, 1998 "by our closest allies, including every NATO country but Turkey and all members of the European Union. . . . Unilaterally focused on the domestically popular war on terrorism, the Administration had averted its eyes from the pustulating Israel-Palestine sore. As a result, . . . Bush overplayed the 'anti-terrorist card,' not only greatly broadening "the scope of needed response" but giving "governments around the planet a green light to increase the level of violence directed at their longtime internal adversaries.' None ran with that ball harder than Israel's Ariel Sharon." This is what Bush's tangled foreign policy has wrought in Southeast Asia and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The portent is U.S. foreign policy will do likewise in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Columbia, in the Philippines, and in Yemen.
1a. Who are the Eastern Ashkenazim: http://www.escape.com/~elyaqim/ashk/index.html
RELATED INTERNET REFERENCES 1. Israel's Law of Return: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int16.htm
|
he
purpose of "Israel, An Online Documentary: A Concise but thorough
Primer
on State Terrorism" is to provide in brief the history behind the
Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. To accomplish this we have made use of various sources of
information.
Our primary source is the 
 |
Search
for
|
Return to HieroGraphics Home Page