Ben Gurion

COMMENTARY: ‘We Look At Them Like Donkeys’ – What Israel’s First Ruling Party Thought About Palestinian Citizens

There is an ‘apparent’ clear divide among Jews today, but one finds it hard to believe that there are Jews who do not think or feel different than non-Jews, especially when they have been raised believing that they are the ‘chosen people of God’. The truth of the matter is, that Jews have ALWAYS been a problem, because they DO NOT INTEGRATE, but rather INFILTRATE and CORRODE society. 

So what is this ‘divide’ all about then? Could it be that there is a plan to destroy those who are not ‘that Jewish’?

Ben Gurion‘We look at them like donkeys’: What Israel’s first ruling party thought about Palestinian citizens,” Source: haaretz.com

“The Arab question in Israel” was the term used in the top ranks of Mapai, the ruling party in the young State of Israel – and forerunner of Labor – to encapsulate the complex issue that arose after the War of Independence of 1948-49. In the wake of the fighting, and the armistice agreements that concluded the war, about 156,000 Arabs remained within Israel (out of an estimated 700,000 before the war), accounting for 14 percent of the nascent state’s population. So it was with some justification that Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett stated in a meeting of Mapai Knesset members and the party’s senior leadership, on June 18, 1950, that “this is one of the fundamental questions of our policy and of the future of our country.” He added that the issue was one “that will determine the direction of the country’s morality,” for “our entire moral stature depends on this test – on whether we pass it or not.”

Almost 70 years later, the “Arab question in Israel” continues to pose a conundrum for politicians when they address the issue of the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel (or, as they are often imprecisely called, “Israeli Arabs”).

The minutes of the meetings held by Mapai, which are stored in the Labor Party Archive in Beit Berl, outside Kfar Sava, attest to the deep dispute in the party over two conflicting approaches concerning the Arabs in Israel. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his associates – Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense Forces chief of staff 1953-1958) and Shimon Peres, at the time a senior official in the Defense Ministry – urged a policy of segregation and a hard hand against what he argued was a communal threat to national security; while Sharett and other Mapai leaders – Pinhas Lavon, Zalman Aran, David Hacohen and others – promoted a policy of integration.

The disagreement between Ben-Gurion and Sharett mirrored the respective approaches held by the two regarding the Arab world in general. Sharett was critical of Ben-Gurion’s policy, which he said, held that “the only language the Arabs understand is force,” and called for an approach that preferred the “matter of peace.” Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, then a Knesset member, and later Israel’s second president (1952-1963), summed up succinctly the alternatives in a meeting of the Mapai MKs several weeks later, on July 9, 1950: “The question is the attitude the state takes toward the minorities. Do we want them to remain in the country, to be integrated in the country, or to get out of the country We declared civic equality irrespective of race difference. Does this refer to a time when there will be no Arabs in the country? If so, it’s fraud.”

‘Transfer’ option

The discussions within the party were quite freewheeling, even if speakers frequently expressed concern of leaks to the press, which could have lead to international pressure on Israel to improve the treatment of its Arab citizens. Indeed, the future of the relations between the peoples who inhabited the country demanded weighty political decisions. Among the issues in question: the right to vote, the Absentees’ Property Law, the status of the Arab education system, membership of Arab workers in the Mapai-affiliated Histadrut federation of labor, and more.

One proposition that arose frequently in the discussions was that of a transfer – the expulsion of the Arabs who continued to reside in Israel – a term that some found grating already then. In the June 1950 meeting, Sharett took issue with the allegation, voiced by Ben-Gurion and his supporters, that the Arabs in Israel were a “fifth column.” That was a simplistic assumption, Sharett said, “which needs to be examined.” As he saw it, the fate of the relations between the two peoples depended overwhelmingly on the Jews. “Will we continue to fan the flames?” Sharett asked, or try to douse them? Even though a high-school education was not yet mandatory under law (and the state was not obligated to offer one), a large number of the Jewish youth in the country attended high school, and Sharett thought that the state should establish high schools for the Arabs as well. Israel needs “to guarantee them their cultural minimum,” he added.

For political reasons, the segregationists tended to ignore the difference between the Arabs living in Israel and those who were left on the other side of the border following the war, many of whom made attempts to “infiltrate” and return to their homes. Sharett took the opposite view: “A distinction must be made between vigorous action against Arab infiltration” and “discrimination against Arabs within the country.”

Ben Gurion David Ben-Gurion. Fritz Cohen / GPO

Ranking figures such as Sharett and Lavon, who was defense minister in 1954-55, viewed positively a further exodus of Arabs from the country, but only “by peaceful means.” Sharett vehemently objected to the position taken by Dayan, who not only wanted to bring about a situation in which there would be fewer Arabs in Israel, but sought to achieve this through active expulsion. In Sharett’s view, “We must not strive to do this by a wholesale policy of persecution and discrimination.” Sharett spoke of “distinctly unnecessary forms of cruelty, which are tantamount to an indescribable desecration of God’s name.”

Dayan, notwithstanding the fact that he was serving in the army at the time – as head of Southern Command – participated in Mapai’s political meetings and helped set public policy. He was one of the leaders of the aggressive stance against the country’s Arabs and was against a proposal that they should serve in the army (an idea that came up but was shelved). He opposed granting the Arabs “permanent-citizenship certificates,” opposed compensating those who had been dispossessed of their land, and in fact opposed every constructive action that could contribute to bridge-building between the peoples. “Let’s say that we help them live in the situation they are in today” and no more, he proposed.

Dayan’s approach remained consistent over the years, and conflicted with the view taken by Sharett and the stream in Mapai that he represented. Speaking in the same June 1950 meeting, Dayan asserted, “I want to say that in my opinion, the policy of this party should be geared to see this public, of 170,000 Arabs, as though their fate has not yet been sealed. I hope that in the years to come there will perhaps be another possibility to implement a transfer of these Arabs from the Land of Israel, and as long as a possibility of this sort is feasible, we should not do anything that conflicts with this.”

Dayan also objected to Sharett’s proposals to improve the level of education among the country’s Arabs. “It is not in our interest to do that,” he said. “This is not the only question on which the time for a final solution has not yet arrived.”

Zalman Aran, a future education minister, objected to the military government that had been imposed on Israel’s Arabs at the time of statehood and remained in effect until 1966. Under its terms, Arabs had to be equipped with permits both to work and to travel outside their hometowns, which were also under curfew at night. “As long as we keep them in ghettos,” Aran said, no constructive activity will help. Lavon, too, urged the dismantlement of the military government. In 1955, a few months after resigning as defense minister, he savaged the concept at a meeting in Beit Berl. “The State of Israel cannot solve the question of the Arabs who are in the country by Nazi means,” he stated, adding, “Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews.”

Even earlier, Lavon was a sharp critic of the line taken by Dayan and other advocates of transfer. At a meeting of another Mapai leadership forum, on May 21, 1949, he said acidly, “It’s well known that we socialists are the best in the world even when we rob Arabs.” A few months later, on January 1, 1950, in another meeting, he warned, “It is impossible to take action among the Arabs when the policy is one of transfer. It is impossible to work among them if the policy is to oppress Arabs – that prevents concrete action. What is being carried out is a dramatic and brutal suppression of the Arabs in Israel… Transfer is not on the cards. If there is not a war, they will not go. Two-hundred thousand Arabs will be citizens in terms of voting… As the state party, we must set for ourselves a constructive policy in the Arab realm.”

Back in December 1948, during the discussions on granting the right to vote for the Constituent Assembly – Israel’s first parliamentary institution, which was elected in January 1949, and a month later became the “Israel Knesset” – Ben-Gurion agreed to grant the right to vote to the Arabs who had been in the country when a census was taken, a month earlier. About 37,000 Arabs were registered in the census. The decision to enfranchise them apparently stemmed from party-political considerations. The thinking was that most of them would vote for Mapai.

This assessment was voiced in the discussions on the Citizenship Law in early 1951, when Ben-Gurion expressed the most assertive opinion. He refused to grant the right to vote to the Arabs who were living in the country lawfully (as Sharett demanded) but who had been elsewhere during the census (because they had fled or had been expelled in the wake of the war); or to those Arabs who resided in the “Triangle” (an area of Arab towns and villages on the Sharon plain), which was annexed to Israel only in April 1949, under the armistice agreement with Jordan. “Is there no country in the world that has two types of citizens in elections [meaning voting and non-voting],” Ben-Gurion asked rhetorically in a meeting of Mapai MKs on February 20, 1951.

Moshe Dayan. Fritz Cohen / GPO

In the view of Sharett, who submitted a conflicting draft resolution, it would not be possible to defend “this situation in regard to ourselves and in regard to these Arabs, and in regard to the Arabs in Israel as a whole and in terms of world public opinion. Accordingly, I suggest granting them the right to vote… Discriminate only against the Arabs who entered Israel without permission.”

Sharett maintained that Ben-Gurion had not given consideration to the root of the problem. “Terrible things” were being done against Arabs in the country, he warned. “Until a Jew is hanged for murdering an Arab for no reason, in cold blood, the Jews will not understand that Arabs are not dogs but human beings.” Sharett’s view carried the day in the vote, and the Arabs in the Triangle voted in the elections.

In the July 9, 1950, meeting, MK David Hacohen disputed the argument that discrimination against the Arabs and the institution of the military government were essential for the country’s security. Assailing the Absentees’ Property Law – a series of measures that allowed the state to expropriate land and homes abandoned by Palestinians who were displaced during the war, even if they subsequently returned to the country – he said, “I don’t know whether it was clear to us all, when we voted, how grave it is.” He noted that, “According to the law, when an Arab dies, his property does not go to his wife but to the Custodian of Absentees’ Property It is inconceivable for us to declare equality of all citizens and at the same time have a law like this on the books.”

Apparently, no one took issue with the next comparison Hacohen drew: “These laws that we are coming up with in regard to Israel’s Arab residents cannot even be likened to the laws that were promulgated against the Jews in the Middle Ages, when they were deprived of all rights. After all, this is a total contrast between our declarations and our deeds.”

A similar approach was voiced during the same meeting by Zalman Aran, who viewed Mapai’s handling of the Arabs as a “process of despair” that must be rejected instead of finding excuses for it.

“Morally, if we are a movement that does not lie, and we do not want to lie, we are here living a total lie,” he said. “All the books and articles that have been written, and the speeches made internally and for external consumption, are groundless when it comes to implementation. I am not talking about the attitude of individuals in the country toward the Arabs. I am talking about a [policy] line. I reject this line, which has emerged within society and has a thousand-and-one manifestations. I do not accept all the excuses that have been put forward.”

Taking issue with Dayan’s approach, Aran compared the situation of the Arabs in Israel with the situation of Jews in other countries. “On the basis of what we are doing here to the Arabs, there is no justification for demanding a different attitude toward Jewish minorities in other countries I would be contemptuous of Arabs who would want to form ties with us on the basis of this policy. We would be lying in the [Socialist] Internationale, we are lying to ourselves and we are lying to the nations of the world.”

Dayan – still an officer in uniform, it must be remembered – objected to the opinions voiced by Hacohen and Aran, and saw no reason to draw a distinction between the Arab public in Israel and Arabs in enemy countries. “I am far more pessimistic about the prospect of viewing these Arabs as loyal,” he countered.

Moshe Sharett. Frank Scherschel

Flawed democracy

During the same period of a decade-plus when Ben-Gurion was premier, a political battle raged in Mapai over the continued existence of the military government. Ben-Gurion persistently defended the military government, which he saw as a “deterrent force” against the Arabs in Israel. In a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat on January 1, 1962, he railed against the “dominant naivete” of those, such as Sharett and Aran, who do not understand the Arabs, and warned of the possible consequences: “There are people living under the illusion that we are like all the nations, that the Arabs are loyal to Israel and that what happened in Algeria cannot happen here.”

He added, “We view them like donkeys. They don’t care. They accept it with love…” To loosen the reins on the Arabs would be a great danger, he added: “You and your ilk” – those who support the abolition of the military government or making it less stringent – “will be responsible for the perdition of Israel.” A decade earlier, on January 15, 1951, Shmuel Dayan, Moshe Dayan’s father, a Mapai leader and longtime Knesset member, had voiced similar sentiments in a meeting of Mapai MKs. The Arabs, he said, “could be good citizens, but it’s clear that at the moment they become an obstacle, they will constitute a terrible danger.”

A decade later, Aran offered an opposite assessment of the situation. Speaking at a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat in January 1962, he maintained that it was the military government that “is exacerbating the situation.” He also rejected the Algeria analogy. On the contrary, he thought, the existence of the military government would not delay an Arab uprising but would only spur it. He reiterated his critique of the early 1950s a decade later. He was against a situation in which the Arabs are “second-class” citizens who lack rights like the Jews, and he was critical of both himself and his colleagues: “We accepted this thing, we became accustomed to it… We took it in stride… It’s hard to swallow… No Arab in the State of Israel is able, needs to, is capable of – whatever you give him economically, educationally – accepting that he is a second-class citizen in this country. I think that the world does not know the true situation. If it did, it would not let us keep going on this way.”

Already then, Finance Minister Levi Eshkol, under whose term as prime minister the military government would be abolished, foresaw the dire consequences: “It would not surprise me if something new suddenly emerges, that people will not want to rent a stable – or a room – to an Arab in some locale, which is the [logical] continuation of this situation. Will we be able to bear that?”

One person who was not impressed by such arguments was the deputy defense minister, Shimon Peres. In a Mapai Secretariat meeting on January 5, 1962, he maintained that in practice, the military government “is not a strain on the Arabs.” The military government, he added, was [effectively] created by the Arabs, “who endanger Israel and as long as that danger exists, we must meet it with understanding.” In contrast, Isser Harel, head of the Shin Bet security service (1948-1952) and the Mossad (1952-1963), stated in 1966, days after resigning as Eshkol’s adviser for intelligence and security, that “the military government is not a security necessity, and therefore there is no need for its existence. The army should not be dealing with the Arab citizens. That is a flaw in terms of our democracy” (quoted in the daily Maariv, July 10, 1966). That had been the view of the security hawks, including Yigal Allon, since the early 1950s.

Over the years, it was claimed that the military government had served as a tool in Mapai’s hands for reinforcing its rule, both by giving out jobs and by distributing benefits, and also by intervening in election campaigns through the creation of Arab factions within existing parties that were convenient for the ruling party (and suppressing opponents on the other side). This is not the venue to discuss that allegation – for which evidence exists – but it’s worth noting one of the motifs of the hard-hand policy, which preserved the segregation between Arabs and Jews, as expressed candidly by Ben-Gurion in the meeting of the Mapai Secretariat on January 5, 1962: “The moment that the difference between Jews and Arabs is eliminated, and they are at the same level If on that day there does not exist a regime in a world where there are no more wars, I do not have the shadow of a doubt that Israel will be eradicated and no trace will remain of the Jewish people.”

DEBATE: Is A Two-State Solution Still Even Possible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRf-4NtCw7c

Israeli MPs pass a new law making it harder for any future government to cede Jerusalem.

In the words of one Israeli opposition member of parliament: “When Jerusalem burns, everything burns”.

Nahman Shai fears a newly passed law in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, could lead to more unrest in the Middle East. The Israeli law makes it harder to divide the contested capital of Jerusalem in any future deal with the Palestinians. Israel says the city is its capital. Palestinian leaders say East Jerusalem has always been their capital.

It all could have a dramatic impact on any peace deal between Israel and Palestine – with some saying its yet another fatal blow to a possible two-state solution.

EXCLUSIVE: Will ISIS Blow up Olympics in Korea?

Despite major defeats in Syria and Iraq, ISIS still remains the greatest threat to security and stability in the world. The terrorists have switched recently to single hostile activities and heinous acts of terror in the EU and throughout Asia.

Social media became quite a good platform for ISIS recruiters to disseminate and spread information on the guidelines for ‘lone wolves’. Brainwashers urge them to organize and commit terrorist attacks in cities, social gathering places during public events and Christian holidays.

Major sporting events facilities are also a prior target for the jihadists. According to the Sun, ISIS radicals were planning to carry out attacks during the Rio 2016 Olympic Summer Games. The masterminds posted the step-by-step guide, which includes 17 different attack methods, on social network Telegram. The terrorists awaited the hostile activities to be implemented by the experienced militants as well as common people willing to swear allegiance to ISIS.

According to Mustaqila Press Agency, quite an interesting information has appeared recently on ISIS-supporters discussing via Telegram channels how to organize attacks on Olympic sites in South Korea. For its part, a year ago official Seoul claimed terror threat would rise. On June 19, 2016, the Yonhap news agency with the reference to the national intelligence service of South Korea reported on a series of attacks aimed at various military and government facilities. The intelligence sources said, not only the Koreans would be in danger but also the people of other states.

PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Games venues seem to be the main ISIS targets in the near future. While losing control over territories and energy resources in Syria and Iraq with every passing day, the radicals are trying to increase their credibility by organizing attacks, which could lead to numerous human casualties.

At the same time, the level of 2018 sports events’ attendance is in question. Currently, just only one-third of tickets have been sold. Most likely, the main reasons are the terrorist attacks’ threats and provocations from North Korea.

A number of European countries are considering the security measures at the Olympic Games in PyeongChang. France’s Winter Olympics team will not go to the 2018 Games in South Korea if its security cannot be guaranteed, France’s sports minister, Laura Flessel said on September 21, 2017. The more so, British Olympic leaders have plans in place to evacuate athletes from the 2018 Pyeongchang Games amid terrorist and nuclear threats.
The 2018 Olympic Games would be attended by sports fans from more than 80 countries. Ensuring security of such a number of people will become a serious challenge for the special security services and interior ministry of South Korea. People should realize that the trip to PyeongChang is quite dangerous, as, for someone, it will be a festival of sport, and for the terrorists, it would be a festival of violence.

Sophie Mangal is an American Patriot, 27, is a special investigative writer and contributor for ZionistReport.com. Her Hindu surname “Mangal” derives from the Sanskrit “mangala,” meaning “auspicious.” After attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a media and journalism major, Mangal monitored the refugee crisis in Europe, drawing parallels between the Syrian conflict and the Balkan problem, and has visited Syria on several occasions. She can be reached at sophia.mangal@mail.com.

VIDEO: Arab League Chief Warns Trump Over Jerusalem

We suspect this is all rhetoric coming from the Arab League, but is Israel trying to encourage an attack? And, what will the Arabs do if Trump actually moves the US Embassy to Jerusalem? Can we only expect nominal to no formal action as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. are aligned with Israel?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fZTGBusk3k

US Embassy Tel Aviv

Palestinians Warn Of Violence If Trump Recognizes Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital

Only the very gullible and ignorant still believe that peace has ever been in the cards for Israhell. The vicious, cynical, criminal tribe has never thought of peace as an option, instead, they have played the game long enough and now, its time to finally finish up with the Muslims, and the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, might just come in handy to incite more chaos with Arabs around the world. Isn’t chaos what they always use to expand their tentacles? Zionist traitor, Trump has been announcing the embassy move which he knows will without a doubt lead to more international violence. Will he do it next week or next month? We don’t know for sure, but one thing is certain, he will do it when the time is right in order to get the expected reaction.

US Embassy Tel Aviv Fireworks from the Mount Herzl ceremony seen over the Knesset in Jerusalem, marking the beginning of celebrations of Israeli 69th Independence Day, on May 1, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

“Palestinians warn of violence if Trump recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital,” Source: timesofisrael.com

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s office warned Friday of the potential destructive effects if US President Donald Trump recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a move they say would deny their claim to East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

“The American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel destroys the peace process,” Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said in a statement to AFP.

“The American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American embassy to Jerusalem involves the same level of danger to the future of the peace process and pushes the region into instability,” he said.

The warning comes as Trump is due to decide by Monday on whether to move his country’s embassy from Tel Aviv to the disputed holy city.

Reports emerged on Friday that Trump could again delay moving the embassy but recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state and fiercely oppose any changes that could be regarded as legitimizing Israel’s control over East Jerusalem, which it captured in the 1967 Six Day War.

Without referring to Trump by name, Abu Rudeineh said any just solution in the Middle East required recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

“East Jerusalem, with its holy places, is the beginning and the end of any solution and any project that saves the region from destruction, he said in an earlier statement on the official Wafa news agency.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem and claims all of Jerusalem as its undivided eternal capital.

View of Jerusalem showing the Old City in the foreground against new parts of the city in the background, January 9, 2017. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

This has not been recognized by the international community. No countries currently have their embassies in Jerusalem, instead keeping them in the Israeli commercial capital Tel Aviv.

Trump is due to decide by Monday on whether to renew a six-month waiver on moving the embassy. He pledged during his campaign to move the embassy to Jerusalem but renewed the waiver in May.

The US leader has said he wants to relaunch frozen peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians in search of the “ultimate deal”

Any major shift in US policy would make that goal more difficult to achieve, Middle East analysts say.

 

 

VIDEO: EXPOSED – Britain First – Zionist Agent Provocateurs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kjpmfA5CbQ&feature=youtu.be

Today, Trump tweeted his support for Britain First.
Regardless of what you think about Muslim migrants and Islamic terrorism, there is a push happening. This push will lead to a clash of civilizations that will result in WW3. Zionist Agent Provocateurs, like Jayda Fransen, now have public approval by Donald Trump and this will further embolden both sides.

This video was produced by Verdant Servant (disclaimer – we do not endorse everything on their channel).

VIDEO: Israel’s “Secret” Arab Ties

In a recent speech, Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed confidence about better relations with Arab states saying ties would continue to grow. The Israeli premier also admitted cooperation with some Arab countries was in general secret. This comes as reports emerge showing the regime is covertly strengthening ties with the Persian Gulf monarchies. Israeli officials have also stated their readiness to share intelligence and form an alliance with Saudi Arabia to counter Iran.

**Support us and buy our coffee/tea mug for you or for a friend!**
http://zionistreport.com/product/shut-it-down-goyim-lives-matter-mug/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Y2h5iNw0Q&feature=youtu.be

Israel is a Communist country

COMMENTARY: Fifty Years, Fifty Lies

Not only is this a very accurate analysis of the TRUTH about Israel, but it comes at a good time. These evil Jews have ‘shelter’ in mother Russia. Could it be that the time is right, to blame ‘America’ and the west, for having supported Israel and turning a ‘blind eye’ to their genocide? They would be right in blaming Israel, but wasn’t that the plan from day one? That is to infest America with communist Jews, destroy it from within, use it to destroy other countries to later dump America and turn to the new powerful east where they initially came from?

Israel is a Communist country

“Fifty Years, Fifty Lies,” Source: haaretz.com 

It began with the question of what to call the West Bank and Gaza. On Israel Radio it was decided to use the term ‘temporarily-held territories.’ This was lie No. 1

Let’s assume the occupation is justified. Let’s also say that Israel has no choice. Let’s not even call it an occupation. Let’s say it was recognized by international law and that the world has applauded it. Let’s assume that the Palestinians are grateful for its presence. Nevertheless, a small problem still hovers over it: the whole thing is based entirely on lies.
From beginning to ever-receding end, it’s all a pack of lies. There is not one word of truth associated with it.

Were it not for these lies it would have imploded in its rottenness a long time ago. Were it not for these lies, it’s doubtful if it would have ever come into being. These lies, some of which the right takes pride in (“for the sake of the Land of Israel it’s permissible to lie”), are enough to make any decent person recoil in revulsion. One doesn’t need its other horrors to be convinced of this.

It began with the question of what to call the territories. On Israel Radio it was decided to use the term “temporarily-held territories.” This was lie No. 1, implying that the occupation was temporary and that Israel intended to evacuate these territories, that they were only a bargaining chip in the quest for peace. This is probably the biggest lie and is certainly the most decisive one. It is the one that has enabled the celebration of its jubilee anniversary. The truth is that Israel never intended to end the occupation. Its alleged temporariness only put the world to sleep with its deceit.

The second major lie was the argument that the occupation serves the security interests of Israel, that it’s a self-defense measure by a helpless nation beset by enemies. The third lie was the “peace process,” which never really took place, and which in any case was only meant to buy the occupation more time. This lie had many legs. The world was an accomplice, continuously lying to itself. There were arguments, presentations of maps (all of them alike), peace conferences were held with numerous rounds of talks and summits, with envoys rushing back and forth, and mainly empty patter. These were all based on a lie, which was the assumption that Israel even contemplated ending the occupation.

The fourth lie, obviously, is the settlement enterprise. This project was born and raised in a lie. Not one settlement was established honestly, starting with the overnight stay at the Park Hotel in Hebron, through the “labor camps,” “protective camps,” “archaeological digs,” “nature reserves,” “green spaces,” “fire zones,” “survey lands,” outposts and expansions – all those fabrications committed with a wink and a nod, culminating in the biggest lie in this context, that of “state lands,” a lie that can only be likened to that of Israel’s Palestinian “present absentees.”

The settlers lied and the politicians lied, the army and the Civil Administration in the territories lied – they all lied to the world and to themselves. From the protection of an antenna tower grew a mega-settlement and from a weekend at that hotel grew the worst of the lot. The cabinet members who ratified, the Knesset members who nodded and winked, the officers who signed and the journalists who whitewashed, they all knew the truth. The Americans who “condemned” and the Europeans who were “infuriated,” the UN General Assembly that “called on” and the Security Council which “decided,” none of them ever had any intention of following this up with any action. The world is also lying to itself. It’s convenient for everyone this way.

It’s also convenient to issue the endless daily lies that cover up the crimes committed by the Israel Defense Forces, the Border Police, the Shin Bet, the Prison Service and the Civil Administration – the entire apparatus of occupation. It’s convenient to use sanitized language, the language of the occupier so beloved by the media, the same language it uses to describe their excuses and self-justifications. There is no whitewashing in Israel like the one describing the occupation and there is no other broad coalition that expands and supports it with such devotion. The only democracy in the Middle East that employs a brutal military tyranny and the most moral army that kills more than 500 children and 250 women in one summer – can anyone conceive of a bigger lie than this? Can anyone think of a greater self-deception than the prevailing opinion in Israel, by which all this was forced upon us, that we didn’t want this, that the Arabs are to blame? And we still haven’t mentioned the two-state lie and the lie about peace-seeking Israel, the lies about the 1948 Nakba and the “purity” of our arms in that war, the lie about the whole world being against us and the lie about both sides being to blame.

Since Golda Meir’s “we’ll never forgive the Arabs for forcing our children to kill them” to “a nation cannot be an occupier on its own land”, lies keep following lies. It hasn’t stopped to this day. Fifty years of occupation, fifty shades of mendacity. And now? Another fifty years?