Thursday, April 30, 2009

Preparing for the Swine-Avian Flu Pandemic

by Becky Johnson
April 30 2009

Santa Cruz, Ca. -- Having no health insurance myself focuses the mind quite sharply. I'm on my own and my life depends upon it! So with the massive fear (and a little fear-mongering) spreading, and the "just wash your hands" mantra feeling a little inadequate, I thought I would share my Swine Flu Preparedness Kit with anyone who, is a little freaked out, and wants to act proactively.


-- Ibuprofen, Tylenol, or aspirin for fever/aches/pain
-- Seven-up for nausea
-- golden seal -- a natural anti-biotic, gargle, and tea
-- ginger root for gargle and tea
-- eucalyptus cough drops (Halls)
-- Chicken soup (make a nourishing soup for yourself and freeze it now)
-- thermometer --if your fever goes to 104 or higher, you need to know that, and contact your health professional
-- fresh lemons (make hot lemonade with the juice of one lemon and boiling water in a cup)
-- guaifenesin syrup -- the main ingredient in cough syrup, helps to liquify secretions so you can cough up the mucus and phlegm. It is sold over the counter. Stock up!
-- plenty of tissue. Have patient throw used tissues in a paper bag which can be burned or thrown in the trash separately
-- Benydryl -- deaths from the 1918 pandemic were from an over-reaction of the victims' immune systems called a cytokine storm. Benydryl suppresses the histamine response of the immune system. Have the oral kind on hand. Can be given by injection in a hospital if necessary.
-- warm salt water can be snuffled up each nostril to help clear sinuses and throat


gargling with acidophilus helps restore beneficial bacteria and boosts the immune system--can be done before to help prevent infection

hot water bottle --- can be used to warm cold feet or hugged for comfort. Could be filled with ice water and used to cool a feverish patient

vaporizer --- can be turned on near patient to help loosen secretions

garlic --- cut a bulb of garlic in half and put both halves in a crockery bowl with 3 tablespoons of butter. Bake for 45 minutes at 200 degrees or until the garlic is soft. Garlic is a natural anti-biotic and gives the patient a lot of relief


In the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which was another version of the H1N1 virus, the most sudden fatalities occurred due to a cytokine storm. Severe coughing caused hemorrhage and the body's allergic reaction filled the lungs with fluid or blood and victims died by drowning in their own fluids. In some cases, victims suffered loss of bowel control and bled to death when critical intestinal lining was lost.

Therefore, treat coughing with cough drops, guafinesin, hot lemon water, and by elevating the patient's head with pillows to facilitate drainage.

It's very important to stay on top of symptoms. At the first sign of a scratchy throat, the chills, or that rundown feeling, chop up a tablespoon of fresh ginger and simmer in a small pan for half an hour. Drink and gargle with the hot, spicy tea.

Also make a tea with the golden seal. A very small portion can be used (1/3 tsp. per cup of boiling water). Drink and gargle with this.

One of my favorite recipes are "Wellness Capsules" which mix up golden seal, myrrh, ginger, garlic, and onion powder in equal parts (except the golden seal which is 1/2 part) and putting in capsules. Take three "00" caps all at once, then Two in the morning and two at night until symptoms are relieved. Do not exceed 10 days.

Stay warm, but if feverish, do not allow the fever to go over 103 degrees. Drink plenty of fluids. Get plenty of sleep. Use ibuprofen for pain and to regulate the temperature. If temperature goes over 103 degrees, call a doctor, and cool the patient down by sitting them in a bathtub in tepid water, bathing with cool washcloths, and/or giving ice. Monitor their temperature every 15 minutes.


Anti-biotic medicines only work on bacterial infections. If your physician prescribes an anti-biotic, you must restock your alimentary canal with intestinal flora. The best way is with acidophillus or a good pro-biotic. Buttermilk and yogurt both contain healthy bacteria. I personally take a small amount of acidophillus 4 hours after I take an antibiotic and then take larger amounts after the course of anti-biotics is completed.


I am not a doctor or a licensed health professional. My postings here should not be considered an alternative to regular consultations with a physician. My suggestions here are to help people cope with a flu in progress, to make the patient more comfortable, and to prevent severe complications if possible. Only doctors can diagnose a disease.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Dalit Baum tells only half the story

By Becky Johnson

Originally published March 17, 2005

found at:

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- I attended Dalit Baum's presentation by the ladies of the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) held at the Friends Hall in Santa Cruz. This is the 2nd time I have heard her speak. She struck two themes. That the occupation is the obstacle to peace, and that Israeli women and Palestinian women coming together will bring about peace.

This is a very appealing thought, especially to women, since it seems to be that men are responsible for most of the war we see.

Dalit doesn't explain the "illegality" of Israel's presence in Gaza and the West Bank. She just flatly states "they are illegal under international law." She complains that "3 million people do not vote for the government that controls their lives." Both are incorrect.

Of course the Palestinians just held an election on Jan 15, 2005 and elected a new leader. For Dalit, the entire Palestinian Authority doesn't exist. There are only oppressed Palestinians and big, bad Israel. And UN resolution 242 legalized Israel’s control of the West Bank until a peace settlement "with all parties" could be reached. So far Israel has made peace with Jordan and Egypt. However , making peace with the Palestinians has been fraught with setbacks.

She showed many slides of demonstrations against what she calls "the apartheid wall". She called Israel's security barrier "the Wall" so often, that when she showed a photo of a fence which had been pushed over by Palestinian youths, she had to amend her previous statements admitting that "the wall takes many different shapes." She certainly didn't share with her audience that 95% of the length of the barrier is a fence. A fence that could be moved or taken down some day if a political resolution to the conflict can be achieved. No for Dalit "the whole idea of the wall is to separate us."

She implies this is for racist reasons. But she doesn't tell the whole story. She didn't mention even one of the 120 suicide bombs which have reached inside Israel. The latest one, in Tel Aviv, well inside the Green Line, killed 5 and injured 65. Countless more suicide bombers have been thwarted by Israel's heightened security.

But for Dalit, Israel has no legitimate concerns. For her, the entire experience with the state of Israel is "lots of violence from the army, tear gas......severe tear gas, a baby died from it and an old man with a heart condition."

She reports on Machson Watch, an organization of mostly women, who go to many of the "500 Israeli checkpoints" and report any abuses of Palestinians by the IDF soldiers. "Every day these women go there." She admitted she doesn't have the temperament to do that kind of work. But she really admired what they were doing. She said that the members themselves have discussions about their own effectiveness. "They worry that maybe they are making the checkpoints more humane." She questions whether the routine acceptance she sees by many Palestinians to these checkpoints is a good thing.

Apparently they aren't seeing all that much IDF "abuse" for the many hours they are spending there and have the audacity to take credit for that lack of abuse.

As she shows slides of "The Wall", the audience gasps. They begin to see the horror of it. Dalit says the IDF do it to "make the villages starve." The Wall is between Palestinian homes and schools. Its between the farmers and their crops. Its between pregnant women and the hospitals.

Just an aside about pregnant Palestinian women and hospitals. Why aren't they going to Palestinian hospitals? Could it be that the Israeli hospitals are much, much better and they are free? Is that the real reason so many Palestinian women have give birth at checkpoints?

Dalit shows a slide of the highway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem with a wall on both sides. The audience clucks in disbelief. Later that day, they will drive down a highway flanked by soundwalls and think nothing of it.

It's not the same, of course, because when the Israelis build a wall instead of a fence, its an anti-sniper wall. That way ,they can solve the problem of Palestinian terrorists shooting randomly at innocent people in cars. Dalit makes no mention of any problem with snipers.

Why her audience would be upset at a wall that isn't even in areas claimed by the Palestinians is not questioned. Why they would blame Israel for building a wall on its own land to stop PALESTINIAN snipers shows the convoluted logic Dalit takes her audience through.

For Dalit's world is simple. Walls are bad. Israel builds walls. Israel is bad. She doesn't want to clutter her audiences minds with details like 120 suicide bombers or that her "wall" is 95% fence. She certainly doesn't share the fact that some Palestinian villages were asked which side of the barrier they wanted to be on, and they chose Israel. For Dalit, this is a "land confiscation."

She shares with us one of their successes "In the town of Biddu .... one of the places where the supreme court stopped construction." She claims it was because of three things. The sustained effort on the part of the protesters, the decision by the International Court in the Hague in Belgium which condemned Israel’s barrier, and because of an Israeli Supreme Court decision.

In actuality, it was entirely the Israeli Supreme Court decision that changed the route of the barrier. A complaint filed against the barrier construction by Palestinians in its path, was heard by the court, and they ruled that A. the barrier is legal under Israeli law under eminent domain because of the acute necessity of protecting the Israeli people from the unremitting terror attacks and B. the course had to be rerouted and shortened by 40 miles to prevent undue hardships that route would cause to the Palestinian people in its path. But Dalit's mission was not to point out that the Palestinians got justice from an Israeli court.

She described the massive demonstrations (some as many as 5000 people marching) as being "mostly women. Very few men participate in these demonstrations." Her demonstrations are "always peaceful." She says "the young boys always want to throw stones, but they are always stopped from doing that by the organizers."

She said that in Mas'ha on Dec 26, 2003 Anarchists Against the Wall managed to open a gate "and (one of them) was shot in both legs." She claims the IDF "opened fire" on a completely legal non-violent demonstration," killing two. But after showing us slide after slide after slide of women marching in demonstrations, when she lists the names of the five people who the IDF has killed so far, they are all men.

How is it, that the IDF can open fire on a completely non-violent demonstration of mostly women and kill only men?

A woman in the audience asked who the workers are who are building the wall. "Its mostly Palestinian workers who are building the apartheid wall." The audience looks shocked. "But you have to realize that 80% of Palestinian society is unemployed."

Actually Palestinian unemployment is 35.5%. In 1994, when Israel handed over the keys to the Palestinian Authority, it was only 5%. For Dalit's audience, 80% are unemployed and its Israel's fault. And of the 20% who ARE employed, that’s Israel's fault again.

She showed a demonstration in August of 2004 where the grandson of Mahatma Ghandi, Arun Ghandi, came to the demonstration. She showed demonstrators who were climbing the wall and even sitting on top of it. The audience braces itself for the anticipated carnage. But Dalit surprises them. " No one was shot."

"You have a whole group of marchers, and they can only march to a certain point, and if they go over that, they shoot you. The audience gasps at the inhumanity of it. Then she announced that no one was shot "because there were so many internationals there." The audience buys it. Yes, if it weren’t for those brave peace activists, those evil Israelis would mow down everyone in sight.

THE CARTER BOOK'S FALSEHOODS Not Peace, Not Apartheid, Not Palestine

Former US President, Jimmy Carter's one-man attempt to fictionalize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and blame the Jews

by Becky Johnson

Originally published December 5, 2006

found at:

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- When Carter was president, he established a basis for foreign aid based on the human rights conditions imposed by foreign governments on their populace. Using this standard, if he were President today, Israel would more than qualify for aid while the PA, with its state-run media, terrorism, honor killings, corruption, religious intolerance, lack of women's rights, and treatment of gays and lesbians would not.

Jimmy Carter, a former U.S. President, spoke on November 28th, 2006 in Virginia about his new book, Palestine: Peace or Apartheid? Yet, despite being a key player in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Carter seems to little understand the situation. Even worse, he singles out the Jewish State as the lone culprit in the failure of all attempts at peace in the region. Here are some of his recent comments made on his book tour and my refutations of those comments.

JIMMY CARTER: Some people have said the title is provocative, and I accept that categorization, but I don't consider the word "provocative" to be a negative description, because it's designed to provoke discussion and analysis and debate in a country where debate and discussion is almost completely absent if it involves any criticism at all of the policies of Israel. And I think the book is very balanced.

BECKY: I am not sure what country Carter is talking about. Surely criticism of Israel is rampant in the United States as any google search engine can quickly confirm. Carter may have been speaking of a nearly unanimous support for the State of Israel expressed by both the House and Senate, the Democrats and the Republicans, and much of the mainstream press. But to say there is no debate in this country is to not see the forest or the trees.

JIMMY CARTER: Secondly, the words “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” were carefully chosen by me. First of all, it's Palestine, the area of Palestinians. It doesn't refer to Israel. I’ve never and would imply that Israel is guilty of any form of apartheid in their own country, because Arabs who live inside Israel have the same voting rights and the same citizenship rights as do the Jews who live there.

BECKY: Carter has chosen one definition out of many for the name "Palestine," and not one the majority of the Palestinians themselves use. He uses the name "Palestine" interchangably with the areas currently controlled by the Palestinian Authority located in Gaza and the West Bank. "Palestine" could mean the area of the British Mandate for Palestine 1917-1947 which included Jordan as well. But the meaning of the word "Palestine" to the average Palestinian is synonymous with Israel. In fact, for the average Palestinian, there is no Israel, only occupied Palestine.

JIMMY CARTER: And the next word is “peace.” And my hope is that the publication of this book will not only precipitate debate, as I’ve already mentioned, but also will rejuvenate an absolutely dormant or absent peace process.

BECKY: No one wants peace more than the Israelis. It is not due to a lack of debate, but the continued acts of terrorism, incitement, and broken promises that have led to war---all on the part of the PA.

JIMMY CARTER: For the last six years there's not been one single day of good faith negotiations between Israelis and their neighbors, the Palestinians. And this is absolutely a departure from what has happened under all previous presidents since Israel became a nation. We’ve all negotiated or attempted to negotiate peace agreements. That has been totally absent now for six years. So “peace.”

BECKY: Carter completely ignores Bush's 2002 "Roadmap" proposal. Carter, who should know better, fails to contextualize that six years ago Barak and Clinton brought The Camp David Accords to the table, only to be met with Arafat's bloody Intifada and over 130 suicide bombings. It is the Intifada which has characterized the last 6 years, not Israeli intransigence.

JIMMY CARTER: And then the last two words, “not apartheid.” The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel, to repeat myself, but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.

BECKY: I hear this vaccuous claim made time and time again with no specific substantiation. It is no more compelling an argument when made by a beloved past U.S. President. What human rights has Israel deprived the Palestinians of? They can't vote in ISRAELI elections because they are not Israeli citizens. But the DO vote in PA elections, in no small part thanks to Israel and the Oslo Accords of 1994. They CAN utilize the Israeli courts to settle problems both private and with public agencies. There are no special "rights" in these courts that Israelis, Jews, or foreign nationals for that matter have.

JIMMY CARTER: Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers. And they have now more than 205 settlements in the West Bank itself.

BECKY: "Their" land? He is not speaking of land taken from private Palestinian property owners, as in the few instances where this occurred, it was bought from willing sellers. Jewish re-settlement of what, for centuries, had been called Judea and Samaria, has occurred primarily on vacant land owned by no one in particular.

Joseph Farah, an Israeli Arab writes in "An unconventional Arab viewpoint" the following:

"The Arabs have build 261 settlements in the West Bank since 1967. We don't hear much about those settlements. We hear instead about the number of Jewish settlements that have been created. ... Is this a new phenomenon? Absolutely not. This has always been the case.

BECKY: Most of these settlements were of Arabs who had newly immigrated to the West Bank with no more legal status than the Jewish settlements---often less so. Carter ONLY objects to the Jewish ones.

JIMMY CARTER: And what has happened is, over a period of years, the Israelis have connected settlements with highways, and those highways make the West Bank look like a honeycomb and maybe a spider web. You can envision it. And in many cases, most cases, the Palestinians are prevented from using the highways at all, and in many cases, even from crossing the highways.

BECKY: These "Israelis-only" highways were built to skirt Arab villages where Jewish drivers had been pelted with stones or shot. Palestinians CAN use the roads, provided they apply for a permit and pass a security clearance. Carter ignores the impetus for the roads was gratuitous Arab violence.

JIMMY CARTER: I’d like to make one other point. When Israel was founded back in 1948 by the United Nations, Israel was allocated 56% of what we would call “the holy land” between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. After the wars, when the Arabs tried to destroy Israel, treaties were worked out, and Israel wound up with 77% of the holy land. 22% was designated as the West Bank, and 1% only, Gaza. So at the optimum case, as recognized by all the United Nations resolutions, Israel would wind up with 77% of the area, and the Palestinians only 23%, including Gaza and the West Bank.

BECKY: Carter is committing a major error by ommission here. The I917 Balfour declaration granted a Jewish State in ALL of British-controlled Palestine at the time, but was pre-empted when in 1922, Britain awarded 80% of Palestine to Jordan, which immediately banished all of its Jewish population. Therefore, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza are on the remaining 20% of Palestine. 60% of the population of Jordan are Palestinian Arabs, prompting some people to point at Jordan and say "There is the Palestinian state!"

JIMMY CARTER: And remember that Gaza is on the sea coast, where the Philistines lived during the time of King David, and it’s separated by 40 kilometers, about 30 miles, from the rest of Palestinian territory. So in order for a Palestinian to go from Gaza to the West Bank, they have to go through 30 miles of Israeli land, though that’s just a geographical description.

BECKY: There is no evidence that the Palestinians in Gaza are decendants of the Philistines.

JIMMY CARTER: This book is designed to restimulate the prospect for peace. And I’m going to just read three options that Israelis face. And I’d like to say at the beginning that none of them are completely acceptable to all Israelis. But for the last 40 years, a strong majority of Israelis have preferred to relinquish Arab land in return for peace. And this sentiment prevailed until the time when Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by an irate Israeli who didn't like what Rabin and Shimon Peres had done at Oslo in negotiating a peace agreement for which they both received the Nobel Peace Prize.

BECKY: Many Israelis are resigned to a two-state solution, but I don't think many prefer this solution. The problem is, few in Israel believe the Palestinians even want an independent state.

JIMMY CARTER: Although a clear majority of Israelis are persistently willing to accept terms that are tolerable to most of their Arab neighbors, it is clear that none of the options is attractive for all of the Israelis. And these are the three options. First one has been discussed quite extensively and most persistently by the present prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, who presented this thesis quite early in his career as a young member of the Israeli parliament -- he's now the prime minister -- a forceful annexation of Palestine and its legal absorption into Israel, which would give large numbers of non-Jewish citizens the right to vote and live as equals under the law. So, a large sectarian nation involving both Israelis and Palestinians is this option.

BECKY: This is the "Greater Israel" solution, which would return the situation to what it was like before Oslo---a situation in which the Palestinians enjoyed a 5% unemployment rate, and the best living standards they had ever achieved. Olmert is no longer promoting this idea.

JIMMY CARTER: This would directly violate international standards and the Camp David Accords, which are the basis for peace with Egypt. At the same time, non-Jewish citizens would immediately make up a powerful swing vote if other Israelis were divided. In other words, if Israelis, who now have a majority, were divided 60-40 or 50-50, as you could see, then if the Palestinians voted as a bloc, they would prevail in establishing the basic policies of Israel, if other Israelis were divided.

BECKY: Carter is right that demographics has always loomed as an issue for the Israelis. If they were ever to lose their Jewish majority, they believe an Arab majority would vote to end the Jewish State forever. However, such a settlement would NOT violate the Camp David Accords as Egypt gave up all claims on Gaza.

JIMMY CARTER: It would also maybe constitute an outright majority in the new greater Israel. This is because of demographic trends. The Palestinians have a much higher birthrate than do the Israelis, the Israeli Jews. In fact, in Gaza, which I describe, the Palestinian birthrate is 4.7% annually, which is the highest in the world. And that means that in Gaza at this time, half their citizens are 15 years old or less. Israel would be further isolated and condemned by the international community. So I think within 20 years or less, in a combined Israel and Palestinian land, the Arabs would actually have a majority, more than the Jews.

BECKY: A recent study done by American demographer, Bennett Zimmerman, has pretty much debunked this theory. He found that the PA had fudged their census information by counting Jerusalem Palestinians twice, counting Palestinians living outside of Israel, and failing to subtract when Palestinians emmigrated from the PA. Zimmerman documents and predicts that the Jewish majority is actually likely to increase in the coming years. See:

JIMMY CARTER: Second, a system of apartheid -- this is, remember, in Palestine -- with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is a policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation, which I certainly don’t imply, of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, quote, “I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank,” this Israeli said, “is not worth it.” And that’s a majority -- that’s the opinion of a majority of Israelis.

BECKY: Palestinians are not "second-class citizens." They are non-citizens. Under Apartheid in S. Africa, 80% of the population was confined to 13% of the land, had no rights to vote, and did NOT represent 20% of the population within white S. Africa. They did NOT have representatives in their parliament like the Arab Israelis inside Israel have either. And these restrictions were coded into law. There are no such laws in Israel. Despite 240,000 Jews living on the West Bank, there is not a single Jewish minister of parliament in the PA. Yet Carter singles out the Israelis for blame.

JIMMY CARTER: An unacceptable modification of this choice now being proposed is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them. I think you can quickly see the unacceptability of both of those options.

BECKY: Why doesn't Carter reference the Barak/Clinton proposal of 2000? This offered 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the PA, with corresponding land swaps equal to the remaining 5%. Carter acts as if this wasn't offered and then rejected by Arafat.

JIMMY CARTER: There's only one option left, and that is withdrawal to the 1967 border, as specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised legally by the Israeli government in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Road Map of the International Quartet. You remember, the Quartet consists of the United States and Russia and the United Nations and the European Union. Those four comprise a Quartet. And they have devised the latest proposal, known as the Road Map for Peace, which has been enthusiastically endorsed by President Bush, as you know. This is the most attractive option and the only one that can ultimately be acceptable as a basis for peace. Good faith negotiations can lead to mutually agreeable exchanges of land, perhaps permitting a number of Israeli settlers to remain in their present homes near Jerusalem inside Palestinian territory.

BECKY: All of these proposals were premised on the Palestinians giving up terrorism. They have all failed because the Palestinians refuse to stop attacking Israel. Even today, during a supposed cease-fire, rockets still rain down in Sderot. Carter completely ignores Arab terrorism.

JIMMY CARTER: One version of this choice was spelled out in the Geneva Initiative. The Geneva Initiative is described in a separate chapter. I was involved, in some ways, in the preparation of the Geneva Initiative, and I was there and made the keynote speech in Geneva when this initiative was prescribed. But what it does do is work out a compromise between the Palestinians and the Israelis through which about half of the total Israelis who live now in the West Bank could stay where they are, and the others would withdraw, which would still leave the Palestinians with a contiguous -- that is, a constant -- area of land over which they could have a united government of Palestinians.

BECKY: Carter has just cavalierly proposed displacing over 100,000 Jews from their homes, businesses, schools, and synagogues.

JIMMY CARTER: And also a part of that was a swap of land. Whenever the Palestinians would give up part of their land, where the large Jewish settlements are built, then the Israelis would give up an equal amount of land that might lie just west of Gaza or some parts -- relatively uninhabited parts -- of Israel. So it was a swap of land for land.

BECKY: Just as Barak proposed in 2000 and Arafat rejected and launched his bloody Intifada instead.

JIMMY CARTER: The other step was the right of return. This is a very important thing for Palestinians, none of whom would give this up. It's guaranteed in United Nations Resolution 194. The right of Palestinians to return to their homeland, or either to be compensated for their property if they can prove that they actually have title to that property. And a compromise worked out in the Geneva Initiative was, okay, the Palestinians can return, but they can return only to Palestine. They cannot return to Israel, the new nation of Israel, unless Israelis approve each application for return. But they would still be -- have available to them some kind of compensation.

BECKY: Of the 650,000 Palestinian Arabs displaced by the war in 1948, 170,000 have already been repatriated in Israel. Of the remaining 480,000, the YOUNGEST person would now be 58 years old! Carter is completely ignoring that 900,000 Jews were also displaced from Arab countries from 1948-1950, also losing their homes, businesses and properties. Even worse, the Geneva Accords also count three generations of Palestinian Arabs--advocating the "return" of a huge population that never lived in Israel while completely ignoring ANY compensation for the Jewish refugees of the same time period.

JIMMY CARTER: And the third major issue -- I’m summarizing very quickly -- is the settlement of the property, about who controls or owns East Jerusalem. And this is covered quite extensively throughout the book. But a very good compromise was reached, where the holy places would be under the complete control of the Arabs, on the one hand, and the Jews, on the other, including the Wailing Wall and the adjacent land.

BECKY: This aspect of the Geneva Initiative was vigorously opposed by religious Jews. The Temple Mount is the MOST HOLY site for the Jewish people and should NOT be handed over to the Arabs.

JIMMY CARTER: And then the rest of East Jerusalem would be administered by a joint commission that would take care of housing and schools and garbage collection and water and electricity and that sort of thing. So it was a very good compromise.

BECKY: In the January 2006 election in the PA, many Arabs in Jerusalem refused to register to vote in the PA, preferring to be considered Israeli citizens with universal health care and spared the lawlessness of the PA. They are voting with their feet. Carter's compromise is unneccessary.

JIMMY CARTER: In my opinion, ultimately something very close to the Geneva Initiative described in this book is the only avenue toward permanent peace for Israel, with justice and peace for their Palestinian neighbors.

So the book is deliberately -- I wouldn't say controversial, but it's deliberately designed to be provocative, because, as I said earlier, in Israel and in Europe, these kind of issues are debated every day, in a most vehement way, particularly in Israel. Pros and cons, arguing back and forth, in the news media, television, radio, the major newspapers. Never, in this country, do you hear any of these issues proposed publicly by an elected member of the House or the Senate or in the White House or NBC or ABC or CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Never.

BECKY: Most Americans support Israel for good reason. However, fierce debates ARE happening all across America. A simple google search of the fields "Israel" and "apartheid" reveal 1,640,000 entries! That is quite a lot for a debate that "isn't occurring" although, admittedly most are leftist and non-mainstream publications.

JIMMY CARTER: And I think it's time for Americans to start looking at the facts about the Mid-East situation. And only then, and based on the knowledge of the facts, will we ever have a chance to move forward and consummate a peace agreement that would give Israel what they need and what they deserve -- permanent peace, recognized by their neighbors and all Arab countries and the rest of the world -- and the Palestinians to have their human rights, their land and a chance to have their own state, side by side, living in peace with their Israeli neighbors.

BECKY: No one wants peace more than Israel. But Carter hasn't even mentioned Palestinian violence---suicide bombings, rocket attacks, kidnappings of IDF soldiers and newsmen, and children throwing rocks. Arab Palestinian violence has been the stumbling block since before Israel was formed and remains the problem today. Carter just ignores it as though it weren't happening. This is extremely disingenous.

JIMMY CARTER: Yeah, the word “balance” is one that's almost unacceptable in our country. If you had a candidate for Congress running either Democratic or Republican and they announced to the general public, “I’m going to take a balanced position between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” they would never be elected. That's an impossibility in our country. But that doesn't preclude an incumbent administration from demonstrating with their own actions and words that they are concerned about Israeli peace, they are also concerned about peace and justice for the Palestinians. And that's what I did. It’s what Richard Nixon did. It’s what Ronald Reagan did after I left office. It’s what George Bush, Sr. did. It’s what Bill Clinton did. But it's not being done now.

BECKY: Bush offered his Roadmap in 2002. But since it was prefaced on stemming Palestinian violence, it hasn't been enacted. Carter ignores this as well.

JIMMY CARTER: There is a general feeling throughout the Arab world, throughout Europe, not even noticed in this country, that our present administration has not given any consideration, in my opinion, to the plight of the Palestinians. And you don't have to be anti-Israel to protect the rights of the Palestinians to have their own land and to live in peace and without being subjugated by an occupying power.

BECKY: The Palestinians are subject to their OWN civil administration: the PA. The current Hamas government has vowed constant war with "the Zionist entity" until it is defeated. The Olmert government has decried not having a suitable partner for peace. Why Carter sums this up as the Israelis "subjugating" the Palestinians as the problem is a mystery.

JIMMY CARTER: So I think that that is a proper approach. If it is impossible during the next two years of President Bush's administration for him to take that, to use your word, “balanced” approach, then as a fallback, it may be possible for the International Quartet to take that role. And that would obviously be the United States playing a major role, but not the only role, and for it to involve the United Nations and Russia and the European Union. And I think they could say, okay, let us orchestrate peace talks based on United Nations resolutions, based on the Camp David Agreement that I worked out, based on the Oslo Agreement, and based on the will of a majority of Israeli citizens, and based on the Road Map that we ourselves have prescribed.

BECKY: What about the Palestinian responsibility to stop terrorism?

JIMMY CARTER: By the way, every element of the Road Map has been adopted enthusiastically by the Palestinian side. None of the key elements in the Road Map have been adopted by the Israeli side. They have rejected all of them. And I have the actual action of the Israeli cabinet in the appendix to this book.

BECKY: The Palestinians have not:

1. rejected terrorism against Israeli civilians

2. agreed to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state

3. agreed to honor past agreements

...all part of Bush's "Roadmap."

JIMMY CARTER: So, to summarize, the international group of leaders, the Quartet, could take strong action to implement the terms of the Road Map. Thank you all very much, and I will sign a few books.

BECKY: And how are they supposed to stop Palestinian terrorism? The road to peace is to work for:

1. Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist

2. stopping the incitement and Jew hatred in the PA

3. cutting off arms and funding for Palestinian terror networks

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi summed it up nicely when she said, "It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously." I couldn't agree more.

Carter's Nov. 28, 2006 speech can be found at: Democracy Now! website at:

Monday, April 6, 2009


by Becky Johnson
April 6, 2009

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- I was reading some of the Israel-bashing materials on the net, and found these two quotes.
I don't remember where I found them, but they are typical of the type of misinformation that is posted with extreme
regularity by those who should know better.

" Jerusalem a symbol of Palestine:"

"Today is also the Jerusalem day (May 22nd this year) that is meant to remind all people of Jerusalem being a symbol of all Palestine… Palestine that was usurped by the Jews,...."

Many people remember the story of Jacob's Ladder from the Bible. Jacob, one of the Jewish patriarchs, fell asleep with his head on a rock, fearing he would not survive the night. His fear was so great, that prior to falling asleep he had prayed to God that were he to survive the night, he would return one day and build a temple on the spot. That night, as he slept he dreamt of a ladder studded with angels ascending into heaven and to God. Jacob survived the night, and did return to build the temple. Thus was the beginning of the Holy Temple Mount in Jewish scriptures, and the founding of Jerusalem where the Mount is located.

This was 1500 B.C.E. " Palestine," the Roman occupier's name for the ancient State of Israel, didn't come into being until after the burning of the Temple to the ground in 70 C.E. and following a failed rebellion which was crushed in 135 C.E.

Islam didn't come into being until the 610 C.E.

Throughout this period (135 C.E. - 1948) despite the persecution, some Jews remained in the area of ancient Israel, continued to pray to their God, practice their religion, and to toast each Passover saying "Next year in Jerusalem!". The Jews who remained are called the Mizrayim.

So, the Jews preceeded any Muslim presence in Israel by 2110 years. The Jewish people have had a continuous presence with the land of Israel for 3, 300 years. The Jews and Israel pre-dated the name "Palestine" as well, which was neither Arabic name nor Islamic, but of Roman origin. Many Jews returned over the years so that by 1844, Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population.

The name "Palestine" was never more than the name for a geographical region, and disappeared completely under the Ottomans. The name was resurrected in modern times by leading British generals who were openly anti-Jewish. While some Britishers favored enacting the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which was adopted after decades of lobbying by Zionists in Europe, by the League of Nations, other generals wanted nothing to do with helping re-establish a Jewish State in the region.

Hence, in 1917, when the British government was awarded a large part of the Turkish Ottoman empire, which had ruled the lands of ancient Israel for the past 400 years, they named it "the British Mandate for Palestine," rather than the name more desired by the Jews, "Israel."

In 1917, Palestine was much larger than Samaria, Judea, and Gaza. 77% of the British Mandate for Palestine became TransJordan in 1921. Therefore, the remaining 23% was the area the UN resolution 181 voted to partition into a Jewish state = Israel and an Arab state = Palestine.

Islam's connection with Jerusalem is quite tenous. First, Mohammed never visited Jerusalem in his lifetime. It is not mentioned once in the Koran. Moslems pray facing Mecca, sometimes with their backs to Jerusalem.

The Al Aqsa Mosque, built on top of a Christian Church, erected on top of the Jewish Temple Mount only shows conquest, plagarism, and disrespect for the Jewish faith. The term "Al Aqsa" which in Arabic means "The Furthest Place" was named that by the Arabic conquerors attempting to cash in on Mohammed's dream where he supposedly entered heaven via horseback at "the furthest place." Despite this religious claim, Jerusalem was a poor draw for Muslim pilgrims who flocked to Mecca and Medina. But for Jews, Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are central to their faith. A faith which extends back over 3,000 years in which the Temple Mount is the home of God.

Barack Obama during his campaign for President said he supported moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It is well past time to do this.

Jerusalem is no "symbol of Palestine." Palestine is however a symbol of theft, deceit, conquest, and occupation.


Recollections by Becky Johnson from her experiences when she attended the monthly "open" community meeting held at the Resource Center for Nonviolence for Santa Cruz Indymedia Center on October 9, 2005

FORWARD: I initially became a member of the Los Angeles Indymedia when Robert Norse and I attended the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in 2000. In the fall of 2000, we were approached by Vangelis who said that he and some others were setting up a Santa Cruz Indymedia Center and he wanted to know if we wanted to be part of it. We both agreed enthusiastically and attended some early meetings held at Café Pergolisi. It was clear that Robert and I were to be on the news gathering and article writing end of the site while others who were more technically competent were going to handle the internet interfaces and technical glitches as they arose.

I began to contribute to the SC IMC site as soon as it became active in the Spring of 2000. This is why I claim to be one of the founding members of SC IMC. Robert Norse and I were involved BEFORE the site became active. Apparently this part of SC IMC history has already been conveniently erased in the minds of current monitors.

Beginning in August of 2001, I began to write on the Mideast. My first article was entitled "Did you know that..." and was a collection of facts in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which I knew many of my fellow activists were unaware. September 11th happened a month later and suddenly the repercussions of that conflict seemed very serious. I continued to post and have my articles featured on the SC IMC site. But around the beginning of the Iraq War in March of 2003, I was becoming very divided from my fellow activists in Santa Cruz, at Indymedia, and
at the Free Radio Santa Cruz collective. Despite my anti-war position, my support for the democratic State of Israel proved to be too much.

After debunking the Rachel Corrie myth (that she died defending a house and that she was "murdered') my critics at SC IMC became very extreme. I received a death threat and my posts began to be censored. Smear articles about Lee Kaplan and I began to appear. Then my IP address was blocked without a word from anyone at SC IMC. When my e-mailed questions were ignored, I decided to attend their general meeting. Below are the notes I took the day after the meeting. --- Becky Johnson, April 6, 2009


Santa Cruz, Ca. -- I attended the general meeting of Santa Cruz Indymedia October 9, 2005. Of the four people who I know were involved in my IP address being blocked, only Bradley Allen (a.k.a. Bradley Stuart) attended.
Leading the meeting was Kristin S. Nine people, including myself attended, with four being first time attendees. There was no agenda available. Bradley began the meeting by announcing the first item on the agenda was introductions. I asked that he read the entire agenda for the meeting at the outset of the meeting. He complied.
I asked Kristin if minutes of meetings were kept. She answered in the negative. I asked how the resolutions and the decisions made at one meeting were communicated to members at any subsequent meeting. She said "that's a good question. I'll have to check into that."
So there were no minutes of the meeting where my IP address was blocked.
I asked if SC IMC keeps a formal membership list. They don't. So if I say I was a founding member (when Van approached me in the fall of 2000) I am completely within my rights to say so.
Kristin and Bradley postponed the Question and Answer period until 9:50PM for a meeting that began at 7PM. There was no discussion among the group for the order of the agenda, nor was there a request from Kristin or Bradley to the attendees if they wanted to add anything to the agenda. I said I wanted to discuss the editorial policy. Kristin suggested waiting until the Q & A to do so.
During the intro and the "history of SC IMC" where neither Bradley nor Kristin knew when SC IMC was officially launched..."I think it was 2001", I shared my long involvement with SC IMC and listed dozens of articles on multiple topics which I have posted or had featured over the years at SC IMC. Kristin acknowledged my extensive contribution to the website.
Kristin spoke of how "the people's views have been silenced in the Sentinel." And that SC IMC was "a great tool for geting the word out." She praised the "solidarity" she has seen worldwide. She emphasized how wonderful it is when "the people take media into their own hands." She shared with us that she had recently returned from the Sept 24th ANSWER rally in Washington, D.C.
Bradley spoke of how his goal was to make the site full of "really vibrant, fun, and interesting media."
A UCSC student with "the Project" also complained that the Sentinel was not a good vehicle for news about our events. She emphasized the value of SC IMC because "ordinary people" can get their viewpoint out.
A young man from UCSC, who's interest was photography had been contributing for almost a year. He joked that he wasn't "into text." He seemed quite energized and enthused. He said this was his first meeting and had only recently joined SC IMC.
He said he was "always trying to get more people involved" with SC IMC. He praised the "diversity of voices" which we can get by increasing our numbers. He volunteered that he belongs to two organizations: "Students Against War" and the "Student Coaliton for Justice."
The woman from "The Project" said that she had some questions about "the editing process." She said she had read the guidelines and found them "clear but unclear."
Bradley shared that the whole concept of Indymedia was "inspired by the Zapatistas."
Kristin attempted to list the number of topics SC IMC has covered. She mentioned the bus strike and labor issues. A longtime activist with the Human Rights Organization who attended, listed several topics including the Sleeping Ban, homeless civil rights and police brutality. I added the drug war and medical marijuana. Bradley said that SC IMC had thoroughly covered the FCC raid on Free Radio Santa Cruz. I discussed welfare rights, the Coast Hotel project, Tent University, and City Council. I failed to mention our struggle over the planter fence, the move-along law, or our protest at Border's against the sales of the Bum Fights videos.
Then Kristin talked about the mailing list where "we announce to each other" different messages. I noted that I have never been on that list. She said there is also an outreach list and a need for a coverage list.
"The Project comes out twice a quarter," the UCSC woman shared. In response to a question she said that some of their fundraising is done at College Senate meetings where they solicit grant money.
A young student from Cabrillo arrived late. He announced that he was SC IMC's first intern. As an intern he would work 8 - 10 hours a week and get college credit for it.
Josh from Cabrillo said that we (SC IMC members) "need to pay attention to what the other media are saying." I thought, how can we do that when the SC IMC monitors censor links to other media if they determine it is "right-wing" "corporate" or "racist." I kept my opinions to myself in this instance.
He said that he saw someone taking photos of the young Republicans where they staged the shot and got everyone to smile for the photo. I didn't see the great conspiracy in this, though I too, try to take a candid shot over a staged shot, but sometimes its not the best choice. If you want to take a photo with everyone of a certain group in it, you need to ask them to pose for you. I don't find this to be unethical. Only if the photo is represented as a candid photo when it was actually staged, raises a red flag for me.
Kristin reported that there were many "tech issues" and that all my articles for the past five years which have been disappearing was not intentional, or so she thought. Kristn then chose unilaterally to break into working groups rather than go into the Q & A. She said she "wanted to make sure we had enough time for them."
I joined Kristin and Josh for the outreach group. I began by asking if we wanted to outreach to the entire community or just to those people who already believed the way we do. She dodged the question as being "off topic." I said it was a philosophical question that would guide how we conduct outreach. "If you keep censoring and blocking people who have a different point of view, your base will shrink and not grow." Kristin used a super nice attitude, urging "respect" and kept accusing me of interrupting her or shouting at her. I DID interrupt since I considered it a dialogue where each of us had as much authority to speak as she did. She considered it a control issue, and kept accusing me of speaking "off topic." Josh begged ignorance, and said it was "his first meeting" and that he "didn't want to get involved in the controversy." Eventually Josh joined the other group allowing Kristin and me to have a one on one conversation.
I told her that I was the injured party. That she was urging me to respect her and the group, but that by calling me a racist, a murderer of Arab girls, a paid agent for a foreign government, a right-winger, and "dumber than metamorphic rocks" in articles such as "Becky's Brain" which the SC IMC monitors DIDN'T take down for violating their editorial policy, while accusing me of "too many racist postings" without ever officially communicating me about any problem or without providing a SINGLE EXAMPLE of any so-called "racist" post of mine, was bad process, inherently unfair, and didn't even follow the form which was posted on their website.
I told Kirstin that she was being very nice, but that it was like "the Stepford Wives" where a horrible injustice was going on and she was playing nice-nice while participating in supporting both the censorship and the personal attacks on myself.
"Why was my IP address blocked?" I demanded. "You threatened people." I was astounded. After having received death threats, being called names, and people saying I should "go away and don't come back," --- which Kristin was either blissfully ignorant about or felt it was perfectly fine--- to be the one accused of making threats. I demanded she explain how I had threatened anyone. "You sent them a bunch of e-mails and filled up their inbox." She could not relate a single threatening comment in any of those e-mails.
I told her that I had first written the editors as the website instructed but that I had NEVER gotten any kind of response. It was then I contacted some SC IMC monitors who I knew were involved. I had tried to attend their "open" meeting that summer at Lulu Carpenters only to have them scatter like cockroaches when the light came on when I showed up for their meeting.
She said "we left because they didn't have a bathroom." I responded by saying "the reason you didnt see me when you first came in was that I was in the bathroom. You know, the one they didn't have."
She accused me of speaking harshly to other SC IMC members. This is where 5 men verbally assaulted me on the sidewalk having abandoned holding the meeting at Lu Lu Carpenters since I had shown up. How she could hold my behavior in isolation, not consider the context (of having been verbally attacked by five men) and how she had no comment on THEIR behavior showed her to be one biased soul.
She said " Lee Kaplan threatened people." "How did he do that?" She told me that Bradley had received a "threatening e-mail." I said "Did he threaten to sue Bradley?" She said "yes." I said "Well, you posted an article called "Dafka, Lee Kaplan: Exposed" in which false statements about him leaving a death threat on Alison Weir's answering machine were reported. "That is a libelous statement." She said "It's not libel if a retraction is printed." I said "that article was up for 40 days with both Lee and I writing demanding the information be corrected. Nothing was done until Kaplan's lawyer sent Bradley an e-mail threatening legal action. That day the retraction went up.
"What else were we supposed to do?" she asked.
"Don't you think you have a responsibility to check things out if you are going to make such a serious charge?" I responded.
She had no answer.
She said "He mentioned "Homeland Security" on your show.* That threatens activists." "It's an issue of trust." I said "Excuse me, where does it say in your guidelines that people who ASSOCIATE with people you don't like will be censored or have their IP address blocked?" She again had no answer.
Lee Kaplan is a member of a group in Northeast Intelligence Network and has an e-mail address there at
The NIN is an NGO think tank which has nothing to do with the Homeland Security department of the Federal government. It is concerned with the
threat of terrorism against the American people.
I stopped the subcommittee at this point because it was 9:45PM and I really wanted to get to the Q & A. I urged the group to meet to do the Q & A "before everyone goes home." We started the Q & A at 10:10PM, over THREE HOURS after the meeting began. But no one left.
I told the group that despite having been a founding member of SC IMC, and having contributed dozens of original articles which were featured on many subjects over the years including stills, and videos, I found my articles deleted without explanation. That character assassination's such as "Becky's Brain" which was a smear job and nothing else was allowed to stay up, but when I complained, I was met with complete silence.
Kristin said "Well you posted the same article 30 times in one day making a lot of extra work for our volunteers." I was astounded. I told her she was a liar. That she needed to apologise to me. That she had just accused me of a completely ficticious charge in front of everyone. I demanded that Bradley tell her whether I had ever posted the same article 30 times (or any other such large number of times) in one day EVER. He acted so mouse-like I could barely hear him. He said "I dont remember." The new people started to act very uncomfortable.
John T. from the HRO said that when he wrote a comment which compared my situation to "The Minority Report" where I was accused for a crime I had yet to commit, it had been hidden very quickly. He said this was a new experience for him.
I pointed out that the website says "Indymedia is not a conscious mouthpiece of any particular position..." so that why wasn't my, albeit minority position, allowed to be posted?
Chris said my charges "were disturbing" but that "he didnt want to take the time to get to the bottom of it." I felt like Chris and Josh were the three see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys who didn't want to deal with the censorship, personal attacks, smear jobs, and blocked IP addresses which were right in front of their noses.
Bradley (snidely) suggested I was welcome to post on other websites. What an ass!!
I said "Your webpage says that Indymedia's principles of unity profess that the open exchange of and open access to information is a prerequisite for the building of a more free and just society." I said the word "free" means that in a democracy, people have the right to free speech and a difference of opinion. You can't say you support diversity and then censor anyone who disagrees with you.
I read again ", participatory democratic process that is transparent to those involved" had been severely violated by their lack of process ( a closed meeting over the telephone banning someone is not transparent process). And that if it's democratic, then each person can voice a different opinion.
Kristin kind of gave up at this point. She said "What do you want?" I said "I want my IP address to be unblocked. IF the editorial committee insisted on taking the extreme step of having someone banished from any postings, they ought to be able to produce MANY examples of violations. So far they have not produced a single example.
I accused Bradley of being my chief censor. "And you took your witch hunt over to Free Radio and engineered getting me kicked out there too." I said. "What's going on is there is a small group of four or five people who feel they are so smart that they are the sole judges of what people in Santa Cruz can say, post, or read. It's the opposite of free speech."
Kristin suggested I meet with the editorial working group. "Sure. I'd be glad to. When and where do they meet?" She said "They don't have a meeting scheduled. I'm not holding my breath.
I said "I want to know why Matt Fitt, Bradley Allen, Vinny Lombardo, and Joe Williams all conspired to block my IP address. And I want to know why articles which include vicious and unsubstantiated personal attacks, information about my sexual partners, and comments like "Becky doesn't have a brain" are allowed to stay up. "You ask me to respect you, but how are you demonstrating any respect for me with these postings?"
Despite Kristin's promise that I could meet with the mysterious and nameless "editorial committee," they met again without me. They again came to the same conclusion that my IP address should be blocked from the site. I tried to attend the next scheduled meeting one month later, also held at the Resource Center for Nonviolence. This time, Bradley screamed and yelled and demanded I leave the meeting. I refused, and Kristin opted to cancel the meeting entirely. I never tried to attend any of their "open" meetings again.
Six months later, Santa Cruz Indymedia merged with in the San Francisco Bay Area. It became with, presumably, the same people monitoring the site. Robert Norse of HUFF lobbied some monitors privately and got an agreement from them to not censor any of my writings on homelessness. They complied. My writings on the Mideast are routinely censored on the rare occasions when I post at all.

Why Israel's claim to the land is superior to the Palestinian claim to the land

by Becky Johnson

Originally published Mar 8 2009

In a discussion which is found at:

MARC WRITES: "You are familiar with the Palestinian refugee problem and the contentious issue of the Palestinian right of return?"

BECKY: Of course.

MARC WRITES: "...your assumption that Israelis are "more indigenous" or more directly related to ancient Jews than Palestinians. No objective evidence to support your assumptions exist."

BECKY: A small portion of Israel's Jews today can trace their lineage in the area back 3,300 years. These are called the Mizrayim.

MARC WRITES: "Reasonable people accept these facts and recognize that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land and it will have to be shared."

BECKY: Sure. But the Jewish claim to the land is superior for the following reasons:

1. Jewish history predates Arab/Muslim history
2. Only the Jews built a nation throughout the whole span of history
3. Jewish artifacts document that long history
4. Jewish texts document that long history
5. The Jewish expulsion from Israel (in 135 C.E.)was not legal
6. Arab/Muslim "ownership" was by bloody conquest, was brief, built nothing
7. Neither the Greeks, nor the Turks, nor the Brits built a nation in Israel
8. Zionist immigration built the modern state
9. Britain's 'Balfour Declaration' became a League of Nations resolution, hence international law
10. The UN GA ratified Jews returning to Israel
11. Israel has taken its place with the membership of nations
12. Israel is the location of the Jews most holy site, the Temple Mount
13. Jewish religious text say that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people
14. There are 22 other Arab/Muslim countries. There is only ONE Jewish nation. there is no need to form ANOTHER Arab/Muslim nation so that Arab/Muslims can have citizenship, much less out of the TINY Jewish one.

MARC WRITES: What's the alternative?
BECKY: The answer is political and not military.
When the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, agree to borders, agree to honor Israel's sovereignty, agree to not take up arms against Israel, there will be peace. Israel cannot make peace. Only the Palestinians can do that.

Sex for Peace Event a Big Success!!!

March 11, 2003

by Becky Johnson

Half a dozen SCPD officers attend and leave satisfied
Police Squad returns to enforce sleeping, tabling bans.

Santa Cruz, Ca. --- At the stroke of midnight, the demonstrators at
the Vigil to End Two Wars, began their event, Sex for Peace. Inspired
groups of mostly young males who continually drive by the Vigil at
unsafe speeds shouting something like "F__K peace!!", vigilers were
inspired to schedule a very special round of civil disobedience for the
cause of world peace.

"A piece for peace!" vigil-goer, Yani proclaimed. Throughout the
day, vigilers invited people to return at midnight and have Sex for
Peace. "Bring the sexual partner of your choosing and come to Cooper
St. and Pacific Ave. at midnight!" announced Robert Norse of HUFF. Most
members of the public seemed keen on the event.

One man, who admitted sadly that he had no sexual partner, offered
to attend and provide backup if asked.

Two minutes to midnight, Sgt. Pruger and five other police officers
arrived in four police cars, temporarily interrupting some heavy
for peace.

Officer Kline, when informed that the SCPD had arrived just in
time for the "Sex for Peace" event, advised vigil organizers that the
indecent exposure ordinance would be enforced. "Its a misdemeanor, and
I highly recommend against it," warned Officer Kline.

The organizers explained that sometimes at demonstrations, people
do commit civil disobedience for the cause of the greater good. Police
officers then examined the two non-commercial display devices for
conformity to the 6 foot by 3 foot rules that limited the size of a
table. Police left satisfied for the moment.

One very dedicated couple disappeared beneath the HUFF protest
table, and vigilers placed several protest signs around the table.
proceeded to give it their all for the greater good of mankind. Such
was their dedication and perseverance, that long after 1AM they were
still actively pursuing the cause of peace. "Take that Ashcroft!" the
dedicated peace worker mumbled from beneath the table. One elderly
onlooker commented "When they say 'Make Love, Nor War', they ain't

Heightened "Yellow Alert" Surveillance to Forestall Criminal
Sleeping and Subversive Tabling

Around 5 a.m., three police officers, arrived with the
determination that sleeping as well as making love was forbidden, and
warned the dozen vigilers to stay awake or face citation and arrest.
The City's current emergency shelter capacity is 160, including the
Armory, which is due to close March 15 (and may close sooner if Bush
begins his Iraq invasion).

The Homeless Census 2000 estimated the number of homeless and
nomadic people in Santa Cruz City limits at 1500-2000. With increasing
unemployment and soaring rents, HUFF activists suggest that number is
at the top end.

Two hours later around 7 a.m. six officers and a lieutenant showed
up to enforce the "no sleeping" edict. They also insisted that the two
tables were illegal even though run by different groups. Unable to
cite the appropriate "illegal display device" law, Lt. Tom Vlassis
nonetheless coaxed and pressed the sleep-befogged protesters, saying he
would clarify the issue with City Attorney John Barisone today.

Vlassis was accompanied by a police van and two squad cars.
Vlassis said the assistant police chief had ordered his squad to
confiscate the literature, signs, & petitions as well as the candles,
sleeping bags, backpacks, & blankets of the participants, who were in
their 4th cold night of a demonstration that began Friday noon to
contain the vigiling menace as needed. Tablers shook their heads and
again combined the tables, festooned with "Vigil Against Two Wars" and
"Honk for Peace" placards.

Vigilers praised Vlassis for friendly delivery of a harsh and
contradictory message.

Vigil flyers urge resistance to the war in Iraq as well as to Santa
Cruz's Ashcroft-era restrictions on tabling, sitting, sleeping, and
peaceful sparechanging. Participants are opposed to the War against
Iraq and the war against the poor at home. Other civil disobedience
activities (made criminal by City Council) include blowing bubbles,
playing hacky-sack, tossing a frisbee, playing hopscotch, and bouncing
a ball.

Unbelievable Rationalizations: Becky Johnson critiques Juan Cole July 5 2008

I responded to an article by Juan Cole found at:
entitled "Bulldozer Attack in West Jerusalem" on July 5 2008. I posted the following. It was immediately censored:

JUAN COLE WRITES: "The chief cause of a lack of permits is Israeli refusal to grant building permits to Palestinians in East Jerusalem."

BECKY: Wrong! Israel has made available sufficient permits for all the Palestinians needs in E. Jerusalem, but they are expensive and complicated. Palestinians typically don't respect the Israeli government so often do not apply for a permit. Israel has every right to bulldoze illegal buildings without permits---as is done in this country without any objection from the public. Sometimes these buildings are on property which the builder doesn't even have title to!! But Juan Cole thinks that any building built by Palestinians and bulldozed by Israel is a human rights abuse! That's a double-standard since Cole doesn't object to the same practice when done elsewhere.

JUAN COLE WRITES: "The bulldozer operator appears to have been acting alone and was apparently seized with a fit of rage over accumulated grievances in his own mind, real or imagined."

BECKY: Here Cole is inventing a rationalization for the murderous and unprovoked attack on ordinary and innocent Israeli civilians. Cole does not know what was in the man's mind anymore than anyone else. A more likely rationale for the attack was the concept of Jihad, where a Muslim who is killed during a "Holy war" goes directly to paradise and into the arms of 72 virgins. Cole doesn't report that FOUR Palestinian organizations vied for the credit for the attack!! One of the organizations was affiliated with Fatah, or the "moderate" Palestinians. This was cold-blooded pre-meditated mass murder. Cole has sunk to a new low here with his defense.

Can you imagine what he would be writing if the driver had been an Israeli and bulldozing innocent Palestinians?

Cole doesn't mention the mother and the baby who were attacked. The mother managed to pass her baby out of the car window to a stranger just before being crushed to death by the bulldozer. You KNOW he would have headlined with this if the attacker had been Jewish.

The Truth about Arab Refugees in 1948

In a recent thread of comments, several readers who were critical of Sam Farr's support of Israel suggested once again that the whole problem began in 1948 when the Israelis "drove the Arabs out of their homes". While such a scenario suits Palestinian propaganda purposes, this is hardly an accurate assessment of what actually happened in 1947 and 1948. In this article, David Meir-Levi, a Jewish historian and archeology professor, documents wave after wave of Arab migration with each cause noted. He has included dozens of quotes from Arab, British, and Israeli press at the time to document his claims. Here is his scholarship:

The Refugee Problem

The Eight Stages of Creation

There were eight stages to the flight of Arabs from what would soon become Israel:

1. as early as the Fall of 1947, months before the UN partition plan of 11/29/47, it was clear that there would be a war no matter what course of action the UN took. In anticipation of this war, many of the well-to-do Arabs (the Effendi) of the Western Galilee, from Haifa to Acco and villages in between, closed down their houses and went to Beirut or Damascus, where with their wealth and connections they could wait out the war in safety. They thought that they would thus be out of the way of danger, and when the war was over (no one imagined that Israel would win) they would come back to their homes.

Current estimates by objective observers (Conan Cruise O’Brien being perhaps the most objective) is that c. 70,000 fled.

2. The refugees of #1 caused a sudden absence of political and social leadership among the Arabs of the Galilee, and thus as the hostilities developed in the Winter of 1947, many of the Arab peasantry (Felahin) fled as well, following their leaders' example. They lacked the money and connections to make a comfortable trip out of the way of danger, as their Effendi had done. So many of them simply walked with whatever they could carry, to Lebanon or Syria. Their main motivation for leaving was that since their leadership had fled, things must be pretty bad, so they had better leave too. They too were sure, based upon documentation from Arab press at the time, that when the war was over and the Jews were all dead or driven from Israel, they would come back to their homes.

We don't have good numbers for this exodus, but estimates range around 100,000 people. There were so many exiting that the Arab states had a special conference in Beirut to decide how to handle all the Arabs that were pouring across the borders. They set up special camps...later to be known as refugee camps.

Note Well!! These Arabs were fleeing of their own free will. No one, neither Israel nor Arab states, were encouraging, frightening, or ordering them to do so. The war had not yet even begun.

3. After 11/29/47, warfare between the Israeli Haganah (not yet called the IDF because the local British Mandatory forces were stalwartly pro-Arab and routinely arrested Haganah soldiers and took their the Israeli army was still an underground army) and para-military Arab volunteers numbering in the 10's of thousands (trained and armed in Syria and Lebanon, with the aid of both ex-NAZI and British officers) began in earnest.

The Arab press and public speeches made it clear that this was to be a war of the great Mongol hordes killing all in their path. The Jews would be either dead or out. Israel was fighting not a war of independence, but a war of survival.

In order to defend some areas where Jews were completely surrounded by Arabs (like the Jews of Jaffa, Jewish villages or kibbutzim in parts of the Galilee and central hill country, and in Jerusalem) the Haganah adopted scare-tactics that were intended to strike terror into the Arab population of those areas, so that they would retreat to safer ground, and thus make it possible for the Hagana to defend those Jews who would otherwise be inaccessible and thus vulnerable to genocidal Arab intentions.
Many Arabs in parts of the western Galilee, Jaffa, and parts of western Jerusalem, fled before these tactics (rumors that a huge Jewish army from the West was about to land on the coast, hand-grenades thrown on front porches of homes, jeeps driving by and firing machine guns into the walls or fences of houses, rumors circulated by Arabic-speaking Jews that the Haganah was far bigger than it really was and was on the verge of surfacing with a massive Jewish army, etc.).

Here it is important to note that Jews were at cause in this part of the Arab flight. But it was not because they wanted to ethnically cleanse the country, or to wipe out the Arabs. It was because they knew that Jews undefended in Arab enclaves would be slaughtered (as in fact was the case of Jews in the Gush Etzion villages and in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, and as had happened in Hebron in 1929). It was the exigency of their fighting a war of survival against a bigger and better armed enemy that drove them to the tactics described above.

It is also important to note here the following two facts:
a. had the Arab leadership accepted the UN partition plan; there would have been a state of Palestine since 11/29/47, for the Arabs, alongside of Israel.
b. had the Arab armies not invaded, there would have been no refugee problem.

In light of these two facts, I assert that the total onus of culpability for the start of the refugee problem rests squarely and solely upon the Arab states that invaded, in clear disregard for the UN resolution 181 and international law.

4. Arab leadership from among the para-military forces, and the forces of Syria, were vociferous in their announcement that they wanted Arabs to leave so that the armies would have a clear field in which to perpetrate their genocide of the Jews. When the war was over (Arab newspaper articles suggested c. 4-6 weeks before all the Jews were driven out or killed), the Arab residents could come back and have both their own lands and those of the Jews. Cf Infra, for sources of these announcements.

We cannot know how many Arabs fled because of these announcements; but since a number of Arab spokespersons after the war admitted to having done this, and wrung their hands publicly in painful repentance of having created the refugee problem, it is clear that the Arab leadership's own message to many Arabs in the area was a major factor in the Arab flight.

It is also important to point out at this time that there were a number of cases where Jewish leaders got out in public and pleaded with Arabs not to leave. The mayor of Haifa is the best example of this. At the risk of his own life, he drove through the Arab section of Haifa with a loudspeaker on his jeep, and in Arabic called out to the residents of his city to disregard the Arab propaganda. Nonetheless, tens of thousands fled. The incredulous British officers who witnessed this (don't forget, the British had not yet left) documented it for us in a variety of sources. Those Arabs who stayed were unharmed and became citizens of Israel.

The British also documented for the world a similar phenomenon in Tiberius (a town in which the Arab population vastly outnumbered the Jewish), where the Arabs quite literally chose to leave even though they were under no direct threat from the Jews, and asked the British to assist them. Tens of thousands exited under British guard, while the Jews, both civilian and Hagana, looked on.

In a slightly different twist, the Arabs of Safed (Tzefat), fled before the Haganah attack, even though the Arab forces in Safed outnumbered the Jews c. 10 to one.

Wherever Arabs chose to stay, they were unharmed and later became citizens of Israel.

There have been a number of essays written by later historians contesting the truth of the assertion that Arab leaders told their people to flee. But you can read in O’Brien, or in Mitchell Bard's "Idiot's Guide" and "Myths and Facts", or in some of the other things I have attached below, the irrefutable proof of just such pronouncements. Arab and pro-Arab historians seek to rewrite history in order to exonerate the Arab world from the onus of culpability mentioned above. Even a superficial review of the facts reveals the truth.

5. Deir Yassin: what happened at Deir Yassin is still hotly disputed. But by their own admission, Arab leadership today acknowledges that the lies created by the Arabs then about the fictitious "massacre" were done in order to shame the Arab armies into fighting against the Jews, and to frighten the Arabs and encourage them to flee.

The village sits near the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Jewish Jerusalem was under siege, and its lifeline was the road to Tel Aviv. A contingent of Iraqi troops had entered Deir Yassin on 3/13/48. Some sources suggest that they were asked to leave. Apparently they did not, since their armed bodies were numerous among the dead after the battle. It was obvious that they were going to try to cut off that road. Doing so would spell the end of Jewish Jerusalem. So on 4/9/48 a contingent of the Irgun (a para-military splinter group) entered the village. This operation was completely legitimate in the context of rules of engagement, since the Iraqi presence made the village a legal military objective.

Their intent, to capture the village and drive out the Iraqis, was completely clear from the onset, because they entered with a jeep and loudspeaker telling the civilian population to flee the village (unfortunately, this jeep slid into a ditch, so some of the villagers may not have heard the message; but many did, because they fled before the Irgun got into the village); and because rather than surrounding the village and barring escape, they left several routes open for the civilians to flee, which hundreds of villagers used. However, the Iraqis had disguised themselves as women (easy to hide weapons beneath the flowing robes of the burqa) and had hidden themselves among women and children in the village. So, when the Irgun fighters entered, they encountered fire from women! When the Irgun fighters fired back, they killed many innocent women because the Iraqis were hiding behind them. After suffering more than 40% casualties to their forces, the Irgun succeeded in killing or capturing the Iraqis. Then, while they were in a group, still dressed as women, having surrendered and agreed to be taken prisoner, some of the Iraqis opened fire again with weapons concealed beneath their women's clothing. Irgun fighters were caught off guard, more were killed, and others opened fire into the group. Iraqis who had indeed surrendered were killed along with those who had only pretended to surrender and had then opened fire. (*)

When the Hagana arrived they found the dead women and other civilians and accused the Irgun of murder and massacre. But the Red Cross, which was called in to assist the wounded and civilians, found no evidence of a massacre. In fact, even the most recent review of the evidence (7/1999), by Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah (capitol of the hopefully soon to be Palestinian state), indicates that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. The total Arab dead, including the Iraqis, according to the Beir Zayyit calculation, was 107.

So where did the idea of a massacre come from? The same Arab sources that confess to having urged the Arabs to flee have also acknowledged that the Arabs at the time galacticly exaggerated the Deir Yassin fight, making up stories of gang rape, brutalizing of pregnant women, killing unborn children cut from their mothers' wombs by blood-thirsty Jews, and massive murders with bodies thrown into a nearby quarry. These same Arab sources admit that their purpose in these exaggerations and lies was to shame the Arab nations into entering the conflict with greater alacrity so that the Jews would be destroyed by the overwhelming numbers of Arab invaders (like the Mongols 800 years earlier). The plan backfired. The Arab armies invaded, but only with a tiny fraction of their capacity; and this is part of how the Jews were victorious. But as a result of these exaggerations and lies, Arab civilians panicked upon hearing these stories, and fled by the tens of thousands. This is documented on television by a PBS program (50 Years of War) in which Deir Yassin survivors were interviewed in 1991. They unabashedly proclaimed that they begged Dr. Hussein Khalidi, director of Voice of Palestine (the Palestinian radio station in East Jerusalem) to edit out the lies and fabrications of atrocities that never happened. He told them: “We must capitalize on this great opportunity!”

Note well!! The flight of Arabs had begun per #1-4 above many months before Deir Yassin. So Deir Yassin cannot account for those hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sought refuge prior to 4/9/48. Moreover, while current Arab propaganda asserts that Deir Yassin was one of many examples of Jewish massacre and slaughter, there is not one other documented example of any such behavior by the Jews. Deir Yassin was not an example, it was the exception.

In sum, re Deir Yassin, it was not what happened at Deir Yassin that caused the flight of tens of thousands of Arabs; it was the lies invented by the Arab High Command and Dr. Hussein Khalidi of the “Voice of Palestine” radio news channel that caused the panic. One can hardly blame Israel for that.

Moreover, we have from an unimpeachable source, Yassir Arafat himself (his authorized biography, by Alan Hart, "Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker") the assertion that the Deir Yassin lies were spread "like a red flag in front of a bull" among the Arabs by the Egyptians. Then, having terrorized them with these stories, the Egyptians proceeded to disarm the Arabs of the area and herd them into detention camps in Gaza (hence today's Gaza refugee camps). Why did the Egyptians do this? According to Arafat, it was to get the Arabs out of the area because the Egyptians wanted a free hand to wage their war. Egypt had every intention of conquering the Negev and southern part of the coastal plain. They wanted no interference from the locals.

So the lies about Deir Yassin were spread in order to shame the Arab armies (didn't work) and (by the Egyptians) panic the Arab civilians (did work).

Bottom line, Deir Yassin was not a massacre, nothing even vaguely akin to what the Jews are accused of ever happened, the lies were made up by the Arabs, spread by Arabs, and thus the further flight of refugees after 4/9/48 was caused not by the Deir Yassin battle, but by the Arab lies about the Deir Yassin battle. And this from Yassir himself, and from Beir Zayyit University.

We don't know how many Arabs fled as a result of the “Voice of Palestine” exaggerations. Several hundred thousand is a good estimate. Most of them ended up in the Egyptian detention camps in Gaza.

6. There were two more incidents (in addition to the actions noted above in #3) of Arab refugees being caused directly by Israeli army actions: Lydda and Ramle. Both villages sat astride the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As the siege on Jerusalem tightened, the Israeli forces knew that in order to save the Jews of west Jerusalem from defeat and possible annihilation, they had to keep that road open. So one night they entered both villages and forcibly drove out the Arab residents. They rousted them from bed and sent them walking across the fields to the area that was under Jordanian control (only a few kilometers away).

Note...none were killed. there was no massacre. but they were driven out. However, they were driven out (as I explained above in #3) because of the military exigency of the war.

7. By 5/15/48 the British had evacuated their forces from all of British Mandatory Palestine, and the Jews now had a free hand in using their haganah, which now became the IDF. And the Arab countries had a free hand in attacking. And attack they did (although not with their full forces). Armies from 8 Arab nations poured into the area from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt (volunteers and soldiers from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Morocco came too - hence 8). They outnumbered the Hagana (now IDF) c. 5 to one. For the next month or so the Israelis were fighting a terribly difficult defensive war, just barely able to keep the invaders out. There were c. 63,000 Haganah volunteers, but weapons for only 22,000.

In June of '48 there was a cease-fire imposed by the UN. In July when the Arabs re-initiated hostilities, the Israelis had been able to use the cease-fire to import arms and planes from Russia and Germany via Czechoslovakia. Now fully armed, the IDF numbered 65,000 and the odds were reduced to 2-1. Good odds for the determined Jewish fighters.

When the fighting resumed in July, the IDF went on the offensive and succeeded in driving the Arab armies out of both the Jewish areas and the areas that the UN had intended to be the Palestinian state (western Galilee, and southern coastal plain (north of Gaza). When this offensive began, more Arabs fled. As noted above, the Arabs that stayed were safe, not harmed, and became citizens of Israel.

Contrary to revisionist and mendacious Arab propaganda, there was never any intent to massacre any Arabs. Many civilians died in the cross fire, and the overwhelming majority of Arabs who fled did so needlessly, at their own initiative or because of the Arab leadership that lied and intimidated them. Some Arabs were driven out by the IDF, but as part of a war defensive measure. Not as part of any plan to ethnically cleanse the land or massacre/genocide the Arabs. These accusations are all new revisionism aimed at exonerating the Arabs from their heinous and brutal role in creating the Arab Refugee problem, and transferring the guilt to Israel.

Finally, after the 2/49 cease-fire, when the war was over, there was still a continued flight by tens of thousands of Arabs. The Jews did absolutely nothing to encourage or force this flight.

Those are the 7 stages of causation. The next stage is maintenance and refusal to seek solution.

8. As I noted above, the Arabs caused the problem of Refugees by starting the war, and by encouraging Arabs to leave during the war. Even worse, although Israel offered on several occasions to repatriate refugees, the Arab states refused.

During the Rhodes armistice talks in 2/1949, Israel offered to return to the Arabs the lands that the Jews had conquered that were meant to be part of the Palestinian state, in exchange for a peace treaty. This would have allowed hundreds of thousands of refugees to return to their homes. The Arabs said no, because, as they themselves admitted, they were momentarily going to mount a new offensive. They had lost round one. There would be more and more rounds, until the Arabs won. Their new offensive was the 9000 terrorist attacks mostly from Egypt that the Arabs perpetrated against Israel from 1949-1956 (part of the cause of the '56 war).

At the Lausanne conference in 8-9/49, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees even without a peace treaty. The Arab states said NO, because that would involve a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

Thus, despite Israel's offers of repatriation, the Arabs insisted on maintaining the refugees in their squalor and suffering. Arab spokespersons in Syria and Egypt were quoted in their newspapers as saying: we will maintain the refugees in their camps until the flag of Palestine flies over all of the land. They will go back home only as victors, on the graves and corpses of the Jews.

Moreover, as some Arabs were candid enough to announce in public, the refugee problem would serve as "..a festering sore on the backside of Europe", as moral leverage to be used against Israel, in order to win the emotional support of the West against Israel.

So, bottom line, the Arabs were 100% at cause for the creation of the problem (by starting the war), and 100% at cause for maintaining the problem (by refusing Israel's offers of resolution).

Perhaps the most important considerations in judging whether or not Israel set out to put into action a plan to genocide the Arabs of Palestine or to drive them from their homes are:

1. the complete absence of any coverage in any world press, including Arab press and western press openly hostile to Israel, about any such actions of which Israel is today accused.
2. the complete absence of these accusations from any Arab spokespersons during this time, even at the very height of the flight (post-Deir Yassin).
3. the fate of the Arabs who stayed (became Israeli citizens, enjoy more freedom, democracy, standard of living, etc. than any Arabs anywhere in the Arab world today)

Quotes for proof that Arab leaders told Arabs to flee:

“The first group of our fifth column consist of those who abandon their homes…At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle” Ash-Sha’ab, Jaffa, 1.30.48

“(the fleeing villagers)…are bringing down disgrace on us all… by abandoning their villages” As-Sarih, Jaffa, 3.30.48

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."
- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz).

"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."
- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25

“The Arab streets (of Palestine) are curiously deserted (because)…following the poor example of the moneyed class, there has been an exodus from Jerusalem, but not to the same extent as from Jaffa and Haifa” , London Times, 5.5.48

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General John Glubb "Pasha," The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948

The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
– Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph 9/6/1948. (same in London Telegraph, 8.48)

The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa would be regarded as renegades." London Economist (Oct. 2, 1948)

“It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem” Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, 4.3.49

"[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

“The military and civil (Israeli) authorities expressed their profound regret at this grave decision (taken by the Arab military delegates of Haifa and the Acting Chair of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee to evacuate Haifa despite the Israeli offer of a truce). The Jewish mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation (of Arab military leaders) to reconsider its decision”. Memorandum of the Arab National Committee of Haifa, 1950, to the governments of the Arab League, quoted in J. B. Schechtman, The Refugees in the World, NY 1963, pp. 192f.

Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians: “ They say ‘we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)’, declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over”.

"The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.

"The Secretary General of the Arab League Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of invading Arab armies mow them down."
---Al Hoda (a New York-based Lebanese daily) June 8, 1951

"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it." –
The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, Sir Am Nakbah (The Secret Behind the Disaster) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and
describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
– The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9,

The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in. (Quoting a refugee)
---Al Difaa (Jordan) Sept. 6, 1954

“The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states, and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and re-take possession of their country”, Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League, London, The Arabs, 1955, p. 183)

“The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die”, Ralph Galloway, former head of UNWRA-1956

"As early as the first months of 1948, the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes ... and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."
- Bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

"Israelis argue that the Arab states encouraged the Palestinians to flee. And, in fact, Arabs still living in Israel recall being urged to evacuate Haifa by Arab military commanders who wanted to bomb the city."
- Newsweek, January 20, 1963

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead.", The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.

“Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon the refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes...”
Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime mistier after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs.

"The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the states of the world did so, and this is regrettable."
- Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), from the official journal of the PLO, Falastin el-Thawra (“What We Have Learned and What We Should Do”), Beirut, March 1976

“Since 1948, the Arab leaders have approached the Palestinian problem in an irresponsible manner. They have used to Palestinian people for political purposes; this is ridiculous, I might even say criminal...” KING HUSSSEIN 1996

Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)

Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) penned an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra (cf. supra), the official journal of the PLO in Beirut: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe" (emphasis added).

As Abu Mazen alluded, it was in large part due to threats and fear-mongering from Arab leaders that some 700,000 Arabs fled Israel in 1948 when the new state was invaded by Arab armies. Ever since, the growing refugee population, now around 4 million by UN estimates, has been corralled into squalid camps scattered across the Middle East - in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank.

In 1950, the UN set up the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as a "temporary" relief effort for Palestinian refugees. Former UNRWA director Ralph Galloway stated eight years later that, "the Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die." The only thing that has changed since then is the number of Palestinians cooped up in these prisons.

Contrasting the Arab Position with the historical evidence
The Arab Position
I. The Jews invaded Arab Palestine
A. the traditional homeland of the Arabs from time immemorial
B. in waves of alien European immigrants, from late 19th century onward.
C. They displaced indigenous Arab population
1. violently drove out fellahin, stole Arab lands and homes
2. to create a Jewish, racist, oppressive, apartheid, terrorist state.
II. The Jewish aggression culminated in a terrorizing war of conquest in 1948
A. The 1948 war was an act of naked, unprovoked aggression against Arabs
1. The UN partition plan was illegal, immoral, unconscionable
2. The creation of the “Jewish State” (An-Naqba = The catastrophe) a European plot to Europeanize the Middle East and assuage European guilt after Holocaust (which actually did not happen)
B. Peaceful Arabs were driven from their homes by Jewish terror and attack
C. Vengeful Jewish aggression terrorized helpless peasants who fled
1. most egregious was Deir Yasin, April 9, 1948
2. fearing annihilation, they fled to neighboring countries for refuge
III. “Refugee Problem” created by Jewish/Zionist Aggression
A. almost 1,000,000 Arabs fled from Jewish terror and aggression
B. They endure a miserable, impoverished existence in “concentration-camp” settlements because they have no where else to go
C. Contrary to the Geneva convention, the Zionists have never let them return to their ancestral homeland
D. The situation was exacerbated in 1967 with the 3rd great war of Zionist aggression, expansion, and terror against helpless Arab peasantry
E. Jewish apartheid, racist, genocidal oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from 1967 onward created more refugees
IV. Now, after fifty-four years of
A. unopposed violation of Fourth Geneva Convention Art. 49, & UN resolutions 194. 242 and 338 by the Zionist aggressors
B. unrelenting, grinding poverty suffered by the refugees in their hovels
C. endless, fruitless complaints by the Arab nations in the UN and elsewhere
D. the world must force Israel to do justly with the Palestinian refugees by
1. repatriating all 4,500,000 to their original homes
2. giving them back their original land holdings
3. paying appropriate compensation for their suffering

The History (based on public British, Arab, UN, European news documentation)
I. Population of Palestine (= Arab I)
A. Jews were a continuous minority part of the population of Palestine
B. Arab immigration from 1850’s created most of Arab Population
1. So “ancestral home from time immemorial” is false
C. Jewish immigration from 1880’s did not displace Arabs
1. European Jews
a. bought land (some squatters evicted) from Effendi
b. settled unoccupied and unowned land
c. reclaimed hitherto uninhabitable land
d. by doing I.C.1.c., European Jews created more land on which Arab immigrants came to farm and graze
D. Jewish and British improvement of economy and living standards in Palestine from 1850’s onward created
1. growth of Arab population due to better medical infrastructure
2. improvement of economy so that Arabs came in from surrounding Arab lands to get jobs, farm reclaimed land
E. Turks from 1870’s to 1917, and British from 1917 to 1947, encouraged the immigration of Arabs into Palestine to:
1. provide cheap labor for the expanding economy
2. keep the majority population Arab, not Jewish
F. As a result of I.D.-E., Arab population tripled in 70 years
G. British, to curry favor with Arab oil states, restrained Jewish immigration (white papers), even during WWII and immediately thereafter, even while Arab states and Mufti of Jerusalem had openly sided with the Nazis

II. The War of Independence: 11.1947-2.1949 (=Arab II.A)
A. UN Partition Plan created TWO states
1. Israel, c. 20% of “greater Palestine”
2. Palestine, c. 80% for Arabs (included modern Jordan)
B. Arab states frustrated Partition Plan by
1. invading and occupying Arab Palestine in Dec. 1947
2. inciting local Arabs to attack Jews before end of Mandate
3. attacking and destroying isolated Jewish settlements
4. encouraging local Arabs to evacuate and “make room for the Arab armies to annihilate the Jews”
5. telling local Arabs that they could later come back and have their own lands as well as those of the Jews (Jaffans in Tel Aviv)
6. creating anarchy via II.B.1-5 in Palestine
C. The British constrained Jewish immigration and policed Jewish para-military forces brutally and lethally until last day of Mandate.
D. With the end of British Mandate (5.15.1948), 21 Arab states declare war and seven Arab armies invaded the newly created Jewish State.
E. Jewish victory, against all odds, and contrary to the vocalized expectations and American news media, resulted in the conquest of territory designated by the UN as part of Arab Palestine
III. The Arab Refugees (= Arab II.B-C)
A. Per supra, II.B.1-6, invading Arab armies encouraged initial wave of Arab refugees, beginning in December, 1947, primarily from Galilee
B. Jewish leadership encouraged Arabs to stay (best example = Haifa)
C. Keeping refugees out was part of Ben Gurion’s plan (357-900{?} villages)
D. Deir Yassin occurred on April 9, 1948
1. isolated incident of intentional Arab civilian casualties
2. housed Iraqi troops which had attacked Jewish settlements, so was tactically reasonable target of military offensive
3. happened 5 months after start of Arab flight, so could not be cause (cause has to happen before effect)
4. could be an exacerbation of Arab flight, but even that is questionable since no great surge of Arab refugees from surrounding areas immediately after the attack on Deir Yassin
5. Arab leadership later used Deir Yassin to encourage Arab flight
6. Arab propaganda now uses Deir Yassin to explain Arab flight
E. Ramla: opinions divided
1. Moshe Dayan describes “machine gun run” down main street
2. Refugees describe Jewish invasion, terror, murders, flight
IV. The “Refugee Problem” (= Arab III)
A. Definition of Refugees – a telling conundrum
1. Geneva Convention: “permanent or habitual home”
2. UNWRA: “at least two years in Palestine”
B. Counting the Refugees – an irreconcilable conundrum
1. estimates vary :
a. Faris el Khoury, Syrian rep. to UN says 250,000 in 5/48.
b. Emil Ghoury said 200,000 by 9/48
c. Folke Bernadotte said 300,000 by 9/48
d. Red Cross said 350,000 by 2/49
e. UN estimates 750,000 in total by 1948, and 1,000,000 by 7/49; but this may include conflations per IV.B.2 infra
2. UNWRA admits
a. inflating of numbers by Arab states
b. willing adoption of status by non-refugees
c. demand by Arab states that status be conferred on all Arabs impoverished by war (including those that did not leave homes)
d. willingness of Red Cross to accommodate demand of IV.B.2.c and include any destitute Arab in “Palestine”.
e. Legal return of c. 100,000 refugees to Israel after war
f. Illegal entry of unascertained tens of thousands to camps after war
g. marketing of supplies by refugees to non-refugees
h. forging refugee ID cards for sale to “neo-refugees”
i. not removing dead from refugee roles but registering births
j. growth of refugee numbers beyond natural reproduction
k. voluntary resettlement of hundreds of thousands who found work and homes in other Arab countries (esp. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE)
l. UN frank admission that in Jordan alone in 1959 there were at least 150,000 ineligibles and many dead on the refugee roles for supplies and shelter (UN Doc. A/4478, p. 13, quoted in Katz, Battle Ground, p. 25)
m. Arab states’ demand for “inherited status” of refugees
3. 2001 numbers c. 4,500,000 untenable unless conflation

Israel’s original offer
5. Even before armistice talks Israel offers to repatriate 100,000, Arab states demand repatriate all (Lauzerne conf., 1949)
6. UN resolution 194, 12.11.48, both sides must negotiate, cease hostilities, allow for negotiated settlement that will include deciding the fate of the refugees. Israel agreed. Arabs refused to negotiate, refused to cease hostilities, refused any discussion of refugee issue.
C. Refugees Return to Homes
1. c. 170,000 Arabs who had either stayed in their homes, or returned from refugee centers after the war, were incorporated as full citizens in to the state of Israel (albeit an imperfect democracy, but with parliamentary representation)
2. Jordan gave citizenship to refugees, incorporating tens of thousands peacefully and constructively, critiqued peers
3. Arab states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, inter alia) have large Palestinian population, part refugees, working and living there for decades (but not citizens, subject to intimidation and expulsion)
D. Other solutions
1. Historians have frequently noted that there have been numerous refugee problems created by the wars of the 20th century.
a. 12,000,000 ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe post WW2
b. 14,000,000 Pakistani and Hindustani after 1948 partitionof India/Pakistan.
c. 500,000 Finns expelled by USSR in 1947
d. 150,000 Turks expelled from Bulgaria 1950
e. The Arab refugee problem is the only one to remain unresolved.
E. Arab intransigence maintained and exacerbated problem
1. Arab states initially refused European $$ aid to refugees
2. publicly vocalized decision to keep refugee problem unresolved to use as “moral leverage” against Israel and against Europe
3. forcibly keep refugees from leaving camps to find work elsewhere, maintaining poverty and suffering to use as “moral equivalent” to Holocaust (which they deny ever happened)
4. cf. infra, PS #!: Sa’id description of how Arab host countries treated refugees.
5. drove c. 800,000 Jewish Arabs from their homes (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen)(Saudi Arabia never allowed Jews in, Jordan had no Jews because British did not allow them to settle in “trans-Jordan), where they had lived for 2000+ years
6. property confiscated from Jewish deportees was ear-marked for “Arab refugee assistance” but final disposition unknown
7. Public documentation shows that Iraq and Syria imported laborers from Turkey, Iran, Soviet Central Asia, from 1950’s – 70’s, but refused Palestinian refugees
8. Arab vociferous excoriation of Israel for putative violation of refugee human rights and defiance of Geneva convention and UN resolutions (194, 242, 338) purposefully mis-quotes these texts. All texts include need for peaceful negotiations as means to handle problem. 21 of 23 Arab states have steadfastly refused any negotiation or peaceful settlement.
9. World ignores international law that refutes Arab refugee status:
a. refugee status is not inherited, hence today’s children and grandchildren of refugees are not refugees
b. refugees once resettled in host country are no longer refugees: hundreds of thousands of refugees resettled in Kuwait, Qatar, Arabia in the 1950’s to work the oil fields and remained there (although Kuwait exiled their Palestinian population of 300,000 in 1992)
c. refugees once granted citizenship in host country are no longer refugees: hundreds of thousands of West Bank refugees are Jordanian citizens.
10. World ignores reality that current “refugee camps” and “refugee status” ended de facto decades ago for most refugees:
a. Rashid Khalidi, “Palestinian Identity” (1997) pp. 207 ff and esp. Note #54. Refugees in Syria and Jordan moved out of the camps such that only 22% of original refugees remained in Jordan camps, only 28% in Syria. 52% still in camps in Lebanon (based on “Palestinian Refugees: their problem and future”, Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine, Wash. DC 1994)
b. Center for Peace and Justice visitors to Jordan and West Bank refugee camps noted (speeches and written reports in Santa Cruz, CA, 2002) that many residents of the refugee camps are “outsiders” (i.e., not refugees) who purchased refugee property because it offered greater benefits than their own village property (unclear: this may be reference to the fraud perpetrated against UNRWA of creating fake refugees, per supra IV.B). Most of the camps were indistinguishable from the residential areas around them.

F. Six-day War
1. Defensive war, same as 1948 war. Disposition of conquered lands and displaced persons to be handled in context of peace settlement, per UN and Geneva
2. Few refugees (they learned from their previous mistakes)
3. UN 242 (11.27.67): Israel must return territories
a. not “the” territories”, so Israel must return some territories
b. in exchange for peaceful settlement, and inviolate guarantees for secure borders and cessation of hostilities
c. resolution spoke of “refugees”, not “Arab refugees” – so solution relates to all refugees, both Arab and Jewish (& cf. supra IV.F.4-5)
Bottom Line (= Arab IV)
A. The Arab refugee problem was created mainly by the belligerent Arab states that defied the UN, invaded Israel, encouraged the Arabs to flee, and then purposefully kept them in a state of despairing poverty for Machiavellian propaganda purposes. Israel, regrettably, did play a role; but a relatively minor one which it tried to reverse after the war.
B. The problem was maintained intentionally by the Arab states through their refusal to abide by the UN resolutions and the Geneva convention, refusal to integrate any refugees into under-populated Arab countries (except for Jordan), and to enter into peace negotiations with Israel
C. By maintaining the problem, they sought to gain pseudo-moral leverage against Europe and Israel, keep a “festering human sore” in the forefront of their propaganda war against Israel, and use the issue as a political weapon.
D. Israel indicated its willingness on several occasions to include repatriation and/or reparations for Arab refugees, in context of peace treaty
E. Egypt, in its treaty with Israel, refused to deal with refugee issue in Gaza strip, and ceded all of Gaza strip to Israel. The PLO refused to negotiate with Israel, so refugee status of Gaza Palestinians was maintained.
F. Jordan had integrated thousands of Palestinians into its economy, and did not see any need or responsibility to deal with the disposition of those on the West bank in the context of its peace treaty with Israel.
G. The abuses, exaggerations, lying, distortions, perpetrated by Arabs, UNWRA and the refugees make it impossible to identify a bona fide refugee populace.
H. The Palestinian population of the West Bank, under Israeli rule from 1967 to 1992, experienced the highest standard of living of any Arab country with the exception of the oil states. Same true of Arab Israelis. Arab population of West Bank and Gaza tripled since 6/67: no genocide, no ethnic cleansing.
I. Palestinian population under PNA from 1992 to present has declined precipitously, standard of living eroded, due to mis-appropriation of c. 5.2 billion $$ by PNA into personal wealth and weapons stock-piling, and due to Israeli controls as part of fight against PNA terror. (Oklahoma City as parallel)
Justice for Jewish and Arab refugees could be part of peace settlement, if PNA and other Arab states (viz., Syria, Iraq) would agree to peace talks without preconditions.

PS #1: Edward Sa'id, Columbia University, outstanding spokesmen for the Palestinian cause, documents the cruelty of the Arab states to the Palestinian refugees:

"The by now notorious peace process has finally come down to the one issue that has been at the core of Palestinian depredations since 1948: the fate of the refugees. That the Palestinians have endured decades of dispossession and raw agonies rarely endured by other peoples - particularly because these agonies have either been ignored or denied, and even more poignantly, because the perpetrators of this tragedy are celebrated for social and political achievements that make no mention at all of where those achievements actually began - is of course the locus of "the Palestinian problem," but it has been pushed very far down the agenda of negotiations until finally now, it has popped up to the surface.
"Along with [the original displacement of the 1948 war] went the scandalously poor treatment of the refugees themselves. It is still the case, for example, that the 40,000-50,000 Palestinian refugees resident in Egypt must report to a local police station every month; vocational, educational, and social opportunities are curtailed; and a general sense of not belonging adheres to them, despite their Arab nationality and language.

"In Lebanon the situation is even more dire. Almost 400,000 Palestinian refugees have had to endure not only the massacres of Sabra, Shatila, Tel al-Za'atar, Dbayyeh, and elsewhere, but have remained confined in hideous quarantine for almost two generations. They have no legal right to work in at least 60 occupations; they are not adequately covered by medical insurance; they cannot travel and return; they are the objects of suspicion and dislike. In part, they have inherited the mantle of opprobrium draped round them by the PLO's presence (and since 1982 its unlamented absence) there, and thus they remain in the eyes of many ordinary Lebanese a sort of house enemy to be warded off and/or punished from time to time.

"A similar situation exists in kind, if not in degree, in Syria. As for Jordan, although it was - to its credit - the only country where Palestinians were given naturalized status, a visible fault line exists between the disadvantaged majority of that very large community and the Jordanian establishment for reasons that scarcely need to be spelled out. I might add, however, that for most of these situations where Palestinian refugees exist in large groups within one or another Arab country - all of them the direct consequence of 1948 - no simple, much less elegant or just, solution exists in the foreseeable future. It is also worth mentioning, or rather asking, why it is that a destiny of confinement and isolation has been imposed on a people who quite naturally fled to neighboring countries when driven from their own, countries that everyone believed would welcome and sustain them. More or less the opposite occurred: except in Jordan, no welcome was given them - another unpleasant consequence of the original dispossession.
(From the introduction to Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return, Pluto Press, London, 2001)

Some considerations re modern hypocrisy about massacres , refugees and ethnic cleansings in the Arab world
A.) In February, 1982, Hafez el Assad attacked his own city of Hama (southwestern Syria) with a 2-week bombardment and artillery barrage. Between 15,000 and 15,000 civilians were killed, along with 300-400 Moslem Brotherhood insurgents (the target of his attack). It merited only 1.5” of NY Times newsprint. The UN, all international NGOs, the USA and the EU were silent on this hideously brutal massacre.
B.) August, 1982: Sabra and Shatilla (Lebanon). Between 1975 and now there have been dozens of attacks by PLO against Lebanese, Druze against Lebanese, Syrians against Christian and Druze, and vice versa. Some of these have resulted in bona fide massacres of dozens, scores, or hundreds of civilians in villages, on buses, or in refugee camps.
Only those attacks that could be indirectly associated with Israel merited world-wide attention and became causes celebres for NGOs and the UN. Only these two massacres sparked international legal scrutiny. And, ironically, Israel is the only country of all that are involved in the horrific massacres in Lebanon that conducted an inquiry and self-critical evaluation of the Israeli army and government regarding their indirect involvement in the massacres (which were perpetrated by Christian Phalangist Lebanese troops).
C.) Kuwait: 1992, with the successful completion of the first Gulf War and the liberation of Kuwait, the Emir of Kuwait forcibly exiled 300,000 Palestinians from Kuwait. They were forced to flee, with no money or property. Most went to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Europe and the USA. Most had lived in Kuwait for decades, working in various aspects of the Petroleum industry. Many had been born in Kuwait. Some were quite well to do. None were citizens because Kuwait never authorized citizenship for Palestinian refugees. Their crime: support for Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war. Minimal coverage in western Media. The UN, EU, NGOs, and USA were silent on this brutal and massive example of ethnic cleansing.
D.) Jordan, 2004: The Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab al-Yawm (5/17/04) announced that Jordan plans to 'transfer' some 300 refugees who consider themselves Palestinians to a buffer zone between Jordan and Iraq. The refugees in the Al-Ruwayshid camp arrived with the onset of the United States' war in Iraq last year, fleeing from Iraq in advance of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Palestinian activities and settlement in Iraq were heavily subsidized by Hussein, to the detriment of Iraqi economy, as part of his support for the Palestinian terror war against Israel. With Saddam’s fall, the Palestinians became persona non grata and many fled to Jordan.

The sources said that the Jordanian government's intention to evict them follows the failure of all negotiations between the UN High Commission for Refugees [UNHCR] and several Arab countries. These other Arab countries refuse to host these refugees in their countries. The Jordanian government plans to offer the refugees two choices: either return to Iraq, or move to the no-man's land. In any event, Jordan is determined to tear down the camp at the end of this month.

The western Media, UN, UK, EU, USA and NGOs are all silent.

E.) Update on Iraqi cravenness: Friday, 3/19/04, 5:45 pm, NPR “Talk of the Nation” on KQED FM, San Francisco: a survey of the US Marines’ “Oral History” of the 2003 Iraq war. One Marine interviewee told the following tale: we entered the town (Faluja) and were very careful to contain our fire so as not to harm civilians. Then we found that Iraqi women were firing at us from the windows of their homes. After losing some men to this fire due to our containment orders, we decided to change our tactics and declared our sector an “open range of fire” zone. When we had neutralized the opposition, we discovered that the “women” were actually Iraqi male mujehadeen (dml. Iraqi para-military fighters loyal to Saddam Hussein, who numbered about the same as the total Iraqi army!) in women’s clothing! We faced similar tactics in the guise of gunfire from doorways of homes; but when we broke into those homes, we found everyone sitting around dressed in pajamas, with no visible weapons. The fighters, after shooting at us, took shelter behind civilians, and hid their weapons and uniforms. When we left, they grabbed their weapons and fired on us.
We will never know how many Iraqi civilians, especially women and children, were killed by American fire due to these Iraqi tactics (eerily reminiscent of Deir Yassin).