’Following the establishment of Israel, Prime Minister David Ben Gurion ordered the army to shoot and kill any Palestinian who dared cross the new borders to return to their land. 70 years later, the IDF is implementing the exact same policy at the Gaza’s ’Great Return March.’
TOP ISRAELIS HAVE WARNED OF #APARTHEID, SO WHY THE OUTRAGE AT A UN REPORT ?
▻https://theintercept.com/2017/03/22/top-israelis-have-warned-of-apartheid-so-why-the-outrage-at-a-un-repor
IN HIS MEMOIR, the Israeli journalist Hirsh Goodman described how he returned home from the Six Day War in June 1967 to hear the country’s founding father and first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, speak on the radio. “Israel, he said, better rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible,” recalled Goodman. “If it did not Israel would soon become an apartheid state.”
Goodman was born and raised in apartheid-era South Africa. “That phrase, ‘Israel will become an apartheid state,’ resonated with me,” Goodman wrote. “In a flash I understood what he was saying.”
In a flash. Yet fifty years later, despite an entrenched and ongoing occupation, Israel’s defenders angrily reject any invocation of the A-word. [...]
[...] To mention the grotesque crime of apartheid in the same sentence as the democratic state of Israel, they claim, is “slander”, a “smear”, a “despicable” and “blatant lie”, a shameful act of “Israel-bashing” and a “new form of anti-Semitism.”
So what, I wonder, does that make Ben Gurion? Dishonest or despicable? How about Yitzhak Rabin, who told a TV journalist in 1976 during the first of his two terms as Israel’s prime minister, “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over the long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state”? Was he also engaged in a smear campaign against the nation he led?
In recent years, two more former Israeli premiers, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, have echoed their illustrious predecessors’ warnings. Olmert has predicted that “if the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then the State of Israel is finished” while Barak has declared that “if this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”
Are they Israel bashers, too?
Livingstone’s Nonsense on Hitler Nonetheless Touches Raw Zionist Nerve -
The explosive dilemma of ’collaboration’ with the Nazis in order to save German Jews split the Zionist movement in the 1930s.
Chemi Shalev May 01, 2016
▻http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.717126
Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone has a long history of anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic remarks. He has described Israel as racist, accused it of ethnic cleansing, called for its leaders to be put on trial for crimes against humanity. He once said that Likud and Hamas are two sides of the same coin. He likened a Jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard, compared British Jews who enlist in the Israeli army to British Muslims who join terrorist groups and opined that Jews wouldn’t vote for Labour “because they were rich.”
Now he’s in hot water for having declared that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism, which is of course a ridiculous statement, though, frankly, not ridiculous enough to make it the one definitive assertion that will finally do him in. Hitler wasn’t a Zionist, but he did give his passive and sometimes active support to the limited collaboration between the Zionist movement and the Nazi regime throughout the 1930s. It was Adolf Eichmann, in fact, who once reportedly declared, “I am a Zionist.” He didn’t mean that he supported the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or safe refuge, only that Zionism provided an efficient way of getting rid of Jews before more drastic measures were conceived.
The “Hitler as Zionist” canard is one that anti-Zionists, Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers have been pushing for years. The former seek to tarnish Israel and cast it as a successor to the Nazi state while the latter want to cast a more positive light on their heroes’ unspeakable crimes. Livingstone must be getting his information from the small coterie of Marxist and/or anti-Zionist historians who have adopted the same narrative: Lenni Brenner’s book “Zionism in the Age of Dictators,” which was cited by Livingstone, is the most successful of the lot.
Nonetheless, it is also true that Livingstone has put a spotlight on a chapter in history that most Zionists would rather leave untouched: their limited shared interests and consequent ad hoc cooperation with the Nazi regime. It lasted for about seven years, from 1933 until 1940, when the international blockade prevented further emigration of Jews from Germany, just before Hitler gave the order to annihilate the Jews instead.
At the center of the give and take between the powerful Nazis and the rather desperate pre-state Zionists was the 1933 Transfer Agreement, Heskem Haavara in Hebrew. It was a deal negotiated by German Zionists by which some Jews would be able to sell their properties in Germany in exchange for funds that would allow them to buy property in then-Palestine. The Zionists would also refrain from participating in the international boycott declared by World Jewry against Germany and would try to persuade Jewish leaders to revoke it.
By virtue of the deal, about 60,000 Jews, mostly well educated but mainly well to do, came to Palestine and were saved from extermination. They had to deposit a minimum of 1,000 British pounds – close to $100,000 in current terms – in order to qualify. The agreement provided critical help to the Yishuv, which was reeling at the time from Arab riots in Palestine and from the global Great Depression. German immigrants injected eight million British pounds, close to a billion dollars in today’s terms, directly into the Palestinian economy and another six million pounds indirectly. They were part of the Fifth Aliyah that significantly strengthened the struggling Yishuv with their talents and knowhow. My mother, of blessed memory, was the beneficiary of a similar agreement signed in Czechoslovakia after the Nazis took over, which allowed students to emigrate.
There is no denying that a few Zionists saw the rise of a racialist Nazi regime in the early 1930s as confirmation of their ideological claim that assimilation for Jews in Europe was an illusion. There were others, on the far end of the Revisionists Movement, who actually admired Hitler and Mussolini’s fascism, but they were soon shut down by their leader Vladimir Jabotinsky and by the increasing reports of anti-Jewish measures undertaken by the Nazis after 1933. Most Zionists had no illusions about the odious nature of Hitler and the Nazis, but they sharply disagreed about the way they should react to it: the Transfer Agreement was a deal with the devil by all accounts, but the question was whether it was a necessary evil or a mortal sin.
It is this dispute, in fact, that shaped Zionist politics for a half a century and in some ways continues to serve as its backdrop to this very day. One June 16, 1933, the promising Mapai leader Haim Arlosoroff , who had been one of the champions of dialogue with the Nazis, was murdered on the beach in Tel Aviv by two unknown assailants. David Ben Gurion and most the Yishuv leadership were convinced that the murder was perpetrated by militant Revisionists as retribution. Three members of a right wing splinter group were indicted for the crime but later acquitted by the courts. Among the Revisionist sympathizers who sought to rebuff what they described as the “blood libel” perpetrated by Labor Zionists were Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, Benzion, as well as his grandfather, Nathan Milikovsky.
Despite Arlosoroff’s involvement, the Transfer Agreement was initially concluded between the Nazis and German Zionists alone. Ben Gurion and other Zionist leaders in Palestine kept their distance, especially as public opinion seemed to oppose the deal. But as a result of Nazi pressures, increasingly desperate appeals by German Zionists as well as their own recognition of the critical importance of the deal, the Zionist leadership in Palestine signed on to the agreement in 1935. It was then discussed and ratified in the 19th Zionist Congress that convened in Luzerne in 1935. It was this Congress that marked the final split between Labor Zionism and the Revisionists, who accused the leadership of the Yishuv, much like Livingstone, of being “Hitler’s allies.” The question of “Who Killed Arlosoroff” reverberated throughout Zionist politics for decades ever since.
Historians have been unable to trace Hitler’s personal response to the initial Transfer Agreement. He certainly didn’t block it. In 1937 he personally intervened in order to keep it going and did so for the next two years as well. That does not make Hitler into a supporter of Zionism by any stretch, as Livingstone annoyingly claims, because Hitler wiped out millions of Jews, including millions of potential Zionists, who would have changed the arc of Jewish history completely. As for the Zionists themselves, all that can be said is that it was a desperate time that required desperate measures that are still difficult to judge today, even with the benefit of 80 years of hindsight.
#film LE VILLAGE SOUS LA FORÊT
De Heidi GRUNEBAUM et Mark J KAPLAN
La chercheuse juive sud-africaine, #Heidi_Grunebaum se souvient qu’étant enfant elle versait de l’argent destiné officiellement à planter des arbres pour « reverdir le désert ».
Elle interroge les acteurs et les victimes de cette tragédie, et révèle une politique d’effacement délibérée du #Fonds_national_Juif.
http://foaiy1wqzsc3yo4mb2hd0h052k.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/jnfbluebox2.jpg ►http://www.villageunderforest.com
Trailer :
►https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISmj31rJkGQ
#israel #palestine #carte @cdb_77 @reka
#Israël #afrique_du_sud #forêt #documentaire
–-
Petit commentaire de Cristina pour pour @reka :
Il y a un passage du film que tu vas adorer... quand un vieil monsieur superpose une carte qu’il a dessiné à la main du vieux village Lubya (son village) sur la nouvelle carte du village...
Si j’ai bien compris la narratrice est chercheuse... peut-etre qu’on peut lui demander la carte de ce vieil homme et la publier sur visionscarto... qu’en penses-tu ? Je peux essayer de trouver l’adresse email de la chercheuse...
@reka :
voici la page academia.edu de la chercheuse en question, #Heidi_Grunebaum (plein de titres intéressants)
▻http://uwc.academia.edu/HeidiGrunebaum
Je ne trouve par contre pas sa page à l’uni...
@reka, en fait, c’est facile...
pour acheter/voir en streaming le film :
ça coûte 1 dollar pour le voir en streaming : ▻http://www.journeyman.tv/65707/documentaries/the-village-under-the-forest-hd.html
ou 10 EUR pour acheter le download : ▻http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=2711&shoppage=bskt
fait !! et on en reparlera sur visionscarto Merci cristina.
Effacer la Palestine pour construire Israël. Transformation du paysage et enracinement des identités nationales
La construction d’un État requiert la nationalisation du territoire. Dans le cas d’Israël, cette appropriation territoriale s’est caractérisée, depuis 1948, par un remodelage du paysage afin que ce dernier dénote l’identité et la mémoire sionistes tout en excluant l’identité et la mémoire palestiniennes. À travers un parcours historique, cet article examine la façon dont ce processus a éliminé tout ce qui, dans l’espace, exprimait la relation palestinienne à la terre. Parmi les stratégies utilisées, l’arbre revêt une importance particulière pour signifier l’identité enracinée dans le territoire : arracher l’une pour mieux (ré)implanter l’autre, tel semble être l’enjeu de nombreuses politiques, passées et présentes.
v. aussi la destruction par gentrification de la Bay Area (San Francisco), terres qui appartiennent à un peuple autochtone :
“Nobody knew about us,” said Corrina Gould, a Chochenyo and Karkin Ohlone leader and activist. “There was this process of colonization that erased the memory of us from the Bay Area.”
La lutte des Palestiniens face à une mémoire menacée
Le 15 mai, les Palestiniens commémorent la Nakba, c’est-à-dire l’exode de centaines de milliers d’entre eux au moment de la création de l’Etat d’Israël : la veille, lundi 14 mai, tandis que plusieurs officiels israéliens et américains célébraient en grande pompe l’inauguration de l’ambassade américaine à Jérusalem, 60 Palestiniens étaient tués par des tirs israéliens, et 2 400 autres étaient blessés lors d’affrontements à la frontière de la bande de Gaza.
Historiquement, la Nakba, tout comme la colonisation de Jérusalem-Est et des Territoires palestiniens à partir de 1967, a non seulement eu des conséquences sur le quotidien des Palestiniens, mais aussi sur leur héritage culturel. Comment une population préserve-t-elle sa mémoire lorsque les traces matérielles de son passé sont peu à peu effacées ? ARTE Info vous fait découvrir trois initiatives innovantes pour tenter de préserver la mémoire des Palestiniens.
▻https://info.arte.tv/fr/la-lutte-des-palestiniens-face-une-memoire-menacee
Effacer la Palestine pour construire Israël. Transformation du #paysage et #enracinement des identités nationales
La construction d’un État requiert la nationalisation du territoire. Dans le cas d’Israël, cette appropriation territoriale s’est caractérisée, depuis 1948, par un remodelage du paysage afin que ce dernier dénote l’identité et la mémoire sionistes tout en excluant l’identité et la mémoire palestiniennes. À travers un parcours historique, cet article examine la façon dont ce processus a éliminé tout ce qui, dans l’espace, exprimait la relation palestinienne à la terre. Parmi les stratégies utilisées, l’arbre revêt une importance particulière pour signifier l’identité enracinée dans le territoire : arracher l’une pour mieux (ré)implanter l’autre, tel semble être l’enjeu de nombreuses politiques, passées et présentes.
Il y aurait tout un dossier à faire sur Canada Park, construit sur le site chrétien historique d’Emmaus (devenu Imwas), dans les territoires occupés depuis 1967, et dénoncé par l’organisation #Zochrot :
75% of visitors to Canada Park believe it’s located inside the Green Line
Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, Zochrot, mai 2014
►https://www.zochrot.org/en/article/56204
Dont le #FNJ (#JNF #KKL) efface la mémoire palestinienne :
The Palestinian Past of Canada Park is Forgotten in JNF Signs
Yuval Yoaz, Zochrot, le 31 mai 2005
►https://zochrot.org/en/press/51031
Canada Park and Israeli “memoricide”
Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, le 10 mars 2009
►https://electronicintifada.net/content/canada-park-and-israeli-memoricide/8126
#mémoricide me semble du coup un terme important à ajouter comme tag !
:-)
Canada Park / Parc Canada :
Israël-Palestine, des arbres qui cachent la colonisation
Adèle Ribuot et Nadav Joffe, Orient XXI, le 19 septembre 2018
►https://seenthis.net/messages/725068
Israel lifted its military rule over the state’s Arab community in 1966 only after ascertaining that its members could not return to the villages they had fled or been expelled from, according to newly declassified archival documents.
The documents both reveal the considerations behind the creation of the military government 18 years earlier, and the reasons for dismantling it and revoking the severe restrictions it imposed on Arab citizens in the north, the Negev and the so-called Triangle of Locales in central Israel.
These records were made public as a result of a campaign launched against the state archives by the Akevot Institute, which researches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
After the War of Independence in 1948, the state imposed military rule over Arabs living around the country, which applied to an estimated 85 percent of that community at the time, say researchers at the NGO. The Arabs in question were subject to the authority of a military commander who could limit their freedom of movement, declare areas to be closed zones, or demand that the inhabitants leave and enter certain locales only with his written permission.
The newly revealed documents describe the ways Israel prevented Arabs from returning to villages they had left in 1948, even after the restrictions on them had been lifted. The main method: dense planting of trees within and surrounding these towns.
At a meeting held in November 1965 at the office of Shmuel Toledano, the prime minister’s adviser on Arab affairs, there was a discussion about villages that had been left behind and that Israel did not want to be repopulated, according to one document. To ensure that, the state had the Jewish National Fund plant trees around and in them.
Among other things, the document states that “the lands belonging to the above-mentioned villages were given to the custodian for absentee properties” and that “most were leased for work (cultivation of field crops and olive groves) by Jewish households.” Some of the properties, it adds, were subleased.
In the meeting in Toledano’s office, it was explained that these lands had been declared closed military zones, and that once the structures on them had been razed, and the land had been parceled out, forested and subject to proper supervision – their definition as closed military zones could be lifted.
On April 3, 1966, another discussion was held on the same subject, this time at the office of the defense minister, Levi Eshkol, who was also the serving prime minister; the minutes of this meeting were classified as top secret. Its participants included: Toledano; Isser Harel, in his capacity as special adviser to the prime minister; the military advocate general – Meir Shamgar, who would later become president of the Supreme Court; and representatives of the Shin Bet security service and Israel Police.
The newly publicized record of that meeting shows that the Shin Bet was already prepared at that point to lift the military rule over the Arabs and that the police and army could do so within a short time.
Regarding northern Israel, it was agreed that “all the areas declared at the time to be closed [military] zones... other than Sha’ab [east of Acre] would be opened after the usual conditions were fulfilled – razing of the buildings in the abandoned villages, forestation, establishment of nature reserves, fencing and guarding.” The dates of the reopening these areas would be determined by Israel Defense Forces Maj. Gen. Shamir, the minutes said. Regarding Sha’ab, Harel and Toledano were to discuss that subject with Shamir.
However, as to Arab locales in central Israel and the Negev, it was agreed that the closed military zones would remain in effect for the time being, with a few exceptions.
Even after military rule was lifted, some top IDF officers, including Chief of Staff Tzvi Tzur and Shamgar, opposed the move. In March 1963, Shamgar, then military advocate general, wrote a pamphlet about the legal basis of the military administration; only 30 copies were printed. (He signed it using his previous, un-Hebraized name, Sternberg.) Its purpose was to explain why Israel was imposing its military might over hundreds of thousands of citizens.
Among other things, Shamgar wrote in the pamphlet that Regulation 125, allowing certain areas to be closed off, is intended “to prevent the entry and settlement of minorities in border areas,” and that “border areas populated by minorities serve as a natural, convenient point of departure for hostile elements beyond the border.” The fact that citizens must have permits in order to travel about helps to thwart infiltration into the rest of Israel, he wrote.
Regulation 124, he noted, states that “it is essential to enable nighttime ambushes in populated areas when necessary, against infiltrators.” Blockage of roads to traffic is explained as being crucial for the purposes of “training, tests or maneuvers.” Moreover, censorship is a “crucial means for counter-intelligence.”
Despite Shamgar’s opinion, later that year, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol canceled the requirement for personal travel permits as a general obligation. Two weeks after that decision, in November 1963, Chief of Staff Tzur wrote a top-secret letter about implementation of the new policy to the officers heading the various IDF commands and other top brass, including the head of Military Intelligence. Tzur ordered them to carry it out in nearly all Arab villages, with a few exceptions – among them Barta’a and Muqeible, in northern Israel.
In December 1965, Haim Israeli, an adviser to Defense Minister Eshkol, reported to Eshkol’s other aides, Isser Harel and Aviad Yaffeh, and to the head of the Shin Bet, that then-Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin opposed legislation that would cancel military rule over the Arab villages. Rabin explained his position in a discussion with Eshkol, at which an effort to “soften” the bill was discussed. Rabin was advised that Harel would be making his own recommendations on this matter.
At a meeting held on February 27, 1966, Harel issued orders to the IDF, the Shin Bet and the police concerning the prime minister’s decision to cancel military rule. The minutes of the discussion were top secret, and began with: “The mechanism of the military regime will be canceled. The IDF will ensure the necessary conditions for establishment of military rule during times of national emergency and war.” However, it was decided that the regulations governing Israel’s defense in general would remain in force, and at the behest of the prime minister and with his input, the justice minister would look into amending the relevant statutes in Israeli law, or replacing them.
The historical documents cited here have only made public after a two-year campaign by the Akevot institute against the national archives, which preferred that they remain confidential, Akevot director Lior Yavne told Haaretz. The documents contain no information of a sensitive nature vis-a-vis Israel’s security, Yavne added, and even though they are now in the public domain, the archives has yet to upload them to its website to enable widespread access.
“Hundreds of thousands of files which are crucial to understanding the recent history of the state and society in Israel remain closed in the government archive,” he said. “Akevot continues to fight to expand public access to archival documents – documents that are property of the public.”
« Manigancer une majorité juive à Jérusalem » : les Palestiniens chassés par les politiques « vertes » d’Israël
Jan-Peter Westad, Middle East Eye, le 20 août 2019
►https://seenthis.net/messages/798033
Projection en ligne le 24 janvier 2021 à 19h (heure de Paris) :
▻https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUsduyqrDorG9awEp1HpdXuc05Cz5OKiEza
#Nakba stories : Reminiscing, regrets, and return
▻http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/nakba-stories-reminiscing-regrets-and-return
Palestinian protesters hold a large version of their national flag during a rally the day before the 66th anniversary of the “Nakba” on May 14, 2014 in #Gaza city. (Photo: Mohammed Abed-AFP) Palestinian protesters hold a large version of their national flag during a rally the day before the 66th anniversary of the “Nakba” on May 14, 2014 in Gaza city. (Photo: Mohammed Abed-AFP)
On May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion declared the State of #Israel. By then, the Zionist forces - vastly superior to Palestinian and Arab military capabilities - had already expelled the Palestinian inhabitants of 220 villages and conquered about 13 percent of #Palestine. This event is known as the Nakba, meaning the “Catastrophe” in Arabic. (...)
#Articles #Catastrophe #ethnic_cleansing #Haifa #Jaffa #Lebanon #Palestine
#Ariel_Sharon, the “Butcher of Beirut,” is dead
▻http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/former-israeli-pm-ariel-sharon-85-dies
This fil photo shows then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon waving to the audience as he arrives to participate in a memorial ceremony for #Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, in Sde Boker in the Negev desert on December 7, 2005. (Photo: AFP - Menahem Kahana)
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose legacy includes the killing of tens of thousands of Arabs over his six-decade military and political career, is dead. He took his final breath on Saturday at the age of 85 after lying comatose for eight years following a stroke on 4 January 2006. His death marks the end of a bullish Israeli leader who commanded the respect of his subordinates, amassed loyal partisans, and struck fear in the hearts of his enemies. Natural Born Killer (...)