31 thoughts on “Ben Gurion's Plan for Regional Conquest and Israeli Empire
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I’m sorry Richard, but the Haaretz article you cite to, dates the Ben Gurion speech to May 24, 1948. That’s ten days after after the Arab armies attacked Israel.
    At that time, the Jews had no matching artillery, no tanks, and no warplanes and were under supplied.

    In this proper context, Ben Gurion’s speech sounds more like a morale boosting war rally than Zionism’s grand strategic plan.

    1. @ Trippin’ John: Not true buddy. You’ve never heard of Ezer Weizman, founder of Israel’s air force during the 1948 War? As for Israel’s supposed lack of those other armaments, within 6 months Israel had sent virtually every Arab army (except the Legion) reeling and dramatically expanded its territory from the Partition Plan.

      1. I’m not your buddy and there is no diverting from the fact that you screwed the date, which is sloppy journalism.

        If you want to argue Israel’s war preparedness on the eve of Independence, you will lose.
        Do you want to go there?

        1. @ Trippin’ Jon: First rule of Hasbara Central: don’t let ’em get you riled up. Haboob, you broke the first rule they ingrained in you from Day 1 of hasbara training.

          As for dates, it’s you who need vastly improved reading comprehension. Here’s the sentence. Read-it-again:

          At the first meeting of the Haganah military command after statehood was declared on May 15, 1948,

          I didn’t say the meeting was on May 15th. I said the meeting was AFTER statehood was declared. I.e. after May 15th. As indeed it was. SOrry, you win the booby prize on this one.

          Don’t tell me what I’ll lose. That just annoys the shit out of me. Which means you’ll end up on the dustbin of hasbarists past here. Do you want to go there?

    2. The ‘Sherut Avir’, the predecessor to the Israel Air Force, carried out its first operation on 17th December 1947, initially with light planes. In March and April 1948 two squadrons were formed, and warplanes from Czechoslovakia began to arrive on 20 May 1948. On 30 May the IAF bombed Amman.

    3. This Israeli fictive “we are the victims” folklore is hilarious. If Israeli “Israelis” (because the relevant religious/ethnic term is not tolerated) had no matching armament and the “attacking” giant Arab armies had superior manpower and armament, there would have never been an Israel. As known Israel then and now is a very small country.

      Even the wikipedia article admits that the “Israeli” forces size initially when war started were 29,677 “men” and the Arab side 13,000. In the end the “Israeli” forces were 117,500 men and the maximum size of Arab side was 63,500 men. The size of Arab “attacking” forces were actually rather minimal and also the view that they were attacking is a bit “amusing” considering, that they came to defend and protect the clear majority living in Palestine (including the “Israeli” areas). The fact is that the clearly stronger international “Israeli” side performed the violent invasion, genocide and land robbery. Not vice versa.

      In wikipedia article the size of Arab side during the 10 month long war was
      Egypt: 10,000 initially, rising to 20,000
      Iraq: 3,000 initially, rising to 15,000–18,000
      Syria: 2,500–5,000
      Transjordan: 8,000–12,000
      Lebanon: 1,000
      Saudi Arabia: 800–1,200 (Egyptian command)
      Yemen: 300
      Arab Liberation Army: 3,500–6,000.

      Mostly these often symbolic support troops were poorly and lightly armed voluntary militias, not well trained and armed professional troops. Most of the Arab countries had just got their independence and had no strong well equipped armies.

      1. Simo,you forgot to mention that the Jordanians were restricted in their actions due to the December 1947 Meir /Abdullah understanding

  2. How is this different than dredging up comments from 70 years ago by the Grand Mufti, or other Arab leaders? Why is this even interesting?

    I don’t see how Bisharat’s commentary is incisive. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, but to me it appears to be an incoherent stream of unrelated thoughts and feelings. What’s the big insight here?

    Since Zionism is a form of nationalism, does nationalism die once a people have their own state?
    The fact that surrounding peoples are too busy slaughtering each other and don’t have energy for Israel– doesn’t imply that Israel should surrender what it perceives as its national interests. It also sets up a false dichotomy that Zionism is incompatible with Arab citizen’s rights in Israel.

    1. @ Yehuda:

      How is this different than dredging up comments from 70 years ago by the Grand Mufti

      Because the Grand Mufti never ran a country & not only did Ben Gurion, he’s the founder of modern Israel. As such his every word is important not just in historic context but in contemporary context.

      As for a pro-Israel apologist not thinking a column by an Israeli Palestinian is “incisive,” bless my soul–how could that ever happen???!

      The fact that surrounding peoples are too busy slaughtering each other

      That is racist and not welcome here. If you repeat such a comment in future you may be banned.

      a false dichotomy that Zionism is incompatible with Arab citizen’s rights in Israel.

      Of course Israeli-Palestinian rights are incompatible with Zionism (as practiced in Israel since 1948). Virtually everything I’ve written, every Zionist source & opinion poll I’ve reported here proves the incontrovertible truth of this view.

      1. What makes the historical quote so apropos is the continuity of thought and strategy it proves ala the Juden Staat Imperium.
        FF 50 yrs and the neocon doc “Clean Break, Strategy for Securing the Realm” or even 30 yrs back w/ ODED YINON’s “Strategy for Zionist Israel in the 1980s”… All are dead ringer in tone and intent to WINEP’s policy statements in mid-late 2000’s.
        So yes Richard, your sourcing of history is not only intriguing, but supplies iron clad evidence of what the Zionist agenda always was- and still unchanged- is.

    2. @Yehuda:

      Zionism is incompatible with Palestinian rights, inside Israel or in the illegally occupied territories/the Gaza Ghetto.

      The very existence of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian right to a homeland in their homeland are both incompatible with Zionism, as stated by Zionist leaders and propaganda hacks themselves. And you would have anyone believe that Zionism and Israel assure Palestinians rights, after these facts?

      How shameful.

  3. “That is racist and not welcome here. If you repeat such a comment in future you may be banned.”

    I don’t see the racism in this. It is just factual. At least 300,000 have been ‘murdered’ and myriads wounded.

    1. @ sheryl: Yeah, while Israel has killed 40,000 Palestinians & others since 1948. BTW, Syria’s fratricide is something Israel is delighted about. So while you & the other asshole spout Arabophobic nonsense pretending to care about Arab dead, you ignore Israel’s role in provoking huge levels of hate & violence in the region.

      I warn you, go there again & you won’t comment here again.

      1. Richard you are the ultimate dictator. Anytime anybody says anything u don’t like, u threaten to ban them, why even allow comments if all your looking for is people who agree with you to cheerleader your views,

        1. @Moshe: Read the comment rules. Plenty of others who disagree with my views have managed to post thousands of comments without being banned. Follow the rules & you won’t have problems. Don’t & you will.

    2. It is racist because it intends to definitively separate “us” from “them”, as though “us” are better somehow. History does not demonstrate that Israel is morally superior to any state whatsoever. History suggests instead that Israeli actions are much informed by ethical considerations at all.

      1. For all of you PC folks, I’m sorry I violated your little safe spaces. I was merely restating what the Haaretz essay itself said!

        “…The war of Armageddon is going on around us, and no one there acknowledges the Jewish state with even a single look of hatred. At a time when all the prophecies of fury are coming true – the rise of fanatical movements and chaos spreading throughout the region…”

        Without going into the issue itself–perhaps I waxed a bit dramatic, but so does Richard. (Like–“The Ringworm Scandal: When Israeli Doctors Killed Tens of Thousands of Arab Children” ?) Merely restating an uncomfortable fact should not put you all in a self-righteous frenzy.

        Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has written much about the atmosphere of censorship of the left, particularly on college campuses.


        1. @Yehuda: Ah, you refer in the phrase “the rise of fanatical movements & chaos spreading throughout the region” to settler extremism & the chaos Israel’s military adventurism sows throughout the region?? Well, why didn’t you say so??

          1. The way I understood that section’s claim is that Israel’s erstwhile enemies, who are entangled in their own conflicts, don’t seem to be that interested in Israel any more, so Israeli should stop obsessing on external threats. I would say there is some truth to that. But that’s a far cry from arguing that “zionism is dead”.

            Even Bisharat doesn’t make your [implied] argument that somehow Assad’s dropping of chlorine barrel bombs in Allepo is causally related to a settler building an apartment in Efrat. Nobody can credibly argue any more that all Middle Eastern instability is due to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

  4. Ben-Gurion’s plan resurfaced in 1956 at the secret meeting in Sevres at which Israel, Britian and France conspired to attackEgypt [ http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Protocol%20of%20Sevres%201956%20Anatomy%20of%20a%20War%20Plot.html ]

    “Jordan, he observed, was not viable as an independent state and should therefore be divided. Iraq would get the East Bank in return for a promise to settle the Palestinian refugees there and to make peace with Israel while the West Bank would be attached to Israel as a semi-autonomous region. Lebanon suffered from having a large Muslim population which was concentrated in the south. The problem could be solved by Israel’s expansion up to the Litani River, thereby helping to turn Lebanon into a more compact Christian state.”

    The map produced by the Zionists at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 included Lebanon up to the Litani, the Golan, and a strip of territory to the East of the Jordan. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper#mediaviewer/File:Faisal-Weizmann_map.png ] This roughly corresponded with the historic borders of Palestine – see this map (in which North is on the left) [ http://www.religion-science-peace.org/2013/09/04/palestina-moderna-1480/ ]

  5. Let us for a moment forget Ben Gurion plns and concentrate istead on israeli plans after him to the present. Isn’t wha we witness is a plan for greater israel?

  6. Confirming Richard’s overall read of intents and events, here is D. Ben-Gurion in a letter to Haim Weizman explaining his position on the British 1937 “Peel Commission” recommendation which proposed a partition granting the Jews a State on part of Palestine (less than the later proposed 1947 UN partition plan, but much more land than Jews controlled at the time):

    “Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning… This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country”.

  7. Regarding city of Ramle that Silverstein mentions, Ramle is promenently mentioned in Sandy Tolan’s book “The Lemon Tree” about Jewish refugees from Europe who were lied to by the Israelis when they were given homes there. The Israelis told them that the Palestinians simply “abandoned” those homes when in fact they were forced out. The book focuses on an Israeli woman who resents what happened. Her name is Dalia Landau. In later years, she turned the home given to her parents when she was a toddler into an Open House for Jews and Arabs. TWO links here. The first is for Open House Ramle. The SECOND one is the book, The Lemon Tree. CLICK HERE http://www.friendsofopenhouse.co.il/ AND HERE https://www.amazon.com/Lemon-Tree-Arab-Heart-Middle/dp/1596913436

  8. [Comment deleted: read rhe comment rules, which insist that comments be on-topic & also that we will not refight ancient Zionist history. We have already trodden this ground & fought this battle before. I won’t rehash the same arguments offered by others before you here & rebutted. There are thousands of hasbara outlets where you may reinforce your pro Israel prejudices. This is not one of them.]

  9. These days, nothing reinforces anti-Semitism more than when people realise they have been fed all this Hasbara crap.
    Sadly there are people everywhere who take a bizzare pride in being the absolute negative stereotype of their kind, whatever it may be.
    They invariably see themselves as heroic protectors of their people. Human perversity constantly amazes me.
    And there are self-respecting people everywhere who bebunk them. We all owe them an immense debt.

  10. This sentence shines a light on why the Begin’s government kept the army in Lebanon. The chance of another piece of land.

    “We must establish a Christian state whose southern border will be the Litani [River]. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link