Bibi’s Official Genocide Policy 148


Much is made in the rush to war with Iran of Ahmadinejad’s alleged saying that Israel should be “wiped off the map”. I am not an Iranian speaker and not qualified to enter the debate as to whether that is, or is not, an accurate statement. I view Ahmadinejad as a thug anyway, irrespective of any linguistic quibble.

But it is quite astonishing that Netanyahu’s decalred, published and open intention to wipe the Palestinians from the map gets nil publicity in the west. The source for this is impeccable: Likud’s party platform as presented on the website of the Knesset.

This is absolutely compulsory reading for anybody who was taken in by the opposition to Palestinain statehood “without negotiation” as explained by the Israeli stooges in western governments. This is the actual, official Israeli policy:

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.

So Likud says all of the West Bank belongs to Israel

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

This clearly claims all of Gaza – and Judea and Samaria – as land to which Israeli people have an “inalienable right”. It is the apotheosis of religious fanatic claims to a “Greater Israel”, elevated into the policy of the ruling party.

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz.

So all of Jerusalem is to be taken too.

Likud specifically lays claim to absolutely all of the lands under at least semi-autonomous Palestinian control, and they say these claims are inalienable. There is no hint of any room for negotiation in the language of these statements. The UK and US governments who pretend that it is the Palestinians who are blocking negotiations, do so knowing they are lying, and because the majority of our politicians are tied in to the Israeli lobby with golden cords.

Netanyahu’s platform, claiming every inch occupied by Palestinians, is a programme for genocide. It can be described as nothing else.

There is absolutely no room left to argue that Netanyahu does not intend to wipe the Palestinians off the map.


148 thoughts on “Bibi’s Official Genocide Policy

1 3 4 5
  • angrysoba

    But, Jon, look at what most political groups that are strong among Palestinians want. They want (in the case of Hamas) not a lovey-dovey state of harmony between races and religions. They want to rule “The Holy Land”. I find it almost incredible that in the middle of this “fascist empire” of Israel, it is allowed for Muslims to pray at the al-aqsa Mosque on the site, supposedly (and I say supposedly because all relgion is BULLSHIT!), barred to non-Muslims.
    .
    I know you hate this, but I still marvel at the strength of Israeli law that restricts the idiots to some extent even while Israel has been attacked from day one. I mourn the fact that Israel is a place which Westerners could have learnt so much from.
    .
    Stupidly some people here expect Israel to negotiate its very being. It won’t happen. Israel will not say that its existence is on the scales. I think some people have to get used to that.

  • Stabwound Johnson

    since 1948 there has been a concerted effort to eradicate this “Zionist” state. Why? Is it because Jewish people are extraordinarily evil? Well, no, I don’t think so.

    You’re a bit out of touch, Angry Sobs. The reason they don’t like the Zionist state is not because it has Jews living there, but because of the ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

    Are you also wondering why people tried to eradicate Nazi Germany? Was it because the German people are extraordinarily evil? No – they weren’t trying to eradicate Germany itself. It’s still there. Everyone’s ok with that, now it stopped killing non-Aryans.

  • angrysoba

    I don’t understand Stabwound Johnson but I should say, before the usual slobbering suspects get in on the action, that he seems “unwholesome”. Handle him with care. Or preferably not at all.

  • ingo

    Angry whatever makes you think that I do not want for the Jews to have a home, thing is most do realy not belong there at all, they lived for hundreds of years somewhere else as you well know.
    Both are belligerant and non agreeable, a two state solution will always keep these divisions raw, whilst a single country will force both factions to agree to equal rights and mutuality, however long it may take.

    The whole if fussing over this self created problem forever, this constant focus seem to blur the minds of too many because they cannot see anymore. I do not want to return to constant violations of the stwo state regualtory framework should any ever get established, so the underlying message should be, whoever breaks the agreements is in the wrong and will be castigated for it. How much longer shoudlthe world be bothering about this egoistic concern af a people? Are no other concerns to worry about? Should we not turn our interest topwards living sustainably in the world rather than forever carving each other up for resources greed oil, money and land?

    Nobody in a one state Palestine should have an inbuild majority, they should not be able to function without prgamatic decision making, like I said it would take some wise and powerfull leaders.
    I believe Marwan Barghouti could be one such person, however much Hamas might want him out of the way. Hamas will also have to learn that might does not guarantee popular consent much longer, many are tired of its agressive stance towards their fellow Palestinians.
    You name me a moderate Jew born in Palestine who has the same ties and claims to the land, so he can sit oposite Marwan and negotiate.

  • angrysoba

    Ingo: Angry whatever makes you think that I do not want for the Jews to have a home, thing is most do realy not belong there at all, they lived for hundreds of years somewhere else as you well know.

    .
    Yes, I do know that. But what are the statutes of limitations? In some cases, they are very long. And in some cases they are very short. It all really depends on your personal feelings, apparently.
    .
    Ingo, I have not accused you personally of not wanting the Jews to have a home, have I?
    .
    I thought that by-and-large we have got on well in these comment boxes..
    .
    By the way, I DO expect to be called a Zionist or a Jew-lover or a fascist or whatever. At least I expect it here.

  • Canspeccy

    Odd that a document containing statements such as:
    .
    The overall objectives for the final status with the Palestinians are: to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a stable, sustainable agreement and replace confrontation with cooperation and good neighborliness …
    .
    The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule …
    .
    The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents.
    .
    is called genocidal, yet anyone on this blog pointing out that, as a purely factual matter, the policy of successive British Governments to import millions of philoprogenitive people from elsewhere constitutes genocide, is called a racist.
    .
    One way to interpret this bizarre contradiction is to assume that the objective in declaring Israel genocidal is because it is a fundamentally nationalist state, i.e., a state committed to the survival of its own people. That is consistent with calling those who oppose replacement of the British by people from elsewhere racist.

  • CanSpeccy

    “whatever makes you think that I do not want for the Jews to have a home”
    .
    The point is, the Zionists wanted a place were they could all be at home together, and to permit that, the Brits gave them someone else’s home.
    .
    The Palestinians have been robbed and oppressed. The question is where to go from here.
    .
    The Palestinians deserve compensation for loss of property and for suffering inflicted. But in addition they need somewhere they can live without being bombed and harassed. One solution would be for the pro-Zionist countries, UK/US/Australia/Canada and others to offer the six million Palestinians the right of entry.
    .
    Alternatively, maybe someone will give them a home of their own. Could a deal not be struck with Egypt to give them a few thousand square miles of Sinai? Then the backers of the Zionist regime and Israel itself could provide cash both to compensate Egypt and to enable the construction of a Palestinian city state in the Sinai and incorporating Gaza.
    .
    I don’t see why, under some such an arrangement, Palestine and Israel could not live side-by-side in prosperity and amity.

  • Azra

    Angrysoba, I was not getting into the debate regarding whether Iran’s government aspirations are to produce Nuclear Weapon or not. For all I care they might be, and frankly good on them (as much as I despise the present government of Iran, and wish them out as far from Iran as possible). What I was saying is that BBC and other media on purpose misinform. What I heard from other Iranian was that AN in fact said Israel should not be on the map. Taking into account that it was not on the map until British government put it there, I tend to agree with AN, even though I disagree with most of his policies. Holocaust happened in Europe, Jews were persecuted in Europe, yet it is the Middle East which is bearing the brunt.

  • Jon

    @Angry, thanks. I’m not specifically aware of policies of pro-Palestinian groups who want to rule the ‘Holy Land’ but I can well believe it. I’m quite comfortable acknowledging that there is extremism on both sides, whilst siding generally with the Palestinians (they are suffering the greater injustice in this particular disagreement, they have had more hurt/killed in the tit-for-tat violence, and Israel as a developed society with a judicial system and an older democracy should know better).
    .
    For the record, if a Palestinian group wants to rule all of Israel, then I’d dismiss them with the same contempt I tend to reserve for Netanyahu and his crowd. But, as far as I am aware, Hamas has already been on record as being willing to agree to the 1967 borders. Perhaps they have changed their position?
    .
    In terms of Israel “negotiating its very being”, do you mean that as a response to the One State solution? I’ve seen the One State proposal dismissed on the front page of The Telegraph as “evidence of rising British anti-semitism” by some neo-con Israeli spokesperson (probably Prosor), and that’s just inflammatory nonsense. But the democratic mandate it would then give to the Arab/Palestinian majority would, I agree, turn Israeli politics on its head.
    .
    I don’t see this as negotiating the “very being” of Israeli *people*, however. Sure, the name of the state would change, and I agree this is a big deal for any country, never mind one as nationalist as Israel. But the One State proposal comes about because Israel is running out of options. The only other alternative is for them to give their land back, to the 1967 lines, and as far as I can tell they not only have no wish to do so, but are actively stealing more land.
    .
    I can’t help but feel that the US adds to the deadlock. They could quite easily hurry Israel back to the negotiating table (without preconditions) by withdrawing their foreign subsidies (probably on a graduated basis, to be realistic). However, as you have correctly pointed out in the past, Obama doesn’t have the ability to do so unilaterally, and it is not clear he would do so anyway.
    .
    For the record, I think a moderately progressive president would have no problem doing so, whilst underscoring an even commitment to both sides (after all, the PA military hardware hardly gets the same handouts 🙂 ). Sadly, I suspect this would end up in the US President (of whatever stripe) either being forced out of office, or assassinated. That is the scale of the intractability of this problem.

  • Jon

    CanSpeccy, yes, compensation for the Palestinians. Perhaps a third option would be for Israel to *permanently* fund some component of a new Palestine elsewhere? For the nationalist, there is no greater disgrace than accepting ones unjust expulsion from ones homeland; perhaps the fund would serve as a constant mechanism to reduce that hurt. This one is pretty unworkable too, in the present political climate, of course…
    .
    Still, there is some strange propagandistic effect at play here, even upon me: we regard the Israeli situation as so inviolable, because of the horrors of the Holocaust, that we would send the original inhabitants of that land packing after centuries of holding it, before we would ask the Israelis to consider moving after they’ve lived there for 60. I’m *not* saying I think Israel should pack its bags, but it is an interesting dynamic (especially that it also affects me, considering I call myself a pro-Palestinian).

  • Stabwound Johnson

    Canspeccy

    carefully picking out the less troubling parts of the document, ignoring the rest and then acting all bemused that people are concerned about the document as a whole is pointless and childish. How old are you? 14?

  • Komodo

    No-one is saying that Israel should not exist. Even Hamas will accept the 1967 borders-or something like them-, and a contiguous Palestinian state. The noises made by some extremists, that Israel should not exist would have a lot less force, and the Hamas moderates, sidelined by continous reprisals and intermittent major assaults on their blockaded ghetto, would have some ascendancy. But:
    .

    The theft of land and the eviction of its legal owners, is wrong.
    .

    The confinement, by an entity (you’ll argue all day if I call it a religion, or a race, or a culture) which cites its own brutal ghettoisation as a reason for its existence, of 1.25 M people in a ghetto, without the possibility of trade,indefinitely, is wrong.
    .

    And since you mention it, denying free access and worship to the non-Jewish religions which regard Jerusalem as part of their heritage, is wrong.
    .

    There are other wrongs. The wrongest wrong of all is the devious pretence that fair treatment of the Palestinians is offered under any conditions at all, where, in reality, it isn’t and never has been, and the offers are simply a delaying tactic while ethnic cleansing proceeds unchecked.
    .
    And neither you nor any other Ashkenazi settler is going to make that right, or look right.

  • Sven

    If you consider yourself “not qualified to enter the debate” how can you know for certain that the Iranian president is “a thug”? Based on what? Western corporate media, all to happy to spread the Zionist bullshit?

    An overwhelming majority Iranians voted for him and the current governance but all we saw from our horizon was the Iranian equivalent of the Miami Cubans and the rich Venezuelans in their posh suburbs, that is, middle/upper class Iranians in Teheran and the diaspora. I believe the same about information on Iran fed to us by the usual suspects…

  • angrysoba

    Commode: No-one is saying that Israel should not exist. Even Hamas will accept the 1967 borders-or something like them-, and a contiguous Palestinian state.
    .
    You’re batting 0 for 2 there (baseball term), as yes, some people ARE saying Israel should not exist. Those who tend to refer to Israel as the Zionist entity don’t want Israel to exist. Those who say, “Oh let’s just put everyone together in one big happy state” are either ignorant or disingenuous because there won’t be a big happy state as well you should know. Hamas say, in their charter, that they won’t accept a Jewish state and several things that they have said and done have shown that Israel won’t be accepted as an existent state. To deny this is, as I have said, either ignorant or disingenuous.
    .
    The wrongest wrong of all is the devious pretence that fair treatment of the Palestinians is offered under any conditions at all, where, in reality, it isn’t and never has been, and the offers are simply a delaying tactic while ethnic cleansing proceeds unchecked.

    .
    I do agree with you here. Or at least partly. Netanyahu, for example, is no man of peace. He’s not interested in peace and he’s most certainly not interested in giving the Palestinians anything. Even Shimon Peres is now all but openly calling Netanyahu a dictator and I agree with him. This man is is a dangerous lunatic who needs to be removed. I was going to add “one way or another” but I worry that might be interpreted in a way that isn’t good.

  • opit

    I was reading BlueGirlRedState ( now at They Gave Us a Republic…among others ) when she said her son, who spoke farsi from when they were stationed in Turkey’s US/NATO nuclear weapons base ( of Cuban Missile Crisis fame ) exclaimed that the ‘translation’ of Ahmadinejad’s speech was nothing like what he actually said; from A’s quoting ‘vanishes from the pages of times’ speech of of Kahmeni
    There was a flurry of returns about a ‘disinformation campaign’ running an ongoing program of false translations. So : http://ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com/

    As to the rest : CASMII has more than enough information to support an analysis that, like the http://www.leadingtowar.com/intro.php or ‘After Downing Street’s revelations ( http://warisacrime.org/ ) the U.S. was following the premises of the NPT TRAP
    ( In comments ) http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2011/09/911-ten-years-later.html
    or this thread http://www.sindark.com/2011/05/24/preventing-accidental-nuclear-war/

    Query : Just how odd do you consider it to be that the nations of the UN Security Council ( all with nuclear arms ) sell the idea that signatories of Atoms for Peace agreements ( the NPT : and see the Third Pillar ) are the REAL danger ? These are the people holding conferences trying to disarm the Middle East.

  • Komodo

    That Mark Regev, he’s funny. Comical Eli, you might say. I can’t recall him ever telling the truth.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Ah, let’s have a round of applause for the spambots! For they’re some jolly good fellows, for they’re some jolly good fellows… ! And so say all of us!

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.