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 2 3 4 5
  • Stephen

    “First you said you didn’t know what hasbara meant” – no I didn’t I said that in relation to the “other terms” and I subsequently explained that this was the case.

    On Netanyahu – I don’t deny that he is a nasty piece of work but I don’t see any evidence that he said that particular quote. How is asking for precision in what he actually said blurring the issue?

    If you think I’m working for Mossad you really are deluded – but it wouldn’t be the only ridiculous belief that you hold

  • Jiusito

    Still reflecting on Ahmedinejad’s notorious comment, it has finally dawned on me that George Harrison’s 1970 album “All Things Must Pass” was a thinly veiled threat to destroy the whole planet in a nuclear armageddon.

    Thank goodness George died before he could develop the weapons he needed to achieve this!

  • ingo

    No Stephen, just because he has said it once, an outpouring of his feeble fievrish mind in the haste of a batlle he sorely missed taking part in, does not mean its untrue. It was said allright and it is another indication that mental instability and obsessions of grandeur have deluded his focus away from possible negotiations.
    His posing over Gilat Shalid release was a feast for any shrink that watched the well reheared proceedings.
    Should he have any considerations for Israel’s future than he would do its utter best to re start the negotiations. But I do not think his intentions are anywhere else than with grabbing more land that does not belong to Israel, just as Assad, he is not listening.

    He is the sole brake on the peace process and those who enforce his mental disabilities and lack of social responsibility for other human beings, are as guilty of the inhumanities this stalling entails.
    To announce a stop to the building of hill top bastions and to release Marwan Barghouti would be a sign to set, well within his options, but it precludes the will to change one’s obsessive behaviour. Maybe a psychotherapist can help to break down the borders within the mind of this savon in power, because his single minded ascent to the dictator plateau is almost certain.

    Bibi needs help of a professional shrink!

  • Komodo

    Stephen,
    I said you’re an amateur. Don’t get delusions of grandeur. And Israel really, really doesn’t need your help. It’s got professionals.

  • Stephen

    Ingo

    I cannot see any evidence of him having said it once apart from two comments on blogs. I agree that Netanyahu (and Likud for that matter) is a barrier to peace – I just don’t think it helps to demonise him even further by using made up quotes.

  • Komodo

    Agreed, that quote seems to be a fabrication. Not that Sky is likely to have kept the original tape if it isn’t. You Tube? Founded in 2005 – the alleged quotation was made in or before 2003.
    .
    But who needs fabrications? Likud has clearly stated (above) that a Palestinian state West of the Jordan is not an option, and that it will continue to squeeze the fragmented Bantustans while refusing them self-determination or self-defence. Palestine was “wiped off the map”, against every stated intention of the major powers in facilitating Israel’s creation, in 1947. Netanyahu and his predecessors have repeatedly blamed the Palestinians for obstructing peace negotiations, and now it becomes clear that they never intended there to be a peace.
    .
    Hard to defend, Stephen. I don’t envy you.

  • passerby

    “Netanyahu …. I just don’t think it helps to demonise him even further”

    ,
    How can anyone complain about those whom; demonise the Satan? The Satanist of course, (or is that zionist fellow travellers? using the arcane and wholly not with it, expression).
    ,
    ,
    Examples of hate speech by Israelis against Palestinians
    ,
    The parade of zionist ghouls, all bent on destruction of Palestinians (read the whole of none Jewish population of the Mid-East) is a never ending horror show. The Jewish Supremacist have never hidden or even tried to hide their ghastly intentions. It is the syanim whom have been kidding the goyem along with their relentless spreading of lies, designed to obfuscate the truth on the ground in the land of Settlers, Oppression, and Genocide. These agents stand equally guilty of crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace. In a just world these war criminals would be facing the humiliation of trials, that would have shined the spotlight on their ghastly crimes, going so far as finding the enablers, and sponsors of these blood thirsty cretins.

  • Stephen

    Komodo

    I wasn’t aware that I was defending Likud – just be a little wary that politicians sometimes have stated public postions that they may be prepared to negotiate away from – they exist on teh Palestinian side as well.

    Passerby

    So lying to demonise Satan or someone you disagree with is ok in your book? The ends justify the means? Have you ever read Darkness at Noon by Koestler – I would recommend it as remdial therapy.

  • Stephen

    For the avoidance of doubt I don’t agree with the stated Likud policy or think that the hate quotes to which passerby links are appropriate (assuming that they are all correct quotes). It would be perfeectly possible to produce hate quotes where Israel and Jews are the target (not a few from this blog) but apart from identifying and acknowledging the obvious fact that there is hate on both sides of the argument – I fail to see how that would contribute anything at all.

  • Komodo

    Likud’s position is in complete harmony with its actions. I see no indication, now or in the history of the matter, that this has been anything other than Israeli policy for decades. And some commentators have been risking charges of antisemitism for years to point this out. Now it is confirmed. With Liebermann’s fascists an essential part of the coalition, there is even less likelihood that this agenda is just for shits and giggles. Get real, Stephen.

  • angrysoba

    King of Welsh Noir: I seem to remember we had quite a long discussion in the comments section of this blog last year about what Ahmadinejad actually said. The consensus was then, as now, that he had expressed the belief that one day the regime would disappear from the pages of history. But Angrysoba managed to come up with plenty of counter-sources that disputed that. Angry? You there?

    .
    Hi there, King!
    .
    Yes, thanks for remembering me. I did indeed discover from an Iranian friend of mine that the important verb in question was a passive verb suggesting that all Ahmadinejad said in his reiterating of Khomeini was a wish that Israeal – or the occupiers of Quds, to give a perhaps slightly more accurate translation – would disappear from the pages of time.
    .
    This is quite true. It is still true that plenty of Iranian media translate the same thing into English as “wiped from the map” and it is true that MEMRI, which some people such as Komodo equate with Stormfront, also did NOT translate as “wiped from the map”.
    .
    Anyway, what is also true is that Netanyahu and his party of bully-boy thugs – Likud – need to be removed from power and it is true that powerful groups such as the Israeli president and Israel’s supreme court are speaking out/will speak out against Netancunthu.
    .
    What is also true is that there are some people such as Craig Murray who support the idea of a one-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. I would love to believe such a thing could happen unfortunately Craig Murray hasn’t explained where the rainbows and the unicorns will painted on the parliament of such a nation. He can’t possibly think there wouldn’t be a complete massacre of Jews if people like Hamas or Hezbollah took over the country and the surrounding hostile countries got to tear into the flesh of the Jewish population there.
    .
    Instead we have a terrible stand-off in which no one smells of roses but there are few situations which are so bad that they couldn’t possibly be worse. Unfortunately most people on this blog advocate worse.

  • Stephen

    Komodo

    Get real yourself – of course it has been Israeli policy for decades and that policy will need to change if there is to be a sustainable peace. The question is to what and how – and that is where your contribution is singularly lacking.

  • Komodo

    Not seeing much in the way of ideas from you, come to that.
    Not surprising. Peace cannot come from the Palestinian side unless
    1. Jerusalem remains multicultural
    2. Jewish Israel stops building illegal settlements
    3. There is a separate autonomous contiguous Palestinian state
    None of these will be considered as preconditional by Israel, 1 and 3 are now known to be nonnegotiable and 2 probably is as well.

    From the Israeli side:
    1. The rockets stop
    2. No preconditions
    3. No concessions.

    1. The last ceasefire and the one before it were broken by Israeli attacks. Good faith is lacking, then. Anyway, why should they? Israeli strikes routinely kill Palestinians in far greater numbers.
    2. The Palestinians have clear objectives. They are legitimate in the eyes of the rest of the world. Why should they not state them?
    3. And ultimately, Israel’s policy, as you yourself have miraculously acknowledged, is to deny the Palestinians a state. So there’s absolutely no fucking point in the Pals giving an inch.

    My suggestion: First, the US and UK should withdraw all aid and co-operation until a settlement is not only agreed but in place and functioning. Second, no diplomacy has even been attempted by Israel with Hamas, which is key to Gaza’s pacification. Strong pressure should be applied to make them talk to each other. Third, and not in that order, the UN should be permitted to recognise Palestine as an independent state prior even to agreeing its borders.
    .
    Needless to say, this will never happen, thanks to the US Jewish swing vote, and the need for all candidates to keep AIPAC happy.
    .
    So what do you suggest?

  • ingo

    Angry are you denying Palestine a future? Because your argument sounds as if you are ezxcluding the one state solution, real peace in society based on the fact that it was possible for near 2000 years. These divisions based on ultra zionismn has only apeared at the nd of the last millenium, it is irrelevant when compared to the times when peace existed, between all sorts of religions and people. jerusalem is an international holy site, undeniably and it is not down to some ultra unsocial group within a largely multicultural society to ruin the future for a wider Palestine which yearns for peace.

    The one state solution would take time, healing and mutuality might have many set backs and it will take powerfull representatives to keep it on course, but to see this as an impossibility is utterly futile and it is not the Palestinian position, they are clearly not of one mind over the options on the table, would you not agree?

  • Stephen

    Komodo

    I’d start by taking the emotional language and accusations out of it, neutral go betweens to talk to the various parties to understand where the grounds for manouvre is and then quiet negotiation based on what is possible, pressure from various parties to stop provocative actions on both sides and to instil a sense of security on both sides and a period of restraint by both sides, an end to stupid pay acting and grandsatnding by both sides, probably oodles of dosh and aid to support both states after any agreement. My guess is that this would mean a two state solution. Any sucessful negoatiations will be more about listening and understanding rather than making demands or threats or going in with detailed preconceived notions.

    It was often said that Northern Ireland could never be solved – but progress has been made.

  • Stephen

    There is of course the more common model of conflict resolution – war with the winner enjoying the spoils. The occupy the streets/ moral outrage of the 99%/tents/bloggers model remains something of an unknown quality – but just as guess it won’t work.

  • angrysoba

    No Ingo, I don’t deny the Palestinians a future. I deny the one-state solution – for now – on the basis that no equitable solution between the area’s Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bahai’s, Druze and many others could be found there right now. This is in particular true of Jews and Muslims and only a fool would assert that a waving of a magic wand would solve the problems here. Now, part of this problem is certainly of the makings of certain Zionist factions (though I would caution you not to tar all Zionists with the same brush), the Zabotinsky group was certainly a terrorist faction and I was surprised to hear that a literary hero of mine, Arthur Koestler, was once one of their number. But part of this problem is clearly down to a) Palestinian intransigence from the original UN decision b) The hostility of Arab governments to the existence of Israel c) the horrific extirpation from Arab land of the Mizrahi Jews which almost no one on this blog will even know about d) the fact that it is only actually Jerusalem that most of the anti-Zionists outside of the West give a shit about.
    .
    Now, can I get some little bit of agreement if I say unto you that I hate Netanyahu because he is a complete cunt if you can say unto me that the Jews do deserve not to be exterminated off the face of the earth and do deserve their own bolthole at the very least?
    .
    Is that too much to ask?

  • Azra

    I am a Farsi speaker, I did not listen to that famous speech of Ahmadinejad, but I can say with certainty of another speech which was simultaneously translated on BBC. AN in his speech said ” Iran has every right to Nuclear Technology” and the translator translated “Iran has every right to Nuclear Weapon”, next day the papers had that in their headlines. On the 3rd evening after the speech, the BBC presenter at the end of the news apologised for wrong translation! wrong translation my FOOT!

  • angrysoba

    Azra, I think you’re right and I hate all the bullshit. Yet, I think most commenters here have now come round to the idea that Iran does want nuclear weapons technology and not merely, as they said before – in line with Iranian government pleas – civilian nuclear power. Let’s at least admit that those stupid warmongers were right about that.
    .
    For what it is worth I am not a warmonger and I love Iran!
    .
    I love Ireland too:
    .
    Please listen to this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGZjRXEAoqI

  • Abe Rene

    The Likud platform goes further than the South African policy of Grand Apartheid; in South Africa the bantustans such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana were at least in theory independent with govermnents of their own.

    I have been reading about Martin Buber, who interestingly supported a vision remarkably like Craig’s – a binational state in the same territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Brit_Shalom_and_the_bi-national_solution). A disciple of Buber, Aubrey Hodes, who save dthe life of a Palestinian during the 67 war and so passed Buber’s “existential test” (a situation showing what stuff we are really made). I’ve srarted re-reading his “Martin Buber: an intimate portrait”.

    Here’s a wiki article on the “one state solution”, which is apparently supported by Israeli Arabs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

  • Komodo

    If you’re going down the N.Ireland route, Stephen, you need to include Hamas (and Hizb’ullah, for the disputed northern border)…as I said. I hope you mean to. And I really hope you can get Netanyahu to agree. Let alone the Israeli public, who have been fed gungho bullshit for forty years. The IRA were always a minority, like their opponents. This is a nation.
    .

    Angrysobs: Think you’ll find that the majority of informed Brits give more of a fuck about Gaza and its continued illegal blockade than Jerusalem. Quite a lot of a fuck, indeed. We’re a secular lot, by and large.
    .

    Mizrahim: not too popular in their country of refuge, either, as I understand it. Eg.
    .

    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ashkenazi-parent-sephardi-girls-have-a-bad-influence-on-our-girls-1.1513.
    .

    If your religion was a little less exclusive, and you did not regard yourselves as altogether apart from the communities in which you lived, while being closely involved (some of you) with their financial systems, you probably wouldn’t need a bolthole at all. Which is vicious antisemitism, of course, unlike your generalisations re. the goyim, which are fine.

  • Antelope Grazer

    Let’s at least admit that those stupid warmongers were right about that.
    .
    If there’s any credible evidence I’d like to see it. Of course, Iran’s leaders ought to be trying to get the bomb; it’s the only way to protect their people against Yankee bombs and chemical weapons. But if there were any evidence that they are, why would the IAEA be rehashing old discredited rubbish?

  • Abe Rene

    (Corrected, please omit earlier version).

    The Likud platform goes further than the South African policy of Grand Apartheid; in South Africa the bantustans such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana were at least in theory independent with govermnents of their own.

    I have been reading about Martin Buber, who interestingly supported a vision remarkably like Craig’s – a binational state in the same territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber#Brit_Shalom_and_the_bi-national_solution). A disciple of Buber, Aubrey Hodes, who as an ambulanceman saved the life of a Palestinian during the ’67 war despite threats to his life by two armed Israelis, and so passed Buber’s “existential test” (a situation showing what stuff we are really made of). I’ve started re-reading his “Martin Buber: an intimate portrait”.

    Here’s a wiki article on the “one state solution”, which is apparently supported by Israeli Arabs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

  • Mary

    Liars as Friends
    The Way of Empire
    .
    by Kim Petersen / November 18th, 2011
    .
    Not that you lied to me but that I no longer believe you has shaken me.

    – Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

    “This morning we reminded the Israeli ambassador how much we deplore the consequences of this raid for the head of our consulate and his family,” French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said.
    .
    Immediately a pretext was added: “While we recognize Israel’s need to ensure its security, …”
    .

    Why is it that the security of the perpetrator of violence is emphasized but the victim of the violence’s security is not mentioned? Why is the violence deplored when one’s own group members die at the hands of violence but so little is said when out-group victims die? Many would call this racism.
    .
    Gaza is under a siege that is illegal and immoral. It is immoral because of the principle which holds that any actions against an enemy must be targeted solely against that enemy such that civilians are not put at risk. The Israeli actions target indiscriminately — not separating combatants from non-combatants.
    .
    As for Israeli violence against Palestinians, any and all violence from the Israelis is unjustifiable and immoral — even on the pretext of Palestinians having fired rockets into Israel.
    .
    Why? Because Israel was established through the dispossession of an indigenous people, the Palestinians, whose land was occupied. Only if dispossession and occupation are deemed acceptable actions can the responses of Israeli be justified. Hence, since the Palestinians were dispossessed, and since their land was occupied, then Palestinian actions against the siege, dispossession, and occupation are justifiable. The principle is that the dispossessed and occupied have the inalienable right to resist such dispossession and occupation. If the dispossessed/occupied/oppressed do not have the right to resist, then what is to stop dispossession, occupation, and oppression?
    .
    Lies Do Not Shake Friendships in Empire
    .
    As French president Nicolas Sarkozy made known in Cannes recently, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “a liar” and a person he “cannot stand.” Sarkozy subsequently wrote to Netanyahu to affirm his friendship, despite their “differing views on the Middle East.”
    .
    Their differences are mild in comparison to their similarities. Israel and France are allies. What does this mean for the Palestinians? It does not matter because the Palestinians are people in the way of Eretz Israel.
    .
    Empire is not built on moral principles — and lies, even between imperialist allies, are just part of Empire’s endgame.

    .

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/11/liars-as-friends/

  • angrysoba

    Antelope Grazer:
    If there’s any credible evidence I’d like to see it. Of course, Iran’s leaders ought to be trying to get the bomb; it’s the only way to protect their people against Yankee bombs and chemical weapons. But if there were any evidence that they are, why would the IAEA be rehashing old discredited rubbish?

    .
    All I am saying is let’s get our story straight. Do we think that Iran is producing nuclear weapons or not? If yes, are you comfortable with that? If not, why not?
    .
    Okay, I am still listening to some classical music now.
    .
    Vronsky, would you like this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZMmgIvc8g

  • Jon

    @Angry – I tend towards the One State solution, partly for the reasons that Craig has elucidated in the past. Namely, that the 1967 boundaries would require the uprooting of whole estates, shopping malls, towns etc full of Israeli citizens. Now, one could argue that all this land is recently stolen with the collusion of the people now enjoying it, and that it should be returned, but it might just be easier to make the whole thing one land and then people can go where they wish.
    .
    That said, I am for what will satisfy the greatest numbers of *ordinary* Israeli and Palestinian people.
    .
    In terms of finding an equitable solution (and, indeed, nipping any security problems in the bud if anyone is allowed to travel where they wish) I wonder if you think a Truth And Reconciliation Tribunal would work, on the post-Apartheid model? It would have to operate for years, and to my mind would have to hear every case that people wished to bring before it, but I think it would be worthwhile. On both sides, the amount of violent extremism would reduce if people felt they had an outlet through which they could express the injustice they have endured.

  • angrysoba

    Jon, all the ideas you mention sound good. And in a perfect world I would be up for all of them.
    .
    But here is what the “anti-Zionists” don’t get. Isreal, as in a Jewish democratic state, is here to stay. That means that demographically, the population will be self-identifyingly Jewish. Yet 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. Certainly some of those were disgraceful terrorists, such as Jabotinsky, the Irgun and the Stern Gang. I have no problem facing down anyone who says that they weren’t terrorists just as much as I would say to those supporters of the IRA.
    .
    They were terrorists, yes!

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.