In the Beginning, There Was Terror
by: Ronald Bleier
July - August 2003
The Link - Volume 36, Issue 3
http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=249&aid=358&pg=1

The Original Sin

Israel's original sin is Zionism, the ideology that a Jewish state should replace the former Palestine. At the root of the problem is Zionism's exclusivist structure whereby only Jews are treated as first-class citizens. In order to create and consolidate a Jewish state in 1948, Zionists expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and never allowed them or their descendants to return. In addition, Israeli forces destroyed over 400 Palestinian villages and perpetrated about three dozen massacres. In 1967, the Israelis forced another 350,000 Palestinians to flee the West Bank and Gaza as well as 147,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights. Since 1967 Israel has placed the entire Palestinian population of the Territories under military occupation.

The effects of the dispossession of the Palestinians and other Arabs are with us to this day, in the shattered lives of the millions of people directly affected and also as a sign of the West's war against the entire Arab nation and Muslims everywhere. Arguably, the original sin of Zionism and its effects on the peoples of the Middle East were central to the motivation behind the events of 9/11, and the most important consequence of which is the ongoing “war on terrorism” that is smothering our political landscape.

Assassinating the Peace Negotiator

One of the most notorious acts of Israeli terrorism occurred during the 1948 war when Jewish forces, members of the LEHI underground (also known as the Stern Gang) assassinated Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, a U.N. appointed mediator. Bernadotte was killed on September 17, 1948, a day after he offered his second mediation plan which, among other things, called for repatriation and compensation for the Palestinian refugees.

The assassination of Bernadotte highlighted one of the biggest policy differences at the time between the United States and Israel, namely the fate of the Palestinian refugees. By that time, Jewish/Israeli forces had already forced more than half a million Palestinians from their homes. The resultant international outcry focused attention on the implications for Middle East peace as well as on the suffering of the refugees. Moreover, the fate of hundreds of thousands of Jews who resided in the Arab world, mainly in Iraq, Morocco, Yemen and Egypt, was placed at risk because of Israeli expulsion policy.

The day before the assassination Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett publicly accused Bernadotte of “bias against the state of Israel and in favor of the Arab states.” Stephen Green points to evidence that the Israeli government was itself directly involved in the killing. On the night of the assassination the Czech consulates in Jerusalem and Haifa were busy processing some 30 visas for Stern gang members “who had been rounded up for their involvement in the planning and execution” of the assassination. “Between September 18 and September 29, most if not all of the 30 left Israel on flights for Prague, Czechoslovakia.” The “scale, precision, and speed of the evacuation-escape” made the State Department “suspicious that the Stern gang was not involved alone.” The U.S. wondered if the “operation might have been planned and prepared in Czechoslovakia, and that a specially trained squad had been flown into Israel from Prague for that purpose.” 2 In addition, historian Howard Sachar notes that “Yehoshua Cohen, a friend of Ben Gurion, is widely believed to be the trigger man.” 3

Eight months later, in May 1949, the Israelis revealed to the U.N. that the majority of the Stern Gang members rounded up in the “purge” had been released within two weeks. Those not released were held until a general amnesty was granted on February 14, 1949. 4 No one was ever put on trial for the killing.

The assassination of Bernadotte made international headlines and for a time more attention was paid to the issue of the Palestinian refugees. In the end pressure to repatriate them was never successfully mustered. Arguably, from the point of view of Israeli expulsion policy, the assassination was a success since none of Bernadotte's successors was able to focus sufficient pressure on the Israelis to make any concessions. Had Bernadotte lived, he might have succeeded where others had failed. At the least, his murder was a warning to any who might have tried to follow his activist example.

Dynamiting a Public Building

One of the most notorious examples of Jewish/Zionist terrorism in the post-war period 1945-1948, was the bombing....http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=249&aid=358&pg=1

PreacherX -

With due respect, it might serve your intentions better to follow articles back to their source.

I offer this advice unsolicited, of course, but also preemptively against argumentative dismissals brought on by possible prejudice against a site like Al-Khilafah, which appears quite obviously partisan.

In this case, the article comes from The Link (http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=249&aid=358&pg=1), a publication of Americans for Middle East Understanding (http://www.ameu.org/board.asp), whose board of directors includes a curator of the MMA, a petroleum executive, two former U.S. ambassadors, and a Presbyterian official, among others. As sad and superficial as it seems, a proper Americanizing of the source can serve the argument well when presenting to a Western audience. Similarly troubling is the idea that expecting people to click the link at Al-Khilafah that would take them to the original article is in some cases too much to ask.

There are times when the issue of what page you link to has little potential impact in comparison to the content, but in this case I felt it worth mentioning.

As a purely stylistic note, I think the first two paragraphs of your article citation have considerable punch, and the additional information may cause a blunting of that impact. (At least, since I'm already stepping out, I might as well make that note.)

In any case, it's a bit of reading, so I'd best be about it.

thanks for the advice Tiassa :)

It's quite the article, and difficult to label anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic. After all, the author draws largely from Jewish sources.

Preemptively, I would note that such an article does not license violence in the name of Islam such as the world suffers at the hands of extremists decried by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. But it does put into context a simple question:

• Says a nation: "Okay, we've built ourselves up to a certain level by relying on savagery. Now that we're here we believe nobody else should be allowed to do the same."

In other words, it highlights a certain hypocrisy: Violence is the way of the world, and if we're going to break that cycle, we cannot expect to preserve the injustices much violence has sought to overcome. It is an irrational expectation that a people will not employ to their own benefit what they perceive as licensed to another.

While the wisdom of that assertion put to practice is a debate in and of itself, part of the problem the world is having in dealing with terrorism in the name of Islam is a false sense of shock that comes from believing the sort of violence brought by Al Qaeda and others is somehow unique. It is not. My privilege as an American rests on a history of genocide, warfare, and exploitation. I'm not about to give up what that has won us, but nor am I going to subscribe to a continuing ideology in which violence is the primary and preferred method for conflict resolution.

The longer we try to isolate Muslims as alone in the cycle of violence, the greater the influence will be had by internalized, self-justifying distortions of faith. If we take away the mirrors, how can we expect violence of any brand to recognize its own reflection?

An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. A soul for a soul leaves everybody dead.

follow articles back to their source. Now that you have acknowledged that messengers may have motives, does it not make sense to draw a distinction whether the information you receive comes from those who have shown their contempt for the free exchange of information by attempting to monopolize it's source? In case you haven't noticed, almost all mass media in the western world is controlled by zionists. This should be easy to recognise as an act of aggression. If an Islamic makes a case against them using mostly Zionist sources, he is working with hands tied behind his back. If he succeeds in this evdeavor, he may be praiseworthy.

Looks like a very interesting read to say the least, good quotes are to be had. Thanks Preacher...

sorry Tiassa, im only young and i have no idea what your saying. the words are confusng me. :eek: err, can you say that in less confusing words again.

note: im not dumb just young like i said.

I think you're old enough and smart enough, PreacherX. Try reading through Tiassa's post again, more slowly and thoughtfully.

Carrying on from where Tiassa left off, where we fail in healing the hurt of past violence is not in leaving the victors with the spoils. It's not in supporting the moral exceptionalism of the seeming Perfect Crimes of terrorism (successful nation-building). At the end of Apartheid in South Africa, the words "Truth and Reconciliation" were fittingly prominent, because the wrongs of the past must be acknowledged in order for society to move forward into shaping a more harmonious and inclusive future.

Terrorism was used extensively by the militant zionists who prepared the way for Israel's founding, and known terrorists like Menachim Begin were "legitimized" into the Israeli government, with the even more potent approval of Washington. As a government, Israel continues to conduct terrorist operations designed to disenfranchise and subdue the Palestinians living under illegal Israeli occupation.

Truth and reconciliation: Not the return of 20th-century Jewish immigrants to Berlin and Moscow and New York- Not the reversal of the course of events. Truth and reconciliation, or the acknowledgement of the crimes that have been committed by all parties, and the collective will to shape a future when terrorism is not rewarded by international sponsorship and statehood. The Israeli government can never legitimize itself by force, or by constructing a national fortress. Israel will only become a legitimate and secure state by squarely facing the terrorism and repression that was a part of her genesis, by unequivocally repudiating ethnicly-motivated terrorism and segregation, and by concertedly reforming into a truly pluralistic and multiethnic democracy.

From an American perspective, one of the great ironies in the Neoconservative vision (that justified the occupation of Iraq, a vision of beginning a wonderful new day in the Middle East by supporting the first pluralistic democracy in the region) is that reforming Israel has never been a consideration, and remains out of the question. For so long as the powerbrokers can shield Israel from atonement, the Arab-Israeli conflict will grind on. Healing the Mideast will only begin when Israel is brought to terms with her founding terrorism and ethnic seperatism. The United States has this power, and could achieve some needed atonement of our own in the bargain.

Preacher_X

As “tiassa” mentioned, careful with the sources, there could always be a hidden agenda behind. But then again it is really a gigantic work to investigate the quality of a source, so I have to advice you that when you see a topic of interest, get as many sources as possible, try to align the points concerning facts, ignore pre-digested comments and suggestion made by the writer and instead use your knowledge, logic and commonsense.

The Israeli occupation of Palestinian while in the search of the promise land, with a land ownership certificate under their arm signed by the Holy of all. It’s probably one of the worse examples of modern humanity in the records. For decades we have witness brutalities around the globe caused by every possible reason. They always seam to affect the handicapped, left behind cultures. But the way, in which Israel is doing their thing as a civilized culture, it is really beyond comprehension, and I wouldn’t be surprise if they begin asking the Palestinian for compensation. They are good at that.
And they don’t want to know about returning some of that compensation to the Germans on royalties for copying the building of their wall.

Israeli could never wipe out all Palestinians and by the use of force it will never be solved. It will oscillate, some times with more dramatics, other times dormant on the side, but generations have been violated and the detestation is already running in the genes, generation after generation.

Putting aside Israelis extremist and Palestinians extremist, it is impossible to give any credit to the occupants for what they do.

Preacher X

sorry Tiassa, im only young and i have no idea what your saying. the words are confusng me.

I'm not exactly being direct, am I?

The thing is that I'm not the best cheering section. An article like this one is exceptionally valuable to me because it represents what is possibly a new level in the ongoing debate both here at Sciforums and also around the world.

If we take a moment to look around at the responders to the topic, nobody is yet opposing its content. Additionally, and while I haven't looked too hard, I haven't found anyone publicly decrying the article, either.

Have the advocates of present Israeli policy simply missed the article? Doubtful. It may be that the article will be ignored by said advocates of Israeli policy, in order to let it slip quietly out of people's memories. That can be a problem for them, though, if the only people reading it are folks who will remember it. (I just grabbed a 22 year-old article from the same site; the present article will be around for a while.)

In the meantime, I'm not a good cheering section, so I don't often give empty "Rah! Rah! Rass!" cheers. To the other, I'm not going to simply let this article slip down the ladder. I'm genuinely interested in whether or not this trend of people renouncing their violence only after they achieve the goals of that violence will ever change, or be noticed for its substantial absurdity by those that practice it.

So no, I'm not particularly being direct about it; in fact, I'm simply attempting to preempt certain irrational opposing responses which we can, with reasonable confidence, predict while also keeping the topic higher in the ladder. In that respect, I'm thrilled that folks are reading and chiming in.

However:

err, can you say that in less confusing words again.

I hold with Hypewaders; you're doing just fine. It may be, however, that you are seeking too much in the post; the explanation in the paragraphs above simply equals "overly-complex placeholder with a preemptive tassel." However, putting it more directly should be easily done:

• The article is not anti-Semitic or anti-Judaic, so people shouldn't attempt to discredit it on those grounds.
• The article does not license terrorism.
• The article does highlight a specific hypocrisy.
• This hypocrisy is a bit like the mote and the plank: "What worked for me and hurt you is acceptable for me to have done, but it has never been acceptable, so you shouldn't do it."
• While wisdom of believing or accepting such an assertion is a debate all of its own, one thing the hypocrisy has brought is a false sense of shock that stems from believing that terrorism in the name of Islam is unique, arising because of a religion and having little to do with history.
• Terrorism and atrocity are among the foundations of the America I was born into; this country climbed to its wealth and power on genocide, slavery, and warfare; our history includes a backdrop of some of the most ridiculous biological-warfare episodes known to humanity, and all for a land-grab.
• No, I'm not going to give up the comfort of being an American, but there's no reason I should try to preserve the violent ways we claim to have transcended.
• The longer we in the West try to isolate Muslims as the only reason for violence in the Islamic world, we will see more and more influence in the hands of the self-justifying terrorists annexing the Islamic banner to their own ranks.
• If we draw such lines between us, how can we expect any people to recognize the atrocity of violence they might commit? (e.g. "Islamic" terrorists, American jingoists, Israeli nationalists, &c.)
• A cycle of revenge only brings heaps of dead people.

It may seem somewhat rough and arrhythmic in that form, but I would point you to Hypewaders' continuation, and also Microzoft's post, which explore the themes well.

Travis' note may be a topic in and of itself, because I can't fault the zionists for the participation of the bluebloods and the capitalists, and it seems these days whenever you get the bluebloods and capitalists together with land or money on the line, some peoples is gonna die. Besides, if the zionists really think they're in control, well ... that's their problem. Once they're not useful to the American agenda, they'll be vilified as Nazis much like another American tool named Saddam. But I do agree with Travis that reporting Israeli affairs without giving over to the zionist and capitalist presumptions is a bit like swimming upstream with a boat hooked to your tailfin.

yep, thanks i get it now. and i have noticed that technique of ignoring something that is rightyfully critical that Jews, oops i mean Zionists do. ive noticed on this forum that they also discreidt things by saying its racist and also by diverting the attention by highlighting other peoples errors

We're all under a challenge to tame our inner hatreds, and things won't improve until we all do so. Jews who repudiate zionism and ethnic segregation will be key to any solution, and we should be very careful not to confuse Jews with zionists, even inadvertantly. It often seems tedious, but it's important.

Very true “hypewaders”, I like to think that the great majority of Jews in Israel as well as abroad do not identify their beliefs and methods with those of the Zionists. However, although Zionists are a minority, they are a very powerful minority, and from talking to Jews, I frequently got the impression that although they are not consolidating with the Zionists, they adopt a passive position as… well, it would have been worse without them. One would think that as Palestinians do not generally appreciate the methods of their fanatics,… well, with stones against bullets it would take us centuries!!

Once this sort of improvised parallel can be appreciated, interesting gets when you invest time in establishing those organisms that are feeding the Zionists and those that are feeding the Palestinian radicals.