; ALLE ORIGINI DELLO STATO DI ISRAELE
(Intrighi europei e dramma degli arabi)
di Pier Francesco Zarcone
publish this short historical essay on the founding of the state of Israel already appeared in the books of the Federation of Anarchist Communists and the site of "Community and the Community".
the same author we have recently published two interesting analysis of the revolutionary process that has begun in North Africa.
(February 27 and March 3, See also under the heading Labels Pier Francesco Zarcone )
The rise of the Palestinian question is the
end of World War I that a bloody furrow divides the Arab world by the Jewish Zionist or pro-Zionist, and this represents a shift from historical period to another in the relationship between these two realities, which for centuries had lived in a different way in North Africa and the Middle East. The dramatic events of the Palestinian people formed long been the interest and passion for politics of the left and libertarians, but we think it is not useless retrace the stages of formation, as if to better secure them in the memory of comrades like clarification of the historical background of a scenario that will not remain unscathed by the events in the Middle East who are doing these days.
In the West the "fanaticism islamico” è ormai diventato un luogo comune diffuso ed alimentato dai mass-media, eppure per quanto in linea di massima animati da forte passionalità religiosa, a volte matrice di pulsioni integraliste, in termini di tolleranza relativa gli arabi, nei confronti dei seguaci delle religioni monoteiste, hanno una storia che non deve fare i conti con secoli e secoli di cupa e organizzata oppressione religiosa come invece i cristiani, soprattutto papisti.
Laddove è stata in vigore la tradizionale legge islamica (ed al riguardo si tenga presente che i Wahabiti dell’Arabia Saudita ed i loro epigoni contemporanei fino ai Taliban del mullah Omar e ad Al Qaeda di Osama bin Laden rappresentano più un’innovazione estremistica moderna che not a return to traditional Islam, which, like it or not civilization has produced many other) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians as "people of the Book" (ahl al-Kitab) can live in peace in the Islamic state and is subject to paying taxes a special legal regime. They are muminum, protected, of which the Muslim authorities protect life, property, freedom to practice their religion. In return, the owners (DIMMs) of this personal status pay an annual property tax (kharágh) and a personal tax (gizyah) are subject - even in
procedures in criminal and civil - to their religious leaders acting as ethnarch, but is exempted of Islamic laws. "Of course" (!) can not proselytize religion.
This state of things, enshrined in law, is certainly rebel against our conscience is both modern libertarian, but if it is historically and especially if compared to the situation of European states - at least until the break of religious unity of Western Europe - we understand why until the advent of the Protestant States or non-Catholic religious dissidents fled when they could choose the time in Muslim countries that are part of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey probably still exist in Sephardic Jewish families, there has long
residents that keep the keys of the houses that their ancestors were forced to leave Spain and Portugal in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century).
This legal regime was in force since the time of the Caliphs and the Umayyad caliphs Abbassids to that of the Ottomans. Some Jews under the Abbassids came to hold positions of public responsibility, with Muslims the Jews were all massacred by the Crusaders in Jerusalem, when they cooperated with the Muslims ruled the Iberian peninsula, and all were persecuted dala "reconquest" Catholic. Just in North Africa and Middle East Jews were able to escape and rebuild their lives in peace (in line with the times) and prosperity. Ultimately up the rise of Zionism Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and Jews lived largely in peace with each other.
Zionism as an organized movement was formed in 1896-97, advocating the need to achieve in political terms the old Jewish aspiration to "return" in what for them has always been the land the subject of a divine "promise" to Abraham : 'Unto thy seed have I given this land " (Genesis XI, 18) also claiming to be the only descendants of that patriarch.
course here without regard to attest to the fact that the same thing only the recipients of the promise, in texts written by their own "Ancestors", that he has no trace whatsoever on the part of the divine promise.
In fact, Palestine has never failed us Jewish households, either as a result of two devastating wars with Rome (under Nero / under Vespasian and Hadrian), but it is true that from 71 AD onwards the number of public entities Jews in the region was reduced even more. However, the Palestinian Jews were never hand 10% of the population, and have been - ultimately - the only Jews with secular title for staying in that country.
Over time, however, deep cultural and religious ties were maintained between the Jewish communities of Palestine and the nuclei diaspora, strengthened by the dramatic and bloody vicissitudes of the Jews in Europe; vicissitudes that kept alive the hope of a future redemption in the land of their fathers. Added to this is that Jewish culture is rooted in the belief that Israel has a mission to play in humanity that could not be achieved without a close relationship with the soil of the Holy Land, a land that is not a mere passive object, but the active membership and living in a relationship of religious maturity.
Certainly this aspiration did not mean the will or the expectation that all professing the faith of Abraham, moved to Palestine, but the certainty that one day all the Israelites persecuted you could find the conditions for a new life.
A first wave of emigration to Palestine (then the Ottoman domination) appeared with some consistency in the late nineteenth century. When the Bilu movement (from the initials of the biblical verse: "House of Jacob, come and go," Isaiah II, 5) began colonization in the region. The program of the Bilu stated the need to encourage and strengthen the Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine through the establishment of colonies organized as cooperatives. The first group of settlers, consisting of survivors of the Russian pogroms of 1881 he arrived in Palestine in 1882, and prepared in the agricultural school of mikveh Israel, established in 1870 by the Alliance Israelite Universale. The Bilu were soon emulated by Chovevé Zion (Friends of Zion), so that there developed a stream of immigrants that continued until 1914.
Meanwhile, in 1896, the Austrian Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl - developed a series of reflections on the emotional part induced by the wave with which the Dreyfus case had hit the Jewish world - the book published in Vienna Judenstaadt in favor of a State Israel to protect Jews object at the time of the upright
sentiment stirred up by anti-Semitic propaganda and extreme right-wing reactionary. The other important event was the next Zionist Congress met in Basel in 1897, which formally took the decision to build the homeland of the Jewish state in Palestine.
The interesting thing - which unfortunately had a tragic continuation - is that after all is Zionist Herzl and his followers turned to Palestine (for the reasons historical and religious mentioned above) with the mindset of those who intend to settle in a territory devoid of inhabitants, since the interests of the Palestinian Arabs (then subjects of the Sultan of Constantinople) if they do not bother anyone. So, one might say, the Ottoman Empire was so vast that it could well move somewhere else. In this we can also see the outcome of the mentality imperialist and colonizing dominant time in Western Europe and North America.
Herzl - with some foresight politics - at one point thought to seek the support of Great Britain to the Zionist political project, and in 1902 he came to convince the then Colonial Secretary Chamberlain to allow the study of a project for the accommodation of the Jewish population in the north of Sinai, in that once belonged to Egypt, but was under a British protectorate. The scheme proved unworkable.
Herzl died in 1904, but the movement he founded are increasingly popular, thanks to the support given by Lord Rothschild, Baron Rothschild governatore della Banca di Francia e da larghi settori della finanza ebraica internazionale.
Poco prima della Grande Guerra si erano ormai stanziati in Palestina circa 12.000 coloni ebrei, a fronte dei 44.000 israeliti già ivi residenti e sudditi ottomani. Le organizzazioni sioniste cercarono di ottenere dal Sultano il permesso di costituire nel paese una vasta colonia autonoma, senza tuttavia riuscirvi.
Peraltro, le attività di consolidamento della loro presenza proseguirono, ed in quegli anni Giaffa divenne il centro delle industrie e dei commerci ebraici, ed in quegli anni il Congresso Sionista decise che a Gerusalemme sorgesse una Università ebraica.
Lo scoppio della guerra mondiale rese ancora più febbrile il lavorio di pressioni esercitato dai sionisti sul governo britannico (che porterà poi alla famigerata Dichiarazione Balfour), agevolato dal fatto che in quei frangenti la Gran Bretagna aveva un disperato bisogno di appoggio finanziario e di aiuto scientifico, che appunto finanzieri e scienziati israeliti le fornirono. E questo portò ad un progressivo rafforzarsi dei legami fra il governo di Londra e gli ambienti sionisti.
La Dichiarazione Balfour
Nel novembre 1914 il dirigente sionista Herbert Samuel prese contatto con il Ministro degli Affari Esteri britannico, Edward Gray, invitandolo a farsi patrocinatore della costituzione di uno Stato ebraico in Palestina, Stato che sarebbe diventato alleato della Gran Bretagna proteggendo da oriente il Canale di Suez, e impedendo la formazione – con la sconfitta dell’impero ottomano - di un possibile e vasto Stato Arabo in Sira e Iraq, oggettivamente contrario agli interessi di Londra nella zona.
Gray chiese a Samuel di presentare ai membri del Gabinetto un apposito memorandum, il che avvenne nel gennaio del 1915, ma l’idea non piacque al Primo Ministro Asquith ed al generale Kitchener Ministro della Guerra; entrambi erano convinti della necessità di puntare invece sull’aiuto arabo come elemento fondamentale per vincere la guerra in Medio Oriente contro l’impero ottomano alleato della Germania e Austria-Ungheria. A motivo delle immediate esigenze militari sul fronte Suez Canal - Britain to make a move intended to complicate the scenario in view the Middle East after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the Fertile Crescent, the British policy that is bogged down in a web of contradictions that would take the obvious connotations of duplicity, and would have antagonized both real
shares covered by the Zionist phenomenon: the Zionists and the Arabs themselves.
The British authorities, namely, welcomed the proposals for an alliance against the Turks advanced by Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, the Hashemite dynasty, and negotiations with Hussein arrived at a good point. Between Hussein and MacMahon, British High Commissioner in Cairo, that occurred an exchange of correspondence through which the Hashemite Sheriff wanted to get from Britain the leading factor for the establishment, after the war, a unified Arab state in the whole of Arabia and the Fertile Crescent (ie, in Palestine and in the current territories of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq).
In the correspondence between them was never discussed specifically in Palestine, for which Hussein and his considered it certainly included in the new state, while the Mac Mahon thought - covertly - in different ways. Britain announced the end to Hussein
that his condition had been accepted, subject to certain reservations concerning the desire of London to retain a sphere of influence in the region of Baghdad Traditional French and interests in the Levant (Lebanon). In January 1916 the agreement was entered into the Arab / British for the outbreak of the Arab Revolt (including Colonel Edward Lawrence will be the best-known media personality): However, but the following month of May, the UK authorities concluded with France 's Sykes / Picot for the division of the regions north of the Arabian peninsula into two spheres of influence. This covenant, of course, was not made known to the Arabs, until the Bolsheviks did not put their hands in 1917, tsarist archives and gave public notice: the inevitable protests London Hussein responded with mere floating charge. Complicating the situation
interveniva il fatto che nel 1916 diventò Primo Ministro britannico Lloyd Gorge e il concomitante peggioramento della situazione militare sul fronte francese fece prevalere in seno al governo di Londra l’opinione che fosse di maggiore convenienza favorire in qualche modo i sionisti, tanto più che essi, come contropartita, avrebbero potuto esplicare tutta la loro influenza sulla comunità ebraica americana in senso favorevole all’intervento degli Usa nella guerra a fianco del blocco nemico degli Imperi Centrali. A tale fine Lloyd Gorge iniziò a contattare il Comitato Sionista, incontrandosi con Chaim Weizmann il 7 febbraio 1917.
I sionisti manifestarono un’irriducibile opposizione ad un’amministrazione internazionale or Anglo-French in Palestine, accepting instead of being placed under British protectorate if he were granted the possibility of unlimited immigration, land purchase, and then set up an independent state in the country. In return they promised to exert every effort to intervene in the U.S. war. Before taking final agreements Lloyd George thought it appropriate to obtain the consent of France, and to this end, the Zionists sent their emissary, Sokoloff, in Paris to deal with that government. The mission failed, the opposition of French Jews hostile to the Zionist project and influenced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Eventually, though, Paris gave its consent to the pressures of London.
I sionisti mantennero le loro promesse, e dopo essere entrato in guerra il governo statunitense fece a sua volta pressioni su Londra affinché rendesse pubblici i suoi impegni verso il sionismo A questo fine intercorsero trattative fra il Presidente Wilson, Lloyd Gorge, il Ministro degli Esteri britannico Balfour ed i
capi sionisti, dalle quali derivò la preparazione del testo della Dichiarazione Balfour del 2 novembre 1917, sotto forma di lettera di quest’ultimo a Lord Rothschild, membro del Comitato Sionista:
«Caro Lord Rothschild, sono molto lieto di inviarLe da parte del Governo di Sua Maestà la seguente dichiarazione di
simpatia per le aspirazioni degli Ebrei Zionists, which was submitted and approved by the Government. On Her Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use his best offices to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it is clearly
understandable that nothing will be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status that Jews have in any other country. I should be grateful if you bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely Arthur James Balfour. "
From the perspective of linguistic / conceptual interesting noted that the vast majority of the Arab Palestinian population was defined as "non-Jewish community" as if it were called "non-minority" most of the population. While there can be no form without substance, the "slip" Balfour is indicative of a clear imperialist way of thinking, so what's the world Zionist.
should however be said that the Declaration did not obtain the approval of all the major British exponents of Judaism. David Alexander, Chairman of the Committee of British Jews, and Claude Montefiore, President of the British Jewish, stated that the aim of Zionism could / should be the creation in Palestine of a Jewish religious and spiritual center, not an independent Jewish state. And Edwin Montagu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of India and jew, expressed its strong opposition in various memoranda, basing on the fact that Jews are simply members of a religion and not a people, so it would not make sense to create a state for this "people".
shared location in 1917 in Italy by Luigi Luzzati. On the other hand, continued Montagu, except that Zionism could not be said to be representative of all Jews, Britain could not violate the principle of self-determination of the people of Palestine, which was to remain the arbiter of the destiny of their country. But such attitudes was not intended to succeed.
In 1917, London published the Balfour Declaration, but nevertheless, in June 1918, the British Resident in Cairo he had the effrontery to declare formally that "The Arabs retain sovereignty over all territories that have conquered by force of arms" . Everything had become suspicious of Hussein and Arab leaders linked to him, but not by a line recedettero overall moderate to Britain, as also a note submitted by November 4, 1918 to the Commission for the East of the UK Government by Colonel Lawrence. The note stated that the Arabs could also accept the creation of a home Israel provided that it remained under English control in exchange for a minimization of territorial concessions to France and freedom for the peninsular region dell'Hedjaz.
It follows then that Arab leaders at the time, with respect to the issue of Jewish settlements in Palestine, never went beyond the line of acceptance of a simple "home" or abandoned this attitude as a result of the so-Weizmann agreement / Feisal "of January 1919, to become one of the flagships of the Zionist propaganda. In fact Feisal (the son of Hussein), in his meeting with the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann (later President State of Israel), he accepted it about "the immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale" and "the settlement of Jewish immigrants in the land and a
intensive cultivation of the ground" but observed that "the Arab farmers will be protected in their rights and assisted in the protection of economic development, "and adds, before signing the agreement, a very important subject:
" Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my Memorandum dated January 4, 1919 to ' Foreign Affairs Office of the Government of Great Britain, I will agree on the above items. But if the smallest violation should be done then I will not be bound by a single word of this Agreement, that will be void and of no importance and validity, nor I will be responsible in any way at all. "
So if he made it clear to Weizmann Feisal, leader of the Arab Revolt, the goal of Zionism was actually the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, in no way would Feisal signed. Instead Weizmann was very good at reassuring the Arab chief and ensuring that it would carry out all his influence to get the Arabs independence.
After the war began in Paris and the Peace Conference, gli arabi cercarono disperatamente di ottenere dai britannici il rispetto delle promesse fatte, ma senza alcun esito. Per calmare le proteste arabe nel 1919 gli Alleati inviarono nel Medio Oriente la Commissione King-Crane, che propose la creazione di una Siria unita comprendente Libano e Palestina – il che avrebbe soddisfatto una fondamentale esigenza araba - e sostenne la necessità di apportare «serie modifiche al programma estremista sionista per la Palestina concernente l’illimitata immigrazione ebraica, in vista dell’obiettivo di fare della Palestina uno Stato prettamente ebraico».
In più tale Commissione aggiungeva che "repeatedly in meetings with members of the Commission showed that the Zionist Jews seek to achieve a virtually complete exclusion of the existing non-Jewish inhabitants in various types of purchase," for which "The Peace Conference should not close our eyes just now to the fact that the anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria is intense and can not be taken lightly. No official consulted by members of the Commission believes that the Zionist program could be implemented if not by force of arms (...). This goes to show by the non-Jewish population of Palestine and Syria a strong resentment the injustice of the Zionist program. The decisions to be implemented require the intervention of the armies are sometimes needed, but it certainly should not be taken for free to promote injustice. "
The peace conference is not held in any account of these recommendations, and the Middle East, the situation worsened. A Zionist delegation which visited Paris won by the Conference that the UK was given the mandate over Palestine, a scheme which was later approved in July 1922 by the League of Nations, with the explicit recommendation to respect the text of the Balfour Declaration. In 1920, the same neocostitutita Company had the mandate entrusted to France on Syria and Lebanon, even as they met in Damascus with a Pan-Arab Congress which made King Feisal came out of Syria. The French armed intervention
radically destroyed the Arab hopes, given that France also opposed the establishment of Syria in the Arab state under the protectorate, as had been decided by the Supreme Conference in San Remo Interallied.
order to reduce the mast Arab hatred against him, Britain in March 1921 convened a conference in Cairo Affairs of the East, where Churchill - by incorporating the suggestions of Lawrence - got that:
a) Feisal became King of Iraq and that the commission of that country (granted to him in Sanremo) turning into a covenant the Anglo / Iraqi;
b) to Abdullah's brother Faisal, was given the kingdom of Transjordan under the British mandate;
c) Britain maintained the mandate in Palestine to monitor the evolution of Jewish homeland. When
still had not quite calmed the discontent in Arab Palestine, the British government - by giving in to Zionist pressure well supported - appointed High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Samuel Erbert. In the eyes of Samuel Arabs had a feature not suited to guarantee the balance: he was Jewish. The consequence was that the local population (as expected) took the appointment per un affronto, scoppiarono torbidi sanguinosi nel paese con la morta di parecchi ebrei ed arabi. La doppiezza britannica creò un solco di odio degli arabi nei confronti di Londra durato per parecchi decenni ed è alla sua luce che si spiega come, per esempio, Nasser fu subito creduto quando nel giugno 1967 accusò i britannici di aver mandato aerei in auto di Israele.
I Palestinesi in modo particolare si sentirono brutalmente traditi ed abbandonati ad un’invasione di stranieri che si comportavano ben presto come padroni in base alle loro rivendicazioni “bibliche e storiche”. Dal punto di vista delle dotte contese non era difficile per gli arabi controbattere che anch’essi erano discendenti di Abramo, in quanto avevano come ascendente on his son Ishmael, who were stationed on the territory about 1,300 years, or that it was a very questionable alleged historical right to Palestine claimed by Russians, Poles, etc Danube. only because of the Jewish religion, ethnically and culturally distinct from the Palestinian Jews who for centuries had continued without interruption, to live in the region. But beyond the disputes historical and theological Palestinians were well aware of what ultimately would have occurred, namely, that Zionism would have reduced them to second-class citizens or even subjects. At the mercy of the "true descendants of Abraham ". On the other hand, the positions of the leaders of Zionism were not objectively likely to reassure. In 1919, Weizmann said in Paris that needed to be done in Palestine a Jewish country as England is an English village, and Sylvain Levi argued that, since Palestine is too populated by Arabs, Jews had no choice but to deprive them of their property. There were all the conditions and just disappointed because the nascent Arab nationalism will clash with rising, confident and well supported differently at international, Zionist nationalism.
Years of the British mandate
During the years of their mandate in Palestine the British authorities – con una sconcertante mancanza di senso della realtà – rimasero attaccate al punto di vista che gli impegni assunti con i sionisti non erano incompatibili con il precedente impegno a tutelare i diritti degli arabi, e che la creazione del focolare ebraico era possibile senza arrecare danno alla popolazione araba, nonostante la brutale franchezza dei sionisti al riguardo; franchezza che nel 1922 e poi nel 1930 costrinse il governo britannico a due prese di posizione ufficiali sul problema. Nel 1922, Churchill dichiarò che era intenzione della Gran Bretagna creare in Palestina uno Stato ebraico, ma non di trasformare tutta la Palestina in Stato ebraico, aggiungendo però che l’immigrazione ebraica doveva essere consentita in base alla "absorption capacity of the country." And in 1930 the Labour government of Ramsay MacDonald rejected the Zionist demands that the obligation to establish the Jewish homeland should take precedence over all other commitments from Britain to the non-Jewish communities in Palestine (which, incidentally, had joined in the fight against the common Zionist peril).
However at that point there was a real test of the power of the influence of the Zionist lobby, as Mac Donald will remain essentially the statement.
During the years of consolidation of Nazi power in Germany the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine increased dramatically, reaching a total of 60,000 units per year, while the country stretched corrrelativamente Zionist control over natural resources and public companies in the country, such as electricity, extraction of materials from the Dead Sea and irrigation. After a bloody Arab revolt broke out in 1936, Britain sent a Royal Commission in the country to find the cause and to define a solution to the problem.
The Commission recognized the impossibility of finally settle the conflict between Arabs and Zionist Jews, the impracticability of the policy conducted so far from London but, destroying virtually all the good intentions, indicated as a solution to divide the land into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The Arabs protested
mass and exploded in new waves of terrorism. In political terms the Arab was reiterated the need to establish an independent state in all of Palestine in the Arab world without forced inclusion of a foreign state, and to end the immigration of European settlers of the Jewish religion.
Britain then sent to Palestine, the Woodhead Commission to study the project of partition, but it declared it impossible. It was therefore decided to convene the Arab and Jewish leaders in London for a Round Table Conference, extending the invitation to Egypt and Iraq, at this point implicitly recognizing the essential unity of the Arab world that had been denied dalla pace del 1919. Poiché non si giunse a nessun accordo, il governo britannico, per dare soluzione al garbuglio da esso stesso creato, optò per una soluzione unilaterale: il Libro Bianco. In esso si esprimeva il proposito di costituire entro dieci anni uno Stato indipendente palestinese in cui arabi ed ebrei avrebbero ugualmente partecipato al governo e, prima di allora, l’immigrazione sarebbe stata limitata ad un massimo di 150.000 unità, in modo da lasciare il
rapporto numerico arabi/ebrei nei limiti del 3 a 1. Furono altresì vietati nuovi acquisti di terre da parte di ebrei.
Gli arabi nell’insieme rimasero soddisfatti dal Libro Bianco, si tranquillizzarono e non si prepararono al peggio che sarebbe inevitabilmente come to the obvious contrast between the White Paper and the intentions
end Zionist imperialism. The Zionists, in fact, intensified efforts to develop their own military, so as to end up being strong enough to eventually force the British to abandon the match and then take over the whole country. At the outbreak of World War II, then enrolled in a number
the British armed forces, to make a valuable military practice and be able to claim a moral claim to London because of the contribution in the fight against the common Nazi enemy.
The UN declaration of division and War Arab / Israeli
At the end of the Second World War, the Palestinian question came to be the object of attention of British politicians, not least because of the intensification of terrorist paramilitary Zionist (that over actions of their two shots of significant impact:
the destruction of the British Embassy in Rome, at Porta Pia, the placement of a bomb, which fortunately did not explode, the headquarters of the British Parliament in London, the bombing of the Hotel King David of Jerusalem).
In Palestine the British troops moved quickly to 200,000 units in a vain attempt to end armed actions of the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang. In 1947, the Zionist plan began to be fully realized.
In Europe and the U.S. - apart from the internal pro-Zionist pressures - the question came to be seen exclusively in the light of the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, so the Arabs could not cause excessive sympathy, in fact they were easily presentable as aspiring to emulate Hitler in the eastern Mediterranean, This is facilitated by the same verbal bombast of many of their leaders. So that although for the most Semites are attracted to the accusation of anti-Semitic! After appealing unsuccessfully
a last attempt to settle the situation peacefully, February 18, 1947 Britain Pilate took the decision to refer the issue of Palestine to the UN. On 29 November the same year the General Assembly directed the division of Palestinian territory into two states - one Arab and one Jewish - were drawn in, rather than the border areas of their competence, drawing a map to "leopard spots ". Jerusalem was internationalized. The Zionists, in the final, won 56% of Palestine!
The partition plan stated explicitly - as well as a utopian form of economic union in the region - that the Jewish state to respect fundamental human rights, civil and political rights of the Arabs residing on its territory, and on the question of Arab property provided that "No expropriation of land owned by Arabs in the Jewish state will be permitted except for reasons of public interest. In all cases of expropriation, also should be paid first expropriation any payment to the extent set by the Supreme Court. " All of these provisions would remain a dead letter.
Just yesterday (when they hypocritically expressed a formal allegiance to international law) but today (since 1992 when the U.S. arrogance has made us return to the pure size of Hitler's law of force and the Visible contempt for international law) to talk about legal problems can seem comical. But it's worth it just to clarify certain situations beyond those where there are legal fictions. The ownership of a legal power to order the UN General Assembly partition of Palestine is very debatable
failing organ in the international order or legislative or judicial nature, so that its resolution at the very might be worth more as a mere recommendation. Not to mention the fact that the UN has so violated a basic principle of his own
statute, namely the protection of the right of self-determination peoples. And the people of Palestine - Arabs (Christians, Muslims, Druze, and, if atheists), the Jews hostile to the creation of a State of Israel before the advent of the Messiah, for religious reasons, Jews and Zionists, rather than support - not were interviewed.
After that decision the UN, during the six months prior to the proclamation of the State of Israel, the Zionists intensified terrorist actions against the Palestinian Arabs (the famous village of Deir Yassin massacre) to induce them to leave the country, and armored paramilitary forces largely in the area for the UN Arab state. To which - after the withdrawal of British armed forces - Military intervention of neighboring Arab countries, which occurred May 15, 1948, ended up being required to defend the Palestinian victims of Zionist atrocities and terrorism, and lack of a paramilitary unit equal to the Hebrew. Thus began the first Arab / Israeli, who showed the impotence of the UN now (its mediator, Count Bernadotte, was killed in Palestine by Zionist terrorists), and stopped
badly for the Palestinians with the 1949 armistice agreements between Israel on the one hand, and Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, on the other side.
Israel occupied 77% of Palestine, and most of Jerusalem, Abdullah of Jordan annexed the West Bank and occupied Palestine, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. One and a half million Palestinian refugees ended up begging the UN, while the Arab regimes thought to their own interests. It must be said, for what it's worth
, armistice agreements that were not anything that would prejudice the rights of the Palestinians formally. But really it was decided by force of arms, who was in the hands of Israel.
A second conflict erupted in 1956, and is also interrupted by an armistice, which was similar to the previous arrangement.
Four issues - harbingers of further bloody conflicts - were left unresolved by these two truces, that still had not ended the war: the Arab refugee problem, the navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the Straits of Tiran, navigation in the Suez Canal, which the UN had internationalized Jerusalem and Israel occupied for a good half. The refugee problem in almost 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs brutally expelled, or forced to flee from an armed invasion of foreign European Jews. The first Zionist propaganda, and Israel later claimed that they were not actually expelled from their country, but they left voluntarily, that led to the perfidy of the Arab leaders, trusting that result in the rapid intervention of the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, wanted to have a free hand to the massacre of Jews, and to avoid casualties among their brethren. The lie is revealed by the same behavior of the Zionists before the neighboring Arab states. We said that the UN decision was in November 1947, the Arab military intervention in May 1948: It
- are just two examples - a devastating attack on Jewish Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem took place January 4, 1948, and Free and terrorist massacre of men, women and children made Arabs by the Zionists in Deir Yassin on April 9 of that year.
In 1948 the United Nations in a resolution stated that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes this was allowed as soon as possible, and that they should pay compensation in exchange for the property to those who chose not to return, and for loss or damage to property, according to the principles of international law or in equity, compensation should be paid by governments or authorities responsible. " But he never did anything to that effect to induce Israel to comply, rather it is known that Israel does not respect any UN resolution, and no one has bombed for this, being a bastion of U.S. imperialism in the region, and an accomplice to a lot of dirty operations in the Middle East and Latin America.
Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran
Israel overlooking the Gulf of Aqaba in violation of UN resolution 1947, since that area had not been assigned, and it was occupied after the signing of the armistice of 1949, whose maps do not show that part of the territory. On March 10 of that year the southern Israeli Negev attacked, occupied the village of Umm Rashrash and founded Eilath then. The UN did not intervene.
In 1950, Egypt, to protect their interests and Saudi Arabia, occupied the islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which belonged to the latter paese, con il consenso di Riyad. Nel 1955, l’Egitto, perdurando lo stato di guerra con Israele, vietò il passaggio degli Stretti alle navi da guerra israeliane e ai mercantili anche di paesi terzi se si rifiutassero di sottostare ai suoi controlli. La cosa costituì il “casus belli” per la guerra del 1956 e del 1967, anche se difficilmente il golfo di Aqaba potrebbe essere considerato facente parte di acque internazionali, poiché la sua larghezza non supera le diciassette miglia, di modo che le sue acque rientrano
nelle acque territoriali dei paesi che vi si affacciano. Anche il divieto di passaggio di navi israeliane nel canale di Suez fu motivato dall’Egitto (prima della pace fatta da Sadat) con la persistenza dello state of war. In the collective
Europe - dominated by the Israeli propaganda, the conformism of the media, the influence tearful film / stereotype as "Exodus", from his bad conscience toward the Jews - the 6 Days War broke out in 1967 was seen as the Zionist struggle between David and Goliath Arabic. The reality is a bit 'different, and if the excuse was made only by the issue of freedom of navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba and through the Straits of Tiran, Isarele might well have expected to first bring an action before the International Court of Justice. This was not possible because of a militarily strong Israel now, Nasser's actions - misguided, and not diplomatically prepared - gave the pretext to crown the Zionist dream: total control of Jerusalem and Palestine, a further reduction of the Arab population in the region, control of oil fields in Sinai, reaching to the channel, and also allow the government to deal with internal problems of AIV Tel social / economic threatened to explode.
For the first time since 1947, following a deep financial and economic crisis in Israel had expressed concern the phenomenon of Jewish emigration to other countries, with the risk that - this exodus continues - there is a more or less next disintegration of the social fabric state. The aggressive stance of Israel in the region is not reduced at all for that. In November 1966 there were attacks in Jordan, in April 1967 and in the sky of Damascus there was an air battle between Syrian and Israeli jets. Over all it was clear the Israeli intention to overthrow the Syrian regime of the time. Meanwhile, the Sinai peninsula was demilitarized and UN troops were placed on the border with Israel, even with the task of ensuring the navigation in the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli ships and neutral
. However it was agreed that these troops were being deployed with the consent of Cairo, the Egyptian territory would have to leave if his government had requested. After
Israeli raid on Syria under pressure from Israel on the Arab countries does not diminish in intensity to that in May 1967, the Egyptian General Staff said that the UN troops withdrew from the Gaza border regrouping. The Straits of Tiran returned provisionally under Egyptian control. All this had to have the value of warning to the Zionists and to counterbalance the Israeli pressure on Syria, Nasser made clear as to Johnsonn. But Egypt had only understood, but it had not agreed anything with the "patron" of Israel in Washington, the Israelis Waits and more. The Arab
defensive move was easily presented to world public opinion as an attempt to repeat the exploits Hitler. In four days the alleged "David" wiped out the armies of the poor "Goliath." And so it comes to contemporary history: the terrible increase in the number of refugees, deprived of the rights of the population in the occupied West Bank, Lebanon War, the creation of weapons of mass destruction in Israel, etc. Intifada. And more blood in the region and Israeli racism against Palestinians. Pius XI
argued that history will also be a teacher of life, but few students. Assuming that the verdict is correct, it is certain that Zionism, the leaders and the political classes of the State of Israel is an exception, since they have learned well the lessons of the past history of Jews in Europe. They sought power, hanno costituito uno Stato essenzialmente capitalista, razzista, sfruttatore, imperialista, dispregiatore del diritto internazionale e delle dignità dei popoli e delle persone, hanno fatto propria la filosofia nazista della rappresaglia, hanno torturato in Palestina e dove il protettore Usa ha chiesto una mano contro ribelli e
sovversivi. Hanno dimostrato ancora una volta che il potere nega la morale e, in buona sostanza hanno insultato la memoria ed il dolore dei morti dell’Olocausto, dei loro morti.
Ed oggi il soldato israeliano, arrogante, prepotente, che uccide donne e bambini, che blocca malati e partorienti ai posti di controllo, che si sente chiamato dal suo dio a dominare in quella terra, fa pensare – e dispiace - a when other young people with other currencies and other symbols were doing similar things. But the basic principle is always the same: "We are the elect" (by race, by god, it does not matter). Who says so? "We say it for themselves. Not unless you can prove otherwise when you have (if have) a military force capable of fighting. "
It can realistically take place, but at least we will be spared the hypocrisy of victimhood.
0 comments:
Post a Comment