“Ode” by Professor Francis Boyle

A poignant, heart-wrenching and profoundly truthful poem by Professor Francis A. Boyle

Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman

Way to go Berkeley Law!
Deeming Yourselves above The Law
Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven
Berkeley Law can go to Hell!

Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes
Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All
The Nazis had Their Law Schools too
Replete with John Yoo

RIP Berkeley Law
Into the Ashcan of History You All go
Good Riddance to Cal’s Neo-Nazi Rubbish!.


American Law Professors
What have we become?
American Law Professors for torture!
American Law Professors for Gitmo Kangaroo Courts!
American Law Professors for indefinite detention!
American Law Professors for spying!
American Law Professors for drone strikes!
American Law Professors for murder!
American Law Professors for assassinations!
American Law Professors for war crimes!
American Law Professors for crimes against humanity!
American Law Professors for genocide!
American Law Professors for wars of aggression!
American Law Professors for murdering US citizens!
American Law Professors for murder courts!
American Law Professors for trashing the US Constitution!
American Law Professors for trashing the Bill of Rights!
American Law Professors for trashing International Law!
American Law Professors for trashing Human Rights!

How much lower can American Law Professors sink
Into this criminal shit
Of Neo-Nazi Legal Nihilism?

The Nazis had their Law Professors too
The worst of the bunch was Carl Schmitt
And now we have: American Law Professors
For Carl Schmitt too!

Arabs and Muslims
Have become
American Law Professors’
New Jews
And now at Berkeley Law too
With Chaired John Yoo

Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor  at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) and Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009).   His most recent book is United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law.   This is his poem “Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman.”

The UN did NOT create Israel



This type of legal expose is what pro-Palestinian activist must focus on.

Collecting legal documents and hard evidence which would enable Palestinians to expose the ILLEGALITY and ILLEGITIMACY of ‘israel”, and PROSECUTE its war criminals and their supporters and enables world wide

« Israel partisans distribute misinformation about “Against Our Better Judgment” |

I thought I would clarify the question of whether the UN “created Israel,” since most people – even many of those who are otherwise well-versed on Palestine – are misinformed on this important matter.

The fact is that UN General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan (read below), was a recommendation that was to go to the Security Council. In the resolution the General Assembly requested that the Security Council take it up. This never happened, and the partition plan has no force of law.

Israeli propagandists, however, perpetrated the myth that the UN created Israel, and this interpretation was then been repeated by numerous others. Please see an excellent article on this, “New States Are Not Created in the UN“. Below is an excerpt:

“…was it true that Israel owed its very existence to the U.N., as it became popularly perceived years later? …This same line of argument was repeated… by an Israeli analyst in the opinion section of the New York Times, who wrote that the vote on Nov. 29 was the “legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel.”

Leading international legal scholars have vociferously rejected this claim. The noted Australian legal scholar Professor Julius Stone wrote in 1980 that Israel “does not derive its legal existence from the Partition Plan.”

Even Cambridge University’s Professor James Crawford… concluded in his monumental book on the creation of states in international law that Israel was not created on the basis of Resolution 181…”

In reality, Israel was created by a war of of conquest and ethnic cleansing, which it calls its “War of Independence.”

I hope people will read my article on this subject: “ The Real Story of How Israel Was Created. Among other things, this piece describes how Zionists bribed and threatened varous UN member nations in order to procure sufficient votes to pass the resolution. (For citations on this see my article on how the US-Israel “special relationship” was created.)

Below is an excerpt from General Assembly Resolution 181, also called The Partition Plan [emphases added]. (Read the full resolution at the link below.)

The General Assembly,

Having met in special session at the request of the mandatory Power to constitute and instruct a special committee to prepare for the consideration of the question of the future government of Palestine at the second regular session;

Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and

Having received and examined the report of the Special Committee (document A/364) 1/ including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,

Considers that the present situation in Palestine is one which is likely to impair the general welfare and friendly relations among nations;

Takes note of the declaration by the mandatory Power that it plans to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948;

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation…


The Great Cancer Hoax

The Great Cancer Hoax: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down…

Watch here

Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview through June 20th! Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in its entirety through June 20th, 2011.

Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history.

In the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called “antineoplastons,” have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer.

This documentary takes you through the treacherous 14-year journey Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to finally obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons.

His story is yet another testament that fact can be far stranger than fiction, as the film exposes the powerful, unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical- and pharmaceutical industry at any cost—including the lives of millions of people. Burzynskimovie.com [H/T: Vincent Di Stefano, The Healing Project]

UN recognition of Israel is fatally flawed

Illegitimate… Illegitimate… Illegitimate

What legitimacy does Israel have? ——-> (NONE)

UN recognition of Israel is fatally flawed




6 June 2010

Christopher King argues that beneath Israel’s litany of crimes
against the Palestinians, and most recently its murder of humanitarian
workers aboard the Gaza-bound international aid flotilla, lies the fact
of its own illegality.

The true nature of the so-called freedom-loving, democratic state of
Israel is now clear to the world following its military attack on Gaza,
its illegal blockade of Gaza with terrible suffering of its population
and now the murder of nine humanitarian activists in course of pirating
the Free Gaza Flotilla in international waters.

These horrifying events should focus minds within the international
community on the legitimacy of the Israeli regime. We should consider
what meaning for its present status its disregard for legality and human
rights since its inception might have.

The foundation of the entity Israel was supported by Europe and America
due to sympathy or guilt, as you might have it, for the suffering of
European Jews, the colonialist thinking of that time and familiarity
with the Jewish biblical narrative.

“…it is clear that once the Jews took up arms against the
Palestinians, dispossessed them and settled on their land, they acted
against the terms and intent of the Mandate, to say nothing of civil

The British government resisted unauthorized Jewish immigrants from
1944 to 1948 because they caused trouble with the Palestinians and no
administrator likes gratuitous trouble. When the Jews took up arms the
British were bound to take action against them. On the Jewish side,
there had been expressions of intent based on the Balfour Declaration
(1917) that gave Zionists reason to believe that their aspirations had
political support. This was so, although with critically important

The preamble
to the League of Nations Mandate by which Britain administered
Palestine and which has the same essential wording as the Balfour
Declaration, reads:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the
Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration
originally made on 2 November 1917, by the Government of His Britannic
Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being
clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in
any other country [my italics].

Whatever was meant by the term “national home for the Jewish people”,
it is clear that once the Jews took up arms against the Palestinians,
dispossessed them and settled on their land, they acted against the
terms and intent of the Mandate, to say nothing of civil law. Britain
was placed in the position of breaching the Mandate if it condoned
Jewish actions.

“The Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate in favour
of a ‘national home for the Jewish people’ are often cited as the legal
basis for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. It is obvious, however,
that this cannot be true. These instruments had no legal force.”

The Balfour Declaration and League of Nations Mandate in favour of a
“national home for the Jewish people” are often cited as the legal basis
for the Jewish occupation of Palestine. It is obvious, however, that
this cannot be true. These instruments had no legal force. Moreover,
dispossession of Palestinians from their land breached the most
important civil rights safeguarded by the Mandate, namely, the right to
possess their land and the right for them and their descendants to live
upon it.

Israel’s declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 when the
Mandate ended has no legal validity. Subsequently, Israel
was recognized
by other countries, following the United States. It was admitted to the
United Nations, the rebranded League of Nations, by Resolution 273 on
11 May 1949 which, again is cited by Jewish Palestinians as Israel’s
legitimization. Resolution 273 was a grave error. Israel not only had no
pre-existing historical foundation but it incorporated a fatal flaw.
That flaw was its failure to recognize the rights of the Palestinians.
The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate had recognized
Palestinian rights and the 10 December 1948 United Nations Declaration
of Human Rights was a general acknowledgment that such rights existed
for all peoples.

The right to own property without arbitrary confiscation and to live
upon it in one’s own country did not, of course, come into existence
with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. These rights had always
explicity existed in European-based law, as well as in all developed
countries and many others, with the exception of the brief experiment
with socialism in some.

“Israel not only had no pre-existing historical foundation but
it incorporated a fatal flaw. That flaw was its failure to recognize the
rights of the Palestinians.”

The right to own property and live peacefully upon it already existed
in Palestine. In June 2005 Turkey transferred Ottoman land ownership
records for Palestine up to 1916 to the Palestinian Authority
. From
to 1948 land records were maintained by the British administration. It
should be mentioned that the Israeli authorities seized the land
held by the Palestinian Authority
as reported
by the Scottish Trades Union Council on 22 April 2002:

Our Palestinian trade union colleagues are now confirming what has
been suggested by such news reports as have been able to get out of the
areas under Israeli assault.

“Ariel Sharon, with the complicity of the entire Israeli political
establishment, is moving to complete his lifetime’s ambition – the
creation of a state of Greater Israel on all of historic Palestine,
through the expulsion or killing of non-Jewish Palestinians, and the
destruction of all physical evidence of their history.

“That is why the Israeli gunmen have not only been massacring
Palestinians. They have also been demolishing centuries-old buildings,
and ripping up olive groves, some of which date back to Roman times.

“They have seized and removed the records and documentation of the
Palestinian Authority and of Palestinian civic organizations, including
all the membership records of the Palestinian trade unions.

And most significantly, they have seized the Palestinian
of land ownership. What purpose can that have, other than in order to
destroy evidence of the Palestinians entitlement to their land?


The 22 August report
from the American Libraries Association’s International
Responsibilities Task Force illustrates that Israel particularly targets
libraries that contain historical records relating to Palestinian
demographics (e.g. Health, Development, Information and Policy
Institute, Ramallah), commerce (e.g. Palestinian Insurance Company,
Ramallah) and government statistics (e.g. Bureau of Statistics,
Ramallah). Library papers and computers are vandalized and records that
could support Palestinian claims on their land are either entirely
removed or destroyed.

The fundamental issue in Palestine is land and the right to live upon
it. Israeli actions make clear their awareness that they have no
to the land. Israel is attempting to strengthen its possession by making
it difficult for Palestinians to establish their claims

“… the United Nations’ acceptance of Israel’s status as a
legitimate state is inherently invalid. Legitimate means
according to law. In dispossessing the Palestinians Israel had broken
that people’s legally valid tie to the land on which they and their
ancestors had lived for centuries if not millennia…”

This then is the fatal flaw in the United Nations 1949 recognition of
Israel as a legitimate state within the international community. It
ignores the land and residence rights of the Palestinians that had been
made explicit in the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate and the
United Nations’ own recognition in the period leading up to the expiry
of the British mandate that Palestinian rights must be protected.

By fatal flaw, I mean that the United Nations’ acceptance of
Israel’s status as a legitimate state is inherently invalid.
means according to law. In dispossessing the Palestinians Israel had
broken that people’s legally valid tie to the land on which they and
their ancestors had lived for centuries if not millennia, which is the
very foundation of nationhood, national identity and indeed, livelihood.

As I have said elsewhere, legitimacy for Israel can only be granted by
the Palestinians and even they cannot legally give it while under the
duress of armed occupation and dispossession. Agreements with the
Palestinian Authority or even Hamas relating to land allocation and
citizenship are therefore worthless as they might be subject to valid
legal challenge at any time in the future

The status of the Jews in Palestine in international law is therefore
that of a people having an ethnic identity, some religious identity but
without a Jewish country. Those who emigrated to Palestine possessed
national identities based on their birthplace and parents’ residence as
in the case of the Palestinians. By these internationally-recognized
critera, if they wish to live in Palestine, they are Jewish Palestinians
among Muslim, Christian and whichever other Palestinians have a claim
to the land.

There is no point in the Jews of Palestine or anyone else arguing
subtle and complex legal points in refutation of this. If this
proposition is not true, then any people in any country may be
dispossessed by a more powerful country and lose all claim to their
land. That cannot be the case. International law is founded on the
concept of national identity and the right to defend the nation on which
it is based. That is precisely what Hamas, the legitimate,
democratically-elected government of Palestine is doing.

“The status of the Jews in Palestine in international law is …
that of a people having an ethnic identity, some religious identity but
without a Jewish country.”

The Jews of Palestine cannot conceivably, therefore, invent a
and national identity on land confiscated by armed force from the
Palestinian people. It is not possible.

Destroying Palestinian records is crime of unspeakable viciousness
rivals the crimes that Jewish Palestinians carry out against the
persons of their Muslim compatriots
. It does immense cultural damage

while giving no advantage to Jews. The lack of records might be easily
remedied for land redistribution purposes on the basis of the known
ethnic populations in 1947, when mass immigration commenced. A
democratically elected government for all Palestine, following the
return of refugees, could sort out the details.

I have never heard anyone suggest that the Jews of Palestine should be
ejected from that country. It appears, however, that they do not wish
live equitably among those Palestinians who have prior and better claim
to the land than they

In that case, I would suggest
that they might
select an agreeable location of about 22,000 square kilometres in the
United States. They could emigrate, drive its American inhabitants out
and set up a Jewish homeland there
. More land could be taken over
if desired. As the United States has unfailingly endorsed these
principles in the case of Palestine it will undoubtedly be in accord.
Alternatively, perhaps Muslim Palestinians might do the same. I cannot
see what possible objection the United States government might have.

King is a retired consultant and lecturer
in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.


Jews are essentially different


By Rabbi Eliezier Shmetov, the Chabad-Lubavitch emissary in Montevideo, Uruguay

“to "normalize" the Jew, redefining him as a universal citizen of the
world. "We are the same as everybody else, although we have our own
customs, language and land." It doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because :

we are not the same as everyone else. We are essentially different.

We have a life
mission that is totally different .

We have a
soul that is totally different .

We have totally different spiritual needs.

We have totally different
spiritual conflicts.

What happens is that many Jews openly deny that they are different
because they do not know how to defend it or because they do not want
to assume the responsibilities that it implies. But this does not
change the fact that they are different.

are not a religion”




nothing has been as detrimental to the Jewish people as the modern idea that
Judaism is a religion."

"We are not a religion; we are
a single soul radiating into many (Jewish) bodies, bonding them as one."


, love of one’s fellow


one must fulfill the commandment of "Ahavat Yisrael", love of one’s fellow Jew, and that the
rest of the Torah is commentary.

"Ahavat Yisrael", in and of itself, is also difficult to
understand. Proper fulfillment of this mitzva
feeling for every single Jew, regardless of how he might behave and how
undesirable his personality might seem. "Ahavat Yisrael" must be felt
even for a Jew on the other side of the world, whom you have never seen.

The answer is that one must look to the
essence of his Jewishness, that which makes him a Jew.

Get to the point

The sole element which spans all variants of
time, philosophy, language and culture is
the possession of a Jewish soul.

Regardless of his level of Jewish commitment
or knowledge, the Jew possesses a unique Jewish soul. This soul, the
irrevocable inheritance of every single Jew, is pure and unsullied, holy and

and control

The Inner Dimension

is presented by

 Gal Einai Institute of Israel


Disseminating the teachings of the inner dimension of the Torah in the
Land of Israel and in the Diaspora as taken from the teachings of

 Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh


Israel is to lead the world toward a Messianic Climax



Israel would be "a
light unto the nations," leading mankind toward a perfected future.

……………….., when the true story of history is
finally told, it will be shown to what
the Jewish People influenced history
lead the world to its eventual
Messianic climax
. Only then will Jewish
contributions in the varied areas of universal morals, ethics, law, science,
philosophy, economics, literature and culture be recognized and appreciated

Israel as Leader of the Nations


Jews as the "conscience of the world." In a redemptive state the Jewish People
will reassume their more natural role as the head,
leading the world to a new age..

The natural inclination of the Jewish
is to elevate themselves to the level of
mind and leadership

Israel a Light Unto the Nations


For Israel to be a "light unto the nations" it
has to channel Torah as the source of G-d’s light in the world

A Jewish leader today in the purest sense
must inspire the whole Jewish People to be "
a nation of priests [leaders] and a
holy people." Performing mitzvot in an inspired fashion,

One of the "campaigns"
of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem
Mendel Schneerson, was that the time was now ripe for the seven mitzvot to
be taught openly. As a result, the American
Congress passed the bill proclaiming the universal relevance of the Seven Mitzvot.

Every attempt to assimilate among the
nations has brought disaster

"… Israel been able to maintain its unique, essential
nature and thereby
greatly influence the

Even after the nations recognize the source of light emanating
from the
Jewish People, there will still need to be a separation.


The only way to feel love for every single
Jew, without exception, is to relate to his spiritual existence, his soul.

Therefore, it is specifically "Ahavat Yisrael", from among all the
mitzvot, which is the paradigm of the entire Torah. Its proper fulfillment
brings with it the spiritual elevation which is the basis of the entire Torah.

Jew has a part of himself within his fellow Jew. In loving another Jew, he is
actually showing love for himself


are leaders of enlightenment


by Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

“We have proved ourselves to be the leaders of enlightenment, progress and revolution wherever we have

it were not for Jews, there would be no concept of human dignity, of meaning
and purpose, of the right of every person to education and knowledge, of social
justice and of the value of world peace.
These (along with psychology,
relativity, quantum physics, anthropology, Hollywood and superheroes) are among
our many vital contributions to the world”.



Racism like no other

Racism, arrogance, supremacy,
and dominance attitude that surpasses anything mankind has ever known:

(quotes by Rabbi Manis Friedman author and lecturer, dean of Bais Chanah
Women’s Institute of Jewish

“There are two different and distinct entities: the human being, and the
Jew who is part of G-d

“We are a G-dly people, we have G-dly souls. Our place is in Heaven, in fact
higher than Heaven
because Heaven is also a created place, and we are a
part of G-d”

“The world wants leadership and who are they going to look to for moral
leadership if not the Jews?”

“We are to treat other Jews as Divine beings, because that’s what they

Excerpts from:







The internationally growing, violent impact of this pervasive and
supremacist ideology,should be utterly alarming to all, irrespective of
nationality, culture, ethnicity or religion.

It is critically important to expose, challenge, and oppose such outlandish
beliefs !

One might wonder: “why excavate such issues now, why exhume hoary ideologies
and waste time wrestling with it? These are only some foolish beliefs, and
people are entitle to have their own”

This might be true to a certain extent, except that:

** Those beliefs are HARMFUL to life and to humanity.

** Those beliefs entice racist, chauvinistic, supremacist opinions and

** Those beliefs dehumanise and demonise those who are different.

** And worse, they invoke and provoke mass murder, genocide, and total
eradication of others -as we have over the past 60 years in occupied Palestine.

That is why exposing and opposing such beliefs is not only a right but an
obligation for any human who cares about morality, equality, social progress,
human rights, justice and world peace.

Makes a Jew "Jewish"?

Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe



“We are Jews because G-d chose us to be His "cherished treasure from
all the nations… a kingdom of priests and a holy people
" (Exodus

"We are Jews because G-d chose us to play the central role in the
implementation of His purpose in creation"

you describe the Jewish soul?


Answer by Rabbi Shlomo Chein,
Director of Chabad @ UC S.Cruz in California
and editor of askmoses.com

"The Jewish soul is the energy given to the Jew to be
able to carry out this mission"

"The soul can perhaps be explained as a "microcosm of G-d". By
allowing his G-dly soul to be expressed within his own existence the Jew
can bring G-d into all of existence.

It is this soul that gives the Jew the power to be G-dly
in a human world, and supernatural in a natural universe.

" the Jew has an additional mission, and therefore an additional

Uniqueness of the Jewish Soul


By Avi Lazerson, Jewish Magazine, Mai 2003

"The (Jewish) soul, which is an emanation from G-d, a "piece"
of G-d
in the body, a entity that was one with G-d before"

"It is this yearning that is so frustrating for the Jew to fulfill.
Not through riches, and not through wisdom can the soul be satisfied, but only
through connecting to G-d."

purpose and mission


"Practical Kabbalah," is a far more commonly used term that
evokes esoteric meditations and/or magical incantations for spiritual
elevation, healing and cursing, often involving the manipulation
of sacred words.

Jewish purpose and mission:


** "Tikkun Olam B’Malchut Shaddai"
(total world transformation),

** "Makom Ladur BaTachtonim"
(to make a place for Him in the lower realms),

** "Timcheh Et Zeicher Amalek"
(eradicate Amalek)

** "L’Or Goyim"
(a light unto the nations)


The epithets affirming that the people of Israel are equal to this task

** "Am Segula"
(the chosen people),

** "Goy Kadosh UMamlechet Kohanim"
(a holy people and a nation of priests),

** "MeAl HaTeva"
(above nature),

** "Ba’alei Nevuah"
(masters of prophecy),

** "Ba’alei Hashpa’a Nissit"
(exercisers of miraculous influence)

** "Kol Yisrael Tzaddikim"
(all Israel are righteous)

is a Jew?


By Eliezer Shmetov, Chabad-Lubavitch emissary in Montevideo,

“the Jew is the Neshamah (soul) that every Jew possesses. The soul
of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew
. They have different
characteristics, potentials and needs. Every Jew has essentially the same type
of soul as any other Jew. This Jewish soul is inherited from his or her

"The only meaningful difference between one Jew and another is the level
and intensity of expression of this common essence.”

"A Jew by birth is Jewish no matter what he or she may think, say or


The Messianic Spark in the Jewish Soul


"…the Jewish soul "is a portion of G-d above,"

"The spark of Mashiach, comprising the deepest point of the soul,
is the activating force fueling leadership potential.


Spiritual DNA of Jews is different

How can I be Jewish …………….if I don’t believe in God?


Answer: Rabbi Naftali Brawer, rabbi at Borehamwood and Elstree United

"Being Jewish is
an existential definition; it is who you are in your very essence and nothing
can ever change that. This is because at your core is a Jewish soul
bequeathed to you by your Jewish forbears. It is, to put it in other terms,
your spiritual DNA"


"you cannot alter the fact that deep within you resides a Jewish
. Furthermore, being Jewish is an all-or-nothing scenario"

Jewish soul is


Nefesh HaBahamis (Animal Soul), Nefesh HoElokis (G-dly Soul)

Jews, as we shall see, are different from Gentiles. Jews
have a spiritual purpose, Gentiles a physical one.. This can be compared to
hands and feet…."

" Jews are functionally different from non-Jews. ….. We have been educated
to believe a series of fictions in our generation, one of which is that there
really are no differences between people."

"Nevertheless, man remains different from animal, man from woman and Jew
from Gentile".

"The Talmud categorizes Jews as different in levels of mercy, modesty
and acts of goodness

"A Jew is different in that he has a neshomah, an additional
level to the life force of other human beings".

"every Jew has the nefesh (life force) of every human being known
as the Nefesh HaBahamis (Animal Soul). His additional soul,
neshomah, is also known as the Nefesh HoElokis (G-dly Soul)"

what that basically means is

(Jews have Divine souls, non-Jews have animal souls)

Thinking Outside of the Secular Box

The Left and Islam

Thinking Outside of the Secular Box



is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world,
and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

Karl Marx 1843

I launch into a disclosure of liberal and leftist delusional treatment
of religions, Islam and Palestine in particular, I would like to share
with you a bad racist joke. Beware; you may not want to share this
short tale with your feminist friends.

American female activist who visited Afghanistan in the late 1990s was
devastated to find out that women were marching 15 ft behind their men.
She soon learned from her local translator that this was due to some
religious guidelines that ruled [this is the way we show] respect for
the ‘head of the family’. Once back in America the devastated
activist launched campaigns after campaigns for women’s rights in
Afghanistan. As it happened, the same devoted activist visited Kabul
last month. This time she was amazed to find a totally different
reality. Women were actually marching 30 ft ahead of their husbands.
The activist was quick to report to her headquarters in America: “The
Women rights revolution is a great success here in Afghanistan. While
in the past it was the man who marched in the front, now it is the
women who takes the lead.” Her Afghani translator, who overheard her
report, took the activist aside and advised her that her interpretation
was totally wrong. “The women” he said,  “are walking in front because
of the landmines.…”

tragic as it may sound to some, we are not as free as we believe
ourselves to be.  We are not exactly the author of most of our thoughts
and realizations. Our human conditions are imposed on us; we are a
product of our culture, language ideological indoctrination and in many
cases, victims of our intellectual laziness. Like the semi-fictional
American female activist above, in most cases we are trapped within our
preconceived ideas and that stops us from seeing things for what they
really are. Accordingly, we tend to interpret and in most cases
misinterpret remote cultures employing our own value system and moral

tendency has some grave consequences. For some reason ‘we’ (the
Westerners) tend to believe that ‘our’ technological superiority
together with our beloved ‘enlightenment’ equips us with a ‘rational
secularist anthropocentric, absolutist ethical system’ of the very
highest moral stand.

The Lib-Left

the West we can detect two ideological components that compete for our
hearts and minds; Both claim to know what is ‘wrong’ and who is
‘right’. The Liberal would insist on praising individual liberty and
civil equality; the Leftist would tend to believe to possess a ‘social
scientific’ tool helping to identify who is ‘progressive’ and who is 

things stand, it is these two modernist secularist precepts that act as
our Western political ethical guard. But in fact, they have achieved
the opposite.  Each ideology in its own peculiar way has led us to a
state of moral blindness. It is these two so-called ‘humanist’ calls,
that either consciously prepare the ground for criminal
interventionalist colonial wars (the Liberal), or failed to oppose them
while employing wrong ideologies and faulty arguments (the Left).

Liberal and Left, in their apparent banal Western forms suggest that
secularism is the answer for the world’s ailments. Without a doubt,
Western secularism may be a remedy for some Western social malaise.
However, Western Liberal and Left ideologies, in most cases, fail to
understand that secularism is in itself a natural outcome of Christian
culture, i.e., a direct product of Christian tradition and openness
towards an independent civic existence. In the West, the spiritual and
the civil sphere are largely separated .
It is this very division that enabled the rise of secularity and the
discourse of rationality. It is this very division that also led to the
birth of a secular ethical value system in the spirit of enlightenment
and modernism. 

this very division led also to the rise of some blunt forms of
fundamental-secularism that matured into crude anti religious
worldviews that are no different from bigotry. It is actually that
very misleading fundamental secularism that brought the West to a total
dismissal of a billion human beings out there just because they wear
the wrong scarf or happen to believe in something we fail to grasp.  

Progressive vs Regressive

and Judaism, unlike Christianity, are tribally orientated belief
systems. Rather than ‘enlightened individualism’ it is actually the
survival of the extended family that is at the core interest of those
two belief systems. The Taliban that is regarded by most Westerners as
the ultimate possible darkest political setting, is simply not
concerned at all with issues to do with personal liberties or personal
rights. It is the safety of the tribe together with the maintenance of
family values in the light of the Qur’an  that stands at its core.
Rabbinical Judaism is not different at all. It is basically there to
preserve the Jewish tribe by maintaining Judaism as a ‘way of life’.   

both Islam and Judaism there is hardly a separation between the
spiritual and the civil. Both religions stand as systems that provide
thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day
matters. Jewish enlightenment (Haskalah) was largely a process of
Jewish assimilation through secularization and emancipation, and
spawning various modern forms of Jewish identities, Zionism included.
Yet Enlightenment values of universalism have never been incorporated
into the body of Jewish orthodoxy. Like in the case of Rabbinical
Judaism, that is totally foreign to the spirit of Enlightenment, Islam
is largely estranged to those values of Euro centric Modernism and
rationality. If anything, due to the interpretation of the Scriptures
(hermeneutic), both Islam and Judaism are actually closer to the spirit
of post modernity.  

the Left ideology nor Liberalism engage intellectually or politically
with these two religions. This fact is disastrous, for the biggest
current threat to world peace is posed by the Israeli-Arab conflict; a
conflict rapidly becoming a war between a Jewish expansionist state and
Islamic resistance. And yet, both the Liberal and the Left ideologies
are lacking the necessary theoretical means to understand the
complexities of Islam and Judaism.

Liberal would dismiss Islam as sinister for its take on human rights
and women in particular. The Left would fall into the trap of
denouncing religion in general as ‘reactionary’. Maybe without
realizing it, both Lib and Left are falling here into a clear
supremacist argument. Since both Islam and Judaism are more than just
religions, they convey a ‘way of life’ and stand as a totally thorough
answer to questions regarding being in the world, the Western Lib-Left
are at  danger of a complete dismissal of a large chunk of humanity.

have recently accused a genuine Leftist and good activist of being an
Islamophobe for blaming Hamas for being ‘reactionary’. The activist,
who is evidently a true supporter of Palestinian resistance was quick
to defend himself claiming that it wasn’t only ‘Islamism’  that he
didn’t like, he actually equally hated Christianity and Judaism. For
some reason he was sure that hating every religion equally was a proper
humanist qualification. Accordingly, the fact that an Islamophobe is
also a Judeophobe and Christiano-phobe is not necessarily a sign of a
humanist commitment. I kept challenging that good man; he then argued
that it was actually Islamism (i.e., political Islam) which he didn’t
approve of. I challenged him again and brought to his attention the
fact that in Islam there is no real separation between the spiritual
and the political. The notion of political Islam (Islamism) may as well
be a Western delusional reading of Islam. I pointed out that Political
Islam, and even the rare implementation of ‘armed jihad’, are merely
Islam in practice. Sadly enough, this was more or less the end of the
discussion. The Palestinian solidarity campaigner found it too
difficult to cope with the Islamic unity of body and soul. The Left in
general is doomed to fail here unless it elaborates by means of
listening to the organic Islamic bond between the ‘material’ and the so
called ‘opium of the masses’. For the Leftist to do so, it is no less
than a major intellectual shift.

Such a shift was suggested recently by Hisham Bustani, an independent Jordanian Marxist, stating:

European left must make a serious critical assessment of this ‘we know
better’ attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in
the south as ideologically and politically inferior.”


with Palestine is a very good opportunity to review the gravity of the
situation. As it happens, in spite of the murderous Israeli treatment
of the Palestinians, solidarity with Palestinians has yet to become a
mass movement. It may  well never make it as such a movement. Given the
West’s failure to uphold the rights of the oppressed, Palestinians seem
to have learned their lesson, they democratically elected an Islamic
party that promised them resistance.  Interestingly enough, very few
leftists were there to support the Palestinian people and their
democratic choice.

the current template of conditional political solidarity, we are losing
campaigners on each turn of this bumpy road.  The reasons are as

The Palestinian liberation movement is basically a national liberation
movement. This acknowledgment is where we lose all the
Left cosmopolitans, those who oppose nationalism.

Due to the political rise of Hamas, Palestinian resistance is now
regarded as Islamic resistance.  This is where we are losing the
secularists and rabid atheists who oppose religion, catapulting them to
being PEP (progressive except on Palestine). 

In fact the PEP are divided largely into two groups.

 Those who oppose Hamas for being ‘reactionary’, yet approve Hamas for
their operational success as a Resistance movement. Those activists are
basically waiting for the Palestinians to change their mind and revert
to a secular society. But they are willing to conditionally support the
Palestinians as an oppressed people.

Those who are against Hamas for being a ‘reactionary’ force; and
dismiss its operational success. These are waiting for the world
revolution. They prefer to let the Palestinians wait for the time
being, as if Gaza were a seashore holiday resort 

these rapidly evaporating solidarity forces we are left with a
miniature Palestinian solidarity movement with an embarrassingly
limited (Western) intellectual power and even less positive performance
on the grass roots level. This tragic situation was disclosed recently
by Nadine Rosa-Rosso,
a Brussels-based independent Marxist. She states: "The vast majority of
the Left, including communists, agrees in supporting the people of Gaza
against Israeli aggression, but refuses to support its political
expressions such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.” This
leads Rossa-Rosso to wonder “why do the Left and far Left mobilize such
small numbers? And indeed, to be clear, are the Left and far Left still
able to mobilize on these issues?”

Where next?

the left’s support for human rights in Palestine is conditional and
dependent on the Palestinians denouncing their religion and ideological
beliefs, cultural heritage, and social traditions and adopting a new
set of beliefs, alien values and social behaviours that matches what
its culture deems acceptable; that means the world is denying them a
most basic human right, the right to think, and to live within a chosen
ethical code.” Nahida Izzat

current left discourse of solidarity is futile. It estranges itself
from its subject, it achieves very little and it seems to go
nowhere. If we want to help the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the other
millions of victims of Western imperialism we really must stop for a
second, take a big breath and start again from scratch.

We must learn to listen. Rather than imposing our belief on others we better learn to listen to what others believe in.

we follow Bustani’s and Rossa-Rosso’s suggestions and revise our entire
notion of Islam, its spiritual roots, its structure, its unified
balance between the civil and the spirit, its vision of itself as a
‘way of living’? Whether we can do so  or not is a good question.

option is to reassess our blindness and to encounter humanist issues
from a humanist perspective (as opposed to political). Rather than
loving ourselves through the suffering of others, which is the ultimate
form of self-loving, we better for the first time, exercise the notion
of real empathy. We put ourselves in the place of the other accepting
that we may never fully understand that very other.

than loving ourselves through the Palestinians and at their expense, we
need to accept Palestinians for what they are and support them for who
they are regardless of our own views on things. This is the only real
form of solidarity. It aims at ethical rather than ideological
conformity. It puts humanity at its very centre. It reflects on Marx’s
deep understanding of religion as the “sigh of the oppressed”. If we
claim to be compassionate about people we better learn to love them for
what they are rather than what we expect them to be.

Gilad Aztmon is a writer and jazz musician living in London. His latest cd is In Loving Memory of America.

‘Transfer’ (Ethnic Cleansing) : Zionist Quotes

BASED On Declassified Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries

Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish State" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem."

It must be emphasized that the concept of "population transfer" was embraced by all shades of opinion in the Zionist movement, from the Revisionist Right to the Labor Left, including the "Moderate" Moshe Sharett and the socialist Arthur Ruppin. Most, if not all, of the below quotes have been researched by Israeli and Jewish historians, who extracted them from declassified Israeli and Zionist archives. For your convenience, each quote has been referenced (along with the page number), and grouped by: the Zionist Leader to whom the quotes is attributed, and by subject matter.

The concept of "transferring" European Jews to Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people out is central to Zionism. Ben-Gurion, the 1st Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated this essential Zionist pillar, he stated in 1944:

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 159)

When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionists had concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." To excuse the "Jewish state" from any WAR CRIMES perpetrated against the Palestinian people (specially the ones committed during the 1948 war), Zionists have concocted a myth that the Palestinian people had willingly left their homes, farms, and businesses, and as a result they have forfeited their right to return.

Related Links

Famous Ethnic Cleansing Quotes

David Ben-Gurion

On July 12, 1937, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary explaining the benefits of the compulsory population transfer (which was proposed in British Peel Commission):

"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty—-this is national consolidation in a free homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Similarly on August 7, 1937 he also stated to the Zionist Assembly during their debate of the Peel Commission:

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the [Palestinian] Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 143)

On the same subject, Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 144)

And in 1938, he also wrote:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas …. I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England …. Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. …. But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 117)

On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah’s regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben-Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2) Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that :

"Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ….. As for the compulsory transfer– as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

And regarding the Peel Commission, on June 9, 1937 he also stated:

"In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear the greatest material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 70)

Ben-Gurion explained how compulsory population transfer could be implemented. He said in 1937:

"…. because we will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty …. And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation — but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption — which has been collaborated in the course of all our activity in the country — that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force." (Righteous Victims, p. 142)

Ben-Gurion became obsessed about "transferring" the Palestinian Arabs out of Palestine, and he started to contemplate the mechanics and potential problems that could arise if "transfer" to be implemented. Ben-Gurion contemplated the "Arab Question" in "Eretz Yisrael" and wrote:

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh’ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

Similarly, he also added

"The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities. The war has already brought the resettlement of many people eastern and southern Europe, and in the plans for the postwar settlements the idea of a large-scale population transfer in central, eastern, and southern Europe increasingly occupies a respectable place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians. 129)

On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)

Ben-Gurion was happy and sad when the U.N. voted to Partition Palestine into two states, Palestinian and Jewish. He was happy because "finally" Jews could have a "country" of their own. On the other hand, he was sad because they have "lost" almost half of Palestine, and because they would have to contend with a sizable Palestinian minority, well over 45% of the total population. In the following few quotes, you will see how he also stated that a "Jewish state" cannot survive being 60% Jewish; implying that something aught to be done to remedy the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated on November 30, 1947:

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Righteous Victims, p. 190)

While addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947, Ben-Gurion stated:

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority …. There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist ‘should be destroyed …. and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.’ Meanwhile, ‘Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.’ " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Ben-Gurion was enchanted that Jerusalem’s neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated that war could be used as an instrument to solve the so called "Arab demographic problem". He stated:

"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:

"Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we’re still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders— it’s an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country’s borders, so there’s no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it’s a desert— it could just as well be the other side. If it’s sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6)

It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the "Jewish state", the quote above is a classical example how the Bible is used to achieve political objectives.

During the same visit to Haifa, Ben-Gurion was told that Abba Khoushi, a labor leader and an official in the Haifa’s City Hall, was trying to persuade Palestinians city to stay. Ben-Gurion reportedly said:

"Doesn’t he have anything more important to do?" (Benny Morris, p. 328)

On June 16, 1948, there were calls by members of the MAPAM party for the return of Jaffa‘s "peace minded" Palestinian refugees, and in response, Ben-Gurion stated during a Cabinet meeting:

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers’ minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)

Similarly, Moshe Sharett agreed with Ben-Gurion on rejecting Palestinian refugees return, and stated during the same Cabinet meeting:

"Can we imagine a return to the status quo ante?" He asked. It was inconceivable. Rather, the government should now perused the Yishuv (Palestinian Jews before 1948) of "the enormous importance of this [demographic] change in terms of the solidity of the state structure and [of] the solution of crucial social and political problems." Israel should be ready to pay compensation for the abandoned land but "they will not return. [That] is out policy. They are not returning." (Benny Morris, p. 141)

Although an important document dating July 16, 1948 is still classified by the Israeli censorship, there is enough information to indicate the link in Ben-Gurion‘s mind between the concept of "transfer" and war. It was at the time that Ben-Gurion stated that he:

"was not surprised" at the Arab exodus and that "we should prevent Arab return at any cost." He also cited ones again the Turkish-Greek war crime as an "example" in which the Turks "expelled the Greeks from Anatolia." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 191-192)

It is extremely ironic to point out that this is the SECOND time in history when Turks are cited as an "example" to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. The first was used by the earliest Zionist leaders (such as Chaim Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, and Moshe Sharett), and the second was used by Hitler when he cited the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians (during WW I) as a precedent for the holocaust, click here if you wish to learn more about the Armenian genocide.

When Ezra Danin, a Cabinet member, proposed installing a puppet Palestinian Government in the Triangle area (northwest of the occupied West Bank), Ben-Gurion had impatiently declared on October 21, 1948 that Palestinians in Israel were good for one thing, running away. He said:

"The Arabs of the land of Israel [ Palestinians] have only one function left to them — to run away." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

With no emotions, ten days later, while Ben-Gurion was on a tour of the Galilee, he describes Palestinian exodus in his dairy as follows:

"and many more still will flee." (Benny Morris, p. 218)

On September 26, 1948, he proposed the Israeli provisional government that Israel should attack the West Bank. Again, he had reiterated how a war could be used as an instrument to "transfer" population, and he used Lydda‘s and Ramla‘s occupation and the subsequent expulsion of their population as a precedent. According to a detail plan of the operation recorded in his diary, Israeli forces would take:

"Bethlehem, and Hebron, where there are about a hundred thousand [Palestinian] Arabs. I assume that most of the Arabs of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron would flee, like the [Palestinian] Arabs of Lydda, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Safad, and we will control the whole breadth of the country up to the Jordan." In another entry he writes: "It is not impossible . . . that we will be able to conquer the way to the Negev, Eilat, and the Dead Sea, and to secure the Negev for ourselves; also to broaden the corridor to Jerusalem, from north to south; to liberate the rest of Jerusalem and to take the Old City; to seize all of central and western Galilee and to expand the borders of the state in all directions" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 48 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 14)

Ironically, when Chaim Laskov proposed the occupation of most of the West Bank in July 1958, Ben-Gurion objected because in his opinion Palestinians have learned that lesson already, simply they won’t run away. He wrote in his diary:

"This time the [Palestinian] Arabs on the West Bank will not run away!," meaning if the Palestinians would flee as a result of war (as what already happened during the 1948 war), he would not mind the occupation and annexation of the West Bank. (Iron Wall, p. 200)

During a meeting for the Mapai party center on July 24, 1948, Ben-Gurion clearly stated his thoughts and attitude towards the Palestinian Arabs, especially in the light of their behavior and flight during the war. He said:

"Meanwhile, [a return of Palestinian refugees] is out of the question until we sit together beside a [peace conference] table . . . and they will respect us to the degree that we respect them and I doubt whether they deserve respect as we do. Because, nevertheless, we did not flee en mass, [And] so far no Arab Einstein has risen and [they] have not created what we have built in this country and [they] have not fought as we are fighting . . . we are dealing here with a collective murderer." (Benny Morris, p. 331)

So in Ben-Gurion‘s opinion, the absence of an Arab Einstein, the fleeing of Palestinian Arabs during war, and not fighting are good reasons for not respecting Palestinians’ rights? It also could be argued that the Christen Crusaders, in comparison to Jewish Zionism, had said similar things about Muslims and Arabs as well. However, after 200 years of Crusaders’ occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, Arabs produced their versions of Einstein (in Cordoba, Seville, Cairo, Toledo, Baghdad, … etc.), and fought well under Saladin‘s command. Along with the subsequent Mongol and Tatar invasions, the Crusade genocide became a sad footnote in the human history. If history shall be used as an example, then it’s too early to ride off Arabs only after five decades of ethnic cleansing and dispossession.


Read more:





This land was theirs

This land was theirs


Hannah Mermelstein, The Electronic Intifada, 24 April 2008


On 20 March 1941, Yosef Weitz of the Jewish National Fund wrote: "The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer."

On this day in 1948, almost two months before the first "Arab-Israeli war" technically began, the 1,125 inhabitants of the Palestinian village Umm Khalid fled a Haganah military operation. Like their brethren from more than 500 villages, they likely thought they would return to their homes within a few weeks, after the fighting blew over and new political borders were or were not drawn.

Instead, more than six million Palestinian people remain refugees to this day, some in refugee camps not far from their original towns, others in established communities in Europe and the US, all forbidden from returning to their homeland for one reason: they are not Jewish.

Yosef Weitz’s wish was granted. In my name, and in the name of Jewish people throughout the world, an indigenous population was almost completely expelled. Village names have been removed from the map, houses blown up, and new forests planted. In Arabic, this is called the Nakba, or catastrophe. In Israel, this is called "independence."

Last month I went with a man from Umm al-Fahm (a Palestinian city in Israel) to his original village of Lajun, only a few miles away. Adnan’s land is now a JNF forest "belonging" to Kibbutz Megiddo.

As we walk the stone path he points to each side of the road, naming the families that used to live there: Mahamid, Mahajne, Jabrin. The land there is not naturally rocky; the stones that we walk on are a graveyard of destroyed houses. Adnan was only six years old when the Haganah’s bullets flew over his head and he and his family fled. But he remembers. He tears up as we stop at the site of his destroyed house and says, "Welcome to my home."

Adnan is an Israeli citizen, yet the land that was stolen from him has been given to a body that refuses to let him live on it. As an American Jew, I could move to Lajun/Megiddo tomorrow, gain full citizenship rights, and live on the land that Adnan’s family has tended for centuries. Adnan, who lives just a few minutes away, is forbidden from doing so.

As we approach the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel, the 60th anniversary of the Nakba, let us remember Adnan. Let us remember the inhabitants of Umm Khalid. Let us remember more than six million people whose basic human rights have been deprived for 60 years, and let us, as Jewish people with a history of oppression and a tradition of social justice, work for the right of indigenous people to return to their land. This is our only hope for true peace and security in the region.

Hannah Mermelstein is a co-founder of Birthright Unplugged and lives in Boston, Philadelphia and Ramallah. This essay was originally published by The Jewish Advocate and is republished with the author’s permission.


Zahar: Gazans can do ‘no less’ than rise up like Warsaw Ghetto Jews

Zahar: Gazans can do ‘no less’ than rise up like Warsaw Ghetto Jews
"Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world’s largest open-air prison, can do no less," Zahar wrote in the newspaper."

The Gaza-based Hamas leader later decried Judaism as having "corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid."

Centarsko - https://centarsko.com

The Only Place Where you can Find Extraordinary Jewelry and Fashion

the Fragrance Writer

An Original Blend of Perfume & Poetry.

Poetry collection

Work by Rain Alchemist

Shannie Alvarez

A Gentile with a Jewish Heart



Diary of an Aesthete

Follow the Journey ☩𓀙𓃦☉

Vinoth Ramachandra

IFES Secretary for Dialogue and Social Engagement

Global Justice in the 21st Century

commentary on global issues

James Perloff

formerly refugebooks.com


Email to ziegler.bill@gmail.com

| truthaholics

Exposing Truth Behind Media Spin

No Time to Think

The words, poems, stories and thoughts of award winning writer and journalist, Nic Outterside

Palestine Momentum

Writers For Palestine

مدونة عزت غيث

قوانين، مذكرات، مقالات المحامي عزت غيث مكتب المحامي عزت نصر غيث : عمان - جبل الحسين - دوار فراس - عمارة قدورة تلفون 0797900678 - 0788850180

Strings of Soulfulness

The strings of my life’s soulfulness in the beauty of eternity.

مدوّنة مريم

“Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.”


"İlahi Ente Maksudi ve Rızake Matlubi"

The question of Palestine

Palestine is still the question

لماذا غزة؟ Why Gaza?

An American searching for answers in the Middle East

Rehmat's World

"There is no compulsion in religion," - Holy Qur'an


The Climate Crises


Generating a fearless and humanising narrative on Palestine!


Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms.. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

Eye On Palestine

By the Palestinian Photographer Ahmad Mesleh

The Passionate Attachment

America's entanglement with Israel

Occupied Palestine | فلسطين

Blogging 4 Human Rights & Liberation of Palestine! فلسطين

Mystery Worshiper's Blog

Searching for churches where His law is Love and His gospel is Peace

The Slog

A Cognitive Dissident

Aletho News


John's Consciousness

Exploring our "Inner Evolution"

Sami, The Bedouin.

Writing from and for Palestine

Maidhc Ó Cathail

Writing and Analysis

%d bloggers like this: