T
Subject: Re: The Iron Wall

Your article was excellent. Thanks for enlightening us with the truth. It
is unfortunate that most Americans are unaware of the facts concerning
the Middle East. Being spoon fed a few sound bites by a network media
conglomerate like CNN does not put us in possession of the truth. The
Media industry is controlled by a small group of individuals with hidden
agendas. Thanks for shining a light on knowledge that would otherwise
remain untold. The United States practiced ethnic genocide against the
indigenous tribes so it comes as no surprise that our closest ally 
would emulate us. It is tragic that America's leaders have decided to
make the world safe for hypocrisy (instead of democracy).


> TERROR 101
> One of the greatest barriers to peace in the Middle East is that the 
> conflict seems so morally one-sided. 
> 
> It is generally accepted in America that the Palestinians invented 
> terrorism and have been the only party to use it against civilians. 
> It is important to see both sides of the story if we are to think 
> critically about this problem.
> 
> The Zionist pioneers in Palestine in the 1940's used terrorism 
> extensively. They were the Haganah, the Palmach, the Irgun and Lehi 
> (the Stern Gang).
> 
> Their terrorism was brutal, organized, well-planned and extremely 
> successful. Bombs at bus stops in Arab towns was a favorite target 
> of theirs. Toward the British it was aimed at both civilians and 
> military; towards the indigenous Arabs it was primarily against 
> civilians.
> 
> There were many, many uses of hidden bombs, car bombs and 
> assassinations but the most famous was when they blew up the King 
> David Hotel.
> 
> The Jewish freedom fighters from the Irgun posed as  milkmen and 
> snuck in dozens of pounds of explosives disguised as milk.
> 
> When they set off the bomb, 92 people were killed, mostly British 
> but many Arabs. For others examples of the use of terrorism by 
> Jewish freedom fighters in Palestine see the references below. Their 
> primary purpose was to destroy records of the on-going British 
> investigation which had uncovered direct links between the Irgun 
> terrorist activities and the Jewish Authority run by David 
> Ben-Gurion.
> 
> SHARON'S RAID
> Ariel Sharon, as a young officer in the Israeli Army, had been named 
> by Moshe Dayan as the leader of Unit 101 - specifically tasked with 
> retaliation and "throwing fear into the hearts of the Arabs." On the 
> night of October 15, 1953, in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish 
> woman, Sharon led Unit 101 to the Arab village of Qibya. They 
> surrounded the Palestinian village in the night and systematically 
> planted explosives on every house.
> 
> The unarmed families cowered inside. Sharon had placed snipers 
> around the village with orders to fire on anyone who stepped outside 
> their house.
> 
> Sharon's engineers went through the village, methodically setting 
> off the explosives one by one - destroying every single house in the 
> village. It took all night, continuing until 4:00 AM
> 
> The next morning, there was a horrifying sight the memory of which 
> remained in the minds of all who saw it: an Arab woman sitting on a 
> pile of debris and casting a forlorn look into the sky. From beneath 
> the rubble one could see small legs and hands, which were the 
> remains of her six children, while the bullet-maimed body of her 
> husband lay in the road before her. 
> 
> According to Shetia Azram, a survivor, "They continued all night. I 
> knelt in the pantry of our home with the heads of my daughters held 
> tight in my arms. They cried as they heard the bombs go off one by 
> one. For three hours, the explosions came closer and closer. The 
> babies screamed uncontrollably when they heard the voices just 
> outside the door shouting in Hebrew. One said "set it" and the walls 
> fell on us. I was only one of five who survived."
> 
> 72 Arabs lost their lives, both men and women, infants and 
> grandparents, with many others wounded. Sharon later stated that his 
> leaders' orders had been clear with regard to how the residents of 
> the village were to be dealt with. 
> 
> In his autobiography, Sharon says, "The orders were utterly clear: 
> Qibya was to be an example to everyone." [note: "I was only 
> following orders."]
> 
> The only difference in the official Israeli version is that they put 
> the death count at 68 (this is also the figure Sharon uses in his 
> autobiography. The Palestinians say that 72 women and children died 
> that night.
> 
> That's terrorism at it's most evil. He even destroyed the water 
> supply and the mosque so that no one could return to the village - 
> no one ever did.
> 
> Israel does not deny this story; you can find many accounts of it in 
> books and on the web.
 
> Now use your imagination. Say you were the brother or son of that 
> woman. That was YOUR family buried under the rubble of that house. 
> Your nieces who sobbed as they listened to the explosions slowly get 
> closer and closer - knowing full well that they might be next. 
> Waiting for three hours knowing that they were probably going to 
> die. 
> What would you do? Would you be angry? Would you fight for your 
> country?
> 
> We may not like HOW the Palestinians are fighting (I don't) but we 
> cannot argue that they do not have the RIGHT to fight for their 
> country. Every human being in the world has the right to fight for 
> freedom.
> 
> THE IRON WALL
> If you are not familiar with Jabotinsky, he was the leader of the 
> more extreme wing of Zionism.  Herzl, the founder of Zionism, 
> believed that the Arabs of Palestine could be expelled through 
> economic means :
> 
> "We shall try to spirit the [Arab] population across the border by 
> procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying 
> it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the 
> removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and 
> circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl - founder of Zionist movement 
> (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol 
> I) 
> Jabotinsky - as outlined in his article below - realized that no 
> native group ever voluntarily gives up its homeland. As a result he 
> advocated removal of the Palestinians by force - violence if 
> necessary. Not mass extermination, but by mass expulsion during 
> hostilities - the concept is called "transfer," more commonly known 
> in other countries as "ethnic cleansing." 
> 
> There is an entire political party in Israel devoted to the idea of 
> transfer - needless to say, most of the Gush Emunim settler's 
> movement are members of this party - Moledet. Two members of Moledet 
> are in Sharon's cabinet. Moledet is essentially what used to be 
> called the Kach party - founded by Meir Kahane.
> 
> As was pointed out by Eli Weisel - ethnic cleansing can only occur 
> under the cover of war.
> 
> KEY POINTS
> What is important about the Jabotinsky article below are the 
> following points:
> 
> 1. He speaks of the Palestinians as "a people" and "a nation."
> 
> 2. He acknowledges that all native populations fight against 
> encroachment by foreign settlers.
> 
> 3. He speaks openly of Zionism as "colonialism."
> 
> 4. He forcefully makes the point that Israel must NEVER attempt real 
> peace negotiations, although a pretense should be maintained for 
> world opinion - that the complete settlement of all of Eretz Israel 
> can only be accomplished by force and negotiations are a hindrance 
> to this goal.
> 
> 5. He emphasizes that the ONLY way to complete the colonization of 
> Eretz Israel is to break the spirit of the natives, crush their 
> dreams and drain from their souls every drop of hope for a homeland 
> of their own.
> 
> 
> NOW IN POWER
> What is important about this is that for the first 40 years of 
> Israel, the Herzl Zionists were in the ascendancy in Israeli 
> politics. Since 1987, the Jabotiniskites have gained the upper hand. 
> This is why peace negotiations get nowhere - the Israeli's don't 
> really want them to - for the precise reasons outlined in this 
> article. Jabotinsky outlines the exact policy Israel now follows.
> 
> Israel has developed to a fine art the appearance of constantly 
> "wanting" peace negotiations, but always finding some way to never 
> truly conclude them. The only thing I can admire about the Israeli 
> leadership today is that they have thrown over even the hypocritical 
> pretense of wanting peace negotiations - the world was too much 
> starting to expect some actual results and the Arab offers were 
> becoming too realistic. As you know the ruling Likud party just last 
> week voted a resolution that there must NEVER be a state of 
> Palestine. Upon reading Jabotinsky's article below, you can see 
> exactly why they would do this.> 
> 
> WE OFFERED HIM 95%
> For those who would say that Barak "offered Arafat 95% of what he 
> asked and he walked away," I implore you to take a look at the 
> actual map of what Barak offered - any reasonable person would 
> conclude that no national leader anywhere, anytime could have 
> accepted such a proposal. 
> (http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf)
> 
> What Barak offered him was (and this is in Barak's opinion) 95% of 
> his "demands" - NOT 95% of the land area of the West Bank (which is 
> how most people mistakenly interpret it.) Barak himself made it 
> clear in an Op Ed piece in the L.A. Times two weeks ago that he was 
> offering Arafat only about 60% of the West Bank - the rest would be 
> reserved for settlements, reserves for future settlement growth, 
> settlers-only roads, buffers and military zones. (Also, no 
> Palestinian would consider Barak's proposal to be anywhere near 95% 
> of what they are asking - see for yourself, it's important.)
> 
> This is in fact, a solidification of the situation on the West Bank 
> essentially as it exists right now, with some small changes. Barak 
> offered only to withdraw a few inconsequential settlements that even 
> the IDF military commanders have begged him to close - and even that 
> got him thrown out of office. Shockingly, the settlements, reserves 
> and buffers around settlements and military preserves have the 
> Israeli's in control of 42% of the West Bank AT THIS TIME. 
> 
> See the maps and report at the B'Tselem web site. Please, please 
> don't take my word for it. Go look at the official maps at the 
> Israeli web site: 
> http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_Map.asp
> 
> THE SPIN
> This is crucial as most of the world believes the spin that the 
> Palestinians have turned down a "generous" offer of essentially ALL 
> of the West Bank inside the Green Line. As long as this fiction 
> continues, it will be a major barrier to peace. I say this as a Jew 
> and a (peaceful) Zionist - this fiction is as bad for Israel as it 
> is for the Palestinians. No enduring peace will ever come out of 
> operating on so gross a misconception. To give the Palestinians half 
> of their homeland will only prolong the agony - how many more Jews 
> must die to preserve the right of a few fanatics to live on the West 
> Bank? How many Palestinians must die - and to continue to live 
> without the most cherished human right - freedom?
> 
> Perhaps most importantly, how many Americans must die for those few 
> square miles of desert? We're next and we know it - now that Bush 
> has given up all pretense of neutrality in the conflict.
> 
> 
> ARABS MUST GO
> Sharon is the best of them, but all recent Israeli leaders have 
> known how to push the Palestinian radicals just far enough to drive 
> them to extreme actions - thus justifying more occupation, more 
> settlements, an end to negotiations and eventually acclimating world 
> opinion to the idea that "the Arabs must go." It's called 
> "transfer."
> 
> The idea of transfer is supported by 2/3 of the Israeli population 
> (and that's a survey that's a year old) and is now showing up in 
> America. On the Chris Matthews political show "Hardball" last week, 
> Congressional leader Dick Armey repeated the line fed to him by 
> Netanyahu - "The only resolution of the conflict will come from the 
> deportation of the Palestinians." 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky
> 
> THE IRON WALL
> 
> (We and the Arabs)
> 
> (1923)
> 
> First published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in 
> Rasswyet, November 4, 1923.
> 
> Transcribed by Lenni Brenner.> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an 
> agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in 
> the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so 
> categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction 
> in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save 
> them from such dismay. 
> 
> Apart from those who have been virtually "blind" since childhood, 
> all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that 
> there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement 
> of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to "Palestine" becoming a country 
> with a Jewish majority.
> 
> Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries 
> which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known 
> instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a 
> country settled with the consent of those born there he will not 
> succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or 
> savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. 
> 
> THE NATIVE PEOPLE
> Any native people - its all the same whether they are civilized or 
> savage - views their country as their national home. They will not 
> voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. 
> And so it is for the Arabs. 
> 
> Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are 
> some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of 
> our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth 
> right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. 
> 
> I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally 
> they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our 
> endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the 
> internal differences. 
> 
> We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they 
> understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon 
> Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any 
> Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. 
> To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization 
> of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can 
> bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our 
> "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, 
> of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be 
> bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.
> 
> This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be 
> bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel 
> are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. 
> Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they 
> see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign 
> settlement.
> 
> Some of us imagined that a misunderstanding had occurred, that 
> because the Arabs did not understand our intentions, they opposed 
> us, but, if we were to make clear to them how modest and limited our 
> aspirations are, they would then stretch out their arms in peace. 
> This too is a fallacy that has been proved so time and again. I need 
> recall only one incident. 
> 
> Three years ago, during a visit here, Sokolow delivered a great 
> speech about this very "misunderstanding", employing trenchant 
> language to prove how grossly mistaken the Arabs were in supposing 
> that we intended to take away their property or expel them from the 
> country, or to suppress them. [Note: this was written in 1923, when 
> there were a million Arabs in Palestine and they had not yet been 
> expelled or dispossessed by the War of Independence in 1949.] 
> 
> This was definitely not so. Nor did we even want a Jewish state. All 
> we wanted was a regime representative of the League of Nations. A 
> reply to this speech was published in the Arab paper Al Carmel.
> 
> The editor of the paper is even willing to believe that the 
> absorptive capacity of Eretz Israel is very great, and that it is 
> possible to settle many Jews without affecting one Arab. "Just that 
> is what the Zionists want, and what the Arabs do not want. In this 
> way the Jews will, little by little, become a majority and, ipso 
> facto, a Jewish state will be formed and the fate of the Arab 
> minority will depend on the goodwill of the Jews. But was it not the 
> Jews themselves who told us how 'pleasant' being a minority was? No 
> misunderstanding exists. Zionists desire one thing - freedom of 
> settlement - and it is Jewish immigration that we do not want."
> 
> [Note: The British, prior to WW II had placed quotas on Jewish 
> immigration to Palestine, so has not to demographically overwhelm 
> the native population. The movie Exodus tells the story of the 
> Irgun, who used terrorism to support their program of smuggling 
> immigrants into Palestine.]
> 
> The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it 
> should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of 
> the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or 
> Herbert Samuel to justify our activities.> 
> 
> COLONIZATION'S GOALS
> Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and 
> inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his 
> wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the 
> Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature 
> of things. To change that nature is impossible.
> 
> A plan that seems to attract many Zionists goes like this: If it is 
> impossible to get an endorsement of Zionism by Palestine's Arabs, 
> then it must be obtained from the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia 
> and perhaps of Egypt. [Ed. Note: how reminiscent of the idea that 
> Sharon now calls for an international peace conference on the future 
> of Palestine - his only condition is that the Palestinians NOT be 
> invited. I thought this was extraordinarily odd until I read this - 
> now I see it is all part of a well conceived long-term plan.]
> 
> AGAINST THEIR WILL
> If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the 
> Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, 
> immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the 
> Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and 
> basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be 
> necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the 
> Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.
> 
> But an agreement with Arabs outside the Land of Israel is also a 
> delusion. For nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus to agree 
> to such an expensive contribution we would have to offer them 
> something just as valuable. We can offer only two things: either 
> money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. 
> Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the 
> development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia [this is before oil was 
> discoverd], when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. 
> 
> WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE END OF COLONIALISM
> Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab 
> political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as 
> those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism 
> before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the 
> eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, 
> the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French 
> domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. 
> 
> For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If 
> we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by 
> Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We 
> cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the 
> Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule 
> over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any 
> account.
> 
> Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the 
> Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is 
> out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the 
> natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and 
> depart from Zionism. 
> 
> ZIONIST COLONIZATION
> Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be 
> terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native 
> population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop 
> only under the protection of a force independent of the local 
> population - an iron wall which the native population cannot break 
> through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To 
> formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
> 
> Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What 
> does the Balfour Declaration and the [British] Mandate mean for us? 
> It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create 
> such security conditions that the local population would be deterred 
> from interfering with our efforts. [Ed. Note - this function of the 
> "Iron wall" is now fulfilled by the United States.]
> 
> All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this 
> power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no 
> meaningful differences between our "militarists" and our 
> "vegetarians". One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the 
> other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes 
> an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with 
> Baghdad's bayonets - a strange and somewhat risky taste - but we all 
> applaud, day and night, the iron wall. 
> 
> We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an 
> agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that 
> we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a 
> proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to 
> expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.
> 
> All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, 
> only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a 
> spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these 
> hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because 
> they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but 
> still living. 
> 
> A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful 
> questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single 
> breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose 
> their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then 
> would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual 
> concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for 
> compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against 
> expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.
> 
> I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory 
> assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live 
> in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, 
> that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government 
> without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which 
> the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an 
> agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an 
> agreement now.
> [End of article]
> 
> You may not like colonialism or the oppression of native minorities, 
> but you have to admit the man is absolutely brilliant in his 
> perception of the situation and predicts with total accuracy how 
> Israel will deal with the problem in the 80 years since he wrote 
> this.
> 
> CONCLUSIONS
> There you have it. I was born and raised a Zionist. I did a summer 
> on a kibbutz. All along I was taught the "dream" of Zionism. Only 
> now, as an adult, do I start to realize that while Zionism may have 
> once been a noble undertaking, that is has a dark colonial side; 
> that much of what I was taught in Hebrew school was rose-colored 
> mythology; that essential facts were withheld. Zionism has achieved, 
> at a terrible price, the primary goal of establishing a Jewish 
> nation. It is now time for us to ask - "How much is enough?"
> 
> Here is what Jabotinsky is saying, quite openly and plainly, all the 
> way back in 1923: We Zionists are admittedly colonists encroaching 
> on the homeland of an indigenous native people. We should never 
> negotiate with them - we should take the land by force, against 
> their will. We can only do it behind the "iron wall" of a 
> sympathetic major foreign power (formerly Britain, now America).
> 
> The Palestinians are "not a rabble but a nation" and it expected 
> that a nation, a native people, will continue to fight for their 
> homeland as long as there is some shred of hope to regain what has 
> been taken from them. As a result the only course of action is to 
> utterly crush their sprits and drive them to such a depth of despair 
> that they will accept the terms we offer them only as the last 
> resort of a dying people. 
> 
> THE SMOKING GUN
> That's the smoking gun. This has been Zionism's plan all along - it 
> is working. It can only be carried to completion with the support 
> and defense of America.
> 
> Will we Americans allow this plan of final stage colonialism and 
> ethnic cleansing to be carried out with our support and assistance?
> 
> Four million Palestinians have already been made refugees in this 
> modern diaspora. The plan of transfer, which gains in popularity 
> every day, would make the remaining two million Palestinians 
> homeless - adrift in the world. These refugees will be different - 
> they will be able to legitimately and directly blame American for 
> supporting and tacitly endorsing the dismantling of their homeland - 
> the death of their national culture.
> 
> Do you think they will be angry at America? Do you think they would 
> do something about that anger?
> 
> For those who would say "if they attack us - we will bomb them back 
> to the stoneage," I would remind them that there will be no target - 
> there will be no Palestine left to bomb.
> 
> s plan is simple: Crush their spirit. Destroy their dreams. Evaporate 
> every drop of hope from their souls - only then will we have 
> victory.
> 
> Do you want to be a part of that?
> 
> "Ethnic cleansing is the first step toward genocide." Eli Weisel
> 
> ISRAELI PLANS FOR TRANSFER OF THE PALESTINIANS
> 
> www.mediamonitors.net/tanya8.html> 
> www.mediamonitors.net/justin4.html> 
> > Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist 
> Political Thought: 1882-1948> ****
> 
> PUBLIC ON-THE-RECORD STATEMENTS BY ISRAELI LEADERS
> 
> "We must do everything to insure they never return. The old will die 
> and the young will forget. We shall reduce the Arab population to a 
> community of woodcutters and waiters." (David Ben-Gurion - First 
> Prime Minister of Israel. 1949). 
> 
> "We shall try to spirit the [Arab] population across the border by 
> procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying 
> it any employment in our own country .... expropriation and the 
> removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and 
> circumspectly." -- Theodore Herzl - founder of Zionist movement 
> (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol 
> I)
> 
> "They can ignore our guns and bombs, but when we start destroying 
> their homes, that will get their attention. In Arabic, the worst 
> curse you can call upon someone is to say 'May your home be 
> destroyed." Ariel Sharon in an address to the Knessest, August, 
> 1976.> 
> 
> "There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to 
> neighboring countries, not one village, not one tribe should be 
> left" (Joseph Weitz, one of the founders of Israel, 1940) 
> 
> 
> "... it is the duty of the [Israeli] leadership to explain to the 
> public a number of truths. One truth is that there is no Zionism, no 
> settlement, and no Jewish state without evacuating Arabs, and 
> without expropriating lands and their fencing off." -- Yesha'ayahu 
> Ben-Porat, Israeli Cabinet Minister, 1951.
> 
> 
> "The very point of Labor's Zionist program is to have as much land 
> as possible and as few Arabs as possible!" --Yitzhak Navon 
> ("moderate" ex-Israeli President and a leading left wing party 
> politician.)
> 
> THE ISRAELI VISION OF SETTLEMENTS POLICY (quoted at www.fmep.org - 
> The Foundation For Middle East Peace) 
> 
> As Moshe Detain explained, Jewish settlements in the occupied 
> territories are essential "not because they can ensure security 
> better than the army, but because without them we cannot keep the 
> army in those territories. Without them the IDF would be a foreign 
> army ruling a foreign population."> 
> 
> During the first decade of occupation after the 1967 war, Labor-led 
> governments established the infrastructure and institutions for the 
> creation and expansion of permanent Israeli settlement in the 
> territories. 
> 
> Labor's approach was incremental, but after 1977, Begin's Likud 
> government embraced settlements as its raison d'Ítre and the key to 
> the Likud's political renaissance. Aside from the ideological 
> imperative to settle the land, Begin viewed settlements as his 
> opportunity to create a political constituency rooted in the 
> settlements of the West Bank just as Labor had done with its kibbutz 
> and moshav settlements in pre-state Israel. 
> 
> In July 1977 Begin refused President Jimmy Carter's request to 
> freeze settlement activity. At the time, there were about 50,000 
> Israelis living in annexed East Jerusalem, but only 7,000 settlers 
> in 45 civilian outposts in the West Bank and Gaza. 
> 
> 
> HERE IT IS!
> In September 1977 Begin's minister of agriculture, ARIEL SHARON, 
> unveiled "A vision of Israel at Century's End," calling for the 
> settlement of 2 million Jews in the occupied territories. The Likud 
> plan proposed settling Jews in areas of Arab habitation to prevent 
> the growth of Palestinian towns and cities and for numerous 
> settlement points as well as large urban concentrations in three 
> principle areas:-- a north-south axis running from the Golan through 
> the Jordan Valley and down the east coast of Sinai;-- a widened 
> corridor around Jerusalem; and-- the populated western slopes of the 
> Samarian heartland of the West Bank. 
> 
> Sharon stated at the time, “Ultimately, only an extensive and 
> well-funded program of settlement building can prevent the formation 
> of a viable Palestinian state. We must move quickly if we are to 
> quelch their nationalist ambitions.”
> 
> This last wedge of Jewish settlement was of prime concern to Likud 
> strategists, particularly Sharon, who was intent upon establishing 
> Israeli settlements to separate the large blocs of Arab population 
> on either side of the Green Line north of Tel Aviv. He felt that the 
> complete economic strangulation and disintegration of Palestinian 
> society that this would lead to would inevitably cause hundreds of 
> thousands of Arabs to voluntarily emigrate, thus leaving only a 
> small minority that could be easily overpowered with Jewish 
> migration to the West Bank.
> 
> Likud's intention to preempt the possibility of a territorial 
> division of the land and to strike at the basis of potential 
> Palestinian sovereignty by destroying the continuity of 
> Palestinian-controlled territory was stated clearly by Drobless more 
> than twenty years ago. "The disposition of the settlements must be 
> carried out not only around the settlements of the minorities 
> [Arabs], but also in between them. . . ." When negotiators met 
> during 2000 at Camp David to reach a permanent agreement on a 
> border, they had to deal with an area in which Palestinian cities, 
> town, and villages were often surrounded and separated by Israeli 
> settlements and roads.> 
> 
> Please don't take my word for it, check out the fact yourself at 
> some of the books listed above or the websites such as 
> http://oranzof.tripod.com or any of the resources. Most of them are 
> Israeli peace groups so you can be reasonably assured that they are 
> not Palestinian "propaganda."
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> Ben Green
> 
> hieronymo@emil.com 
> 
> REFERENCES:
> http://www.iap.org/kingdavidhotel.htm
> 
> http://www.jerusalemites.org/hotel.html
> 
> Israeli Terrorism
> http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/massacres.htm
> 
> http://atheism.about.com/library/world/AJ/bl_IsraelTerror.htm> 
> 
> In 1996, Gush Emunim, the radical Israeli religious group who are the bulk 
> of the settlers on the West Bank waged a campaign of terrorism that 
> lasted for years, culminated with planting bombs in the cars of the 
> Mayors of three West Bank towns.
> 
> The principal terrorist actions of the Gush Emunim Underground were 
> carried out between 1980 and 1984. In 1980 car bombings of five West 
> Bank Arab mayors resulted in crippling two of the mayors when their 
> legs were blown off. In 1983, the Hebron Islamic College was the 
> target of a machinegun and grenade attack that killed three Arab 
> students and wounded thirty-three others. In 1984 an attempt was 
> made to place explosive charges on five Arab buses in East 
> Jerusalem. The security services also uncovered a well-developed 
> plan to blow up the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's most sacred 
> shrines, on Jerusalem's Temple Mount.
>