Understanding Annapolis
An HIR Series
Historical and Investigative Research - 23 November 2007 [edited for clarity, 23 August, 2010]
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_2.htm
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_2.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
| ||
2
|
The Arab League, then and forever
| |
What is the Arab League hoping to achieve in Annapolis? | ||
_________________________________________________________
| ||
Table of Contents
█ Preface: Does the Arab League want to kill Jews?
█ The stability of institutional ideology
▄ First, the general point.
▄ If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?
█ The Arab League, and the Arab Higher Committee
█ The Arab League and the War of 1948
█ The Arab League, Al Fatah, the PLO, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’
█ And now, Annapolis
█ Conclusion: The passage of time has changed nothing
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Preface: Does the Arab League want to kill Jews?
The states of the Arab League are pushing very hard to produce a PLO state on Israel’s flank. They are hoping to get one at the Annapolis Conference. In public, the states of the Arab League say they are looking for justice for the Palestinian Arabs. Are these their true intentions? I believe that one can go a long ways toward answering that question by looking at the origin and development of the Arab League. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained his organization’s ideology when the League launched a war of aggression against the Israeli Jews in 1948: “This will be a war of extermination...”[1]
Many believe, however, that investigating the origins of an organization is the wrong way to understand it, so I will begin with a few words in favor of my method.
The stability of institutional ideology___________________________________
Many people, I have found, hold the following folk theory about institutions: the passage of time will alter their ideology. As members die or leave and are replaced with others, the institution will change because people have all kinds of different ideologies. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that after 60 years, say, the ideology of an institution will remain the same. I think this is backwards: the burden of proof, in my view, is on whoever affirms that the ideology of an institution has changed. I will defend that the Arab League, like most other institutions, has today the same ideology it had on the day it was founded. For the Arab League this is the extermination of the Israeli Jews.
First, the general point.
What is an institution? It is a network of organized relationships between people whose individual roles are defined by their kind of membership -- i.e. their 'position' -- in the organized network. To know your position is to know what your job is, what rules you must follow (issues of what you have clearance for and what is off-limits), what powers you have over those below you, and what powers those above you have over you. The individuals in the various positions will all die (eventually), and they may leave the institution even before passing away, but the institution survives because new people are always being recruited to the vacancies. The institution survives because it reproduces its structure, that is, the patterned organization of relationships. An institution is potentially eternal; the Catholic Church, for example, is 2000 years old.
If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?
Imagine institution V, created to promote vegetarianism, and run, naturally, by vegetarians. There are 10 people in the executive board. One day, at time = t, one of the board members dies. What kind of a person will the remaining 9 members look for? Another vegetarian. A meat-eater might be recruited to fill relatively low positions that are strongly utilitarian: for example, an expert in marketing might be hired even if he eats meat, because he is a mercenary who will do his contract job. But it would be remarkable for this institution to hire meat eaters to the governing board, where policy decisions are made. Given that at time = t vacancies were filled, and especially in the upper echelons, with vegetarians, the vacancies at time t+1 will also be filled with vegetarians, because once again those doing the selecting are surviving vegetarians. And so forth. There is no reason to expect that the passage of time will turn this vegetarianism-promoting institution into an institution that celebrates meat because the ideology of the institution creates a selection pressure in the recruiting process that works to keep the ideology stable.
Now let’s consider the Arab League. The question we must answer is this one:
If the Arab League meant, at its inception, to exterminate the Israeli Jews, is it possible that the Arab League, today, means to make peace with the Israeli Jews?
We shall here examine a few important policies of the early Arab League, then follow it through time, in order to answer this question.
The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee________________________________________________
Avi Shlaim explains that
“In the aftermath of World War II, when the struggle for Palestine was approaching its climax, the Palestinians were in a weak and vulnerable position. Their weakness was clearly reflected in their dependence on the Arab states and on the recently-founded Arab League. Thus, when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League.”[2]
Shlaim is one of the so-called ‘New Historians’ who have made it a specialty to defend the justice of the ‘Palestinian Arab’ movement. To those familiar with the history of British Mandate Palestine, in the above paragraph Shlaim's bias is evident in his refying as 'Palestinians' those Muslims then living there. Actually, most of these were recent immigrants form other places, and nobody there called himself a ‘Palestinian,’ except for some Zionist Jews. I have quoted Shlaim to make clar what even defenders of the 'Palestinian movement' are forced to concede: the organism created to speak for the Muslims of Palestine was not called the Palestinian Arab Committee but the Arab Higher Committee.
What was the Arab Higher Committee? According to Shlaim, the AHC had been created in 1936 by “the various Palestinian political parties themselves” to represent the Muslims in Palestine. Not true. In reality, it was Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the AHC.
Here follows the context.
Hajj Amin al Husseini had organized two large Muslim terrorist riots against civilian Jews in British Mandate Palestine in 1920 and 1921, after which the British governing authorities -- which had assisted those anti-Jewish attacks -- made him Mufti of Jerusalem, transforming the office so that it had unprecedented power over the Muslim courts, mosques, taxes, schools, etc. They also gave him a generous British subsidy. (The British authorities wanted to derail the Zionist project, but they didn’t want to look like anti-Semites because many in the British public supported Zionism; so they quietly promoted Muslim violence against the Jews in order to claim that Zionism -- building a home for the Jews in their ancestral land -- was impossible).[3]
Husseini used his British-backed power to launch jihad: the murder of infidels who refuse to convert to Islam or be the slaves of Muslims. The targets of his jihad were the Jews. There was a much larger terrorist riot in 1929, and then an even bigger and more sustained attack, lasting from 1936 to 1939. The last one was organized with weapons supplied by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and received much assistance in weaponry and personnel from nearby Arab states.[3]
Throughout his career, Husseini used his terrorists to intimidate and murder any Muslims in Palestine who tried to get along with the Jews, or sold land to Jews. This allowed Husseini, a scion of one of the largest feudal landholding families in Palestine, to buy through his relatives the plots of Muslim smallholders at bargain prices, consolidate them, and then resell them to the Zionists for very high prices. All the while, he accused anybody else selling land to the Jews of treason. It was this Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the Arab Higher Committee, during the ‘Arab Revolt,’ in order to destroy all opposition to his views and concentrate all Muslim political authority in his hands.[3]
Shlaim’s claim is not merely false; is the precise opposite of the truth. The “various political parties” of the Muslims in Mandate Palestine did not create the Arab Higher Committee; rather, the Arab Higher Committee was created to destroy the “various political parties.” (Orwellian Newspeak is the mother tongue of the anti-Israeli ‘New Historians.’)
The Arab Higher Committee was obviously not created to represent the interests of ordinary Muslims in Palestine. 1) The Mufti Husseini was using terrorists to steal their land; 2) in the general strike that his gangsters enforced it was especially the Muslim economy that was hurt; 3) in the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39 that resulted from the strike, “the Mufti’s forces killed more than four hundred Jews and several thousand Arabs” who didn’t want to kill Jews.[4] And why didn’t they? Because the Zionist Jews had produced an economic boom, and in those days most Arabs in Palestine, oppressed by feudal lords like Husseini, thought that new economic opportunities were a good thing.
In late 1941, Hajj Amin al Husseini moved to Berlin and met with Hitler. When he arrived, Husseini had 20 years experience (much more than the Nazis) murdering innocent Jews. Historians agree that before the fall of 1941, the Nazis, though certainly not shy about killing Jews, preferred to expel the majority to Palestine. In fact, one of chief Nazi exterminator Adolf Eichmann’s top lieutenants, Dieter Wisliceny, testified at Nuremberg that Husseini had been the one to convince Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann not to expel any Jews from Europe to Palestine, but instead to kill them all. Wisliceny also testified that Husseini had subsequently become an equal partner with Adolf Eichmann in the implementation and administration of the Final Solution, from the time of the fateful decision to kill all the Jews -- in the Wansee Conference of January 1942 (shortly after Husseini met with Hitler on 28 November 1941) -- till the end.[5]
Avi Shlaim tells us that, after the World War, the Arab League (whose leading member was Egypt) recreated the Arab Higher Committee. What was the point of this? To give a voice to the Muslims in Mandate Palestine? On the contrary. Hajj Amin al Husseini, one of history’s greatest butchers of Jews, and no friend of ordinary Muslims in Mandate Palestine, was now living in Cairo under protection of the Egyptian government. It was Husseini, once again, who controlled the Arab Higher Committee, this time from Egypt.
The Arab League was preparing another attack against the Jewish people, using the Muslims in Mandate Palestine -- the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs’ -- as pawns in its great game. The new attack was the War of 1948.
The Arab League and the War of 1948____________________________________
Shortly after the Arab League’s recreation of the Arab Higher Committee in 1946, the United Nations voted to create a state for the Muslims living in Mandate Palestine, and another state for the Jews. Today the Arab states holler loudly that a state must be created for the ‘Palestinian Arabs’ in order to do them ‘justice.’ But when this state was approved by the UN in 1947 the entire Arab world rejected it. Their concern was clearly not to create a self-governing state for the Muslims in Palestine, but to prevent any opportunity for the Jews to have their own.
Was this because they hated Jews as such? Consider: when the UN voted to create a Jewish State, the Arab League drafted a series of laws that it meant to impose on any Jews living in any Arab State, even though the overwhelming majority of these Jews were not Zionists and had had nothing to do with the creation of Israel. To get a sense for these laws, consider the following:
TEXT OF THE LAW DRAFTED BY THE POLITICAL COMMITTEE OF THE ARAB LEAGUE
Summary
In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League (League of Arab States) drafted a law which was to govern the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League countries. This law had already been approved by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, provided that, “beginning with a specified date, all Jews -- with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries -- were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Palestine,’ and that their bank account be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Palestine.’ Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated. Only Jews who accept active service in Arab armies or place themselves at the disposal of these armies would be considered ‘Arabs.’”[6]
Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League:
-- “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Palestine and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”[7]
-- “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine.”[8]
-- “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”[9]
-- “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”[10]
-- “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”[11]
-- “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”[12]
[Quotation ends here]
These laws are quite similar to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, and they prompted an article in the New York Times by Mallory Browne with the headline JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS.[13] It was published on 16 May 1948, and in a sense was already outdated because by then the Arab states had launched themselves in war against the newly-created state of Israel. These laws certainly suggest that the ruling elites of the Arab League had something against Jews for being Jews.
If there were any doubts about that, the Arab League explained out loud that they meant to continue Adolf Hitler’s great mass killing, so fresh that Europe still reeked of blood. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League promised:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[14]
This was the War of 1948, the Israeli War of Independence, which might as well be called the War of National Survival.
During this war of attempted extermination, the Arab League was assisted by the British and United States governments. This included sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented in a landmark exposé, published in furious tones, by The Nation.[14a]
Despite all this, the Arab League lost the War of 1948. Kudos go to the fighting spirit of the Israeli Jews, and to the Czechoslovaks, who assisted the Israeli efforts with arms shipments.[18]
After the defeat, the member states of the Arab League expelled the Jews who lived in these countries, and a great many took refuge in Israel. This was such a large population that Jews from Arab-speaking countries, overnight, became the majority in the Jewish State.
The Arab League, Al Fatah, the PLO, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’_________
In the 1950s important German Nazi fugitives came to Egypt to improve the deadliness of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military and intelligence services. These were Hajj Amin al Husseini’s old friends, and some of them had been his subordinates in the Final Solution. Thus, under protection of Arab League leader Egypt, Husseini had his Nazi friends train Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and other adolescent recruits of his, creating the group known as Al Fatah.[19]
What was the purpose of Al Fatah? The same that Azzam Pasha explained was the purpose of the parent organization, the Arab League: the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[20] The Arab League also played a role in the creation of the PLO. Mitchell Bard writes that “the Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel.”[21] Is he right? Yes. The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.[21a]
Al Fatah swallowed the PLO in 1968. By 1970, writes historian Howard Sachar,
“the PLO had experienced less a revival than a total reincarnation of membership and purpose under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Consisting ostensibly of representatives of all guerilla organizations, the PLO in its resurrected form was almost entirely Fatah-dominated, and Arafat himself served as president of its executive. In this capacity he was invited to attend meetings of the Arab League, and won extensive subsidies from the oil-rich governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.”[24]
As this was happening, during the years 1967-70, Arab League leader Egypt launched a sustained series of attacks against Israel that have been called the War of Attrition. It couldn’t defeat Israel, so it launched a new war: the Yom Kippur War.[25]
Israel won.
It was immediately after this, in the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, that “the heads of state present... recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.”[27] Given the trajectory of the Arab League up to here, the obvious hypothesis is that the Arab League decided to try a ‘Trojan Horse’ pseudo-diplomatic approach, promising peace in exchange for getting the PLO into the Jewish State, the better to exterminate the Israeli Jews (since direct military attacks always failed to bring about this result).
But we don’t have to guess. Mahmoud Abbas, from his perch as president of the Palestine National Council, the governing body of PLO/Fatah, is who authored the ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy.[36] Lie now, kill Jews later. Officially within PLO/Fatah, this is called the Plan of Phases, and it was announced in 1974, right after the Arab defeat in the Yom Kippur War:
“Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[37]
The diplomatic push to create a ‘Palestinian State’ was in fact led by US President Jimmy Carter,[28] and it intensified in the second half of the 1980s. From this point onwards, the main strategy would be to get the PLO – i.e. Hajj Amin al Husseini’s Al Fatah, and therefore the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution -- into the Jewish State.The United States has continued to play a leading role in this.[29] As a result of all this, PLO/Fatah has now been transformed into the ‘Palestinian Authority.’
The US and British governments are pushing very hard for this process to conclude with the creation of a PLO/Fatah state, cleansed of Jews, in Judea and Samaria, territories that the US military in 1967 concluded are strategic territories without which Israel cannot survive.[33]
And now, Annapolis..._____________________
In a few days, the Annapolis Conference is scheduled to begin. The Arab League is pushing hard for PLO/Fatah to receive a state on strategic territory now controlled by Israel. The Israeli government, with close to zero support from Israeli citizens,[34] is expected to make a commitment to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah. In anticipation of this, some US congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for Mahmoud Abbas to Change the Fatah Charter so that it no longer calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[35] Please resist the urge to cheer this. If these congressmen succeed, they will have given Al Fatah the opportunity toappear ‘well-intentioned’ in the context of the final handover negotiations. But there would be absolutely no reason to believe such a Fatah statement if it was made.
The argument I defended at the top, about the stability of the founding ideology of an institution despite changes in personnel, naturally applies to Al Fatah. But in fact I need not invoke it, because Al Fatah is still run by one of the people who founded it: Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. as Abu Mazen): “Abu Mazen is... one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[38] As noted above, he was trained by Hajj Amin al Husseini, great architect of the German Nazi Final Solution.
Conclusion: The passage of time has changed nothing____________________________________________________
The Arab League has the same ideology that it had at its inception, and it is being supported, as it was back then, by powerful Western sponsors. The same goes for the organizational offshoots of the Arab League, which are naturally tools of its policies. What is being prepared is another genocide of the Jewish people. If the Israeli government continues to participate in this process, it will happen. And it appears that the Israeli government is in fact in something of a hurry: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has just approved equipping PLO/Fatah with sophisticated Russian APC's (Armored Personnel Carriers)! [39]
The Oslo Process has allowed the Arab League to place its tool, PLO/Fatah, in a highly strategic highland position from which to attack the Jews, who are trapped in a very narrow lowland with their backs against the sea, as can be appreciated in the following two maps:
 |  |
Click to enlarge
Perhaps you think that PLO/Fatah, itself, is not the greatest military danger to the Israeli Jews, but the same cannot be said for the Arab League as a whole, and behind PLO/Fatah is the Arab League. Since the 1970s especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been armed to the teeth by the United States. And there is also Iran, which will soon have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel, once the US troops leave. Why? Because the US invasion of Iraq has given that country to Iran, which controls the Iraqi shiites now in power, and Iran already holds sway over Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli government uses Israeli troops to expel Jews from their homes rather than to defend them from attack, the next all-out attack against Israel may well succeed where others have failed, and the Arab League will achieve its goal: extermination.
The next piece in this series is:
Annapolis: The strategic aftermath
What is being prepared for the Israeli Jews (and the Christians)?http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_3.htm
What is being prepared for the Israeli Jews (and the Christians)?http://www.hirhome.com/israel/annapolis_3.htm
Footnotes and Further Reading
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
[1] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)
[2] Shlaim, A. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza. Journal of Palestine Studies 20:37-53.
“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
and
“Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.}http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov3.htm
[4] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.219)
“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm#final_solution
[6] Memorandum Submitted to the U.N. Economic and Social Council by the World Jewish Congress. (Jan. 19, 1948) Section I. (2) a. June 2, 1948. [ZIIC - This reference is in the document prepared by JJAC and is probably incorrect]
[12] ibid. Paragraph 7. (Paragraph 1 & 2 indicate all Jews must register and disclose personal and banking information and that bank accounts will be frozen and utilized for anti-Zionist resistance.)
[13] JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS; By MALLORY BROWNE; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; May 16, 1948; pg. E4http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mallory_browne.pdf
[14] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)
[14a] It was the British government, recall, that had created Hajj Amin al Husseini.[5] It was also the British government that created the Arab League. When the Arab League attempted to destroy the new Jewish State in its cradle during the War of 1948, the British government allied with the Arab League’s attack, and in some ways led it (see below).
“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.
…The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”(a)
But that’s nothing: the British government sent captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented by The Nation in 1948, which published documents from British and French intelligence to show it in furious articles.(b)
What about the United States? It is true that earlier the United States had voted in favor of partitioning the Mandate territory, but the entire State Department was opposed and the US vote in favor happened only after the embarrassment of a passionate UN General Assembly speech by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in favor of a state for the persecuted Jews.(c) The United States did not want to seem less anti-Nazi than the Soviets. But once the Arab League had attacked, with its chances looking good, the US government announced that it no longer recognized the State of Israel and placed an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews.(d)
SOURCES USED IN THIS FOOTNOTE:
(a) Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)
(b) Two pieces:
1) “The British Record on Partition”; The Nation; 8 May 1948.http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br-role.pdf
2) “Nazi Prisoners in Egypt’s Army: A French Intelligence Report”; The Nation; 22 January 1949; p.89.http://emperor.vwh.net/history/pris.htm
(c) For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d41260f1132ad6be
052566190059e5f0?OpenDocument
052566190059e5f0?OpenDocument
(d) Wrote the New York Times in April 1948:
“...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Palestine.”
Actually, the crowd was larger. Further down in the same article we read:
“The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square.”
SOURCE: 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/apr.pdf
The mayor of Tel Aviv at the time, Israel Rokach, explained the impact of the embargo:
“The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin al Husseini], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”
SOURCE: U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; Jan 17, 1948; pg. 4.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/embargo.pdf
[18] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.42)
“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
and
“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm
[20] Article 12 of the Fatah Charter calls for the “Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence.” How do you eradicate the “economic, political, military, and cultural existence” of the Israeli Jews? Why, by eradicating the Jews themselves. Further clarifying its intentions, Article 17 of the Fatah Charter states that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.” In other words, ‘Palestine’ can only be ‘liberated’ in the process of murdering Jews (since this method is “inevitable”). If this were not clear enough, Article 19 states that “armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic.” In other words, armed struggle -- killing Jews -- is not a means to an end but the end itself. The same article explains that the killing will not stop “unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”http://www.mideastweb.org/fateh.htm
[21] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.69)
[21a] ...The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.
This is easily demonstrated.
The 1964 PLO Covenant or Charter in fact explicitly states that the West Bank, Gaza, and Himmah -- which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively had occupied during the War of 1948 and were still sitting on -- were notpart of ‘Palestine.’ These lands had all been part of British Mandate Palestine. And yet it was quite all right, the PLO stated, for Jordan, Egypt, and Syria to have those three territories, even though the PLO was defining ‘Palestine’ as British Mandate Palestine. But this made perfect sense: the PLO was an Arab League creation, and the states of the Arab League would not have the PLO contesting their control of the parts of ‘Palestine’ that they had occupied. Which ‘Palestine’ did the PLO mean to ‘liberate,’ then? Answer: whatever land the Jews were living on:Israel. This was conclusively demonstrated in the rewritten 1968 PLO Charter. In this document the PLO removed the clause concerning the West Bank and Gaza and from this point onwards did lay claim now to a ‘Palestine’ that includes the West Bank and Gaza.(a) What happened?The Six-Day War of 1967. In that war, provoked by the Arab League members who once again did their best to try and exterminate the Israeli Jews, the Israelis managed to capture Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza, among other territories, and subsequently Jews returned to live there (Jews had been living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza before they were massacred or forced to flee in the War of 1948). This demonstrates that there is no reality to ‘Palestine’; its boundaries are arbitrarily redrawn so that the territory to be ‘liberated’ will correspond to the one that Jews live on.
And by the word ‘liberate’ the PLO means the same thing that Al Fatah means: kill Jews. This, too, is easily demonstrated.
The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” This could be rewritten like so: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine”; and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating the presence of “Zionists.”(b) Like its parent organization (the Arab League), the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews.
SOURCES USED IN THIS FOOTNOTE
(a) Article 24 of the 1964 Charter states: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html
In the 1968 Charter, the above renunciation of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza was removed:http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm
(b) Translation of the PLO Charter articles by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.
[24] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.698)
“On October 6, 1973 -- Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar -- Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated attack against Israel. The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel’s borders. On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.”(a)
The Arabs received assistance from the Soviet Union. When this happened, the US, which had been resisting Israeli calls for help, airlifted military supplies.(b) This was atypical: in previous conflicts the US had not helped, or had taken measures against Israel, but with Cold War prestige at stake, and given the popularity of Israel with the US population, the US government decided it could not afford to stay on the sidelines.
SOURCES USED IN THIS FOOTNOTE:
(a) Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.74)
(b) The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but “Washington’s reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria.”
SOURCE: "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507
[28] 1977 -- Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1977
[29] In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon to put an end to the PLO/Fatah’s attacks against civilians in northern Israel, the US government stopped the Israelis in time to give PLO/Fatah a military escort to its new base in Tunis and save it from destruction.(a) Later, the US government began making policy statements to the effect that a PLO/Fatah state should be created in Judea and Samaria (West Bank).(b)And soon after that the US government threatened the Israelis with the loss of all assistance if they did not attend the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, whose purpose was, precisely, to bring the PLO/Fatah into Israel and to give it ever more power inside the Jewish State.(c) With this accomplished, the US intelligence services began arming and training PLO/Fatah.(d)
SOURCES CITED IN THIS FOOTNOTE
(a) 1982-83 -- The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982
(b) 1989 -- With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1989
(c) 1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991
(d) 1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994
[33] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf
It is also republished as an appendix in:
Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)
SOURCE: “Olmert Under Fire”; Time; Thursday, May. 03, 2007http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1617518,00.html
[35] “American Jewry: Fatah Charter Calls to 'Eradicate' Israel”; Israel National News; 11 Kislev 5768, November 21, '07; by Nissan Ratzlav-Katzhttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124315
[36] 2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas is who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005
[37] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)
[38] SOURCE: THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR PALESTINE; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST
[39] DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming Palestinian West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets; November 21, 2007, 9:38 PM (GMT+02:00).
www.hirhome.com
Just a few days ago, a Norwegian blog I read posted an entry about a Norwegian philosopher, humanist, and terrorism expert, Lars Gule. He is much more than described, however.
From a Tablet Magazine article in March, 2010:
Gule seems still to believe that Zionism is racism, "about exiling and oppressing one people to benefit another." Jews, "whose main story of suffering also lies on another continent [Europe]," are outsiders, colonizers. The oppressed Arabs are incapable of racism, discrimination or religious persecution, today or in the past, not to mention genocide, even when they say it’s their intention.It’s because of the Zionists. To deviate even a fraction from this line is unfaithful to the cause, irrespective of the suffering of others, including at the hands of the Palestinians. Look the other way. Better yet: Don't pay attention to that Norwegian "Humanist" behind the curtain!
With such a mindset, Gule casts doubt over of a relationship between the Jewish exodus from Arab states after 1948 and an Arab League law that required members to penalize Jews in the form of voiding of citizenship, bank accounts and property.
Gule himself responded. Among other things, he asks:
So I asked him: "Why should anyone trust you over the NY Times from 1948?"
After all, as seen above, he was trained by haters and then attempted to bomb a hotel and kill Israelis/Jews. One may ask, did not Breivik simply follow the example of Lars Gule, to legitimize terrorism against a "more symbolic target" such as children as a tool of political change? Can someone explain how it is different?
The text from the Political Committee was discovered attached to a January 19, 1948 Memorandum submitted by the World Jewish Congress to the UN Economic and Social Council. It was procedurally buried in the subsequent months. Arab League regulations, however, required each state be represented in each Committee.
On February 17, 1948, the Arab League approved a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be taken in response to the Palestine crisis. A report stated that: "The Council of the Arab League unanimously adopted the recommendations of its Political Committee concerning Palestine…" (International Organization. Vol.2. No.2., June 1948. 378-380). There was no formal announcement that the Draft Law recommended by the Political Committee was endorsed by the Arab League Council. The likelihood is that the Draft Law's substance conflicted with peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) concerning human rights. Peremptory norms arenon-derogable standards of international public policy which impose limits on how far governments, politicians, and diplomats can further their own goals in making international transactions. These rules prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them. As such, why would the League trumpet passage of a violative agreement? Even so, it seems probable that the Draft Law was adopted at that meeting.
Collusion is also seen from subsequent, similar actions taken in the various member states, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of virtually an entire population of Jews, even more people than the Arabs who left Palestine for various and sundry reasons. As to the Arab refugees, Gule's claim that ALL were ethnically cleansed flies in the face of reality and further exposes the hatred for Jews in his heart. The Arab Higher Council, under the control of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actually coerced people into leaving, as in Haifa.
Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his memoirs, published in 1973, said:
Gule also speaks of international law, yet is silent concerning the Arab aggression in 1947, directly in violation of the UN Charter! He seems blind to the hatred and incitement of the Mufti, before and after WWII, not to mention his progeny that regularly call for extermination of Jews. Or the concealed agreement by the Arab League, for that matter. Selective application of international law epitomized.
But he is a humanist!! Or so he says, despite his dubious record and agenda. Ironically, in 2005, when his affiliated organization, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, stood up for free expression and condemned the religious dimension of much human rights abuse, particularly for women and children, it was accused by the OIC in 2005 of engaging in Islamophobia. It stated in response:
As I see it, nothing will remove Gule's bigotry and extremism. To me he is a disservice to liberals and humanists everywhere, wrapping himself in the clothes of a human rights advocate while assisting those that serially deny such rights and even call for genocide.
In the end, all I could say to Mr. Gule, facetiously, was: "Well done!"
"Don't pay attention to that Norwegian 'Humanist' behind the curtain."
On occasion, as the blog takes its form, I will be writing about the environment in Norway and Europe. Unlike the USA, the ethnic and cultural conflicts in Europe are close to the surface, and can serve as a guide for us all what may occur in the future.
Just a few days ago, a Norwegian blog I read posted an entry about a Norwegian philosopher, humanist, and terrorism expert, Lars Gule. He is much more than described, however.
From a Tablet Magazine article in March, 2010:
"Gule, in his fifties, with his grey hair and polite ways, at first appears to be a traditional academic. But in May 1977, he was arrested at the Beirut airport with a rucksack that contained two books filled with explosives. Having obtained the explosives and instructions from the Palestinian faction DFLP, Gule was supposed to go back to Norway and then to Israel to conduct a terrorist attack to mark the 10th anniversary of the Six-Day War. The DFLP gave him three potential targets for planting the explosives: The President Hotel in Jerusalem, a subterranean pedestrian walk in Tel Aviv, or outside gas tanks in a neighborhood just outside Jerusalem.
Today Gule, now a lecturer in Middle Eastern studies at an Oslo college, claims that if he had indeed committed the act he would have chosen 'a more symbolic target,' but he adds that 'people are free to believe what ever they want.'"The DFLP is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, part of the PLO, with a radical Marxist-Leninist ideology supporting armed insurrection against Israel. It began its terrorist activities in 1973 and was responsible for the The Ma’alot Massacre on May 15, 1974, the 26th anniversary of Israeli independence. Palestinians, disguised as Israeli soldiers, sneaked into the country and murdered 22 high school students. Ma’alot's population was mainly Jewish refugees from North Africa and Arab countries. It was perhaps the first time that children were used as hostages and military objects.
Gule seems still to believe that Zionism is racism, "about exiling and oppressing one people to benefit another." Jews, "whose main story of suffering also lies on another continent [Europe]," are outsiders, colonizers. The oppressed Arabs are incapable of racism, discrimination or religious persecution, today or in the past, not to mention genocide, even when they say it’s their intention.It’s because of the Zionists. To deviate even a fraction from this line is unfaithful to the cause, irrespective of the suffering of others, including at the hands of the Palestinians. Look the other way. Better yet: Don't pay attention to that Norwegian "Humanist" behind the curtain!
With such a mindset, Gule casts doubt over of a relationship between the Jewish exodus from Arab states after 1948 and an Arab League law that required members to penalize Jews in the form of voiding of citizenship, bank accounts and property.
"Was it or was it not proposed? And how can the Arabic League propose laws in member countries? Something is not right here. Is this an Israeli propaganda myth?"I therefore left a public comment about a 1947 law drafted by the Arab League designed to deny human rights of Jews much like the Nuremberg Laws from the Nazi regime. A summary concerning the Arab League's actions can be found here. Immediately below is the text.
Gule himself responded. Among other things, he asks:
1. Why is the draft law drawn up by the Political Committee of the Arab League presented here in English old typewriting? The original document must surely be written in Arabic.
2. And why did the Arab League draft such a law in 1947? They were arguing just like the Zionist, i.e. saying that all Jews should belong to the Jewish state.
3. Was this draft law presented to the Arab League as such?
4. Was it adopted?
5. And finally, was it ever adopted by any of the member states?I replied by reference to an article in the NY Times on May 16, 1948, mentioning the:
"Text of a law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League which was intended to govern the legal status of Jewish residents of Arab League countries."Here's a copy of that, too:
So I asked him: "Why should anyone trust you over the NY Times from 1948?"
After all, as seen above, he was trained by haters and then attempted to bomb a hotel and kill Israelis/Jews. One may ask, did not Breivik simply follow the example of Lars Gule, to legitimize terrorism against a "more symbolic target" such as children as a tool of political change? Can someone explain how it is different?
The text from the Political Committee was discovered attached to a January 19, 1948 Memorandum submitted by the World Jewish Congress to the UN Economic and Social Council. It was procedurally buried in the subsequent months. Arab League regulations, however, required each state be represented in each Committee.
On February 17, 1948, the Arab League approved a plan for political, military, and economic measures to be taken in response to the Palestine crisis. A report stated that: "The Council of the Arab League unanimously adopted the recommendations of its Political Committee concerning Palestine…" (International Organization. Vol.2. No.2., June 1948. 378-380). There was no formal announcement that the Draft Law recommended by the Political Committee was endorsed by the Arab League Council. The likelihood is that the Draft Law's substance conflicted with peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) concerning human rights. Peremptory norms arenon-derogable standards of international public policy which impose limits on how far governments, politicians, and diplomats can further their own goals in making international transactions. These rules prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them. As such, why would the League trumpet passage of a violative agreement? Even so, it seems probable that the Draft Law was adopted at that meeting.
Collusion is also seen from subsequent, similar actions taken in the various member states, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of virtually an entire population of Jews, even more people than the Arabs who left Palestine for various and sundry reasons. As to the Arab refugees, Gule's claim that ALL were ethnically cleansed flies in the face of reality and further exposes the hatred for Jews in his heart. The Arab Higher Council, under the control of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actually coerced people into leaving, as in Haifa.
Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his memoirs, published in 1973, said:
"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them andbringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed...."And last I looked, isn't Israel 20% Arab? Some ethnic cleansing!
Gule also speaks of international law, yet is silent concerning the Arab aggression in 1947, directly in violation of the UN Charter! He seems blind to the hatred and incitement of the Mufti, before and after WWII, not to mention his progeny that regularly call for extermination of Jews. Or the concealed agreement by the Arab League, for that matter. Selective application of international law epitomized.
But he is a humanist!! Or so he says, despite his dubious record and agenda. Ironically, in 2005, when his affiliated organization, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, stood up for free expression and condemned the religious dimension of much human rights abuse, particularly for women and children, it was accused by the OIC in 2005 of engaging in Islamophobia. It stated in response:
"The Islamic States do have a problem: they are stuck in a time-warp of outdated beliefs enforced by rigid and often barbaric laws. Because they cannot challenge our facts they are obliged to resort to intimidation and abuse of the messenger. They speak of 'initiating dialogue between civilizations'. But no dialogue will be possible until they face up to the fact that Muslim terrorists are killing innocent people in the name of Islam."Terrorists like Hamas and DFLP, and others, with whom Gule chooses to stand in solidarity. They reject universal norms of human rights, do not practice human rights, and would commit international crimes far more grave and explicit.
As I see it, nothing will remove Gule's bigotry and extremism. To me he is a disservice to liberals and humanists everywhere, wrapping himself in the clothes of a human rights advocate while assisting those that serially deny such rights and even call for genocide.
In the end, all I could say to Mr. Gule, facetiously, was: "Well done!"
No comments:
Post a Comment