Hi,I am Joseph .G. from United Kingdom,i would like to post here what i want to say:

Muslims are being murdered all over the world, and the allegations are usually directed towards Israel. However, genocide has nothing to do with Zionism. There is no grander libel. This is how the con works
The article was originally published on the "Maariv" Newspaper on 09/22/06. The article is published here, courtesy of the author.

Fact number 1: since the establishment of the State of Israel there has been a merciless genocide of Muslims and/or Arabs.

Fact number 2: the Middle East conflict, between Israel and Arabs at large and Palestinians specifically, is currently considered as the primary global conflict.

Fact number 3: according to polls conducted throughout the European Union, Israel takes first place as "Menace to World Peace". In the Netherlands, for example, 74 percent of the population holds this opinion. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Israel. The combination of these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of the new era: Israel is perceived as responsible for any adversity, plight and hardship. It is a menace to peace in the entire world, not just the Arab or Muslim world.

The finger-pointing is done in a sophisticated manner. After all, it is difficult to blame Israel for genocide in Sudan or for civil war in Algeria. How is it done then? Dozens of publications, articles, books, magazines and websites are dedicated to one cause alone: portraying Israel as a state that incessantly commits crimes of war.

In Jakarta and Khartoum Israeli flags are being burned, and in London, Oslo and Zurich venomous articles are being published supporting the annihilation of Israel. Any search-engine query regarding such keywords as "genocide" of "Muslims", "Arabs" or "Palestinians", in the contexts of "Zionists" or "Israel" –yields myriad results. Even after filtering out the junk, we remain with millions of gravely serious publications.

This overwhelming abundance has an impact. It acts as a brainwasher. This opinion is now in the mainstream, not the fringe. Just five years ago we witnessed a distilled anti-Israeli display at the Durban Conference. Just two years ago we were shocked when a scholar from within our own ranks accused Israel of "Symbolic Genocide" of the Palestinian people. Much ado about nothing. There are thousands of publications accusing Israel of genocide, and non-symbolic at that. Under academic and/or journalistic pretense, today's Israel is being compared to the accursed Germany of yore.

As a conclusion, there are those who call for the termination of "the Zionist Project". In layman's terms: since Israel is a state that commits so many crimes of war and engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide – it has no right to exist. That is, for example, the very essence of an article by Norwegian novelist Jostein Gaarder (author of "Sophie's World"), who wrote, among other things: "We call child murderers 'child murderers'". The conclusion he reaches further into his piece is that Israel has no right to exist.


How the Con Works

The tragedy is that in Arab and Muslim countries there is an ongoing massacre. Genocide enabled by a silent world. Genocide enabled by a con that is apparently unprecedented throughout the history of mankind. Genocide that has nothing to do with neither Israel nor Zionism nor Jews. Genocide of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims.

This is not about an opinion or a point of view. It is about factual analysis, as in-depth as possible, of the death tolls in the various wars and conflicts since the establishment of Israel and until present day, when the massacre continues. Indeed, this is about mass demise. About massacre. About the wiping out of villages and cities and entire populations. And the world turns a blind eye. The blood of Muslims is indeed cheap. They are murdered and the world is silent. And if it opens its collective mouth, it is not in condemnation of these perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Rather, it is in condemnation of Israel.

This grand con, which serves to eclipse the actual facts, survives and is even gaining momentum due to one reason alone: the western media and academy promote it. Countless publications, books, newspapers, magazines and websites portray Israel as the world's most prominent perpetrator of "war crimes", "genocide", "ethnic cleansing" and "systematic murder".

Sometimes these accusations are made as a fashion statement; sometimes they are an innocent error; sometimes the product of double standard and hypocrisy. Sometimes they are driven by neo- and old-school anti-Semitism, left- and right-winged, concealed and overt. Most classic blood-libels were easily and promptly refuted. This new era blood-libel, this time against Israel, is only gaining popularity. Many Israelis and Jews are complicit in its cultivation.

The Israeli-Arab Conflict

The Zionist settlement, which began at the close of the 19th century, has indeed spawned conflict between Jews and Arabs. The accumulating number of casualties in the various confrontations that came to pass until the establishment of the state of Israel amounted to several thousands of Jews and Arabs. During those years, most Arab casualties were those of infighting; for example, during the Arab rebellion in the years 1936-1939. This was a sign of things to come. Many others were killed by the highhandedness of the British sovereigns. Israel has never done anything of the sort.

Israel's War of Independence, also know as the War of '48, left between 5 thousand and 15 thousand dead amongst the Palestinian and amongst the citizens of Israel's rival Arab states. Indeed, in that war, as in any other, there were atrocities. The attackers announced their goal, and if only they were triumphant, Jews would have been eradicated by the masses. There were Israeli barbarities as well, but those were on the fringe of fringes. Less, much less, than in any other war of the new era. Much less than what is currently committed on a daily basis by Muslims, primarily against Muslims, in Sudan or in Iraq.

The next significant event was the Sinai War of 1956. Approximately 1,650 Egyptians were killed. About a 1,000 of those were killed by Israeli fire and the others by the British and French forces. The Six-Days War ensued. Upper-range estimates indicate 21 thousand Arab fatalities on all fronts combined – Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Yom-Kippur War (1973) resulted in 8.5 Arab fatalities, this time on two fronts – Egypt and Syria.

Afterwards there were "smaller" wars: the First War of Lebanon which started out as a war against the PLO rather than against Lebanon itself. This was a war within a war, for those were years of bloody civil war within Lebanon, a war that we shall soon revisit. The same was true for the Second War of Lebanon, in which the Lebanese death toll amounted to a thousand.

Thousands of Palestinians were killed during the Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, which began after the Six-Days War. Most of these deaths occurred during the two "Intifada"s, the one that began in 1987 and claimed 1.8 thousand Palestinian lives, and the one that began in 2000 and claimed 3.7 thousand. In between, several military operations carried out by Israel caused more deaths. These amount to several hundreds, at the outside. Hundreds. Not hundreds of thousands. Not millions.

To recap, approximately 60 thousand Arabs were killed within the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Out of these only several thousands were Palestinians, to whom most of the fury directed at Israel from all around the world is dedicated. Every Arab and Muslim life that is taken should be grieved and regretted. And criticism of Israel is legitimate. Yet this obsessive and demonizing criticism highlights the more astounding fact: the world's disregard, or at least relative disregard, for the systematic annihilation of millions of people by the Muslim and Arab regimes themselves.

The Muslim Blood Price

From here on out let us ask: how many Arabs and Muslims were killed in the course of those years by other states, such as Russia or France, and how many Arabs, Muslims and others were killed by Arabs and Muslims specifically. The following data has been assembled from studies conducted by various research institutes, academic bodies, international organizations (such as amnesty and other human-rights watch entities), the UN and the governments of some of the countries in question.

Often the statistics contradict and conflict with each other. The differences are often in the hundreds of thousands or even in the millions. We may well never know the exact figures. But even the lowest commonly accepted estimates, which form the basis for the below data, paint a mesmerizing and appalling picture. Moreover, the plethora of Arab- and Muslim-related conflicts during this period of time has made it very difficult to cover or even mention them all in a single article, and even the ones that have been left out of this one surmount the entire Israeli-Arab conflict in terms of casualties and brutality.

Algeria: several years after the establishment of the State of Israel, another war of independence broke out. This time it was Algeria who rose up against France, in the years 1954-1962. The number of victims on the Muslim side is under dispute. Official Algerian sources estimate it at over a million. Some western research institutes find this number acceptable.

French sources tried to claim that only a quarter million Muslims were killed, in addition to approximately 100 thousand French collaborators. However, these estimates are widely considered to be biased and understating. Today there is no dispute that the French killed at least nearly 600 thousand Muslims. And it is France that incessantly preaches to Israel, which in its entire history has barely scratched a tenth of this figure, even by the broadest of estimates.

The massacre in Algeria didn't end then. In the 1991 election, the "Islamic Salvation Front" came to power. The election's results were then immediately annulled by the military. Ever since then a civil war has been waged between the military-supported regime and several Islamic factions. According to various estimates, this conflict has claimed approximately 100 thousand victims thus far. Most of them innocent civilians. Most of these killed in the course of horrific massacres of entire villages – toddlers, women, elders and all. Massacres in the name of Islam.

Algeria recap: 500 thousand to 1 million in the war of independence against France; 100 thousand during the civil war of the nineties.

Sudan: The Most Severe Series of Crimes Since WWII


Sudan: a country torn apart by a streak of killing rampages, almost all between the Arab-Muslim populated north, which holds control of the country, and the black populated south. This country has seen two civil wars, as well as a government-sponsored massacre that is being carried out in the region of Darfur during recent years.

The first civil war raged between the years 1955-1972. Moderate estimates speak of 500 thousand victims. In 1983 the second civil war broke out. However, it was not a war at all, but rather a systematic carnage – true genocide. The goals were Islamization, Arabization and mass deportation, often escalating into eradication, also for the sake of seizing the region's vast oil-fields. This "war" has claimed 1.9 million victims.

The distribution of this figure between Muslim and non-Muslim victims is unclear. The Nuba Mountains region, populated by many black Muslims, has also seen its share of atrocities. No blacks get special treatment, even Muslim ones. Ever since extreme Islam came to power, under the spiritual guidance of Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, things only got worse. Apparently this has been the most severe series of crimes against humanity since World War II.

It featured ethnic cleansing, displacement, mass murder, slave trade, imposition of Islamic law, separation of children from their parents and more. Millions have turned refugees. As far as could be traced, no hundreds of publications have been written in defense of the Sudanese Right of Return nor have petitions and appeals been signed by intellectuals, denouncing Sudan's right to exist.

Events of recent years have mostly revolved around the region of Darfur. Again, Muslims (Arabs) murdering Muslims and pagans (blacks), and the numbers are unclear. Moderate estimates speak of 200 thousand victims; higher ones speak of 600 thousand. Nobody knows for sure. And the massacre goes on.

Of all the atrocities committed in Sudan, most are being carried out by the Arab-Muslim government, and most victims, if not all, are blacks of all religions, including Muslims.

Sudan recap: 2.6 million to 3 million.

Afghanistan: a Ceaseless Procession of Mass Murders

Afghanistan: a ceaseless procession of mass murders has taken place, both internal and outward. The Soviet invasion, which commenced on December 24th 1979 and ended on February 2nd 1989, has left a million dead. Other estimates recount 1.5 million civilian casualties, as well as 90 thousand troops.

After the withdrawal of the Soviets, Afghanistan has undergone a series of strife and civil warfare between the Soviet-supporters, the Mujahideen and the Taliban. Each faction in turn has committed mass murder of its opponents. The total number of casualties of these civil wars, until the invasion of the American-spearheaded coalition forces in 2001, is approximately 1 million.

Some complain, not without justification, about the slaying of Afghans during the coalition strikes against the Taliban government and during the coalition pursuit of Al-Qaeda. However, the invasion of Afghanistan caused a relatively low number of deaths – less than 10,000. Were it not carried out, the previous annual average of over 100 thousand deaths in the course of internal genocide would have likely been maintained.

Afghanistan recap: 1 million to 1.5 million as a result of the Soviet invasion; approximately 1 million in the course of internal warfare.

Somalia: Never-Ending Civil War

Somalia: since 1977 this East-African Muslim country has been submerged in a never-ending civil war. The death toll is estimated to be in the vicinity of 550 thousand people. Muslims killing off Muslims (mostly). Peace-keeping intervention efforts by the UN and later by US forces have both failed.

Most victims did not fall on the field of battle, but rather as a result of starvation or assaults intentionally directed at civilian population, such as bombardments of civilian population for its own sake (massive bombardments of rival regions, such as the one in Somaliland, in which 50 thousand were killed).

Somalia recap: 400 thousand to 550 thousand casualties of civil war.

Bangladesh: One of the World's Three Biggest Genocides

Bangladesh: this state aspired for independence from Pakistan. Pakistan retaliated with a military incursion that wreaked havoc. Again, this was no war, it was a massacre. Between 1 million and 2 million people were systematically executed during the year 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the world's three biggest genocides (after the Holocaust and the Genocide of Rwanda).

An inquiry committee commissioned by the Bangladeshi government counted 1.247 million civilian victims who found their deaths at the hands of the Pakistani military. There are many reports of specialized Pakistani death-squads of "Muslim soldiers sent to mass-butcher Muslim peasants".

The Pakistani military was subdued only after the intervention of India, which was upset by influx of refugees – millions – from Bangladesh. Even after the Pakistani withdrawal, 150 thousand Bengalis were murdered in the course of retaliatory raids.

Bangladesh recap: 1.4 million to 2 million.

Indonesia: The Massacre Began With a Communist Insurrection

Indonesia: the world's largest Muslim state is in close competition with Bangladesh and Rwanda for the dubious title of "Biggest Massacre after the Holocaust". The massacre began with a communist insurrection in the year 1965. Here too there are conflicting estimates but the current consensus is approximately 400 thousand Indonesians that were killed during the years 1965-1966, though more rigorous estimates are much higher.

The massacre was carried out by the military, whose prominent figure was Haji Mohammad Soeharto, who then took the reins of power for the next 32 years. One of the researches of those years reports that the man in charge of quelling the rebellion – General Sarwo Edhi – himself admitted that: "we didn't kill one million, but two millions", and "we did a good job of it". We'll stick to the lower, more widely accepted estimates.

In 1975, after the end of the Portuguese dominion, East Timor proclaimed its independence. Soon thereafter it was invaded by Indonesia, which then held rule over the region until 1999. During those years a 100 to 200 thousand people were killed in the region, in addition to a total obliteration of its infrastructures.

Indonesia recap: 400 thousand people, plus 100 thousand to 200 thousand in East Timor.

Iraq: Carnage at the Hand of Saddam Hussein

Iraq: Most of the carnage and devastation prevalent in Iraq during the past few decades was at the hand of Saddam Hussein. Here, too, we are dealing with a regime that has caused millions of deaths. Constant death. One of the pinnacles of this killing-spree was during the Iran-Iraq war, in a conflict over Shatt al-Arab, the river formed by the confluence of theEuphratesand theTigris, a conflict that led nowhere other than to extensive destruction and mass demise. Estimates speak of 450 thousand to 650 thousand Iraqi fatalities, and of 450 thousand to 970 thousand Iranian fatalities. Jews, Israelis and Zionists, as far as is known, were nowhere around.

The waves of internal cleansing, some political (opposition), some ethnic (the Kurd minority) and some religious (the sovereign Sunni minority versus the Shiite majority) yielded an enormous amount of victims. Estimates range from a quarter million people – according to Human Rights Watch – to a full million according to local sources. Other international organizations often refer to half a million casualties.

In the years 1991-1992 Shiite upheaval arose in Iraq. There are various conflicting estimates as to the number of casualties resulting from that upheaval. Numbers range from 40 thousand to 200 thousand. To the Iraqis that were killed we should add the Kurds, of who 200 thousand to 300 thousand were exterminated during the genocide of the '80s and '90s.

Half a million additional Iraqis died of disease due to lack of medicine, supposedly brought on by the sanctions imposed on Iraq following the First Gulf War. Today it is clear that this was nothing other than a continuation of Saddam's genocide of his own people. Buying sufficient medicine was well within his reach, he had the resources and funds to purchase food and build hospitals to accommodate every child in Iraq, but Saddam preferred to finance the construction of palaces and to trade franchises for favors with western and Arab captains of industry. These facts are currently being revealed as the corruption surrounding the UN-run "Oil-for-Food Programme" is being investigated.

The Iraqis continue to suffer. The currently ongoing civil war there – though some do not like to use this term to describe the mutual slaughter of Sunnis and Shiites – has taken a toll of tens of thousands of victims. The number of Iraqis killed in this conflict since the coalition forces took over Iraq is estimated at 100 thousand.

Iraq recap: 1.54 million to 2 million victims.

Iran recap: 450 thousand to 970 thousand victims.

Lebanon: Lethal Civil Strife

Lebanon: the Lebanese civil war took place between the years 1975 and 1990. At certain phases Israel became involved, especially following the First War of Lebanon in 1982. However, there is no dispute that a substantial part of the casualties fell during the first two years.

A conservative estimate would be that over 130 thousand Lebanese were killed during the fighting. Most of these in the course of infighting, due to religious conflicts, ethnic conflicts, and the oft-shifting Syrian support of the various factions. The highest estimates speak of no more than 18 thousand casualties – mostly combatants – caused by Israeli activity.

Lebanon recap: 130 thousand victims.

Yemen: Hundred of Thousands Casualties of Infighting


Yemen: the civil war raging in Yemen between the years 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, claimed 100 thousand to 150 thousand Yemen lives, and an additional 1000 Egyptian and 1000 Saudi lives.

Amongst other horrors, Egypt committed several atrocities, amongst which was the use of gas against the Yemenites. Riots causing several thousands of additional deaths followed in the years 1984 to 1986.

Yemen recap: 100 thousand to 150 thousand killed.

Chechnya: Russia's Refusal to Emancipation Led to War

Chechnya: Russia refused the claims of the Chechen Republic for emancipation, an act which led to the First Chechen War from 1994 until 1996. The war took a toll of 50 thousand to 200 thousand Chechen victims.

Russia spared no means, but failed miserably. This did not serve the Chechens however, for their eventually emancipated republic lay in ruins.

The Second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, though it hasn't really ended at all, and the death toll is estimated at 30 thousand to 100 thousand.

Chechnya recap: 80 thousand to 300 thousand casualties.

Minor Conflicts, Tens of Thousands of Victims

From Jordan to Zanzibar: beyond the wars and genocidal massacres, there were many smaller conflicts, which claimed some thousands and tens of thousands of victims, Muslim and Arab, at the hands of Muslims and Arabs. These conflicts haven't been included in the above review, since their death-tolls are relatively minor, though still taller than that of the entire Israeli-Arab conflict. Here is a partial list of those conflicts:

Jordan: in the years 1970-1971 Black September wreaked mayhem throughout the Hashemite Kingdom. Hussein eventually grew tired of the Palestinians, who abused his kingdom and threatened to overthrow his rule. The confrontation, most of which amounted to massacres at the refugee camps, victimized thousands. According to Palestinians, the death toll was between 10 thousand and 25 thousand. According to different sources – several thousands.

Chad: a country where Muslims constitute nearly half the population: various civil wars saw the demise of approximately 30 thousand civilians.

Kosovo: this largely Muslim region of Yugoslavia forfeited 10 thousand lives during a war that was waged there between the years 1998-2000.

Tajikistan: civil war between the years 1992-1996 left 50 thousand killed.

Syria: the systematic persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hafez al-Assad, culminating in the 1982 massacre at Hama, eventuated in 20 thousand casualties.

Iran: thousands were obliterated at the onset of Khomeini's revolution. The precise figure, be it thousands or tens of thousands, is unclear. The Kurds also got a taste of Iran's aggression, and 10 thousand of them were killed as well.

Turkey: its ongoing dispute with the Kurds led to 20 thousand murdered Kurds.

Zanzibar: at the dawn of the '60s the island gained its independence, but just briefly. First the Muslim Arabs came to power, but then the black faction, mostly Muslim as well, massacred the Arabs in 1964. Estimates range from 5 thousand to 17 thousand victims.

The list doesn't end here. There were further disputes with vague numbers of casualties in many predominantly Muslim republics throughout the former Soviet Union (such as the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region), as well as a controversial number of Muslims killed in mixed-population countries throughout Africa, such as Nigeria, Mauritania or Uganda (during the years of the rule of Idi Amin over Uganda, since 1971, 300 thousand Ugandans were killed. Amin was a self-proclaimed Muslim, but unlike Sudan, it is difficult to define the background for these killings as Muslim, and definitely not as Arab).

The Essence of the Con

To all the above we may add the following: most Arabs victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict were in fact killed during the course of wars initiated by Arab states, and as a result of the Arabs' refusal to acknowledge the UN resolution regarding the establishment of a Jewish state, or refusal to acknowledge the Jews' right to self-determination.

Furthermore, relatively speaking, the rate of Israeli victims of Arab hostilities is far higher than the reverse. During the Israeli War of Independence, for example, over 6 thousand Israelis were killed of a 600 thousand people population. I.e.: one percent of the population. In contrast, Israel's rival Arab countries were even then already populated by tens of millions, yet suffered a similar number of casualties. Israel never strived nor sought to destroy any Arab state. Yet it was the openly declared goal of the attacking armies to "annihilate the Jewish entity".

During recent years, naturally, the Palestinians are given the most attention by the media and academy, of all of Israel's rivals. In fact, their's is only a small percent of the casualties of the Israeli-Arab conflict. No more than several thousand Palestinians were killed by Israel in the Occupied Territories. 1,378 during the First Intifada and 3,700 since the onset of the second one, to be precise.

This is less than, say, the death toll in the 1982 Hama massacre carried out against Muslims by Hafez al-Assad. It is less than the number of Palestinians butchered by King Hussein in 1971. In fact, it is less than the number of Bosnian Muslims killed in a single massacre perpetrated by Serbs in 1991 at Srebrenica, in which over 8,000 murders were committed.

Every soul is precious, but there is no grander act of libel than to define the acts of Israel as "genocide". Nevertheless, googling "Israel genocide" yields an amazing count of 8,390,000 results, while a search for "Sudan genocide", for example, comes up short with just 5,340,000 results. These numbers, if you will, are the essence of the grand con.

The Occupation Is Not Enlightened, but Nor is it Brutal

Another fact: since World War II, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the world's tiniest national conflict in terms of casualties, yet the world's hugest in terms of one-sided and preferential media- and academic-coverage.

At least half a million Algerians were killed by the French occupation; a million Afghans at the hand of the Soviet occupiers; millions of Muslims and Arabs at the hand of fellow Muslims. But the entire world knows the name of one Muhammad al-Durrah (whose death is regrettable, and its cause by Israeli fire doubtful).

Criticizing Israel is possible, legitimate and even important. However, the exaggerated, obsessive, often anti-Semite criticism is also a cover-up, and in certain cases an affirmation of the genocide of millions of others.

Occupation is not enlightened and cannot be enlightened, but if we try to scale "occupier brutality" Israel would come in far last. This is a fact. Not an opinion.

At any rate, what would have become of the Palestinians were they to fall under Iraqi occupation? Or Sudanese? Or even French or Soviet? It may be assumed with high probability that they would have become victims of genocide, or at best of mere mass murder, "cleansing" and deportation.

Fortunately for them, their occupier is Israel. And even if, to reiterate, there is no enlightened occupation, and even though it is possible, legitimate and sometimes even important to criticize Israel, as occupations go – none generated such a low count of casualties (indeed, there are additional forms of oppression other than murder, such as the issue of refugees. This is a topic for a separate discussion.

TV Screen Ethics

Why, then, is the global impression opposite to the above? How come the facts and numbers have nothing to do with Israel's demonic reputation around the world?

There are many answers to these questions. One of them is that western ethics have turned into TV ethics. If a Palestinian- or a Hezbollah-terrorist had tried to fire rockets out of a civilian area and Israel responded – causing the death of two children – numerous headlines and articles around the world would doubtlessly read "Israel Kills Children". But if entire villages were to be wiped out in Sudan, or an entire city in Syria, no TV cameras would be around.

Then, in the tradition of TV ethics, José Saramago and Harold Pinter will sign petitions condemning the "genocide" or "war crimes" committed by Israel. They probably never read the Geneva Convention. They probably don't know that barring a few infractions, according to it, Israel's actions against civilian objects used in a military context are explicitly sanctioned (protocol 1, article 52, paragraph 2). And since these gentlemen are so utterly immersed in TV ethics, there will never be any petitions signed by them protesting the mass-murder of Muslims and others by Muslims. Murder for its own sake, not unintentional collateral damage. They're allowed.

TV ethics are a tragedy to the Arab and Muslim people themselves. Israel is paying a high price over it, but the real victims are the Arabs and Muslims. And as long as this blue-screen morality continues, the Arabs and Muslims shall continue to pay the price.

Epilogue

There are those who claim that Arab and Muslim countries are exempt from criticism since they are non-democratic, whereas Israel deserves its criticism since it has democratic presumptions. Such a claim is pure, patronizing orientalism. The tacit assumption is that Arabs and Muslims are the retarded children of the world. They don't know any better. It's not just orientalism. It's racism.

Arabs and Muslims are neither children nor retarded. Many Arabs and Muslims know it and write it. They know that only the abolition of this self-deception and the acceptance of self responsibility will lead to change. They know that as long as the west, too, treats them as unequal and irresponsible, it is promoting a racist attitude, and more importantly – aiding and abetting in their mass-murder.

The genocide that Israel doesn't commit, which is complete libel, obscures the real genocide, the silenced one, of mainly Arabs and Muslims, by Arabs and Muslims. The libel must be stopped for the truth to become apparent. It is in the interest of Arabs and Muslims. Israel pays in reputation. They pay in blood. If there is any morality left in the world, it should be clear that it is in the interest of those who uphold it. And if indeed this libel is refuted, it shall be good news for Israel, but better, much better news for the Arab and Muslim people.

Omedia

Hi Joseph, here is a reply to your post. It’s a long time after the original post, so you may not look at it, but maybe someone else will. My reply is rather long, but much shorter than your text, so maybe it will stimulate more discussion.

PS As I come to post my contribution I see that there have finally been some other replies.

First things first, as this is an English forum: the plural of “crisis” is “crises”, not “crisises”.

I’ve done my best to read your very long article. It contains a lot of interesting material, useful for other discussions. Unfortunately, much of it is not so useful for this discussion. Nevertheless, you make some serious points which require a reply.

1) You say Israel is not guilty of genocide. On this I agree. Some people do go to the point of saying that Israel treats the Palestinians as the *** treated the Jews and this is not correct; there is no programme of systematic extermination of Palestinians. However, not all critics of  Israel make this accusation. The *** conquered a series of European countries. Although they did not set about exterminating the French, the Dutch, the Italians etc., they certainly oppressed them with brutal reprisals and no regard for human life. This is a better analogy in my opinion (it should be said that this applies to any conquering power, not just the ***).

2) Having said, correctly, “After all, it is difficult to blame Israel for genocide in Sudan or for civil war in Algeria”, you nevertheless list countless massacres of Muslims around the world. It isn’t clear why. I don’t know anybody who blames Israel for the massacres by the Suharto regime in Indonesia or even by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In reality most of these regimes are part of the system of oppression of the ex-colonial peoples by the “western” (i.e. US and European) banks and multinationals. It is in defence of those interests that the most brutal torture and oppression are carried out, with the approval and connivance (or sometimes half-hearted criticism) of the western powers. They are also prepared to carry out massacres of Christians, Hindus or anyone else who dares to question their rule. Although the state of Israel is not responsible for all these crimes, it is nevertheless an important part of this system of world control, as demonstrated by the fact that the same western powers who support Israel also supported Suharto, Pinochet… and even Saddam Hussein before he invaded Kuwait.

3) Let us put to rest the ghost of anti-semitism. An anti-semite is someone who oppresses Jews, not someone who criticises Jews when they oppress others. The fascist thugs in Europe who desecrate graves in Jewish cemeteries or attack Jewish shops never take the side of the Palestinians. These elements hate Arabs as much as they hate Jews; if they can beat up a Jew one day and an Arab the next, they are happy. It is pure dishonesty to reply to critics of the state of Israel with the accusation of anti-semitism: “We’ll do what we like, because if you dare criticise us we’ll call you ***”. It is akin to the McCarthyite lie that anybody who criticised the U.S. administration was an agent of the Kremlin. Critics (even unreasonable ones) should be answered with reasoned arguments, saying where they are right and where they are wrong, without resorting to insults. The danger does exist, however, of another kind of anti-semitism, whereby all Israelis, or even all Jews, are blamed for the crimes of the Israeli state. While progressive people should oppose this way of thinking, its existence is entirely the fault of Israel’s rulers and of those who support them in the world. Consequently you cannot combat this kind of anti-semitism unless you yourself make it clear that the crimes of the Israeli government are not supported by all Jews (and this is true; not even all Israelis support them).

4) Israel is said to be a “democratic state”. This is true, within Israel’s official boundaries, even with all the limitations that “democracy” usually implies. It is wrong of some critics to refer to the “Israeli military junta”. However, observing that a country’s internal regime entails democratic rights for the population does not help to understand that country’s foreign policy. The internal regime reflects the relationship between a country’s rulers and its population, while foreign policy reflects the relationship between that country and another country. There is no connection between the two. Britain in the 1930s was considered a democracy, but 500 million Indians did not have a vote and were brutally oppressed by the British authorities. The USA is a democracy, but this in no way justified the Vietnam war (not to mention other, nearer wars), which was waged for anything but democratic reasons.

Not all critics of Israeli policy necessarily make correct, consistent and honest criticisms. This is due to a lack of analysis more than to bad will. It is the same lack of analysis which leads those on both sides of the debate to list “good” and “bad” countries without explaining why God, Allah, Jehovah or whoever should decide, in His infinite wisdom, to make some countries good and others bad.

Here I want to add some more specific comments.

1) The territories of Gaza and the West Bank were occupied as a result of the Six-Day War in 1967. That war was presented to the world as a response by poor little Israel to an unprovoked attack, but there is good reason to believe the Israeli government wanted the war. Israel occupied the territories and subsequently began to “colonise” them with Jewish “settlements”. This cannot be justified in terms of defence needs, which might at most explain the setting up of military bases. There have been numerous declarations by Zionists to the effect that these territories are the historic land of the Jews. That has nothing to do with a response to an attack by neighbouring states. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the occupation of these territories was part of the original war aims in 1967. The recent withdrawal from Gaza is a fiction; Israel can intervene when it wants and frequently does so, brutally.

2) The birth of the state of Israel did not come about just from the will of Jews fleeing oppression in Europe. The 1918 Declaration by the British minister Balfour, in view of the imminent fall of the Turkish Empire, proposed the setting up of a state of Palestine as a pro-European outpost in the Middle East (which was becoming important because of the oil deposits), with a mixed Arab and Jewish population but governed by a European Jewish elite. This fitted in with the general policy of dividing up the Arab lands and creating fictitious nations, such as Kuwait, with pro-western regimes in order to weaken local opposition to Western exploitation of the resources of the area. However, after the second world war this imperialist plan was not enough for the Zionists, who preached the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land”, simply ignoring the fact that there were 850,000 Arabs living in the area which is now officially Israel. A campaign of intimidation and harassment forced many Palestinians to leave; only 130,000 remained. These have been dubbed “Israeli Arabs”; they are considered few enough not to present a threat and their presence serves to give the impression of a multi-racial, multi-cultural society. They have formally the same rights as Jews, but in reality suffer discrimination. Some Zionist extremists talk about expelling these people too.

3) This represented a distortion of Britain’s plans, as an openly Zionist state was to be a source of greater instability. However, the British, and particularly the USA, afterwards decided to make the best of it and ever since then the Israeli state has survived with the help of massive American subsidies. Interestingly Stalin, with typical obtuseness, seeing this conflict with British interests, actually supported the formation of the state of Israel. When things became clearer even to Stalin, the Soviet Union then switched over to seeking friends among the Arab regimes, including the most reactionary ones.

4) After the expulsion of the Palestinians, the neighbouring states of Jordan and Egypt did little to help them or to absorb them into their own populations, preferring to maintain the “refugee camps” for propaganda purposes; both pro-Western Arab regimes and those in the Soviet sphere of influence used the Palestinian question to divert the attention of their populations from their own problems. This is often mentioned by pro-Israelis. However, that situation existed for two decades, from the foundation of the State of Israel to the 1967 war. Four decades have now elapsed since then. Has Israel’s behaviour been any better? Although Israel occupied the territories (which it delicately refers to as “administered areas”), it never incorporated them into its state. The reason is clear: it would have had to declare their inhabitants to be Israeli citizens with the right to vote, compromising the Jewish nature of the state, or else deny these rights in an openly racist stance. Instead, in order not to give them rights, the idea was maintained that these people were not citizens of Israel (but of which state they were citizens was not specified). Thus they can work in Israel for Israeli bosses but are not allowed to join Israeli unions; they pay taxes but are not allowed to vote on how they are spent. And how are they spent? On repression of the Palestinian population and on subsidies for Jewish settlements, which take the best land and water resources.

5) As said above, the “Palestinian state” (with its so-called road map which cuts the body of Palestine into pieces and makes normal life impossible) is a fiction. Israel has simply handed administration of the territories over to those organizations that are most prepared to co-operate in holding down the population. As soon as someone is elected who does not suit the tastes of Israel or the USA, resources are denied, there are assassination attempts etc.

6) All these things are an open provocation to the Palestinians. It is all very well for the Israeli government to say, “Now that I’ve taken away your land and livelihood [by non-peaceful means] I want peace and can’t understand why you are not satisfied.” It is not surprising if some young Palestinians, pushed to the point of despair, are prepared to carry out suicide bomb attacks.

7) As has been pointed out in other threads on this forum, it is pure hypocrisy to support official violence (“state terrorism”) and then morally condemn terrorist attacks by individuals. However, this does not exhaust the issue. The real question is: can bomb attacks solve the problem? And the answer is No. On the Israeli side, a bomb in a disco or a market does not help people to understand the Palestinian problem, but simply increases their fear and hatred of Arabs and makes them cling even more tightly to the Israeli state. On the Palestinian side it makes people a passive audience for these “heroic actions”.

8) The only key is the active involvement of the population. Thirty years of IRA terrorist attacks never moved Ireland an inch nearer to unification. In Palestine, the intifada, which was a movement of the population and not just of a few conspirators, did far more than any bomb attack to arouse sympathy for the Palestinians, both in the world and in Israel.

9) However, even the intifada had its limitations, both in its aims and in its methods. It should be remembered that Israel, like any other country, is a nation divided between rich and poor, between exploiters and exploited. The conflict is not in the interests of ordinary Israeli citizens; like the Arab governments, the Israeli government uses the Palestinian question to maintain its support among the population. The recent invasion of Lebanon was mainly to distract the attention of Israelis from a programme of cuts in public spending. In the future, Israeli workers who are suffering from the attempts of the government and the bosses to make them pay for the economic crisis will begin to question the authority of their state. This will make it possible to organise some kind of united action, first of all with Israeli Arabs. A strike of Jews and Arabs together (and these have taken place) will frighten the Israeli authorities far more than any bomb attack.

How far and how fast this process can go will depend on people developing an internationalist outlook in both communities. It will also depend on events in other countries in the Middle East and the rest of the world.