Dear friend:
I can say without exaggeration that if you wish to understand the fundamental facts of the conflict in the Middle East, from both sides, the following article by Vladimir Jabotinsky may be one of the most crucial documents you will ever encounter. I hope you will take a moment to read it.
THE IRON WALL – WHO IS IT NOW?
If you are not familiar with Vladimir Jabotinsky, he was the leader of the more hardline wing of Zionism. Herzl, one of the founders of Zionism, believed that the Arabs of Palestine could be displaced through peaceful means — primarily economic:
"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, one of the founders of the Zionist movement (from Rafael Patai, Ed. The Complete Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Vol I)
Jabotinsky, as he explains in the 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 — the concept is called "transfer," more commonly known in other some instances as "ethnic cleansing."
There is an entire political party in Israel devoted to the idea of the mass expulsion of the Palestinians — 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. Recent polls indicate that as much as 40% of the Israeli population supports the concept of transfer.
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 try real peace negotiations, although a pretense should be maintained — 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
NO NEGOTIATIONS — EVER
What is important about this 80 year old document 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 Jabotinskiite Israeli's don't really want them to — for the precise reasons outlined in this article. Jabotinsky describes the exact policy Israel now follows. Sharon, of course, has made it clear that he has little or no interest in negotiations. As we will see, Sharon is carrying out the precise policy and methods outlined by Jabotinski
Israel has developed to a fine art the appearance of constantly "wanting" peace negotiations, but always finding some way to never truly conclude them (see the article by Uri Avnery in the references at bottom on the methods they use to do this, he is a member of the Knesset: on this note, I should point out that nearly all reference and research in this article are from Jewish/Israeli peace groups. Nothing in this piece should be construed as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israel; it is an examination of the policies ON THE WEST BANK).
As you know the ruling Likud party recently 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% OF WHAT HE ASKED!
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. (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 a few months 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. (see the maps at Gush Shalom or on the first page of this website.)
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. As supporters of Israel, it is up to us to ask ourselves — how much is enough?
THE 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," (transfer or mass expulsion of all Arabs from Israel and the West Bank.) This is not personal opinion, it is based on an article (referenced below) by Uri Avnerny — a member of the Knesset.
In polls reported in U.S. and Israeli newspapers, the idea of transfer is supported by 40% of the Israeli population and is now showing up in America. On the Chris Matthews political show "Hardball" a few weeks ago, Congressional leader Dick Armey stated: "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 and THE IRON WALL
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.]
BAGDAD'S BAYONETS
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.
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
[End of article]
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 been a noble undertaking, that it has a dark colonial side; that much of what I was taught was rose-colored mythology; that essential facts were withheld.
Zionism has achieved, at a very high price, the primary goal of establishing a Jewish nation. It is now time for us to ask — "How much is enough?" Along with the dream of Zionism, I was taught in Hebrew School that the Jews are a moral and just people: the people of the Book. We must now temper our desires for expanding our territory with this side of the Jewish character.
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?
NOBODY LEFT TO BOMB
For those who would say "if they attack us — we will bomb them back to the stoneage," I would remind them that, after mass deportation and a Palestinian diaspora, there will be no target — there will be no Palestine left to bomb.
Jabotinky'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?
DEFENDING ISRAEL
I am for Israel. I am Jewish and I have many relatives there. I am not opposed to Israel, only it's policy of continued land confiscation on the West Bank. I am for the defense of Israel, but I believe that the best way to defend Israel is to take back the spirit of Zionism from the extreme right wing elements who have seized it in the past decade. Just last week, the cabinet approved the construction of 1000 new housing units on the West Bank.
My point is simply this — the best way to defend Israel is to treat her neighbors fairly and justly. The Palestinians continue to fight because they have nothing left to lose. Give them a viable country with hope of a working economy and there will be peace.
To give them disjointed pieces of the West Bank will only prolong the conflict. The vast majority of the Palestinians are ready to settle for Gaza and the West Bank inside the Green Line as a national homeland. The Israeli governments continuing efforts to nickle and dime them out of a few acres here, a few acres there will only continue the bloodshed — Palestinians will die, Jews will die and eventually, many Americans will die. It's simply not worth it.
Most of the world agrees that an independent, demilitarized state of Palestine within the Green Line is a fair, just and honorable settlement. It is only the Jabotinskities who oppose it. The longer we as Americans support the effort to withhold freedom and indepence from the Palestinians, the more the blood will be on our hands.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The best, indeed the only way to guarantee the safety and security of Israel and the Jews is a just, equitable and sustainable peace which can only be based on allowing a State of Palestine to occupy all of the West Bank and Gaza. Anything less will only prolong the conflict and result in less security and more needless death and immoral actions.
****
"Ethnic cleansing is the first step toward genocide." Eli Weisel
ISRAELI PLANS FOR TRANSFER OF THE PALESTINIANS
http://www.mediamonitors.net/tanya8.html
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/index.asp
Background of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
(The two most important reference are gush—shalom.org and btselem.org. These are Israeli/Jewish peace organizations and consist only of documented, verifiable fact, not hollow propaganda.)
****
PUBLIC 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).
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.
"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)
"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.)
***
HERE IT IS: SHARON'S ROLE IN THE IRON WALL
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.
THE PURPOSE OF THE SETTLEMENTS
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.
A CHIP ON OUR SHOULDER
"All my life I've heard I'm supposed to be a coward because I'm a Jew," Paul Newman's character tells a gentile nurse in the movie Exodus, "Let me tell you, kid. Every time the Irgun blows up a British depot or knocks the hell out of some Arabs he's winning respect for me. He's making a liar out of everyone who tells me Jews are yellow. The guys over there are fighting my battle for respect ... understand that?"
We do ourselves a disservice when we confuse defending the settlement policy with defending the existence of Israel. We devalue the word when we call anyone who criticizes Israeli policy an "anti-Semite." Already the term has lost much of its force through misuse and overuse.
***
Please don't take my word for it, check out the fact yourself at some of the books listed above or the websites 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,
Jacob Bleistein
MetatiresiasI@hotmail.com
