Showing posts with label people - Ben-Gurion; David. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people - Ben-Gurion; David. Show all posts

Dec 31, 2023

Mike Whitney on how Zionists view the Arab population

As an American, diversity might not seem like such a big deal.  But to many Israelis, it’s pure strychnine.  Zionists, in particular, see growth in the Arab population as a “demographic time-bomb” that threatens the future of the Jewish state.  And that’s what the Gaza fracas is really all about; getting rid of the people but keeping the land.  In fact, the last 75 years of conflict can be reduced to just 8 words, “They want the land, but not the people.”


[...] 

Demographics are considered a national security issue, an existential issue, and an issue that will decide the future of the Jewish State.  Is it any wonder why the reaction has been so extreme?  Is it any wonder why people refer to the fact that there is a large population of Palestinians in Palestine as the “Arab problem”?  And, of course, once the indigenous population is regarded as a “problem”, then it is incumbent on the political leaders to conjure-up a solution.

So, what exactly is the solution to the Arab problem?

Why fewer Arabs, of course.  Which is why the idea of expelling the Palestinians has a long pedigree in Zionist thinking dating back a full five decades before the establishment of the Jewish state.  As it happens, the Arabs were always a problem even when the Jews represented less than 10 percent of the population.  Go figure?  Check out this comment by the ideological father of political Zionism himself, Theodor Herzl, who wrote the following: 
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. 
Shockingly, Herzl wrote those words in 1895, 50 years before Israel declared its statehood.  And many of the Zionist leaders who followed him shared that same world view, like Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion who said: 
You are no doubt aware of the [Jewish National Fund’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.  Jewish power [in Palestine], which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out this transfer on a large scale. (1948) 
And here’s Ben-Gurion again in 1938:
I support compulsory transfer.  I don’t see anything immoral in it.
See how far back this line of reasoning goes?  The Zionists were tweaking their ethnic cleansing plans long before Israel had even become a state.  And for good reason.  They knew that the numbers did not support the prospects for an enduring Jewish State.  The only way to square the circle was through compulsory resettlement, otherwise known as “transfer.”  And while that policy might have been repugnant to a great many Jews, a far larger number undoubtedly believed it was a cruel necessity.

~ Mike Whitney, "The War in Gaza: It's Not About Hamas. It's About Demographics," The Unz Review, December 16, 2023


Dec 29, 2023

Neil Rogall on UN partition plan and King Abdullah's secret plan to divide Palestine with the Zionists

The UN general assembly voted on November 29th.  The UN today has 193 member states...  

The Jewish population owned less than 6% of the land and comprised a third of the population but they were to be given more than half the country.  The Arab delegates stormed out declaring the resolution invalid.  But that was mostly bluster.  We now know thanks to Avi Shlaim‘s ‘Collusion Across The Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine’ that the Hashemite monarchy in Transjordan had secretly negotiated a deal with the Zionists to divide Palestine between them. 

The Zionists were ecstatic that the UN had voted for a Jewish state, yet they didn’t support the plan.  Ben Gurion’s view was that the Jewish state’s borders "will be determined by force and not the partition resolution…there are no territorial boundaries for the future Jewish state."  That was written on 7 October 1947, some 7 weeks before the UN vote.  Israel to this day has not declared its borders. 

~ Neil Rogall, "Making the Palestinians the scapegoats for Nazi crimes," rs21, October 9, 2014

1988


Dec 18, 2023

Sheldon Richman on the 1956 Suez Crisis

On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip.  Soon after, the forces of Great Britain and France launched air attacks against Egypt. 

That crisis had its roots in two factors: friction at the armistice line, established after the 1948 war between Israel and Egypt, and control over the Suez Canal.  Another factor was the withdrawal of the U.S. offer to help finance the High Aswan Dam in upper Egypt, a prized project of the country's new ruler and champion of Arab nationalism, Gamal Abdel Nasser.


Eisenhower and Dulles did not trust Nasser because he tried to steer a neutral course between the United States and the Soviet Union, and they were especially displeased with his recognition of Communist China.  The administration first tried to win Nasser over, but when that failed, it tried obsessively to undermine him and worse.  The wish to undermine Nasser was important in forging a U.S.-Israeli "strategic relationship."  The offer to finance the dam and provide arms (with conditions Nasser could not accept) were the carrots dangled before the charismatic Egyptian. 

When Nasser turned to the Soviets in September 1955 to purchase arms when he could not buy them from the United States without strings attached, his actions were seized on as proof that he was in the Soviet camp and thus an enemy of the United States.  (The events in Iran were not lost on Nasser.)

The United States also had antagonized Nasser in 1955 when it set up the Baghdad Pact (later called the Central Treaty Organization, or CENTO), an alliance of northern tier nations, including Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq (the only Arab country in the alliance).  Great Britain was also a member.  The United States was not a formal member but was clearly a guiding force.  Nasser saw the pact as an attempt to split the Arab world and interfere with the "positive neutralism" he sought for it. Iraq at the time was friendly to the West and not disposed to the Arab nationalism that Nasser aspired to create and lead.  The Baghdad Pact was one of the things that had the ironic effect of bringing the Arabs and Soviets closer. 

In mid-1956 the United States abruptly withdrew its offer to help finance the High Aswan Dam, just as the Egyptians had decided to accept the administration's conditions.  The American reversal brought cancellations of aid for the dam from Great Britain and the World Bank as well.  A week after the U.S. decision, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, which since 1869 had been owned by French nationals and the British government and operated under an Egyptian concession.  The British and French governments reacted angrily; for the French, it was not irrelevant that Nasser was helping the Algerians, who were seeking independence.  The U.S. reaction was calmer, as Eisenhower and Dulles distinguished between ownership and freedom of navigation.  (Nevertheless, the New York Times denounced Nasser as "the Hitler on the Nile.")  The U.S. administration warned Great Britain and France against responding precipitously and pressed for negotiations.  A conference was convened, but Nasser refused to attend or accept its proposals. evertheless, international traffic on the canal continued normally under Egyptian administration.  When Great Britain and France failed to get satisfaction from the United Nations, they began making plans for war. 

Israel was not able to use the canal, but the Jewish state's aims regarding Egypt went beyond that grievance.  Since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Palestinian refugees had often crossed into Israel seeking to regain property and possessions expropriated by the government and to reach relatives.  Some engaged in violence.  Israel began responding with massive reprisal raids against entire villages in the Arab countries.  Most significant was the attack on the town of Gaza in February 1955, when children as well as men were killed.  That attack prompted Egypt to end direct peace talks with Israel and to turn to the Soviet Union for arms.  It was only at that point that Egypt sponsored an anti-Israeli guerrilla organization whose members were known as the Fedayeen.  In August Israel attacked the Gaza Strip village of Khan Yunis, killing 39 Egyptians.  The attacks in the Gaza Strip, masterminded by officials loyal to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, subverted Nasser's efforts to make peace with Israel.  Ben-Gurion's successor, Moshe Sharett, responded positively to Nasser's overtures, but Gen. Moshe Dayan and others undermined Sharett.  During the winter of 1955, for example, Israeli warplanes flew over Cairo repeatedly to demonstrate Egyptian military impotence.

The Israeli government had earlier tried to prevent a warming of U.S.-Egyptian relations by having saboteurs bomb American offices in Cairo in 1954, an episode that became known as the Lavon Affair.  When Egypt uncovered the operation, Israel accused Nasser of fabricating the plot.  Two of the 13 men arrested were hanged, and their hangings were used as a pretext for Israel's February 1955 attack on Gaza. Six years later, the Israeli government's complicity was confirmed.

Israel's bad relations with Egypt were also aggravated by the seizure of an Israeli ship, which was provocatively sent into the Suez Canal in September 1954.  Both sides had seized each other's ships before, and this incident appears to have been provoked by Israel as a way to get Great Britain to compel Egypt to permit Israeli ships to use the waterway as part of a final agreement on the Suez Canal.

Despite repeated provocations, Egypt, according to documents later captured by Israel, had attempted to prevent infiltration by the Fedayeen because of its fear of attack.  Nevertheless, in October 1956 Israel invaded Egypt, ignoring American pleas for forbearance.  The United States took the matter to the UN Security Council, which called for a cease-fire and withdrawal.  It also passed a resolution to create a 6,000-man UN emergency force to help restore the status quo ante. 

Eisenhower's opposition to the conduct of Israel, Great Britain, and France--an anomaly in light of later U.S. policy-- is explained by his opposition to old-style colonialism.  The administration wanted to win the friendship of the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia and to keep them out of the Soviet orbit.  That could not be accomplished if the United States were perceived to be on the side of Great Britain and France in so flagrant an act of imperialism as an attack on Egypt.  Also important to the administration's calculus was its wish that London not challenge Washington's more subtle dominance in the Middle East. British and French irritation with American anti-colonialism was a source of problems among the leaders of the three nations.

When the UN call for a cease-fire failed to contain the conflict, the Soviet Union threatened to intervene, and Premier Nicolai Bulganin even proposed to Eisenhower that their two countries take joint military action to end the war. Eisenhower rejected the proposal and warned the Soviets not to get involved.

The fighting ended on November 7, when Britain and France bowed to the United Nations and agreed to withdraw.  Israel, however, refused to withdraw from the Sinai until its conditions were met.  Israel was especially adamant that Egypt not regain the Gaza Strip, which was to have been part of the Palestinian state under the UN partition.  Eisenhower responded to Israel's position by threatening to cut off aid, although he apparently never did so.  By March 1957 Israel had withdrawn from all the occupied areas, but not before the United States had given assurances that UN troops would be stationed on Egyptian territory to ensure free passage of Israeli and Israel-bound ships through the Strait of Tiran and to prevent Fedayeen activity.  The United States, in an aide-mÇmoire by John Foster Dulles, also acknowledged that the Gulf of Aqaba was international waters and "that no nation has the right to prevent free and innocent passage in the Gulf and through the Straits."  The key to the final settlement was a French proposal that Israel be allowed to act in self-defense under the UN charter if its ships were attacked in the Gulf of Aqaba.

Thus, the United States again became directly involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict and made what would later be construed as guarantees to Israel.  Although Israel chafed under the frank rhetoric and surprising (in light of the U.S. election season) evenhandedness of Eisenhower and Dulles, it got essentially what it wanted from the Suez campaign.