The "calming" effect of ethnic purity
In 1989 Benjamin Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University:
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
In August, 2002, Ali Abunimah published an expose on Gamla, "a group founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers." Its website featured a technical paper entitled "The Logistics of Transfer," which calls for Israel to ethnically cleanse all of the Palestinian territories as "the only possible solution." Besides offering instructional suggestions, it provides a theological justification for those not convinced by the political rationale.
On October 3rd, the Guardian featured an essay by the prominent Israeli historian Benny Morris on the history of the concept of transfer as a political tool in Israel-Palestine. Morris seemed to also write this in response to the more frequent discussion of transfer as an option. He cited "Shmuel Eliahu, the chief rabbi of Safad" who "called for the transfer, to 'Jordan, the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union, or Canada,' of Arabs who are unwilling to accept Israel as a Jewish state."
He wrote that ethnic purity would have been the "historically calming result."
During the 1989 Chinese Tiananmen Square protest and subsequent massacre, most civilized nations of the world were lending support for the protesters and vilification of the Chinese government for its violent treatment of its citizens bravely protesting repressive Chinese government policies.
Most civilized nations, that is, except Israel. Israel, as so eloquently stated by former PM "Bibi" Netanyahu, saw the human tragedy unfolding in China as a chance to ramp up its ethnic cleansing campaign against the indigenous Palestinians.
That is definitely "Beyond Chutzpah."
Seeking to benefit from the misfortunes of others at the same time, forcing an apartheid policy upon a defenseless people is an abomination.
An abomination that has was been ongoing for nearly 60 years. An abomination that was compounded by the 1967 Israeli war of aggression in which Israel stole huge chunks of land from its neighbors and occupied an even larger chunk of prime Palestinian territory.
Stolen land that Israel has steadfastly held onto to this day, refusing to abide by United Nations resolution 242.
When confronted about its legitimacy as a state, Israel and her backers point out U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181.
Let's leave out the fact that the UN's charter doesn't allow it to establish states, for the sake of argument. If the Israeli's and her backers claim UN resolution 181 as the basis for their nation, then they are acknowledging the legitimacy of UN resolutions.
Therefore, Israel, in order to keep her status as a nation, should also abide by UN resolution 242 and immediately cease its occupation of Palestine and withdraw to the pre-war 1967 borders, as stated in UN resolution 242.
Either that, or give up any pretense of being an actual nation, since if Israel refuses to acknowledge UN resolution 242 as not being legitimate, then neither is UN resolution 181.
Which one do you choose, Israel?
