From Guardian UK another Wikileaks revelation:
This suggestion, to settle Palestinian refugees in South America, which was just revealed in the Palestine Papers, is probably the most biased, outlandish move on the part of the US to help Israel completely disenfranchise the Palestinian people of their ancestral homelands, in what became Israel in 1948, and what is now the remaining Palestinian territories. The Palestinian refugee problem was created when Israel, starting two months before it declared independence, began ethnically cleansing by force and fear (of massacre) over 800,000 Palestinians from over 470 villages, towns, and cities, from what had been their home for over a thousand years.
Israel’s present goal to colonize the Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem, the remaining 22% of original Palestine, finds that there is now no room for the five million or so Palestinians living in UNWRA refugee camps in various Arab countries like Jordan and Lebanon, not even in a negotiated state of Palestine.
Why? Because the state of Palestine will never exist as more than a group of overpopulated bantustans. With the help of US subterfuge, Palestine has been completely obliterated. Only fools will now talk about a two state solution or a Palestinian state. With the Palestine Papers now making it evident that the peace process is dead, it can only assumed that Condi Rice, who suggested that Palestinian refugees be moved to South America, knew all along that Israel had no intention of allowing Palestine, as part of a two state solution, to emerge. Since this clashes with Palestinian refugees’ fundamental right to go home ala UN Resolution 194, it is also clear that the US had no intention of respecting international law. As such, we have taken to the `dark side’ when it comes to Middle East.
Condoleezza Rice, who was secretary of state in the Bush administration, floated the idea at a meeting on 28 June 2008 with US, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Berlin, according to minutes of the encounter obtained by al-Jazeera and shared with the Guardian.
The suggestion dumbfounded South America’s Palestinians – a largely Christian community which emigrated in waves over the past century and settled across the region, especially in Chile which is said to be home to more than 200,000.
Chile’s Palestinians would welcome compatriots who chose to settle in the Andes, said Jadue. “If a Palestinian accepted to come here that would be their right and we would show solidarity.” But that did not justify a US proposal to funnel refugees from the Middle East to reduce pressure on Israel to give up land, he said. “That’s wrong.”
Palestinians have expressed shock and dismay at the US suggestion to settle Palestinian refugees in Argentina and Chile rather than let them return to ancestral land in Israel.
Representatives of the Palestinian diaspora said the plan to ship displaced Palestinians from the Middle East to a new homeland across the Atlantic clashed with their fundamental right to go home.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/palestine-papers-refugees-south-america
UN Resolution 194, the Right of Return of all Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Israel in 1948, and one would presuppose, all of those refugees created as part of the slower ethnic cleansing that occurred after the 1967 Israeli-Egyptian war, is what is at stake here.
“It’s completely unacceptable. It contradicts our inalienable right to return to our own homeland,” said Daniel Jadue, vice-president of Chile’s Palestine Federation. “That right cannot be renounced. To make this suggestion shows the mediation was not honest. It was clearly tilted in favour of Israel. This is extremely grave.”
Interestingly, there are also Palestinian refugees living in the US, now as Palestinian-Americans. Should they too pack their bags and head south?
Peru recognizes Palestinian state
Too little, too late.
Argentina, Chile and the rest of South American might even be surprised to hear about this newest piece of US hypocrisy and arrogance! And coming from the mouth of the wise Ms. Rice. Before you know it the US will have suggested that Palestinians who live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship must be forcibly expelled from the country as a way of reassuring the Israelis who, as everyone know, are constanly in imminent danger of being victimized. Or have we already heard this? I can’t keep track of the lies and obfuscation anymore. Obama will straighten this out for us, I’m sure.
is this real??
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2011/January/25%20o/The%20King%27s%20Toara,%20A%20Co
mplete%20Israeli%20Guide%20for%20Killing%20Gentiles%20By%20Rev%20Ted%20Pike.htm
Sad that ethnocentricism often leads to racism, and in this case the movement toward ethnocracy in Israel is only appearing to make that a certain outcome. To say the least, this present right wing government is only reinforcing this trend.
I know that many liberal Jews are just recoiling at hearing about these kinds of developments in Israel.
My dear Shergald, I have such great respect for you that I am astonished at your reference to a “movement toward ethnocracy” in Israel. Zionism was nothing if not an ethnocratic movement, and Israel has been an ethnocracy from the first moment. In fact, it was and remains so ethnocratic that only Jews who were/are of European background have ever really qualified as “proper” Israelis.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Perhaps the phrase, “movement toward a formal ethnocracy,” might have better expressed my meaning. Israel’s ethnocracy presently seems de facto rather than de jure, if you recall that distinction during the period of American segregation. Israel still has a 20% population of Palestinians who are legally Israeli citizens, and they still have representation in the Knesset. So we are not exactly there, yet. But give Lieberman more time, and we may get to see it.
But I do get your drift.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Perhaps the phrase, “movement toward a formal ethnocracy,” might have better expressed my meaning. Israel’s ethnocracy presently seems de facto rather than de jure, if you recall that distinction during the period of American segregation. Israel still has a 20% population of Palestinians who are legally Israeli citizens, and they still have representation in the Knesset. So we are not exactly there, yet. But give Lieberman more time, and we may get to see it.
But I do get your drift.