Even Jabotinsky called political-Zionism colonialism. He said the Jews were colonizing Palestine. However today, we hear more and more Jews of the fascist (decidedly verkrampte and anti-socialist) persuasion claiming that referring to Zionism as a colonial effort is false. Well then they are calling one of their own founding fathers and "hero," Jabotinsky, a liar.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the British were still thinking "British Empire" when they dealt with the Arabs and the Jews over Palestine. There's no doubt that the U.S. and Russia were thinking the same about the American Empire and the Russian Empire (Soviet Empire at the time).
In the face of these facts, ridiculous efforts are made by false propagandists in Israel and the U.S. to twist and spin history to erase the imperial, colonial roots of the Zionist movement of Jabotinsky, et al.
What's the point in lying about it? It's so transparent. It's just a mad scramble. They can't believe that the ruse didn't stick. They actually thought the world, the common people, would sleep through history. Well, they are waking up, and they are sick of evil excuses.
Now the Jews are close to putting the fascist, Benjamin Netanyahu, back into power. That's about the dumbest thing they can do now. The polls show that most Israelis want dialogue rather than war, but they're leaning toward a war-monger to lead them — How lame!
If you want dialogue and peace, you hire a peacemaker to lead you. Why don't you just ask Jimmy Carter to lead you for a couple of years. You'll have peace. Just do as he tells you and without arguing. He'd deliver Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, because they know Carter's sincere, even if he isn't a Muslim.
Israel has turned fascist more and more. Look at the terrible job Netanyahu did on the Israeli economy. He ripped the Jewish people apart. He split the nation into haves and have-nots: Billionaires and the poverty stricken in one tiny nation — pathetic!
So now, not only is Israel lying about its racist and imperial birth, it isn't even egalitarian amongst itself as one people called Jews. It can't even live up to the Mosaic standard yet. How is it ever going to live up to the standards of the Messiah and be saved?
Sixty years since the Palestinians were expelled, Anne Alexander and John Rose examine the roots of the Israeli state
The state of Israel was founded 60 years ago out of a monstrous crime – the expulsion of nearly a million Palestinians from their homes.
This violence is known to Palestinians as the Nakba – the Arabic word for "catastrophe". It was followed by a second humanitarian disaster in 1967 when Israel seized the whole of Jerusalem and the entirety of historic Palestine – leading to over 40 years of military occupation and wave after wave of killings in defence of the Zionist state.
The events surrounding the Nakba and the creation of Israel in 1948 are crucial to understanding the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.
The origins of the Zionist movement lie in Europe. The movement emerged in the late 19th century as a response to the growth of racist nationalism and antisemitism.
The tragedy of Zionism is that although it was driven by the desire to found a Jewish state as a safe haven for the oppressed, the movement's leaders recognised that in order to do so they would need the support of a European government.
So they fashioned an ideology which made Zionism into a vanguard for European colonialism. Far from escaping European racist nationalism, Zionism aimed to export it by creating a Jewish colonial project.
After considerable debate the Zionist movement agreed on Palestine as a suitable site for the Jewish state and small groups of Jewish settlers began to move there over the first decades of the 20th century.
The British government, attracted by the Zionists' promises that their settlements could help consolidate Britain's control of newly-captured Ottoman lands, issued a declaration in 1917 agreeing to support the creation of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.
Only two years before, British officials had also promised the same area to form part of an Arab kingdom, while behind the scenes they carved up Ottoman territory into spheres of influence in a secret deal with their wartime allies, the French.
At the peace negotiations after the First World War, Britain was given control of Palestine under the League of Nation's mandate system.
Over the following two decades increasing numbers of Jewish immigrants moved to Palestine. The Jewish population grew from 50-60,000 in 1919 to nearly 450,000 in the mid-1930s.
The situation in Europe itself worsened with Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany, and the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Most European governments acted towards these victims of the Nazis with double standards, condemning their treatment, as they shut their doors in the face of desperate refugees.
The birth of the new state of Israel was assisted by the world superpowers – as the US and the Soviet Union first backed the United Nations (UN) plan for the partition of Palestine and then recognised the state of Israel, hoping that this would accelerate British decline elsewhere in the Middle East.
The starting gun for the Zionist seiz-ure of most of Palestine was fired by the United Nations General Assembly, which voted in November 1947 to divide Palestine in two, leaving a Jewish state and a Palestinian state side by side.
The partition plan was manifestly unjust to the Palestinians.
In public the Zionist leaders welcomed partition, while in private they were already planning a ruthless assault on the civilian Palestinian population.
David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister, explained to the executive of the Jewish Agency in November 1947, that a bleak future faced the Palestinians: "They can either be mass arrested or expelled – it is better to expel them."
Throughout December 1947 and January 1948 Zionist militias carried out atrocities in Palestinian villages and neighbourhoods.
One such assault took place in the village of Khisas in Galilee on 18 December 1947. Zionist troops blew up houses in the village in the dead of night, while their occupants were sleeping. Fifteen people were killed, including five children.
From early December, in the city of Haifa, Zionist forces began rolling barrels of explosives into Palestinian neighbourhoods. They also poured burning oil into the streets and machine gunned residents who tried to put out the flames.
While the expulsions and massacres gathered pace, the Zionist leaders discussed and finally adopted what was known as Plan Dalet (after the Hebrew letter D). It gave clear orders to commanders of the Hagana – the Zionists' main military force – on how to deal with the Palestinian population:
"These operations can be carried out either by destroying villages (by setting fire to them, by blowing them up and by planting mines in their rubble), and especially those population centres which are difficult to control permanently; or by mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines; encirclement of the villages, conducting a search inside them. In case of resistance, the armed forces must be wiped out and the population expelled outside the borders of the state."
On 10 April 1948 in Deir Yassin over 90 villagers were massacred, one third of them babies.
There was a deadly purpose to such massacres – the perpetrators hoped to terrify their neighbours into flight, thus speeding up the process of expulsion.
The UN partition resolution prompted Arab governments to allow groups of volunteer fighters to enter Palestine in order to defend the Palestinian population.
Between December 1947 and May 1948 these were small bands, isolated from each other and lacking either adequate arms or a unified command.
Moreover, as Israeli historian Avi Shlaim notes, the tactics of the two sides were very different.
The Zionists quickly secured the main Jewish settlements and then struck out into areas designated as part of the Palestinian state, deliberately driving out the Palestinian population.
By contrast, the Arab fighters were more defensive, attempting to keep control of Palestinian areas, but rarely counterattacking into Zionist-held territory. By the time the main Arab armies intervened in May 1948, around 250,000 Palestinian refugees had already fled.
In mid-May 1948 the combined forces mobilised by the Arab states in Palestine numbered only 25,000 compared to the 35,000 fighters commanded by the nascent Israeli Defence Force (IDF).
The IDF rapidly brought more troops into battle, fielding 65,000 by mid-July and 96,441 by December.
Ben-Gurion announced the birth of Israel to the world on 15 May 1948. However, the expulsions and massacres continued to gather momentum.
As many as 230 Palestinians were shot in cold blood at Tantura and buried in a mass grave on 22 May.
Yitzhak Rabin, later prime minister of Israel, was in charge of military operations in the towns of Ramla and Lydd in July 1948.
He estimated that his troops drove around 50,000 Palestinians in the area from their homes, forcing them to march to the West Bank without food or water.
Over the following months the number of Palestinian refugees swelled to around 850,000.
Penniless and traumatised, they were housed in overcrowded camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling on Israel to allow the refugees to return – 60 years later they and their descendants are still waiting.
The disaster which overtook the Palestinians in 1948 has to be set in the context of a region in turmoil. One of the reasons why both the old colonial empires and the US saw a potentially valuable ally in the Zionist movement was the growth of a powerful anti-imperialist movement across the Middle East.
But the incompetence and treachery of the Arab leaders demonstrated the folly of leaving Palestine's fate in the hands of the likes of King Abdullah of Jordan and King Farouq of Egypt.
However, 1948 also showed how the cause of Palestine could set the Middle East alight by strengthening and uniting a mass movement against imperialism and its local client rulers.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Israel - created by terrorism
May 13, 2008
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)