Zionist Aspirations of Theft and Terror
Ben-Gurion's view of the extent of "Zionist aspiration" and his proposals about Southern Lebanon appear in numerous sources. For example, in his memoirs, Ben-Gurion expressed his support for a 1937 British proposal to partition Palestine, explaining:
The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Trans-Jordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision.
We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.
Quoted in Simha Flapan, "The P.L.O.: A Step Backwards or Forwards," New Outlook: Middle East Monthly (Tel Aviv, Israel), April/May 1977, pp. 2-3.
Similarly, Ben-Gurion's biographer notes that Ben-Gurion wrote to his son that:
A partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning. . . .
I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if there is a state. Our strength vis-à-vis the Arabs will increase.
I am not in favor of war . . . [but if] the Arabs behave in keeping with [their] nationalist feelings and say to us: Better that the Negev remain barren than that Jews settle there, then we shall have to speak to them in a different language.
But we shall only have another language if we have a state.
Later, in May 1948, quite confident of Israel's military superiority -- contrary to the common "David and Goliath" legend -- Ben-Gurion presented the following strategic aims to his General Staff (p. 166):
[W]e should prepare to go over to the offensive with the aim of smashing Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria. . . .
The weak point in the Arab coalition is Lebanon [for] the Moslem regime is artificial and easy to undermine. A Christian state should be established, with its southern border on the Litani river [within Lebanon]. We will make an alliance with it.
When we smash the [Arab] Legion's strength and bomb Amman, we will eliminate Transjordan too, and then Syria will fall.
If Egypt still dares to fight on, we shall bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo. . . . And in this fashion, we will end the war and settle our forefathers' accounts with Egypt, Assyria, and Aram.
Understanding Power: Chapter Four Footnotes -- 39
The biographer also recounts the story of Ben-Gurion passing through the Jordan Rift Valley in February 1949, accompanied by a young general whom he admired.
Gazing at the Mountains of Edom beyond the Jordanian border, Ben-Gurion asked the general: "How would you take those hills?"
The general explained the route that he would take and the forces he would employ, then he asked in astonishment: "Why do you ask? Do you want to conquer those hills?"
Ben-Gurion answered: "I? No. But you will conquer them" (pp. 186-187).
... not the fact that the Zionist state has been the aggressor and expansionist since its formation, but that Zionist leaders saw attacking the Arabs of today as also revenge for Jewish mythology's ancient enemies of Egypt, Assyria and Aram.
This ideology of having revenge now on people whose ancient ancestors supposedly bullied the Israelites thousands of years ago is a major propaganda factor aimed at religious Jews. If one reads religious Zionist publications aimed at Jews, he will see many of Israel's modern enemies being compared to Pharoah, Haman, Nebuchadnezzer, etc, and saying that fighting them is a continuation of fighting Israel's historical enemies.
Apparently, throughout the ages, REVENGE appears to be one of their top priorities.
I see a distinction between justice and revenge, though the two can be confused with one another.
Justice could be executed in revenge for a crime but it is ALWAYS directed against the perpetrator of that crime. Whereas, revenge that is directed against innocent persons who are merely related to the perpetrator is NEVER just.
Then, of course, there is psychotic, vindictive revenge which is exacted in retaliation to a perceived insult, e.g., being the object of another man's girlfriend's affection, etc. That is NEVER just, because no crime is committed in the first instance. This type of revenge is always the product of a psychotic, deranged mind - often a megalomaniac.