This article is a response to the analysis “Israel and the Shia Threat” written by Dennis M. Nilsen
A military truck carrying a missile and a picture of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is seen during a parade marking the anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), in Tehran September 22, 2015. Raheb Homavandi/Reuters
Written by Hadi Gholami Nohouji exclusively for SouthFront
Upon reading this piece which has as its main objective identify the rationale behind the increasing hostility of the Israeli leadership towards the Shia in comparison with the Sunni, I think it is necessary to make a few points about some of the issues in this article.
As an Iranian national and journalist I try to be as unbiased as possible and, to be honest, I did find the overall majority of the points in this article to be true and the analyst’s insight and information about the issues engaged are superb and nearly complete. Still, we all tend to be a little biased when expressing ourselves and in this case I believe this has also happened (I invite the author to challenge this thought if believes that I am in the wrong).
The first point is that although the Iranian is overtly hostile to Israel its hostility has not been translated directly into action and there haven’t been any direct actions on behalf of Iran against Israel. Many could point to the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires but it is important to remind them of the fact that the allegations are many and the concrete evidence of Iran having a hand in that are none.
Nevertheless Israeli hostility towards Iran has been translated into action as there are evidences pointing that Mossad was involved in the assassination of Iranian scientists from 2010 to 2012 while Tel Aviv Wikileaks confirmed in 2012 that part of Iran’s nuclear installations were destroyed or sabotaged by Israel and kurds.
Another thing to remember is that the Israeli leadership probably is aware of the fact that Iran, even if it were to attain nuclear weapons (which the JCPOA now ensures it won’t), will never launch a unilateral nuclear strike against Israel or any other country the simple reason being that in doing so Tehran would ensure its own destruction, which renders much of the rationale in favor of the isolation of Iran unsustainable (also it is important to take into account that Tel Aviv itself has an ample nuclear arsenal and doesn’t even allow inspections of its sites).
Surprisingly many analysts still have the mentality that acquiring a nuke is synonym to using it while they ignore that the use of a single nuke by Iran would assure international response against Tehran and would pave the way for the use of the same kind of weaponry on Iranian soil.
Another one of the important facts ignored in the text is the fact that the Muslims and Jews were living in harmony and without much problems in Jerusalem and the land of Palestine or Israel until late 1880s when the Jewish population of Europe and to some degree Middle East began to more actively discuss the prospects of a possible return to the land of Palestine which was largely as a solution to the widespread persecution of Jews, and anti-Semitism in Russia and Europe.
This and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (with ample British support) and the subsequent annexes of territories were the major reasons for which we are facing this Arab-Israeli crisis of today (for sure the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states themselves aren’t any less innocent in this issue).
That is why I think that Iran, itself victim of the Great Britain’s interventions in its own political issues (the Coup against the first democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953 in favor of a later on dictatorial dynasty), is much more sensitive to what identifies (correctly or mistakenly) as British plans to take over Middle East and control its resources which would explain the hostility towards Israel.
Also one should not forget that Israel was one of the major backers of the Pahlavi Dynasty that deprived the Iranian population of the much needed political and individual freedoms following the coup in 1953 and ended the country’s short lived first experience of a democratic system.
Still, it is true that religion plays a big part in the hostility of the Iranian leadership towards Israel but ignoring the other facts and variables that influence this attitude is a mistake that limits and does not show the big complete picture.
The last point that I do think that needs to be addressed is the fact that there has been talk about the vela-ye faqih at least since the 10th century CE, when Al-Shaykh Al-Mufid first talked about the “Limited Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist”, a limited version of what is actually being implemented in Iran.
Also, I have to remind the fact that the actual Vali-ye-faqih in Iran, Seyed Ali Khamenei, is supervised by the Assembly of Experts which means that the Vali-ye-faqih’s power is regulated through this council.
I do believe that even with all the problems and hostile rhetoric among Iran and Israel in the long run and if Tel Aviv ceases its occupation of the Palestinian land and ends discrimination against the Palestinians, then Tehran will have little reason to keep up its hostile rhetoric and there could be a de-escalation of tensions.
Israel benefits when their enemies are rash and act uncivilized, so they can crush their enemies and point to how barbaric the enemy is. When players like Iran arrive, calm, but eyes on the target, they (Israel) freak out, as a key part of their “defence” policy, savagry of the enemy, has been cut out.
There is no Shia threat to anyone. Shia are friendly to all, and their Jewish population has it made in the shade. But their is a Zionist-Jewish threat to all Goyim’s who do not become willing slaves to Ashkenazi-Jews who descended from Northern-Turkey.
Jews are waging open war against all Monotheist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR7MijNk45w
Fuck off. Bashing Jews because they were born that way plays into Zionist hands. “Real Anti-Racist”, my ass.
Judaism is a religion and not something you inherit by blood and why the words were spoken “they can speak the words but they can’t hear them” , You can’t be born this or that but you have to choose to be devout ,if you are not then you are not a follower.
Whatevs. It’s a religion. It’s a toothpaste. If your parents say you’re a Jew, you’re a Jew, and that’s all that matters to these so-called Real anti-Racists.
http://i.imgur.com/H4SIe7D.jpg
I believe people dont like zionists.i have jewish doc jewish teachers jewish colleague but they do not have power in neocon party or israel.so i have no problem with them.
Yes i know israel has many decent jews but they are not in power.it is the political elite of both parties in israel that is so pernicious and that is what most non jews fear and despise.
no he is not bashing all Jews
Then let him say so. I’m saying he’s a fucking Nazi if he doesn’t.
The fact that you used the “N” word tells me you are one of these European Jews who think they are superior to the rest of humanity.
So mwhy are You not president of USA or has taken over after Arnold,?
I have no time to read silly comments – BLOCKED!
Man, what a snappy intelligent reply.
Typical zionist self defense reaction when they have cornered. Hey believe me, your tactics isn’t working anymore, everywhere. Stick to the points, the criminals is ZIONIST, no matter Jew or Christian, or Moslem(Saudi and ISIS). But in facts and realities, majority jews support zionism.
That’s more or less what I said. Dope.
http://i.imgur.com/1oQNhDR.png
“Jews because they were born that way”
Which were “Jew” born?
95% of Jews worldwide supported the Gaza assault of 2009 and 2014. Ask me for evidence.
Why is the Ashkenazi not on his grandma’s land of Lithuania, Hungary, Germany? How are these Europeans connected to our region?
Harry Katz DNA
99.9% European
0% Middle Eastern
https://ancestry.com/dna/ethnicity/E59C79DB-8EFC-4051-9878-5E78B6DFE86D/share/e3f7a96f-3e0f-4aa2-8b42-6a50874ce6f8/9cc5e907-5c6c-4572-95f2-1992625918dc
seen 4565456546 x 5676567 times.
“I do believe that even with all the problems and hostile rhetoric among Iran and Israel in the long run and if Tel Aviv ceases its occupation of the Palestinian land and ends discrimination against the Palestinians, then Teheran will have little reason to keep up its hostile rhetoric and there could be a de-escalation of tensions.”
——————-
Well…. yes. But that’s the heart of the problem isn’t it?
Israel will have to behave like an ordinary decent country made up of ordinary decent people instead of the …. extra-special ‘Chosens’ they think is a license to do what they please to whom they please wherever they please. Including state murder.
Both of these articles are blame shifting exercises away from the Jews and against the Arabs attempting to exonerate the Jews because “it’s the Arabs fault”.
From the above article, which is basically saying that the Arabs are half to blame:
“This and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 (with ample British support) and the subsequent annexes of territories were the major reasons for which we are facing this Arab-Israeli crisis of today (for sure the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states themselves aren’t any less innocent in this issue).”
A lot of people don’t see it that way. Many of whom like myself aren’t Arabs. Which is why the ratio of resolutions against Israel compared to Palestine is literally 100 to 1. The entire history of Zionism is an international crime spree by the Jews against the Palestinians and the region. The governments of the world have been aware for over 100 years what the criminal nature of Zionism is. Trying to blame the Arabs for Jew crime is like trying to blame the rape victim for getting raped:
“The King–Crane Commission, officially called the 1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, was a Commission of Enquiry concerning the disposition of non-Turkish areas within the former Ottoman Empire. It began as an outgrowth of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference to be led by French, British, Italian and American representatives, and ended as an official investigation solely by the United States government, after the other countries withdrew to avoid the risk of being “confronted by recommendations from their own appointed delegates which might conflict with their policies” …
The commission found that “Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase”.[16] Nearly 90% of the Palestinian population was emphatically against the entire Zionist program.[16]
The report noted that there is a principle that the wishes of the local population must be taken into account and that there is widespread anti-Zionist feeling in Palestine and Syria, and the holy nature of the land to Christians and Moslems as well as Jews must preclude solely Jewish dominion. It also noted that Jews at that time comprised only 10% of the population of Palestine.[2]
The Commission Report was skeptical of the viability of a Jewish state in “Syria”. The logic of the Commission went along the lines that the first principle to be respected must be self-determination. It pointed out that a majority of “Syrians” were against the formation of a Jewish state. It concluded that the only way to establish a viable Jewish state would be with armed force to enforce it. This was precisely what the Commission wanted to avoid, so they dismissed the idea, saying that Zionists anticipated “a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants to Palestine, by various forms of purchase”. That said, there would be nothing wrong with Jews coming to “Israel” and simply living as Jewish Syrian citizens, but noted “nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. The latter statement was based on the assumption that an army of at least 50,000 would be required to establish Jewish ownership by force.[16] In respect to the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, the report cautioned “Not only you as president but the American people as a whole should realize that if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.””
King–Crane Commission – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Crane_Commission
Dear editor:
I am new to your blog and have not yet determined what your ideology is. But I have to ask you why such a poorly written article made it to your website. Do you not have enough people who can catch the grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors that this article is riddled with? If one does not have a good command of the English language, then one must not be writing in English – period. In addition, the person made many blunders making statements that have no historical value – which I will get into shortly. If anyone has a problem figuring out what the errors are in the list below, please ask me.
1 As a Iranian national and journalist
2 The first point is that although the Iranian is overtly hostile to Israel its hostility has not been
3 here haven’t been any direct actions on behalf of Iran against Israel
4 action as there are evidences
5 Israel and kurds.
6 Teheran (3 times)
7 Tel Aviv itself has an ample nuclear arsenal
8 and the subsequent annexes of territories
9 That is why I think that Iran, itself victim of the Great Britain’s
10 (the Coup against
11 as British plans to take over Middle East
12 Pahlavi Dynasty
13 The last point that I do think that needs to be addressed
14 vela-ye faqih
15 Also, I have to remind the fact that
16 I do believe that even with all the problems and hostile rhetoric among Iran and Israel
Dear editor:
Helen4yemen, is supporting the Houthi killers in Yemen who slaughter those days thousands of innocent children and women.
She supports Jihad terrorist activities and is a racist who hates Jews.
I would block her as other sites did, as she pollutes sites with her Racist Jihad propaganda.
“increasing hostility of the Israeli leadership towards the Shia in comparison with the Sunni”
This writer needs to read the “Oded Yinon Plan”, a document that was written in 1982 but still valid today. The predatory colonial settlers do not care if one is Sunni or Shia but who poses more of a threat at any particular time. Did they demolish Iraq because it was Sunni or Shia?
The Oded Yinon Plan (In my lifetime, I probably read it more than 50 times)
1- The Arab world is too fractured to pose a threat to the Jews in Palestine
The Arab Moslem world, therefore, is not the major strategic problem which we shall face in the Eighties, despite the fact that it carries the main threat against Israel, due to its growing military might. This world, with its ethnic minorities, its factions and internal crises, which is astonishingly self-destructive, as we can see in Lebanon, in non-Arab Iran and now also in Syria, is unable to deal successfully with its fundamental problems and does not therefore constitute a real threat against the State of Israel in the long run, but only in the short run where its immediate military power has great import. In the long run, this world will be unable to exist within its present framework in the areas around us without having to go through genuine revolutionary changes.
2- The Arab world is made up of ethnic groups hostile to one another
The Moslem Arab World is built like a temporary house of cards put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the Nineteen Twenties), without the wishes and desires of the inhabitants having been taken into account. It was arbitrarily divided into 19 states, all made of combinations of minorities and ethnic groups which are hostile to one another, so that every Arab Moslem state nowadays faces ethnic social destruction from within, and in some a civil war is already raging.
3- Algeria, Morocco,Tunisia are made up of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers
Apart from Egypt, all the Maghreb states are made up of a mixture of Arabs and non-Arab Berbers. In Algeria there is already a civil war raging in the Kabile mountains between the two nations in the country. Morocco and Algeria are at war with each other over Spanish Sahara, in addition to the internal struggle in each of them. Militant Islam endangers the integrity of Tunisia and Qaddafi organizes wars which are destructive from the Arab point of view, from a country which is sparsely populated and which cannot become a powerful nation. That is why he has been attempting unifications in the past with states that are more genuine, like Egypt and Syria.
4- Sudan is made up of four groups hostile to one another
Sudan, the most torn apart state in the Arab Moslem world today is built upon four groups hostile to each other, an Arab Moslem Sunni minority which rules over a majority of non-Arab Africans, Pagans, and Christians.
5- Egypt: Christian minority may want a state of their own
In Egypt there is a Sunni Moslem majority facing a large minority of Christians which is dominant in upper Egypt: some 7 million of them, so that even Sadat, in his speech on May 8, expressed the fear that they will want a state of their own, something like a “second” Christian Lebanon in Egypt.
6- Syria: Shia minority ruling over majority Sunni
Syria is fundamentally no different from Lebanon except in the strong military regime which rules it. But the real civil war taking place nowadays between the Sunni majority and the Shi’ite Alawi ruling minority (a mere 12% of the population) testifies to the severity of the domestic trouble.
7- Iraq: Sunni minority ruling over Shia majority – Kurdish minority will make it easy to break it up
Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shi’ites in Iraq view as their natural leader.
8- Bahrain, UAE, Oman: Sunni minority rules over Shia majority, Kuwait: 75% foreign, Saudi Arabia: 50% foreign
All the Gulf principalities and Saudi Arabia are built upon a delicate house of sand in which there is only oil. In Kuwait, the Kuwaitis constitute only a quarter of the population. In Bahrain, the Shi’ites are the majority but are deprived of power. In the UAE, Shi’ites are once again the majority but the Sunnis are in power. The same is true of Oman and North Yemen. Even in the Marxist South Yemen there is a sizable Shi’ite minority. In Saudi Arabia half the population is foreign, Egyptian and Yemenite, but a Saudi minority holds power.
9- Jordan: Palestinian majority ruled by Bedouin minority
Jordan is in reality Palestinian, ruled by a Trans-Jordanian Bedouin minority, but most of the army and certainly the bureaucracy is now Palestinian. As a matter of fact Amman is as Palestinian as Nablus.
10- Syrian army is Sunni, commander Shia; Iraqi army is Shia ruled by Sunni
All of these countries have powerful armies, relatively speaking. But there is a problem there too. The Syrian army today is mostly Sunni with an Alawi officer corps, the Iraqi army Shi’ite with Sunni commanders. This has great significance in the long run, and that is why it will not be possible to retain the loyalty of the army for a long time except where it comes to the only common denominator: The hostility towards Israel, and today even that is insufficient.
11- Iran is composed of Sunni, Shia Alawis, Sunni Kurds, it faces Ethnic and religious tension,
Half of Iran’s population is comprised of a Persian speaking group and the other half of an ethnically Turkish group. Turkey’s population comprises a Turkish Sunni Moslem majority, some 50%, and two large minorities, 12 million Shi’ite Alawis and 6 million Sunni Kurds.
12- Afghanistan: 33% Shia, 67% Sunni
In Afghanistan there are 5 million Shi’ites who constitute one third of the population.
13- Pakistan: 15 million Shia (1982 figures)
In Sunni Pakistan there are 15 million Shi’ites who endanger the existence of that state.
14- The Muslim world made up of ethnic minorities is like a house of cards
This national ethnic minority picture extending from Morocco to India and from Somalia to Turkey points to the absence of stability and a rapid degeneration in the entire region. When this picture is added to the economic one, we see how the entire region is built like a house of cards, unable to withstand its severe problems.
15- Jews should have given Jordan to Palestinians and removed them from Palestine
We could have saved ourselves all the bitter and dangerous conflict since then if we had given Jordan to the Palestinians who live west of the Jordan river. By doing that we would have neutralized the Palestinian problem which we nowadays face, and to which we have found solutions that are really no solutions at all, such as territorial compromise or autonomy which amount, in fact, to the same thing. Today, we suddenly face immense opportunities for transforming the situation thoroughly and this we must do in the coming decade, otherwise we shall not survive as a state.
16- Jews should never have lost the Sinai peninsula
The loss of the Suez Canal oil fields, of the immense potential of the oil, gas and other natural resources in the Sinai peninsula which is geomorphologically identical to the rich oil-producing countries in the region, will result in an energy drain in the near future and will destroy our domestic economy: one quarter of our present GNP as well as one third of the budget is used for the purchase of oil. The search for raw materials in the Negev and on the coast will not, in the near future, serve to alter that state of affairs. (Regaining) the Sinai peninsula with its present and potential resources is therefore a political priority which is obstructed by the Camp David and the peace agreements. The fault for that lies of course with the present Israeli government and the governments which paved the road to the policy of territorial compromise, the Alignment governments since 1967.
17- Hoping for Egypt to give Israel the excuse to start a war and take back Sinai.
Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.
18- How to break up Egypt
Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front. Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.
19- Break up Lebanon into five provinces
Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track.
20- How to break up Syria and Iraq into ethnic and religious components
The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
21- How to break up Iraq along ethnic/religious lines
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.
22- How to break up Saudi Arabia
The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.
23- Transfer power in Jordan from the King to Palestinians
Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run. There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority.
24- Change the regime in Jordan and expel Palestinians from Palestine to Jordan
Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigration from the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future.
25- Jews must remove all Palestinians and send them to Jordan
The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river.
26- Palestinians must understand that Jews must rule over all Palestine-and they need to move to Jordan
Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.
27- Palestinians consider all of Palestine stolen irrespective of 1948 or 1967 and Jews consider all of Palestine theirs – even beyond Jordan River
Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or military constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter.
28- The West Bank must be populated with Jews or else Jews will be defeated like crusaders.
Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today.
29- No force can remove the Jews from Palestine
Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.
“Another one of the important facts ignored in the text is the fact that the Muslims and Jews were living in harmony and without much problems in Jerusalem and the land of Palestine or Israel until late 1880s”
____________
For over a thousand years, there were no Jews living in Palestine
In 1882 when European Jewry arrived in Palestine as Zionist
colonial settlers, they found:
• 400,000 Arabic-speaking indigenous Palestinian Muslims (78%)
• 40,000 Arabic-speaking indigenous Palestinian Christians (6%)
•15,000 YIDDISH-SPEAKING European Jews (3%)
All the 15,000 Jews were Yiddish-speaking migrants from
Eastern Europe who had arrived in the 1830’s and 1840’s to live
on Halukka (charity) sent them to from abroad. Make no mistake
about it that these indigent Jews of Eastern Europe were sent to
plant the seed for Jewish presence on that land before the
stampede to colonize the land would begin by European Jewry.
_____________________
” Muslims and Jews”
This man should never be allowed to write again because in 1882, there were 40,000 native Palestinian Christians and he seems not to remember that they even exist and he is mentioning Yiddish-speaking European Jews who arrived for the first time in the 1830’s and 1840’s and who were sent to live on charity called “haluka” which was a Zionist scheme to send Europe’s indigent Jews to Palestine as a way to start planting the seeds of Jewish presence ahead of the stampede that was to follow.
“In 1920, the British Government’s Interim Report on
the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there
were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine. The
Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.
Almost all have entered Palestine during the last
40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only
a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few
hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were
animated by religious motives; they came to pray and
to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil.
After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the
movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger
proportions.”
https://en.wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
“Between 1856 and 1880, Jewish immigration to
Palestine more than doubled, with the majority settling
in Jerusalem. The majority of these immigrants were
Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, who subsisted on
Halukka (charity).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusalem
“when the Jewish population of Europe and to some degree Middle East began to more actively discuss the prospects of a possible return to the land of Palestine which was largely as a solution to the widespread persecution of Jews, and anti-Semitism in Russia and Europe.”
_______________
This is not even a coherent statement but I get the gist of it. So many things are wrong with this statement:
a) The Ashkenazi who make up 95% of world Jewry are totally a European people with confirmed DNA of 99.9% European. The Ashkenazi are like the Eskimos, in that the Eskimos and the Ashkenazi have ZERO% Middle East ancestry. How does the Ashkenazi “return” to Palestine when it is not his ancestral land?
b) Why would the people of the Middle East discuss the colonization of their land with alien European Jewry? It is like the Algerians discussing with the French how to get Algeria colonized.
c) I am Middle Eastern. Why is it my business if one group of white Europeans – the Christians – did not get along with another white Europeans – the Ashkenazi? The Rohinga Muslims are facing genocide. Is the UN going to assemble to demand that Norway to partition itself for the sake of the Rohingas?
” (for sure the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states
themselves aren’t any less innocent in this issue).”
__________
You want the Arabs perhaps to wake up everyday and prepare
falafel for the Ashkenazi and to re-assure them that
it is OK for a foreign people to seize Arab land by force? What
is wrong with this person’s logic?
“Still, it is true that religion plays a big part in the hostility of the Iranian leadership towards Israel ”
100% rubbish! The Iranian government never attacked anyone unless attacked first.
There is no history of Iran ever discriminating against its Jews now numbering 9,000.
The conflict has nothing to do with religion, otherwise, the Algerians resented the French
because they were Christian? Makes no sense at all. The Arabs are resisting the insertion
of a deadly foreign enemy on their land – and had this inserted enemy been the Hindus or
Zulus would not make a difference.
A very balanced and rational piece.