band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at



Israel Defence Minister calls for mass expulsion all Palestinian citizens of Israel


The final and only solution is a pure Jewish state empty from all the Palestinians

In an exclusive interview with Ben Caspit from Al-Monitor February 22, 2017, Israel Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman confirmed that he still “supports a two-state solution”, but one involving population as well as land “swaps” and as one part of a regional. In another word, Liberman is clearly advocating for all Palestinian citizens of Israel (currently 20% of the population) to be stripped of their citizenship and forcibly expelled into the tiny Palestinian territories. This would include all the current Knesset members who are Palestinians. The second part of his plan is the total annexation of all areas that contain Jewish settlements that are currently built on private Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Practically a solution worse than the bantustan solution with an aryan twist. A Jewish state empty of Palestinians, and a tiny Palestinian “state” empty of Jews.

Below is except from the interview which interesting headed as “Israel defense minister: we must coordinate moves with Trump

“I don’t know what anyone else’s position is. All I know is my position. I haven’t budged from it in close to 15 years. On this particular issue, over time I have only become more convinced of my position. As part of a two-state solution, we must establish a Jewish state, not a binational state. The model that is now on the table is based on the creation of a homogeneous Palestinian state, in which there are no Jews, alongside a binational Jewish state with [an Arab] minority making up 20% of the population. I oppose that. I support a two-state solution that includes an exchange of territories and populations rather than ceding territories for peace. The concept of territories for peace has failed.”

“I spoke about this plan at the Munich Conference [Feb. 19]. The auditorium was packed, but no one fell out of their seats [when I presented my plan]. I didn’t hear a single protest. In private talks I had later with numerous senior officials, everyone told me how much sense the plan makes. I spoke loudly and clearly, and I didn’t see anyone shocked by it.”

Full Interview Here:

97 Years Ago: Balfour and British Imperialism in Palestine

p.200 #244_1


“The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far greater import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” – Arthur James Balfour


November 2nd marked the 97th anniversary of the 1917 Balfour Declaration declaring “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in a letter from U.K. Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to British Zionist partisan Lionel Walter Rothschild. Although the Zionist movement had an active leadership, which had inaugurated a series of congresses and established modest settlements in Palestine, it is the endorsement of Zionism by the leading imperial power of the day that would elevate the nationalist crusade into a genuine European colonial project à la the Afrikaners’ South Africa.
p.102 #96

For Lord Balfour, Zionism stirred Protestant aspirations for a Jewish “return” to the Holy Land and appeared to settle the so-called “Jewish Question” by guiding the waves of eastern European and Russians Jews fleeing anti-Semitic pogroms to Palestine rather than Western Europe and North America.


At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the victorious leaders of the United States, France, Italy, and Great Britain awarded the latter dominion over Palestine in the framework of a League of Nations mandate that entrusted London with carrying out the task of establishing representative institutions and recognition of the Jewish people’s “right to reconstitute their National Home [in Palestine].”


The unavoidable contradiction between supporting a Jewish homeland and self-determination in an overwhelmingly Arab country was not missed by Balfour, who attended the conference and wrote in a memo, “the contradiction between the letter of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine… For in Palestine,” we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.” That contradiction was easily settled by Balfour as the epigraph above concludes the memo.
p.246 #294

British sovereignty over Palestine and sponsorship of a now confident colonial venture furthered Zionist settlement growth and, more crucially, suppressed inevitable Palestinian resistance to Zionism, particularly the 1936-1939 revolt. The success of the Zionist project in the birth of the State of Israel, and its corollary of Palestinian expulsion, dispossession and military occupation, would have been inconceivable without British imperial aid and support.


“Everything that has followed in that conflict-riven land has flowed inevitably from this decision” to endorse a Jewish state in an Arab country by “the greatest power of the age,” Journal for Palestine Studieseditor Rashid I. Khalidi wrote in Resurrecting Empire. Whatever one may think of Israel and the Palestinians, it would be hard to argue against the judgment that Palestinians and Israelis continue to residue in the shadow of the Balfour Declaration and all its attendant consequences.


Portrait of Lord Balfour and the original declaration:


Featured Articles from the Journal of Palestine Studies:


Colonialism, Nationalism, and the Politics of Teaching History in Mandate Palestine

Author: Elizabeth Brownson

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Spring 2014), pp. 9-25


Dividing Jerusalem: British Urban Planning in the Holy City

Author: Nicholas E. Roberts

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Summer 2013), pp. 7-26


War-Time Contingency and the Balfour Declaration of 1917: An Improbable Regression

Author: William M. Mathew

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Winter 2011), pp. 26-42


From Law and Order to Pacification: Britain’s Suppression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936–39

Author: Matthew Hughes

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Winter 2010), pp. 6-22


The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine: From the 1947 United Nations Partition Resolution to the First Zionist Congress of 1897

Author: Walid Khalidi

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Autumn 2009), pp. 24-42


Was Balfour Policy Reversible? The Colonial Office and Palestine, 1921-23

Author: Sahar Huneidi

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Winter, 1998), pp. 23-41


 The Unregarded Prophet: Lord Curzon and the Palestine Question

Author: David Gilmour

Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Spring, 1996), pp. 60-68

Geoffrey Wawro- Key findings from the book “Quicksand” and Philip Weiss


‘It is Zionist to think that American Jews have any connection to Israel’

Sep 19, 2013 06:13 pm | M.J. Rosenberg MJ Rosenberg posted the following story on his site, under the headline, “Jewish college kid beats the crap out of me on Israel.”

I was on the bus, returning to Washington from New York where I spent Yom Kippur. I wouldn’t have talked to the kid next to me him except I could not find the outlet near my seat to charge my phone. He saw me struggling and helped me find it. (It was camouflaged under the seat in front of mine). We started to talk and, after I told him I had been in Manhattan for the Jewish holiday, he said that he had been there for the same reason.

We talked about Georgetown and why he chose to go there and then he asked me what I did. I told him “my story” which led him to say that he had no interest in the Middle East at all. His issue was income inequality in the United States. Nonetheless, he was fairly knowledgeable about the Middle East.

As the conversation went on, I discovered he was fairly knowledgeable about everything. Judging from his looks I’d have taken him for a jock or a preppy but he seemed more intellectual than either of those categories would suggest. After telling him about my odyssey from AIPAC to critic of both AIPAC and Israel, he said this (paraphrase, obviously): “I don’t get it.

I’m Jewish but Israel is not important to me. I live here and I’d like to help out people who live here. 46 million Americans live in poverty and the situation keeps getting worse and worse. In fact, this country keeps getting worse. Why should I worry about Israel?” I explained why and he said: “You may not realize it, but your premise is Zionist. You think Jews are, by definition, connected to Israel and have to care about it.

But that isn’t who I am. I’m an American kid whose religion is Jewish. Period. I have no obligation to Israel or to Palestinians because I feel no connection to either. I feel that as a privileged American I do have an obligation to Americans who aren’t privileged. I’m not saying I don’t care about people in other countries. I do.

Maybe some day I will think about Israel more than I do. But, just as likely, I’ll care about poverty in Latin America. As for your point that America is responsible for Palestinian suffering by sending aid to Israel, I agree. But how does that make the situation unique? As a taxpayer, actually a future US taxpayer, I will be contributing to all kinds of terrible things everywhere. But my being Jewish has nothing to do with it. It’s not like I would ever take a Birthright trip! I don’t consider Israel to be my birthright.”

I asked him if he was typical of his friends. He said that he was. “The Jewish kids who are deeply involved with Israel or Palestinians are sort of the same kids. They accept your premise that they are connected to that place. I don’t and most of my friends don’t either. I’d say we are post-national. America is our country because we live here. Period. It’s home. But then we travel, see the world, and want to help other people, at least some of us do. But Israel is not special to us and neither are Palestinians.

“You, MJ, are a Zionist. You think I have an obligation to try to stop the occupation because of my religion. To me, that is no different than telling me I have to support Netanyahu because of my religion. I see no difference. It is outmoded thinking. Tell me why Israel and Palestine is any more my problem than that of any other American my age, or why I should think about it anymore than I think about the treatment of women in India. I have the right to choose the issues I care about and work to solve, don’t I? Or does my being Jewish mean I have my choice made for me? Show me where I’m wrong? I’m sure that if you were 20, you would feel the exact same way. Am I right?” I had no response.


Yo Mama So Zionist


Eretz Nehederet


Israel Controls USA

On FB :

Brilliant, and I do not care how un-PC it is, this is a brilliant video. Even if you find some of this offensive, you cannot say that its assessment of America is anything short of poetry. America, the nation that had it all… now flushing itself down the toilet. It is a mind-numbing, awe-inspiring fall from grace. If the world’s fate were not so intertwined with the fate of this latest imperial manifestation, it would make for the greatest black comedy ever. It is hard to know whether one should laugh or cry. God bless America, she sure as hell is gonna need it.


It wasn’t easy, finding Jim Traficant. Without the help of the American Free Press, (AFP), we never would have found him. Traficant of Youngstown Ohio was running for his old Congressional seat. What sort of campaign could he be running? After all, we’d seen the Greta von Susteren Fox News interview (Sept. 9, 2009, just a few days after Traficant was released from prison). Here’s some of what Traficant had said, “I believe that Israel has a powerful strangle hold on the American government. They control…the House and Senate. They have us involved in wars of which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars, and if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they don’t beat you at the polls, they’ll put you in prison… It’s an objective assessment that no one will have the courage to speak about. They’re controlling much of our foreign policy. They’re influencing much of our domestic policy. Wolfowitz as Under Secretary of Defense manipulated President Bush #2 back into Iraq. They pushed definitely, definitely to try and get Bush, before he left, to move into Iran. We’re conducting expansionist policy of Israel and everybody’s afraid to say it. They control much of the media…”
WAS IT POSSIBLE somewhere in Ohio someone could say such things and not be ostracized, denounced, trounced? Actually, no. There really was no campaign. Few in the political business dared have anything to do with him, donate to him, invite him, quote him. Only a maverick Tea Party organizer offered him an evening campaign event. Otherwise, the popular sheriff and then Congressman was pretty much shunned. And yet he came in a close third on Nov.2, 2010, with over 30,000 votes.

The Jews Go To War (With Themselves)

by Lawrence Davidson on December 17, 2011

Part I

On 12 December 2011 hundreds of Israeli settler fanatics besieged a West Bank IDF army base. They destroyed equipment, set fires, and even stoned the base soldiers. This was the second such attack in a month. The cause? Anger over the army’s dismantlement of a small number of isolated, unauthorized settler outposts. The Chief of the Central Command of the Israel “Defense” Forces, Major General Avi Misrahi, is quoted as saying “I have not seen such hatred of Jews towards soldiers during my 30 years of service.” He must not have been looking.

fanatic jewish settlersThis an exceptional event. The subsequent indignation over the attack expressed by Prime Minister Netanyahu (“red lines have been crossed”) was, as Alex Fishman writing in Yedioth Ahronoth put it, staged hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is certainly aware that for some time there has been on-going skirmishing between the settlers and government security forces. Right wing settlers regularly throw rocks and fire bombs at police and army vehicles and “physical altercations” between settlers and Israeli police and soldiers are “almost routine.” This is so despite the fact that the government, both Prime Minister and Knesset, “either tacitly or openly” support the settlers. Then why the hatred and why the attacks?

At this stage the battle is over strategy. The Israeli government wants to gobble up all of Palestine in an orderly step by step fashion. In part, this is to avoid too much international criticism at any particular stage of the process. On the other hand, the settlers don’t give a damn about international opinion – no more than does al-Qaeda, to which they have an unsavory resemblance. Led “by fundamentalist religious leaders who do not recognize the state of Israel and its laws,” they are driven by religious fanaticism and have no respect for governments or their agents. It is their ideological conviction that all of Palestine (including, by the way, Jordan) must be Jewish as soon as possible. The authorities sometime get in the way of this goal and that has led the settlers to, as Fishman puts it, “terrorize not only the Palestinian population but also the police and the army.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu, belatedly noticing an erosion of government authority, has begun to set rules against settler violence when it is directed toward the IDF and police (but not toward the Palestinians). The New York Times reports that from now on such “radical Israelis” attacking soldiers or policemen will be treated just like “Palestinian militants.” That is they will be “detained for long periods without charge and tried in military courts.”

Alas, this new toughness won’t work. For years Israeli governments have looked the other way as thousands of armed religious fanatics organized themselves and got stronger and more self-assured. Now, as Adam Keller of Gush Shalom tells us, “the Golem has turned on its creator.” These are the people who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. What makes Netanyahu believe that Israel’s present army, police and courts which, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic, regularly show sympathy and leniency toward these criminals, are going to change their attitude on his orders? When a military reporter asked a brigade commander if he was prepared to act toward settler hostility in the same manner as he would Palestinian hostility, he answered “you would not expect me to open fire on a Jew…I am certain you didn’t mean that.”

The reporter would have gotten a very different answer if she had asked the fanatic settlers about how far they were willing to go. Anshel Pfeffer writing in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz notes that “the only red line that has yet to be crossed is a scenario in which an Israeli citizen [belonging to] the extreme settler right would open fire on IDF soldiers. There are those in Israel’s security forces who fear that day is not so distant.”

Netanyahu’s apparent change of heart comes too late. What we have here is incipient civil war. Any really serious effort to stop these fanatics will result in their turning their weapons on those who represent the government. What you sow is what you reap.

Parts II  and III here

Blog at

Up ↑