I AM A JEW (PART XVIII - Colonialization at its worst!)

As the title shows this is the 18th part (actually the 19^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII, Part XIV, Part XV, Part XVI and Part XVII.

I have written at length about Israeli unending expansionist policies and its treatment of its indigenous Arab population.

In particular, my post "I AM A JEW (PART XV - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal)" shows the unending encroachment by Israel of the Western Bank, until less and less land is left to the indigenous Arab population

The deception in this campaign and the contempt that Israel has shown for the International community and even the United States can best be illustrated by its policies in Jerusalem.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has declared "We will continue to build in Jerusalem, our eternal capital."

But how many are aware that a Capital needs to have foreign embassies to function as a Capital and that means, at least a tacit recognition by the International community of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. But there is not a single country in the world, including the US, that recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. According to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews:

Countries that have diplomatic relations with Israel—including the United States—have their embassies located outside of Jerusalem, mainly in Tel Aviv, and citizens born in Jerusalem are not officially listed in American documents as having been born in Israel.

But the issue between Israel and the Palestinians has never been about the Jerusalem, as the city has long been constituted. The Palestinians have long been willing to let Israel have Jerusalem as its capital and the P.L.O.’s acceptance would quickly bring International recognition. But Israel has not and has never been content with having the Jerusalem that has its holy sites and that has a majority Jewish population. It knows the Arabs want a piece of Jerusalem that is primarily populated by Palestinians as its own Capital, and that this is a sin qua non for the P.L.O. in peace negotiations.

So instead of trying to find a sensible demarcation line between the two ethnic groups, it has chosen to invent a new Jerusalem, which not only encompasses the historic Jerusalem, but a new invented Jerusalem that encompasses territory that has never been part of the city of Jerusalem.

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories informs us, and I quote:

Between 1948 and June of 1967, Jerusalem was divided in two: West Jerusalem, which covered an area of about 38 square kilometers was under Israeli control, and East Jerusalem, which contained an area of some 6 sq. km, was ruled by Jordan. In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel. (Emphasis added)

And so Israel, without regard to any Palestinian rights, seizes, expropriates, steals, (or whatever you want to call its land seizures) Palestinian land and declares all these former 28 Palestinian villages part of Jerusalem. This one could hope, is a way for Palestinians to be given an area for their capital that is called Jerusalem. But even here, Israel is determined to thwart this aspiration, and is incorporating these new settlements into the new Jerusalem, in order to make sure that Palestinians cannot claim even a pseudo Jerusalem for their own Capital.

For more on Jerusalem, I refer the reader to therealnews.com where a video discussion is available.

Again I find myself quoting from Jeff Halper, the Director of Icahd the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for nothing I can say can put the situation in better perspective.

Well, I think--look, I think the basic problem is that there's an entire disconnect between, on the Palestinian side, resistance and, on the Israeli side, occupation and military force, and any political process. In other words, there is no more political process. The two-state solution is gone. The Kerry initiative failed.

 And Israel is in the process of finalizing its Judaization of Jerusalem. There is no more Palestinian East Jerusalem. It's buried under the weight of settlements and Israeli highways. Israelis are moving in just freely into Palestinian neighborhoods and taking them over. And in a sense, then, what was resistance to try to get a Palestinian state or try to resolve the problem is simply there is no resistance because there's no political process. And so it's all declined into just lashing out, you know, the driving of cars and killing people by trains… there's nothing else to do if you're a Palestinian but just to lash out or be solemn and stay at home and watch your home being taken or being demolished.

 And on the Israeli side as well, the attack on Gaza this summer, the everyday killing of Palestinians in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, everywhere, is also indicative of the fact that the violence on the Israeli side is disconnected from anything political. In other words, we're in a stage where Israel says, no more [two-state] solution, it's over, and you either live with us and submit or you get out or you die. That's really the Israeli message, so that I think on both sides the violence is increasing, but it's increasing with no political context whatsoever.

But it has now become obvious that in all these years of negotiations with the P.L.O., Israel’s negotiations have never been in good faith, with the possible exception of those conducted by the martyred, Yitzhak Rabin. He paid with his life for conducting serious negotiations.

Now the pretense of decades of insincere “negotiations”, which always had, intentionally,  one or more conditions that Israel knew would not, could not, be accepted by the Palestinians, stands exposed.

Israel will not accept anything less than the complete annexation of the West Bank, - it intends to seize and occupy all of Palestine.

The entire pretense has come to an end!!!

Naftali Bennett, a member of the Netanyahu government, as minister of the economy, and leader of the Jewish Home Party in Israel’s coalition government ends the pretense.  In an op-ed article in the New York Times entitled: “For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution” he writes:

The time has come to rethink the two-state solution.

I give Mr. Bennett credit for one thing. An honest announcement for what has long been Israeli policy hidden behind insincere pronouncements and insincere negotiations, while all the while gobbling up Palestinian lands and forcing Palestinians into ever-smaller Bantustans.

What does Mr. Bennett propose in specifics? No more negotiations.

Instead he would give the Palestinians these portions of the West Bank and I quote:

known as Areas A and B, according to the Oslo Accords.

According to the The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD):  

Area A comprises 18% of the West Bank, B another 22%, leaving a full 60%, Area C, including most of Palestinian farmland and water, under exclusive Israeli control. - These areas, comprising 64 islands, shape the contours of the “cantons” Sharon proposed as the basis of the future Palestinian state. The emerging Bantustan will thus consist of five truncated cantons: a northern one around Nablus and Jenin; a central one around Ramallah; a southern one around Bethlehem and Hebron; enclaves in East Jerusalem; and Gaza. In this scheme Israel will expand from its present 78% to 85-90%, with the Palestinian state confined to just 10-15% of the country. 

ICAHD goes on to explain:

Israel defines its policy of ensuring permanent control over the Occupied Territories as “creating facts on the ground.” In this conception, Israeli control must be made immune from any external or internal pressures to remove Israel from the Occupied Territories (which Israel vehemently denies is an occupation at all), as well as to foreclose forever the possibility of a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state. Nevertheless, …(they) recognize that Israel needs a Palestinian state, since it can neither extend citizenship to the Territories’ three and a half million Palestinians nor deny it to them. It also needs a Palestinian state to relieve itself of the necessity of accepting the refugees. A Bantustan, a cantonized Palestinian mini-state controlled by Israel yet possessing a limited independence, thus solves Israel’s fundamental dilemma of how to keep control over the entire country yet “get rid of” its Palestinian population (short of actual “transfer”).

In quoting the above I deleted a reference to Sharon’s plan, because what we are talking about is Bennett’s. But it isn’t new. It had been the late Sharon’s long ago. It just wasn’t publicized.

Under Bennet’s plan the Palestinians would be crowded into small non-contingent areas, scattered around Palestine, with no connection between them, subject to Israeli entry and exit controls and completely dependent for their survival on the beneficence of the Israeli government. Were the South-Africans any different?

This is how infoplease.com described them:

In 1962 the South African government established the first of the bantustans, the Transkei, as the homeland of the Xhosa people, and granted it limited self-government in 1963, later becoming "independent." Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, and Venda were also granted "independence," but no nation other than South Africa recognized them. Lebowa, Kangwane, Gazankulu, Qwaqwa, KwaZulu, and KwaNdebele were declared "self-governing" in the 1970s.

None of the reserves were viable nations; they were made up of broken tracts of poor-quality land, riddled with erosion and incapable of supporting their large designated populations. With no industry, opportunities for employment were few.

Can anyone find significant differences between South Africa’s policy under Apartheid and the Bennett proposal?

Allow me to show the reader a map of the proposed plan:

The little brown spots would be what the Palestinians would be crowded into. Carter may have been pre-mature in talking about apartheid, but he sure was prophetic.

As I have said in previous posts the governing party in Israel is Likud. It’s Original Party Platform, according to the Jewish Virtual Library states:

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Given this platform, how could anyone ever have been deceived into believing that a two state solution was possible under such a government? It is not Hamas and certainly not the P.L.O. that stands in the way of an end to the conflict. It is the messianic aim of Israel's ruling party, to do that which Bennett proposes. His talk about building the Palestinian economy is necessary window-dressing to an Apartheid plan that keeps Palestinians outside of Palestine forever as refugees, not ever to be allowed to return to ancestral homes, and to keep such Palestinians as remain in Palestine as a discriminated against, poverty stricken, minority, with few civil rights, and in so far as some remaining in Israel may keep their vote, it will always intend to be, and will remain, a vote that has no influence, and even less power.

An American liberal community cannot, or at least should not, be a party to such human rights abuses. It cannot, it must not, turn its back on its long commitment to civil and human rights. To make an exception for Israel is worse than to have sanctioned the abuses that the Jewish community so long opposed, fought against, and in some cases died for, in the United States.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART XII - The Death of Klinghoffer)

As the title shows this is the 11th part (actually the 12^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," "I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)," "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)," "I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)", "I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud)" ,"I AM A JEW (PART IX- The Palestinian Diaspora & The Right of Return)", "I AM A JEW (PART X - The Abject Poverty of the Palestinians)" and "I AM A JEW (PART XI) The Israeli Propaganda Machine."

In my last post I said: “I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.”

However, I cannot resist publishing a comment from Bruce Weintraub
who exclaimed: 

“You are the greatest.  You should be the President.”

On October 20, 2014 the opera “The Death of Klinghoffer“ opened at the Metropolitan Opera in Mew York City. It was met by picketing following a barrage of criticism that preceded its opening.

The Met synopsis shows little that one can find objectionable. I wonder how many of the picketers have seen the opera, or have much, if any, knowledge of its story line. The opera’s premiere was in 1991 in Brussels, Belgium and its American and New York premiere was at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. None of these earlier renditions drew protests or were controversial. It is difficult to understand why it has become so controversial now, 23 years after its premiere. 

The children of the murdered Klinghoffer have issued a statement of condemnation now, even though they saw it at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991. Why not then? Why now? One cannot help but wonder! Have they been asked to do this by the propaganda organizations referred to in my last post “I AM A JEW (PART XI - The Israeli Propaganda Machine)” to distract attention from the wanton murder of thousands of Gazan Palestinians.

That is not to minimize, or worse, to justify the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. Murder is murder and it can’t be justified. But I come back to my question what about the murder of thousands of Gazans.

Does the comment attributed to Joseph Stalin “A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic” apply? Or is it that Jewish lives have so much more value than Palestinian ones.

Since Israel was founded there have been many massacres. Some I have referred to. Others I have not. There were just too many.  I have written extensively about Deir Yassin in my posts I AM A Jew (Part II) and I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud) but there were so many more. Many, many, by the Palestinians with their roadside bombs and other means. But these have all been well publicized. The Israeli ones not so well.

Wikipedia covers both very well under the title “Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war." 

I quote from the article:

Yishuv (or later Israeli) soldiers killed roughly 800 Arab civilians and prisoners of war. Most of these killings occurred as villages were overrun and captured during the Second phase of the Civil War, Operation Dani, Operation Hiram and Operation Yoav.

… the "worst cases" were the Saliha massacre with 60 to 70 killed, the Deir Yassin massacre with around 100, Lydda massacre with around 250 and the Abu Shusha massacre with 60-70. In Al-Dawayima, accounts of the death toll vary. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports 100-200 casualties^] Morris has estimated "hundreds" and also reports the IDF investigation which concluded 100 villagers had been killed David Ben-Gurion gave the figure of 70-80. Saleh Abd al-Jawad reports the village's mukhtar account that 455 people were missing following the al-Dawayima massacre, including 170 women and children.

Did it end in 1948? Are my readers aware of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, in which between 762 and 3,500 civilians, mostly Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites were murdered in cold blood? See here. 

No Israelis were directly responsible, but:

In 1983, the Israeli Kahan Commission, appointed to investigate the incident, found that Israeli military personnel, aware that a massacre was in progress, had failed to take serious steps to stop it. The commission deemed Israel indirectly responsible, and Ariel Sharon, then Defense Minister, bore personal responsibility "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge", forcing him to resign. (Ibid)

One might have thought that this was the end of Sharon’s political career, but on “February 6, 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister." See here. 

But all this is just statistics, as Stalin might have said.

How about the murder of an individual? Does the name Folke Bernadotte ring a bell? I quote from the Jewish Virtual Library:

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.

Bernadotte, a Swede with family ties to the Swedish King, gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. Bernadotte used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler and saved thousands of Jews from concentration camps, although many argue that he could have done more had he been less cautious in negotiations.

Well, the reader might say, there are always rogue elements, who do outrageous things but surely Israel and its leaders can’t be held responsible.

Allow me to quote the last paragraph from the last paragraph from the Jewish Virtual Library post:

Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and years later was elected as Israel's eighth Prime Minister.

Israeli propaganda has made much of Hamas hiding weapons in Houses of Worship and in schools etc.

Again allow me to quote from Haaretz: See here or here.

Can you believe it? Groups hiding arms in places of worship, schools, even kindergartens. Welcome to pre-state Israel, where comparisons with Gaza are not welcome.

… the British, who were the rulers of the land, prohibited the possession of weapons. They were therefore concealed in a hiding place under the foundations of the first public building. In that building was a grocery, a clinic and a kindergarten. The entrance to the secret weapons storage was underneath the kindergarten toilet.

…The British, by the way, searched Rishpon and found nothing. They did not consider the possibility of blowing up the kindergarten because it might be used to store weapons.

…There was no Jewish settlement in the country that did not have a “slik” – as these storage sites were known – all in the heart of “civilian population concentrations,” of course. At Ein Ganim there was a slik in a synagogue… 

…Schools served as training installations, even as weapons production workshops.

But all we hear is the Palestinians this, the Palestinians that and the slogan "Israel Has the Right to Defend itself."

But maybe, just maybe, it is time for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete. 

I AM A JEW (PART VIII - Hamas & Likud)

As the title shows this is the eighth part (actually the ninth, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," "I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)," "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)" and "I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)"

In my previous postings, and particularly in I AM A Jew (Part II) I pointed out that the party of Prime Minister Netanyahu, Likud, is the successor to terrorists, i.e.Irgun, and has in its charter, which it has never revoked, an absolute rejection of a two state solution: I quote once more from the charter:

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting….

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River. (emphasis added)

So that its posturing about negotiating with the PLO about recognizing a Palestinian State is just that, posturing, as is their denouncing Hamas for mot being willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist, a demand that they (Israel) be granted that which they will not grant in reciprocity.

And Likud today has become a “moderate” party compared to its coalition partner, headed by Avigdor Lieberman, a member of the even more radical party, Yisrael Beiteinu, which takes a strong line towards the peace process and the integration of Israeli Arabs, characterized by its 2009 election slogan "No loyalty, no citizenship." (Loyalty oaths –shades of Joe McCarthy)

This led to a clash with Ariel Sharon, no great liberal himself, who condemned Lieberman's statements, that only those Arab Israelis who migrated from the area to within Israel's new borders and pledged loyalty to Israel would be allowed to remain Israeli citizens. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon condemned Lieberman's statements, stating "We regard Israeli Arabs as part of the State of Israel. See here.

But allow me for the purpose of this post to go back to 1948 when the Likud Party was in its infancy and Menachim Begin, later associated with the peace treaty with Egypt, but nevertheless, a man who represented and still represents the essence of Likud and its history, which I don’t think we can afford to lose sight of.

I set forth in full a letter to the New York Times signed by such leading intellectuals as Albert Einstein, Sidney Hook and Hannah Arendt:

TO THE EDITORS OF NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.





Attack on Arab Village



A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants (240 men, women, and children) and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.





Discrepancies Seen



The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin's efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.





The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.





ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ,

HANNAH ARENDT,

ABRAHAM BRICK,

RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO,

ALBERT EINSTEIN,

HERMAN EISEN, M.D.,

HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D.,

H.H. HARRIS,

ZELIG S. HARRIS,

SIDNEY HOOK,

FRED KARUSH,

BRURIA KAUFMAN,

IRMA L. LINDHEIM,

NACHMAN MAISEL,

SEYMOUR MELMAN,

MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D.,

HARRY M. OSLINSKY,

SAMUEL PITLICK,

FRITZ ROHRLICH,

LOUIS P. ROCKER,

RUTH SAGIS,

ITZHAK SANKOWSKY,

I.J. SHOENBERG,

SAMUEL SHUMAN,

M. SINGER,

IRMA WOLFE,

STEFAN WOLFE.

New York, Dec. 2, 1948



This does not leave the successors to this group in much of a position to complain of terrorism.

At the same time we find that the claim that Hamas refuses to recognize a Jewish state is no longer valid.

The British newspaper The Global Mail reported days ago:

Hamas is endorsing Mr. Abbas’s plan for establishing a state within the so-called “1967 borders” that delineated the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In effect, Hamas now accepts Israel’s existence and the previous agreements arrived at between the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel. See here.

I do not condemn the present Israeli government coalition as not being worthy of being a partner to honest negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would encompass Gaza and most of the West Bank. I cite these items of history only to illustrate that this government is in a poor position to denounce as terrorists other necessary parties to successful negotiations. Hamas is not the problem! It is, and must be part of the solution.

Furthermore the collective punishment of the Palestinian people for the perceived sins of their leaders, is not to be tolerated. The killing of untold innocent civilians is not to be tolerated. In its most recent count, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 2,104 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 1,462 civilians, among them 495 children and 253 women. Those U.N. numbers would mean that 69 percent of the total killed were civilians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this week that Israeli forces­ had killed “approximately 1,000 terrorists,” See here. To believe that, one would have to suspend disbelieve.

Let us look at the figures. A little over 2,000 were killed. Of those 495 were children and 253 were women. That equals roughly 750., leaving roughly 1,250 many of whom may very well have been elderly.  So that among the men, according to Netanyahu, all but 250 of the men killed were terrorists. And that defines all Palestinian combatants as terrorists, rather than combatants. Is this credible? Hardly!!!

But it is a convenient way to define all opposition to the Israeli blockade, the Israeli pass laws and the Israeli policy of keeping Gaza a prison. Gazans have a right to resist.

And in the meantime the unrelenting expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem continues, constantly shrinking the areas open to negotiation. From the Jerusalem Post of October 2, 2014: See here.

The United States expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Israel had moved forward plans for settlements in east Jerusalem, warning the move would call into question Israel's commitment to peace with the Palestinians.

Furthermore, after announcing the end of the destruction of the homes of families of suspected malefactors as long ago as February 18, 2005, which I referred to in my post "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)" Israel appears to have resumed this barbaric practice.

Yahoo News reports: 

Hebron, occupied West Bank - Sobbing, Ghada Qawasmeh stares at her destroyed home, a two-story stone villa the family built over the course of nine years. The mother of seven is inconsolable, thinking of her husband, Hussam, who is now in an Israeli prison. "This is collective punishment," she says. "What did I or my children do?"

Before dawn on Monday, Israeli troops destroyed the Qawasmeh family's house in Hebron in the occupied West Bank. Israeli officials said the demolition was carried out as punishment for Hussam Qawasmeh's alleged involvement in the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli settler teens in June, and came after Israel's supreme court gave its approval.

How much longer will American Jews of conscience, tolerate these nationalistic, jingoistic, intolerant and inhumane polices of the Israeli government? Was Hussam Qawasmeh even tried or convicted before his family’s home was destroyed. Is this the behavior of a land of law and justice?

We would never tolerate such behavior from our own government.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)

As the title shows this is the seventh part (actually the 8^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)" and "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)."

As the reader is well aware by now, I am very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. However, I do want to give some space toward the opposite viewpoint, though, obviously, not equal space. My problem with the arguments defending Israeli policy is that the bulk of those come from the Right Wing media, and I call attention to those who consider themselves liberals, or progressives, which is the more popular term these days, that they frequently circulate articles from sources that they would never rely on for any other purpose.

However, there is one voice that is unquestionably progressive and yet a staunch defender of Israeli policies and that is Alan Dershowitz. Wikipedia describes him as “A political liberal."

In his article, which appeared in the Jerusalem Post dated July 7, 2014 entitled The current conflict between Israel and Hamas shatters myths (Those who want to read the article in full can find it here.), he makes a number of arguments or what he calls myths.

Myth 1: The primary cause of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the occupation of the West Bank and Israel’s settlement policy.

He then goes on to rebut this hypothesis. This, it seems to me is setting up a straw man for I am not aware that this has been put forth as the casus belli for the recent conflict in Gaza. Instead, as I have pointed out, the cause for the rocket attacks form Gaza were triggered by Israel’s rounding up and imprisoning without trial 500 members of Hamas in response to the murder of three teenage Israelis by members of Hamas, without the approval, or even knowledge, of the Hamas leadership. (Emphasis added.)

He argues that the attacks from Gaza on Israel:

...are incited by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria and others opposed to the very concept of the nationstate for the Jewish people. The best proof of this reality is that these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza and uprooted all the civilian settlements from that area. Israel left behind agricultural hothouses and other equipment that the residents of Gaza could have used to build a decent society.

This is a damming charge. For it puts forth that Gaza had been given its full freedom to govern itself and to build a prosperous economy and it rewards Israel with attacks upon it. What are the facts?

According to the Washington Post:  

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the withdrawal was to increase security of residents of Israel, relieve pressure on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, claims that the withdrawal is the result of violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. (Emphasis added)

But what about Dershowitz’s charge?:

… that these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza…(and) left behind agricultural hothouses and other equipment that the residents of Gaza could have used to build a decent society.

Here we must look to Peter Beinart, another Jewish liberal. In his article Gaza myths and Facts (I urge you to read the article in full) he writes:

If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

… But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha has detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland). (Emphasis added.)

He adds: 

Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

He goes on to point out: 

To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state.

Now when we look to Dershowitz’s allegations such as: 

…these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza…

Beinart corrects the record by pointing out:

…militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of the second intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.

Returning to Dershowitz’s allegations: 

Moreover, there was no siege of Gaza at that time. Gaza was free to become a Singapore on the Mediterranean. Instead, Hamas engaged in a coup d’état, murdering many members of the PA, seizing control of all of Gaza, and turning it into a militant theocracy. It used the material left behind by the Israelis not to feed its citizens but to build rockets with which to attack Israeli civilians. It was only after these rocket attacks that Israel began a siege of Gaza designed to prevent the importation of rockets and material used to build terrorist kidnap tunnels. 

I have already addressed the claim that there was no siege of Gaza at the time above. There was! As to the claim that “Hamas engaged in a coup d’état” Beinart points out: 

But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote - forty-five percent - but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament.

Beinart goes on to say:

So yes, members of Hamas did throw their Fatah opponents off rooftops. Some of that may have been payback because Dahlan was widely believed to have overseen the torture of Hamas members in the 1990s. Regardless, in winning the battle for Gaza, Hamas—which had already shed much Israeli blood - shed Palestinian blood too. But to suggest that Hamas “seized power” - as American Jewish leaders often do - ignores the fact that Hamas’ brutal takeover occurred in response to an attempted Fatah coup backed by the United States and Israel. In the words of David Wurmser, who resigned as Dick Cheney’s Middle East advisor a month after Hamas’ takeover, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen.”

As for the greenhouses Beinart writes:

Israel responded to Hamas’ election victory by further restricting access in and out of Gaza. As it happens, these restrictions played a key role in explaining why Gaza’s greenhouses did not help it become Singapore. American Jewish leaders usually tell the story this way: When the settlers left, Israel handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians, hoping they would use them to create jobs. Instead, Palestinians tore them down in an anti-Jewish rage.

But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating.

Facts, facts, facts;. They do get in the way of our pre-conceptions. But if we are to objectively analyze a problem, a conflict, or find a solution, we must start with the facts, and Beinart sets them forth without distortion and without bias.

I am only excerpting Beinart’s analysis here, but those who really want to see what the facts are should read both Dershowitz’s article and Beinart’s in full.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any until this series is complete.