ISM Fisking of the Day

I have noticed a considerable drop in site traffic over the past month or so. While it has left me scratching my head – after all, post frequency has not dropped, and I have brought on board some interesting and talented bloggers to contribute – I can only conclude that the reason for this drop is the absence of ISM posts!

Well, consider the drought ended.

I visited that wretched hive of scum and villainy today. Well, their website at least. And I came across this little gem.

PSL: On the International Day of Solidarity with Palestine, we remember the Nakba

Before I go on, I would like to remind you what the ISM says they are:

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles.

The ISM commemoration of the Nakba is a clear indication of what they consider to be the “occupation of palestinian land” – the Jewish presence in the entire State of Israel, and not just the territories acquired in 1967. Not that they haven’t made this patently obvious in other ways.

Palestinian right of return still a fundamental demand

The struggle in Palestine can be complex and confusing even for the closest of observers.

Like all great struggles, it has had many twists and turns, and will have many more. But the root cause of the conflict— the forcible expulsion of a people from their homeland—is neither ambiguous nor confusing. Sixty years ago, this is precisely what happened to the Palestinians in “The Catastrophe,” known as “Al-Nakba” in Arabic.

Actually, this is precisely what did not happen sixty years ago. What did happen is that the Arabs rejected the partition plan since it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and the reality of Arabs living under “Jewish control.”

Al-Nakba, one of the key events in modern Middle Eastern history, began on Nov. 29, 1947. That day, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181 to partition the British Mandate (colony) of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The United Nations made this decisive step without consulting the Palestinian Arabs, who at the time comprised two-thirds of the population.

Most of the Jewish population was made up of settlers who had arrived in the previous three decades, mainly from Europe. More than 100,000 were survivors of the Nazi genocide.

Notice how the ISM are using the “settler” terminology to undermine the rights of Jews living in the land pre-1948! Also, what they are not mentioning is the fact that the Arab population also grew considerably (120%) in the previous three decades, thanks to immigration from neighboring states (due to the improved living conditions resulting from the Jewish work on the land). Yet the ISM does not refer to these Arabs as “settlers,” but rather “refugees.”

While the U.S. and British imperialists had done little before or during World War II to aid the Jewish victims of fascism, they used the horrors of Hitler’s death camps to rally support for the establishment of the state of Israel after the war.

The Palestinians—who had had nothing to do with European anti-Semitism or genocide—were not consulted before the U.N. vote.

I beg to differ.

There was no plebiscite or vote of the people. If there had been, the outcome would not have been in doubt: One unitary state would have been the overwhelming choice. The U.N. vote was an illegitimate act and a violation of the Palestinians’ right of self-determination.

The two-thirds majority required to pass Resolution 181 was only achieved through intense U.S. pressure. The vote ended up 33 to 13 with 10 abstentions. The Truman administration leaned heavily on its neocolonies and client states, particularly the Philippines, Liberia, Haiti and Thailand, all of which initially opposed the resolution.

Without those four votes, the resolution would have failed. For narrow and short-term interests, the Soviet Union voted for the resolution. This represented a betrayal of the Arab anti-colonial struggle and one that did great harm to the socialist cause in the region. Later, the Soviet Union would become a major ally of the Arab national liberation movement.

It is telling that here, the ISM dismisses UN resolution 181 as being “an illegitimate act” since it does not suit them, yet are prone to mentioning UN resolutions like the bible when talking of Israel’s obligations.

The forced displacement of a people

The U.N. vote led to celebration among the Zionists, the settler movement working to create an exclusively Jewish state in Palestine. Despite owning just six percent of the land, Resolution 181 awarded them 56 percent of Palestine.

The ISM omits to mention some crucial facts:

1. In 1922, the British had severed nearly 80% of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home (as defined by the League of Nations), and allocated it to what became Transjordan. The Partition Plan pertained to the remaining 20%.

2. The majority of the land awarded to the Jews was desert, which at that time was neither suitable for agriculture, nor for urban development.

3. The Jews were the majority in the land area awarded to them.

On the Palestinian side, there was anger and rebellion. As all parties knew ahead of time, partition meant war.

Fighting broke out immediately.

No, fighting did not “break out” like some kind of rash. The Arabs attacked the Jews with the aim of expunging them from the land.

In January 1948, the better-armed Zionist military forces began to carry out “Plan Dalet.” The point of the plan was to terrorize and drive out the Palestinian population. Before Plan Dalet, Palestinian villagers left their homes during battles, but typically went only as far as the next village.

There has been much discussion about the aims of “Plan Dalet.” While pro-palestinian historians claim it was an offensive in nature, others, like historian Benny Morris (himself a one-time sympathizer of the so-called “palestinian cause”), have concluded that it was defensive in nature, “in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states].”

On April 9, 1948, a Zionist paramilitary organization, the Irgun, massacred the entire village of Deir Yassin, raising “Plan Dalet” to a new level of brutality. When the dust had cleared, more than 200 Palestinian children, women and men lay dead. The massacre was meant as a warning to all Palestinians.

While the Jewish Agency formally “condemned” the Deir Yassin massacre, on the same day it incorporated the Irgun paramilitary into the official military Joint Command.

Twelve days after Deir Yassin, Zionist forces launched a lethal attack on the Palestinian areas of the mixed city of Haifa. They rolled barrel bombs filled with gasoline and dynamite down narrow alleys in the heavily populated city while mortar shells pounded the Arab neighborhoods from overhead. Nearly the entire Arab population fled.

Within a week, similar tactics led 77,000 of 80,000 Palestinians to flee the port city of Jaffa.

What exactly occurred at Deir Yassin is not as black and white as our ISM friend describes. There are claims that the Irgun broadcast a warning to civilians to evacuate the area (to little or no effect), that a fierce battle ensued, and that male Arab fighters disguised themselves as women, resulting in the killing of many real women. What is clear, though, is that the Arabs and their sympathizers have milked the incident for all it’s worth (think “Jenin massacre”). Not to mention the fact that they won’t mention the number of Jews butchered by the Arabs.

By May 15, 1948, when Israel’s independence was proclaimed, 300,000 Palestinians were living and dying in abominable conditions of exile in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and the Jordan Valley. By the end of that year, the number of dispossessed Palestinians had grown to 750,000.

In the 1948 war, Israel, with its superior economic and military resources and support from the Western powers, conquered 78 percent of Palestine.

Another boldfaced lie. Israel was horribly outnumbered and underarmed, with little or no help from the West. In fact, on December 5, 1947, the US imposed an arms embargo on the region. Britain rejected a US request to suspend weapons shipments to the Arabs, with the result that the Arabs had no difficulty in obtaining all the arms they needed. In addition, Jordan’s Arab Legion was not only armed and trained by the British; it was actually led by a British officer. In contrast, the Jews were forced to smuggle weapons, principally from Czechoslovakia.

The Israeli military strategy was to not only conquer land, but also to drive out as much of the Palestinian population as possible from that land.

Israel was attacked by the Arab states. This was not a war of conquest; it was a war for survival.

Nearly 80 percent of the Arab population was forcibly “transferred” to make way for the new Israeli state. Their farms, workplaces and homes were stolen, forming an indispensable foundation for the new Israeli economy and state.

Leaving aside the fact that had Arabs accepted the partition plan, there would be no “refugees,” most of the Arabs fled before and during the battle.

In the 1967 “Six-Day War,” Israel seized the remainder of historic Palestine: the West Bank and Gaza. This created 300,000 more refugees, many of whom were second-time exiles, having already fled the Israelis 19 years earlier.

Again, the Six Day War resulted from an Arab attempt to once again destroy Israel. It was not a war of conquest, something not changed by the fact that Israel once again kicked the Arabs’ collective behinds. Not only that, but Israel was willing to make peace with the Arab states, a peace that may well have involved territorial compromises. However, the Arabs made their intentions clear with the “three NOs” at Khartoum.

None of those driven out in 1948 and 1967, nor their descendants, now numbering more than six million, have ever been allowed to come back or been compensated for their loss. This injustice remains despite U.N. Resolution 194, passed in December 1948, stating unequivocally that all refugees must be allowed to return and have their homes, lands and other property restored to them. The U.S. and Israeli governments have ignored the U.N. resolution for more than half a century.

Actually, implicit in UN resolution 194 is a recognition that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. As Article 11 states:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

In addition, the quoted figure of 6 million refugees is grossly inflated. Even UNRWA, which has adopted an unreasonably wide definition of “refugee” (including a two-year pre-1948 residency requirement, and descendants of these people), has the number at over 4 million.

While forcibly preventing the return of any exiled Palestinians, the new Israeli state proclaimed that any person living anywhere in the world who had proof of one Jewish grandparent, regardless of whether they or their family ever stepped foot in the Middle East, had the “right of return” to Israel. Those “returning” would be granted immediately citizenship in the new exclusivist state.

Actually, the new Jewish state resulting from UN resolution 181. And given that the modern State of Israel arose from the ashes of the Holocaust, in which Hitler murdered those with one Jewish grandparent, it is perfectly understandable that the new state would adopt similar criteria, especially given Israel’s status as a safe haven for Jews everywhere.

Right of return remains key demand

Six decades after Al-Nakba, the right of return remains a key issue despite the Israeli and U.S. leaders’ constant efforts to dismiss it.

It is obvious why the cause remains so vital for Palestinians. If a people are deprived of their land, their very existence as a people is threatened. Defending the right of return is a key element in the struggle to maintain the unity of the Palestinian people between those who remain inside historic Palestine and those families that have been illegally expelled.

No, the cause remains vital for the palestinians as a tool to destroy Israel demographically.

Israeli opposition to Palestinian return is not really because there is “no room” for the Palestinians in Palestine, as Zionist ideologues often claim. That argument is blatantly racist. Palestinian demographer Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta has pointed out that most of the more than 500 demolished Palestinian towns and villages remain unoccupied today. They were destroyed and their residents driven away for mainly political purposes—the creation of an exclusivist state.

Interesting, considering that Israeli Arabs live in Israel to this very day, including members of the Knesset. Oops!

Nor is this some long-resolved issue buried in the sands of time. Hundreds of thousands of people forcibly exiled in 1948 and 1967 are alive today. Many hold among their dearest possessions the keys to their homes in Palestine. Some of those houses, particularly in the demolished villages, were bulldozed into the ground. Many others, however, especially in cities like Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and elsewhere were expropriated and turned over to Israeli settlers, who live in them to this day.

Again, notice the settler lexicon being employed to describe residents of Israel “proper”, and not just those residents of the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria.

Today, 46 percent of the six million Palestinian refugees reside inside historic Palestine, the 1948 borders of Israel, or the West Bank and Gaza. Another 42 percent live within 100 miles of its borders, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. (Roane Carey, ed., The New Intifada, Versa, 2001)

Put another way, nearly nine out of 10 Palestinian refugees could be home in the time in takes many people in this country to commute to work.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families live in extreme poverty in 59 refugee camps, with no prospect of a better future. For them, the right of return is not abstract or academic, but an issue that speaks to their very survival. The situation is especially dire in the camps of Lebanon and Gaza, which are home to more than one million people.

The return of the exiled Palestinians would not mean, as is commonly claimed by the supporters of Israel, that the Jewish population would be forced to leave.

But it would mean that Israel could not continue as an apartheid-style state, with special rights for one group, serving the interests of imperialism in a key strategic region of the world.

This goes to the heart of why Israeli and U.S. ruling circles so adamantly oppose the Palestinian right of return. It also speaks to the need for all people who stand for justice and self-determination to defend the right of return as a fundamental democratic right.

Now you might be asking why I just bothered to fisk that lengthy piece. Well, I am a big believer in not allowing lies to go unanswered. Also, there are a number of young and impressionable people who join the ISM in the belief that the palestinians have been wronged by the evil Israeli occupiers (I know this occurs, since my wife’s cousin was one of these people, before she saw the light and renounced her evil ways).

Besides, that was good fun. There’s nothing like a good fisking to brighten up your day.

4 thoughts on “ISM Fisking of the Day”

  1. Isn’t it funny how the leftists never fail to mention (and inflate) Deir Yassin, but if you mention Kfar Etzion to them, all you get is blank stares.

  2. What do you expect from anti-Semitic liars?

    Notice how they don’t mention the even greater number of Jewish refugees, or even the role the Arab countries playd in the story.

    If you talk to a random person in a western country, you will find that almost nobody knows that the so-called “Naqba” happened AFTER the attempted invasion. Arabs like to pretend that attacking Israel was retaliation for the Naqba.

    But the good news is that if they cannot make their case without lying about us, they don’t have a case.

    If the “Palestinians” really deserved a state (even though they rejected it in 1948 and 1967), there would be case for it that doesn’t require made-up history, I think.

    I would give then euros to the first “Palestinian” or any of their supporters who can give me a reason for why “Palestine” should become a state, a reason that does not include any lies whatsoever, a reason that acknowledges the Jewish refugees and the fact that it was the Arab countries who invaded the nascent “Palestinian” state in 1948.

    But I understand that “Yes, we tried to murder you all, now give us a state” doesn’t sound so convincing.

    Germany handled the same situation far better.

    (I grew up in occupied Berlin. Do you think I attacked American or Polish kindergardens to fight the occupation?)

  3. Andrew – alas, they’re trying, not only tried.

    I have a good reason for a Palestinian state, though. Its denizens will soon busy themselves slaughtering each other rather than trying to murder us. Especially if we build a nice tall fence on the border and shoot anyone and anything approaching it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top