By Felix Quigley

January 13, 2009

The last weekend saw many Israel haters in Ireland take to the streets, in effect shrilling for the Fascist Hamas. It is a strange phenomenon and shows a large antisemitic movement taking to the streets, the ground having been prepared by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign antisemites over many years

They were led by Sinn Fein, reactionary trade union leaders and by professional Israel haters of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Even present was the notorious pro British Imperialist Mairead Corrigan. I remember when this lady was booed off the falls Road because of her support for the real British Imperialist troops in Belfast and Derry.

No problem to these opportunists in the Sinn Fein movement. At the weekend they were arm in arm along with the notorious Mairead Maguire, who is now an Israel hater supreme.

It was in Derry, Protestant Unionists call it Londonderry, a radio wit called it London stroke Derry, that the worst lies were told about Israel and the Jewish Homeland. They were told by a leading member of the Derry Anti War Coalition, a guy called McAuley, as reported by the Belfast Telegraph of 2 January, 2009

[Begin quote here]

Speaking ahead of the event, DAWC spokesman Davy McAuley said today: “More than 400 people been killed by the Israeli bombing since Christmas. We want people to show their opposition to this slaughter by coming to the protest in Guildhall Square at 3pm on Saturday.

And then McAuley came out with this massive lie

[begin quote here]

McAuley claimed the bombing however was not in response to Palestinians firing rockets into Israel.

“It began with the expulsion of the Palestinians at gunpoint from their homeland 60 years ago. They have lived since in refugee camps or crammed into tiny areas like Gaza — an area a sixth the size of Co Derry, with a million and a half people.”

What McAuley did not say is that if the Gaza is that size, then Israel is not much more than the size of Derry. But then McAuley is obviously one of those who wear blinkers when it comes to all things about Israel.

The big lie of McAuley is contained in that business about the “expulsion of the Palestinians”.

A slight problem immediately but one not likely to worry McAuley. There were NO Palestinians in 1948. The Arabs did not in general use that name at all until well after 1967.

But at gunpoint! Expelled!

Thus is part of the Big Lie narrative. I happen to think, especially looking back and since hindsight is handy, that the Arabs should have been expelled from the Israel to be. The Arabs were all hostile to the Jewish state, that is the Arabs were anti-Semitic.

But actually the Israeli leaders were on a different track altogether and they have paid for their kindness so dearly since then.

A more truthful answer is found in this reply to a similar liar to McAuley by CAMERA organization. The CAMERA answer was to a fellow liar of McAuley called Buttu and it is very comprehensive. If you are reading this up in Derry then check it out

[begin quote here]

Moreover, Arab terrorism against Jews predates Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza as well as the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. More than 500 Jewish residents of Mandatory Palestine were killed by their Arab neighbors. And during the 1950s and early 60s, more than 50 Arab terrorist attacks in Israel claimed the lives hundreds of Israeli civilians. Thus, Buttu’s allegation that Israel’s “occupation” is the cause of terrorism is incorrect.

On Palestinian Refugees & Right of Return

Buttu alleges that Israel “ethnically cleansed” 75 percent of Palestinians in 1948 because of their religion. For instance, on CNN’s “Q&A with Jim Clancy,” she avered:

Let’s remember that 75 percent of the Palestinian Christian and Muslim population were ethnically cleansed from their homelands back in 1948 and have never been allowed to return for one reason and only one reason, and that is because they are the wrong religion, they’re not Jewish. If they were Jewish, they’d be allowed to return to their homes, but because they’re not Jewish, Israel continues to bar them from returning to their homes… Palestinians will simply not acquiesce to being ethnically cleansed from their homes. (May 26, 2003)

Buttu on Canada AM, CTV:

Let’s remember that the only reason that these Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes is because they are the wrong religion. Seventy-five percent of the Palestinian population was ethnically cleansed from their home in 1948 and have not been able to return because they are not Jewish. If they were Jewish they would be allowed to return…We will not be the first people in history to accept being ethnically cleansed…(June 4, 2003)

Buttu on USA Today, Talk Today:

…in order to create a “Jewish” state, seventy-five percent of the Palestinian population was ethnically cleansed, and, to this day, not allowed to return because they are not Jewish…

….approximately 75% of the Palestinian population were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel. Their property was taken at the same time.(June 25, 2002)

FACTS: Buttu combines several fraudulent claims. The term “ethnic cleansing,” which refers to the forcible expulsion of an ethnic group, is used by anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propagandists to suggest racism by the Jewish state.

But, by and large, the Palestinians refugees were not forcibly expelled, and certainly none were sent to concentration camps. They became refugees as they fled–often despite the counsel of their Jewish neighbors to stay–a war launched by their Arab brethren and leaders.

On May 14, 1948, the day the British Mandate expired, the Jewish People’s Council approved a proclamation declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. The declaration included the following appeal to the non-Jews living there–something hardly suggestive of a nation planning to “ethnically cleanse” another population because of its religion:

We appeal–in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months–to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

But almost immediately, five neighboring Arab armies invaded and attacked the new country. Hundreds of thousands of local Arabs fled, many at the behest of their leaders. Only in very few cases, primarily due to military exigencies, were any of them forced out of their homes.

Estimates of the total number of Arab refugees vary from 472,000 (1948 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine) to 726,000 (1949 U.N. Economic Survey Mission), with the most reliable estimate, 550,000, obtained by comparing pre-and post-1948 census figures. (All estimates constitute a considerably lower percentage of the total non-Jewish population than the figure of 75 percent that Buttu alleges.)

Buttu’s argument that Palestinian refugees cannot return to their homes because they are “the wrong religion” is similarly false. Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 Palestinian refugees during the 1949 Lausanne negotiations even prior to official discussion of the refugee question, but the Arab states rejected the offer because it would have implicitly recognized Israel’s existence. Nevertheless, Israel allowed over 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program, and after 1967 allowed a further 165,000 to return to the West Bank and Gaza.

Buttu argues that the Palestinians’ right to return to Israel’s borders is guaranteed under international law and is in violation of U.N. Resolution 194 to which she claims Israel was bound. On USA Today’s “Talk Today,” she claimed:

All civilians who flee during war are entitled, under international humanitarian law, to return to their homes. Israel agreed to this in UN Resolution 194 but, of course, has NEVER allowed Palestinian refugees to return to their homes because they are the wrong religion. Anywhere else in the world, this would be considered intolerable discrimination. But, not in Israel. (May 2, 2002)

Buttu on Q&A with Jim Clancy, CNN:

Well, the right of return is a right that’s guaranteed under international law…

…it is a right that’s enshrined under international law and the Palestinians will simply not acquiesce to being ethnically cleansed from their homes. (May 26, 2003)

Buttu on USA TODAY, Talk Today:

[Nothing] negates the Palestinian right of return; under international law, refugees have the right to return regardless of the circumstances by which they became refugees. (June 18, 2003)

FACTS: The key document on which Buttu bases her claim, U.N. Resolution 194, was rejected by all the Arab states representing the Palestinians specifically because it did not establish a “right of return,” and because it implicitly recognized Israel. It is therefore disingenuous and hypocritical for those same Arab states and Palestinian representatives to reverse their position now that it suits them.

Moreover, the Arab states continually violated the resolution’s central provision, which called for the creation of a Conciliation Commission and:

… establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date … to seek agreement by negotiations [and thereby reach] a final settlement of all questions between them. (paragraphs 4 and 5)

The Arab states, however, consistently refused even to meet with Israel, much less try to reach a peaceful settlement. In fact, the only clause the Arab side ever acknowledged was paragraph 11, which suggested (it could not “require,” since it was a General Assembly rather than a Security Council resolution) that:

refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date … [R]epatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation [should be facilitated]. (emphasis added)

This recommendation that refugees be “permitted” to return can hardly be characterized as creating a “right”–even more so, because returnees were required to first accept living “at peace with their neighbors,” something very few were willing to do. Furthermore, the recommendation did not even hint at any return rights for descendants of refugees.

On International Law and Disputed Territories

Buttu claims that under international law, all territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war legally belongs to the Palestinians. As she said on MSNBC’s “Alan Keyes Is Making Sense”:

…What we’re supposed to control is Areas A, B, and C, which is the entire West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. This is land that was occupied by Israel in 1967, land that the entire international community has said that Israel must return back to the Palestinians. (April 30, 2002)

Buttu on Q&A with Zain Verjee, CNN International:

Well, Israel had absolutely no right to be there [Bethlehem]in the first place. We know this from international law. We know this from the signed agreements. And we also know it from the United Nations and from the United States. (May 7, 2002)

Buttu on CBC  “As It Happens”:

…Under international law, all of the territories that Israel occupied in 1967…belong to the Palestinians and Israel is not even entitled to a single inch of that.

…International law is very clear. There is an international border, and Israel simply has to withdraw to that international border, and from there we can begin to negotiate about other issues… (June 6, 2003)

Buttu on USA Today, Talk Today, June 18, 2003

Israel has, for 36 years, continued to steal Palestinian land and build more and more Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land. These settlements are illegal under international law, constitute a war crime and are also illegal under US law. (June 18, 2003)

The “entire international community” did not envision Israel’s ceding all of the West Bank. U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 was worded deliberately to indicate that Israel was not expected to withdraw from all the territories that had come under its control in the self-defensive war of 1967. Although it was expected to withdraw from some “territories,” according to the resolution, any Israel withdrawal would be predicated on its “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” As American U.N. Ambassador at the time, Arthur Goldberg, noted, “the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal” to indicate “less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel’s prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure.”


Postscript by Felix Quigley

Great work by CAMERA. I would like to see their evidence refuted. But the McAuleys of this world just go on lying and don’t bother much with evidence of any kind. There is a very close parallel between what a guy like McAuley says and what this woman Buttu says. CAMERA proves easily that she is lying, but I do not think that this worries people like Buttu and McAuley.The prevalence of all of this from Spain through Ireland and Europe, even into Canada and the US, is like a real virus attacking historical veracity.

It makes me seriously think that the Nazi Big Lie pales into insignificance compared to this monstrosity. I also happen to think that it is closely connected to the Big Lie against the Serbs put about by the Media, by Islamofascvists in Iran, and by US and EU Imperialist Governments.

And my main conclusion. It is not so easily challenged never mind vanquished. It needs above all a cadre leadership which is based on a clear understanding of history, what really did take place in 1847 to 1949, and in 1967.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s