Join us in pressuring the OECD to cancel its conference in Jerusalem

Dear friend,
These are hard but important days for us in Palestine. Just yesterday, my friend and coordinator of the Bil'in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, was sentenced to a year in prison by an Israeli military court. His sole crime was being an instrumental part in our village's campaign against the construction of the wall on our lands.
However, we mustn't allow our sadness about Abdallah's incarceration to stop our work. While Abdallah worked to highlight the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, Israel also constructs illegal infrastructure in East Jerusalem.
Between the 20th and 22nd of October, almost a week from today, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) plans to hold its bi-annual tourism conference in Jerusalem - a city whose indigenous Palestinian residents suffer from systemic discrimination and expulsion. There is not a moment to lose if we want to change this decision.
Despite Israel’s persistent violations of human rights and disregard for International law, the OECD – whose member countries include the majority of the world richest countries – granted Israel membership on May 27th of this year.
Tourism plays an important role in Israel’s colonization of occupied East Jerusalem. The state and right wing settler organizations cooperate in expelling Palestinians residents from East Jerusalem neighborhoods such as Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah for the creation of colonies and biblically theme parks for tourists.
Join us in calling on the OECD to cancel its tourism conference in Jerusalem. Please follow this link to send an email to Angel Gurría, the Secretary General of the OECD, and demand that his organization respect International law by canceling the planned OECD tourism conference in Jerusalem.
Help us highlight this injustice and voice your concern.

In solidarity,
Mohammed Khatib
Bil'in

Free Gaza's investigation has shown the following....

Regarding the attack on the flotilla, below is what we have found out. In addition, we are providing a link to the attack on the Irene from the 'most moral army in the world.' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphSiBrnBYw

Please distribute to your lists and, if in the US, write to your representatives asking them why we Americans support murder on the high seas. Greta Berlin

• The military units are "Shayetet 13" (the navy commando unit).

• The helicopters that were used to drop them on the ship (according to the media and to the army spokesperson as well) are from The IAF's Black Hawk squadron. All the helicopters of the IAF, including the Black Hawk squadron, were given to Israel as part of the US military aid.

• The new black hawks given to Israel in 2002 (of the Lima model) are most likely the ones that were used in the attack on the Maramara.

• Almost all of the weapons used by the IDF are US made, and it is 100% clear that some was used to kill the passengers on the Mavi Marmara. 

Pink Floyd Frontman Targeted By ADL For Criticizing Globalist Military Industrial Complex

Roger Waters: I’m not anti-semitic, I’m anti-occupation

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, Oct 7th, 2010

Legendary Rock group Pink Floyd’s main creative force, Roger Waters, is locked in a fierce battle with the Anti-Defamation League, after the group accused Waters of using anti-semitic imagery in his stage show.

The ADL claims that visuals accompanying the song “Goodbye Blue Sky” on Waters’ latest tour of the seminal 1979 Pink Floyd album The Wall, are intended as “a comment about Jews and money.”

The backdrop, which can be seen in the video below, features huge dark bomber planes dropping a series of red symbols, which culminate in a sea of blood on the landscape below.

The symbols include crosses, a hammer and sickle, a crescent and star, a Mercedes logo and a Shell Oil logo, yet the ADL sees the inclusion of a Star of David along with Dollar signs as reprehensible.



“It is outrageous that Roger Waters has chosen to use the juxtaposition of a Jewish Star of David with the symbol of dollar signs.” an ADL statement issued by director Abraham Foxman last week read.

“While he insists that his intent was to criticize Israel’s West Bank security fence, the use of such imagery in a concert setting seems to leave the message open to interpretation, and the meaning could easily be misunderstood as a comment about Jews and money.”

Foxman added that Waters should have “chosen some other way to convey his political views without playing into and dredging up the worst age-old anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews and their supposed obsession with making money”.

Waters has been open about his opposition to the Israeli fence for several years, and has publicly stated that The Wall live show is his form of protest against such imposed barriers.

The iconic song writer hit back at the accusations earlier this week with a letter published in The London Independent, asserting that he is not anti-semitic, but that he is vehemently anti-occupation.

“There are no hidden meanings in the order or juxtaposition of these symbols.” Waters writes.

“The point I am trying to make in the song is that the bombardment we are all subject to by conflicting religious, political and economic ideologies only encourages us to turn against one another, and I mourn the concomitant loss of life.”

The letter goes on to say that “In so far as The Wall has a political message it is to seek to illuminate our condition, and find new ways to encourage peace and understanding, particularly in the Middle East.”

Waters’ response has only encouraged the ADL to continue their accusations, however. In a response to Waters, Foxman writes:

“We have heard from many of your fans who have attended the concerts in the States and were shocked by the decision to immediately follow the Star of David with dollar signs,”

“We would ask, out of sensitivity to those who might be offended, that you change the order of the symbols so that the dollar signs are made to appear elsewhere in the show. For us, it would put this matter entirely to rest.”

Pink Floyd Frontman Targeted By ADL For Criticizing Globalist Military Industrial Complex 140410banner4

Waters isn’t about to do that however, noting that he has had an overwhelmingly positive response to the visuals, particularly from Jewish and Israeli fans.

Waters further commented that in his opinion the ADL intentionally goes after critics of Israel’s foreign policy by using anti-semitism as justification:

“It’s a screen that they hide behind. I don’t think they should be taken seriously on that. You can attack Israeli policy without being anti-Jewish,” Waters told The Independent.

“It’s like saying if you criticise the US policy you are being anti-Christian. I’m critical of the Israeli policy of occupying Palestinian land and their policy of building settlements, which is entirely illegal under international law, and also of ghettoising the people whose land they are building on.

“It’s that foreign policy I’m against. It’s nothing to do with the religion.”

Clearly the ADL did not watch the live show before making the accusations against Waters, or they are once again intentionally seeking to garner media coverage by creating a false impression of the artist’s intention.

As we have documented, the group has a history of attacking politically active groups and individuals as peddlers of hate, often because they simply disagree with government policy. It is no coincidence that the group consistently lands lucrative government contracts and tie-ins.

ADL director Foxman has been described by former colleagues as a loose cannon who routinely “hatches crackpot ideas” and “foolish initiatives” to generate publicity.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Settler drives into Palestinian boys

Director of settler organisation hits two children after they hurled stones at his vehicle in East Jerusalem. Last Modified: 08 Oct 2010 23:57 GMT

The leader of an Israeli settler organisation has hit two Palestinian boys with his car after they hurled stones at his vehicle in the Arab neighbourhood of Silwan in occupied East Jerusalem. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, David Be'eri was in his car with his son as the Palestinian children hurled stones at them on Friday. He hit the children while trying to get away. The two masked boys, Imran Mansur, 11, and Iyad Gheit, 10, were standing in the road among a group throwing stones when a car drove round the corner and ploughed into them, witnesses at the scene said. Mansur was thrown into the air and bounced off the car's windscreen before crashing to the ground. The car stopped briefly before driving off. He suffered a broken leg, while the other boy was taken to hospital to have glass removed from his arm. The incident occurred after Friday prayers, raising tensions in the area that has seen regular clashes between hardline Jewish settlers and local residents. Be'eri is a well-known right-wing activist and is the director of Elad, a settler organisation that runs the City of David in East Jerusalem. He was taken in for questioning by police and released on bail. Israeli police officers say the investigation against him will continue.

Rally-goers put jobs ahead of military aid

Above: Harry Belafonte speaking at "One Nation Working Together" rally

The principles were spot-on; the objectives had merit; the values didn't differ from those driving the international movement to end the Israeli occupation.

At last Saturday's "One Nation Working Together" march on Washington, multitudes of progressive causes arrayed across the National Mall. Whether or not rally-goers noticed the connection, their resounding themes, including "justice," "jobs," "peace" and "quality education," constitute an essential wish-list for Palestinians too.

While the US Campaign leafletted a stream of marchers in one shady corner of the Mall, tens of thousands stood in the sun before the Lincoln Memorial, where musician-activist Harry Belafonte, Jr., passionately denounced militarism (watch video here).

"This is America's wake-up call," Belafonte said. "All Americans will soon come to the realization that the wars that we wage today in faraway lands are immoral, unconscionable, and unwinnable."

The crowd replied in affirmative thunder. Talking with hundreds of other activists and visitors throughout the day, US Campaign staff and volunteers were heartened by a positive reception too – at our calls for help to end military aid to Israel (video here).

The crowd applauded when he said "the giant called democracy is at last stirring again." We encouraged marchers to ask why democracy for Palestinian citizens of Israel is being dismantled, as seen in the recent censure of Haneen Zoabi, a Palestinian Member of the Israeli Knesset.
Belafonte championed "jobs, jobs, jobs." We found some people already aware of the lines of unemployed workers in the West Bank, their mobility restricted by checkpoints, and their farms fenced off and guarded by Israeli troops.
In principle, a civil society disgusted with militarism and wasteful policy should be able to mobilize against the flow of $30 billion from U.S. taxpayers into Israeli military projects, which President Obama has affirmed for the fiscal decade 2009-2018.
That remains OUR daily focus, not only for the US Campaign and many of its member groups, but other initiatives around the nation:
This week in Chicago, the Committee for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine (a U.S. Campaign member) succeeded in placing bright, persuasive ads throughout the transit system, calling explicitly for stopping that military aid. Passengers on Chicago's "El" trains will see the ads for a full month. In Georgia, legislators received an eloquent petition for divestment from Israel by the state's Green Party. Tonight, documentarian Simone Bitton's film "Rachel" will open in New York City, telling the story of Rachel Corrie. If these calls reached President Obama with enough intensity, he would have to do as our National Advocacy Director recently wrote in the Huffington Post, and "cut off military aid to Israel ... until a time that Israel was prepared to negotiate in good faith with Palestinians on the basis of human rights, international law, and UN resolutions."
In the meantime, our campaign keeps growing, joined by more Americans who know that this can be done!

Simone Bitton’s film "RACHEL" screening in NY

RACHEL, the controversial documentary from award-winning filmmaker Simone Bitton and distributed by Women Make Movies, will screen at Anthology Film Archives from October 8-14. Simone Bitton will be in attendance on October 8 for a Q&A after each screening.

Half-marathon run for Palestine: the results

Run to the Beat, the name of the half-marathon we’ve been harassing you for sponsorship about, helpfully sent out lots of pre-race material written in annoying overly-familiar marketing speak to help us to prepare and get us in the mood. “As soon as you cross the line you’ll be wanting to sign up for 2011 to beat your 2010 time” they parped.

This, it turns out, was a lie.

I believe I can safely assume the right to speak on behalf of all three competitors when I say that I never, ever want to go through that again, and I’m really quite happy that it’s over and not coming back. Around mile 10 my legs turned to lead. The only thing to successfully take Jo’s mind off the pain was her annoyance at a preacher preaching (that’s what they do) to the runners. And Joe thought the ligaments in his knee were going to “pop”.

So thank you to everyone who has sponsored us or wished us well or supported us in whatever way you can. Because without that, this would have been nothing more than an extravagant exercise in extreme self harm, a sadomasochistic display on a par with Jo’s attempts to stay vegan, Joe ‘giving up’ smoking, or me going to a Torquay United match.

For the record, we all finished with more than respectable times. I scraped in just under 2 hours and the two Jo(e)s were just behind that. Given our lamentable training regimes, we’re all pretty pleased with that. The bananas and pantomime horses didn’t beat us, and that constitutes a success.

ISM will benefit hugely from the money raised, it’ll make a real difference on the ground in Palestine. And, if you didn’t believe we’d make it (fair enough) and were holding off on sponsoring us, now’s the time to go make a donation. Just go here to find out how:

http://www.ism-london.org.uk/sponsor-page

Thanks again to everyone!

Pete, Joe and Jo

Смъртна присъда за палестинците, продаващи земя на евреи

Междувременно Абас даде да се разбере, че няма да преговаря с Израел, ако строителната дейност в еврейските колонии на окупирания Западен бряг бъде възобновена

Палестинците, които продават земя на израелци, ще получават автоматично смъртна присъда, постанови днес палестински съд на Западния бряг, предаде АП.

Постановлението бе издадено въз основа на жалба на главния прокурор Ахмед ал Мегхани.

Той се аргументира, че сегашният закон, според който съдът има избор дали да осъди съответния палестинец на смърт или на доживотен затвор, не е достатъчно строг.

На практика палестинският президент Махмуд Абас не е одобрявал изпълнението на смъртни присъди, откакто пое поста през 2004 г.

Иначе в миналото е имало случаи на линчуване на палестинци, заподозрени в продажба на земя на израелци.

Палестинците са много чувствителни по този въпрос, отбелязва АП.

Междувременно Абас даде да се разбере, че няма да преговаря с Израел, ако строителната дейност в еврейските колонии на окупирания Западен бряг бъде възобновена, предаде АФП.

"Преговорите ще продължат, докато колонизацията е замразена, но не съм готов да преговарям и един ден, в случай че колонизацията бъде възобновена", обобщи Абас на път за Ню Йорк, където ще присъства на годишната сесия на Общото събрание на ООН.

Предвидено е палестинският президент да произнесе важна реч за близкоизточния мирен процес и за усилията за прекратяване на израелската окупация на завладените по време на войната през 1967 г. палестински земи и за създаване на независима палестинска държава с Източен Ерусалим за столица, съобщи неговият говорител Набил Абу Рудейна.

Преките израелско-палестински преговори за мир, които бяха възобновени на 2 септември под егидата на Съединените щати, "удрят на камък" заради строителната дейност в еврейските селища на Западния бряг.

Zionist incitement to violence against SPSC speakers: Gideon Levy and Ben White

The last speaker hosted by Scottish PSC was Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, in August. Shortly after his speaking tour, the Jewish Telegraph published a letter calling for the speaker to be ‘eliminated’, killed. The Jewish Telegraph is now the subject of several complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, on the grounds that publications in this country should not incite the murder of public figures, however acceptable that may be in Israel. (How long would the police have taken to make an arrest if a UK Muslim publication had called for the ‘elimination’ of a well-known journalist?)

This incitement to violence from a mainstream Zionist publication is increasingly common. Ben White, another journalist and the author of Israeli apartheid: a Beginner’s Guide, is speaking at a series of Scottish meetings starting tomorrow. Zionist websites already display Photoshop images of Ben in Nazi uniform, accusing him of anti-Semitism, living in “Londonistan”. He is said to watch “concentration camp news reels into the wee hours” for pleasure. Such vile language is incendiary.

Ben White, author of Israeli apartheid: a beginner's guideBen White will be speaking at venues across Scotland on a tour organised by local branches of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Edinburgh: Monday Sep 20th @ 1.30pm
Edinburgh University, David Hume Tower, George Square.
SPSC & Students for Justice in Palestine

Glasgow: Monday Sep 20th @ 7.30pm
STUC offices, 333 Woodlands Rd

Aberdeen: Tuesday Sep 21st @ 12noonAberdeen University, New Kings Building, Room NK10

Dundee: Tue 21st Sep @ 7.30pm
Dundee University, Tower Building, Room T9

St Andrews: Wed 22nd Sep @1pmHoly Trinity Church, St Andrews

Comments on his book:“This book deals rationally and cogently with a topic that almost always generates considerable heat even just with book titles. The reader may not agree with everything that White asserts but it is a highly commendable effort to throw light on a fraught subject.”
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

“A very strong and clear voice that does not shun from exposing in full, and in a most accessible manner, the essence of Zionism and Israeli policies in Palestine. In a world confused by competing narratives, disinformation and fabrication, this book is an excellent guide for understanding the magnitude of the crimes committed against the Palestinians and the nature of their present suffering and oppression.”
Professor Ilan Pappe, University of Exeter, Israeli historian and author of ‘The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine’ (2007)

“This book provides one of the best introductions to the Israel/Palestine conflict. It reveals what mainstream media in the West seeks to conceal from the public: that Israel has an apartheid regime which has been obsessed with demographic racism and ethnic cleansing and for six decades. The book provides an indispensable context for understanding the origins and consequences of the conflict. It also makes by far the most compelling case for ‘peace with justice-not apartheid’.”
Nur Masalha, Reader in Religion and Politics, St Mary’s University College (UK), and author of The Bible and Zionism (2007)

“Is Israel an apartheid state? The answer to this question has enormous implications for how states and international civil society should act towards a country that bills itself as the moral guardian of the memory and lessons of the Nazi Holocaust – that is why it is so heavily contested. But there is no doubt that Israel is constituted as a “Jewish state.” The problem is that half the population it controls – the indigenous Palestinians – is not Jewish. In this carefully-researched book, Ben White demonstrates that indeed Israel could have become and could not continue to be a “Jewish state” unless it used discriminatory tactics that resemble and often surpass those of apartheid South Africa. At a time when Israel appears to regard any action against Palestine’s indigenous people — no matter how violent and illegal — as justified, this book is essential reading for those who want to deepen their understanding beyond soundbites and spin”
Ali Abunimah, Co-founder of Electronic Intifada, author of ‘One Country’ (2007)

“Ben White’s new book Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide is a useful introduction to a vital debate. To understand the challenges of the current situation in the Middle East we must revisit the long and often painful journey that led from the creation of Israel to the forty-year long occupation of the Palestinians. This challenging new work unpicks some of the myths of that story and forces us all to look again at the reality of current Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.”
Crispin Blunt, Conservative Member of Parliament for Reigate

“There are always those who say the conflict in Palestine is too complicated for anyone to dare engage with it, much less understand it. Yet here is the book which answers them, and it does so with a rare intelligence and fine line of argument. Drawn from a rich range of sources, Ben White’s ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’ takes on the most complex arenas of injustice and contested history, and renders them accessible, lucid, and morally compelling. Never compromising on the facts, its narrative both enlightens and inspires. If you want to learn about Palestine, start here.”
Karma Nabulsi, Oxford University academic

“An essential guide for understanding the reality of Israeli apartheid – both the history, and the day to day reality.”
Eyal Weizman, Israeli architect and author of ‘Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation’ (2007)

“I am impressed by Ben White’s clear-minded journalism and analysis. I have quoted from an article of his in a speech to The House of Commons. I feel sure his book will be of value in understanding the attitudes behind the Middle East division.”
Harry Cohen, Labour Member of Parliament for Leyton and Wanstead

“White’s book helps us see much more clearly both what is happening in Israel/Palestine but also what we must do about it. If you really care about peace in the Middle East, read this book. Then commit yourself to supporting non-violent proactive ways to bring justice with peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
Rev. Stephen Sizer, author of ‘Zion’s Christian Soldiers’ (2007)







Keep up to date with Scottish PSC on Twitter: @scottishpsc
Scottish PSC Factsheets available for download from: www.scottishpsc.org.uk  

Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
c/o Peace & Justice Centre
Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 4BJ
www.scottishpsc.org.uk  
campaign@scottishpsc.org.uk  
00 44 (0)131 620 0052
00 44 (0)795 800 2591

Get involved - campaign, lobby, take action...
Contact Scottish PSC branches to find out more about activities in your area:
fife@scottishpsc.org.uk  
southwestscotland@scottishpsc.org.uk  
aberdeen@scottishpsc.org.uk  
dundee@scottishpsc.org.uk  
glasgow@scottishpsc.org.uk  
edinburgh@scottishpsc.org.uk  

If you are interested in holding a meeting in your area, contact us at campaign@scottishpsc.org.uk  

Take Action Against Isolation – Free Ahmad Sa’adat!

INTERNATIONAL DAYS OF ACTION – OCT 5-15, 2010

http://freeahmadsaadat.org/

Imprisoned   Palestinian leader Ahmad Sa’adat will be returning to court in mid-October 2010 challenging his isolation and the isolation of  Palestinian political prisoners in  Israeli prisons. Write letters today and take action from October 5-15,  2010 in support of Palestinian prisoners’ struggle for freedom – demand  an end to isolation! 

www.freeahmadsaadat.org/indexb.html

Ahmad Sa’adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the  Liberation of Palestine, has been held in isolation in a series of  prisons since March 16, 2009, with his isolation renewed again and again  by
occupation courts. He has been transferred from prison to prison,  and is  currently held in the isolation section of Ramon prison in  the Naqab desert. Within these isolation units, Sa’adat has been  placed further inside a separate isolation unit where he is confined  without access even  to the other prisoners in isolation, and deprived of  basic human rights. 

His personal books have been confiscated and he  is allowed access to newspapers only once or twice weekly. He is denied  access to English and Arabic language newspapers and allowed only  Hebrew-language media. He has been repeatedly denied family visits – his wife, Abla, has been  allowed only two visits during his entire period in isolation – as well  as legal visits, and barred from  purchases at the prison canteen, including cigarette purchases. In the  prison yard, Sa’adat has been held handcuffed  and in ankle shackles and  allowed only one-hour of exercise/recreation. The Prison Administration  is  attempting to criminalize the human and social relationship between  fellow Palestinian prisoners, and between the
prisoners and their  families outside.
Sa’adat has led in the struggle against isolation, engaging in a  nine-day hunger strike in 2009 in protest of isolation. Isolation is  damaging and destructive to the mental and physical health of  Palestinian prisoners, and is being used as a political weapon in order  to punish and isolate
Palestinian prisoner leaders. Some prisoners have  been subject to isolation  for years at a time, with severe effects. Take  action now to fight isolation and demand the freedom of Ahmad Sa’adat  and all Palestinian prisoners! 
 www.freeahmadsaadat.org/october.html


TAKE ACTION TODAY!
1. The Campaign in Solidarity with Ahmad Sa’adat in  Palestine is calling upon all supporters to write letters to the Israeli Prison Service and demand they end the practice of isolation, end human rights violations, and free Palestinian prisoners. Send an email to the Bureau of the  Minister of Public Security at sar@mops.gov.il and to the Public Complaints Department at mevaker@mops.gov.il, and copy the following:

Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister, Office of the Prime  Minister, 3,
Kaplan Street, PO Box 187, Kiryat Ben-Gurion, Jerusalem,  Israel, Fax: +972-
2-651 2631,
Email: pm_eng@pmo.gov.il
Mr. Menachem Mazuz, Attorney General, Fax: + 972 2 627 4481; + 972 2 628
5438; +972 2 530 3367
Brigadier General Avihai Mandelblit, Military Judge Advocate  General, 6
David Elazar Street, Hakirya, Tel Aviv, Israel, Fax: +972 3  608 0366, +972
3 569 4526,
Email: arbel@mail.idf.il, avimn@idf.gov.il

Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations Office and  Specialized
Institutions in Geneva, Avenue de la Paix 1-3, 1202 Geneva,  Fax: +41 22 716
05 55,
Email: mission-israel@geneva.mfa.gov.il

You may use our online form at: www.freeahmadsaadat.org/action3.html
2. Write a letter to Ahmad Sa’adat. Letters of support are important and demonstrate solidarity with Ahmad Sa’adat and  Palestinian prisoners – let him know that the world is demanding his  freedom. Email the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa’adat at info@freeahmadsaadat.org with your letters, or use our contact form at: http://freeahmadsaadat.org/contact.html.
We will send all  letters received to Palestine.
We also encourage you to write to him directly using this address: Ahmad Sa’adat, Ramon Prison, Ramon area, PO Box 699, Postal Code 80600, Israel.  

JOIN THE WEEK OF ACTION, OCTOBER 5-15, 2010!

1. October 5-15, 2010 will be international days of action in  support of Ahmad Sa’adat and Palestinian prisoners and against  isolation . Join us! Hold an event, protest or action in your city. Email  the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa’adat at
info@freeahmadsaadat.org to be added to the global list of actions.
2. Distribute the Free Ahmad Sa’adat flyer:
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/saadat-flyer.pdfin your town, city, event or location! Bring the fliers to events and  activities, or hold a flier distribution at a public place.
3. Protest outside the Israeli embassy or consulate in your location (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+missions/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+Missions+Abroad.htm) and demand the immediate freedom of Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian political prisoners. Ahmad Sa’adat has been imprisoned since 2002 in the prisons of the Palestinian Authority, held under U.S. and British guard, until his
abduction by the Israeli occupation forces on March 14, 2006 by an  occupation military raid on Jericho prison. On December 25, 2008, he was sentenced to thirty years inside the occupation prisons. He is a member  of the Palestinian Legislative Council and one of the foremost  Palestinian  national leaders held inside the occupier’s jails.
Ahmad Sa’adat and approximately 7,000 Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa’adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and  for all of Palestine!

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa’adat www.freeahmadsaadat.org

9/16 REMEMBRANCE DAY. SABRA AND SHATILA MASSACRE.

HELLO AND ASSALAMUALAIKUM. MAY PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON ALL OF YOU.

An event took place, almost twenty years before 9/11, an event that took more lives, an event that was just as barbaric, but was instantly forgotten, never to take a place in our collective consciousness. A truth which is rarely mentioned in the Septembers of our lives.

For three days in September 1982, Israeli forces in collusion with the Lebanese Militias, s...laughtered, raped and maimed thousands of unarmed civilians inside the encircled and sealed Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut. More than three thousand five hundred innocent men, women and children were massacred.

The figures of those that died are disputed, (The estimate of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) to 3,500) but it is difficult to tell how many were butchered, their bodies lying tangled, crushed under the concrete rubble of the houses they sought shelter in.

To this day, amidst all the attempts to seek justice, no one has been held accountable for this genocidal act. Yet the warlord Ariel Sharon, who was responsible for this heinous act, was proudly rewarded for his actions with the Premiership of his country, even though the Israeli Kahan Commission found him to “bear personal liability” for the events at Sabra and Shatila.

These September events remain stuck in the memory of our collective horror and guilt. They are remembered by every human being. Unlike any other violent act, the wantonness and scale of large-scale killings of innocents puts the event on a different level altogether, a level shared by other notorious tragedies in modern history: Halabja in Kurdish Iraq in 1988, the killing fields of Cambodia, Srebrenica in Bosnia, Sabra and Shatila, and of course New York

Such atrocities are different from ordinary crimes because of their context and magnitude. By its sheer size, its wantonness, its ferocity, its callousness, its planning, the means used and the thousands of innocent civilians destroyed in a brief lapse of time, the crime then qualifies as a crime against humanity, a category which is well defined in international law and carries the common responsibility of all humankind.

This article in no way, shape or form condones the acts of September 11 2001. In fact when the lives of those in New York were extinguished forever, it was something Muslims the world over could empathise with.

As those responsible for the crimes against humanity perpetrated against the citizens of New York and Washington are being pursued across the world into the tenth year of the ever expanding “war against terror”, one has to ask oneself why is it that “American Imperialism” has been allowed to seek its revenge against the rest of the world, yet no one can be bought to justice over Septembers' other atrocities?

Have we accepted the fact that the appalling deaths of those on September 11 2001, are more morally abhorrent than the 30,000 lives destroyed by Putin when he razed Grozny or the daily atrocities committed in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir?

Acceptance of this is totally obscene.

The question we must address is one of law.
Are all human beings subject to the same law, and more importantly, to the same application of the law?

Will all the victims of these devastating September days see those responsible for their suffering appear before a court of law?

The question is as old as history, yet this question has acquired additional meaning in a world after September 11 2001.

ON THIS DAY FOR 3 DAYS PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS PRAYER ON YOUR STATUS IN REMEMBERING OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN PALESTINE.

"Our God,
Lord of the two Easts and the two Wests,
Our God,
Lord of the Holy Place (Jerusalem) and the two Sacred places (Makkah/Madinah)
Oh Allah, correct the position of our Ummah...
the Victims of the catastrophe in Palestine
Oh Allah secure their fears
Reward them as you wish
Oh Allah swap their fear for peace,
Oh Allah swap their fear for Peace,
Oh protector of the fearful,
Oh hope of the needy,
Oh Granter of the prayers of the oppressed,
You are the Lord of the weak,
and You are our Lord,
There is NO diety worthy of worship except YOU! "



please view this documentary made by Robert Frisk. :-



An eye witness report from doctor Ang Swee Chai :-

http://www.inminds.com/from-beirut-to-jerusalem.html

Al jazeera report :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eidBhGS9i9g&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Letter to israel

Journalist Lauren Booth was on the first Free Gaza voyage and stayed to work ...

September in our lives...

The picture is of victims of the Israli pogrom against Palestinians done at the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982.

"An event took place, almost twenty years before 9/11, an event that took more lives, an event that was just as barbaric, but was instantly forgotten, never to take a place in our collective consciousness. A truth which is rarely mentioned in the Septembers of our lives." (Mr. Pity)

Sabra and Shatila are the names of two Palestinian Refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon. From 16 to 18 September 1982 inclusive, during the Lebanese civil war, a massacre was carried out on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in the camps.
The Is...raeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and in early 1983 it found Israel indirectly responsible for the event, and that Ariel Sharon bears personal responsibility for the massacre for allowing the Phalangists into the camps. The Israelis had been supplying the Phalangists with weapons and equipment, and had provided transportation of the Phalangists to the camps.
The total number of killed is estimated at 3,000 - 3,500.

Започна срещата между израелски и палестински лидери в Египет

14.09.2010 13:25

Израелският премиер Бенямин Нетаняху и президентът на Палестинската власт Махмуд Абас дадоха старт на тридневната си среща с държавния секретар на САЩ Хилари Клинтън в египетския курорт Шарм ел-Шейх. Абас и Нетаняху се ръкуваха и се усмихнаха за камерите, но без да правят коментари. Те се разположиха от двете страни на Клинтън с националните флагове зад тях. Американският специален пратеник за Близкия Изток Джордж Мичъл също присъства на срещата. /АФП /

A letter to the people of Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgp_3_rPWwo

Journalist Lauren Booth was on the first Free Gaza voyage and stayed to work in Gaza after the boats left. Her heartfelt letter to the people of Israel should be read and seen by everyone who hopes for peace in the Middle East. This stunning video tribute to her words was designed and produced by the Free Gaza movement.

--
Greta Barlin, Gaza Friends

Mideast Quartet calls for Israel, Palestinian talks

Reuters – A Palestinian rides a boat during a protest at the Gaza Seaport against Israel's interception of …

1 hr 31 mins ago

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The Quartet of Middle East peace mediators on Friday invited Israel and the Palestinians to reopen direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington aimed at creating a Palestinian state.
"The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement," said the statement from the United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations.
"The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric," it added.
(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Палестинските лидери приветстваха декларацията на Квартета за Близкия Изток

Палестинските лидери приветстваха декларацията на Квартета за Близкия Изток, която ги кани да се присъединят към преките мирни преговори с Израел следващия месец, съобщи високопоставен палестински представител. Декларацията, оповестена в Ню Йорк от името на САЩ, ЕС, Русия и ООН, "съдържа необходимите елементи за постигането на мирно споразумение", заяви за Ройтерс главният палестински преговарящ Саеб Ерекат. Той каза още, че за момента не коментира едновременната покана за започване на преговорите, която отправи във Вашингтон американският държавен секретар Хилъри Клинтън. /Ройтерс /

Palestinians rally against Gaza buffer zone

KHAN YOUNIS (Ma'an) -- The Popular Resistance Campaign marched toward Israel's no-go zone Monday in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, in protest over land confiscation and prohibited access to farm land.

The march began at the Absan Al-Jadeda village east of Khan Younis toward to the zone, with protesters waving Palestinian flags and banners denouncing Israel's ban on access to the area that it considers a live combat zone.

Protesters said Israeli forces opened fire as they arrived at the area, where they placed Palestinian flags. No injuries were reported.

Imad Asfour, the Khan Younis campaign coordinator, condemned Israel's opening of fire and said the area was bulldozed daily.

During a speech at the rally, Adnan Al-Faq'awi said the Popular Campaign will continue to host marches and peaceful activities against the buffer zone in the eastern and northern part of Gaza, despite the threat of Israeli fire. He called for support for farmers affected by the no-go zone.

Al-Faq'awi further called for Hamas and Fatah to reconcile to defend Palestinian land from further land confiscation.

Етническо прочистване в пустинята Негев

Famous Quotes - David Ben-Gurion

1886-1973

In describing the following encounter, Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers) briefly summarized Ben-Gurion's relations with the Palestinian Arabs, Teveth stated:

"Four days after the constituent meeting, on October 8, 1906, the ten members of the platform committee met in an Arab hostel in Ramleh. For THREE DAYS they sat on stools debating, and at night they slept on mats. An Arab boy brought them coffee in small cups. They left the hostel only to grab an occasional bite in the marketplace. On the first evening, they stole three hours to tour the marketplace of Ramleh and the ruins of the nearby fortress. Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the [Palestinian] Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine [which was mostly non-Zionist Orthodox Jews prior to 1920]. In all of Palestine there were [in 1906] 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were [Zionists] pioneers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 9-10)

This attitude of ignoring the political rights of the Palestinian people was (and still is) the rule among most Zionists. According to  Ben-Gurion's biographer, it's not only that Palestinians were the majority in their homeland as early as 1906, it also should be noted that:

• The majority of Palestine's Jews were not citizens of the country, but guests from Tsarist Russia.
• The Jews in Palestinian were mostly Orthodox Jews who made up 7.8% of the total population.
• At the time, the majority of Orthodox Jews were non-Zionist. Actually, the majority were anti-Zionist.
• Zionist pioneers were almost absent in Palestine as of 1906, and constituted only 1% of the total Jewish population in Palestine.

As early as 1914, Ben-Gurion admitted secretly that Palestinian nationalism existed, at least among the working masses. He explained that Palestinians' hatred
of Zionism was based on their fear of being dispossessed. Ben-Gurion analyzed this hatred and stated:

"this hatred originates with the [Palestinian] Arab workers in Jewish settlements. Like any worker, the [Palestinian] Arab worker detests his taskmaster and exploiter. But because this class conflict overlaps a national difference between farmers and workers, this hatred takes a national form. Indeed, the national overwhelms the class aspect of the conflict in the minds of the [Palestinian] Arab working masses, and inflames an intense hatred toward the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 18-19)

By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor (Avodah Ivrit) in Jewish businesses. He explained why a Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary because:

"[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 12-13)

What if the average Christian American was more "intelligent and diligent" than his Jewish American, would that justify discrimination in the work force? How could the question of whether someone was more "intelligent and diligent" or not be measured in a fair and a balanced way?

From the beginning, Zionists advocated a "Jewish State" not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future "Jewish state's" frontiers in details as follows:

"to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi 'Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-'Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan" (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87)

In an article published by Ben-Gurion in 1918, titled "The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine," he conceded that the Palestinian Arabs have the same rights as Jews. He explained that Palestinians had these rights since they had inhabited the land "for hundreds of years". He stated in the article:

"Palestine is not an empty country...on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants." Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p.37-38)

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 at all, 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!

As WWI was ending, Ben-Gurion went on to draw a map of the "Jewish state" to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical "Eretz Yisrael"), and limited the "Jewish state's" future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized this decision as follows:

"It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus...This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing." (Shabtai Teveth, p.34)

If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their "Promised Land" needed them during the Crusaders' genocide!

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919 and after WWI ended, Ben-Gurion envisioned future Jewish and Palestinian Arab relations as follows:

"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)

As WWI was winding down, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that Zionism's ultimate objective is to make Palestine (inclusive of Trans-Jordan) a land with a Jewish majority. He stated in November 1917:

"Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 43)

From the start, Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish societies in all sectors. For example, Jews in Palestine had their separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political sectors that were opened to Jews only. The segregation of Palestine's society was nurtured by the Zionists to make it easier to partition the country when the "appropriate" time comes. In that regards, he stated in the 1920s:

"The assets of the Jewish National Home must be created exclusively through our own work, for only the product of the Hebrew labor can serve as the national estate." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 66)

Similarly, he stated in theearly 1920s:

"Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses. Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism." (One Palestine Complete, p. 288)

Early on, Ben-Gurion envisioned that Zionism would not be in conflict with Palestinian Arab rights. He stated in 1925:

"I am unwilling to forego even one percent of Zionism for 'peace'---yet I do not want Zionism to infringe upon even one percent of legitimate [Palestinian] Arab rights" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 70)

As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in the early 1930s, the need to save European Jewry became more acute. Ben-Gurion then recognized that Zionism could not be realized without infringing Palestinian rights. The shift in Ben Gurion's opinion becomes clearer as you examine more quotes, especially the ones dated 1930 and onwards. It should be noted that the Palestinian people were a 2/3 majority of the population of Palestine as of 1946. Ironically, the demographic picture persists to this date, but with one exception. 65% of the Palestinian people are dispossessed refugees who live outside Palestine, mostly living in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

As the first popular response against the Balfour Declaration (in which Britain promised the Zionists to turn Palestine to a "Jewish National Home"), Palestinians organized their first commercial strike in 1922. Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national movement was evolving. He wrote in his diary:

"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the [Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 80)

Similarly in 1929, he also wrote of the Palestinian political national movement:

"It's true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the [Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it."

"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The [Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national movement."(Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)

When it was proposed that the Jews in Palestine organize an army and seize power in November 1929, Ben-Gurion offered these objections, first,

"The world will not permit the Jewish people to seize the state as a spoil, by force." Second the Jewish people did not have the means to do so. And third and most important, it would be immoral, and the Jews of the world would never by this immoral cause. "We would then be unable to awaken the necessary forces for building the country among thousands of young people. We would not be able to secure necessary means from the Jewish people, and the moral and the political sustenance of the enlightened world...Our conscience must be clean... and so we must endorse the premise in relation to the [Palestinian] Arabs: The [Palestinian] Arabs have full rights as citizens of the country, but they do not have the right of ownership over it." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 97)

Similarly in 1928, Ben-Gurion stated that there is no contradiction between Zionist and Arab aspirations. He stated that Zionism stands for absolute justice for both parties. He explained that:

"our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single [Palestinian] Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 159)

It is not only that Ben-Gurion was 100% wrong with his earlier assessments, but also:

• The world permitted the "Jewish state" to occupy and seize by force the spoils of war.
• Western World) supported the "Jewish state" regardless of whether it was
  moral or immoral. This support was successful because of an effective propaganda campaign that carefully exploited the tragedy of the holocaust. After the holocaust, most Jews (along with the whole
• Palestine's lands, and as of 1946 they owned 93% of the country.
  As of 1929, the Palestinian people owned and operated over 96% of
• are even today denied their basic human rights because Zionism had to "attain all that it
  The mass majority of the Palestinian children, if not all, seeks."

Prior to 1928-1929, we find no evidence that Ben-Gurion intended to dispossess and to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people. However, everything changed as the sword hung over the German and Polish Jews in the mid 1930s. Ben-Gurion abandoned the goal of achieving peace with Palestinians in favor of increasing Jewish immigration. As the number of Jews in Palestine doubled between 1930-1936, the Palestinian people feared future dispossession and displacement.

This fear triggered the First popular Intifada between 1936-1939, examine the following few quotes for more details. According to Ben-Gurion, the survival of the European Jewry was in question, and he looked at the matter as a life or death one for Zionism (and maybe for the "Jewish people" as well). For example, he
stated in the early 1930's:

"If  Zionism returns to be what it was ten or fifteen years ago-with Jews entering the country one by one- then the issue of Palestine is liable to be dropped from the Jewish people's agenda. The Jews of Germany must be gotten out of there, and if it's impossible to bring them to Palestine, then they will go somewhere less, and Palestine will become the hobby of enthusiasts."

"If Zionism over the coming years does not provide an answer to the calamity which has befallen the Jewish people, then it will disappear from the Jewish stage." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 154)

The concept of a "Jewish Majority" in Palestine is one of Zionism's major pillars. This point was eloquently articulated by Ben-Gurion when he stated in 1929:

"A Jewish majority is not Zionism's last station, but it is a very important station on the route to Zionism's political triumph. It will give our security and presence a sound foundation, and allow us to concentrate masses of Jews in this country and the region." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 103)

In the context of the 1929 disturbance, Ben Gurion spoke of the emerging Palestinian nationalism, and the main goal of Zionism (where Palestine's population becomes a "Jewish majority") to the secretariat of the major Zionist groupings. He said:

"The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement ...The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to
be the majority." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.18) Since Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) could not become a majority as of 1948 (click here for Palestine's demographic map as of 1946), Zionists resorted to compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) to solve what they referred to as the "Arab demographic problem". To hide their basic goals and intentions, they have concocted the myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, and businesses on the orders of their leaders.

Finally, Ben-Gurion admitted the mistake of trying to buy off the Palestinian national movement. In the early 1930s, he stated during a Mapai forum:

"We have erred for ten years now ...the crux is not cooperation with the English, but with the [Palestinian] Arabs." By this he meant not merely a relationship of friendship and mutual aid, but political cooperation, which he called the "cornerstone" of the "Arab-Jewish-English rule in Palestine. Let's not deceive ourselves and think that when we approach the [Palestinian] Arabs and tell them 'We'll build schools and better your economic conditions,' that we have succeeded. Let's not think that the [Palestinian] Arabs by nature are different from us." In the heat of the argument, Ben-Gurion said to one of his critics and asked: "Do you think that, by extending economic favors to the [Palestinian] Arabs, you can make them forget their political rights in Palestine?" Did Mapai believe that by aiding the Palestinian Arabs to secure decent housing and grow bumper crops they could persuade the Palestinian Arabs to regard themselves "as complete strangers in the land which is theirs?" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 114)

As the numbers of Jews in Palestine (the Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, Palestinians feared future dispossession and displacement. In opposition to this, the Palestinian national movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, Palestinian demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionists' concern. He told his 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) Ironically, often Zionists claim that Palestinian  nationalism never existed as a justification for denying them the right of self determination. On the other hand, as we have seen in the previous quote, Palestinian nationalism was alive and well as early as 1936.

When Ben-Gurion heard of the Passfield White Paper in 1931 (which proposed halting the implementation of the Balfour Declaration), he was furious with "these cowardly traitors" who were responsible for the proposed new policy. He stated:

"England is a great power, the greatest empire. But to shatter even the largest stones on earth, it takes only a small quantity of explosive powder. Such powder packs tremendous force. If the creative force within us is capable of stopping this EVIL EMPIRE, then the explosive force will ignite, and we will topple this blood-stained imperium...We will be those who take this war upon ourselves and beware thee, British Empire!" (Shabtai Teveth, p. 111) Ben-Gurion called on his colleagues to "prepare for a long and difficult road, if we are left with no alternatives, a road of alliance with the Arabs against these despicable powers." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 112) Although
the British Government nullified the Passfield White Paper soon after, and the alliance between Great Britain and the Zionists continued to flourish until 1945, Ben-Gurion (who commanded the Haganah), Yitzhak Shamir (who commanded the Stern Gang), and Menachem Begin (who commanded the Irgun Gang) all joined forces to wage a war of terror against the British forces in Palestine and the Palestinian people between 1945-1947. Similarly, we predict that when Israel's alliance with the United States outlives its usefulness (especially when the American people recognize that supporting Israel, right or wrong, would not be in their national interests), then the American people will come face to face with a tyrant whom they have armed, financed, and trained. Now Israel has several hundred A-Bombs, and bulling it may not be an option! Time will tell if this "holy alliance" will last and won't collide with America's strategic national interests in the Middle East! In such a case, we wonder how America might react?

Ben-Gurion had strange ideas to justify why Jews have the right to settle in Palestine. He explained that the right of the Jews to Palestine rested on their capacity for developing its resources. He declared in 1930:

"We do not recognize any form of absolute ownership over any country. Any group of diligent persons, every industrious people, is entitled to enjoy the fruits of labor, and do with its talents as it pleases. it has no right to prevent others from doing the same, or to close the doors leading to nature's gifts in the faces of others. The five million inhabitants of Australia have no right to close the gates of their continent--which they alone cannot fully exploit-- and so exclude the masses of desperate people seeking a new place to work. This is the principle behind the right of free migration, championed by international socialism." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37) If this argument is sound for Jews to settle Palestine against the wishes of its indigenous population, why isn't it a good argument for Germans, Italians, and Palestinian refugees to immigrate and settle Israel? It's worth noting that over 85% of Israelis live in under 14% of the land and that Israel has the highest ratio of urban dwellers in the world.

On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized the role Zionism played in maturing the Palestinian national movement. He explained 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)

Ben-Gurion had set down the principal policy for Zionism with the British and the Palestinian people. He stated in January 1930:

"Zionist policy must be in agreement with the English and the [Palestinian] Arabs...[However,] without an agreement with the English, there is no point in talking about an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs, as long as we are not a majority." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 126)

To bring the maximum number of Jews to Palestine, Ben-Gurion was prepared to
collaborate with the devil (the father of all evildoers). He stated in 1931 that he was prepared to:

"sup with the devil," so he hardly would have shunned a tactic of dissimulation for moral reasons. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xiii, Preface)

In a book Ben-Gurion published in 1931 (titled: We and Our Neighbors), he admitted that Palestinian Arabs had the same rights as Jews to exist in Palestine. He stated:

"The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The [Palestinian]  Arabs work the land, and will remain." Ben-Gurion even held that the Palestinian Arabs had full rights in Palestine, "since the only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by willingness to work." They had the same opportunity to establish that right as the Zionists did. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 5-6)

When Hitler rose to power in 1933, Ben-Gurion predicted a world war. This war might threaten not only the Jewish citizens of Europe, but also the Yishuv as well. The sense of responsibility loosened his tongue, and he began to say things in public that he had kept to himself in the past. He no longer offered convoluted explanations for the Palestinian Arab resistance against Jews and British occupation. He stated in 1938:

"Almost every [Palestinian] Arab" opposed Zionism, "because he is an Arab, because he is a Muslim, because he dislikes foreigners, and because we are hateful to him in every way." The conflict had lasted thirty years, and was liable "to continue for perhaps hundreds more." This was a "real war, a war of life or death."( Shabtai Teveth, p.184)

As European Jewry's immigration doubled the number of Jews in Palestine, Yishuv, between 1931-1935, Chancellor Judah Leon Magnes (the president of the Hebrew University who favored a bi-national state) asked Ben-Gurion to make concessions to Palestinians over Jewish immigration. Ben-Gurion explicitly told Magnes in 1935:

"The difference between me and you is that you are ready to sacrifice immigration for peace, while I am not, though peace is dear to me. And even if I was prepared to make concession, the Jews of Poland and Germany would not be, because they have no other option. For them immigration comes before peace." Ben-Gurion left no doubt that he identified, heart and soul, with this ordering of priorities. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 159)

Ben-Gurion was impressed with Izz al-Din al-Kassam's heroism in the mid 1930s, and he predicted Kassam's example would have a far-reaching effect on the Palestinian national movement. Ben-Gurion stated two weeks after Kassam's fateful battle with the British occupation nearby Ya'bad-Jinin:

"This is the event's importance. We would have educated our youth without Tel-Hai [an encounter with Palestinians in the Galilee in the early 1920s], because we have other important values, but the  [Palestinian] Arab organizers have had less to work with. The [Palestinian] Arabs have no respect for any leader. They know that every single one is prepared to sell out the Arab people for his personal gain, and so the Arabs have no self-esteem. Now, for the first time, the [Palestinian] Arabs have seen someone offer his life for the cause. This will give the [Palestinian] Arabs the moral strength which they lack."

Ben-Gurion also stressed that

"this is not Nashashibi and not the Mufti. This is not the motivation out of career or greed. In Shaykh Qassam, we have a fanatic figure prepared to sacrifice his life in martyrdom. Now there are not one but dozens, hundreds, if not thousands like him. And the Arab people stand behind them." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)

During the early stages of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion was not free of ambivalence toward the Palestinian Arabs. He stated:

"I never felt hatred of the Arabs and none of their actions ever awakened vengeful emotions in me." On the other hand, he felt that Jaffa should be defaced: "The destruction of Jaffa, the city and the port, will happen and it will be for the best. This city, which grew fat on Jewish immigration and settlement, is asking for destruction when it swings a hatchet over the heads of its builders and benefactors. When Jaffa falls into hell I will not be among the mourners." (One Palestine Complete, p. 383)

On April 16, 1936, Ben-Gurion informed the Mapai party that no understanding could be reached with the Palestinian people until they reach one with the British. He explained that:

"... there is no chance for an understanding with the [Palestinian] Arabs unless we first reach an understanding with the British, by which we will come a preponderant force in Palestine. What can drive the [Palestinian] Arabs to a mutual understanding with us?...Facts [meaning achieving Jewish majority through immigration and increased military strength] Only after we manage to establish a great Jewish fact in this country...only then will the precondition for discussion with the [Palestinian] Arabs be met." (Shabtai Teveth, p.155)

In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben-Gurion had contacts with), and suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future "Jewish state" to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr.Antonius burst laughing and answered:

"So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)

According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who "want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type," said Antonius, "it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow." By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben-Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a "matter of life and death" for the Jews. "Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)

Before the 1931-1932, Ben-Gurion had once viewed Zionism as a just ideology. As the Nazis rose to power in Germany in 1933, he started to lower his moral sight, according to him "these days it is not right but might which prevails". In April 1936, Ben-Gurion concluded that no people on earth determined its relations with other peoples by abstract moral calculations of justice. He stated that :

"There is only one thing that everyone accepts, Arabs and non-Arabs alike: facts." The Arabs would not make peace with the Jews "out of sentiment for justice," but because such a peace at some point would become worthwhile and advantageous. A Jewish state would encourage peace, because with it the Jew would "become a force, and the Arabs respect force." Ben-Gurion explained to the Mapai party "these days it is not right but might which prevails. It is more important to have force than justice on one's side." In a period of "power politics , the powers that become hard of hearing, and respond only to the roar of cannons. And the Jews in the Diaspora have no cannons." In order to survive in this evil world, the Jewish people needed cannons more than justice. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 191)

This racist and belligerent remark, about Arabs being respectful of force, became a radioactive cancer that infected all sectors of the Israeli society. Ironically, many Arabs respond to this form of racism with their own version of racism, meaning that "Israelis respect the language of force" as well.

After Ben-Gurion's encounter with George Antonius in May 1936, he was willing to concede the existence of a conflict between Palestinian and Jewish nationalisms for the first time. He stated in public that:

"There is a conflict, a great conflict." not in the economic but the political realm. "There is fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine. And that is the fundamental conflict." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

"I now say something which contradicts the theory which I once had on this question. At one time, I thought an agreement [with Palestinians] was possible." Ben-Gurion attached some reservation to this statement. A settlement might be possible between both peoples in the widest sense, between the entire "Jewish people" and the entire Arab people. But such an agreement could be achieved "once they despair of preventing a Jewish Palestine." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 171)

This statement signaled a shift in Ben-Gurion's mind set. Ironically, his conclusion is in complete agreement with Ze'ev Jabotinsky's IRON WALL doctrine. When Jabotinsky first published his famous doctrine in the early 1920s, Ben-Gurion and other Zionists in the Labor movement branded him as a "racist". As the previous quote demonstrates, Ben-Gurion finally recognized that Zionism had to rely on the IRON WALL doctrine for it to become a reality. Unfortunately for the Palestinian people, according to Ben-Gurion this was a matter of "life or death" for Zionism and Jews.

Over no issue was the conflict so severe as the question of immigration. On the same subject, he also stated:

"Arab leaders see no value in the economic dimension of the country's development, and while they will concede that our immigration has brought material blessings to Palestine [where exclusively Jewish labor was always the rule], they nevertheless contend – and from the [Palestinian] Arab point of view, they are right – that they want neither the honey nor the bee sting." (Shabtai
Teveth, p. 166)

As the First Palestinian Intifada was erupting in 1936, many Zionists complained that the British Mandate was not doing enough to combat Palestinian resistance (which often was referred to as "terror") to the British Mandate. In that regard, Ben-Gurion argued that:

"no government in the world can prevent individual terror...when a people is fighting for its land, it is not easy to prevent such acts." Nor did he criticize the British display of leniency: "I see why the government feels the need to show leniency towards the [Palestinian]
Arabs ...it is not easy to suppress a popular movement strictly by the use of force." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 166)

In rare situations, Ben-Gurion EMPATHIZED with the Palestinian people. He stated in a letter to Moshe Sharett in 1937:

"Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness ...I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its [Palestinian] Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What [Palestinian] Arab cannot do his math and understand what [Jewish] immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 171-172) Ben-Gurion also clearly stated that it was the Zionists who were the aggressors, at least from the political point of view. He stated in the contexts of the First Palestinian Intifada in 1938 :

"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)

Ben-Gurion stated how Zionists should be self-reliant in response to the Palestinian commercial strike, which was the prelude to the First Palestinian Intifada in 1936. He stated:

"The first and principal lesson of these disturbances...is that we must free ourselves from all economic dependence on the [Palestinian] Arabs...We must not find ourselves in situation where our enemies are in a position to starve us, to block our access to the sea, to deny us gravel and stones for construction." (Righteous Victims, p. 130)

Soon after the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936, Ben-Gurion explained the reasons why Palestinians feared Zionism. He stated in a meeting with his Mapai party:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Palestinians] 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 land, but of losing the 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& Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.18)

On the other hand, he denied the Palestinian any political rights. As a justification,
he stated:

"There is no conflict between Jewish and Arab nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 19)

Ben Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor in Jewish run enterprises. He stated in 1936:

"If we want Hebrew redemption 100%, then we must have 100% Hebrew settlement, a 100% Hebrew farm, and 100% Hebrew port." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 24)

Ben-Gurion emphasized that Zionism should seek peace with Palestinians ONLY as means to realize Zionism, not as an ultimate goal. He explained the policy in 1937 as follows:

"We do not seek an agreement with the [Palestinian] Arabs in order to secure the peace. Of course we regard peace as an essential thing. It is impossible to build up the country in a state of permanent warfare. But peace for us is a mean, and not an end. The end is the fulfillment of Zionism in its maximum scope. Only for this reason do we need peace, and do we need an agreement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 168)

On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future "Jewish state." He said:

"Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 88)

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)

Ben-Gurion predicted a decisive war in which the neighboring Arab countries
would come to aid Palestinians. He said in 1937 :

"It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped , but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quality and quantity...the whole younger generation [ from Europe and America]". (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 66)

Ben-Gurion commented on the proposed Peel Commission Partition plan as follows in 1937:

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places...and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 66). Note the premeditated plan to ethnically cleanse the Negev and Transjordan which were not allocated to the Jewish State by the Peel Commission

During the tour which the Peel Commission did in Palestine in 1937, Ben Gurion told the commission that the Bible was the Jewish people's "Mandate." (One Palestine Complete, p. 401)
On July 12, 1937, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits
of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed by the British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples...We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty – this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their
debate on the Peel Commission:

"...In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin...it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us...Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, David Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for  settlement]...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas...I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England...Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians,117)

In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission's proposal:

"The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan," Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, "is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)

And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that :

"I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah's regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer...As for the compulsory transfer-- as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

Similarly, he also stated to his son Amos in October 1937 that a "Jewish state" in part of Palestine was:

"not the end, but only the beginning." Its establishment would give a "powerful boost to our historic efforts to redeem the country in its entirety." For the "Jewish state" would have "outstanding army- I have no doubt that our army will be among the world's outstanding-and so I am certain that we won't be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or by some other way...I still believe...that after we become numerous and strong, the Arabs will understand that it is best for them to strike an alliance with us, and to benefit from our help, providing they allow us by their good will to settle in all parts of Palestine." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)

Regarding settling the Negev desert, which was allotted to the Palestinian state according to the Peel Commission, Ben-Gurion stated:

"It is very possible that in exchange for our financial, military, organizational and scientific assistance, the [Palestinian] Arabs will agree that we develop and build the Negev [which as of 2002, the Negev is still mostly populated by Palestinian-Israeli citizens]. It is also possible that they won't agree. No people always behaves according to logic, common sense, and best interests." If the Palestinian Arabs "act according to sterile nationalist emotion," and reject the idea of Jewish settlement, preferring that the Negev remain barren, then the Jewish army would act. "Because we cannot stand to see large areas of unsettled land capable of absorbing thousands of Jews remain empty, or to see Jews not return to their country because the [Palestinian] Arabs say that there is not enough room for them and us." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188-189) It is worth noting that the Negev is still a barren desert, and under populated by Israeli Jews.

During a lecture in Tel-Aviv in front of Mapai activists in 1938, Ben-Gurion divided the realization of the "historic aim of the Jewish state" into two stages. The first stage, which would last ten to fifteen years, he called "the period of building and laying foundations." This would prepare the state for the second stage, "the period of expansion." The goal of both stages was the "gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine." And so "from the moment the state is established, it must calculate its actions with an eye toward this distant goal."

When Zionists were debating the Peel Commission's partition plan, Ben-Gurion advised his colleges to accept the concept of partitioning ONLY as a first stage of a complete conquest. He stated in 1937:

"Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

and while addressing the Zionist executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that:

"after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 22)

Similarly he also stated:

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." By 1949 Ben-Gurion had proved that he was as good as his word. (Simha
Flapan, p. 52-53)

And regarding the Peel Commission, he also stated on June 9, 1937:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear GREATEST material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And on July 12, 1937 he also wrote how Zionists should insist on implementing the proposed compulsory population transfer.

http://palestineremembered.com/A

Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=362479613&blogId=475255746#ixzz0vSMS3HQ4