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
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
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
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
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
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.