Documentary on Palestinian History

January 6, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under News

  • 60 years of Misery & Ethnic-cleansing

  • 7 wars

  • 5 million Palestinian Refugees

  • 3 million Occupied

  • 1.5 million Abducted / Hostages

  • 254 km of an Apartheid Wall

  • 562 Humiliation Check Points

  • 20,000 Political Prisoners

  • 400 Children Held in Israeli Dungeons

  • 468,831 New Settlers on Occupied Land

  • Disappearance of Palestine

  • Number of World Leaders in UN Violations = 69

1948 Palestinian Exodus – View the Video

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The history of the Palestinian exodus is closely tied to the events of the war in Palestine, which lasted from 1947 to 1949. Many factors played a role in bringing it about. Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.

Palestinian refugees in 1948

Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.

Ruins of the former Arab village of Bayt Jibrin, inside the green line west of Hebron.

The 1948 Palestinian exodus (Arabic: الهجرة الفلسطينية‎, al-Hijra al-Filasteeniya), referred to by Palestinians as al Nakba or al Naqba (Arabic: النكبة‎), meaning the “disaster”, “catastrophe”, or “cataclysm,”[1][2][3] refers to the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem during and after the 1948 Palestine war.


The history of the Palestinian exodus is closely tied to the events of the war in Palestine, which lasted from 1947 to 1949. Many factors played a role in bringing it about. Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands.

For more information on the historical context, see Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

By 1951, the United Nations (UN) estimated 711,000 Palestinian refugees existed outside Israel,[4] with about one-quarter of the estimated 160,000 Arab Palestinians remaining in Israel as “internal refugees.” Today, Palestinian refugees and their descendants are estimated to number more than 4 million people.[5]

Historians have argued over the causes of the Palestinian exodus. In early decades following the exodus, two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. The ‘Israeli Government claimed that the Palestinian Arabs left because they were ordered to and were deliberately incited into panic by their own leaders, who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’. While ‘The Palestinian Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’[6] From the 1960s Walid Khalidi[7][8] and others have maintained that the Expulsion of the Palestinians was a deliberate policy.[9]

With the opening up of Archival sources in the West and Israel, particularly the opening of the Protocols of the Israel’s Cabinet Meetings and the declassification of the Haganah Archive in Tel Aviv along with the IDF and Israeli Defence Ministry Archive in Givatayim,[10] a greater insight has been gained into the events leading up to the creation of Israel and the events surrounding its birth, in particular with the publication of the study by Benny Morris: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

“New Historians” have presented a viewpoint suggesting around half of the Palestinians of the exodus were purposely expelled by Israeli army, though this was not an organized policy.[11][12] However, Walid Khalidi and other Palestinian historians, supported by Ilan Pappe, defend the thesis that the expulsions formed part of a deliberate plan.[13]

The initial exodus and the current situation of Palestinian refugees is a contentious topic of high importance to all parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

First Phase of the Exodus, December 1947 – March 1948

In the first few months of the civil war the climate in the Mandate of Palestine became volatile, although throughout this period both Arab and Jewish leaders tried to limit hostilities between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.[14] According to historian Benny Morris, the period was marked by Palestinian Arab initiatives and Jewish reprisals.[15] On the other hand, Simha Flapan points out a pattern in which terrorist attacks by Irgun and Lehi resulted in Palestinian Arab retaliations and then ‘the Haganah – while always condemning the actions of Irgun and Lehi – joined in with an inflaming counter-retaliation’.[16] Typically the Jewish forces carried out reprisals directed against villages and neighborhoods from which attacks against Jews had allegedly originated,[17] The attacks were more damaging than the provoking attack and included killing of armed and unarmed men, destruction of houses and sometimes expulsion of inhabitants.[18] The Zionist groups of Irgun and Lehi reverted to their 1937-1939 strategy of indiscriminate attacks by placing bombs and throwing grenades into crowded places such as bus stops, shopping centres and markets. Their attacks on British forces reduced British troops’ ability and willingness to protect Jewish traffic.[19] General conditions deteriorated: the economic situation became unstable and unemployment grew.[20] Rumours spread that the Husaynis were planning to bring in bands of fellahin (peasant, farmers) to take over the towns.[21] Some Palestinian Arab leaders sent their families abroad. While Gelber claims that the Arab Liberation Army embarked on a systematic evacuation of non-combatants from several frontier villages in order to turn them into military strongholds.[22] Arab depopulation occurred most in villages close to Jewish settlements and in vulnerable neighborhoods in Haifa, Jaffa and West-Jerusalem.[23] The poor inhabitants of these neighborhoods generally fled to other parts of the city. Many rich inhabitants fled further away, most of them expecting to return when the troubles were over.[24] By the end of March 1948 thirty villages were depopulated of their Palestinian Arab population.[25] Approximately 100,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled to Arab parts of Palestine, such as Gaza, Beersheba, Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Jaffa and Bethlehem some had left the country altogether; to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.[26] Other sources speak of 30,000 Palestinian Arabs.[27] Many of these were Palestinian Arab leaders, middle and upper-class Palestinian Arab families from urban areas. Around 22 March the Arab governments agreed that their consulates in Palestine would only issues entry visas to old people, women and children and the sick.[28] On 29-30 March the Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS) reported that ‘the AHC was no longer approving exit permits for fear of [causing] panic in the country’.[29]

While expulsion of the Palestinians had been contemplated by some Zionists from the 1890s (see Zionist quotes), during this period there was no official Yishuv policy favoring expulsion and Jewish leaders anticipated that the new Jewish state would have a sizable Arab minority. The Haganah was instructed to avoid spreading the conflagration by indiscriminate attacks and to avoid provoking British intervention.[30] On 18 December, 1947 the Haganah approved an aggressive defense strategy, which in practice meant ‘a limited implementation of “Plan May” (Tochnit Mai or Tochnit Gimel), which, produced in May 1946, was the Haganah master plan for the defence of the Yishuv in the event of the outbreak of new troubles… The plan included provision, in extremis, for “destroying Arab transport” in Palestine, and blowing up houses used by Arab terrorists and expelling their inhabitants.[31] In early January the Haganah adopted Operation Zarzir, a scheme to assassinate leaders affiliated to Amin al-Husayni, placing the blame on other Arab leaders, but in practice few resources were devoted to the project and the only attempted killing was of Nimr al Khatib.[32]

The only authorized expulsion at this time took place at Qisarya, south of Haifa, where Palestinian Arabs were evicted and their houses destroyed on 19 February – 20 February 1948.[33] In attacks that were not authorized in advance several communities were expelled by the Haganah and several others were chased away by the Irgun.[34]

According to Ilan Pappé the Zionists organized a campaign of threats,[35] consisting of the distribution of threatening leaflets, ‘violent reconnaissance’ and, after the arrival of mortars, the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods.[36] The idea of ‘violent reconnaissance’ was to enter a defenceless village at night, fire at everyone who dared leave his or her house and leave after a few hours.[37] Pappé also notes that the Haganah shifted its policy from retaliation through excessive retaliation to offensive initiatives.[38] During the ‘long seminar’, a meeting of Ben-Gurion with his chief advisors in January 1948, the departure point was that it was desirable to ‘transfer’ as many Arabs as possible out of Jewish territory, and the discussion focussed mainly on the implementation.[39] The experiences in a number of attacks in February 1948, notably those on Qisarya and Sa’sa’, were used in the development of a plan, detailing how enemy population centers should be handled.[25] According to Pappé plan Dalet was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians.[25]

Palestinian belligerency in these first few months was ‘disorganised, sporadic and localized and for months remained chaotic and uncoordinated, if not undirected’.[40] Husayni lacked the resources to mount a full-scale assault on the Yishuv and restricted himself to sanctioning minor attacks and to tightening the economic boycott.[41] The British claimed that Arab rioting might well have subsided had the Jews not retaliated with firearms.[42]

Overall Morris concludes that the ‘Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish – Haganah, IZL or LHI – attacks or fear of impending attack’ but that only ‘an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful “advice” to that effect’.[43] In this sense, Glazer[44] quotes the testimony of Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, who reported that “the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation”.[45][46]

See also: List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war

Second Phase of the Exodus, April 1948 – June 1948

Benny Morris maintains that from April 1948 Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”; although Ben-Gurion gave no explicit orders, Ben-Gurion projected a “message of transfer”, and that a “consensus of transfer” was created.”. Also Benny Morris upholds that Ben-Gurion was correct in expelling the “Arab” population of Palestine on the grounds that “Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.”[47] Benny Morris puts the main causes for the Palestinian exodus as:-

“Above all let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumour of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.”[48]

By May 1, 1948, two weeks before the Israeli Declaration of Independence, nearly 175,000 Palestinians (approximately 25%) had already fled.[49]

The fighting in these months was concentrated in the Jerusalem – Tel Aviv area and most depopulations took place in Jewish controlled areas, such as Tiberius, Haifa, Jaffa and the coastal region. The Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians.[50]

Even so, Palestinians fled the city of Haifa en masse, in one of the most notable flights of this stage. Historian Efraim Karsh writes that not only had half of the Arab community in Haifa community fled the city before the final battle was joined in late April 1948, but another 5,000-15,000 left apparently voluntarily during the fighting while the rest, some 15,000-25,000, were ordered to leave, almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee. Karsh concludes that there was no Jewish grand design to force this departure, nor was there a psychological ‘blitz’, but that on the contrary, both the Haifa Jewish leadership, including Mayor Shabtai Levy, and the Hagana went to great lengths to convince the Arabs to stay, to no avail.[51][52] However Efraim Karsh based his observations on a “British Police Report” of the 26 April sent after the British Forces had evacuated from Haifa and the Jewish forces had taken over the Port of Haifa and the Palestinian Population had already fled. The British Report of 22 April at the height of the fight for Haifa portrays a different picture.[53] Furthermore, two independent studies, which analysed CIA and BBC intercepts of radio Broadcasts from the region concluded that no orders or instructions were given by the Arab Higher Committee.[54]

According to Morris “The Haganah mortar attacks of 21-22 April [on Haifa] were primarily designed to break Arab morale in order to bring about a swift collapse of resistance and speedy surrender. […] But clearly the offensive, and especially the mortaring, precipitated the exodus. The three inch mortars ‘opened up on the market square [where there was] a great crowd […] a great panic took hold. The multitude burst into the port, pushed aside the policemen, charged the boats and began to flee the town’, as the official Haganah history later put it”.[55] According to Pappé [56] this mortar barrage was deliberately aimed at civilians to precipitate their flight from Haifa.

The Haganah broadcast a warning to Arabs in Haifa on 21 April: ‘that unless they sent away “infiltrated dissidents” they would be advised to evacuate all women and children, because they would be strongly attacked from now on’.[57]

Commenting on the use of ‘psychological warfare broadcasts’ and military tactics in Haifa, Benny Morris writes:

Throughout the Haganah made effective use of Arabic language broadcasts and loudspeaker vans. Haganah Radio announced that ‘the day of judgment had arrived’ and called on inhabitants to ‘kick out the foreign criminals’ and to ‘move away from every house and street, from every neighborhood occupied by foreign criminals’. The Haganah broadcasts called on the populace to ‘evacuate the women, the children and the old immediately, and send them to a safe haven’… Jewish tactics in the battle were designed to stun and quickly overpower opposition; demoralization was a primary aim. It was deemed just as important to the outcome as the physical destruction of the Arab units. The mortar barrages and the psychological warfare broadcasts and announcements, and the tactics employed by the infantry companies, advancing from house to house, were all geared to this goal. The orders of Carmeli’s 22nd Battalion were ‘to kill every [adult male] Arab encountered’ and to set alight with fire-bombs ‘all objectives that can be set alight. I am sending you posters in Arabic; disperse on route’.[58]

By mid-May 4000 Arabs remained in Haifa. These were concentrated in Wadi Nisnas in accordance with Plan D whilst the systematic destruction of Arab housing in certain areas, which had been planned before the War, was implemented by Haifa’s Technical and Urban Development departments in cooperation with the IDF’s city commander Ya’akov Lublini.[59]

According to Glazer (1980, p.111), from May 15, 1948 onwards, expulsion of Palestinians became a regular practice. Avnery (1971), explaining the Zionist rationale, says,

I believe that during this phase, the eviction of Arab civilians had become an aim of David Ben-Gurion and his government …. UN opinion could very well be disregarded. Peace with the Arabs seemed out of the question, considering the extreme nature of the Arab propaganda. In this situation, it was easy for people like Ben-Gurion to believe the capture of uninhabited territory was both necessary for security reasons and desirable for the homogeneity of the new Hebrew state.[60]

Edgar O’Ballance, a military historian, adds,

Israeli vans with loudspeakers drove through the streets ordering all the inhabitants to evacuate immediately, and such as were reluctant to leave were forcibly ejected from their homes by the triumphant Israelis whose policy was now openly one of clearing out all the Arab civil population before them …. From the surrounding villages and hamlets, during the next two or three days, all the inhabitants were uprooted and set off on the road to Ramallah…. No longer was there any “reasonable persuasion”. Bluntly, the Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory…. Wherever the Israeli troops advanced into Arab country the Arab population was bulldozed out in front of them.[61]

After the fall of Haifa the villages on the slopes of Mount Carmel had been harassing the Jewish traffic on the main road to Haifa. A Decision was made on 9 May 1948 to expel or subdue the villages of Kafr Saba, al-Tira, Qaqun, Qalansuwa and Tantura[62] On the 11 May 1948 Ben-Gurion convened the “Consultancy” the outcome of the meeting is confirmed in a letter to commanders of the Haganah Brigades telling them that the Arab legion’s offensive should not distract their troops from the principal tasks:

“‘the cleansing of Palestine remained the prime objective of Plan Dalet” [63]

The attention of the commanders of the Alexandroni Brigade was turned to reducing the Mount Carmel pocket. Tantura being on the coast gave the Carmel villages access to the outside world and so was chosen as the point to surround the Carmel villages as a part of the Coastal Clearing offensive operation in the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. On the night of 22-23 May 1948 1 week and 1 day after the declaration of Independence of the State of Israel the coastal village of Tantura was attacked and occupied by the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade of the Haganah. The village of Tantura was not given the option of surrender and the initial report spoke of dozens of villagers killed with 300 adult male prisoners and 200 women and children[64] Many of the villages fled to the Fureidis (previously captured) and to Arab held territory. The Captured women of Tantura were moved to Fureidis and on the 31st May Brechor Shitrit the Minister of Minority Affairs of the provisional Government of Israel, sought permission to expel the refugee women of Tantura from Fureidis as the amount of refugees in Fureidis was causing problems of overcrowding and sanitation. [65]

According to a report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948″, dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:

At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%… of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases…[66][67][68]

By the estimates of Morris, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[69] Keesing’s Contemporary Archives in London place the total number of refugees before Israel’s independence at 300,000.[70]

Third Phase of the Exodus, July-October 1948

Israeli operations labeled Dani and Dekel that broke the truce was the start of the third phase of expulsions. The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14 when 60,000 inhabitants (nearly 10% of the whole exodus) of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

According to Flapan (1987, pp. 13-14) in Ben-Gurion’s view Ramlah and Lydda constituted a special danger because their proximity might encourage cooperation between the Egyptian army, which had started its attack on Kibbutz Negbah, near Ramlah, and the Arab Legion, which had taken the Lydda police station. However the author considers that, Operation Dani, by which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such cooperation existed.

In the opinion of Flapan, “in Lydda, the exodus took place on foot. In Ramlah, the IDF provided buses and trucks. Originally, all males had been rounded up and enclosed in a compound, but after some shooting was heard, and construed by Ben-Gurion to be the beginning of an Arab Legion counteroffensive, he stopped the arrests and ordered the speedy eviction of all the Arabs, including women, children, and the elderly”.[71] In explanation, Flapan cites that Ben-Gurion said that “those who made war on us bear responsibility after their defeat”.[72]

Rabin wrote in his memoirs:

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities … Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. … Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out! … ‘Driving out’ is a term with a harsh ring … Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)

Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population.[73][74]

Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape[75] took place during the evacuation. In total, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage according to Morris.[76]

Fourth Phase of the Exodus, October 1948 – March 1949

This period of the exodus was characterized by Israeli military accomplishments; Operation Yoav, in October, this cleared the road to the Negev, culminating in the capture of Beersheba; Operation Hiram, at the end of October, resulted in the capture of the Upper Galilee; Operation Horev in December 1948 and Operation Uvda in March 1949, completed the capture of the Negev (the Negev had been allotted to the Jewish State by the United Nations) these operations were met with resistance from the Palestinian Arabs who were to become refugees. The Israeli military activities were confined to the Galilee and the sparsely populated Negev desert. It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of the Palestinian exodus was due to a clear, direct cause: expulsion and deliberate harassment, as Morris writes ‘commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering’.[77]

During Operation Hiram in the upper Galilee, Israeli military commanders received the order: ‘Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered’. (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel) The UN’s acting Mediator, Ralph Bunche, reported that United Nations Observers had recorded extensive looting of villages in Galilee by Israeli forces, who carried away goats, sheep and mules. This looting, United Nations Observers report, appeared to have been systematic as army trucks were used for transportation. The situation, states the report, created a new influx of refugees into Lebanon. Israeli forces, he stated, have occupied the area in Galilee formerly occupied by Kaukji’s forces, and have crossed the Lebanese frontier. Bunche goes on to say “that Israeli forces now hold positions inside the south-east corner of Lebanon, involving some fifteen Lebanese villages which are occupied by small Israeli detachments”.[78]

According to Morris[79] altogether 200,000-230,000 Palestinians left in this stage. According to Ilan Pappé, “In a matter of seven months, five hundred and thirty one villages were destroyed and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied […] The mass expulsion was accompanied by massacres, rape and [the] imprisonment of men […] in labor camps for periods [of] over a year”.[80]

The United Nations using the offices of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation and the Mixed Armistice Commissions was involved in the conflict from the very beginning. In the autumn of 1948 the refugee problem was a fact and possible solutions were discussed. Count Folke Bernadotte said on September 16:

No settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged. It would be an offense against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and indeed, offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries[81][82]

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which was passed on December 11, 1948, and reaffirmed every year since, was the first resolution that called for Israel to let the refugees return:

the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.[83]

The Lausanne Conference of 1949

In 1949 at the Lausanne conference, Israel proposed allowing 100,000 refugees to return. The offer implicitly included an alleged 25,000 who had already returned surreptitiously and 10,000 projected family-reunion cases and would allow Israel to resettle the returnees where it saw fit.[84] It was further conditional on a full peace treaty that would allow Israel to keep all the territory it had captured and on the Arab states agreeing to absorb the remaining refugees.

Safran wrote that “The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel’s existence”.[85]

Morris, however, in a more differentiated analysis, resumes:

In retrospect, it appeared that at Lausanne was lost the best and perhaps only chance for a solution of the refugee problem, if not for the achievement of a comprehensive Middle East settlement. But the basic incompatibility of the initial starting positions and the unwillingness of the two sides to move, and to move quickly, towards a compromise – born of Arab rejectionism and a deep feeling of humiliation, and of Israeli drunkenness with victory and physical needs determined largely by the Jewish refugee influx – doomed the ‘conference’ from the start. American pressure on both sides, lacking a sharp, determined cutting edge, failed to budge sufficiently either Jew or Arab. The ’100,000 Offer’ was a classic of too little, too late. [86]

In the first decades after the exodus two diametrically opposed schools of analysis could be distinguished. In the words of Erskine Childers:[87] ‘Israel claims that the Arabs left because they were ordered to, and deliberately incited into panic, by their own leaders who wanted the field cleared for the 1948 war’, while ‘The Arabs charge that their people were evicted at bayonet-point and by panic deliberately incited by the Zionists.’ Alternative explanations had also been offered. For instance Peretz[88] and Gabbay[89] emphasize the psychological component: panic or hysteria swept the Palestinians and caused the exodus.

Changes after the advent of the ‘New Historians’

Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians. This coincided with the emergence of various Israeli historians, called New Historians, who favored a more critical analysis of Israel’s history. The most famous scholar of this group, Benny Morris, concludes that Jewish military attacks were the main direct cause of the exodus, followed by Arab fear due to the fall of a nearby town, Arab fear of impending attack, and expulsions. The traditional Israeli version was replaced by a new version stating that the exodus was caused by neither Israeli nor Arab policies, but rather was a by-product of the 1948 Arab Israeli War.[90][12] The Arab version hardly changed[91] but did get support from some of the New Historians. Pappé calls the exodus an ethnic cleansing and points at Zionist preparations in the preceding years and provides more details on the planning process by a group he calls the ‘Consultancy’.[92]

Results of the Palestinian exodus

Abandoned, evacuated and destroyed Palestinian localities:

List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict

Several authors have conducted studies on the number of Palestinian localities which were abandoned, evacuated and/or destroyed during the 1947-1949 period. Based on their respective calculations, the table below summarises their information.[93]

Source: The table data was taken from Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34.
Note: For information on methodologies; see: Morris, Benny (1987): The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987; Khalidi, Walid (ed.): All that Remains. The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington, D.C: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992, App. IV, pp. xix, 585-586; and Sitta, Salman Abu: The Palestinian Nakba 1948. London: The Palestinian Return Centre, 2000.

According to COHRE and BADIL, Morris’s list of affected localities, the shortest of the three, includes towns but excludes other localities cited by Khalidi and/or Abu Sitta. The six sources compared in Khalidi’s study have in common 296 of the villages listed as destroyed and/or depopulated. Sixty other villages are cited in all but one source. Of the total of 418 localities cited in Khalidi, 292 (70 percent) were completely destroyed and 90 (22 percent) “largely destroyed”. COHRE and BADIL also note that other sources refer to an additional 151 localities that are omitted from Khalidi’s study for various reasons (for example, major cities and towns that were depopulated, as well as some Bedouin encampments and villages ‘vacated’ before the start of hostilities). Abu Sitta’s list includes tribes in Beersheba that lost lands; most of these were omitted from Khalidi’s work.[94]

Another study, involving field research and comparisons with British and other documents, concludes that 472 Palestinian habitations (including towns and villages) were destroyed in 1948. It notes that the devastation was virtually complete in some sub-districts. For example, it points out that 96.0% of the villages in the Jaffa area were totally destroyed, as were 90.0% of those in Tiberiade, 90.3% of those in Safad, and 95.9% of those in Beisan. It also extrapolates from 1931 British census data to estimate that over 70 280 Palestinian houses were destroyed in this period.[95]

Palestinian refugees
Total population 4.9 million (including descendants and re-settled)[97] Regions with significant populations
Gaza Strip, Jordan, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria

Although there is no accepted definition of who can be considered a Palestinian refugee for legal purposes, UNRWA defines them as ‘persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict’. UNRWA’s definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. This comes in contrast to the standard definition of refugee as defined by UNHCR. The final UN estimate was 711,000,[4] but by 1950, according to UNRWA, the number of registered refugees was 914,000.[98] The U.N. Conciliation Commission explains that these numbers are inflated by “duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute,” and the UNWRA additionally noted that “all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence”, as well as the fact that “the birthrate is high in any case, a net addition of 30,000 names a year.” By June, 1951 the UNWRA had reduced the number of registered refugees to 876,000 after “many false and duplicate registrations [were] weeded out”.[99] Today that number has grown to over 4 million, one third of whom live in the West Bank and Gaza; slightly less than one third in Jordan; 17% in Syria and Lebanon (Bowker, 2003, p. 72) and around 15% in other Arab and Western countries. Approximately 1 million refugees have no form of identification other than an UNRWA identification card.[100]

In another study, Abu Sitta[96] shows the following findings in eight distinct phases of the depopulation of Palestine between 1947-1949. His findings are summarized in the table below:

* Other sources put this figure at over 70 000.
Source: The table data was taken from Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34. The source being: Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001.

The Prevention of Infiltration law

Following the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, many Palestinians tried, in one way or another, to return to their homes. For some time these practices continued to embarrass the Israeli authorities until finally they passed a law forbidding Palestinians to return to Israel, those who did so being regarded as “infiltrators”.[101]

According to Kirsbaum[102] over the years, the Israeli Government has continued to cancel and modify some of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945, but mostly it has added more as it has continued to extend its declared state of emergency. For example, even though the Prevention of Infiltration Law of 1954 is not labelled as an official “Emergency Regulation”, it extends the applicability of the Defence (Emergency) Regulation 112 of 1945 giving the Minister of Defence extraordinary powers of deportation for accused infiltrators even before they are convicted (Articles 30 & 32), and makes itself subject to cancellation when the Knesset ends the State of Emergency upon which all of the Emergency Regulations are dependent.

Land and Property laws

Palestinian refugees – Area of UNWRA operations.

Following its establishment, Israel designed a system of law that legitimised both a continuation and a consolidation of the nationalisation of land and property, a process that it had begun decades earlier. For the first few years of Israel’s existence, many of the new laws continued to be rooted in earlier Ottoman and British law. These laws were later amended or replaced altogether.

The first challenge facing Israel was to transform its control over land into legal ownership. This was the motivation underlying the passing of several of the first group of land laws.[103].

Initial ‘Emergency Laws’ and ‘Regulations’

Among the more important initial laws was article 125 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations [104]

According to Kirshbaum, the Law has as effect that “no one is allowed in or out without permission from the Israeli Military”. “This regulation has been used to exclude a land owner from his own land so that it could be judged as unoccupied, and then expropriated under the Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law (1953). Closures need not be published in the Official Gazette”.[102]

The Absentees’ Property Law’

The Absentees’ Property Laws were several laws, first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel.[105] As examples of the first type of laws are the Emergency Regulations (Absentees’ Property) Law, 5709-1948 (December) which according to article 37 of the Absentees Property Law, 5710-1950 was replaced by the latter;[106] the Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law, 5709-1949, and other related laws.[107]

According to COHRE and BADIL (p.41), unlike other laws that were designed to establish Israel’s ‘legal’ control over lands, this body of law focused on formulating a ‘legal’ definition for the people (mostly Arabs) who had left or been forced to flee from these lands.

The absentee property played an enormous role in making Israel a viable state. In 1954, more than one third of Israel’s Jewish population lived on absentee property and nearly a third of the new immigrants (250,000 people) settled in urban areas abandoned by Arabs. Of 370 new Jewish settlements established between 1948 and 1953, 350 were on absentee property.[108]

Laws enacted

That enabled the further acquisition of depopulated lands, and related laws. Among the more important regulations were:

* The Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance (1943). To authorise the confiscation of lands for Government and ‘public’ purposes.
* The Prescription Law, 5718-1958.[109] According to COHRE and BADIL (p. 44), this law, in conjunction with the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance (Amendment) Law, 5720-1960, the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance (New Version), 5729-1969 and the Land Law, 5729-1969, was designed to revise criteria related to the use and registration of Miri lands – one of the most prevalent types in Palestine – and to facilitate Israel’s acquisition of such land.

Films about the exodus

* 500 Dunam on the Moon Is a documentary film Directed by Rachel Leah Jones, about Ayn Hawd a Palestinian village that was captured and depopulated by Israeli forces in the 1948 war.
* The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948 is a documentary film Benny Brunner and Alexandra Jansse, that follows the events surrounding the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

The Nakba’s role in the Palestinian narrative

The term “Nakba” as a euphemism for “disaster” or “catastrophe” first appeared in George Antonius’ The Arab Awakening, published in 1938, before the creation of the State of Israel. On page 312, Antonius writes,

“The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Am al-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq.”

Thus, this early “Nakba” was a response to the division of Arab-populated lands into British and French mandates, and the Balfour Declaration promoting an independent Jewish state.[110]

The term “Nakba” was given its present meaning by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma’na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). After the Six Day War in 1967 Zureiq wrote another book, The New Meaning of the Disaster, but the term Nakba is reserved for the 1948 war. Muhammad Nimr al-Hawari also used the term Nakba in the title of his book Sir al Nakba (The Secret of the Defeat) written in 1955.

Together with Naji al-Ali’s Handala (the barefoot child always drawn from behind), and the symbolic key for the house in Palestine carried by so many Palestinian refugees, the ‘collective memory of’ the Nakba ‘has shaped the identity of the Palestinian refugees as a people’.[111]

The events of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War greatly influenced the Palestinian culture. Countless books, songs and poems have been written about the Nakba. The exodus is usually described in strongly emotional terms. For example, at the controversial 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, prominent Palestinian scholar and activist Hanan Ashrawi referred to the Palestinians as “a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing Nakba, as the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism, and victimization” (original emphasis).[112]

In the Palestinian calendar, the day after Israel declared independence (May 15) is observed as Nakba Day. It is traditionally observed as an important day of remembrance.[111]

See also:

* Arab diaspora
* 1948 Palestine war
* 1947-48 Palestinian civil war
* 1948 Arab-Israeli war
* 1967 Palestinian exodus
* Eilaboun massacre
* Ethnic cleansing
* History of Palestine#Post-Mandate
* Land and Property laws in Israel
* List of villages depopulated during the Arab-Israeli conflict
* New Historians
* Palestinian diaspora
* Palestinian infiltration
* Palestinian refugee
* Palestinian Chilean
* Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956
* Plan Dalet
* Prevention of Infiltration Law
* Expulsion of Germans after World War II (contemporary “exodus”, executed 1944 – 1950)
* Ilan Pappe

Palestinian flag Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine war:

District of Acre: al-Amqa · Arab al-Samniyya · al-Bassa · al-Birwa · al-Damun · Dayr al-Qassi · al-Ghabisiyya · Iqrit · Iribbin, Khirbat · Jiddin, Khirbat · al-Kabri · Kafr ‘Inan · Kuwaykat · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura · Mi’ar · al-Nabi Rubin · al-Nahr · al-Ruways · Suhmata · al-Sumayriyya · Suruh · al-Tall · Tarbikha · Umm al-Faraj · al-Zee

District of Baysan: Arab al-’Arida · Arab al-Bawati · Arab al-Safa · al-Ashrafiyya · al-Bira · Danna · Farwana · al-Fatur · al-Ghazzawiyya · al-Hamidiyya · al-Hamra · Jabbul · Kafra · Kawkab al-Hawa · al-Khunayzir · Masil al-Jizl · al-Murassas · Qumya · al-Sakhina · al-Samiriyya · Sirin · Tall al-Shawk · al-Taqa, Khirbat · al-Tira · Umm ‘Ajra · Umm Sabuna, Khirbat · Yubla · Zab’a · al-Zawiya, Khirbat
District of Beersheba:
al-Imara · al-Jammama · al-Khalasa

District of Gaza:
Arab Suqrir · Barbara · Barqa · al-Batani al-Gharbi · al-Batani al-Sharqi · Beit Daras · Bayt ‘Affa · Bayt Jirja · Bayt Tima · Bil’in · Burayr · Dayr Sunayd · Dimra · al-Faluja · Hamama · Hatta · Hiribya · Huj · Hulayqat · Ibdis · Iraq al-Manshiyya · Iraq Suwaydan · Isdud · al-Jaladiyya · al-Jiyya · Julis · al-Jura · Jusayr · Karatiyya · Kawfakha · Kawkaba · al-Khisas · al-Masmiyya al-Kabira · al-Masmiyya al-Saghira · al-Muharraqa · Najd · Ni’ilya · Qastina · al-Sawafir al-Gharbiyya · al-Sawafir al-Shamaliyya · al-Sawafir al-Sharqiyya · Simsim · Summil · Tall al-Turmus · Yasur

District of Haifa:
Abu Shusha · Abu Zurayq · Arab al-Fuqara · Arab al-Nufay’at · Arab Zahrat al-Dumayri · Ayn Ghazal · Ayn Hawd · Balad al-Shaykh · Barrat Qisarya · Burayka · al-Burj, Khirbat · al-Butaymat · Daliyat al-Rawha’ · al-Dumun, Khirbat · al-Ghubayya al-Fawqa · al-Ghubayya al-Tahta · Hawsha · Ijzim · Jaba’ · al-Jalama · Kabara · al-Kafrayn · Kafr Lam · al-Kasayir, Khirbat · Khubbayza · Lid, Khirbat · al-Manara, Khirbat · al-Mansi · al-Mansura, Khirbat · al-Mazar · Naghnaghiya · Qannir · Qira · Qisarya · Qumbaza · al-Rihaniyya · Sabbarin · al-Sarafand · al-Sarkas, Khirbat · Sa’sa’, Khirbat · al-Sawamir · al-Shuna, Khirbat · al-Sindiyana · al-Tantura · al-Tira · Umm al-Shawf · Umm al-Zinat · Wa’arat al-Sarris · Wadi Ara (village) · Yajur

District of Hebron:
Ajjur · Barqusya · Bayt Jibrin · Bayt Nattif · al-Dawayima · Dayr al-Dubban · Dayr Nakhkhas · Kudna · Mughallis · al-Qris Horkins · al-Qubayba · Ra’na · Tall al-Safi · Umm Burj, Khirbat · az-Zakariyya · Zayta
District of Jaffa:
al-’Abbasiyya · Abu Kishk · Bayt Dajan · Biyar ‘Adas · Fajja · al-Haram · Ijlil al-Qibliyya · Ijlil al-Shamaliyya · al-Jammasin al-Gharbi · al-Jammasin al-Sharqi · Jarisha · Kafr ‘Ana · al-Khayriyya · al-Mas’udiyya · al-Mirr · al-Muwaylih · Rantiya · al-Safiriyya · Salama · Saqiya · al-Sawalima · al-Shaykh Muwannis · Yazur

District of Jerusalem:
Allar · Aqqur · Artuf · Bayt ‘Itab · Bayt Mahsir · Bayt Naqquba · Bayt Thul · Bayt Umm al-Mays · al-Burayj · Colonia · Dayr Aban · Dayr ‘Amr · Dayr al-Hawa · Dayr Rafat · Dayr al-Shaykh · Deir Yassin · Ein Karim · Ishwa · Islin · Ism Allah, Khirbat · Jarash · al-Jura (Jerusalem) · Kasla · al-Lawz, Khirbat · Lifta · al-Maliha · Nitaf · al-Qabu · al-Qastal · Ras Abu ‘Ammar · Sar’a · Saris · Sataf · Sheikh Badr · Suba · Sufla · al-Tannur, Khirbat · al-’Umur, Khirbat · al-Walaja

District of Jenin:
Ayn al-Mansi · al-Jawfa, Khirbat · al-Lajjun · al-Mazar · Nuris · Zir’in
District of Nazareth:
Indur · Ma’lul · al-Mujaydil · Saffuriyya
District of Ramla:
Abu al-Fadl · Abu Shusha · Ajanjul · Aqir · Barfiliya · al-Barriyya · Bashshit · Bayt Far, Khirbat · Bayt Jiz · Bayt Nabala · Bayt Shanna · Bayt Susin · Bir Ma’in · Bir Salim · al-Burj · al-Buwayra, Khirbat · Daniyal · Dayr Abu Salama · Dayr Ayyub · Dayr Muhaysin · Dayr Tarif · al-Duhayriyya, Khirbat · al-Haditha · Idnibba · Innaba · Jilya · Jimzu · Kharruba · al-Khayma · Khulda · al-Kunayyisa · al-Latrun · al-Maghar · Majdal Yaba · al-Mansura, Ramla · al-Mukhayzin · al-Muzayri’a · al-Na’ani · an-Nabi Rubin · Qatra · Qazaza · al-Qubab · al-Qubayba, Ramla · Qula · Sajad · Salbit · Sarafand al-’Amar · Sarafand al-Kharab · Saydun · Shahma · Shilta · al-Tina · al-Tira · Umm Kalkha · Wadi Hunayn · Yibna · Zakariyya, Khirbat · Zarnuqa

District of Safad:
Abil al-Qamh · al-’Abisiyya · Alma · Ammuqa · Arab al-Shamalina · Arab al-Zubayd · Ayn al-Zaytun · Baysamun · Biriyya · al-Butayha · al-Buwayziyya · Dallata · al-Dawwara · Dayshum · al-Dirbashiyya · al-Dirdara · Fara · al-Farradiyya · Fir’im · Ghabbatiyya · Ghuraba · al-Hamra’ · Harrawi · Hunin · al-Husayniyya · Jahula · al-Ja’una · Jubb Yusuf · Kafr Bir’im · al-Khalisa · Khan al-Duwayr · Karraza, Khirbat · al-Khisas · Khiyam al-Walid · Kirad al-Baqqara · Kirad al-Ghannama · Lazzaza · Madahil · al-Malikiyya · Mallaha · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura, Safad · Mansurat al-Khayt · Marus · Mirun · al-Muftakhira · Mughr al-Khayt · al-Muntar, Khirbat · al-Nabi Yusha’ · al-Na’ima · Qabba’a · Qadas · Qaddita · Qaytiyya · al-Qudayriyya · al-Ras al-Ahmar · Sabalan · Safsaf · Saliha · al-Salihiyya · al-Sammu’i · al-Sanbariyya · Sa’sa’ · al-Shawka al-Tahta · al-Shuna · Taytaba · Tulayl · al-’Ulmaniyya · al-’Urayfiyya · al-Wayziyya · Yarda · al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta · al-Zanghariyya · al-Zawiya · al-Zuq al-Fawqani · al-Zuq al-Tahtani

District of Tiberias:
Awlam · al-Dalhamiyya · Ghuwayr Abu Shusha · Hadatha · al-Hamma, Tiberias · Hittin · Kafr Sabt · Lubya · Ma’dhar · al-Majdal (Tiberias) · al-Manara · al-Manshiyya · al-Mansura, Tiberias · Nasir al-Din · Nimrin · al-Nuqayb · Samakh · al-Samakiyya · al-Samra · al-Shajara · al-Tabigha · al-’Ubaydiyya · al-Wa’ra al-Sawda’, Khirbat · Yaquq

District of Tulkarm :
Bayt Lid, Khirbat · Bayyarat Hannun · Fardisya · Ghabat Kafr Sur · al-Jalama, Tulkarm · Kafr Saba · al-Majdal, Khirbat · al-Manshiyya · Miska · Qaqun · Raml Zayta · Tabsur · Umm Khalid · Wadi al-Hawarith · Wadi Qabbani · al-Zababida, Khirbat · Zalafa, Khirbat


1. ^ Ha’aretz 13 May 2008 Palestinian refugees, Israeli left-wingers mark Nakba By Yoav Stern
2. ^ Badil Nakba 60
3. ^ A History of the Modern Middle East by William L. Cleaveland, 2004, p. 270 The term “Nakba” emerged after an influential Arab commentary on the self-examination of the social and political bases of Arab life in the wake of the 1948 War by Constantine Zureiq. (Prior to that, the term had more commonly referred to the 1920 Battle of Maysalun, in which France invaded Syria and deposed Arab Revolt leader King Faisal I.) The term became quite popular and widespread that it made the term “disaster” synonymous with the Arab defeat in that war.
4. ^ a b United Nations General Assembly (1951-08-23). “General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine” (OpenDocument). Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
5. ^ UNRWA Doc. UNRWA estimate 4.25 Millions in 2005
6. ^ Erskine Childers, ‘The Other Exodus’, The Spectator, May 12, 1961 reprinted in Walter Laqueur (ed.) The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict,(1969) rev.ed.Pelican Books 1970 pp.179-188 p.183
7. ^ Institute of Palestinian Studies Khalidi, Walid “Plan Dalet Revisited: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine” in Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 18 no. 1, (Aut. 88): 3-37. Republish article from the early 1960s
8. ^ Institute of Palestinian StudiesKhalidi, Walid “Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited” in Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 134, no. 2 (Win. 05): 42-54
9. ^ Institute for Palestinian StudiesCorrespondence between Erskine Childers, Walid Khalidi, Jon Kimche, Hedley V Cooke, David Cairns and Edward Atiyah
10. ^ Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim 2007 p. 38
11. ^ B. Morris 2004 pp.5-7,pp.38-64,pp.462-587
12. ^ a b B. Morris, ‘Response to Finkelstein and Masalha’, J. Palestine Studies 21(1), p. 98-114
13. ^ Ilan Pappe (2007)
14. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 90-99
15. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 65
16. ^ Flapan, 1987, p. 95; also quoted by Finkelstein, 1995, p. 82
17. ^ Morris, (2004), p. 76
18. ^ Morris, (2004) p. 76, 125
19. ^ Morris, (2004) p. 66
20. ^ (Gelber, p. 75)
21. ^ (Gelber, p. 76)
22. ^ (Gelber, p. 79)
23. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 99-125
24. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 138
25. ^ a b c Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 82
26. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 67
27. ^ (Glazer, p.104)
28. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 134
29. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 137, quoting Haganah Archive (HA) 105\257)
30. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 68-86
31. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 75
32. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 76
33. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 130
34. ^ Morris, 2004, p.125
35. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 55
36. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 73
37. ^ Pappé, 2006, p. 56
38. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 60
39. ^ Pappé, 2006, p. 63
40. ^ Morris, 2004 p. 86
41. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 87
42. ^ Morris, 2004, p.75
43. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 138, 139
44. ^ Glazer 1980, p.109

45. ^ UN Progress Report, September 16, 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I, paragraph 1 to 3;. According to Glazer, this observation by Count Folke Bernadotte is frequently cited not only as an example of descriptions of panic, but also as evidence that the Zionists pursued a policy of expulsion.

46. ^ UN Doc. a/648 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations Part 1 Section V para 6. It is not yet known what the policy of the Provisional Government of Israel with regard to the return of Arab refugees will be when the final terms of settlement are reached. It is, however, undeniable that no settlement can be just and complete if recognition is not accorded to the right of the Arab refugee to return to the home from which he has been dislodged by the hazards and strategy of the armed conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The majority of these refugees have come from territory which, under the Assembly resolution of 29 November, was to be included in the Jewish State. The exodus of Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine, and, indeed, at least offer the threat of permanent replacement of the Arab refugees who have been rooted in the land for centuries.
47. ^ “Survival of the Fittest”Avi Shavit Interview with Benny Morris – 01.11.04
48. ^ Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim 2007 p. 38
49. ^ Howard M. Sachar. A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. Published by Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1976. p. 332. ISBN 0-394-48564-5
50. ^ Morris 2004, p. 264
51. ^ Nakbat Haifa: Collapse and Dispersion of a Major Palestinian Community, E. Karsh, Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 37, Number 4/October 01, 2001
52. ^ British Police Report: Arab Flight From Haifa
53. ^ Situation in Haifa. Report by John Fletcher-Cooke to UN Secretary-General 22nd April 1948.
54. ^ Erskine Childers, Walid Khalidi, and Jon Kimche 1961 Correspondence in The Spectator on “Why the Refugees Left” [Originally Appendix E of Khalidi, Walid, “Plan Dalet Revisited: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine” in 18 no. 1, (Aut. 88): 51-70.
55. ^ Morris, 2004, pp. 191, 200
56. ^ Ilan Pappé, 2006, p. 96
57. ^ ‘British Proclamation In Haifa Making Evacuation Secure’, The Times, Thursday, April 22, 1948; pg. 4; Issue 51052; col D
58. ^ Morris 2004, pp. 191, 192
59. ^ Morris 2004, pp. 209-211
60. ^ Avnery, Uri (1971): Israel Without Zionism: A Plan for Peace in the Middle East. New York: Collier Books, pp.224-25.
61. ^ O’Ballance, Edgar (1956) pp. 147, 172.
62. ^ Benny Morris (2004) p.246; Summary meeting of the Arab Affairs Advisor in Netanya 9 May 1948 IDF 6127/49//109
63. ^ Ilan Pappé (2006) p. 128.
64. ^ Benny Morris (2004) p. 247 unsigned short report on Tantura Operation, IDFA 922/75//949, and ya’akov B.’, in the name of the deputy OC ‘A’ company ‘Report on Operation Namal’ 26 May 1948, IDFA 6647/49//13.
65. ^ Benny Morris (2004). Shitrit to Ben-Gurion 31 May 1948 ISA MAM 302/48.
66. ^ Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins, p.21. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16-24.
67. ^ Review by Dominique Vidal in Le Monde Diplomatique
68. ^ Morris, Benny (1986): What Happened in History. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Summer, 1986), pp. 181-182.
69. ^ Morris 2006, p. 262
70. ^ Quoted in Mark Tessler’s A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Keesing’s Contemporary Archives (London: Keesing’s Publications, 1948-1973). p. 10101.
71. ^ Oren, Elhanan (1976): On the Way to the City. Hebrew, Tel Aviv.
72. ^ Ibid.
73. ^ Peretz Kidron interview with Ben Dunkelman, Haolam Hazeh, 9 January 1980.
74. ^ Kidron, Peretz (1988). Truth Whereby Nations Live. In Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (Eds.). Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question Verso. ISBN 1-85984-340-9, p. 87.
75. ^ Ari Shavit – Survival Of The Fittest? An Interview With Benny Morris: Logos Winter 2004
76. ^ (Morris, 2004, p. 448)
77. ^ Morris, 2004, p. 490
78. ^ UN Doc. PAL/370 UN Press Release dated 6 November 1948
79. ^ Morris (2004), p. 492
80. ^ Ilan Pappe (Spring 2006). “Calling a Spade a Spade: The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (HTML). Retrieved on 2007-05-03.
81. ^ UN Doc A/648 Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations see part 1 section V para 6
82. ^ Bowker, 2003, pp. 97-98.
83. ^ “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194″. United Nations General Assembly (December 11, 1948). Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
84. ^ Morris 2006, p. 578
85. ^ Nadav Safran, Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press, p 336.
86. ^ Morris 2006, p. 580
87. ^ Erskine Childers, ‘The Other Exodus’, The Spectator, May 12, 1961 reprinted in Walter Laqueur (ed.) The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict,(1969) rev.ed.Pelican Books 1970 pp.179-188 p.183
88. ^ Reported by Philip Mendes, A historical controversy: the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem; retrieved from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society website on 1 November 2007.
89. ^ Reported by Philip Mendes, A historical controversy : the causes of the Palestinian refugee problem; retrieved from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society website on 1 November 2007.
90. ^ B. Morris, 2004 pp.5-7,pp.38-64,pp.462-587
91. ^ Khalidi, Walid (1961).
92. ^ Ilan. Pappé, (2006)
93. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 34.
94. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 35.
95. ^ Saleh, Abdul Jawad and Walid Mustafa (1987): p.30.
96. ^ Abu Sitta, Salman (2001).
97. ^ Refugees Per Country & Area; 2005
98. ^ Who is a Palestine Refugee? UNRWA ‘s operational definition
99. ^ Assistance To Palestine Refugees UN Doc A/1905Report of the Director of the UNRWA, 28 September 1951
100. ^ (Bowker, 2003, pp. 61-62)
101. ^ Jiryis, Sabri (1981): Domination by the Law. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 10th Anniversary Issue: Palestinians under Occupation. (Autumn, 1981), pp. 67-92.
102. ^ a b Kirshbaum, David A. Israeli Emergency Regulations and The Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945. Israel Law Resource Center, February, 2007.
103. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 37.
104. ^ geocities.comIsraeli Emergency Regulations & The Defense (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 by David A. Kirshbaum
105. ^ Absentees’ Property Law (1950)
106. ^ See article 37 Absentees’ Property Law 5710-1950
107. ^ Ruling Palestine, A History of the Legally Sanctioned Jewish-Israeli Seizure of Land and Housing in Palestine. Publishers: COHRE & BADIL, May 2005, p. 41.
108. ^ Peretz, (1958)
109. ^ Prescription Law (1958)
110. ^ Plaut, Steven “How ‘Nakba’ Proves There’s No Palestinian Nation” Jewish Press 4/30/2008
111. ^ a b (Bowker, 2003, p. 96)
112. ^


* Abu Sitta, Salman (2001): From Refugees to Citizens at Home. London: Palestine Land Society and Palestinian Return Centre, 2001
* Arzt, Donna E. (1997). Refugees into Citizens: Palestinians and the End of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 0-87609-194-X
* Atiyah, Edward Selim, (1958) The Arabs, London, Penguin Books,
* Beit-Hallahmi, Benny (1993). Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel. Oliver Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-131-0
* Benvenisti, Meron (2002) Sacred Landscape. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23422-7
* Bowker, Robert (2003). Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 1-58826-202-2
* Cleveland, William L. “A History of the Modern Middle East” Westview Press; Third Edition (July 22, 2004) ISBN-10: 0813340489 ISBN-13: 978-0813340487
* Dershowitz, Alan (2003). The Case for Israel. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-67962-6.
* Finkelstein, Norman (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2nd Ed. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-442-1
* Fischbach, Michael R. (2003). Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12978-5
* Flapan, Simha (1987) “The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities” Published by Pantheon ISBN 039455888X ISBN 978-0394558882
* Gelber, Yoav (2006). Palestine 1948. War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Sussex Acadam Press. ISBN 1-84519-075-0.
* Glazer, Steven (1980): The Palestinian Exodus in 1948. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118.
* Kanaaneh, Rhoda A. (2002). Birthing the Nation: Strategies of Palestinian Women in Israel. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22944-4.
* Kapeliouk, Amnon (1987): New Light on the Israeli-Arab Conflict and the Refugee Problem and Its Origins. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3. (Spring, 1987), pp. 16-24.
* Katz, Shmuel (1973) Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine Shapolsky Pub; ISBN 0-933503-03-2
* Khalidi, Walid (1959). Why Did the Palestinians Leave? Middle East Forum, July 1959. Reprinted as ‘Why Did the Palestinians Leave Revisited’, 2005, Journal of Palestine Studies, XXXIV, No. 2., pp. 42-54.
* Khalidi, Walid (1961). Plan Dalet, Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine. Middle East Forum, November 1961.
* Lehn, Walter & Davis, Uri (1988). The Jewish National Fund. London : Kegan Paul.
* Milstein Uri (1998) “History Of Israel’s War Of Independence”, Vol III. 1998 (English). University Press of America ISBN-10: 0761807691 ISBN-13: 978-0761807698.
* Morris, Benny (2001). Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948. In The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (pp. 37-59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79476-5
* Morris, Benny (2004). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-00967-7
* Masalha, Nur (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 0-88728-235-0
* Nur Masalha (2003). The Politics of Denial: Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. London, Pluto Press.
* O’Ballance, Edgar (1956): The Arab-Israeli War 1948. London: Faber and Faber,
* Pappé, Ilan (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: One World Books. (2006) ISBN 1-85168-467-0
* Pappé Ilan (1992) “The Making of the Arab Israeli Conflict 1947-1951″ Published by I B Tauris ISBN 1-85043-819-6
* Peretz, Don (1958). Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Washington: Middle East Institute.
* Plascov, Avi (1981). Palestinian Refugees in Jordan, 1948-1957. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-3120-5
* Quigley, John B. (2005). The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-3539-5
* Rogan, Eugene L., & Shlaim, Avi (Eds.). (2001). The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-79476-5
* Rogan, Eugene L., & Shlaim, Avi (Eds.). (2007). The War for Palestine” 2nd Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-87598
* Sa’di, Ahmad H. & Abu-Lughod, Lila (Eds.). (2007). Nakba: Palestine, 1948, and the Claims of Memory.Published Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-2311-3579-3
* Safran, Nadav Israel: The Embattled Ally, Harvard University Press,
* Saleh, Abdul Jawad and Walid Mustafa (1987): Palestine: The Collective Destruction of Palestinian Villages and Zionist Colonisation 1882-1982. London: Jerusalem Centre for Development Studies
* Schechtman, Joseph B (1963) The Refugees In the World (New York,)
* Schulz, Helena L. (2003). The Palestinian Diaspora. Published London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-26821-4
* Segev Tom (1998) “1949 the first Israelis” published Henry Holt and Company ISBN 978-0-8050-5896-3 ISBN 0-8050-5896-6
* Sternhell, Zeev (1999). The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State. Published Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00967-8

The Truth about Palestine and Israel

January 4, 2009 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under Media

Thousands of Israeli troops, backed by tanks and helicopters, have entered the Gaza Strip as Israel escalated its offensive into the territory on the eighth day of operations.

Tanks entered the besieged territory through several points mainly in northern Gaza, crossing shortly after nightfall on Saturday, officials said, while the Israeli cabinet said it had also called up about 9,000 reservists.

U.S. Backed Weapons vs. Homemade Rockets VIDEO

The Lies:

Lie #1

Israel is only targeting legitimate military sites and is seeking to protect innocent lives. Israel never targets civilians.

The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of property in the world. The presence of militants within a civilian population does not, under international law, deprive that population of their protected status, and hence any assault upon that population under the guise of targeting militants is, in fact, a war crime.

Moreover, the people Israel claims are legitimate targets are members of Hamas, which Israel says is a terrorist organization. Hamas has been responsible for firing rockets into Israel. These rockets are extremely inaccurate and thus, even if Hamas intended to hit military targets within Israel, are indiscriminate by nature. When rockets from Gaza kill Israeli civilians, it is a war crime.

Hamas has a military wing. However, it is not entirely a military organization, but a political one. Members of Hamas are the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people. Dozens of these elected leaders have been kidnapped and held in Israeli prisons without charge. Others have been targeted for assassination, such as Nizar Rayan, a top Hamas official. To kill Rayan, Israel targeted a residential apartment building. The strike not only killed Rayan but two of his wives and four of his children, along with six others. There is no justification for such an attack under international law. This was a war crime.

Other of Israel’s bombardment with protected status under international law have included a mosque, a prison, police stations, and a university, in addition to residential buildings.

Moreover, Israel has long held Gaza under siege, allowing only the most minimal amounts of humanitarian supplies to enter. Israel is bombing and killing Palestinian civilians. Countless more have been wounded, and cannot receive medical attention. Hospitals running on generators have little or no fuel. Doctors have no proper equipment or medical supplies to treat the injured. These people, too, are the victims of Israeli policies targeted not at Hamas or legitimate military targets, but directly designed to punish the civilian population.

Lie #2

Hamas violated the cease-fire. The Israeli bombardment is a response to Palestinian rocket fire and is designed to end such rocket attacks.

Israel never observed the cease-fire to begin with. From the beginning, it announced a “special security zone” within the Gaza Strip and announced that Palestinians who enter this zone will be fired upon. In other words, Israel announced its intention that Israeli soldiers would shoot at farmers and other individuals attempting to reach their own land in direct violation of not only the cease-fire but international law.

Despite shooting incidents, including ones resulting in Palestinians getting injured, Hamas still held to the cease-fire from the time it went into effect on June 19 until Israel effectively ended the truce on November 4 by launching an airstrike into Gaza that killed five and injured several others.

Israel’s violation of the cease-fire predictably resulted in retaliation from militants in Gaza who fired rockets into Israel in response. The increased barrage of rocket fire at the end of December is being used as justification for the continued Israeli bombardment, but is a direct response by militants to the Israeli attacks.

Israel’s actions, including its violation of the cease-fire, predictably resulted in an escalation of rocket attacks against its own population.

Lie #3

Hamas is using human shields, a war crime.

There has been no evidence that Hamas has used human shields. The fact is, as previously noted, Gaza is a small piece of property that is densely populated. Israel engages in indiscriminate warfare such as the assassination of Nizar Rayan, in which members of his family were also murdered. It is victims like his dead children that Israel defines as “human shields” in its propaganda. There is no legitimacy for this interpretation under international law. In circumstances such as these, Hamas is not using human shields, Israel is committing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions and other applicable international law.

Lie #4

Arab nations have not condemned Israel’s actions because they understand Israel’s justification for its assault.

The populations of those Arab countries are outraged at Israel’s actions and at their own governments for not condemning Israel’s assault and acting to end the violence. Simply stated, the Arab governments do not represent their respective Arab populations. The populations of the Arab nations have staged mass protests in opposition to not only Israel’s actions but also the inaction of their own governments and what they view as either complacency or complicity in Israel’s crimes.

Moreover, the refusal of Arab nations to take action to come to the aid of the Palestinians is not because they agree with Israel’s actions, but because they are submissive to the will of the US, which fully supports Israel. Egypt, for instance, which refused to open the border to allow Palestinians wounded in the attacks to get medical treatment in Egyptian hospitals, is heavily dependent upon US aid, and is being widely criticized within the population of the Arab countries for what is viewed as an absolute betrayal of the Gaza Palestinians.

Even Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been regarded as a traitor to his own people for blaming Hamas for the suffering of the people of Gaza. Palestinians are also well aware of Abbas’ past perceived betrayals in conniving with Israel and the US to sideline the democratically elected Hamas government, culminating in a counter-coup by Hamas in which it expelled Fatah (the military wing of Abbas’ Palestine Authority) from the Gaza Strip. While his apparent goal was to weaken Hamas and strengthen his own position, the Palestinians and other Arabs in the Middle East are so outraged at Abbas that it is unlikely he will be able to govern effectively.

Lie #5

Israel is not responsible for civilian deaths because it warned the Palestinians of Gaza to flee areas that might be targeted.

Israel claims it sent radio and telephone text messages to residents of Gaza warning them to flee from the coming bombardment. But the people of Gaza have nowhere to flee to. They are trapped within the Gaza Strip. It is by Israeli design that they cannot escape across the border. It is by Israeli design that they have no food, water, or fuel by which to survive. It is by Israeli design that hospitals in Gaza have no electricity and few medical supplies with which to treat the injured and save lives. And Israel has bombed vast areas of Gaza, targeting civilian infrastructure and other sites with protected status under international law. No place is safe within the Gaza Strip.


Prior to the British signing the Balfour Declaration in 1917, which called for a Jewish state, Palestinians made up over 90% of the population of Palestine. In fact, in 1914, Jews only made up 7.5% of the population. After the signing of the Balfour Declaration, Jews began migrating in mass numbers from surrounding areas into Palestine. This migration was haulted for three years from 1936-1939, but then resumed in even greater numbers until 1948, when Israel claimed itself a sovereign state and thus sparking an even larger mass migration of Jews into Palestine. By 1950, only 30 years after the signing of the Balfour Declaration, Jews made up the majority of the population. Basically, if you were to ask all but about 5% of the original Jewish inhabitants where they originated from, they would answer with a country other than Palestine, most likely a country from Eastern Europe and some from neighboring Arab countries. Jews are still migrating into Palestine today in mass numbers and settling in Palestinian territory. Much of these migrating Jews understand the Palestinian situation, but many times choose to ignore it due to overwhelming benefits.



In 1947, the United Nations agrees to split Palestine into two states, a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as an international city. One issue bothered the Palestinians…the agreement included a Jewish state that made up 54% of the land and 46% to the Palestinians, even though prior to that point the Jews owned only 6% of the land. Then there is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of their rightfully owned lands by Israeli militias, which sparked the bloodshed still seen today. One such horrific act was witnessed in April of 1948, when Zionist militia went into the town of Deir Yassin and murdered 254 innocent civilians, mostly elders, women, children. Many of these incidents along with the inexcusable demolition of thousands of Palestinian homes in the years to come instilled fear into the minds of many Palestinians, forcing them to flee to neighboring countries, most likely Jordan. Those who remained in Palestine to defend their land and refused to submit to the will of Israel were in for a great struggle. Till this day, this struggle includes many war crimes committed by Israel not only in Palestine, but in Lebanon as well, which include: ethnic cleansing, genocide, illegal imprisonment, and illegal occupation. Some of these war crimes were executed by former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, who was not tried for any of his war crimes. Tyrants similar to Sharon include Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. Milosevic went onto trial for his crimes and was sentenced to prison, dying 5 years later in his prison cell. Saddam Hussein also went on trial for his tyrannical crimes and was hung to death. The world demands justice, not only from Sharon (who suffered a stroke late 2005 and is currently in a coma), but for any injustices. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.”

What you don’t know is that the United States has been aiding Israel every year since 1945 with hundreds of millions of dollars. This money comes out of your pockets as tax payers. The U.S. also provides Israel with Caterpillar bulldozers, which are used to demolish homes and Palestinian infrastructure. As a democratic nation, we proudly say that we are combating terrorism, yet we turn the other cheek and fuel a war machine like Israel, but of course…they’re not terrorists. Palestinians have to endure such inhumane actions everyday. Hundreds of thousands have lost their homes, tens of thousands have lost their lives, and all have been deprived of their integrity and hope for freedom.



Much of the news coverage you hear especially in America is biased news about the terrorist actions of suicide bombers in Palestine. What they don’t mention is what equates to such actions. Israel has gone as far as to literally torture Palestinians by poisoning their water, poisoning livestock, destroying electrical power plants, and destroying roads. People cannot go to prayer, let alone work, to provide their families with an income that can keep them alive. Many in Gaza, one of the most densely populated regions in the world, are living in total darkness due to the recent destruction of their only electrical power plant. In essence, Israel gives birth to these Suicide Bombers. No civilian deserves to die, whether Israeli or Palestinian. There is no legitimate excuse for the execution of innocent lives. Both sides though, have extremists trying to support their cause. Suicide bombers never existed before the Zionist regime took over in Israel, but that still doesn’t justify the loss of civilian life.

Since Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists; what word would you use to describe Israeli actions?



I urge you to maintain open mindedness and not believe all that you may hear in the news. I also urge you to do your own research and not take my word for it either. You will be surprised at what you find. I have not even hit the surface when it comes to facts, so dig further. I have witnessed many of these injustices with my own eyes, so its time for you to open yours.

*Please remember, there are plenty of Jews, even Rabbi’s, that are entirely against the Zionist movement. Also, do not confuse a person who practices Judaism with a Zionist. Zionists are not all necessarily Jews, and not all Jews are necessarily Zionists*

Some information that may interest you:



The Gaza Strip

George Galloway on Sky News

“Palestine is still the issue”

“Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land”

“Scott Ritter on CSPAN”

“Occupation 101″


“Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” by Jimmy Carter

Weekend Update 05 – Part 2

December 30, 2008 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under Commentaries

Click Picture to Play Video

Somber, tragic description of the Imperialist Patriarchies attacks on the peoples of Gaza and Iraq; some of the USA’s latest, but not so well hidden, Indian Reservations. Russell also reveals that ALL THREE of the health facilities on the Pine Ridge Sioux Indian Reservation were closed for the Christmas holiday. These facilities, the Kyle and Wanbli Health Clinics and the Pine Ridge Hospital represent the sum total of our health care facilities for this 4,500 square mile Reservation. These facilities are operated under the “auspices” of the Indian Health Service which is part the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

The Truth about U.S. Banking

December 5, 2008 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under News


- On Reclaiming Our Central Bank And Monetary Policy -


“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is

the master of all its legislation and commerce.”

President James A. Garfield

The “Federal Reserve” is not a government institution but a private central bank owned by a handful of major banks and bond dealers. As such, it is a cartel owned, controlled, and essentially for-profit driven, not by the people of the United States but, instead, by the banking industry’s ruling elite. This oligarchic setup generates the most costly, debt-based, money system and greatest conflicts of interest in the history of the world. It is a system clearly at odds with the intent of the founders of the United States of America.

- Zero Per Cent Home Loans -

“Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”

American’s Banker Association, 1924

Ask yourself why the people of the United States would agree to charge interest on one another’s home loans – the very building blocks of society? The answer is we did not, have not, and likely would not. Most importantly, we cannot implement any such salutary “barnraising” monetary policy because we no longer have ownership or control over our money creation process and this most vital of state institutions. In short, we have lost control over money creation and purse powers as bequeathed to us by the founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States.

Instead, with a private central bank, we are required to pay for our homes, as well as all our infrastructure and defense, three or four times over due to the interest costs imposed by private central bankers and their affiliated bond dealers. Interest costs alone represent the greatest of taxes paid, and the greatest of burdens passed to future generations.

Imagine, in an economy nearly seventy per-cent driven by consumers, what this tax cut, in home interest savings alone, could do to stimulate the “ownership” economy – not to mention freeing the vast majority from nearly endless house debt? In addition, to avoid early foreclosures, family breakups, and financial devastation due to job loss and “free trade” job export new, more democratically-oriented, policies might allow for longer emergency mortgage relief periods to avoid exactly such no-fault crisis and debilitating chaos.

At the same time, penalties for loan and appraisal fraud could be greatly strengthened. Otherwise home loan programs could very well continue thru existing mortgage, banking, and escrow institutions with the only difference being direct treasury funding as opposed to debt-based bonds serving the interests of the few.

For the great majority of people there is no greater tax cut possible than eliminating interest on our home loans. If we truly controlled our own government and economy such a change, and related offsetting tax code changes regarding interest deductions, would be simple and easy. First, however, to accomplish this salutary objective, and other necessary monetary system reforms, we have to end, or radically re-control, an oligarchic and undemocratic banking institution misleadingly known as the “Fed.”

- Hurricanes, Disasters & Infrastructure -

Aside from the loss of life, the sickest thing about the recent Katrina-Rita-Wilma hurricane events – as well as virtually every other natural disaster, war or infrastructure need – is that we are forced to borrow from a private central bank to pay for all the destruction, reconstruction and related interest costs. A private central bank profiting from Mother Nature’s wrath (due to global warming induced climate change) and the wipe out of entire cities and families is surely the mother of all scandals, the crime of the ages, and the epitomy of financial sociopathy.

The private cabal “Fed” central bank setup we labor under means the cartel profits from every natural disaster via our borrowing requirements. Clearly, nothing could be more brutal, immoral or just plain wrong. As a result we can be driven into bankruptcy by Mother Nature and the Fed alone, as government insurance program premiums cover only a fraction of the costs, and any and all deficits require debt-money borrowing.

In short, we must regain control of our monetary powers or we will be bankrupted by Mother Nature alone, courtesy of the “Federal” Reserve.

- The “Independent” Scam-

“If government becomes ‘independent of politics’ it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy.”

Murray Rothbard, The Case Against The Fed

Oligarchy and neo-fascism are what we, the people, are fighting today. A top-down, undemocratic, globalization process is effectively removing all local controls and cultural freedoms… and in the process installing private central banks everywhere. Corporate power and rule by the few (via control of our central bank, media, trade policy, and a corrupted Congress) has now reduced much of mankind to neo-slavery upon a global plantation – all within a “free market” from which, for most, their is neither escape nor dissent.

The primary instrument of this modern neo-slavery and rule by the few is interest-bearing debt, and control of our money creation process by a ruling elite. As a result of this regime, Nations, states, and families around the world are virtual prisoners of a monopoly private central bank system, and its debt money instruments and policies.

The original Constitution of the United States stated that Congress, the most representative body, was to have the sole power to mint our money and set the value of currency in the United States. However, in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed, in a secretive and deceptive legislative process similar to the coup d’etat accomplished with the corporate-controlled GATT-NAFTA regime. This constitution-crushing “Fed” act passed the authority to create money from the people, via Congress, over to a private consortium of big banks now collectively known as the Federal Reserve Bank – in an historic theft of societal right and power.

In short, before the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 congress could print it’s own treasury notes and use the money to pay for the cost of government. After the passage of this act Congress was forced to borrow money from a privately owned Federal Reserve Bank at interest – obviously, an immense sea-change in the nature of government finance and the structure of society.

Clearly, the “independent” central bank scam is one of history’s great ruses and a device used to pry the most vital of society’s institutions from the hands of the people and their elected representatives – over whom we have some control. As Murray Rothbard, the Libertarian economist, noted in his last book the Fed is simply an oligarchic institution which does not belong in any Democracy or Republic ostensibly shaped and ruled by a majority of its people.

In order to both accomplish and maintain such a ruling-elite feat, first, you inform the people and their elected representatives they are not capable of handling their own affairs – despite the provision in our Constitution placing the “purse power” squarely in the hands of the Congress. Yet the very reason for the people’s purse power clause is simply that, by 1776, the founders were well aware of what private central banks, and the “Bank of England” had done to the people of the European continent.

Second, you must denigrate “democracy” in every way possible, and attempt to make a convincing case that a slave society, like the Roman Empire, could possibly give us some lessons in the running of a democracy. In this “mobocracy” strategy no attention is ever paid to the on-going idiocy and historic criminality of Monarchy, Oligarchy and Fascism thru the years. Clearly, the ruling elite’s basic plan of “independent” institutions is to place them out of the control of the very people who must bear, as in the case of our central bank, the extremely taxing and unnecessary debt and interest burdens which last for generations.

Given their distorted educations and fears for their own job security, the public (maybe not private) opinion of many economists and bankers today remains that the “independence” of a central bank is a kind of given, an institution necessary to achieve stability and progress. Obviously, the question here is independent of whom? The simple answer is independent of you and I, the vast wage-laboring majority, our elected representatives, and the Constitution itself. For decades, exactly this anti-democratic, anti-labor, mindset has been a given for any who value their continued employment in banking and consulting industries, and for media moguls whose pro-business, anti-labor, propaganda must continue on a daily basis.

Regardless, the very opposite of monetary stability and unburdened progress is the historic case given private central banks and fractional-reserve, debt-money, systems. Therein, the very incentive for stockholders of private central banks is to generate as much money, debt, and borrowing as possible. This secures the greatest interest and bond market profits and commissions, controls access to money and credit, escapes restrictions on the “masters of the universe” powers, and keeps the vast majority from having any influence over their own central banks and monetary policies.

“A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army…We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“Central banks were supposedly the guardians of money. Yet, they have created the biggest liquidity bubble in history.”

–The Economist

“Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right, we did it.”

–Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman

In practice, a private, profit-seeking, ownership of the “Fed” means the real owners are interested in creating as much private and government debt, with interest due, as possible. If this were not the case then why seek ownership of the central bank stock, if not to exploit its incredible potential for profit and power over governments and leaders the world over?

Further, it is all debt money created, with interest attached, and for which money is not simultaneously created to pay the interest over time. Instead, money to pay interest comes out of created capital and savings. In effect, this means that, over time, all assets head toward ownership by big bankers – an elite group with the incredible power to create busts and booms at will, and who grow ever richer amidst the impoverishment of the people.

The process therein involves The Federal Reserve Bank ordering the U.S. Treasury to print a certain amount of Federal Reserve Notes and then have the U.S. Mint deliver them for the mere cost of printing – i.e., money for nothing! These Federal Reserve Notes are then lent into circulation by lending them either to congress or to the Federal Reserve Member banks. As some economists have noted, money lent into existence would be impossible to totally repay because only the principal was lent into circulation but the principal plus interest has to be paid back.

Essentially, this privatized money creation system is what is meant by debt slavery, and is the very reason why endless wars, and both cultural and religious strife, have been manufactured over the centuries due to this debt-money creation process and its inevitable implosions and ruin. Time and again, it has proved to be the bane of our existence.

As for prudence and responsibility, at one time, it was believed that bank reserve requirements would put a lid on lending, debt creation, and inflation. However, with the advent of “securitization” – i.e., the packaging and reselling of debt to pension funds, etc – the money-debt-interest creation process has effectively become limitless. Today’s dangerous mountain of personal and governmental debt, and both actual and incipient inflation, is testimony to that fact. As ex-fed chairman, Paul Volker, once admitted: “it is a sobering fact the prominence of central banks in this century has coincided with a general tendency toward more inflation, not less.” Is it any wonder why?

- The Creature From Jekyll Island -

“When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made to conceal its power but the truth is the Fed has usurped the government.”

–Rep. Louis Mcfadden

“To cover the fact that a central bank is merely a cartel which has been legalized, its proponents had to lay down a thick smoke screen of technical jargon focusing always on how it would supposedly benefit commerce, the public, and the nation… there was not the slightest glimmer that underneath it all, was a master plan which was designed from top to bottom to serve private interests at the expense of the public… the system is merely a cartel with a government facade.”

–G. Edward Griffin

In practice, a private central bank cartel means the self-interest of the few pitted against the vast majority. The “independent ” ruse is simply one of the oldest imperialist tricks and one necessary to disarm and distract the populace. If this oligarchic setup is so benign an arrangement, however, why then have an elected Congress? Why any democracy? More to the point, if there is no advantage or profit why then do not the owners of the “Fed” simply relinquish their central bank stock to the people?

Indeed, as Thomas Jefferson noted centuries ago, a private central bank is akin to a standing foreign army on your soil. In practice, any such central bank “insulated” from the people means a largely private ability to expand money supplies without any ties to production levels – as suggested by economist Milton Freidman. Thus, this for-profit money-creation process generates inflation as well as privatizing loan choice and distribution, while eliminating any significant public imput on lending policies, and promoting central bank largesse in the form of bail-outs for member banks at taxpayer expense – often after they have wreaked currency havoc and reaped usurious interest rates.

Yesterday and today, “purse” powers in private hands means that money-center banks (owners of central banks) prefer guaranteed lending to governments in large amounts – i.e., to the very governments and people prevented from any non-interest-bearing money creation and municipal credit due to the loss of their rightful central banking ownership and money and credit powers.

At the same time, central bank stockholders may be speculating against these same borrowers in currency markets – undermining their own client governments, generating instability, currency chaos, and need for evermore interest-bearing debt, not to mention financing both sides in costly wars and arms races. Exactly this grossest of conflicts of interest, maximizing of debt-indenture, and insider exploitation of money and credit powers arises due to the usurpation of the people’s powers. In the case of the U.S., it was a result of the successful coup represented by the “Federal Reserve” act of 1913.

Inflation, corruption, and IMF-generated ruin emerge where the banking powers rest in the hands of the unelected few, and public oversight is either missing, perfunctory, or reduced to a “Humphrey-Hawkins” dog and pony show. In the American case, this private money creation system scourge comes complete with taxpayer guarantees and liabilities for all Fed insider, member-bank, mischief benefiting the few while taxing the many.

In short, instability, usury, and insider loan thievery occur because the people are no longer in control of their central banks and are now prisoners of banking oligarchies both domestic and foreign.

“The power of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less that to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conference.”

–Carroll Quigley, 1966

“Government debt paves the way for government control. Consider: Debt leads to taxation to pay interest. Taxation leads to more economic control over the people by the same government that ran up the debt in the first place. It’s hardly extreme to conclude that escalating debt is part of a plan, such as a plan to establish a new world order.”

–John F. McManus

“Ruling elites are deadly serious about seeing that any renovation of the international system is in their interest. They use a variety of carrot and stick tactics to maintain political and economic control – domestically and internationally. Control techniques will be more vicious or less, depending on a combination of factors involving the state of the economy and, more importantly, the state of popular opposition. The more threatening and persistent the moves to counter their plans and build alternative models, the violent will be their tactics of repression.”

–Holly Sklar, Trilateralism

It is the mega-merchant banks and their “bond market” cartel which owns our central banks and gains private powers to rule mere governments via control of money and credit. As both history and contemporary affairs reveal, the greatest threat to the peace and stability of the world is a banking system, and central banks, removed from the people’s ownership, control, and vigilant oversight. Inflation and currency ruin are the ultimate prices paid and, today, these twin taxes are gathering steam.

A long history of predation, panics, planned booms and busts – all precipitated by bankers gorging on the people’s money and credit powers – is exactly why the founders vested “purse” powers in the people and their elected representatives. Indeed, they were well aware of what had transpired on the European continent and how American colonies had been at the mercy of an “independent” Bank of England.

- The Owners Of The “Fed” -

“Here are the card-carrying shareholders in the `Federal’ Reserve Corporation: Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Isreal, Moses Sieff Banks Of Italy, Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers Bank of new York, Kuhn Loeb Bank Of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank Of New York, Goldman Sachs Bank Of New York.”

Miles Franklin Newsletter

“It must not be felt that these heads of the world’s chief central banks were substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”

–Carroll Quigley, Tragedy And Hope

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”


“There is no reason why the banks should be in control of the Federal Reserve system.”

–Sen. Robert Owen, 1913

If the people do not own their central bank either federally or via stock held by the several states, the so-called “Federal” Reserve system is simply a sham. Indeed, the real nature of this beast is revealed in the Federal Reserve Act – i.e., a law dictated by a robber-baron “community of interest” stipulating the privately-held stock of the Federal Reserve cannot be bought or sold on any stock exchange, or ever purchased by the public.

As Eustace Mullins revealed, the “fed” stock is passed by inheritance amongst a few, mega-wealthy, banking families via powerful banking firms which, in 1913, made a private “Federal” system the law of the land. Today, without good cause or reason, an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act prevents Americans from knowing who the real personages are behind their central bank and corporate fronts.

For his opening up an arcane and purposely obscured world to greater public understanding, and shedding new light upon the Bank of England and Federal Reserve, Eustace Mullin’s Secrets of The Federal Reserve remains a classic. Aside from revealing the forces behind central banks, the saga of Mullin’s attempt to publish his book validates his thesis of a corrupt “money power” system. In 1952, Mullins was told by eighteen major publishers his material was too hot to handle and that no one in New York (where banking interests reign) would dare put it to print. They candidly told him it would never be printed anywhere. Later, Mullins was abruptly fired from his Library of Congress post after he self-published his expose of the Fed’s history and ownership in 1952 – and became the only person ever discharged from the Library of Congress for political reasons.

As if this were not enough, in 1954, the entire German edition of his book was seized and burned by government agents. As Mullins relates, “the burning of the book was upheld April 21, 1961 by judge Israel Katz of the Bavarian Supreme Court. The U.S. Government refused to intervene, because U.S. High Commissioner to Germany James B. Conant (president of Harvard) had approved the initial book burning order. This is the only book which has been burned in Germany since World War II.”

Alarming as any book-burning may be, it is surely not the only case of the suppression of the truth about the secretive oligarchies ruling our lives. A pattern of interference with literary freedom appears whenever the subject of ownership of the “Fed” emerges. For example, congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr.’s “Why is your country at war,” was published in 1917 and dealt with the money power and origins of war. According to Mullins, “Woodrow Wilson ordered government agents to seize and destroy the printing plates and copies of this book in the spring of 1918.” Also, William Carr’s study of the Rothschild dynasty had to be privately printed and, in 1915, Baron Nathan Mayer De Rothschild went to court to keep Ignatius Balla’s “The Romance of the Rothschild’s” from being printed on the grounds portions were untrue and libelous. The court, however, ruled in favor of Balla’s truths.

Historically, a series of similar incidents reveals the nature of the problem. The closer one gets to revealing the essence of enclosure, factor-imbalance, and identities of a ruling class, the more obscurity and worse is brought upon offending writers or reformers. In a society where capital owns the media, major publishing houses, and controls appointments in government, major universities, and foundations then unemployment, defamation, and worse is easily brought upon dissidents and any set of facts some wish buried. The experience of writers like Ezra Pound, and circumstances surrounding the assassinations of President’s Lincoln, Garfield, and Kennedy (all of whom were no friends of banking powers) are enough to give anyone pause… nevertheless, information must be free and truthful.

Invariably, the critics of oligarchy, globalization, GATT-NAFTA, and a banking elite’s “independent” interests are characterized as “irrational”, “deranged”, “nationalistic”, “racist”, “anti-semitic” and bent on seeing conspiracy. This occurs in spite of both Adam Smith’s and Karl Marx’s trenchant and timeless observations, the sordid history of the “Federal” Reserve, and the complete lack of effective democracy in our monetary policy.

Obviously, ruling oligarchies have no reason for being nor any argument for suppressing democracy. To survive they must rely on propaganda, repression, defamation, state terrorism, and assassination in hopes of avoiding their fate.

To better understand this on-going tyranny of capital we also need to know how, from near-absolute power over the people’s finances, the House of Rothschild and others moved on to control, and enclose, our media and information supply. As Kent Cooper, a former head of Associated Press, noted “international bankers under the House of Rothschild acquired an interest in the three leading European [news] agencies.” The Rothschild group purchased Reuters in London, Havas in France, and Wolf in Germany to monopolize the news creation nexus and information-dissemination business in Europe and around the world. Today’s global corporate media empire is simply an extension of this trend to control information and assure capital’s propaganda remains both dominant and ubiquitous.

Thus, in addition to land enclosures, factor imbalance, private central banks, and corruption of political systems the power of capital was immensely amplified with its ownership and control of media, and news and information sources. A privatized media realm includes the power to control the public mind, distract and direct debate, demonize dissidents, bring a halt to reform, and disappear the entire question of a public central bank.

- Private Central Banks, Kondratieff Waves
& Anti-Semitism -

“When” The bankers’ Satanic Conspiracy is the source of anti Semitism. The sooner Jews rise up to oppose it; the sooner anti-Semitism will end.. Obviously, many Christians are involved. When I criticize Rockefeller, no one says anything about ‘anti-Christianism.’”

–Henry Makow

“Due to the hard times… the ugly side of human nature becomes apparent. Religious fundamentalism and political extremism (both right and left) resurge in a clamber for radical solutions. Racism increases as scapegoats are sought to vent frustrations (Previous waves: anti Semitism in Europe during the 1870’s/80’s & 1930’s/40’s. Current wave: Ethnic cleansing of the 1990’s) There is less tolerance of unconventional sexuality (Previous waves: Victorian morality of the 1870’s/90’s and Hitler sent homosexuals to the gas chambers in the 1930’s/40’s). The current down wave has seen the rise of the religious right in US politics, with moves against abortion and less tolerance towards racial minorities and homosexuals. Lastly, socialism becomes more popular with the masses as there is a reaction against free market economics, which is widely blamed for the adverse conditions.”

–David McMinn

It is this writer’s contention that Kondratieff’s business-cycle wave theory may well be little more than a private central bank, debt-interest, bubble phenomena – in other words, a long cycle wave of debt build-up and interest accrued which eventually collapses business and society, and brings in its wake either new ruling-elite fascisms of one variety or another, or a re-capture of monetary powers by the public.

Thus, while this revolution of Kondratieff cycles may well represent simple and normal business cycle waves, in fact, they may also be generated and driven by private central bank debt bubbles and the eventual repudiations which follow. Such traumatic cycles might well not exist nor be as wrenching were it not for the private central bank institutions feeding member bank mischief. We are not then speaking of ordinary and more benign, supply-demand, commodity price inflations and deflations.

Again, with securitization making reserve requirement’s relation to loans nearly meaningless today, fiat money creation has become effectively limitless, and this amidst no gold or commodity backing for the “Fed” currency. In this for-profit debt creation business the sky is the limit. Adding insult to injury, the taxpayers (via the income tax) are also the hapless guarantors of the bankster’s, ruling-class, machinations…. at interest, of course.

As things stand, few mega-banks have any public interest seats or participation on their boards, and so no non-profit or public-interest oriented impacts emerge on who gets loans and on what terms. In short, “our” money is created in their interests… and until such time as the interest bubble leads to implosion, new debt replaces old, and devastation results for families and nations alike. Despite this dismal dynamic, nations that attempt to buck the oligarchic system will likely face reprisals from powerful “free market” forces at odds with the interests of the vast majority. So much for democracy… that is until ruin or revolution emerge.

After usury, predation, and ruin arise from oligarchic, undemocratic, economies controlled by ruling-elite bankers, when the inevitable crisis or depression hits then some group or other must be blamed. Enter the Jews, Chinese, or Indians – depending on the country and continent. Regardless of locale, due precisely to a lack of public ownership of central banks, and due to all the dismal effects flowing from oligarchic banking and economy, it is these ethnic groups whichm historically, emerge as targets… and eventually pay the price of undemocratic banking structures.

In other words, short of reform, what has happened in the past will most certainly happen in the future given that anti-semitism and worse is born and bred by “independent” central banks and their captive institutions – i.e., the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and any government controlled by the few in order to make possible the exploitation of the many.

For example, few remain aware today that after World War I, the infamous Dawes Plan for war reparations was drawn and dictated by international bankers – i.e., the owners of central banks. Aside from funding both sides of the conflict, it was their post-war, counterproductive, “shock therapy” which produced a Hitler and a virulent anti-semitism on the European continent… with devastating consequences.

Given the oligarchic structure, it is not that any one particular elite or ethnic group happens to own or control a central bank, or predominate in the banking field. Instead, it is the institution of private central banks per se which proves a scourge upon mankind with its invitation to misfeasance, inflation, and powers of the few to dissemble democracy, social justice, and progressive economy in general. In short, it is the structure, stupid.

Despite capital’s media propaganda, many more people around the world today are awakening to the nature of banking tyranny, to a reality of oligarchy everywhere, and the pervasive lack of effective democratic structure in “free market” institutions and “free trade” regimes which control our lives. We do not elect our trade representatives, our Federal Reserve board members, our United Nations representative, and we have no National Initiative with which to defeat the many corruptions of the ruling class.

In this sick milieu, as surely as night follows day, oligarchy and the predation which follows from imperialism breed backlash and movements of the people to regain their rightful powers and interests.

Today, many more “money trust” victims from around the world seek to overthrow both local and international oligarchies in order to come out from under the tyranny of latter-day Dawes plans and undemocratic, GATT-NAFTA, trade schemes. The latter being an uncompensated, effectively forced, trade regime fast-tracked by capital past wage-laboring majorities. Unsuited for a still disparate and largely undemocratic world, this sorry regime not only rewards the greater-slave and induces global oligopoly but, due to a lack of compensating and incentivizing tariffs, induces a race to the bottom in standards, and generates costly environmental ruin by greatly increasing the fossil-fuel transport of “goods” around the globe.

With the ruling elite’s program of “interdependency and “harmonization” not approved by the people via National Initiatives, they lack any real democratic impetus or approval of their terms. Yet these schemes abide due to our increasing impotence and the capture of “our” representatives by capital’s money machine and global media empire.

Despite the people’s rights, wants, and needs reform still remains problematic today due to the fact that oligarchy, enclosure, and capital’s political corruption have proceeded to the point where government itself has been disarmed by money-dependent politicians who have become captives of capital. As a result of this sick setup, legislatures filled with capital-dependent, re-electable, politicians, and capital’s “free press” all fail to represent the vast, wage-earning, majority.

Wherever society is so corrupt it can only fail as vital, balancing, reform and economic democracy cannot emerge… without getting to the endgame point of maximum ruin and exploitation. Thus, as in the past, ruling elite predation and oligarchy will likely proceed to the point where debt bubbles and currency ruin mean that new pogroms of Jews, Chinese, or Indians become inevitable – all due to gross factor imbalance in society and ruling oligarchies fed and bred by private central banks.

Having seen this sorry dynamic emerge many times throughout history, one would think the very people in the forefront of movements to re-establish constitutional purse powers and democratic banking would be those of Jewish, Chinese, and Indian extraction. Count one such figure in Murray Rothbard, the libertarian economist, who noted that “if government becomes `independent of politics’ it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy.”

Indeed, exactly this is what the “Federal” Reserve, Euro-Land, and all capital-controlled institutions have become – self-perpetuating oligarchies. Wherever such “factor” imbalance prevails, real reform must emerge or turmoil, terror, and revolution are assured.

“5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

Communist Manifesto #5,
–Karl Marx & Fred. Engels

“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens… while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some… who are (then) the object of hatred.”

–John Maynard Keynes

“[There must be] some dilution of sovereignty, to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power… the establishment of a common money, might be invested in a body created by and responsible to the principal trading and investing peoples. This would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money…”

–John Foster Dulles, CFR Founder

“The Fed is exactly what Karl Marx called for in the fifth plank of his Communist Manifesto… The founders of the United States certainly had no intention of allowing the federal or state governments to issue paper money. Never in their wildest dreams did they envisage creating a privately run central bank with vast powers to inflate and manipulate our nation’s currency and credit… Inflation sets the stage for the rise of a tyrant…

Older Americans have seen our nation’s currency deteriorate from the most honest fiduciary money the world has ever known to fiat money redeemable in nothing… its value is being continually eroded by the monetary policies set by the privately run Federal Reserve… It is not by chance that our nation’s money degenerated from the most honest paper money in history to completely irredeemable paper money. Nor was it by chance that the Federal Reserve replaced the U.S. Treasury as the issuer of our money.

Determined individuals planned and accomplished this change as a major step in their conspiratorial plan to steer our nation into totalitarian control and world government… The Fed is an unconstitutionally established entity that is independent of government. But its leaders do not operate independently of the conspiratorial force that brought it into existence. That force, working over several generations to bring about the tyrannical `new world order’ can be found in the membership of the Council On Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Rhodes Scholar program, the Bilderberg movement, and numerous other organs of the `Establishment.’ It is a force that dominates government as well as the Fed.”

–John F. McManus, Financial Terrorism Review


“The BIS (Bank for International Settlements) is the central bank’s central bank… its members are the central banks of the industrial world… It is certainly the most powerful financial institution in the world.”

–Dennis Birch

“The powers of financial capital had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”

–Carroll Quigley, Tragedy And Hope

“The World Trade Organization, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund and other financial institutions virtually write economic policy and parliamentary legislation. With a deadly combination of arrogance and ruthlessness, they take their sledgehammers to fragile, interdependent, historically complex societies and devastate them, all under the fluttering banner of ‘reform’.”

–Arundhati Roy

“The counterfeit option is available only if a country happens to be in the unique position of having its currency accepted as the medium of international trade, as has been the case for the United States. In that event it is possible to create money out of nothing, and other nations have no choice but to accept it… The result is that America has continued to finance its trade deficit with fiat money – counterfeit, if you will – a feat which no other nation in the world could hope to accomplish.”

–G. Edward Griffin

“The infamous `conditionalities’ policy for procuring emergency IMF loans… remains in force to this day… The prospective recipient of money must convince inspectors it is implementing a “realistic rate of exchange… as defined by the IMF. The focus on the exchange rate allows the IMF to control a country’s fiscal policy, government expenditure, tax policy, and public enterprise policy – in short, every aspect of national economic life… The formula is invariably the same. The debtor country is forced to slash imports, severely devalue its domestic currency (ensuring that relative dollar-denominated debt increases by multiples), and impose draconian cuts in government subsidies for food and other necessaries, while opening vital areas of the national economy to foreign takeovers on the cheap, justified as `free market reforms’ by the IMF.”

–Executive Intelligence Review

In 1930, the Bank For International Settlements – BIS – was created by a coterie of international bankers for the purpose of handling collection of German war debt. Today, it functions as a central bank for central bankers.

The BIS remains a nearly invisible affair despite wielding immense powers without being subject to any democratic office, imput, or influence. In short, not only is the BIS self-created and without political legitimacy but it wields great, behind-the-scenes, powers.

This institution emerged as a way to implement war reparation policies devised by international bankers – i.e the infamous Dawes Plan. As mentioned, these “shock therapy” burdens devastated Germany after the First World War and led directly to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Today, these same policies are plunging the rest of the world into crisis by increasing indebtedness and servitude to international bankers.

In Europe, the objective of the BIS is to remove whatever control any national central banks retain and move toward a private, European, central bank with the BIS as supranational power above and beyond any control by the people.

As for the World Bank and International Monetary fund, after the chaos of World War II, the WB and IMF were formed in 1945 at the Bretton Woods conference. Capitalized with currency and gold from developed nations they provided credit for post-war reconstruction. Early borrowers were the devastated nations of Europe as reconstruction took priority over new development, until the late 1950’s when lending to lesser-developed countries proceeded in the wake of de-colonization.

This conference gave birth to The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). In effect, the Bretton Woods did for the world what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did for the United States. It provided a framework for the International Bankers to place the World into economic bondage through debt and set up the IMF to force austerity measures – in order to service debt and restructure economies, societies, and cultures according to the Banker’s specification. The hardships generated as a result have been legion.

Another primary reason for Bretton Woods was to stabilize currency values and prevent competitive devaluations from ruining economies and rewarding speculators – something now under way big time due to our lack of tariff freedom and absence of compensating tariffs – which would obviate having to ruin the value of one’s own currency “in order to compete.”

Originally, the IMF was to be a currency stabilization fund, enabling governments to intervene to maintain currency values by protecting them from speculators and “market forces.” After wreckage and war emerged from the Dawes Plan and Great Depression, Bretton Woods was then ostensibly intended to limit the influence which private, unelected, bankers exerted in international finance.

Several decades later, President Nixon removed the dollar from a gold peg in 1971, and Bretton Woods, in effect, ended. As a result, currencies could then fluctuate freely and be driven by the whims of speculators, allowing destruction of stable economies by speculators in a “casino” environment.

Given their structure, the IMF and World Bank function as instruments of a global financial oligarchy – i.e., one demanding private central banks and power to implement shock therapies serving bank interests by destroying the wealth, freedom, economic diversity and independence of people everywhere.

In practice, the World Bank, IMF, and BIS impose conditions determined by private capital – i.e., the unelected. While giving lip service to “public” objectives, a capital-controlled World Bank-IMF continues to prop up despotic regimes while undermining democracy and domestic freedom and economy. As a result, democratic trade processes are denied and “free market” enclosures, privatizations, foreign-debt, and import-export regimes enriching multinationals are imposed. Working together, WB-IMF-BIS policies and GATT remove decision-making powers from the people and give capital a veto power in international, unelected, tribunals and private central banks removed from the people’s influence.

With World Bank loans come debt burdens and explicit conditions on capital use – which translate into implicit ones on allowable forms of politics, culture, and economy. This means western-style cultural domination. Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers revealed the intent when he stated “countries that do the right things will be rewarded with rapid capital inflows. Those that do things wrong are punished.” Given the IMF’s makeup, any democratic freedom and wage-labor power is seen as “wrong.” Another former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, stated the real goal: “ending the Link between human rights and trade is a very good objective to shoot for.” Very Good?

Capital’s agenda here means we must sever economy from morality and from any assessment of human rights, democratic prerogative, and environmental condition. Given this amoral “engagement” ethic, with the people’s own money and loan guarantees banking elites proceed to reward the “efficient” and punish more democratic, wage-labor oriented, systems as well as ecologically conservative and communal styles of life and economy.

A “World Bank” controlled by capital enriches mega-contractors, multinationals, and dictators as long as they do the “right” thing. What “doing the right thing” means is capitalist code for destroying labor unions, persecuting dissenters, defeating native land rights, perfecting enclosure, and crushing institutions threatening to capital’s hegemony. Not only is the “right” thing determined by the few but those working to preserve natural liberty, sovereignty, cooperative organization, and seeking labor and land reforms are often abused, imprisoned, or exterminated for their resistance to capital’s forced interdependency.

Once nations have significant foreign debt burdens (often undertaken by desperate rulers without the approval of the people) they find they have little alternative or freedom of dissent without incurring the wrath of institutions able to dictate the terms of “their” culture, economy, and trade. This neo-slavery emerges as a result of our lack of public ownership of central banks and a media now dominated by capital – see

Aide from the debilitating and disastrous mountain of public and private, interest-bearing, debt since the advent of the Fed our currency has shrunk in value by over 4% per year. As a result of imprudent, profit-seeking, management of “our” currency by bankers and “deficits don’t matter” politicians alike, the value of the dollar has fallen over 95% in value since the inception of the Fed, and some 30% in the past year or so against other major currencies – the latter decline due largely to the lack of compensating tariff arrangements appropriate for a still very disparate and undemocratic world, and a deliberate, beggar-thy-neighbor, policy of currency ruin.

With the removal of tariff freedom and rational trade policies due to GATT-NAFTA (another ruling class coup similar to the Fed scheme) monetary officials are now purposely driving down the value of our dollar today to try to eliminate horrendous trade imbalances. By attempting to substitute monetary policy for trade policy, the value of all our assets and savings, national and personal, are driven downward. In effect, currency ruin is the greatest of tariffs, and everything we must now import to live (because “free trade” has nearly wiped out domestic producers) costs more… and then more again due to deliberate currency decline. So much for the benefits of forced free trade, for “universal gain” trade ideology and monetary stability.


“He who monopolizes all media of communication has full power to keep a tight hand on the individuals’ minds and souls.”

–Ludwig Von Mises

“All money is created in the form of debt to the privately owned banking cartel. Imagine if you could create money out of thin air. Imagine you have the credit cards of all the nations in your pocket. Your first impulse is to lend money to your nominees so they can buy most of the world’s real wealth for you. Your second impulse is to establish a totalitarian system (“world government” globalization) to prevent any nation from challenging this system or defaulting on their “debt” to you. To make them accept “world government,” you need to weaken them by having them fight among themselves, run up huge debts for armaments (which you will sell them), kill off the cream of their manhood, and become demoralized and decadent. You accomplish this through your ownership of politicians and the press and your control of MI-6, CIA who will carry out assassinations and acts of terror. This is the real history of the last 300 years.”

–Henry Makow

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

–David Rockefeller, 1991

“In the United States, in particular, the ability of the upper and upper-middle classes to dominate the marketplace of ideas has generally allowed these strata to shape the entire society’s perception of political reality and the range of realistic political and social possibilities. While westerners usually equate the marketplace with freedom of opinion, the hidden hand of the market can be almost as potent an instrument of control as the iron fist of the state.”

–Benjamin Ginsberg, The Captive Public

The “free press” envisioned by our forefathers is now owned and corporate-controlled by the same few hands who control our central bank. With capital controlling both money and media it results in a nearly insurmountable oligarchy, and removes the people from effective power over their lives. Only the internet remains today to allow people to find out the truth of their captivity, and work together to emerge from neo-slavery and corporate-state propaganda.

Despite the people’s rights, wants, and needs, real banking reform remains problematic due to the fact that oligarchy, enclosure, and capital’s political corruption have proceeded to the point where not only banking and key governmental posts but money-dependent politicians and major media sources have become organs of capital – with balance and fairness a thing of the past. As a result, legislatures filled with capital-dependent, re-electable, politicians, now cower before capital’s media and fail to represent the vast, wage-earning, majority. In short, the Fourth Estate has become the First.

Heard any media debate on a public central bank lately? Ever?

Know the persons who own your central bank and major media?

Know the results of a Fed audit?

Know where the gold in “Fort Knox” is? The Amount?

Know why the Fed has an exemption from the Freedom of information Act?

Wherever democracy is so eviscerated and fraudulent it can only fail and necessary reforms cannot emerge. As a result, both predation and oligarchy proceed to the point where ruin and revolution occur, and with it new pogroms of Jews, Chinese, or Indians (depending upon the country) become inevitable. All such ruin, terrorism, and “kill the rich” retribution are due to the maintenance of what I term a gross “factor” imbalance in society – i.e., an imbalance of power between labor and capital (see this writer’s Cap-Com, The Economics of Balance). It is the primary reason ruling oligarchies emerge and lead to monetary excesses fed and bred by their private central banks.

Having seen this sorry dynamic emerge so many times throughout history, one would think the very people in the forefront of movements to re-establish constitutional purse powers and democratic banking would be those of Jewish, Chinese, and Indian extraction. Count one such figure in Murray Rothbard, who noted the obvious fact in his last book (The Case Against The Fed) that “if government becomes `independent of politics’ it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy.”

Indeed, exactly this is what the “Federal” Reserve, Euro-Land, and all capital-controlled institutions have become – self-perpetuating oligarchies. Wherever such rude imbalance prevails, real reform must either emerge or turmoil, terror, and revolution are assured.

In sum, for those interested in central bank history and reform the following books are critical: The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard, The Creature From Jekyl Island by G. Edward Griffin, The Secrets Of The Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, The Legalized Crime Of Banking by Silas Walter Adams, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, and The Coming Battle by M.W. Walbert – a book lost, or rather buried, for over one hundred years which contains valuable insight and the hidden history about the battle over banking from the very founding of the Republic.

Together, these essential books reveal the largely unknown history of central banks, explain their machinations, and serve to counter the pervasive “independent” central bank propaganda. It is our politicians who must re-educate themselves on this matter and gather the courage to change a destructive, undemocratic, and unconstitutional banking system, as well as a corrupt campaign-finance and media regime. These ideas, debates, and reforms must come into being for us to emerge from a ruthless and counterproductive global oligarchy. Without new knowledge for the electorate and new courage from our representatives we cannot stop predation and ruin, prevent future pogroms, or ever hope to render a dismal and undemocratic banking structure a part of history and not of our future.

- How to Bring Economic Democracy to the U.S.A. -

A Proposal that Would Require the Following Amendment to the Federal Constitution:


Money and Credit – Congress Asserts Power To Coin Money, and Emit Bills of Credit

[SECTION 1.] The Congress hereby asserts the power, granted in this Constitution, to coin money, and to regulate the value thereof. – And further, to emit non-interest-bearing bills of credit directly through the Treasury Department (on the Credit, and in the Name of the People).

[SECTION 2.] The Congress hereby authorizes the Treasury to issue a sufficient quantity of “dollars” to purchase back the capital stock of the Federal Reserve Bank from the private owners, by eminent domain.

[SECTION 3.] The Federal Reserve Bank shall henceforth be subsumed into the Treasury, and function as a Sub-Treasury Central Bank of issue. Henceforth they shall be one institution, and be called, formally, the Treasury of the Common-wealth of the United States of America, or commonly, “The Treasury of Common-wealth.”

[SECTION 4.] The Treasury of Common-wealth, as the fountainhead of Credit-Creation in the nation shall henceforth issue as Money only non-interest- bearing Notes, and Mint coins of pure Specie, stamped with their weight and fineness. The books, accounts and records of the Treasury shall continually be open to public scrutiny.

[SECTION 5.] The Treasury of Common-wealth shall honor, and continue to pay (by means of non-interest-bearing notes, and checks) the interest on all out-standing U. S. Treasury Securities, as they come due. There shall be no further issues of Treasury Securities, or Bonds.

[SECTION 6.] The State Treasury departments, of each of the fifty States, are also hereby empowered, by the same creative principle [formerly given by charter to banks] to create Credit within their own jurisdictions, in the form of checks, signed by the State comptrollers, in accordance with appropriations made by the State legislatures, for the purpose of maintaining State institutions, infrastructure, and salaries.

[SECTION 7.] In accordance with the provisions of this Article, all banks and financial institutions in America shall receive new charters from the Treasury. The Treasury shall henceforth have the unique and sole power within the nation to create Credit – a function formerly granted by the government (and thus erroneously delegated) only to Banks. Henceforth private banks may charge interest, to service accounts.

[SECTION 8.] In Sum, this Article defines, and enhances the powers granted to Congress and the Treasury, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, of this Constitution. Furthermore, it amends and modifies Article II, Section 10, Clause 1, to empower State Treasuries to create (a limited amount of) non-inflationary Credit, in the form of check book money in order to meet the pressing needs of the states.

–Mark Walter Evans,

- Books of Interest -
Secrets of The Federal Reserve – Eustace Mullins
The Creature From Jekyll Island – G. Edward Griffin
The Case Against The Fed – Murray Rothbard
The Coming Battle – M.W. Walbert
Financial Terrorism – John F. McManus
The Legalized Crime Of Banking – Silas Walter Adams
Separation Of Bank & State – Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man – John Perkins
Cap-Com, The Economics Of Balance – Kent Welton

?free lakota bank?

December 5, 2008 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under News

The Republic of Lakotah is in NO WAY associated with this new “freelakotabank.” Caveat Emptor!

If you navigate to the “Management” of this “bank,” you will notice that the managers are “coming soon.”

Weekend Update 01

December 2, 2008 by Russell Means Freedom  
Filed under Commentaries

Russell comments on the “house of cards”that IS the U.S. economy, the coming economic depression, the Mumbai terrorist attack and President Obama’s most significant initiative; the institution of a 16 team college football playoff.

Russell Means Weekend Update #1

« Previous PageNext Page »