Israeli IOF Chief Moshe Dayan and the Vietnam War

“You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement.”

The U.S. military rolled out the red carpet for him. Everywhere he went, generals and colonels wined and dined him—and gave him pretty much free rein to see the war up close and personally. Although McNamara told Westmoreland (according to Dayan) not to expose him to “too much danger,” lower-level American officers let him “see all the action [he] wanted.”

excerpt from original article

Moshe Dayan with U.S. Brig. Gen. William Stiles, assistant commanding general, 1st Marine Division. Dayan toured the Vietnam battleground in the summer of 1966, to write a series of newspaper articles on the political situation there, though he wrote mostly about military strategy and tactics. (National Archives)

July 12, 1966, former Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan—the flamboyant, controversial fighting [Zionist] general who led the resoundingly successful assault into the Sinai Peninsula during the 1956 war with Egypt—boarded a commercial jet in London on a sojourn to South Vietnam.

Da Nang, South Vietnam – August General Moshe Dayan (left, with eyepatch), former chief of staff of the Israeli Army, fords a stream with U.S. Marines

The 51-year-old Dayan had resigned his military position in 1958, went into politics the next year and had served for five years as his nation’s minister of agriculture. He was now a newly minted author (Sinai Diary), a backbencher in the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) and a private citizen hankering to go where the action was.

Moshe Dayan arrived in Saigon on July 25. He likened the situation there—with heavily armed South Vietnamese and American soldiers hunkering down behind sandbagged bunkers at the city’s big intersections—to what life was like in Jerusalem and other cities in Palestine under British colonial rule. Not a promising situation.

The U.S. military rolled out the red carpet for him. Everywhere he went, generals and colonels wined and dined him—and gave him pretty much free rein to see the war up close and personally. Although McNamara told Westmoreland (according to Dayan) not to expose him to “too much danger,” lower-level American officers let him “see all the action [he] wanted.”

Before heading into the field, though, Dayan met with influential South Vietnamese political and military leaders, including Nguyen Van Thieu, then the No. 2 man in the government under Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky. Thieu told him—of all things—how much he admired the commanding North Vietnamese Army General Vo Nguyen Giap, who defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

Two days later, bedecked in American fatigues, jungle boots and an olive drab baseball cap, Dayan was on board a brown-water U.S. patrol boat in the Mekong Delta looking on as American sailors stopped and searched Vietnamese river craft looking for contraband.

The next day Dayan had a VIP tour of USS Constellation, the huge aircraft carrier sitting in the South China Sea from which a constant stream of combat aircraft blasted off on their way to missions over North and South Vietnam. As would be the case during his entire visit to Vietnam, Dayan was very impressed by the might of the U.S. war machine and by the capability and dedication of the American troops.

But he voiced doubts about whether overwhelming power, dedication and ability would enable the Americans to prevail in what was then primarily a guerrilla war against an elusive enemy. He also was skeptical of the official explanation of American war aims.

Despite what he saw and was told, Dayan said, he thought that the Americans were “not fighting against infiltration to South [Vietnam] or against guerrillas, or against…Ho Chi Minh, but against the entire world. Their real aim was to show everybody—including Britain, France, and the USSR—their power and determination so as to pass this message: wherever Americans go, they are irresistible.”

Dayan continued to be impressed by American firepower and the military’s can-do spirit after he flew back to South Vietnam from the Constellation. His first stop was a three-day tour of duty with a Marine company on patrol just south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

He tagged along with a company of Marines commanded by 1st Lt. Charles Krulak, the son of Marine Lt. Gen. Victor “Brute” Krulak, then the commanding general of the Pacific Fleet Marine Force, and a man who had a strong hand in guiding Marine Corps policy in Vietnam.

Dayan peppered the younger Krulak (who later became commandant of the Marine Corps) with questions about American aims in Vietnam, and also told the young lieutenant what his own assessment was of the situation on the ground. Dayan, according to Charles Krulak, said the Americans should be “where the people are,” not trying to ferret out the VC in the boonies.

From the DMZ, Dayan went to Danang, then to Pleiku in the Central Highlands, where the Israeli general saw action for the first time. Dayan was met in Pleiku by the commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division, Maj. Gen. John “Jack” Norton, West Point 1941, who had jumped behind German lines during D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division.

“I’ve had word from General Westmoreland,” Dayan quoted Norton as saying, “For you, mon général, all doors are open. Just take care of yourself, and for heaven’s sake, don’t pick one of my units to get killed in.”

Four days later, Dayan was on a helicopter accompanying the Cav in Operation Paul Revere, a continuation of Operation Hastings near the Cambodian border. Again, he was impressed with America’s military might, especially with the Army’s innovations in helicopter-borne warfare. “There are altogether 1,700 in the country,” he wrote, “more than all the helicraft in Europe.”

But Dayan was less than impressed by the American tactics and strategy, and expressed serious reservations about the efficacy of U.S. intelligence. As the Cav went out to search and destroy, Dayan said, “One small item is missing: no one knows exactly where are the positions of the Viet Cong battalions. The air photos and air reconnaissance fail to pick out the Viet Cong encampments, entrenched, bunkered and camouflaged to merge with the jungle vegetation.”

Dayan and company landed in a hot landing zone. “All around came sounds of exploding shells and machine-gun fire,” he wrote in his newspaper report. The Americans responded as per normal, with a massive display of firepower. Then Dayan looked on in amazement as what he called “the assembly line of the 1st Cavalry’s fighting machine” was soon dropped onto the landing zone: 105mm howitzers, mountains of artillery shells, more guns and ammo, bulldozers, command and control equipment.

“But where was the war?” Dayan asked rhetorically. “It was like watching military maneuvers—with only one side. Could they have operated in this way, I wondered, if the Viet Cong had also possessed warplanes, artillery and armor? The heaviest weapon in a Viet Cong unit, a medium mortar, could be carried on a man’s back. But anyway, where were the Viet Cong? And where was the battle?”

That answer came soon enough—a half-hour later, when a 1st Cav company that landed 300 yards away was ambushed and cut to ribbons. According to Dayan, the company took 70 percent casualties, a total of 25 killed and 70 wounded. Among the dead was a platoon leader who “was killed when a chance bullet hit and detonated the grenade hanging from his belt.”

Dayan then spent two days at the Special Forces camp at Plei Me, three miles from the Cambodian border. Soon after arriving, he was out on patrol with a Green Beret squad. But Dayan left the patrol abruptly when Norton sent word that there was a heavy VC attack against a South Korean unit close by. Dayan rushed to the scene and reported that about 130 Korean troops had repulsed a force of about 1,000 attacking Viet Cong, with the critical help of a massive American artillery barrage. Dayan was suitably impressed.

American “support units laid down more than 21,000 shells,” he reported. “This is more than the total volume of artillery fire by the Israeli army during the Sinai campaign and the War of Independence together.”

Dayan found similar situations wherever he went. He concluded that Viet Cong tactics and strategy were working, but that American strategy was, at best, barely succeeding. The Viet Cong’s M.O., he said, “was to attack American units with the aim of destroying them when the prospect of success seemed bright….Ninety out of every one hundred battles in the Vietnam War began as this one did, on Viet Cong initiative, when they deemed the circumstances favorable.”

As for the Americans, Dayan wrote that they did not make the destruction of the enemy “conditional on a favorable tactical situation.” American commanders, he said, “were eager to make contact with the Viet Cong at all times, in any situation, and at any price.”

He continued to be impressed by American firepower. “What the Americans have at their disposal,” he said in his newspaper dispatch, “is all that a commander can visualize in a dream: helicopters to rush his men to any location; well-trained troops with the aggressive spirit and ready for action; air and artillery support; equipment, ammunition and fuel in virtually unlimited supply.”

Despite that, Dayan said, the Americans “have not succeeded in routing the Viet Cong.” Worse, “they have not succeeded in bringing them to decisive battle. They do not always know where the Viet Cong units are; and when they do run across them—the enemy slips from their grasp after the initial encounter, defeating attempts to seal him off.”

Dayan was impressed by the enemy’s determination. He gave one example, after he was permitted to watch the interrogation of a VC prisoner at a Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) camp near Pleiku on August 16. Near the end of the session, Dayan wrote, the prisoner looked his American interrogator in the eye and spat in his face. “In an even voice, he said, ‘Now you can kill me. I’m not afraid. It’s you who are afraid.’”

Despite the enemy’s determination and the success of their strategy, Dayan voiced doubts that the Viet Cong could defeat the Americans, mainly because of the overwhelming U.S. superiority in “planes, artillery, armor, modern communications, aircraft carriers, helicopter-cavalry, against an enemy that has none.” The only way Dayan saw a victory for the Communists was a political—not military—one: if the Americans “for political reasons (domestic or foreign)…decide to call a halt to the war before achieving total victory.”

Dayan went on, though, to point out other ways that the Hanoi government could frustrate the Americans off and on the battlefield. “Hanoi can refuse to go to the negotiating table,” he said, and “refuse to sign any arrangement whereby she recognizes the division of Vietnam….” On the field of battle, he said, the VC could prevent the Americans and South Vietnamese from “pacifying the country” by refraining “from pitting regular units against regular units in frontal engagements and organize guerrilla warfare.”

The Viet Cong, he concluded, “cannot drive out the Americans, but they can avoid being driven out themselves. They can deny the normalization of life in the south.”

Dayan was particularly critical of the much-maligned South Vietnamese-American Strategic Hamlet program and its successor, hearts-and-minds initiatives, which since 1962 had relocated Vietnamese villagers from areas threatened by the enemy into stockaded hamlets for their own protection. In his last days in-country, Dayan visited two such places, which he called “refugee settlements.” Dayan did not like most of what he saw.

“The atmosphere was not pleasant,” he wrote in his newspaper article. The women, he said, refused to be interviewed. “When we approached them, they sullenly backed away. Even the children, who are usually bright and jolly in these parts, looked wretched, stretching forth a begging hand while silently following their mothers.”

At a second settlement, Dayan reported that most of the people seemed happier, with the younger children attending a U.S.-supported school and the older ones working in decent-paying jobs in a safe environment. Still, Dayan said, things seemed amiss.

What “the Americans call ‘resettlement of refugees on the land,’” Dayan reported, “is not really the building of farm villages but the creation of slums around their Army camps.”

Dayan spent his last week in Vietnam, from August 20-27, in the Delta and in Lai Khe in the company of Maj. Gen. William Depuy, the commander of the 1st Infantry Division. He came away with more criticism of the Americans’ search and destroy, war of attrition strategy, and predicted again that the Viet Cong could prevail if they stuck to hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.

And he reiterated his disdain for the hearts and minds approach, as exemplified in the village resettlement programs. “I do not believe the Americans can bring pacification to Vietnam,” Dayan wrote in his last dispatch from the war zone. “The Americanization of the war can, from the military point of view, succeed, but the Americanization of the peace, of daily life, can only serve the Viet Cong with terrorist objectives and propagandist arguments against ‘American hegemony in Vietnam.’”

Or as Dayan put it in his book, Vietnam Diary, which was published in Israel in 1977, “the Americans are winning everything—except the war.”

Less than a year after Moshe Dayan left Vietnam, he was thrust back into the forefront of Israeli politics. He was named defense minister on June 1, 1967, and—along with General Yitzhak Rabin—led Israel to its overwhelming victory during the Six-Day War from June 5-10, 1967.

Vietnam veteran Marc Leepson is the editor of Webster’s New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War, and is senior writer and books editor for The VVA Veteran. His latest book is Lafayette: Lessons in Leadership from the Idealist General.


Q: Why is no action being taken against the Zionist regime’s state terrorism?

Image result for israel axis of evil

All pissing in the same pot

Answers by Andrew Korybko Nov 6, 2016

The first thing to remember is that the Zionists’ military-industrial complex is interlinked with that of the US and Western Europe, and that the political-lobbyist bodies active in those areas are very strong and influential.

Moreover, establishment voices in those states reflexively accuse anyone of “anti-Semitism” the moment that they try to raise awareness about ‘Israel’s’ crimes , hoping that this will succeed in defaming and silencing all opposition. Journalists and politicians alike who dare to exercise their rights to free speech and critical thinking stand to lose their careers and thus be unable to sustain their livelihoods, which is especially threatening if they have a family to take care of.

These factors combine in such a way as to self-censor many political and media activists who would otherwise do the right thing by talking about this issue. Sometimes, though, those who speak up are part of the ‘controlled opposition’ that works to discredit this cause, so this further complicates the whole state of affairs and is responsible for why social justice has yet to be served.

How similar are the Zionist and American officials’ mindset about state terrorism?

There is no difference between the two because they are one and the same entity. The interlinked military-industrial complexes between the two are supported by political-lobbyist ties that seal them together. ‘Israel’ is the 51st state of the US just as much as the US is the godfather of ‘Israel’. They are inseparable and thus have the same grand strategic outlook as one another.

In pertinence to the question, this means that they both support state terrorism and actively practice it whenever it suits their interests. A perfect example of these actors working together can be seen through the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians and the War of Terror on Syria, both of which are tragedies that would never have taken place had it not been for the complicity of these two entities in working hand-in-hand with one another.

Zionist intelligence service confirmed its role in killing Iranian nuclear scientists, over the last few years. The occupying forces of Palestine also have committed the most heinous crimes and atrocities against Palestinians during past decades. Is it safe to say the Zionist entity is the flagrant instance of state terrorism?

Absolutely. The creation of the Zionist entity itself is due to a combination of state terrorism and what Harvard scholar Kelly M. Greenhill termed as “Weapons of Mass Migration” in her 2010 publication of the same name. Everyone needs to “Acknowledge Weapons of Mass Migration Or ‘Legitimize’ “Israel””, but the main point is that European governments encouraged the post-World War II mass migration of their Jewish citizens to Palestine for the purpose of colonizing it on the grounds that this is some sort of geopolitical “reparation” for everything that this demographic suffered during the war.

 This ‘normative’ pretext is exposed for the shallow falsehood that it always has been when one considers that the Palestinians have been forced to undergo similarly torturous hardships as the Jews did during World War II, except this time it’s ironically one of the victimized classes of that global conflict inflicting this on a people that had absolutely nothing at all to do with their wartime suffering.

Which of the running US presidential candidates would serve more to the idea of state terrorism?

The differences between the Bush and Obama Presidencies in regards to their support and defense of state terrorism are only stylistic and superficial. Both Presidents unwaveringly pursue this policy in their own country’s actions, they just carried it out in different ways.

Bush was brash and unashamedly told the whole world what he was doing, whereas Obama is much craftier and cunningly disguises his actions behind the rhetoric of “human rights” and “democracy”, taking care to also exploit the fact that he’s the US’ first black president in order to infer that all of his critics are “racists”. In my opinion, this makes Obama infinitely more dangerous that Bush ever was, because at least no one in the world was fooled by Bush, though so many people have fallen under Obama’s spell.

 Concerning the Zionist occupation of Palestine, Bush was a loud defender of the state terrorism being committed against the original inhabitants, although Obama has sought a more publicly nuanced approach. The personal animosity that defines relations between the sitting US President and Netanyahu is well known, but this hasn’t had any negative effects whatsoever on ties between the two polities.

This is attributable to the fact that both of their “deep states” (the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) are in coordinated alignment as to their shared grand strategic goals, so public drama between their two leaders is of no tangible consequence to the essence of their deeper relationship. It’s important at this point to mention that Obama’s actions in this regard are just posturing intended to mislead Muslim audiences and disarm the suspicions of their gullible audiences into falsely thinking that the US supports them.


False Flags in “Israel” Target Palestinians, Israeli Citizens, American, Whatever Works

An event just in time for traitor/pedophile Biden visit

Richard Silverstein is a really righteous Jew, an Israel critique but he believes that Israel has a right to exist in Palestine. To me that is simply wrong. But he analyzes events well and writes articles such as this. Credit where credit is due.

Tel Aviv Attacker Executed by Security Forces; Targeted Shin Bet Agent; Father Was Palestinian Collaborator


Today, the inevitable happened.  Nasha’at Milhem, who had attacked a Tel Aviv bar last Friday and killed three Israelis, was himself murdered by security forces.  I say “executed,” because this has become standard policy with all Palestinians suspected of lifting even a pinkie finger against Israelis.  They are almost all “put down” like mad dogs.  Because they’re Palestinian.  Not worthy of being treated like human beings.  I even predicted his liquidation here:

“There can be no doubt that Milhem will not be apprehended alive.  Israel’s security services specialize in confronting Palestinian militants dedicated to going out in a blaze of resistance and glory.  They are inevitably killed after being asked to surrender and then responding with a hail of bullets, to which security forces had no choice but to respond, killing the suspect in the process.”

nasha'at milhem executed

Planted weapon placed near Milhem’s body


The standard narrative offered by the security apparatus is that the terrorists seek to die in a hail of bullets like the conventional Hollywood mob movie.  Here’s Haaretz’s bogus version:

Nashat Melhem, the suspected gunman behind the Tel Aviv shooting last week, was shot dead in a firefight with police forces in his hometown of Arara in northern Israel on Friday.

Nashaat Milhem, sought to avenge his father’s collaboration with Shin Bet by assassination his handler

Why would a reporter merely transcribe a claim like this in their report?  Did they examine the scene to determine whether there was a firefight?  Did Milhem fire any bullets at anyone?  As usual, even the supposedly liberal champion Haaretz swallows the security narrative hook, line and sinker.

My take: nope, no firefight.  Just an outright liquidation of terror vermin, as Israeli police and Shin Bet commanders see it.  Though I object generally to terror porn, I’m displaying a picture of his corpse because I want to show the effrontery of the security forces who I am almost certain planted a weapon next to Milhem’s body.  An image of the murder scene from a different angle shows a second pistol of some kind (or a separate part of the weapon lying by his side) in his hand.  This is no different from the scores of cases in which they planted knives next to the bodies of Palestinians murdered by the same Israeli executioner-security forces.

mohammed milhem ruimi funeral

Mourners at funeral of Shimon Ruimi. Pixellated face is that of “Shin,” Shin Bet agent who “ran” Mohammed Milhem, and who was Nata’ash’s intended target.

Compare this to the treatment accorded the settler terror conspirators.  They murdered an 18 month-old baby, his mother and father.  Were they executed when apprehended?  Were their families’ homes torn down in retribution as regularly happens with Palestinian suspects (surely, the Milhem home will be demolished if it hasn’t been already)?  No, none of this happened.  Further, one of the murderers, a Jewish Shin Bet collaborator, betrayed his handler and refused to reveal the plot.  He was at the scene of the crime and a willing participant.  He, Israel Keller, has been released from detention and likely will remain uncharged because to do so would embarrass the Shin Bet.

Justice is blind, as far as Jewish terror is concerned.  Palestinian terror?  Justice has 20-20 vision.

But there is a larger story here as well.  Israel was rife with rumors sweeping social media that Milhem himself was a Shin Bet collaborator who deliberately killed one of the victims, Shimon Ruimi, who was supposedly a Shin Bet agent or even his handler.  These rumors seemed quite promising, and the half-baked story offered by the authorities seemed unconvincing.

But my regular security source clammed up when asked for comment.  So I couldn’t post anything definitive about the incident.  Now, I can.  My source reveals:

“Nash’aat’s father, Muhammad, was/is a Shabak collaborator, and that’s why he got a licence for a gun – a very rare thing for an Arab citizen. One of his handlers was “Shin” (‘ש), a close friend of Shimon Ruimi. Muhammad is now being interrogated by Shabak, suspected of involvement in an apparent plot (possibly ISIS-inspired) to assassinate “Shin” who was in the TA pub with several friends, celebrating the birthday of one of them. Nash’aat used his father’s gun to fire at the pub trying to hit “Shin”, but missed and killed his friend (Ruimi) and another man (who worked in the pub). No other details are available, and it’s still unclear why he later murdered the Arab taxi driver.”

As I’m quoting my source, I’ll add my own qualifications of his statement.  I don’t understand why the son of the collaborator would be the one to exact revenge, unless he was ashamed of his father’s spying on behalf of the Shin Bet and sought redemption through this attack.  I’m also leery about crediting any outside force for the attack or even for inspiring the attack.  It seems too convenient to link ISIS to the attack.  It follows the standard Likudist narrative that Israel is a gentle creature swimming in a sea of Islamist piranhas.

As I’ve written here numerous times, Palestinians have all too many legitimate domestic grievances and too much suffering to explain their taking up arms against a sea of troubles, aka Israel.  Bringing in external factors merely confuses things, which is what the Israeli regime wants.

Israel is forever, how can you kill something that will never die?

Israel is forever, how can you kill something that will never die?  Video below. Found at ‘A solders mother’ blog‘ which everyone who would like to get a glimpse inside the head of a ‘proud’ occupier, squatter should read. She is a model psychopath “Israeli”. I don’t like promoting her blog yet she is really educational for the purpose of case study.  It’s mindbending. And in that vein, she should be famous.

She has two IDF sons she sings her praises to and oh isn’t it a shame they have to kill Palestinians, or whatever they have done to them. She takes from Golda Meir’s’, “we will never forgive them for making us kill their children” psycho mantra. If her sons have killed Palestinians she would be singing their praises, or at least defending them. Poor guys were forced to kill another “terrorist” Palestinian. They may be terrorists to these inbreds but they are the owners of the land and they have the deeds to prove it!  So who is really the terrorist?

Image result for israelites praised for killing palestinians

Who is the terrorist? This girl’s family have lived in the land of Palestine for centuries while the foreign occupying Zionists who killed her have been thieving, raping, torturing, destroying her homeland for 70 years.

Israelis are preoccupied with justifying themselves as a guilty person would, and trying to convince themselves and the world that Israel is here to stay. Because obviously they are insecure, as a thief is about his loot.

They spend their lives in occupied Palestine trying to defend their loot from the rightful owners no matter what it takes.  They have been part of a devilish Zionist gov brainwashing program since birth, I often don’t know if I hate them or feel sorry for them.  Mostly I just think of them as devils unless they wake up and’ turn’  like Miko Peled.

How many countries have to convince themselves that they are justified to exist?
This video is actually entertaining! Listen to the words.The message is that Jews have been persecuted and holocausted since biblical times but they will fight the world for Israel and win because they are strong and  united. Not taking into account that they are Ashkenazim Jews and no part of the ancient Hebrews. The Hebrew language imposed on first arrivals and their offspring, to replace the native Yiddish language, was to create the illusion they actually had a connection to the ancient Hebrews. They fool themselves!

Israel celebrates Irgun hotel bombers

Zionist Jews- Godfathers
Of Terrorism

On April 30, 1948, Alan Cunningham wrote to his superiors that as the Jews celebrated military successes, their “broadcasts, both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany.”

Yitzhak Rabin and his band of Zio Nazis, 2 of them still attached to their Hitler mustaches in their Palestine office

In the midst of its campaign against Hizbollah and Hamas “terrorists”, Israel has been accused by Britain of feting Jewish “terrorists” whose bomb attack killed 28 Britons 60 years ago today.

The accusation, which reopens the debate about the use of politically-inspired violence in the region, follows the unveiling of a plaque commemorating the attack on the King David hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, by the Irgun Jewish “resistance” to British mandate rule in Palestine. The 28 Britons were among 91 people killed.

This week, former Irgun fighters and current Right-wing politicians unveiled the plaque at the hotel, which read: “The hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 22, 1946, Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.

For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.”

But Israel’s celebration of its “freedom fighters” remains highly controversial at a time when it continues to pound Palestinian “terrorists”.

Image result for Eitan Livni

Terrorists, father and daughter Livni

Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, has found herself deeply embroiled in the debate – her father, Eitan, was Irgun’s chief operations officer.

Simon Macdonald, the British ambassador to Israel, and consul general John Jenkins, wrote to the mayor of Jerusalem protesting at the plaque. “We don’t think it’s right for an act of terrorism to be commemorated,” their letter read.

The embassy said: “There is no credible evidence that any warning reached the British authorities.” The plaque has subsequently been amended, dropping the implication that Britain ignored any warnings.

Remembered honored comrade Amichai Paglin was known for his ingenuity of mechanisms and explosives with incredibly simple methods.

The Etzel Museum in 1948 named after terrorist turned IDF Amichai Paglin in Jaffa. Hitler mustaches common among Zionists fresh from Europe.

Among the operations planned by Paglin were the bombing of the British headquarters at the King David Hotel , the bombing of the officers’ club “Goldschmidt House” in Jerusalem, and the break-in to Acre prison for the release of the underground prisoners who were imprisoned there. He was part of the small team that executed the two British sergeants in Netanya in execution of the death sentence of the underground court, in response to the hanging of Irgun members by the British. He also headed the planning of Operation Chametz, the battle for the ethnic cleansing of Jaffa. He was famous in the 1960s for building the oven where the body of Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann was burned, after being sentenced to death by an Israeli court.  Oh, the irony!

NEVER FORGET: The holocaust [narrative] was staged, Israel is fake, and the war on terror is fake


On Israel’s little-known concentration and labor camps in 1948-1955

Civilians captured during the fall of Lydda and Ramle around the time of July 12, 1948 and taken to labour camps. In the July heat they were thirsty and were given a drop of water carried by a child under soldiers’ guard. (Photo: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society)

By: Yazan al-Saadi

Published Monday, September 29, 2014

It is painful to see these poor people, especially old, who were snatched from their villages and put without reason in a camp, obliged to pass the winter under wet tents, away from their families; those who could not survive these conditions died.

Little children (10-12 years) are equally found under these conditions. Similarly sick people, some with tuberculosis, languish in these camps under conditions which, while fine for healthy individuals, will certainly lead to their death if we do not find a solution to this problem.

For a long time we have demanded that the Jewish authorities release those civilians who are sick and need treatment to the care of their families or to an Arab hospital, but we have not received a response.

Much of the grim and murky circumstances of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 1940s have gradually been exposed over time. One aspect – rarely researched or deeply discussed – is the internment of thousands of Palestinian civilians within at least 22 Zionist-run concentration and labor camps that existed from 1948 to 1955.

Now more is known about the contours of this historical crime, due to the comprehensive research by renowned Palestinian historian Salman Abu Sitta and founding member of the Palestinian resource center BADIL Terry Rempel.

The facts are these.

The study – to be published in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies – relies on almost 500 pages of International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) reports written during the 1948 war, that were declassified and made available to the public in 1996, and accidentally discovered by one of the authors in 1999.

Furthermore, testimonies of 22 former Palestinian civilian detainees of these camps were collected by the authors, through interviews they conducted themselves in 2002, or documented by others during different moments of time.

With these sources of information, the authors, as they put it, pieced together a clearer story of how Israel captured and imprisoned “thousands of Palestinian civilians as forced laborers,” and exploited them “to support its war-time economy.”

Digging up the crimes

“I came across this piece of history in the 1990s when I was collecting material and documents about Palestinian,” Abu Sitta told Al-Akhbar English. “The more and more you dig, the more you find there are crimes that have taken place that are not reported and not known.”

At that time, Abu Sitta went to Geneva for a week to check out the newly-opened archives of the ICRC. According to him, the archives were opened to the public after accusations that the ICRC had sided with the Nazis during World War II.

It was an opportunity that he could not miss in terms of seeing what the ICRC had recorded of the events that occurred in Palestine in 1948. It was there he stumbled onto records discussing the existence of five concentration camps run by the Israelis.

He then decided to look for witnesses or former detainees, interviewing Palestinians in occupied Palestine, Syria, and Jordan.

“They all described the same story, and their real experience in these camps,” he said.

One question that immediately struck him was why there was barely any references in history about these camps, especially when it became clearer the more he researched that they existed, and were more than just five camps.

“However, when I dug into the period of 1948-1955, I found more references like Mohammed Nimr al-Khatib, who was an imam in Haifa, who had written down interviews with someone from al-Yahya family that was in one of the camps.

I was able to trace this man all the way to California and spoke with him in 2002,” he added.More references were eventually and slowly discovered by Abu Sitta that included information from a Jewish woman called Janoud, a single masters thesis in Hebrew University about the topic, and the personal accounts of economist Yusif Sayigh, helped to further flesh out the scale and nature of these camps.

After more than a decade, Abu Sitta, with his co-author Rempel, are finally presenting their findings to the public.

From burden to opportunity: concentration and labor camps

The establishment of concentration and labor camps occurred after the unilateral declaration of Israel’s statehood on May 1948.

Prior to that event, the number of Palestinian captives in Zionist hands were quite low, because, as the study states, “the Zionist leadership concluded early on that forcible expulsion of the civilian population was the only way to establish a Jewish state in Palestine with a large enough Jewish majority to be ‘viable’.”

In other words, for the Zionist strategists, prisoners were a burden in the beginning phases of the ethnic cleansing.

Those calculations changed with the declaration of the Israeli state and the involvement of the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan, after much of the ethnic cleansing had occurred. From that moment, “the Israeli forces began taking prisoners, both regular Arab soldiers (for eventual exchange), and – selectively – able-bodied Palestinian non-combatant civilians.”

The Jews invented it

The first camp was Ijlil, which was about 13 km northeast of Jaffa, on the site of the destroyed Palestinian village Ijlil al-Qibiliyya, emptied of its inhabitants in early April. Ijlil was predominately made up of tents, housing hundreds and hundreds of prisoners, categorized as POWs by the Israelis, surrounded by barbed wire fences, watchtowers, and a gate with guards.

As the Israeli conquests grew, in turn exceedingly increasing the number of prisoners, three more camps were established. These are the four “official” camps that the Israelis acknowledged and were actively visited by the ICRC.

The study notes:

All four camps were either on or adjacent to military installations set up by the British during the Mandate. These had been used during World War II for the interment of German, Italian, and other POWs. Two of the camps – Atlit, established in July about 20 kms south of Haifa, and Sarafand, established in September near the depopulated village of Sarafand al-Amar in central Palestine—had earlier been used in the 1930s and 1940s to detain illegal Jewish immigrants.

Atlit was the second largest camp after Ijlil, it had the capacity of holding up to 2,900 prisoners, while Sarafand had the maximum capacity of 1,800, and Tel Letwinksy, near Tel Aviv, held more than 1,000.

All four camps were administered by “former British officers who had defected their ranks when British forces withdrew from Palestine in mid-May 1948,” and the camp’s guards and administrative staff were former members of the Irgun and the Stern Gang – both groups designated as terrorist organizations by the British before their departure. In total, the four “official” camps were staffed by 973 soldiers.

A fifth camp, called Umm Khalid, was established at a site of another depopulated village near the Zionist settlement of Netanya, and was even assigned an official number in the records, but never attained “official” status. It had the capacity to hold 1,500 prisoners. Unlike the other four camps, Umm Khalid would be “the fist camp established exclusively as a labor camp” and was “the first of the “recognized” camps to be shut down…by the end of 1948.”

Complementing these five “recognized” camps, were at least 17 other “unrecognized camps” that were not mentioned in official sources, but the authors discovered through multiple prisoner testimonies.

Civilians in a labour camp in Ramleh, July 1948. (Photo: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society)

“Many of [these camps],” the authors noted, “[were] apparently improvised or ad hoc, often consisting of no more than a police station, a school, or the house of a village notable,” with holding capacities that ranged from almost 200 prisoners to tens.

Most of the camps, official and unofficial, were situated within the borders of the UN-proposed Jewish state, “although at least four [unofficial camps] – Beersheba, Julis, Bayt Daras, and Bayt Nabala – were in the UN-assigned Arab state and one was inside the Jerusalem “corpus separatum.”

The number of Palestinian non-combatant detainees “far exceeded” those of Arab soldiers in regular armies or bona fide POWs.

Citing a July 1948 monthly report made by ICRC mission head Jacques de Reynier, the study states that de Reynier noted, “that the situation of civilian internees was ‘absolutely confused’ with that of POWs, and that the Jewish authorities ‘treated all Arabs between the ages of 16 and 55 as combatants and locked them up as prisoners of war.’” In addition, the ICRC found among the detainees in official camps, that 90 of the prisoners were elderly men, and 77 were boys, aged 15 years or younger.The study highlights the statements by an ICRC delegate Emile Moeri in January 1949 of the camp inmates:

It is painful to see these poor people, especially old, who were snatched from their villages and put without reason in a camp, obliged to pass the winter under wet tents, away from their families; those who could not survive these conditions died. Little children (10-12 years) are equally found under these conditions. Similarly sick people, some with tuberculosis, languish in these camps under conditions which, while fine for healthy individuals, will certainly lead to their death if we do not find a solution to this problem. For a long time we have demanded that the Jewish authorities release those civilians who are sick and need treatment to the care of their families or to an Arab hospital, but we have not received a response.

As the report noted, “there are no precise figures on the total number of Palestinian civilians held by Israel during the 1948-49 war” and estimates tend to not account for “unofficial” camps, in addition to the frequent movement of prisoners between the camps in use. In the four “official” camps, the number of Palestinian prisoners never exceeded 5,000 according to figures in Israeli records.

Taking accounting the capacity of Umm Khalid, and estimates of the “unofficial camps,” the final number of Palestinian prisoners could be around the 7,000 range, and perhaps much more, as the study states, when taking into account a November 17, 1948 diary entry by David Ben-Gurion, one of the main Zionist leaders and Israel’s first prime minister, who mentioned “the existence of 9,000 POWs in Israeli-run camps.”

In general, the living conditions in the “official” camps were far below what would be considered appropriate by international law at that time. Moeri, who visited the camps constantly, reported that in Ijlil in November 1948: “”[m]any [of the] tents are torn, that the camp was “not ready for winter,” the latrines not covered, and the canteen not working for two weeks. Referring to an apparently ongoing situation, he stated that “the fruits are still defective, the meat is of poor quality, [and] the vegetables are in short supply.”

Furthermore, Moeri reported that he saw for himself, “’the wounds left by the abuse’ of the previous week, when the guards had fired on the prisoners, wounding one, and had beaten another.”

As the study shows, the civilian status of the majority of the detainees were clear for the ICRC delegates in the country, who reported that the men captured “had undoubtedly never been in a regular army.” Detainees who were combatants, the study explains, were “routinely shot on the pretense that they had been attempting to escape.”

Image result for Jews ran the camps

Genocide and death camps, this follows the Jews wherever they go, wherever they’ve been

The Israeli forces seemed to always target able-bodied men, leaving behind women, children, and the elderly – when not massacring them – the policy continued even after there were low levels of military confrontation. All in all, as the Israeli records show and the study cites, “Palestinian civilians comprised the vast majority (82 percent) of the 5,950 listed as internees in the POW camps, while the Palestinians alone (civilian plus military) comprised 85 percent.”

The wide-scale kidnapping and imprisonment of Palestinian civilians tend to correspond with the Israeli military campaigns. For example, one of the first major roundup occurred during Operation Danj, when 60-70,000 Palestinians were expelled from the central towns of Lydda and Ramleh. At the same time, between a fifth and a quarter of the male population from these two towns who were over the age of 15 were sent to the camps.

The largest round-up of civilians came from villages of central Galilee who were captured during Operation Hiram in the fall of 1948.

One Palestinian survivor, Moussa, described to the authors what he witnessed at the time.

“They took us from all villages around us: al-Bi’na, Deir al-Asad, Nahaf, al-Rama, and Eilabun. They took 4 young men and shot them dead…They drove us on foot. It was hot. We were not allowed to drink. They took us to [the Palestinian Druze village] al-Maghar, then [to the Jewish settlement] Nahalal, then to Atlit.”

A November 16, 1948 UN report collaborated Moussa’s account, stating that some 500 Palestinian men “were taken by force march and vehicle to a Jewish concentration camp at Nahlal.”

Maintaining Israel’s economy with “slave labor”

The policy of targeting civilians, particular “able-bodied” men, was not accidental according to the study. It states, “with tens of thousands of Jewish men and women called up for military service, Palestinian civilian internees constituted an important supplement to the Jewish civilian labor employed under emergency legislation in maintaining the Israeli economy,” which even the ICRC delegation had noted in their reports.

The prisoners were forced to do public and military work, such as drying wetlands, working as servants, collecting and transporting looted refugee property, moving stones from demolished Palestinian homes, paving roads, digging military trenches, burying the dead, and much more.As one former Palestinian detainee named Habib Mohammed Ali Jarada described in the study, “At gunpoint, I was made to work all day. At night, we slept in tents. In winter, water was seeping below our bedding, which was dry leaves, cartons and wooden pieces.”

Another prisoner in Umm Khalid, Marwan Iqab al-Yehiya said in an interview with the authors, “We had to cut and carry stones all day [in a quarry]. Our daily food was only one potato in the morning and half dried fish at night. They beat anyone who disobeyed orders.” This labor was interspersed with acts of humiliation by the Israeli guards, as Yehiya speaks of prisoners being “lined up and ordered to strip naked as a punishment for the escape of two prisoners at night.”

“[Jewish] Adults and children came from nearby kibbutz to watch us line up naked and laugh. To us this was most degrading,” he added.

Abuses by the Israeli guards were systematic and rife in the camps, the brunt of which was directed towards villagers, farmers, and lower class Palestinians. This was so, the study said, because educated prisoners “knew their rights and had the confidence to argue with and stand up to their captors.”

What is also interestingly noted by the study is how ideological affiliations between prisoners and their guards had another effects in terms of the relationship between them.

Citing the testimony of Kamal Ghattas, who was captured during the Israeli attack in the Galilee, who said:

We had a fight with our jailers. Four hundred of us confronted 100 soldiers. They brought reinforcements. Three of my friends and I were taken to a cell. They threatened to shoot us. All night we sang the Communist Anthem. They took the four of us to Umm Khaled camp. The Israelis were afraid of their image in Europe. Our contact with our Central Committee and Mapam [Socialist Israeli party] saved us .… I met a Russian officer and told him they took us from our homes although we were non-combatants which was against the Geneva Conventions. When he knew I was a Communist he embraced me and said, “Comrade, I have two brothers in the Red Army. Long live Stalin. Long Live Mother Russia”.

Yet, the less fortunate Palestinians faced acts of violence which included arbitrary executions and torture, with no recourse. The executions were always defended as stopping “escape attempts” – real or claimed by the guards.

It became so common that one former Palestinian detainee of Tel Litwinsky, Tewfic Ahmed Jum’a Ghanim recounted, “Anyone who refused to work was shot. They said [the person] tried to escape. Those of us who thought [we] were going to be killed walked backward facing the guards.”

Ultimately, by the end of 1949, Palestinian prisoners were gradually released after heavy lobbying by the ICRC, and other organizations, but the releases were limited in scale and very focused to specific cases.

Prisoners of Arab armies were released in prisoner exchanges, but Palestinian prisoners were unilaterally expelled across the armistice line without any food, supplies, or shelter, and told to walk into the distance, never to return.

It would not be until 1955 when most of the Palestinian civilian prisoners would finally be released.

Forced Labour Camps Atlas. (Source: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society) An enduring crime

The importance of this study is multifaceted. Not only does it reveal the numerous violations of international law and conventions of the age, such as 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1929 Geneva Conventions, but also shows how the event shaped the ICRC in the long run.

Because the ICRC was faced with a belligerent Israeli actor who was unwilling to listen and conform to international law and conventions, the ICRC itself had to adapt in what it considered were practical ways to help ensure the Palestinian civilian prisoners were protected under the barest of rights.

Citing his final report, the study quotes de Reynier:

[The ICRC] protested on numerous occasions affirming the right of these civilians to enjoy their freedom unless found guilty and judged by a court.

But we have tacitly accepted their POW status because in this way they would enjoy the rights conferred upon them by the Convention. Otherwise, if they were not in the camps they would be expelled [to an Arab country] and in one way or another, they would lead, without resources, the miserable life of refugees.

In the end, the ICRC and other organizations were simply ineffective as Israel ignored its condemnations with impunity, in addition to the diplomatic cover of major Western powers.

More importantly, the study sheds more light on the extent of the Israeli crimes during its brutal and bloody birth. And “much more remains to be told,” as the final line of the study states.

“It is amazing to me, and many Europeans, who have seen my evidence,” Abu Sitta said, “that a forced labor camp was opened in Palestine three years after they were closed in Germany, and were run by former prisoners – there were German Jewish guards.”

“This is a bad reflection of the human spirit, where the oppressed copies an oppressor against innocent lives,” he added.The study essentially shows the foundations and beginnings of Israeli policy towards Palestinian civilians that comes in the form of kidnapping, arrest, and detainment. This criminality continues till this day. One merely has to read the reports on the hundreds of Palestinians arrested prior, during, and after Israel’s latest war on Gaza mid-summer of this year.

“Gaza today is a concentration camp, no different than the past,” Abu Sitta concluded to Al-Akhbar English.

Yazan al-Saadi is a staff writer for Al-Akhbar English. Follow him on Twitter: @WhySadeye