It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Revisionist Zionism: A Lie Called Self-Defense

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:51 PM
Let me start off by saying, this is not for bashing Jewish people, nor Zionists for that manner. This is an article written about the militant Revisionist Zionists, and the terrorism that sprouted from it. This article will encompass events, people, and quotes up to the formation of Israel.

Part One: Jabotinsky

Let us start off with quotes from Vladimir Jabotinsky, also known as, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, A Revisionist Zionist, and Founder/Leader of Irgun. This is fm his 1923 paper, Iron Wall.

Colonisation of Palestine
Agreement with Arabs Impossible at present
Zionism Must Go Forward

This statement essential says, they will not allow us to willingly colonize their land, we must move forward without their agreement.

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority.

I will remind you, this man was a professional journalist. His words were carefully chosen, but if you read closely, you find the intent.

Another word for indifference is to not care. To be indifferent to everyone else has a word, selfish. He goes on to say there is no intent to kick the Arabs out of Palestine, merely outnumber them greatly as to gain control of the lands.

His main prerogative is that the Jewish people be in control. He does not care about the Arabs, he is completely indifferent to them.


And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.

It would seem he is saying, everyone will have equal rights. But remember, this is the same man who wants Jewish people to be the majority, and only cares about furthering Zionist policy. If a Zionist policy is applied to all people, Jewish and Muslim alike, is that not equal?

To take two cultures, make one the majority, one the minority, then have the majority make rules based on their culture, and apply it to the minority who is not of that culture, may be "equal" but it is not fair, nor right.

When the laws are made, you will be equal with your Jewish counterpart, but it will be your Jewish counterpart who decides the rules, and you will live by them.

The claim of Equality masks the real point, Jewish control of the land and state.

If Muslims came to America and instated Sharia Law, they would apply it equally to all, but that doesn't make it right. In our eyes it would be oppression, in their eyes, righteous.

There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

Now on ATS I have seen many claims about how this is a war of self-defense. When I read the views of this very influential Zionist, he is rather open about just how non-defensive it really is. He openly talks about converting Palestine. When you talk about the forceful conversion of a country from their way of life to yours, it is no longer a defensive battle.

My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

As any good journalist, he has a way of twisting words, and sentences, to make it seem as though what he is saying, not only makes sense, but is right.

What he said though, was he acknowledges that NEVER has colonization EVER taken place, where the native population gave consent for the colonization. This means that from the start, he never expected the Arabs to peacefully accept the colonization, just like history has proven time and time again.

That can only mean he has anticipated the violence that would come. When somebody anticipates violence just to engage in violence of their own, that is not defense, that is manipulation. Pushing somebody in a corner, then starving them till they try to push you out of the way, is not them being violent toward you, its provocation of violence.

Everything this prominent Zionist at the time is stating shows that violence from the Arab population was expected, and that colonization of Palestine will happen, with or without consent. Doesn't sound like self defense.

And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.

This is where the propaganda really started pumping. He outright lies about the intent and actions of previous colonizers. Very often, they were NOT moral people, and took every opportunity they could to exploit the native people. In fact, they almost immediately started enslavement of the natives, in most aspects. The intent was to take the land, by manipulation, and if that failed, by force.

In his references to the native Americans, he tries to paint them out to be stubborn, violent, and unreasonable attackers of these morally right colonizers.

You can clearly see he is now attempting to manipulate his readers by comparing it to history he has taken the liberty to rewrite as he saw fit.

Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want.

Read this carefully. Its intent should speak for itself. It says, don't sugar coat our intent, they know what we want. What do they want? Control of land and state.

It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."

He again acknowledges that Palestinians will fight them on colonization, therefore violence had been expected.

There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding".

Here is another bombshell in disguise. He says, by there being a majority, the Jewish government comes automatically. He openly admits they want a Jewish rule of state. He also admits he understands that they don't want to be the minority, but obviously, does not care (indifferent).

Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

Obviously, he is not for Zionism to stop. Which means that he is okay with disregarding the native population to proceed. Not only that, but with force.

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

Note the last part. Law is based on morality 99% of the time. In a Jewish land, it will be based on Jewish morality. This issue is obvious.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:52 PM

In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.

And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.

His intent is disguised in words like peace, and extremist leaders. He wants to break them, and when they have broken, have them agree to Zionism, a Zionist government, run by a Zionist regime.
Again, his only concern is complete Jewish control over land and state, disregarding the native population.

This article can be obtained at:
The Jabotinsky Institute in Israel.

Part Two: Irgun

Now that you know about Jabotinsky, and his views about the Zionist movement, the native population, and his intent, let us move on to Irgun.
Irgun was a militant Zionist group founded and lead by Jabotinsky. They were described as a terrorist organization by the New York Time and The Times, in London. They were responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, and the Deir Yassin Massacre, in 1948.
The King David Hotel bombing led to the deaths of 91 people, and 46 injuries. The hotel was being used by the British Mandatory Authorities of Palestine.

The Deir Yassin Massacre left at least 107 people dead. This act was done as a counter attack to the Jews killed during the great uprising between 1936-1939 which Arab’s killed possibly 350 or more Jewish people (unconfirmed amount). Irgun, along with Lehi, another Militant Zionist group, were attacking to attempt to remove Britain from Palestine. Additional information about the Deir Yassin Massacre and the King David Hotel Bombing is widely available, I encourage anyone interested to further investigate on their own.

Irgun, which was led by Jabotinsky, carried out many smaller attacks over the course of 1920-1948. In the 1940’s, Irgun started launching most their attacks against the British. They demanded that the British leave and transfer rule to a Jewish government. Other groups later aided in illegal immigration and attacks. Groups such as Lehi and Haganah (a Leftist Zionist group) were part of these efforts.

In 1947, the British finally gave up on trying to mediate the Zionist movement and the Arab natives, thus handing the issue over to the UN. During the transition, Britain was placing illegal immigrants, mostly Jewish, in detention camps in Cyprus. This led to more attacks on the British.
In 1948, while the UN was debating whether or not to end the Mandate and create a Jewish state, the attacks from Lehi and Irgun stopped. When the UN came to their decision to create two states, the attacks started again. Arabs also began attacks.

Haganah which had attempted to keep a defensive policy, abandon such an idea after the Convoy of 35 incident in which 35 Haganah troops were killed. They were quoted saying, “Distinguishing between individuals is longer possible, for now - it is a war, and the even the innocent shall not be absolved.” according to Netanel Lorech, Events of the War of Independence, Massada Publishing, 1958.

The attacks from both sides continued.

Part Three: Herut and Likud Party

Herut was formed by, Menachem Begin, the successor to Irgun in 1940. Jabotinsky died in 1940 and Begin was his political successor. After Israel was established, during the first national election, Herut won 14 seats. This made it the Fourth largest party in the Knesset, the Israeli Legislature. It was very right wing, and wanted to acquire the West Bank feverishly. In 1951 there seats dropped to 8, but in 1955 they hit 15 seats and were the second biggest party in the Knesset. They maintained 17 seats in the 1961 elections. They joined with the Liberal Party, consisting of the General Zionist Party and the Progressive Party, to form Gahal, meaning Herut-Liberal Bloc. In the 1970’s Gahal merged with Free Centre, National List, and a non legislative party called Movement for Greater Israel, to form Likud.

Keep in mind, all of these parties kept their independent names. It is like the United States. All the states keep their own name but they are all part of the United States. This was the same for Likud. They all kept their separate names, but they were all part of Likud. Herut was a major part of the Likud. In the 1977 election, Likud caused the right to win the elections. Begin became prime minister of Israel. He retained this post till 1983 when he stood down, and Yitzhak Shamir took control of Herut, thus Likud.
In 1988 the party dissolved the independent parties and became one unitary party. The party dominated Israeli politics for the most part until recent times. In 2003 the party started to fall apart when Ariel Stone made multiple controversial decisions. His plan to withdraw troops and settlers from the Gaza strip was called “defeatist”.

In short, the militant Zionist groups of the 1920-1940’s are the same groups who dominated politics in the Israeli government for the past 50 years. Begin, the leader of Irgun from 1940-1948(during many of the British attacks, such as the King David Hotel Bombing) became Prime Minister of Israel. The Israel government, as a result, was run by the same terrorist militants that killed many innocent people.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:52 PM

Part Four: Israel-Palestine Conflict Today

The Attacks that occur now are a result of decades of attacks from both sides. The revisionist Zionists of the 1920’s and after engaged in countless terrorist attacks, in the name of defense. Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of Irgun, which became one of the key political groups of the Israeli government, is who that article is from at the beginning of this article. After reading his words and intent, and the actions of him, Begin, and others, the truth should be evident.

This is not a war of self defense; this is a war for land. This is a war which revisionist Zionist fully intends to take the land they deem is theirs, at whatever cost. Innocent life on the Palestinian side is disregarded.
The conflict hasn’t changed much dynamically from the 1920’s through 1940’s to today. They are still fighting the same war. Palestine natives still want the land back, and the Zionist still want the Zionist dream fulfilled.

Part Five: ATS, Israel, and Palestine

ATS Israeli Supporters: This is not a defensive war. Israel isn’t defending its land. I don’t want to hear about how, “Israel won the land in the war” because the war never really ended. People are still dying everyday. Fighting still goes on all the time and rockets still fly over the boarders. Israel is still forcefully defending the land that it colonized decades ago. The land it colonized doesn’t come without a fight, the revisionist Zionists knew this and still know this. The land isn’t theirs until the Palestinians give it up, and those aren’t my words, those are Jabotinskys’ words. He said it himself,

“…it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.

And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.”

Those were his words. He acknowledged that the fighting will never stop until this happens. He acknowledged that Zionism has not been completed until this happens. Until Palestine gives up their right to the land, Zionist will continue to fight with the native Palestinians. When the Palestinians stop fighting, that’s when the Zionists agree that they have unilaterally won.

You may not like it, but that is the honest truth of the manner. It is from the Zionists mouths. That is their intent, not as I see it, but as it was stated.

ATS Palestine Supporters: Stop supporting the slaughter of innocents. I will not condone the killing of Israeli army men, but if war is what you want, then stop supporting the killing of innocent people. It is not their fault that they are in the positions they are in. Many of them didn’t choose to live there. Many of them may have had nowhere else to go, nowhere else that wanted them. Killing innocent people isn’t fighting a war, its losing morality.

When you stop killing innocent people, people will be forced to face the situation in a new light. Until then, they are just terrorists, and you are just terrorist supporters.

Furthermore, Zionism is not wrong. Wanting a national homeland for the Jewish people also isn’t wrong. If your issue is with Zionism, then it pretty obvious you don’t really support Palestine and Palestinians, you just support whoever fights the Jewish state, and that just makes you a bigot.

ATS Innocent Supporters: Flag it, star it, send it, maybe people will start to realize many of the people dying aren’t terrorists, Zionists, or extremists, they are innocents caught in the line of fire. Revisionist Zionism is an Invasion, Extremists attacking innocents is Terrorism, and innocent people dying over somebody else’s beliefs are unacceptable.


posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 10:54 PM
I doubt many will read it because it is too long, but hopefully a couple people might take the time and maybe learn something from it.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 11:45 PM
Great read, in an earlier thread I used the word complex to describe the foundation of Zionism and how it interrelates to the situation today, this is a good proof of that, thanks for finding this and breaking it down, there were some videos on youtube at one point that detail the whole mess.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:56 AM
Appreciate it. I don't expect this thread to get much buzz, but it was worth it none the less. Ill just link it every time somebody says "Israel is just fighting in self defense..." or "You don't think Israel should exist?"

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:57 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by dooper

Perhaps the most intelligent and source backed reply ATS has ever been blessed with.

You didn't even formulate an argument. The letter Jabotinsky wrote is well documented. The bombing of King David Hotel, Deir Yassin Massacre, etc. It was all well documented.

You take denial to a whole new level with that last post.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 02:50 AM
Interesting read. You're right. It is way toooooooo long. But well researched.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 03:00 AM
There really wasn't any way to make it any shorter. The history is very complex and I cut a great deal out of my first two drafts of what I wrote just to get it down to 3 posts.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 05:28 AM
This is self defense... Hamas fires over 3,000 rockets a year, Israel gets tired of it and goes after Hamas. Note that the West Bank, also Palestinian but NOT ruled by Hamas is left alone. Also, too base what Israel does today by what some one wrote in a letter decades ago... Need I remind you that Germany had a leader with a very interesting book... It doesn't mean modern Germany is lead in the same way, or for the same goal. But this post is very interesting and will go read the other one you made now.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by GamerGal

This is self defense... Hamas fires over 3,000 rockets a year, Israel gets tired of it and goes after Hamas.

Here's some facts.

Children Deaths in last 10 years
Palestinian = over 1000
Israeli = about 120

So far no Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians
However, over 18,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israelis since 1967.

Since 2000, Over 40,000 Palestinians and under 10,000 Israelis have been injured

I can't find a number for the amount of rockets that have been fired at Palestinians. The number must be too big to count. Regardless of numbers, i'm sure that each of of Israels missiles are powerful and big enough and advanced enough to cause 100 times the damage a rocket from Hamas can cause.

Now obviously, Israel is defending itself.... but not from Hamas, but rather for their own actions.... too bad no one is buying it.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:59 AM
reply to post by GamerGal

You seem to be confused. Grimreaper has puit together an excellent thread on the history of Israel, Zionism, the background of the ruling elite and their intentions, yet you still bleat on about Hamas rockets as if Israel had done nothing to provoke them in the first place!

How would you feel if a group of people decided they wanted the land you lived on because it was promised to them is some dusty tome from millenia ago by a God made up by illiterate nomads?

How would you feel if you and your family had been evicted from your home where they had lived for generations by colonisers from another continent, in order to make room for more colonists?

How would you feel if even though the UN had guaranteed you a share of the land to be divided, the colonisers took even more off you, surrounded you with a wall, stopped food and other necessities entering until you capitulated into given the colonisers whatever they asked for?

This isn't self defence, this is neo-colonialism. We Brits know colonialism when we see it, we were the best at it in the world.....

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 09:28 AM
It is very very very interesting to link this thread with the below Ron Paul video.

He mentions this Likud Party

It seems that neoconservatism seems awfully similar to being a medium to further Zionism does it not?

What are your thoughts on this?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by ModernAcademia]

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by stumason

First, West Bank proves everything anti Israel wrong. If they were just out to kill Palestinians they would attack there to. Also, Israel can't seal the border as part of the Gaza border is along Egypt. But Egypt seald it off because of Hamas, just like Israel.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by GamerGal

Honestly, if you aren't going to read the post, don't hit the respond button. You didn't address anything that was stated in this thread, and from what I can tell from you post right here, you are just regurgitating your preconceived notions.

Seriously, to come into this thread, not read a word, then make a post like yours, is completely insulting to the hours I spent researching the thread.

You completely ignore the decades of history posted and go right back to the poor argument. "Hamas fired rockets into Israel" like that whole thing started when Hamas started attacking Israel.

Are these the argument Israeli supporters want representing their side of the story? So far you had one which was deleted because it failed to address anything, then this one. This one literally ignored the entire post, and just repeats what she has been saying for as long as I can remember her being here.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by GamerGal

First, West Bank proves everything anti Israel wrong. If they were just out to kill Palestinians they would attack there to. Also, Israel can't seal the border as part of the Gaza border is along Egypt. But Egypt seald it off because of Hamas, just like Israel.

Wow, I am so insulted by you coming into this thread, and making these kind of posts. They directly contradict my post on multiple levels. Seriously, I am not going to argue with somebody who didn't read the original posts.

My entire argument is in the 3 posts this thread was started with, the ones you ignored so you could start your ridiculous talking points.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by GamerGal

The point of the thread is demonstrating that the Israeli's will do what it takes to secure their "homeland", with the end game not to kill off the Palestinians, but to completely crush their will to fight in order to have Zionist demands met.

West bank is sealed off and under Israeli domination, any opposition their has been suppressed and Fatah have lost the will to fight and have become subservient to the Israeli's, hence why the West Bank is not being attacked.

Also, Fatah are not the elected Government, they seized power off Hamas with tacit Israeli approval a couple of years back, remember. Fatah are Israeli stooges.

Gaza, on the other hand, as you have stated is not sealed off. They still have a glimmer of hope as they can get weapons and outside assistance, hence they continue to fight, ergo why Israel continues to refuse to recognise the elected Government of the PA (that is both West bank and Gaza) and seeks to destroy it.

Your arguments do not even attempt to address the history, you just regurgitate the party line of "Hamas attacked first", without even considering the history. That is woefully ignorant of the facts at hand.

You also ignored the questions I asked about how you would feel and react in the same situation. Is it because you know you would behave in the same way? I know I would if some foreigners came and decided to take over England, evict the entire population into Scotland and then built a wall. I'd fight the buggers to the death.

[edit on 17/1/09 by stumason]

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by stumason

You might as well give up debating her. She doesn't really read, she just comes in and spews her same old BS. Both threads I made, full of research and fact, and she just ignores it completely and posts her same old babble.

SO moving on, does anyone care to address the facts, and discuss thread topic, or should just go into a "HAMAS ARE EVILZZZZ!!!11!!!ONE!!EVELEN!!" Because that is about as intelligent as a counter argument as I have seen thus far.

posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 01:34 PM

The state.... must see the sword as the main if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no it MUST invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.

-From the diary of Moshe Sharret (Israel's Foreign Minister 1948-1956, Prime Minister 1954-1956), quoting Army Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan, May, 1955

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in