Alain Jean-Mairet » Comment la Suisse injecte des millions dans la propagande anti-israélienne

Comment la Suisse injecte des millions dans la propagande anti-israélienne

Il semble bien que, malgré les avertissements spécifiques de NGO Monitor, en 2005 (et, par exemple, d’une manière plus générale, de EU Funding), qui ont pourtant motivé une initiative parlementaire signée par 30 députés, la Direction du développement et de la coopération (DDC) a continué de soutenir des ONG douteuses en 2006, comme l’indique ce tableau récapitulatif des projets de la DDC dans les «territoires palestiniens occupés» (copie ici) daté de novembre 2006. Mais il y a bien pire encore.

Ce tableau nous apprend par exemple que deux des ONG dont NGO Monitor avait montré le peu de crédibilité en regard de l’objectif affiché de la DDC sur place («soutenir le peuple palestinien dans ses efforts visant au développement et à la construction étatique et ainsi contribuer à améliorer les chances de paix»), à savoir Al Mezan et ARIJ, continuent de bénéficier du soutien financier de la Suisse, via la DDC. La deuxième pour un montant de 1,53 million de francs, entre 2006 et 2008, ce qui n’est déjà pas rien.

Mais observons donc le montant le plus élevé de cette liste, le premier, tout simplement, celui alloué, entre 2005 et 2007, au Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP), soit 2,47 millions de francs. Qu’est-ce donc que ce programme de santé mentale de la communauté de Gaza? Il suffit de lire (je traduis ici de l’anglais et je souligne):

Le [GCMHP] est une organisation palestinienne non gouvernementale, sans but lucratif, créée en 1990 en vue de fournir des services complets de santé mentale — thérapie, instruction et recherche — à la population de la Bande de Gaza.
Depuis lors, la Bande de Gaza — l’une des régions les plus peuplées du monde, dont les deux tiers des habitants sont des réfugiés et la moitié sont âgés de moins de 16 ans — a assisté à d’extrêmes formes de violence et de souffrance, dues à l’occupation israélienne et aux opérations militaires. Cette situation a entraîné des problèmes mentaux d’une ampleur sans précédent dans la Bande de Gaza. Pour davantage d’information: http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/Crisis Intervention [ce lien ne fonctionne pas]

À l’examen, cette description paraît tout à fait correcte. En effet, toutes les explications (et iciiciici, ici, ici, ici, et jusqu’à quelques dessins d’enfants) fournies par le GCMHP attribuent uniquement à Israël l’origine et la totalité des problèmes mentaux des Palestiniens.

Si la majorité des études scientifiques listées sur le site paraissent valables (on en trouve toutefois que les résumés et il faut douter du sérieux de celle-ci et celle-ci, qui traitent de «prisonniers politiques»; de celle-ci, qui se concentre sur l’effet exclusif de la «violence militaire»; de celle-ci, qui n’indique pas sa méthodologie et n’a pas été publiée; de celle-ci, semble-t-il uniquement subjective et basée sur un échantillon très réduit; et de celle-ci, tout simplement manquante), on ne trouve aucune mention sur ce site des troubles psychiques que peuvent entraîner le terrorisme islamiste (déjà avant 1967, et même bien avant 1948), la guerre civile larvée, les luttes intestines ou encore les crimes d’honneur.

Ainsi, depuis des années, cet organisme, avec son attitude manifestement partisane, répand, sous un mince vernis scientifique, des arguments attisant la haine d’Israël et participe ainsi à l’élan d’idéalisation du terrorisme dans la Bande de Gaza et dans le monde entier, avec entre autres la crédibilité que peut lui conférer le fait d’être subventionné, à raison de plusieurs millions de francs, par un organe gouvernemental suisse, la DDC, qui se targue de favoriser la paix.

Mais en vérité, ce que la Direction du développement et de la coopération du Département fédéral des affaires étrangères helvétique (DFAE) a financé ici est, en tout cas au niveau de l’information, un effort de guerre.

Comments

  1. doudou
    January 9th, 2007 | 10:15 am

    Cher ajm,

    avez-vous mis ne serait-ce qu’une seule fois les pieds en Palestine?

    [AJM: Où?] 

    Voyez-vous, les incursions militaires de l’armée, les couvres-feux durant des semaines, les humiliations, les tortures, les avions volant à vitesse supersoniques juste au dessus des habitations, les bombardements, les ambulances ne passant pas les check-points, les enfants devant attendre des heures devant des check-points ou le Mur pour pouvoir aller à l’école sans toujours pouvoir passer, les “visites” nocturnes des unités d’élites de l’armée d’occupation, la terreur généralisée, etc., ne sont pas due à des “crimes d’honneurs” ou à des “luttes entre factions”, bien que ces problèmes existent et que personne ne peut les nier.

    [AJM: Ce n’est là qu’une partie du problème, et sa gravité ne fait de loin pas l’unanimité. N’agir qu’en fonction des souffrances de l’une des parties d’un conflit, engagé longtemps avant les prétextes territoriaux auxquels vous faites allusion, c’est prendre parti, c’est participer au conflit. Et c’est ce que fait, à tort ou à raison, peu importe, l’ONG mise ici sous la loupe. La soutenir participe donc d’un effort conflictuel, ce qui n’est pas la destination d’un organe tel que la DDC.] 

    Mettre en balance une occupation, avec tout ce qu’elle engendre de totalisant, et la violence inhérente à la société, voilà qui manque singulièrement de jugeote. Vous êtes tellement obnubilé par votre haine de tout ce qui est “musulman” ou qui relève de l’Islam, que vous en venez à nier le caractère prépondérant de l’occupation dans les troubles mentaux que subiit la population civile palestinienne.

    [AJM: Je ne nie rien. Je constate simplement que certaines personnes ignorent systématiquement certains aspects. Et je me permets de faire valoir que ce ne sont certainement pas ces gens qui vont concourir à établir la paix et qu’il est donc inapproprié de les soutenir.]

    Monsieur, allez donc faire la morale au gamins qui se réveillent trois fois par nuit en pissant au lit parce que des soldats ont pénétré chez eux, ou parce que leur ville a été bombardé au F-16. Expliquer ensuite à leur papa que tout ceci n’est du qu’au terrorisme islamique!!!

    [AJM: Je ne fais pas de leçon de morale. Et je n’attribue nulle part une responsabilité unique à un phénomène unique. Contrairement à certaines institutions, justement. Je constate simplement que des fonds censément destinés à favoriser la paix sont alloués à des efforts de propagande qui prolongent le conflit.]

    Bahhhhhh…

    [AJM: Merci de cet effort vers le dialogue.]

  2. loulou
    January 9th, 2007 | 1:49 pm

    Merci à vous 🙂

  3. loulou
    January 9th, 2007 | 1:56 pm

    Pour votre première moderation, il est vrai que l’on peut soit se réferrer à la Palestine du mandat britannique, aujourd’hui entièrement sous le contrôle de l’Etat d’Israël, Gaza compris (mais oui mais oui, je peux préciser si vous le voulez…), ou alors à ce qu’on demandé les Palestiniens durant les Accords d’Oslo, à savoir Gaza et la Cisjordanie (soit le 22% de leur patrie d’origine). Notez que les sionistes possèdaient… 6% des terres en 1948 et qu’ils en ont expulsé la majordité des habitants, musulmans et chrétiens compris, à l’exception notable de la ville de Nazareth (ça aurait fait quand même un peu tache. Mais rassurez vous, le plan pour la colonisation de la Galilée est bien mené, et le quartier de Nazareth-illit est une vraie réussite architectural de style blockhaus). A la question du ou? vous voyez qu’il y a plusieurs possibilités et je vous remercie de poser la question. Disons à Hébron. Disons à Ramallah. Disons à Tulkarem. Disons à Bethlehem. Par exemple.

    [AJM: Je n’ai jamais visité cette région. Je n’aime guère le climat méditerranéen, à vrai dire, et n’ai pas le goût non plus des manifestations de foi ostentatoires, de sorte que je n’ai jamais ressenti l’envie de me rendre sur cette terre que l’on dit sainte. Mais j’en ai étudié l’histoire, afin de tenter de comprendre ce qui s’y passe, car de toute évidence il s’y passe quelque chose de grave et de déterminant bien au-delà de l’aspect local et des analyses des médias.]

  4. loulou
    January 9th, 2007 | 3:40 pm

    Vous devriez. Vraiement! Vous pourrez ainsi juger live in direct, de la bienséance et de la tradition d’accueil qui règne dans la société de chacune des partie en conflit. C’est très instructif.

    [AJM: Instructif, vraiment? J’ai connu moi-même des gens très accueillants et d’autres qui l’étaient moins. Parmi les gens peu accueillants, voire rebutants, je me souviens de certains qui étaient épris de justice et dont la parole était solide, tandis que d’autres, chaleureux et généreux d’emblée, ne méritaient en fait pas la confiance placée en eux. Le contraire aussi peut se rencontrer. La tradition d’accueil, comme son nom l’indique, n’est ainsi guère qu’un usage, une convention sociale, une manière usuelle d’aborder les gens, de nouer un premier contact, de créer une première ambiance. Ce n’est finalement qu’un cliché, qui ne reflète ni la valeur d’une société, ni celle des gens eux-mêmes, sur la durée. Et tout être d’expérience, ou quiconque possède un raisonnable talent d’introspection lucide, le sait bien. De sorte que votre incitation, à mes yeux, ne révèle guère que votre immaturité ou, si vous êtes expérimenté, votre désir de tromper.]

  5. January 9th, 2007 | 5:00 pm

    LouLou … DouDou or what ever. (what a name)

    [AJM: Come on, Gabrielle! Both are okay, if a bit cute.]

    You ask Ajm if he has ever been to Palestine ……..

    Now explain where there is a Sovereign State called Palestine …..give us a real map.

    Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity.
    There is no language known as Palestinian.
    There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
    There has never been a land known as Palestine
    governed by Palestinians.
    There has never been a so called Palestinian Currency – or exchange rate to any relevant known Currency

    Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians
    (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
    Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands.
    Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass.
    But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

    From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries..

    The word itself derives from “Peleshet”, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”.

    The Philistines were mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities.

    They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves.

    One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac.

    Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat).

    In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers – chiefly from the Mediterranean islands – overran the Philistine districts.
    From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean “Syria Palaestina”.

    The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks.

    They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

    The term “Palestinian” is itself a masterful twisting of history.

    To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Mediterranean tribe, the Philistines (“Invaders” in Hebrew), that disappeared out over almost 3000 years ago.

    The connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs is NIL.

    Romans, in order to conceal their shame and anger with rebellious regions, changed the references to Judea and Samaria by naming them Palestine.

    The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name.

    It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman “Palastina”; which is derived from the Peleshet, (root Pelesh) which was a general term meaning “dividers”, “penetrators” or “invaders”.

    This referred to the Philistine’s invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.

    The use of the term “Palestinian” for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation, (coined by the late Terrorist – known as Yasser Arafat – but rather his real name was – Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat Al Qudwa al-Hussaeini an Egyptian who was born in August 1929 in Cairo), …. so, that political creation… which has no basis in fact – and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.

    1. Nationhood and Jerusalem – Israel became a nation in the 14th century B.C.E. Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

    2. Since 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for up to 1,000 years with a continuous Jewish presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

    3. The only Arab dominion since the Arab invasion and conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more than 22 years.

    4. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

    5. For over 3,000 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.

    Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

    6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

    7. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray facing Mecca (often with their backs toward Jerusalem).

    8. In 1854, according to a report in the New York Tribune, Jews constituted two-thirds of the population of that holy city.

    9. In 1867, Mark Twain took a tour of so called Palestine. This is how he described that land: A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human.

    10. In 1882, official Ottoman Turk census figures showed that, in the entire Land of Israel, there were only 141 000 Muslims, both Arab and non-Arab.

    11. A travel guide to so called Palestine and Syria was published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker; estimated the total population of Jerusalem at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.

    12. In 1922, with what was widely acknowledged as the illegal separation of Transjordan, the Jews were forbidden to settle on almost 77% of the Palestine Mandate, while Arab settlement went unrestricted and encouraged by British mandatory authority.

    Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920?

    Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961.

    Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well.

    They did not exist as countries.

    They were all under the control of the Turks. Over 80% of the original British Mandate land was given to Arabs without population transfer of Arabs from the land designated for Jews, which had been their land since time immortal.

  6. loulou
    January 9th, 2007 | 6:18 pm

    For Gabrielle. A quick response, because the sum of your ideological fantasms is too high…

    The key point is as follow : the people who lived in Palestine at the end of the british mandate have never been asked if they aggeed that their land will be cut and given to the zionist. Then zionists have commited ethnic cleansing, which act has begun even before the Arab States declared war to Israël. The point is. that the creation of Israël is the product of a robbery, and this robbery is still onging now. For me it is clear that people who support this fact, who support the colonisation and who support the criminal acts of a settler state are supporting someting that is against the international laws and basic human rights. This is your choice, but please assume it instead of presenting Israël as a victim.

    “Now explain where there is a Sovereign State called Palestine …..give us a real map.”

    > Your are right! That’s the problem. Palestinian people wants to have a state in their land, which is now occupied by a violent and settler state who is keep on building a wall and illegal settlements. Now let me just tell you that I will not accept that Italians come to Switzerland to rob my house, just because Romans occupied Switzerland 2000 years ago. I am the legitimate occupant of Switzerland because I and my parents, back to dozens of generation hace lived here. This was not the case with the zionists who arrived to settle in Palestine from the end of the XIX century.

    “Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity.”

    > France, Germany, Switzerland, USA and all the other State of the world did not exist… before they were created.

    “There is no language known as Palestinian.”

    > Not exact. The arab spoken in Palestine is not the same than in Irak, Egypt or Marroco. It is a particuliar language with local expression, grammar and prononciation

    “There is no distinct Palestinian culture.”

    > Absolutely wrong.

    “There has never been a land known as Palestine
    governed by Palestinians.”

    > Do you think that the people of Paletine where ruled and administated by aliens? Or by Jews? Or can you assume that the local elite where assuming this role, even under the central control of the Ottomans?

    Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians
    (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

    > Absolutely wrong. If you want at least one criteria : the place of birth or of origin ( for the refugees who have the right of return), and all the local particularism that this fact implies in term of tradition. For exemple, Jews, Muslims and Christians has a very deep consciousness to live in a sacred place. Have you ever heard about Nabi Mûsa, Ibrahim, Halûl? Moses, Abraham, Jonas?

    “Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands.”

    > Is it an argument to steal the territory of a people? Inuits are controling big spaces, why zionists didn’t target northern Canada? Or the Moon, it is empty until now.

    “Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass.”

    >This is absolutely not the problem

    “But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all.”

    >100% wrong. Saudi Arabia has a proposed a peace plan, endorsed by the majority of the Arab countries. Let the palestinian people live in 22% of historical palestine (Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem-East) in exchange of a full peace. Guess who refused? Palestinians also has proposed the same. Guess who refused?

    “And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.”

    > The problem is: Israël is doing no lands concession at all. In the fact it is settling and destroying an another people and its territory.

    “From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries…”

    >You can find reference to the name of Palestine both in Arab and Palestinian litterature during the Middle Age, and until now. It is in french but you can learn about that :

    “Mais cependant, malgré ces clivages familiaux et claniques propres à une société traditionnelle, le facteur religieux demeure comme un principe unificateur qui transcende les barrières confessionnelles, sociales, et claniques (Sanbar, 2004, pp. 55-60) : chrétiens, juifs et musulmans habitent en effet la « Terre Sainte », la perçoivent comme telle, et vivent en relative harmonie au sein d’une culture arabe que tous partagent et qui est le fruit d’une longue maturation. Elias Sanbar rappelle que la Palestine ottomane « constitue, (…), une unité multicentrée articulée autour de plusieurs capitales-pivots régionales » . L’unité à laquelle se réfère Sanbar tient en premier lieu à la manière dont les habitants se nomment eux-mêmes, par delà les différences administratives (wilaya, sandjak, liwa, nahiyé) qui partagent la Palestine en plusieurs entités territoriales : Ahl al-Ard al-Muqaddassa, soit les Gens (ou la Grande Famille) de la Terre Sainte. L’historien Haim Gerber met également en perspective la prégnance de ce terme, hérité d’une sourate du Coran, à travers les siècles , et qui côtoie celui de Palestine (Filastin) lorsqu’il s’agit de nommer cette partie de la terre d’Islam. Si la Palestine n’est ainsi plus une unité administrative (Jund Filastin) depuis le XIIIème siècle, ses habitants et les différents géographes et historiens arabes continuent à se référer aux dénominations Filastin ou al-Muqaddassa pour nommer la terre qu’ils habitent ou qu’ils visitent, la particularisant ainsi par rapport à d’autres espaces du monde arabo-musulman ou Ottoman. Il y a conscience d’appartenir et de vivre sur une terre spécifique (et non un territoire spécifique) dont les contours sont flous, mais qui demeure la « terre sainte », avec Jérusalem comme ville centrale du point de vue du sacré. ”

    Dear Gabrielle, one of those day, zionists will be accountable for the crimes that have been done since 1948, as the Swiss Banks were rightly pushed to pay for their crimes during the Second World War.

    So far….

  7. January 9th, 2007 | 9:01 pm

    Loulou or DouDou
    You fail totally to comprehend reality and legal historical Facts

    As I told you before, which you intentionally ignore – There was NO such people called Palestinians even talked about in any and all historical agreements … as you call.. . PALESTINIANS …… before the date of 1967 – as I said before it was coined by Arafat the Egyptian…..
    And You use his fake propaganda

    There were simply referred to as ARABS !!!! ……..that is a Fact, study history and reality

    You are either too young and poorly educated – or else you are intentionally spreading fake propaganda which your brethren are intentionally spreading in all propaganda

    You obviously have NO real clue about History from the region:

    A) Occupation only applies under International Law – vis-a-vis the territory of another SOVEREIGN STATE….

    You can legally only occupy another State that was under different Sovereignty at the time of occupation – which does not apply to the PA Territories since they were not part of any Sovereign State ….

    Jordan and Egypt never had annexed any territories to become the sovereign of same, when Israel regained it’s territories in a self-defense war.

    Therefore Legally
    Judea and Samaria (ancient historical Jewish land) are unassigned territories of the British Mandate for “Palestine” not “occupied territories.”

    B) Israeli presence in Yesha does not constitute “occupation,” and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a “recommendation” and not obligatory.

    “Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate, before then Israel homeland.
    In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, now called for some odd reason… the ‘West Bank.’

    Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria.

    This annexation was not recognized by international law.
    The Arab nations objected to it,
    In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories – which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation’s National Home according to the Mandate Charter – returned to Israeli control.”
    in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria.

    “According to international law,”
    “Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920.

    At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

    Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with ‘ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'”

    “Even the White Paper of 1922,” emphasized the Jewish Nation’s rights to their national home in the Land of Israel – while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate’s area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah.”

    There is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state, or even talks about a Palestinian State within Israel, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean – not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947.
    It is never mentioned by any such name

    Yes Arabs were asked …….. But !!!!

    The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, voids the recommendation of any legal basis.
    In short ARABS turned down when asked any PLAN ……..for them it was and still is ONLY the Israeli destruction and ALL Jews.

    Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a “withdrawal from territories” (not “withdrawal from THE territories”) captured in 1967, are similarly “recommendations.”

    These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter’s Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations – as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, “which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken against Iraq.”

    If by chance you don’t understand Intl. Law – you should take a lawyer and file for arbitration and explanations with the T.M.C. Asser Institute on Intl. Law in the Hague.
    http://www.asser.nl/index.htm
    Good Luck

    ALSO:
    Israel White Paper –
    Israel’s Legal Rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza
    http://www.israelwhitepaper.org/

    But lets remember who told those Arabs in that region living to LEAVE ….. since according to the Arabs then, Arab States would attack Israel within a few days and then Arabs could return and Jews would be defeated ………
    Well, …… reality turned out that all Arab States in their attack against Israel were defeated and that Arab wishful dream to kill all Jews did not quite go as Arabs predicted

    Now;
    last year January the Palestinian Arabs voted newly into power the world wide listed terror organization called HAMAS.

    THE HAMAS – BACKGROUND
    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/970824.htm

    THE COVENANT OF THE HAMAS – MAIN POINTS
    http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

    So this is their prerogative but don’t blame Israel for not having any state yet … because your brethren preferred at all times terrorism and the call was and still is ………. kill the Jews.
    They never wanted obviously A State ….unless ALL of Israel was theirs

    Which your Arabs to this day fights for: The Destruction of Israel
    Saying:
    ‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will
    obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’ (Preamble)

    The Call to Jihad:
    …….’The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the
    individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation,
    it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.’ (Article 15) ….. etc…

    up to today Hamas has refused to follow the US – UN – and EU – Russian demands to stop Terrorism and recognize Israel

    Therefore the funding from these same Quartet Members – has bee stopped.

    “Unmasking Hamas’ Hydra of Terror” –
    A Simon Wiesenthal Center Report
    http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312458&content_id={8413545A-439C-4373-A19F-7CC7996A3F26}&notoc=1

    During the times when ALL Arab states did attack Israel in order to what they called to drive them into the sea of Gaza ………

    JEWS WERE CHASED FROM ARAB COUNTRIES ………
    But that NO Arab wants to talk about ……….

    Resolutions introduced in the U.S. Congress call for any reference to Palestinian refugees to be matched by similar references to Jewish and other refugees.
    The number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries far surpasses the number of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948.
    http://www.jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=2887&ref=daily_briefing

    Now at least write facts instead of propaganda

  8. loulou
    January 10th, 2007 | 10:02 am

    A) Gaza, Golan and West Bank are defined as “occupied territories under the UN resolutions. See resolution 242. Guess who don’t have any idea and knowledge about international laws?

    B) As I mentioned before, zionists only owned about 6-7% of the land, considering the British mandate area. Do you know the judgement of Salomon? The false mother accept to cut the baby, and the right mother refuse so that the baby can live. Same thing in 1948: the right owner of the land refuses the cutting because it owns the majority of the land. But nobody asked the local palestinan population.

    c) If you consider that the people that lived in Palestine, I mean the people who constructed the house, who lived by and for the work of the land, who built the cities and towns as no right to have their own state, how can assume the fact that people from Russia, France, Germany, and others countries have any right to have a state there? How can you justifiy that the people born there are controlled and settled by european people?

    D) You talk about the jewish chased from arab countries… But you ignore the fact that most of them where not “chased” but emigrate to Israël under zionist propagenda and that a lot of them regrets their emigration. As in Palestine before the coming of the zionists, Jews where a part of the Arab Islamic civilisation, with an arabic culture and language. Palestinian jews where opposed to the zionists claims. In Al-Khalil (Hebron) for exemple, they refused the newcomers. And when peasants from around the city came to massacre the jewish community in 1929, after the demonstration of thousands of zionists (amongst them the Betar)in Jerusalem to claim the al-Buraq area (Wailing Wall), most of the jewish community was saved by muslims. Palestine was an exemple of cohabitation between Christians, Jews and Muslims, and you can search for massacre before zionists came, you will find quite nothing in Palestine, as there were really hard religious confrontation for exemple in Lebannon during the XIX century. The hate against the Jews in the Arab world is not an “essence” but a construction of history, under the perpetual agression that the palestinians have to face for more than a century now.

    D) Ask the ethiopians or the indians what they think about their alyah…

    E) You make me smile when you ask Hamas to respect UN resolutions as Israël is not respecting any.

    D) Hamas is threatening Israël, BUT Israël destroys concretly every day any chance to build a Palestinian state. Where have you seen israeli parlemiantarians in Palestinian jails? Where have you seen palestinian check-points in Israël? Where have you seen an illegal apartheid Wall in Israël territory? When have you seen any palestinian tank or plane, or army? The Israeli terror is far far far much more powerful than the Hamas one. The fact that israeli terrorism is made under a “democratic” institution (as israël is a democracy, even if it is not fully the case because of the situation of the arab israelis) is not important, because the results are the same: terrorising a civilian population. The key point is that both Hamas and Israël occupation forces are commiting crimes. But the level is quiet different between an army and a milice.

    E) Resolution 242 asks Israël to withdraw from territories occupied after the six day war, and the french version precise that Israël have to withdraw “des territoires occupés” and not “de territoires occupés” as Israël claims.

    F) Tell me which states recognize Jerusalem as Israël capital and which ones have their embassies there?

  9. January 10th, 2007 | 6:25 pm

    LouLou
    It is obvious you don’t want to understand the reality of Resolutions because you misquote them

    I had given you the correct texts
    But as I said before contact the T.M.C. Asser Institute on Intl. Law in the Hague.
    http://www.asser.nl/index.htm

    You neither want to set truth about Jewish Homeland Rights – you only use Arab propaganda information – because that’s what you ONLY support
    You don’t seem to be upset about Lies.

    Reminds one of the Goebbels Syndrome
    Goebbels perfected a classic technique of propaganda via Lies …. saying the longer the lies can travel, one day they will be accepted as Truth ……..

    Well this ain’t working any more the truth will get it’s boots on and over your run of the Lies – those you and your types are spreading

    Little LouLou doesn’t get it …….
    Now you sound as the perfect Swiss Racist – even going after possible Italians … etc…
    You, obviously A solid Socialist, having the Hip attached to Islamic Jihad, because of your Islamic support against Israel … you have NO intentions to follow Truth nor Facts

    You intentionally use A Blind Eye to Truth

    You support via your actions, the PA Terrorist organizations
    which their ONLY CULTURE is and always has been;

    Kill A Jew and go to Heaven
    http://www.pmw.org.il/KJGH.htm

    Hamas in it’s own words:
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv-hamas.htm

    Teaching Children to Aspire Death for Allah
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

    Children are Combatants in PA Ideology
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.html

    PA inciting to Genocide of Suicide Terror
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html

    Denying Israel’s Right to Exist and Anticipating its Destruction
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part7.html

    Mothers Express Joy at Son’s Death for Allah
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part4.html

    Teaching Hatred of Jews, Israel and the USA in Arab world TV
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part12.html

    Clarifying History
    http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part2.html

    Indoctrinating Children & Adults to Aspire Death for Allah (Shahada) and to Violence
    http://www.pmw.org.il/indoctrinating%20children%20to%20violence.htm

    Libels, Lies & Distortions Pre Oct. 2000 War
    http://www.pmw.org.il/Libels.htm

    Libels,Lies & Distortions Since Oct. 2000 War
    http://www.pmw.org.il/Libels.htm#2000war

    Palestinian children in combat support roles: Behavior mirrors teachings in PA schoolbooks and popular culture
    http://www.pmw.org.il/schoolbooks.html

    Want me to carry on with more Proof ?
    It could fill pages
    But honestly – I know that you only fill your posts with the utmost Hate For Israel and Jews = Zionists

    So in fact you don’t need to respond

    Rather study facts I posted –
    Your inventions and constant contradictions cannot stand up to facts – no matter how much you try.
    I got your types on many Radio Talkshows – and when they could not come clean – they cut and run ……
    It’s may be your age but mainly your Left to Lenin attitude

  10. loulou
    January 11th, 2007 | 12:16 pm

    For your accusation of me being “racist, lenin oriented and nazi”, first I laugh, and second I just tell you that I am not the one supporting a racist and colonial state which don’t respect international laws and human right conventions such as the Geneva Conventions.

    As you like to refer to external links, I suggest you this text (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story413.html) :

    Isn’t it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own?

    For the moment, let’s assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, … etc. have the right of self determination?

    It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it’s true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:

    * Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?
    * Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
    * Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?

    According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe’s nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.

    Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a “Jewish National Home,” see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel’s 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:

    * A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:

    “Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there’s no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don’t know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours—even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don’t see why ‘Mustafa’ should learn Hebrew. . . . There’s a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs.” (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)

    *

    On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the “Arab question” is a

    “tragic question of fate” that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a “question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality.” In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)

    *

    As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a “turning point” important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

    “. . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

    *

    But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews’ rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

    “We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.” In 1928 he pronounced that “the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?”; and in 1930, “The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

    In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights to begin with, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine’s population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!

    *

    In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

    “The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

    * In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

    “The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn’t matter whether or not their view is correct…. They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale …. they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ….. [Arabs are] fighting dispossession … The fear is not of losing the land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ….. By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement.” (Righteous Victims, p.136)
    * In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:

    “When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves —- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.” (Righteous Victims, p. 652)
    *

    In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

    “Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews’ entry into Palestine.” (Righteous Victims, p.136)

    So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It’s worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of “The Great Syria” (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a “Jewish National Home”, see the Balfour Declaration for more details.

    This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the “Jewish people” around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

    “Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land.” (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

    In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

    Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, …etc. in the heart of “Eretz Yisrael”. The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.

    Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations’ members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to “Eretz Yisrael”, so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of “who is a Jew”.

  11. loulou
    January 11th, 2007 | 12:52 pm

    And this is for the right of return my friends :

    The Right of Return: a Basic Right

    [AJM: You forgot the link: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Right-Of-Return/Story439.html]

    That a whole population was uprooted and robbed of their land and property is an unprecedented catastrophe. There is no precedent in modern history to the case of a foreign minority destroying the fabric of the indigenous majority, occupying their land and expelling them out of their homes. This crime has no equal by any standards. The international community, which recommended the partition of Palestine, felt a deep sense of responsibility for this tragedy. Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Mediator, stated:
    “It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who had been rooted in the land for centuries. II” (ON Doc Al648, 1948).
    There are three aspects to the Right of Return which make it compelling and inevitable.
    First, the will and determination of the Palestinians. To them, the Right of Return is sacred. In spite of being dismembered and dispersed in the four corners of the earth, they maintained a monolithic structure, based on the family and the village. They intermarry across countries on a family or a neighborhood basis. A grandchild of a 1948 refugee identifies himself as belonging to his original village. On the national level, societies or syndicates for professions, trades, women, students, creative artists and others, representing the Palestinian people, have been functioning in many countries.
    Second, the Right of Return has a solid legal basis. To begin with, neither the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the UN Partition Plan of 1947, nor Armistice Agreements of 1949, are binding on the Palestinians. They were not a party to them. None of these can grant them any new rights or deprive them of their basic rights. In recognition of the rights of the Palestinians, the United Nations adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. Paragraph 11 states:
    “(The General Assembly)… resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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.”
    This Resolution was affirmed practically every year since. It has a universal consensus. Exceptions are Israel and lately the U.S.
    Some notes on this Resolution may be in order. The option of return is left to the refugees themselves. If they decide to return, they should be permitted to do so, not hindered or stopped. Doing so will be an act of aggression which deserves condemnation and/or action by the Security Council. The refugees should return at the earliest practicable date, which is the cessation of hostilities, i.e. in the period from February 1949 upon signing the Armistice Agreement with Egypt to July 1949 upon signing it with Syria. The delay of the refugees’ return from this date is a continuous violation of the Right of Return. The liability for this violation and its consequences remain with the Israelis.
    Those who choose to return are also entitled to compensation for loss of and damage to their property whether gardens, houses, workshops, shops or personal belongings. Restitution of their land, homes and property (restoration to original owner) should be made. Thus, they have the Right of Return plus compensation. Those who do not wish to return are entitled to compensation for their land as well their other property. The short reference to the Right of Return as return or compensation is therefore misleading. The compensation includes the exploitation of their property for 50 years, and the anguish they have suffered for this period, in accordance with the procedures adopted in the case of Nazi victims.
    The liability for compensation extends to the governments or authorities responsible. These include the Provisional Government of Israel in 1948, the consecutive Governments of Israel, the Jewish Agency, the Haganah, the Irgun and Stern gangs, the Jewish National Fund and others in Israel and abroad.
    The Right of Return does not derive its validity merely from UN Resolutions. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right of every individual to leave and return to his country .
    The Right of Return to one’s home is so basic that it has been stated in Magna Carta (Ch. 42) in 1215. The Geneva Civilian Convention of 1949 prohibits “individual or mass forcible transfers …regardless of motive. In the words of an authority on the subject, Mallison states that the advantage of effective prohibition is that it would make it unnecessary to exercise the right [of return”.
    The Principle of Self Determination guarantees, inter alia, the right of ownership and domicile in one’s own country. This principle was adopted by the UN in 1947. In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitly applied to the Palestinian People, including the legality of the Peoples struggle for Self-Determination and Liberation, (GAOR 2535 (xxiv), 2628 (xxv), 2672 (xxv), 2792 (xxvi». Resolution 3236 adopted by UN on November 22, 1974 is one of the most fundamental actions taken by this international body to reaffirm the inalienable rights of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted and calls for their return (para 2).
    It is a principle of international law that occupation does not confer sovereignty on the land, due to the inadmissibility of conquest. Neither occupation, nor sovereignty diminish the right of private ownership. When the Ottomans surrendered their sovereignty to the Allies in 1920, Palestinian ownership of their land was maintained. Private ownership was also respected by the mandate government. Thus, the land and property of the refugees, although now administered by Israel, remains their own, regardless of the applicable sovereignty and the passage of time, and they are entitled to return to it.

  12. January 11th, 2007 | 5:52 pm

    LouLou 

    you sound like A puppy who chases desperately it’s tail … you use simply at all times use, what is referred to “Sophism”!

    Israel is a legitimate Sovereign State – Palestinians want a State in the place OF Israel, assuming this via terrorism from day 1 (or one should say day 0) with terrorists organizations.

    Terrorism is their aim and way – They chose Terrorism from the very start – instead of proper negotiations – each single negotiation in the very past, was ONLY rejected and immediately answered by the PLO/PA with vile terror attacks against Israelis and other’s nation’s children – women, intentionally aimed for

    Before there is any doubt again:
    Jews bought their Land not as you claim took the land or worse:

    Jews by heritage from Time immortal owned land in their homeland as for example in Judea and Samaria – Jerusalem etc… etc…. etc…

    Plus
    Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders.
    The Jews bought the land, dunam by dunam (to inflated prices one may say), and not a single Arab was displaced. …

    With regard to land ownership, those that were Jewish immigrants lived on land that was legally purchased from Arabs — often absentee-owners, and for which they often paid exorbitant prices. Dr. Arthur Ruppin, one of the fathers of the agricultural settlements in Israel, decreed that Arab farmers who had been living on land acquired by the Zionist Movement from the Effendis (Turkish or Arab absentee landowners) had to be compensated even when the purchase deals for such lands did not incorporate such an obligation.

    Arabs were NOT displaced: On the contrary, the Arab population doubled in that same period. They were attracted by the economic progress being made.

    The years for which we have reliable statistics are 1922 – 1931. In those years, about 94,000 Jews immigrated, and approximately 60,000 Arabs. In other words, the Arab immigration of that period accounted for 36.8 percent of total immigration. The number of Jewish owned enterprises increased from 1,850 t o 6,007, and sixty percent of the industrial work force it employed in 1927 was Arab.

    Prior to 1922, Arabs were leaving the country; after 1922, they began to come in from Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Egypt.

    The figures for Jerusalem are even more impressive. The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 gives the following figures for 1905, reporting the Turkish census: of a total population of about 60,000, there were 7,000 Moslems, 13,000 Christians and 40,000 Jews.

     British government statistics show that in May, 1948, when the State of Israel was established, 8.6 percent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.35 percent by Arab Israelis, while 16.9 percent had been abandoned by Arab owners who fled the country.

    More than seventy percent of the land was vested in the Mandatory Power, and so reverted to Israel as its legal heir.

    The new society, that the Zionist Movement wanted to create, gave a wide range of rights to all the citizens of the future state, and this was clearly specified in Israel’s Declaration of Independence:

    “The State of Israel … will uphold full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of creed, race or sex … will guarantee full freedom of conscious worship, education and culture … will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability and the protection of all the holy places of all religions.” (14 May 1948)

    Israel stayed true to her Declaration of Independence. Despite constant conflicts with her Arab neighbors, Israel preserves intact a democratic society, which gives absolute freedom for all political ideologies. It is the only state in the Middle East where minorities enjoy full civil rights and develop along with the majority of the population.

    What in fact are the PA/PLO giving in return ? Terrorism ONLY at all and any cost lying to their own people.

     Statistics clearly show the remarkable progress of Arabs living in Israel, both in comparison with 1948 as well as in relation to those living in neighboring countries. TO THIS VERY DAY INDEED !

    Now: Zionism is a modern national liberation movement whose roots go far back to Biblical times – accepted by the UN for example: Its purpose is to return to the Jewish people the independence and sovereignty which are the right of every people.

    LETS RECALL – THE CONTINUITY OF JEWISH PRESENCE IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL 

    The physical link between the Jews and the Land of Israel was never broken over the centuries. Despite difficulties.

    The Jewish presence in the land of Israel was not extinguished at any moment even under religious persecution by Moslems and Christians. The crusaders harassed the Jewish communities in the land of Israel.
    Yet, even under crusader rule, (Thirteenth Century) 300 Rabbis arrived in the country with their families from France, and England, in order to settle and to renovate here their community life.

    During the Sixteenth Century, the Jewish communities in the Land of Israel increased.

    Tiberias was rebuilt and the Jewish population of Safed reached 15,000. Safed, the capital of Northern Galilee, became the spiritual center of Judaism, influencing the entire Jewish world. The Jewish mystical doctrine (Kabala) emerged there, and it was there that Rabbi Joseph Caro codified the Oral Law in his “Shulchan Aruch”. In that century, the Jews made up 15% of the total population in the country. In modern times, the Return to Zion began during the Eighteenth Century as a consequence of positive factors as well as negative ones such as anti-Semitism. Ever since, the process of return of the Jewish people to its land has continued and has become ever stronger.

    While the Zionist movement had as its major target the finding of a permanent solution to Jewish suffering and homelessness, it did not aim at doing so at the expense of and to the exclusion of the Arabs living then in Palestine.

    It was Zionism that struggled for human and national equality and dignity for all people.

    Still today Arab Israelis are the only Arabs in that region with equal rights in ALL including the Female Arabs  – there is over 1 million of them as Israeli citizens living in a democracy being part of the Israeli Government (Knesset)

    The so called PA Authority has never accomplished same despite having their self-governing rights and many chances for a State:

    You completely ignore that the Palestinian Arabs are solely run under self-rule for many years (already before by Arafat) by their own Government – The PA Authoriy – that is what one calls – their right to self-determination  – which was funded by billions of $$$$ from our tax moneys.

    But they failed all agreements for such self rule and all rules of law.

    The results are – No freedom within their own rulings – no rule of law – only destruction and civil war between themselves – corruption – believing in terrorism (fostered by Islamic Iran and Syria) and wanting to become a State that will be build only with and on terrorism, we see the results daily, and worse:

    International funds transferred to PA used to finance arms purchases. Not building a nation of social structures and democracy.
    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2006/International+funds+transferred+to+PA+used+to+finance+arms+purchases+17-May-2006.htm
     
    What Can We Learn from the Palestine Investment Fund Report?
    http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-27.htm

     The ideologists of Zionism did not anticipate a Jewish-Arab conflict. On the contrary, they thought it would be possible to unite the national interest of both peoples and they assumed that a modern Jewish society in the Middle East would complement the patriarchal Arab society.

    The Nonstate entity commonly known as “Palestine.”

    PA AND PLO LEGAL STATUS:
    PA and PLO do not constitute a state as defined by the law and applicable to international law because both entities lack a defined territory with a permanent population controlled by a government that has the capacity to enter into foreign relations. ‘Palestine’ is an amorphous entity whose status remains a question, and that most states recognizing ‘Palestine’ as a nation, view it as a legitimate aspiration rather than an existing reality.

    Thus confirms once again there is no such sovereign entity.

    The drafters of the Geneva Convention failed to anticipate and account for an international armed conflict involving nonstate entities.

    And, while the uniqueness of the situation is recognized by all, contemporary scholars still apply the traditional understanding of the Convention to justify its application and enforcement rather than admit that the situation is utterly outside the Convention’s scope.

    Certainly this result — the acknowledgment that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply — could be viewed as having negative ramifications for the Arab Palestinian people.

    There is simply no legal argument that can create an accommodation for a nonstate actor in a Convention restricted by the fundamental international law doctrine of sovereign rights– only states can be bound to treaties, and belligerent occupation rules only apply vis-a-vis the territory of another state.

    Given the failure of the numerous legal arguments put forth to affect the Middle East conflict, using (misusing) a misinterpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s applicability to lend international legal legitimacy to warranted attacks on Israeli policies only further strains the practical situation while adding no tangible analytical benefit.

    The elimination of incorrect assumptions about Fourth Geneva Convention applicability is ultimately crucial to making progress toward the achievement of political and legal resolution in the Middle East conflict.

    The fact that Arab Palestinians lack full citizenship and a representative sovereign government thus technically strips them of the legal badge of “affected citizens.”  

    Looking at the issue from the opposite angle, in addition to the occupant’s duties to the–in this case nonexistent–sovereign, the inhabitants of any occupied territories have a duty to obey An occupying power.

    If the rules of belligerent occupation applied to the Palestinian people (which it does not), it could be argued that the actions of the terrorist groups and even stone-throwing youths amount to consistent material breaches of the inhabitants’ duty of obedience.

    Israel and Western Sovereign States maintain rightfully that the Palestinian Authority supports terrorist organizations and refuses to exert proper police control over its territory, despite millions by the West invested and by Israel to assure law and order, therefore nullifying any acceptance of the provisions on the basis of bad faith, if not material breach.

    Additional notes Show that actually Switzerland in 1989 already refused the PLO to become a member of the 4th Geneva Convention, as they were not a Sovereign State. [As in history there had never been such state either]

    On September 13, 1989, the Swiss Federal Council decided that it could not determine whether the letter amounted to a valid accession “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the non-existence of a State of Palestine”.

    This Note argues that the states drafting the Fourth Geneva Convention neither intended nor created a treaty capable of wide application, especially not one wide enough to encompass the complex situation existing in the Middle East.

    Instead, the drafting states’ preoccupation with sovereign rights following World War II led to a disconnect between the Convention’s allegedly humanitarian aim of protecting civilians above all else and its capability to do so.

    Because the Fourth Geneva Convention’s General Provisions discuss applicability of the Convention to “High Contracting Parties” only as a direct result of post-World War II sovereign rights concerns, the fact that the Palestinian Territory  is neither a recognized state nor *992 signatory renders the provisions of the Convention moot in the context of the conflict.

    This position is consistent with a plain reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention and is supported by the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949 (Diplomatic Conference) or travaux preparatoires.

    You fail History by using same out of context.

    When the British conquered the Ottoman Empire in 1917, they gained control of present day Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and a portion of southern Syria.

    Shortly thereafter, the British Government expressed its intention to re-establish The Jewish homeland in “Palestine” through the famous Balfour Declaration.

    Britain then incorporated the terms of the Balfour Declaration into the British Mandate, which set forth the goals of Britain’s trusteeship over the region when the League of Nations charged Britain with governing the area in 1922.

    While the Balfour Declaration qualifies the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland by noting that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

    Subsequent Jewish immigration to Palestine caused a massive Arab uprising in 1936 that led the British effectively to rescind the substance of the Balfour Declaration.

    Following World War II and amidst rising hostilities between the Arabs and Jews instigated by Arabs well in the past …….

    Example: Remember as an example the 1929 Hebron Massacre of Jews –  and this long before the rightful Independence recognized and anchored in the UN charter.

    In Hebron, Arab mobs killed 65-68 Jews, wounded 58, and raped women. The lone British policeman in the town, Raymond Cafferata, was overwhelmed, and the reinforcements he called for did not arrive for 5 hours (leading to bitter recriminations).

    Many Jews survived by hiding in their Arab neighbors’ houses while others survived by taking refuge in the British police station at Beit Ramon on the outskirts of the city. The survivors of the massacre were forced to flee the community, and THEIR (Jewish) property was occupied by Arabs until after the Six Day War of 1967.
    This massacre left a deep and lasting effect on the Jewish community anywhere in Israel.

    Also did so The Safed massacre:
    The 1929 < < Safed massacre took place on 29 August during the 1929 Palestine riots. Eighteen Jews were killed (some sources say twenty) and eighty wounded. The main Jewish street was looted and burned.

    A commission of enquiry lead by Sir Walter Shaw took public evidence for several weeks. The main conclusions of the Commission were as follows.

    The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established.

    The disturbances took the form, in the most part, of a vicious attack by Arabs on Jews accompanied by wanton destruction of Jewish owned property.

    The fundamental cause … was the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews, as…. throughout history over 3000 years that is ….
     
    These Arab feelings were nothing new – going back in History Arabs tried since Mohammad’s times to exterminate Jews but did not succeed – and then tried to conquer the Jews under the term known as Dhimmis.
    A Dhimmi is a person of the dhimma, a term which refers in Islamic law to a pact contracted between non-Muslims and authorities from their Muslim government. This status was originally only made available to non-Muslims who were People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians), The status of dhimmi was one of legal and social inferiority.
     
    Historical persecution of Jews by Muslims is a Fact from Time immortal to this very day:
    As the early Muslims expanded their territory through conquest, they imposed terms of surrender upon some of the defeated peoples:
     
    Peace terms used to be as such: As the early Muslims expanded their territory through conquest, they imposed terms of surrender upon some of the defeated peoples:

    Before launching an attack he (Muhammed) would offer them three choices — conversion, payment of a tribute, or to fight by the sword. If they did not choose conversion a treaty was concluded, either instead of battle or after it, which established the conditions of surrender for the Christians and Jews — the only non-Muslims allowed to retain their religion at this time. The terms of these treaties were similar and imposed on the dhimmi, the people ‘protected’ by Islam, certain obligations.

    A classic precedent of the dhimma was an agreement between Muhammad and the Jews of Khaybar, an oasis near Medina.

    Khaybar was the first territory attacked and conquered by the Muslim state ruled by Muhammad himself. When the Jews of Khaybar surrendered to Muhammad after a siege, Muhammad allowed them to remain in Khaybar in return for handing over to the Muslims one half of their annual produce. The Khaybar case served as a precedent for later Islamic scholars in their discussions on the issue of dhimma, even though the second caliph Umar subsequently expelled the Jews from the oasis.

    This is still today’s Islamic will !!!!
    Actually it is the Saturday people (Jews) First, then the Sunday poeple (Christians) !
     
    Now to remember;
     
    The British government unsuccessfully sought to terminate the mandate and referred the problem to the United Nations.

    The United Nations General Assembly, pursuant to the advice of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, passed Resolution 181, commonly known as the Partition Plan, calling for the partitioning of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states

    Having violently opposed partition during the U.N.’s deliberation, the Arabs immediately rejected it.

    The War of Independence

    On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel proclaimed its independence.

    Almost immediately, the Arab nations, led by Syria and Iraq, and including Transjordan and Egypt, attacked the nascent state.

    Those issues I already posted about above.

    Conclusion ……. You again failed to see facts that Terrorism doesn’t bring a legal new State that would be called Palestine

    In the meantime – have a look at what a former PLO Terrorist has to say Walid Shoebat – Former PLO Terrorist who speaks out for Israel: http://www.shoebat.com

  13. loulou
    January 12th, 2007 | 10:00 am

    The fact that the state of Palestine do not exist is a fact, that’s the problem. Other problem is that the conquest of new territories by war is illegal and that the colonization and oppression of an entire population is also illegal. Every people in the world , israeli and palestinian also, have the right of self-determination. This right can not be negociate, and even a criminal like Ariel Sharon recgnized the rightful right for the Palestinians to have a state. You seem to be the only one on this planet not to recognize the existence of a people called “palestinians”. I assure you that this people exists 🙂 . For me this is nega-zionism.

    What is running now in occupied territories is the spoilation of the land, the water, and the getthoisation of an entire population. All settlements, including in Jerusalem area are illegal. More than that, the refugees of 1948 and 1967 have to right to return and to have again their properties.

    [AJM: Voir ma réaction ici]

  14. loulou
    January 12th, 2007 | 10:10 am

    Israeli Jewish myths and the prospect of American
    war: Ilan Pappe interviewed by Greg Dropkin

    [AJM: See Ilan Pappe debatting on TV]

    Dr. Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian at Haifa University who writes on the
    Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the history of the 1948 war. He was
    interviewed on 11 Sept 2002. before addressing a public meeting and
    open debate at the University of Manchester. Both events were recorded
    by Joseph Cooper and Kristin Karlsson.

    I think there are 3 main myths that inform mainstream Israeli Jewish
    society. A lot of them still believe, because that’s the way they have
    been educated, that Palestine had been empty when the Jewish
    settlers came there in the late 19th century. There is still a feeling
    there that basically the Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine are either
    a nuisance or newcomers, or irrelevant. They are an obstacle, but not
    people with rights or indigenous rights.
    The second myth is more directly connected to 1948. Most Israeli
    Jews believe that the Palestinians left voluntarily in 1948. They are
    not aware, or do not want to be aware of the fact that an ethnic
    cleansing took place in 1948.
    And the third myth concerns the Occupation. Very few Israelis would
    call it an Occupation at all. Very few relate to any of the Palestinian
    demands to end the Occupation, and most Israeli Jews would regard
    the war against them not as a war of liberation or a war against
    Occupation, but as part of the more general scheme by Arabs or
    Muslims in general to destroy the Jewish State.
    Going back to 1948 for a bit, could you give a little more detail of
    your own historical research.
    A group of us are called the “New Historians”, those who revise and
    challenge the main Israeli version of 1948. We debunk several myths.
    The first myth is that Israel was fighting the whole of the Arab world in
    a kind of David and Goliath war. Although there was a lot of war
    rhetoric from the Arab side, very few Arab soldiers were sent into the
    battlefield, and actually for most of the war there was superiority on
    the side of the Israeli army. In fact one of the most important Arab
    armies, the Jordanian army, had colluded with the Israelis before the
    war to divide Palestine. So the first myth we undermine is the “few
    against many” – which is very important in the Israeli psyche, the
    Israeli mentality.
    The second and most important myth is that the Palestinians left
    voluntarily. We found out that there was a systematic expulsion of
    Palestinians and an ethnic cleansing operation taking place.
    We also found there had been willingness on the Arab side in
    general and on the Palestinian side in particular, to conclude some
    sort of an agreement with the Jewish State after the war, and it was
    the Israeli intransigence and inflexible position that failed the peace
    efforts after the 1948 war.
    The strategy was set out even well before 1948 with the Transfer
    Committee.
    Yes. The Transfer Committee was part of the outfit in pre-1948
    Palestine, that belonged to the Jewish Agency, to the Jewish
    leadership. And its main position was actually to evaluate the “quality”
    of the 500 – 600 Arab villages, i.e. to find out which village had fertile
    land, what was the wealth of each and each village. It was preparing
    for the day that Israel would take over these villages. And then, after
    the ethnic cleansing took place, it was renamed and became more
    like a distribution committee. It had to divide the spoils between the
    various Kibbutzim movements, and the various Jewish agencies that
    dealt with Settlement. And so it was an important official facet of the
    leadership. But it was all conceived by the leader of the Jewish
    Agency and later the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion.
    The committee were just the officials, they were not the decisionmakers
    in this case.
    After the war ended, presumably some Palestinians wanted to return.
    What happened to them?
    Yes, there was a clear anti-Repatriation policy. Even before the war
    ended, most of the deserted and evicted Palestinian villages were
    erased from the earth, and either turned into Jewish settlements or
    into fertile land. So by destroying the houses, in many ways
    Repatriation or Return became impossible, although the United
    Nations sanctioned such a Return as something that Israel should do.
    Some Palestinians, a small number, 25,000, no more, succeeded in
    smuggling their way back into Israel. So there was an actual policy
    that prevented Return, a few did return and were reunited with their
    families, but most of them could not.
    How was all of this covered up? If one of the myths was that this
    never happened, how could this be sustained?
    It’s an interesting question! I still try to find my answers to that. One
    way was by creating an indoctrinating system of education, in which
    the people who perpetrated the ethnic cleansing cooperated. From
    the moment the war ended the people who fought in the war were
    also the people who wrote the history books of the war. And they
    already had a story they made up about what had happened, and that
    story was integrated into the Israeli education system, the media, the
    political discourse. And with the help of the launderette of words all
    kind of new words were invented to hide what had really happened
    on the ground. Because of the Holocaust it was easier for Israel to do
    it than for any other nation, I think. And it succeeded.
    The second reason is that the Palestinians were under such a shock
    and trauma, that when they started to tell the story it was a bit too
    late. It was so many years after, that it was less relevant in the eyes
    of many good people in the world.
    Did the left play any role in perhaps not telling the story as forcefully
    as it could? For example what was the attitude of the Soviet Union in
    1948?
    Yeah, that’s a good point. Well “left” is something obscure. In the
    local context there is the Zionist Left, there is the non-Zionist Left,
    there is the Soviet Union. Well first of all let’s state very clearly, the
    people who perpetrated the ethnic cleansing were the Left, not the
    Right-wing. The Left Zionist movement, the Socialist Zionist
    movement, are the people who expelled the Palestinians. So
    definitely the fact that they had done it, and they were seen as the
    moderate part of the Israeli polity, made it easier to cover it.
    Yes, the fact that the Soviet Union had supported the Partition
    resolution helped. But I think the Soviet position is more complicated.
    Because on the one hand it supplied arms to the Israelis, and this is
    something which of course helped the ethnic cleansing. On the other
    hand they supported the Partition resolution which did not call for an
    ethnic cleansing. In fact it called for the creation of a bi-national Arab-
    Jewish state. According to the Partition resolution, almost 50% of the
    citizens of the future Jewish State were supposed to be Palestinians.
    The fact that the Palestinians rejected the plan and so on, enabled
    the Israelis later on to say that they had accepted the Resolution and
    had it not been for the Palestinian refusal, the war would not have
    taken place. Which is I think quite a false argument. But coming back
    to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union at least supported a solution
    that at the time meant that there would be two, I would say “stateless
    states”. One has to read the Partition resolution very carefully.
    Unfortunately also the Palestinians did not read the Partition
    resolution carefully enough at the time to understand that it had more
    in it for their sake than met the eye. But then that was too late
    anyway, it was done.
    In writing about the myth that expulsion never happened you have
    called it “Nakbah Denial”
    Absolutely.
    and that obviously echoes the phrase “Holocaust Denial”
    Absolutely.
    and there are other echoes of the Nazi era in the current situation, I
    think we were all amazed with putting the numbers on the arms at
    Tulkarem. How do you interpret these echoes of Nazism?
    I would say first of all and it’s important to many people to make it
    very clear that one doesn’t, shouldn’t and cannot equate a genocide
    with ethnic cleansing. They are both terrible things but definitely a
    genocide is a far worse human crime than ethnic cleansing. And one
    should not equate the Holocaust with the Nakbah. I think that should
    be very clear and I think that most of my Palestinian friends at least
    don’t. But there is a dialectical connection between the Holocaust and
    the Nakbah. On two levels.
    One is the fact that there is a chain of victimisation here. The
    Palestinians are the victims of the victims of the Holocaust. And you
    would have expected the victims of the Holocaust not to perpetrate
    any crimes against humanity. And definitely when you start looking at
    exactly what had been done to the Palestinians, what is being done
    to the Palestinians nowadays you can see, not from the genocide
    phase of the Holocaust, I think there is no resemblance there, but
    definitely from the pre-extermination phase there are many, many
    things which resemble. Because ethnic cleansing also took place in
    Nazi Germany, and discrimination also took place before the horrible
    phase of extermination.
    So that’s on one level. The second level is no less important, that
    there is what I call the “Nakbah Denial”, “Catastrophe Denial”. I think
    there is a similar “Holocaust Denial” on the Palestinian side, and I am
    a great believer that in order to further the chances of reconciliation,
    you have to have a kind of link, an association between the ability of
    the Israelis to stop denying the Nakbah, and the Palestinians
    accepting that the Holocaust plays a role in the life of Jews in Israel,
    and the life of Jews everywhere. I’m not inventing the wheel, this was
    first mentioned by Edward Said in his book “The Dispossession of the
    Palestinians”, but I think it’s a good idea. That we are all there victims
    also of the Holocaust, not only of what we are doing to each other.
    Does it cause ripples in Israeli society now when people see these
    things?
    Oh no, unfortunately not. No the Israeli society is still numb, and very
    indifferent. We have a national singer who was appalled when she
    saw that, Yaffa Yarkoni, probably The National Singer, and she’s
    boycotted ever since she dared to say that it reminded her of Nazi
    Germany. No no, in a way it’s a non-starter in Israeli political debates,
    you’re not allowed to do this. I think you should, but you’re not
    allowed to. No unfortunately there is no sensitivity in the Israeli
    Jewish society. On the contrary I think the major thing that Israelis are
    doing now is blaming anyone who criticises them of being pro-Nazi,
    at worst, or someone who doesn’t understand the Holocaust, at best.
    You yourself have also suffered some victimisation.
    Well I suffer it in 3 levels. One is that I’ve written several books in
    English, but they are not translated into Hebrew, so this is a kind of
    boycott of books which goes on. The second one is the more sort of
    personal intimidation through the phone and letters, and so on. And
    the third one is sort of the climax of this whole campaign, there was
    an attempt to expel me from my University in May 2002. And it was
    difficult because I have tenure, I have a permanent position at the
    University. It was a legal procedure that has been suspended,
    because of international pressure.
    The concrete reasons for the last phase was that I protected a
    student, not my student but someone I know very well, who in his MA
    dissertation revealed that there was a massacre in the village of
    Tantura in the 1948 war, one of the worst massacres in that war. And
    although he received the highest grade possible for his excellent
    thesis, because the veterans of the Unit that he accused of
    perpetrating the massacre sued him in court, the University changed
    its attitude. He is being disqualified and robbed of his title. And I
    accused the University of certain things because of that, and because
    of these public accusations I was myself brought to trial, which can
    still be resumed next academic year.
    Oh, so it’s just in limbo.
    It’s in limbo, it hasn’t been dropped, and I think unless there is a
    dramatic change in the general atmosphere which unfortunately I
    cannot foresee, I’m afraid that it will be resumed, probably. I’m ready
    for this!
    I’m sure your supporters are as well.
    Yes.
    Well, I understand that you are calling for, at least a debate on the
    question of an academic boycott.
    Absolutely. I think it’s very important to distinguish it as an Israeli call
    because in the end of the day it’s up to people outside of Israel to
    decide whether they should boycott or not, I don’t think that I can
    boycott myself, it’s a kind of a paradox. I mean I have signed a
    petition which supports boycott in Israel but practically doesn’t mean
    much from my point of view.
    What I wrote and I’m going to write more in the future, that there are
    three agendas in the conflict. One is a long term agenda, which is a
    reconciliation effort, where no sanctions should be involved, no
    boycott should be involved, in fact no armed struggle should be
    involved. This should be a genuine effort by both sides to find a
    solution without outside pressure.
    Then there is the agenda of ending the Occupation, there you need
    pressure on Israel to end the Occupation but again I’m not sure
    exactly what are the right means of doing it.
    And then there is a third agenda, to which I think the boycott and my
    support of the boycott refers. And this is my conviction that the Israeli
    government is about to plan another Palestinian Catastrope. It’s
    going to use the war on Iraq to, what most Israelis would say, “solve
    the Palestine question once and for all”. Meaning expelling as many
    Palestinians as possible and destroying what is left of Palestine.
    And I think this has to be stopped and there is no way that you can
    stop it by negotiations or lobbying and so on, the only way to stop it is
    to have sanctions and to have boycott. I think these have to be limited
    boycott in time and in space, but I think that definitely a cultural and
    academic boycott can drive the message to good Israelis that there is
    a price to be paid for being indifferent. Not only for doing the things
    themselves, but even for being silent in Israel itself. And although we
    started as being 6 Israeli academics who supported it, out of 9,000,
    there are more Israelis now who understand it. I’m not trying to paint
    a picture of a massive movement, but I think there is more
    understanding than before. People are aware that the Sharon
    government will not be stopped by negotiations. And I’d rather see a
    cultural boycott than a severe economic boycott where common
    workers and farmers would be hurt, who are not to be blamed for
    what goes on, or bombing from the air by Nato or anything. It’s a
    small price to be paid, if I’m right that by that we may prevent another
    Catastrophe.
    What exactly do you want people to do?
    I want people to boycott Israeli institutes. Wherever there is an
    official and formal Israeli participation, I think Israelis should politely
    be told that as long as the present situation continues, unfortunately
    these institutions cannot be part of any international or regional
    conference. I don’t think there’s a need to hunt Israeli academics, but
    the official Israeli academic scene, or cultural scene. For example, I
    was asked by two Irish film-makers who were invited to the Haifa
    International Film Festival, whether they should come or not? And I
    wrote back, the Haifa International Film Festival, I was once an
    organiser of that Festival, is a very nice event, it’s not a political event
    and so on. And yet, the only way the people in Haifa will understand
    that there is strong dissatisfaction with the way the government is
    behaving and what it is doing, is by the fact that they would lose
    international participation in that Film Festival. So I think it was
    nothing personal against the Film organisers, it was I think a very
    reasonable and sensible political act.
    So things like your visit here, to Manchester, that doesn’t come under
    the things that you think should be boycotted?
    I don’t think that someone who calls for a boycott can be boycotted,
    it’s a bit of a paradox, I mean we are living in a world of paradox, but
    no I don’t think. If I may be bold enough to liken myself to those
    whites in South Africa who supported the ANC, maybe even were
    members of the ANC, and during the period of boycotts on South
    Africa I don’t think people boycotted the whites who joined the ANC
    or were sympathetic to the ANC. So I don’t think my personal visit is
    part of the same problem.
    So it’s a boycott of institutions.
    Absolutely, absolutely.
    You’ve mentioned the possible parallel with South Africa and
    obviously a lot of people are thinking about this in terms of apartheid,
    because of the legal framework in Israel and so on. Now during that
    period there was in fact a widespread economic boycott by trade
    unionists internationally, and indeed banks started pulling out of
    South Africa. You said that you didn’t want the boycott to go that far,
    but do you think there is a role that the trade union movement
    internationally can be playing here?
    I think there is, I mean one has to wait and see, it has to be played
    very carefully and very reasonably. Like in every campaign of
    sanctions you cannot be absolute at the beginning, you have to be
    gradual, to see if it works, it works, if it doesn’t work you have to exert
    more pressure. And probably exerting more pressure is going to the
    economic sphere, to the commercial sphere. Yes, I think that,
    unfortunately as I say there would be victims in Israel, I mean
    economic victims, cultural victims, but if something like this would not
    be done there’s going to be a lot of life lost and more importantly
    maybe, Palestine would just be erased from collective memory, from
    our conscience. And this would be another tragedy. If we can prevent
    it, we should do all we can to prevent it.
    You wrote recently about the moves to fence off Israel from the West
    Bank, to construct a rigid barrier between the two. And you point out
    that some people on the Israeli Left, perhaps in quotes, support this
    tactic.
    Absolutely
    And you point out that this completely begs the question of the
    economic viability of what’s on the other side of the fence. But it also
    has consequences for the 1 million Palestinians inside Israel.
    Yes, I wrote this article because I became very worried by the fact
    that those people who use the slogan “a 2-state solution” are using
    another slogan, and these are people of the Israeli Left, these are the
    people of the Israeli Peace Camp. The other slogan is “we are here,
    and they are there”. They are behind the fence. It’s not a fence by the
    way, the Israelis are building an electric wall, it’s much more like a
    wall of a prison than a fence between two nations. And it meant that
    anyone who is not an Israeli Jew probably has to be on the other side
    of the fence.
    And not surprisingly, Israelis from the Left, not Israelis from the Right,
    Israelis from the Left, started writing cautiously but nonetheless quite
    clearly about the possibility of transferring. they call it “voluntary
    transfer” which I think is an oxymoron, I don’t believe in it, a
    “voluntary transfer” of Palestinian citizens of Israel to the other side of
    the fence. And I think that it means that anybody outside of Israel who
    supports a 2-state solution, has to be very careful because those
    people who are now supporting a 2-state solution in Israel include
    Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He also supports a 2-state solution.
    Because what they mean in a 2-state solution is that 90 percent of
    historical Palestine would be Israel. In the other 10 percent you’d
    have two huge prison camps. One in the Gaza Strip and one in the
    West Bank. And into these two camps, Sharon wants to expel as
    large a number as possible, depending on the circumstances, of
    Palestinians both from the rest of the West Bank which would be
    annexed to Israel, and from Israel itself.
    So it raises all kinds of questions about the viability of the 2-state
    solution of which I myself was once a great supporter, and still many
    of my Palestinian friends, especially those in the Occupied Territories
    – I don’t think the Palestinian Diaspora supports it – but Palestinians in
    the Occupied Territories support. I think those who genuinely want to
    see a 2-state solution have to be very careful now with their fellow
    travellers and we have to rethink, I think, the political solution.
    Would you go as far as saying that without abandoning the Zionist
    character of the Israeli State there isn’t going to be a solution?
    Yes, I’ve written it very clearly. I think the de-Zionisation of Israel is a
    pre-condition for peace, I have no doubt about that.
    I read that you are a member of Hadash
    that’s true
    and I’d like to know whether the views that you are expressing in this
    part of the interview are also theirs, or maybe not.
    No, they are not. But they are in a period of transition so I’m trying to
    have an impact on Hadash to go in that direction. The majority of
    people who like myself are part of the leadership – though I don’t like
    that word – do not share my views. Most of the leadership would still
    go very clearly to the 2-state solution, especially as long as the
    Palestinian Authority is still there, and still Yasser Arafat believes in
    the 2-state solution. I think the rank and file are much more on my
    side. But it’s a very open debate because my idea of a 1-state
    solution is still a vision. I wish we would be already at the point where
    we have to debate whether we support a 2-state solution or a 1-state
    solution. I think we have so much on our plate before that, there’s still
    time for us to cooperate and therefore I think there is no reason or
    fear for a schism in the Party or whatever. So we are now fighting
    against the expulsion of Palestinian citizens from Israel, a more brutal
    kind of an Occupation. And when this is over I hope all of us will sort
    of rethink what will be the best solution. But as I say there is a more
    urgent agenda for us to fight for.
    Ok let’s come to Iraq. I’m sure you are opposed to the prospect of
    war
    Absolutely, quite vehement.
    but as well as telling us about your own position I’d like to hear more
    about different sections of Israeli society and indeed the government.
    Well let me start with the government and then I’ll move to the
    society. It’s interesting, just today I heard on Israeli radio, Ariel
    Sharon saying that there is no difference between Hezbollah in
    Lebanon and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He explained very well that in
    case of an attack on Iraq, Israel has the right to go into Lebanon and
    clean it from the Shi’ites, from the Hezbollah. So I think you get a
    glimpse into the Israeli plans for the contingency of a war.
    I’m more worried, and I think it’s even more feasible what the Sharon
    government is going to do in the Occupied Territories in case of an
    American attack on Iraq. What they do every day on a very slow and
    measured pace, they will do in one go. Whether it’s expulsion or
    diluting the population or destroying houses on a massive scale and
    so on. So I think the Israeli government, and it reminds me very much
    of 1948, are not really worried about an Iraqi attack. I think they know
    for sure that the chances for a serious Iraqi attack on Israel are slim.
    I’m not saying they are non-existent, of course. But I think they are
    not that worried, they think either that the Iraqis don’t have the
    capabilities, or if they have, that Israel has all the tools in its hands to
    prevent it. They are much more focused on what to do, “rightly” as
    Ariel Sharon would put it, to exploit the historical moment to the best
    of our abilities.
    Now the public is a different story. I think the public is terrified. The
    Israeli press is full of horrible stories of the plague that would fall upon
    us from the skies, and they’re really terrified. And I think this is on
    purpose. I think the Israeli government is terrifying its own public on
    purpose in order to create an atmosphere which would justify its
    actions in the future. So there is a full support for the American attack
    on Iraq, although at the same breath, the same people on the street
    will tell you “we support the American attack on Iraq, but we are very
    very frightened about the doomsday weapons the Iraqis have.” Which
    is not a very logical sentence, but it’s fully exploited by the
    government.
    And in terms of the different perspectives within the Israeli left that
    you were talking about before, where do they come out on this?
    I don’t think there is really an Israeli left.
    Well ok, put everything in quotes.
    No I mean, that’s the unfortunate thing, there are certain issues like
    the war on Iraq, like the Refugee problem, not the Occupation but the
    Refugee problem, where there is no left. There is a movement
    against the Occupation. There is, and one shouldn’t underestimate it.
    And these are people who are within the Zionist camp, but they see
    the Occupation as something which corrupts Israeli society. And
    therefore there is a certain opposition to the Occupation. But this is
    not a movement for peace, they don’t really want to reconcile with the
    Palestinians, and therefore I think they would gladly go for the wall or
    fence solution that we talked about.
    Similarly on Iraq, they support the American position. You have to
    remember that in Israel, now this is something that I think is very
    difficult to explain to people from outside Israel, America is
    considered to be the precursor of bold peace initiatives. America
    recognised the PLO five years before Israel. America talked about
    illegal settlements ten years before Israelis did. So if America goes to
    war, this is America the peacemaker. And if they decide to go, this is
    how it’s viewed in Israel, if they decide to go to war, it means that
    really they have exhausted any other possible means.
    During the first war against Iraq, I think the number of Israeli Jews
    who would oppose the war would not need a larger place than this
    very very small room.
    But now there are a larger number of people who have broken
    through some of the myths and have for example defied the blockade
    and gone in to the Occupied Territories. How do those people feel
    about the impending war?
    These are important groups of people who are supporting and aiding
    the people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but we are talking
    about a cadre of 100 to 150 people within a population of 6 million.
    So I guess that half of these people would be against the war. I’m not
    underestimating their importance but I want to make clear, I think one
    has to be accurate about it because this is what made me, after a lot
    of hesitation, support the idea of boycott and sanctions, when I came
    to the conclusion that there are not enough forces from within that
    can change the government’s policy. This is why I keep returning to
    the fact that the numbers of Israelis who are dissenting, or are
    dissenting voices, is very small.

  15. loulou
    January 12th, 2007 | 12:07 pm

    Communauté juive de Hébron pendant la période ottomane

    Le XVIe siècle aura été marqué par l’arrivée de plusieurs familles juives originaires d’al-Andalus (actuelle Andalousie) chassées lors de la « Reconquista » : Hébron abrite alors une petite communauté juive séfarade, qui se localise dans un petit quartier juif situé en contrebas de la Mosquée Ibrahim. Sur les quatre villes saintes du judaïsme (Jérusalem, Tibériade, Safed et Hébron), Hébron était celle qui abritait la communauté juive la plus pauvre et la moins nombreuse. En 1884-1885, le recensement effectué par le pouvoir ottoman montre que le district de Hébron contient une population totale de 41 555 habitants, dont seulement 436 Juifs. En 1911-1912, le recensement fait état d’une population de 56 444 habitants, dont 721 Juifs. Les instances sionistes estiment quant à elle en 1908 que la population juive de la ville était environ de 1000 individus. Mais l’estimation la plus sûr que nous possédions est certainement celle du recensement effectué par les Britanniques en 1922, qui fait état de la présence de 430 Juifs pour une population totale, dans la ville, de 16 577 habitants. A cette date, il n’y pas encore eu de pénétration sioniste au cœur de la ville, et la communauté juive de la ville est intégrée socialement à la vie de la cité : il n’y a pas d’incidents intercommunautaires à signaler avant la fin des années 20. Par contre, la communauté juive de la ville jouit depuis la fin du XIXe siècle du soutien de communautés juives européennes, qui aident financièrement les Juifs de Hébron. En 1929 éclatent des émeutes entre sionistes et arabes palestiniens à Jérusalem, à propos de la possession du mur d’al-Buraq / Mur des Lamentations, qui appartient via les awaqf à la communauté musulmane de Jérusalem, mais dont les sionistes revendiquent la souveraineté. Les nouvelles des émeutes laissent penser aux habitants de Hébron que le Mont du Temple (Haram al-shareef) de Jérusalem, troisième lieu le plus saint pour l’Islam, est menacé. Une partie des habitants de la ville et des habitants des villages environnants se soulève, et prend pour cible la communauté juive : le massacre est effroyable, et 67 juifs sont tués, tandis que des dizaines d’autres sont grièvement blessés. Dans le même temps, quelques 500 juifs sont sauvés des tueries par des voisins musulmans qui les accueillent dans leurs demeures. A la suite des émeutes, la communauté juive de Hébron est évacuée par les troupes mandataires britanniques. Lorsque le massacre a lieu, la communauté juive compte 700 habitants pour une population totale de 18 000 personnes. En 1932, 35 familles juives reviennent vivre à Hébron : elles seront évacuées par les forces mandataires britanniques en 1936, lorsque la grande révolte éclatera . Il est à noter que la communauté juive se divisait entre la communauté originaire de la ville, qui entretenait des contacts avec ses voisins arabes, et la communauté des juifs nouvellement arrivés par le biais des premières alyah de la fin du XIXe siècle et du XXe siècle, qui vivait à l’écart de la vie de la cité. Ce schéma de spatialisation, qui voit d’une part une communauté juive séfarade intégrée au sein d’un quartier de la ville (connu à Hébron comme « Harth al-Yahud »), et des nouveaux arrivants culturellement exogènes, est à l’image de ce qui s’est passé de manière générale en Palestine lors de l’immigration sioniste.

    [AJM: Les nouveaux arrivants avaient de la peine à accepter, et à seulement comprendre, le statut de dhimmis imposé par la communauté musulmane.]

  16. loulou
    January 12th, 2007 | 1:50 pm

    Faux. Les nouveaux arrivants n’avaient aucune intention de s’intégrer au sein de la population locale pour la simple raison qu’ils cherchaient la création d’un état juif.

    [AJM: Rappelons que ce qu’ils ont créé est un État démocratique, où toutes les religions aussi sont représentées. Rappelons aussi que le projet du Hamas est un État islamique, dans lequel les Juifs et les Chrétiens auraient un statut humiliant. Pas pour être méchant, remarquez – si vous croyez que l’Islam est la seule vraie religion, il devient charitable de décourager la pratique des versions que vous devez dès lors considérer comme imparfaites ou tronquées.] 

    Cette volonté s’est traduite spatialement par la création de nouveaux quartier et de colonies privilégiant le travail juif. Il n’était pas question de collaborer avec les arabes ou de vivre avec eux, étant donné que les sionistes les considéraient comme des barbares incivilisés. Quant vous parlez de dimmitude et du statut des chrétiens et des juifs en terre d’Islam, vous devrier peut-être rappeler que le racisme anti-arabe est partie intégrante du sionisme dès son origine. On peut discuter aujourd’hui de mouvements sionistes anti-racistes de gauche.

    [AJM: L’apartheid musulman nommé dhimmitude est ancré dans la loi islamique, laquelle est fondée sur les actes du prophète et la parole de Dieu (Allah) décrits par les textes sacrés islamiques. Tout cela peut être vérifié aisément. Les références sont solides et claires. Le résultat est historiquement vérifiable et n’est d’ailleurs pas contesté. En revanche, le racisme anti-arabe est une caractéristique personnelle que les lois d’Israël ne confirment pas (encore une fois, il y a des Arabes à la Knesset et jusque dans l’armée israélienne). Vous comparez une réalité confirmée par des siècles de pratique avec des élucubrations basées sur des haines personnelles et des preuves anecdotiques.]

    Je vous rappelle que les communautés juives séfarades établies en Palestine avant l’arrivée du sionisme se sont opposées aux colons et étaient culturellement arabes.

    [AJM: Certaines, oui. Et alors? Il y a aussi des Arabes palestiniens qui affirment que les Palestiniens n’ont pas été chassés par les Israéliens en 1948 mais ont quitté leurs terres sur l’injonction des dirigeants arabes. Il y a des Chrétiens qui vantent l’Islam, des Musulmans qui soutiennent les Juifs, des athées qui vouent tous les croyants aux gémonies. Et alors?]