The juxtaposition of the American debacle in Afghanistan and the visit of a new Israeli prime minister might foreshadow more about the future of the US-Israel relationship than first meets the eye.
One must first appreciate just how significantly the American “war on terror” helped shape US-Israeli relations, especially by recalling Benjamin Netanyahu’s initial reaction to the attacks on September 11, 2001 to the NY Times:
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ”It’s very good.”
Then he edited himself: ”Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”
He predicted that the attack would ”strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”
September 11, 2001, which occurred during the second Palestinian intifada, ushered in the period of the American war on terror, one that significantly framed American foreign policy and, consequently, its relationship with Israel.
Understanding this dynamic, the Israelis fashioned much of their messaging to Washington in war-on-terror Manichean terms.
All of Israel’s adversaries—countries and leaders and movements alike, from Iran, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and even to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions activism—were painted with a broad brush of the evil of terrorism.
While this black-and-white approach might have been useful for speaking to an American engaged in a “crusade,” as then President George W. Bush put it, it often clashed with the complex and far more gray spectrum of American interests throughout the region.
The paradigm of the “war on terror,” much like that of the Cold War, put the United States and its allies on one side of a divide against its ideologically opposed enemies.
Everything flowed from this divide.
During the Cold War, Israel made the case that it was a like-minded ally to the United States, in a region of strategic importance during global competition with the Soviet Union.
Likewise, during the war on terror, Israel made the case that it was a like-minded ally to the United States in the battle against terrorism, in a region where its wars were centered.
But the period that followed the Cold War was more complicated, and as the United States began to view its interests in the region differently, its relationship with Israel began to evolve.
It is no coincidence that during this time of change, the United States pushed for a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
The meeting between Biden and Bennett came at yet another historic pivot point for US foreign policy.
The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 20 years, an engagement that started in October 2001 as Washington’s response to the September 11 attacks.
Now this war has ended.
Like Iraq, the Afghanistan war has come to be seen as a mistake and a waste of lives and resources; indeed, Americans are now far less inclined to involve themselves in foreign wars.
Support for diplomatic approaches is greater than ever before, and about 35 percent of Americans perceive domestic extremism as a serious security threat today.
The United States is shifting away from a period of massive military presence in the Middle East—during which time Israel has continued to be a key security partner—and reorienting its posture in and toward the region, as it reviews the lessons of two decades of seemingly fruitless war.
The United States is shifting away from a period of massive military presence in the Middle East—during which time Israel has continued to be a key security partner—and reorienting its posture in and toward the region.
A Shift Back to Gray?
What does this moment of reckoning portend for the future of the US-Israel relationship?
The black and white era of the war on terror did not mean the United States and Israel did not have disagreements; rather, those disagreements were obscured precisely because of the security-related issues created by that war itself.
The extent to which the differences between Israel and the United States will give shape to the relationship will be a function of which of three different rough world views Washington follows in the future as it charts the new era of US foreign policy: human rights, realism, or white evangelical Christian identity politics
A foreign policy that indeed centers human rights, as both US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Biden have said they want to pursue, will put the United States and Israel on a more contentious course.
The latter’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank is increasingly seen as consolidating a system of apartheid against the Palestinians.
Realism. With this approach, the United States would weigh its bilateral relationships more directly through the prism of material interests.
If this is what guides the future of US foreign policy, Washington might occasionally disagree with Israel in some areas, particularly around its developing relationship with China or its role in the global arms market.
However, the United States is unlikely to implement major changes in the relationship.
White evangelical Christian identity politics. This is an approach that is closer to what took place during the Trump years.
The relationship with Israel is part of a framework that values ethnic nationalism, nativism, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment.
It is also underpinned by a domestic constituency that believes the relationship with Israel is part of a religious obligation.
The Biden Administration’s policy seems closest to the realist middle ground for now, even though it has paid lip service to the importance of human rights.
The Biden Administration’s policy seems closest to the realist middle ground for now, even though it has paid lip service to the importance of human rights.
It is not yet clear how much of that positioning is driven by principle and how much of it is a function of evolving circumstances outside the administration’s control.
The new Israeli government is still only a few months old and this most recent meeting, the first between Biden and the new Israeli prime minister, came amidst a moment of profound crisis for US foreign policy.
Despite this, Biden and Bennett seemed content to move forward with an understanding that little would change in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians; at the same time, Bennett would continue to conduct the US-Israel relationship differently than his predecessor who brought Democrats so much heartburn.
Prospects for Change
How long will things stay this way? While the precise answer may not be clear, there is a sense of which factors may influence US-Israel relations going forward.
First is the growing shift in public opinion, especially among a younger generation of Democrats, toward holding Israel to account for its denial of Palestinian rights.
Over time, that is likely to grow and continue to shape the Democratic Party’s position on the issue.
It may also be accelerated at unforeseen moments, like the escalation in May when Israel attacked Palestinians in Jerusalem and Gaza.
Second, and on the opposite side, is the possible return of a Trump—or Trump-like—administration that would usher in, once again, an American foreign policy guided by white evangelical Christian identity politics.
But such an approach, while paying short-term dividends for Israel, would likely galvanize and accelerate attitudes in the human rights camp.
The back-and-forth nature of American politics could mean several short-term shifts between one or more of these approaches in the years to come.
What is clear, however, is that moving on from the war-on-terror paradigm will reshape US-Israel relations and will make the seemingly middle-ground approach of the Biden Administration less tenable over time.
The United States will find it harder and harder to put off a fundamental choice: to side with Israel’s project of unending domination of the Palestinian people, or to hold Israel accountable for its continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.
The Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Unit 8200 is infamous for surveilling the indigenous Palestinian population, amassing kompromat on individuals for the purposes of blackmail and extortion.
Spying on the world’s rich and famous, Unit 8200 hit the headlines last year, after the Pegasus scandal broke.
Former Unit 8200 officers designed and implemented software that spied on tens of thousands of politicians and likely aided in the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
According to employment website LinkedIn, there are currently at least 99 former Unit 8200 veterans currently working for Google.
This number almost certainly underestimates the scale of the collaboration between the two organizations, however.
For one, this does not count former Google employees.
Nor does it include those without a public LinkedIn account, or those who do have an account, but have not disclosed their previous affiliations with the high-tech Israeli surveillance unit.
This is likely to be a considerable number, as agents are expressly prohibited from ever revealing their affiliation to Unit 8200.
Thus, the figure of 99 only represents the number of current (or extremely recent) Google employees who are brazenly flouting Israeli military law by including the organization in their profiles.
Among these include:
Gavriel Goidel: Between 2010 and 2016, Goidel served in Unit 8200, rising to become Head of Learning at the organization, leading a large team of operatives who sifted through intelligence data to “understand patterns of hostile activists”, in his own words, transmitting that information to superiors.
Whether this included any of the over 1000 Gazan civilians Israel killed during their 2014 bombardment of Gaza is unknown. Goidel was recently appointed Head of Strategy and Operations at Google.
Jonathan Cohen: Cohen was a team leader during his time in Unit 8200 (2000-2003).
He has since spent more than 13 years working for Google in various senior positions, and is currently Head of Insights, Data and Measurement.
Ori Daniel: Between 2003 and 2006, Daniel was a technical operations specialist with Unit 8200. After a stint with Palantir, he joined Google in 2018, rising to become Head of Global Self-Service for Google Waze.
Ben Bariach: For nearly five years between 2007 and 2011, Bariach served as a cyber intelligence officer, where he “commanded strategic teams of elite officers and professionals.”
Since 2016, he has worked for Google. Between 2018 and 2020, he concentrated on tackling “controversial content, disinformation and cyber-security”.
Today, he is a product partnership manager for Google in London.
Notably, Google appears to not only accept former Unit 8200 agents with open arms, but to actively recruit current members of the controversial organization. For example, in October 2020, Gai Gutherz left his job as a project leader at Unit 8200 and walked into a full time job at Google as a software engineer. In 2018, Lior Liberman appears to have done the same thing, taking a position as a program manager at Google after 4 years in military intelligence. Earlier this year, she left Google and now works at Microsoft.
SPYING ON PALESTINIANS
Some might contend that all Israelis are compelled to complete military service, and so, therefore, what is the problem with young people using the tech skills they learned in the IDF in civilian life.
In short, why is this Unit 8200-to-Silicon-Valley-pipeline a problem?
To begin with, Unit 8200 is not a run-of-the-mill regiment.
Described as “Israel’s NSA” and located on a gigantic base near Beer Sheva in the Negev desert, Unit 8200 is the IDF’s largest unit – and one of its most exclusive.
Although military service is compulsory for Jewish Israelis, Arab citizens are strongly discouraged from joining the military and are effectively blocked from Unit 8200.
Indeed, they are the prime targets of the apartheid state’s surveillance operations.
TheFinancial Timescalled Unit 8200 “Israel at its best and worst” – the centerpiece of both its burgeoning high-tech industry and of its repressive state apparatus.
Unit 8200 veterans have gone on to produce many of the world’s most downloaded apps, including maps service Waze, and communications app Viber.
But in 2014, 43 reservists, including several officers, sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, informing him they would no longer serve in its ranks due to its involvement in the political persecution of Palestinians.
This consisted of using big data to compile dossiers on huge numbers of the indigenous domestic population, including their medical history, sex lives, and search histories, in order that it could be used for extortion later.
If a certain individual needed to travel across checkpoints for crucial medical treatment, permission could be suspended until they complied.
Information, such as if a person was cheating on their spouse or was homosexual, is also used as bait for blackmail.
One former Unit 8200 man said that as part of his training, he was assigned to memorize different Arabic words for “gay” so that he could listen out for them in conversations.
Theodor Herzl is considered the founder of the Modern Zionist movement.
In his 1896 book Der Judenstaat, he envisioned the founding of a future independent Jewish state during the 20th century.
The Zionist movement has maintained a striking continuity in its aims and methods over the past century.
From the start, the movement sought to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine and to establish a Jewish state on as much of the LAND as possible.
The methods included promoting mass Jewish immigration and acquiring tracts of land that would become the inalienable property of the Jewish people.
This policy inevitably prevented the indigenous Arab residents from attaining their national goals and establishing a Palestinian state.
It also necessitated displacing Palestinians from their lands and jobs when their presence conflicted with Zionist interests.
The Zionist movement—and subsequently the state of ISRAEL—failed to develop a positive approach to the Palestinian presence and aspirations.
Although many Israelis recognized the moral dilemma posed by the Palestinians, the majority either tried to ignore the issue or to resolve it by force majeure.
Thus, the Palestine problem festered and grew, instead of being resolved.
Zionism false and failed
The Zionist movement arose in late nineteenth-century Europe, influenced by the nationalist ferment sweeping that continent.
Zionism acquired its particular focus from the ancient Jewish longing for the return to Zion and received a strong impetus from the increasingly intolerable conditions facing the large Jewish community in tsarist Russia.
The movement also developed at the time of major European territorial acquisitions in Asia and Africa and benefited from the European powers’ competition for influence in the shrinking Ottoman Empire.
One result of this involvement with European expansionism, however, was that the leaders of the nascent nationalist movements in the Middle East viewed Zionism as an adjunct of European colonialism.
Moreover, Zionist assertions of the contemporary relevance of the Jews’ historical ties to Palestine, coupled with their land purchases and immigration, alarmed the indigenous population of the Ottoman districts that Palestine comprised.
The Jewish community (yishuv) rose from 6 percent of Palestine’s population in 1880 to 10 percent by 1914.
Although the numbers were insignificant, the settlers were outspoken enough to arouse the opposition of Arab leaders and induce them to exert counter pressure on the Ottoman regime to prohibit Jewish immigration and land buying.
As early as 1891, a group of Muslim and Christian notables cabled Istanbul, urging the government to prohibit Jewish immigration and land purchase.
The resulting edicts radically curtailed land purchases in the sanjak (district) of JERUSALEM for the next decade.
When a Zionist Congress resolution in 1905 called for increased colonization, the Ottoman regime suspended all land transfers to Jews in both the sanjak of Jerusalem and the wilayat (province) of Beirut.
After the coup d’etat by the Young Turks in 1908, the Palestinians used their representation in the central parliament and their access to newly opened local newspapers to press their claims and express their concerns.
They were particularly vociferous in opposition to discussions that took place between the financially hard-pressed Ottoman regime and Zionist leaders in 1912-13, which would have let the world Zionist Organization purchase crown land (jiftlik) in the Baysan Valley, along the Jordan River.
The Zionists did not try to quell Palestinian fears, since their concern was to encourage colonization from Europe and to minimize the obstacles in their path.
The only effort to meet to discuss their aspirations occurred in the spring of 1914. Its difficulties illustrated the incompatibility in their aspirations.
The Palestinians wanted the Zionists to present them with a document that would state their precise political ambitions, their willingness to open their schools to Palestinians, and their intentions of learning Arabic and integrating with the local population.
The Zionists rejected this proposal.
THE BRITISH MANDATE
The proclamation of the BALFOUR DECLARATION on November 2, 1917, and the arrival of British troops in Palestine soon after, transformed the political situation.
The declaration gave the Zionist movement its long-sought legal status.
The qualification that: nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine seemed a relatively insignificant obstacle to the Zionists, especially since it referred only to those communities’: civil and religious rights, not to political or national rights.
The subsequent British occupation gave Britain the ability to carry out that pledge and provide the protection necessary for the Zionists to realize their aims.
In fact, the British had contracted three mutually contradictory promises for the future of Palestine.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 with the French and Russian governments proposed that Palestine be placed under international administration.
The HUSAYN-MCMAHON CORRESPONDENCE, 1915-1916, on whose basis the Arab revolt was launched, implied that Palestine would be included in the zone of Arab independence.
In contrast, the Balfour Declaration encouraged the colonization of Palestine by Jews, under British protection.
British officials recognized the irreconcilability of these pledges but hoped that a modus vivendi could be achieved, both between the competing imperial powers, France and Britain, and between the Palestinians and the Jews.
Instead, these contradictions set the stage for the three decades of conflict-ridden British rule in Palestine.
Initially, many British politicians shared the Zionists’ assumption that gradual, regulated Jewish immigration and settlement would lead to a Jewish majority in Palestine, whereupon it would become independent, with legal protection for the Arab minority.
The assumption that this could be accomplished without serious resistance was shattered at the outset of British rule.
Britain thereafter was caught in an increasingly untenable position, unable to persuade either Palestinians or Zionists to alter their demands and forced to station substantial military forces in Palestine to maintain security.
The Palestinians had assumed that they would gain some form of independence when Ottoman rule disintegrated, whether through a separate state or integration with neighboring Arab lands.
These hopes were bolstered by the Arab revolt, the entry of Faysal Ibn Husayn into Damascus in 1918, and the proclamation of Syrian independence in 1920.
Their hopes were dashed, however, when Britain imposed direct colonial rule and elevated the yishuv to a special status.
Moreover, the French ousted Faysal from Damascus in July 1920, and British compensation—in the form of thrones in Transjordan and Iraq for Abdullah and Faysal, respectively—had no positive impact on the Arabs in Palestine.
In fact, the action underlined the different treatment accorded Palestine and its disadvantageous political situation.
These concerns were exacerbated by Jewish immigration: the yishuv comprised 28 percent of the population by 1936 and reached 32 percent by 1947 (click here for Palestine’s population distribution per district in 1946).
The British umbrella was CRITICALLY important to the growth and consolidation of the yishuv, enabling it to root itself firmly despite Palestinian opposition.
Although British support diminished in the late 1930s, the yishuv was strong enough by then to withstand the Palestinians on its own.
After World War II, the Zionist movement also was able to turn to the emerging superpower, the UNITED STATES, for diplomatic support and legitimization.
The Palestinians’ responses to Jewish immigration, land purchases, and political demands were remarkably consistent.
They insisted that Palestine remain an Arab country, with the same right of self-determination and independence as Egypt, Transjordan, and Iraq.
Britain granted those countries independence without a violent struggle since their claims to self-determination were not contested by European settlers.
The Palestinians argued that Palestinian territory COULD NOT AND SHOULD NOT be used to solve the plight of the Jews in Europe, and that Jewish national aspirations should not override their own rights.
Palestinian opposition peaked in the late 1930s: the six-month general strike in 1936 was followed the next year by a widespread rural revolt.
This rebellion welled up from the bottom of Palestinian society—unemployed urban workers, displaced peasants crowded into towns, and debt-ridden villagers.
It was supported by most merchants and professionals in the towns, who feared competition from the yishuv.
Members of the elite families acted as spokesmen before the British administration through the ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE, which was formed during the 1936 strike.
However, the British banned the committee in October 1937 and arrested its members, on the eve of the revolt.
Only one of the Palestinian political parties was willing to limit its aims and accept the principle of territorial partition: The NATIONAL DEFENSE PARTY, led by RAGHIB AL-NASHASHIBI (mayor of JERUSALEM from 1920 to 1934), was willing to accept partition in 1937 so long as the Palestinians obtained sufficient land and could merge with Transjordan to form a larger political entity.
However, the British PEEL COMMISSION’s plan, announced in July 1937, would have forced the Palestinians to leave the olive- and grain- growing areas of Galilee, the orange groves on the Mediterranean coast, and the urban port cities of HAIFA and ACRE.
That was too great a loss for even the National Defense Party to accept, and so it joined in the general denunciations of partition.
During the PALESTINE MANDATE period the Palestinian community was 70 percent rural, 75 to 80 percent illiterate, and divided internally between town and countryside and between elite families and villagers.
Despite broad support for the national aims, the Palestinians could not achieve the unity and strength necessary to withstand the combined pressure of the British forces and the Zionist movement.
In fact, the political structure was decapitated in the late 1930s when the British banned the Arab Higher Committee and arrested hundreds of local politicians.
When efforts were made in the 1940s to rebuild the political structure, the impetus came largely from outside, from Arab rulers who were disturbed by the deteriorating conditions in Palestine and feared their repercussions on their own newly acquired independence.
The Arab rulers gave priority to their own national considerations and provided limited diplomatic and military support to the Palestinians.
The Palestinian Arabs continued to demand a state that would reflect the Arab majority’s weight—diminished to 68 percent by 1947.
They rejected the UNITED NATIONS (U.N.) partition plan of November 1947, which granted the Jews statehood in 55 percent of Palestine, an area that included as many Arab residents as Jews.
However, the Palestinian Arabs lacked the political strength and military force to back up their claim.
Once Britain withdrew its forces in 1948 and the Jews proclaimed the state of Israel, the Arab rulers used their armed forces to protect those zones that the partition plans had ALLOCATED to the Arab state.
By the time armistice agreements were signed in 1949, the Arab areas had shrunk to only 23 percent of Palestine.
The Egyptian army held the GAZA STRIP, and Transjordanian forces dominated the hills of central Palestine.
At least 726,000 of the 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs fled from the area held by Israel. Emir Abdullah subsequently annexed the zone that his army occupied, renaming it the WEST BANK.
THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT
The dispossession and expulsion of a majority of Palestinians were the result of Zionist policies planned over a thirty-year period. Fundamentally, Zionism focused on two needs:
to attain a Jewish majority in Palestine;
to acquire statehood irrespective of the wishes of the indigenous population. Non-recognition of the political and national rights of the Palestinian people was a KEY Zionist policy.
Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, placed maximalist demands before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919.
He stated that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine.
When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine and would become: “as Jewish as England is English”.
Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south. He argued that: “the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country.
Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind.”
Weizmann offered the Arab countries a free zone in Haifa and a joint port at Aqaba.
Weizmann’s policy was basically in accord with that of the leaders of the yishuv, who held a conference in December 1918 in which they formulated their own demands for the peace conference.
The yishuv plan stressed that they must control appointments to the administrative services and that the British must actively assist their program to transform Palestine into a democratic Jewish state in which the Arabs would have minority rights.
Although the peace conference did not explicitly allocate such extensive territories to the Jewish national home and did not support the goal of transforming all of Palestine into a Jewish state, it opened the door to such a possibility.
More important, Weizmann’s presentation stated clearly and forcefully the long-term aims of the movement. These aims were based on certain fundamental tenets of Zionism:
The movement was seen not only as inherently righteous, but also as meeting an overwhelming need among European Jews.
European culture was superior to indigenous Arab culture; the Zionists could help civilize the East.
External support was needed from a major power; relations with the Arab world were a secondary matter.
Arab nationalism was a legitimate political movement, but Palestinian nationalism was either illegitimate or nonexistent.
Finally, if the Palestinians would not reconcile themselves to Zionism, force majeure, not compromise, was the only feasible response.
Adherents of Zionism believed that the Jewish people had an inherent and inalienable right to Palestine.
Religious Zionists stated this in biblical terms, referring to the divine promise of the land to the tribes of Israel.
Secular Zionists relied more on the argument that Palestine alone could solve the problem of Jewish dispersion and virulent anti-Semitism.
Weizmann stated in 1930 that the needs of 16 million Jews had to be balanced against those of 1 million Palestinian Arabs: “The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate have definitely lifted [Palestine] out of the context of the Middle East and linked it up with the world-wide Jewish problem….
The rights which the Jewish people has been adjudged in Palestine do not depend on the consent, and cannot be subjected to the will, of the majority of its present inhabitants.”
This perspective took its most extreme form with the Revisionist movement.
Its founder, Vladimir Jabotinsky, was so self-righteous about the Zionist cause that he justified any actions taken against the Arabs in order to realize Zionist goals.
Zionists generally felt that European civilization was superior to Arab culture and values.
Theodor Herzl, the founder of the World Zionist Organization, wrote in the Jewish State (1886) that the Jewish community could serve as: “part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism.”
Weizmann also believed that he was engaged in a fight of civilization against the desert.
The Zionists would bring enlightenment and economic development to the backward Arabs.
Similarly, David Ben-Gurion, the leading labor Zionist, could not understand why Arabs rejected his offer to use Jewish finance, scientific knowledge, and technical expertise to modernize the Middle East.
He attributed this rejection to backwardness rather than to the affront that Zionism posed to the Arabs’ pride and to their aspirations for independence.
Zionist leaders recognized that they needed an external patron to legitimize their presence in the international arena and to provide them legal and military protection in Palestine.
Great Britain played that role in the 1920s and 1930s, and the United States became the mentor in the mid-1940s.
Zionist leaders realized that they needed to make tactical accommodations to that patron—such as downplaying their public statements about their political aspirations or accepting a state on a limited territory—while continuing to work toward their long-term goals.
The presence and needs of the Arabs were viewed as secondary.
The Zionist leadership never considered allying with the Arab world against the British and Americans.
Rather, Weizmann, in particular, felt that the yishuv should bolster the British Empire and guard its strategic interests in the region.
Later, the leaders of Israel perceived the Jewish state as a strategic asset to the United States in the Middle East.
Zionist politicians accepted the idea of an Arab nation but rejected the concept of a Palestinian nation.
They considered the Arab residents of Palestine as comprising a minute fraction of the land and people of the Arab world, and as lacking any separate identity and aspirations (click here, to read our response to this myth).
Weizmann and Ben-Gurion were willing to negotiate with Arab rulers in order to gain those rulers’ recognition of Jewish statehood in Palestine in return for the Zionists’ recognition of Arab independence elsewhere, but they would not negotiate with the Arab politicians in Palestine for a political settlement in their common homeland.
As early as 1918, Weizmann wrote to a prominent British politician: “The real Arab movement is developing in Damascus and Mecca…the so-called Arab question in Palestine would therefore assume only a purely local character, and in fact is not considered a serious factor.”
In line with that thinking, Weizmann met with Emir Faysal in the same year, in an attempt to win his agreement to Jewish statehood in Palestine in return for Jewish financial support for Faysal as ruler of Syria and Arabia.
Ben-Gurion, Weizmann, and other Zionist leaders met with prominent Arab officials during the 1939 LONDON CONFERENCE, which was convened by Britain to seek a compromise settlement in Palestine.
The Arab diplomats from Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia criticized the exceptional position that the Balfour Declaration had granted the Jewish community and emphasized the estrangement between the Arab and Jewish residents that large scale Jewish immigration had caused.
In response, Weizmann insisted that Palestine remain open to all Jews who wanted to immigrate, and Ben-Gurion suggested that all of Palestine should become a Jewish state, federated with the surrounding Arab states.
The Arab participants criticized these demands for exacerbating the conflict, rather than contributing to the search for peace.
The Zionists’ premise that Arab statehood could be recognized while ignoring the Palestinians was thus rejected by the Arab rulers themselves.
Finally, Zionist leaders argued that if the Palestinians could not reconcile themselves to Zionism, then force majeure, not a compromise of goals, was the only possible response.
By the early 1920s, after violent Arab protests broke out in Jaffa and Jerusalem, leaders of the yishuv recognized that it might be impossible to bridge the gap between the aims of the two peoples.
Building the national home would lead to an unavoidable clash, since the Arab majority would not agree to become a minority.
In fact, as early as 1919 Ben-Gurion stated bluntly: “Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews.
But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution!
There is a gulf, and nothing can fill this gulf….I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews….
We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.”
As tensions increased in the 1920s and the 1930s Zionist leaders realized that they had to coerce the Arabs to acquiesce to a diminished status. Ben-Gurion stated in 1937, during the Arab revolt:
“This is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs….
This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews….
But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.”
This sober conclusion did not lead Ben-Gurion to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs: instead he became more determined to strengthen the Jewish military forces so that they could compel the Arabs to relinquish their claims.
In order to realize the aims of Zionism and build the Jewish national home, the Zionist movement undertook the following practical steps in many different realms:
They built political structures that could assume state functions
Created a military force.
Promoted large-scale immigration.
Acquired land as the inalienable property of the Jewish people
Established and monopolistic concessions. The labor federation, Histadrut, tried to force Jewish enterprises to hire only Jewish labor
Setting up an autonomous Hebrew-language educational system.
These measures created a self-contained national entity on Palestinian soil that was ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the Arab community.
The yishuv established an elected community council, executive body, administrative departments, and religious courts soon after the British assumed control over Palestine.
When the PALESTINE MANDATE was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922, the World Zionist Organization gained the responsibility to advise and cooperate with the British administration not only on economic and social matters affecting the Jewish national home but also on issues involving the general development of the country.
Although the British rejected pressure to give the World Zionist Organization an equal share in administration and control over immigration and land transfers, the yishuv did gain a privileged advisory position.
The Zionists were strongly critical of British efforts to establish a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL in 1923, 1930, and 1936.
They realized that Palestinians’ demands for a legislature with a Palestinian majority ran counter to their own need to delay establishing representative bodies until the Jewish community was much larger.
In 1923, the Jewish residents did participate in the elections for a Legislative Council, but they were relieved that the Palestinians’ boycott compelled the British to cancel the results.
In 1930 and 1936 the World Zionist Organization vigorously opposed British proposals for a legislature, fearing that, if the Palestinians received the majority status that proportional representation would require, then they would try to block Jewish immigration and the purchase of land by Zionist companies.
Zionist opposition was couched indirectly in the assertion that Palestine was not ripe for self-rule, a code for not until there’s a Jewish majority.
To bolster this position, the yishuv formed defense forces (Haganah) in March 1920.
They were preceded by the establishment of guards (hashomer) in Jewish rural settlements in the 1900s and the formation of a Jewish Legion in World War I.
However, the British disbanded the Jewish Legion and allowed only sealed armories in the settlements and mixed Jewish-British area defense committees.
Despite its illegal status, the Haganah expanded to number 10,000 trained and mobilized men, and 40,000 reservists by 1936.
During the 1937-38 Arab revolt, the Haganah engaged in active defense against Arab insurgents and cooperated with the British to guard railway lines, the oil pipeline to Haifa, and border fences.
This cooperation deepened during World War II, when 18,800 Jewish volunteers joined the British forces.
Haganah’s special Palmach units served as scouts and sappers for the British army in Lebanon in 1941-42. This wartime experience helped to transform the Haganah into a regular fighting force.
When Ben-Gurion became the World Zionist Organization’s secretary of defense in June 1947, he accelerated mobilization as well as arms buying in the United States and Europe.
As a result, mobilization leaped to 30,000 by May 1948, when statehood was proclaimed, and then doubled to 60,000 by mid-July—twice the number serving in the Arab forces arrayed against Israel.
A principal means for building up the national home was the promotion of large-scale immigration from Europe.
Estimates of the Palestinian population demonstrate the dramatic impact of immigration.
The first British census (December 31, 1922) counted 757,182 residents, of whom 83,794 were Jewish.
The second census (December 31, 1931) enumerated 1,035,821, including 174,006 Jews.
Thus, the absolute number of Jews had doubled and the relative number had increased from 11 percent to 17 percent.
Two-thirds of this growth could be attributed to net immigration, and one third to natural increase.
Two-thirds of the yishuv was concentrated in Jerusalem and Jaffa and Tel Aviv, with most of the remainder in the north, including the towns of HAIFA, SAFAD, and Tiberias.
The Mandate specified that the rate of immigration should accord with the economic capacity of the country to absorb the immigrants.
In 1931, the British government reinterpreted this to take into account only the Jewish sector of the economy, excluding the Palestinian sector, which was suffering from heavy unemployment.
As a result, the pace of immigration accelerated in 1932 and peaked in 1935-36.
In other words, the absolute number of Jewish residents doubled in the five years from 1931 to 1936 to 370,000, so that they constituted 28 percent of the total population.
Not until 1939 did the British impose a severe quota on Jewish immigrants.
That restriction was resisted by the yishuv with a sense of desperation, since it blocked access to a key haven for the Jews whom Hitler was persecuting and exterminating in Germany and the rest of Nazi-occupied Europe.
Net immigration was limited during the war years in the 1940s, but the government estimated in 1946 that there were about 583,000 Jews of nearly 1,888,000 residents, or 31 percent of the total Seventy percent of them were urban, and they continued to be overwhelmingly concentrated in Jerusalem (100,000) the Haifa area (119,000), and the JAFFA and RAMLA districts (327,000) (click here for a map illustrating Palestine’s population distribution in 1946).
The remaining 43,000 were largely in Galilee, with a scattering in the Negev and almost none in the central highlands.
The World Zionist Organization purchasing agencies launched large-scale land purchases in order to found rural settlements and stake territorial claims.
In 1920 the Zionists held about 650,000 dunums (one dunum equals approximately one-quarter of an acre).
By 1930, the amount had expanded to 1,164,000 dunums and by 1936 to 1,400,000 dunums.
The major purchasing agent (the Palestine Land Development Company) estimated that, by 1936, 89 percent had been bought from large landowners (primarily absentee owners from Beirut) and only 11 percent from peasants
. By 1947, the yishuv held 1.9 million dunums.
Nevertheless, this represented only 7 percent of the total land surface or 10 to 12 percent of the cultivable land (click here for a map illustrating Palestine’s land ownership distribution in 1946)
According to Article 3 of the Constitution of the Jewish Agency, the land was held by the Jewish National Fund as the inalienable property of the Jewish people; ONLY Jewish labor could be employed in the settlements, Palestinians protested bitterly against this inalienability clause.
The moderate National Defense Party, for example, petitioned the British in 1935 to prevent further land sales, arguing that it was a: life and death [matter] to the Arabs, in that it results in the transfer of their country to other hands and the loss of their nationality.
The placement of Jewish settlements was often based on political considerations. The Palestine Land Development Company had four criteria for land purchase:
The economic suitability of the tract
Its contribution to forming a solid block of Jewish territory.
The prevention of isolation of settlements
The impact of the purchase on the political-territorial claims of the Zionists.
The stockade and watchtower settlements constructed in 1937, for example, were designed to secure control over key parts of Galilee for the yishuv in case the British implemented the PEEL PARTITION PLAN.
Similarly, eleven settlements were hastily erected in the Negev in late 1946 in an attempt to stake a political claim in that entirely Palestinian-populated territory.
In addition to making these land purchases, prominent Jewish businessmen won monopolistic concessions from the British government that gave the Zionist movement an important role in the development of Palestine’s natural resources.
In 1921, Pinhas Rutenberg’s Palestine Electric Company acquired the right to electrify all of Palestine except Jerusalem.
Moshe Novomeysky received the concession to develop the minerals in the Dead Sea in 1927.
And the Palestine Land Development Company gained the concession to drain the Hula marshes, north of the Sea of Galilee, in 1934.
In each case, the concession was contested by other serious non-Jewish claimants; Palestinian politicians argued that the government should retain control itself in order to develop the resources for the benefit of the entire country.
The inalienability clause in the Jewish National Fund contracts included provision that ONLY JEWS could work on Jewish agricultural settlements.
The concepts of manual labor and the return to the soil were key to the Zionist enterprise.
This Jewish labor policy was enforced by the General Foundation of Jewish Labor (Histadrut), founded in 1920 and headed by David Ben-Gurion.
Since some Jewish builders and citrus growers hired Arabs, who worked for lower wages than Jews, the Histadrut launched a campaign in 1933 to remove those Arab workers.
Histadrut organizers picketed citrus groves and evicted Arab workers from construction sites and factories in the cities.
The strident propaganda by the Histradut increased the Arabs’ fears for the future. George Mansur, a Palestinian labor leader, wrote angrily in 1937:
“The Histadrut’s fundamental aim is ‘the conquest of labor’…No matter how many Arab workers are unemployed, they have no right to take any job which a possible immigrant might occupy. No Arab has the right to work in Jewish undertakings.”
Finally, the establishment of an all-Jewish, Hebrew-language educational system was an essential component of building the Jewish national home.
It helped to create a cohesive national ethos and a lingua franca among the diverse immigrants.
However, it also entirely separated Jewish children from Palestinian children, who attended the governmental schools.
The policy widened the linguistic and cultural gap between the two peoples.
In addition, there was a stark contrast in their literacy levels (in 1931):
93 percent of Jewish males (above age seven) were literate
71 percent of Christian males
but only 25 percent of Muslim males were literate.
Overall, Palestinian literacy increased from 19 percent in 1931 to 27 percent by 1940, but only 30 percent of Palestinian children could be accommodated in government and private schools.
The practical policies of the Zionist movement created a compact and well-rooted community by the late 1940s.
The yishuv had its own political, educational, economic, and military institutions, parallel to the governmental system. Jews minimized their contact with the Arab community and outnumbered the Arabs in certain key respects.
Jewish urban dwellers, for example, greatly exceeded Arab urbanites, even though Jews constituted but one-third of the population.
Many more Jewish children attended school than did Arab children, and Jewish firms employed seven times as many workers as Arab firms.
Thus the relative weight and autonomy of the yishuv were much greater than sheer numbers would suggest.
The transition to statehood was facilitated by the existence of the proto state institutions and a mobilized, literate public.
But the separation from the Palestinian residents will exacerbated by these autarchic policies.
POLICIES TOWARD THE PALESTINIANS
The main view point within the Zionist movement was that the Arab problem would be solved by first solving the Jewish problem.
In time, the Palestinians would be presented with the fait accompli of a Jewish majority.
Settlements, land purchases, industries, and military forces were developed gradually and systematically so that the yishuv would become too strong to uproot.
In a letter to his son, Weizmann compared the Arabs to the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared to make the path smooth.
When the Palestinians mounted violent protests in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936-39, and the late 1940s, the yishuv sought to curb them by force, rather than seek a political accommodation with the indigenous people.
Any concessions made to the Palestinians by the British government concerning immigration, land sales, or labor were strongly contested by the Zionist leaders.
In fact, in 1936, Ben-Gurion stated that the Palestinians will only acquiesce in a Jewish Eretz Israel after they are in a state of total despair.
Zionists viewed their acceptance of territorial partition as a temporary measure; they did not give up the idea of the Jewish community’s right to all of Palestine.
Weizmann commented in 1937: “In the course of time we shall expand to the whole country…this is only an arrangement for the next 15-30 years.”
Ben-Gurion stated in 1938, “After we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
A FEW EFFORTS were made to reduce Arab opposition. For example in the 1920s, Zionist organizations provided financial support to Palestinian political parties, newspapers, and individuals.
This was most evident in the establishment and support of the National Muslim Societies (1921-23) and Agricultural Parties (1924-26).
These parties were expected to be neutral or positive toward the Zionist movement, in return for which they would receive financial subventions and their members would be helped to obtain jobs and loans.
This policy was backed by Weizmann, who commented that: “extremists and moderates alike were susceptible to the influence of money and honors.”
However, Leonard Stein, a member of the London office of the World Zionist Organization, denounced this practice.
He argued that Zionists must seek a permanent modus vivendi with the Palestinians by hiring them in Jewish firms and admitting them to Jewish universities.
He maintained that political parties in which Arab moderates are merely Arab gramophones playing Zionist records would collapse as soon as the Zionist financial support ended.
In any event, the World Zionist Organization terminated the policy by 1927, as it was in the midst of a financial crisis and as most of the leaders felt that the policy was ineffective.
Some Zionist leaders argued that the Arab community had to be involved in the practical efforts of the Zionist movement.
Chaim Kalvarisky, who initiated the policy of buying support, articulated in 1923 the gap between that ideal and the reality: “Some people say…that only by common work in the field of commerce, industry and agriculture mutual understanding between Jews and Arabs will ultimately be attained….
This is, however, merely a theory. In practice we have not done and we are doing nothing for any work in common.
How many Arab officials have we installed in our banks? Not even one.
How many Arabs have we brought into our schools? Not even one.
What commercial houses have we established in company with Arabs? Not even one.”
Two years later, Kalvarisky lamented: “We all admit the importance of drawing closer to the Arabs, but in fact we are growing more distant like a drawn bow.
We have no contact: two separate worlds, each living its own life and fighting the other.”
Some members of the yishuv emphasized the need for political relations with the Palestinian Arabs, to achieve either a peacefully negotiated territorial partition (as Nahum Goldmann sought) or a binational state (as Brit Shalom and Hashomer Ha-tzair proposed).
But few went as far as Dr. Judah L. Magnes, chancellor of The Hebrew University, who argued that Zionism meant merely the creation of a Jewish cultural center in Palestine rather than an independent state.
In any case, the binationalists had little impact politically and were strongly opposed by the leadership of the Zionist movement.
Zionist leaders felt they did not harm the Palestinians by blocking them from working in Jewish settlements and industries or even by undermining their majority status.
The Palestinians were considered a small part of the large Arab nation; their economic and political needs could be met in that wider context, Zionists felt, rather than in Palestine.
They could move elsewhere if they sought land and could merge with Transjordan if they sought political independence.
This thinking led logically to the concept of population TRANSFER. In 1930 Weizmann suggested that the problems of insufficient land resources within Palestine and of the dispossession of peasants could be solved by moving them to Transjordan and Iraq.
He urged the Jewish Agency to provide a loan of £1 million to help move Palestinian farmers to Transjordan.
The issue was discussed at length in the Jewish Agency debates of 1936-37 on partition.
At first, the majority proposed a voluntary transfer of Palestinians from the Jewish state, but later they realized that the Palestinians would never leave voluntarily.
Therefore, key leaders such as Ben-Gurion insisted that compulsory transfer was essential.
The Jewish Agency then voted that the British government should pay for the removal of the Palestinian Arabs from the territory allotted to the Jewish state.
The fighting from 1947 to 1949 resulted in a far larger transfer than had been envisioned in 1937.
It solved the Arab problem by removing most of the Arabs and was the ultimate expression of the policy of force majeure.
The land and people of Palestine were transformed during the thirty years of British rule.
The systematic colonization undertaken by the Zionist movement enabled the Jewish community to establish separate and virtually autonomous political, economic, social, cultural, and military institutions.
A state within a state was in place by the time the movement launched its drive for independence.
The legal underpinnings for the autonomous Jewish community were provided by the British Mandate.
The establishment of a Jewish state was first proposed by the British Royal Commission in July 1937 and then endorsed by the UNITED NATIONS in November 1947.
That drive for statehood IGNORED the presence of a Palestinian majority with its own national aspirations
. The right to create a Jewish state—and the overwhelming need for such a state—were perceived as overriding Palestinian counterclaims.
Few members of the yishuv supported the idea of binationalism.
Rather, territorial partition was seen by most Zionist leaders as the way to gain statehood while according certain national rights to the Palestinians.
TRANSFER of Palestinians to neighboring Arab states was also envisaged as a means to ensure the formation of a homogeneous Jewish territory.
The implementation of those approaches led to the formation of independent Israel, at the cost of dismembering the Palestinian community and fostering long-term hostility with the Arab world.
Several U.S. tech giants including Google, Microsoft and Intel Corporation have filled top positions with former members of Israeli military intelligence and are heavily investing in their Israeli branches while laying off thousands of American employees, all while receiving millions of dollars in U.S. government subsidies funded by American taxpayers.
Start-Up Nation Central, billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s project to bolster Israel’s tech economy at the expense of American workers, was founded in response to the global Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply with international law in relation to its treatment of Palestinians:
WITH NEARLY 6 MILLION AMERICANS UNEMPLOYED, and regular bouts of layoffs in the U.S. tech industry, major American tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Intel Corporation are nonetheless moving key operations, billions in investments, and thousands of jobs to Israel—a trend that has largely escaped media attention or concern from even “America first” politicians.
The fact that this massive transfer of investment and jobs has been so overlooked is particularly striking given that it is largely the work of a single leading neoconservative Republican donor who has given millions of dollars to President Donald Trump.
Many of the top tech companies continue to shift investment and jobs to Israel at record rates even as they collect sizable U.S. government subsidies for their operations while they move critical aspects of their business abroad.
The trend is particularly troubling in light of the importance of the tech sector to the overall U.S. economy, as it accounts for 7.1 percent of total GDP and 11.6 percent of total private-sector payroll.
Furthermore, many of these companies are hiring, as top managers and executives, the members of controversial Israeli companies known to have spied on American citizens, U.S. companies, and U.S. federal agencies, as well as numerous members of Israeli military intelligence.
This massive transfer of the American tech industry has largely been the work of one leading Republican donor—billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer—who also funds the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Islamophobic and hawkish think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), and also funded the now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Singer’s project to bolster Israel’s tech economy at American expense is known as “Start-Up Nation Central,” which he founded in response to the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply with international law in its treatment of Palestinians.
This project is directly linked to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who in recent years has publicly mentioned that it has been his “deliberate policy” to have former members of Israel’s “military and intelligence units…merge into companies with local partners and foreign partners” in order to make it all but impossible for major corporations and foreign governments to boycott Israel.
Singer’s nonprofit organization has acted as the vehicle through which Netanyahu’s policy has been realized, via the group’s close connections to the Israeli PM and Singer’s long-time support for Netanyahu and the Likud Party. With deep ties to Netanyahu, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and controversial tech companies—like Amdocs—that spied on the American government, this Singer-funded organization has formed a nexus of connections between the public and private sectors of both the American and Israeli economies with the single goal of making Israel the new technology superpower, largely at the expense of the American economy and the U.S. government, which currently gives $3.8 billion in annual aid to Israel.
RESEARCHED AND DEVELOPED IN ISRAEL
In recent years, the top U.S. tech companies have been shifting many of their most critical operations, particularly research and development, to one country: Israel.
A 2016 report in Business Insider noted that Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple had all opened up research and development (R&D) centers in recent years, with some of them having as many as three such centers in Israel, a country roughly the size of New Jersey.
Other major tech companies that have also opened key operation and research centers in Israel include SanDisk, Nvidia, PayPal, Palantir and Dell. Forbes noted last year that the world’s top 10 tech companies were now “doing mission-critical work in Israel that’s core to their businesses back at HQ.”
Yet, some of these tech giants, particularly those based in the United States, are heavily investing in their Israeli branches.
For example, Intel Corporation, which is the world’s second largest manufacturer of semiconductor computer chips and is headquartered in California, has long been a major employer in Israel, with over 10,000 employees in the Zionist state.
However, earlier this year, Intel announced that it would be investing $11 billion in a new factory in Israel and would receive around $1 billion in an Israeli government grant for that investment.
Just a matter of months after Intel announced its major new investment in Israel, it announced a new round of layoffs in the United States.
Yet this is just one recent example of what has become a trend for Intel. In 2018, Intel made public its plan to invest $5 billion in one of its Israeli factories and had invested an additional $15 billion in Israeli-created autonomous driving technology a year prior, creating thousands of Intel jobs in Israel.
Notably, over a similar time frame, Intel has cut nearly 12,000 jobs in the United States.
While this great transfer of investment and jobs was undermining the U.S. economy and hurting American workers, particularly in the tech sector, Intel received over $25 million dollars in subsidies from the U.S. government.
A similar phenomenon has been occurring at another U.S.-based tech giant, Microsoft. Beginning in 2014 and continuing into 2018, Microsoft laid off well over 20,000 employees, most of them Americans, in several different rounds of staff cuts.
Over that same time period, Microsoft has been on a hiring spree in Israel, building new campuses and investing billions of dollars annually in its Israel-based research and development center and in other Israeli start-up companies, creating thousands of jobs abroad.
In addition, Microsoft has been pumping millions of dollars into technology programs at Israeli universities and institutes, such as the Technion Institute.
Over this same time frame, Microsoft has received nearly $197 million in subsidies from the state governments of Washington, Iowa and Virginia.
Israeli politicians and tech company executives have attributed this dramatic shift to Israel’s tech prowess and growing reputation as a technological innovation hub, obscuring Singer’s effort in concert with Netanyahu to counter a global movement aimed at boycotting Israel and to make Israel a global “cyber power.”
START-UP NATION CENTRAL AND THE NEOCONS
In 2009, a book titled Start Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, written by American neoconservative Dan Senor and Jerusalem Post journalist Saul Singer (unrelated to Paul), quickly rose to the New York Times bestseller list for its depiction of Israel as the tech start-up capital of the world.
The book—published by the Council on Foreign Relations, where Senor was then serving as adjunct senior fellow—asserts that Israel’s success in producing so many start-up companies resulted from the combination of its liberal immigration laws and its “leverage of the business talents of young people with military experience.”
In a post-publication interview with the blog Freakonomics, Senor asserted that service in the Israeli military was crucial to Israel’s tech sector success.
“Certain units have become technology boot camps, where 18- to 22-year-olds get thrown projects and missions that would make the heads spin of their counterparts in universities or the private sector anywhere else in the world,” wrote Senor and Singer.
“The Israelis come out of the military not just with hands-on exposure to next-gen technology, but with training in teamwork, mission orientation, leadership, and a desire to continue serving their country by contributing to its tech sector—a source of pride for just about every Israeli.”
The book, in addition to the many accolades it received from the mainstream press, left a lasting impact on top Republican donor Paul Singer, known for funding the most influential neoconservative think tanks in America, as noted above.
Paul Singer was so inspired by Senor and Singer’s book that he decided to spend $20 million to fund and create an organization with a similar name.
He created Start-Up Nation Central (SUNC) several years after the book’s release in 2009.
To achieve his vision, Singer—who is also a top donor to the Republican Party and Trump—tapped Israeli economist Eugene Kandel, who served as Netanyahu’s national economic adviser and chaired the Israeli National Economic Council from 2009 to 2015.
Senor was likely directly involved in the creation of SUNC, as he was then employed by Paul Singer and, with neoconservatives Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, co-founded the FPI.
In addition, Dan Senor’s sister, Wendy Singer (unrelated to either Paul or Saul), long-time director of Israel’s AIPAC office, became the organization’s executive director.
SUNC’s management team, in addition to Eugene Kandel and Wendy Singer, includes Guy Hilton as the organization’s general manager.
Hilton is a long-time marketing executive at Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs and is credited with having “transformed” the company’s marketing organization.
Amdocs was once highly controversial in the United States after it was revealed by a 2001 Fox News investigation that numerous federal agencies had investigated the company, which then had contracts with the 25 largest telephone companies in the country, for its alleged role in an aggressive espionage operation that targeted the U.S. government.
Hilton worked at Microsoft prior to joining Amdocs.
Beyond the management team, SUNC’s board of directors includes Paul Singer, Dan Senor and Terry Kassel—who work for Singer at his hedge fund, Elliott Management—and Raphael Ouzan.
An officer in the elite foreign military intelligence unit of Israel, Unit 8200, Ouzan co-founded BillGuard the day after he left that unit, which is often compared to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
Within five months of its founding, BillGuard was backed by funding from PayPal founder Peter Thiel and former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt.
Ouzan is also connected to U.S. tech companies that have greatly expanded their Israeli branches since SUNC’s founding—such as Microsoft, Google, PayPal and Intel, all of which support Ouzan’s non-profit Israel Tech Challenge.
According to reports from the time published in Haaretz and Bloomberg, SUNC was explicitly founded to serve as “a foreign ministry for Israel’s tech industry” and “to strength Israel’s economy” while also aiming to counter the BDS movement, as well as the growth of illegal Jewish-only settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.
Since its founding, SUNC has sought to transfer tech jobs from foreign companies to Israel by developing connections and influence with foreign governments and companies so that they “deepen their relationship with Israel’s tech industry.”
Although SUNC has since expanded to include other sectors of the Israeli “start-up” economy, its focus has long remained on Israel’s tech, specifically its cybersecurity industry. Foreign investment in this single Israeli industry has grown from $227 million in 2014 to $815 million in 2017.
In addition to its own activities, SUNC appears to be closely linked to a similar organization, sponsored by Coca-Cola and Daimler Mercedes-Benz, called The Bridge, which also seeks to connect Israeli start-up companies with large international corporations.
Indeed, SUNC, according to its website, was actually responsible for Daimler Mercedes Benz’s decision to join The Bridge, thanks to a delegation from the company that SUNC hosted in Israel and the connections made during that visit.
TEAMING UP WITH ISRAEL’S UNIT 8200
Notably, SUNC has deep ties to Israel’s military intelligence Unit 8200 and, true to Start-Up Nation’s praise of IDF service as key to Israel’s success, has been instrumental in connecting Unit 8200 alumni with key roles in foreign companies, particularly American tech companies.
For instance, Maty Zwaig, a former lieutenant colonel in Unit 8200, is SUNC’s current director of human capital programs, and SUNC’s current manager of strategic programs, Tamar Weiss, is also a former member of the unit.
One particularly glaring connection between SUNC and Unit 8200 is Inbal Arieli, who served as SUNC’s vice president of strategic partnerships from 2014 to 2017 and continues to serve as a senior adviser to the organization.
A former lieutenant in Unit 8200, Arieli is the founder and head of the 8200 Entrepreneurship and Innovation Support Program (EISP), which was the first start-up accelerator in Israel aimed at harnessing “the vast network and entrepreneurial DNA of [Unit] 8200 alumni” and is currently one of the top company accelerators in Israel. Arieli was the top executive at 8200 EISP while working at SUNC.
Another key connection between SUNC and Unit 8200 is SUNC’s promotion of Team8, a company-creation platform whose CEO and co-founder is Nadav Zafrir, former commander of Unit 8200. In addition to prominently featuring Team8 and Zafrir on the cybersecurity section of its website, SUNC also sponsored a talk by Zafrir and an Israeli government economist at the World Economic Forum, often referred to as “Davos,” that was attended personally by Paul Singer.
Team8’s investors include Google’s Eric Schmidt, Microsoft, and Walmart—and it recently hired former head of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command, retired Admiral Mike Rogers. Team8 described the decision to hire Rogers as being “instrumental in helping strategize” Team8’s expansion in the United States. However, Jake Williams, a veteran of NSA’s Tailored Access Operations hacking unit, told CyberScoop:
“Rogers is not being brought into this role because of his technical experience …It’s purely because of his knowledge of classified operations and his ability to influence many in the U.S. government and private-sector contractors.”
In addition to connections to Unit 8200-linked groups like Team8 and 8200 EISP, SUNC also directly collaborates with the IDF in an initiative aimed at preparing young Israeli women to serve in Unit 8200.
That initiative, called the CyberGirlz Club, is jointly funded by Israel’s Defense Ministry, SUNC and the Rashi Foundation, the philanthropic organization set up by the Leven family of Perrier-brand water, which has close ties to the Israeli government and IDF.
“Our aim is to bring the girls to this process already skilled, with the knowledge needed to pass the exams for Unit 8200 and serve in the military as programmers,” Zwaig told Israel National News.
SEEDING AMERICAN TECH
Yaniv Bar (l) and Udi Cohen, former Israeli intelligence officers and founders of the start-up Aclim8, demonstrate their co-developed “COMBAR” all-in-one hiking tool for “weekend warriors,” at their office in the northern Israeli Kibbutz of Maayan Tzvi, May 21, 2018. Israel’s military is an incubator for future high-tech firms started by former soldiers. (JACK GUEZ/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
The connections between SUNC and Unit 8200 are troubling for more than a few reasons, one being that Unit 8200, often likened to the NSA, closely coordinates with Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, and is responsible for 90 percent of the intelligence material obtained by the Israeli government, according to its former commander Yair Cohen.
“There isn’t a major operation, from the Mossad or any intelligence security agency, that 8200 is not involved in,” Cohen told Forbes in 2016.
An organization founded by an American billionaire is thus actively promoting the presence of former military intelligence officers in foreign companies, specifically American companies, while also promoting the transfer of jobs and investment to that same country.
Particularly troubling is the fact that since SUNC’s founding, the number of former Unit 8200 members in top positions in American tech companies has skyrocketed.
Based on a non-exhaustive analysis conducted by MintPress of over 200 LinkedIn accounts of former Israeli military intelligence and intelligence officers in three major tech companies, numerous former Unit 8200 alumni were found to currently hold top managerial or executive positions in Microsoft, Google and Facebook.
The influence of Unit 8200 on these companies very likely goes deeper than this non-exhaustive analysis revealed, given that many of these companies acquired several Israeli start-ups staffed by Unit 8200 alumni who subsequently went on to found new companies and start-ups shortly after acquisition.
Furthermore, due to the limitations of LinkedIn’s set-up, MintPress was not able to access the complete list of Unit 8200 alumni at these three tech companies, meaning that the eye-opening numbers found were generated by a relatively small sample.
This jump in Unit 8200 members in top positions at tech companies of global importance is actually a policy long promoted by Netanyahu, whose long-time economic adviser is the chief executive at SUNC.
During an interview with Fox News last year, Netanyahu was asked by Fox News host Mark Levin if the large growth seen in recent years in Israel’s technology sector was part of Netanyahu’s plan.
“That’s very much my plan,” Netanyahu responded. “It’s a very deliberate policy.”
He later added that “Israel had technology because the military, especially military intelligence, produced a lot of capabilities.
These incredibly gifted young men and women who come out of the military or the Mossad, they want to start their start-ups.”
Netanyahu further outlined this policy at the 2019 Cybertech conference in Tel Aviv, where he stated that Israel’s emergence as one of the top five “cyber powers” had “required allowing this combination of military intelligence, academia and industry to converge in one place” and that this further required allowing “our graduates of our military and intelligence units to merge into companies with local partners and foreign partners.”
The direct tie-ins of SUNC to Netanyahu and the fact that Paul Singer has also been a long-time political donor and backer of Netanyahu suggest that SUNC is a key part of Netanyahu’s policy of placing former military intelligence and intelligence operatives in strategic positions in major technology companies.
Notably, just as SUNC was founded to counter the BDS movement, Netanyahu has asserted that this policy of ensuring Israel’s role as a “cyber power” is aimed at increasing its diplomatic power and specifically undermining BDS as well as the United Nations, which has repeatedly condemned Israel’s government for war crimes and violations of international law in relation to the Palestinians.
BUILDING THE BI-NATIONAL SURVEILLANCE STATE
To sum up, a powerful American billionaire has built an influential organization with deep connections to AIPAC, with an Israeli company that has been repeatedly investigated for spying on the U.S. government (Amdocs), and with the elite Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200 that has used its influential connections to the U.S. government and the private sector to dramatically shift the operations and make-up of major companies in a critical sector of the American economy.
Further consider that U.S. government documents leaked by Edward Snowden have flagged Israel as a “leading threat” to the infrastructure of U.S. financial and banking institutions, which use much of the software produced by these top tech companies, and have also flagged Israel as a top espionage threat.
One U.S. government document cited Israel as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the U.S. behind Russia and China.
Thus, Paul Singer’s pet project in Start-Up Nation Central has undermined not only the U.S. economy but arguably national security as well.
This concern is further exacerbated by the deep ties connecting top tech companies like Microsoft and Google to the U.S. military.
Microsoft and Google are both key military contractors. Microsoft is set to win a lucrative contract for the Pentagon’s cloud management and has partnered with the Department of Defense to produce a “secure” election system known as ElectionGuard that is set to be implemented in some U.S. states for the 2020 general election.
Top U.S. tech companies have filled executive positions with former members of Israeli military intelligence and moved strategic and critical operations to Israel, boosting Israel’s economy at the expense of America’s. SUNC’s role in this marked shift merits the deepest scrutiny.
Evidence that came to light after Israel removed its gag order on information regarding the June 12 kidnapping and murder of three Jewish Israeli students suggests that it was an Israeli government operation that was intentionally used to punish Hamas and break up the new Palestinian unity government.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had immediately accused Hamas of the kidnapping — without presenting any evidence — and proceeded to “conduct a search” throughout the entirety of the West Bank until the bodies were reportedly found on June 30th.
The “search” entailed arresting and beating up about 600 Hamas members (including legislators) and trashing about 2100 homes; Israeli forces killed at least 7 Palestinians.
Israel also heightened its daily air strikes on the Gaza Strip, which has been under the Israeli blockade since Sept. 2006.
The Gaza government appealed to the UN for relief, which responded by condemning the kidnappings rather than the massive abuse of the Palestinian population. And then urging “all parties” to show restraint.
On July 1, Israel removed a gag order on information about the kidnapping that revealed shocking facts:
The Israeli government had informed members of the press around June 15th that it was aware that the students had been killed (1) but placed a gag order on that information: the government must thus have known where the bodies were. The brutal “search” was merely cover for punishment of members of Hamas, the democratically-elected party of Palestinians throughout the occupied territories. The Israeli media played along with the pretext for the abuse.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were only called in 8-9 hours after the first call to report the kidnapping.One of the students placed a call to the police emergency hotline 10 minutes after they accepted a hitchhiking ride home, with the message that he was being kidnapped. The statement was followed by what sounded like several gunshots, groans and silence; the call lasted for 49 seconds. Police ignored the call. The teen’s father called police 5 hours later, at 3:30 am, to report his son missing. “Several hours” after that, after an exchange of 54 phone calls, the IDF and Shin Bet finally became involved. (2)
Despite possession of all of the evidence of the kidnappings and murders, the Israeli government has offered no evidence that indicates responsibilityfor the acts. Those with any direct connection to the phone calls or the finding of the bodies have remained unidentified.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has used this event for huge political gain:
to create divisions within the new “unity government” of Fatah and Hamas,
to physically punish Hamas members and the cause of Palestinian resistance,
to get legislation passed through the Knesset to block the return of East Jerusalem to Palestinians (1),
to try to foment a third intifada to legitimate further attacks on Palestinians (1) and
to whip up such hatred of Palestinians that it has become dangerous for them to be seen on Israeli streets.
The Israeli government is continuing to harass and attack Palestinians until it supposedly finds the killers.
The two young Hebron men named as the accused have been missing since June 12th.
The uncovering of this deception should arouse world condemnation.
Quotes one Israeli emigrant from Iraq: “In Baghdad we got along fine with the Arabs. But here we have to fight them.”
During Stanford Professor Joel Beinin’s visit to the Urbana campus of the University of Illinois in March of 2000, I was introduced to the seemingly esoteric topic of the plight of Jews in Arab societies subsequent to the establishment of Israel–specifically regarding his research specialty at that time, the Jews of Egypt.
In Beinin’s outstanding book on this subject, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, he explores the ultimately unsuccessful attempt of 75,000 Egyptian Jews to “maintain their multiple identities and to resist the monism of increasingly obdurate Zionist and Egyptian national discourses.”
Beinin also spoke presciently—6 months before the beginning of the 2nd intifada–of the dire conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, which he described as “worse than horrible.”
Six months after Sharon’s 2000 visit to the Temple Mount, in March of 2001, a political advertisement sponsored by The American Jewish Committee and Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago appeared in the Chicago Tribune titled “The Other Refugees.” It claimed that:
“The Arab onslaught of 1948 and its aftermath tragically produced two—not one—refugee populations, one Jewish and one Arab.
More than 700,000 Jews across the Arab world were forced to flee for their lives, their property ransacked in deadly riots, and their schools, hospitals, synagogues and cemeteries expropriated or destroyed.”
The ad went on to compare the absorption of many of these Jews by Israel to Palestinians who ”have remained quarantined in squalid camps,” concluding that “Palestinian leadership, backed by many in the Arab world, seeks the destruction of Israel through the ‘return’ of the refugees and their millions of descendants.”
This diatribe concluded by claiming that such a return would mean “Israel’s national suicide.”
This bald propaganda has its origins in, among other things, a tendentious revision of the history of Arab Jews, from one of general cooperation with Muslims (also over-simplified) to deep-seated conflict and persecution.
Beinin mentions prominent examples of this revisionism in his book.
In 1974, a Jewish Israeli woman with the pen name of Bat Ye’or (daughter of the Nile) published Les Juifs en Egypte, to which Beinin credits with originating the “neo-lachrymose” view of Arab Jews, often referred to as Sephardic Jews, or more commonly as Mizrahim (Easterners), as they have come to be called in Israel.
Beinin defines two motivations for the popularity of this “normative Zionist interpretation of the history of the Jews of Egypt” and, by generalization, the Jews of other Middle Eastern and North African countries.
First, it served to counter the grievances of Palestinian refugees, by claiming a “fair exchange” between refugee populations.
Second, it provided the Mizrahim in Israel a means with which to redress their mistreatment in Arab countries, and—just as important—to claim a status in Israel comparable to Ashkenazi survivors of European anti-Semitism.
To distance themselves from Arab cultural attachments, Beinin argues, was “the price of admission to Israeli society.”
Beinin quotes one Israeli emigrant from Iraq: “In Baghdad we got along fine with the Arabs. But here we have to fight them.”
While Joan Peters’ notorious From Time Immemorial (1984) was discredited for its fraudulent demographic argument that the Palestinians essentially did not exist, it is rarely noted that Peters also supported the neo-lachrymose narrative of Arab Jewish history.
This narrative has spawned various examples of tendentious scholarship and outright propaganda, some of which appear in Malka Hillel Shulewitz’s The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Jewish Lands (1999).
More important, as Beinin notes, this view was adopted by Martin Gilbert in The Jews of Arab Lands (1976), and Bernard Lewis in The Jews of Islam (1984). In Semites and Anti-Semites (1984), Lewis emphasized, according to Beinin, the “vulgar characteristics of Arab-Jewish relations.”
This discourse suggests at least three areas of inquiry. The first and largest, of course, concerns the actual causes of the emigration of Arab Jews, to Israel and elsewhere.
The second, already suggested, concerns the status of the Mizrahim in Israeli society as an oppressed population. The final topic is that of the purpose of the propaganda itself, in order to explain its relatively recent popular dissemination.
I will briefly address the last topic first by speculating that, to a certain extent, Zionist propagandists have finally given up the ghost and ceased to claim that the nakba can be traced to “Arab broadcasts.”
But while the expulsion of the Palestinian refugees has been at least tacitly acknowledged—if not its willfulness and the extent of its attendant brutality—this has in turn generated an alternative propaganda strategy based on the claim of “population exchange” that was put forward in the AJC/JFMC ad.
It is argued that this exchange has remained incomplete because other Arabs (the same who expelled Jews) “turned their backs on the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who crossed into Arab lands.”
As Palestinian invocation of the Right of Return has continued throughout this decade, the “population exchange” myth and tactic has become conventional hasbara wisdom, casually and repeatedly invoked, for example, in letters to the New York Times.
Ten years ago, American Jews of Ashkenazi origin generally knew little beyond “Operation Magic Carpet” that brought Jews to Israel from Yemen. Now they “know” more, but their ignorance has been compounded.
It has become “common knowledge” among defenders of Israel that the advent of the Jewish state brought, quid pro quo, the brutal dispossession and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews within a relatively brief period.
There is little knowledge of the details of this expulsion, and for good reason—the claim does not withstand scrutiny.
A discussion of the second topic, that of the status of Arab Jews in Israeli society, may begin with Beinin’s observations quoted above, but centrally refers to the work of Ella Shohat, a Jewish Iraqi emigrant to Israel and then the United States.
In “Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Victims,” Shohat begins with the observation that:
“Sephardi Jews were first brought to Israel for specific European-Zionist reasons, and once there they were systematically discriminated against by a Zionism which deployed its energies and material resources differentially, to the consistent advantage of European Jews and to the consistent detriment of Oriental Jews.”
In historical discourse, this has meant that by:
“distinguishing the “evil” East (the Moslem Arab) from the “good” East (the Jewish Arab), Israel has taken upon itself to “cleanse” the Sephardim of their Arab-ness and redeem them from their “primal sin” of belonging to the Orient.
Israeli historiography absorbs the Jews of Asia and Africa into the monolithic official memory of European Jews. Sephardi Jews learn virtually nothing of value about their particular history as Jews in the Orient..”
Shohat claims that it is too simple to assert that the “price of admission” for Mizrahim into Israeli society has been to learn to hate Arabs and to simplify their own complicated histories in Arab cultures.
She points out that Arab-hating has ironically become part of the negative stereotype of Mizrahim as defined by “enlightened” European Israelis, including those in Peace Now:
“The Sephardim, when not ignored by the Israeli left, appear only to be scapegoated for everything that is wrong with Israel; “they” are turning Israel into a right-wing and anti-democratic state; “they” support the occupation; “they” are an obstacle to peace.
These prejudices are then disseminated by Israeli “leftist” in international conferences, lectures, and publications.”
The result of this coerced assimilation and continuing prejudice, Shohat concludes, is that “the identity of Arab Jews has been fractured, their life possibilities diminished, their hopes deferred.”
One response has been the emerging notion of Mizrahi identity as a “departure from previous concepts of Jewishness.”
Vital in forming this identity is a more complex historical analysis of the circumstances that led to the emigration of Arab Jews.
Shohat suggests in “The Invention of the Mizrahim” that such an analysis would consider:
“the secret collaboration between Israel and some Arab regimes, with the background orchestration of the British; the impact of this direct or indirect collaboration on both Arab Jews and Palestinians, now cast into antagonistic roles; Zionist attempts to drive a wedge between Jewish and Muslim communities; the Arab nationalism that failed to make a distinction between Jews and Zionists; and Arab Jewish misconceptions about the secular nation-state project of Zionism, which had almost nothing to do with their own religious community identity. Arab Jews left their countries of origin with mingled excitement and terror but, most importantly, full of Zionist-manipulated confusion, misunderstanding, and projections.”
This brings me to a brief overview of the emigration of Jews from various Arab countries: Algeria (1961-2), Egypt (1948-67), Iraq (1950-51), Morocco (1948-87), Syria (1948-56), Tunisia (after 1956), and Yemen (1948-49). My purpose is to refer to some helpful generalizations employed by reliable scholars, and to provide a selective list of references. Even a brief consideration of these points easily dispels the historical assumptions of the “exchange of populations” tactic.
Beyond those mentioned by Shohat, general factors that must be considered in each case include: the changing economic and cultural status of Jews under British and French colonization, especially French (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia); the political relationship of Jews—religious or Zionist, bourgeois, nationalist, leftist, or Communist–to Arab nationalist movements (Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, Tunisia); the influence of Zionism among Jews, before and after 1948, and the extent of the messianic desire to emigrate to Israel (Morocco, Yemen); the effects of Zionist pressure and provocation with the specific goal of promoting emigration (Iraq, Morocco); the effects of ongoing conflict between Arab states and Israel from 1948 to 1967 (Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq); the consequences of the end of French colonization (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria); and finally the general economic and social conditions under which Jews lived (Morocco, Egypt, Syria). To all of this must be added, in most cases, the cumulative effects of emigration as it relates to what Michael M. Laskier (discussing Morocco) calls the “self-liquidation” process.
Israeli historian Tom Segev summarizes emigration immediately after the founding of Israel, especially in relation to North Africa:
“Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual’s life. They were not all poor, or ‘dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits.’ Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person.”
Segev summarizes the “messianic fervor” that led to “operation Magic Carpet” in Yemen in 1948-49, but also notes that the Jewish Agency emissary in Aden, “asked permission to prepare the Yemenite authorities to expel the remaining Jews from their country.”
Discussions of the rapid emigration of Jews from Iraq in 1951 often focus on allegations of violent Zionist provocation, which are compelling but have not been completely substantiated.
Just as important, the context of these alleged provocations was acutely described by the late Rabbi Elmer Berger in letters he wrote on the basis of interviews with Jewish leaders during a trip to Baghdad in 1955:
“Zionist agents began to appear in Iraq—among the youth—playing on a general uneasiness and indicating that American Jews were putting up large amounts of money to take them to Israel, where everything would be in apple-pie order.
The emigration of children began to tear at the loyalties of families as the adults in a family reluctantly decided to follow their children, the stress and strain of loyalties spread to brothers and sisters . . . Several caches of arms were ‘discovered’ in synagogues . . . What both Jews and the Government had believed to be only a passing phenomenon—emigration—began to assume the proportions of a public issue.”
Similarly, the fate of the Jews of Egypt is often linked to the infamous Lavon affair of 1954, during which Zionist agents attacked American installations. But in a broader context, Beinin writes of:
“more than occasional instances of socially structured discrimination against Jews in Egypt. In the 20th century, they (the Jews) were inextricably linked to processes of colonization and decolonization, the nationalist struggle to expel the British troops who occupied Egypt from 1882-1956, and the intensification of the Arab-Zionist conflict.”
Jews, especially those whose Europeanized culture and bourgeois interests linked them to secular-liberal nationalism, were excluded from narratives of both colonial privilege and Islamic conceptions of the polity, and clearly had no place in the pan-Arab movement led by Nasser and opposed by Israel. They identified with the national narrative of neither Egypt nor Israel, and many of the wealthier moved to Europe.
Israeli scholar Michael M. Laskier concludes his description of Moroccan emigration, which was prohibited by the Moroccan government from 1956 until 1961, with this comparison to Egypt:
“Whereas in Nasser’s Egypt, Jews and other minorities were expelled or encouraged to leave in 1956-57 and subsequently as part of the national homogeneity campaign, Moroccan politicians frequently spoke of national heterogeneity, even though Moroccan Jewry was often portrayed in the local press as being disloyal and was becoming isolated from Moroccan society on various levels. The Jews were prevented from choosing the emigration alternative until 1961, because Moroccan authorities expected them to participate in nation-building, to invest their capital in Morocco and not in Israel.”
The long-term and disrupted emigration of Moroccan Jews stands in stark contrast to the “flash flood” of Algerian Jews, most of who immigrated to France after Algerian independence in 1962. Algerian Jews were more completely assimilated into French colonial culture, but nevertheless historically attached to Muslim society. Andre Chouraqui writes that “heavy pressure was applied (to Jews) from both sides in the hope of gaining both material and moral support; . . . the vast majority of Jews remained passive in the struggle.” Ultimately, FLN (liberation) attacks not specifically directed at Jews spread panic among both the Jewish and Christian elite, and “Jews saw headlong flight as the only escape from anarchy.” Chouraqui concludes that in North Africa,
“neither the westernized elite nor the masses of Moslems, who were almost entirely ignorant of the implications of Zionism, reacted with great feelings against their countries’ Jews. Had it not been for the conflict with the French…the Jews might well have remained in North Africa for centuries in comparative harmony.”
The disintegration of Jewish cultures in Arab societies was a complicated and by no means inevitable process that has been neither properly understood nor appropriately mourned by its victims, other Jewish Israelis, and Jews of European background around the world. Its use as Zionist propaganda by the Ashkenazi elite in Israel and the U.S. reflects various degrees of racism towards Mizrahim, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, and serves to harden the false bipolarity with which Israelis and their American supporters view the world, now through the lenses of “Judeo-Christian” civilization. The specter of the Holocaust has been unfairly transferred to the Arab world, and is used to justify the oppression of the Palestinians and the “war on terrorism.” While Arab Jewish culture has been transformed in the Diaspora, an understanding of their history and demise can begin a process that will allow the Mizrahim to more actively shape a more just Israeli society, and a more peaceful future among Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs. In our own country, it can be minimally hoped that debunking mythology about Arab Jews will open some minds to a more fundamental questioning of Zionist conventional wisdom and its relation to American empire.
The Link interviewed Naeim Giladi, a Jew from Iraq, for three hours on March 16, 1998, two days prior to his 69th birthday.
For nearly two other delightful hours, we were treated to a multi-course Arabic meal prepared by his wife Rachael, who is also Iraqi.
“It’s our Arab culture,” he said proudly.
In our previous Link, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe looked at the hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians whose lives were uprooted to make room for foreigners who would come to populate confiscated land.
Most were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe.
But over half a million other Jews came from Islamic lands.
Zionist propagandists claim that Israel “rescued” these Jews from their anti-Jewish, Muslim neighbors.
One of those “rescued” Jews-Naeim Giladi-knows otherwise.
write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.
I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.” I write about it because I was part of it.
Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic, and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions.
It was 1947 and I wasn’t quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.
I was an Iraqi Jew in the Zionist underground.
My Iraqi jailers did everything they could to extract the names of my co-conspirators.
Fifty years later, pain still throbs in my right toe-a reminder of the day my captors used pliers to remove my toenails.
On another occasion, they hauled me to the flat roof of the prison, stripped me bare on a frigid January day, then threw a bucket of cold water over me.
I was left there, chained to the railing, for hours. But I never once considered giving them the information they wanted. I was a true believer.
My preoccupation during what I refer to as my “two years in hell” was with survival and escape.
I had no interest then in the broad sweep of Jewish history in Iraq even though my family had been part of it right from the beginning.
We were originally Haroons, a large and important family of the “Babylonian Diaspora.”
My ancestors had settled in Iraq more than 2,600 years ago-600 years before Christianity, and 1,200 years before Islam.
I am descended from Jews who built the tomb of Yehezkel, a Jewish prophet of pre-biblical times. My town, where I was born in 1929, is Hillah, not far from the ancient site of Babylon.
The original Jews found Babylon, with its nourishing Tigris and Euphrates rivers, to be truly a land of milk, honey, abundance-and opportunity.
Although Jews, like other minorities in what became Iraq, experienced periods of oppression and discrimination depending on the rulers of the period, their general trajectory over two and one-half millennia was upward.
Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in government and business.
As I sat there in my cell, unaware that a death sentence soon would be handed down against me, I could not have recounted any personal grievances that my family members would have lodged against the government or the Muslim majority.
Our family had been treated well and had prospered, first as farmers with some 50,000 acres devoted to rice, dates and Arab horses.
Then, with the Ottomans, we bought and purified gold that was shipped to Istanbul and turned into coinage.
The Turks were responsible in fact for changing our name to reflect our occupation-we became Khalaschi, meaning “Makers of Pure.”
I did not volunteer the information to my father that I had joined the Zionist underground.
He found out several months before I was arrested when he saw me writing Hebrew and using words and expressions unfamiliar to him.
He was even more surprised to learn that, yes, I had decided I would soon move to Israel myself.
He was scornful. “You’ll come back with your tail between your legs,” he predicted.
About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs.
But my mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to Israel.
Although physically I never did return to Iraq-that bridge had been burned in any event-my heart has made the journey there many, many times.
My father had it right.
I was imprisoned at the military camp of Abu-Greib, about 7 miles from Baghdad.
When the military court handed down my sentence of death by hanging, I had nothing to lose by attempting the escape I had been planning for many months.
It was a strange recipe for an escape: a dab of butter, an orange peel, and some army clothing that I had asked a friend to buy for me at a flea market.
I deliberately ate as much bread as I could to put on fat in anticipation of the day I became 18, when they could formally charge me with a crime and attach the 50-pound ball and chain that was standard prisoner issue.
Later, after my leg had been shackled, I went on a starvation diet that often left me weak-kneed.
The pat of butter was to lubricate my leg in preparation for extricating it from the metal band.
The orange peel I surreptitiously stuck into the lock on the night of my planned escape, having studied how it could be placed in such a way as to keep the lock from closing.
As the jailers turned to go after locking up, I put on the old army issue that was indistinguishable from what they were wearing-a long, green coat and a stocking cap that I pulled down over much of my face (it was winter).
Then I just quietly opened the door and joined the departing group of soldiers as they strode down the hall and outside, and I offered a “good night” to the shift guard as I left.
A friend with a car was waiting to speed me away.
Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May, 1950. My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the English couldn’t capture the “kh” sound, so it was rendered simply as Klaski.
At the border, the immigration people applied the English version, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one way, this “mistake” was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked.
They asked me where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do.
I was the son of a farmer; I knew all the problems of the farm, so I volunteered to go to Dafnah, a farming kibbutz in the high Galilee.
I only lasted a few weeks.
The new immigrants were given the worst of everything.
The food was the same, but that was the only thing that everyone had in common.
For the immigrants, bad cigarettes, even bad toothpaste. Everything. I left.
Then, through the Jewish Agency, I was advised to go to al-Majdal (later renamed Ashkelon), an Arab town about 9 miles from Gaza, very close to the Mediterranean.
The Israeli government planned to turn it into a farmers’ city, so my farm background would be an asset there.
When I reported to the Labor Office in al-Majdal, they saw that I could read and write Arabic and Hebrew and they said that I could find a good-paying job with the Military Governor’s office.
The Arabs were under the authority of these Israeli Military Governors.
A clerk handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew.
Now it dawned on me.
Before Israel could establish its farmers’ city, it had to rid al-Majdal of its indigenous Palestinians.
The forms were petitions to the United Nations Inspectors asking for transfer out of Israel to Gaza, which was under Egyptian control.
I read over the petition.
In signing, the Palestinian would be saying that he was of sound mind and body and was making the request for transfer free of pressure or duress.
Of course, there was no way that they would leave without being pressured to do so.
These families had been there hundreds of years, as farmers, primitive artisans, weavers.
The Military Governor prohibited them from pursuing their livelihoods, just penned them up until they lost hope of resuming their normal lives.
That’s when they signed to leave.
I was there and heard their grief.
“Our hearts are in pain when we look at the orange trees that we planted with our own hands.
Please let us go, let us give water to those trees.
God will not be pleased with us if we leave His trees untended.”
I asked the Military Governor to give them relief, but he said, “No, we want them to leave.”
I could no longer be part of this oppression and I left.
Those Palestinians who didn’t sign up for transfers were taken by force-just put in trucks and dumped in Gaza.
About four thousand people were driven from al-Majdal in one way or another.
The few who remained were collaborators with the Israeli authorities.
Subsequently, I wrote letters trying to get a government job elsewhere and I got many immediate responses asking me to come for an interview.
Then they would discover that my face didn’t match my Polish/Ashkenazi name.
They would ask if I spoke Yiddish or Polish, and when I said I didn’t, they would ask where I came by a Polish name.
Desperate for a good job, I would usually say that I thought my great-grandfather was from Poland.
I was advised time and again that “we’ll give you a call.”
Eventually, three to four years after coming to Israel, I changed my name to Giladi, which is close to the code name, Gilad, that I had in the Zionist underground.
Klaski wasn’t doing me any good anyway, and my Eastern friends were always chiding me about the name they knew didn’t go with my origins as an Iraqi Jew.
I was disillusioned at what I found in the Promised Land, disillusioned personally, disillusioned at the institutionalized racism, disillusioned at what I was beginning to learn about Zionism’s cruelties.
The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic countries was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm work that was beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews.
Ben Gurion needed the “Oriental” Jews to farm the thousands of acres of land left by Palestinians who were driven out by Israeli forces in 1948.
And I began to find out about the barbaric methods used to rid the fledgling state of as many Palestinians as possible.
The world recoils today at the thought of bacteriological warfare, but Israel was probably the first to actually use it in the Middle East.
In the 1948 war, Jewish forces would empty Arab villages of their populations, often by threats, sometimes by just gunning down a half-dozen unarmed Arabs as examples to the rest.
To make sure the Arabs couldn’t return to make a fresh life for themselves in these villages, the Israelis put typhus and dysentery bacteria into the water wells.
Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Force, has written and spoken about the use of bacteriological agents.
According to Mileshtin, Moshe Dayan, a division commander at the time, gave orders in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.
Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the town.
The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to Acre, the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre.
This worked so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as Arabs into Gaza, where there were Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians caught them putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and dysentery, into the water supply in wanton disregard of the civilian population.
“In war, there is no sentiment,” one of the captured Haganah men was quoted as saying.
My activism in Israel began shortly after I received a letter from the Socialist/Zionist Party asking me to help with their Arabic newspaper.
When I showed up at their offices at Central House in Tel Aviv, I asked around to see just where I should report.
I showed the letter to a couple of people there and, without even looking at it, they would motion me away with the words, “Room No. 8.”
When I saw that they weren’t even reading the letter, I inquired of several others.
But the response was the same, “Room No. 8,” with not a glance at the paper I put in front of them.
So I went to Room 8 and saw that it was the Department of Jews from Islamic Countries. I was disgusted and angry.
Either I am a member of the party or I’m not.
Do I have a different ideology or different politics because I am an Arab Jew?
It’s segregation, I thought, just like a Negroes’ Department.
I turned around and walked out.
That was the start of my open protests.
That same year I organized a demonstration in Ashkelon against Ben Gurion’s racist policies and 10,000 people turned out.
There wasn’t much opportunity for those of us who were second class citizens to do much about it when Israel was on a war footing with outside enemies.
After the 1967 war, I was in the Army myself and served in the Sinai when there was continued fighting along the Suez Canal.
But the cease-fire with Egypt in 1970 gave us our opening.
We took to the streets and organized politically to demand equal rights.
If it’s our country, if we were expected to risk our lives in a border war, then we expected equal treatment.
We mounted the struggle so tenaciously and received so much publicity that the Israeli government tried to discredit our movement by calling us “Israel’s Black Panthers.”
They were thinking in racist terms, really, in assuming the Israeli public would reject an organization whose ideology was being compared to that of radical blacks in the United States.
But we saw that what we were doing was no different than what blacks in the United States were fighting against-segregation, discrimination, unequal treatment.
Rather than reject the label, we adopted it proudly. I had posters of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and other civil rights activists plastered all over my office.
With the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Israeli-condoned Sabra and Shatilla massacres, I had had enough of Israel.
I became a United States citizen and made certain to revoke my Israeli citizenship.
I could never have written and published my book in Israel, not with the censorship they would impose.
Even in America, I had great difficulty finding a publisher because many are subject to pressures of one kind or another from Israel and its friends.
I ended up paying $60,000 from my own pocket to publish Ben Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah & the Mossad Eliminated Jews, virtually the entire proceeds from having sold my house in Israel.
I still was afraid that the printer would back out or that legal proceedings would be initiated to stop its publication, like the Israeli government did in an attempt to prevent former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky from publishing his first book.
Ben Gurion’s Scandals had to be translated into English from two languages.
I wrote in Hebrew when I was in Israel and hoped to publish the book there, and I wrote in Arabic when I was completing the book after coming to the U.S.
But I was so worried that something would stop publication that I told the printer not to wait for the translations to be thoroughly checked and proofread.
Now I realize that the publicity of a lawsuit would just have created a controversial interest in the book.
I am using bank vault storage for the valuable documents that back up what I have written.
These documents, including some that I illegally copied from the archives at Yad Vashem, confirm what I saw myself, what I was told by other witnesses, and what reputable historians and others have written concerning the Zionist bombings in Iraq, Arab peace overtures that were rebuffed, and incidents of violence and death inflicted by Jews on Jews in the cause of creating Israel.
The Riots of 1941
If, as I have said, my family in Iraq was not persecuted personally and I knew no deprivation as a member of the Jewish minority, what led me to the steps of the gallows as a member of the Zionist underground?
To answer that question, it is necessary to establish the context of the massacre that occurred in Baghdad on June 1, 1941, when several hundred Iraqi Jews were killed in riots involving junior officers of the Iraqi army.
I was 12 years of age and many of those killed were my friends. I was angry, and very confused.
What I didn’t know at the time was that the riots most likely were stirred up by the British, in collusion with a pro-British Iraqi leadership.
With the breakup of the Ottoman Empire following WW I, Iraq came under British “tutelage.” Amir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein who had led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman sultan, was brought in from Mecca by the British to become King of Iraq in 1921.
Many Jews were appointed to key administrative posts, including that of economics minister.
Britain retained final authority over domestic and external affairs.
Britain’s pro-Zionist attitude in Palestine, however, triggered a growing anti-Zionist backlash in Iraq, as it did in all Arab countries.
Writing at the end of 1934, Sir Francis Humphreys, Britain’s Ambassador in Baghdad, noted that, while before WW I Iraqi Jews had enjoyed a more favorable position than any other minority in the country, since then “Zionism has sown dissension between Jews and Arabs, and a bitterness has grown up between the two peoples which did not previously exist.”
King Faisal died in 1933. He was succeeded by his son Ghazi, who died in a motor car accident in 1939.
The crown then passed to Ghazi’s 4-year-old son, Faisal II, whose uncle, Abd al-Ilah, was named regent.
Abd al-Ilah selected Nouri el-Said as prime minister. El-Said supported the British and, as hatred of the British grew, he was forced from office in March 1940 by four senior army officers who advocated Iraq’s independence from Britain.
Calling themselves the Golden Square, the officers compelled the regent to name as prime minister Rashid Ali al-Kilani, leader of the National Brotherhood party.
The time was 1940 and Britain was reeling from a strong German offensive.
Al-Kilani and the Golden Square saw this as their opportunity to rid themselves of the British once and for all.
Cautiously they began to negotiate for German support, which led the pro-British regent Abd al-Ilah to dismiss al-Kilani in January 1941.
By April, however, the Golden Square officers had reinstated the prime minister.
This provoked the British to send a military force into Basra on April 12, 1941.
Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, had a Jewish population of 30,000.
Most of these Jews made their livings from import/export, money changing, retailing, as workers in the airports, railways, and ports, or as senior government employees.
On the same day, April 12, supporters of the pro-British regent notified the Jewish leaders that the regent wanted to meet with them.
As was their custom, the leaders brought flowers for the regent.
Contrary to custom, however, the cars that drove them to the meeting place dropped them off at the site where the British soldiers were concentrated.
Photographs of the Jews appeared in the following day’s newspapers with the banner “Basra Jews Receive British Troops with Flowers.”
That same day, April 13, groups of angry Arab youths set about to take revenge against the Jews.
Several Muslim notables in Basra heard of the plan and calmed things down.
Later, it was learned that the regent was not in Basra at all and that the matter was a provocation by his pro-British supporters to bring about an ethnic war in order to give the British army a pretext to intervene.
The British continued to land more forces in and around Basra.
On May 7, 1941, their Gurkha unit, composed of Indian soldiers from that ethnic group, occupied Basra’s el-Oshar quarter, a neighborhood with a large Jewish population.
The soldiers, led by British officers, began looting.
Many shops in the commercial district were plundered.
Private homes were broken into.
Cases of attempted rape were reported.
Local residents, Jews and Muslims, responded with pistols and old rifles, but their bullets were no match for the soldiers’ Tommy Guns.
Afterwards, it was learned that the soldiers acted with the acquiescence, if not the blessing, of their British commanders.
(It should be remembered that the Indian soldiers, especially those of the Gurkha unit, were known for their discipline, and it is highly unlikely they would have acted so riotously without orders.)
The British goal clearly was to create chaos and to blacken the image of the pro-nationalist regime in Baghdad, thereby giving the British forces reason to proceed to the capital and to overthrow the al-Kilani government.
Baghdad fell on May 30. Al-Kilani fled to Iran, along with the Golden Square officers.
Radio stations run by the British reported that Regent Abd al-Ilah would be returning to the city and that thousands of Jews and others were planning to welcome him.
What inflamed young Iraqis against the Jews most, however, was the radio announcer Yunas Bahri on the German station “Berlin,” who reported in Arabic that Jews from Palestine were fighting alongside the British against Iraqi soldiers near the city of Faluja. The report was false.
On Sunday, June 1, unarmed fighting broke out in Baghdad between Jews who were still celebrating their Shabuoth holiday and young Iraqis who thought the Jews were celebrating the return of the pro-British regent.
That evening, a group of Iraqis stopped a bus, removed the Jewish passengers, murdered one and fatally wounded a second.
About 8:30 the following morning, some 30 individuals in military and police uniforms opened fire along el-Amin street, a small downtown street whose jewelry, tailor and grocery shops were Jewish-owned.
By 11 a.m., mobs of Iraqis with knives, switchblades and clubs were attacking Jewish homes in the area.
The riots continued throughout Monday, June 2.
During this time, many Muslims rose to defend their Jewish neighbors, while some Jews successfully defended themselves.
There were 124 killed and 400 injured, according to a report written by a Jewish Agency messenger who was in Iraq at the time.
Other estimates, possibly less reliable, put the death toll higher, as many as 500, with from 650 to 2,000 injured.
From 500 to 1,300 stores and more than 1,000 homes and apartments were looted.
Who was behind the rioting in the Jewish quarter?
Yosef Meir, one of the most prominent activists in the Zionist underground movement in Iraq, known then as Yehoshafat, claims it was the British.
Meir, who now works for the Israeli Defense Ministry, argues that, in order to make it appear that the regent was returning as the savior who would reestablish law and order, the British stirred up the riots against the most vulnerable and visible segment in the city, the Jews.
And, not surprisingly, the riots ended as soon as the regent’s loyal soldiers entered the capital.
My own investigations as a journalist lead me to believe Meir is correct.
Furthermore, I think his claims should be seen as based on documents in the archives of the Israeli Defense Ministry, the agency that published his book.
Yet, even before his book came out, I had independent confirmation from a man I met in Iran in the late Forties.
His name was Michael Timosian, an Iraqi Armenian.
When I met him he was working as a male nurse at the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Abadan in the south of Iran.
On June 2, 1941, however, he was working at the Baghdad hospital where many of the riot victims were brought.
Most of these victims were Jews.
Timosian said he was particularly interested in two patients whose conduct did not follow local custom.
One had been hit by a bullet in his shoulder, the other by a bullet in his right knee.
After the doctor removed the bullets, the staff tried to change their blood-soaked cloths.
But the two men fought off their efforts, pretending to be speechless, although tests showed they could hear.
To pacify them, the doctor injected them with anesthetics and, as they were sleeping, Timosian changed their cloths.
He discovered that one of them had around his neck an identification tag of the type used by British troops, while the other had tattoos with Indian script on his right arm along with the familiar sword of the Gurkha.
The next day when Timosian showed up for work, he was told that a British officer, his sergeant and two Indian Gurkha soldiers had come to the hospital early that morning.
Staff members overheard the Gurkha soldiers talking with the wounded patients, who were not as dumb as they had pretended.
The patients saluted the visitors, covered themselves with sheets and, without signing the required release forms, left the hospital with their visitors.
Today there is no doubt in my mind that the anti-Jewish riots of 1941 were orchestrated by the British for geopolitical ends.
David Kimche is certainly a man who was in a position to know the truth, and he has spoken publicly about British culpability.
Kimche had been with British Intelligence during WW II and with the Mossad after the war.
Later he became Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, the position he held in 1982 when he addressed a forum at the British Institute for International Affairs in London.
In responding to hostile questions about Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the refugee camp massacres in Beirut, Kimche went on the attack, reminding the audience that there was scant concern in the British Foreign Office when British Gurkha units participated in the murder of 500 Jews in the streets of Baghdad in 1941.
The Bombings of 1950–1951
The anti-Jewish riots of 1941 did more than create a pretext for the British to enter Baghdad to reinstate the pro-British regent and his pro-British prime minister, Nouri el-Said.
They also gave the Zionists in Palestine a pretext to set up a Zionist underground in Iraq, first in Baghdad, then in other cities such as Basra, Amara, Hillah, Diwaneia, Abril and Karkouk.
Following WW II, a succession of governments held brief power in Iraq.
Zionist conquests in Palestine, particularly the massacre of Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin, emboldened the anti-British movement in Iraq.
When the Iraqi government signed a new treaty of friendship with London in January 1948, riots broke out all over the country.
The treaty was quickly abandoned and Baghdad demanded removal of the British military mission that had run Iraq’s army for 27 years.
Later in 1948, Baghdad sent an army detachment to Palestine to fight the Zionists, and when Israel declared independence in May, Iraq closed the pipeline that fed its oil to Haifa’s refinery.
Abd al-Ilah, however, was still regent and the British quisling, Nouri el-Said, was back as prime minister.
I was in the Abu-Greib prison in 1948, where I would remain until my escape to Iran in September 1949.
Six months later-the exact date was March 19, 1950-a bomb went off at the American Cultural Center and Library in Baghdad, causing property damage and injuring a number of people.
The center was a favorite meeting place for young Jews.
The first bomb thrown directly at Jews occurred on April 8, 1950, at 9:15 p.m.
A car with three young passengers hurled the grenade at Baghdad’s El-Dar El-Bida Café, where Jews were celebrating Passover.
Four people were seriously injured.
That night leaflets were distributed calling on Jews to leave Iraq immediately.
The next day, many Jews, most of them poor with nothing to lose, jammed emigration offices to renounce their citizenship and to apply for permission to leave for Israel.
So many applied, in fact, that the police had to open registration offices in Jewish schools and synagogues.
On May 10, at 3 a.m., a grenade was tossed in the direction of the display window of the Jewish-owned Beit-Lawi Automobile Company, destroying part of the building.
No casualties were reported.
On June 3, 1950, another grenade was tossed from a speeding car in the El-Batawin area of Baghdad where most rich Jews and middle class Iraqis lived.
No one was hurt, but following the explosion Zionist activists sent telegrams to Israel requesting that the quota for immigration from Iraq be increased.
On June 5, at 2:30 a.m., a bomb exploded next to the Jewish-owned Stanley Shashua building on El-Rashid street, resulting in property damage but no casualties.
On January 14, 1951, at 7 p.m., a grenade was thrown at a group of Jews outside the Masouda Shem-Tov Synagogue. The explosive struck a high-voltage cable, electrocuting three Jews, one a young boy, Itzhak Elmacher, and wounding over 30 others. Following the attack, the exodus of Jews jumped to between 600–70day.
Zionist propagandists still maintain that the bombs in Iraq were set off by anti-Jewish Iraqis who wanted Jews out of their country.
The terrible truth is that the grenades that killed and maimed Iraqi Jews and damaged their property were thrown by Zionist Jews.
Among the most important documents in my book, I believe, are copies of two leaflets published by the Zionist underground calling on Jews to leave Iraq. One is dated March 16, 1950, the other April 8, 1950.
The difference between these two is critical. Both indicate the date of publication, but only the April 8th leaflet notes the time of day: 4 p.m. Why the time of day? Such a specification was unprecedented. Even the investigating judge, Salaman El-Beit, found it suspicious. Did the 4 p.m. writers want an alibi for a bombing they knew would occur five hours later? If so, how did they know about the bombing? The judge concluded they knew because a connection existed between the Zionist underground and the bomb throwers.
This, too, was the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whom I had the opportunity to meet in New York in 1988. In his book, Ropes of Sand, whose publication the CIA opposed, Eveland writes:
In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel. . . . Although the Iraqi police later provided our embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and library bombings, as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaigns, had been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had “rescued” really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population.”
Eveland doesn’t detail the evidence linking the Zionists to the attacks, but in my book I do. In 1955, for example, I organized in Israel a panel of Jewish attorneys of Iraqi origin to handle claims of Iraqi Jews who still had property in Iraq. One well known attorney, who asked that I not give his name, confided in me that the laboratory tests in Iraq had confirmed that the anti-American leaflets found at the American Cultural Center bombing were typed on the same typewriter and duplicated on the same stenciling machine as the leaflets distributed by the Zionist movement just before the April 8th bombing.
Tests also showed that the type of explosive used in the Beit-Lawi attack matched traces of explosives found in the suitcase of an Iraqi Jew by the name of Yosef Basri. Basri, a lawyer, together with Shalom Salih, a shoemaker, would be put on trial for the attacks in December 1951 and executed the following month. Both men were members of Hashura, the military arm of the Zionist underground. Salih ultimately confessed that he, Basri and a third man, Yosef Habaza, carried out the attacks.
By the time of the executions in January 1952, all but 6,000 of an estimated 125,000 Iraqi Jews had fled to Israel.
Moreover, the pro-British, pro-Zionist puppet el-Said saw to it that all of their possessions were frozen, including their cash assets.
(There were ways of getting Iraqi dinars out, but when the immigrants went to exchange them in Israel they found that the Israeli government kept 50 percent of the value.)
Even those Iraqi Jews who had not registered to emigrate, but who happened to be abroad, faced loss of their nationality if they didn’t return within a specified time.
An ancient, cultured, prosperous community had been uprooted and its people transplanted to a land dominated by East European Jews, whose culture was not only foreign but entirely hateful to them.
The Ultimate Criminals
From the start they knew that in order to establish a Jewish state they had to expel the indigenous Palestinian population to the neighboring Islamic states and import Jews from these same states.
* Theodor Herzl, the architect of Zionism, thought it could be done by social engineering. In his diary entry for 12 June 1885, he wrote that Zionist settlers would have to “spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.”
* Vladimir Jabotinsky, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ideological progenitor, frankly admitted that such a transfer of populations could only be brought about by force.
* David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, told a Zionist Conference in 1937 that any proposed Jewish state would have to “transfer Arab populations out of the area, if possible of their own free will, if not by coercion.”
After 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted and their lands confiscated in 1948–49, Ben Gurion had to look to the Islamic countries for Jews who could fill the resultant cheap labor market.
“Emissaries” were smuggled into these countries to “convince” Jews to leave either by trickery or fear.
In the case of Iraq, both methods were used: uneducated Jews were told of a Messianic Israel in which the blind see, the lame walk, and onions grow as big as melons; educated Jews had bombs thrown at them.
A few years after the bombings, in the early 1950s, a book was published in Iraq, in Arabic, titled Venom of the Zionist Viper.
The author was one of the Iraqi investigators of the 1950–51 bombings and, in his book, he implicates the Israelis, specifically one of the emissaries sent by Israel, Mordechai Ben-Porat.
As soon as the book came out, all copies just disappeared, even from libraries.
The word was that agents of the Israeli Mossad, working through the U.S. Embassy, bought up all the books and destroyed them.
I tried on three different occasions to have one sent to me in Israel, but each time Israeli censors in the post office intercepted it.
British Leaders: Britain always acted in its best colonial interests.
For that reason Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour sent his famous 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild in exchange for Zionist support in WW I.
During WW II the British were primarily concerned with keeping their client states in the Western camp, while Zionists were most concerned with the immigration of European Jews to Palestine, even if this meant cooperating with the Nazis.
(In my book I document numerous instances of such dealings by Ben Gurion and the Zionist leadership.)
After WW II the international chessboard pitted communists against capitalists.
In many countries, including the United States and Iraq, Jews represented a large part of the Communist party.
In Iraq, hundreds of Jews of the working intelligentsia occupied key positions in the hierarchy of the Communist and Socialist parties.
To keep their client countries in the capitalist camp, Britain had to make sure these governments had pro-British leaders.
And if, as in Iraq, these leaders were overthrown, then an anti-Jewish riot or two could prove a useful pretext to invade the capital and reinstate the “right” leaders.
Moreover, if the possibility existed of removing the communist influence from Iraq by transferring the whole Jewish community to Israel, well then, why not?
Particularly if the leaders of Israel and Iraq conspired in the deed.
The Iraqi Leaders:
Both the regent Abd al-Ilah and his prime minister Nouri el- Said took directions from London.
Toward the end of 1948, el-Said, who had already met with Israel’s Prime Minister Ben Gurion in Vienna, began discussing with his Iraqi and British associates the need for an exchange of populations.
Iraq would send the Jews in military trucks to Israel via Jordan, and Iraq would take in some of the Palestinians Israel had been evicting.
His proposal included mutual confiscation of property. London nixed the idea as too radical.
El-Said then went to his back-up plan and began to create the conditions that would make the lives of Iraqi Jews so miserable they would leave for Israel.
Jewish government employees were fired from their jobs; Jewish merchants were denied import/export licenses; police began to arrest Jews for trivial reasons. Still the Jews did not leave in any great numbers.
In September 1949, Israel sent the spy Mordechai Ben-Porat, the one mentioned in Venom of the Zionist Viper, to Iraq.
One of the first things Ben-Porat did was to approach el-Said and promise him financial incentives to have a law enacted that would lift the citizenship of Iraqi Jews.
Soon after, Zionist and Iraqi representatives began formulating a rough draft of the bill, according to the model dictated by Israel through its agents in Baghdad.
The bill was passed by the Iraqi parliament in March 1950. It empowered the government to issue one-time exit visas to Jews wishing to leave the country. In March, the bombings began.
Sixteen years later, the Israeli magazine Haolam Hazeh, published by Uri Avnery, then a Knesset member, accused Ben-Porat of the Baghdad bombings.
Ben-Porat, who would become a Knesset member himself, denied the charge, but never sued the magazine for libel.
And Iraqi Jews in Israel still call him Morad Abu al-Knabel, Mordechai of the Bombs.
As I said, all this went well beyond the comprehension of a teenager.
I knew Jews were being killed and an organization existed that could lead us to the Promised Land.
So I helped in the exodus to Israel. Later, on occasions, I would bump into some of these Iraqi Jews in Israel.
Not infrequently they’d express the sentiment that they could kill me for what I had done.
Opportunities for Peace
After the Israeli attack on the Jordanian village of Qibya in October, 1953, Ben Gurion went into voluntary exile at the Sedeh Boker kibbutz in the Negev. T
he Labor party then used to organize many buses for people to go visit him there, where they would see the former prime minister working with sheep.
But that was only for show.
Really he was writing his diary and continuing to be active behind the scenes.
I went on such a tour.
We were told not to try to speak to Ben Gurion, but when I saw him, I asked why, since Israel is a democracy with a parliament, does it not have a constitution?
Ben Gurion said, “Look, boy”-I was 24 at the time-”if we have a constitution, we have to write in it the border of our country.
And this is not our border, my dear.” I asked, “Then where is the border?”
He said, “Wherever the Sahal will come, this is the border.” Sahal is the Israeli army.
Ben Gurion told the world that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs rejected it.
Then Israel took half of the land that was promised to the Arab state.
And still he was saying it was not enough. Israel needed more land.
How can a country make peace with its neighbors if it wants to take their land? How can a country demand to be secure if it won’t say what borders it will be satisfied with?
For such a country, peace would be an inconvenience.
I know now that from the beginning many Arab leaders wanted to make peace with Israel, but Israel always refused.
Ben Gurion covered this up with propaganda.
He said that the Arabs wanted to drive Israel into the sea and he called Gamal Abdel Nasser the Hitler of the Middle East whose foremost intent was to destroy Israel.
He wanted America and Great Britain to treat Nasser like a pariah.
In 1954, it seemed that America was getting less critical of Nasser.
Then during a three-week period in July, several terrorist bombs were set off: at the United States Information Agency offices in Cairo and Alexandria, a British-owned theater, and the central post office in Cairo.
An attempt to firebomb a cinema in Alexandria failed when the bomb went off in the pocket of one of the perpetrators.
That led to the discovery that the terrorists were not anti-Western Egyptians, but were instead Israeli spies bent on souring the warming relationship between Egypt and the United States in what came to be known as the Lavon Affair.
Ben Gurion was still living on his kibbutz.
Moshe Sharett as prime minister was in contact with Abdel Nasser through the offices of Lord Maurice Orbach of Great Britain.
Sharett asked Nasser to be lenient with the captured spies, and Nasser did all that was in his power to prevent a deterioration of the situation between the two countries.
Then Ben Gurion returned as Defense Minister in February, 1955.
Later that month Israeli troops attacked Egyptian military camps and Palestinian refugees in Gaza, killing 54 and injuring many more.
The very night of the attack, Lord Orbach was on his way to deliver a message to Nasser, but was unable to get through because of the military action.
When Orbach telephoned, Nasser’s secretary told him that the attack proved that Israel did not want peace and that he was wasting his time as a mediator.
In November, Ben Gurion announced in the Knesset that he was willing to meet with Abdel Nasser anywhere and at any time for the sake of peace and understanding.
The next morning the Israeli military attacked an Egyptian military camp in the Sabaha region.
Although Nasser felt pessimistic about achieving peace with Israel, he continued to send other mediators to try.
One was through the American Friends Service Committee; another via the Prime Minister of Malta, Dom Minthoff; and still another through Marshall Tito of Yugoslavia.
One that looked particularly promising was through Dennis Hamilton, editor of The London Times.
Nasser told Hamilton that if only he could sit and talk with Ben Gurion for two or three hours, they would be able to settle the conflict and end the state of war between the two countries.
When word of this reached Ben Gurion, he arranged to meet with Hamilton.
They decided to pursue the matter with the Israeli ambassador in London, Arthur Luria, as liaison.
On Hamilton’s third trip to Egypt, Nasser met him with the text of a Ben Gurion speech stating that Israel would not give up an inch of land and would not take back a single refugee.
Hamilton knew that Ben Gurion with his mouth had undermined a peace mission and missed an opportunity to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Nasser even sent his friend Ibrahim Izat of the Ruz El Yusuf weekly paper to meet with Israeli leaders in order to explore the political atmosphere and find out why the attacks were taking place if Israel really wanted peace.
One of the men Izat met with was Yigal Yadin, a former Chief of Staff of the army who wrote this letter to me on 14 January 1982:
Dear Mr. Giladi:
Your letter reminded me of an event which I nearly forgot and of which I remember only a few details.
Ibrahim Izat came to me if I am not mistaken under the request of the Foreign Ministry or one of its branches; he stayed in my house and we spoke for many hours. I do not remember him saying that he came on a mission from Nasser, but I have no doubt that he let it be understood that this was with his knowledge or acquiescence….
When Nasser decided to nationalize the Suez Canal in spite of opposition from the British and the French, Radio Cairo announced in Hebrew:
If the Israeli government is not influenced by the British and the French imperialists, it will eventually result in greater understanding between the two states, and Egypt will reconsider Israel’s request to have access to the Suez Canal.
Israel responded that it had no designs on Egypt, but at that very moment Israeli representatives were in France planning the three-way attack that was to take place in October, 1956.
All the while, Ben Gurion continued to talk about the Hitler of the Middle East.
This brainwashing went on until late September, 1970, when Gamal Abdel Nasser passed away.
Then, miracle of miracles, David Ben Gurion told the press:
A week before he died I received an envoy from Abdel Nasser who asked to meet with me urgently in order to solve the problems between Israel and the Arab world.
The public was surprised because they didn’t know that Abdel Nasser had wanted this all along, but Israel sabotaged it.
Nasser was not the only Arab leader who wanted to make peace with Israel.
There were many others.
Brigadier General Abdel Karim Qasem, before he seized power in Iraq in July, 1958, headed an underground organization that sent a delegation to Israel to make a secret agreement.
Ben Gurion refused even to see him.
I learned about this when I was a journalist in Israel.
But whenever I tried to publish even a small part of it, the censor would stamp it “Not Allowed.”
Now, in Netanyahu, we are witnessing another attempt by an Israeli prime minister to fake an interest in making peace.
Netanyahu and the Likud are setting Arafat up by demanding that he institute more and more repressive measures in the interest of Israeli “security.”
Sooner or later I suspect the Palestinians will have had enough of Arafat’s strong-arm methods as Israel’s quisling-and he’ll be killed.
Then the Israeli government will say, “See, we were ready to give him everything.
You can’t trust those Arabs-they kill each other. Now there’s no one to even talk to about peace.”
Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.
Certainly it has been easier for the world to accept the Zionist lie that Jews were evicted from Muslim lands because of anti-Semitism, and that Israelis, never the Arabs, were the pursuers of peace.
The truth is far more discerning: bigger players on the world stage were pulling the strings.
These players, I believe, should be held accountable for their crimes, particularly when they willfully terrorized, dispossessed and killed innocent people on the altar of some ideological imperative.
I believe, too, that the descendants of these leaders have a moral responsibility to compensate the victims and their descendants, and to do so not just with reparations, but by setting the historical record straight.
That is why I established a panel of inquiry in Israel to seek reparations for Iraqi Jews who had been forced to leave behind their property and possessions in Iraq.
That is why I joined the Black Panthers in confronting the Israeli government with the grievances of the Jews in Israel who came from Islamic lands.
And that is why I have written my book and this article: to set the historical record straight.
We Jews from Islamic lands did not leave our ancestral homes because of any natural enmity between Jews and Muslims.
And we Arabs-I say Arab because that is the language my wife and I still speak at home-we Arabs on numerous occasions have sought peace with the State of the Jews.
And finally, as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, let me say that we Americans need to stop supporting racial discrimination in Israel and the cruel expropriation of lands in the West Bank, Gaza, South Lebanon and the Golan Heights.
How can Israelis close their eyes to the violent abuses inflicted by Israel’s military against the Palestinians?
They live in an artificial world of denial — bolstered by a mastery of communications and the dysfunctionality of Palestinian activists — in which abuses against Palestinians such as racism, land theft, physical violence and killings take place every day.
These actions do not even provoke a whimper from the majority of Israel’s Jews.
They have come to accept the fact that their country is one built on the oppression of others, while going to great lengths to separate its viciousness from that which fueled the Holocaust, which brought many of them into the initially welcoming arms of Palestine’s Christians and Muslims.
They may argue that not all Jews in Israel have turned their backs on righteousness. But that was also the response of populations in Germany and in Poland during the Second World War. Not everyone hated Jews, but very few spoke out until it was too late.
That is where Israelis are headed: Toward a fate in which one day they will have to answer for the atrocities that have taken place against Palestinians.
The newly announced investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which was itself founded on principles defined by the postwar trials of the Nazis, is just the beginning.
Every day, Palestinian lands are being confiscated for the sole purpose of expanding the existing and building new Jewish-only settlements.
The best farmlands are taken from Palestinians with impunity.
Reports frequently make it through the Israeli government-throttled mainstream news media about Palestinians who are attacked, brutalized and killed by Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank.
And yet Israeli Jews still manage to go about their business in places like West Jerusalem, where they openly refer to the big houses built using Jerusalem stone as “Arab homes.”
There is absolutely no shame, especially as Israeli Jews lead the campaign to recover land and property stolen from them during the Holocaust.
As they do so, land and property is being stolen from the Palestinians in their name. And their major institutions don’t seem to care.
For Palestinians, March is a special month, during which they commemorate “Land Day.”
This commemoration reflects on when — March 30, 1976 — the Israeli government passed a law allowing the expropriation of lands from non-Jews.
Protests by Palestinian citizens of Israel raged from Nazareth to the Negev.
It was the first time that Israel’s non-Jewish population had stood up to the racism on which Israel is based.
B’Tselem, an organization of Israelis of all backgrounds who embrace human rights, this month released a scathing report on how extensive the theft of land is.
It argues: “The fact that the West Bank has not been formally annexed does not stop Israel from treating it as if it were its own territory, particularly when it comes to the massive resources Israel invests in developing settlements and establishing infrastructure to serve their residents.”
The report adds: “This policy has enabled the establishment of more than 280 settlements and outposts now populated by more than 440,000 Israeli citizens (excluding East Jerusalem).
Thanks to this policy, more than 2 million dunams of Palestinian land have been stolen, by official and unofficial means.
The West Bank is crisscrossed with roads linking the settlements to one another and to Israel’s sovereign territory, west of the Green Line; and the area is dotted with Israeli industrial zones.”
These industrial areas produce stolen products that are then disguised and sold to markets around the world — a process that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement seeks to expose.
Israel may be able to change the face of the West Bank, just as it has meticulously erased much of the Arab identity from areas throughout Israel, but it cannot erase the truth, which will always stand as a testament to its cruelty.
Israelis are accountable for the horrors from their government.
Israelis need to wake up and learn the facts about their Khazarian blood heritage and the fact that the latest peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins genetic study shows that: about 97.5% have absolutely no ancient Hebrew blood at all, are not Semites, their Khazarian ancestors converted to a perverted form of Judaism under King Bulan in about 750 AD, and thus they have no ancient right to any of Palestinian land; while 80%+ of the Palestinians are true Semites because they carry ancient Hebrew Blood and these Semites do have an ancestral right to all of Palestine.
The new nation-state of Israel was illegally set up after WWII by World Zionists who hijacked it in 1815.
The Rothschild World Zionist Money-changers were able to hijack by deploying a very crafty covert op using the fake news that Napoleon had won at Waterloo, when he was actually defeated.
This fake news sent by carrier pigeon was released early before true reports were received of Napoleon’s defeat.
This allowed Nathan Rothschild to collapse the British markets and buy up and gain control of most business and banking at a fraction of their value.
The stated reason these British based World Zionist Kingpins seized Palestinian lands illegally and gave it to these Judaics was to compensate for the Nazi Work Camps and persecution of Judaics in Europe.
Giving the Judaics back their falsely claimed homeland in Palestine was proposed as an equitable compensation for these persecuted Judaics, almost all of whom were actually Khazarians in the first place.
This whole strategy was, of course, conceived of and actuated by the World Zionists.
The real reasons these World Zionists mandated a small part of Palestine to be seized and gifted to these displaced European Khazarians turned out to be something far more sinister than helping their so-called fellow “displaced, persecuted and victimized” Judaics.
The roundup and placement of Judaics in Work Camps by Nazis provided a golden opportunity for the World Zionists (WZs) to mind-kontrol these displaced Khazarian Judaics into falsely believing they deserved to have Palestine.
The false-narrative presented to do this was that “this is where you came from in the first place”.
This claim turns out to be one of the biggest lies ever told and has caused the genocide and mass suffering of millions of Palestinians who have had their ancestral lands stolen from them by World Zionists and “given” to Khazarian to call their own Biblical land.
And we know now that this claim was an obvious falsity because recent peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins genetic research has shown that 97.5% of these Judaics living in Israel actually have no ancient Hebrew Blood at all, none.
This false claim that these persecuted European Judaics of WWII had ancient ancestral rights to Palestine was, of course, a stupendous Big Lie.
It was a very effective means to mind-kontrol these displaced Khazarians, fool them, and to use them to create a none-existent new race called “Jews”.
This false claim was an effective means to Mind-kontrol Khazarian Judaics whose bloodlines originated in King Bulan’s Khazaria and transformed them into a new protected race called “Jews”.
And this new racial designation “Jew” could be used to make them believe they were a special race, God’s chosen ones, the ancient Hebrews when all they shared was a conversion to Judaism not based on any ancient genetic bloodlines.
This World Zionist “con job” of the new racial designation “Jew” was very effective in Mind-kontrolling these Khazarians into believing that they deserved special protection for all future time from any criticism.
The World Zionists (WZs) successfully convinced these persecuted Khazarians that they had already suffered as a people far too much in WWII.
So when they would be later used as highly placed cutouts and tools for the World Zionists to fulfill their secret evil NWO agenda to destroy all societies, no criticism would be allowed.
And the WZs would make sure that the top positions in government and very lucrative business opportunities would be offered to them first as members of this new artificial racial tribe that Khazarian King Bulan had labeled as “Jews”.
Certain selected leaders of this new racial tribe would thus become handsomely rewarded as they became initiated into the secret Babylonian Talmudic system of Money-Magick and Baal worship.
The concept Antisemitism as sophisticated WZ Mind-kontrol and the perfect defense against any criticism from “Goyim”.
Thus the WZs created the concept “Antisemitism” was to shield these Khazarians who now called themselves “Jews” from any criticism or prosecution for any of their crimes, tyranny or oppression of others such as continued land theft of Palestinian land, blockading and genocide of Palestinians and the mass-murder and suffering of 9-11-01 and all their wars.
Of course, this defense has now been shown to be nonsense for Judaics since almost all are Khazarians. But this has been claimed as Judaics’ main defense for Israel tyranny and genocide of Palestinians and theft of their land.
Anyone who has studied mind-kontrol technology in detail knows that in classic MK-Ultra (satanic or occult Babylonian Talmudic) the first step in to render the subject in a state of shock using major blood trauma, severe suffering with no escape.
This step places subjects in a very suggestible state so they will easily be conditioned by the master controller. This process can be done to large groups at once by any government or rogue group.
The photo of Russian-born David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister and defense minister, and his wife is from the first Israel Defense Forces parade in July 1948.
Mind-kontrol is the reason of course that the False Flag of 9-11-01 was used by World Zionists to place the American People in a state of Blood Shock.
This made them intensely suggestible and ready to be mass hypnotized by the USG that a foreign war on Terror in the Mideast being secretly waged for WZs costing Trillions of US Dollars and thousands of American soldiers’ lives and futures was necessary.
Of course, all such mass hypnosis is always predicated on a Big Lies, false-narratives, and government propaganda.
No matter how big the lie, the American masses can be effectively mind-kontrolled to believe them if they are repeatedly broadcast and published by all of the “big six” Major Mass Media which actually serve as WZ mouthpieces.
For 9-11-01, the World Zionist-controlled Major Mass Media quickly declared that Osama bin Laden did it on behalf of Afghanistan and unless we declared an international war on terror and stopped it over there in the Mideast at its origin, much more and even worse attacks from these crazy Islamics were sure to come to America.
How post-WW2 Israel was created using lands stolen from Palestinians.
The British Rothschilds arranged for the Balfour Declaration and later moved these European Judaics (most actually were Khazarians) to a small part of Palestine that England illegally seized from Palestinians.
The Judaics were supposed to stay in a small designated land area, but quickly formed terrorists groups to murder Palestinians and steal more land. The British peace-keepers were blown up in their hotel and driven out by these Judaic terror groups.
The World Zionist leaders that ran this new illegal nation-state comprised of stolen Palestinian ancestral lands name it “Israel” like the ancient 12 tribes of Hebrews were called.
This was done to keep these Khazarian settlers fooled into believing this Big Lie that they were of ancient Hebrew Blood and were a racially pure nation-state. Note that in the Torah Israel referred to the Twelve Hebrew Tribes as Israel, not a country.
The World Zionists who are actually secret followers of Babylonian Talmudism are best defined as Satanists and occult masters of the Black Magick, Money Magick, and the Black Arts of ancient Babylon.
These Babylonian Talmudics (BTs) are a very crafty bunch and some have claimed to be anointed by Satan who they claim is the ruler of this world and is now rising to dethrone and become God Almighty himself.
Other BT’s believe that Satan (Lucifer) actually is God Almighty now and empowers those that are chosen by him, and willing to give him their souls in exchange for extreme power, riches, and status and are also willing to break all societal norms laws when necessary to serve Satan’s will.
The term “Jew” was actually first used in Khazaria in about 750 AD after King Bulan selected Judaism as Khazaria’s national religion.
Before that those that were believers in Judaism in Palestine were called Hebrews. After 750, most Hebrews were seduced into calling themselves “Jews” along with the much larger number of Khazarians (aka Ashkenazis). It is important to note that the Tribe of Judah was only one of the Twelve Hebrew Tribes and Khazarians have no blood relation to any of these tribes including the Tribe of Judah.
The history of the Hebrew Tribes after they gained their Promised Land is complex. Basically the Ten Tribes split from two tribes.
Some true Hebrew (non-Khazarian) Torah scholars believe that God Almighty divorced himself from the Twelve Hebrew Tribes and removed his gift of the promised land to them for their continued unrepentant idolatry.
Most of these true Hebrew Torah scholars do not believe that the new nation of Israel has any right to exist in Palestine and blame it all on WZs for setting this great lie up in the first place.
These particular Hebrew Torah scholars are dead set against World Zionism and all its evil works.
World Zionists (BTs) set up various rules to define this new artificial race (“Jew”) that they created in Khazaria in 750 AD and falsely claimed it came from ancient Hebrew Bloodlines. BTs defined what a real “Jew” was, including one must have a “Jewish” mother. It didn’t matter if the father was Jewish. This was done to protect any Jewish philandering males from blow-back due to fathering an illegitimate child from a Goyim woman.
The WZs convinced (mind-kontrolled) these displaced European Judaics of WWII that they were from ancient Hebrew Bloodlines when they were actually from Khazarian bloodlines from ancient Khazaria.
Khazarians have sometimes been called Askenazis. This was the first step in creating this new artificial race of Jews and a new racially pure nation based on this Big Lie.
Khazarian King Bulan ordered his people to accept his choice of new national religion which was actually a perverted form of Judaism based on Babylonian Talmudism in about 750 AD.
Fortunately, most Khazarians are secular and do not practice the Babylonian Talmudism that characterized the form of Judaism King Bulan accepted and practiced.
The WZs desired to set up Israel as a nation of Fake Hebrews (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) to serve as their key action-agents and also as a world sanctuary and base of operations for the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM).
The mass deaths of Judaics in WWII and the Nazi Work Camps was then used by the WZs (BTs) to create this new mass role of victim for Judaics. Judaics were thus transformed forever into a special class of the persecuted that the whole world must defer to and protect forever.
“Never Again” became the Judaic motto. No criticism in any form would be allowed and this would be labeled as a new social offense called “Antisemitism”. This new worldwide standard for protecting this new synthetically created racial tribe of “Jews” from any criticism or further persecution became law in many nations, especially in Canada and Europe due to WZ money power and purchased political influence.
The bottom line to all this is that the WZ creation of this synthetic new Tribal race called “Jews” provided great cover for WZs who were committed to: secretly practicing (without discovery) Babylonian Talmudism (Satanism) with child and human sacrifice; anti-human pernicious usury-based Money-Magick; and destroying every society on Planet Earth in order to create their Satanic NWO system.
The problem is that since 97.5% of these Judaics living in Israel are Khazarian blood (not Hebrew blood) like most living in America.
It’s a sad fact that the WZs who created private Fiat pernicious usury central banking has appointed Khazarians as well paid cutouts to sell their nations out and run these WZ central banking systems.
These Cutouts are usually Khazarians who wrongly refer to themselves as Jews.
To prevent any discussion or mass protests against the WZ hijacking and Bankster abuse of America by Khazarian Cutouts, Antisemitism has been fully utilized.
Although any reasonable person knows that not all Khazarians are bad people, but certainly the evidence now available suggests that all WZs who are BTs are Satanists and by definition, anti-society, anti-human, sociopathic and pro-mass-death for their own gain.
And that all Khazarians who serve as highly paid WZ Cutouts are habitual violators of the US Constitution and numerous US Law including RICO which are major felonies.
The Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM) is the core group of Babylonian Talmudics running this new and illegal racist nation of Israel.
The RKM is also known as the World Money Changers and runs the Satanic Pedophile Network. They are also the World Zionists.
Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM) Money Power provides the muscle for World Zionism.
Creating and controlling most of the world’s money has provided a lot of continuing power and that is what these World Zionist do by issuing debt-notes no longer backed by any real commodities, gold or silver.
These WZ/BT World Moneychangers lend these debt notes (which are required by law to be accepted as “legal tender”) to the masses and charge pernicious usury (illegal under the Torah Law itself).
Obviously money should be owned by any nations own citizens in the first place, should be real, and no interest should be charged for using it, especially for these fake money debt-notes.
Obviously this RKM money-power Fiat central private banking system is the biggest scam in history.
It has enabled the World Zionists to infiltrate and hijack many nations such as America and then use them to stage wars to make massive profits.
WZ money power is now in the process of being displaced by nations grouping together such as the BRICS.
It makes take several years or it makes happen anytime overnight, but the RKM private Fiat central Banking system and the US Petrodollar, its illegitimate child, are going down for the count.
The post-WWII creation of the nation-state of Israel was based on a colossal lie and major land theft and genocide against the Palestinian People.
Yes, the post-WWII nation-state of Israel was created on one of the greatest lies ever told and is nothing more than high-level land theft by the world’s largest organized crime Syndicate, the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM).
And this RKM are hardcore World Zionists who take their orders from a small secret satanic group the top Babylonian Talmudics (BTs).
Top BTs have claimed to be directly powered by pure satanic and demonic powers and each has their own personal demon consigliere appear to them if they continue to promote and cause enough blood sacrifice and human suffering.
This claim that Judaics had an ancestral right to Palestine due to their genetics was, of course, a monstrous lie.
We now know for certain the vast majority (over 90%) these persecuted Judaics that survived this WWII European persecution carried no ancient Hebrew blood at all and were Khazarians (sometimes called Ashkenazim) from the area that is now called the Ukraine.
Most of these World Zionists, aka the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia, carry no Hebrew Blood either and typically answer to the top Old Black European nobility Families.
These Old Black European families that started and run World Zionism carry inter-generational satanism and practice secret occult black magick, trauma-based mind-kontrol, and numerous secret black arts.
World Zionists used the RKM to hijack America in 1913.
The World Zionists used the RKM to infiltrate and hijack America in 1913 by bribing members of the US Congress and the President to pass the illegal, clearly unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
Once these RKM had gained control over the creation and distribution of US money with no oversight or auditing ever, they could issue and print all the money they wanted as unbacked debt-notes and buy up, bribe or human compromise almost every single member of Congress and even most presidents.
Those they couldn’t they isolated, drove out of the office or if they deemed necessary arranged for their murder.
What have been the results of the hijacking of America by the World Zionists (WZs) in 1913 by the illegal and unconstitutional passage of the RKM’s Federal Reserve Act?
America became another World Zionist occupied nation-state just like England, France, Post WWII Germany, and so many others.
Once the WZs had control over the US Congress then they began to use America as their military and economic enforcer all over the world for their corporate partners.
This was explicated by General Smedley Butler in his famous book, War is a Racket. General Butler was the most decorated US Marine ever and was awarded two Medals of Honor for bravery in combat.
The sad secret is that most of the world central banks have been controlled by the WZs through their action-agent Cutouts the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM). Any nation-state which tried to eject the RKM central banks or the US Petro Dollar becomes an immediate target for civil war, revolution or destruction by war using completely fabricated fake reasons.
This is done by deploying the Military enforcers which include the US Military, NATO members militaries and private mercenary armies like the CIA’s and many others including ISIS, Daesh, el Nusra, etc.
Israel become the WZ organized crime central.
Israel has become the world capital of the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM) only because it has been mandated by the World Zionists. This has transformed Israel into the world capital for sexual perversion, kidnapping for sex trafficking, murder for organ trafficking, and high-level financial crimes.
Recently the RKM has been ripping off their own fellow Israelis and many Israelis have had enough. Various Israel citizen groups are now working to get Netanyahu out of the office and to see that their laws for financial crimes are enforced.
There is a now a big split forming in Israeli politics. A significant number of Israelis are getting fed up with the corruption and with the persecution of Palestinians as well as and the continuing theft of more and more of their land.
Foreign based espionage groups in America have been deployed by the WZs.
All these foreign-based espionage groups in America that are now trying to create chaos like the ADL and SPLC are pretending to support minorities. And they have been set up, funded and deployed by the WZs through Cutouts and Mind-kontrolled stooges.
They do this in order to create a cover for themselves because once the average American finds out what they are doing to undermine America, they will demand that they become registered as foreign agents and even prosecuted under existing espionage laws.
When these Khazarians pretend to care for (and represent minorities) and create false-narratives of bigotry, persecution and racism, this provides a great hiding place for these Khazarians.
Most of the Judaics in America and Israel who call themselves “Jewish” are actually Khazarians and carry no Hebrew Blood at all. Therefore they are not real Semites compared to 80%+ of the Palestinians that do actually carry ancient Hebrew blood and are true Semites.
This hard reality means that these Khazarians pretending to be Hebrews can no longer legitimately plead Antisemitism when folks criticize them for their espionage against America.
The best antidote to the very crafty mind-kontrol of the World Zionists that is based on the lie that Khazarians are from ancient Hebrew blood is a frank declaration of the truth that 97.5% of Israelis who call themselves Jewish actually have no Hebrew blood at all.
Truth is the best immunization against the massive satanic two-faced lies of the WZs and their chief action agents the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia (RKM). And we now know that the RKM is the world’s largest organized crime syndicate because it is fully empowered by the World Zionist Banksters who are Babylonian Talmudics.
Israelis have been deeply mind-kontrolled by the World Zionists to believe a very big lie that they carry ancient Hebrew Blood and have an ancestral right to Palestine when they have none. They have been set up to create conflict in the Mideast to prime the war machine pump for vast RKM Bankster profits.
But insiders know that unless Israelis wake up and began to understand how the WZs have played them, they will eventually be over-run by the rest of the world, one way or another. Israelis have been highly rewarded with America taxpayer dollars by the WZs for doing their will, but they, in reality, are disposable Cutouts, just the way many of their relatives were who were kidnapped and placed in Nazi work camps upon the orders of the WZs who set up both Nazism and Communism in the first place.
Just for the records, I am not an Anti-Semite. I love the Palestinians people and other true Semites. Actually I am not even anti-Khazarian but I am against how they have been mind-kontrolled and used by World Zionists to serve as Cutouts and do their dirty work. I am not even anti-Jew, but I think they need to be exposed for being mind-kontrolled Khazarians.
Sadly most Jews do not even know that they are actually of Khazarian bloodlines which are a combination of Turk and Mongol whose true ancestors converted to Judaism in Khazaria under King Bulan.
As a tribe, those calling themselves Jews have been kicked out of over 100 nations for some of the unsocial acts of their leaders who were empowered by RKM Fiat central Banking and have now been exposed for being responsible for the attack on America on 9-11-01.
Thus many who have learned of how some top Khazarians willingly did the dirty work for the WZs, now have an intense dislike for “Jews” in general. The Jewish leaders (PNACers, top NeoCons, Israeli-America “Israeli-first” Dual Citizens) attempt to ward off this criticism and blame by claiming it is nothing but Antisemitism.
Actually, to be accurate, this anger and desire for justice to be leveled against the perps who did 9-11-01 could be called anti-Khazarianism and is well justified for all the illegal unconstitutional wars and associated mass-death, woundings, disabilities and mass-suffering it has brought about.
Its a fact that strong factions deep inside the Secret Shadow Government (SSG), the Secret Space War Program (SSWP), and the Pentagon now understand that it was the WZs, the Khazarian, the Dual Citizens and their lackeys who did 9-11-01.
This has produced a deep and growing split between true American Patriots and Khazarians in power and these Khazarians are being pushed aside and losing their power by the day.
The whole world is now organizing together to displace the World Zionists and their Khazarians Cutouts out of power.
It will take some time, but now that so many inside the SSG, the SSWP and the Pentagon know the truth that 9-11-01 was actually an attack on America by the World Zionists, they are beginning to take covert actions against the WZs and their Khazarian Cutouts and their lackeys.
Israelis need to wake up and learn the facts about their Khazarian blood heritage and the fact that the latest peer-reviewed Johns Hopkins genetic study shows that: about 97.5% have absolutely no ancient Hebrew blood at all, are not Semites, their Khazarian ancestors converted to a perverted form of Judaism under King Bulan in about 750 AD, and thus they have no ancient right to any of Palestinian land; while 80%+ of the Palestinians are true Semites because they carry ancient Hebrew Blood and these Semites do have an ancestral right to all of Palestine.
American Jews need to wake up soon too before they allow the WZ to destroy America, the goose that is laying their golden eggs of very high positions and high pay because they are part of the new synthetic tribe of “Jews” and have been used by WZs as their disposal Cutouts. When the great Federal Reserve System reaches its limits like any Ponzi scheme always done (and this may be quite soon), the Cutouts will always receive the blame while the WZ occult masters slip away.
Every day, more and more Americans and folks around the world are learning that the WZs used Khazarians to run the attack on America on 9-11-01 to motivate Americans to deploy their soldiers as disposable cannon fodder for the WZ’s Mideast wars of aggression, acquisition, and profit. And that these wars have produced millions of dead, wounded, disabled and displaced civilians.
ISIS et all, the private Israeli/CIA/Saudi mercenary army, has now been defeated by the Syrian military and Russian precision air power.
It won’t be long now until most nations of the world, especially Mideast nations gang up, Lebanize and Balkanize Israel. At that point, it sure seems that the USA will be too weak economically to defend Israel for the WZs.
And as oil prices continue to fall, Saudi Arabia’s days serving as a primary war and terror financing tool for the WZs are now limited.
The promising news is that there is now a growing number of actual Torah Jews, True Hebrews, and even a growing number of Khazarians around the world that understand Zionism and all the evil it produces. These folks now want to give the Israeli settlements back to the Palestinians, establish Palestine as a nation and push the crazy Likudists out of power in Israel.
A surprising number of young college-aged Khazarians actually support the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement (BDS) against Israel.
Every day more and more folks understand the evil that these WZ Babylonian Talmudic Baal worshiping Satanist do and have been getting away with.
Full exposure of all the evil done by these Satan worshiping WZs is now a certainty and no longer just a wish, thanks to the Internet, the World’s New Gutenberg Press.
So when you hear the term “Jew” used, think Khazarian synthetic racial tribe that is actually comprised of Khazarian converts to Judaism. Think Turk and Mongol bloodlines and no direct ancestry to ancient Hebrews or Palestine. And remember that about 97.5% of these folks that call themselves Jewish carry no ancient Hebrew blood at all and are thus not Semites.
And do not fall for their artificially created defense of Antisemitism for any criticism since it only applies to true Semites and not them, folks like the Palestinians and small remnants of the original Twelve Hebrew Tribes which were scattered around the world after diaspora with most interbreeding with other bloodlines.
It is important for Khazarians to realize they have been mind-kontrolled by the WZs and many of their relatives suffered persecution in WWII at the direction of the WZs who made money off the work camps where their relatives manufactured war materials for the Nazis.
When Israel becomes blamed for 9-11-01 and the Khazarian staffed Federal Reserve System fails, Khazarians will likely be blamed and persecuted once again unless they wake up now. And as always, the WZs slip away and their highly paid Khazarian Cutouts get blamed.
The fact that Roth and his organization had the temerity to treat Israel like every other repressive, rights-violating government they scrutinized, it turned out.
Roth was never explicitly told why, after a round of interviews and being sent a formal proposal to join, the Kennedy School’s dean Douglas Elmendorf decided not to approve his hiring, reportedly an unprecedented situation for the Carr Center.
But Elmendorf did tell Kathryn Sikkink, a high-profile human rights professor associated with the center, who relayed to the Nation on the record that Elmendorf claimed Human Rights Watch had an “anti-Israel bias” and that Roth’s tweets about the country’s conduct were a problem.
As the author of the Nation report, Michael Massing, points out, the charges defy credulity.
Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians is just one of the many, many instances of human rights abuses around the world that Human Rights Watch regularly documented under Roth, which included abuses by Palestinian groups.
And its characterization of Israel’s abuses has not been materially different from other vaunted human rights organizations like Amnesty International, whose alumni the Kennedy School has never had a problem hosting before.
Roth is just the latest to join the long list of people who have faced censure at the hands of prominent institutions for criticizing Israel.
In recent times that list has included, besides Halper, Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson, who was fired from the Guardian for an offhand joke critical of Israel, Marc Lamont Hill who was fired from CNN for uttering a slogan of Palestinian liberation, and a long list of academics like Steven Salaita who have had their careers ruined for criticizing Israel’s conduct.
What’s novel here are Roth’s impeccable establishment credentials. Roth was dubbed the “godfather” of the human rights movement in a praiseful New York Times tribute to his career last year, and he usually tends to voice conventional wisdom that fits comfortably within the narrow spectrum of Washington foreign policy establishment discourse.
He has expressed the view that “the biggest threat to human rights is China” and that “the US government remains the most powerful proponent of human rights.”
At one point, Roth signed an agreement with a Saudi real estate magnate agreeing to take his money as long as it wasn’t used for LGBTQ advocacy in the Middle East.
The point here isn’t to run down Roth. It is that, if someone with this record and connections can’t make reasonable, factually accurate criticisms of Israeli policy, then who can?
This isn’t so much a problem of a distorted political climate surrounding Israel as it is of power and money.
As Massing points out, it’s the Kennedy School’s own revolving door between government officials, like former CIA director Michael Morell and disgraced former Iraq and Afghanistan commander David Petraeus, and its reliance on funding from pro-Israel donors — including Les Wexner, the oddly generous friend and benefactor of late child-sex-trafficker-for-the-elite Jeffrey Epstein — that ultimately made Roth persona non grata at the Carr Center.
Predictably, the usual, cynical voices are already declaring this piece of reporting an antisemitic “conspiracy theory.”
It’s in the interests of even the most establishment-friendly liberals to push back on all of this, beyond the fact that such cynical abuse of that accusation empowers actual antisemites by cheapening it.
Such accusations against the Left have been intensely weaponized both in the United States and, to an even more extreme extent, across the pond in the UK, where they have been used to delegitimize and even purge the Left from political power, including Jewish activists.
Liberal voices were silent or even joined in on this shameful display.
But the Roth episode shows that it’s only a matter of time before that kind of thing creeps closer to the political center.
And when that happens, it undermines everyone’s ability to have a rational debate about foreign policy and human rights.
An exclusive Jewish right to settle and live in the land implicitly announces that the 6.5 million Palestinians who live on it may have no right to be there at all.
As part of his bargain with the fascist blocs of Religious Zionism and Jewish Power, according to the Israeli newspaper Arab 48, incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke of an “exclusive Jewish right” to expand settlements inside Israel proper, in Galilee and the Negev, as well as to plant squatters in the Palestinian West Bank.
An exclusive Jewish right to settle and live in the land implicitly announces that the 6.5 million Palestinians who live on it are there by suffrage and maybe have no right to be there at all. That right is exclusively Jewish, Netanyahu says.
The Zionists say they are not colonizers. They say they are in their own homeland. But they behave as colonizers. They are foreign to Palestine or even Israel at any point in time) took all what wasn’t theirs. Invented a people, an alien language (Hebrew) for themselves.
A Jordanian newspaper called this plank of his platform “the execution of the Palestinian people.”
According to the Associated Press, Netanyahu announced that he will legalize those Israeli squatter-settlements on Palestinian-owned land that even Israel had considered illegal.
He would vastly expand the number of Israeli squatters in the Palestinian West Bank. And ultimately, he pledged to annex the Palestinian West Bank entirely to Israel.
Since Netanyahu has no intention of ever granting Israeli citizenship to the 3 million Palestinians living under Israeli military rule, the formal annexation of their territory would cement Israel’s Apartheid system of racial difference.
According to Arab 48, the Adalah human rights organization denounced the platform as openly racist, discriminatory and Jewish supremacist, especially the language about exclusive Jewish rights to the land, which implies that Palestinian East Jerusalem will never be allowed to become the capital of a Palestinian state.
Adalah called on the world to take a stand against this flagrant Israeli Apartheid.
The outline of Netanyahu’s governmental program ominously said that preference would be given to former soldiers in the Israeli army for admission to university departments of medicine, law, computer science, accounting, and engineering.
Since the 21% of the population who are of Palestinian heritage are not permitted to serve in the military, this step would put them at a severe disadvantage in receiving admission to those departments.
Only the small community of Druze are an exception to the ban on military service.
hint: these are not Jewish implants. They are the Palestinians.
He wants to make reforms in the education system.
The mealy-mouthed contradictions are apparent in his pledge both to treat all communities equally and to use the education system to “strengthen Jewish identity.”
Likewise, he will safeguard the Jewish character of the state, but not upset the status quo among the various religions in Israel.
(Most of the 21% who are of Palestinian heritage are Muslim, but there is a vocal Christian minority that is increasingly upset about Jewish attacks on churches and attempts to take away church lands.
Netanyahu’s new best friends on the fascist Right are for anything but treating non-Jews equally or maintaining the status quo regarding Muslim and Christian places of worship.
Stole everything from Palestine!
But of course Palestinian-Israelis are 21% of the population and sometimes they can have an impact on elections, so Netanyahu turned around and said in his platform that he would address issues in insecurity and crime in Palestinian-Israeli communities, and would invest in education and infrastructure for them.
Very magnanimous of him, since apparently they are excluded from the exclusively Jewish right to even be there.
His platform made a sinister call for a “rebalancing” of the powers of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, with the implication that the judiciary would be cut down to size.
Netanyahu is on trial for corruption before the courts. Netanyahu apparently wants to strike down the prerogative of judicial review of laws that appear to contradict organic laws that have a constitutional character.
In short, the supreme court could not overturn a law of the parliament or Knesset that its justices believe to be unconstitutional.
It is sort of as though Steve Bannon were elected president and started rejiggering the U.S. constitution and racial relations, only in Hebrew.
Historic Palestine has long had an abundance of natural resources, ranging from fresh and ground water, arable land and, more recently, oil and natural gas.
In the seven decades since the establishment of the state of Israel, these resources have been compromised and exploited through a variety of measures.
These include widespread Palestinian dispossession of land in the ongoing Nakba, exploitation of water through failed negotiations, and a finders-keepers approach to gas and oil found in or under occupied land.
(CHICAGO) — Israel wants it all. For decades, it’s been systematically stealing Palestinian land and resources.
Al Haq’s new report provides more evidence.
Titled, “Pillage of the Dead Sea: Israel’s Unlawful Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” it details grand theft and war crimes.
They benefit Jews by harming Palestinians. More on it below.
Yesh Din defends Palestinian human rights. It exposes Israeli abuses. It champions long denied accountability.
In March 2009, it petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ).
It wants lawless West Bank mining operations stopped. Israel and 11 Israeli corporations steal Palestinian resources rightfully theirs.
It demanded all quarrying and mining activities cease.
It argued that Israeli companies pillage Palestinian resources for profit and Israel’s benefit.
Doing so also violates fundamental international law. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to protect, not exploit, Palestinian rights.
On Dec. 26, 2011, the HCJ rejected Yesh Din’s petition. It sanctioned lawless pillage. On Jan. 10, 2012, Yesh Din requested another hearing before a broader panel of judges.
Seven distinguished Israeli legal experts stood with Yesh Din.
They took issue with the Court’s ruling.
Their collective opinion matters.
It provides greater impact.
On July 25, 2012, the HCJ spurned Yesh Din again.
In his decision, retired Deputy President Judge Eliezer Rivlin said the December 2011 ruling rejected Yesh Din’s petition mainly because Israel and the Palestinian Authority addressed the issue earlier. They agreed to an interim 1995 deal.
He failed to explain its terms.
It explicitly said “quarries must be transferred to the Palestinian side within 18 months.” Israel still controls them.
The Court’s ruling OK’d its right to steal.
THE COURT’S JUDGEMENT
Seven leading international law experts disagree.
They unequivocally call Israel’s mining operations lawless.
In their judgment, the Court’s ruling was troublesome.
Judge Rivlin addressed their opinion, saying, “I did not ignore the opinion of the experts on international law submitted in support of the petitioner’s argument.
The learned opinion raises important questions and analyzes them most skillfully and eruditely.”
“However, in the concrete circumstances of this case, since no precedent was set in the decision that would justify a further hearing, there is no need to discuss them at this stage.”
In response, Yesh Din attorney Shlomy Zachary said, “This decision by the High Court of Justice recognizes the serious flaws of the court’s decision on the original petition, and mutes its conclusions.”
“The court is also aware that the decision’s determinations must be decided in the future, and therefore the decision on the concrete matter cannot serve as a binding precedent.”
“The opinion of the leading experts from Israel’s universities, submitted as part of this case, added another level that reinforced the need to minimize the determinations about this matter, and we welcome that.”
Israel’s High Court tried having it both ways. In initially rejecting Yesh Din’s petition, HCJ President Dorit Beinisch said, “The belligerent occupation of Israel in the area has some unique characteristics, primarily the duration of the occupation period that requires the adjustment of the law to the reality on the ground, which imposes a duty upon Israel to ensure normal life for a period, which … is certainly long-term.”
At the same time, the Court spurned international law. It also dismissed the opinion of seven distinguished Israeli legal experts.
Their judgment is indisputable. Rule of law principles back it. It carries weight. It concluded saying “the license granted to Israeli corporations to mine exhaustible natural minerals in territory under belligerent occupation is illegal.”
High Court judges know it but ignored them and fundamental international law anyway.
Their ruling was not only dishonest, it was convoluted.
HOW THE DECISION AFFECTS THE PEOPLE
Outrageously, the Court said militarized occupation and Israeli Civil Administration operations benefit Palestinians.
In other words, controlling them at the point of a gun and pillaging their resources helps.
How, the Court didn’t explain. It merely said, “Royalties paid to the Civil Administration by the operators of the quarries are used to finance the operations of the military administration, which promotes various kinds of projects aimed to benefit the interests of the area.”
Stealing what’s theirs doesn’t help. Military occupation spurns their rights. Employment for small numbers of Palestinians at slave wages neither benefits them or the collective population.
Virtually all resources mined help Israel and its settlements. Mining fees, levies and royalties flow straight to Israeli state coffers. Palestinians are denied what’s rightfully theirs.
Al Haq’s report offers more proof. Black’s Law Dictionary calls pillage “the forcible taking of private property by an invading or conquering army from the enemy’s subjects.”
The 1907 Hague Regulations, Fourth Geneva and other international laws prohibit doing so under all circumstances.
The Statute of International Criminal Court calls “pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault,” a war crime.
Various military manuals prohibit pillage/plunder. The U.N. and other international organizations condemn it.
Looting is absolutely forbidden.
It’s punishable under international, military and general statute laws.
RESOURCES BEING TAKEN
Israel spurns rule of law principles in all forms. Al Haq calls exploiting West Bank resources “the war crime of pillage.” Its report examines Israeli Dead Sea area operations.
It’s “prohibited from exploiting them in a way that undermines their capital and results in economic benefits for Israeli citizens, including settlers or for its national economy.”
The Dead Sea borders Jordan and Israel to the east and the West Bank to the west. It’s in the Jordan Rift Valley. It lies over 400 meters below sea level.
It’s 67 km long, 377 meters deep and 18 km across at its widest point. With 33.7 percent salinity, it’s one of the world’s saltiest water bodies.
In 1967, Israel seized control. Jordan previously controlled the area.
Oslo granted Israel military and administrative control. Vast land areas became closed military zones. Palestinians are denied entry to land rightfully theirs.
Since 1967, pillage accompanied occupation.
Palestinians were dispossessed from their own land and resources.
Israel stole and exploited the Dead Sea and surrounding areas by declaring them “State land.”
No legal basis whatever permits doing so.
Numerous military orders violate international law.
It’s been twisted, inverted, manipulated, distorted, undermined and spurned to justify the unjustifiable.
Israel invents its own version of reality.
Orwellian doublespeak defines it.
Fundamental occupying power obligations are violated. State authorities and settlers reap benefits.
THE DEAD SEA
At the same time, unsustainable water extraction and mining methods let water levels decrease significantly.
Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories was licensed to steal. It mines Dead Sea mud. It’s used for company products. Al Haq’s General Director, Shawan Jabarin, said, “The Israeli authorities are denying Palestinians access to their natural resources all across the OPT, but this practice is particularly evident in the occupied Dead Sea area. This also clearly demonstrates how Israel is benefiting economically from the occupation.”
“Given that the settlers in the area and Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories directly profit from the appropriation of the Dead Sea natural resources and from the trade of the products extracted and processed in this region, they should be considered as primary perpetrators of the war crime of pillage.”
Consumers have a right to know that Ahava operates illegally.
Its products use stolen Palestinian resources. Doing so costs them nearly $150 million annually.
Ahava’s based in Mitzpe Shalem settlement.
It lies on the Dead Sea’s western shore.
It’s Israel’s only company licensed to mine area mud, silt, sand, gravel and other minerals.
It operates subsidiaries in America, Britain and Germany.
Its products have unique cosmetic qualities.
They’re used for various skin disorders.
Exports provide about 60 percent of its revenue.
The remaining 40 percent comes from Israel and tourism.
The Dead Sea has unique geographical, mineral, climatic and archeological features.
Its natural resource riches include ground and surface water, springs and minerals.
It’s a potential world heritage site.
Its landscapes are stunning. Its climate is mild. Its potential for economic development is significant.
Its tourism, industry and agriculture thrive.
Israeli development plans include hotels, water parks, shopping malls and urban facilities.
Enhanced mineral and water extraction are also planned.
Palestinians are entirely deprived of what’s rightfully theirs.
The area is also environmentally vulnerable.
Its ecosystem is endangered.
At issue is over-extraction and other abuses.
The Jordan River Basin’s water system is affected.
Large sinkholes emerged.
As many as 3,000 exist.
Dead Sea shrinkage is worrisome.
It’s divided into two lakes.
Upstream water diversion projects and southern Dead Sea mining caused serious sea level erosion.
Over-exploitation is destroying the area. Domestic, agricultural and industrial wastewater flows directly into the Dead Sea.
Surrounding land areas are affected.
In 2004, Ahava got illegal mining rights.
Authority granting them must cease and desist.
Third-party states must demand it.
Pressuring Israel to stop violating international law is vital.
Aiding and abetting lawlessness can’t be tolerated.
Relations with Ahava and other Israeli companies profiteering from pillage must cease.
Importing their products is illegal.
Everything originating from settlements should be barred. Failure to do so constitutes complicity with grand theft and war crimes.