| “Humanity Perseveres” at Guantanamo amid chaos of hunger strike!

“Humanity Perseveres” at Guantanamo Amid Chaos of Hunger Strike ~ Jason Leopold, The Freedom of the Press Foundation.

On May 15, military officials at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility escorted visiting media to maximum security Camp 5, where non compliant prisoners are held, for a rare opportunity to observe the prisoners’ morning prayer. Aliya Hussain, who works with the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ Global Justice Initiative, tweeted after she watched the video, “Despite all that’s cruel and unjust at Guantanamo, humanity perseveres.”

The visit to Camp 5 took place amid a mass hunger strike that is now entering its fourth month and counts 103 prisoners as taking part in the protest and 32 who are being force-fed. Media arrived at the camp at 4:30 am and were instructed to remain silent as the officer in charge of the camp did not want prisoners to know we were present. The prisoners did not leave their cells for prayer so we were unable to see them. What you are hearing (at 3:00 into the video) is the leader’s call to prayer being done from inside of his prison cell. The closest we in the media came to a seeing a prisoner on the cell block is when one man stuck his arms through a bean hole to hand the guard an unknown object. The guards walking the block are checking the prisoners cells every one to three minutes in accordance with their standard operating procedures. They are wearing “splash shields” over their faces to protect from being splashed with urine and feces, the military said.

As we exited the camp and waited outside for the gate to open, I looked up behind me and could see three very narrow prison cell windows. In one stood a prisoner dressed in white. He stared at me and gave me a “thumbs down” sign.

_________________________________________________________________________

Gitmo Collage

 

It is so unbelievably poignant that those publicly slandered in the media as the worst of the worst retain such dignity amidst such adversity – if ever an advert championing innocence till proven guilty was needed surely this is it – from the festering US sore called GITMO.

PS. This should be mandatory viewing and reading for all NATO chiefs.

Gitmo 2

| Muslims must not apologise for terror – they are no more responsible than the rest of us!

Muslims must not apologise for terror – they are no more responsible than the rest of us ~  ,  Politics.co.uk.

It is too early to know exactly what happened in Woolwich this afternoon, but it seems very likely it was a terrorist killing of a British soldier by Islamic extremists.

Shortly after it emerged it could be a terrorist attack, a hashtag appeared online: #notinmyname. The Muslims who expressed this sentiment had honourable motives, but it is a mistake. They do not need to condemn what has happened. This killing has no more to do with them than it does with the rest of us.

Doing so suggests Muslims are somehow more responsible for the attack than other Brits. It vindicates the central message of Islamic extremists: that we are not, ultimately, British. We are Christians, Muslims and Sikhs, endlessly divided by race and faith and culture.

This is false. It has always been false. We are Brits first.

When World War Two began, many intellectuals openly wondered how long it would take for British society to collapse into civil chaos. People assumed a society so strained by inequality and competing political groups could never withstand such pressure. To a very important extent, France failed to do so. In Britain, the essential solidarity of the people prevailed. 

It prevailed during the Blitz. It prevailed during the IRA strikes. And it prevailed after 7/7. This is as diverse a society as any in the history of mankind. But it is British, and united, regardless of race or religion or even income. There is no reason to mention such things in day-to-day life. But on days like today, we should proclaim them proudly.

Muslims have nothing to apologise for and nothing to justify. They are no more culpable for what happened this afternoon than I am for the insane rants of Nick Griffin.

ITV today showed footage of a black man dressed in western clothes, his hands covered in blood, talking to the camera. “In our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe,” he says.

And yet he speaks in a London accent. This is his land.

Now we will have to undertake the solemn, confusing, despairing process of understanding how people who live in our society could do this to other people in it. That is the debate which should take place. How can Britain still be so beset with alienation that these events could take place?

But that is a question for Brits to answer: not for British Muslims alone. In so far as anyone outside the killers is culpable, we are all culpable.

And when we answer this question, we should remember the following piece of information: After they dragged his body into the road, a group of women crowded around the body and protected it from the assailants. That’s why he mentioned the women in the first place. Because they were brave enough to stand between thugs and their victim.

Those women represented Britain too.

The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.

________________________________________________________________________

Propaganda Dummies1

| Was the London killing of a British soldier ‘terrorism?’

Was the London killing of a British soldier ‘terrorism’? ~ Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian.

What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

Woolwich attack, suspect on street

A man appearing to be holding holding a knife following the Woolwich attack. Photograph: Pixel8000

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as “terrorism”.

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term “terrorism”, it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be “terrorism”, many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That’s the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the “terrorists”: sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don’t deliberately target them the way the “terrorists” do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan’s attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: “this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be “terrorism” because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that’s not “terrorism”, but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of “terrorism” who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

It’s true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined “militant” to mean “any military-aged male in a strike zone”). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are “asleep”, that you don’t “have to wake them up before you shoot them” and “make it a fair fight”. Once you declare that the “entire globe is a battlefield” (which includes London) and that any “combatant” (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed – as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be “terrorism”?

When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it “terrorism” given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that “terrorism” means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that “the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily” and warned that “you people will never be safe. Remove your government”, the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it “terrorism”.

That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn’t that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam’s regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one couldreasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments’ policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of “terrorism” that includes Wednesday’s London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?

I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being “terrorism”: indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as “terrorism”. To question whether something qualifies as “terrorism” is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn’t.

The reason it’s so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms – if there are any – that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that “terrorism” provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It’s a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.

There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here, and my interview with Remi Brulin here). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond “violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims”. When media reports yesterday began saying that “there are indications that this may be act of terror”, it seems clear that what was really meant was: “there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west” (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that “terrorism”). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.

One last point: in the wake of the Boston Marathon attacks, I documented that the perpetrators of virtually every recent attempted and successful “terrorist” attack against the west cited as their motive the continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians. It’s certainly true that Islam plays an important role in making these individuals willing to fight and die for this perceived just cause (just as ChristianityJudaismBuddhism, andnationalism lead some people to be willing to fight and die for their cause). But the proximate cause of these attacks are plainly political grievances: namely, the belief that engaging in violence against aggressive western nations is the only way to deter and/or avenge western violence that kills Muslim civilians.

Add the London knife attack on this soldier to that growing list. One of the perpetrators said on camera that “the only reason we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily” and “we apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same.” As I’ve endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn’t remotely justify the acts. But it should make it anything other than surprising. On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way:

I am outraged that we can’t kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!”

Basic human nature simply does not allow you to cheer on your government as it carries out massive violence in multiple countries around the world and then have you be completely immune from having that violence returned.

Drone admissions

In not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill – whose soon-to-be-released film “Dirty Wars” examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission, it “leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen”. Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for “Dirty Wars”, which I reviewed a few weeks ago here:


Note

The headline briefly referred to the attack as a “machete killing”, which is how initial reports described it, but the word “machete” was deleted to reflect uncertainty over the exact type of knife use. As the first paragraph now indicates, the weapon appeared to be some sort of meat cleaver.

UPDATE

In the Guardian today, former British soldier Joe Glenton, who served in the war in Afghanistan, writes under the headline ”Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role”. He explains:

“While nothing can justify the savage killing in Woolwich yesterday of a man since confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, it should not be hard to explain why the murder happened. . . . It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between.”

This is one of those points so glaringly obvious that it is difficult to believe that it has to be repeated.

_____________________________________________________________________

TerrorismB

 

| How on earth is my religion to blame for Asian gangs and sex abuse?

How on earth is my religion to blame for Asian gangs and sex abuse? ~ Mehdi Hasan, New Statesman.

Melanie Phillips‘s latest outburst against Islam and Muslims is opportunistic and goes beyond the pale.

So there I was, on a Monday morning, in a rather good mood, having had Ed Miliband give my forthcoming book about him a free plug, live on Sky News and BBC News, and still recovering from the shock of having Norman Tebbit (yes, that Norman Tebbit!) aim some warm words in my direction in a blog post on the Telegraph website about British Muslims; a post in which he wisely concludes:

There are Muslims out there seeking an accommodation with our society. They may not be able to defeat the Islamist fanatics, but we would be foolish to reject a hand held out in understanding and reconciliation.

But then I turned to the Daily Mail and, specifically, to Melanie Phillips. The headline?

While Muslim sexual predators have been jailed, it is white Britain’s hypocritical values that are to blame

My first response? Can you imagine a headline that said, “While Jewish murderers have been jailed . . .” or “While Hindu bank robbers have been jailed . . .”? When was it that we first started classifying crimes and criminals by religious affiliation?

Phillips, of course, has long suffered from a sort of Muslims Tourette’s syndrome — she refers to Muslims 18 times in her column today. From the outset, she makes clear that she plans to go beyond Jack StrawLeo McKinstry and others who have fallen over each other to make spurious arguments about the “cultural” factors behind the so-called on-street grooming of young girls for sex by criminal gangs. Nope, Mel has the dastardly religion of Islam in her sights:

Police operations going back to 1996 have revealed a disturbingly similar pattern of collective abuse involving small groups of Muslim men committing a particular type of sexual crime.

Sorry, but I have to ask again: what has the assumed faith of these men got to do with the crime itself? I must have missed the chapter of the Quran that encourages Muslim men to go out and ply young girls with alcohol (!) and drugs and then pimp them out to older men for sex. While I disagree with Straw, McKinstry, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, David Aaronovitch and others who have speculated about the various cultural factors behind these crimes, I’m not that surprised that “culture” has raised its ugly head — and I, for one, would welcome some peer-reviewed, nationwide studies of this particular crime and the perpetrators of it. But religion??

Phillips writes:

For while, of course, most Muslims repudiate any kind of sexual crime, the fact remains that the majority of those who are involved in this particular kind of predatory activity are Muslim.

First, we don’t know that’s the case. Sorry. But we don’t. You can’t extrapolate from such a small sample (50 out of 56 men) in one corner of the country. That’s also the view, I might add, of the two UCL academics whose research was cited by the Times in its original story last Wednesday. In a letter to the Times published on 7 January, they wrote:

While we were heartened by the open and insightful discussion of the crime, we are concerned that limited data can be over-extended to characterise an entire crime type, in particular, in terms of race and gender. The identity of victims and offenders identified to date, primarily in the Midlands and the north of England, may misrepresent this crime on a national level.

In our work, based on two major police operations, we found that perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively of Pakistani descent: several other ethnicities featured, too. Only through nationwide scoping studies can ethnicity be reliably established. If we allow ourselves to be blinded by this emergent and untested racial stereotype, we risk ignoring similar crimes perpetrated by offenders of other ethnicities.

It is also worth remembering that the “fact remains” that the “majority of those who are involved in” internet child sex offences (95 per cent) are white, as are the majority of prisoners (80 per cent) behind bars for sex crimes. And, as Chris Dillow notes:

Straw gives us no statistics to justify his claim.
Those that do exist seem to undermine his claim.
Table 5.4b of this pdf shows that, in the latest year for which we have data, Lancashire police arrested 627 people for sexual offences. 0.3% of these were Pakistanis. That’s two people. 85.5% were white British. In Lancashire, there are 1,296,900 white Brits and 45,000 Pakistanis. This means that 4.163 per 10,000 white Brits were arrested for a sex crime, compared to 0.44 Pakistanis. If you’re a journalist, you might say that the chances of being arrested for a sex crime are nine times greater if you’re white than Pakistani. If you’re a statistician, you might say they are 0.037 percentage points greater.

So what conclusions should we draw about white people from such statistics? Has Melanie checked with her white husband Joshua or her white son Gabriel as to why white men are so much more likely to commit sex crimes in this country than men from non-white, minority communities? Is this a problem of “white culture” or Judeo-Christian culture? Why the “conspiracy of silence”?

Phillips continues:

For these gang members select their victims from communities which they believe to be ‘unbelievers’ — non-Muslims whom they view with disdain and hostility.

You can see that this is not a racial but a religious animosity from the fact that, while the vast majority of the girls who are targeted are white, the victims include Sikhs and Hindus, too.

“Religious animosity”? According to the Times‘s own research, several victims of a British Pakistani gang in an unnamed northern city were Bangladeshi Muslim girls. So much for Islamic solidarity among Asian gangs. And has Phillips, or Straw, ever been to Pakistan? Don’t they know that young girls are sold into sexual slavery in Pakistan, too, where they all happen to be Muslims, as do the perpetrators of this heinous crime?

The only “fact” that we learn from Phillips’s rant is that she is willing to find an Islamic angle to any story, no matter how horrific the story, no matter how tenuous the angle. For someone who rails against anti-Semitism under every bed and foams at the mouth at the first sight of journalists or bloggers stereotyping or generalising about Jews or Israelis to then make such sweeping and lazy assumptions about Muslims is particularly hypocritical and, I would add, unforgivable.

Since the Times story broke last week, just two people have decided to “Islamise” it and thereby exploit it for their own Muslim-baiting agendas:Nick Griffin and Melanie Phillips. Shame on them both.

UPDATE:

On a side note, I should point out that I am the co-author of the Ed biography that I referred to in passive, above, and that is provisionally entitled Ed: Ed Miliband and the Remaking of the Labour Party. My co-author on this project is my former New Statesman colleague, James Macintyre. You can read more about our forthcoming book here.

______________________________________________________________________

 DISCRIMINATION

| FACT SHEET: THE NAKBA: 65 YEARS OF DISPOSSESSION + APARTHEID – IMEU!

FACT SHEET: THE NAKBA: 65 YEARS OF DISPOSSESSION & APARTHEID 
IMEU, [Institute for Middle East Understanding]

Nakba2

1) Prelude to Disaster

a. The Emergence of Political Zionism, Conflict Between Early Zionist Colonists & Palestinian Arabs, & “Transfer” (Late 19th, Early 20th Century)

b. World War I: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence & The Balfour Declaration (1914-1918)

c. The British Mandate for Palestine (1923-1948)

d. The Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936-1939)

e. The Irgun & Lehi: Zionist Terrorism on the Rise (1937-1948)

f. World War II & The Holocaust (1939-1945)

NakbaA
2) The Nakba: Creating Israel on the Ruins of Palestine

a. The United Nations Partition Plan (November 1947)

b. Beginnings of Civil War & Ethnic Cleansing (December 1947-May 1948)

c. British Withdrawal, Israeli Independence, & The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 (May 1948-March 1949)

d. Massacres & Atrocities Against Palestinian Civilians

e. Palestinian Refugees & The Right of Return

f. Palestinian Population Centers Systematically Destroyed or Repopulated with Jewish Immigrants, Stolen & Destroyed Property

Nakba48a
3) The Ongoing Nakba: 1948 to Present

a. Palestinians Who Remained Inside Israel

b. The June 1967 War: The Nakba Redux

c. Post-1967: Occupation, Settlements, Walls, & Apartheid
4) Further References

Nakba Key1

1. PRELUDE TO DISASTER

“We shall try to spirit the penniless [Palestinian] population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” – Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism

640px-anti-zionist-demonstration-damscus-gate-march8-1920.jpg

Anti-Zionist demonstration at Damascus gate. (March 8, 1920)

The Emergence of Political Zionism, Conflict Between Early Zionist Colonists & Palestinian Arabs, & “Transfer” (Late 19th, Early 20th Century)

  • In the centuries prior to the rise of political Zionism in Europe in the late 19th century, relations between the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, were relatively good. While there was occasional conflict, compared to the anti-Semitism and persecution Jews faced in Europe, the Ottoman Empire and the Arab-Muslim worlds were a haven.
  • In the mid-19th century, influenced by the nationalism then sweeping much of the continent, some European Jews concluded that the remedy to centuries of persecution and pogroms in Europe and Russia was the creation of a nation state for Jews in Palestine. Some of them subsequently began emigrating to the Holy Land. In 1874, there were about 14,000 Jews in Palestine, and about 426,000 Arabs.
  • In 1896, Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl, considered the father of modern political Zionism, catalyzed the movement with the publication of “The Jewish State.” The following year Herzl was elected president of the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland.
  • As they arrived in Palestine, early Zionist settlers inevitably came into conflict with the native Palestinian Arab population, particularly small tenant farmers known as fellahin. These peasant farmers were often dispossessed from lands their families had worked for generations to make way for colonies established by European Jews who intended to “redeem” the land through the use of Jewish labor.
  • A key actor in the dispossession of Palestinians was the Jewish National Fund (JNF), founded in 1901 at the Fifth Zionist Congress. It was tasked with acquiring land for the Zionist enterprise in Palestine, frequently purchasing it from large Ottoman Turkish landowners who lived abroad. The quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund continues to play an important role in the distribution of state lands and the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians in Israel today, denying non-Jewish citizens access to the 13% of state lands it controls directly, and the 93% total overall its leadership has sway over via the Israel Lands Authority. Its mission statement declares: “The Jewish National Fund is the caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners – Jewish people everywhere.”
  • In 1903, there were approximately 25,000 Jews in Palestine, and about 500,000 Arabs.
Jews_of_Peki_in__c._1930.jpg

Jews of Peki’in, Palestine, c. 1930.

“Transfer”

  • From the earliest days of the movement, Zionist leaders struggled with the dilemma of how to deal with the non-Jewish Palestinians who inhabited the land on which they wanted to create their state. Most, including Herzl, concluded the only solution was what became known as “transfer,” a euphemism for what is known as “ethnic cleansing” today.
  • In June 1895 Herzl wrote in his diary: “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”
  • In August 1937, transfer was discussed at the Twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich, Switzerland. Alluding to the systematic dispossession of Palestinian peasant farmers that Zionist colonists had been engaged in for decades, the leader of the Zionist community in Palestine (the Yishuv) and Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion,stated:

    “You are no doubt aware of the JNF’s activity in this respect. Now a transfer of a completely different scope will have to be carried out. In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin.” He added: “Jewish power [in Palestine], which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out this transfer on a large scale.”

  • In an October 1937 letter to his son, Amos, Ben-Gurion wrote: “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”
  • In June 1938, transfer was the major focus of a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive, the de facto government of the Yishuv. Arthur Ruppin, head of the Jewish Agency from 1933 to 1935 and one of the founders of Tel Aviv, declared: “I do not believe in the transfer of individuals. I believe in the transfer of entire villages.”Ben-Gurion argued in favor of transfer as well, stating: ”With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement]… I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”
  • Summing up the feelings of many Zionist leaders, in December 1940, Joseph Weitz, director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department and a strong advocate of transfer wrote in his diary:

    “There is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, and to transfer all of them, save perhaps for [the Arabs of] Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. And only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution.”

  • While Zionist leaders debated transfer behind closed doors, in public they were careful to avoid mention of it. As Israeli historian Benny Morris noted in the follow up to his landmark 1989 work, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2004):

    All understood that discretion and circumspection were called for: Talk of transferring the Arabs, even with Palestinian and outside Arab leaders’ agreement, would only put them on their guard and antagonize them, and quite probably needlessly antagonize the Arabs’ Ottoman coreligionists, who ruled the country.”

  • Regarding Ben-Gurion, Morris, himself a right-wing Zionist who has lamented that the expulsions of the Nakba didn’t go far enough, noted:

    “Ben Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals ‘understand’ what he wanted doneHe wished to avoid going down in history as the ‘great expeller.’”

  • The dispossession of Palestinians in order to create and maintain a Jewish majority state in the heart of the Arab and Muslim Middle East was and remains the underlying cause of the Israeli-Palestinian and larger Arab-Israeli conflict. Today, senior Israelipolitical and religious leaders continue to advocate expulsion and “transfer” of Palestinian citizens as well as Palestinians living under Israeli military rule in the occupied territories.

World War I: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence & The Balfour Declaration (1914-1918)

  • During World War I (1914-1918), the Middle East became a battleground, with Britain and its allies seeking to undermine the rule of the Ottoman Empire in the region. In the course of the war, the British government made promises to both Arabs and Zionist Jews regarding the future of Palestine.
  • Between July 1915 and January 1916, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, and Sharif Hussein bin Ali of the city of Mecca, exchanged a series of letters in which the British government promised to support the creation of an independent Arab state in the Middle East, including Palestine, in exchange for the launching of an Arab rebellion against Ottoman rule. Their letters became known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.
  • Almost immediately after concluding an agreement with Hussein, in May 1916 the British signed a secret pact with France, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, to divvy up much of the Middle East, including the region of Palestine, into English and French colonial protectorates following the war.
  • In what appeared to be another blatant contradiction of the commitment made to the Arabs in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, in November 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, a leader of the Jewish community in Britain, endorsing the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was a major diplomatic victory for Zionist leaders, who sought the patronage of a great power to realize their plans.
  • In 1922, the United States government released the results of an official investigation conducted three years earlier on the situation in Palestine and other areas of the former Ottoman Empire. In commenting on the Balfour Declaration, the King-Crane Commission Report noted:

“For ‘a national home for the Jewish people’ is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the ‘civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’ The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

The British Mandate for Palestine (1923-1948)

  • Following World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain came to control Palestine, with the newly created League of Nations endorsing British provisional rule over the area, known as the British Mandate for Palestine, in 1923. The mandate was supposed to be temporary ahead of full independence for the country.
  • In 1920, 1921, and most seriously in 1929, bouts of violence erupted between Arabs and Jews, claiming hundreds of lives on both sides. In 1929, the unrest was also fueled by frustration with the British, who had failed to end their rule or grant independence.
  • Following Adolph Hitler’s rise to power in Germany in 1933, Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe greatly increased, as Hitler’s fascist Nazi regime instituted racist laws targeting Jews and other minorities and a European war grew imminent. Between 1931 and 1941, the Jewish population of Palestine more than doubled again, fromapproximately 175,000 to approximately 474,000During the same period, the Arab population of Palestine grew from approximately 792,000 to approximately 1,045,000.
  • Throughout the 1930s, tensions between Arabs, Jews, and the British continued to mount, culminating in the Arab Revolt of 1936.

The Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936-1939)

  • In 1936, a major rebellion against British rule and Zionist immigration broke out in Palestine. Initially, the Arab Revolt in Palestine consisted mainly of nonviolent actions such as labor strikes, boycotts, withholding payment of taxes, and protests. When this failed to cause the British to leave or halt the immigration of Jewish European colonists, a widespread armed uprising broke out in 1937.
  • In April 1937, the Arab Higher Committee was formed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti (senior Sunni Muslim cleric) of Jerusalem, and a group of other notables. The Committee would act as the main political leadership of the Palestinian national movement until 1948.
  • In October 1937, following attacks against Jews, the Zionist Irgun militia carried out a series of large bombings against Palestinian civilian targets across the country (see below for more on the Irgun)As Israeli historian Benny Morris observed in Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998, these attacks

    “[...introduced] a new dimension into the conflict… Now, for the first time, massive bombs were placed in crowded Arab centers, and dozens of people were indiscriminately murdered and maimed - for the first time more or less matching the numbers of Jews murdered in Arab pogroms and rioting of 1929 and 1936. This ‘innovation’ soon found Arab imitators and became something of a ‘tradition’: during the coming decades Palestine’s (and, later, Israel’s) marketplaces, bus stations, movie theaters, and other public buildings became routine targets, lending a particularly brutal flavor to the conflict.”

  • The British finally managed to suppress the Arab Revolt in 1939, with the help of Zionist militias. The same year, the British government of Neville Chamberlain issued a policy statement known as the White Paper of 1939. In the White Paper, Chamberlain’s government retreated from an earlier recommendation, made in 1937′s Peel Commission Report, calling for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, and instead endorsed the creation of an independent binational Palestinian state governed by Arabs and Jews in proportion to their size of the population. The White Paper also set limits on Jewish immigration into the country.
  • In crushing the Arab Revolt in Palestine, the British severely weakened the Palestinian national movement by killing, jailing, and exiling Palestinian leaders (including members of the Arab Higher Committee), suppressing Palestinian political activity, and disarming Palestinian militias. These measures would have serious implications for the next major outburst of violence between Arabs and Jews a decade later. For while Palestinian political activity was stifled, the British allowed the Zionist movement to arm itself and “carve out an independent enclave for itself in Palestine as the infrastructure for a future state,” in the words of Israeli historian Ilan Pappe (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 15).

    The Irgun & Lehi: Zionist Terrorism on the Rise (1937-1948)

  • In 1931, a right-wing militia called the Irgun (also known as Etzel) was founded as an offshoot of the main Zionist militia in Palestine, the Haganah (the predecessor of the Israeli army). Irgun members were followers of the right-wing Zionist revisionist Zeev Jabotinsky and sought to create a Jewish state in all of historic Palestine as well as parts of neighboring Arab countries like Jordan, believing armed struggle was the only way to achieve this end. The Irgun’s leaders included future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who also founded the forerunner of today’s Likud Party, the Herut, in 1948.
  • Between 1937 and 1948, when it was integrated into the newly created Israeli army, the Irgun waged a campaign of violence and terror against Palestinians and the British. The Irgun, which was considered a terrorist organization by the British and American governments, carried out dozens of bombings and other attacks against Palestinian targets such as markets and other public places, killing hundreds of civilians. Although most of their operations were carried out in Palestine, Irgun members also attacked British targets abroad, bombing the British embassy in Rome in 1946 and a British military train in Austria in 1947.
  • The Irgun’s most high-profile attack was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946, which killed some 92 people, including 28 British citizens. The hotel was targeted because it was home to the British administrative and military headquarters in Palestine. (In 2006, current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahuattended a ceremony at the hotel for the unveiling of a plaque honoring the bombers,drawing the ire of the British government which sent a letter to the mayor of Jerusalem stating: “We don’t think it’s right for an act of terrorism to be commemorated.”)
  • In 1940, a splinter group of the Irgun, Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang), was founded by Avraham Stern. Lehi, which would subsequently be led by another future Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, carried out numerous terrorist attacks against both British and Arab civilian targets. The most notorious Lehi attacks include theassassinations of Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident in the Middle East in 1944, and Count Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat appointed United Nations Mediator in Palestine, in 1948. As an official with the Red Cross during World War II, Bernadotte had helped to save thousands of Jews and others from the Nazis late in the war.
  • Together, members of the Irgun and Lehi carried out one of the most notorious atrocities in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the massacre of approximately100 men, women, and children in the village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, on April 16, 1948. The massacre at Deir Yassin, which is commemorated annually by Palestinians around the world, accelerated the flight of the Palestinian population and was a pivotal moment in the creation of Israel as a Jewish majority state. (See below for more on the massacre at Deir Yassin.)

World War II & The Holocaust (1939-1945)

  • The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 was a major turning point for the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians. Once again, the Middle East became a battleground, this time between the Axis and Allied powers.
  • Most Jewish organizations in Palestine, including militant groups, temporarily put aside their fight against the British, as the war against the anti-Semitic Nazi regime took precedence. For their part, the leadership of the Arab Higher Committee under Husseini sought the support of the Germans in their struggle against the British, as did other nationalist movements fighting British rule such as the Irish Republican Army and even some right-wing Zionists like the Lehi militia.
  • Following the war and the revelation of the extent of the crimes carried out against Jews by the Nazis, the Zionist campaign for a Jewish state intensified and gained increasing international support, including in the United States, which would soon take over from the British as the dominant western power in the Middle East. For many in the west, the guilt of not doing enough to prevent the murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust, and of shutting their borders to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis before and during the war outweighed any considerations they may have had for the rights or wishes of the native inhabitants of Palestine, whose land would have to be taken for the creation of a Jewish state.

2. THE NAKBA: CREATING ISRAEL ON THE RUINS OF PALESTINE

“We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. [Yigal] Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’… I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.” – Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

The United Nations Partition Plan (November 1947)

See here for maps of the distribution of Jewish settlements in 1947, the Arab and Jewish states called for under the 1947 Partition Plan, and subsequent Israeli expansionism

  • In February 1947, seeking to extricate itself from a steadily deteriorating situation on the ground, including the terrorist campaign being waged against British targets by the Irgun and Lehi, the British government announced that it would end its mandate and turn over responsibility for the future of Palestine to the newly-created United Nations.
  • After intense lobbying by Zionist organizations and their supporters, on November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 calling for the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The final vote was 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent. Those voting in favor included both emerging superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. The British abstained.
  • The Partition Plan allocated approximately 55% of Mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state and just 42% to the Arab state, despite the fact that Jews made up only about one third of the population, many of whom were recent immigrants from Europe, and only owned about 7% of the privately owned land in Palestine. The city of Jerusalem was to be placed under international administration. (See here for map: Zionist and Palestinian land ownership in percentages by subdistrict, 1945)
  • The Arab Higher Committee rejected the Partition Plan outright, as well as the idea that Palestinians should give up more than half their country to newly arrived European immigrants who owned only a tiny amount of the land they were being given. For its part, the mainstream Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion publicly welcomed the plan, as it constituted international legal recognition for a Jewish state in Palestine, while having no intention of being bound by its proposed borders. As Ben-Gurion put it, the borders of the new Jewish state, “will be determined by force and not by the partition resolution.” (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 37)
640px-Haifa_Exodus_1.jpg

Arabs leaving Haifa as Jewish forces enter the city, April 21-22, 1948. Photo credit: Yoav Gelber

Beginnings of Civil War & Ethnic Cleansing (December 1947-May 1948)

  • Almost immediately after the passing of the partition plan, renewed violence broke out between Arabs and Jews and the large-scale dispossession of Palestinians began. As December progressed, the Irgun and other Zionist militias intensified their attacksagainst Palestinian civilians and the British, killing and wounding hundreds.
  • Within two weeks of the passing of the Partition Plan, more than 200 Arabs and Jews had been killed, and by the end of December almost 75,000 Palestinians had already been displaced by Zionist attacks. (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 40)
  • In early January, members of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), a ragtag group of volunteers from neighboring Arab countries formed by the Arab League, entered Palestine to help the outnumbered and outgunned Palestinian defenders. The Arab volunteers were themselves disorganized, poorly armed and trained, and failed to coordinate with local Palestinian fighters due to hostility between the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee. The British High Commissioner of Palestine at the time, Alan Cunningham, later described the ALA as “poorly equipped and badly led.” Predicting an easy Zionist victory against the Arabs, Cunningham added: “In almost every engagement the Jews have proved their superiority in organisation, training and tactics.”
  • Surveying the situation, Ben-Gurion was also confident of an easy victory for Zionist forces as the country slid deeper into civil war. In February, in response to a letter from Moshe Sharett (who would become Israel’s second prime minister) complaining that Zionist forces were sufficiently armed for self-defense but not to “take over the country,” Ben-Gurion replied:

    “If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend [ourselves] but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole. I am in no doubt of this. We can face all the Arab forces. This is not a mystical belief but a cold and rational calculation based on practical examination.” (Pappe,The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 46)

  • The same month, February, the Haganah began mobilizing for full-scale war. According to the historian Pappe, by May 1948 the Zionists had some 50,000 fighters under arms versus no more than about 10,000 Palestinian irregulars and Arab volunteers.

Plan Dalet

  • On March 10, 1948, the Zionist leadership under Ben-Gurion formally approved Plan Dalet (also known as Plan D), the blueprint for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The operational military orders of Plan Dalet specified which Palestinian population centers should be targeted and laid out in detail a plan for their forcible depopulation and destruction. It called for:

    “Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

    “Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

    “Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

  • As Benny Morris <href=”#v=onepage&q=%22post%20facto%20a%20formal%20persuasive%20covering%20note%20to%20explain%20their%20actions.%e2%80%9d&f=false” target=”_blank”>observed in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: 1947-1949,Plan Dalet was “a strategic-ideological anchor and basis for expulsions by front, district, brigade and battalion commanders” providing “post facto, a formal, persuasive covering note to explain their actions.”
  • The Haganah began attacks under Plan Dalet at the beginning of April 1948. Expulsions now accelerated and became more systematic, marking a new phase in the conflict in which Zionist and then Israeli forces went on the offensive. According to Morris, “In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.”
  • On April 9, members of the Irgun and Stern Gang attacked the village of Deir Yassin outside of Jerusalem, massacring approximately 100 men, women, and children. News of the massacre spread quickly, fueling panic and the mass flight of Palestinians. (See below for more on the massacre at Deir Yassin and other atrocities carried out against Palestinian civilians.)
  • In late April, all but 4,000 of the 70,000 Arab inhabitants of the city of Haifa were expelled. The operation officer of the Haganah forces that conquered Haifa, Mordechai Maklef – who would later become chief of staff of the Israeli army – ordered his troops to “Kill any Arab you encounter; torch all inflammable objects, and force doors open with explosives.” (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 95) Crowds of Palestinians seeking safety in a marketplace near the port were deliberately shelled by Zionist forces, causing a panicked flight towards the waterfront as people rushed to evacuate by sea. Many drowned as overloaded boats sank attempting to shuttle people to safety. A witness recalled the terrible scene:

“Men stepped on their friends and women on their own children. The boats in the port were soon filled with living cargo. The overcrowding in them was horrible. Many turned over and sank with all their passengers.” (Pappe,The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 96)

  • Many of the attacks carried out by Zionist forces during this period – prior to Israel’s declaration of independence and subsequent war with Arab states – were in areas outside of the borders of the Jewish state proposed in the UN Partition Plan. (See herefor map of such operations carried out between April 1 and May 15)

    British Withdrawal, Israeli Independence, & The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 
    (May 15, 1948 – March 1949)

  • By early May 1948, more than 200 Palestinian towns and villages had already been depopulated as people fled in fear or were forcibly expelled by Zionist forces, and between 250,000 and 350,000 Palestinians had been uprooted and made refugees.
  • On May 14, Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership declared an independent state of Israel. The next day, the British, who had stood by and done nothing to stop the expulsions of Palestinians in the preceding months, withdrew the last of their soldiers as armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq launched a half-hearted and ill-fated attack against the newly declared state. None of the Arab governments wanted to intervene, but were compelled to do so by the force of public opinion in their countries, which sympathized with the Palestinians. In addition to being preoccupied with domestic concerns, the leaders of these countries, most of which had only recently acquired nominal independence from European colonial rule, were in fierce competition with one another and failed to coordinate their efforts in any serious way, frequently working at cross purposes.
  • Crucially, since the end of World War II, the government of King Abdullah I of Jordan had been holding secret discussions with the Zionist leadership and had agreed to divide Palestine up between Jordan and the new Jewish state. Abdullah viewed the Palestinian national movement as a threat and wanted to expand the borders of his country to include parts of Palestine. In July 1946, a British diplomat sent a cable to the government about a recent meeting with Abdullah, <href=”#v=onepage&q&f=false” target=”_blank”>reporting that he “is for partition and he feels that the other Arab leaders may acquiesce in that solution, although they may not approve of it openly.” As part of the agreement Abdullah pledged not to allow Jordan’s British-trained armed forces, the Arab Legion – by far the best Arab army at the time – to take part in joint operations with other Arab armies against Israel in the event of war, or to enter areas of Palestine designated for the Jewish state under the Partition Plan.
  • The Iraqi government also ordered its armed forces not to enter areas that were supposed to be part of the Jewish state under the UN plan. For its part, the Syrian army barely advanced, maintaining a defensive posture for most of the war. The Lebanese, who had also declared war on Israel, didn’t even send troops across the frontier. The Egyptian effort was also half-hearted and disorganized. As future Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who fought in the war, later wrote in his memoirs:

    “This could not be a serious war. There was no concentration of forces, no accumulation of ammunition or equipment. There was no reconnaissance, no intelligence, no plans. Yet we were actually on the battlefield… The only conclusion that could be drawn was that this was a political war, or rather a state of war and no-war. There was to be advance without victory and retreat without defeat.”,

  • As predicted by Ben-Gurion, the combined Arab armies were no match for the new Israeli army. According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, by the end of the summer the new Israeli army had about 80,000 soldiers at its disposal, while the opposing Arab states didn’t exceed 50,000 soldiers combined (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 45). Moreover, many Zionist and Israeli fighters were veterans of World War II, experienced with the weaponry and tactics of modern warfare, while most Arab soldiers were not.
  • On May 24, just ten days after declaring independence, things were going so well for the Israelis militarily that Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

    “We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan [Jordan], bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight – we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times.” (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, p. 144)

    The same day, the Israelis received a shipment of weaponry from Eastern Europe, ensuring the supremacy of Israeli artillery for the rest of the war. (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 144)

  • In late May, the Israeli government set up an unofficial body, the “Transfer Committee,” to oversee the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages or their repopulation with Jews, and to prevent displaced Palestinians from returning to their homes. In a report presented to Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in June 1948, the three-man committee, which included the Jewish National Fund’s Joseph Weitz, called for the “destruction of villages as much as possible during military operations.”
  • From June to September, the expulsions continued. In July, Israeli forces expelled 70,000 Palestinians from the cities of Lydd and Ramla. In his memoirs, which were censored by the Israeli military but leaked to The New York Times in 1979, the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin recalled a conversation he had in July 1948 with Ben-Gurion, when Rabin was an officer in the Israeli army, regarding the fate of the Palestinians of Lydd and Ramla. Rabin wrote:

    “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. [Commander Yigal] Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’”

    Rabin added, “I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.”

  • Expanding far beyond the proposed borders of the Jewish state delineated in the Partition Plan, which was allocated about 55% of Palestine, by the time Israeli forces stopped their advance they were in control of 78% of mandate Palestine. (See herefor map of 1949 armistice lines) The remaining 22%, comprising the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, fell under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively. Sixty-five years later, Israel has yet to officially declare its borders as it continues to colonize the West Bank and East Jerusalem, conquered during the June 1967 War.
  • From 1947 to 1950, between 750,000 and one million Palestinians were expelled by Zionist and then Israeli forces from the newly created Jewish state. It’s estimated that about half of them fled under direct assault by Zionist forces.

    Massacres & Atrocities Against Palestinian Civilians

  • During Israel’s creation, Zionist paramilitaries and the Israeli army carried out numerous massacres and atrocities against Palestinian civilians, including rapes, which were instrumental in spurring the mass flight of Palestinians that facilitated the establishment of a Jewish majority state. According to historian Benny Morris, there were two dozen such massacres.
  • The most notorious atrocity committed during Israel’s creation took place on April 9, 1948, in the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem (close to where Israel’s Holocaust Memorial now stands), where approximately 100 men, women, and children were murdered by members of the Irgun and Lehi. Seventy-five of the victims were women, children, or elderly people. According to eyewitness accounts from survivors and <href=”http: books.google.com=”" books?id=”uM_kFX6edX8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=Deir+Yassin+paraded+murdered+morris+birth+of+the+Palestinian+refugee+problem+revisited&source=bl&ots=6MVq7fOnPA&sig=4Nya_ZLcEtJ_vrktwNKjIUZm9Ns&hl=en&ei=94ryTbriMImdgQfgx8HHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false”" target=”_blank”>reports from Zionist fighters, many of the victims were paraded in trucks through the streets of Jerusalem before being killed. One eyewitness, Fahim Zaydan, who was 12-years-old at the time and was shot and left for dead, recalled:

    “They took us out one after the other; shot an old man and when one of his daughters cried, she was shot too. Then they called my brother Muhammad, and shot him in front [of] us, and when my mother yelled, bending over him – carrying my little sister Hudra in her hands, still breastfeeding her – they shot her too.” (Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinep. 90)

  • Other notable atrocities against Palestinian civilians took place in the towns of Lydd (Lod), Dawayima, Saliha, Safsaf, and Tantura. Regarding the scope and nature of these massacres, in a 2004 interview with Haaretz newspaper, the historian Morris stated:

    “In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field – they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village – she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

    The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

    “That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.”

431px-Olddman_boy_nakba.jpg

Palestinian refugees (1948) Photo credit: Hanini

Palestinian Refugees

  • From 1947 to 1950, between 750,000 and one million Palestinians were ethnically cleansed during the creation of the state of Israel. It’s estimated that about half of them fled under direct assault by Zionist forces.
  • To ensure that the newly created state retained a Jewish majority, two laws were passed: the Law of Return (1950), which grants Jews from anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen, and the Entry into Israel Law (1952) which was designed to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees.
  • Today, the Palestinian refugee population is the largest and longest-standing population of displaced persons in the world. Reliable figures on their numbers are hard to find, however, a survey released in 2010 by BADIL, the Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, found the refugee and displaced population to be at least 7.1 million, made up of 6.6 million refugees and 427,000 internally displaced persons. It also found that refugees comprised 67% of the Palestinian population as a whole.
  • Most Palestinian refugees are Palestinians and their descendants who were expelled from their homes in the parts of historic Palestine that were incorporated into the newly created state of Israel in 1948. Other Palestinian refugee categories include Palestinians who fled their homes but remained internally displaced in areas that became Israel in 1948; Palestinians who were displaced for the first time after Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip in the 1967 War; Palestinians who left the occupied territories since 1967 and have been prevented by Israel from returning due to revocation of residency rights, denial of family reunification, or deportation; and Palestinians internally displaced in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip since 1967.

The Right of Return

  • Under international law, all refugees have a legal right to return to homes and property left behind during conflict, regardless of whether they left of their own volition or were forcibly expelled. Moreover, as noted by Human Rights Watch, the right of return “is a right that persists even when sovereignty over the territory is contested or has changed hands.”
  • In December 1948, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194 regarding the situation in Palestine/Israel. It states: “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” The Palestinian right of return has been endorsed repeatedly by the UNGA, including through Resolution 3236 (1974), which “Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.”
  • Israel’s admittance as a member of the UN in May 1949 was conditioned on its acceptance of UN Resolution 194, which, 65 years later, it has yet to implement.
  • The Palestinian right of return has been recognized by major human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In 2001, Amnesty issued a policy statement on the subject, which called “for Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel, the West Bank or Gaza Strip, along with those of their descendants who have maintained genuine links with the area, to be able to exercise their right to return.”
  • The U.S. government supported Resolution 194, and consistently voted to affirm it until 1993, when the administration of President Bill Clinton began to refer to Palestinian refugee rights as a matter to be negotiated between the two parties in a final peace agreement.

See here for more on Palestinian refugees and the right of return

 

Palestinian Population Centers Systematically Destroyed or Repopulated with Jewish Immigrants, Theft & Destruction of Property

(See 
here for interactive map of Palestinian population centers destroyed during Israel’s creation)

  • Between 1948 and 1950, Zionist and Israeli forces ethnically cleansed more than400 Palestinian towns and villages, including homes, businesses, houses of worship, and vibrant urban centers, which were systematically destroyed or repopulated with Jews. Most of them were demolished to prevent the return of their Palestinian owners, now refugees outside of Israel’s pre-1967 borders, or internally displaced inside of them.
  • During the 1948 War and immediately afterwards, Israel expropriated approximately 4,244,776 acres of land belonging to Palestinians who were made refugees during the creation of the state.
  • In 1950, Israel passed the “Absentees’ Property Law,” which granted the government “custodianship” over lands and property belonging to Palestinian refugees, with no compensation for the owners. An “absentee” was defined as any Palestinian who left his or her home after November 1947, even if he or she remained within what became Israel’s borders.
  • The total monetary loss of Palestinians dispossessed during Israel’s creation has been estimated at between of $100 billion and $200 billion (US) in today’s dollars.
  • As Zionist and Israeli forces swept across the country, expelling Palestinians as they went, tens of thousands of Palestinian books were systematically “collected” by the Haganah and the Israeli army, in cooperation with the Israeli National Library. The books included priceless volumes of Palestinian Arab and Muslim literature, including poetry, works of history and fiction. Thousands of the books were destroyed and recycled for paper, while others were added to the library’s collection. Today, many remain in the Israeli National Library, designated abandoned property.

3. THE ONGOING NAKBA: 1948 TO PRESENT

“We must cleanse the country of Arabs and resettle them in the countries where they came from.” – Rabbi Dov Lior, leading member of the religious Zionist movement, head of the settler Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria, and chief rabbi of the settlement of Kiryat Arba, 2007.

Palestinians Who Remained Inside Israel

  • Following the 1948 War, approximately 150,000 Palestinians remained inside what became Israel’s borders, many of them internally displaced. They were granted Israeli citizenship but stripped of most of their land and placed under martial law, which they were subject to until 1966.
  • Between 1948 and 1967, Israel expropriated approximately 172,973 acres of land belonging to Palestinian citizens of the state.
  • In 1949, there were approximately 30,000-40,000 Palestinians internally displaced within Israel, prevented from returning to their homes, which were destroyed or taken over by Jews. Today Israel continues to refuse to recognize the rights of internally displaced Palestinians, whose number is estimated at approximately300,000.
  • Today there are approximately 1.6 million Palestinian citizens of Israel (sometimes referred to as “Israeli Arabs”), making up about 20% of the population. They face widespread, systematic discrimination in virtually all aspects of life, dealing with everything from employment and housing to land ownership and family reunificationrights.
  • There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel.
  • 93% of the land in Israel is state controlled by the Israel Land Authority and quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund, which discriminate against non-Jewish citizens.
  • Tens of thousands of Bedouin and other non-Jewish citizens of Israel live in villages that aren’t recognized by the state or provided basic services like water or electricity. At least 30,000 Bedouin citizens of Israel currently face eviction from their ancestral lands in the Negev desert, part of an Israeli government plan to “Judaize” the area.
  • Sixty-five years after the mass expulsions of the Nakba, Israeli political and religiousleaders continue to call for Palestinian citizens of the state to be transferred, “voluntarily” or by force, to a separate Palestinian state or outside historic Palestine altogether. According to the Jerusalem Post, a 2008 Israeli government poll showed that “A total of 76 percent of Israeli Jews give some degree of support to transferring Israeli Arabs to a future Palestinian state.”

The June 1967 War: The Nakba Redux

  • In June 1967, Palestinians suffered another major blow when Israel conquered the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, along with the Syrian Golan Heights, and Egyptian Sinai Peninsula (the latter of which was returned to Egypt as part of the Camp David peace agreement). (See here for more on the 1967 War.) In doing so, Israel came to control the 22% of historic Palestine that remained outside its expanded borders in 1948.
  • During the war, approximately 300,000 Palestinians were displaced from the West Bank and Gaza, approximately 175,000 of whom became refugees for the second time.
  • Immediately after the 1967 War, Israel expropriated approximately 209,792 acres of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

Post-1967: Occupation, Settlements, Walls & Apartheid

  • Since 1967, Israel has ruled by military decree over millions of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, granting them no political or civil rights while relentlessly colonizing their land with Jewish-only settlements in violation of international law(For more on the occupation and settlements see our fact sheet 45 Years of Occupation, released in June 2012)
  • Today there are more than a half million Jewish settlers living in about 130 official Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and about 100 settler “outposts” (nascent settlements built without official approval, but often with support and assistance from government ministries). (See here for Peace Now’s interactive “Facts on the Ground” settlement map)
  • Settlements and attendant infrastructure like Israeli-only roads cover approximately42% of the area of the occupied West Bank – much of it privately-owned Palestinian land – dividing and isolating Palestinian population centers into separate, easily controlled bantustans surrounded by walls and military checkpoints.
  • Since 1967, Israel has demolished approximately 27,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Most demolitions are carried out for three stated reasons: military purposes; “administrative” reasons (i.e. a home or structure is built without difficult to obtain permission from Israel); or with the intent of deterring or punishing militants and their families, a violation of provisions of international law that bar collective punishment. (See here for more on Israel’s demolition of Palestinian homes.)

The “Judaization” of East Jerusalem: Ethnic Cleansing by Bureaucracy

  • According to Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem: “Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the government of Israel’s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city. To achieve this goal, the government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city.”
  • According to the 2009 US State Department International Religious Freedom Report:

    “Many of the national and municipal policies in Jerusalem were designed to limit or diminish the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem.According to Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations, the Israeli Government used a combination of zoning restrictions on building by Palestinians, confiscation of Palestinian lands, and demolition of Palestinian homes to ‘contain’ non-Jewish neighborhoods while simultaneously permitting Jewish settlement in predominantly Palestinian areas in East Jerusalem.”

  • 35% of land in East Jerusalem has been confiscated for Israeli settlement use, with only13% zoned for Palestinian construction, much of which is already built-up.
  • Methods used by Israel as part of an effort to “Judaize” or alter the religious composition of Jerusalem by increasing the number of Jews while decreasing the number of Palestinians, include:
    • Revoking residency rights and social benefits of Palestinians who stay abroad for at least seven years, or who are unable to prove that their “center of life” is in Jerusalem. Since 1967, Israel has revoked the residency rights of about 14,000East Jerusalem Palestinians, of which more than 4,500 were revoked in 2008.
  • Encouraging Jewish settlement in historically Palestinian-Arab areas while severely restricting the expansion of Palestinian residential areas. The Israeli government, through official and unofficial organizations like the Israel Land Fund, encourages Jews to move to settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and take over houses in historically Arab neighborhoods like Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah, sometimes evicting their Palestinian inhabitants in the process. Several hundred Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem are currently at risk of forced displacement by settlers.
  • Systematically discriminating against Palestinian residents of the city in municipal planning and the allocation of services and building permits. According to a 2011 report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs:

    Since 1967, Israel has failed to provide Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem with the necessary planning framework to meet their basic housing and infrastructure needs. Only 13 percent of the annexed municipal area is currently zoned by the Israeli authorities for Palestinian construction, much of which is already built-up. It is only within this area that Palestinians can apply for building permits, but the number of permits granted per year to Palestinians does not begin to meet the existing demand for housing and the requirements related to formal land registration prevent many from applying. As a result, Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem find themselves confronting a serious shortage in housing and other basic infrastructure. Many residents have been left with no choice other than to build structures ‘illegally’ and therefore risk demolition and displacement.”

  • Demolitions of Palestinian homes and structures built without difficult to obtain permission from Israeli authorities. Since 1967, approximately 2000 Palestinian homes have been demolished in East Jerusalem by Israel. The number of outstanding demolition orders is estimated to be as high as 20,000.

Stifling of Palestinian Movement & Economic Activity

  • At any given time, there are upwards of 500 Israeli checkpoints, roadblocks, and other barriers to movement within the occupied West Bank – an area smaller than Delaware – hindering Palestinians and their goods from moving between their own towns and cities and the outside world. (See here for December 2012 United Nations map: West Bank Access Restrictions)
  • Since the early 1990s, Israel has restricted passage to and from Gaza, but in 2006, following Hamas’ victory in Palestinian elections, Israel steadily tightened its restrictions and imposed a naval blockade on the tiny coastal enclave which continues to be in effect. (See here for December 2012 United Nations map: Gaza Strip: Access and Closure)
  • Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza need difficult to obtain permission from Israel to visit occupied East Jerusalem. As a result, millions of Palestinians are not able to visit the city, historically the center of Palestinian economic and cultural life in the West Bank, or pray at its holy sites.
  • Almost 80% of the Jordan Valley, which contains some of the best agricultural land in the occupied West Bank, is off-limits to Palestinians, designated for Jewish settlements, military “firing zones,” and “nature reserves.” (See here for 2012 United Nations map of the Jordan Valley)

Israel’s West Bank Wall

  • In June 2002, under the pretext of security, the Israeli government began unilaterally constructing a wall, much of it on Palestinian land deep inside the occupied West Bank. (Since 1994, the Gaza Strip has been surrounded by walls on three sides, which cut off the 1.6 million Palestinians living there from the rest of the world.)
  • As of May 2012, more than 325 miles of the wall had already been built, at a cost of $2.6 billion (US). Eighty-five percent of the wall will be built not along Israel’s pre-1967 border, but on Palestinian land inside the occupied West Bank.
  • Once completed, the full length of the wall will be between 420 and 440 miles(according to the Israeli Ministry of Defense and B’Tselem, respectively), more than twice the length of Israel’s pre-1967 border with the West Bank.
  • When finished, the wall, along with the settlements, Israeli-only highways and closed military zones, are projected to cover 46% of the West Bank, effectively annexing it to Israel.
  • Critics have accused Israeli authorities of designing the wall’s route to envelop as much Palestinian land and as many Israeli settlements as possible on the western, or Israeli side, while placing as many Palestinians as possible on the eastern side. Once complete, about 85% of the Israeli settler population is expected to be on the Israeli side of the wall.
  • The wall also surrounds much of occupied East Jerusalem, cutting its approximately 200,000 Palestinian residents off from the rest of the occupied West Bank.
  • In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opiniondeeming the West Bank separation wall illegal. The court said the wall must be dismantled, and ordered Israel to compensate Palestinians harmed by its construction. It also called on third-party states to ensure Israel’s compliance with the judgment.
  • During construction of the wall, Israel has destroyed large amounts of Palestinian agricultural land and usurped water supplies, including the biggest aquifer in the West Bank.

65 Years of Apartheid in the Holy Land

  • Over the entirety of its 65-year existence, there has been a period of only about one year (1966-67) that Israel has not ruled over large numbers of Palestinians to whom it granted no political rights simply because they are not Jewish. From 1948 to 1966, Palestinian citizens of Israel were ruled by martial law, similar to the Israeli military regime that millions of Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza have been subject to since 1967.
  • The United Nations International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973) defines apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”
  • According to a 2010 Human Rights Watch report, “Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories“:

    Palestinians face systematic discrimination merely because of their race, ethnicity, and national origin, depriving them of electricity, water, schools, and access to roads, while nearby Jewish settlers enjoy all of these state-provided benefits While Israeli settlements flourish, Palestinians under Israeli control live in a time warp – not just separate, not just unequal, but sometimes even pushed off their lands and out of their homes.”

  • Many Israelis, including senior political leaders, have compared Israel’s military rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories to apartheid. One of the first people to use the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who warned following the 1967 War of Israel becoming an “apartheid state” if it retained control of the occupied territories.
  • In 1999, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak stated: “Every attempt to keep hold of this area [Israel and the occupied territories] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.” In 2010, Barak repeated the apartheid comparison, stating: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
  • Others who have compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid include former US President Jimmy Carter, who in 2006 published a book entitled, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” as well as many veterans of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, such as Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, one of the heroes of the struggle against South African apartheid, who has repeatedly made the comparison.

PalC

FURTHER READING

The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem: 1947-1949, by Benny Morris (1989)
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, by Benny Morris (2004)
Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz newspaper interview with Benny Morris (2004)
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Ilan Pappe (2006)
The Question of Palestine, by Edward Said (1992)
The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, by Rashid Khalidi (2006)

All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, by Walid Khalidi (1992, 2006)
Before Their Diaspora: A Photographic History of the Palestinians 1876-1948, by Walid Khalidi (1984)
Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of Transfer in Zionist Political Thought; 1882-1948, by Nur Masalha (1992)

War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, edited by Avi Shlaim and Eugene L. Rogan (2007)
The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, by Avi Shlaim (2000)
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, by Norman G. Finkelstein (2003)
The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, by Simha Flapan (1988)
Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, by Avi Shlaim (1988)
One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate, by Tom Segev (2001)
Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (1988)
The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, by Noam Chomsky (1983)
Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy, by Ben White (2011)
The Right to Return: The Case of the Palestinians, Amnesty International Policy Statement (2001)
Off the Map: Land and Housing Rights Violations in Israel’s Unrecognized Bedouin Villages, Human Rights Watch (2008)
Separate and Unequal: Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Human Rights Watch (2010)

_____________________________________________________________________

PAL EQUALITY 3

| In life and words, Boston’s Muslim leader bridges cultures!

In life and words, Boston’s Muslim leader bridges cultures

Lisa Wangsness, The Boston Globe.

On a rainy afternoon in early April at Boston’s largest mosque, the sheikh in the seersucker suit was in his office, offering comfort and advice.

To a young student wondering if he should get engaged: “Aw, man, just go for it!”

To a middle-aged man agonizing over how to care for his dying father: “You should preserve life as best you can.”

To a sobbing young woman who told him about problems at home: “I have someone who can help you, a Muslim counselor. . . . Let’s talk about fixing it.”

Days later, bombs exploded on Boylston Street. And the unlikely face of the Muslim community in its time of crisis became this 6-foot-5-inch, blond-haired, blue-eyed former hip-hop DJ whose grandfather was a fundamentalist Christian preacher.

William Suhaib Webb, imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury, has been a target of conservative Muslims on the Internet, who call him a sellout, and of other critics who say he is an extremist.

He has tried, for better or for worse, to respond to all of it — in his sermons, on CNN, on Twitter. At the same time, he has endeavored to improve the mosque’s relationships with Jewish and Christian leaders in Boston.

“I’m just exhausted,” the 40-year-old Webb said, sipping a flask of coffee in his book-lined office overlooking the busy intersection of Tremont Street and Malcolm X Boulevard. “I don’t have days anymore. I just have . . . smears.”

Webb, who memorized the Koran while living with his parents in Oklahoma and became an advanced Islamic legal scholar after years of study in Cairo, has in recent years become among the most famous imams in America.

He has 34,000 Twitter followers and a “virtual mosque” website that gets some 13,000 page views a day. In his sermons and in social media, Webb — many followers call him “sheikh,” an honorific for a respected teacher — toggles effortlessly between English and Arabic, dropping words like “baller” and references to “The Walking Dead,” a television show about zombies, into exegeses of Sufi poetry.

When he came to the cultural center 18 months ago, he faced significant challenges. He had to connect with immigrants from all over the world, as well as their US-born children and converts from other faiths. He also had to be a bridge to the city’s other faith communities, someone who could help the city move beyond concerns, particularly among some Jewish leaders, that the mosque’s leadership had extremist ties.

Webb, for his part, had his own big plan — to establish one of the first Muslim seminaries in the country. He wanted to nurture a new generation of American imams and Muslim women scholars — orthodox, but culturally conversant and civically involved — and to educate more casual students about their faith.

The Marathon bombings cast Webb and his mission into a crucible. In the media, Islam was on trial again, and Webb was, too.

* * *

Webb grew up outside Oklahoma City. His grandfather, the preacher, was a strict conservative — no dancing, no shorts. His parents are what he calls “post-Woodstock Christians,” more accommodating of modernity.

He has positive memories of church, “fellowship with great, wonderful people.” But he could never get his head around Jesus. What color was the son of God? How could God choose a race for himself when he assumed human form?

By his late teens, Webb was popular figure in the Oklahoma City hip-hop scene, a pot-smoking DJ with a gang affiliation. Once, he says, he found himself in a car during a drive-by shooting.

Abdulsamad Frazier, a close friend from those days, remembers Webb as friendly and generous, though he kept dangerous company.

“If anybody in the neighborhood messed with him, he would hold his ground,” Frazier said. “He hung around with some major guys, guys who were real serious guys.”

But Webb was unhappy, searching. He began learning about Islam through friends in the hip-hop world. Curious, Webb checked a copy of the Koran out of the library.

To his surprise, it mentioned Jesus and Mary. But it resonated with him in a way the Gospels never had. It was 1992, the year of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.

“The idea that God is not a human being, God is not a color — that was what I was looking for my whole life,” he says now.

Imam William Suhaib Webb has dinner last week with a friend, Adeel Khan. Many of Webb’s followers call him “sheikh,” an honorific for a respected teacher.

ESSDRAS M SUAREZ/GLOBE STAFF

Imam William Suhaib Webb has dinner last week with a friend, Adeel Khan. Many of Webb’s followers call him “sheikh,” an honorific for a respected teacher.

 

He was 20 years old, a college freshman at the University of Central Oklahoma about to pledge Alpha Phi Alpha, a historically African-American fraternity. He became an observant Muslim instead.

His parents — his mother worked in human resources, his father was a history professor — were greatly relieved that he had changed directions, but they found his new religious fervor baffling and unsettling.

“We were disappointed,” said his mother, Mary Lynne Webb, who is close with her son and proud of him now. “We felt like we were kind of failures, I guess.”

Webb finished a degree in education, devoting his free time to Islam. Four days a week, he traveled to Norman, Okla., to study with a Senegalese sheikh. It was a lonely period, though over the next several years, others from the music scene converted, too.

When Oklahoma City opened its first mosque a few years later, its community chose the 26-year-old convert as its imam. Imad Enchassi, then a mentor of Webb’s and now the senior imam of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, said the decision was almost unanimous.

He said Webb instinctively related to young people, but he won over the older crowd, too.

“He would sit down with elders on the ground; some elders would eat with fingers, he would do the same thing,” Enchassi said.

But Webb, looking back, gives himself a grade of D-minus for his work as a young imam. “I was still finding myself spiritually,” he said. “I gave a lot of hot sermons. They probably weren’t very good. I didn’t have enough scholarship.”

The Bay Area chapter of the Muslim American Society, a national grass-roots religious and cultural group, spotting a rising star, offered to fix that by sending him to Al-Azhar University in Cairo, one of the world’s leading centers of Sunni Muslim learning. With his wife, Asmah Ayob, who was a Malaysian anthropology student when he met her in college, Webb moved to Cairo.

After a brief stint in California upon his return in 2010, he learned the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center in Roxbury was looking for an imam.

* * *

A dominant theme of Webb’s ministry is that Muslims can live faithful lives in contemporary America, and that they also have an obligation to participate — civically, culturally, and politically.

One of the first classes for the community at Webb’s fledgling educational institute is called Getting It Right. More than 200 people pack the Sunday night lectures, which emphasize balance, service, self-discipline, love.

Kamran Ahmed, a 24-year-old medical student, said Webb drew him to the mosque.

“It doesn’t become this abstract philosophical discussion,” he said. “It becomes this discussion of when this thing happened at work, or this thing happened at school, this is how the Prophet, peace be upon him, would have responded.”

The Ella Collins Institute — scheduled to begin training seminary students in the fall and named for Malcolm X’s older half-sister, an educator and civil rights activist who eventually became an orthodox Sunni — is Webb’s attempt to help answer a twofold problem facing America’s Muslim community. There are too few qualified imams, and those who are here tend to be immigrants trained overseas who have difficulty understanding the lives of American youth.

Amid teaching and ministering to the mosque community — 700 to 1,000 people show up for Friday prayers — Webb feeds content to his “virtual mosque” and tweets constantly.

The mosque has taken on new projects, like the development of a health care team, which assesses the needs of the congregation and the neighborhood around it, and offers screenings and referrals.

Webb also maintains a frantic pace on the speaking circuit; just before the bombings, he was the Muslim representative in a cordial interfaith discussion about American religion on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“You’re never here,” a teenager who came to his office hours one recent Friday lamented.

Home has offered little reprieve from the intensity. His wife and two school-age children are living in Malaysia for the next several years — in order, he says, to be closer to his in-laws and to expose the kids to Malaysian culture. Though they Skype twice a day, he is lonely without them.

The demands have been so great that, in early April, Webb said he thought he could last only about five years as an imam. After that, he said, he hoped to devote himself to the Ella Collins Institute.

And yet, in an interview on that quiet morning, Webb said he had fallen for Boston.

“My neighbors in Dorchester call me the eye-mamm,” he said, with a laugh. “I didn’t know about this whole, you have to move your car on Fridays [for street cleaning]. They come banging on my windows, ‘Eye-mamm, eye-mamm! You got to move your car!’ ”

“I feel it’s a cozy city,” he said. “It’s a cozy city.”

* * *

On Marathon Monday, Webb was in Detroit, where he had given a speech the night before. The text messages began — at first one or two, then “a waterfall.”

“Are you in Boston?” “Are you OK?” “Pray for Boston.”

“Im sad im not in Boston,” he tweeted that afternoon. “My heart is with you.”

And: “If any marathon runner needs a place to stay, my house is open.”

Flying home that night, Webb thought, along with so many other Boston Muslims: I hope it was not someone claiming to represent Islam.

The next day, the imam and his staff flew into action, planning a vigil, rallying volunteers, setting up trauma counseling. Upon learning later in the week that the bombing suspects were Muslims, Webb condemned the attacks, calling the suspects “criminals and enemies of society” and disassociating Islam from their acts.

At prayer times, Webb and his staff asked congregants to share with the FBI any information they had about the suspects and offered help with legal counsel if they needed it. Hate mail poured in — but so did letters of support, buoying Webb’s spirits.

Webb was disappointed, though, when, two days after the bombings, the governor’s office organized an interfaith service to be attended by President Obama. Webb says he was asked to speak, but he was removed from the program the night before.

The service at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross featured the Roman Catholic archbishop, the Greek Orthodox hierarch, the rabbi of the city’s largest synagogue, and senior pastors of major African-American, Hispanic, and mainline Protestant churches.

Muslims were the only faith community not represented by a cleric. Instead, Nasser Weddady of the American Islamic Congress, a civil rights organization, offered a reflection. Webb was in the pews, as were several other prominent imams.

Webb said he was never given an explanation. The governor’s press office said, in an e-mail to the Globe, that organizers “were not able to accommodate everyone on the speaking program, but are proud of the speakers we had.”

Webb praised Weddady’s speech, but he was clearly stung. On Twitter, he told indignant community members to focus on honoring the victims; later, he said, the community could raise questions about the choice of speakers. He said the issue was not about him — there were other Muslim religious leaders, such as Imam Talal Eid, the widely respected Muslim chaplain at Brandeis University — who could have offered the reflection instead.

Meanwhile, Webb came under attack online; some Muslims asked why he would speak well of the president, whom they called a “war criminal.” Others questioned his quick condemnation of the bombing suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers.

After he said publicly he would not pray over the body of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, some Twitter followers reproached him for refusing to bury the suspected terrorist’s body — even though, as Webb tried to explain, that was a different issue and in any case the mosque has no graveyard.

“I find it odd that people who claim to be so religious have the time to attack those working hard under duress,” Webb tweeted April 22.

The heightened focus on Boston’s Muslim community offered an opportunity for Charles Jacobs, a longtime critic of the cultural center and its sister mosque in Cambridge (they are both owned by the Islamic Society of Boston but run separately), to revive his allegations — picked up by USA Today — that the mosques are breeding grounds for hatred and extremism.

Writing in his column in the Jewish Advocate newspaper and on his website, Jacobs suggested that Webb was disinvited from speaking at the interfaith service because organizers feared he was an extremist. He charged that Webb was surreptitiously teaching a curriculum promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood that “teaches vicious hatred and calls for young Muslims to engage in Jihad against non-Muslims in order to establish a global Islamic state.”

“We think he is being publicly dishonest,” Jacobs said of Webb in an interview.

To the imam, the notion was ridiculous.

“I don’t have any private classes . . . where we meet in some bat cave and we lay out blueprints of how to conquer America,” he said.

The charge made just as little sense to outside observers. Todd Helmus, a senior behavioral scientist with the RAND Corporation who has worked extensively on counterterrorism, said Webb’s virtual mosque is one of the more active and influential Muslim voices against radicalism in the country.

“The problem isn’t Suhaib Webb. The problem is there aren’t more imams like Suhaib Webb,” he said.

And Diana Eck, a Harvard professor who teaches a case study of the saga of Jacobs and Boston’s mosques, said Jacobs’s argument that Webb and other moderate Muslims are operating a “stealth jihad” movement belies logic and evidence.

“For years, they were asking, ‘Where are the moderate Muslim voices?’ ” she said of Jacobs and his allies. “Now, we have a lot of moderate Muslim voices, and they are saying that these are the most dangerous people because they are involved in civic society.”

But Webb, in an apparent effort to project both transparency and strength, soon found himself drawn into a back-and-forth on Twitter with Jacobs and the reporter who wrote the USA Today piece — an unusual situation for a major spiritual leader but one that Webb says reflects his populist impulses.

“@DrCharlesJacobs is one of the greatest islamophobes in America,” Webb tweeted. “No one should take anything he has to say seriously.”

He had a different response, however, when Jacobs charged that the imam had made homophobic remarks, pointing to a 2007 post on Webb’s virtual mosque site in which the imam called homosexuality an “evil inclination” and told a gay would-be convert to Islam to seek treatment for his “problems.” Jacobs also circulated a video, drawn from material from the past few years, that showed Webb belittling men who wore skinny jeans, and encouraging his congregation to speak out against gay marriage.

Webb tweeted that he had made “mistakes,” and, in an interview last week, said he had rethought the gay marriage issue. Even if Islam regards homosexuality as a sin, Webb said the constitution guarantees the rights of everyone to get married.

Webb said he is reluctant “to start arguing about other people’s liberties,” given his concerns about recent talk in Congress about surveillance of mosques and other potential infringements on Muslims’ rights.

And yet the period after the bombings presented opportunities to burnish relationships with Christians and Jews that Webb had begun developing long beforehand.

Ministers and rabbis attended Friday prayers at the Roxbury mosque; in one remarkable service, two rabbis from Boston’s largest synagogue addressed Webb’s congregation directly.

And Webb surprised Jewish leaders by attending — and live tweeting — an event at Andover Newton Theological School about a new book on Jewish megatrends, and tweeting about a conversation with Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis, on parallels between challenges Muslims face today and those that confronted Jews a century ago.

Jeremy Burton, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said his group still has significant questions about the organization that manages the Roxbury mosque, the Muslim American Society. There have been concerns about whether the society maintains a relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that has helped topple dictatorships in the Arab world but that also advocates Israel’s destruction.

A national spokesman for the society said it is an independent organization but maintains friendly relationships with many groups and that some of its founders years ago may have had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Leaders of the Roxbury mosque insist it has nothing to do with any foreign groups.

But dialogue continues. Burton said he has engaged with Webb in interfaith conversations and has seen him talking “about the kind of mainstream Islamic American rooted community he is trying to build here.”

Said Webb: “We can live in the past and go nowhere or we can understand how things are now, and live for the future.”

_____________________________________________________________________

IslamophobiaA

islamophobia6

| Pakistan: Peshawar High Court declares US drone strikes as illegal!

Pakistan court declares US drone strikes as illegal ~ Press Trust of IndiaNDTV.

Islamabad: US drone strikes on Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt are illegal, a top court declared on Thursday and directed the Foreign Ministry to move a resolution in the UN against such attacks.

The Peshawar High Court issued the verdict against the strikes by CIA-operated spy planes in response to four petitions that contended the attacks killed civilians and caused collateral damage.

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhuman and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court observed that the strikes must be declared a war crime as they kill innocent people.

“The government of Pakistan must ensure that no drone strike takes place in the future,” the court said. It asked the Foreign Ministry to table a resolution against the American attacks in the UN.

“If the US vetoes the resolution, then the country should think about breaking diplomatic ties with the US,” the judgment said.

US officials have said the drones target Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan’s tribal regions who are blamed for cross-border attacks in Afghanistan. Pakistan insists that the US spy planes kill innocent people, damage civilian property and are counter-productive to the war on terror.

The US has rejected Pakistan’s calls for halting drone strikes.

The Peshawar High Court had earlier reserved its verdict after the completion of arguments by lawyers for the federal government and the petitioners, including the Defence of Pakistan Council, an amalgamation of religious groups, tribal elders and rights groups.

The petitioners had asked the court to direct the government to make public any secret deal with the US on drone strikes, stop drone strikes by force, take the issue to the UN Security Council and pay compensation to families of people killed in missile attacks.

US President Barack Obama has stepped up CIA drone strikes targeting Al Qaida and Taliban elements in Pakistan’s lawless tribal region since 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

scapegoat A

DroneEerie1

| Stereotyping + sex crime: It’s time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community!

It’s time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community ~ guardian.co.uk.

From Stuart Hall to north Wales, the issue won’t go away. If you think I’m being ridiculous, read to the end of my argument!

Link to video: Stuart Hall described as ‘opportunistic predator’ by CPS

Every day across Britain, it seems, there’s a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old.

Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children’s homes was revealed. We now know there were 140 allegations of historical abuse between 1963 and 1992. A total of 84 suspected offenders have been named, and it’s claimed the abuse took place across 18 children’s homes.

But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people’s minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?

Jimmy Savile is alleged to have abused 300 young people, and in his case and in north Wales, the abuse could not have happened without a wide range of co-conspirators either grooming children or ensuring the truth never got out. Hardly a week goes by without another white man being arrested in connection with sexual abuse.

I’m beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: “Please, God, don’t let it be a white person this time.”

And with so many senior community figures implicated, many of us are starting to wonder what will happen to the next generation of whites. How will today’s young whites learn that abuse is wrong when their role models are so tarnished?

First, though, we need to find out what’s causing the problem. Is it something to do with white people’s culture? Is it something to do with their loss of empire, and their new role in the world, as a diminished state desperately clinging to its glorious past? Do they seek to impose their last vestiges of power on the most vulnerable in society?

Or is it that, having spent so much of their history waging wars against each other, they cannot cope with the relative peace of the last half-century, and their frustration at not fighting is taken out on the weakest? I may have no evidence for this, but that’s not going to stop me putting it out there as a cause.

Or maybe it’s their religion? Child abuse in the priesthood has, of course, also been tolerated for decades, allowed to continue unpunished through a conspiracy of silence among the church hierarchy.

And despite the recent falls in attendance, Christianity still dominates European culture. And the Bible, which many whites still look to, has such verses as: “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol [hell].” (Proverbs 23:13-14) It hardly fits with white society’s claims to care for children. And even those who don’t believe, such as Richard Dawkins, a senior cleric in the atheist community, have sought to downplay the gravity of child abuse, believing it’s no worse than religion itself. As he wrote: “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.” Of course, what we really need now is for brave white community leaders to come out and distance themselves from the abusers.

Maybe, say, the new head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission should come out and admit the issue is “racial and cultural” and that she fears that “in those communities there were people who knew what was going on and didn’t say anything, either because they’re frightened or they’re so separated from the rest of the communities”. Or a white cabinet member could say: “There is a small minority of white men who believe that young children are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first.” Or the head of a leading children’s charity could say: “There is very troubling evidence that whites are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences.” Yet none of this has happened. And this saddens me. Because until we hear those brave voices speaking out against abuse, what are we meant to think?

I urge white people to break this conspiracy of silence. Call on your leaders to show leadership. To show us all that you’re not like the people who dominate the news headlines. That you really do care about protecting children.

You may think all the above is ridiculous; that I’m stirring ethnic tensions on an issue that is clearly about individuals and small groups of people and has nothing to do with race or religion. And that by making this spurious case I’m ignoring the core issue, which is that children, many of them in vulnerable situations, were terrorised and physically harmed by opportunistic men who were able to get away with their crimes for years. You’d be right.

But all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be grooming young girls for sex. If you think the claims about white people are wrong, then so is the stereotyping of Britain’s Muslims, and the widespread questioning of their culture and their religion, because of the perverted actions of a few.

Since the “black crime shock” tabloid stories of the 1980s, editors have known that stoking fears about misunderstood minorities is good for sales. If you object to this article, then you should understand how it feels to be a Muslim reading similar pieces pandering to Islamophobia day after day – and you should object to those too.

___________________________________________________________________

 

| Final Thoughts on Zionism’s Success and Arab Failure: Will Masada II be the endgame?

Final Thoughts on Zionism’s Success and Arab Failure: Will Masada II be the endgame?Alan Hart.

 

I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, and the following is an explanation of why.

More than three decades ago when I made my commitment to this war effort, in the full knowledge that it would make me persona non grata in the eyes of the mainstream media I had served with some distinction, I believed that the single most amazing thing about the conflict was Zionism’s success in selling its propaganda lies – lies which were told not only to justify anything and everything the Zionist (not Jewish) State of Israel did and does, but also to establish and fix the boundaries of what could and could not be discussed in public discourse about Israel’s policies and actions. (I mean what could and could not be discussed by non-Jews, Europeans and Americans especially, if they didn’t want to be terrorized by smears and false charges of anti-Semitism which could result in them losing their positions and jobs).

What could be called the Mother and Father of Zionism’s propaganda lies is the assertion that all the Jews of the world are descended from the ancient Hebrews and therefore have a common ethnic origin and national heritage. In other words, according to Zionism’s assertion, Palestine is by definition the ancestral homeland of all the Jews of the world; and this, it is further asserted by Zionism, means that Israel has the right to sovereignty over all the land it occupies today and Jews from anywhere have the right to settle on it.

As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand explains in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, that is simply not true. And as I noted in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews (which was published before Sand’s work), almost all if not all the Jews who went to Palestine in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. They, like almost all Jews, were the descendants of peoples from many homelands (mainly in Eastern and Western Europe) who converted to Judaism centuries after the brief rule of the ancient Hebrews ended and who, after their conversion, had only their religion and its rituals in common.

Though they subsequently converted to Islam and Christianity, it is possible that when Zionism declared itself to be in existence 1897 there were more Palestinian Arabs than Palestinian Jews who were descended from the ancient Hebrews.

Zionism’s claim that the Jews of the world have a right to the land now occupied by Greater Israel does not bear honest examination.

One of the most influential of Zionism’s follow-up propaganda lies asserted that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus its legitimacy by the United Nations Partition Resolution of 29 November 1947. As I document in detail in my book and have indicated over the years in more than a few articles and presentations of public platforms of all kinds, that is propaganda nonsense.

In the first place the UN without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own.

Despite that, by the narrowest of margins, and only after a rigged vote (rigged by Zionist pressure amounting to blackmail on the leaders and governments of some member states), the UN General Assembly did pass a resolution to partition Palestine and create two states, one Arab, one Jewish, with Jerusalem not part of either. But the General Assembly resolution was only aproposal – meaning that it could have no effect, would not become policy, unless approved by the Security Council.

The truth is that the General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the US knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid), and the question of what the hell to do about Palestine after the occupying British had been driven out it by Zionist terrorism was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the US was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what to do next that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence - actually in defiance of the will of the organised international community as it then was, including the Truman administration.

The truth of the time was that Israel had no right to exist. It came into existence because Ben-Gurion had done everything necessary to guarantee that his Jewish forces would be more than sufficient in numbers and well enough armed to roll back and defeat any Arab military response to Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence, and that Zionist might would prevail over Palestinian right.

Thereafter Zionism was successful in convincing the Western world that poor little Israel lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab military force. Despite some stupid, face-saving Arab rhetoric to the contrary, which played into Zionism’s hands, the Arab regimes never, ever, had any intention of fighting Israel to liberate Palestine. (When elements of the armies of the frontline Arab states went to war with Israel in 1948, their objective was not to destroy the “Jewish state” but to hold the land that had been assigned to the Palestinian Arab state by the vitiated partition plan, and they failed miserably, as Ben-Gurion was confident they would, to do that. Also true is that Jordan, whose king had been in secret dialogue with Zionism’s in-Palestine leaders, would not have been a serious party to the Arab war effort if Ben-Gurion had not tried to grab Jerusalem; if, in other words, he had been content for the Holy City not to be part of either the Jewish or Arab state of the vitiated partition plan).

Israel always was the aggressor and oppressor, not and never the victim.

Its assertion, repeated over and over again, that it didn’t have Arab partners for peace was also a big, fat, propaganda lie (as the documented truth of history, including de-classified Israeli state papers, which are ignored by the mainstream media, proves).

When I made my commitment to the war for truth more than three decades ago, I believed that calling and holding Israel to account for its crimes, in order for there to be peace based on justice for the Palestinians and security for all, would remain a mission impossible unless the citizens of the Western nations, enough of them and Americans especially, were informed about the truth of history.

That seemed obvious to me because it was clear that, unwilling to confront the Zionist lobby in all its manifestations, the governments of the major Western powers were not going to use the leverage they have to oblige Israel to end its defiance of international law unless and until they were pushed to do by informed public opinion – by manifestations of real democracy in action. THE problem was that most citizens of the Western nations, Americans especially, were too mis-informed and uninformed to do the pushing. In other words, because they had been conditioned by Zionist propaganda, peddled without question by the mainstream media, most citizens were too ignorant to make their democracies work for justice and peace in the Middle East.

So my starting point was the belief that the real conflict is an information war between Zionism’s masters of deception on the one side and the truth tellers on the other.

The truth tellers were few in number but among those who produced major truth-telling works (books) were Jews of real integrity including, for example, the Jewish-American Alfred M. Lilienthal, the first two Israeli “revisionist” meaning honest historians – Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, the Jewish-American Norman Finkelstein and Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer. (In such company the Gentile me felt secure in the frontline trenches of the war for truth. There was also comfort in knowing that we were taking on Zionism from the moral high ground).

Over the last 20 years or so, with their books, articles and public speaking, the truth tellers have made an impact but not on a big enough scale to change the outcome of the war.

The truth today is that the situation of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians is worse than it has ever been and is worsening as Israel continues its defiance of international law and gobbles up more and more Palestinian land and water resources.

Also true today is that there is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, but it has little or nothing to do with the work of the truth tellers. It is being provoked by Israel’s policies and actions.

Some people (including perhaps President Obama) hope that Israel’s growing isolation will bring a majority of Israeli Jews to their senses and cause them to insist that their government be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept. That has to be a possibility, but I think it is much more likely that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism will have an opposite effect. I mean that it will assist Zionism’s deluded leaders to reinforce the message that what is happening is proof of what they have always said – that the world hates Jews, and that Israel’s leaders must therefore do whatever is necessary to preserve and protect their state as an insurance policy, a refuge of last resort, for all Jews everywhere, even if that means telling an American president and the whole world to go to hell.

On reflection today I believe that Zionism could have been contained and defeated by now if the resources (yes, I do mean money) had been available to assist the promotion and spread of the truth of history on the scale necessary to empower the citizens of the Western nations, Americans especially, to make their democracies work for justice and peace, by demanding that their governments end their unconditional support for Israel right or wrong. (In my view, which is based on my own engagements with audiences across the U.S., Americans in great numbers would have been open to the truth of history if they had also been made aware that unconditional support for Israel right or wrong is not in their own best interests).

Because the resources were not made available, the war for the truth of history has remained the most asymmetric of all information wars. Zionism’s masters of deception have, as they always have had, virtually unlimited funds for the co-ordinated promotion of their propaganda lies. The truth-tellers are, as they always have been, without the resources needed to put together and implement a co-ordinated, winning campaign strategy.

The main providers of the resources necessary for winning the information war ought to have been seriously wealthy Arabs in general and seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians in particular. They ought to have done for Palestine what seriously wealthy Jews did and still do for Zionism.

There are two main reasons why seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians declined to play their necessary part in funding promotion of the truth of history.

Those who live in Western Europe and America are frightened that any association with the work of people who credibly challenge Zionism’s version of history would invite Zionist retribution which could result in their businesses being damaged and perhaps even destroyed.

Those who live in the Gulf States are frightened that assisting the truth-tellers could put their very comfortable positions and relationships with the rulers of those states at risk because they, the rulers, would not take kindly to blow back hassle from Zionism. (Zionist heavyweights in America do sometimes call Gulf Arab rulers directly to tell them what they should not do or allow. One such call was made to tell a ruler that he should not support Alan Hart and Ilan Pappe. The call was made after Ilan and I had made a joint presentation in the particular state, at its invitation, and had been promised support for our work)

Another possible reason why some seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians have not assisted the promotion of the truth of history could be that they don’t understand (at all or well enough) that Western governments are not going to confront the Zionist monster unless the citizens of nations, the voters, are informed enough to demand that they do.

It’s also not impossible that some seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians have not contributed to the information war effort because they believe but dare not say that Palestine has long been a lost cause.

The brutal truth about seriously wealthy non-Palestinian Arabs is that most of them don’t care about the occupied and oppressed Palestinians and the many others, refugees still living in camps, who were dispossessed of their homes, their land and their rights. The Arab masses do care but their elites don’t. (That statement is something of an exaggeration to make a point but it contains much truth).

Today I can quantify the cost of my own commitment to the war for truth.

If I had written a pro-Zionist book, I would have had wealthy Jews throwing money at it and me for global promotion of all kinds. But with Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, (which is a complete re-writing of the entire history of the conflict exposing Zionist propaganda for the nonsense it is and replacing it with the documented truth of history), I was on my own. To fund the research and writing over nearly five years, then the printing and publication of the original, two-volume hardback edition, and then some promotion, I took out a loan against the security of the home my wife and I owned outright and have lived in for a quarter of a century.

At the time I decided to do so (with my dear wife’s complete understanding and support), I didn’t think I was being stupid. My previous book (Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?) had earned me significant income from the sale of the Arabic newspaper serialization rights, and I assumed that my latest book would do the same, enabling me to clear the re-mortgaged debt on my home.

I was, of course, aware that there were truths in Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews that would be more than uncomfortable for the Arab regimes and which they would not want their newspapers to publish. (When I was writing the book I had to be guided by the fact you can’t tell the truth about Zionism with telling the truth about why the Arab states were never a threat to Israel’s existence). But newspaper serialization of a two-volume book (which became three volumes in its updated American edition) would have taken only a relatively small amount of total content. Arab editors doing the serialization could have left out everything that offended their political masters and still had more than enough material to inform and entertain their readers.

But it was no go. My book was not only red-flagged by Zionism and therefore all the major Western publishing houses, this despite the fact that my extremely well connected and respected literary agent had on file letters from the CEO’s of some of them with rare praise for my manuscript. (One of the letters, which I quoted in the Preface to the original hardback edition, described my manuscript as “awesome… driven my passion, commitment and profound learning.” It added, “There is no question it deserves to be published.”). For their part the Arab regimes were at one with Zionism in wanting the full truth of history to be suppressed to the maximum extent possible. They effectively endorsed Zionism’s strategy for dealing with me and my work – “Alan Hart and his book do not exist.” (I think my dear friend Ilan Pappe may well have been right when he said that Zionism was more frightened of my book than any other because of its title, which he described as “the truth in seven words.”)

Today I have to face the cost consequences of my commitment to the truth of history. To avoid being dispossessed of my home and land in the not too distant future because I don’t have the money to pay the principal sum of the outstanding re-mortgaged debt (I have been paying only the interest on it), I now have to sell and downsize. Preparing to downsize will require, among other things, months of my fulltime to sort through and dispose of much of what has been accumulated over decades and could not be accommodated and stored in a much smaller property with little or no land. And that in the proverbial nutshell is why I am withdrawing from the battlefield of the war for truth. The days when I could serve causes beyond self in order to feel that I was doing something useful with my life are gone. Like seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinians and other Arabs, I must now put my own interests, and above all those of my dear wife, first.

Back in the early 1970′s when I was making Five Minutes To Midnight, my documentary on global poverty and its implications for all, I had a verbal boxing match with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. After a day of filming with her as she collected some of those dying from poverty on the pavements to give them a few more days of life with shelter and loving care, she invited my camera crew and I to a frugal evening meal with some of her sisters. The question I posed for discussion over the meal was this: Which is the most important word in any language – love or justice?

Mother Teresa argued with passion, sometimes angry passion, for love. I argued, with equal but not angry passion, for justice. If she was alive today I would say to her, “Mother Teresa, it’s justice not love that is required if the countdown to catastrophe in Palestine that became Israel is to be stopped.”

But it was not only my complete identity with the Palestinians’ irrefutable claim for justice and my admiration of the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed that inspired, drove and sustained my commitment to the war for the truth of history.

I feared, as I do even more so today, that if the information war that probably could have been won by now is lost, the end-game will most likely be a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, followed, quite possibly, by another great turning against the Jews, provoked by Zionism’s insufferable self-righteousness and contempt for international law

For three decades I have done my best to contribute to the understanding needed to prevent both obscenities from happening, but I have now reached and passed the outer limits of what I can do when there’s a lack of will on the part of seriously wealthy diaspora Palestinian and other Arabs to assist the promotion and spread of the truth of history.

In the days and weeks to come I will no doubt find myself wondering if I was naive to believe that Palestinian right could be assisted to triumph over Zionist might.

To those all over the world who down the years have expressed appreciation for my books, articles and presentations on public platforms of all kinds – Thank You, your moral support helped to sustain my commitment.

Final Footnote

A Palestinian friend once asked me if, on matters to do with Palestine, I was aware of the main difference between Arabs and Jews. He didn’t wait for me to respond. He said: “Arabs almost never do what they say they will do. Jews often do what they say they will not do.”

I said I thought there was an element of truth in that.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on www.alanhart.net

_______________________________________________________________________

PAL EQUALITY 3

 

PalC

| Scapegoating: The special dread of terrorism for Muslims in the west!

The special dread of terrorism for Muslims in the west ~

 

    •  For Muslims in the US and Canada, terror’s enduring damage is the erosion of trust and an unjust stain of guilt by association.

 

 

 

I was born in Pakistan but have been fortunate enough to have had a happy life growing up in Toronto, Canada – a place where I have always felt at home and for which I have more attachment than any other in the world. In my mind, the mere idea of a terrorist attack ever occurring here provokes feelings of anger and sadness: it is painful to imagine something bad happening to a place you care about. I imagine Americans feel exactly the same way about their country.

On Monday, in the wake of last week’s events in Boston, Massachusetts, it was reported by Canadian media that an alleged terrorist plot had been uncovered, which involved individuals in the United States, as well as in Canada. Full details of the police operation have yet to be revealed; there are reasonable grounds for a degree of skepticism due to its timing, coinciding with a parliamentary debate on anti-terrorism, and to the purported support of “al-Qaida elements in Iran”). Yet, I feel immediate relief that this potential terror attack came to light when law enforcement agencies announced its prevention.

If it had been otherwise, if there had been another outrage, what would have happened? Would a lifetime of hard work and good citizenship have been cast aside, and would friends and acquaintances begin to view me and others like me with fear and distrust?

It is a curious experience to feel that the benign normality of your life is constantly held hostage to forces outside your ability to control. That effort of cultivating a positive image – building relationships, respecting the law, living honestly, giving charity, contributing to civil society – could potentially be degraded or wiped out by forces far beyond your scope of influence as an individual.

Today, many Americans live in fear of the random nihilistic violence of terrorists. A 2011 Gallup poll showed that roughly 36% of Americans worryabout a potential terrorist attack killing them or one of their family members – down from post-9/11 highs but still very significant. While academic studies on the subject have shown that the actual risk of such an event occurring isextremely low, the heinous violence at the Boston Marathon this past week shows that even the rarest of “black swan events” do eventually come to pass.

However, to Muslim Americans and other ordinary Muslim citizens of western countries, the fear of being victimized by a terrorist attack is magnified many times. While, like their fellow citizens, the chance of them being personally harmed in such an attack is remote, they are haunted by the very real danger that in the aftermath they will be subjected to greater public scrutiny, abuse, suspicion and hostility. Besides the fear of governments targeting their communities and curtailing their individual freedom, there exists an even broader and more diffuse fear.

While hate crimes targeting Muslims tend to spike in the aftermath of terror attacks (as has sadly been evidenced in attacks against ordinary Muslim Americans in Boston and New York after the marathon bombing), these tend to be exceptional cases. The real damage done to the social fabric by such attacks is the erosion of trust and respect between society at large and its Muslim minorities.

Regardless of the actions of individual Muslims – the overwhelming majority of whom experience events such as terrorist attacks with just as much disbelief, trauma and helplessness as their co-citizens – they are nevertheless viewed as being somehow associated with them, simply due to their ethnic or religious background. In the aftermath of the Boston bombings, the unanimous feeling among my many Muslim friends, family and acquaintances was one of overwhelming fear and dread that the perpetrator might also be someone who professes to share our religious identity.

The idea that people may think about you differently due to factors outside your ability to influence, or even fully comprehend, is profoundly unsettling. This is an anxiety far more pervasive than the fear of violence or abuse. It is a wrenching experience to feel alienated from your own home or to feel that such alienation could one day be visited upon you and upend the life you have carefully built for yourself and for your loved ones.

For many Muslim citizens of western countries – especially among the young – where they live today is the only home they have ever known and the only place they have ever thoroughly understood or felt affection for. The anxiety that despite respecting society’s rules, the welcome mat may still one day be pulled out from under you is very real and common. Given the statements ofsome politicians and popular media figures, these concerns do not seem such a stretch.

In the aftermath of a violent crime that captures the attention of the country, it is safe to assume that white western people do not find themselves praying that the perpetrator does not share their background. When a terror attack occurs, Muslim civil society organizations will inevitably release anguished statements denouncing such violence, yet they feel a stain has been placed upon them in the popular imagination that is practically impossible to remove.

Contrary to some hyperbolic depictions of Muslim minorities as a nefarious fifth column within society, the average Muslim has about as much control of, or connection to, the vile actions of terrorists as the average white American does to school shootings or movie theater massacres. But based on the fact that there are violent individuals in the world who identify as Muslim, some completely deny that moderate Muslims even exist.

At present, the public discourse around terrorism and minority groups renders law-abiding, honest citizens unable to feel completely secure in society. However much we condemn such attacks, distance ourselves from them, identify with the victims, and offer our support to society, we are liable to be viewed with reflexive suspicion, as perennial “outsiders” in the national fabric.

Until we can detach the actions of any single Muslim from being associated with all Muslims, I suspect that the reasons for our anxiety will continue to exist. Being normal in the west: it’s not made easy for us.

Islamic Society of Boston mosque

A banner reading ‘United We Stand For Peace on Earth’ outside the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photograph: Allen Breed/AP

______________________________________________________________________

domestic-terrorismA

Related articles

scapegoat A