Karen Kwiatkowski on the Iran war: a tale of two empires

Our military footprint in the Gulf and the region has contracted; this will continue.  What we just watched over the past 100 days was an unusually vivid moment in the long slow collapse of the US military and financial empire. 

Conversely, tiny Israel saw its fluid borders expand in all four directions.  The cover of this war coincided with new bases in Somaliland, new gas fields through occupation of southern Lebanon and Gaza, massive Israeli expansion through land and political purchase in Greece, Cyprus, and Albania, and the exponential erasure of Gazans, Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. 

[...]

A truly defensive military and intelligence apparatus, at a fifth or even a tenth of what we spend today, as well as a structural jettisoning of special alliances that animate the current defense budget and focus, including but not limited to Israel, are now within reach for the US, in part because of what happened over the past 100 days.  The empire will oppose any changes in this direction, but our dry shell of an empire has few choices. 

In a strange way Trump will bring the troops home, and end US wars of choice, and like the captain of the Titanic, he will ride the ship, damaged by arrogance and overreach, into the deep. 

But before the empire fades, it retrenches, and global war-mongering becomes totalitarianism at home, national intelligence becomes domestic surveillance, AI looks inward to identify potential enemies of the state, and maps their communities for decimation or economic lockdown.

[...]

Today, we are in the midst of the collapse of two empires, one tiny and vicious, the other lumbering and lazy.  These two empires suffer different illusions, but Israel, under fascist Zionism, has dibs on discipline and seeks to rule.

[...]

US imperial retrenchment has been happening under our very noses, slowly at first with our devalued currency and never-ending wars, but the pace is quickening.  Notably in this 250th year after the Declaration of Independence, every American needs to be prepared for war at home.

~ Karen Kwiatkowski, "The US Empire is Retrenching, Bringing Imperialism Home," LewRockwell.com, June 15, 2026

 

Allan C. Brownfeld on conflating Judaism with the state of Israel

After Israel's creation, the organized Jewish community embraced it and made it "central" to Jewish identity.  Israeli flags were displayed in synagogues, lobbying groups were created to promote Israel's interests, making it the largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world.  The Palestinians were displaced and, in 1967, their land was occupied.  In reality, the Palestinians have become the last victims of the Holocaust, for which they bear no responsibility whatever. 

What we have witnessed since 1948 can only be considered a form of idolatry, making the State of Israel, not God and the Jewish moral and ethical tradition, "central" to Jewish identity.  This is reminiscent of the story of the Golden Calf in the Bible. 

[...]

Where the future will lead is impossible to predict.  One hopeful possibility is that the movement toward universalism and the rejection of nationalism which proceeded dramatically in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - and was interrupted by the rise of Nazism, World War II, and the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - will once again move forward in the future.  There is now every indication that this will be the case.  The current divisions in American Judaism certainly point in this direction.

~ Allan C. Brownfeld, American Council for Judaism, introduction to Coming to Palestine, pp. vii-viii

 

Ron Paul on Israel's 12-day war with Iran

A few weeks ago I urged President Trump to make a deal with Iran that would satisfy his stated goal of no nuclear weapons production and would allow Iran to continue its lawful pursuit of civilian nuclear energy.  The deal on the table, as described by the Iranian foreign minister himself, was a win-win “update” of Obama’s JCPOA “nuclear deal” that he could have avoided a costly and counter-productive war with Iran.

Unfortunately, the negotiations were cut short by an Israeli sneak-attack on Iran that led to a 12-day war that did not turn out as Israel imagined.  This often happens in war, especially wars of aggression.  After a day or so, Israel found itself overwhelmed by an Iran that proved to be more than capable of defending itself and Netanyahu called up Uncle Sam begging for assistance. 

The resulting US bombing run on Iran’s nuclear sites did not lead to the end of that country’s capabilities, but to the expulsion of the UN monitoring organization and the emergence of Iranian “strategic ambiguity” regarding its program.  In short, the bombing has blinded the world to what Iran may do in the future.  That is not a win for Trump.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, the Iranian president confirmed what most people understood at the time: President Trump promised Iran that while they were engaged in negotiations the United States would not allow Israel to attack the country.  With the sixth round of negotiations just two days away, however, Israel thumbed its nose at the United States and launched an attack on Iran anyway. 

Considering that Israel’s “military capabilities” are almost entirely provided by the United States, this betrayal of its benefactor will surely go down as one of the most brazen acts of ingratitude of all time. 

~ Ron Paul, "What Trump Should Tell Netanyahu," The Ron Paul Institute, July 8, 2025

Donald Jeffries on U.S. support of Israel

Since the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, the Middle East has been a tinderbox of ancient ethnic hostilities.  Israel fought four major wars against neighboring countries like Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, in its first twenty five years alone.  Since the neocons took control of U.S. foreign policy during the Reagan administration, America has been a consistent presence there, hovering in the background like the big brother waiting to pounce on any perceived slight to the younger sibling.  We fought the Gulf “War” (really, don’t you have to have two sides for a real war?) in 1989, for no other reason than to protect Israeli interests.  U.S. envoy April Glaspie famously told former CIA asset Saddam Hussein that if he invaded the tiny artificial oil oligarchy of Kuwait, we wouldn’t interfere.  Of course, that was a lie.  The only people cheering on such lunacy were the leaders of Israel. 

I lost count of how many times we bombed Iraq in the subsequent years. Our embargo killed over a million Iraqis, including over 500,000 children.  We ventured into Afghanistan for no reason whatsoever.  Well, except that Israel requested it. And that’s all that matters in “our” defense department.  No one says “no” to Israel.  Except John F. Kennedy.  We all know what happened to him.  Obama became embroiled in Syria and Yemen because Israel wanted it.  They’re like a collective, spoiled trust fund baby.  Donald Trump, after rightly criticizing Obama for bombing Syria, did so himself when ordered to.  You know exactly who gave the orders.  And now, we may become deeply embroiled in Israel’s war with Iran, again at Israel’s request.  Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen- none of them have ever done anything to us.  We have no beef with any of them.  But Israel does.  All of this is in their interests, not ours.

~ Donald Jeffries, "The Explosion of Jewish Fatigue Syndrome," Tired of naked emperors, June 29, 2025

Alon Mizrahi on the Israel bubble

I have lived most of my life in Israel.  And what I see is how destructive this is, how cruel and inhumane and how destructive it is and it has no future.  Part of me is trying to tell my former country, because I can't call it my country anymore, "You have to stop because what you are doing, you are bringing a catastrophe upon yourself.  You have to stop it before this catastrophe."  But no one seems to want to listen.  The conformity is so strong that no one dares break rank with the politically-approved message: "You have to kill children, you have to..."  We are looking at, I don't know, a huge historical disaster as it's happening and as it's about to get worse.

Israel is different because it is a bubble.  It is isolated basically from the rest of humanity.  And it is being shielded from its neighbors, from... humanity basically by the support of the U.S.  The U.S. is there to make sure Israel never faces consequences for what it's doing.  So Israel can be as belligerent and brazen and lawless as it wants because the U.S. will make sure nothing ever happens to it.  Which is an illusion, because something is going to happen to it eventually.  That's life.  

There's no isolation.  No one is isolated for long.  It can work for a short period of time, but no one is truly isolated.  We are all connected.

~ Alon Mizrahi, "Roger Waters Just Endorsed THIS Anti-Zionist Jew—Israel FREAKS OUT!," Kim Iverson, 12:15 mark, March 21, 2025

Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. on Israeli genocide

Genocide is defined as "violence that targets individuals because of their membership in a group and aims at the destruction of a people." 

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted in 1948, established genocide as an international crime.  The US was one of the signers to this agreement.

This was done primarily in response to what had happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II.  In fact, because of what happened then, you would think that the Jewish people would be the strongest opponents to genocide anyplace.

I think everyone realizes that the United States would be the first to act and would lead the campaign against this genocide if it was being done by any other country than Israel. 

~ Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., "Israel Against The World – With US Aid," The Knoxville Focus, January 18, 2025

Norman Finklestein on Benjamin Netanyahu: "He's an obnoxious, narcissistic, Jewish supremacist"

If you read the liberal commentators or commentators of the West, every few months they're predicting the end of Netanyahu's rule.  It doesn't happen because Netanyahu, he is a reflection and a representation of Israeli society.  He's an obnoxious, narcissistic, Jewish supremacist who thinks that only Jews [howth, inaudible] in God's grand design.  Everybody else - the Goyim, as they're called - they have no place in God's grand design except where Israel decides to situate or place them.

So the first fact is we have to bear in mind he remains, even now, very popular in Israel.  The claim is his standing up to Iran has increased his popularity, but as a general rule.

Number two: Israel is a democracy.  Were it true that his policies were unpopular, another candidate would emerge.  That's the nature of a democracy.  Have you heard of another candidate who has emerged by dissociating himself with or denouncing Netanyahu's policies.  The answer is "no."

Number three: It's not just the Israeli state.  If you look at the Israeli society - I'm not talking about the people at the helm of the state - the Israeli society overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly supports the genocidal war in Gaza.  It's about 95% of the Jewish Israelis...  I have the statistics right here...  "About 60% of Israeli Jews oppose any humanitarian aid to Gaza..."  In polls on the issue of the war, only 1.8% (that was in October), 7% (that was in December) and 3.2% (that's January) of Jewish Israelis believe the IDF was using too much firepower in Gaza.

~ Norman Finklestein, "Norman Finklestein: All you know about Israel is wrong," PoliticsJOE, 0:15 mark, May 2, 2024

Jeremy Hammond: "Zionism itself is a racist ideology"

Zionism itself is a racist ideology, the whole concept being, going back to the Mandate era again, and looking at what they wanted and what the movement was and what the Zionist project was, [it] was a settler colonial project aimed at displacing the Arab population and subjecting the Arabs to Jewish domination.  And Israel exists today in accordance with the original Zionist movement and its original aims.  It exists today as an unashamedly as a Jewish supremacist state.  

And we need look no further to establish that, uncontroversially, we need look no further than the Jewish Nation State Law passed in 2018, which is part of its Basic Law, which is Israel doesn't have a constitution, but they have what's called a Basic Law, which is - you can think of it as their constitutional law - it's basically their supreme law of the land, which literally defines self-determination in the territory under Israel's control as a right exclusive to Jews.  So it's a Jewish supremacist state, openly.

~ Jeremy R. Hammond, video clip on Twitter/X, May 23, 2024

Alan Futerman on anti-Zionism and antisemitism

You could say that anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism, but now, after the state of Israel exists and you have one-third of the Jewish people living in Israel - more even - and it's the Jewish state and you read the Jewish books and the Jewish calendar is followed and the Jewish language is spoken and every Jew is related in one way or another with the state of Israel, etc., you cannot be against the only Jewish state in the world and not be antisemitic.  So I think the distinction has to be made between those things: to say, "ok, theoretically you could be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic," but today the practical consequences of making the state of Israel to disappear would be the mass murder of an important part of the Jewish people.

~ Alan Futerman, "Is Zionism a Libertarian Movement?," (interview with Gilad Alper), 1:16:00 mark, May 18, 2024

Luke Tress on the United Nations criticizing Israel

Since 2015, the [UN] General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings.  Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said.

In the 193-nation assembly’s most recent anti-Israel resolution Friday, it approved a call for the International Court of Justice to weigh in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The resolution promoted by the Palestinians passed by a vote of 87 in favor, 26 against, with 53 abstentions.

The resolution, titled “Israeli practices and settlement activities affecting the rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories,” calls on the Hague-based ICJ to “render urgently an advisory opinion” on Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territory.”

[...] 

In a strongly worded statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the “despicable decision.”

Netanyahu’s new hardline government, sworn in on Thursday, is likely to further stoke tensions with the UN and the international community.

Of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, none are on record supporting a two-state solution with the Palestinians, some support annexing the West Bank without granting equal rights to Palestinians in those areas, and many also vehemently oppose coordination or strengthening the PA [Palestinian Authority].

~ Luke Tress, "UN condemned Israel more than all other countries in 2022 - monitor," The Times of Israel, January 3, 2023

Mohsen Mohammad Saleh on pre-1948 land purchases by Jewish immigrants into Palestine

By the end of the Ottoman State in 1918, the Jews had acquired about 420 thousand dunams (or 1.5%) of the land of Palestine, which they bought mainly from Lebanese feudal landlords, most notably the families of Sursock, Tayyan, Tueni and Medawar, or from the Ottoman administration through public auction in which the lands of Palestinian peasants who are unable to pay their taxes are sold, or from some Palestinian landlords who belong to feudal families like the Ruk and Kassar families. These purchases covered 93% of the land the Jews acquired. In any case, the Zionist threat was not considered serious by the people of Palestine at that time, due to the small size of the Jewish settlement and population, and that the establishment of a Zionist entity under a Muslim state (the Ottoman State) was practically impossible.

When Palestine came under British occupation 1917–1948, it was clear that it came to implement the Zionist project, and establish a national home for the Jews in Palestine. It invested all the powers of colonial rule and oppression to impose this reality. The Palestinian national movement resisted Jewish settlement with all its political, media and protest means, fought many uprisings and had many confrontations. The total land the Zionist Jews were able to seize during British occupation was about 1.2 million dunam or only 4.5% of Palestine, and this was despite the British global capabilities, huge capital, and under the direct support of the oppressive occupation force. 

But wait! Most of these lands were not actually bought from the people of Palestine! Objective facts indicate that most of this land was leaked to the Jews, either through British government grants of Palestine’s miri lands “state lands,” or through major non-Palestinian feudal landlords, who resided abroad and were practically and officially prohibited from entering this region (under British occupation) to invest in their land if they really wanted to. 

The British authorities granted about 300 thousand dunams of miri lands to the Jews without charge, and 200 thousand dunams for a nominal fee. The first British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel (1920–1925), who was a Zionist Jewish, granted 175 thousand dunams of the most fertile lands of the state, on the coast between Haifa and Caesarea, to the Jews. He also gave them massive grants of other coastal lands, and in the Negev, and on the Dead Sea coast.

There were huge feudal properties for families who acquired these lands, particularly in 1869, when the Ottoman State was forced to sell miri lands to rich Lebanese families to provide some money for its treasury, and that was another aspect of the tragedy. The feudal landlords from outside Palestine sold a total of 625 thousand dunams; the Sursock family sold more than 200 thousand dunams of Marj Ibn ‘Amer lands to the Zionists, displacing 2,746 Arab families from 22 Palestinian villages, who have been cultivating these lands for hundreds of years. The tragedy was repeated when other Lebanese feudal landlords sold about 120 thousand dunams around Lake Hula, in northern Palestine, and two Lebanese families sold the Wadi al-Hawarith lands (32 thousand dunams), thus displacing 15 thousand Palestinians. During the period 1920–1936, the agricultural lands sold by absentee feudal landlords (of Lebanese and Syrian families) reached 55.5% of agricultural lands acquired by the Jews.

Despite the responsibility borne by the families who sold these lands, the blame is not entirely on them alone, for the British authorities prevented them from entering Palestine to exploit these lands, on the pretext that they were foreigners. That was after Palestine was separated from Syria and Lebanon according to the Sykes-Picot divisions between the British and French colonies.

As for the sum of the lands leaked into the hands of the Jews, which were sold by the Palestinian Arabs during the British occupation, it was about 260 thousand dunams (less than 1%) of the land of Palestine. The Zionist Jews acquired these lands because of the harsh conditions imposed by the British colonial government on the Palestinian peasants, and as a result of the British expropriation of Arab property for the benefit of the Jews, according to articles of the British Mandate for Palestine, which entitle the High Commissioner to this right. Some sales occurred because of the weakness of a number of Palestinians towards financial temptations, and this is not surprising, such cases are found in every time and place in any Arab or non-Arab country. These were few groups weakened by temptations, who were, in any case, a pariah group fought by the entire people of Palestine. Many of them were boycotted, liquidated and assassinated, especially during the Arab Revolt that swept Palestine during the 1936–1939 period.

Based on the above, the total of what the Jews obtained from the people of Palestine until 1948 does not exceed 1% of the land of Palestine. This happened within seventy years since the beginning of settlement and organized emigration to Palestine, and under harsh conditions. Evidently, it highlights on one hand the extent that the Jews suffered in stabilizing and making their project in Palestine succeed, and on the other hand, the extent of the determination of the Palestinians to stick to their land.

~ Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh, "Did the Palestinians Sell Their Land? And leave it to the Jews?!," Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies & Consultations, May 22, 2020

Ilan Pappé on the three pillars that support the Israel project

Israel is not just a state.  Israel is a project.  It is a settler colonial project.  And I do think that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this project, because it rests on three pillars.  One is material, of coure, and there I agree.  I mean, when you use an index that looks at sustainability of the state according to their material capability, Israel is doing well...  And it does well mainly because of the United States.  So this is a condition that can change.

The second pillar is the social coherence of the settler society.  And we know that this coherence is nonexistent anymore.  There is a bit of an optical illusion because of the Hamas operation on the 7th of October that created a sense of unity.  But it's not going to cover up for the fragmentation of the society that we have seen until the 7th of October.  It seems that social coherence that is based on hatred of the Arabs or Palestinians and doesn't have very much else in common, is not very sustainable.

And more importantly than anything else, of course, there is the legitimacy pillar.  Israel enjoys the legitimacy of Western governments, or governments in the global north.  And therefore, there is a sense that it can still be sustainable because of that support of the elites.  But it has lost support of the civil societies.  And this is why probably it's the only state in the world that lobbies for its existence.  Not for its policies, not for its better economic performance, but for its very moral justification.  And it's losing that battle.

~ Ilan Pappé, "Ilan Pappe on Israel: 'We are witnessing the beginning of the end'," Middle East Eye, December 7, 2023

Sheldon Richman on the UN partition plan for Israel

By mid-November 1947 the Truman administration was firmly in the Zionist camp.  When the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations agreed that the partition resolution should be changed to shift the Negev from the Jewish to the Palestinian state, Truman sided with the Jewish Agency, the main Zionist organization, against them.  The United States also voted against a UN resolution calling on member states to accept Jewish refugees who could not be repatriated.

As the partition plan headed toward a vote in the UN General Assembly, U.S. officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution.  As former under-secretary of state Sumner Welles put it: 

By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured.

Eddie Jacobson recorded in his diary that Truman told him that "he [Truman] and he alone, was responsible for swinging the vote of several delegations."

While the plan was being debated, the Arabs desperately tried to find an alternative solution.  Syria proposed that the matter be turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague; the proposal was defeated.  The Arab League asked that all countries accept Jewish refugees "in proportion to their area and economic resources and other relevant factors"; the league's request was denied in a 16-16 tie, with 25 abstentions.

On November 29 the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13.  The Soviet Union voted in favor of the resolution, reversing its earlier position on Zionism; many interpreted the vote as a move to perpetuate unrest and give Moscow opportunities for influence in the neighboring region. 

The period after the UN partition vote was critical.  The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not.  Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated.  The obvious difficulties in carrying out the partition created second thoughts among U.S. policymakers as early as December 1947.  The State Department's policy planning staff issued a paper in January 1948 suggesting that the United States propose that the entire matter be returned to the General Assembly for more study.  Secretary Forrestal argued that the United States might have to enforce the partition with troops.  (The United States had an arms embargo on the region at the time, although arms were being sent illegally by American Zionists, giving the Jews in Palestine military superiority, at least in some respects, over the Arabs.)

On February 24, 1948, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Warren Austin, made a speech to the Security Council hinting at such second thoughts.  His proposal to have the five permanent council members discuss what should be done was approved, but they could not agree on a new strategy.  The United States, China, and France reported to the full council that partition would not occur peacefully.  The apparent weakening of U.S. support for partition prompted the Zionist organizations to place enormous pressure on Truman, who said he still favored partition.  However, the next day at the United Nations, Austin called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine. 

On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship.  The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it.  The General Assembly was unenthusiastic.  Meanwhile, the Zionists proceeded with their plans to set up a state.  Civil order in Palestine had almost totally broken down.  For example, in mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children.  The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day.

Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state. 

Something else was working in favor of continued support for the emerging Jewish state: U.S. domestic politics.  The year 1948 was an election year and, according to memoranda in the Harry S Truman Library and Museum, Jacobson, Clifford, and Niles expressed fear that the Republicans were making an issue of their support for the Jewish state and that the Democrats risked losing Jewish support.  Clifford proposed early recognition of the Jewish state. 

His position had been strongly influenced by a special congressional election in a heavily Jewish district in the Bronx, New York, on February 17, 1948.  The regular Democratic candidate, Karl Propper, was upset by the American Labor party candidate, Leo Isacson, who had taken a militantly pro-Zionist position in the campaign.  Even though Propper was also pro-Zionist, former vice president Henry Wallace had campaigned for Isacson by criticizing Truman for not supporting partition, asserting that Truman "still talks Jewish but acts Arab."  The loss meant that New York's 47 electoral votes would be at risk in the November presidential election, and the Democrats of the state appealed to Truman to propose a UN police force to implement the partition, as Isacson and Wallace had advocated. 

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic.  On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed.  Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.

The significance to the Arabs of the U.S. role in constructing what they regard as another Western colonial obstacle to self-determination cannot be overstated.  Dean Rusk, who at the time was a State Department official and would later become secretary of state, admitted that Washington's role permitted the partition to be "construed as an American plan," depriving it of moral force.  As Evan M. Wilson, then assistant chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters, Truman, motivated largely by domestic political concerns, solved one refugee problem by creating another.  Wilson wrote: 

It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947- 48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned.

~ Sheldon Richman, "'Ancient History': U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention," Cato Institute, August 16, 1991

Major James Larry Fields on the Stern Gang and Irgun from 1940-1948

When the Irgun first formed from Haganah B, one of its secondary leaders was Avraham Stern.  Stern did not subscribe to wartime limitations against attacking the British. During World War II, after much debate within the organization, Stern and some three hundred followers formed the LOCHAMEI HERUT ISRAEL, "LEHI" (Freedom Fighters of Israel), which became known as the "Stern Gang."  In very short time the Stern Gang was regarded as a group of murderers by virtually all other groups-- the Jewish Agency, Haganah and the World Zionist Organization.  The Stern Gang's terrorist activities (bombings, etc.) caused the British to react against all Jewish groups, particularly the Irgun.

Ideologically the Stern Gang and the Irgun were in the same camp in believing in the establishment of a Jewish state, using force if necessary.  However, the methods they chose to enforce their common beliefs were quite different throughout most of the 1940-1948 period in which they existed.  The Sternist's methods of individual terrorist assassinations of British officials and security men contrasted with Irgun resort to confiscation raids on British government and military installations for symbolic purposes.  The Stern Gang killed people at every opportunity as opposed to the Irgun's use of controlled killings.  On the other hand, the Haganah, and to some degree the Palmach (Plugot Machaz-Strike Companies) which had been formed in 1941 to help the British fight the Germans in Palestine, were similar to the Irgun in their aim to defend and support the Jewish community.  But as the military arms of the Jewish Agency, the Haganah and the Palmach were reduced to ineffectiveness.  On several occasions, despite the disparity in ideology as well as methodology, the Jewish Agency, the Haganah, and the Palmach collaborated with the British against the Irgun.  Most characteristic of this collaboration was "The Season," the period so called in 1944 in which Ben-Gurion (Jewish Agency executive) joined with the British to crush the Irgun because he felt its terrorist activities would bring world opinion against the general idea of Zionism. 

[...]

In spite of the repression of the Irgun in the 1944 "season" mentioned earlier, the Irgun and Haganah joined together in 1945 for a united resistance to the British.  For the next three years the bond between the two organizations, especially the bond between Begin and Ben-Gurion, was fragile at best. Throughout the "season," Begin had forbidden any type of retribution against the Jewish Agency or Haganah to avoid a civil war among the Jewish factions.  But later, in 1946, when the Haganah again turned on the Irgun, Begin unleashed the forces of the Irgun on the Haganah officers and men responsible for armed actions against Irgun members. 

As the British government became more determined to withdraw totally from Palestine, the Arabs became increasingly violent and dedicated to preventing the establishment of a recognized Jewish Homeland.  The destruction of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in July 1946 by the Irgun, causing more than two hundred casualties (wounded or dead), again led to the Jewish Agency's collaboration with the British against the Irgun and later to the imposition of martial law on March 1, 1947.  Throughout 1946 and 1947 the Irgun and the Haganah resolved their differences over the means of securing a Jewish state in recognition of the Arab threat.  However, the consistent terror campaign waged by the Irgun, its need for arms, and a defiant sense of independence from central authority led to the "Altalena" incident in June 1948. 

The Altalena, a ship used to transport men and arms, was sunk by the Haganah on June 20, 1948 at Tel Aviv.  Sixteen members of the Irgun were killed and forty wounded during the incident, as were two Haganah soldiers killed and several wounded.  Civil war between the Jewish elements was again narrowly averted by (1) Begin's opposition to a civil war, (2) an impending resumption of the war with the Arabs, and (3) the foresight that cohesion would be necessary for the security and survival of a Jewish state.  In September, 1948, the Irgun disbanded and joined with Haganah and Palmach forces forming ZAHAL--the Israeli National Defense Forces. 

Begin's belief in creating tension, provocation and destruction was the basis for the particular tactics used by Irgun throughout its existence.  Much of the Irgun effort was directed against the British for the purpose of achieving an independent Jewish State.  The rest of it was directed against the Arabs in retribution for attacks they had made earlier.  After the British had begun withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, the position of the Irgun with regard to the Arabs changed substantially.  The Irgun and the Stern Gang were accused on a number of occasions of instigating the Arab-Palestinian exodus.  For example, on April 1, 1948 an Irgun unit totally destroyed the Arab village of DIR YASSEN killing two-hundred and fifty people.  This act contributed heavily to the state of fear against Jewish attacks among the Palestinian Arabs. 

Although there is some debate whether the unit involved in the attack was of Irgun origin, the fact remains that terrorist acts such as those perpetrated at DIR YASSEN are partly responsible for the present Palestinian refugee situation.  Terrorist acts of such nature drive people to leave their homes to seek safe refuge wherever it may be found.  With the state of Israel secured, and the inclusion of the Irgun into the ZAHAL, there was no longer a need for the tactics of terrorism which had served the Irgun, and seemingly the Jewish people, so well.  However, the ideology of the men involved in the leadership of Irgun was perpetuated by the establishment of a political party, the HERUT which was based on the same zeal and ideals upon which the Irgun had thrived.  The new State of Israel would respect those ideals through incorporation of Irgun leadership in the new legitimate state.

~ Major James Larry Fields, USA, "Irgun Zvai Leumi: The Jewish Terrorist Element of the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Air Command and Staff College student report, April 1985

Deir Yassin, April 1948

Major James Larry Fields on how the Irgun influenced the PLO

The Irgun traces its roots to groups of individuals intent upon achieving Israeli statehood by whatever means available.  The Irgun's leaders, especially Menachem Begin, have represented a continuous force in Israel's political history.  Upon the dissolution of the Irgun organization, Begin and his cohorts entered the legitimate Israeli political system and rose to power within the Knesset.  Even though Begin formally withdrew from politics in 1983 he remains today an influential force within the major opposition party in Israel--the Likud.  Finally, this study illustrated the impact of the Irgun upon current Arab-Israeli relations. Ironically, the arch enemy of Israel, the PLO, has copied many of the tactics employed by the Irgun in their struggle for independence. 

Many authorities on the subject of terrorism and Israeli history have demonstrated that the activities of the Irgun Zvai Leumi served as a model for other subsequent terrorist movements with similar purposes.  One noted author, Albert Parry, shows how a seemingly diverse array of contemporary terrorist movements trace their roots to the Irgun model.  Ironically, the chief adversary of Israel, the Paletine Liberation Organization, could be included among those terrorist organizations that were heavily influenced by the Irgun model.  Today, a form of "Arab Zionism" has emerged within the ranks of the PLO stimulated in part by the loss of Palestinian land to Israel.

The Palestinians, especially the PLO, have in fact adopted the Irgun's symbol, methodology and tactics. These tactics and methods were proven effective during the Zionist's quest for statehood.  It is intriguing that the Palestinians, driven by fervent nationalism, have reversed roles with the Israelis.  Specifically, the PLO is to present day Palestinians what the Irgun was to the pre-independent Zionists.

~ Major James Larry Fields, USA, "Irgun Zvai Leumi: The Jewish Terrorist Element of the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Air Command and Staff College student report, April 1985

1976

Major James Larry Fields on the Irgun

Historical observers of the Irgun are unable to arrive at a consensus that Irgun members were all either heroes or criminals.  To [Menachem] Begin, the members were heroes and martyrs.  Most Israelis view Irgunists as complicating the struggle to establish Israel and tarnishing its moral posture.  From the Arab perspective, they were terrorists, brutal and ruthless, representing the real essence of Zionism.

Begin, even today, is regarded by British and Arabs as a terrorist not deserving the respect due a statesman.  Begin remains an influence on the Likud Party and a person to be reckoned with from both inside and outside the Knesset. 

The foundation and security of the State of Israel were guaranteed in part by the unavoidable terror of the underground. It is unlikely that either the British or Arabs would have voluntarily surrendered their control over what today is called Israel.  History has shown that nations are created and sustained through armed action.  The bold and aggressive actions of the Irgun serve as an effective historical example for organizations that aspire to achieve independence.  The Irgun has served as the role model for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization headed by Yassir Arafat.

~ Major James Larry Fields, USA, "Irgun Zvai Leumi: The Jewish Terrorist Element of the Arab-Israeli Conflict," Air Command and Staff College student report, April 1985

Anonymous Israeli woman on Palestinians: "I don't want peace, I want them to have a life"

[Israeli woman's parents were displaced by Israeli government because they couldn't show a deed of ownership.]

Q: So did your parents protest?

Israeli woman: Well, they didn't.  I did.  Because for them it was surviving.  I call it the crumb fight.  The real people... can't really have the time to afford to fight.  And I think it's about time that the second generation like us - I'm 40 - who are saying "the war is not helping any of us."  We want eduction, we want sports, we want fun, we want to create.  We are living so close, we are neighbors, we are basically the same family, we are brothers.

Q: So how did you resist the Israeli government?

A: Well, I'm an actress so I spoke about it.  I went to teach children, the 1st and 2nd grade.  I twice tried to reach the Knesset who didn't help shit.  Sorry.  I write about it on my Facebook.  When there is a complicated situation, I talk about it.  I talk to Palestinians.  I talk to people and I make sure they know that I care for them as much as I care for my safety as well.  I want to cry because I'm scared when I run to shelters, but I know...

Q: Because missiles are coming from Gaza.

A: Of course.  I lost a friend in a bombing when I was 15 and I felt this pain.

Q: Palestinian bombing.

A: Palestinian bombing, sorry.  Here in Tel Aviv.  My grandfather's brother was slaughtered by terrorists in Jerusalem.  I was in the army.

Q: Palestinian terrorists.

A: Yeah, Palestinians.  We just want to live.  I don't want peace.  I don't want peace.  I want them to have a life.  I want them to have too much to lose, to care for their life.  I want them to care and for that they need education.  And they do, they're entitled of resisting and there is occupation, but there's also terror.  And you cannot just skip it.  There's a lot of violence.  And if you ask most Palestinians, all they want is jobs, they want schools, they want to have their privileges in a home that is their own.  And I don't have the answers.  That's why I am an actress and bodybuilder and not a politician.  But I know that us, the people, we suffer the most and they [the Palestinians] are entitled.  And so am I!

~ Israeli woman, "Israelis: Do Palestinians have a right to resist occupation?," The Ask Project, 1:25 mark, April 30, 2022

Dave Smith on the creation of the state of Israel

In 1947 - this is right in the aftermath of World War II and the British empire was basically crumbling and they had been ruling the territory of Palestine under a Mandate - they basically washed their hands of the situation.  There had been issues for years already and they kicked it over to the United Nations and the United Nations was a brand new organization - a year old or something like that - and they had no authority to create states out of nowhere.  It was a recommendation.  They go "We recommend this partition plan" that would've given 56% of the land to the Jews for a Jewish state and 44% of the land to the Arabs to have an Arab state.  And at the time, the Jews, the Zionist settlers there, they owned about 10% of the land.  And so this recommendation was that they get 56% of the land.  And so immediately, the Zionist settlers accepted.  They went "Yes, great deal, we'll take 56% of this."  And the Arabs were like "No, that's not a fair deal at all."

There's a great book by Sheldon Richman called Coming to Palestine if you're interested in the topic.  Immediately after that, a bunch of essentially Zionist militias started kicking Arabs off of the land, like "Hey, the UN said this part's ours."  And at first a civil war broke out, and in this process hundreds of thousands - between 1947 and 1948 the total number's around 750,000 - Arabs who were forced out or fled.  And then in 1948, Israel declared independence.  And then, in response to that, outside Arab nations invaded, got involved in the fight.  Israel won and then after Israel won the war, they seized about 80% of the land.

So they were offered 56%... they won a war and took 80%...  At the end of the war, the portion that is Palestinian territories today, that was the West Bank and East Jerusalem, that was controlled by Jordan and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.  And then in 1967, Israel launched a preemptive war and they won again.  And then the just took 100% of it.  And then they just took control of the West Bank, all of Jerusalem and Gaza.  And they've had it ever since.

~ Dave Smith, "Joe Rogan on NAKBA 1948 with Dave Smith," JustForPeace, 4:40 mark, November 23, 2023

CJPME on Jewish immigration to Israel after 1948

Has immigration been promoted after the creation of the State of Israel?

After the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, all limitations on Jewish immigration were lifted, which triggered a large influx of migrants and displaced persons after WWII.  The State of Israel also passed the Law of Return, under which any Jewish person has the right to immigrate to Israel. 

The newcomers came from Europe, counties in the Near East, and the Maghreb.  Jews in Arab countries, such as Iraq, faced growing public hostility because of the conflict in Palestine and later as a result of Israel’s creation at Palestinian Arabs’ expense.  Fearing for their security, most Arab Jews eventually chose to emigrate, in response to hostile Arab governments and encouragement by Israeli representatives and agents who were eager to bring them to Israel.  This combination of factors led to the nearly total disappearance of ancient Jewish communities in the Near East and Maghreb.  Immigration leapt again in 1989-90, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of borders in Eastern Europe.

Today: In total, the State of Israel has absorbed 3.1 immigrants since its creation, 1 million of them between 1990 and 1999.  The State of Israel has in fact strongly encouraged Jewish immigration with the objective of ensuring that the majority of Israel’s population remains Jewish, despite Arab Israelis’ high birthrate.  Today, however, large-scale immigration is almost non-existent, with many residents leaving the country.

~ Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, "Jewish Immigration to Historical Palestine," CJPME Factsheet 181, November, 2013

Gideon Levy on the Six-Day War

From the military point of view, it was indeed a "glorious" war, which was seen as justified.  But it was also a war that generated a fundamental transformation in Israeli society.  It led to the growth of unbridled national arrogance, which exacted an awful price in blood over the past 50 years and turned the military victory into a moral defeat.  In retrospect, it should be called the 50 Year War, not the Six-day war, and judging by the political situation, its life expectancy appears endless.

I think most Israelis will be quite indifferent.  It is a society in denial.  It is a society totally preoccupied with private affairs.  No one but the settlers will celebrate.  But, also, no one will mourn.  In that respect, Gush Etzion is the right place to mark it, because only settlers will feel the day.  In Tel Aviv, people couldn’t care less and no artificial effort by the government can change that.

~ Gideon Levy, Haaretz, April 7, 2017

(As quoted in The Guardian, "The six-day war: why Israel is still divided over its legacy 50 years on," May 20, 2017.)