“Zionism and peace are incompatible”

In Ha’aretz on 20 October, Aluf Benn wrote this:

“Israel’s diplomacy has reached a turning point. Instead of dealing with the failed direct talks, from this point Israel will be orchestrating a diplomatic holding action against the Palestinian initiative to have the UN Security Council recognize Palestinian independence within the 1967 borders. Such a decision would deem Israel an invader and occupier, paving the way for measures against Israel. Obama could scuttle the process by casting an American veto. Would he do it? And at what price?

“Barak is warning Netanyahu that Obama is determined to establish a Palestinian state, even if it requires political risks. The president doesn’t have to come out publicly against Israel, but can simply stand on the sidelines when the Security Council recognizes Palestine. The international movement to boycott Israel will gain massive encouragement when Europe, China and India turn their backs on Israel and erode the last remnants of its legitimacy. Gradually the Israeli public will also feel the diplomatic and economic stranglehold.

“It’s not certain that this will happen.”

We shall see.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

5 comments on this post.
  1. Alan Hart: Zionism and peace are incompatible « hasnain's life:

    [...] http://www.alanhart.net/zionism-and-peace-are-incompatible/#more-1298 [...]

  2. Elwahraanii:

    “If it is the case that American presidents are frightened of provoking Israel, the conclusion would have to be that the Zionist state is a monster beyond control and that all efforts for peace are doomed to failure.”

    That’s why JFK was killed. JFK didn’t want the world to be, one day, in this context before the zionist monster. The Zionist state already took the world as hostage. Now, what can we do ? That’s the question. How can we deal with the nuclear armed zionists ?

    Indeed. Zionism is antinomic with Peace.
    We must try to solve this problem by means of justice only without any violent action. Otherwise the cycle would continue.

  3. admin:

    The following e-mail (with my emphasis added) was sent to me by Mike Sievers through my contact page.

    Hello Alan

    I have a few questions:

    Did the Arabs not lose the 1967 war that they started, and that the Golan Heights, West Bank and the Gaza Strip are the areas of land that they lost during that war?

    Would the Arabs give back any land that they took from Israel if Israel started a war with them and lost?

    Did England not set aside Trans-Jordan for the Palestinians, and then take it away? So in truth, the Palestinians should be in Jordan and not the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?

    If the Arabs are so concerned about the plight of the Palestinians, why do they keep them in those horrible refugee camps?

    Aren’t the Arabs just using the Palestinian problem as a reason to whine about the continued existence of Israel?

    Do you believe that Israel is the land promised by God to the decedents of Abraham and Sarah (Isaac, the Jewish line), and not the decedents of Abraham and Hagar (Ishmael, the Arab line)?

    I look forward to your answers,
    Thank you,
    Mike S

    I thought my response might be valuable to all readers who have not read my book.

    Hello Mike,

    I think the most important of your questions for me to address is the first.

    The Arabs did NOT start the 1967 war. One can say, and I do say, that Nasser was stupid enough to give Israel’s hawks a pretext – actually Dayan and co set a trap for Nasser and he walked into it with eyes more than half open – but that doesn’t change the fact that it was a war of Israeli choice and aggression, not self-defense.

    My prime sources in support of the fact that the Arabs did not start the war are Israeli leaders. I quote them in AMERICA TAKES SIDES, WAR WITH NASSER ACT II AND THE CREATION OF GREATER ISRAEL. This is Chapter 1 of Volume Three of the American edition (www.claritypress.com) of my book ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS, sub-titled CONFLICT WITHOUT END?

    I presume (by all means correct me if I am wrong) that you will not wish to read my book; but having asserted that the Arabs started the war, you might wish to consider the following passage from book which explains why you are wrong.

    If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Jewish state was not in danger was only that of a goy, it could be dismissed by Zionists as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course. Before we look at what actually happened in 1967 and why, here is a short summary of some pertinent, post-war Israeli confessions.

    In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

    On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

    On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Days war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

    In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizman, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”

    In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”1
    In a radio debate Peled said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

    In the same programme Chaim Herzog (former DMI, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”

    On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

    The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”2

    It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, they still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.

    For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982. “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”


  4. #354: Tues Nov 9th: Jane Kelsey book launch & Filipino progressive leaders « GPJA's Blog:

    [...] The somebody was Miko Peled, a Jewish peace activist who was born in Israel and lives in America. http://www.alanhart.net/zionism-and-peace-are-incompatible/ Caterpillar has stopped selling bulldozers to Israel… for now – The Israeli press is [...]

  5. Steve:

    It would help if you would quote the whole relevant passage of what Golda Meir said before your question to her where you seem to rephrase it, which she then agreed with, there doesn’t seem to be a complete version online, and it’s just a truncated quote or paraphrase as is.

Leave a comment