-Caveat Lector- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Euphorian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 2:40 PM Subject: [CTRL] About the other 68%
Except for a few points, this is a pretty accurate history. Joshua2 > -Caveat Lector- > > http://www.accessv.com/~yehuda/Essay1.html > > IB Diploma Requirement: Extended Essay - History > > Professor: David H. Layton,Myers Park High School, Charlotte North Carolina > > Due Date: 15 October 1997 > > The Palestinian Powder-Keg: The Negative Impact of Great Britain on Zionist Reform > Movements in Palestine, 1917-1948 > > Since the beginning of the Common Era, the Jewish people have been without a peaceful > national homeland. The Roman general Titus sacked the Temple of Jerusalem and > conquered the state of Judea in 70 C.E.. As a result, the Jewish people were thrown into > perpetual exile from their promised homeland during a period now known as the Diaspora. > This period began to come to an end on 2 November 1917. A declaration contained in a > letter by Britain's Minister of Foreign Affairs, A.J. Balfour, to the representative of Hibbat > Tziyyon (Lovers of Zion), Baron Edmund de Rothschild, which officially committed the United > Kingdom to the concept of a free Jewish state. It is a common misperception, however that > the British 'provided', rather heroically, the Jewish state with their independence. On the > contrary, British involvement tended to hinder Jewish independence movements. The initial > intent of the British involvement was to secure a foothold in the Middle East that would be > favorable to British concerns. This intervention contributed greatly to the already building > resentment and distrust of Western civilization, and provided further inspiration for the > growing movement of Pan-Arabism. The intervention of the United Kingdom has done little > to benefit the creation of Israel, as the Jews were forced to accomplish this with support > from the United States and the Soviet Union; rather it has fueled a contempt for all of > Western civilization which is still at the root of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict today. > > The Zionist movement was relatively new to the Middle Eastern theatre. Although > historically there has been an indigenous population of Jews in Palestine, Jewish > immigration did not begin until the 1870s. At this time, many Jews from Eastern Europe and > Russia journeyed to Palestine in order to create a new Jewish state on the foundations of > the ancient one (Ben-Gurion 18). Jews continued to immigrate to Israel, but remained a > relative minority. However, the Zionists were able to effectively rally behind the cause of the > Jewish national homeland to create one voice; they maintained a great propaganda > machine through the World press as well as in day- to-day information (Antonius 38). > Through these means, the Zionists wished to create worldwide sympathy for their cause. > Although there was a Jewish presence within Palestine, it was far from significant enough > to cause any sort of revolution. Outside support, such as that from the Jews of other > nations, would be necessary to bolster the Zionist's efforts. > > Before the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Jewish population in Palestine was a vast > minority. In 1931, Jews made up only 14 % of the country's demographics; by 1948, Jews > still could only claim 32% of the nation's population (Said 55). This discrepancy in the > national population would contribute to the conflict between the two groups. Although far > outnumbered, the United Kingdom stated their desire to create a homeland for the Jews. > Britain had taken control over the area through an agreement with the French signed in > February 1916. This agreement, known officially as the Asia Minor agreement but often > referred to as the Sykes- Picot Agreement, divided up the territories of the soon-to-be > fallen Ottoman Empire between the French and the British. Palestine began to take on a > strategic importance from a military standpoint due to its proximity to the Suez Canal. Since > Britain is an island nation, she relies heavily on her naval supremacy. This relies on control > of a primary world waterway. Although the British have maintained a protectorate in Egypt > since 1857, proximity in the north could only be viewed as positive in the case of an > invasion. British Prime Minister David-Lloyd George intended on making sure Palestine > remained in British hands (Metz 34). > > However, Zionist movements in Palestine were increasing their effect on Britain's foreign > policy. Due to the ongoing World War, Lloyd George and Balfour feared that if Britain did not > favor an independent Jewish state that Germany may, therefore influencing the support of > Jews throughout Russia and the United States. These Jews had much clout, and it was the > opinion of the Ministry of Foreign affairs that if they won Jewish support they could keep > Russia in the war and further the plight for American intervention (Metz 34). Hence the > issuance of the Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917. Balfour's letter stated that: > > . . .[on] behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with > Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. His > Majesty's Government view with the favour the establishment in Palestine of a national > home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the > achievement of this object (Balfour 75). > > This statement officially committed Britain to the Zionist cause and sparked the immigration > of Jews from around the world to Palestine. > > It appeared that the Jewish people were eventually going to become the majority rule in > Palestine, so naturally the British government supported them. The British felt it beneficial > to their economic trade, since it was near the Suez Canal. Also, it was near the oil-rich > Iraq, another of their new territories gained as a result of the Peace of Paris. Palestine > could also serve as a communications and military outpost between India and the British > Isles. Therefore, the British Foreign Service felt it necessary to support the Zionist reform > movements in order to potentially gain an ally. > > The San Remo conference of April 1920 illustrated the plans for a system where spoils > would be divided properly between the victors of the first World War, while attempting to > provide the Middle East with some sense of self-determinism. Known as the British > Mandate, it included provisos that recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people > with Palestine" and called for "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home." The > terms of this plan were adopted by the League of Nations Council on 24 July 1922 and > affected 29 September 1923. The United States, not a member of the League of Nations, > officially entered its support for a Jewish nation through a resolution of the United States > Congress passed on 30 June 1922 (Metz 36). This series of resolutions and agreements > legally committed the Western allies to the idea of a sovereign Jewish state. > > As a result of the Western allies' commitment, the World Zionist Organization created the > Jewish Agency in 1929 in order to coordinate Jewish immigration into Palestine. The Jews > enjoyed increased power, as the WZO and the Jewish Agency, under provisions set forth by > the British Mandate, created the Asefat Hanivharim, the Israeli elected assembly, and the > Vaad Leumi, or the National Council. This council's job was to forward Jewish > advancements in education and religion. They established the chief rabbinate in 1921, took > control of the Hebrew school system, opened the Israel Institute of Technology, commonly > referred to as the Technion. The WZO also increased purchases of land, increasing Jewish > held property from 60 120 hectares in 1922 to 155 140 hectares in 1939. This provided for > the serious growth of Jewish urban centers, resulting in increased political power for the > Jews (Metz 40). > > The native Arabs of Palestine, on the other hand, were somewhat suppressed by these pro- > Zionist reforms. In April 1920 the Supreme Allied Council decided that Great Britain would > be the predominate power in Palestine. It was necessary, however, that the League of > Nations approve a Palestine British Mandate in order for Britain to take full control. The > official Mandate, approved on 24 July 1922, states: > > . . . The establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly > understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights > of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by > Jews in any other country . . . The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the > rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate > Jewish immigration under suitable conditions. (Palestine British Mandate) > > Although this British Mandate provided for the needs of the Arabs of Palestine, the Arabs > nevertheless felt betrayed by the British. The main area of concern for the Arabs was the > question of land ownership. As the Jews began to immigrate back into Palestine, they > bought up mass quantities of land. They bought properties made available by rich Turkish and Arab land lords. These were the very worst properties and sold by the Efendies to the Jews at exorbitant prices. These are the famous swamps which the Jewish pioneers drained and turned into viable land at great cost to themselves. Many died from malaria. > The Arabs traditionally had never fully articulated the > concept of private property, What an OUTRAGEOUS lie. The Arabs have been around for a long time first conquering and then administering the lands. These were not stone age primitives. Land ownership in the Middle East has been going on for 5000 years. Secondly, it was the TURKS who administered that region. NOT the felaheen ( peasants ) who were slaves and sharecroppers to the absentee Turkish and Arab landlords. > and by 1936 many poor Arabs could not afford their land and > were forced to sell due to the allure of what they considered to be large profits. Forced to sell do to the allure of large profits??????? Hmmm. That's quite different than killing them off or driving them off the land and stealing it and making them slaves as the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and Spaniards did. Who was holding a gun to their heads? The Arab nationalists that's who. Poor Arabs were threatened AND killed for selling their land to Jews. While rich Arabs were doing it on the sly. Think about it. The Arabs were threatening their own people for letting in people of a different religion and culture. In America that was called Jim Crow. Or racism. Notice if you will that Zionist did not kill off the Arabs and steal their land as the Americans, Spanish, Australians, Canadians, and Kiwis did. They bought the land and worked it themselves which put the felaheen ( serfs ) out of work. This created resentment among the poor Arabs who had to give up slavery to their rich Arab masters. The Zionists were self sufficient as far as labor was concerned. > As a result, > there were a few extremely rich Arabs who benefited greatly under the British Mandate, > while the majority of the populus were forced to suffer in mediocrity (Metz 39). > > Since the Arabs were not used to the concept of private property, the Jews used this to > their advantage in order to purchase more land for less money. Arabs were swindled for > large tracts of land for little money. This dishonesty furthered the idea of the corruption of > Western civilization. This betrayal added to the already escalating conflict between the Jews > and the native population. This is bullshit. The Jews willingly paid outrageous ammounts for marginal lands. This isn't just he said, she said. There are records of these transactions. > > The Arabs were also betrayed on the global front. The United Kingdom had ensured all > Arabs of the region that they would be in full support of Arab independence, despite their > earlier 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement with the other European allies (Ayubi 137). The Arabs > began to feel that the West had suppressed their culture in order to further their own > attempts to gain material wealth. These blatant colonialist tendencies helped fuel the > contempt of Western civilization in the Middle East which would culminate in an outpouring > of cultural pride and revisionism, known as the Pan-Arabian movement. This is true. > > The Pan-Arabian movement initially emerged from the Palestinian and Arabian scholars > around the beginning of the twentieth century. These intellectuals were concerned with the > revival of the Arabic language and its literature, coupled with an Islamic renaissance (Ayubi > 136-7). However, as Western influence grew over the Middle East and Western colonialist > movements were encroaching upon the affairs of the Arabs, the nationalist ideals of Pan- > Arabism became political. Due to its colonial domination, the West now became the tyrant. > Contradicting earlier Arab political theory, which was pro-democratic and more liberal, > twentieth century Arab political philosophy dictates sacrifice for the state. Sati' Al-Husri, the > predominant Arab political theorist of the era, states on the topic of sacrifice: > > The national interests which may sometimes require a man to sacrifice his life, must > perforce entail in some cases the sacrifice of his freedom . . . He who refuses totally to > extinguish himself within the nation to which he belongs might in some cases find himself > lost to an alien nation that may one day conquer his father land. This is why I say > continuously and without hesitation that patriotism and nationalism come before all . . . > even above and before freedom. (S. Haim 90). > > This entire reversal from contemporary Western political theory can be directly attributed to > the resentment felt by many Arabs due to continuous Western intervention. Although > Arabian nationalism has been present for centuries, only recently have these theories taken > such a severe politicization and been applied to modern governmental practices. > > Unlike the portrayal some Westerners give to the conflict in the Middle East, it is not solely > of a religious nature. This concept is furthered by the stereotype of the evil Muslim trying to > conquer the Christian. Ironically, it seems to have been the other way around. Although not > of a religious nature, the Jews capitalized on the Arab situation, since their culture was only > beginning to revive itself. As demonstrated by Pan-Arabism, the conflict has been caused by > a desire by the Palestinian people for self rule. There were no Palestinian people at that time. There were Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews. The British had Palestinian Brigades in their army in WWII. These were Jewish. The people who lived in ( Mandate ) Palestine were Palestinians be they Arab or Jew. > In the efforts of the Western Allies to placate the Zionist reformers worldwide, they > neglected to view the opinions and concerns of the indigenous Palestinian peoples. Sherif > Hussein, a prominent pan-Arabist, sums up the initial Palestinian view point of their > homeland by stating, ". . . One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the > Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His > native soil could not retain its hold on him . . ." (Blum 64-5). Until Jewish immigrants began > to threaten the sovereignty of Palestine did the native population actually begin to care. There was no soveriegnty of Palestine. It belonged to the Turks which considered it part of their Damascus Province. Then it belonged to the Brits who RENAMED IT PALESTINE. The Arabs who lived there and now claimed peoplehood and sovereignty as Palestinians, CAN'T EVEN SAY THEIR NAME BECAUSE THERE IS NO _P_ IN THEIR LANGUAGE. They pronounce it falastin or balastin because it is a foreign word. No one called Palestine Palestine for over a thousand years after the Romans lost it. The Brits reintroduced that name in the early 20th century. > However, instead of attempting to live under a dual cultural system, the Arabs chose rather > to vehemently oppose any pro-Jewish reforms. Sir Herbert Samuels, the first high > commissioner of Palestine, wanted to created an elected legislative body and an advisory > council for the Arabs. He also wanted to create an Arab Agency, similar to the Jewish > Agency, in order to best dictate the affairs of all peoples of Palestine. Although the British > policies set forth by Samuels and the Palestine British Mandate provided legally for the > political and social rights of indigenous Palestinians, they however remained dissatisfied. > The Arabs, thinking that their participation in these programs under the British Mandate > would mean their compliance with the Balfour Declaration, refused and rejected the British > Mandate. These actions would therefore result in no further cooperation between them > (Metz 38). > > Arab discontent with the British Mandate and Jewish immigration came to a head in a series > of armed revolts, starting in 1928, which culminated in the Arab Revolt of 1936. The > politicization of the Pan-Arabist ideals had caused many Arabs to become radical > nationalists, which gave a militant arm to the growing movement of contempt for Europe. > The revolt commenced on 23 September 1928, when Palestinians accused British > authorities of segregation at the Western Wall. Since this was the day before the beginning > of Yom Kippur, the Palestine nationalists viewed this as a religious outrage. The segregation > sparked a number of other violent insurrections, including the destruction of a Jewish bus, > and sparked almost a decade of bloodshed between the two nationalities (Kolinsky 35). An > Arab Higher Committee, a coalition of Arab political parties, was formed, and a national > strike was declared. The AHC demanded that Jewish immigration immediately cease; that > no further land sales would be granted to Jewish landholders; and that an Arab national > government would be established (Klieman 64). > > This Palestinian reaction caused the British government to generate a various number of > documents throughout the decade. Known as White Papers on Palestine, these documents > attempted to compromise some aspects of their Jewish policy to the Arabs. The most anti- > Semitic, the White Paper of May 1939 severely restricted all future land sales and called for > the creation of an Arab government by 1949. Most importantly, however, it locked the > Jewish population into a permanent minority status, only permitting them to make up one- > third of the national demographics (Kolinsky 227). The WZO and the Jewish Agency > vehemently reject this proposal. Ben-Gurion even went as far to say "I do not exclude the > possibility that [the Palestinian Jews] will have to revolt against England and conquer a > Jewish state in part of the country" (Y. Haim, 143-44). The AHC found it unacceptable as > well. With the onset of the Second World War, however, talks concerning the White Paper > diminished. Although there were some attempts at Jewish insurrection, Jews mostly > complied with the new regulations (Metz 47- 48). Britain once again shows that they were > concerned with the Palestinian question from a strategic perspective only. They turned their > back on the Jews due to the onset of war and their military's dependency on Arabian > petroleum. > > After the initial stages of the Second World War, however, the British Empire began to > change her policy concerning the Palestine situation. The United States, not yet entered into > the conflict, desired to remain neutral militarily. However, it was clear that President > Franklin Delano Roosevelt was vehemently opposed to the tyranny of the Third Reich. In a > meeting held on board the warship Prince of Wales in the North Atlantic on 14 August 1941, > Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, issued a joint declaration > on their desired state of world affairs for the years following the Second World War. Known > as the Atlantic Charter, it states on the topic of self-determinism: > > [The governments of the United States and Great Britain] respect the right of all peoples to > choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign > rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them; . . . > after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, [the Allies] hope to see established a peace > which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, > and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in > freedom from fear and want . . . (Atlantic Charter, Article Three and Article Six) > > The Atlantic Charter demonstrated Churchill and Britain's new policy that all states should > have the right to determine their own forms of government. This Charter also shows the > first inklings of United States influence in Britain's policy concerning Palestine. Later the > United States would carry much weight in the decisions of the British Empire on their Near > Eastern colony. > > Britain's adherence to the Atlantic Charter shows that she was once again willing to > manipulate this colony for the benefit of her own foreign policy. The United States was > committed to the concept of self-determinism for all nations and peoples of the world. > Britain, not necessarily this idealistic, agreed to the terms of the Atlantic Charter in order to > appease the Americans and hopefully convince them to enter the war against Nazi > Germany. They used Palestine to placate the desires of a third party yet again. > > As a result of Nazi Germany's Holocaust against the Jews, hundreds of thousands of Jews > lived homeless across the European countryside. Pressure from the United States > government, of which Britain depended on for post-war reconstruction aid, combined with > the pressure to end colonialism, caused the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, a joint > effort between the United States and Britain, to declare its opposition to the 1939 White > Paper and recommend the commencement of immigration to Palestine of 100 000 > European Jews. Despite their recommendations, the British refused. David Ben-Gurion, > current leader of the Jewish Agency, organized a rebellion of Jews in late 1945. According > to Ben-Gurion: > > The post-war period began with a ruthless crackdown by the British Labour government on > Jewish immigration and all Jewish defence initiatives. Haganah (The major Jewish defense > force) thereupon earned British enmity by devoting itself to illegal immigration. . . . > Whenever the British caught suspected Haganah members they threw them in jail. They > were forever confiscating our painfully gathered stores of arms and vehicles, many of these > admittedly stolen from Mandate supply depots. (Ben-Gurion 80) > > Due to continued problems with the Jews, the British were forced to move one-hundred > thousand troops into Palestine and increase the maintenance budget of this garrison > significantly. As a result of these problems, the British House of Commons, on 18 February > 1947, decided that it would be necessary to present the Palestine problem to the United > Nations. On 15 May 1947, the United Nations General Assembly created an eleven member > committee, known as the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNISCOP), to > report and find a solution on the problem of Palestine. The members of UNISCOP > deliberated on several plans of partition. On 31 August, UNSCOP reported back a complex > system of partition that included an international section, a Jewish section, and an Arab > section. There would be an economic union created to unify the three areas. This plan > wanted to give the Jews nearly fourteen thousand square kilometers of Palestine, nearly > half the land area. The UNISCOP partition plan was furiously opposed by the Arab states, > who viewed the Jewish presence in the Middle East as a fully-Westernized state. However, > as a result of the support of the United States and the Soviet Union, the United Nations > General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which adopted the partition plan on 29 November > 1947 (Aronson 73). Although not fully complying with the League of Nations ruling twenty- > five years earlier, the Zionist General Council was willing to participate. The League of Arab > States, however, stated that they would prevent implementation of the plan by any means > necessary (Rosenwasser 49). > > Due to this impasse, the Arab Higher Committee called for a general strike in early 1948. > This prompted the Arabs to attack predominantly Jewish centers, such as Jerusalem. > Jewish militant factions, the Haganah and the Yishuv, responded by arming themselves with > Czechoslovakian weaponry (Herzog 15). The stage was now set for the Jewish war of > Independence. > > Up until now, the British has used the Palestine situation to their benefit. The Balfour > Declaration of 1917 provided the British with support from a growing Jewish contingency in > Palestine. First off, British support of the Jews would benefit support for the British > worldwide, and maybe keep the faltering Russia in the war and provide the United States > with more of a reason to enter. The British were forced to act on this situation as a result > of rumored German interest in providing the Palestinian Jews with support. Strategically, > Palestine provided Britain with a colony in close proximity to the Suez Canal, while giving > them an area of control in the oil-rich Middle East. The Suez Canal is a viable economic > corridor and if the British had some measure of control over it, they could further exert their > power in world affairs. Hence, the British supplied the Jewry with increased power in order > to win their support for the United Kingdom in exchange for their alliance and favoritism. > > However, once the Arab Palestinians began to become troublesome, the British defaulted > on their earlier commitments to the Palestinian Jews. The White Paper of 1939 clearly > illustrates that the British interest in the creation of a Jewish state was merely a ploy to win > the support of the Jews. Now that Arab support was needed, Britain betrayed the Jewish > populus to please the Arabs and fulfill their need for oil. Although the Arab Higher > Committee found this proposition unacceptable, it still showed the intent of Britain to > placate the Arabs desire for a pan-Arabist Middle East. This is further illustrated by the > enforcement of the regulations set forth by the White Paper during the years of the Second > World War. Although their was Jewish support for the British Army against Hitler, the British > government still found it necessary to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine as well as > restrict their land sales. Once again, the United Kingdom has used the ploy of the > Palestinian Jewry to their strategical benefit. > > After the Second World War, when hundreds upon thousands of homeless Jews littered the > European countryside, Britain once again used the situation in their colony in Palestine to > further their own measures. Although not initially withdrawing from Palestine, Britain > eventually withdrew due not only to the expense of the intensified garrison which they > located there but also due to United States pressure. Without this pressure, Palestine would > have remained under British jurisdiction. > > With the dissolution of the Ottoman Turkish empire at the close of World War One came > British colonial domination over the near East under the British Mandate. This allowed the > British to manipulate the peoples of these countries like they had done in their other various > colonies. Unlike in India, where the British had much to lose economically if British control > were to cease, Palestine was a relatively unproductive territory, and the British only held it > for the territorial prestige which came with maintaining a large empire. The cause for the > intense hatred between the indigenous Palestinians and the foreign Jews is not one of a > theological nature; rather it is merely the result of political exploitation and manipulation by > the British Empire. The Palestinians only yearned for self-rule, as so many other nations of > the time. Time and time again the Palestinian peoples were suppressed by the Europeans > and the Jews, not for pro-Semitic reasons; rather it was for mere political clout in the eyes > of not only the world Jews but foreign governments. However, when the Palestinians were > rambunctious enough with their rebellions, the British totally reversed their position, as > proven by the 1939 White Paper. This conflict illustrates the negative effects of the neo- > Imperialist movements of the late nineteenth century and provides strong support for the > cause of national sovereignty and determinism. > > Works Cited > > Antonius, George. "Palestine is the Arab Birthright." Israel: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David > L. > > Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc.1989. > > Aronson, Shlomo. Conflict and Bargaining in the Middle East: An Israeli Perspective. > > Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. > > "Atlantic Charter." The Yearbook of the United Nations, 1946-1947. New York: The United > > Nations, 1947. > > Ayubi, Nazih N. Over-Stating The Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East. > > London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 1995. > > Balfour, A.J. Opinions and Agreements. London: 1927. > > Ben-Gurion, David. Memoirs. Geneva: Covenant Communications Corporation, 1970. > > Blum, Yehuda Z. "Israel Has Treated the Palestinians Fairly." Israel: Opposing > > Viewpoints. Ed. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc.1989. > > Haim, Sylvia G. Arab Nationalism: An Anthology. Berkeley: University of California Press, > > 1970. > > Haim, Yehoyada. Abandonment of Illusions: Zionist Political Attitudes Toward Palestinian > > Arab Nationalism, 1936-1939. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc. 1983. > > Herzog, Chaim. The Arab-Israeli Wars. New York: Random House, Inc., 1982. > > Klieman, Aaron S. Israel and The World After 40 Years. Washington: Pergamom-Brassey's > > International Defense Publishers, Inc. 1990. > > Metz, Helen Chaplin, ed. Israel: A Country Study. Washington: United States Government, > > 1990. > > "Palestine British Mandate." Great Britain and Palestine, 1915-1945. London: 1946. > > Rosenwasser, Penny. Voices from a Promised Land: Palestinian and Israeli Peace Activists > > Speak Their Hearts. Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 1992. > > Said, Edward W. et. Al. "Israel Has Treated the Palestinians Unfairly." Israel: Opposing > > Viewpoints. Ed. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1989. > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
