Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Residents of al-Faluja flee in 1949.

Henry Norr a writer for The Electronic Intifada, on 23 July 2008 reported this interesting story: The Nakba, Intel, and Kiryat Gat, about how the chip maker Intel is contributing to the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands in 1948-49, how Americans indirectly contribute to Intel's exploitation of Palestinian lands through our taxes, in short, about how Intel profits from the plight of the Palestinian people in Israel-Palestine.

The photo above reveals residents of al-Faluja, a Palestinian town, fleeing Israeli military in 1949. The photo to the right reveals what al-Faluja is like today: an industrial park largely overrun by Intel factories, now called Kiryat Gat, an Israeli town. Palestinian now Israeli was the fate of many Palestinian villages and town ethnically cleansed in 1948, if they were not bulldozed into the ground.

Intel's new facility, known as Fab 28, is the largest private-sector investment ever made in Israel: the company has sunk $3 billion into it, and the Israeli government (USA taxpayers) kicked in another $525 million. Since the groundbreaking 28 months ago, it's been the biggest construction project in Israel -- this side of the apartheid wall, that is.

The history of this now Intel dominated town is interesting and Norr provided the full story in his article. This is just an abbreviated version.

Sixty years ago, there was no Kiryat Gat. The land it now occupies was divided between two Palestinian villages, al-Faluja and 'Iraq al-Manshiya. While the area is well within the Green Line, Israel's 1949-67 border, its history is in one way unique: Israeli forces never captured it during the 1948-49 war. Egyptian forces occupied it in late May 1948, and although later Israeli counter-offensives broke up their front and laid siege to the two villages -- known at the time as the "Faluja pocket" -- the 4,000 Egyptian troops deployed there (including a young officer named Gamal Abdel Nasser, soon to become president of his country) held out until Egypt and Israel agreed to an armistice on 24 February 1949.

That's when the Nakba befell al-Faluja and 'Iraq al-Manshiya.

Stranded and surrounded, the Egyptians were in no position to stay in the area. To their credit, however, they insisted as a condition of their withdrawal that Israel guarantee the safety of the civilians in the area -- about 2,000 locals and some 1,100 refugees from other parts of Palestine.

In principle, Israel accepted the Egyptians' demand. In an exchange of letters that were filed with the United Nations and appended to the main armistice agreement, the two governments agreed that civilians who wished to remain in al-Faluja and 'Iraq al-Manshiya would be permitted to do so, and that "All of these civilians shall be fully secure in their persons, abodes, property and personal effects."

Within days, however, it was clear that the agreement wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Under the direction of Yitzhak Rabin (later Prime Minister of Israel), and probably with the direct approval of founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, according to historian Benny Morris, Israeli troops promptly mounted "a short, sharp, well-orchestrated campaign of low-key violence and psychological warfare designed to intimidate the inhabitants into flight."


Members of an American Quaker relief mission who were in the area at the time kept a diary detailing the violence they observed, such as the case of a man brought to them with "two bloody eyes, a torn ear, and a face pounded until it was blue." And UN observers reporting to Ralph Bunche, the distinguished African-American diplomat then serving as chief UN mediator in Palestine, noted not only beatings and robberies, but also cases of attempted rape and "promiscuous firing" on civilians by Israeli soldiers. (Bunche, who won the 1950 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, had assumed the chief mediator's post a few months earlier, after the assassination of his predecessor, the Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, by a Jewish terrorist organization led by Yitzhak Shamir, also a later prime minister of Israel.)


Sharett (the Israeli PM) objected not only to the overt violence, but also to what he said was a "whispering propaganda campaign" conducted covertly by the Israeli army, threatening the civilians with "attacks and acts of vengeance by the army" if they didn't leave the area. "This whispering propaganda is not being done of itself," Sharett continued. "There is no doubt that here there is a calculated action aimed at increasing the number of those going to the Hebron Hills [then controlled by Jordan] as if of their own free will, and, if possible, to bring about the evacuation of the whole civilian population" of the Faluja pocket.

Whether Sharett's concerns had any moderating influence on the army's behavior isn't clear, but they certainly didn't change the outcome. By mid-March all of al-Faluja's residents had abandoned their homes; the residents of 'Iraq al-Manshiya held out longer, but after several shootings by Israeli sentries, the last of them -- some 1,160 people -- left in Red Cross-organized convoys on 21 and 22 April.

Five days later, Rabin ordered the demolition of both villages.

In sum, al-Faluja was ethnically cleansed. Norr continues:

Initially, Kiryat Gat's major industries were agriculture and textiles. But in the mid-1990s Intel, which had established other facilities in Israel beginning in 1974, chose Kiryat Gat as the site for a huge new plant it called Fab 18. ("Fab" is chip-industry lingo for a facility where semiconductors are fabricated.) Intel put in $1 billion -- at the time the largest foreign investment ever in Israel -- and it persuaded the Israeli government (via US taxpayer dollars) to contribute another $600 million to build and equip the plant.

Meanwhile, Fab 28 has been going up next door. For the future, an Intel executive last year told reporters that the company was already planning a third Fab plant in Kiryat Gat. In his speech at the 1 July dedication, Olmert said that his government was prepared to offer Intel Israel another $1 billion in grants. Hey, when you have the US contributing 3 billion a year in aid, plus another 3 billion in military equipment, what's the problem?

As for the rightful owners of the land Intel now occupies, one recent analysis reported that 14,345 refugees from 'Iraq al-Manshiya (including the descendants of those expelled in 1949) were registered with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees; of these more than 9,000 were living in Jordan, more than 5,000 in the West Bank, several dozen in the US, and others scattered around the world. From al-Faluja, a 1998 estimate put the total number of refugees at 33,267.

Henry Norr covered Intel as a technology reporter and columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle until he was fired in 2003, after writing a column about Kiryat Gat and getting arrested in a demonstration the day the US invaded Iraq. So please don't tell us the role of the Israel Lobby in the US is minimal. The tail of the dog is still being wagged.

Tags: Intel, Israel, Palestine (all tags)



Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

So Intel built a plant on land that had been in Israeli hands for the last 60 years and somehow this makes them guilty of apartheid?

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-26 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Sorry, just not getting it.

Are you suggesting that Intel is not aware of the history of al-Faluja, that it was an ethnically cleansed town, undertaken in spite of reassurances to the UN in 1949 that its people would be protected? Try looking up UN Resolution 194 for the international law basis for the rights of the Palestinians who lived there, but were ethnically cleansed. 60 years? Those Palestinians living in UN refugee camps today still retain their deeds as well as the keys to their homes in this town as well as over 470 villages and towns in what is now Israel.

Israel is built upon the country of another people: it is the source of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Realize that most Americans are unaware of that but there is always time to learn.

by shergald 2008-07-26 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Those Palestinians living in UN refugee camps today still retain their deeds as well as the keys to their homes in this town as well as over 470 villages and towns in what is now Israel.
Why are those Palestinians still living in refuge camps 60 years later? It looks to me like their host countries are prejudiced against Palestinians. Or is it that they are pawns in this game?

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-26 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

No, I'm afraid it is because Palestinians are Palestinians. This notion that Palestinians are just Arabs and Arabs are Arabs so why worry about them?

The Palestinian identity is supported by the UN and international law, which in 1948 passed Resolution 194, the right of return. Palestine is still a live concept supported by land deeds and keys, which have become a symbol of human rights for the Palestinians living in UN refugee camps to this day. Essentially, 194 says that ethnic cleansing is still a human rights crime and justifying that crime by nullifying the rights of people to their own homes and property should not stand.

What American can argue with this point of view? We have had other ethnic cleansing often involving murder by countries, yet think nothing of our response to it. Serbia attempted to ethnically cleanse the Bosnian Muslims in the late 90s, and American responded by attacking Serbia. The thousands of Bosnian we saw file out of Bosnia on our TVs, eventually returned to their homes. Unfortunately, there is no bringing back the murdered Bosnians, the thousands later dug up from their graves.

Can we support as opposed to oppose a similar ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, which still goes on today? Should Americans be into double-standards on human rights crimes?

by shergald 2008-07-26 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

"No, I'm afraid it is because Palestinians are Palestinians. " So they should be locked away in camps for generations like they are in Jordan and Lebanon?

Americans have their own sad history when it comes to ethnic cleansing. We won't even face up to our own transgressions against native Americans.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

The American Indian saga, their ethnic cleansing from lands they used to survive for centuries, has little in common with the Palestinian ethnic cleansing. The ethnically-cleansed Palestinians lived in over 470 villages and towns, owned their property, homes and farmlands and orchards, and were a stable community, even though they lived under military occupation by the Turks for 400 years. They were not peripatetic. The closest analogy here is rather with the Serbian attempt to ethnically cleanse the Muslim Bosnians in the late 90s. You know our response. Our relations to Israel is really based on a double-standard. What is perhaps pathetic is that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues today. Aside of 1948, the post1967 efforts by Israel to get rid of Palestinians has been successful, to some extent. Each year, due to Israeli induced hardship, a hundred thousand Palestinians leave the West Bank each year. It is only the high Palestinian birth rate that keeps the population numbers stable.

Why do Palestinians continue to live in refugee camps instead of integrating into the cultures of the countries they reside in? I can't respond except to say that, from what I can tell, they are not ready to disappear as a people and culture. And isn't this what people who ask the question in the sense of blaming those countries really ask? Why the hell do we still have Palestinians at all?

I think it probably has a lot to do with the fact that they were an identified people for at least a thousand years. The UN also recognizes them as a people, given Resolution 194, and the fact that it has been supporting their refugee status for 60 years. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact the the UN felt it got hoodwinked when it recognized Israel as a state, because it did not expect Israel to then ethnically cleanse people who had been living there longer than the majority of Jewish immigrants who only arrived within recent decades. Then there is just the simple human rights injustice entailed. Should anyone really accept the ethnic cleansing at a time when the UN was born for the purpose to stop wars and injustice? Nationalism and racism were the prime movers of the great wars of the 20th century. Should the world now accept nationalism and racism as a basis for the dispossession of peoples from their own countries?

Just some thoughts.

by shergald 2008-07-26 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

I see ChitownDenny is on a tr kick. Sad, pathetic little man.

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

The circumstances of the 1948 war are a little different then what you are making it out to be.

The plight of the Palestinians is tragic, there can be no doubt of that, but in most cases like this, the refugees are given asylum somewhere, not forced to live in refugee camps for 60 years. Why don't other Middle Eastern countries do more to help?

You also said in another post that Israel is a country that exists on someone elses land. Since you are quoting UN Resolutions from 1948, surely you agree with the one dividing the Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state? This would seem to imply that Israel exists legally in some parts of the world.

by JENKINS 2008-07-26 11:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

In response, if you have another version of the Nakba than the one I am posting below, please share. The Palestinians either fled out of fear (after several massacres of which Deir Yassin is the most famous) or in most cases, were forced out by Israeli militias like the Haganah and then the Haganah turned IDF after Independence on May 15, 1948. The UN created numerous refugee camps for them in several countries, eventually counting 711,000 refugees. But many thousands more did go into these countries as residents or emigrated to EUrope and even the USA. Six months later the UN pass Resolution 194, the "right of (the Palestinians to) return" to their homes and property in over 470 villages and towns in what was now Israel. UNRWA is the acronym for the UN organization created to help these refugees, and that has continued for 60 years. Although initially domiciled in tents, eventually temporary structures were built.

The UN partition proposal and even the earlier one by the British left few Jews living in the Arab sector, but almost 400,000 Arabs living in the Jewish sector. The Palestinians obviously declined the proposal, and who could blame. Would you have left your home, your property, your farm or orchards, or business or whatever, your way of life, and move your family into a tented refugee camp in the Arab sector? I think not.

The UN had no right to give lands belonging to one people to another, politically or otherwise. From the Palestinian perspective, the UN action was a wrong. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel that preceded and followed Independence just added insult to injury.

So yes, Israel largely exists on the lands of another people, the Palestinians, who had resided there for over a thousand years. Jews in Palestine in 1948 owned only 7% of the land. Palestinians, including Bedouins, plus small numbers of Druze and nonArabs owned the rest.

UN Resolution 194, the right of return, subsequently became an international law. And the ethnicallyl cleansed Palestinians, who refuse to submit to eradication of their identity and culture, wait in refugee camps with their land deeds and the keys to their houses.

by shergald 2008-07-27 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Happy Nakba Day is an oxymoron. It is celebrated every year by Palestinians who have lost their homes and lands in original Palestine.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Roughly interpreted as the "catastrophe" in Arabic, it is the day Palestinians living in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, refugee camps around the Middle East, and wherever they live around the world commemorate as the day they lost their ancestral home in original Palestine. Many people, including Jewish Israelis, Jews living around the world, and non-Jews are ignorant of the Nakba, and the history that preceded and followed the birth of Israel. The day on which the Nakba is remembered is the day Palestinians think about the roughly 800,000 Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from original Palestine, their homeland for over a thousand years. March 10 is significant for another reason: it is the date their demise was planned.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) recently announced that the Israeli founder of Zochrot, Hebrew for "Remembering," Eitan Bronstein, along with Muhammad Jaradat of the Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugees' Rights, will be on a speaking tour in the U.S. from March 25-April 7. Eitan Bronstein has worked for years to tell the story many do not believe. He founded Zochrot in order to educate people of the truth and to raise awareness among Israelis about the Nakba, or "Catastrophe."

"When it comes to the Nakba and what was there before Israel was created, it's a big hole, a black hole and people don't know how to deal with it," he said. "It's perhaps the most important period of our life in this region and it's not really known."

As an introduction, IMEU reported that last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak sought legal opinions on the possibility of expelling Palestinian civilians from northern Gaza. They note that attempts to drive Palestinians out of their homes and homeland actually began in earnest 60 years ago today. Zionist leaders met in Tel Aviv on March 10, 1948 and adopted a plan to expel as many Palestinians as possible from their homes before and immediately after Israel declared independence on May 14.

Here is the reality that remains hidden from view. March 10 marks the date on which Plan Dalet was adopted.

The Meeting at the "Red House

1. What is Plan Dalet?

Sixty years ago today Zionist political and military leaders met at the "Red House" in Tel Aviv and agreed to Plan Dalet, which called for the systematic expulsion of Palestinians from areas sought for the soon-to-be-founded state of Israel. The plan led to what Palestinians refer to as the Nakba.

At that time, Jews owned only about seven percent of the land in Palestine and constituted about 33 percent of the population. The Palestinians' presence and predominant ownership of the land were obstacles to the creation of a Jewish state. Moshe Sharett, Israel's second prime minister, said "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it."

2. Who devised Plan Dalet?

Top leaders of the Haganah, the leading Zionist underground militia in Palestine at the time, formulated Plan Dalet. One of the key instigators was David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister. A long-time proponent of expelling the Palestinians, 10 years earlier he stated to the Jewish Agency Executive, "I am for compulsory transfer; I do not see anything immoral in it."

3. When was Plan Dalet implemented?

Israel has since claimed that it was attacked by surrounding Arab states immediately after its founding on May 14, 1948, and that refugees fled due to the ensuing conflict. In fact, Plan Dalet predated the entrance of the Arab states into war with Israel. Some 250,000 Palestinians were expelled in the two months between the March 10 adoption of Plan Dalet and the establishment of Israel in mid-May. The stream of refugees into the Arab states created pressure on them to intervene to stanch the flow. It is more accurate to say that the refugee flight caused Arab intervention than the other way around.

4. What resulted from Plan Dalet?

Plan Dalet led to the depopulation of at least 450 Palestinian towns and villages, most of which were demolished to prevent the return of the refugees. By the end of 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinians - two-thirds of the Palestinian population - were exiled. It is estimated that more than 50 percent fled under direct military assault. Others fled in panic as news of massacres spread - for example, more than 100 civilians killed in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9 and 200 in Tantura between May 22nd and 23rd.

5. Why is Plan Dalet relevant today?

Israel will commemorate its 60th anniversary this May without acknowledging the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Palestinians it perpetrated. At the same time, Palestinians will mark their dispossession and remind the world of their right to return to their homeland. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians believes that refugee rights must be remedied for peace between Palestinians and Israelis to endure.

Plan Dalet led to the Nakba or "Catastrophe."

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The Plan Unfolds

Ten Facts about the Nakba

1.The Nakba is a root cause of the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

It is marked on May 14, the date on which Israel declared its independence in 1948.

2. This traumatic event created the Palestinian refugee crisis.

By the end of 1948, two-thirds of the Palestinian population was exiled. It is estimated that more than 50% were driven out under direct military assault. Others fled as news spread of massacres committed by Jewish militias in Palestinian villages like Deir Yassin and Tantura.

3. Jewish leaders saw "transfer" as an important step in the establishment of Israel.

Jewish leaders spoke openly of the need to use military clashes to expel as many Palestinians as possible before other Arab countries could come to their defense. The Haganah militia's Plan Dalet was the blueprint for this ethnic cleansing. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, said "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." (See what other leading Israelis have said about transfer.)

4. Hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns were destroyed.

Jewish forces depopulated more than 450 Palestinian towns and villages, most of which were demolished.

5. Palestinian property and belongings were simply taken.

The newly established Israeli government confiscated refugee land and properties without respect to Palestinian rights or desires to return to their homes.

Israeli historian Tom Segev reported that: "Entire cities and hundreds of villages left empty were repopulated with new [Jewish] immigrants... Free people - Arabs - had gone into exile and become destitute refugees; destitute refugees - Jews - took the exiles' places in the first step in their lives as free people. One group [Palestinians] lost all they had while the other [Jews] found everything they needed - tables, chairs, closets, pots, pans, plates, sometimes clothes, family albums, books radios, pets....

6. Some Palestinians stayed in what became Israel.

While most Palestinians were driven out, some remained in what became Israel. Although citizens of the new state, they were subject to Israeli military rule until 1966. Today, Palestinian citizens of Israel comprise nearly 20 percent of Israel's population. They have the right to vote and run for office, but more than 20 Israeli laws explicitly privilege Jews over non-Jews. Nearly one-quarter of Israel's Palestinians are "internally displaced" persons, unable to return to the homes and lands that were taken from them.

7. There are still millions of Palestinian refugees dispersed around the world.

Today, there are 4.4 million Palestinian refugees registered as such with the United Nations, and at least another estimated 1 million who are not so registered. Thus a majority of the Palestinian people, around 10 million persons, are refugees.

8. Refugees have internationally-recognized rights.

All refugees enjoy internationally-recognized rights to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced out, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. This right has been explicitly acknowledged in recent peace agreements in Cambodia, Rwanda, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and Darfur. This right was affirmed for the Palestinians by the United Nations Resolution 194 of 1948. Israel, however, does not allow Palestinian refugees to return, although a Jew from anywhere in the world can settle in Israel.

9. Justly resolving refugee rights is essential to Middle East peace.

An overwhelming majority of Palestinians believes that refugee rights must be fulfilled for peace between Palestinians and Israelis to endure. And according to an August 2007 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, nearly 70 percent believe that refugees should be allowed to return to "their original land".

10. The Nakba has implications for Americans.

Israel's ongoing denial of Palestinian rights - and unconditional U.S. financial and diplomatic support for Israel - fuels anti-American sentiment abroad. A 2002 Zogby poll, conducted in eight Arab countries showed that "the negative perception of the United States is based on American policies, not a dislike of the West." The same poll showed that "the Palestinian issue was listed by many Arabs among the political issues that affect them most personally." Resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue would undoubtedly improve America's international image, by proving that the U.S. government supports the consistent application of international law.

Untold Stories

This link will take you to meet Palestinians who lived through the Nakba and recount its details and explain its relevance to Americans.


Palestinian women walk through the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in Lebanon in 1951. (UNRWA)

by shergald 2008-07-27 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

Again, if these camps have been in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria since 1948, why don't the leaders of those countries help to improve conditions for those people.

I also notice your failure to mention the Arab world's rejection of UN Resolution 181 and their invasion of Israel, which had more to do with the Palestinian diaspora then anything else. The truth, reflected in the letter of Ben Gurion and others, is that neither the Yishuv nor the Provisional Government of Israel had any organized plan to clear the Palestinians out of any lands.

In many of the places evacuated, such as Jericho, the evacuations were facilitated by the Arab Liberation Army in order to militarily fortify the areas. In fact, even before Israel declared independence, the Palestinian militias and the ALA had begun to blockcade the Jewish population of Jerusalem, which was to be a open city under UN Res. 181.

I don't say that what has befallen the Palestinian people is not horrible, but the act is that in 1947 at least, they and not the Yeshuv were the aggressors.

by JENKINS 2008-07-27 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

"if these camps have been in Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria since 1948, why don't the leaders of those countries help to improve conditions for those people."

Are you certain that they aren't, for example, with employment? The refugee camps are otherwise supported by the UN ANRWA agency, and I would suppose that the main reason the Palestinians living in camps is that they want to retain their identity and hopes under UN resolution 194, which will have to be dealt with eventually.

No, there are many myths about the invasion of Israel by Arab countries and its proported motivation: that the surrounding Arab countries could not tolerate a Jewish state in the Middle East. An Egyptian ambassador on the Charlie Rose Show several years ago in so many words put it straight: it was a direct response to the Nakba, the tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees fleeing over their borders. In short it was a humanitarian rescue effort. The Nakba started a month before Independence and included massacres of entire Palestinian villages by terrorist gangs like the Irgun and Stern Gang.

I cannot abide with arguments that attempt to shift the blame for the Nakba on the Palestinians themselves, or on the Arab countries that invaded. An especially false impression is the one given by the notion that it was the invasion that created the Nakba. If you have read any Zionist writings, the "transfer" of the indigenous Arab population, the Palestinians, was part of the Zionist quest for a pure Jewish state, and what happened was, well read its history above.

by shergald 2008-07-27 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

The Zionist quest for a pure state? Go and read any of the writing of Ben Gurion or Meir or any other of the founders of Israel. They knew that whatever solution to the Palestine question was agreed upon, they would have to deal with the fact that there would be a significant Palestinian population in whatever became Israel.

And is it any wonder that Jews did not want to be a minority in a Palestinian run state? The same group whose religious leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, supported Hitler in WWII, visited Germany during the war and tried to raise a Muslim SS division?

As for what an Egyptian ambassador said on Charlie Rose, that's revisionist history. Arab leaders at the time were very open about what there motives were for invading Israel.

by JENKINS 2008-07-27 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

So your view is that the Zionists had no choice but to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their midst in order to avoid being a minority. Actually, it was seen by the Zionists as a necessary part of bringing a Jewish state into being, if you read the writings of the early founders of Zionism.

The Grand Mufti was a title and position created by the British then occupying Palestine. He was exiled from Palestine in 1937 for fomenting reactions to increased Jewish immigration, after which he worked with the Nazis in a symbolic manner. He moved to Lebanon after the war but never returned to Palestine.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will have to take the Egyptian ambassador's commentary seriously. It fits the sequence of events, the massacres by Zionist gangs, and the ethnic cleansing that began a month before Independence.

by shergald 2008-07-28 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

How little you actually know about the Islamic world, despite all of your blustering. The first Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was appointed in the 1860's by the Ottoman Empire, it was not a position that the British "created".

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was exiled for helping to lead a revolt against British rule, which in the process targeted Jewish collective farms and villiages. The symbolic manner in which he worked with the Nazi's was going to Bosnia and trying to convince the Bosniaks to join the SS. In one address to them from Radio Berlin, he was quoted as saying,

"'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."

He also helped draft an declaration of German-Arab cooperation which stated in part,

"Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy."

The truly ironic thing is that this man was not deposed as the Grand Mufti by Britain or Israel, but by Jordan, the same country that years later would have to force the PLO out of its country after repeated coup attempts.

by JENKINS 2008-07-28 10:36AM | 0 recs
So we have here an expert in Middle East history.

Is that right?

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?

Muhammed Amin al-Husseini [many spelling variations] was born in 1893 (or 1895), the son of the Mufti of Jerusalem and member of an esteemed, aristocratic family. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province known as the Judaean part of Palestine.

Amin al-Husseini studied religious law at al-Azhar University, Cairo, and attended the Istanbul School of Administration. In 1913 he went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, earning the honorary title of "Haj". He voluntarily joined the Ottoman Turkish army in World War I but returned to Jerusalem in 1917 and expediently switched sides to aid the victorious British. He acquired the reputation as a violent, fanatical anti-Zionist zealot and was jailed by the British for instigating a 1920 Arab attack against Jews who were praying at the Western Wall.

The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs. _grand_mufti.php

Like yourself, presumably a novice concerning history in the Middle East, I am dependent upon sources. If the British did not create the title Grand Mufti, then you will please to tell us who did.

Pretty much you are a predictable fellow, here to make claims that the Israelis were justified in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, because, as with other fabricated justifications, the Grand Mufti, pretty much a nonentity in WWII, who put together a small cadre of Nazi Arab soldiers for parade purposes, mades some statements.

Therefore, with respect to this diary content, Israel was justified in taking the land that occupied two Palestinian villages, al-Faluja and 'Iraq al-Manshiya,' the land upon which Intel now fabricates computer chips. And all this in spite of a UN agreement that it would protect the Palestinian inhabitants before the Egyptian troops moved out.

Jenkins, what you are really saying is that the Grand Mufti is the cause of all of the Palestinian problems, the ethnic cleansing of 48 as well as the ethnic cleansing that continues in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Before you said the justification was that a Jewish state could not be majority Arab. Well, I've met many right wing Zionists before, but yours are the most trivial excuses for the dispossession of Palestinian land, life, and culture, indeed of the thousand year old country of Arab Palestine, that I have yet heard.

by shergald 2008-07-28 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Intel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians

I already addressed 181 abovem the partition plan and why Palestinians could not accept such a plan. They prefered a single state for obvious reasons. And yes, of course, the Arab countries in the UN voted against it. Was that unusual?

And yes, there was strife between Palestinians and immigrant Jews after the British took over from the Turks.

However, that Palestinians fled on account of the advancing Arab armies, obviously to get their families out of the way, had a minor effect in the Nakba, contrary to Elie Weisel lie that there were radio broadcast urging Palestinians to leave, and then come when the strife subsided. The British monitored radio broadcasts and never recorded any such pleas by the advancing Arab armies or originating from Arab countries to leave. Mr. Weisel's indifference to the plight of the Palestinians is only paralleled by the "indifference" he claims was at the bottom of the Holocaust. He may be correct about the latter, but his indifference toward Palestinian suffering and injustice has been noted by many. See the article "Weisel Words" on The Nation site.

by shergald 2008-07-27 07:26AM | 0 recs

Once again Shergald is broadcasting talking points and claims those that disagree " just don't get it."

Shergald is not a progressive. He is a one-issue one-dimensional character.

He never comments on health care, trade policy, FISA or any other progressive issue.

Shergald is a fraud.

by demwords 2008-07-26 08:24AM | 0 recs

If someone feels as strongly about a single issue as shergald does then I would be disappointed in them if they didn't advocate for that issue. Whether you agree with him or not doesn't invalidate his right to be an advocate. Would you feel as strongly about this if his single issue was gay rights, universal health care, the Iraq war, or access to abortion?

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-26 08:30AM | 0 recs

If there were not so much censorship and propanganda in the MSM concerning this conflict, it would be easy to back off and let the daily news speak for itself. But there is censorship. And the only place to overcome it today is in the left wing blogosphere. There are many important issues out there, but this one, on MyDD and other blogs, gets little play.

I'm here to publicize this ignored issue.

Thanks for your supporting comments. Demwords just seems to be into stopping the public advocacy for Palestinians.

by shergald 2008-07-26 09:49AM | 0 recs

You are here as twisted propagandist...who rejects facts, dismisses logical discussion.

Are you concerned about the ethnic cleansing that Arab moslems are committing in Darfur against black africans? I've never seen you express concern for anything other than this issue.

You are a fake getting a free ride on progressive blogs for your limited and transparent agenda.

The Arab governments are the most repressive in the world.
They oppress workers from south asia who are treated as virtual slaves. There is no political dissent tolerated by any of this tyrannical regimes. That's where the censorship is.

I wish you would be concerned for someone else in the world other than the poor Palestinians who seem better at playing victim, than in engaging in actual self determination.

by demwords 2008-07-26 01:49PM | 0 recs

"Are you concerned about the ethnic cleansing that Arab moslems are committing in Darfur against black africans?"

Try Daily Kos for my Darfur diaries.

By the way, have I missed your diaries? That is possible. But can you give me and everyone else a link to them.

I do Israel-Palestine because it is something I know a little about, but also because it is an area immersed in censorship and propaganda in the US. There is also a force on left wing blogs to censor and silence diaries about the region. If I am not mistaken, that is the only reason you are here paying attention.

And before makings statements like, "twisted propagandist...who rejects facts, dismisses logical discussion," you might want to discuss what you mean by these terms.

by shergald 2008-07-26 04:30PM | 0 recs

We've been down this road before - from the dismissal of the treatment and de facto exiling of Jews from Arab nations in the 1950s, which you claim never happened. To your feeling of moral superiority as you sit on land that was poached from native americans, who yo have dismissed as nothing more than nomads, when indeed they were great civilizations.

You finally got something correct when you posted -

"Israel-Palestine is something I know little about."

There is more freedom of expression in Israel than in every Arab country combined. Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have jails full of political prisoners. And the Hamas government in Gaza isn't winning any awards for democracy and free speech.

by demwords 2008-07-26 07:39PM | 0 recs

You are just repeating Israel propaganda.

The "American Indian" theory of Benny Morris says simply: well you did it to the native Americans, so why do you complain because we did it to the Palestinians? No American today can agree with the moral failings of white America in our treatment of native Americans, even today. Actually the Israeli-Palestinian experience is much closer to South African Apartheid experience. So let's shove this idea out of the window.

The "tit for tat" theory, on the other hand, claims that in response to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, 800,000 Jews living in over 20 Arab countries were ethnically cleansed as well. The truth is that while anti-Semitic incidents increased, and in the case of one country (Iraq or Yemen) were eventually expelled, the emigration of Jews from these countries occurred between 1948 and 1968 and was encouraged by Israel through incentives because it needed population. Many of these countries, in support of the Palestinians, often prevented emigration or refused to allow the emigrees to take their wealth with them. There is also an allegation that Israel sent agents into some countries to foment antiSemitism as an encouragement to emigrate.

These were wrongs no doubt, but this long period of emigration hardly qualifies as an ethnic cleansing that could support a "tit for tat" rationale for the Palestinian Hakba.

Yet people like you keep repeating them in hopes that they may eventually stick.

Freedom to you is apparently a relative term. There 20 Israeli laws that prevent Arab citizens (Palestinians) from equal treatment in various contexts including redlining property and restrict Palestinians from where they may live. Needless to say, the harsh treatment of Palestinians in the territories, the continual confiscation of their lands (colonialism), and even their starvation in Gaza, which Jimmy Carter called "a human rights crime," sort of diminishes your claim of Israeli beneficence.

We all await your Darfur diary.

by shergald 2008-07-27 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Nonsense.

The coerced exodus of jews from there homes in N Africa and arab countries is a fact. Only an arab propagandist would call it Israeli propaganda.

Benny Morris is a nut job and I don't care what he says. You may want to shift the analogy to S. Africa, but there is no parallel. The Dutch went there to set up and exploit a colony. It was a business deal. The Dutch already had a homeland. They were not exiled and had no historical connection to the land.

You may want to shove the idea out the window...I suggest your shove twist SA analogy someplace else.

It's not tit for tat, they were treated as sub citizens, their property was seized, they were dismissed from their jobs, not allowed to have government jobs. It was the nuremburg laws, just written in Arabic. Iran was the exception since they were not arabs. They were being shoved out the door and victimized, so why shouldn't Israel have encouraged and welcomed them. It certainly is better than the Arab governments of today who keep Palestinians in "refugee camps" and treat them like dirt.

"Agents to foment antii-semitism" Obvious you don't know any Sephardic Jews. If so the agents were sent subversively several hundred years ago. Not only are you an arab propagandist, you are also a very silly one. The jews are always to blame. The arabs are just innocent little babies. That's why what you write is always so pathetic.

The Arabs of Gaza have only themselves to blame for their situation. Hamas took over the government by murdering PLA, lobbed missiles into civilian towns in Israel, and pretty much made themselves a shithouse of self governance.

I don't care what Benny Morris says, and I don't care what Jimmy Carter says. He was the idiot who toasted the Shah and let him into this country for medical treatment instead of trying him for crimes against his own people. Carter has blood on his hands.

The point on Darfur is simply to establish that Arab Moslems are committing horrible crimes and yet there is not one Arab government criticizing these crimes. It's only a Hakba when it happens to Arabs.

by demwords 2008-07-27 07:14AM | 0 recs
Since You Mentioned Tit-for-tat

It is probably a good idea to see how arab brothers are working out that self governance thing in Gaza today.

"Hamas police officers in Gaza on Saturday rounded up scores of supporters of Fatah, the rival Palestinian movement, and raided its offices after five Hamas militants and a girl were killed in a bomb blast late Friday, local residents said.

The explosion and the Hamas reaction stoked internal tensions in Gaza to one of their highest levels since the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian territory in June 2007.

Hamas, the Islamic militant organization, blamed the mainstream Fatah for the deadly blast that followed two smaller explosions in Gaza on Friday, issuing a statement accusing the Fatah leadership in the West Bank, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, of concealing "a conspiracy to kill and assassinate and terrorize" Hamas security forces.

Fatah denied involvement; a spokesman for Mr. Abbas suggested the killings were a result of a conflict in Hamas and charged Hamas officials with trying to cover up divisions in their own organization.

In several episodes in the past militants had been killed by their own explosives, but local news media said Friday's explosion, near a crowded Gaza beach, was caused by a bomb placed outside a car used by Hamas militants. Medical officials said that at least 19 Palestinians were wounded.

The two earlier explosions occurred outside a popular Gaza cafe and near the home of a Hamas official. Local news reports said the cafe bomber, who died in the blast, belonged to a shadowy Islamic extremist group that has been taking aim at places of entertainment and Christian centers in Gaza. It was unclear who was responsible for the second bombing.

After a brief but brutal factional war with Fatah last year, Hamas has consolidated its control over Gaza, priding itself on imposing internal order. It also has negotiated a temporary truce with the Israelis, through Egyptian mediators.

But according to news reports, gun battles broke out between the rival Palestinian groups overnight as Fatah sympathizers tried to resist arrest in the wake of the bombings.

Hamas leaders gathered Saturday at a central mosque where the coffins of those killed in the explosion were brought for prayers before burial, and charged the Fatah leadership with collaboration with Israel -- a crime punishable by death in the Palestinian territories.

"They have to choose between being patriots and traitors," said Khalil al-Hayya, a prominent Hamas leader and legislator whose nephew was killed in Friday's blast and whose son was among the wounded.

Mr. Hayya lost another son in February in an Israeli airstrike against a squad that launched rockets into Israel. Hamas said at the time that Mr. Hayya's son, Hamza al-Hayya, was the leader of the rocket squad."

I'm sure the fighters on both sides are eating well and even have money left over for bombs and bullets. And as always plenty of money for child sized suicide vests.

by demwords 2008-07-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Since You Mentioned Tit-for-tat

This diary is about Intel and its exploitation of the Palestinian ethnic cleansing. I don't really have time to contradict or respond to your propaganda points.

If you wish to support or justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, be my guest.

by shergald 2008-07-27 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Since You Mentioned Tit-for-tat

You have the most amazing excuses when you are called on your BS.

by demwords 2008-07-27 08:38AM | 0 recs
Ukrainian farmer's ethnic cleansing of the Jews

Volodomyr Petrovych just committed an act of ethnic cleansing in the Ukraine.  He opened a farm on land from which Jews (my grandparents) had been expelled in the early 20th century.

A huge number of modern-day proprietors in the Ukraine, Russia, Poland, Germany, Egypt, and other countries are also guilty of such ethnic cleansing, having opened businesses on land that formerly belonged to Jews from which they were expelled in the 20th century.

Similarly we have ethnic cleansers in Pakistan--who dare to open businesses on land from which Hindis had been expelled, and ethnic cleansers in India--who open businesses on land from which Muslims had been expelled (about the same as the Palestinians referred to above).

And on and on and on.

By all means, let's have a diary on each of the businesses opened on land from which ethnicities have been expelled in 20th century conflicts.

by markjay 2008-07-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ukrainian farmer's ethnic cleansing of the Jew

And I highly recommend that you do that diary, because people should know and remember how wrong it all is.

Going further, it was said, by Jews as well as nonJews: NEVER AGAIN. Never again should the world tolerate Holocaust like events or even ethnic cleansing. We stopped Serbia from its ethnic cleansing, but we faltered in Rwanda, some say for racist reasons. No arguments as to why events as you describe or that I described should be permitted to take place in this now small world. Yet, take Darfur. It makes me disgusted to be part of the laxity in this country about such ongoing human catastrophes.

In saying all this, I hope that you are not attempting to justify the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, which is just another example of our moral laxity. Not yours, I hope.

by shergald 2008-07-26 11:40AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads