- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, November 11, 2010

This is what cultural genocide in Israel looks like


Obama raps Israeli plans for 1,300 Jewish settler homes
US President Barack Obama has criticised Israeli plans to build some 1,300 settler homes in East Jerusalem.

Speaking in Indonesia, he said neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians were making the extra effort needed for a breakthrough in stalled peace talks.

The chief Palestinian negotiator has urged the international community to recognise a Palestinian state in response to Israel's latest plans.

The row over settlements has caused the re-launched peace talks to break down.

The Palestinians are refusing to go back to the negotiations without a stop to settlement building on the territory they want as their future state.

Constructing settlements on occupied Palestinian land is illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has previously floated the idea of going to the United Nations to declare statehood as one option if peace talks collapse, but only after seeking support from Washington.


look at the map of land Israel has stolen off Palestinians, and continue to steal with this announcement of 1300 more settlements, this is what cultural genocide looks like. Obama, for all the talk has done bugger all walk, that may suggest that the power of Israel lobbyists in Washington is simply so vast that no democratic leader can seriously challenge it, which means Abbas should bypass America and declare statehood at the UN.

America simply cares about who they sell their guns to, and the billions in 'military aid' to Israel which have to be re-spent on the American military industrial complex as a perverse corporate welfare technique mean it is the paranoid fears of Israeli's that drive the occupation which are listened to, not the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Israel has no interest in peace, and America doesn't make money from peace. You have to work for peace.

17 Comments:

At 11/11/10 9:54 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Do you believe that there should be a state called Israel?

Do you believe in the right to self defense?

 
At 11/11/10 10:13 am, Blogger Bomber said...

For christ's sakes scott, is that the best you have? Has being an apologist for Israel become a profession more than a hobby now has it?

 
At 11/11/10 10:21 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Well some are calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. I was merely wondering if you fell into that camp, or whether you feel that there should be some revision back to the say the 1967 borders?

 
At 11/11/10 11:28 am, Anonymous TJ said...

And of course the land Israel has "stolen" has all been taken after the fighting of defensive wars where Israel has been attacked in the first place... And Israel has repeatedly shown a wilingness to negotiate for peache....remember when it handed back the Sinai, Gaza (Whereupon Gaza was used as a missile launch pad), remember when it offered to return most of the West Bank and all of Gaza in 2000....what was the Arab response? A return to the Intifada. And you reckon its Israel that isn't ready for peace?

 
At 11/11/10 2:18 pm, Anonymous goyim said...

"Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development [... and] have been established in breach of international law."

International Court of Justice Ruling, July 9, 2004

 
At 11/11/10 2:58 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...remember when it offered to return most of the West Bank and all of Gaza in 2000..."
hmmm would that be the 80% of the remaining 22% of historical Palestine (ethnically cleansed in '47,'48) a collection of ghettos subdivided by Israeli only roads, an 80% permanently controlled by the Israeli Army and the illegal settlements, an 80% robbed of it's water, no shared sovereignty in Jerusalem and no discussion of the right of return for the refugees of '47, '48.
Only Israel and the US refuse to consider peace based on the '67 borders, and a shared Jerusalem.
Israel doesn't want peace....it wants all of Palestine.

 
At 11/11/10 4:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm surprised that Bomber with his terrorist sympathies even calls it 'Israel'. I thought he'd refer to it as the 'zionist entity' just like his pals in Hamas.

 
At 11/11/10 8:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No this is what genocide looks like

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/4333533/Attacks-target-Christians-in-Iraq

No jews involved so nothing to see here eh Bomber.

 
At 12/11/10 12:01 am, Anonymous 2late said...

so we are just gentiles and dont appreciate what mossad has to go thru to get false passports? but like the french , they still needed to express themselves by abusing Aotearoa .

 
At 12/11/10 10:08 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Israel does deserve a state, but why does Palestine have to be destroyed and concurred for it to exist?
It’s not their fault that they have to make room for a displaced race. The British Empire ‘gave’ Palestine to them like it was theirs to dish out. Israel and Zionists alike had a choice of the Kimberly Desert in Australia among others and they picked Palestine.

sdm when you stand up for Israel do you feel any pain for the Palestinians who have been thrown out of their homes and abused? Do you care about the children who suffer at the hands of these invaders?

Two wrongs don’t make a right and why should Palestine have a peace loving stance when this shit is dropped on them. I don’t blame them for being upset im sure we would be if a race of people just came in and destroyed your home and claimed it as being correct due to the fucking bible saying so. Well im sorry but that shit you call the bible is nothing more than fear mongering babble and if you take that for proof and ruin lives over it then you are severely disillusioned.

 
At 12/11/10 10:57 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Upon close examination, not one of Israel's wars (with the possible exception of '73) was a defensive war and in the case of '73, the Israeli provocation created a predictable and justifiable response by Egypt.

1948: At least 250,000 (more likely 400,000) Palestinians had been expelled from their homes and property at gunpoint before the Arab League acted with the sole intent of bringing order and stopping the slaughter of civilians. Israeli forces outnumbered the Arab League from the outset. Expulsions had been carried out not only within the area mandated for Jewish control in direct violation of the Mandate proposal but outside as well.

1956: Israel, in collusion with Britain and France launched an unprovoked attack aimed at wresting control of the canal from Egypt and gaining the Sinai for Israel.

1967: Nasser had more than half of his best forces bogged down in Yemen, his Sinai forces in defensive posture.
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -Menachim Begin.
"I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

-- Moshe Dayan, Israel's former Minister of Defence, describing how to provoke a military incident on the Golan Heights. From a 1976 interview with Yediot Ahronot newspaper, given on condition that it not be published till after his death. Cited in Ari Shavit's The Iron Wall, p.236-237

1973: see British/Israeli historian Avi Schlaim
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20Origins%20of%20Arab-Israeli%20Wars.html

Needless to say, the invasions of Lebanon were both brutal, involving war crimes, and unprovoked.

No historian, Israeli or otherwise (with the exception of paid propagandists like the unqualified and discredited ex-IDF Intelligence Officer Epraim Karsh) supports the Hollywood inspired "poor little Israel fighting for it's very existence" view of History. Within Israel, the debate has moved on with Israel's defenders like Benny Morris now taking the position that the ethnic cleansing is justified:
"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

 
At 12/11/10 10:58 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Upon close examination, not one of Israel's wars (with the possible exception of '73) was a defensive war and in the case of '73, the Israeli provocation created a predictable and justifiable response by Egypt.

1948: At least 250,000 (more likely 400,000) Palestinians had been expelled from their homes and property at gunpoint before the Arab League acted with the sole intent of bringing order and stopping the slaughter of civilians. Israeli forces outnumbered the Arab League from the outset. Expulsions had been carried out not only within the area mandated for Jewish control in direct violation of the Mandate proposal but outside as well.

1956: Israel, in collusion with Britain and France launched an unprovoked attack aimed at wresting control of the canal from Egypt and gaining the Sinai for Israel.

1967: Nasser had more than half of his best forces bogged down in Yemen, his Sinai forces in defensive posture.
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -Menachim Begin.
"I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

-- Moshe Dayan, Israel's former Minister of Defence, describing how to provoke a military incident on the Golan Heights. From a 1976 interview with Yediot Ahronot newspaper, given on condition that it not be published till after his death. Cited in Ari Shavit's The Iron Wall, p.236-237

1973: see British/Israeli historian Avi Schlaim
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20Origins%20of%20Arab-Israeli%20Wars.html

Needless to say, the invasions of Lebanon were both brutal, involving war crimes, and unprovoked.

No historian, Israeli or otherwise (with the exception of paid propagandists like the unqualified and discredited ex-IDF Intelligence Officer Epraim Karsh) supports the Hollywood inspired "poor little Israel fighting for it's very existence" view of History. Within Israel, the debate has moved on with Israel's defenders like Benny Morris now taking the position that the ethnic cleansing is justified:
"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

 
At 12/11/10 10:59 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Upon close examination, not one of Israel's wars (with the possible exception of '73) was a defensive war and in the case of '73, the Israeli provocation created a predictable and justifiable response by Egypt.

1948: At least 250,000 (more likely 400,000) Palestinians had been expelled from their homes and property at gunpoint before the Arab League acted with the sole intent of bringing order and stopping the slaughter of civilians. Israeli forces outnumbered the Arab League from the outset. Expulsions had been carried out not only within the area mandated for Jewish control in direct violation of the Mandate proposal but outside as well.

1956: Israel, in collusion with Britain and France launched an unprovoked attack aimed at wresting control of the canal from Egypt and gaining the Sinai for Israel.

1967: Nasser had more than half of his best forces bogged down in Yemen, his Sinai forces in defensive posture.
"The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -Menachim Begin.
"I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

-- Moshe Dayan, Israel's former Minister of Defence, describing how to provoke a military incident on the Golan Heights. From a 1976 interview with Yediot Ahronot newspaper, given on condition that it not be published till after his death. Cited in Ari Shavit's The Iron Wall, p.236-237

 
At 12/11/10 11:02 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Part 2.

1973: see British/Israeli historian Avi Schlaim
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20Origins%20of%20Arab-Israeli%20Wars.html

Needless to say, the invasions of Lebanon were both brutal, involving war crimes, and unprovoked.

No historian, Israeli or otherwise (with the exception of paid propagandists like the unqualified and discredited ex-IDF Intelligence Officer Epraim Karsh) supports the Hollywood inspired "poor little Israel fighting for it's very existence" view of History. Within Israel, the debate has moved on with Israel's defenders like Benny Morris now taking the position that the ethnic cleansing is justified:
"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

 
At 13/11/10 5:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Within Israel, the debate has moved on ?

 
At 13/11/10 8:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No

Within Israel the 'debate' is still variations on a theme...how to dispose of an indigenous population and inhabit their land without incurring unsustainable quantities of international outrage.

 
At 14/11/10 8:35 am, Blogger Brewerstroupe said...

Apologies for the duplication above. My server initially indicated that the piece was too big for one post so I split it in two then found that all my attempts had been published.

Serious students of the origins of the Isra/Pal issue should read this article by Ilan Pappe:

"Ilan Pappé
“The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography of Israel"

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/MidEPappe.htm#_edn2

 

Post a Comment

<< Home