The borders of Israel

[Sources: the very useful UN booklet  The Question of Palestine and the United Nations  is cited as QPUN below. The Israel archivist’s English paraphrase of the Cabinet Protocols (brief summaries of meetings) is cited as ICP below.]

It has often been said that the State of Israel has never declared its borders. I have often said it myself. It is one of those things that ‘everyone knows’. But I have been corrected by the invaluable talknic, whose blog answers every Zionist argument in great detail. Briefly, the story is as follows.

The Mandate for Palestine

At the end of the Great War of 1914-18 the Allied Powers  were occupying the former Turkish Ottoman Empire which covered most of the area that we call the Middle-East. Supported by the League of Nations they decided to break up the Empire into separate entities, with a view to these eventually becoming independent states. France and Britain were given Mandates to set up administrations in these ‘provisional states’. The French Mandate covered what are now the states of Lebanon and Syria; and the British present-day Jordan and Iraq, plus Palestine. The borders of Palestine included what are now Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The population of Palestine at that time consisted of a majority of Arab Muslims plus some Arab Christians, Jews, and other smaller groups.

The Jewish National Home

In addition to preparing Palestine for independence, the Mandate for Palestine gave another responsibility to the British administration: the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. They would do this by facilitating Jewish immigration and settlement, with the incoming Jews becoming Palestinian citizens;  but all the time ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population were not prejudiced.

To cut a long story short: this did not work. The Arabs would not accept the inward migration of large numbers of foreign Jews into their land; and when the British authorities tried to placate them by restricting Jewish immigration, the Jews complained that Palestine could not be their national home until it had a majority Jewish population. There was a lot of violence, between Jews and Arabs and between both of them and the British.

The Partition Plan

After the Second World War, Britain gave up. They went to the United Nations indicating that they intended to terminate the Mandate, and asked the UN to take over the ‘Question of Palestine’.

The UN set up a ‘Committee for Palestine’ which, in its September 1947 report produced two possible plans: one proposed by the majority, for a partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab state, with an economic union between them, and with the City of Jerusalem being internationalized; with the second plan from the minority being a Federal State of Palestine containing  separate Jewish and Arab sub-states.

UN Partition Plan 1947The UN General Assembly resolution of 29th November 1947 recommended the implementation of the Partition Plan with Economic Union.  The map shows the two states, the Jewish state in blue and the Arab state in pink, as recommended. The Plan was clever. Although each state was made up of several pieces, two neutral crossing points ensured that each had a contiguous territory. (Click the map to enlarge.)

The plan was accepted by the Zionist leadership, despite strong reservations on three points: they wanted more land because the Jewish population was growing rapidly by immigration; the plan put some half million Arabs within the Jewish State, almost equal to the number of Jews at the time of the report [QPUN page5]; and Jerusalem, the symbol of Zionist aspirations, would be an international zone entirely surrounded by the Arab State. They accepted, because their own aim had always been a Jewish State, and a Jewish State in part of Palestine was preferable to the failed attempt to create a vaguely-defined Jewish National Home within a bi-national state of Palestine.

The plan was rejected by the Arab Palestinians and the Arab states. Not because it put 40% of the Arab population into the Jewish State rather than the Arab State (though that was certainly unacceptable) but because they rejected the whole idea of dividing their land. In fact, they had always rejected the whole Zionist project. They had fought on the British side against the Turks in the First World War, and had been promised independence. The attempt to make Palestine a Jewish National Home would, they said, take away their right to self-determination. Correctly, according to the Report of the Palestine Committee [Chapter II paragraph 176.] It would end up, they said, with them being ruled by Jewish immigrants from afar. (This was prescient: since 1967 all of Mandatory Palestine has been ruled by Israel.)

It is often said that, because the Arabs did not accept the Partition Plan, it became null and void. In fact, I have often said this myself. It is one of those things that ‘everyone knows’. But it is wrong. UNGA Resolution 181 (Part F) says (my emphasis):

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations…

If the resolution had not said this, one side would have been able to veto the independence of the other. Also, independence had to be ‘as envisaged in the Plan’: there was no opportunity to haggle over borders or other issues. Each side had to make its own decision.

The Jews accepted the Partition Plan, and have to accept the consequences of that decision. The  Arabs rejected the Partition Plan, and have to accept the consequences of that decision.

The Civil War

The publication of the Partition Plan led to a fierce civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs, which the British authorities did little to control, as they were in the process of withdrawing their forces in preparation for the end of the Mandate, which was set to expire at midnight on 14th May 1948. The war involved massacres and population displacements.

In the run-up to the May 14th deadline, with the civil war still raging, the international community became very concerned about the situation in Palestine, and there were fears that the Arab States would intervene in the conflict at the end of the Mandate. The US suggested that the Mandate should be replaced by a temporary UN Trusteeship, and that the Zionist leadership should delay the declaration of the new Jewish State. This was not accepted. The Zionist leadership created a National Council, an embryonic parliament for the new state, and a 13-member National Administration which was to become the provisional government of the new state. It was led by David Ben-Gurion.

Israel’s Declaration

The National Administration met on May 12th 1948. The story of that meeting is told in an article by Shelley Kleiman on the Israel government website. They took the final decision to go ahead with the declaration of statehood, despite the fact that the US Administration wanted them to delay. Contacted by telephone in New York, Chaim Weizmann, the Chairman of the World Zionist Organization, endorsed the decision, and he wrote a personal letter to President Truman appealing to him to recognise the new state.

The meeting went on to consider a draft Declaration. There was a heated discussion about the borders. Some members thought they should be mentioned in the Declaration, but Ben-Gurion was vehemently opposed. He said:

We accepted the UN Resolution, but the Arabs did not. They are preparing to make war on us. If we defeat them and capture western Galilee or territory on both sides of the road to Jerusalem, these areas will become part of the state. Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs do not accept?

I call this the Ben-Gurion doctrine. The meeting adopted this point of view by a vote of five to four in favour, the other four members being absent.

A five-member subcommittee was appointed to produce a revised draft of the Declaration, and the ceremony to proclaim the new state was set for 4 p.m on the 14th May, to take effect one minute after the expiry of the Mandate, that is, at 00:01 on 15th May. The National Administration met again on 13th May at 6 p.m to consider the Declaration again. Various issues were raised, and, we are told, Ben-Gurion took it home and rewrote it extensively, omitting any reference to the UN Partition Plan.

The Declaration was considered by the National Council the next morning, and finally approved unanimously, on the second vote, one hour before the scheduled proclamation. The secretarial staff typed up the final changes, and the document arrived at the Tel Aviv Museum just in time for the ceremony in which Ben-Gurion read out the Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel.

But here is a puzzle: the Declaration does in fact base itself on “OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY”  and contains a further two paragraphs about the Partition Plan.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.


THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

Those final changes had restored the references to the Partition Plan.  The Zionist leadership changed their minds. Why?

They were thinking about the next step: recognition. To be recognised as a state Israel needed to have a defined territory [Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention]; a state without borders is a meaningless concept. And what borders could they possibly specify? Those of the Partition Plan. The borders are the essence of the Plan. They had publicly accepted it. They were the borders they had already prepared to defend under Plan Dalet. Those two paragraphs implicitly declare the borders of the State.

And on the same day they also made that declaration explicit.

Recognition by the USA

The letter from Weizmann had done the trick, and on the 14th May President Truman recognised the State of Israel. The story of events that day in Washington is told in the cablegram that Epstein, the representative of the Jewish Agency in the USA, sent to Shertok, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government in Israel.

Epstein was informed by the White House that Truman would recognize Israel if a formal request was received before 12 noon. (At that time there was a clock difference of 6 hours between Washington and Palestine, so the deadline was 6 p.m in Tel Aviv, after the reading of the Declaration). Epstein also received a separate telephone call asking about the borders, and he replied that they were according to the Partition Plan resolution. After consulting with other Zionist leaders letter he wrote the following letter to Truman (my emphasis).

I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that the Provisional Government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the State against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world, in accordance with international law.

Truman replied:

This government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine and recognition has been requested by the government thereof. The United States recognizes the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel.

The original of Epstein’s letter is in the Truman library. There is a  facsimile here. The original draft of Truman’s reply was returned to the USA by Shimon Peres, President of Israel, when he went to Washington to receive the President’s Medal of Freedom from President Obama in June 2012. The recognition was timed at 6:11 p.m EST, ten minutes after Israel’s Declaration became effective.

Although Truman’s reply did not mention the Partition Plan, the recognition by some other states did, for example Australia.

One wonders how Epstein came to include a mention of the frontiers in the letter. Was there a draft already in existence? Was it because the White House had already asked about the frontiers? Was it because he knew the leadership had accepted the Partition Plan and had always intended that its borders should be the borders of Israel? Did he speak to Tel Aviv that day? (His cablegram suggests not.)

However it happened, Israel regards Epstein’s letter as the formal request to the USA for recognition. There is no doubt that on the 14th May 1948 the State of Israel was declared on the basis of the Partition Plan and with the borders specified in that Plan. And the Provisional Government publicly acknowledged these borders many times. For example, on 22 May 1948 a letter to the Security Council said (my emphasis):

The Provisional Government of Israel exercises control over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard.

Declared borders can be changed. Any two states can agree changes to their mutual border, providing any inhabitants whose citizenship is to be changed vote agreement in a referendum. That would be legal annexation. Changing borders by conquest through war is not legal, because it violates the fundamental principles of the United Nations: that

Article 2.3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

Article 2.4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

From these principles the maxim that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war has been affirmed by the UN General Assembly, The UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

Israel has never claimed sovereignty over territory outside these borders. Israel has never made an agreement with any neighbour to change its borders (other than perhaps minor revisions in the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan).

The Partition Plan borders are the legal sovereign borders of Israel to this day. All territory that Israel has acquired outside these borders has been acquired by war, in violation of the UN Charter.


Having made its declaration of borders on 14th May 1948, the Provisional Government were soon talking again about capturing territory: the Ben-Gurion doctrine had re-emerged. As early as May 20th 1948, two days before the statement to the UN quoted above, they decided [ICP] that

The United Nations was to be informed that Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner, as stipulated in the Partition Plan of 29th November 1947.

(The Partition Plan stipulated no such thing, it explicitly said that either state could declare independence, one was not made dependent on the other.) There was, of course, no possibility of there being an Arab partner.

I doubt they actually said anything to the UN, because this would have come to the attention of the USA, who would have realised that the declaration by the State of Israel of its borders as specified by the Partition Plan was a deception designed to gain recognition by the United States and other nations. The policy was clear, the partition borders did exist, but Israel had no intention of sticking to them.

They always wanted more territory, and, as we will see, went out to get it.


It is important that Israelis, and everyone who is interested in the Israel-Palestine issue, knows about these borders, because that knowledge puts many other issues into their correct context.

Jerusalem. Zion is a synonym for Jerusalem, the ancient city at the centre of Jewish religious life. Zionism is the political expression of the Jewish longing to return to the ancient home, expressed in the liturgical use of the phrase “next year in Jerusalem”. How is it then, that in the the Declaration of the State of Israel, no mention at all is made of Jerusalem? The answer is that the whole of Jerusalem lies entirely outside the legal borders of Israel.

If Israel had specified that Jerusalem was its capital in its Declaration of statehood, it would not have been recognized by other states: how could the capital of a state be outside its borders? Only after Israel had achieved recognition was Jerusalem declared capital, in December 1948. This is not accepted by the international community, and the city hosts no foreign embassies.

Palestine. What happened to the rest of Palestine after Israel’s declaration and recognition? It was in a sorry state. Many Arabs had left the country during the fighting, including much of the political leadership. It was still called Palestine, its inhabitants Palestinians, who still had the right to self-determination in the territory left to them. It was a defined territory, with its borders being those recommended for the Arab state in the Partition Plan, since the Jewish state of the Plan had become the independent State of Israel. But Palestine had no government because the Mandate had ended. It was a non-self-governing territory. The Palestinians were represented by the Arab League until 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was founded.

From Jewish National Home to Jewish State. Some Zionists say that the Mandate for Palestine gave (or allocated, or designated) all of Palestine for the Jewish State; that this is still legally valid; and that all of Mandatory Palestine rightfully belongs to Israel. The argument is fallacious on numerous grounds, but that is irrelevant. Even if it had been true, it was superseded by the Declaration of the State of Israel and the accompanying specification of its borders. Once they had been internationally recognized, there was no possibility of going back. The concept of a Jewish National Home in all of Palestine had been replaced by the concept of a Jewish State in part of Palestine.

Invasion by the Arab States.

Israel was founded in the midst of civil war. There was fighting between Jews and Arabs throughout Palestine. At 00:01 on May 15th those Jewish militias, fighting outside the area allocated to the Jewish state in the Partition Plan, became the armed forces of Israel, fighting outside its borders in the territory of Palestine.

On May 18th, the Security Council asked the Provisional Government to justify the presence of their forces in Palestine, outside their borders. It said

A. In order to repel aggression, and as part of our essentially defensive plan, to prevent these areas being used as bases for attacks against the State of Israel.

B. In order to protect Jewish population, traffic and economic life, including the protection of those Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property are in imminent danger. Similar considerations apply in the absence of any international statute for the City of Jerusalem to the Jewish area of the City.

Both of these are reasonable: a forward defence to prevent attacks on the State of Israel, and an intervention in the neighbouring territory, where there was no lawful authority, to protect Jewish life and property. (Apparently they were not interested in protecting Arab life and property.)

On the night of 14th to 15th May forces of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, TransJordan and Egypt entered Palestine. Because Israeli forces were already in Palestine,  the civil war in former Palestine became a war between the State of Israel and the five Arab states. The Arab League announced this invasion openly in a cablegram to the UN. The reasons given were to restore law and order, and to resist Jewish aggression against the Arab population: the mirror image of the arguments given by Israel to justify the presence of their forces in Palestine. They also claimed authority under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, as a recognised regional organisation, to intervene to prevent the conflict spreading.

Strangling the infant.

Of course, everyone knows their real intention was to ‘strangle the infant state at birth’, as Ben-Gurion put it in a report to the Provisional Government on June 3rd. But as we have already seen, what ‘everyone knows’ is not always the truth.

Ben Gurion, in the same report, also said that a plan which ‘fell into Israeli hands’ showed that the Arab states intended to capture Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem in a ‘lightning strike’ and that King Abdullah of TransJordan was to be crowned King of Palestine in Jerusalem on May 25th. Now, King Abdullah may have harboured such an ambition, but it is inconceivable that the other Arab states would go along with it. I suggest that the ‘lightning strike’ is a fiction.

The Arab League cablegram is ambiguous. Is the Palestine in which they are intervening the Palestine of 14th May, Mandatory Palestine, or is it the Palestine of the 15th May, the territory outside the borders of Israel? Since the cablegram is dated 15th May, a legalistic reading of the text suggests the latter. On the other hand, since the text does not mention Israel, and since the Arab League had no intention of recognizing Israel, a natural reading could be the former, that they intended to enter ‘Israel’ to overthrow what they saw as an illegitimate government.

One could also argue as follows. By waiting until the end of the Mandate the Arab League showed restraint, since it allowed time for the Jewish militia to prepare for war. By writing a long cablegram to the UN, claiming authority for its actions under the UN Charter, they showed that UN support was important to them. The League must have known that Israel was already a legally constituted and recognized state on 15th May, and any attempt to re-unite Palestine by force would have been condemned and rejected by the world community. They would not have done it, even if they had been able to.

What did the Security Council do about the situation? [work in progress]

Most of the fighting in the war was in Palestine, outside the borders of Israel. There were two penetrations into Israeli territory in the early days. One Egyptian army crossed a corner of the Negev desert into central Palestine, and Syrians entered Israeli territory in Eastern Galilee which was their only route into Palestine. These two penetrations into Israel could be justified by military necessity and the need to protect Arab populations, just as the presence of Israeli forces in Palestine could be justified.

Another Egyptian army went north along the coast to capture Gaza, this area being outside the borders of Israel. They could easily have justified crossing Israeli territory to reach Jaffa. This was an Arab town, and in the Partition Plan was to have been an enclave of the Arab state within the Jewish State. At that time, Tel Aviv was a suburb of Jaffa. If they had taken Jaffa, they might have felt a strong temptation to capture the Provisional Government and lock them up. History could have been very different.

But it never happened. On balance, there is little real evidence of an intention by the Arab League to ‘strangle the infant.’ Maybe some military historian has knowledge of the actual Arab battle plans which would clarify things, but then military history is usually written by the winners.

Israel the Crocodile

What about Israel? Was it just defending its border and protecting Jews outside its border, or did it have a hidden agenda? An agenda certainly, but hardly hidden. We have already seen above how Ben-Gurion was talking about capturing territory that would become part of the State on 13th May, and how the Provisional Government decided not to respect the Partition Plan borders. In Ben-Gurion’s report to the Provisional Government on 3rd June, he used the word ‘conquered’ in connection with areas outside the borders of Israel.

I am reminded of the children’s story The Enormous Crocodile by Roald Dahl. The crocodile likes to eat human children, and to capture them he employs ‘cunning plans and clever tricks’. The agenda of Israel the Crocodile was to gobble up more territory. During the war the area under Israeli control expanded, until the armistice agreements of 1949 left all of Mandatory Palestine in Israeli hands, except for the West Bank (Judea & Samaria) and East Jerusalem, which were under military occupation by TransJordan (later Jordan), and the Gaza strip which was under military occupation by Egypt.

The territory captured by Israel in the war, between the legal borders of Israel and the 1949 Armistice Lines, was not held by Israel under military occupation. This is where the clever trick comes in.

It is introduced quite casually in the ICP of May 30th 1948:

… ongoing discussion… on the legal status of territories beyond the 1947 partition lines. If everyone stops and goes back to the partition plan, so will Israel; until then, here’s how we’ll apply our law to the newly acquired areas.’

This was formalised on 16th September 1948 when the Provisional Government issued the Area of Jurisdiction and Powers Ordinance, which said:

Any law applying to the whole of the State of Israel shall be deemed to apply to the whole of the area including both the area of the State of Israel and any part of Palestine which the Minister of Defence has defined by proclamation as being held by the Defence Army of Israel.

If they had held the territory under military occupation, they would have had to follow the laws of war, under which the civilian population would have been protected. But with the territory administered under Israeli civil law, they could do what they wanted. In the Cabinet meeting on May 20th 1948 they said [ICP]

A legal device for the acquisition of Arab property was to be promulgated.

and on July 21st:

Then there was a discussion about the territories taken during the hostilities and their Arab inhabitants. It was decided to appoint a ministerial committee to make particular decisions. In the meantime, however, Arabs who left would not be allowed back, as a general rule with possible exceptions. The Ministry of Finance would manage unclaimed property. An inquiry would be made into the reasons for the departure of the Arab population. The ministerial committee would have the authority to destroy empty villages.

None of the actions I have emphasised would have been allowed under the laws of war.

Administering the captured territory under Israeli civil law meant that it was treated as if it were part of Israel. In this way, it became in effect (de facto) annexed to Israel, and the Armistice Line became the de facto border of Israel,  the border within which the State has been developed. Of course, this was not a legal annexation, because the territory was not obtained by agreement, but by war.

In the Partition Plan map above, it can be seen that there is a considerable amount of Palestinian land (pink) between the Armistice Line and the territory of Israel (blue), amounting to over 50% of the area of Palestine outside the legal borders of Israel. Because Israel has no intention of returning this territory, I call it the stolen land.

The Palestinians have already said they would concede the stolen land to Israel in a final settlement. That is why they say they will accept partial justice, and why they have declared the Armistice Line as the border of their state. But no doubt they would be entitled to compensation, which would be considerable, considering that the stolen land includes the towns of Acre, Ashkelon, Nazareth, Beersheba, Lod, Ramle, Jaffa and West Jerusalem.

In case any reader still doubts that Israel’s intentions in the ’48-49 war were aggressive, here is the clincher. In a response to the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine in May 1949 the Israeli Delegation said:

We consider that… all areas falling within the control and jurisdiction of Israel under the terms of the armistice agreements concluded by Israel with Egypt, the Lebanon, the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom and Syria should be formally recognized as Israel territory.

They wanted the acquisition by war of the territory they had captured to be legalised, and the Armistice Line to become the permanent border. They were firmly rejected:

The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

The Sacred Trust

Was there an alternative way in which Israel could have held the stolen land without a continuing military occupation? Yes indeed, and there is a whole chapter in the UN Charter, Chapter XI saying what should happen when a state (Israel) is in the position of administering the territory of a non-self-governing people (the Palestinians). Here is an extract.

Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:

to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;

to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;

By forcefully incorporating the stolen land into the state, was Israel respecting the sacred trust it had assumed under Chapter XI? Certainly not. The UN General Assembly may have had this case in mind when it resolved as follows (Resolution 2625):

The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.

The stolen land has been acquired by Israel through war, in violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations. By administering the land under Israeli civil law,  treating as if it were part of the state, Israel has violated the sacred trust imposed upon it by Chapter XI of the UN Charter.

The Ben-Gurion Doctrine

We have seen above that, at the National Administration meeting on the 12th May 1948, Ben-Gurion asked

Why should we obligate ourselves to accept boundaries that in any case the Arabs do not accept?

This theme appeared several times in the Government Protocols [ ICP]. On May 20th “the United Nations was to be informed that Israel would not respect the partition lines of 1947 unless there was an Arab partner”. On May 30th “If everyone stops and goes back to the partition plan, so will Israel”. One June 2nd  “the cabinet reiterated its commitment to the partition plan only if the other side accepted the plan“.

The Ben-Gurion Doctrine is the idea that, because the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Partition Plan, Israel was free to seize territory allocated to the Arabs under that Plan. It is used frequently to this day by pro-Zionist apologists, who find it perfectly reasonable.

But look at it from the Arab side. While under a foreign administration in the Mandatory period, they had been forced to accept large-scale immigration from Europe and beyond. That was unjust. Then just over half of their homeland was to be given away to those immigrants. What people could accept that? It was more injustice. And now, Israel was saying that, because they resisted having half their land taken away, Israel was going to take even more. It defies logic. It piles injustice upon injustice upon injustice. And it is illegal, because Israel was acquiring territory outside its borders, by war, in violation of the UN Charter.

On 29th June 1949 Foreign Minister Sharett gave a speech in the Knesset about the frontiers of Israel. Here is an extract.

Those who try today to revive the territorial principles of November 29, 1947, as a basis for the final definition of the frontiers of Israel, ignore all that has happened in this country since that date. Nothing has occurred to invalidate in the slightest degree the justification of the inclusion within the boundaries of Israel of any of the areas allotted to the Jewish State in that Resolution. On the other hand, many grave events have occurred which by blood, fire and pillars of smoke have proved the absolute indispensability to Israel’s security, indeed to her very existence, of territories now under her jurisdiction outside the November 29 award….  Israel’s soldiers did not sacrifice their lives in gaining for their State defence positions and security zones in order that the political leaders of the nation should throw away this sacred, blood-drenched patrimony…

Sharett has not brought out the Ben-Gurion doctrine this time. He has a new idea. Leaving aside the rhetoric (fire, blood-drenched, pillars of smoke, sacred patrimony) his claim is that Israel needs to hold territory outside its original borders in order to maintain defence positions and security zones. If Israel were holding this territory in military occupation, pending a peace treaty, fair enough. But instead it has included that territory permanently within its de facto borders. What will happen if it needs to defend those borders? It will need to acquire more ‘security zones’  outside those borders. And then perhaps more security zones to secure those borders? Could this be the crocodile’s cunning plan to continually acquire new territory?

To be fair to those early Israel governments, I think they were content with the Armistice Line as the de facto border. Sharett in his speech also said

As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel, there, too, our aim is peace, and peace negotiations. We have always declared that we should prefer to see a separate Arab State in that area.

He refers to Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank. His prefers to see a separate Arab state in that area, rather than it being kept by Jordan. In other words, the UN Partition Plan is still alive in his mind, although with new borders.

A story

On 19th November 2012, 400 elementary school children from Ashkelon, Beersheba and other places in southern Israel visited the Knesset. This was at a time when the south was subject to rocket attacks from Gaza. The Speaker of the Knesset told them that “this round of fighting will end and this is our land and no one will move us from here”. He was right to assure them that the current round of fighting will end, because it always does. He was right to assure them that no-one will move them, because no-one is trying to do that. But telling them that ‘this is  our land’ is a half-truth at best, because Ashkelon and Beersheba are outside the legal borders of Israel. What he should have said is that ‘it will be our land when we have a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and then all the fighting will stop’.

[Work in progress]

Short link:

About David Gerald Fincham

Retired academic scientist.
This entry was posted in Israel / Palestine. Bookmark the permalink.
  • digitürk yan oda üyeliği

    digitürk yan oda üyeliği ile en uygun digiturk paketinden sizde yararlanın.

  • digitürk sanliurfa

    Digiturk Sanliurfa ile en uygun digiturk paketinden sizde yararlanin.

  • istanbul escort kızlar

    istanbul escort kızlar en kaliteli anlarında gönüllerinden geçen fark yaratacak anlara tanık olabileceksiniz.

  • istanbul escort

    istanbul escort sizlere en güzel vakitleri geçirebilmeniz için her zaman yanınızda kalıp destek veriyor

  • marmaris esk

    marmaris esk vip otellerde bulup çılgınlarca sevişin.

  • Digiturk Mersin Bayii

    Digiturk Mersin Bayii ihtiyacınız için bir telefon uzağınızdayız. Hemen ulaşın işleminizi gerçekleştirelim.

  • Israel Draiman

    The nation of Israel must be steadfast in protecting its rights and its people

    Many nations and people are questioning Israel’s control of its liberated territory.

    No one is mentioning that the Arab countries had ejected about a million Jewish people and their children from their countries, confiscated their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate. Many of the Jews ejected from Arab countries died while their forced departure from Arab countries, due to hardship, famine and starvation. 650,00 Jewish people and their children of these expelled Jewish people and their
    children were resettled in Greater Israel. The Land the Arab countries
    confiscated from the Jewish people 120,440 sq. km. or 75,000 sq. miles, which
    is over 5-6 times the size of Israel, and its value today is the trillions of dollars.

    The Jewish people and their children during the over 2,000 years living in Arab countries have suffered Pogroms, Libel claims, beheadings, beatings, false imprisonment and extreme hardship as a second class citizens. They had their businesses and homes pillaged, their wives and daughters raped, sold them as slaves, their houses of worship pillaged and burned, forced conversion to Islam and many were beheaded.

    Today over half of Israel’s population are Jews expelled from Arab countries
    and their children and grandchildren.

    The Audacity of the Arab countries in demanding territory from the Jewish people in Palestine after they ejected over a million Jewish people and their children who have lived in Arab land for over 2,000 years and after they confiscated all their assets and Real estate 5-6 times the size of Israel (120,440 sq. km. – 75,000 sq. mi.), valued
    in the trillions of dollars.

    Now the Arab nations are demanding more land and more compensation.

    The Arab countries have chased the million Jews and their children and now the want to chase them away again, from their own historical land.

    Israel must respond with extreme force to any violent demonstration and terror. Israel’s population must have peace and tranquility without intimidation by anyone.

    The Jewish people have suffered enough in the Diaspora for the past 2,500 years. It is time for the Jewish people to live as free people in their own land without violence and terror.

    It is time to consider that the only alternative is a population transfer of the Arab-Palestinians to the territories the Arab countries confiscated from the Jewish people and settle this dispute once and for all. Many Arab leaders had suggested these solutions over the years.

    YJ Draiman

  • Walk Tall Hang Loose

    To all commenters on my site:

    Thank you for your interest and contributions. Unfortunately I am unable to keep up with your activity, and propose to close down the comments for some time. I hope to produce some new material in this period, and also a proper comments policy.

  • Nick

    What you’ve described is a criminal venture to seize land that has a current value of c. $1 trillion.

    The profit arriving from this gigantic robbery is being re-cycled back into the political systems of western nations, particularly that of the US. Its no secret that any member of Congress who dares to express criticism of Israel will be quite openly taken out by the spending power of the Zionist lobby.

    You may have left out part of the story, however. You’ve (perhaps understandably) given the Zionists some leeway as regards their original intentions. I think you’re being much too generous – they were quite openly preaching “Palestine to become as Jewish as France is French”.

    They were lying about the Jewish part however – none (?) of the Zionist settlements and kibbutzim had synagogues!

    • Walk Tall Hang Loose

      HI Nick, thanks for visiting. We should try to avoid lumping all Zionists together. They were a diverse and argumentative lot. As I say in the article, Ben-Gurion only just got a majority on May 13th when he proposed making captured territory outside the Partition Plan borders part of the State.

      Some of the Zionists were atheists (including Ben-Gurion himself) which explains the lack of synagogues in the kibbutzes. It also explains why the word God does not appear in the Declaration of Establishment. Several atheists flatly refused to sign it if He was included, and the compromise was to use the phrase ‘Rock of Israel’ which is one of the titles given to God, but coul also be interpreted as being the land itself.

      • Nick

        Its worth repeating what Alan Hart told us, “Zionism is the enemy of the Jews”.

        The Zionists cannot defend themselves from most of the crimes they’re accused of – either they boasted of what they were going to do – or in many cases, boasted of what they’d done.

        The other thing that the Zionists can (and often do) is to obfuscate their crimes by pointing their finger and saying “The Jews did it, the Jews did it!”. Despite the fact that, as you mention, they have no respect for Judaism whatsoever.

        I think we should call them for what they’re doing – and even use a word reserved for people who want the Jews to be hated and suffer violence.

        • Chris Berel

          Yes, Nick is identified by a word reserved for people who want the Jews to be hated and suffer violence.

          • Nick

            Not me or Alan Hart who, faced with any of the considerable crimes blamed on Israel, immediately says “Blame the Jews, blame the Jews!”

            Such conduct (especially since its often applied to accusations that are denied!) can only mean that people like you seek to have the Jews distrusted or hated – and that you presumably wish to see violence on them.

            Its particularly gross in Alan Hart’s case, since he makes a point of saying that the Jews are being endangered!

          • Chris Berel

            “British Journalist Alan Hart is a great source of amusement.

            The employee of Iranian state-controlled Press-TV regularly likes to
            remind people that one of his best friends his Jewish. That is supposed
            to convince us that he is not an anti-Semite as he goes into an insane
            tirade about how Mossad, the Israeli Secret Service Agency, was
            responsible for 9-11.

            He is about as ridiculous as Jewish anti-Semite Norman Finklestein,
            who unceasingly reminds his audiences that he is “the child of
            Holocaust survivors” as if that gives his hateful bigotry towards Israel
            and support for terror groups like Hezbollah some special credibility.

            When these two masters of paranoia got together, I witnessed something I
            never expected. Norman Finklestein in a conversation where he was the
            lesser of the vilifiers of Israel.”

          • Nick

            Nothing insane about Alan Hart – far from it, he’s philo-semitica and desperate to save the Jews from the evil of what’s being done supposedly in their name.

            Norman Finkelstein is not insane either – he’s an astoundingly careful researcher who simply demolishes the disgusting arguments of hard-core hasbarists such as Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz.

            Dershowitz won’t even pay his bets over the glaring errors and falsehoods found by Norman Finkelstein in his books, particularily “The Case for Israel”.

            Has Norman Finkelstein ever made a single mistake in the millions of words he’s written and spoken? Only one I can think of when he appeared to say in Feb 2012 that “International Law/UN resolutions enshrine Israel’s right to be a Jewish state” (though I can’t those words in the 32 minute video).

            There were screams of delight from the Zionists and Finkelstein had to extract himself from the situation 5 months later with this statement:

            “In everything I have ever written on the subject, I have emphasized that Palestinians have a right of return, and no one has the right to tell Palestinians that they should renounce this right as a precondition for negotiations. In fact, I was the first person to point out that both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had endorsed the right of return.

            My opinion is that a reasonable political solution can be found if Israelis negotiate in good faith. But to date, the official Israeli position is that they don’t accept any historical, legal, political or moral responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. That is a nonstarter. Negotiations must start from the premises that (1) Israel bears overwhelming responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and (2) Palestinians have a right of return.”

            I’m reading that as saying that the brutal racists can have an apartheid state but they must acknowledge “overwhelming responsibility” for the biggest long-standing refugee problem in the world and, if they still insist on apartheid, they must pay the value of the land they’ve stolen.

            The value of the land is sometimes estimated at $1 trillion – that’s what Israel owes the Palestinians in compensation.

            If the armed squatters are not prepared to pay what they owe, then they will have to be evicted from the 93% of the land of Palestine that they’ve stolen.

            International Law is probably on the side of the Palestinians in this respect – only the US is still equivocable on the principle that resistance to colonialisation is a basic right of human beings.

          • Chris Berel

            Alan hart is likely insane, as is his defenders.

          • Nick

            Alan Hart’s problem is that he was always very philo-semitic and he tried very hard to be pro-Israel.

            But he became convinced that things were going terribly wrong, that Zionists were indeed the enemy of the Jews, and wrote up everything he knew.

            So you hate him for being honest and compassionate … what else is new?

            When is Alan Dershowitz going to pay his debts, or are Zionists released from any kind of honesty?

            Why does he claim to be on the side of human rights in Palestine when, for instance, as Finkelstein’s careful checking shows:

            “… the subject of the second part of this book is the best seller The Case for Israel by Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.35

            “It can fairly be said that The Case for Israel surpasses From Time Immemorial in deceitfulness and is among the most spectacular academic frauds ever published on the Israel-Palestine conflict. … Whereas Peters falsified real sources, Dershowitz goes one better and cites absurd sources or stitches evidence out of whole cloth.

            “The core chapters of the present book juxtapose the findings of all mainstream human rights organizations about Israel’s human rights record in the Occupied Territories against Dershowitz’s claims.

            “I demonstrate that it’s difficult to find a single claim in his human rights chapters or, for that matter, any other chapter of The Case for Israel that, among other things, doesn’t distort a reputable source or reference a preposterous one.

            “The point, of course, is not that Dershowitz is a charlatan. Rather, it’s the systematic institutional bias that allows for books like The Case for Israel to become national best sellers.

            “Were it not for Dershowitz’s Harvard pedigree, the praise heaped on his book by Mario Cuomo, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Elie Wiesel, and Floyd Abrams,36 the favorable notices in media outlets like the New York Times and Boston Globe, 37 and so on, The Case for Israel would have had the same shelf life as the latest publication of the Flat-Earth Society.

          • Chris Berel

            “Were it not for Dershowitz’s Harvard pedigree, the praise heaped on
            his book by Mario Cuomo, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Elie Wiesel, and Floyd
            Abrams,36 the favorable notices in media outlets like the New York Times
            and Boston Globe, 37 and so on,”

            So if not for the Professor’s outstanding and verifiable credentials, he would regarded like Alan Hart, a lying idiot and a conspiracy nutcake? Or he would be treated like you, a lying antisemite who relies on holocaust denial sites for their base of knowledge??

          • Nick

            Dershowitz is a lawyer and a very distinguished one.

            If Finkelstein has said a single word out of place, then Dershowitz should sue him.

            The fact that Dershowitz has not done so will convince fair-minded people that Finkelstein is on the ball.

            He’s certainly on the ball regarding Dershowitz not paying his bets.

            Dershowitz’s response was the most staggeringly nasty – and blatantly untrue – slur on Finkelstein’s mother. Who is dead, which is presumably why Dershowitz did it.

            Unable to deal with the facts, Dershowitz lashes out in unpleasantness – do you have anything to learn from him?

          • Chris Berel

            Dershowitz threatened and Finky was forced to change the content of his book. Like you, Finky lied.

          • Nick

            Finkelstein was certain that Dershowitz had plagiarised a portion of his book – a career-breaking charge to make against a professor.

            On legal advice, he took that out of the draft of the book – but a vast amount of other evidence was presented which makes Dershowitz look very bad indeed.

            We don’t even need to read the two books to know what Dershowitz is like – the video of the Finkelstein-Dershowitz debate is on the web – Finkelstein pointed out that p.80 of Dershowitz’s book says that “between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes” quoting Benny Morris p.256 of “Righteous Victims”.

            Dershowitz has made a whopping error and should pay his bet – or else the rest of us will think the word of Zionists is worthless.

            This is what the right-wing Israeli historian quoted by Dershowitiz actually wrote:

            “In some areas Arab commanders ordered the villagers to evacuate to clear the ground for military purposes or to prevent surrender. More than half a dozen villages – just north of Jerusalem and in the Lower Galilee – were abandoned during these months as a result of such orders. Elsewhere, in East Jerusalem and in many villages around the country, the commanders ordered women, old people, and children to be sent away to be out of harm’s way.369 Indeed, psychological preparation for the removal of dependents from the battlefield had begun in 1946-47, when the AHC and the Arab League had periodically endorsed such a move when contemplating the future war in Palestine. Altogether about two to three hundred thousand Arabs fled their homes during this second stage [April-June 1948] of the exodus.

            … During the second stage, while there was no blanket policy of expulsion, the Haganah’s Plan D clearly resulted in mass flight.

            (You will of course note that Benny Morris, even as late as 1999, is still trying to prop up the Zionist narrative that a few of these people fled because they were ordered to do so by their own – another Zionist stupidity – and so what if they had?)

      • Chris Berel

        Nick is a hate-monger. It is what he is, it is what he does, it is his reason for living.

        That statement is worth repeating ever time you read a some crap posted by Nick.

        • Walk Tall Hang Loose

          Hello Chris, welcome to my website. Please avoid abuse of other commenters. If you disagree with them, please answer what they say with evidence and reason.

          • Chris Berel

            I understand. However, if I supply citation regarding Nick’s continuous antisemitic rant’s; is that acceptable?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            No. What anyone has said elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion here. If I consider that anyone here is anti-semitic or expresses any other racist views, or is personally abusive to other commenters, I will take appropriate action.

          • Chris Berel

            If you will notice, there is a quote from Alan Hart used.

            From the ADL:

            “Some have gone further. For example, Alan Hart, once a mainstream reporter for the BBC and the Independent Television Network alleged in an May 2010 Internet radio interview with Kevin Barrett that Israel and the Mossad were behind the 9/11 attacks.

            After pre-emptively trying to dismiss charges of anti-Semitism, Hart asserts:

            I tell you what I honestly believe. I think it started out as an
            all-Muslim operation, but I think it would have been very quickly
            penetrated by Mossad agents…My guess is at an early point they said to the bad guys at the CIA, ‘Hey this operation is running. What do we do?” And the Zionists and the neo-cons said, ‘Let’s use it.”

            Hart’s interview has appeared on YouTube and other places on the Internet. His video is just one of thousands online blaming Jews or Israel for 9/11. These videos have been seen by tens of thousands of people and continue to gain currency among those who wish to demonize Israel and the Jews.”

            I would assert that anyone who uses a quote from Alan Hart (after he went off the deep end) is likely quoting antisemitic material.

          • Nick

            The 911 Commission (only opened late after protests, under-funded and obstructed) was refused access to the 14 captured eye-witnesses to the plot (or even the names of 4 of them).

            Chapters 5 and 7 of the 911 Commission Report is based on “evidence” extracted under torture – yet the commissioners could not even question their interrogators and find out where the discussions had been leading. The father of one of them filed an affidavit saying that his son had been forced to sign a “confession” that he’d been unable to see.

            As a result of this ridiculous hanky-panky, the 911 report failed to answer surely the most important question of all – did anyone in the US help plan, fund and organise 911?

            As 1000 American Muslims were locked up, the actual fellow countrymen of the hijackers left the country in a hurry and so did a bunch of Israelis who claimed to be selling art-work door to door.

            Bizarre because many of these “student art sellers” had Israeli intelligence backgrounds. Some of them had been living in just the same places as the hijackers, eg Hollywood, Florida. These “art students” consistently approached federal officials, even wandering round their offices. Encyclopaedia salesmen never tried to make such sales and got very nervous anytime they found they’d started to make a pitch to security officials!

            It is true that the “five dancing Israelis” were arrested and held for 60 days but it is far from clear they were questioned properly – and their boss, Suter, had fled to Israel, never to be spoken to.

            Still, anyone who wants answers will be smeared as unreliable, even if, as in Alan Hart’s case, they have a very distinguished record in journalism and a desperate wish to be pro-Israel!

          • Chris Berel

            Correction: Hart had a very distinguished record in journalism. He is now considered a conspiracy nutcake and a run-of-the-mill antisemite.


          • Nick

            Why post me a link from a deeply problematical hasbara source?

            Especially when it says nothing of what you claim – there is one mention of Alan Hart and it is:

            “Likewise, Alan Hart, a British journalist, points out in the introduction of his book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews that “all of the most perceptive and most devastating Zionist critics were and are Jews.” If this is the case, clearly the worst type of rhetoric against Israel can never be anti-Semitic because Jews themselves have voiced it.”

            Meanwhile, the stupidity of these Israeli-firsters is blatant for all to see – they say things like:

            “These debates are just one example of the ways in which Jewish and Israeli intellectuals provide strong cases against Israel’s right to exist.”

            Nobody has a problem with the state of Israel .. its the brutal apartheid and criminal regime that stands to fail, probably in the next few years!

          • Chris Berel

            Alan Hart is recognized as little but a conspiracy nutcase. His defenders are likewise.

          • Nick

            I note your rejection of the findings of even very sympathetic outside observers.

            How do you deal with what your own people say about the determination of the Zionists to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians?

            This is Chaim Simmons of Kiryat Arba blowing the gaffe and exposing every single (early) Zionist as a land-grabber!

            The era of “Modern Zionism” can be said to have begun towards the end of the 19th century with the “Hovevei Zion”, the “First Aliyah”, and Theodor Herzl.

            In one of the first entries in his private diary dated June 1895, (even before he had decided on the final location of the Jewish State), Herzl wrote that it would be necessary to remove the non-Jews from such a state. Herzl apparently realised that it would not be prudent to publicise such an idea, since there is not a hint of it in his famous book “The Jewish State”, which was published just a few months later.

            In contrast, Nachman Syrkin, who was one of the founders of “Socialist Zionism”, had no inhibitions about making public the possibility of transfer of Arabs from Palestine, and such a proposal appears in his booklet published in 1898.

            In the same year, Herzl visited Palestine and saw the country at first hand. A few years later in his unpublished “Draft Charter” for Palestine he wrote that the Jews would have the right to transfer Arabs to other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Another person to visit Palestine at that period was the Anglo-Jewish writer Israel Zangwill, who, after a few years reflection, proposed such transfer in lectures which he gave in the U.S.A. and Britain in 1904 and 1905. One should note that the public pronouncements on this question by both Syrkin and Zangwill did not give rise to any adverse comments.

          • Nick

            Please notice that Berel has made no attempt to answer any of my points – and his offer of “citation regarding Nick’s continuous antisemitic rant” is similarly vacuous.

            Meanwhile, I happen to know that his hasbara has received thrashings elsewhere – while on this page he’s claiming that Jacob de Haan was:

            a) not the representative of the “native” Jews of Palestine and he is claming that:

            b) the murder was at the hands of club and gun-wielding immigrant thugs who were not to the liking of the Yishuv.

            Both assertions are totally discredited at the Wonkypedia.

            He has, of course, also attacked Alan Hart who presided over much of BBC and ITV’s odiously Zionist coverage of this business and the best forensic academic in this field (or probably any other), Norman Finkelstein.

          • Chris Berel

            You have made no points to answer. The ramblings of a conspiracy nutcake are never worth answering.

      • Nick

        The Zionists weren’t a bit diverse as regards their original intentions, there is not a single one of them who didn’t intend ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

        Israel Zangwill went round addressing public meeings preaching that “Palestine was to become as Jewish as France is French” in 1904 – and no Zionist ever protested!

        Nor was it something new, Theodore Herzl wanted from the Nile to the Euphrates and (although he was careful never to state as much publicly) we know from his diaries that this was to be a land-grab with vacant possession.

        In 1917 the Balfour Declaration made clear that the natives (who had, after all, protected the holy sites of all three religions for 2000 years) must not be oppressed – yet the Zionists were still boasting exactly what they intended and put another letter in the Times to that effect in 1920 and several more in 1936. By fraudulently claiming that there was an “Arab Rebellion” in progress they hi-jacked the Peel Commission of the following year (1937) into offering what they wanted.

        The most embarrassing and indisputable essay on the whole subject of the pre-planned ethnic cleansing is this one, I do hope you enjoy:

        International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895-1947: A Historical Survey, 1988, by Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba.

        The author is/was a hard-core racist Hebron settler living illegally in a colony of the most legendarily nasty of all these people.

        • Chris Berel

          It appears that everyone is enjoying you making a fool of yourself.

          But while you are at it, please prove this statement you fraudulently made: “By fraudulently claiming that there was an “Arab Rebellion” in progress”

          Meanwhile, we’ll keep laughing at you.

          • Nick

            There was no Arab rebellion to speak of – only chaos and banditry brought about by the total neglect of the administration and the impunity granted to the Zionists by the British.

            The Zionists made hay in this period, seizing large areas of the best land with their “Tower and Stockade” system, first recorded in Nov 1936. Between 52 and 57 of the settlements were built between then and 1939. Not a single one was lost – so much for a dangerous revolt!

            Even the outrageously Zionist Wonkypedia doesn’t conceal the fact that the Palestinians were attempting to engage in peaceful protest until “late in 1937”, almost a year after this new and violent attack on them and their lands.

            The revolt consisted of two distinct phases.[11] The first phase was directed primarily by the urban and elitist Higher Arab Committee (HAC) and was focused mainly on strikes and other forms of political protest.[11] By October 1936, this phase had been defeated by the British civil administration using a combination of political concessions, international diplomacy (involving the rulers of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan and Yemen[1]) and the threat of martial law.[11]

            The second phase, which began late in 1937, was a violent and peasant-led resistance movement that increasingly targeted British forces.[11]

            Meanwhile, all through 1936 and most of 1937 the likes of Orde Wingate were performing mass atrocities on the Palestinians in their undefended homes and villages before they started to get any retaliation.

            Exactly the same as Israel does now – attacking people for no reason and even deliberately breaking ceasefires as they did in order to carry out Cast Lead in 2008.

          • Nick

            I posted that there was no Arab rebellion in 1936 and you’re banned so we cannot discover if you’re going to produce anything new.

            But you’ve had loads of opportunities to do that and you’ve never come up with anything worthwhile.

            You may simply be a huge time-waster – that’s very much how it looks!

            PS – we’ve met in other Forums and you could answer my points there – but I bet you don’t!

        • Walk Tall Hang Loose

          You see things too much in black and white. The 1921 Zionist Conference passed a resolution stating the Zionist aim as “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development.”

          (According to the 1922 Churchill White Paper – I cannot find an original reference).

          • Nick

            That motion by the 1921 Zionists is not lying hasbara.

            Instead, its a giant step backwards, completely disavowing the guaranteed protection provided in the strongest terms by the Balfour Declaration and about to be included in the Mandate, wherein:

            “… it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”

            Meanwhile, you cannot point me to a single Zionist from that era who isn’t known to have supported ethnic cleansing. (Some of them claimed the victims would be compensated but that was eye-wash as well).

            In case you think I’m being a little contentious, there is the most embarrassing and indisputable essay on the whole subject of the pre-planned ethnic cleansing here:

            “International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895-1947: A Historical Survey” 1988, by Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba.

            The author is/was a hard-core racist Hebron settler living illegally in a colony of the most legendarily nasty of all these people.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            You spoil your case, and give ammunition to your opponents, by overstating it.

            The 1921 Zionist resolution does not disavow the Balfour Declaration.

            Ben-Gurion did not support ethnic cleansing ‘in that era’. Chaim Simmons quotes him from 1936 onwards []; Palestine Remembered from 1937 onwards []. MiddleEastPiece balances these with earlier quotes [], for example in 1931: “The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The Arabs work the land, and will remain.” It is quite reasonable to argue that Ben-Gurion and others changed their views about the possibility of peaceful co-existence with the Arabs as a result of the latter’s increasingly violent opposition from around 1937 onwards.

            Again, you spoil your case and give ammunition to your opponents by making extreme statements such as declaring the Arab Revolt to be ‘fraudulent’.

          • Nick

            PS – I’m sorry if you think I’m exaggerating – but you cannot take seriously this from the Zionists in 1921:

            “the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect – surely you cannot?

            They hated and despised the natives, and had even invented a new secret language so as not to have anything in common!

          • Nick

            I’m sorry if you think I’m exaggerating by calling the Arab Revolt “fraudulent” but it seems to me as if the ham-strung and penniless (and infiltrated) Palestinian leadership took a leaf from the book of the Zionists and attempted a boycott. It was not until after the Peel Commission had been and backed the Zionists that there was violence – soon met by the most staggering brutality from Wingate and others.

            Moreover, I stand by the other things I’ve said – the Zionists were always intent on a land-grab and ethnic cleansing. (Except that DBG’s enemies, the gun-slinging and Mussolini-loving revisionists led by Jabotinsky, sometimes sound as if slavery would be an option, the natives as carriers of water and hewers of wood).

            Chaim Simons is an unimpeachable source for anything that makes the Zionists look bad – we may be able to trust him when he appears to say that, from Herzl in 1895 until Zangwill’s speaking tours in 1904/5, ethnic cleansing was assumed, with only a few, like Herzl himself, keeping quiet about it.

            There was a falling out in 1905, Zangwill wasn’t welcome to the Palestinian project and declared for Uganda or South America instead.

            Straight after the Balfour Declaration and the first success of the just-sacked Okhrana operatives (the attack on the Neba Musa march) and the Greece-Turkey “exchange” the 15 year old warnings about circumsection were forgotten and there was even a letter in the Times promoting ethnic cleansing. Then things fell quiet for a while until the mid-30s – but all statements suggesting there was to be tolerance should, IMHO, be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

            All our concerns may have been rendered completely out-of-date – have you seen this?

            The surprising reason Israelis are fleeing in droves.

            Israelis are leaving the country, but not because there isn’t enough work. … the phenomenon has mainly exposed the dismal morale among large sections.

      • Nick

        Why do we have to avoid lumping all Zionists together?

        “International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895-1947: A Historical Survey” 1988, by Chaim Simons of Kiryat Arba makes it perfectly clear that, before 1948, every single Zionist was committed to complete ethnic cleansing.

        • Walk Tall Hang Loose

          I answered that already: because they were a diverse and argumentative lot, as illustrated by the heated argument over borders at the 12-14th May 1948 meeting. As to expulsion of Arabs, Ben-Gurion and his Labor Zionists had a fellow-feeling for the Arab ‘working class’ and wanted them to stay. It was only from 1936, when it became clear the Arabs were not going to accept continued massive Jewish immigration, that Ben-Gurion started to talk about expelling Arabs.

          • Nick

            Lots of criminals are diverse and argumentative.

            That doesn’t alter the fact that the Zionists (every last one of them in any position of authority) were intent on whole-sale ethnic cleansing.

            Meanwhile, you can help my research – is it the case that none of the main-stream kibbutzes had synagogues – but many of them had posters of Stalin in the canteen!?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            I do not know, but it is highly likely, given that the kibbutzes were socialistic, and that Stalin was a strong supporter of the Zionist enterprise. I also remember from my childhood in Britain that the kibbutzes were much admired as practicing a form of communal living similar to that of the early christians and the monastic orders.

          • Nick

            Is it true that, while some kibbutzes were operated as summer work-camps for various budding western Zionists, a lot of them were actually labour camps where the Mizrah, often professionals, were put to hard manual labour for no pay. Escape impossible because they’d been tricked into signing away their old citizenship?

            Their children taken away so that the entire 2,500 year old Iraqi/Yemeni/Syrian Jewish culture be entirely stamped out in a single generation? Followed by the Moroccan etc?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Nick, I am not an expert in this, I cannot answer your questions. But I am very interested in the relationship between religious ideas and the achievement, or not, of peaceful relations between different groups. If you could research and write an article about the interactions between middle-eastern Judaism, Zionism, and Islam in Palestine, and its relevance to the current Israel/Palestine situation, I would be pleased to publish it on my site.

          • Nick

            I don’t see any relationship worth speaking of between Judaism (either variety) and Zionism. Or not until relatively recently, when the Zionists started to need the cannon fodder the Jews can provide.

  • Kit Chen

    History Forgery

    • Walk Tall Hang Loose

      Kit, you need to face up to the fact that you have been lied to, and learn to think for yourself and do your own research. Everything I say in this article is backed up by references to official UN and Israeli Government documents. Click on the links and read them carefully. There is no forgery here. I am not infallible, I may have misinterpreted things, and there may be other documents you know about which put things in a different light. If so, please let me know here and I will improve the article.

      • Kit Chen

        That you missread

        • Nick

          WTHL is being much too kind to the Zionists – a great deal of the historical record shows them up in a terrible light.

          And that’s just what’s been uncovered – Ilan Pappe was forced from his job and his country for discovering the story of the “Consultancy” in David Ben-Gurion’s papers. Netanyahu has again restricted access to those papers – which are now mostly 50 years old and more! There is no earthly “security” excuse to hide them, its pure embarrassment at the shocking criminality of his behaviour.

          What’s the “security” excuse for refusing to release the pictures of the Deir Yassin massacre, 65 years after the event? There is none and can be none. Most likely, the pictures taken show that the death toll was indeed a minimum of 254, not the 107 that the systematicaly fraudulent terrorists have since insisted it was. Why can’t we see the pictures? Why can the Palestinians not have the bodies back?

          • Chris Berel

            254? Where did you get that lie?

            Most Arab sources claim about 100. Unless you are calling the Arabs liars.

          • Chris Berel

            “Over 100”

            Hogan, Matthew. 2001. “THE 1948 MASSACRE AT DEIR YASSIN REVISITED.” Historian 63, no. 2: 309. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 23, 2013).

            “at least 100”
            Karkar, Sonja. 2008. “The Ghosts of Deir Yassin.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April. 22. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 23, 2013).

            “Palestinian sociologist Sharif Kanaana, a professor at Birzeit
            University who has researched the massacre, said he has found evidence of no more than 107 deaths.”

            Horan, Deborah. 1998. “DEIR YASSIN, FIFTY YEARS ON.” Inter Press Service, Apr 08, 1.

            The truth is bad enough, but when you feel the need to continuously and pathologically lie about events, you posts become meaningless.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            The Wikipedia page on the subject says that the Irgun commander visited the village on April 10, the day after the massacre and reported 254 bodies. The local head of the Red Cross visited on April 11th and in his personal memoir published in 1950 said he saw more that 200 bodies. The study by Sharif Kanaana, giving the number of 107, was based on interviews with survivors and published in 1987. Nick, you are wrong to attribute the figure 107 to ‘fraudulent terrorists’: Sharif Kanaana is a respected Palestinian academic. It is the figure 254 that comes from the Irgun. Chris, you are wrong to call Nick a liar, because he has evidence to back up his number.

            Clearly details have been lost in the ‘fog of war’, and any information that the Israeli Government has should be released.

          • Chris Berel

            Wikipedia is an unreliable source and is suspect. Most sources say that the higher number used by Irgun was for propaganda purposes. It appears that that propaganda had its desired affect.

            Almost every reliable source uses “more than 100.” Typically, extremist and propaganda sites use figures of 200 and above.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Yes, I appreciate that the figure may be propaganda, as the Wiki article does in fact say. To point this out to Nick is constructive criticism. To call him a liar is not acceptable, because the number he gave is documented.

          • Nick

            Is it acceptable to claim that, because a Professor with a gun held to her head, speaking 50 years later (1998), says she can only identify 107 of the victims, therefore that’s all there were? In contradiction of the contemporary evidence?

            Meanwhile, Israel refuses to release much of the evidence it holds in its archives.

            Honest people, faced with a cover-up as gross as this one are bound to suppose that Israel is much more guilty than we can currently prove.

            Honest people would of course have been demanding the prosecution of the killers and the return of the survivors to their homes. Failure to do so renders people into Nakba deniers, who should be imprisoned alongside their ideological soul-mates, the Holocaust Deniers.

          • Chris Berel

            Please provide proof that a professor had a gun held to her head.

          • Nick

            Honest people will not believe the word of terrorist gangs who persistently deny the massacres they carry out (eg Jacob de Haan in 1924 over 200 Jews in 1940 – just their Jewish victims) – or cover up the number of victims.

            Israel has, outrageously, blocked anyone from recovering the bodies of Deir Yassin (some are in a nearby ravine, covered in household rubbish) – and even refuses access to its archives, where it is known to have photographs taken immediately after the massacre! Along with some other material that could very easily show that there was a count of the victims and it does come to 254.

            After this obstruction, the Zionists will accuse others of lying … but no honest person believes such obvious frauds.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            It seems to me that the most reliable estimate of numbers killed is likely to be that of the Red Cross who visited on 11 April and saw ‘over 200’ bodies. I agree that the figure of 107 derived from interviews with survivors 40 years later must be regarded as a minimum figure.

          • Nick

            To be honest, I don’t care to bandy words over which source is most reliable.

            People who set out to deceive, as the Zionists do all the time, don’t deserve to be believed about anything.

            They have a horrific record for lying about the number of people they’ve murdered – and I’d be pretty confident that that had happened this time.

            Meanwhile, the Palestinians, for their own reasons, accept very much lower estimates of the number of deaths in all of these cases.

            In 2003 the book “Searching Jenin” does not say that 100s and 100s must have died in the attack of April 2002, it says “The Israeli government denies a massacre because it is unlikely that the confirmed death count will reach the original estimate of 500.” and then says “this question cannot be answered because hundreds of men are still detained by the Israeli army

            This, despite the journalists saying that the camp stank of death and even the NYT saying “”the smell of decomposing bodies hung over at least six heaps of rubble”.

            I think the Palestinians are making a bad mistake accepting these underestimates from the brutes – but I can’t tell them that because I’ll be banged up for 66 years in SuperMax for “assisting terrorists”. The only fixed point of reference is that nothing that the Zionists claim can be trusted.

          • Nick

            Wikipedia is dominated by the nastiest kind of Zionist denialism – and the article on the Deir Yassin Massacre is a long way from being the worst example of this disgusting practice.

            The Wikipedia article recommends for “further reading” other shockingly biased articles and the 2007 “Blood Libel at Deir Yassin: The Black Book” which is an appalling fabrication from the “National Midrasha Publishers” and “Survival Institute Publishers”. Much like someone calling themselves “Vatican Publishers” bringing out a book written by Bishop Williamson.

            This “Blood-libel” book supposedly “presents testimonies refuting the claim that a force of the Irgun underground committed a massacre at the Arab village of Deir Yassin in the 1948 war, and accuses leaders of the Israeli community of promoting the massacre story to discredit their political opponents.”

            With this degree of disgusting denialism going on (obviously backed by the Wonkypedia) why is it that we still cannot see the photographs of the massacre that are in the Israeli archives?

            How about the photographs of piles of the corpses of women and children after the Gaza Massacre of 2008? Israeli journalists took those pictures but have refused to share them with anyone.

            Share our values, do you?

          • Chris Berel

            Who would want to share the values of a babbling idiot like nick?

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Interviews: 50th Anniversary Of Deir Yassin Massacre

            In retrospect, Palestinians of today admit that one of the most terrible mistakes they made back in 1948 was to over-report the details of the Deir Yassin massacre. “The goal was to mobilize Arab support for the Palestinians who were slaughtered by the Zionists but what really happened was that more and more Palestinians became scared and left their country,” said Hazem Nusseibeh, a leading Palestinian figure who currently lives in Jordan. In 1948 he was among the key figures of the city of Jerusalem.

            …”True, there was exchange of fire with the Jews. Prior to the attack, they used to come to the village and distribute leaflets calling for the establishment of friendly and brotherly relations with us offering a formula of ‘do not hit us, we won’t hit you.’ Our youths confronted them and did not listen to them. Our youths used to go out to the eastern side of the village and beat up whatever Jew they saw.”

            …Mohammed Asaad Radwan Al Yassini, 70, who currently lives in the Old City of Jerusalem, confirmed that some of the men were dressed in women’s outfits.

            …Did they use speakers and what did they say?

            “They called on us to surrender, to throw our weapons and to save ourselves. But we did not imagine them breaking into the village.

            …Ali Yousef Jaber, Abu Yousef, is also 70 years old. He lives in Am’ari refugee camp near Ramallah. Excerpts below:

            “I would like to stress on the fact that no rape incidents took place. That was part of a big lie that some of the Arabs and some of our leaders invented but were refuted by our villagers. I was among a group of people who went to Saad Eddin Al Aref to talk to him about this. He told us he wanted to frame them and attribute to them a brutal crime. I said to him: if you want to frame them, do not use Deir Yassin, or our women. Do not attribute to us something that never happened, otherwise this is infamy that our village and its people do not deserve…


          • Nick

            Why would we believe witnesses when you hold guns to their heads? Especially from a racist who says it was “Palestinian sources” who used the figure of 254 deaths given to them by the terrorists (and confirmed as “over 200” by the representative of the Red Cross who was allowed in for a short time under threat of death).

            Why would we believe anyone who was still concealing the evidence, the report made by Meir Pa’il and the photographs taken?

            You cannot possibly claim a security reason for resisting a court order 65 years after the event!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            LOL! Nobody is holding a gun to their heads. Some don’t even live here, and this was from an Arab web site.

            What’s the matter? Don’t believe the Arabs who were actually there? Or maybe they just forgot.

          • Nick

            When Israel opens its archives on Deir Yassin (known to contain photographs and an account from the Zionists themselves) then we’ll have a better chance to understand how many women and children were massacred.

            Meanwhile, we know that this was an unresisting village looking forwards to accepting Zionist sovereignty (despite being far outside the partition lines that Israel is based on).

            And we know that it was attacked by terrorists freshly emboldened to prove they could behave like an army and join the Haganah.

            They failed to behave like an army but were welcomed into the Haganah with open arms anyway.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            We already know what happened from the Arab accounts above.

            Meanwhile, we also know that not only was the town actively and violently involved in the Arab revolt (1936-1939), and in 1948, even after they signed a treaty with the Jews of Givat Shaul, by April they were again actively involved in fighting; shooting at Jews and helping blockade Jerusalem to prevent food, water, and other supplies from reaching the Jewish majority.

          • Nick

            Nobody will trust or bother quoting a man like this living with a gun held to his head

            …Ali Yousef Jaber, Abu Yousef, is also 70 years old. He lives in Am’ari refugee camp near Ramallah. Excerpts below:

            “I would like to stress on the fact that no rape incidents took place. That was part of a big lie that some of the Arabs and some of our leaders invented but were refuted by our villagers.

            Meanwhile, we know there is a cover-up and Israel refuses to open its archives, even 65 years later.

            We know that Israel has closed other archives, including that of David Ben-Gurion.

            We know what’s in there – that in October 1947, even before the partition resolution rammed through the UN, the Zionists were united behind a complete ethnic cleansing.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            The article quoted a number of people- Arabs who were there. None of them “have a gun to their heads”. And if you read about Amari, it is under PA rule. If anything, he would want to claim the opposite.

            But never let facts get in the way.

          • Nick

            We know you’re covering up over Deir Yassin and all the history of your land-grab.

            And that you intimidate and murder witnesses.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Arabs who were there admitted the great lie- the paradigm of the great lie.

            Case closed. Game over. Move on.

          • Nick

            Open your archives, and in particular lets see the pictures you took of the massacre at Deir Yassin.

            Otherwise we’ll think you’re covering it up because you know how evil the original Zionists behaved, and what atrocities the current ones perpetrate.

            Then explain why the friendly people and complete innocents of Deir Yassin were never allowed to return.

            Answer? You have none – Deir Yassin just happens to be the best recorded example of between 400 and 530 such atrocities, performed in order to create Lebensraum.

            As is the seizure of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

          • Nick

            The article quoted a number of people- Arabs who were there.

            The Zionists have invented large amounts of this stuff, as first pointed out by Childers.

            The Zionists have also lied and denied and covered up all of their atrocities.

            If you’re going to try and deny that, then explain how AJ Cristol came to be handed by Israel the picture that he put on the front cover of his book “The USS Liberty Incident”.

            (Actually, they first handed it to Thames Television in 1984).

            How did it come about that this picture was stolen from the US Navy and had then been air-brushed to remove details?

            And, if it was an inexplicable mistake, where are the real gun-camera photographs, which must exist?

            When do we get to see the photographs the terrorists took of Deir Yassin, for that matter?

            Or are you going to lie and cover up and deny for ever?

          • Yishai_Kohen

            It was an Arab web site. An Arab reporter interviewing Arabs who live under Arab rule and who were there.

            They admitted that it was a lie.

            As to the unfortunate Liberty incident, it’s all publicly available on the NSA web site and other US government sites. It was an unfortunate case of friendly fire.

            This is why the US closed the case (which happened nearly 50 years ago).

          • Nick

            Israel produced a stolen photograph, then air-brushed it, then presented it as coming from their own gun-camera.

            They’ve admitted it was actually a US Navy photograph (they had to) but not how it came to be used in such a blatant piece of fraud. Cristol blusters and refuses to answer the question – astoundingly, Daniel Pipes has him doing it again.

            Nobody in their right mind will accept anything else the lying Zionists say until they come clean!

  • Yishai_Kohen

    The UN passed 181. The Jews accepted it. The Arabs violently rejected it.

    They chose war.

    They lost.

    They tried to steal what wasn’t theirs, so they get nothing here.

    Oh well.

    • talknic

      Uh? What Israeli territory did they try to steal?

      Israel was proclaimed independent of Palestine effective 00:01
      May 15th 1948 (ME time)

      Only the area recognized as the Israeli Government asked to be recognized was “to be called “Israel.”

      The Israeli Government tells us Arab forces were advancing into
      “Palestine” ( jewishvirtuallibrary Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs )

      What remained of Palestine has not had a name change.

      There are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for invading Israel or what remained of Palestine ans no UNSC resolutions on the Question of Palestine call for ‘peace in Israel’. They call for “peace in Palestine”

      In fact the Israeli Government confirmed on May 22nd 1948 in a statement to the UNSC Israel was operating in territories “outside the State of Israel”

      • Walk Tall Hang Loose

        Hello talknic, thanks for visiting. I asked the same question of Yishae in another place, and he said that he was referring to Jewish property stolen by the Jordanians when they ethnically cleansed Jews from Judea and Samaria.

        • talknic

          They talk illogical nonsense.

          1948 Israeli Basic Law prohibited Israeli citizens and residents, including Jewish refugees in Israel, from
          entering territory in control of an enemy state. Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc were enemy states. The Arab states didn’t pass Israeli law.

          Jordan was left legally in control of Judea and Samaria through the Armistice Agreements Israel signed. The fact that Israel agreed made it legal.

          Because the majority of countries in the world have adopted laws to expel or inter possible 5th columnists and to ‘freeze their property and assets’ while at war, the ‘custom of law’ has automatically passed into Customary International Law. It is not illegal. It is normal.

          However Israel didn’t ‘freeze property and assets’ it razed homes, farms, entire villages, confiscating the assets and properties of refugees from Israeli territory and territories under Israeli control “outside the state of Israel”

          Because the majority of countries in the world have adopted laws allowing for the return of refugees and the return or compensation of their property and assets when hostilities cease, this ‘custom of law’ has also passed into Customary International Law. It is illegal to not allow return of refugees and it is illegal to confiscate their property and assets.

          However if people take up citizenship in a country other than the country of return they are no longer refugees. They have no RoR or right to compensation.

          The Israeli government and Zionist Organization encouraged and offered incentives to refugees to become citizens of Israel. There are no Israeli Jewish refugees.

          The Israeli government and Zionist Organization’s encouragement and incentives were not the fault of the Arab states. The Zionist Organization envisaged it before the 1948 war.

          • Nick

            Also worth noting is that the Jews of East Jerusalem were forced to leave by the British, acting for the Zionists.

            Just as in Hebron in 1929, the Jews wanted to stay, the British forced them to evacuate.

            Worth remembering that the first unambiguous act of terrorism by the Zionists was the murder of the spokesman of the native Jews of Palestine, Jaacob de Haan in 1924.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Nick, can you give some reliable references for these points?

          • Chris Berel

            Any reliable source will show that Haan did not represent the “native” Jews of Israel. He represented the ultra-Orthodox in an attempt to get the Balfour declaration declared null and void.

            His assassination was and has been widely condemned. “Labor movement publicist Moshe Beilinson wrote:

            “The flag of our movement must not be tarnished. Neither by the
            blood of the innocent, nor by the blood of the guilty. Otherwise – our movement will be bad, because blood draws other bloods. Blood always takes revenge and if you walk down this path once, you do not know where it would lead you.”


          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Thank you, this is the sort of post I welcome. If both sides are able to correct the distortions and propaganda of the other, there may eventually be a common understanding: a very important contribution to peaceful co-existence.

          • Chris Berel

            Except one side is deliberately distorting the historical record for antisemitic reasons.

          • Nick

            I’m sure that if I slip up anywhere, you will provide chapter and verse that documents my mistakes.

            So far, I’ve been showing you up and you’ve refused to elaborate or defend any of your often quaint contentions.

            Meanwhile, even the Zionist dominated Wonkypedia doesn’t try to cover up the fact that it was the main-stream of the immigrant terrorism that had carried out the killing:

            “Jacob Israël de Haan (December 31, 1881 – June 30, 1924) was a Dutch Jewish literary writer and journalist who was assassinated in Jerusalem by the Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah for his anti-Zionist political activities and contacts with Arab leaders.[1. Marijke T.C.Stapert-Eggen. “The Rosenthaliana’s Jacob Israel de Haan Archive”. University of Amsterdam Library.]”

          • Chris Berel

            You have merely shown your penchant for printing misinformation and propaganda, neither which require any type extensive denunciation because it is usually baseless propaganda.

            Nothing reliable states that the murder of Haan was an act of terrorism. The only ones claiming such are typically propagandists and antisemities.

          • Nick

            You seem to have come here to defend antisemitic terrorists.

            The first unmistakeably terrorist action of the notorious Haganah was the killing of the very Jewish Jacob de Haan.

            A later smashing success was the 1940 killing of over 200Jews on board a ship taking them to safety – a success rate 5 times greater than any Palestinian, ever!

            Both actions were covered up for many years afterwards – de Haan’s killing until 1964 and the Patria until 1957.

            Have you come here to argue that the Zionists are not terrorists or that they’ve not used a great deal of terrorism to intimidate or force people to act the way they want? Or that its alright as long as they only kill Jews?

          • Chris Berel

            Defend antisemites like you? Defend lying antisemites like you?

            You appear to be so ignorant that you need a breathing coach.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Chris: it is not acceptable to use insulting language on this site. This is your final warning..

          • Chris Berel

            Sorry, I forgot whose blog I was on. Nick has been cross posting erroneous and antisemitic material all day. The incident to which he refers is an accidental bombing that was meant to merely disable the ship so that it would stay in Palestine. It is antisemitic to claim that the bomb was deliberately set to murder people.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            You obviously don’t know what the word antisemitic means, so I will give you one further chance. Don’t use it again. If anyone makes an antisemitic or racist remark on my site, you can be sure I will deal with them.

            Nor is it acceptable to call someone a liar, because you have no means of knowing whether or not they believe what they are saying is the truth.

          • Chris Berel

            I understand you issue regarding lying. However, I am not certain you know what the word “antisemite” or “antisemitic” means.

            Someone posting to you site took some information from wikipedia that clearly states that an incident, wherein passengers on a refugee boat died, because a planted bomb, meant to merely disable the ship, was too large. An unfortunate accident, but an accident none the less.

            The incident was then, in your commnet section, with no evidence whatsoever, turned into a deliberate mass murder by Jews. The reason for the misstatements is to increase the hatred of Jews. No one could reasonably mistake those misstatements as anything else but the attempt to turn an accident into an episode designed to increase the amount of antisemitism content on the web. And a person so doing so could rightly be denounced as an antisemite.

          • Chris Berel

            Further, someone posting such misstatements could reasonably be considered baiting for over the top replies, wherein the replier would be banned from the site.

          • Nick

            I have made a plea that you be allowed back into this space, for all your egregious misbehaviour.

            However, I reserve the right not to chase after every new and absurd red herring and demand answers to questions such as – what borders are we required to recognise Israel within?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Chris, you are now blacklisted and are no longer able to post on this site.

            If someone is using explosives legally, for example, in a quarry, but do so with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and some of those others are killed, then they are guilty of the serious crime of manslaughter.

            If someone uses explosives illegally, to damage a vessel carrying passengers, with reckless disregard for their safety, and some of the passengers are killed, then they are guilty of murder, at least in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar. Such an act could never possibly anywhere be described as ‘an accident’.

            Nick did not attribute the action to ‘the Jews’ in general, but to the Haganah, a Jewish militia group. His remarks were therefore not antisemitic. Please try to understand the difference.

          • Nick

            I would propose that, even though Chris Berel is doing a good imitation of being a lying piece of filth, that you allow him back in.

            If, as is obvious, he is not going to provide useful information, nor defend the things he has written, then we make a list of his most egregrious dishonesties and post it back to him until he either answers the questions or defends his statements.

            He’s plainly never going to do either of those things and will presently slope off spitting venom as he goes. That’s far better than banning him, which simply allows him to play the victim all over the system.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            No, I don’t think it would be productive to pursue such a quarrel, not do I have the time. I have a lot more research and writing to do.
            Also, I have internet problems at the moment. I intend to respond to your other comments, but it may take a few days.

          • Nick

            Where are you publishing your research?

            I came across a mind-blowing article here – – is it possible that one can publish good information on the web?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            At the time of the Libyan chemical weapons affair, one of the explanations given was that the deaths were the accidental result of sarin escape when it was being mixed with tear gas (I write from memory here, no time to search back for this). Sounds like an Israeli technique?????

          • Nick

            We are lied to so much that its tempting to suppose the Syrians were not as much to blame as we’re saying.

            But in this case, I think it was regular (or even elite) Syrian soldiers who fired these rockets.

          • Nick

            I suspect the israelis of all kinds of things, of starting the Lebanese Civil War (very easy to do – hand out guns to criminals – imagine the results of a single container load delivered to the slums of Los Angeles – and its what Moshe Dayan appears to have said he planned to do in 1954).

            The Zionists lie most blatantly about all sorts of things (see top Israeli-first author AJ Cristol making a fool of himself over the USS Liberty )

            However, I don’t think they’ve lied on this one – Syria has long been a very nasty place. Government thugs probably did fire on peaceful demonstrations.

          • Nick

            Sigh. The Zionists get a kick from running all over the system spitting their lies and racist poison.

            But their lies can be challenged – they sure don’t like it up ’em!

          • Nick

            I agree that arguing with Chris Berel is pointless.

            Are you writing anything interesting?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            I have a new article on ‘Holy Places in the Holy Land’.

          • Nick

            What you mean is, beating robbing and killing people is a good laugh as long as its the untermensch – and killing off all the devout Jews in Palestine is a good laugh as well.

          • Nick

            Anti-semitic to accuse the Zionists of attacking and killing Jews?

          • Nick

            Jacob de Haan represented all the “native” Jews of Palestine – many of whom felt even more threatened by the Zionists than did the Muslims and Christians, being beaten and robbed the same as, or possibly more, than the others rightful inhabitants.

            We have Einstein and 17 other top New Yorkers closely linked to Judasim in 1948 warning us of what the terrorists had been doing to Jews in Palestine.

            And we have quotes such as this one from the memoirs of a German general attached to the Ottoman troops in Palestine during World War I:

            “How curious that the war has brought about an upsurge in the struggle between the Zionists and the non-Zionists, a battle that has turned ugly and done little to further the interests of Jews in general.

            “The non-Zionists, that is to say those Jews who had no political objectives and who belonged to the Orthodox current, at the time the preponderant majority in Palestine. The Zionists residing there represented no more than 5 percent of the population, but were very active and fanatical, and terrorized the non-Zionists.

            “During the war, the non-Zionists attempted to free themselves from the Zionist terror with the aid of the Turks. They rightly feared that the activities of the Zionists would destroy their good relations that prevailed amongst long-time Jewish residents in Palestine and the Arabs.

            That passage apparently comes from Freidrich Kress Von Kressenstein in “Im ha-Turkim el Taalat-Suez” (With the Turks towards the Suez Canal), Tel Aviv, Maarakhot (2002), cited in Dromi, Uri, (Turks and Germans in the Sinai), Haaretz, Sept 27 2002.)

            PS – I had to put the word “native” at the top of this posting in apostrophes because it would appear there was no Judaism in Palestine whatsoever between AD700 (at the very latest) and AD1500 (at the very earliest). There is only one house of worship known as a “synagogue” from that period and it is that of the Karaites who were and are still being told that they’re not Jewish.

          • Chris Berel

            Again, Jacob de Haan did not represent all the “native” Jews of Palestine. Any statement contra-wise is born of ignorance, feigned or genuine.

          • Nick

            First of all, I think you should apologise to me for claiming that I lied over the “native” Jews being immigrants. “Nick lies about there being any native Jews, and then he admits he lied. Is that the definition of insane, or just so poorly educated he can’t keep his lies straight?”

            Secondly, as far as I can tell (and you’ve plainly got no evidence for anything different) Jacob de Haan was indeed going on a mission on behalf of all the Arab-speaking Jews.

          • Chris Berel

            You don’t think, you merely spew. And you lied. No apology coming. Go whine elsewhere.

          • Nick

            You’re in a fury because I’ve exposed another secret of the Zionists, that Palestine was totally devoid of anybody we’d recognise as Jewish for almost 1000 years – and probably had very few for 1400 years.

            There is only one building described as a synagogue during any of that period – but the Karaites are not recognised as Jews.

            In other words, there are no “native” Jews of Palestine keeping the flame alight for the Zionists.

            However, Jacob de Haan was indeed embarking on a mission on behalf of most all the Arab-speaking Jews when he was murdered in the very first act of Zionist terrorism.

            Still, you’ll poison the debate rather than accept any history that exposes the lies of the Zionists.

            This is the building that the Karaites still insist on calling a “synagogue” – the notice in white on the left of the gate says “please not to throw a garbage in the garden”.

            Naturally, its the Zionists who persist in desecrating their house of religion and threatening pogroms on them!

          • Chris Berel

            Any reliable source will show that Haan did not represent the “native”
            Jews of Israel. He represented the ultra-Orthodox in an attempt to get
            the Balfour declaration declared null and void.

            But interestingly, Nick lies about there being any native Jews, and then he admits he lied. Is that the definition of insane, or just so poorly educated he can’t keep his lies straight?

          • Nick

            If you’re going to be disputatious, then don’t fly in the face of the notoriously Zionist Wonkypedia. It says the same as I told you “the Old Yishuv, whose members had come to Eretz Yisrael in the earlier centuries, were largely ultra-orthodox Jews” (it continues and demonstrates its spiteful attitude to all devout Jews “dependent on external donations (Halukka) for living.”)

            Sephardics from Greece founded the first synagogue for almost 1000 years in Safed in the 16th Century (confusingly now called “Ari Ashkenazi Synagogue”). Ashkenazis first arrived from Vilna in 1808 and I’m sure the disputatious Berel will tell us when Mizrahi (probably Arab-speaking already) arrived and where they started worshipping.

            All of these “native” Jews were horrified by the conduct and intentions of the Zionists, who proceeded to beat them as much or more as they beat Christian and Muslims.

            True, the “native” Jews were progressively bought off after the murder of de Haan, but until then they’d been pretty united on their attitude to Zionism. In 1924 de Haan was about to set off to London to negotiate a communal Jewish recognition separate from the Zionists and that is why he had to die.

            This is Rabkin “A threat from within” 2004:

            … The rabbinical authorities of the Old Yishuv, while adamant in their opposition to Zionism, were institutionally divided. The British High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel (1870-1963), launched an initiative to set up unified structures to govern the administration of rabbinical law. A rabbinical assembly, convened in 1921, adopted the new structures, which resembled those that had prevailed during Ottoman rule and introduced a significant innovation: two positions of Chief Rabbi of Palestine, one Ashkenazi, one Sephardic,[1] an innovation that still survives in Israel.

            The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine was Rabbi Kook, whose attitude to Zionism was more positive than that of most rabbinical authorities of his day. Nonetheless, the attempted unification was only a partial success. The thought of subordinating their rabbinical courts to a higher authority was unacceptable to many Jerusalem rabbis, who recognized no chief rabbi. A gap began to grow between the Haredim and the new rabbinical structures. The educational system would henceforth be fragmented; relations with the Zionists and, later, with the State of Israel would reflect the existence of this gap.

            Agudat Israel refused to participate in the Jewish National Council, organized by the Zionists. The formulation of its refusal was telling: the organization refused to collaborate with a body that had issued “a solemn proclamation of the deposition of God and the Torah as sovereigns of the Jewish Nation” (Reinharz, 135). The reason was not political; it centered instead on principled opposition to the new Jewish identity promoted by the Zionist movement. Given its refusal to accept the new identity, Aguda, led by Rabbi Sonnenfeld, could not accept even a measure of control by a predominantly Zionist organization.

          • Chris Berel

            Again, Jacob de Haan did not represent all the “native” Jews of
            Palestine. Any statement contra-wise is born of ignorance, feigned or

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            “there was no Judaism in Palestine whatsoever between AD700 (at the very latest) and AD1500 (at the very earliest).”

            This is a very provocative statement. You need to say what you mean by Judaism, and give a source. According to the Wikipedia page History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel there have always been Jews in Palestine, although they were persecuted under two Christian regimes, Byzantine and Crusader.

            According to the Wikipedia article ‘Karaite Judaism’ it is only this year, 2013, that the Israeli Rabbinate has started to question the Jewishness of Karaites.

          • Nick

            Well, I’m a bad lad and it is shocking that anyone should abuse your Blog by putting up “very provocative statements”.

            However – its even more like a red rag to a bull to quote me from the notoriously Zionist Wonkypedia!

            I put it to you that, from the very same source (but my clip from them is believable, while yours frankly is not) that there is no archaeological evidence for any synagogues in that entire period (other than, as we agree, one that never moved), and portions of the history can even be gleaned from the one entry for the last of the real synagogues, “Tzippori Synagogue”.

            Viz, all the Jews converted to Christianity (perhaps persuaded by the Council of Nicea, AD300?). Later, most converted to Islam but in a much slower process. For instance, the Al-Kabeer in Nablus was 1800 years old, converted from a Byzantine Church before it was partially destroyed by the Israelis in 2002 and the Al-Satoon Mosque was 1600 years old, converted from a Byzantine Church, before it was partially destroyed by the Israelis in 2002. (Christians will naturally be grateful that the ex-churches escaped the fate of the purpose-built 1000 year old Al-Khadra Mosque which was 85% destroyed by the IDF using bulldozers with drill attachments).

            Jews only started coming back to Palestine in a very small way around AD1500 with handfuls arriving after AD1800. Only in AD1850 did the number grow into the 1000s.

            As for the Karaites, your statements are extremely provocative – they do not practice circumcision and don’t accept the Mishna or Talmud. They regard skullcaps, phylacteries, matrilineal descent and non-biblical festivals such as the Festival of Lights, as pagan accretions.

            Like Muslims they prostrate barefoot on carpets. They have been denounced as minim or heretics at least since Maimonides around AD1200. They were banned from public prayer and their children termed bastards, their parents having had a non-halacha wedding.

            Most importantly, they are persecuted by the modern Israeli state with the full backing of the Chief Rabbinate. If that doesn’t make them the untermensch, I don’t know what does.

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            This is what the Wiki says.

            In the early 1950s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate originally objected to the immigration of Karaite Jews to Israel, and unsuccessfully tried to obstruct it. In 2007, however, Rabbi David Ḥayim Chelouche, the chief rabbi of Netayana was quoted in The Jerusalem Post as saying, “A Karaite is a Jew. We accept them as Jews and every one of them who wishes to come back [to mainstream Judaism] we accept back. There was once a question about whether Karaites needed to undergo a token circumcision in order to switch to rabbinic Judaism, but the rabbinate agrees that today that is not necessary.

          • Nick

            Other than the Karaites (who aren’t really Jews) there was no Judaism in Palestine whatsoever between AD700 (at the latest) and AD1500 (at the very earliest).

            I’m right, aren’t I?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            According to the Wikipedia page History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Land_of_Israel there were always Jews in Palestine.

          • Nick

            The notoriously Zionist Wikipedia could be lying, using very poor sources or, as so often, abusing sources to say things that they don’t.

            Or maybe, as with so much else in the Holy Land, the scriptures say one thing but the archaeology says something completely different.

            The archaeology appears to make it almost certain that 99.5% of the Palestinian Jews were already converted to Christianity before Islam arrived.

            Note that in Palestine there are churches going back to pre-Islamic times that were converted into mosques (eg Nablus until Israel destroyed them in 2002).

            A question mark does remain – why were synagogues not similarly converted into churches and then into mosques? Destroyed by the Christians? Allowed to fall into rack and ruin by a shrinking Jewish congregation? Whatever the cause, there is no physical evidence for almost any Jews in Palestine for 1000 years.

            If I’m wrong in this, I’m quite prepared to be corrected.

          • Nick

            Do you accept what I’ve said, there is (almost) no evidence whatsoever for there having been Jews in Palestine for those 1000 years?

          • Walk Tall Hang Loose

            Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which I think is what you are trying to prove. Why is this important to you? I have no way of knowing how many Jews there were in Palestine between AD700 and AD1500, and no interest in finding out, because I do not see its relevance to the present situation.

          • Nick

            It is very significant if I’m right, since it undermines everything we’re told about the motives of Zionism. If they’re lying about this, then its one more brick in the wall of lies they’ve told us.

            Not just lying about their claim that Palestine was so important to the Jews all that time (it cannot have been) but also their claim that the Jews were driven out of the region in AD70 and AD135.

          • Nick

            I’m sorry, it was actually Major Tell of the Jordanian Army (who had until then defied Pasha Glubb) who shooed the Jews out of East Jerusalem and my source (fraudulently attacked elsewhere on this page) doesn’t ascribe the evacuation to the orders of the British, either in collusion with the Zionists or not.

            However, the Zionists have insistently “ingathered” Jews either to use as forced labour, cannon fodder or to spread chaos or to mount false accusations of antisemitism. And because any such Jews left behind are liable to blab and reject the Zionist version of everything that happened.

            This covering-up technique has worked brilliantly for the Zionists – we have very little record of what the Jews of Hebron felt about what had really happened, how the Zionists had arrived on their motorcycles with their bombs and demanded they be stored in the local synagogue. We have no record whatsoever of the provocations that the Zionists employed in Hebron to trigger a massacre (we do know that in Baghdad and Cairo and Alexandria they actually set off bombs, however).

            We have no record whatsoever of what the Jews of East Jerusalem felt about being ethnically cleansed – don’t you wonder why that is? But we have bags on how the Iraqi Jews felt about it, their bitterness overflowing again in the 1970s.

          • Chris Berel

            Again, Nick falsifies history..

          • Nick

            Bad luck that Israeli historians (some of them notably right wing and in favour of pogroms) report a lot of this stuff.

            In 2011 there were further dark secrets let out – the Yishuv had some 1,500 caches of weapons, many of them in synagogues and even nurseries.

            There were even two caches of weapons (not even Haganah terrorists, but the most hard-core of all, Irgun and Stern Gang) in the East Jerusalem Hurva synagogue – which would explain why the building was destroyed in 1948 (if it was the Jordanians who did it and not part of the ingathering process of the Zionists).

          • Yishai_Kohen
          • Nick

            The statements in there appear to be a pack of lies:

            As the Jordanian soldiers invaded Jerusalem, the Jews ran for their lives.

            Not according to the only account I’ve seen, that of Alan Hart, who says the Jews of East Jerusalem refused any cooperation with the (Hebrew speaking and notoriously anti-semitic) terrorists and supported the Arab-speaking army that was trying to keep out the terrorists.

            As a result of the war, Jews were thrown out of the Old City and other areas of Jerusalem en masse

            That appears to be true – but only because the Zionists insisted that they be ethnically cleansed and the Jordanians, under orders from the British, did so.

            As Arab-speaking Jews everywhere else in Palestine and through-out the Middle East were ethnically cleansed by the Zionists.

            They’re even still trying to do it in Iran for no reason whatsoever!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Ah! So the Jews of half of Jerusalem supported the Arabs- who then returned the favor by ethnically cleansed them. Fascinating.

            You and Alan Hart can share your tinfoil hats.

            There were more Jews than Muslims in Jerusalem even 100 years earlier- when the ONLY Jerusalem was what you call “east” Jerusalem. It is our holiest city and they would never agree to leave. In fact, the Arabs ethnically cleansed every last Jew from every centimeter that they conquered; namely Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

            Now we’re back in Judea and Samaria- and all of Jerusalem. By right- and for good.

          • Nick

            I presume that the Zionists, as they had in Hebron in 1929, insisted that the British evacuate all the Jews remaining in East Jerusalem.

            Ethnically cleansed alright but, just as everywhere else in the Middle East, at the behest of the Zionists and their determination to “ingather” Jews who all had a duty to move to Israel. Unbelievably, the Zionists still claim that all Jews should be making aliyah but they’ve long been ignored by anyone with any sense.

            The Jews of Jerusalem, whatever their own heart-felt wishes to stay among their fellow Arabic speakers would not have been very popular – having allowed two different gangs of terrorists to store weapons in the Old City’s Hurva synagogue. (Which of course amply explains why the Jordanians destroyed the building!).

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Since there was no state of “Palestine”, that isn’t relevant. Judea and Samaria were illegally grabbed by Jordan, and Gaza by Egypt.

            But Jews still owned land there.

            Now were are taking back OUR land here in Judea and Samaria.

            It makes you very sad, but it is our right.





          • Nick

            The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was even proposed by Israel (Moshe Sharret Oct 1948).

            In Dec there was a meeting with delegations from the West Bank (first necessary condition) asking for it to happen.

            It was not until 1950 that the neighbouring nations met in Cairo and accepted it (second of two necessary conditions).

            This delay was caused by the anger of the Arab League towards Jordan, the only country with a real army, for allowing the terrorists to ethnically cleanse 400 towns and villages including half of Jerusalem. However, in the end, the annexation was legalised.

            And you have to be pretty dumb to argue otherwise!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Guess what?

            “THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER” (Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni), Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

            Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.


            Anything unclear?

            Prof. Eugene Rostow, former US Undersecretary of State, a key author of UN Resolution 242, international law authority, Yale University:

            “Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza strip and east Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or west Jerusalem.”

            And here we are!

          • Nick

            First of all, you’ve failed to deal with the obvious fact that the Jordan’s annexation was entirely legal and proper (and first proposed by Moshe Sharret!).

            Secondly, you’ve brought up a Zionist who believed that international law was what Zionism said it was (much like David Ben-Gurion).

            Eugene Rostow was totally on his own with his claims for UNSC 242, just as he was totally on his own when he insisted that there was no legal reason why Israel could not build settlements on the occupied West Bank.

            Even Israel’s own legal counsel, Theodore Meron, warned his government that settlements were illegal, as he revealed recently.

            Rostow’s argument that there is a difference between “territories” and “the territories” is pathetic, and Israel is only failing to withdraw because it has guns. UNSC 242 means what it says, Israel must withdraw from all of the occupied territories.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Incorrect. Jordan didn’t even have a legal claim to the land west of the Jordan River.

            Secondly, I brought an American legal scholar who proved it legally.

            Thirdly, Rostow’s argument about the word “the” was the entire West’s position- which is why the West insisted that it be included- against the Arabs and the Soviet’s protests.

            And it was.

          • Nick

            This attack on Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank is bizarre indeed – since there is a legal process to go through, and Jordan easily cleared both hurdles.

            Totally unlike the genocide that is Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem, condemned 6 times at the UNSC.

            Similarly, nobody in their right mind thinks that Israel should be allowed to do the same thing as Hitler attempted in Poland.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            LOL! Jordan never had a legal claim here. And in fact, they gave it up in 1988.

            You also don’t know the definition of “genocide”. Not surprising.

          • Nick

            I use the definition of genocide proposed by the Polish Jew Lemkin when he invented the word in 1944.

            Meanwhile your claim about Jordan and the annexation of the West Bank is just bizarre and off the wall – it was even proposed by Israel in Oct 1948.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            He first used the word in print in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation – Analysis of Government – Proposals for Redress (1944), and defined it as “the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group”. Of course, his concern at the time was about Muslim Turks murdering Christian Armenians and Muslim Iraqi Arabs murdering Christian Assyrians. Some things never change.

            Nope. Doesn’t apply here. Oh wait. It does:

            “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
            – Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence

            As to Jordan, like it or not, it is what it is.

          • Nick

            Why should we believe anything you claim about the history of that period or the words of anyone in the region?

            Answer, we’re unlikely to be fooled because we know that large portions of it were invented from whole cloth by people who were themselves the greatest terrorists the world has ever seen!

          • Nick

            Jews presumably did own land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank (though not much).

            However, they never put in a claim to any International body when they left so their claims have become invalidated.

            Quite unlike the claims of Palestinians, which are firmly grounded in both title deeds and International support.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Try again: Jews had been a majority of Jerusalem even when it was ONLY “east” Jerusalem, and they owned much land there; including in the Muslim Quarter, the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood, etc.

            Arab squatters stole Jewish land and now, slowly, the Jews are getting it back. Israeli courts are the only courts with any jurisdiction here.

          • Nick

            None of your claims can be verified because Israel never presented them for peaceful settlement, despite having signed up to the UN Charter to do so.

            Meanwhile, Israeli courts are racist institutions ignored by the Israeli army and even by the settlers they defend.

            No judgement handed down by Israeli courts have any validity since they cannot rule on occupied territory. Domestic courts remain the only ones which can rule.

            All of this was settled in law after WW2 – and Israel signed up to complying with it!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            My claims are verified by the only ones who count here in OUR land; us.

            The racists claim that Jews can’t live here. We won’t tolerate their racism here in OUR land.

          • Nick

            You’re the most racist people on earth!

            And all you have going for your claims is that you’ve currently got more guns than the legitimate owners have … won’t last much longer.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            LOL! What race am I exactly? Jews come in all races. The great irony is that the only place in the region where Muslim Arab citizens actually have full rights and freedoms is in the Jewish state.

            We ARE the legitimate owners, and even though the Arabs outgunned us 100:1, they lost time and again. Allah wills it.

          • Nick

            In 2013, the word finally started getting out in Palestine, the long nightmare is drawing to an end.

            Israel throws people who say it into prison (7 days for one blogger) but that only convinces people its true.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            In 2013, we got stronger, our economy grew, and the Philistines continued to waste away.

            2014 will be even better.

          • Nick

            You’re acting very foolishly sending Kerry away with a flea in his ear.

            You need the US to rescue you from the really serious pickle you’re now in.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            We’re not the ones who sent him away. The Arabs did.

            We don’t need these talks because WE rule. The Arabs need them.

            They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Oh well.

          • Nick

            There’s no Arabs involved. Other than Mr Quisling Abbas you imposed on the Palestinians. He will be strung up as a collaborator as soon as you leave, perhaps in just a few months.

            Kerry is warning you that all the protection the US has given you is about to end. Ignore him at your peril.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            There are Arabs involved- the official leadership. I hope Abbas is strung up by them, because it will save us the effort.

            We don’t need ***protection***. We protect ourselves.

            From the terrorists who want to steal OUR land.

          • Nick

            Too bad that the British recorded who owned what, and 93% of Israel remains the property of the people who lived there.

        • Nick

          One of the tricks the Zionists have always played is to pull out all Arab-speaking Jews living in peace with their neighbours. (They’re currently still trying to do it to Farsi-speaking Jews in Iran).

          I’ve no proof that the Jews of East Jerusalem were “ingathered” in this fashion (Alan Hart says it was Jordanian Major Tell who insisted the peace-loving and loved Jews from there were expelled from their homes) but we know exactly what they did elsewhere, in Iraq and Cairo and Alexandria even using bombs.

      • Yishai_Kohen

        We stole nothing. In fact, it was the Arabs who, by violently rejecting UN 181 and trying to steal ALL of the land, ultimately lost everything here.

        Oh well. Karma.

        • Nick

          You’ve stolen the whole of the beautiful village of Deir Yassin.

          And 400 other towns and villages across the region!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            We have stolen nothing. It’s ours.

            But I’ll tell you what? Why not go whine about the 14 MILLION ethnic Germans who WERE ethnically cleansed across Europe at the same time.

          • Nick

            The British did lots of terrible things in Palestine – but they did at least register all of the land.

            94.8% of it belonged to non-Jews in 1943 and 93% in 1947.

            So 93% of Israel is stolen.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            So sorry, but incorrect. Almost all of the land was state land- passed from the Ottomans to the British- and then to Israel.

            Because the Arabs refused to accept that there was Jewish land, they ended up with nothing.

            Greed and violence don’t pay.

          • Nick

            Greed and violence sees a nation that stole 93% of the land on which its built.

            Greed and violence sees the same people and their guns on the next step from the Nile to the Euphrates.

            Fortunately, every other nation in the world knows that borders cannot be moved by force.

            In other words, Israel will continue as a pariah nation until its stopped – probably quite soon.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Greed and violence is the Arabs. We accepted it when 805 of the land was lopped off to create Jordan. We accepted it when the UN gave us a Bantustan state on a small percentage of the land; 2/3 desert, disjointed, indefensible, and not access to OUR Jerusalem, which was (and is) an overwhelming majority Jewish. We gave up Sinai (twice the size of Israel), with its vast gas and oil deposits, and we were willing to give up land to the Philistines.

            But they kept choosing war instead.

            Oh well. Nothing for the greedy, violent would-have-beens.

            In the meantime, our economy continues to thrive (you’re using Israeli technology now: Thank you), and the greedy, violent would-have-beens keep sinking further.

          • Nick

            The Nazis had a word for it – Lebensraum.

            You’ve a phrase for it “From the Nile to the Euphrates”.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            We don’t have that phrase at all. The holiness of this land, the land of Israel, doesn’t extend that far in any case.

            Lebensrqum is the fact that the Arabs can’t “make do” with the 99.9% of the Middle East that they currently occupy. We’re perfectly fine with OUR tiny 1/10th of 1%

          • Nick

            What you’ve claimed about Husseini is a blood-libel on the Palestinians.

            Nasty, false, and used to excuse mass-murder of an entire group.

            And fraudulently attempt to justify the theft of 93% of the land of Palestine.

            Meanwhile, your friends actually did fight on the side of the Nazis, did sink a British ship attempting to rescue Jews (killing 100s of them) – and your Prime Ministers actually defended siding with the Nazis!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            I don’t ***claim*** it about the leader of the would-have-been “Palestinians”. It is well-documented fact.

            We have stolen nothing, but the Arabs did try to steal OUR land.

            They failed time and again, and pay the price. Oh well.

          • Nick

            What you’ve claimed about Husseini is known to be untrue.

            If it had been true then Israel would have kidnapped him and put him on trial after the Eichmann trial.

            Only take two men and a car to abduct him from Lebanon in one afternoon!

            But your claim is a lie, was invented by the land-grabbing hasbarists when Eichmann was on trial – who denied that Husseini had anything to do with the Holocaust.

            Meanwhile, 93% of the land of Israel belongs to the Jews who stayed there and converted to Christianity and then mostly converted to Islam.

            You’re just an armed squatter, and the Zionist plan is that there be a 2nd Holocaust, most Israelis to die when the Palestinians finally get arms enough to take you out.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            What are you talking about? It is so well-documented that there’s not even room for debate. He recruited Muslims for the Nazi armies, he visited the Nazi leadership, he planned to set up death camps here.


            Nope. OUR land. Nothing for the would-be thieves.

          • Nick

            Why did you not seize Husseini and put him on trial? Done it very successfully to Eichmann in much more difficult circumstances.

            Answer, you knew perfectly well that you had nothing on him.

            As for photographs – when will you explain how you came to be caught red-handed stealing a picture from the US Navy and trying to pass it off as from your own gun-camera?

            Especially, how did it come about that that picture was air-brushed to remove the detail? Putting a puff of smoke in the area where there is a tug-boat?

            The first of these pictures was presented by Israel in 1982, and its the wrong ship entirely.

            The second was presented in 1984 and again in 2002, air-brushed as you can see.

            How did Israel come to cheat like this?

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Eichmann was captured in 1962, after Israel existed. It was done in Argentina, which wasn’t a hostile country.

            Husseini was wanted by the British and fled to pro-Nazi Iraq. After WWII, Husseini tried to get asylum in Switzerland, but was denied. He was placed under house arrest by France, Great Britain asked for him to be turned over and tried as the war criminal that he was, but France denied the request. France also refused to extradite him to Yugoslavia where the government wanted to prosecute him for the massacres of Serbs. He ended up fleeing to Cairo with a fake passport, and he ended his life back in Baghdad.

            Not quite the same thing as Argentina.

            He also wasn’t the high-priority that those so involved in the extermination of 6 million Jews were.

            There’s a TON of material on him. Those pictures that I posted go with the article, which has a huge amount of information about him from the gamut of sources, including Nazi Germany itself.

            As to the other issue of the Liberty, the US government closed the case because the evidence was clear:



            Memorandum From the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Secretary of Defense McNamara
            Washington, July 1, 1967.
            USSLiberty Incident (U)

            1. (TS) Immediately following the Israeli air and naval attack on the USSLiberty (AGTR–5) during the recent Arab–Israeli war, a Joint Chiefs of Staff ad hoc fact finding team was established to investigate the incident. The team conducted an accelerated investigation and submitted a report based upon the information obtained.2 The time and facts available to the team limited the comprehensiveness of the report.

            2. (TS) This report contained 17 recommendations and attributes the fact that the USSLiberty did not receive time–critical messages to a combination of:

            a. Human error.
            b. High volume of communications traffic.
            c. Lack of appreciation of the sense of urgency regarding USSLiberty movement and location.

            3. (TS) Most of the recommendations relate to the delay attributed to delivery of time–critical messages to the USSLiberty. Had these messages been received, the ship might have cleared the danger area prior to the attack…


            After the attack, the rescue helicopters are heard relaying several urgent requests that the rescuers ask the first survivor pulled out of the water what his nationality is, and discussing whether the survivors from the attacked ship will speak Arabic.


            A U.S. Navy EC-121, had collected voice conversations between two Israeli helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hazor Airfield following the incident.

            The NSA-translated tapes show that the helicopters were first dispatched to rescue Egyptians (control tower to helicopter 815 at 1234Z: “The ship has now been identified as an Egyptian ship”), and that they demonstrate confusion as to the identification of the target ship. (e.g. control tower to helicopter 815 at 1310Z “The first thing is for you to clarify what nationality they are. Notify me immediately.”)


            And this is from unclassified CIA documents that you can see on the US State Department web site:


            Israeli Identification of the Ship

            4. …the intercepted communications between the helicopter pilots and the control tower at Hatzor (near Tel Aviv) leave little doubt that the Israelis failed to identify the Liberty as a US ship before or during the attack….

            5. A subsequent message from the control tower to the helicopter identified the ship as Egyptian and told the pilot to return home…

            7. Thus it was not until 4:12 p.m. (9:12 a.m.) that the Israelis became convinced that the Liberty was American. This was about 44 minutes after the last attack on the ship…

            The Israeli offer of assistance was declined because of the sensitive mission of the ship…


            Anything STILL unclear?

          • Nick

            Why, if you had any evidence on Husseini whatosever, did you not send a car to Lebanon to pick him up and put him on trial? He was only living there openly until 1974! (No, not in Baghdad, where the British-dominated Iraqis would have sent him back if asked).

            In fact, you must know that you’re simply libelling the Palestinians and Husseini – here is the heavily Zionist dominated Wikipedia quoting from the very right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris:

            … Israel persisted in asserting that al-Husseini was behind many border raids from Jordanian and Egyptian-held territory, and Egypt expressed a readiness to deport him if evidence were forthcoming to substantiate the charges.[221]

            [221. from Morris, Benny “Israel’s Border Wars, 1949-1956” pp. 57ff., 232:]

            ‘Both before and after 1948, the Yishuv was convinced that the ex-Mufti’s hand was behind every anti-Jewish pogrom, murder, and act of sabotage. The Jordanian authorities, always apprehensive of the Palestinians, suspected that the ex-Mufti – and various Arab regimes—were sponsoring terrorism from Jordan against Israel in order to foment trouble between the two and to destabilize the Hashemite rule’.

            …There were persistent suspicions in Amman and Jerusalem that the Mufti and AHC had organized and were running a permanent anti-Israel, anti-Hashemite underground in the West Bank. But no such organization was discovered between 1949 and 1956.

            (The right-wing Israeli historian goes on to claim that Husseini “… had managed, through contact men and supporters in Jordan, to ‘subcontract’ occasional raids against Israel.” – but that seems unlikely and for which he gives no evidence).

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Husseini wasn’t always in Lebanon, and we can’t just send over cars to countries with whom we are at war to pick people up.

            By the end of his life, he wasn’t a priority in any case. He was just another washed-up nothing with no influence.

            Throughout World War II, al-Husseini worked for the Axis Powers as a broadcaster in propaganda targeting Arab public opinion. The Mufti was paid “an absolute fortune” of 50,000 marks a month (when a German field marshal was making 25,000 marks a year). Walter Winchell called him ‘the Arabian Lord Haw-Haw.’

            The Mufti provided a foldout pamphlet for the Handschar troops titled (in German) “Islam und Judentum” translated as “Islam and Judaism” which concluded with: “The Day of Judgement will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely: And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say: ‘There is a Jew behind me, Kill him!'”

            On 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husseini said: ‘Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.

            The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini helped recruit for Muslim Waffen-SS units in the Balkans.

            During a visit in July 1943 the Mufti said:

            The active cooperation of the world’s 400 million Muslims with their loyal friends, the German, can be of decisive influence upon the outcome of the war. You, my Bosnian Muslims, are the first Islamic division [and] serve as an example of the active collaboration….My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” Himmler agreed, declaring “Germany [and] the Reich have been friends of Islam for the past two centuries, owing not to expediency but to friendly conviction. We have the same goals.”

          • Nick

            You kidnapped Eichmann from Argentina, a huge and quite unnecessary risk. (Unless, of course an attempt at extradition would have led him to blab while he was still amongst friends and had an audience).

            And put him on trial – also a huge risk. Hannah Arendt discovered and told the whole world that the Zionists (actually, what she called “Jewish leaders”) had collaborated on a massive scale and the Holocaust had been much bigger as a direct result.

            Whereas kidnapping Husseini would have been much easier and putting him on trial much safer, he could only spill stories about the Holocaust, nothing about Zionists.

            But Husseini couldn’t tell anyone anything about the Holocaust, he had nothing to do with it, did he?

            You lied and denied and covered up over your own guilt and pointed the finger at innocents!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            PLO Official: We Supported the Nazis in WWII


          • Nick

            How did you blackmail him into saying that?

            Because there’s no doubt that that is what you do a lot of!

          • Nick

            The village of Deir Yassin is not the property of any Israelis, and its not even under Israeli sovereignty.

            Israel has never attempted to claim the area, which is outside what Israel claimed with its Declaration of Independence.

            Israel even twice told the UN that it was sticking by the partition lines. Israel has never corrected the statements it made.

            In other words, the Israelis living there are armed squatters, they don’t own it and their possession is entirely criminal.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Deir Yassin no longer exists. They chose war instead.

            Oh well.

            It’s Israel’s land and not only is it under full Israeli sovereignty, but even in a scenario where Jerusalem would be divided (which it won’t: Don’t worry), it would be under full Israeli sovereignty.

          • Nick

            The Israeli apartheid regime is on its last legs internally (because Israelis are fleeing) and facing the same thing as brought down the South African regime (which we know collapsed very suddenly).

            Your racist slandering of the peaceful people of Deir Yassin is noted.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            Israel’s population keeps growing, and Israelis are among the happiest people on earth.

            We won’t tolerate Arab apartheid here in OUR land.

          • Nick

            You’re not going to be there much longer. American money and arms no longer prop you up and support your ongoing land-grab.

          • Yishai_Kohen

            US aid is 1.5% of Israel’s GDP. On the other hand, without daily handouts, the would-have-been “Palestinians” would go under in a month.

            Nobody is propping us up. Everyone is propping up the would-have-beens.

            But not forever.

          • Nick

            Look around you – every professional Israeli getting a 2nd passport and sending their kids abroad. Academics especially fleeing – barely any left under 30.

            The Galillee and the Negev – even Jerusalem – losing their population of 1st-class Israelis. Netanyahu lying to Congress over the population of the settlements.

            Why do you think a vast fleet of Turkish planes is in and out of Israel (while El Al don’t touch that route)?

            They’re preparing for the exodus – probably only weeks or months away!

          • Yishai_Kohen

            I look around me and see that now, a plurality of world Jewry is already living in Israel, and that within a generation, it will be an outright majority.

            I see that the Jewish population here keeps growing. I see that practically every French Jewish family already owns an apartment here or is trying to buy, and that many American Jews and others are as well.

            The Galilee, the Negev, and Jerusalem Jewish population keeps growing, and in Judea and Samaria, the Jewish population is growing 3 times as fast as Israel as a whole- much faster than the Arab population.

            Turkish planes in and out take Israelis on vacation. El Al doesn’t fly there because Turkey doesn’t allow it at this point.

            The only ones preparing for any exodus are the Arabs. Even in 2008, 40% would leave Gaza and 25% would leave Judea and Samaria. Oh well.

          • Nick

            Well, the mass evacuation of Israel didn’t start in 2013, maybe it will happen this year.

            Meanwhile, what we know about the settlements is that they have lots of empty rooms that they call nurseries and where they store their guns.

            While in the Negev and in the Galillee and in Jerusalem, 1st-class Israeli nationals are leaving for Tel Aviv, the only place inside the Green Line where there is still something almost amounting to confidence.