Amusing & Insightful Current Event Articles

Wednesday
Novemeber 18, 2009

Blowback At Fort Hood

Any attempt to digest all the pablum pumped out about Major Nidal Hassan since his November 5th shooting rampage at Fort Hood in which thirteen soldiers died would probably require several cases of Tums, some Pepto-Bismol and a peck of Metamucil. The mass media, the Army and President Barack Obama have really outdone themselves with one stupid piece of lukewarm politically correct idiocy after another. "The man needed help" "Let's not rush to judgment" etc. The murders seem perfectly straightforward to me or to anyone gifted with a grain of common sense.

In my theory the man was a jihadist or Salafist-in other words an actual terrorist, unlike those poor big-mouthed fools like the pizza delivery boys who plotted to invade Fort Dix, brandishing sticks of pepperoni one presumes, or the inner city youths from Florida who planned, without benefit of training or explosives, to somehow blow up the Hancock Tower in Chicago.

Yes, they do exist, you know. There really are jihadists and Salafists in the world. Prepare, as the United States continues its evil and genocidal wars against people who by a remarkable coincidence happen to be Muslims, to meet a whole lot more of them. This is what it's like to be at the center of an Evil Empire.

First, let's examine mass murderers in general, so that I can explain why in my opinion Major Hasan was not a mass murderer but a jihadist, and also dispose of the canard that a man who was not a trained commando could not possibly have shot thirteen people in a small room by himself without others having been involved.

Mass Murderers
A mass murderer differs from a serial killer, with whom they are often confused, in that they go out in a blaze of glory, with a large number of murders committed on one or at the most two days. Generally the mass murderer will end his killing rampage by either committing suicide or "suicide by cop". Let's look at some typical cases.

1. The Columbine Killers

Eric Harris and Dylan Kliebold were two outcast loners at the Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. As seniors they seemed to have few plans on what to do with their lives, although Eric Harris had applied to the armed forces and been rejected.

On April 30th 1999, Harris and Kliebold entered the Columbine High School and began to systematically murder everyone they saw, using automatic weapons and homemade bombs.
When the massacre was over, half an hour later, fifteen students lay dead and forty injured. The dead included Harris and Kliebold, who had both shot themselves in the head.

2. The Port Arthur Massacre

On April 28th, 1996, a disturbed young man named Martin Bryant went on a shooting spree at a tourist resort at Port Arthur, Tasmania, the site of a former penal colony. Before the massacre was over he had killed 35 people and wounded another 19, making him as far as I have been able to discover, the world's most prolific mass murderer.

He was a young man of subnormal intelligence, an alcoholic, who had been left a considerable estate by a widow for whom he had worked. The money did him little good as he seemed incapable of forming relationships with other people, especially women. Unusually for a mass murderer, Martin Bryant, while horribly burned and injured, survived his murderous rampage and pled guilty to his crimes.

3. Marc Lepine

On December 6th, 1989, students at the University of Montreal prepared for the end of term. At the Ecole Polytechnique 60 students sat down for an engineering class. At that moment the door was kicked in by a young man carrying an automatic weapon. At first the students giggled as he separated them into two groups, male and female, assuming that this was some end of term prank. Lepine then asked the male students to leave the room. The next moment Lepine opened fire on the females. Six fell dead instantly with three wounded. Lepine then started to roam the building ,screaming, "I want the women!" and firing and killing at will.

Eventually Lepine calmly shot himself in the head with his weapon. The final death toll was fourteen girls killed and thirteen male and female students injured, some of them gravely.

Marc Lepine was of an above-average intelligence but he seemed to lose his way. He was obsessed by the Army and war films, and when his application to join the military was rejected he fell apart, much as did Columbine killer Eric Harris.

Do any of these individuals sound like Major Hasan to you? In the first place these boys were all between 18 and 25, and either had no futures at all, or thought that they didn't, which at their ages amounted to the same thing.

In a word, they were losers. Compare this to Major Hasan, who was in the prime of life, 39, with a $92,000 annual salary, a good position in life, who, unlike Eric Harris and Marc Lepine, not only was accepted into the military but was an officer. Also, why did Columbine happen? No real reason. Why did the Port Arthur Massacre happen? It's anyone's guess. Why did the shooting at the Ecole Polytechnique occur? Some impenetrable grudge against coeds.

Do you have any doubt, any reasonable doubt as to why Major Hasan went into that room shouting "God is Great" and started firing?

Because he was sickened and revolted by US foreign policy against Muslims, is why, and determined to die a martyr for his faith rather than continue a miserable existence as a cog in the machine of US militarism.

I have also read on several other blogs that this Major Hasan had no commando training and could not have committed all the murders himself. Really? What commando training did Harris and Kliebold possess? Did Martin Bryant have commando training? He managed to kill 35 people in an extremely brief period of time. Marc Lepine had no commando training either yet managed to kill 14 girls in the space of time it took to call in the campus police. Automatic or semi-automatic weapons can exact a gruesome toll in a very brief period of time, especially in crowded rooms filled with panicked people. Many of the Fort Hood survivors speak of the bullets ricocheting off the metal tables and chairs in the room where the crimes were committed and striking others. It would not even be necessary to aim.

While I cannot say that I condone at all what Major Hasan did- it seems to me the correct thing to have done in his place would be to go to Afghanistan, desert, and join the insurgency, killing other armed men instead of defenseless people-I am constantly amazed that US foreign policy by its utter loathsomeness does not drive more people to do crazy things.

We are the country who destroyed an Arab country- Iraq-for the sheer joy of it and killed millions of Iraqis, including many infants who died of hunger during the years of sanctions placed on Iraq. Not only this but we had two Secretaries of State, Madeline Albright and Condoleeza Rice who made statements to the effect that this was "worth it". To whom? To the dead?

Let's face it-we have morphed into The Bad Guys, The Nazis, The Evil Empire. As we are not a true democracy I am not sure what the average citizen can do. There is no point in voting for one or the other wing of the War Party. There is no point in voting.
Hopefully the economic situation and the crisis of capitalism will force a change in the policies in Washington on account of lack of revenues if nothing else. Until then we can just hope for a miracle to rid ourselves of this militaristic, wicked regime which outlasts President after President.

Top

Monday 30, 2009

White Book on Isratine
by Muammar al-Gathafi


This White Book aims to achieve a just and equitable solution to the perennial so-called Middle East question and to rid the region of the disastrous effects of violence, war and destruction.  In doing so it presents the problem in a serious, objective and neutral manner.  The Book compiles views and concepts previously put forward by Arabs and Jews alike in addition to international plans and projects for its solution.  They all support and vindicate the solution propounded in this work.  No other concept will be able to resolve the problem.

Palestine

This is the name recorded in the history and scriptures of the country.  It derives from the name of its original inhabitants – the Philistines.  The Old Testament books of Genesis, Deuteronomy and Joshua acknowledge that name for the land.  The Old Testament, among other things, records the names of the Anaqites, the Rephaites, the Canaanites, the Jebusites, the Hittites and the Phoenicians.  The Book of Exodus explicitly states, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines”.

The name “Palestine” persisted throughout the British Mandate.  It is mentioned in the various projects and settlement plans proposed during that period.  This fact is acknowledged even by the zealots of the Zionist Movement; for example, Samuel Katz, founder of the Herut Zionist movement and one of the leaders of the Etzel National Military Organization who wrote, “All Zionist institutions in the world bore the name of Palestine”.

His examples include:  The Zionist ‘Anglo-Palestine’ Bank, the Jewish Foundation Fund (which was known as the Palestine Foundation Fund), and the Palestine Workers Fund, which was Jewish.  He noted that, in the Diaspora, the songs about Palestine were Zionist anthems.

He also noted that, as emigrants in foreign lands, they would celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles as the Feast of the Palestinian Tabernacles.  He states that the Palestine Post, which went under the name al-Barid al-Fiolistini, was a Zionist newspaper, the mouthpiece of the Zionist Federation.  “The name of Palestine,” he wrote, “was only replaced after the establishment of what was called the State of Israel”.  

He admits that the Hebrew language only came into use in the reign of Tiberius in the 10th century.  Even President Roosevelt of the USA, in a reply to Prince Abdallah of Jordan in March 1944 wrote, “With regard to Palestine, I am pleased to communicate to you the assurances that the United States of American has no plan to take any decision to change the situation in Palestine without full consultation of both Arabs and Jews.”

Irrespective of the name, the history of Palestine fits the general pattern of other countries in the region.  Like those countries, it is a country that was inhabited by different peoples.  Dominance and political power changed hands repeatedly between many tribes, nations and ethnic groups, some of whom were immigrants and some of
whom were invaders.  Like other countries in the region, it has seen many wars and stood witness to waves of human immigration from all directions.

Therefore, from an historical perspective, no one has the right to claim ownership of it as their land.  That would amount to no more than an unsubstantiated claim.  If no one party can claim the right to one part of Palestine, neither can they lay just claim to any other part.

    
A State for the Jews

The original idea of Theodore Hertzl was to establish a Jewish state as a safe haven for the Jews.  The immediate motive behind that idea lay in the persecution to which the Jews were subject, specifically in Europe, before Hitler’s time.  Cyprus, Argentina, Uganda, Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Palestine and Sinai were suggested as locations for the establishment of the Jewish state which was proposed as a way to rid Europe of its Jews.  Therefore, as this narrative confirms, Palestine was not necessarily or inevitably the national homeland of the Jews.

Balfour Declaration

The real intent behind the Declaration was to rid Europe of the Jews, rather than to express sympathy for them.

The Persecution of the Jews

The Jews are an unfortunate people.  They have suffered greatly at the hands of governments, leaders and other peoples since ancient times.  Why?  Because this is the will of God, just as the Koran makes clear in the accounts of Egypt’s Pharaoh, and as the treatment meted out to them at the hands of the rules of Babylon, the Roman emperors, from Titus to Hadrian, and the kinds of England, such as Edward I, illustrates.

The Jews have been banished, held captive, massacred, disadvantaged and persecuted in every possible fashion at the hands of the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites, and, more recently, at the hands of Hitler.


The Arabs and the Jews

There is no enmity between Arabs and Jews.  In fact, the Jews are Adnanite cousins to the Arabs on their father’s side, who was a descendant of Abraham, peace be upon him.  When the Jews were persecuted, their Arab brothers invited them to live alongside them in the town of al-Medina.  They even gave them the land of Wadi al-Qura, thus named in reference to the Jewish villages [Al.qura].

Following the emergence of Islam under the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, the Jews found the notion of a prophet from outside their number unpalatable so, they showed hostility towards him.  Some attacks against them took place, just as there were attacks against those from the Quraish, who refused to accept Islam and against Arabs who initially accepted Islam but subsequently rejected it.

The Jews, along with the Arabs, were expelled from Andalusia at the end of the 15th century.  They all found refuge in the Arab countries.  That is why there is a Jewish quarter in every Arab country.  There, they lived in peace and friendship with their Arab brothers.


Proposed Solutions Based on the establishment of a Single State

British Proposals:

1)  Walkhope Plan

This was proposed by the British High Commissioner in Palestine at the beginning of the 1920’s.  It proposed for the establishment of a Palestinian Legislative Council comprising 11 Muslim, 4 Christian and 7 Jewish members, in proportion to the demographic composition of Palestine at that time.


2)  The Newcomb Plan

i)     Establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state   
ii)     Broad sectarian freedom
iii)     Broad municipal freedom
iv)     Decentralization


3)  The British White Paper of 1939

i)    Independent federal Palestinian state
ii)   Consultative Council comprising Arabs and Jews
iii)  Executive Council comprising Arabs and Jews
4)  Lord Morrison’s Plan

i)    Central government
ii)   Four administrative areas:  Arab area, Jewish area, Jerusalem and the Negev
iii)  Local government and Legislative Council for each area

All these proposals were rejected for non-substantive reasons; for example, dissatisfaction with the size of the areas or towns awarded to one side, differences over the duration of the British mandate, or matters relating to the number of immigrants.


The Zionist Proposals:

1)  The first proposal was made by the so-called ‘Peace Federation’, led by Rabbi Benjamin, who called for a bi-national state.  The Jews were warned that the failure to accept a single bi-national state would not bring about peace for them.  As was predicted, this is exactly what has happened.

2)  The confederate or federal solution proposed by Meir Emmit, a prominent leader in the Zionist movement and the Haganah organization, who held a number of important and prominent military positions.  He was also, among other things, a Knesset member and a cabinet minister.

He believed that a strategic concession on the occupied land, by which he naturally meant territory such as Sinai, the Golan, the West Bank and Gaza, would be tantamount to relinquishing tangible gains for which, according to him, there could be no compensation.  Although Egypt had offered territories in return, the negotiations were subject to alterations.  

He discussed the feasibility of establishing a federal state giving the examples of the European Union; the United States of America, which, according to him, experienced 13 years of turmoil up to 1789; and Nigeria, a multi-denominational and multi-national state in his view.  He wrote that the economic, military, geographical and historical considerations that underpin such a solution existed in Palestine.

He further noted that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state constituted a grave danger.  In order to avert those dangers, a single federal state had to be established.  “The problem of Jerusalem,” he wrote, “can be simply resolved by making it the federal capital”.

3)  Proposal of the German Zionists:  The 12th Conference of the German Zionists (the Structuralist School), convened on 11 September 1921, adopting the concept of establishing a single state for both parties, and thereby “establishing a place in alliance with the Palestinian Arab people for our joint security in a developing state.  The structure of the state shall guarantee the national development of every individual of our two peoples without interference or prejudice”.


Arab Proposals:

1)  The First Proposal of King Abdallah:       

i)    One Kingdom
ii)   Administration selected by the Jews in areas inhabited by them
iii)  One Parliament, in which Jews were to be represented in proportion to their demographic share.
iv) Mixed Cabinet


2)  The Second Proposal of King Abdallah:            

Partition of Palestine between Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, with the remainder left to the Jews.



3)  The Proposal of Nuri Al-Said 1942:

i)    One state
ii)   Jewish autonomy within this state

All pre-1948 proposals called for a single state and some approached the Jews as the Palestinians are now treated, namely in terms of offering them autonomy and partition of lands.  The failure to accept the notion of a single state is thus the historical mistake which lies behind today’s tragedy.  A declaration establishing one state by one party for its own benefit is also a mistake.  The concept of partition has proven its failure and will continue to do so.

Before 1948 the Jews were regarded in just the same manner as the Palestinians are regarded today.  They were a minority in Palestine, fed illusions of self-rule at one moment, and autonomous Jewish areas at another.  Palestinians were in the majority.  That is why they rejected the well-known partition resolution of 1947.  Following 1948 this situation was reversed.  The Palestinians became the minority as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars.

The Jews became the majority within the area called Israel.  Promises of self-rule, Arab areas and partition were made to the Arabs, just as they had previously been made to the Jews.

The definitive, historic solution is the one proposed in this, The White Book.  

The purpose of this overview of the various proposals was to recall that the notion of a single state in Palestine has always been on the negotiating table.  The rejection of that solution is the cause of the tragedy experienced by the region today.  The alternative to the one state solution is the disaster we see before us today.


The Two-State Solution, Risks and Misconceptions

An Israeli scholar, a Brigadier who served as a military commander in the West Bank from 1974 to 1976, once said that it was not possible to accept the partition of Palestine or agree to foreign rule over Israel’s territory.  He justified his refusal with the following facts, which, because of their critical nature, cannot be ignored:

The West Bank is 50 km wide.  It is a mountainous area, up to 1,000 meters high.  It overlooks Israel’s vital heartland – a coastal plain that is no more than 14–20 km in width.   Sixty-seven percent of Israel’s population lives in this area.  It is also home to 80% of Israel’s industries.  The presence of another party in the West Bank poses a direct threat to the Israeli heartland.  It cannot therefore be accepted.

Brigadier Mieer Bael is a dove, a member of the Zionist left and of the Peace Council.  However, he states categorically:  “We have a historical right to the West Bank.  Many believe it to be ‘the heart of the Jewish nation’.  Our right to retain it is sacredly ordained in the religious and historical duties and traditions, in which the people of Israel believe”.

The same argument for not conceding the West Bank on grounds of vital reasons of security is put forward by Arie Shalev, a scholar and Brigadier.  “Were we to lose the West Bank,” he wrote, “Israel’s depth between Tulkarem and Netanya would be just 15 km, and between Qalqiliyah and the Hertzelia coast just 14 km.  Israel would thus be exposed due to a lack of strategic depth in the face of any threat.  In the event of war breaking out in the West Bank, Israel would be divided into two or three parts if an Arab army manages to reach the coast”.  He goes on to say:  “Even without a war, Israel would remain under constant threat from the West Bank.  The Israeli airspace would also be at the mercy of the West Bank”.

He said further:  “To ensure Israel’s security, the West Bank must be divided into three defensive positions, namely the Jordan Valley, the foothills of the mountains of Samaria and the Judean desert, and the high peaks that link Jenin, Tobas, Nablus, the Lafuna Heights, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Tikwa’.  This is in addition to fixed lines of defense in the south of the Gaza Strip.  Any separation area between the Palestinians and the Israelis would not be a source of security for Israeli.  In fact, it would constitute a constant security irritant”.  However, he noted, “Israel’s policies have poisoned the Zionist idea of transforming the country into a bi-national state”.

Professor Shalom Eveneri said, “The Israeli-Palestinian dispute differs from all the other disputes of the 19th and 20th centuries.  Those disputes have been essentially border disputes, despite the fact that some of them lasted for over 100 years.  The essence of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute differs from these, however.  
It is a struggle between two movements, each of which believes that the same territory belongs to it or constitutes part of its national homeland.  Thus, the Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation, even if they got the West Bank and Gaza.  In the same way, the Jews believe that the West Bank is Judea and Samaria.

They see it as a part of their homeland, even if a Palestinian state were established there.  He wrote of the West Bank, “For the Jews, it is their historical homeland, home of a glorious heritage and the land of salvation”.  “For the Arabs,” Professor Eveneri continues, “it is their land.  They have ruled it as Arabs and Muslims since the 7th century.  The majority of its inhabitants are Arab Muslims.”

It forms part of the greater Arab homeland, stretching from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean.  Thus, it is no different from Yemen or Iraq.  He also notes that the Arabs call it Palestine or southern Syria.

The Zionist Movement, by contrast, calls it the land of Israel.  In such a situation, he writes, “One of the two movements must destroy the other, or a compromise must be reached.  The compromise is the establishment of one state for all allowing each party to feel that they live in all the disputed land and that they are not deprived of any one part of it.  Recognition of Palestinian self-determination means nothing more than the definition of the area of activity permitted them by Israel.”  He opposes this solution because, in his opinion, it is not a solution at all.  Professor Eveneri also writes, “I do not support the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, because it is not possible to separate one million Palestinians living east of the Jordan from their Palestinian identity.”

A Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip cannot resolve the problem of refugees, even those in Lebanon and Syria.  Any situation which keeps the majority of Palestinians in refugee camps and does not offer an honorable solution within the historical borders of Israel/Palestine is no solution at all.

The establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which was prepared to live in peace with Israel, even under a moderate leadership other than that of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), would not be a real solution either.  Such solution would not address the problem of refugees and repatriation, even if just to accommodate refugees from Lebanon in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  The area is simply too small to absorb such numbers.

Yahu Shifat Herkabi, a Zionist strategist, a scholar, a university lecturer who specializes in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and author of several books, writes, “Acceptance by the Palestinian Liberation Organization of a Palestinian state in the West Bank is nothing but a tactical step to settle its account with Israel.  It will demand more.  It will continue its struggle in order to achieve its further objectives.  Acceptance of a state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip merely postpones the continuation of the struggle to a later stage.  Demilitarized Zones are an experience that has failed abysmally.  Control and sovereignty over them is dubious and diluted.  As such, they are a cause of conflict not stability”.

“The establishment of an independent Palestinian state would also put an end to the Israeli dream of Greater Israel.  It would also force the Palestinians to concede the rest of Palestine.  This bantustan would be vulnerable to increasing interference in its domestic affairs by both Jordan and Israel.  This would inevitably lead to violent conflict.”  Mati Steinberg, lecturer at the Hebrew University, writes, “Agreement to the transitional objective of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza Strip should not in any circumstance be interpreted as a concession that replaces the final objective.  That kind of settlement is nothing more than a brief stage in the framework of the conventional wisdom which remains unchanged.  This Zionist lecturer fears that an agreement to the exercise of self-determination would also have to apply to the so-called Israeli Arabs and to the Palestinians in Jordan.

Top


THE FUNDAMENTAL HISTORICAL SOLUTION “Isratine”:  A Single State for Jews ad Palestinians

Prerequisites:

The return of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons wherever they are located if that is their wish.  It is not admissible that Jews, who were not originally inhabitants of Palestine, and whose ancestors were not originally inhabitants of the country, can be brought in from abroad while Palestinians, who fled Palestine as refugees and displaced persons only a short time ago, following the 1948 war, are not accorded the same right.  The Jews maintain that they did not expel the Palestinians.

They say that the Palestinians believed the propaganda claims and fled their homes.  It is sufficient to note that one of the most famous zealots, Samuel Katz, a member of the first Knesset, and leader of the Herut movement and the Etzel National Military Organization, cited the words of Glubb Pasha:  “The Arab citizens were seized with terror and fled their villages without being exposed to any threat during the war”.

Katz suggests that this is how the lie arose that the Jews forcibly expelled the Arabs from their villages.  He writes, “Correspondents who covered the 1948 war, most of whom were hostile to the Jews, spoke of the Arabs fleeing.  But they did not say that their flight was forced.  They did not even insinuate that”.  That writer thus admits that an unusual phenomenon took place namely; that the inhabitants fled their homes.  He also admits that it took place on a large scale.  He further acknowledges that it was a mass flight of farmers, who are traditionally strongly attached to their land.  He also states that “The men fled without defending their homes.  This large-scale, collective mass flight of these Palestinians requires a logical explanation”.

He also cites the words of the Times correspondent in Amman, who wrote that Syria, Lebanon, East Jordan and Iraq were ‘filled’ by those fleeing Israel and expressed surprise at how they fled and why they did not remain or resist.  Katz also quotes Emil al-Ghuri, Secretary to the Supreme Arab Authority, who addressed the political committee of the United Nations on 17 November 1960 in the following words:  “It was the Zionist acts of terror, accompanied by mass killings that caused the mass exodus of the Arabs from Palestine.  The propagation of these lies could have been nipped in the bud”.

The purpose of those extensive quotes is to emphasize two things.  The first is to acknowledge that a mass exodus did take place.  The second is to make clear that the reasons for the exodus lay in the propagation of frightening and false rumors about massacres that never in fact took place, in particular the infamous events reported to have occurred in the village of Deir Yassin.

These quotes, testimonies and the evidence they contain, are but a few of a vast body of knowledge about the subject.  They are included in this White Book, with the purpose of enabling us to benefit from them in our quest for a definitive solution.  The testimonies of Zionist leaders, academics and neutral observers serve to establish the following:

1)  That Palestinians inhabited this land and that they owned farms and homes there until 1948 and 1967.

2)  That they left this land in 1948, leaving their farms and homes, for fear of massacres, irrespective of whether these massacres actually happened or not.

3)  That prominent leaders and academics in the Zionist movement, including individuals who participated in the 1948 conflict, testify that the Jews did not expel the Palestinians from Palestine, not from their farms, nor from their homes.  In fact, the Palestinians believed the terrible rumors circulating and, terrified, left Palestine.

4)  That those who left formed a large group, that the exodus was on a significant scale.


This is positive – it will assist us in solving the problem.

The Jews, therefore, do not hate the Palestinians.  They do not want to expel the Palestinians from their land, Palestine.  They did not decide to massacre them, as the rumors suggest.  Even the massacre at Deir Yassin did not take place.  In fact, it was the non-Palestinian Arabs who attacked Palestine and declared war on the Jews.

To find a solution to the problem, let us permit ourselves to believe all of the above and go back to square one, the point of origin, namely the return of Palestinians who left Palestine between 1948 and 1967.  The Jews stress that they did not expel the Palestinians.

They fled for the reasons outlined above.  This, logically, means that not even the Jews, who have occupied their land, can object to Palestinians remaining there.  This is the key to solving the problem, namely the return of Palestinians refugees to Palestine.  This measure would have the effect of putting everything back in its proper place.  It would be in implementation of the United Nations Resolution, issued on 11 December 1948.  That resolution calls in paragraph 11 for the return of refugees.  There can be no legitimate basis or legal right to any objection to that call.

In order to solve the problem, let us keep the lessons of history in mind.  As we have seen, the Old
Testament and the history of the area have recorded that Palestine saw successive transfers of numerous tribes and peoples.

It was the object of a struggle for the whole of the land, not any one part.  The Palestinians were the original inhabitants – the name Palestine derives from the Philistines – and the Jews and the Zionist Movement called the land Palestine up to 1948.  And, as we identified earlier in this work, every Zionist movement, bank or Jewish institution bore the name ‘Palestine’, a practice which, by their own testimony, continued until 1948.

As we have stated before, and as the history of the region makes clear, no one, therefore, has the right to claim for themselves the whole of Palestine or indeed the right to grant part of Palestine to someone else.

Top

The Unavoidable Failure of Partition

Two Neighboring States Living Side by Side:

1) First and foremost, these will not be two neighboring states living side by side.  They are intertwined, interlocking and cut across one another in terms of both demography and geography.

2)  The width of the so-called state of Israel on establishment of another state in the West Bank would be a mere 14 km.  The Israelis would never allow that to happen.

3)  All the coastal cities would be at the mercy of field and medium range artillery from any point in the West Bank.

4)  See the remarks made in the section entitled Two States:  Risks and Misconceptions.

5)  Any buffer zone would become a source of security irritation, not a source of security.  It would be the object of a battle for control or advantage.  In international history, buffer zones have traditionally been the cause of many wars and conflicts.

6)  The Palestinians would not accept a bantustan.  They want a state, one that is armed to defend itself.  It would have the right to arm itself to the same level as neighboring states.  This is a natural and legitimate right, to which no one can object.

7)  The area in its entirety, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean, is in no way large enough for two states.

8)  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not large enough to accommodate refugees, least of all those in Lebanon and Syria, not to mention those spread across other areas of the world.

9)  There is the problem of those recently displaced.  Where would they go?  The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not the land of those displaced from other areas.

10) The so-called state of Israel is not large enough to admit new immigrants.

11) Assimilation exists already and could become a model for the two parties to assimilate in a single state.  At present, such assimilation as there is constitutes the foundations on which a single stat could be built.

There are one million Palestinians in the so-called state of Israel.  They possess Israeli nationality and take part in political life with the Jews.  They form their own political parties.  Their number will increase from one million to several millions with the passage of time.  The same applies to the so-called Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

If the Jews living therein currently total some hundreds of thousands, they will grow to become a million and more with the passage of time.  The creation of the so-called state of Israel in 1948 is not just a state for the Jews.  There are also Christians and Orthodox Jews, Muslims and Druze Muslims, Arabs and Israelis, the Falasha and others.

12) The existence of each party depends on the other.  Israeli factories rely on Palestinian labor.  Goods and services are exchanged between the parties.

13) The well-known Zionist Mieer Bael, whose views were cited earlier, reiterates the point:  “Each year the two groups [i.e., the Palestinians and the Jews] integrate more and more”.  On one side, this integration is achieved by means of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the other, according to Bael, integration is driven further by the massive expansion in Arab labor in all areas of Israel.

In every building that is put up, in every field that is sown, in every factory requiring workers, in every hotel, restaurant and municipal cleaning service, and in every public utility tens of thousands of Palestinians from all areas of the country work on a daily basis.  Young Palestinian men from Nablus, Gaza, Tiba, Galilee and Hebron work there.  Given this state of affairs, it would simply be unfeasible and impractical to partition Palestine into two states.  Under partition there would not be a state called Israel, nor would there be a state called Palestine.  Those who call for the partition of Palestine into two states are thus either ignorant of the nature of the region and of its demography, or they want to rid themselves of the problem and put it in the hands of the Jews and Palestinians.  It may appear that we had thus solved the problem but in this instance we would be insincere:  we would have done little more than lay the foundations for a new conflict.

Land of their Forefathers/The Promised Land:

The Palestinians view the coastal towns of Acre, Haifa or Jaffa and others as their towns, as the land of their forefathers, passed from generation to generation.  It was only a short time ago that they actually lived there, and the evidence for this is that they are presently living in refugee camps.  Where did the inhabitants of the camps of the West Bank and Gaza Strip come from?  They are not from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, but fled there following the 1948 war.

These people will never accept anything less than the land of their forefathers, which they left in 1948.  And what about the refugees who live in the camps of Lebanon and Syria?  Where is their land, the land of their forefathers?  What about the Palestinians of the Diaspora?

In the case of the Jews, they believe that the West Bank is their sacred territory, if not the heart of the Jewish nation.  They do not call it the West Bank, but Judea and Samaria.  How can we possibly deprive a people of the land of their forefathers?  How can we possibly deprive a people of a land they consider sacred?

Alov Harabin, a Zionist scholar, writes that the problem is that of a conflict between two peoples over their ownership of one piece of land.  Chaim Weizmann said in his famous expression of the 1930’s:  “The problem is that both sides are in the right.”

How can we substitute one for the other?  It simply is not possible.  Nor would it be permissible to attempt to do so.  The Jews, especially the religious among them would not accept any substitute for land that is, in their beliefs, sacred, and the Palestinians, notably the hard-liners among them, will not accept any substitute for the land of their forefathers

If two bantustans are established, each party will continue the struggle against the other.  The Palestinians will do so in order to live in the land of their forefathers, while the Jews will fight to live in the Promised Land.

The solution, then, lies in making use of the present set of circumstances and the historical reality of the situation alike.  This should lead to the establishment of the state of “Isratine”, home to both Palestinians and Israelis.  This would allow both to move and live wherever they will.  He, who believes that the West Bank is his land, can live there or travel there as he wishes.  He could even call it Judea and Samaria, should he so want.  Likewise, if a Palestinian should want to live or travel within the coastal cities of Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Jadwal and the others, he could do so.  This would put everything back the way that it was.  Thus, an end shall be put to the injustice and deprivation.  There is no history of enmity between Jews and Arabs.  The only hostility is the one that occurred between the Jews and Romans in earlier times and between Jews and Europeans more recently.

After a long history of discrimination and persecution at the hands of the Romans, the Kings of Europe, and finally the expulsion from Andalusia, it was the Arabs who played host to the Jews gave them succor and protected them.

Alov Harabin, the Zionist scholar cited above, writes The Palestinians say, ‘Why should it fall to us alone to pay the price for the persecution of the Jews in Europe?’  This goes to prove that the Palestinians never persecuted the Jews.  The Jews say, ‘We did not expel the Palestinians’ and ‘It was the non-Palestinian Arabs who declared war against us in 1948’.

This constitutes positive evidence, which can certainly be employed in the final solution of the problem by establishment of a state that integrates the two parties.  Alov adds, “The encounter of Israelis and Palestinians is the encounter of two peoples who have lived cruel and painful tragedies whilst others pretended not to notice”.  He adds further, after laying the blame with the Palestinians for rejecting the Jews after they were despised in Europe, “Undoubtedly the Palestinians have their reasons for this attitude.  When have we ever heard of a people opening their doors to welcome another people, and giving up, of its own volition some of its land to enable another people to establish their own entity?”  Alov is referring to the response of the Palestinian people in the face of Jewish immigration to Palestine; Jews who did not know Palestine, when other territories, such as Uganda and Argentina, were potential candidates.

Top

CONCLUSIONS

1)  The land area is too narrow to accommodate two states living side by side.

2)  Two states would come into conflict, because the land of each, they believe, forms part of the land of the other, and each bantustan would feel threatened by the other party.

3)  Neither could absorb Jewish immigrants and Palestinian refugees.

4)  Each party has settlements on the land of the other.  At least one million Palestinians live in the so-called State of Israel and about half a million Israelis, at least, currently live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Other sects include the Druze, Catholics, Christians and Muslims.  The area provides a model for integration and co-existence.

5)  The workers in Israeli factories are Palestinians.

6)  Mutual reliance with integration of goods and services.


FINAL NOTES

1)  Return of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons to their homes.

2)  A single state.  Lebanon serves as a good example.

3)  Free elections under UN supervision on the first and second occasions.

4)  Removal of Weapons of Mass Destruction from the new state and, if any, from the Middle East.

5)  Conflict in the Middle East would then end.  The new state would be like Lebanon.  It would receive recognition and could even accede to the Arab League.

There may be some objections to the name.  Such superficial objections would be unhelpful, and even harmful.  Proponents of such objections make them on the basis of irrational and emotional considerations  We have to make a judgment call between Jewish security, with Jews living in peace with Palestinians in a single integrated state; or retention of the name, thereby sacrificing Jewish security and peace in the Middle East and the whole world.

We should not listen to the voices of the old guard or to the World War II mentality.  Instead we should listen to the voices of the young, the generation of globalization, the generation of the future.  It is the old mentality that stands behind the present tragedy.

A Jewish state would undoubtedly be exposed to the Arab and Islamic threat.  An integrated state comprising Muslims and Jews, Arabs and Israelis would never live under the threat of an Arab or Muslim attack.

Since 1967, the situation has been that of a de facto single Isratinian (Israeli-Palestinian) state.  Even the attacks by  guerrillas were mounted from outside the borders of that state.   The present attacks by the guerrillas are not mounted by the Arabs of 1948, as they are called, but by Palestinians who are not counted among the so-called Israeli Arabs.  This is a clear example of the success of a single integrated state – Isratine.

From: http://www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm

Top

Monday, December 7, 2009
What Are We, Stupid?

~Never reinforce a failure~ Napoleon

One wonders what amazing conjunction of planets recently could have produced such varied and bizarre events as the complete meltdown of Tiger Woods' public image after his wife did or did not assault him with a golf club after a minor traffic accident, or the continuing riveting saga of Michaele and Tareq Salahi, who dared to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the White House grounds and shake the hand of the Emperor Obama, for which impudence, we are told, they should be"prosecuted", and winding up with Obama's eerie speech last night about why we not only need to add 30,000 troops in Afghanistan but also run Pakistan, with a shoutout to Somalia and Yemen as well.

Ah, yes, these countries too will be brought into the all-enveloping arms of the American Empire, along with various "shadowy networks", all of which will soon possess nuclear weapons. (Just like his predecessor, Obama does not hesitate to play the Fear Card.)

According to the Emperor, these monumental tasks should be completed by July 2011.
What are we, stupid?

The Afghan people do not want us there, killing their people, belittling their culture, and propping up a corrupt central government that we installed. We would like it no more than they do if they were over here in America doing these things.

All 30,000 more troops will do is to provide the Afghan insurgents-please do not call them Taliban or al-Queda as they are patriots- 30,000 more targets to shoot at, each of which will have to have every scrap of food, materiel, and clothing for their use dragged in over precarious and impossible supply lines.
No war like this has ever been won.

Ever.

One wonders what wonderful new and wacky tricks the Emperor Obama has up his sleeve to entertain us with as his Afghanistan policy crumbles. Will he become like the later Roman Emperors and wear a tiara and make us prostrate ourselves before him? Will he move the capitol from Washington DC to Hawaii to protect himself from rapacious blonde socialites like Michaele Salahi? My God, the woman might have stabbed him with one of her fake fingernails. He might have passed out from peroxide fumes.

0bama's Afghanistan policy is misguided and will lead to nothing more than a massive loss of American blood and treasure and more hatred for Americans in the Muslim world. When will the American people rise up in solidarity with the oppressed people in the world against a system which is accomplishing nothing for them other than to commit crimes in their name?

Top

Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Let's Face It: These Yo-Yo's Are Dunces

I see that the new troop build up in Afghanistan has a graphic now on CNN, which is invariably a sign of incipient disaster. "Decision Afghanistan!" it blares, with a large blow-up of the Afghani flag.

Frankly the headline crawl going under this jingoistic garbage is much more interesting, with items such as "Victoria Principal to be launched into space". I have now thought seriously about Victoria Principal for the first time in years.

I have listened to many explanations as to why the United States has fought an eight-year losing war in Afghanistan which it is now escalating and expanding into Pakistan for some unknown reason.

First there is the pipeline theory. We are in Afghanistan to build this pipeline and that's what the war is really about. I don't buy it. I honestly think if you built any kind of pipeline across Afghanistan you would get absolutely nothing coming out of the other end, either from sabotage or outright theft.

Then there is the government Taliban = al-Qaida- If-We-Don't-Fight-'Em-There-We'll-Fight-'Em-Here line which is so asinine it is not even worth discussing seriously.

Another group weighs in on the military-industrial complex. That's what the war is about, they say; more money for Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin. Well, the truth is that the military-industrial complex, which I have worked in and know quite a bit about, is so deeply entrenched in our system that it doesn't even need a war to get all the funding it could ever need. Consequently I don't buy this either.

I have a theory all my own.

The President, the Secretary of State, Generals Petraus and McChrystal, and Ambassador Eikenberry are all total morons. The President, who looks increasingly like the medical miracle by the day-no guts, and no brains-seems to think that he can, by applying his TelePrompTer skills to this situation, just pull it through and be A Big War Hero. In reality he should have canned Petraus and McChrystal for insubordination for their attempts to leak information to their acolytes in the press. He is now forever branded as a weak and ineffective Commander-in-Chief.

Then there is Hillary Clinton. America doesn't need weapons of mass destruction as long as we have her around; the woman is a walking minefield. I love what she said to Hamid Karzai. "You need to start taxing your people. In America we tax them here, we tax them there, we tax them everywhere." What does Hillary think that they are going to tax in Afghanistan? Rubble?

As far as McChrystal and Eikenberry go at last report they were not even speaking to each other, which when you've got plans as screwy as these two do, like quadrupling the size of the (nonexistent) Afghan army, is probably a blessing in disguise.

As a great man said, a fish rots from the head. We here in America seem to be cursed with a system which causes nothing but the scum to rise to the top. This new escalation of what is breezily called "Af-Pak" will be a total disaster, a waste of blood and treasure filled with the death of innocents, and directed by absolute cretins.

Now we can all get back to really interesting topics, like wondering why on earth Victoria Principal is being launched into outer space.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Top

Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Check Is In The Mail

I have no idea if the bizarre convergence of Tiger Woods, PED's, Islamic Finance, adultery, and the meltdown of the entrepot of Dubai is simply another symptom of the end times, or just one more hiccup in the current crisis of capitalism.

Dubai, for those who don't know, is a member of the United Arab Emirates and has no oil. In point of fact it hasn't got very much of anything, except for an artificial island in the shape of a palm tree, the world's tallest building, a crazy megalomaniac, Sheikh Mohammed, for a ruler and 80 billion dollars in debt. That's right, 80 billion dollars. Not bad for a place that consists of 1500 square miles of sand and some badly designed, half- built buildings.

Who would loan these idiots 80 billion cents, let alone dollars?

Dubai sent global markets into a tailspin over the combined Thanksgiving- Eid holidays by announcing that it would not make payment on any of its debts for the next six months. (six months=never) The whole government then left either for the Eid festival or the Muslim pilgrimage, except for a few minor officials who were out hiking the Appalachian Trail.

And, speaking of the latter pastime, we now turn to the bizarre implosion of Tiger Woods, which started on the very same day as the Dubai catastrophe. A weird car accident, his wife allegedly attacking him with a golf club, bimbo eruptions, his mother-in-law being dragged to the hospital -does everything in this man's house happen at 2:30 in the morning?-his sponsors deserting him one by one, no one on the PGA tour having anything good to say about him except for John Daly, which is sort of on a par with being vouched for by Genghis Khan-what's next?

Allegations of performance-enhancing drug use, of course.

Long-time readers of this site know that my opinion on PED's is that all world-class athletes take them-and get over it- and that they are not harmful if taken in moderation. As I have whiled -or wasted-away most of the Sunday afternoons in my life watching golf tournaments I have gradually seen Tiger Woods grow more lean and more chiseled over the years and as I know perfectly well that this never happens to men in their 30's naturally in spite of all the babbling of the announcers about "hard work" I have known for some time that he was juicing. I am not all-knowing, just a steroid user myself.

Of course, my theory as to why this PED use is all coming out now is purely cynical. He has become so diminished as a brand that no one has any vested interest in protecting him anymore, so consequently no one bothers.

The same is not true of Dubai. As the financial world held its breath waiting to see if Dubai would or would not default on its 3.5 billion dollar Islamic bond due on December 14 at the last minute its richer UAE neighbor Abu Dhabi stepped in and offered to guarantee the payment of the bond, which is supposed to happen next week. An Islamic or sukuk bond is an investment instrument that pious Muslims can make money from by calling interest, which is against their religion, “rent”, which apparently makes everything quite alright with God. This is also known as “reinventing the wheel”.

And Tiger? If things get too unbearable for him in Orlando he can nip off to "The Tiger Woods Dubai" which boasts Al Ruwaya, "the world's first Tiger Woods designed golf course" "a world class hotel" and "palaces, mansions and villas". Sounds like a pretty cool place to hide from your soon-to-be ex-wife's process servers as long as the banks don't foreclose on the place.

Oh, and Sheikh Mohammed, the scientists say your palm-tree shaped artificial island is sinking.

2009 wasn't really a great year for a lot of people, but it really stunk for black men who hang around a lot on golf courses.

First we had the Charles Barkley reality show that focused on what a crummy golfer he was and how his swing could be improved (my vote- shoot him and put him out of his misery). Next, there was the Tiger Woods Thanksgiving Day meltdown, which reduced the world's leading athlete into the world's leading joke in record time. Then last but not least on Christmas Day we had Barack Obama whiling away his time on the putting greens in Honolulu, looking stupid, while Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year old Nigerian jihadist, set his private parts on fire in an attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight terminating in Detroit.

I have heard this attempt described in the MSM as a "failure". On the contrary; I feel it was a great success- for al-Qaida, that is. Billions of dollars will now have to be spent on idiocies like crotch-sniffing dogs at all airports and other useless nonsense that only a bunch of boobs like the TSA could dream up. A new front in the endless "War On Terror", we are told, will be opened up in Yemen. Joe Lieberman said so so it must be true.

And somewhere Osama bin Laden is rocking in his grave with laughter.

And where, pray tell, is the money for all this absurd nonsense to come from in a country, the United States, where one out of every six children is on food stamps?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Yemen. Wars breeding more and more blowback and more and more jihadis- the Christmas Day al-Qaida attack was at least in part retaliation for a US airstrike that killed at least 120 people in refugee camps in northwestern Yemen- with more and more money that the United States doesn't even have anymore thrown down a rathole which leads to less and less security for the United States.

We've tried war. It doesn't work. Can we please try peace?

A very distinguished personage who went to military college in England for a whole year- maybe he got time off for good behavior- is convinced that Barack Obama is only putting an extra 30,000 troops into Afghanistan because he, Obama, knows that he has lost the war and is only applying standard military strategy, which is to bring in reinforcements to cover your retreat. Well, I hope that this personage is correct and that the "AfPak" fiasco is over, although I personally doubt it because my experience of Obama is that this second-rate Chicago wardheeler would be incapable of understanding standard military strategy if you wrote it down in letters ten inches high and shoved it directly under his nose.

No, this idiocy will go on and on- although I feel that trying to explode one's briefs will become a less and less popular route to martyrdom- until the United States is either bankrupted by it or defeated decisively by the jihadists in the field- two outcomes I feel that are entirely possible, and not mutually exclusive.

Can't you just see the United States being defeated and occupied by the Yemenis, a dirt-poor country run by a group of whacko clans that takes two hours off every afternoon to do the local drug of choice, qat?

Maybe this is just what the United States needs to get off this stupid militaristic treadmill we're on.

Now if we could just fix Tiger's marriage and Charles Barkley's golf swing we'd really be cooking with gas.

Top

Looking for more fresh Libertarian content? Read our Archives.

E-mail meto share your favorite current event articles with our libertarian blog.