Gaza Genocide Turned the Holocaust Magic against the Zionist Magician

Using the Holocaust to Attack the Jews

Are all those who have accused Israel of being a Nazi state anti-Semites? Hardly. Walter Reich opines that the Holocaust is now being used to criticize Israel, not to defend it. From the former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:

Dozens of cities held ceremonies last week to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The good news is that the dead were remembered. The bad news is that even as the Holocaust is becoming a fixture in the world’s memory, it is also being increasingly used as a weapon against the Jews and the Jewish state.

For some, ironically, the acknowledgment of the Holocaust’s reality has become a screen behind which anti-Semitism has gathered new force. The hard-core Jew-haters spent decades denying that the best-documented genocide in world history ever took place. That won them such derision that even many anti-Semites have begun to admit the reality of the Holocaust — and now are hoping that simply by doing so, they can immunize themselves from the charge that they’re anti-Semites in the first place. How can you be an anti-Semite, they figure, if you recognize the Holocaust?

But as some people who don’t like Jews have found, it’s worth acknowledging the Holocaust if you can then turn it into a cudgel against the Jews. And that they’ve done, in spades. According to this crowd, the Jews today have become Nazis. The Jewish state is now supposedly carrying out a Holocaust against the Palestinians. Jews, the haters say, have always been evil, and their evil is only growing.

Of course, not all criticisms of Israel are the product of such bigoted logic. People of good will around the world are naturally shocked by the tragic and appalling deaths of Palestinian civilians, including those killed in the recent war in the Gaza Strip. Like any country, Israel can be criticized. But the massive and unceasing eruptions of outrage against the Jewish state — in a world in which other countries and groups have, often provoking barely any outrage, engaged in immensely more destructive and immoral behavior — can only be explained in a few ways. One is that attacking Israel has become a means of attacking Israel’s ally, the United States. Another is that over-the-top attacks on Israel, particularly those invoking Holocaust language, have become a means of once again attacking the Jews.

The Anti-Defamation League has documented the way this weapon was used during the recent war with Hamas. Here are a few of the placards spotted at rallies: In Times Square, the group reported such signs as, “Israel: The Fourth Reich,” “Stop Israel’s Holocaust,” “Holocaust by Holocaust Survivors,” “Stop the Nazi Genocide in Gaza” and “Nazi Genocide, Israeli Genocide.” In Chicago: “Palestinian Holocaust in Gaza Now.” In a Los Angeles demonstration, the Star of David in an Israeli flag was said to have been replaced by a swastika, accompanied by the words, “Upgrade to Holocaust Version 2.0.” In San Diego: “Stop the Israeli Holocaust on Gaza.” And the league reported that one rally in Washington included an effigy of the Israeli prime minister wearing a swastika armband and holding a dead baby.

The Gaza war provoked similar attacks from some world leaders and people of influence. “The Holocaust, that is what is happening right now in Gaza,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in televised comments, according to Reuters. The New York Times quoted a Catholic cardinal who argued that Gaza increasingly “resembled a big concentration camp.” And according to the Jerusalem Post, a Norwegian diplomat based in Saudi Arabia sent out an e-mail from her Foreign Ministry account in which she wrote, “The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany.” She reportedly also attached paired photos designed to suggest that Gaza was equivalent to the Holocaust: Next to the iconic photo of the Jewish child in the Warsaw Ghetto being menaced by a rifle-toting Nazi soldier, the diplomat is said to have placed an “image of an Israeli soldier aiming his weapon at a Palestinian boy.”

Are all those who have accused Israel of being a Nazi state anti-Semites? Hardly. There’s genuine anger in the Muslim world, as well as in Europe and elsewhere, about Israel’s actions in Gaza. The suffering is terrible. So are the images of devastation Israel left behind. And there are also plenty of people who are angry at Israel because it stands for the reviled United States.

But the reality is that much of the vitriol directed at Israel has indeed been spouted by anti-Semites. Not only have they hurled the Nazi canard at Israel, they’ve expressed clear anti-Semitism — some of it openly violent or even eliminationist. The pro-Israel but reliable Middle East Media and Research Institute has been documenting anti-Semitism on Palestinian television for years, including calls for the murder of Jews. It reports that, the day before International Holocaust Remembrance Day, one Egyptian cleric admitted on an Islamist TV channel that the Holocaust had happened — and added that he hoped that one day Muslims would do to the Jews what the Germans had done to them. To demonstrate what he had in mind, according to the institute, he showed footage of heaps of Jewish corpses being bulldozed into pits.

In designating an International Holocaust Remembrance Day back in 2005, the U.N. General Assembly acted with noble intentions, even if parts of the world body still aim to delegitimize Israel. Such commemorations help the world understand that the goal of the Holocaust was the annihilation of an entire people — and help them appreciate the vast differences between that event and, for example, the war in Gaza. But even as the Holocaust has been increasingly acknowledged and explained, it also has been increasingly used as a cudgel to beat Jews and the Jewish state.

Walter Reich, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University, is a former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

We the "CHOSEN" are untouchable

Because we are “untouchable”: Spain to amend law to avoid trying “CHOSEN” war criminals


Miguel Moratinos has no Turkish balls

By Naser Jafari

[ 31/01/2009 – 03:03 PM ]

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, (PIC)– The Spanish government has decided to amend the country’s law dealing with prosecuting military commanders involved in war crimes.

Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni announced the news following a meeting with her Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos after a Spanish court accepted a lawsuit against former Israeli war ministry Benjamin Ben Eliezer and the then head of the air force Dan Halutz on charges against humanity.

The Israeli 2nd TV channel quoted Livni as expressing satisfaction over Moratinos’s decision and informed both Israeli premier Ehud Olmert and justice minister Daniel Friedman on the latest developments in this regard.

She stressed that Israel would continue in its efforts to settle such cases not only in Spain but in the whole world, the TV report said.

Spanish judge Fernando Andreu agreed to look into the case against Ben Eliezer and Halutz along with five other former Israeli officials for ordering the assassination of Hamas commander Salah Shehade that also led to the killing of 14 innocent civilians mostly women and children.

The judge said that the assault on the densely populated Gaza Strip was a “crime against humanity” and the lawsuit was in conformity with the international law that incriminates mass murder in any country.

Shehade was killed in July 2002 in the Israeli air raid that bombed his home using a one ton bomb.


Note: This article was written by Tanya Hsu soon after the Israeli war on
Lebanon more than two years ago. It is posted here as a reminder of
Israel’s Nazi nature in light of the ongoing genocidal campaign Israel is
carrying out in the Gaza Strip.

Arab News
The Middle East’s Leading English Language Daily
Friday, 4, August, 2006 (10, Rajab, 1427)
By Tanya Hsu (*)

We are Israel. WE ARE UNTOUCHABLE. No matter what we do the international community will not act against us. Oh, there will be talks at the United Nations but we know that the United States will intervene on our behalf. There will be Arab League discussions but we know that no state will take action against us. There will be mass protests and demonstrations; there will be activists and advocates begging for peace; there will be rallies and fundraisers to help the targets of our bombs. And we know that nothing will make a difference because we are Jews – we are victims of the Holocaust. We have suffered such that we have the right to make the rest of the world pay (even though organised Zionism officially declared war on Germany in 1933, long before Hitler’s Final Solution). Because we are victims.

Yes, we know that peoples all over the world have suffered worse crimes than ours, but they were not the Chosen People. We know that over 22 million Russians were killed under Stalin, 15 million Chinese killed by the Japanese, millions elsewhere in the world who suffer the same fate in the bloodiest 20th century.

We know that Zionism is an atheist Marxist creation using Judaism as its weapon; that we were founded upon terrorism and our leaders became Israel’s prime ministers and Nobel Peace Prize winners; that less than 10% of Jews worldwide supported the Zionist cause for decades until WWII.

We know that the crimes committed by Hitler equally affected Communists, gypsies, the handicapped, and political prisoners. That does not matter – we are special. The rest of the world will not touch us because they are terrified of the label “anti-Semite”. World leaders: terrified of this most glorious ad hominem even though we are mostly not Semitic peoples.

Jews of Israel, the Sephardim Jews, were almost non existent when we arrived from Russia, Poland, Austria- Hungary and elsewhere in the 20th century and demanded Arab land. They had spread out and moved on. We did not come from Yemen, Ethiopia or Iraq, but who cares? We are the victims and that is all that counts.

Time and again we wonder at how far American gullibility will take us. We push it to the limits on cable television and get away with it repeatedly. We know that the majority of the world is aware we blatantly lie when we express our “deepest regrets” because “terrorists” were hiding in the villages we destroy. We even have the gall to pick the precise same targets as a decade ago, ignoring the cries of outrage from America and the West. We’ll just repeat the mantra “a tragic mistake”.

Honestly, we too are rather surprised to see that America patiently sits back and buys our words each time.

We have trained our diplomats well, not only in the art of deception to the media, but by using powerful strong arm behind the scenes tactics to mould the views of US Congressmen and women in our favour.

We have worked on this for decades and it has been perfected for the one place it counts: our bank America. We rely upon those weapons; we need to create constant conflict so as to receive a perpetual $13 billion annual aid package from the US, including unsecured loans that we have never been, nor ever will be, required to pay back.

We are living a dream: what we want is given to us on a silver patter because we are Jews, and we have the Holocaust.

The above is only daring in that it is never voiced publicly in the West. The world is watching as Israel incinerates the Lebanese, next the Syrians and Palestinians, then Iran.

Diplomats call for peace, a cease -fire, and negotiations. They speak the language of non committance. It takes a few brave men and women in leadership positions to dare to speak the truth; losing that AIPAC support in government is the kiss of death, and academics who dare write the facts know that their tenured careers are over. Israel is in the position of dominating the US government to an extent never before seen in history, creating a regime who will fully fund a “new Middle East” which in reality means Eretz Israel consisting of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and even Cyprus by some accounts. There is nothing speculative about these plans for hegemony – everything has been laid out, written down, and presented for years.

This war will not end with a cease-fire next week. This war will not end with a security zone controlled by the UN. This war will not end of Hezbollah and Hamas disappeared tomorrow. This war will not end as long as leaders and diplomats continue to fear the trump card charge of anti-Semitism by Israel.

So when hundreds of children are torn apart by uranium tipped missiles provided courtesy of the US government, look in the mirror.

Have you dared to offend Israel? Have you risked? Ask yourself what role you may have played in contributing to this global disaster.

Nothing will change until you do.

(*)Tanya Cariina Hsu is a British Saudi-US Political Analyst. She lives in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
anti-semitism, Hamas, Hezbullah, Talmud At Work, Tax Dollars at Work, The War on Gaza

“Attack on Gaza a ‘Pre-introduction’ to Attack Iran”



After ordering a cameraman to turn off his camera, Israeli Ambassador to Australia Yuval Rotem engaged in a very frank discussion about the recent Israeli war in the Gaza Strip, calling it “a pre-introduction” to an attack on Iran that Israel apparently expects within the year.

Before the camera was turned off, Ambassador Rotem said “the best thing to do is to have a very open dialogue if there are no reporters or journalists here,” adding “I am far more reserved in the way I am saying my things on camera.” Unbeknownst to him however Sarah Cummings, a reporter for Australia’s Seven News service, was actually in attendance at the meeting after having been “accidentally” invited.

Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, and while its officials have repeatedly attempted to tie the Iranian government to its war on the Gaza Strip this is the first time one of their officials has publicly (if inadvertently so) suggested that the attack on the strip was a warm-up to its long talked about attack on Iran.



January 30, 2009 at 6:12 pm (ADL Hatemongering, AIPAC, DesertPeace Editorial, Extremism, Gaza, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine)

Thousands of Israelis are relaxing in front of their TV sets this evening watching a free DVD that was distributed with today’s Jerusalem Post.

Free hatred c/o American zionism! The DVD is called ‘Farewell Israel… Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam’.

Farewell Israel??? Are they going someplace?? Or are they trying to convince themselves that without Bush the ‘free ride’ is over?

The American Friends For A Safe Israel might consider using their unlimited funds for better purposes…. Spreading hatred and Islamophobia is not the way to guarantee the safety of Israel. Support for the ongoing holocaust in the Occupied Territories, Gaza in particular is not the way to guarantee the safety of Israel.

Perhaps these so-called friends of Israel should consider disassociating themselves from zionism…. the real enemy of the Jewish people. Zionism needs enemies to survive, they need to spread hate to insure their continued existence. Groups such as AIPAC and the ADL would cease to operate if zionism had no enemies, therefore they will continue to create those enemies, it’s ‘good for business’.

Needless to say, my family won’t be watching that DVD, there are 6 episodes of CSI on the local cable station tonight…. much more enjoyable and entertaining.


Who torched my car?


[ 31/01/2009 – 01:46 AM ]

Prof. Abdul Sattar Qassem

On Friday, 23 January, at 9:20 pm, unknown assailants (I know their identities and have handed their names over to the police) set my car ablaze while parked in front of my home (in downtown Nablus).

The arsonists jumped over the fence and poured a flammable substance all over the car. The car was burned down completely.

On 30 December, a person, identifying himself as Muhdi Marqa, a resident of the al-Ein Refugee Camp, telephoned me saying he had just listened to my interview with the al-Aqsa Television. He asked me to “calm down,” adding that I could, if I wanted, consider his call a threat.

This is the same person who had opened fire on my car on 14 June, 2007, when he and other accomplices fired 60 bullets on it. He made sure that the bullets hit the engine in order to render the vehicle unusable.

This person is now serving as a security chief at the Juneid Prison (in Nablus).

Needless to say, the Fayyad government repeatedly vowed to hound and apprehend those elements involved in assaulting citizens and vandalizing their property.

The investigating policemen who arrived at the arson scene found a mask similar to those occasionally worn by members of the Palestinian security agencies.

I hold the government of Salam Fayyad fully responsible for the torching of my car. This government is ultimately responsible for the behaviors and actions of the security agencies as well as the security of citizens. This is at least what it says.

This government is responsible for apprehending and prosecuting the perpetrators and also for compensating for the actual damage and mental anguish incurred by me and my family.

Interestingly, this is not the first time I am targeted by the Palestinian security establishment. In 2005, a security officer dispatched an arsonist to torch my car following the publication of an article by me on the detention of members of the Islamic Jihad.

The day my car was torched, the Maan news agency published a claim of responsibility by a fictitious group calling itself “the Gaza martyrs regiments.” This item remained on the Ma’an’s front page of its webpage for several hours. However, when they received my response, I noticed that it was incorporated into the claim of responsibility. Soon, however, it was mysteriously removed from the Ma’an front page.

Egyptian company "fed" the Israeli Army during the Gaza aggression

Contributed by Lucia

so the “lebanonesian” army gave the zios tea, …and the “egyptianesians” gave them the pastries, it seems

What a load of horse manure!
Did you see that, UP?
If not, then you want to check out the Friday Lunch club blog.

CNN: Egyptian company “fed” the Israeli Army during the Gaza aggression

CNN-Arabic, here (as seen in Jane’s Defense!)

فضيحة من العيار الثقيل، لا يمكن إدراجها إلا في سياق التخاذل والتواطؤ العربي، والمصري تحديدا، مع العدوان ضد غزة، فضيحة طرفاها البارزان للعيان حتى الآن، هما شركة “شانل فوود” الإسرائيلية، وفي الطرف الثاني، شركة مصرية تسمى الاتحاد الدولي للمنتوجات الغذائية” نجحت بشكل مذهل في إخفاء سرها الكبير، وهو تمويل جيش الاحتلال الإسرائيلي بالغذاء قبل تنفيذ العدوان وأثناءه، وحتى بعده؟!

[ 30/01/2009 – 12:02 PM ]

CAIRO, (PIC)– An Egyptian newspaper revealed that an Egyptian company supplied IOF troops with food through the Owja crossing during the war on Gaza while the Rafah crossing was closed in the face of relief supplies to Palestinians.
Al-Osbo’ weekly said that regular convoys of lorries carried the food supplies from the Sadat city to the Owja crossing to deliver the products of the “International Union of Wholesome Food Products” to the Israeli “Channel Foods” company which in turn supplies it to the IOF troops.
The paper expressed horror at the thought of an Egyptian company supplied the IOF troops with foods labelled “Latha” which means “Delicious” at the time the Egyptian people were expressing their rage at the sorry state of the people of Gaza under siege and under attack.
The paper gave details of drivers, their licence numbers

Moses Was A War Criminal (The Bible Tells Us So)

by Carol A. Valentine, Webmaster

“If only Jews would return to the Law of Moses!

“Instead, they follow their secular, atheistic, and Zionist ways!”

So say some, expressing horror at the recent deliberate slaughter of Gazans, particularly the slaughter of women and children. The BBC article below (1) and many others tell the story.

Some critics, like Michael Hoffman, blame barbaric Jewish behavior on the Talmud (2). Others, like Henry Makow, blame secular Zionism (3).

But haven’t these folks ever read the Bible? Are they unaware of the influence of the Old Testament on Judaism?

Please, dear reader, open your Bible. Turn to the Old Testament. For the moment, focus your attention on the Book of Numbers.

You are about to learn that Moses, the great “law giver,” was a war criminal who ORDERED his followers to commit war crimes. The most heinous were crimes were committed against women and children. Moses ordered:

* The slaughter of non-combatant women prisoners.

* The slaughter of non-combatant young boy prisoners.

* The use of young girl prisoners as Israelite sex slaves.

Some strike at the branches of evil, some at the root. Why strike at secular Zionism, so-called, or the Talmud, and ignore the root of the evil, found in the Old Testament?

Let’s get some specifics on how Moses treated Gentile women and children.

Background: In Exodus Chapter 2, Moses flees Egypt because he has killed an Egyptian. He passes through the land of the Midianites, who befriend him. Moses lived among them for a while and “took to wife” a Midianite woman, Zipporah. Moses and Zipporah have a son, Gershom.

Sometime later, Moses develops in-law problems. By the time we reach Numbers Chapter 25, we know that the Israelites under Moses’ command are getting too friendly with the Midianites. A significant number of Israelites start cohabiting with Midianite girls and worshipping Midianite gods.

Moses orders the beheading of the Israelites who are encouraging the mix. For good measure, a plague — presumably sent by Jehovah — kills 24,000 of the offending Israelites. Chapter 25 ends with Jehovah urging his people to “vex” and “smite” or “harass” the Midianites. Why? What wrong did the Midianites do? No one forced the God’s Chosen People to party with the Midianite girls and worship their gods. Whatever . . .

Time passes. Jehovah and Moses spend Chapter 26 of Numbers organizing a huge census and Chapters 27, 28, 29 and 30 laying down various laws for the Israelites.

But by Numbers Chapter 31 — for reasons not explained — Jehovah’s attention becomes fastened once more on the Midianites. He orders Moses to kill them. Why? For what happened in Chapter 25.

Thus Jehovah orders an unprovoked attack on Moses’ in-laws. Not a problem. Moses sends off thousands of his troops to slay them.

The Israelites kill the five Midianite kings and all the other Midianite adult males. They loot the cities and burn them, and take the women and children in captivity.

But when they return, Moses is furious. “Have you kept all the women alive? These women caused the children of Israel to trespass against the Lord . . .” (New King James translation, Verses 15, 16).

Moses then orders:

1) all the non-virgin women captives to be killed

2) all the boy children captives to be killed

3) all the virgin girl captives to be saved for the use of the Israelite men.

Check out Numbers, Chapter 31, King James Version

(13) And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

(14) And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

(15) And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

(16) Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

(17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

( 18 ) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Here is the URL for Numbers Chapter 31, New Living Translation;&version=51;

(13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains [a] who had returned from the battle.

(15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.

(16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.

(17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.

( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

The rest of Chapter 31 is concerned with distributing the Midianite plunder. Thirty-two thousand (32,000) virgin girls were counted in the booty (Verse 35). Thirty-two of these were given to “the Lord.” That is, 32 of these little girls were set aside for the Levities (heave offerings), to be used as concubines (Verses 40 and 41).

Yes, Numbers 31 says what it says. The Talmud sages used Numbers 31 to justify having sex with children. And since the Talmud sages, along with Christians, regard the Old Testament as “the word of God,” why beat up on the Talmud sages? Why not beat up on Jehovah and Moses, who set the standards?

For further discussion of Jewish teachings on sex with children, see the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402. Discussion and links at

It’s true. Moses was a war criminal. The Bible tells you so. Should we be surprised at how women and children were treated in Gaza?


1) New Evidence of Gaza Child Deaths, BBC, 22 January, 2009

(2) Michael Hoffman is author of “Judaism Discovered, A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit.” Mr. Hoffman calls Israel’s Gaza war crimes “‘Talmudic’ War Crimes” rather than “Old Testament” or “Mosaic” war crimes.

(3) Henry Makow blames secular Zionism and the banksters for Jewish barbarity. See Henry Makow’s “The Worst Anti-semites Are Zionists” at: and

Jew soldiers admit they are instructed to target children.

Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes. Israeli soldiers confirm the shoot-to-kill policy.

by Derek Summerfield

Last October I published a review in the BMJ on the appalling human rights situation in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories, providing detailed figures on civilian deaths (over 3000, including over 600 children, in only 4 years) which pointed unambiguously to a culture of impunity for Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers. I also pointed to the rapid rise in poverty and destitution as a direct and foreseen consequence of Israeli policies, with documented rises in child malnutrition, the blocking of food aid distribution, denial of access to medical facilities (including for those critically ill), the killing, wounding and harassment of Palestinian health professionals on duty, and the destruction to the coherence of the Palestinian health system as a result of the apartheid Wall – all violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention. I was not recording a personal view: I was quoting documentation from the United Nations; Amnesty International; international aid agencies like Médecins Sans Frontières; Johns Hopkins (USA) and Al Quds (Jerusalem) Universities; the Israeli human rights organisations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights; Health, Development, Information and Policy Institute (Ramallah), and the Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network (though these were not listed after the paper because the BMJ does not include references in this section of the journal). (1)

My paper attracted a mountain of support at, with many correspondents adding personal testimony to the case. It also attracted a mountain of criticism, indeed vilification. Here the general tone was one of outrage and of almost unconditional refutation of the substance of the paper. Prominent Jewish organisations and spokespersons made hostile statements about the BMJ and declared the intention to complain formally. (2) Israeli mainstream newspapers published articles with titles like “BMJ refuses to apologise”. The BMJ felt obliged to quickly grant publication of a rebutting Personal View and later published a condemnatory letter from Yoram Blachar, longstanding president of the Israeli Medical Association and currently Chair of Council of the international watchdog on medical ethics, the World Medical Association. In his rapid response at Dr Blachar wrote that “the lies and hatred in his piece are reminiscent of some of the worst forms of anti-semitic propaganda ever espoused.”

In the first paragraph of my paper I noted that two thirds of all Palestinian child fatalities had been caused by small arms fire (i.e. directed fire from relatively close range), and that in fully half of these cases the bullet or bullets had hit the head or upper torso – the sniper’s wound.

I went on to write that “clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat”. This sentence appeared to cause more offence than any other in the paper, yet this week it has been confirmed in emphatic fashion – the authority being Israeli soldiers who have committed these acts themselves. (3) It is being widely reported that a pressure group of former soldiers calling themselves “Breaking the Silence” want the Israeli public to face the realities of army actions in their name. They expose the cynicism and hollowness of the IDF mantra, which my critics have clearly taken at face value, that everything possible is done to minimise the risk to Palestinian civilians. These soldiers, who include the son of an Israeli general, say that they were ordered in briefings to shoot to kill unarmed civilians, including children, even in periods of calm when there was no threat to themselves or colleagues, and without fear of reprimand from superior officers. In some areas of the Occupied Territories soldiers operated under standing orders to this effect. One soldier Moshe said that even on his sergeant’s training course there was “pressure to get kills”, and ambushes were set up in Jenin in May 2003 to get them.
The ex-soldiers of “Breaking the Silence“ talk about being ordered to “fire at anything that moved”, and “every person you see on the street, kill him…..and we would just do it”. Briefings before operations included express instructions to shoot the first person who climbed on armoured personnel carriers as they lumbered through narrow streets, as children often did, though there was no military threat involved. They described a child of 12, later said to be 8, who climbed on and was shot dead by “one of our sharpshooters”. Moshe told The Guardian that the attitude was: “so kids got killed. For a soldier it means nothing.” It does not seem he now believes that it means nothing.
A common theme in these testimonies, entirely in line with the conclusions of human rights observers over many years, is the desire to avenge Israeli casualties and inflict collective punishment on Palestinians as a people. After the deaths of 11 soldiers in operations in Gaza in May 2004, “the commanders said kill as many people as possible”. Rafi, an ex-officer in an elite unit, described Gaza at this time as “a playground for sharpshooters” (what my paper called snipers) licensed to use indiscriminate force. There were standing orders to shoot anyone who appeared to be touching the ground, or seen on a roof or balcony, whoever they were. Rafi alluded to the killing of the Moghayyer children, aged 16 and 13, in Gaza at this time as they collected washing and fed their pigeons on the roof of their home. The IDF initially tried to insist that they had been blown up by a roadside bomb, until journalists were shown the bodies in the morgue, each with a single bullet wound to the head. I mentioned this very case in my BMJ paper (I spelt their name as al-Mughayr), noting that Amnesty had called for an investigation into what the facts suggested was murder. Clearly many correspondents to saw this as odious slander. What do they think now?

This is the climate of impunity I and others have been talking about. The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem notes that the IDF does not maintain printed rules of engagement and what rules exist are kept secret. The instincts of the IDF are to lie or obfuscate when embarrassing cases arise (which means those that come to foreign attention: Palestinian public opinion is irrelevant). One ex-soldier Avi describes how his company commander confiscated an incriminating video showing a soldier shooting dead out of the blue a Palestinian man unloading his car in the street below. So too now, for the IDF hierarchy is trying to neutralise “Breaking the Silence”. The chief military prosecutor has labelled their testimony as “exaggerated” and “hearsay”.

Nonetheless 17 separate investigations have had to be started.

These ex-soldiers are speaking from the heart; what they have revealed is of course not ‘news’ to those familiar with a situation that has prevailed for many years, not least during the first intifada (1988-93). The lives of Palestinian civilians, including their children, have never been regarded as worth much in relation to IDF imperatives and operations. The human rights history of these times, which includes the state sanctioned use of torture on what Amnesty described as an entirely institutionalised basis, has been exhaustively documented – some of it by myself. The question is why it has made so little difference. Those who posted up outraged responses to my paper last year were doubtless decent, perhaps liberal citizens in relation to any other issue of the day: they provide a telling lesson in the power of selective moral blindness. Will they cling to the ‘explanations’ of the IDF military prosecutor, or regard the ex-soldiers of “Breaking the Silence” as stooges or worse? I do hope not. Further, would any of them admit that they castigated the BMJ and its editorial team unfairly? Will the Jewish organisations and representatives who protested last year at what they saw as anti-semitic lies respond at to “Breaking the Silence”?

Lastly, are there BMA members who are prepared to lobby for some clear-cut action to be taken as a member organisation of the World Medical Association in relation to the other facet of this dismal picture: the systemic and ongoing violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention? These have been going on under the noses of the Israeli Medical Association, whose silence in Israel has been as telling as the words of their President to the BMJ. I have quoted above the views on my paper of Dr Blachar, WMA Council Chair and IMA President. This must say something worrying about the judgement and indeed moral probity of IMA and WMA when the case in hand is the Palestinian one, but if the International Committee of the BMA is concerned they are hiding it remarkably well. To date the responses I have elicited from the Committee (from Drs V. Nathanson and E. Borman) have been a case study in evasion. Why is this?

1 Summerfield D., “Palestine: the assault on health and other war crimes”, British Medical Journal, 2004; 329: 924, URL:


3 The Guardian. Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order: “Israeli soldiers tell of indiscriminate killings by army and a culture of impunity” (by Conal Urquhart, in Tel Aviv), 6 Sept 2005:,,1563255,00.html

The Global Anti-Semitism Report: The organized Jewish community opposes free speech

By Carlos Latuff

By Carlos Latuff

It is something of an axiom of Jewish life that “Is it good for the Jews?” remains the litmus test of Jewish communal activity – in other words, interest over principles. A good example is free speech. There can be little doubt that the organized Jewish community sees free speech as a problem because it may be used to criticize the behavior of Jewish organizations and especially Israel.

In Canada the response of the organized Jewish community to recent demonstrations against Israel was to attempt to invoke Canada’s restrictions on free speech in order to silence their critics. The Canadian Jewish Congress complained that protests against Israel’s incursion into Gaza contained images that were “uncivil, un-Canadian, that demonize Jews and Israelis.” They are asking the police to investigate the matter for referral to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is in charge of enforcing laws that infringe on free speech. Although the organized Jewish community in Canada has strongly supported the thought crime legislation (see below), Bernie Farber, the head of the CJC, statedwe are firm supporters and believers in the need to be able to demonstrate passionately in free and democratic societies.”

Because of the First Amendment, we are still a ways from the situation in Canada here in the US. Nevertheless, the ADL has been in the forefront of promoting hate-crime legislation in America, and there can be little doubt that they see the First Amendment as a barrier to their interests in suppressing thoughts and speech critical of Israel and other Jewish interests.

An example of the efforts of the organized Jewish community in the direction of thought control is the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law created an office of “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” within the State Department, headed by Gregg J. Rickman. The act not only requires the State Department to document acts of anti-Semitism, but also to “combat acts of anti-Semitism globally.”

The act does not say what the U.S. must do to combat anti-Semitism around the world. I assume combating anti-Semitism wouldn’t require any more in the way of lives and money than, say, the war in Iraq – another project spearheaded by Jewish activism on behalf of Israel. But that may be wishful thinking as the same activists are avidly promoting a war with Iran which would likely be even more disastrous.

In any case, the office issued its most recent Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report (GASR) in March of last year. The document is an excellent example of Jewish activism that would be unremarkable except that it is now officially ensconced at the highest reaches of the U.S. government. As we shall see, it goes beyond criticizing anti-Jewish actions to anti-Jewish attitudes, such as statements about Jewish influence.

The report performs the by now familiar casuistry on Israel as a cause of anti-Semitism. The reader is led to believe that the allegations of Israeli atrocities are overblown propaganda – when the real question is just how Palestinians manage to survive at all in the occupied territories. The recent horrifying incursion into Gaza is only the most recent example. Not only did Israel carry out a starvation-inducing blockade during a ceasefire and an assault that finally provoked Palestinian retaliation, there seems little doubt that Israel committed war crimes – particularly the use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated civilian areas.

The report complains that Israel’s bad behavior is singled out while nobody cares when other governments behave inhumanely. The problem here is that because Israel’s bad behavior is an important ingredient in enflaming the entire region, it should interest everyone. And because of the role of the Israel Lobby in shaping American policy, Israel’s bad behavior is even more properly the concern of all Americans. American taxpayers are not being asked to massively subsidize other badly behaved governments, nor are they asked to fight and die in wars designed to advance the interests of those governments.

The report graciously states that “responsible criticism” of Israel’s policies is acceptable. (Thanks!) But there’s a catch: “Those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews.”

This, of course, has the effect of proscribing criticism of Israel for fear of being called an anti-Semite. Presumably responsible criticism of Israel does not include books like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s The Israel Lobby, despite its academic tone and masterful marshalling of evidence. Jewish activists have routinely accused the authors of resurrecting the Protocols and other vicious acts of anti-Semitism.

As the report notes, Israel is without doubt the source of most anti-Jewish words and deeds in the contemporary world. But the report also points to traditional Jewish stereotypes as a continuing concern: Jews as more loyal to Israel and Jewish interests than the interests of their country of residence; and Jews as having inordinate influence and control over media, the economy or government. For example, according to ADL surveys, substantial percentages of Europeans believe that Jews have too much power in business and in international financial markets. (The percentages range from around 20% in Germany to 60% in Hungary.)
Similarly, ADL surveys indicate that beliefs that Jews are disloyal are common among Europeans, ranging from 39% in France to 60% in Spain. The report notes that “those who believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country tend to believe that Jew­ish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in national governments seek to bend policy toward Israel’s interests.”
In other words, these anti-Semites are living under the illusion that organizations like AIPAC actually have some influence. And they may even believe that highly placed Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle may have steered U.S. policy in a way that benefited Israel to the detriment of the United States.

As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt,

Pro-Israel activists such as Perle typically phrase their policy recommendations as aimed at benefiting the United States. Perle does this despite evidence that he has a strong Jewish identity and despite the fact that he has typical Jewish concerns, such as anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the welfare of Israel. Perle poses as an American patriot despite credible charges of spying for Israel, writing reports for Israeli think tanks and op-eds for the Jerusalem Post, and maintaining close personal relation-ships with Israeli leaders.

Needless to say, the GASR is not a good place to find nuanced or fair treatments of these issues.

The GASR also has a section deploring ethnic nationalist movements of non-Jews, mainly in Eastern Europe, complaining that these movements are commonly anti-Jewish. Typically the anti-Jewish sentiments of such movements stem from the perception that Jews are an elite with considerable power and that this elite opposes the ethno-nationalism of non-Jews-a view that certainly has some basis in reality. (Jewish opposition to ethno-nationalism is restricted to non-Jews in areas where Jews form a Diaspora; it does not, of course, apply to Israel.)

For example, the GASR singles out Roman Catholic institutions as “encouraging anti-Semitism and ethnic and religious chauvinism.” Chief among the offenders is a conservative Catholic radio station in Poland, Radio Maryja, cited for claiming that “Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay exorbitant private property restitution claims [for Holocaust reparations], and that Poland’s President was ‘in the pocket of the Jewish lobby.'”

This seems odd, since it would hardly be surprising if indeed Jews and Jewish organizations were pressuring the Polish government on this issue. Indeed, Norman Finkelstein points out:

In negotiations with Eastern Europe, Jewish organizations and Israel have demanded the full restitution of or monetary compensation for the pre-war communal and private assets of the Jewish community. Consider Poland. The pre-war Jewish population of Poland stood at 3.5 million; the current population is several thousand. Yet, the World Jewish Restitution Organization demands title over the 6,000 pre-war communal Jewish properties, including those currently being used as hospitals and schools. It is also laying claim to hundreds of thousands of parcels of Polish land valued in the many tens of billions of dollars. Once again the entire US political and legal establishment has been mobilized to achieve these ends. Indeed, New York City Council members unanimously supported a resolution calling on Poland ‘to pass comprehensive legislation providing for the complete restitution of Holocaust assets’, while 57 members of Congress (led by Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York) dispatched a letter to the Polish parliament demanding ‘comprehensive legislation that would return 100% of all property and assets seized during the Holocaust’.

No sign of Jewish involvement there. Clearly, Radio Marija is way out of line.

Incidentally, Finkelstein has paid dearly for offending the Israel Lobby: blacklisted from employment in the academic world, deported and barred from Israel, and living in a rent-stabilized apartment near his boyhood home in Brooklyn. The Lobby clearly believes in free speech so long as it’s in done in one’s closet and assuming the neighbors can’t hear it. (More on this below.)

Incidentally, the GASR complains that Giertych also claimed that “Jews ‘create their own ghettos’ because they like to separate themselves from others.” Residential segregation, of course, was standard Jewish behavior in the Diaspora beginning in the ancient world, and it certainly occurred in Poland well into modern times. Indeed, it continues in many areas of the Diaspora today. But, as with thought crimes generally, truth is no defense.

The GASR coyly states that “While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Semitism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution.”
Nevertheless, the act requires the compilation of material that would presumably be protected by the US Constitution, in particular “instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred … against Jewish people.” When one considers that a great many of the attitudes mentioned in the GASR are either substantially factual or reflect common religious beliefs, they would certainly seem to fall within the protections of the First Amendment.

And it’s pretty clear where its heart lies. Indeed, as Ezra Levant has recently described, Jewish organizations and activists have been a major source of support for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, intervening in dozens of cases in favor of plaintiffs. Levant describes the Simon Weisenthal Center as “one of the most vicious interveners in Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship trials.” And Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress stated recently that “our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused.” Levant comments: “That sounds like Ian Fine, senior counsel for the CHRC, who declared that ‘there can’t be enough laws against hate.’ So while the rest of the country is realizing that our government censorship has gone too far, Farber says it goes nowhere far enough; it’s underused. He wants more censorship, more government intervention into thoughts and ideas – and the emotion called ‘hate’.”

Clearly the office of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is nothing if not a Jewish activist organization. And it doubtless would love to institute the same kinds of thought control in the U.S. that have made Canada into a police state. Indeed, it would be entirely within the letter of the law that created this monster if the United States were to declare war on Poland as a means of combating anti-Semitism. At least it won’t be necessary to invade Canada.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University-Long Beach.


"The Obama Era: Arab hopes or Illusions?


Saja kindly translated my lastest article on Obama which appeared on last week:

The Obama Era: Arab hopes or Illusions?

Grandiose hopes about Obama’s era have infiltrated Arab public opinion and predominant political education circles. Many of these illusions do not rely on Obama’s own speeches, programs and promises, but on emotional factors and psychological relief resulting from the end of Bush’s era.

Some in our countries take comfort in Obama’s skin color, in spite of flagrant anti-Black racism in the Arab world. Others find solace in his name, which is one third Arabic (and one third Swahili).

Some in Arab media still insist on defining Obama as a Muslim even though the man spent about two years negating the accusation of Islam, just like someone defends himself against the accusation of committing some crime. Others yet hang on to the pettiest matters and weakest links to justify their illusions. For example, some see in his mere reference to the Islamic world during his inauguration speech proof of his friendship towards Arabs and Muslims and their causes. But actual evidence takes precedence, or should, over illusions.

Widespread disappointment in the Arab world generates varieties and colors of wishful thinking. The state of humiliation and indignity Arab regimes have experienced on the hands of Bush create exaggerated optimism to the point that some in Arab media have announced the end of American imperialism.

While it is still too early to judge Obama’s era, there is some indication to make preliminary assessments about the direction of foreign policy in his administration.

The inauguration speech was comprehensive regarding domestic and foreign policy. It included general slogans, references and promises, but it would be hasty to conclude that Obama has divorced all Bush’s policies.

Quite the contrary. He was perfectly clear and frank in his speeches and references to the Middle East during the electoral campaign. The higher his poll ratings, the closer he grew to Bush’s policies and intentions towards Israel, which are the origin while Arabs are a secondary detail in a policy obsessed with Israel’s security. Security is the right of only one people for them.

The inauguration speech included an insinuation towards the Islamic world, but it was met with exaggeration and reverence in Arab media. The series of wars and humiliation by the Bush administration has made Arabs easy victims of pretty talk, only comparatively.

However, Obama’s “reference” towards the Islamic world came in the context of his speech about terrorism and his pursuit of terrorists. In other words, he made no methodical shift from Bush’s administration’s perspective (or that of Zionists), which links the Muslim to the terrorist.

He offered no meaningful initiative to causes which concern the Arab and Islamic worlds, such as American wars and traditional western orientalist hostility, the United Sates’ support for tyrannical regimes in the Middle East, and Israel and its incessant wars and aggression.

Obama called on some regimes which “repress” their people, but everyone knows that those include only regimes which object to the American will. This means that Obama’s politics won’t be different from Bush’s politics with regard to democracy. Violation of Arabs and Muslims rights are allowed and praised if the oppressor is supportive of US wars. The proximity of Obama’s politics to those of Bush surface on more than one front, as he postponed his decision to shut down Guantanamo Camp, or he decided to shut it down within a year, after he had spoken about immediate closure. Torture may remain secretive, as the appointed Attorney General indicated.

The issue of withdrawal from Iraq has also changed. Today he speaks very vaguely about a “responsible withdrawal” from Iraq, after he used to promise complete withdrawal within a six-month period at the beginning of his electoral campaign.

As for Afghanistan, he promised to escalate the war there and increase the number of occupying troops. This means that Obama considers a policy of “surge” in Afghanistan in return for Bush’s “surge” in Iraq.

Hence, the difference between the two men, Bush and Obama, is only with regard to the location of downpour of bombs and rockets, not about ceasing them altogether. Obama surpassed Bush by calling for violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty under the rubric of “pursuit” of terrorists. And a number of Pakistani citizens were in fact killed on the first days of Obama’s administration. This was termed “inauguration bombardment.”

However, America’s pursuit of terrorists has become a familiar issue for villagers in various places in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, where American warplanes monstrously shell for the remotest suspicion of the existence of someone wanted or their brother or uncle or father. So the operations remind us of cowboys’ adventures in American movies.

The Arab world anxiously awaited some kind of statement from Obama about Israeli aggression (with participation of some Arab regimes) towards Gaza. Obama’s team excused his silence by pointing to Bush as president, albeit Obama issued a clear stance towards the Mumbai explosions in India and he certainly didn’t take refuge in utter silence then.

Obama’s fans didn’t wait for long before he articulated a stance about the Middle East. He gave a speech at the State Department only two days after he became president. He said nothing new, though there were some in Arab media that insisted on clinging on to false hope.

Obama’s speech was a series of the usual clichés used in American foreign policy towards the Middle East. “She” is the sweetheart in their opinion, and the state of aggression and occupation in ours. Obama’s analysis of the barbaric aggression towards Gaza indicates his policies towards our region. He spoke as usual about Israel’s security, to indicate everything stays the same, and everything else is secondary. Israel’s security doesn’t only mean defending Israel, but also preserving its military and technical superiority in comparison to all Arab countries combined. It actually also means Israel’s right to attack, invade and aggress. Israel has enjoyed this right incessantly since Lyndon Johnson’s administration. As for the suffering of Gaza’s people, Obama spoke about it in the passive voice, so that you would imagine that the Strip had suffered a hurricane that destroyed everything.

The general talk, in his speech, about humanitarian suffering in Gaza fell within the context of previous points he’d said during the election campaign. Its essence was that the Palestinian people themselves bear the responsibility of their own suffering, and he named Hamas in this regard.Nobody in the media rushed to ask him about the reasons for the Palestinian people’s suffering before Hamas was created. Pro-Israeli American political discourse cannot be rejected or questioned. Obama reiterated his words about Hamas’s terrorism and expressed sympathy with the “victims” of terrorism in “southern Israel”. This racist construct, which does not consider our civilian losses victims of terrorism, does not change throughout administrations.

It is no coincidence that no Palestinian women or children were ever considered victims of Israeli terrorism, because Israel has a monopoly over the characterization of victimhood. The disproportionate comparison between the number of Israeli victims (the state of Israel has resorted to deception, as usual, by counting those who suffered “shock” from Hamas’s rockets among the wounded, as if all the Strip’s people didn’t suffer shock from the Israeli aggression) and the number of Palestinian victims in Gaza was intended to exonerate Israel from war crimes. Obama reiterated the usual line of praising regimes that enjoy good relations with Israel. His acclaim of the Egyptian regime is noteworthy to say the least. He called on the Jordanian regime to continue training Palestine “security” forces, that is, Obama’s administration will continue the Dayton Accord for igniting civil war in Palestine.

Obama continued to stress the importance of preventing “smuggling” of weapons even though Security Council resolution 1680 addresses only prohibition of “illegal” weapons, so that Palestinian forces aligned with “moderation” take advantage of smuggling “legal” weapons.

While it is true that Obama demanded opening the crossings, this contradicts Israel’s tight grip on the Palestinian people’s neck in the Strip, with American cooperation and support. But some rushed to search for positive points in Obama’s address: some Arab and Islamic organizations (which celebrated Bush’s arrival in 2000) in Washington tried to assert that Bush’s foreign policy era is gone forever, and Arab media should be blamed for its haste since Obama is not Bush. There are other standards and criteria with which one can distinguish the two administrations. But the manufacture of American foreign policy is a complex process which involves various administrations, institutions and authorities. The American president’s shift of foreign policy, especially as it pertains to the Middle East, requires decisive decision making and courage that remains to be seen from the Obama administration as of yet, and unlikely to be seen as the man dreams of a second term. Also, why does the American president need to change his policies toward us if Arab regimes are obedient and complacent under all circumstances.

Of course, this is not reason for absolute pessimism, unless we believed Anwar Sadat in that all affairs are in America’s hands. Change, lest we forget, can come from the Middle East, even if it doesn’t come from the US, but this requires determination and action.”

Bushama’s surge in Afghanistan: rely on criminal warlords

“President Obama intends to adopt a tougher line toward Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, as part of a new American approach to Afghanistan that will put more emphasis on waging war than on development, senior administration officials said Tuesday…They said that the Obama administration would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building increasingly to European allies, so that American forces could focus on the fight against insurgents.”

Posted by As’ad at 9:33 AM

The Samson Option – Vatican vs Chief Rabbinate


Oy, if this meshuggenah zundel pope, who was himself a member of the Hitler Youth, thinks that he can push this holocaust-denying bishop into our faces, he should think again!

Our Chief Ashkenazi Mezger will never allow it. We want the Vatican back on its knees. They must remember that Jesus was one of us.

So far we have only cut ties with this papal schlemiel, but this Benedict must understand that what happened in Goyza can easily happen in the Vatican. If we can bomb mosques, does he think we will hesitate to bomb cathedrals?

Our Olmert would weep to see such destruction of all the pretty Italian architecture, but we will do whatever we are forced to do for the security of Yisrael.

Maybe our Professor Martin van Creveld should explain to the Romans that we have a nuclear missile pointed directly at St. Mark’s Basilica.

As Martin’le says, “We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.”

Nu shoin, even after seeing how we annihilated Goyza, the goyim still don’t understand the Samson option we are keeping as a last card to play.

United Against the Papal See

Meshuggenah – crazy, someone who is nuts
Shlemiel (shleh-meel) – a clumsy, inept, pathetic, oaf.

Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Calls off Rome Visit


Israel’s chief rabbinate has cancelled its planned participation in a meeting with Catholic officials in Rome in March in protest at Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to reinstate a Holocaust-denying bishop.

“The five representatives of the chief rabbinate who were due to meet five Vatican representatives in Rome in March will not be able to participate in this meeting in the current state of affairs,” the rabbinate’s director general Oded Wiener said.

“The dialogue that we began in 2000 following the visit of former Pope John Paul II cannot continue as if nothing has happened after such a decision, announced nearly on the day that the international community commemorates the Holocaust,” he said.

He was referring to the pontiff’s decision on Saturday to bring back into the fold of the Catholic Church four breakaway bishops, including Richard Williamson of Britain who has claimed that the Nazis did not use gas chambers.

Wiener said he had written to the Vatican demanding that Williamson should apologize for his remarks. “I have sent a letter to Cardinal Walter Casper, president of the Vatican commission charged with Jewish relations, to explain our attitude, underlining that in the least, one should have demanded a public apology from this Holocaust-denying bishop before reinstating him,” he said.

He said the pope’s remarks on Wednesday in which he expressed “solidarity” with Jews and condemned denial of the Holocaust were important but not enough. “It is an important step toward resolving this unfortunate affair,” Wiener said. “But it is not enough. So we are waiting for a response from the Vatican to the letter that I sent Cardinal Casper. He did not exclude participating in the March meeting in Rome as planned if the Vatican’s response is “satisfying.”

The German pope, 81, said on Wednesday he was in “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews, adding at his weekly general audience: “The Shoah should be a warning for all against forgetting, denial and reductionism.”

“Moghniyyeh Assassination Will Never Be Behind Us”



“My stance against the Egyptians was correct, and I still denounce their ongoing closure of the Rafah border crossing with Gaza,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “The opening of the Rafah crossing is crucial to the Palestinian people, the Resistance and the living conditions there… its closure is one of the biggest crimes in history,” his eminence added.

Hussein Assi

Readers Number : 355


Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah held on Thursday a press conference to commemorate the “Freedom Day” (the commemoration of freeing Lebanese and Arab detainees out of the Israeli jails on 29/1/2004). The main part of the conference was devoted to details of the Operation Al-Redwan accomplished last May and in which all detainees in Israeli prisons, including chief of detainees Samir Qintar, were freed.
Sayyed Nasrallah started his conference by recalling the swap deal achieved in 2004. “During such days in 2004, the Islamic resistance has achieved the most important swap deal and many of the Resistance fighters were liberated,” his eminence said. “At that time, we have made a promise to all those left at Israeli prisons, including Samir Qintar, that we would work hard to liberate them, and this was accomplished through the Operation Al-Redwan,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized.

Before entering into missing details of the above mentioned operation, the Hezbollah Secretary General seized the opportunity to recall the remaining Arab detainees in the Israeli prisons. “This day should be an occasion to remember and express solidarity with our detained brothers,” his eminence said, emphasizing that there were still more than 11,000 Palestinian, Jordanian and Syrian detainees who are suffering a lot. “This cause should remain in the conscience of this nation and push it to assume its responsibilities regard this cause as a national one at one side and humanitarian and ethical at the other,” his eminence stressed.

Sayyed Nasrallah then entered into the details of the Operation al-Redwan, notably regarding the fate of Palestinian martyr Dalal Moghrabi and Lebanese missing Yehya Skaf. “The Israeli claimed that Yehya Skaf has been martyred during Dalal Moghrabi’s operation, but we had no evidence for that,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “During the Operation al-Redwan, they provided us with the remains of 4 martyrs they claimed that Dalal’s and Yehya’s were among them,” his eminence added.

Moghrabi was martyred in a battle with Israeli occupation forces after her resistance group, including Skaf, blew up a bus they had hijacked on the road between Tel Aviv and Haifa in 1978, killing 36 settlers.

He added that during “Operation Al-Redwan”, “we have received those remains and we could clearly specify the rest of the martyrs’ remains, however concerning these remains, the Lebanese Laboratories couldn’t provide us with concluding results thus we had to send the remains’ DNA to the most important Labs in France and few days ago we have got the results which were not helpful,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, explaining that “we were unable to say they were Dalal’s or Yehya’s or any of the four other martyrs.”

“We cannot conclude this issue,” Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized, noting that while the question was not a martyrdom one with Dalal, all hypotheses regarding the body of Yehya Skaff were still possible. “Is he a detainee in Israel? Is he alive? Is he a martyr? A martyr whose body is missing or whose body Israel retains?”

His eminence stressed that all possibilities were still valid, “Yehya Skaff’s family must resolve this issue through legal means… We, in the Islamic Resistance, don’t consider ourselves qualified to handle this issue, so it is up to Skaff’s family to pursue and conclude the matter.”

Sayyed Nasrallah also held the Zionist entity responsible for the fate of Mohamad Farran (the Lebanese fisherman). “The Israelis deny that Farran has reached their hands, but we don’t believe them because his boat reached the Israelis and when it has been returned, blood was on the boat,” the Hezbollah Secretary General noted, pointing out that the Farran’s family was the side concerned with settling the issue.

His eminence concluded the first axis of his press conference by recalling that the Zionist entity was still holding on to the remains of more than 350 Lebanese and Palestinian martyrs. “Around 350 martyrs’ remains were still with the Israeli enemy,” Sayyed Nasrallah declared, adding that “the issue of returning the remains of our martyrs from Israel remains open.”


Sayyed Nasrallah devoted the second axis of his press conference to the fate of the four Iranian missing diplomats, calling on the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Forces to reveal it. “The Israelis claimed, in their report, that the four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped and executed by the Lebanese Forces and buried,” his eminence said, but noted that Hezbollah believes that the mentioned diplomats were still inside the Israeli prisons. “They are only misleading us,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

“Everyone knows that the four diplomats were kidnapped by the Lebanese Forces in 1982,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed, wondering whether the mentioned party has afterwards executed the diplomats or handed them over to the Israelis.” His eminence called the Lebanese government to reveal the fate of the 4 Iranian diplomats stressing that Hezbollah was ready to cooperate with this issue. “It is a humanitarian and moral issue that we need to reach a conclusion on.”

The Resistance leader recalled that the four diplomats should have been protected by the Lebanese security apparatus. “It’s the authority’s duty to reveal their fate,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, calling on the LF to assist the concerned sides in disclosing the fate of the four diplomats. “The Lebanese Forces, as part of the Lebanese government today, can give us facts on this issue.”


The Hezbollah Secretary General then tackled the 22-day Israeli deadliest offensive against Gaza that has claimed the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians, including 420 children and injured thousands others. “The actual goal of the Gaza war was to subjugate and wipe out the Resistance and topple the Hamas government,” Sayyed Nasrallah declared, noting that the Zionists did not have any declared goals of their war on Gaza.

Indeed, and according to Sayyed Nasrallah, the Zionist entity was incapable of achieving any of its goals in Gaza. “There was an international and Arab US decision to exploit what is left of the Bush period to change the facts. However, Israel has politically and militarily failed and some voices in Israel are saying that the failure of Gaza war is the same as the July War in Lebanon,” his eminence pointed out.

Sayyed Nasrallah praised the Palestinian Resistance for its steadfastness, heroism and firmness. His eminence recalled that the Resistance’s strength has pushed the Israelis to declare a unilateral ceasefire, although it hasn’t achieved any of its goals. “Those who did not recognize the Resistance’s victory in Lebanon won’t recognize the victory in Palestine for the same political reasons,” Sayyed Nasrallah noted.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah Secretary General noted that the Israeli war against the Palestinians, which has started even before the latest aggression, was still ongoing. “Gaza blockade continues amid dire humanitarian and economic conditions,” his eminence noted, stressing that the war and aggression against Gaza is still going on, but in different forms.

“Linking the reconstruction of Gaza to political terms represents an unacceptable and humiliating form of political blackmail,” Sayyed Nasrallah stressed. His eminence called on everyone to provide the Gazans with help without asking for return or setting conditions.

Hezbollah leader also condemned all “impudent” statements made by some European officials against the Palestinian Resistance. “One of the European officials condemned Hamas and called it a terrorist organization that launches missiles because it kills what he called “Israeli civilians.” However, he didn’t dare to accuse Israel of committing crimes,” Sayyed Nasrallah noted. “This proves to us that the American-European do not even admit that Israel has committed the most barbaric crimes before the whole world.”

In his first comments since United States President Barack Obama took office on January 20, the Hezbollah leader said there was no difference between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush when it comes to Israel, adding that the new U.S. administration had so far shown absolute support for Israel.

Answering a question, his eminence reiterated Hezbollah firm position towards Egypt over the Gaza offensive. His eminence re-condemned the Egyptian regime “because it continues to close the Rafah crossing.” His eminence accused the mentioned regime of “lying,” stressing that the Rafah crossing was not open, “I doubt that this regime is an honest mediator because it works on imposing the conditions of others on the Palestinians.”

“My stance against the Egyptians was correct, and I still denounce their ongoing closure of the Rafah border crossing with Gaza,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. “The opening of the Rafah crossing is crucial to the Palestinian people, the Resistance and the living conditions there… its closure is one of the biggest crimes in history,” his eminence added.


The Lebanese issues were tackled by Sayyed Nasrallah during the questions-and-answers part of the conference. One of the questions was about Hezbollah’s solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance during the Gaza offensive. “What we have done during the Gaza war was within the limits of the possible,” his eminence declared, adding that the Islamic Resistance will remain ready to defend Lebanon. “We won’t leave the circle of the conflict with Israel and we shall stand up to the enemy,” the Resistance leader vowed.

Asked about Hezbollah’s retaliation to the assassination of its top military commander Imad Moghniyyeh (Haj Redwan), Sayyed Nasrallah reiterated that “the day won’t come when we’ll put the blood vengeance for the martyr Moghniyyeh behind us, it will always be ahead of us,” vowing that Hezbollah would avenge the assassination and confirming that the investigation proved that the Israeli Mossad was behind the crime. “The Israelis are living in fear of our revenge. Don’t expect me to say when we will strike or respond to what the Israelis claim had happened. His eminence was referring to reports in Israel claiming that a large-scale attack planned by Hezbollah in Europe had been thwarted.

The Hezbollah Secretary General renewed the Resistance’s readiness to face any Israeli adventure in Lebanon, saying “No body can say that Lebanon is safe since the Israeli has no problem in inventing pretext for his aggressions.” His eminence addressed the Israelis sayingwar with us won’t be a picnic; it will be costly for you and your army.”

Concerning the internal issues, Sayyed Nasrallah renewed his party’s openness for dialogue, denying that the party considers the discussions useless and already settled, noting that if the defense strategy was settled “we would have suspended our participation in the dialogue table.” His eminence, meanwhile, emphasized that Gaza and July wars are supposed to reassure the vision of the defense strategy, renewing Hezbollah call to increase the number of participants in the dialogue roundtable so that it includes all national forces.

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah warned against using sectarian language in the parliamentary election campaigns. “Using electoral money is more acceptable than using such language,” his eminence said. His eminence concluded by revealing that he has sent a friendly reproach to the head of the Future bloc MP Saad Hariri through mutual friends “because his last speech was not in the line with what we agreed upon in our last meeting.”

Jewish Propaganda: Massive Hezbollah attack against Israeli target in Europe thwarted

Every family has a story, here are some of them

Eva Bartlett writing from the occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, 30 January 2009

One family’s story

Destruction in Izbet Abed Rabu.

There are many stories. Each account — each murdered individual, each wounded person, each burned-out and broken house, each shattered window, trashed kitchen, strewn item of clothing, bedroom turned upside down, bullet and shelling hole in walls, offensive Israeli army graffiti — is important.

I start to tell the stories of Ezbet Abbed Rabu, eastern Jabaliya, where homes off the main north south road, Salah al-Din, were penetrated by bullets, bombs and/or soldiers. If they weren’t destroyed, they were occupied or shot up. Or occupied and then destroyed. The army was creative in their destruction, in their defacing of property, in their insults. Creative in the ways they could shit in rooms and save their shit for cupboards and unexpected places. Actually, their creativity wasn’t so broad. The rest was routine: ransack the house from top to bottom. Turn over or break every clothing cupboard, kitchen shelf, television, computer, window pane and water tank.

The first house I visited was that of my dear friends, who we’d stayed with in the evenings before the land invasion began, with whom we had huddled in their basement as the random crashes of missiles pulverized around the neighborhood. I worried non-stop about the father. After seeing he was still alive, I’d done the tour, from the bottom up. The safe-haven ground floor room was the least affected: disheveled, piles of earth at bases of windows where it had rushed in with a later bombing which caved the hillside behind, mattresses turned over and items strewn. This room was the cleanest, least damaged.

Upstairs to the first level apartment, complete disarray. Feces on the floor. Broken everything. Opened cans of Israeli army provisions. Bullet holes in walls. Stench.

To the second floor, next two apartments, all of the extended sons and wives and children’s rooms. More disarray, greater stench. This was the soldiers’ main base, as can be ascertained, from the boxes of food — prepackaged meals, noodles, tins of chocolate and plastic-wrapped sandwiches — and the clothing left behind by the occupiers. A pair of soldier’s trousers in the bathtub, soiled with shit.

F. tells me: “The smell was terrible. The food was everywhere. Very disgusting smell. They put shit in the sinks, shit everywhere. Our clothes were everywhere. The last time they invaded [March 2008], it was easy. They broke everything and we fixed it. But this time, they put shit everywhere: in cupboards, on beds — my bed is full of shit.”

She is strong and has handled the invasions before, but the desecration of her house has got her down.

“A minute ago, Sabreen opened her clothing cupboard: there was a bowl of shit in it! They used our clothes for the toilet. They broke the door of the bathroom and brought it into our room. I don’t know why.”

The door lies sideways on the floor of her bedroom, which itself looks like a tornado has taken apart. “They took out my lingerie and left it lying everywhere,” she goes on, listing the personal grievances which are more hurtful than the financial wreckage.

As F. continues to clear the soldiers’ mess, she talks about her family’s state of mind. “Abed [her young nephew] is very afraid, he wants to leave because of the zenana,” referring the drones which fly overhead despite the ostensible ceasefire unilaterally declared by Israel on 18 January and violated by Israel since then.

Where a mosque once stood.

Land torn up by tank treads.

“A professional army”

When I visited two days later, the house much tidier but still soured with the clinging stench of the soldiers’ presence. “We’ve cleaned as much as we can, but it’s so difficult. We still don’t have running water, we have to fill jugs from the town water supply.” From walking the sandy track, I know how hard it is even empty-handed on foot, let alone laden with heavy jugs or trying to navigate any sort of wagon to carry large amounts of water. The track had been more of a proper dirt road before it, and the land around, was torn up by Israeli tanks and bulldozers.

From the kitchen balcony I look out and see razed land below, bombed houses, the jumeiza tree beyond, burned but somehow still standing amidst the ruins. The cement water tank that had survived previous raids and that was there last month was finally gone, destroyed by aerial bombing.

From the living room window we look out on the hilltop area behind which F. had already explained had hosted invading Israeli troops in the past. This time tanks not only amassed but created a massive earthen arena in which Israeli soldiers brought detained Palestinians. One neighbor, F. tells me, was taken there. He, 59, and his son, 19, were led there at gunpoint and stripped to their underclothes. The occupying soldiers surrounded them in tanks, in a circle. “We hadn’t done anything wrong,” they told F. later. They were detained in Israel for three days in solitary confinement, blindfolded, handcuffed, intermittently interrogated, beaten and interrogated again, asked “Do you have tunnels at your home? Where are the fighters? Where are the rockets? Do you know anything about Hamas? We will destroy your house if you know anything.”

F.’s sister, A, describes their 17 days at the Foka school, after evacuating their al-Tatra home. The schools which were to be a safe-haven (but were in reality not, as seen with al-Fakhoura and the other UN schools that were bombed and hit with what is almost certainly white phosphorous) were no YMCA, not even with the most basic of amenities, certainly not warmth, hot drinks, restful nights.

“We couldn’t sleep at all at night, we were very frightened. There was no security. Where could we go? We had no where to go. We were 35 people in one small classroom. There weren’t any mattresses, no covers. It was cold, very cold, at night. No electricity. No water. The few bathrooms in the school had to serve hundreds of us; they were overcrowded, filthy. Our relatives were able to get us blankets after the first four days, then it was better. But we didn’t have enough to eat, only a little bread, not enough for a family, and canned meat.”

The usual perspective and gratitude for surviving overrides what is her right to be indignant, depressed, to cry and lament their suffering.

“Thank God we have a room in our house. Many people’s houses were completely destroyed,” she says of her own seriously-damaged house. The soldiers who ransacked, destroyed their clothes and shelled the home also stole a computer and 2,000 JD,” she tells me. Why would she lie? I know the family to be honest, not deceitful. They have no reason to fabricate the thievery. And theirs is not an isolated case.

Amnesty International sent a fact-finding team to Gaza following the Israeli attacks. Chris Cobb-Smith, also a military expert and an officer in the British army for almost 20 years, said “Gazans have had their houses looted, vandalized and desecrated. As well, the Israeli soldiers have left behind not only mounds of litter and excrement but ammunition and other military equipment. It’s not the behavior one would expect from a professional army.”

And that was just one family’s story.

A life interrupted.

Salvaging belongings.

Psychological terror

Two of her boys worked to pull pieces of clothing, books and anything reachable from under the toppled cupboard. Every item is sacred. The mother led me through her house, pointing out the many violations against their existence, every graffitied wall, each shattered window, glass and plate, slit flour bags — when the wheat is so precious — and the same revolting array of soldiers’ left-overs: spoiled packaged food, feces everywhere but the toilet, clothes used as toilet paper. The same stench.

“They broke everything, broke our lives. That was the boys room.” We continue through the wreckage. “Look, look here. See that?! Look at this!” This is to be the refrain as we step over destroyed belongings into destroyed rooms.

It isn’t only the destruction, defiling, vandalizing, waste. It’s also the interruption of life, a life already interrupted by the siege. She held out school books, torn, ruined, and asked how her children were supposed to study when they have no books, no power, had to flee their home, are living in constant fear of another bombardment of missiles (from the world’s fourth most powerful amilitary).

Graffiti left by Israeli soldiers reads: “Until now/ A crawling saboteur (terrorist)/ 3 in the junction/ 2 in the plantation/ A suicide-old man/ [illegible]/ An innocent.”

Some of the graffiti reads:

“We don’t hate Arabs, but will kill every Hamas,” and “IDF [Israeli army] was here! We know you are here. We won’t kill you, you will live in fear and run all your lives!”

For surviving members in families like hers, this psychological terror is real. For those who have been killed already, the “we won’t kill you,” is a lie. Ask the surviving fathers, mothers, siblings and children.

From the rooftop, we see neighboring houses inflicted with the wrath of the Israeli military machine. And great swathes of land that once held homes and trees, now naked, stubbled with pillar fragments at painful angles, rubble, stumps and tank tracks.

“Here, here, come look over here, over here.”

“That was all our land: clementines, lemons, olives …”

“That’s my brother’s house over there, its all broken …”

The drones were still overhead, the words too urgent, too many, too fast, too dizzying.

Down to ground zero and on to more newly wrecked houses and lives. Past a water pump which served at least 10 houses in the area, hit by missiles, ruined.

Passing more shells of houses, I meet Yasser Abu Ali, co-owner of a paint and tools supply shop bombed to the ground by two F-16 missiles. Seventeen people were immediately dependent on the revenue from the business, not accounting for indirect dependents (suppliers, buyers). As Abu Ali tells of his and his brothers’ $200,000 loss, it is revealed that he is a cousin of Dr. Izz al-Din Abu al-Eish, the doctor whose three daughters and niece were killed by Israeli shelling on his house in Jabaliya. Everyone has their own story, and stories overlap, tragedies overlap and compound.

Samir Abed Rabu’s damaged home.

At Samir Abed Rabu’s, the tour begins the same as the others: everything is broken and upside down, there are Israeli soldiers’ leavings (food, playing cards, feces) and graffiti: “Join the Israeli army today!” and other slogans from the patriotic invading and occupying forces.

The house is more holes than walls, from multiple tank shells to automatic gunfire shots from the tanks. Seeing so many intentionally and deviously-ruined houses dulls the concept of damage. But strangely some things stand out as odd or notable amidst the wholescale destruction. Entrails of ceilings and support beams hang in threads. A chair sits gutted.

And there are the sniper holes. I look out the hole facing Salah al-Din street, at the Dawwar Zimmo crossroads, and I realize that it was from one of these very holes that the emergency medical worker Hassan would have been shot, thankfully not killed (unlike the 13 other emergency medical workers). Thankfully we also weren’t shot dead. These sniper holes litter house walls in homes all over Jabaliya, al-Tatra, al-Zeitou — all over Gaza.

The baby’s bedroom was not spared from the attacks. A wall of cheerful cartoons and cute baby posters contrasts the ugliness of the gaping shelling wounds, a reminder that nothing is sacred to an army that will shoot children point-blank.

The rotting donkey out back explains the stink, a stench different than that of the army’s usual odor.

Leaving Samir Abed Rabu’s ruins, I see a newly homeless family making tea over a fire, behind the rubble of their former home.

Saed Azzat Abed Rabu stands under a missile hole in his bedroom ceiling, explaining that on the first day of the land invasion, he and family had been in the house when a missile struck it. They frantically evacuated to a school and only learned of their house’s post-occupation demise upon returning after the Israeli soldiers left.

It is like the others: ravaged, left with soldiers’ waste and wine bottles — Hebrew writing on the label (wine isn’t available here anyway, so there’s no question who drank the wine), rooftop water tank blown apart, and rooftop views affording more sights of neighborhood destruction and of the lemon trees that once stood near Saed Abed Rabu’s home.

I left Abed Rabu that day, weaving among taxis, motorbikes, trucks and carts packed with belongings, people who had no home to stay in, who’d only come to retrieve what they could from their former lives. I’d seen more than I felt I could internalize or reproduce for others, but knew I’d go back for more stories because I knew there are more. More than I can possibly hear or pass on.

A house violated

Yousef Sharater and children in front of their damaged home.

Remarkably, the staircase in Yousef Shrater’s bombed and burned house is still intact, as are the 14 people who make up the three families who were living in the house. Shrater, a father of four, walks over broken cement blocks and tangles of support rods and up stairs laden with more chunks of rubble, litter left by Israeli soldiers, and other remnants of a bombed, then occupied, house.

In the second story front room the original window is flanked by gaping holes ripped into the wall by the tank missiles that targeted his house. “They were over there,” Shrater says, pointing just hundreds of meters away at Jabal Kashef, the hilltop overlooking the northern area of Ezbet Abed Rabu.

In the adjacent room, Shrater points further east to where more tanks had come from and stationed. “My wife, children and I were in this room when they began shelling. We ran to the back room for safety, hoping it would be some protection.”

The back room is another haze of rubble and bits from explosions. The tanks had surrounded the entire Abed Rabu area and no sooner did the family take shelter in the back room when a new shell tore into the house, fired from tanks to the south of the house. “It hit only a meter away from the window,” he points out, and leaning out the window and looking up, the hole left from the tank shell is just one meter above. “If it had come into the room, we’d be dead.”

Shrater explains how the Israeli soldiers forcibly entered the house and ordered the family members out, separating men and women and locking them in a neighboring house with others from the area. His father and mother, living in a small shack nearby, were soon to join them. The soldiers then occupied the house for the duration of the land invasion, as Israeli soldiers did throughout the Abed Rabu area, as they did throughout all of Gaza. And as with other houses in occupied areas, residents who returned to houses still standing found a disaster of rubbish, vandalism, destruction, human waste and many stolen valuables, including mobile phones, gold jewelry, US dollars and Jordanian dinars (JD), and in some cases even furniture and televisions, used and discarded in the camps Israeli soldiers set up outside in occupied areas. Shrater says the soldiers stole about USD 1,000 and another 2,000 JD (approximately USD 828) in gold necklaces.

Yousef’s father who suffers from asthma.

Back in the east-facing corner room, Shrater steps around a 1.5-meter-by-1.5-meter depression in the floor where tiles have been dug up and the sandy layer of foundation beneath was harvested. “They made sandbags by the window, to use as sniper positions.” The bags are still there, stuffed with clothing and sand. “They used my kids’ clothes for their sniper bags,” Shrater complains. “The clothes they didn’t put in sandbags they threw into the toilet,” he adds.

The whole house has sniper positions. Sniper holes adorn each of the two west-facing rooms overlooking the Dawwar Zimmo crossroads, where bodies were later found shot dead and unreachable by family members or emergency medical teams (including the Red Crescent medics who were shot at, one hit in the thigh, when trying to reach a body on 7 January).

From the roof we see more clearly the surrounding area where tanks were positioned, the countless demolished and damaged houses and buildings, and bits of shrapnel from the tank missiles. Shrater’s father, 70, is on the roof, and begins to tell of his experience of being abducted from his house and locked up with his wife and others for four days. “They came to our house there,” pointing to the low-level home which housed him, his wife and their sheep and goats. “The Israeli soldiers came to our door, yelled at us to come out, and shot around our feet. My wife was terrified. They took all of our money, then handcuffed us. Before they blindfolded us, they let our goats and sheep out of their pens and shot them. They shot eight dead in front of us.”

The elderly Shrater, who suffers from asthma, and his wife Miriam were then blindfolded and taken to another house where for the next four days Israeli soldiers denied him his inhaler and his wife her diabetes medications. Food and water were out of the question, and Yousef Shrater’s father says their requests for such were met with soldiers’ retorts of “No, no food. Give me Hamas, I’ll give you food.”

Mariam Shrater, still terrified from her four-day ordeal.

The older man leads us downstairs and behind Yousef Shrater’s house to his small home where a still-terrified Miriam sits, eyes still wide with alarm. “We saw terrible things, terrible things. I saw dead bodies on the street,” she says, rocking back and forth in agony. Hajj Shrater agrees: “In 63 years, I’ve never seen anything like this.”The denied insulin and syringe lie ground into the earth near their door, along with various tablets. Twenty meters away, the remains of the animal feed shed razed in the rampage mingle with rocks and rubble.

The house between Yousef Shrater’s and his parents has also been damaged. The asbestos roofing lies in hefty chunks on the floors of the bedrooms and kitchen, save for where it hangs precariously in the underlying waterproofing plastic sheeting, along with the heavy concrete blocks used to weigh the tiles down. The kitchen is black with soot from what must have been another white phosphorous fire, and empty shells lie in the burnt wreckage of the fire. Two metal doors from the factory across the street from Shrater’s house, bombed by an F-16, are lying near the kitchen, having blasted clear across the street and over the roof of Shrater’s house.

Mahmoud Shrater, Yousef’s brother and also an inhabitant of the main house, is at the house, clearing some of the rubble, sifting. “We need tents to live here now,” he says, standing in the shell of what was their home.

All images by Eva Bartlett.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian human rights advocate and freelancer who spent eight months in 2007 living in West Bank communities and four months in Cairo and at the Rafah crossing. She is currently based in the Gaza Strip after having arrived with the third Free Gaza Movement boat in November. She has been working with the International Solidarity Movement in Gaza, accompanying ambulances while witnessing and documenting the ongoing Israeli air strikes and ground invasion of the Gaza Strip.

Related Links
BY TOPIC: Gaza massacres

Shoe statue


“In the town of Tikrit they raised a statue of a shoe in pure copper” (thanks Mats)
Posted by As’ad at 9:56 AM

Foto: AFP Photo/Mahmud Saleh

Statyn invigs i Tikrit i norra Irak.

Israeli clinic closes after treating five Palestinians

Report, The Electronic Intifada, 29 January 2009

TEL AVIV (IRIN) – The Israeli emergency clinic at the Erez crossing, which opened on the day Israel declared a ceasefire in Gaza (18 January), has closed after treating only five wounded Palestinians.

The original purpose of the clinic, according to press releases, was to provide emergency care and evacuate those needing further care to hospitals in Israel.

Gynecologists, pediatricians, general practitioners and trauma specialists were available at the clinic, which was operated by the Health Ministry and Mada (Israel’s national emergency, disaster, ambulance and blood bank service).

Foreign press and aid workers said the clinic was merely a publicity stunt. Scores of journalists were invited to its opening day.

A volunteer nurse at the clinic, who preferred anonymity, said: “It is an extremely well-equipped clinic. We are able to treat a wide selection of medical conditions; it is a pity that only five patients benefitted from our services.”

An Israeli medical source told IRIN: “We assume it [the clinic’s closure] was a result of a combination of things: Hamas disapproval of what they consider to be propaganda, the fear of Palestinians, and the distance they need to travel to the crossing.”

Mada spokesperson Yerukham Mendola told IRIN: “It was not our decision to open or to close the clinic. The orders came from the office of Isaac Herzog, the social affairs minister.”

Herzog was appointed two weeks ago by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to coordinate humanitarian aid to Gaza.

A spokesperson for the Israeli NGO Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) told IRIN: “This clinic should have been opened on the first day and not after 22 days [the duration of the Israeli offensive]. Our assessment team in Gaza has concluded that an emergency clinic is not enough, and the medical needs of Gaza’s wounded are much more complicated and cannot be treated in an emergency clinic.”

This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Related Links

Nobody may leave Davos !!!


” nobody may leave this room !! ,
the murderer is among us “

Davos ,
is where all the brains and the mussels
of finance are gathered…. .

While the World has a Global financial crisis,
to say the least……. .

If you ask me what did it ?
I would say that greed and capitalism
are the guilty ones

But , if you ask , who did it ?
I would say: ” the guilty-one is in Davos , now “

So , like in any old-classical- film,
where the inspectors gathers all the suspects
in one room at the end of the film ,
before declaring the name of the murderer
(or the guilty)

There it is !!
who ever robbed the World , and Wall Street
and the Pension-Funds. … today in Davos !!

Lock the entrances and the exists of Davos !!
and call in Sherlock Holmes , or Hercule Poirot
or Miss Marple or Colombo or who-ever….

Sherlock Hommos
a colleague of inspector Colombo.


January 29, 2009 at 6:26 pm (Ethnic Cleansing, Gaza, Genocide, Guest Post, Israel, Palestine, War Crimes)

Were chickens firing rockets?

Palestinians inspect a destroyed poultry farm in Gaza. (Sameh A. Habeeb)

Sameh A. Habeeb writing from the occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, 29 January 2009

Israel’s devastating war on Gaza claimed the lives of more than 1,335 persons and left at least 5,500 other wounded. In addition tens of thousands of utilities, houses, businesses, and factories were partially or totally destroyed. The war caused psychological damage for thousands of people especially children. I reported on the war daily and my focus was on the human toll. However, I recently came across a story that changed my focus completely a revealed to me the true nature of Israel’s soldiers and their intent in invading Gaza.

Since the ceasefire was enacted, I have toured throughout Gaza to document some stories and accounts. Although I wrote many articles, I decided to focus on the untold stories of the war: the brutal massacre of thousands of chickens.

On 5 January, many Israeli tanks, troops and bulldozers advanced into the al-Zeitoun neighborhood south east of Gaza City. In this area, called al-Samouni, Israel killed 49 members of the Samouni family, after soldiers ordered them to gather into a single home, which was shelled several hours later.

A number of chicken farms are located only a few meters away from the Samouni house. These farms came under fire by Israeli forces and were totally bulldozed. Thousands of chickens were caught in their sheds, as the bulldozing destroyed their cages. Some died immediately, others slowly without food or water for four days.

Abu Ahmed al-Sawafari, an owner of a chicken farms owners, was sitting amidst the rubble of his destroyed farm. He explained that “I have been working on that profession for long years. I have been growing my business by all efforts. Israelis came then left causing an earthquake in the area. They have killed these chickens, they are equal to human souls. They were suffocated and died due to hunger. I wonder why the Israelis killed these chickens? Were they firing rockets into Israel?”

I continued touring farms in the area where the smell of death filled the air. Surviving chickens roamed around surrounded by thousands of their dead kin. It was an overwhelming scene leaving one to ask only: why?

If this question was directed to the Israeli army their response would be swift and predictable. They would likely contend that “rockets” were being fired from the farms, or that there were Palestinian resistance fighters in the area. However, unless the Israeli army is prepared to claim that these chickens were resistance fighters or were firing rockets nothing can explain why the self-proclaimed “world’s most moral army” would engage in the wholesale slaughter of civilians and chickens alike.

Sameh A. Habeeb is a photojournalist, humanitarian and peace
activist based in Gaza, Palestine. He writes for several news websites on a freelance basis.

Related Links
BY TOPIC: Gaza massacres

How did the Jews manipulate Truman?


Friday, January 30, 2009, 2:54:59 PM youcef
How did the Jews manipulate Truman?
Let’s look at the Truman library. You can find the complete listing at this site:

October 17, 1947: President Truman writes to Senator Claude Pepper: “I received about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country while this matter [the issue of the partition of Palestine, which was being considered by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine from May 13, 1947 to August 31, 1947] was pending. I put it all in a pile and struck a match to it — I never looked at a single one of the letters because I felt the United Nations Committee [United Nations Special Committee on Palestine] was acting in a judicial capacity and should not be interfered with.”

The Jews would inundate Truman with mail in an attempt to manipulate him. The following entry shows that Truman was trying to ignore them:

December 12, 1947: President Truman writes to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine and the World Zionist Organization, that it is essential that restraint and tolerance be exercised by all parties if a peaceful settlement is to be reached in the Middle East.

Truman’s remark to Weizmann is similar to those that our government leaders give to Israel today. Specifically, Truman did not want to support the killings by the Zionists, but he did not have the emotional strength to say so directly. Truman was an emotional weakling, as most democractic government official are. Instead of facing problems and thinking for himself, Truman was easily manipulated by a small number of Jews. Stalin also found it easy to manipulate Truman and other democratic leaders.

Trumam made a very mild, polite suggestion for the Zionists to restrain themselves. Can you imagine if the police were so emotionally timid that they politely asked Jeff Dahmer to “exercise restraint and tolerance”?

February 21, 1948: Eddie Jacobson, a longtime and close personal friend of President Truman, sends a telegram to Truman, asking him to meet with Chaim Weizmann,…

Weizmann flies to America, and a Jewish friend of Truman tries to convince him to meet Weizmann. Why a personal meeting? Why not correspond by letter or telephone? The reason is that people can be manipulated in person much easier than with a letter. Weizmann wanted a personal meeting with Truman in order to manipulate him.

February 27, 1948: President Truman writes to his friend Eddie Jacobson, refusing to meet with Chaim Weizmann…

Truman certainly knew that the only reason Weizmann wanted a personal meeting was so that he could push Truman into supporting the Zionists.

March 13, 1948: President Truman’s friend Eddie Jacobson walks into the White House without an appointment and pleads with Truman to meet with Chaim Weizmann, ..

Here we find Truman’s Jewish “friend” taking advantage of him. Was Jacobson really Truman’s “friend”? Or was Jacobson maintaining this friendship for the potential benefits?

March 18, 1948: President Truman meets with Chaim Weizmann. Truman says he wishes to see justice done in Palestine without bloodshed, and that if the Jewish state were declared and the United Nations remained stalled in its attempt to establish a temporary trusteeship over Palestine, the United States would recognize the new state immediately.

At this meeting, Weizmann pressured Truman into agreeing to immediately recognize the state of Israel the moment it is established. Truman is not permitted to think about it or discuss this issue with the nation. Truman is like a child around Weizmann.

April 11, 1948: President Truman’s friend Eddie Jacobson enters the White House unnoticed by the East Gate and meets with Truman. Jacobson recorded of this meeting: “He reaffirmed, very strongly, the promises he had made to Dr. Weizmann and to me; and he gave me permission to tell Dr. Weizmann so, which I did. It was at this meeting that I also discussed with the President the vital matter of recognizing the new state, and to this he agreed with a whole heart.”

Again his Jewish “friend” slips in and pressures him into promising to carry through with the verbal promise he made with Weizmann. Do your friends treat you like that at your job? Are you as emotionally weak as Truman?

May 13, 1948: Chaim Weizmann writes to President Truman: “I deeply hope that the United States, which under your leadership has done so much to find a just solution [to the Palestine situation], will promptly recognize the Provisional Government of the new Jewish state. The world, I think, would regard it as especially appropriate that the greatest living democracy should be the first to welcome the newest into the family of nations.”

One day before Israel announces its independence, Weizmann again contacts Truman for one final bit of praise, followed by a suggestion of what Truman should do. He then finishes by implying Truman will be considered a great man for recognizing Israel.

The Truman diaries show that Jews contacted Truman time after time after time. They also sent tens of thousands of letters. They would take advantage of America’s (and Britian’s) emotionally weak and stupid government officials. When Truman refused to meet with the Jews, his “friend” would show up unannounced and pressure him to allow the meeting. If Truman made a verbal promise to the Jews, the Jews would come back and make sure that he really intended to keep it.

Keep in mind that Truman was certainly only one of many government official that the Jews were outsmarting and manipulating. For all we know, 90% of America’s government officials were (and still are!) being manipulated by Jews. There are also non-Jewish Americans outsmarting and manipulating the American government officials. Jews aint the only people who manipulate America’s government. The American voters consistently elect emotionally defective officials, and as a result, the USA is wide open for abuse.

The Truman Library has a photograph of the “document” that Truman signed that gave recognition to Israel. The photograph shows two creases in the paper, suggesting that it had been placed in an envelope, perhaps for mailing. Did Truman do that? Or did the people who archive documents do it?

I would not be surprised if Weizmann typed the document and mailed it to Truman. Then Truman held onto it until he was told to sign it. When the orders came in from Weizmann, Truman made a couple of handwritten corrections to the document, stamped it, and signed it. Take a look:

Speak on, Bishop Williamson


There is a rather startling hue and cry for the head of Bishop Richard Williamson, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) bishop who doubts the existence of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and whose excommunication, along with that of his three brother bishops, has been lifted by Pope Benedict XVI.

Extraordinary misrepresentations amounting to false witness have been made against this bishop and World War II revisionists in general. Ignorant persons who have never read a revisionist text have concocted wild fantasies about the character of revisionists and what they believe.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
the founder of the SSPX who was an implacable foe of Judaism, is being made out to be a prelate solely focused on restoring the old Latin Mass, as if that restoration alone, separated from all the ills that beset us, is a panacea. This is an error which Msgr. Lefebvre never indulged. He insisted on the Kingship of Christ in our culture and society. How can such kingship exist when an enormous homicidal gas chamber fraud shackles the minds of millions of Christians?

Some considerable portion of the constituency of the traditional Catholic movement consists of middle class reactionaries and aesthetes almost exclusively concerned with protocol and looking good in the eyes of the Vatican and the world, so as to have at their disposal a lovely liturgy, music, incense, bells and candles. Christ’s radical teaching is not part of their gestalt, and I venture to say they would be embarrassed by Him if He were among them today, since He had a tendency to utter harsh truths about Pharisaic Judaism in very public venues, something considered bad form for those engaged in lobbying the Vatican (and the Zionist media!) today.

Whether or not Bishop Williamson “denies” the existence of execution gas chambers operating in Auschwitz-Birkenau, should not in the least effect his standing in the Church of Christ, or his right to speak, teach and publish, anymore than Neocon Catholics who deny that the recent Israeli massacre of 1300 Palestinians, including 400 children, some of them burned by phosphorous poison gas (irony of ironies), lose any standing in the hierarchy, or their local church, with their abject denial of the Israeli holocaust against Arabs.

God said, “My ways are not your ways,” but many of Richard Williamson’s detractors imagine God to be as the Talmud envisions him, a subsidiary of the ruling Sanhedrin, the rabbinic judiciary before whom we are all expected to genuflect, swallowing their outrageous exaggerations and lies in order that we may be considered good little boy scouts.

One is free to reject or embrace Bishop Williamson’s views, but we should all defend his right to express them, especially in light of the fact that some “Holocaust survivors” seem to think that their suffering under the Nazis (both real and imagined), gives them a license to massacre the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine with impunity.

If Bishop Williamson’s courageous remarks, however ill-timed, cause us to think twice about the alibi for Israeli genocide, then people of good will should be heartened. Instead, we witness the sorry spectacle of prissy Catholic school marms frantically running amok, seeking to smooth the ruffled feathers of rabbis whose talons are fresh with the blood of Gaza.

Holocaustianity is the last truly believed state religion in the otherwise agnostic West. Auschwitz has replaced the Resurrection as the central ontological event in our history, a substitution easy to prove: no one goes to jail for denying the Resurrection. Meanwhile, revisionists are serving long prison sentences in Europe for doubting the homicidal gas chamber icon. Among those prisoners of conscience is the brilliant, former Max Planck Institute doctoral candidate in chemistry, Germar Rudolf.

Far from complementing Christianity, as the Vatican imagines, Holocaustianity is its deadly rival for the hearts and minds of mankind. The typical “ultimate lesson of the Holocaust” imparted in the synagogues dedicated to the Six Million idol which masquerade as “holocaust history museums,” hold that the historic Christian faith, as recorded in the Gospel of John and implemented by the early and medieval church, inevitably fostered the “evil bigotry” that “paved the way for the mass gassings in Auschwitz.”
In spite of the thundering anathemas of the prostitute press and the prelates of newchurch, how can any true shepherd submit to this false religion and its Orwellian “Holocaust” Newspeak, which at its core represents the pernicious and perpetual libel of Jesus Christ and His authentic disciples? More

Pope rehabilitates Holocaust denier

General Patton Saw Jews


At the end of World War II, one of America’s top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable, to end that danger. Unfortunately, his warning went unheeded, and he was quickly silenced by a convenient “accident” which took his life.

Thirty-two years ago, in the terrible summer of 1945, the U.S. Army had just completed the destruction of Europe and had set up a government of military occupation amid the ruins to rule the starving Germans and deal out victors’ justice to the vanquished. General George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army, became military governor of the greater portion of the American occupation zone of Germany.

It was only in the final days of the war and during his tenure as military governor of Germany — after he had gotten to know both the Germans and America’s “gallant Soviet allies” — that Patton’s understanding of the true situation grew and his opinions changed. In his diary and in many letters to his family, friends, various military colleagues, and government officials, he expressed his new understanding and his apprehensions for the future.

…in a press conference on September 22, reporters hatched a scheme to needle Patton into losing his temper and making statements which could be used against him. The scheme worked. The press interpreted one of Patton’s answers to their insistent questions as to why he was not pressing the Nazi-hunt hard enough as: “The Nazi thing is just like a Democrat-Republican fight.” The New York Times headlined this quote, and other papers all across America picked it up.

The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton’s eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night lie wrote:

“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.

Read the rest of the source article here.

P.S. General Patton’s eyes were opened to seeing Jews then. Do you see Jews today?

%d bloggers like this: