Israel is the worst country on Earth.
Germany was bad but Israel is badder. Zionists are much more cruel.
What do you say about Israel; tell te truth, share your opinions?
30 December 2009
[b]Israel: A monster beyond control?[/b]
By Alan Hart, researcher for ITN and BBC Panorama. (www.alanhart.net)
On the first anniversary of the beginning of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip -- in my view it was a demonstration of Israeli state terrorism at its most naked -- it’s not enough to say that the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in Israel’s on-going collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians, 53% of whom are children.
What is actually happening in the blockaded Gaza Strip, and less obviously on the occupied West Bank, is the continuation by stealth of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine. My friend Professor Ilan Pappe, Israel’s leading “revisionist” (meaning honest) historian and author of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, would and has put it another way. What we are witnessing is, in his words, “genocide in slow motion.” And that, really, is what the governments of the Western powers (and others) are complicit in.
The question that provokes in my mind is: Why, really, are the major powers (and others) allowing it to happen?
The only answer that makes some sense to me is this. They have concluded, but cannot say, that nuclear-armed Israel, with the assistance of the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations, is a monster beyond control.
In my analysis it’s possible to identify the moment in history when the major powers abandoned any hope they might have had of containing Zionism’s colonial ambitions.
It came, the moment, in the immediate aftermarth of the 1967 war.
Contrary to Zionism’s version of the story, it was a war of Israeli aggression not self-defense. As I document in some detail in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Israel’s military and political leaders knew the Arabs were not intending to attack.
That being so, what the major powers ought to have said to Israel (in the diplomatic language of a Security Council Resolution and more explicitly behind closed doors) is something like: “Aggression cannot be rewarded. Aggressors cannot keep territory conquered in war. You are now required to get the hell out of it without laying down conditions for your withdrawal.”
To drive home the point, they could and should have reminded Israel of what President Eisenhower said to the people of America when he demanded Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from Egyptian territory after its collusion with Britain and France in 1956. Eisenhower, the first and the last American president to contain Zionism, said this:
“If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and gaining national advantage… If the UN once admits that international disputes can be settled using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organisation and our best hope for establishing a real world order.”
As it happened, the major powers could not say that to Israel in 1967 because the Johnson administration had colluded with Israel to the extent of giving it the greenlight to smash Eygpt’s armed forces, in the hope that a humiliating defeat for them would lead to the overthrow of President Nasser.
But also true is that President Johnson sought and obtained an assurance that Israel would not take advantage of the war situation to grab Jordanian and Syrian territory. It was because some in the Johnson administration (probably Defense Secretary McNamara and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) didn’t trust Israel to keep its word that the U.S. spy ship, the Liberty, was stationed off the Israel/Gaza coast to listen to IDF movement orders. And it was because Israeli Defense Minister Dayan didn’t want Johnson to know that he intended to take the West Bank and the Golan Heights that he, Dayan, ordered the attack on the Liberty. (The full story of that attack and Johnson’s cover-up of it is also in my book, in a chapter headed The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day”).
Despite that, the major powers, including and led by America, could still have acted firmly to contain Zionism’s colonial ambitions. They could have said to Israel something like: “We can just about live with the fact that you will retain the newly occupied Arab territories as a bargaining chip, to be exchanged for peace with your Arab neighbours, but we will not allow you to settle those territories. Not one building. If you defy us on this matter, the Security Council will authorize enforcement action as necessary to oblige you to comply with international law.”
In what became Security Council Resolution 242, it was the failure of the major powers to read the riot act to Israel on the matter of not settling the newly occupied territories that marks the moment when they, the major powers, became resigned to the fact that the Zionist state, assisted by its awesomely powerful global lobby, was a monster they could not control. (They could slap it on the wrist from time to time but not control it).
The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist entity might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way. (In my book I explain, on the basis of a conversation with Dayan, the real reason for Israel’s decision to acquire a nuclear arsenal. It was to have the deterrent threat capability of saying to its friends, “Don’t push us further than we are prepared to go or we’ll use these things.”)
So in the full light of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, it’s not surprising that the major powers (and others) are today complicit, more by default than design I say, in Zionism’s crimes.
Completely hate what happened in the gaza incident...but fine even then if israel could have legitimately brought forward evidence that they were in the line of fire from gaza and were in imminent danger and had to react ...then even that was a reason for self defence...yet their reasons for attacking were complete rubbish and 'excessive'
the debate on whether the state of israel should even exist today can be debated over and over again .... but its accepted by many that israel is a state...fine, then for what reason are they occupying land that doesnt even belong to them... seems as if israel like to fight and shed blood of the innocent...if thats how they want to continue then they will also have to realise that the muslims won't stop fighting and yes muslims have every right to fight back
funny fact is that there are many israelis who agree that israel should not be at war with anyone and they are over excessive
I pray that peace comes soon and bloodshed of the innocent comes to an end.ameen.
pots and kettles. Israel is not the only monster beyond control right now - what the Iranian regime is subjecting some of its internal detractors is not pleasant either.
If the situation in Iran was currently more stable, would such as article have been written?
Its like... we all know that there is oppression in the world, but when fixing it, start at home.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Demonstrators who break laws should be arrested. Those who riot burning cars and buses are treated harshly everywhere; even in France, London, Denmark and US.
We are taking about what Israel is doing to Palestinian muslims.
Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".
www.presstv.ir
I agree with Malik..
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
I don't.
Israel hasn't quite scaled the dizzy heights of Nazi Germany, but it's close. I'm a Palestinian sympathiser I admit it
If most Israelis aren't as bad as their country, they need to change their political system.
A few months ago, I started to see tea leaves swirling that pointed to war this year. April/May time. (my words were April I think,but that seems a bit close)
Currently it is still on schedule, and Israel and the USA suddenly not getting along can even be seen as a tad convenient if you squint a certain way.
On the other hand, the region seems close to the brink a good few times every year.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Well do you agree with the state of Israel?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
The state of Israel is a fact.
What you should or should not agree with are the actions carried out by its citizens, government or other entities such as armed forces.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
That the state of Israel is a fact is half the story. The other story is that it only became a fact over time, during which it was less than fact.
Most people have no idea that Israel was only created in 1948. They believe that Israel has been around since Biblical times or earlier. So you learn about its creation, and you learn about what happened to the non-Jewish inhabitants of this new country. And you wonder how the Palestinian people have been treated so unfairly by the US, UK, Israel and other Muslim countries.
I was as shocked at finding out about the genocidal history of Israel as I was at finding out about the horrors of fundamentalist Islam.
Israel is here to stay yes, but its creation was a mistake. And the Israeli government's actions have well overspent the morality credits built up during the Holocaust. I'm glad to see Obama's administration slapping them hard.
Not to me it isnt.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Does it exist?
If so, why do you deny its existence?
There is a place for emotion. Denying facts is never good.
If the state of Israel can be reformed, that is a good option too. IMO.
What matters is that people are not oppressed and their rights are not curtailed - the name of the state is less important.
Saying that, I cannot see things changing without a regional war in which Isrtael loses badly and is forced to concede some ground on its current positions. That is extremely unlikely.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
In all honesty i dont have much against the creation of Israel or jewish people having a homeland, however the way it was justified from a human perspective was completely wrong, i mean would the british let some scandanavians have some land in the UK if they claimed it? Also uprooting people already who have lived there for generations how can that be justified. The reason why i dont believe in it is because in my opinion its existance violates basic human rights and was created from a secular perspective a fictional document (bible, old testament).
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
claiming (unclaimed) land etc is not too big an Issue IMO - throwing others off is.
The Problem with the creation of israel etc is that people already lived there and they are actively whitewashing the existence of people prior to its creation.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But the fact of the matter is if American Indians wanted some land or all of the land or a large piece they wouldnt get it, asking for it on the same principles as the jewish people the same applies for the indegenous population of Australia, so why do the Jewish get special treatment? Because they were attacked and singled out and killed? Werent the American Indians? The Aborigines? Its the double standards at the biggest level and quite simply wrong.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Them getting "special treatment" is also not an issue. So what if they get it?
The heart of the problem is not "what they get" that does not work for other groups opr people in the same way, but the oppression of others.
It is good to get the correct issues to fight for.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Its not about singling out single issues, im just highlighting some of the other issues..the more issues there are the stronger the case.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
not in my mind. If teh smaller stuff gets fixed, that does not make the whole issue go away.
and there is the trap that people get confused and the overall message loses focus adn strength.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
When your arguing or debating your present your main argument it being:
Israel shouldnt exist and then you outline the points etc by you just outlining two or three points instead of five or six your weakening your argument, to strengthen your argument you introduce more points and as long as the points arent weak or irrelevant your argument will get stronger, the focus remains.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
see - that is what confuses you. The main issue is not the existance of israel.
It is more humanitarian. the oppression and the illtreatment of the Palestinians. If it treated everyone fairly, I would not care if it existed or not.
Or atleast that is my main issue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But the existence of that state will inevitably lead to the oppression and or ill treatment of Palestinians..
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
LURV this drink!
why? and can that not be fixed?
Surely fixing that is the main issue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
How can it be fixed? if the Palestinians were given their land back the Israelis would still persecute them as they ashkanzi jews do to sephardic jews. The creation of state creates the oppression.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
There would always be some form od oppression and prejudice everywhere. Expecting there to be none anywhere is naive IMO.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Odd oppression and prejudice yes...MASS oppression and prejudice No.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Look at Israel's neighbours.
Not exactly a bastion of peace and secity for their own citizens even.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Thats not the point and i dont see their neighbours forcing out huge numbers of innocent civilians?
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
erm.. you should look at how each of them have treated the palestinians. None of it is pleasant reading.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I know and i also know that the arabs sold off the palestinians land however thats irrelavant.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
Pages