Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RETALIATION, YES OCCUPATION, NO!: The case for limited war aims (Special Edition)
Antiwar.com ^ | October 7, 2001 | Justin Raimondo

Posted on 10/07/2001 3:57:41 PM PDT by ouroboros

Special Edition
October 7, 2001

RETALIATION, YES –
OCCUPATION, NO!

The case for limited war aims

As US missiles rained down on Afghanistan, the chilling voice of Osama bin Laden, carried by Aljazeera television in Qatar, rang out over Western airwaves, directly addressing Americans as well as his fellow Muslims: "America," he said, "is full of fear from its north to its south," and Americans "will never feel safe until we and the Palestinians feel safe." "It’s greatest buildings are destroyed," he hissed, agreeing with Jerry Falwell that "here is America struck by God Almighty," and adding that "America is tasting now only a copy of what we have tasted."

In what amounts to an open admission of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden wrapped his monstrous confession in the rhetoric of vengeance, in effect saying: feel our pain. He is claiming the right of retaliation when he says "Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." In this first fusillade in the propaganda war, bin Laden used all the weapons at his disposal. "A million innocent children are dying at this time as we speak," he said, "killed in Iraq without any guilt." An American reporter, Leslie Stahl, brought this issue up to then US secretary of state Madeleine Albright in an infamous 1996 interview:

Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

~ Sixty Minutes, May 12, 1996

To win the war on terrorism, the US is going to have to come up with a different answer than the one offered by Mad Madeleine.

"Israeli tanks rampage across Palestine," continued bin Laden, his soft voice and gentle eyes a bizarre counterpoint to the unrelenting harshness of his message. The voice of pure evil, and a very effective evil – one that contains within it a grain of truth: Israeli tanks barrel into "Ramallah, Rafah and Beit Jala and many other parts of the land of Islam, and we do not hear anyone raising his voice or reacting. But when the sword fell upon America after 80 years, hypocrisy raised its head up high bemoaning those killers who toyed with the blood, honor and sanctities of Muslims." Here he is speaking directly to the Arab "street," while also taunting his Western enemies: he scores points with the former by not only pointing out the hypocrisy of the West, but also in holding it accountable.

The Bush administration knows how very effective this line of argument is in the Middle East: the appeal of bin Laden’s message goes way beyond the ultra-fundamentalist faction of Islam represented by the Taliban. No wonder Colin Powell is putting pressure on the Qatari authorities to close down Aljazeera TV, ironically one of the few freewheeling and uncensored media outlets in the region.

This unusual broadcast by bin Laden clarifies two issues beyond any possibility of doubt:

1) The Al Qaeda terror network and Osama bin Laden personally are responsible for the 9/11 atrocity, and the US is fully justified in going after them and ripping up this order of assassins root and branch.

2) In order to win the war against terrorism, America will have to change its foreign policy. If the Bush administration is now engaged in an effort to win over Muslim hearts and minds, then a wide-ranging review of US policy perspectives in the Middle East is in order. Unconditional support not only for Israel but for the decadent and tottering Saudi regime – everything must be put on the table.

The Ladenite declaration of war – clearly made before the US military assault – also clarifies the role and program of the peace party: to limit this war as much as possible. Excluding pure pacifists, non-interventionists can make only one argument against this war: that it will have the exact opposite of its intended consequences, and that therefore American war aims must be narrowly focused on the elimination of the terrorist threat. A just war against bin Laden and Al Qaeda could easily escalate into a broader, regional war – and then the world war metaphor so beloved by our pro-war intellectuals and pundits in the cheering section would become a grisly, bloody, futile reality.

Our argument against that kind of war is simple: it is not in America’s interest to take on the entire Muslim world. That the Bush administration agrees with this perspective is underscored by the Powellian strategy of building a broad coalition including Arab countries – an effort which so enraged Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he grotesquely likened it to Munich! Naturally, the Israelis are pursuing their own national interest, and one reason many Americans admire Sharon is that he does this so doggedly and unrelentingly. On the other hand, it is neither surprising nor any less admirable when an American President and his secretary of state pursue the same policy on behalf of our own nation.

The worst case scenario is a war, a world war, pitting the US and Israel against the world’s Muslims, and a good deal of the rest. Yet that is the war that is coming, unless principled non-interventionists unite around a program of limited war aims. "Peace now" is no longer a viable option, but, then again, neither is perpetual war.

Retaliation, yes – occupation, no! That must be the battle-cry of the noninterventionist movement as we face a new challenge to our analysis. For once, America is fighting a defensive war, a just war – at least, so far. But it is an almost effortless transition from a just war to a war of conquest, so that most never notice when that point has been passed and there’s no turning back. Already the President has alluded to the postwar reconstruction of Afghanistan as comparable to the rebuilding – and occupation – of Japan and Germany. Of course, US soldiers are still occupying Germany and Japan, and the question is: will they be occupying Afghanistan 60 years after an American "victory." That would be a Pyhrric victory indeed, one that recalls the statement of old King Pyhrrus: "One more ‘victory’ such as this and we are finished."



TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 10/07/2001 3:57:41 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
>> one that contains within it a grain of truth: Israeli tanks barrel into "Ramallah, Rafah and Beit Jala and many other parts of the land of Islam, and we do not hear anyone raising his voice or reacting<<

What makes this the "land of Islam"?

Is it so because Moslems live there?

Are Jersey City and Brooklyn part of the "land of Islam"?

2 posted on 10/07/2001 4:01:51 PM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: ouroboros
As we move through the extermination of the terrorists , and the infrastructure that supports them, we will have to deal with this question. I think some partitioning is in order. This part of the world is a continuing problem. We have had some small successes with carving out emirates and such over the years. It smacks of colonialism, but if muslims can't police themselves then so it must be. It resembles the war against pirates more than any other analogy I can think of. You can't just defeat them. You must take control of the land and administrate the outcome. An oil tax to pay for it makes sense, as well. No more Americans should die to feed a religion that cannot police their own.
5 posted on 10/07/2001 4:09:51 PM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: ouroboros
Sorry, Justin.

The Coalition, whatever it looks like as time goes on, will have its boot on the necks of several terrorist-sponsoring states for the forseeable future, if they don't get the message that they've got to stand down from harboring these cretins.

There's going to be a shift in power, with Russia clearly on the side of the U.S. and Europe. It's hardly the U.S. and Israel alone, no matter how much you try to characterize it as such.

No. The radical Muslims will continue to demonstrate how much of a threat they are to civilization, and even the Saudis and Egyptians will do what they have to do to rid their countries of the scum.

7 posted on 10/07/2001 4:14:21 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one_particular_harbour
and who wanted us to do nothing?

"These people", as you call them, never said to do nothing. This column is perfectly consistent with Raimondo's previous work.

8 posted on 10/07/2001 4:16:03 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it."

I wonder how much this one sentence got played up in the Islamic press.

She really blew it with this one.

9 posted on 10/07/2001 4:16:45 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
In order to win the war against terrorism, America will have to change its foreign policy. If the Bush administration is now engaged in an effort to win over Muslim hearts and minds, then a wide-ranging review of US policy perspectives in the Middle East is in order. Unconditional support not only for Israel but for the decadent and tottering Saudi regime – everything must be put on the table.

I strongly disagree with the idea of changing our foreign policy as a result of these attacks. Below are the reasons why:

We must hang tough, and hang together. Or we will surely hang separately.

10 posted on 10/07/2001 4:20:59 PM PDT by TKEman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
Has NOTHING TO DO with Religious Beliefs Einstein, it's called Retaliation, in order for YOU and ME to be able to raise OUR CHILDREN in a SAFE Enviroment and to Allow U.S. to express our opinions FREELY WHITHOUT THREAT of reprisals.
12 posted on 10/07/2001 4:23:01 PM PDT by Bad~Rodeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
Ouroboros,

Good post. Justin hits the nail on the head. Taking on the entire Muslim world would be an idiocy of collosal and bloody proportions. Yet that is what some laptop warriors in the press, among them the saber rattlers at National Review, The Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, are advocating.

We need to punish those responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist massacre. But we don't need to engage in nation building in a faraway land whose proud people will view us unwelcomed occupiers. We also need to get our damned troops out of Saudi Arabia and inform Israel that we're cutting off their $3 billion-a-year handout. Israel's decision in 1947 to steal Palestinian lands and force their inhabitants into separate, but unequal, non-Jewish districts is their problem, not ours.

- Un-PC

13 posted on 10/07/2001 4:25:50 PM PDT by Un-PC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKEman
Israel is a "democratic socialist" state. Let's not get carried away by implying that it's the land of the liberty. Because it isn't, especially if you're an Arab.

By the way, as a taxpayer, I'm sick and tired of handing over $3 billion a year to this perpetual welfare case. Let them run their "democracy" with their own money.

- Un-PC.

14 posted on 10/07/2001 4:31:24 PM PDT by Un-PC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: TKEman
The United States simply must promote democracy around the world.

Promote? Sure, but at the point of a gun? Is that really promotion or is it enforcement? What founding document makes this REPUBLIC the world's policeman, anyway.

Democracy is not necessarily the best government for every people on the planet at every moment in time. We have no mandate or interest in shaping the world in our image. We should set an example, not policy, for other countries to follow.

21 posted on 10/07/2001 4:42:54 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: evita
$3 billion buys us a strong ally in the area that is not subject to the Islamic party line. It also buys us a ready-made set of airbases and deep water seaports on the Mediterranean within striking distance of anywhere in the Mid-East. At $3 billion a year we get off cheap.
22 posted on 10/07/2001 4:43:11 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Un-PC
Israel is a "democratic socialist" state.

One could also describe Israel as a "nationalist socialist" state. Of course, I would never do that ;)

23 posted on 10/07/2001 4:45:53 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
just as absurd as the notion that Israel belongs to a bunch of Europeans.

Actually most Israelis are from Jews who fled Arab lands.
Nice try.

26 posted on 10/07/2001 4:54:12 PM PDT by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
Justin is usually pretty good, but he misses the point here.

Yes, it would be a mistake to link arms with Israel and go into Afghanistan. But Bush isn't doing that.

It would be an even worse mistake to repudiate Israel and kowtow to Palestinian terrorists. It would be read as a sign of cowardice and lack of will all over the Arab world, just as Israel's ignominious retreat from Southern Lebanon under its previous government placated no one, but only encouraged the Palestinians to strike harder.

Bush should keep on message. Israel has very little to do with this attack, despite the talking heads. America was the object of Bin Laden's attack. Our response has nothing to do with Israel one way or the other. Rather, as Bush has said, we will pursue our enemies until we have defeated them, by simple right of self-defense.

27 posted on 10/07/2001 4:54:16 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pissed Off Janitor
Are you recomending long-term occupation by ground troops? Now that would be crazy.
28 posted on 10/07/2001 4:56:27 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: Austin Willard Wright
The plan I've been hearing about calls for the overthrow of the Taliban and the uprooting of terrorist networks in Afghanistan followed by UN occupation using troops from Arab countries. The UN holds the country for the interem needed to set up a new government while the US/Europe/Russia spend time developing the country and re-building it's infrastructure. Sort of a "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan, the idea being that if a democratic government was installed and the people were given a chance at a better future they would be less inclined to commit suicide trying for us Yankees.
31 posted on 10/07/2001 5:02:29 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
In other words "nation building." Been there, done that.
32 posted on 10/07/2001 5:03:35 PM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Yes, it would be a mistake to link arms with Israel and go into Afghanistan. But Bush isn't doing that.

Well, I don't think he is saying that is what we are doing. He is merely warning against it.

Raimondo: "Our argument against that kind of war is simple: it is not in America’s interest to take on the entire Muslim world. That the Bush administration agrees with this perspective is underscored by the Powellian strategy of building a broad coalition including Arab countries....For once, America is fighting a defensive war, a just war – at least, so far. But it is an almost effortless transition from a just war to a war of conquest, so that most never notice when that point has been passed and there’s no turning back."

Raimondo is stating his preference that, as the war progresses, we continue to follow the lead of Gen. Powell and the President rather than Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. who are clamoring for a much wider conflict that could ignite WWIII.

33 posted on 10/07/2001 5:04:53 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Un-PC
The Israelis did NOT " steal " land in 1947. It really would behoove you to leave your anti-Semitic biases behinf and learn some history. Perhaps you should start with the Balfore Agreement, perchance ?

Maybe you would like the USA government to give parts of our nation to Mexico, and the rest to various Indian tribes, where they can proove that they really ARE Indians. Then , let's make England give their land back to ... ? Hmmmmmmmm ... the Normans ? No, the were French and invaded. Oopps ... but the Normans were really Germans. Oh, and before that ? Well okay, wha about the Angles ? Oh dear, another invader and Germanic. The Saxons ? See the Normans and the Angles. Oh dear, oh dear. Your proposition is even more ridiculous, than mine.

How about we fid the Cannanites, and give them back ALL the territory covered by Israel. Oh gee........the Hebrews killed and / or intermarried with them. Sooooo, I guess that Israel REALLY does belong to those modern day Israelis. So there !

34 posted on 10/07/2001 5:05:05 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
"Palestinians are Palestinians driven off their own land. "

Can you provide a map of Palestine?

35 posted on 10/07/2001 5:09:45 PM PDT by K7TNW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Better perhaps, to build a nation then it is to smash one flat and then leave the problem to fester again. Remove the conditions that create terrorists and you effectively destroy the terrorists.
36 posted on 10/07/2001 5:09:48 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Very good point. I will also add with bin-Laden's recent linkage, any major pro-Pal move will be seen as a victory for terror. And as long as the Pals use terror (terror by OUR definition- not the PC version or 'well if it kills Israelis it's OK' fantasy of the Arab world) then we can not let them profit from it. To use the VN era phrase- the war is over if they want it.
They don't want it.
37 posted on 10/07/2001 5:15:43 PM PDT by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Answer: Bubba, Osama, Saddam, Justin.

Question: Name the four least credible sources of how to deal with anti-American attackers and their sympathizers.

38 posted on 10/07/2001 5:20:20 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
Typical raimondo BS.
39 posted on 10/07/2001 5:32:28 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I'm familiar with the Balfour Amendment. It was perverted by Zionists and used as justifaction to steal Arab lands. You're the one who needs to brush up on his history. Do you think the Arabs, who owned more than 85 percent of the land in Palestine, just handed over their property. If so, you're incredibly gullible.

By the way, I don't appreciate being called an anti-semite simply because I refuse to wolf down pro-Israeli propaganda lock stock in barrel. You're not going to get a true picture of events unfolding in Palestine from the mainstream media.

Incidentally, you've violated the rules regarding "no personal attacks" by trotting out your virulent anti-semitic charge. It's a cheap shot that is a favorite tactic of leftwing extremists and, apparently, some Freepers.

40 posted on 10/07/2001 5:37:02 PM PDT by Un-PC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Typical raimondo BS.

Typical CWOJackson profundity.

41 posted on 10/07/2001 5:37:46 PM PDT by ouroboros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
And now his professional wiper is heard from.

LOL!

42 posted on 10/07/2001 5:48:03 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
So does raimondo give you some kind of kick back for posting his crap on FR or do you actually do this for free?
43 posted on 10/07/2001 5:49:16 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Time for a reality check, nopardons. Here are some facts regarding Palestine and modern-day Israel. Feel free to dispute them, not with charges of "anti-semitism," but with other facts. (By the way, Arabs are semites. But, of course, you probably already knew that.)

The Mandate Period

Excerpted from Palestine and the Palestinians (Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1997), by Samih K. Farsoun with Christina Zacharia, pp. 72-86.

The terms of the British Mandate over Palestine set up irreconcilable and contradictory goals of self-rule for the native Palestinians and a national home not specifically defined by Britain for European Jews. For the Zionists Jews, the national home meant quite simply a "Palestine that was as Jewish as England is English or Canada is Canadian," as the Jewish Chronicle wrote on 20 May 1921. Britain provided for the establishment of a Jewish agency to be, in its official language, "recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social, and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish population in Palestine." The facilitation of the immigration of Jews to Palestine, and "the close settlement by Jews on the Land." The Mandate agreement was thus framed largely with clauses that favored the Zionist cause over Palestinian self-determination.

The Zionist project was fraught with discontinuities, contradictions, and conflicts with the Palestinian natives and occasionally the British Mandate administration, but in the final analysis its implementation was quite successful.

Factors that led to this success include:

In-Migration and Demographic Transformation

Land Acquisition

Separate Jewish Economy

Jewish Labor

Separate Social and Political Institutions

Creation of a Jewish State within a State

In-Migration and Demographic Transformation: Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. The first occurred between 1882 and 1903 and totaled about 25,000. The second, between 1904 and 1914, brought in around 35,000 immigrants, which resulted in a total Jewish population of 85,000. The third wave between 1919 and 1923 brought another 85,000 immigrants, mostly Polish and middle class. The December 1931 British census of the country showed that of the 1.04 million people, 84 percent were Arab and 16 percent were Jewish. While the increase in the Jewish population was due largely to in-migration, the Palestinian population increased naturally at 2.7 percent per year. Because of the rise of Nazism, 174,000 Jews migrated to Palestine between 1932 and 1936. Suddenly the Jewish population in Palestine rose to an estimated 28 percent of the total inhabitants. This radical change, occurring in a brief span of only five years, must certainly be recognized as an important cause of the Palestinian Arab rebellion of 1936 against British Mandate authorities. Both legal and illegal Jewish immigration (according to Mandate authorities) into Palestine increased during World War II and its aftermath. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third the total inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Jewish minority in Palestine became a powerful community.

Land Acquisition: Despite their contention that Palestine was a land without people, Zionists discovered that Palestinian land was not uninhabited nor was it readily available. Palestine was densely populated and intensively cultivated. Moreover, the land tenure and ownership system was complex. Available land was expensive and became more so with the rising demand of a population growing as a result of both natural increase in-migration. With the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, Zionist hopes that state land-perceived as vast and potentially accessible-would serve as a basis for land acquisition also turned out to be unrealistic. From the data, it is possible to discern three periods of land acquisition by Zionists and Jews. While Jews in 1922 owned 3 percent of the land of Palestine, the additional land purchased by 1947 raised the total owned by the immigrant Jews to 7 percent of the whole area of the country. The British Mandate government classified Palestinian land as good, medium, and poor. After the general armistice of the 1948 war, Israel had captured over 77 percent of Palestine and more than 95 percent of the "good" soil. The newly sovereign state of Israel also expropriated 80 percent of privately owned Palestinian land and confiscated at least 40 percent of properties held by Palestinian Arabs who remained on the land and became citizens. The total losses of Palestinians are estimated at a staggering 7.43 billion Palestinian pounds (equal then to the British pound).

Separate Jewish Economy: The roots of Jewish separatism within Palestine extend from the first decade of the mandate. British policy of economic development in Palestine, and specifically, of granting Jewish settlers monopolistic concessions and industrial protectionism facilitated the building of an exclusive Jewish economy, little connected to the overall Palestinian economy. British Mandate government policy advantaged Jewish industry at the expense of Palestinian industry. The result of this situation for Arab industrial development was that Jewish-owned industry grew in light industries in which Arabs were trying to make headway. Thus, the Jewish sector came into direct competition with the Arab sector. Although Palestine has a primarily agricultural economy, especially in the Palestinian Arab sector, the Jewish community acquired only 7 percent of its food from the Arab sector in 1939 and 6 percent in 1944.

Jewish Labor: The initial Zionist project of redemption of the land with Jewish labor quickly transformed during the mandate period into the development of an urban and industrial Jewish economy and labor force. As in the development of an exclusive Jewish economy, institutions, and land base, the British colonial government of Palestine contributed to the creation, protection, and unemployment relief of exclusive Jewish labor. The British did not, however, extend the same policy to the Palestinian Arab labor force. Further, the British facilitated the creation of a two-tier wage structure of Palestinian Arabs and Jews in both the private and public sectors. These discriminatory labor policies handicapped Palestinian labor in wage levels and working conditions. The principal means through which the Zionists succeeded in building a separate and privileged labor force was the Histradrut, the General Federation of Jewish Labor, established in 1920, which also owned construction, consumer, banking, and marketing cooperatives.

Separate Social and Political Institutions: The Histadrut was perhaps one of the most developed Jewish social institutions in Palestine. Among many activities of this unique union were health insurance programs, training and education programs, job placement and pension programs. Like other practices of Zionists, these social institutions were exclusive to Jews. One of the most important factors in recreating the Jewish national identity was their educational system. In the Mandate agreement, Zionists won from the British and the League of Nations the recognition of Hebrew as an official language, along with Arabic and English. They also acquired British consent and support for a separate and exclusive private Jewish school system. Zionists gained autonomy over the curriculum, which was imbued with Jewish nationalism. The British Mandate government denied these freedoms and financial support to the Palestinian Arabs. Palestine's educational system for the two communities under the Mandate was separate and unequal in terms of quality, financing, levels of education, and delivery. Separation of the two communities was promulgated in 1926 by the British Mandate government's Religious Communities Organization Ordinance. It granted the Jewish settler community in Palestine a juridical personality and the power of taxation for charitable and educational purposes.

Jewish State-within-a-State: The British authorized the establishment of the Jewish Agency to represent, lead, and negotiate on behalf of the Jewish settler community in Palestine on all aspects of British policy. In turn, the Jewish Agency established various social, economic and political agencies, institutions, and organizations-including military and intelligence. These organizations were the nucleus of an emerging autonomous Jewish political authority within the Palestine Mandate government. The Palestinian Arabs had no such centralized political agency, nor did the political leaders have the capacity to mobilize the population effectively on a national level. It was this well-organized, well-financed, and well-armed state-within-a-state political authority that defeated the Palestinian resistance an Arab expeditionary forces and conquered most of Palestine in 1948. In 1948, the Zionist movement unilaterally declared the state of Israel. The majority of the Palestinians became stateless refugees.

For more information, go to www.palestinecenter.org. Click on the link "Modern Palestine."

44 posted on 10/07/2001 5:51:46 PM PDT by Un-PC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Un-PC
The "owned 85% of the land" is a myth. Most of the land was unclaimed or government owned.
45 posted on 10/07/2001 5:56:37 PM PDT by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
I guess riamondo is unavailable for comment...that's right, the peace protests are going on in Frisco right now.
46 posted on 10/07/2001 6:00:45 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Un-PC
The formation of the 'seperate Jewish economy' was spurred by the Arab boycott of the Jews that started during the Mandate and continues to this day.
47 posted on 10/07/2001 6:01:12 PM PDT by JAWs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
The Japanese and Germans can get us out any time they choose.
48 posted on 10/07/2001 6:08:43 PM PDT by carcajou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evita
The hideous little dwarf-bitch's quote was widely publicized throughout the moslem world.

She perhaps wanted to demonstrate a mental toughness, and hence resolve, but it sure didn't sound right. As though she and the U.S. had to "pay the price" of half a million dead Iraqi children.

I'll bet she put that sentence in the proper context by explaining that the blame lied entirely with Saddam in not letting the food for oil through to the children, and that even more children would die if Saddam carried out his plans unhindered. At least I hope she did.

49 posted on 10/07/2001 6:11:36 PM PDT by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ouroboros
Well, I thought (past tense?) I agreed with the title, at least, since we don't want to occupy the Middle East long term, to say the very least.
50 posted on 10/07/2001 6:12:44 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson