Israelisch Expansionisme 7

Vorige week vrijdag schreef ik dit stukje: 'De Volkskrant berichtte vanochtend: ''Israël zal uiterlijk in 2010 de definitieve grenzen van de joodse staat vaststellen tenzij Hamas Israël erkent en afziet van geweld. Dat heeft waarnemend premier Ehud Olmert donderdag gezegd in een interview met The Jerusalem Post. Het is voor het eerst dat Israël een deadline noemt voor het vaststellen van de definitieve grenzen.'' Zie: http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article243192.ece Kennelijk gaat de Volkskrant ervan uit dat haar lezers zo onnozel zijn dat ze zich niet zullen afvragen waarom een land dat sinds 1948 bestaat pas over vier jaar laat weten waar zijn grenzen liggen, dus 62 jaar na dato. Om de Volkskrant-redactie al vast een beetje op weg te helpen: 'In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403) Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future "Jewish state". In a letter Ben-Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country." (Righteous Victims, p. 138) In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission's proposal: "The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan," Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, "is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184) And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that : "I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)… Soon after the U.N. Proposed Partitioning Palestinian in November 1947, Ben-Gurion urged his party to accept the partition because it will never be final, "not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements." (Simha Flapan, p. 32)Similarly, even most left wing parties reaffirmed their commitment to the complete redemption of Biblical "Eretz Yisrael," the United Hebrew Labor (Ahdut Haavodah) stated:"partition is the best or shortest way of realizing greater Zionism" and declared that its members would "not cease to strive for the integrity of the homeland." (Simha Flapan, p. 33)When Pinhas Rozen, who became Israel's first Israeli Justice, demanded that Israel's Declaration of Independence should cite the COUNTRY'S BORDERS, Ben-Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following points: ROZEN: "There's the question of the borders, and it CANNOT BE IGNORED."BEN-GURION: "Anything is possible. If we decide here that there's to be no mention of borders, then we won't mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative]."ROZEN: "It's not a priori, but it is a legal issue."BEN-GURION: "The law is whatever people determine it to be." (1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii) Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides: "Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we're still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders--- it's an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limit. Bo border is absolute. If it's a desert--- it could just as well be the other side. If it's sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 6) It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the "Jewish state", the quote above is a classical example how the Bible is used to achieve political objectives. During the course of the 1948 war, Yigal Allon submitted a detailed plan to Ben-Gurion for the military conquest of the West Bank, arguing that the Jordan River would provide the best strategic border. He believed that a substantial part of the Palestinian population would flee east because of the military operations, he stated: "Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now" (emphasis added). (Simha Flapan, p. 114) When Israel signed the armistice agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, Ben-Gurion stated: "The November 29[, 1947 U.N.] decision had given the Jewish state 14,920,000 dunums; now we have 20,662,000 dunums in our control. While the UN has not yet recognized our borders, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon have done so." (Simha Flapan, p. 49) In other words, Israel managed to expand its borders 38% more than the area allotted to the "Jewish state" by 1947 UN GA partition plan. It should be noted that 60% of the Israelis soldiers were killed in action, were killed in offensive actions in the areas conquered beyond areas allotted by the UN to the "Jewish state." (Simha Flapan, p. 198-199).' Lees verder:http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story695.html Vooral ook het boek van de Israelische auteur en vredesactivist Simha Flapan is onthullend. Het heet 'The Birth of Israel. Myths and Realities.' Warm aanbevolen voor mijn immer wakkere collega's van de Volkskrant. Zijn boek verklaart ook het feit waarom Israel geen grondwet heeft. In een grondwet moet namelijk staan waar de grenzen precies liggen waarbinnen de constitutie van kracht is. Bovendien wordt duidelijk waarom ook in de ontafhankelijkheidsverklaring met geen woord wordt gerept over de grenzen. Naar een zo groot mogelijk Israel streeft al meer dan een halve eeuw zowel de Israelische linkse Arbeiderspartij als het rechtse Likoed. In hun beleid gingen en gaan ze nog steeds uit van het adagium 'dunam for dunam' oftewel hectare voor hectare totdat uiteindelijk het ideaal van het Eretz-Israel op gestolen Palestijns gebied is bereikt. Een dergelijke politiek is natuurlijk extremistisch en stuit onvermijdelijk op gewapend verzet. Dat spreekt voor zich, maar de Westerse commerciele media zwijgen hierover. In hun ogen is Hamas alleen maar een extremistische organisatie en Israel niet. Het interesseert ze niet dat dit pure propaganda is. Een serieuze journalist zou zich moeten afvragen wie de afgelopen halve eeuw de ware extremisten zijn geweest.' Zie:
http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2006/03/israelisch-expansionisme-5.html Ik heb dit opgestuurd naar de Volkskrant-redactie met de vraag waarom men geen aandacht besteedt aan deze achtergronden, geen aandacht heeft voor de vraag waarom Israel nooit zijn grenzen heeft bepaald. Zolang dit feit buiten beschouwing blijft, kan men onmogelijk spreken van evenwichtige verslaggeving. Ik heb nog geen reactie ontvangen. Ik hou u op de hoogte.