The Media , Madona and Michael

Link

https://i0.wp.com/www.israelity.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/peres-madona-3_wh.jpg
The old-Devil and the new-Witch !!

For the coming 15 days ,
I beg of you all to carefully watch
which Media shall mention that Michael Jackson
has converted to Islam , and which Media shall never do it.

Make your own statistics
and then make your own conclusions.

As if ,
it were “wrong” to convert to Islam
as Michael obviously did , therefore it is rather irrelevant…..
but otherwise it is perfectly alright to do as Madona recently did,
….converting to Judaism !!

Bearing in mind that you cannot convert into a “race “
…..although Jews pretend to be a race-people-nation-culture.
When it is normal to convert to Islam , which is
a brotherhood of beleivers , a Religion…..the Religion !!

Madona can now ” inherit ” the Land of Canaan
while probably Michael Jackson , would in theory
enter the Heavens….without ever stealing Mecca…..
nor stealing Jerusalem.

Bearing in mind that Madona , “legaly” ,
may steal Jerusalem now that she became a Jew….

Back to our story !

Watch the news , please ,
and tell us who or what shall ever reveal to us
and indeed to the large public, that Michael Jackson
died as , a converted-Muslim-person ?
and who shall not mention it ?? and how often ??

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:32 PM

Who may dictate to us about the Dictators ??

Link

The main-stream- Media’s and the West ,
have decided to call President AhmadiNejad ,
as being a dictator…. .

Of course it is a matter of opinion
and all opinions are subjective.. …(even mine)

Do we have facts , supporting
the claim or the theory of “Dictator” ????

How different is Mr. Moussavi ???
Or any other presidential- candidate !!

Let us hear it , por favor !!!.

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:23 PM

Two eyewitnesses deny the Basij Involvemen in Neda’s assasination

Link

"Embers and Ashes:" An intellectual’s exile, struggle and success

Link
Atef Alshaer, The Electronic Intifada, 30 June 2009

“My homeland, you have spurned me … I shall never return to you … I shall never ever return to you …”

So ends Hisham Sharabi’s compelling autobiography, Embers and Ashes: Memoirs of an Arab Intellectual. Sharabi, a leading Palestinian intellectual who died in 2005, uttered these words to himself on board a plane from Amman, Jordan to the United States in 1949. He studied and taught in the US for the rest of his life, retiring as a professor of history at Georgetown University in 1998. Ably translated from Arabic by Issa J. Boullata, Embers and Ashes is a poignant story of an intellectual’s exile and struggle.

Sharabi transports the reader seamlessly from his early life in Palestine, where he was born in 1927, to his studies at the American University of Beirut, and finally his own American experience and life as a university professor at Georgetown. While it occasionally lacks cohesion, the book is unmistakably personal and insightful.

Sharabi’s departure from Amman was preceded by tumultuous events in Lebanon where he was a prominent activist in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), led by Antun Saadeh. Perhaps more than anyone else, it was Saadeh who influenced Sharabi’s intellectual trajectory. Saadeh’s political line and that of the SSNP was premised on unity between Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Sharabi depicts Saadeh sympathetically as a man of deep human values: courageous, inspirational and subtly intellectual. But he also shows other aspects of Saadeh’s personality:

“He used to speak of the party as if it were an actual government on the verge of taking power. In his personal behavior and public stance, he acted like a man of state. The party in his view was the only political force that stood up to colonialism and could achieve independence. It was the only force that could liberate Palestine. I think that Saadeh underestimated the depth of sectarian, tribal, and feudal feelings in [Lebanon]” (150-151).

There are two issues regarding Saadeh’s approach to which Sharabi submitted uncritically, and on which he later seems to renege. Firstly, he did not oppose Saadah’s grandiose vision of the Syrian homeland, which shifted from being confined to Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan, to include Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. Secondly, Sharabi embraced Saadah’s view that “the individual was a mere means that society used to achieve its aims; and that society represented a firm and abiding ‘truth,’ whereas individuals fell away like autumn leaves,” thereby “ascribing a universality to society and considering society an ultimate ideal in itself” (59-60). However, Sharabi developed a more nuanced and critical view of these matters, particularly in his attribution of a more central and visible role to the individual in society.

Sharabi was also influenced by German philosopher Nicolai Hartmaan, who “considered moral values as justice, courage, love, and friendship to be objective and timeless. For him, those values enjoyed an eternal existence, like Plato’s ideals” (129).

Embers and Ashes also provides an insightful reading of the Arab and American intellectual landscape. Sharabi is unsparing in his biting criticism of the intellectual and academic environment in the Arab world and points to serious flaws in education. Nor does he hold back in criticizing Arab universities for failing their students. He attributes to them his slowness in grasping the rigorous methods of learning which he encountered in the US. Stating that “I may forgive those to whom I owe my education for their ignorance and their foolishness. But it is far more difficult to forgive them their arrogance and the moral cruelty they practiced in distorting me and calling it an education” (22). For this discussion alone, Sharabi’s book deserves a wide reading, particularly by Arab intellectuals, because it is critical of teachers and professors who are too engrossed in themselves and their self-made grandeur.

Sharabi was born in Jaffa and lived in Acre, and his discussion of Palestine is the familiar but ever-relevant Palestinian yearning for a country that was stolen. He tenderly evokes the image of Acre, the beautiful sea stretching before his eyes, the fertile fields of grain glistening in the eye of the sun, the orange, lemon and olive trees with their scent wafting through; the cascade of houses, finely built and designed; the neighbors sitting peacefully together. But there is often something tragic about Palestinians recollecting or being exposed to images of their towns and villages from which they were expelled in 1948. The Acre that Sharabi knows and evokes before 1948 in his book becomes a less recognizable place as he receives a photograph of it from his Jewish friend, Uri Davis: “familiar, but strange at the same time, in another world … the remaining Arab inhabitants have been forbidden to live in the new city, outside the wall, and have been forced to live within the walled old city, which has become a casbah to the Jews, visited by foreign tourists wanting to buy locally made articles and to see ‘the Arab population of Israel.'” (76).

Sharabi does not dwell on his own significant intellectual contributions as such. In the book, he reflects on his observations and involvement in the SSNP and interactions with events in the Arab world from a distance. He does, however, refer to papers he presented at conferences and gives general comments about his contributions. He considered Zionism as part of an imperial project that could only be understood, and as such dealt with, once there is a proper understanding of the broader context of European colonialism. He also refers to the patrimonial and patriarchal characteristics of Arab societies that weakened their sense of resistance against their aggressors and curtailed their individual freedoms. In this sense, the book provides an incisive reading on many levels of the Arab cultural and political landscape by someone who has been at the thick of major historical events: 1948, the emergence of socialist and nationalist parties in greater Syria and the Arab world and his experience as a Palestinian Arab in America. Sharabi rightly saw value in transmitting his experience and thoughts to new generations, and he does so with distinctive astuteness and sensitivity.

Embers and Ashes is not only a story of exile and struggle, but also of well-deserved resounding success. It is a fitting testament to Sharabi’s life as a Palestinian beacon of humanity and intellectual honesty.

Atef Alshaer has first graduated from Birzeit University in Palestine, where he studied English Language and Literature. He holds a doctorate in Linguistics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Related Links

Israeli doctors colluding in torture of Palestinian detainees

Iink

Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 30 June 2009


Boys showing things they endured in captivity.

Israel’s watchdog body on medical ethics has failed to investigate evidence that doctors working in detention facilities are turning a blind eye to cases of torture, according to Israeli human rights groups.

The Israeli Medical Association (IMA) has ignored repeated requests to examine such evidence, the rights groups say, even though it has been presented with examples of Israeli doctors who have broken their legal and ethical duty towards Palestinians in their care.

The accusations will add fuel to a campaign backed by hundreds of doctors from around the world to force Yoram Blachar, who heads the IMA, to step down from his recent appointment as president of the World Medical Association (WMA).

More than 700 doctors have signed a petition arguing that Dr. Blachar has disqualified himself from leadership of the WMA, the profession’s governing ethical body, by effectively condoning torture in Israel.

The campaign against Dr. Blachar has gained ground rapidly since his appointment as president in November. Critics said his alleged complicity in the use of torture in Israeli detention facilities can be traced to 1995, when he became chairman of the IMA.

Until 1999, when Israel’s high court restricted torture, Israeli doctors routinely supervised the medical treatment of abused detainees, mostly Palestinians from the occupied territories.

During that period Dr. Blachar surprised many colleagues by expressing support for Israeli interrogators’ use of “moderate physical pressure” in a letter to The Lancet, the British medical journal. The phrase covers a wide range of practices from beatings and binding prisoners in painful positions to sleep deprivation. It is regarded by human rights organizations as a euphemism for torture.

Despite the 1999 court ruling, a coalition of 14 Israeli human rights groups known as United Against Torture concluded in its latest annual report in November that Israeli detention facilities are still using torture systematically. Israeli doctors are also being relied on to treat the resulting injuries.

Last week, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) and the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) published a joint report examining hundreds of arrests in which Palestinians were bound in “distorted and unnatural” ways to inflict “pain and humiliation” amounting to torture.

The report noted instances where prisoners, including a pregnant woman and a dying man, were shackled while doctors carried out emergency procedures in a hospital.

According to the report, the doctors violated the Tokyo Declaration, the key code of medical ethics adopted by the WMA in 1975 that bans the use of cruel, humiliating or inhuman treatment by physicians.

Ishai Menuchin, the head of PCATI, said his group had been lobbying strenuously against Israeli doctors’ complicity in torture since it issued a report, “Ticking Bombs,” in 2007, arguing that torture was routine in Israel.

PCATI highlighted the testimonies of nine Palestinians who had been tortured by interrogators. The report also noted that in most cases Israeli physicians treating detainees “return their patients to additional rounds of torture, and remain silent.”

In June last year, PHR-I drew the IMA’s attention to two cases in which the attending doctor failed to report signs of torture on a Palestinian.

Anat Litvin of PHR-I told the IMA: “We believe that doctors are used by torturers as a safety net — take them out of the system and torture will be much more difficult to enact.”

The groups stepped up their pressure in February, writing to Avinoam Reches, the chairman of the IMA’s ethics committee. They demanded that his association investigate six cases of doctors who failed to report signs of torture.

In one case, a prison doctor, under pressure from interrogators, agreed to retract a written recommendation that a detainee be immediately hospitalized for treatment.

Reches promised to conduct an inquiry. However, last month the two human rights groups criticized him for failing to investigate their claims, accusing him of holding only “amicable and unofficial” conversations over the phone with a few of the doctors concerned.

“We have sent to the IMA many testimonies from victims of torture who were referred to doctors for treatment,” Dr. Menuchin said. “But the IMA has yet to do anything about it.

“A significant number of doctors in Israel, in detention facilities and public hospitals, know torture is taking place, but choose to avert their gaze.”

This month, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section issued a report on the torture of Palestinian children, noting that in several of the cases it cited, Israeli doctors had turned a blind eye. A boy of 14 who was beaten repeatedly on a broken arm reported the abuse to a doctor who, he said, replied only: “I had nothing to do with that.”

The report stated that the group “has not encountered a single case where an adult in a position of authority, such as a soldier, doctor, judicial officer or prison staff, has intervened on behalf of a child who was mistreated.”

Campaigners against Dr. Blachar’s appointment as the head of the WMA say its Israeli sister association’s inaction on torture is unsurprising given its chairman’s public stance.

Derek Summerfield of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, said: “The IMA under Dr. Blachar is in collusion with the Israeli state policy of torture. Its role is to put a benign face on the occupation.”

Dr. Blachar told the Israeli website Ynet last week that such criticisms were “slanderous,” saying he and the IMA denounced all forms of torture.

The WMA, with nine million members in more than 80 countries, was established in 1947 as a response to the abuses sanctioned by German and Japanese doctors during the Second World War.

In 2007, the WMA’s general assembly called on doctors to document and report all cases of suspected torture.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

Gilad Atzmon – Tribal Marxism for Dummies

Link

By Gilad Atzmon • Jun 30th, 2009 at 8:42 • Category: Analysis, Biography, Gilad Atzmon, Gilad’s Choice, Israel, Newswire, Our Authors, Palestine, Religion, Resistance, War, Zionism

“The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this “we know better” attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior.” Hisham Bustani

“The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise. While it poses a challenge to Western domination, it is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” Moshe Machover June 2009

For very many years the Palestinian solidarity discourse was dominated by leftist ideology carried largely by Jewish Marxists. Though the support of Jewish leftists was rather important at an early stage, it lost its primacy and urgency as Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian solidarity discourse evolved into a vivid autonomous discourse based on widely accepted ethical grounds. The Israeli war crimes against Palestinians are now well documented. No one needs the odd kosher ‘righteous Jew’ to approve that this is indeed the case.

And yet, in spite of the clear fact that Palestinian solidarity discourse moved ahead, Jewish Marxists are still insisting upon dictating their tribally orientated pseudo-analytical vision of reality.

Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power.

Palestinian thinkers were probably the first to realise that the situation in Gaza, Nablus and the refugee camps had little in common with 19th century Europe. This was enough to defy Marxism as a sole analytical political tool. However, the Jewish Marxists had a far more adventurous plan for Palestinians, Arab people and the region in general. They wanted Arabs to become cosmopolitan atheists. They suggested that Arabs should drop ‘reactionary Islam’ and liberate themselves as ‘the Jews did’ a century ago.

Seemingly, Palestinian and Arab intellectuals grasped that the method that successfully transformed Russia into a Soviet Union, at the expense of millions, was not going to liberate them. They obviously realised that the Jewish Marxists did not intend upon bringing millions of Palestinian refugees home either. It wasn’t even set to launch any form of an adequate resistance. It was there to saturate the discourse with empty rhetoric and pseudo-analytical jargon in order to divert the attention from questions having to do with Jewish tribal politics and Jewish identity.

As interesting as it may be, it is actually the Jewish Marxists, those who support Palestinians as long as they drop Islam, who are the ultimate exemplary exponents of Jewish tribal politics. It is the Jewish Marxist rather than the ‘Zionist’ who exposes the Jewish political ugly attitude in its worst crude form. This is good enough reason to monitor the Jewish Left and to understand its philosophy. As we will see soon enough, Jewish Marxism is there to suppress any form of engagement with the Jewish question by means of spin. It is there to stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying. The Judeo Marxist is an imposter prophet who claims to know the answers and yet, for some reason, his reading of historical events is no less than a total catastrophe. None of his predictions stand the reality test.

One of the last prime exponents of Judeo Marxist ideology is Professor Moshe Machover. Machover was born in Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, he moved to Britain in 1968. He was a founder of Matzpen, a miniature Socialist organisation in 1962.

Machover’s reading of Zionism is pretty trivial. ‘Israel’, he says, is a ‘settler state’. For Machover this is a necessary point of departure because it sets Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.

However, as much as Machover is desperate to divert the attention away from the Jewish question, Jewish tribal politics and the Jewish identity, his entire premise can be demolished in a one simple move. If Israel is a ‘settler state’ as he says, one may wonder, what exactly is its ‘motherland? In British and French colonial eras, the settler states maintained a very apparent tie with their ‘motherland’. In some cases in history, the settler state broke from its motherland. Such an event is a rather noticeable one. The Boston Tea Party may ring a bell. However, as far as we are aware, there is no ‘Jewish motherland’ that is intrinsically linked to the alleged ‘Jewish settler state’. The ‘Jewish people’ are largely associated with the Jewish state, and yet the ‘Jewish people’ is not exactly a ‘material’ autonomous sovereign entity. The lack of material Jewish motherland leads to the immediate collapse of Machover’s colonial argument.

Moreover, native Hebraic Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to any motherland except their own state. As an ex-Israeli, I can testify that neither my parents nor myself or any of my fellow expatriates have ever been aware of our ties to any other (mother) state except Israel. Accordingly, it may be true that Zionism carries some colonial elements and yet, it is not a colonial project per se, for no one can present a material correspondence between Jewish ‘motherland’ and a Jewish ‘settler state’. The Jewish national project is unique in history and as it seems it doesn’t fit into any Marxist materialist explanation.

We are therefore entitled to assume that Machover’s ‘settler state’ is just another Judeo Marxist spin that is there to divert the attention from the clear fact that Israel is the Jewish state. In order to understand Israel’s unique condition we must ask, “who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness?” In fact answering these questions will help us understand why Machover and other Jewish Marxists invest so much effort producing all those spinning lines. As interesting as it may sound, Machover’s alteration of Marx’s ideology is very similar to the Zionist distortion of the Old Testament.

Machover’s recent publication is a pompous lengthy talk delivered in November 2006 at the Brunei Gallery Lecture Theater (SOAS). For some reason it was published this month by the ‘International Socialist Review’ (ISR).

Considering the embarrassing fact that none of Machover’s prophetic predictions ever stood the reality test, the publication of such an embarrassing paper raises serious concerns regarding the editors of the ISR’s understanding of world current affairs. It would be very interesting to learn from the ISR whether they approve Machover’s suggestion that Islam “is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” It may also be important to make sure that every Muslim on this planet grasps that an Elder Jew Marxist from London is convinced that they should throw away their Qur’an.

I may as well mention that here in Britain and in some other European countries more than just a few people are concerned with the latest rise of nationalism. Shockingly enough, comparing Machover’s pretentious and supremacist take on Islam with rightwing nationalists reveals a very amusing fact. As it happens, Machover, the supremacist tribal Jew, has managed to locate himself on the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. While Griffin is kind enough to offer ‘foreigners’ £50,000 to go back to their ‘homeland’, our Kosher Marxist Machover is set to rob the indigenous of his belief on his land. Griffin would not be able to get away saying about Islam that it is ‘backward looking’. This is hardly surprising, while Griffin has to meet a vast opposition, Machover would have very little opposition within the left. One reason is obviously due to the fact that Machover and his three Jewish supporters are unnoticeable. Another reason may be that racism and supremacy is, unfortunately, a Jews only territory. As we can see Machover is getting away with it. Hopefully, this will change soon.

Machover launches his 2006 talk raising an interesting question: “How should we think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

One may notice that Machover uses the word ‘should’ and ‘we’. This form of speech suggests that the elder may possess the right answers within his intellectual arsenal. Following the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Machover declares with confidence “We must be clear as to how the issue ought to be approached.”

I may admit that when a Jewish marginal Marxist voice utilises the “we”, ”should” and the “ought”, my red alert light turns on. I recently read about some Bolsheviks who held similar ideas to Machover’s did to Ukrainians peasants in the name of just another “we”.

Machover dares to come with a pretence of an analytical argumentation that will produce a concept of resolution. “Understanding,” he says, “ought to precede judgment.” Someone should remind the Hebraic ‘prophet’, who probably failed to read a single philosophical text in the last 50 years, that ‘understanding’ is itself subject to prior ‘understandings’ and ‘judgments’. In fact Machover’s own systematic failure to understand the power of Islam and Arab resistance is in itself due to his own prior understandings and some severe Judeo Marxist indoctrination.

It would take Machover many thousands of words of pseudo-analytical text before he outlines his vision of ‘Resolution—principles and preconditions’.

“Above all,” he says, “pressure must be applied on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.” “Equal rights”, he affirms are “essential elements that a lasting resolution must embody”. This is quite an astonishing insight from a man who claims to understand the conflict. In spite of his ‘analytical research’ Machover somehow failed to realise that the Jewish state is not going to willingly approve any form of equality, for Jewish political ideology does not succumb to the belief in human equality.

“The right of return,” he continues, is the “ recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, to be rehabilitated and properly compensated for loss of property and livelihood.”

This is indeed beautiful and correct and yet, Machover fails to tell us what is going to lead the Israeli Jews to give away their little ‘Jews only state’.

Machover eventually comes with a very simple resolution. “The third and most fundamental element in a genuine resolution is removal of the fundamental cause of the conflict: the Zionist colonisation project must be superseded.” I may stress at this point that Moshe Machover is not one of my satirical fictional characters. He is real and he even has at least 3 Jewish Marxist followers. The crucial question here is how these 4 Judeo Marxists are going to sell this reasonable idea to the Israeli Jews?

Like other deluded solidarity campaigners who fail to realise that the Palestinian future will be determined by ‘facts on the ground’, Machover engages himself in the one state/two state academic resolution discourse. “For a two-state setup to satisfy them, Israel would have to be de-Zionized: transformed from an ethnocratic settler state into a democratic state of all its inhabitants.” For some reason, Machover, who doesn’t even live in Israel, believes that he can tell the Israelis in what kind of country they should live in. “On the other hand, a single state would have to be not merely democratic (and hence secular) but have a constitutional structure that recognizes the two national groups and gives them equal national rights and status.” Once again the Elder Jew Marxist, the embodiment of the ultimate possible marginal voice, is telling the Palestinians and the Israelis that if they want to live together they better be secular. One should admit by now, it indeed takes some chutzpah to be a Judeo Marxist.

After 22 pages of Marxist self-indulgence on the verge of verbal masturbation, the man himself comes with the necessary goods. He admits that he was wasting the time of his listeners.

“Indeed, no genuine resolution is possible in the short or medium term, because of the enormous disparity in the balance of power.”

So in case you happen to wonder what may bring a change. Here it is. ‘Moishe of Arabia’ has two answers to offer. “First, decline in American global dominance” as if Israel is bound to crash with its current allies. As Machover knows, Jews changed their allies rather often in the last century.

“Second,” he continues “a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab East, leading to a degree of unification of the Arab nation—most likely in the form of regional federation.” Seemingly, the archaic Marxist fails to gather the most obvious evolving story, the Arab nation is largely Islam. Arab people are becoming more and more united around their love of Allah and the notion of Ummah. As far as reality is concerned, Islam is the rising force, whether our four Judeo Marxists like it or not, Hamas scored astunning win in the first Palestinian parliamentary election which it has taken part in. Would elections take place in the PA today, the Hamas victory would even be greater. Considering the fact that Islam is the only successful resistance force against Western colonialism and the Zionist war machine, the fact that ISR published Machover’s Judeo-centric intellectually lame analysis is there to prove that the time may be ripe for Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip. In 1884, in his invaluable paper ‘On The Jewish Question’ Marx argued that for the world to emancipate itself of capitalism, it should liberate itself of the secular Jew[1]. I do not know much about people liberating themselves. I would narrow it down and argue that for Marxist and socialists to liberate their discourse in accordance with their master mentor, they may have to consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators.

As we saw before, in terms of tolerance and ethics, Machover positioned himself to the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. In terms of political pragmatism, he is to the right of Shimon Peres and his ‘New Middle East’. Machover has his own plans for a New Middle East. He is going to unite them all and throw their Qur’an away.

By now we are really accustomed to the fact that Machover doesn’t like Islam. “The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise …Nor can it possibly be a uniting force: on the contrary, it is deeply divisive as between Sunnis and Shias, and has no attraction whatsoever for non-Muslim and secular Arabs (including Palestinians), let alone Hebrews.”

Interestingly enough, Moishe of Arabia comes with these embarrassing lines in November 2006, just 5 months after the Shi’a Hezbollah gave a signal of support to its Sunni brothers in Gaza, reminding Israel that they were just to the north, and wide awake, serving the Israeli army with a humiliating defeat. The Marxist elder comedian gave his 2006 talk less than a year after Hamas has scored a

In fact, many Socialists and Marxists do, especially out of the Anglo-American world. However, those Marxist and Socialists who keep spreading anti-Islam views better just join the Jewish Lobby, Wolfowitz and the Neocons, the NJF They better do it because this is where they belong.

[1]“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Karl Marx On The Jewish Question, 1844

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz musician, composer, producer and writer.
Email this author All posts by Gilad Atzmon

Hamas "Improving": From "Immunity to learning" To "Immaturity" – updated

In this updated version, I corrected some spelling mistakes, and stormed my memory, digged to retreive the historical regional and international scene in order to draw reader’s attention to another fact. Year 1958, was also the peak of the Cold War. In 1958, I witnessed the birth Fateh, the birth of United Arab Repuplic, toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution. Now, dear readers connnect the dots.
Finally Tony found it


I coppied the article from his Blog, and added in green the parts he omitted

Hamas’ political immaturity

AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE And Recommended Reading

Why??
Because, the writer concluded:

In the late 1980s, the same Palestinian national movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel, and paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.
Tony is telling his readers, Isaid it: Like Arafat, Hamas is using the resistance to get to negociation table.

Read Haidar Eid telling you:

  • Hamas, failed to rectify historic mistakes made by the official leadership
  • Hamas failed to make Gaza 2009, as rightly, expected by The Palestinian people, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Diaspora and in 1948 Palestine to be the Sharpeville of Palestine, a turning point in the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s policy of occupation, colonization and apartheid.
  • Instead of building on victory and on the outpouring of international support in the streets of Istanbul, London, Amman, Caracas, Johannesburg and even Muscat — to mention but a few cities — the leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement, including Hamas, rushed to Cairo for what turned out to be endless, futile rounds of national unity dialogue…… .
  • Gaza leadership failed to act as a victorious one; to wait in Gaza for at least one month after the end of the massacre and make it clear that they would welcome any sign of real support and solidarity while they were staying with their people in Gaza. That, alas, did not happen.
  • Hamas, alas, has fallen within the trap of Oslo and its fetishization of statehood at the expense of Palestinian fundamental rights.
  • In the late 1980s, the Palestinian national movement accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel. This is the same resistance movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, ultimately, led to the signing of the notorious Oslo accords, which paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.

Though I disagree with the author’s conclusion, I respect his opinion, and would comment as follows.
I don’t believe that the resistance movement (I mean Fateh) emerged in the 1960s to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Fateh, was created in 1958, at the peak of the Arab Nationalist Movememt (Lead by Nasir) destroyed Arab Nationalism, pulled the carpet from under the feet of the popular arab national movement lead by Goerge Habash, who aligned his movement with Nasir. It is the “Resistance” movement that paved the way for relieving Arab regimes from their obligation towards Palestinian cause that participated in paving the way for 1967 defeat, that put an end to the idea of liberation of palestine from river to sea.
So, its wrong to compare that “Resistance” Movement that lead palestinian from one defeat to another with Hamas that lead Palestinian to the first victory in their History. Where?
Not in Lebanon, Not in karama (Jordan), in besieged Gaza.
I agree with the author saying:
Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade.
The same statement applies on Hezbullah and Lebanon who paid a similar price for resisting the Bush doctrine in the Middle East.
But, Is it true that had “there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance.
The problem is neither Hamas, nor Hezbullah leadership, its the failure of the Arab nationalism and Arab left and the process of NGOization and Osloization (Culture of peace – culture of Life) that put both (Arab nationalism and Arab left) to the right of Hamas, and Hezbullah.
We failed, Let them try. Thus said George Habash, the real Profet of arab nationalism and armed struggle.
One final word to the author, expecting, that Abbass, Mubarak, and Obama, would come to Gaza, the world war on Hamas would stop if Hamas acted as victorious, and stayed in Gaza for just one month.
ARE YOU DREAMING??

Haidar Eid, The Electronic Intifada, 25 June 2009
“When Hamas, unexpectedly, won the 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the message from the one-third of the Palestinian people living in those territories was clear: no more of the “peace process” facade — with its untiring “two-state solution” slogan that never materialized, and no more of the bread crumbs offered to the new inauthentic NGOized, Osloized leadership classes……

(In the years since the 1993 Oslo accords, funding NGOs — nongovernmental organizations — has been a major means for foreign governments to influence, co-opt and neutralize Palestinian politics. This process of “Osloization” made some Palestinian organizations more loyal to their funders than to their principles.)
Many of those who voted Hamas into power were not, in fact, supporters of the organization, but rather disgruntled Palestinians looking for change and reform after 13 years of futile, meaningless negotiations that did huge damage to the Palestinian cause….. and transformed it from a liberation struggle supported by millions all over the world into a dispute between “two equal parties,” two countries fighting for border arrangements.

Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade. Had there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance. But by 2006, the left had already gone through a process of NGOization and Osloization that put it to the right of Hamas, dovetailing with the right wing that was already in control of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Hamas, then, won the elections because it was expected, whether rightly or wrongly, to rectify historic mistakes made by the official leadership — most importantly defending the right of return of refugees, and putting an end to the unattained two-state solution…… A deadly, hermetic siege was imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza as soon as the election results came out, followed by numerous attempts to destabilize the situation through a US-backed coup attempt, culminating in Israel’s 22-day genocidal war on Gaza.

The latest war was a political tsunami aimed at creating a sense of defeat amongst the Palestinians, and a sense that they are confronted with a metaphysical power that can never be defeated. …..The message was that their choice of an anti-Oslo political power was not only a political mistake, but an existential one as well, a mistake that would change their future altogether; hence, the calculated targeting of children and families. More than 90 percent of the victims of the massacre were civilians, according to leading human rights organizations. None of the declared objectives of the massacre, however, were achieved: Hamas is still in power and the resilience of the Palestinians of Gaza is stronger than ever. Israel has failed to make them feel that they are a defeated people.

Hamas rallied tens of thousands of its supporters in celebrations of the “historic victory over the Zionist entity.” Its spokespersons reiterated again and again that based on this historic victory, there would be no return to the pre-massacre siege and that reality on the ground now “necessitated” new steps. The Palestinian people, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Diaspora and in 1948 Palestine (the part of Palestine on which Israel was declared in 1948), also had high expectations. ……Gaza 2009 was, rightly, expected to be the Sharpeville of Palestine, a turning point in the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s policy of occupation, colonization and apartheid.

This historic victory against Israel’s aggression required a visionary leadership, one with a clear-cut strategy of liberation that divorces itself completely from the Oslo accords and the deceptive two-prison solution. Instead of building on this victory and on the outpouring of international support in the streets of Istanbul, London, Amman, Caracas, Johannesburg and even Muscat — to mention but a few cities — the leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement, including Hamas, rushed to Cairo for what turned out to be endless, futile rounds of national unity dialogue…… . One is not, of course, against any serious attempt for national unity, but one also takes it for granted that the ABC of leadership, especially elected ones, is to be with the masses. The siege, which so far has led to the death of more than 400 seriously ill persons (from lack of medicine or ability to travel abroad for treatment), should have been exposed as the obstacle that prevents the leaders of the resistance from having national dialogue because they, as leaders, cannot and should not leave their besieged, traumatized people and move freely outside Gaza. This should have become a condition. If any Arab dignitary wanted to have a discussion with the victorious leadership, he or she should have been invited to Gaza. One would have expected the Gaza leadership to act as a victorious one; to wait in Gaza for at least one month after the end of the massacre and make it clear that they would welcome any sign of real support and solidarity while they were staying with their people in Gaza. That, alas, did not happen.

This was a step in what I call the “abortion of victory.” Instead of coming up with an alternative program to that of the Palestinian Authority, and all the organizations belonging to it, and instead of building on the unprecedented, growing solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza, the leadership of Hamas, in statements made by its leaders and — more importantly — letters sent to the US president, have started reinventing the wheel! I will limit myself to a couple of important examples: Hamas’ flirtation with the Barack Obama administration and their endorsement of the two-prison solution.
After US President Barack Obama’s much-talked-about speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he had nothing of substance to say about the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, Dr. Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, in an interview on Al-Jazeera International, was extremely happy with the speech……

Failing to understand that Obama’s election does not represent a radical change in American Middle East policy is a sign of, to say the least, political immaturity……. which was, according to him, like Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech! Two nights later, and on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa television, the ex-spokesperson of the first Hamas government argued, and I would say with conviction, that Obama’s (in)famous speech was a clear indication of the change taking place in the US administration and that “we” need to make use of the “diversity” within the American establishment! This, of course, came after Hamas sent a letter to Obama which Senator John Kerry, who visited Gaza a few months ago, refused to carry.

Failing to understand that Obama’s election does not represent a radical change in American Middle East policy is a sign of, to say the least, political immaturity. The “diversity” within the US establishment is like the difference between the Likud and Labor parties in Israel. Obama still represents the Democratic Party, which is a part of the mainstream American establishment. Obama’s victory in the presidential elections, therefore, has not produced a change in the nature of American imperialism. Obviously, Hamas has bought the fiction brought about by the election of Obama and his “seriousness” in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas fails to see that in essence, what Obama is offering is not different from what George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton offered…….In his speech, Obama made it crystal clear that the US-Israel ties are “unbreakable;” prior to that he was more than clear in announcing that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of the Jewish state.” For the Obama administration, Israel’s security remains the issue, which, ultimately, marginalizes the whole issue of Palestine.
The Israeli-American siege imposed on Gaza would be lifted immediately, if Obama decided it should be so. In fact, the US is not merely complicit, but rather a participant in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinians of Gaza……Any freshman student of political science, not to say a child on the streets of Gaza, would tell you this.

The second, more important example, of Hamas’ political immaturity, is its acceptance of the already dead two-state solution. In a joint a press conference with former US President Jimmy Carter, Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh said that Hamas accepts a state limited only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the areas occupied by Israel in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital. This is ironic, not to say bizarre, since every politician in Palestine knows that a two-state solution has been rendered impossible….. by Israeli colonization of the West Bank, by the looting and pillaging of Gaza, by the construction of the apartheid wall, and by the expansion of so-called “Greater Jerusalem.” Since 1967, the US has supported and is still supporting Israel in creating conditions that have made the two-state solution impossible, impractical and unjust.

For a senior Hamas leader to reiterate what has already been said by the head of its political bureau, Khaled Meshal, one can conclude that this is the beginning of a process of deterioration — even Osloization — not only in rhetoric, but also in action……. The Palestinian people are not only those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There are six million refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are waiting to return to their villages and towns in accordance with UN Resolution 194, and 1.4 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have third-class status. The Palestinian struggle is not for an independent state on the 1967 borders, but rather for liberation — liberation for all the inhabitants of the historic land of Palestine. Accepting the illusion called an independent state on the 1967 borders is, in actual fact, an acceptance of a racist solution par excellence.

By launching its genocidal war against Gaza, Israel has shot the two-state-prison solution in the head, which consequently means a dire need for an alternative program that addresses the Palestinian question as one of democracy, equality, human rights and, ultimately, liberation from occupation, colonization and apartheid. Hamas, alas, has fallen within the trap of Oslo and its fetishization of statehood at the expense of Palestinian fundamental rights. Of course, one tends to agree that the current serious crisis in Palestine emanates from the nature of the deformed political system created by the Oslo accords and their claim of laying the foundation for a two-state solution. By participating in the January 2006 elections, most political organizations in Palestine, including Hamas, showed an implicit acceptance of the new political reality created by the Oslo accords and hence the two-state solution. But, ironically, Hamas claimed otherwise, that its objective was to bring Oslo to an end.

In the late 1980s, the Palestinian national movement accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel. This is the same resistance movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, ultimately, led to the signing of the notorious Oslo accords, which paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.
Mohamed Hasanein Heikal and Azmi Bishara, two leading intellectuals in the Arab world, have repeatedly criticized Hamas for its lack of exposure to the external world. This world does not only include the US, Iran and the official Arab regimes. It is a world that also includes the same civil society organizations that pressured their governments in the late 1980s to boycott the apartheid regime of South Africa; it has the university students who have occupied their campuses in an attempt to pressure their administrators to divest from companies having ties with apartheid Israel; it has the students of Hampshire College, the University and College Union of the UK, the Scottish Trade Union Council, the South African trade union federation Cosatu, and others in Venezuela, Bolivia and further afield. It has the Palestinian BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) National Committee. …… The struggle is not only an armed one, but it includes other pillars as well, pillars that emphasize the importance of international solidarity and mass mobilization, rather than placing all hope and faith in Barack Obama and his administration.

Gaza 2009 — the political steadfastness the people have shown in reaction to Israel’s genocidal war — has proven that the Palestinian people are way ahead of their leaderships!”

Haidar Eid is an independent political commentator

# posted by Tony : 8:01 PM

1 comments:

ritalin said…
UPYou have displayed great passion on this post.I am unsure about some of what you are saying in it. However the following segment hit me hardest:”I agree with the author saying:Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The **_price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy__**. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade.The same statement applies on Hezbullah and Lebanon who paid a similar price for resisting the Bush doctrine in the Middle East.But, Is it true that had “there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance.The problem is neither Hamas, nor Hezbullah leadership, its the failure of the Arab nationalism and Arab left and the process of NGOization and Osloization (Culture of peace – culture of Life) that put both (Arab nationalism and Arab left) to the right of Hamas, and Hezbullah.We failed, Let them try. Thus said George Habash, the real Profet of arab nationalism and armed struggle.”

Ritalin
Thank you, many, not only you are unsure about some of what I am saying, I mean who was behind the creation of Fateh (In particular behind Arafat). Therefore, I have to explain.
What I said above is not a conclusion I reached after analysing the history of Fatah and the resistance under the leadership of Arafat. It is an old opinion, theory, almost as old as Fateh. Unfortunately, events (Black september, civil war in lebanon, oslo, PA) supported and still supporting it.
In a famous lecture (after oslo) in London, Hani al-Hassan (an old Fateh Guard, the poltical adviser of Arafat) tried to Justify going to Oslo. He claimed (Hanging Fateh treason on Nasir’s hook) that after 1967 war Nasir told Arafat and Fateh leaders close to Arafat: its over, you has no choice other than reaching a peace deal with Israel.
Consequently, according to Al Hassan, after 1967, Fateh decided its time for preparing the Palestinians to accept a peace deal with Isreal.
Based on Al-Hassan’s statement, I am one of many Palestinians who claimd that, the Massacres of Palestinians, in Black September, in Jordan, in Lebanese civil war, the performance of Fateh during the 1982 war on Lebanon, its alignment with Saddam that lead to the Nakba of half million Palestinian living in Kuwait, starving Palestinians on the PLO payroll for several months before Oslo, were steps in the process that paved the way Oslo, sold Oslo to Palestinians, and the return of “Victorous” Afrafat to Ramallah. In fact he returned to end the First Intifadah.
I am, her, just saying the Plan was there all the time, since the formation Fateh. Actually it was the reason for that formation.
In adopting armed struggle, Fateh put itself to the Left of Nasir and Arab nationalist movement.
Fateh was not the only player, the Syrian Seperation coup funded by Sauda undermined the Liberation Nationalists option, and bosted Fatah and its Palestinian Option.
Both Fateh, based in Syria and, and Pre-assad Syrian regime, pushed, jointly Nasir to 1967 trap, that paved the way in 1969 for:

Here, let us remember that Nasir’s rejected Baghdad Pact , known as Dwight Eisenhower‘s Project, to contain the Soviet Union by having a line of strong states along the USSR’s southwestern frontiercontain.
Nasser felt that the pro-western Baghdad Pact posed a threat to Arab Nationalism. As a response, Egypt and Syria united into the United Arab Republic. At that time, 1958 Syria was as described by Patrick Seal, a feather in wind storm. It is Nasir who protected Syria from the wind storm blowing from Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon.
The United Arab Republic boasted 1958 revolution in Iraq.
On July 14, 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The new government was led by General Abdul Karim Qasim who withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, opened diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and adopted a non-aligned stance; Iraq quit the organization shortly thereafter. The organization dropped the Baghdad Pact moniker in favor of CENTO at that time.”
“The toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution, along with the internal instability, caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance.”
The United Arab Republic boasted also in the same year, 1958, the setting up of the first cells of the Fateh movement in Kuwait
The formation of Fatah was the first nail driven in the coffen of Arab nationalist movement at its 1958 peak, and 1967 and the death (poisoning) of Nasir was the last nail.
I remember, and understand how and why, after the the success of Algerians revolution and the 1961 Syrian seperation coup, tens of Palestinian faction have grown like mashrom within Palestinian in Daispora. Mainly in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Gaza. But I failed till this very moment to find a reason for creation of Fatah in 1958 (the peak of Arab nationalism).
All events, many meetings, discussions, I held since early sixties confirmed my old theory.

  • I met Mahmoud Abbas, accidently, in 1976 in Lybia, without knowing that he is Fatah member, after presenting my theory in his presence, he said nothing other than cursing Palestinian leaders mainly Habash.
  • I met many Fateh Ambasadors, who just commented: Conspiracy theory.
  • Few weeks after Camp david 2, one retired Fatah old Guard, who Joined Arafat in Kuwait, told me many, many stories confirming my theory. He mentioned an internal secret Document issued before 1967, about the two state solution. He said, a copy of the document is available with ….. another Ex-Fatah, living in….This document, lead to a coup within Fateh in Kuwait. The Cuop was ended by Fateh fighter brought from Syria A Kuwaiti flight.
  • There was always, a big question mark about Arafat, his family, real family name origin. In early 1990’s I directly heard, while under arrest from my interrogator, a non-confirmed story, claiming that Arafat is the son of a Jewish family, from Moroco, His grand father, came to Jerusalem in 1928, coverted to Islam, married the daughter of Abu-Assoud (Jerusalem Mofti) in order to stay in Jerusalem). Arafat’s Father business was selling Jewish Head cover, his shop was burned, and he left to Gaza, then to Egypt. His son Yesir was born in a Jewish neighbourhood (Hay Assakakini) in Cairo.
  • Few years ago, I accidently met Arafat’s Egyption half brother without knowing him in a gethering. One syrian claimed, that Syrian PM Al-Kasim was removed because they fount the Al-Kasim family are Ex-Jews. I commented: Good for them, they knew and took action. We know and don’t dare to speakout. I was sitting between Arafat’s Half brother and a friend. My friend hit my leg to warm to stop me, but I told my story. After sabout half an hour, we moved to the dining table and the half brother standing on the other side facing me, without telling me his identity, he commented as follows: Anwar Al-Sadat, after hearing the same story, he asked for Arafat’s family tree. He found Head of Arafat’s family was our Prophet Mohamad. I am not making it. I have many witnesses. In short the stupid comment of Arafat’s half brother confirmed the un-confirmed story.
  • Unlike Cohen (Amin Thabit), the famous spy planted in Syria, Arafat is real and have a real family.

I always argued, how Israel succeeded in assasinating almost all Fatah founders, such as Kamal Edwan, Kamal Nasir, Abu Jehad, Abu Iyad, Abu Alhall, etc.. and fail to get Arafat. His life was saved many, many times, after Balck September in Jordan, The western fleet arrived twice to Labanon to save his ass, Americans rescued him when his plane crushed in Lybian desert. I know many stories about Israel bombing places, building, in both Syria and Lebabon, few minures after Arafat leaving it.
Some would say, how would Israel kill such asset??
My answer is:
After his great sevices to zionist project, in putting Palestinians on the “Peace track” that lead to Oslo and his “Victorous” return to end the first Intifada, Arafat became a liabilty more than an asset.
In Camp David two, he reached and agreement with Barak, but he needed time sell it to Palestinians, Arabs and Muslems, but he failed to deliver. Barak left the office to Sharon, to complete the “Independance” And Arafat lost controll on the Palestinian street with the second Intifidah.
The asset became a Liability. Zionist Elders decided to keep the profile of Arafat as the “Historic God father of Palestinian Armed Resistance” rather than exposing him and paving the way for a New Fatah leader like Barghouti. Especially with the Bahae Mahmoud Abbas Merza, ready to complete the mission.
A Dead “Palestinian HERO” is better than a living EXPIRED EXPOSED SPY.

ritalin said…

Thank you UP,
it is a fascinating topic
there is an old adage, “the truth is often stranger then fiction”
IT makes me think about Arafat wearing a side arm/pistol during his visit to the UN (United Nations)
Would they allow a real Palestinian freedom fighter to wear a pistol? No. But an ersatz Palestian? yes.
8:57 AM, June 28, 2009

Iconic photo of Iranian protester is faked: reveals Italy’s most conservative mainstream paper

Link

By Mary Rizzo • Jun 29th, 2009 at 20:35 • Category: Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Hasbara Deconstruction Site, Newswire, Resistance

There is a picture circulating on the web, framed perfectly. It depicts an Iranian girl doing an unlikely American gesture, a striking parallel to the picture of a solitary Chinese youth standing in front of tanks at Tienanmen Square in Beijing. We can expect to see this picture soon everywhere on Internet.

None other than Corriere della Sera, Italy’s major mainstream newspaper, and one that is quite conservative regarding anything with the Middle East – says the picture is a photo montage, and shows the original picture: a picture of a girl standing in front of Ahmadinejad’s car, date and reason unknown, with an open hand, perhaps simply greeting Ahmadinejad. They even comment on the smiling face of the Iranian leader. http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_giugno_28/iran_foto_simbolo_9cc7d8b4-63ed-11de-baf4-00144f02aabc.shtml

The fake picture was put on Youtube by Secondoprotocollo, which appears to be a very active Italian NGO, with offices in several countries. However, to get to the bottom of things, sometimes all it takes is to look a notch farther down the pole. Just a regular web search engine will lead one to find a critical site, which claims that Secondoprotocollo is a one-man job, entirely run by a certain Franco Londei, and which accuses Secondoprotocollo of having repeatedly made false reports and claims, especially taking photos at random from the web and claiming they represent activists of Secondoprotocollo in dangerous parts of the world.

The critical site appears to be well documented, and I have come across no systematic refutation of the accusations made by the critical site. Others have written (in Italian) about him in the past, and this is the site that seems to know quite a lot about his activities: http://primoprotocollo.altervista.org/index.php . Obviously, I’m not a researcher, and I leave all of that to those who have the time and the expertise, but it certainly does make one wonder. I know nothing of the person, his “movement” nor his aims, and if there is something that people could share to in one way or another bring more light to this strange situation, we welcome the information.

Tagged as: , , ,

Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.
Email this author All posts

How to measure the Jewishness f any place

Link

https://i2.wp.com/www.forward.com/workspace/assets/images/articles/basketball1-101708.jpg

A Jewish-sports- club , somewhere…
and yet , the ball is also round.

Some places on this earth compete
in the course of history about
their religious identity , in regard to a specific religion
or to another…..

If we are to choose Judaism , as for example ,
and if we are to measure the degree of Jewishness of any place ,
we could use the following formula to measure it :

For each Synagogue build : 1.500 points per year
For each Jewish-citizens : 100 points per year
For each Jewish Lord Mayor of that place : 1.000 points per year
For each Jewish-school : 500 points per years
For each Jewish University : 1.500 points per year
For each Jewish Head of State ruling that place : 5.000 points per year

Of course when the school is closed or a Synagogue is abandoned ,
or the Jewish-king is gone……the counting must stop……

Then we can decide to go back in History one or two thousand years
and even four thousands , as you wish…..

If we take ,now
Amsterdam, Istanbul, Cordoba , Jerusalem,
Damascus,
Baghdad, Tehran,Tel-Aviv, Alexandria
and or Prague
……for example ,
and we use my above formula in counting the Jewishness
of any of those cities……
( You may create your own formula, if you wish,
and as you wish )

I am sure that Jerusalem will come as the last one
and if not at least , “one-of-the- least-jewish- cities ” .

I live 33 years in Amsterdam , where 5 Mayors have passed
out of which 4 where Jews….
and another douzen-Jew-Mayors before I came.(1975)
Let alone that Amsterdam might have more Synagouges
than the modern-Jerusalem.

Alexandria has had the largest Jewish community
ever in the Antique-times
and still has the largest Synagogue ever built.

Bearing in mind ,
that Jerusalem did have a non-jewish-Roman-rulers
when even Jesus was there…..untill the year 1948.

Damascus has the oldest still existing Synagogue
and has had once a Jewish-Syrian- King.

Georgia was Jewish 300 long years….if not longer.

Baghdad has the longest originally existing
and the purest Jewish-community in the World
and Tehran comes very close to it…..in that record.

Prague , if we calculate the last millennium only ,
has had qualitatively and quantitatively more Jews
and more Jewishness , than Jerusalem.

If you would calculate now the last 100 years only ,
New-York would be more jewish than Jerusalem… ..

So the Zionists ought to pick up their calculators
and should redefine “the Jewish-home”
even Lord Balfour called it “a” Jewish-home.

I may suggest New-York because it is the nearest to
the Federal-Reserve- building. ……
and not far from the Pentagon.

Raja Chemayel
les bons comptes font les bon amis !!

Posted by Тлакскала at 1:22 AM

The collateral martyr………

Link

Neda Soltan
Neda Agha Soltan, 26 years,
died on June 21, 2009

A Martyr called Neda
shot on the street of Tehran.

This young innocent lady
is a Martyr of coincidence
a Martyr of Fate
also
a Martyr of Circumstances.

Her death was unintentional, an accident….
what the USA calls……. ……. “collateral” .

The West wants another Joan of Arc
The West wants another Jan Pallach
The West wants another Tienanmen Square
The West wants an election as in Zimbabwe
as in Ukraine , as in Georgia !!!
the same script-book , but only another location.

Neda Soltan should not have died
and nobody should die in Iran….

The hypocrisy of the West is till much active
and I wish they would first of all declare
that bombing Tehran is no more an option
and only thereafter, they may mourn Neda’s death…..
because if Israel got its wishes last month
Neda would have been bombed by the USA.

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 1:19 AM

The elephant in the room: Israel’s nuclear weapons

David Morrison, The Electronic Intifada, 29 June 2009

At a White House press conference on 18 May 2009, US President Barack Obama expressed “deepening concern” about “the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” He continued:

“Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”

By his side was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the room with them, there was an elephant, a large and formidably destructive elephant, which they and the assembled press pretended not to see.

I am, of course, referring to Israel’s actual nuclear weapons systems, with which Netanyahu is capable of doing to numerous cities in the Middle East, including Tehran, what the US did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Iran, by contrast, has no nuclear weapons. The US President said so himself in Prague on 5 April 2009 in his major speech on nuclear disarmament. “Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon,” he admitted.

Obama’s remark that “Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon” would be “profoundly destabilizing” and “could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East” is profoundly dishonest. In reality, the race started in the early 1950s when Israel launched its nuclear weapons program.

Let us suppose for a moment that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, capable of producing effective nuclear warheads and the means of delivering them to Israel, within a few years. Would that make Iran a serious threat to Israel, as Obama said? Of course not.

Rulers of Iran don’t want their cities devastated and they know that if Iran were to make a nuclear strike on Israel, it is absolutely certain that Israel would retaliate by making multiple nuclear strikes on Iran and raze many Iranian cities to the ground — so Iran won’t do it. Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal, and the ruthlessness to use it, that is more than adequate to deter Iran from making a nuclear strike on the country.

Likewise, it is unimaginable that Iran would attack the US, or US interests abroad, for fear of overwhelming retaliation.

However, taking account of the elephant in the room puts a very different perspective on the impact of a nuclear-armed Iran.

The significance of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not that Iran would become a threat to Israel and the US, but that Israel and the US would no longer contemplate attacking Iran. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapons of self-defense — a state that possesses nuclear weapons doesn’t get attacked by other states.

One thing is certain: attacking Iran, ostensibly to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, would make the case for it acquiring them like nothing else. It would then be abundantly clear that Iran could not protect itself by other means — and it can be guaranteed that it would then make a supreme effort to acquire them.

Has Iran got a nuclear weapons program, in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

Iran has repeatedly denied that it has such a program. Furthermore, the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa on September 2004 that “the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons” (“Iran’s Statement at IAEA Emergency Meeting,” Mehr News Agency, 10 August 2005) . In doing so, he was following in the footsteps of his predecessor and founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini.

That’s what Iran says. As required by the NPT, Iran’s nuclear facilities are subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And, despite many years of inspection and investigation, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has, or ever had, a nuclear weapons program, though Western media consistently give the opposite impression. True, the possibility exists that Iran has nuclear facilities for military purposes, which it hasn’t declared to the IAEA. The IAEA has found no evidence for this, but the possibility cannot be completely ruled out.

Iran’s possession of uranium enrichment facilities is not in breach of the NPT, so long as they are for civil nuclear purposes. The operation of these facilities at Natanz is subject to rigorous IAEA scrutiny. The IAEA has testified that only low enriched uranium suitable for a power generation reactor is being produced there and that none of it is being diverted from the plant for other purposes, for example, to further enrich uranium to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon. That being so, the ongoing demands that Iran suspend these enrichment facilities is a denial of its “inalienable right” under Article IV(1) of the NPT to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.

What is the current US intelligence assessment? A US National Intelligence Estimate, the key judgments of which were published in December 2007, concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003, and hadn’t restarted its program in the interim (see David Morrison, “Iran hasn’t a nuclear weapons programme says US intelligence,” Labour and Trade Union Review, 14 December 2007).

Commenting on this, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, noted on 4 December 2007 that:

“[T]he Estimate tallies with the Agency’s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.”

The present position of the US/EU seems to be that Iran should not have uranium enrichment facilities on its own territory, under any circumstances. As I have said above, this is a denial of Iran’s “inalienable right” under Article IV(1) of the NPT to engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. It is also discriminatory against Iran, since no objection has ever been raised to other states, for example, Brazil and Japan, having enrichment facilities on their own territory in order to manufacture reactor fuel.

Iran entered into negotiations with the UK, France and Germany about its nuclear facilities in October 2003. During these negotiations, Iran voluntarily suspended a range of nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment. The negotiations came to an abrupt halt in August 2005 when the European states made proposals, which required Iran to abandon all processing of domestically mined uranium, including enrichment, and to import all fuel for nuclear power reactors.

Had Iran accepted these proposals, its nuclear power generation would have been dependent on fuel from abroad, which could be cut off at any time, even though Iran has a domestic supply of uranium ore. It was no surprise, therefore, that Iran rejected these proposals out of hand — and later resumed those activities it had suspended, including uranium enrichment.

Since then, the US/EU took Iran to the UN Security Council about its nuclear activities. The council has passed various resolutions demanding, inter alia, that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and imposing (rather mild) economic sanctions on it in an attempt to compel it to do so. Russia and China have gone along with this rather reluctantly, while using their veto power to keep the sanctions mild.

The key question is: are there any circumstances in which the US/EU would be content for Iran to have uranium enrichment facilities on its own territory? For example, could additional measures be put in place to provide assurance that these, and other nuclear facilities, are being used for peaceful purposes only?

In the past, Iran did allow an enhanced form of IAEA inspection, under a so-called Additional Protocol to its basic inspection agreement with the IAEA. This isn’t mandatory on a state under the NPT (and Brazil, which also has uranium enrichment facilities, doesn’t allow it). The Additional Protocol is designed to allow the IAEA to get a full picture of a state’s nuclear activities by providing the agency with authority to visit any facility, declared or not, and to visit unannounced — and thereby seek to eliminate the possibility that a state is engaging in nuclear activity for military purposes at sites that it hasn’t declared to the agency.

Iran signed an Additional Protocol in 2003 and allowed the IAEA to operate under it from December 2003 until February 2006. But, it withdrew permission in February 2006 when it was referred to the Security Council. There is little doubt that Iran would be prepared to allow the IAEA to operate under an Additional Protocol again, if the Security Council dogs were called off and the economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council were lifted.

That is one additional measure that could be taken to help provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear facilities are being used for peaceful purposes only. Another measure was suggested by Iran, as long ago as 17 September 2005. Then, in a speech to the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following extraordinary offer, which goes way beyond the requirements of the NPT:

“… as a further confidence-building measure and in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of [a] uranium enrichment program in Iran.”

Needless to say, the US/EU have ignored this proposal, which would have put Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities under a degree of international control. Perhaps, President Obama’s staff should draw this proposal to his attention.

David Morrison is a political officer for the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

Spreading Zionist Rumors: Is Hamas About to be Fooled, Again, by the Pharaoh? TONY Almost Certain, the Answer is Yes!

Link

Comment:
Tony brought his brand new Bombshell from Al-Manar, not from its Zionist Source: Haaretz He Preyed:
Is Hamas About to be Fooled, Again, by the Pharaoh?
TONY Almost Certain, His Answer is Yes!
How come he is Almost certain?

I am watching Ossama Hamdan (Hamas) and my old friend Salah Salah (Independent Ex-PFLP) on anb Channel. When asked about Shalit Imminent Transfer Deal Hamdan said than an Egyptian jornalist phoned him and said that the deal shall be excuted in 4 hours at Rafah crossing, Hamdan joked: Well go there and wait, but et could be 4 moths, may be 4 years.
Hamdan confirmed that Shalit release has nothing to do with lifting the Siege.
But Tony is almost certain, because Hamas Leaders are Habilas, or because he has well-reasoned and informed, especialy with Sryian and Zionist Affairs.

Hamas: Israel behind Shalit Rumors
Al-Manar

29/06/2009 A senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip said on Sunday that the Israeli government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu still hasn’t offered anything in return for the release of captured Israeli occupation soldier Gilad Shalit.
Osama Mazini, who is in charge of the “Shalit portfolio” on behalf of Hamas, said the negotiations on a prisoner exchange were stopped during the administration of former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert.
All what’s being published in the media these days about an imminent prisoner exchange is nothing but “test balloons,” Mazini said.

He said Israel was behind the recent wave of rumors because many Israelis feel frustrated that their powerful army has been unable to secure the release of one of its soldiers who has been held for three years. “This tiny area has been the target of wars and blockades,” Mazini noted, referring to the Gaza Strip. “They [Israel] know the area by the inch, yet they haven’t been able to do anything to find the soldier. Even the Israeli army is very frustrated and their soldiers are less motivated.”
The Hamas official said that despite the rumors, there was no “real talk” between Israel and Hamas over the release of Shalit. “At some stages, there were real and serious negotiations,” he said. “Lately, Israel claimed that Hamas had changed the list of prisoners whom it was demanding in return for Shalit, but that’s not true. It’s also not true that there are serious negotiations now.”

He said Hamas was still demanding the release of 1,000 Palestinians in return for Shalit. The security detainees would be freed in two phases: the first 450 would be released as soon as Shalit is freed; two months later, Israel would release another 550 inmates.

Mazini said the main reason why the deal was never signed was Israel’s refusal to release detainees “with blood on their hands”, according to the Israelis.

He claimed that just before February’s elections in Israel, the Olmert government informed Hamas through the Egyptians that it had agreed to release only 200 to 325 out of the 450 detainees who had been involved in murder. Hamas, he said, remains opposed to the Israeli position.

Hamas also turned down Israel’s proposal to deport some of the released detainees to Arab countries, Mazini said.

Mazini also said that it took Israel one year to agree to begin negotiations with Hamas over the case of Shalit. “For an entire year after the soldier was taken prisoner, the Israelis refused to negotiate,” he said. “They were demanding that the soldier be released unconditionally and immediately.”

He said that Israel asked for Egyptian mediation only after it failed to release the soldier through military means. He confirmed media reports to the effect that Abu Muhammad Ja’bari, commander of Hamas’s armed wing, Ezzeddine Al-Qassam, had visited Cairo earlier this year for talks on Shalit. Ja’bari is said to be one of the few Hamas men who know where Shalit is being held.

Mazini said that former US president Jimmy Carter recently delivered to Hamas representatives a letter from Shalit’s family. “Hamas has received the letter,” he said. “If the solider is alive, he will get the letter. But if he’s not alive, he won’t receive it. After the last war [Operation Cast Lead], there’s no knowing if Shalit is alive or dead.”

Ministry of prisoners: Press reports on Shalit deal unfounded

Is Hamas About to be Fooled, Again, by the Pharaoh? I am Almost Certain, the Answer is Yes!

Shalit Transfer to Egypt Imminent as Part of US Initiative
Al-Manar

“26/06/2009 Captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit will be transferred to Egypt within a few days as part of a swap deal with Hamas, Haaretz quoted European diplomatic sources as saying Thursday. The move is part of a new United States initiative that includes Egyptian and Syrian efforts with Hamas, internal Palestinian reconciliation and Israel’s opening of the Gaza crossings.

According to the Israeli daily, a reliable European source said this Egyptian-brokered agreement was reached two days ago. A Palestinian source confirmed the report last night but officials in Tel Aviv denied any knowledge of it.

The idea to transfer Shalit to Egypt in exchange for the release of Palestinian women, teens, cabinet ministers and parliamentarians being held in Israeli prisons was raised about a year ago during a visit by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to Damascus, occupied Jerusalem and Gaza. Apparently Carter raised it again on his visit earlier this month, during which he met Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father.

According to the plan Shalit will be entrusted to Egyptian intelligence


[How can the Hamas fools fall for this? Egyptian “intelligence” is inseparable from the Mossad. Might as well give him directly to the Mossad and say that, “Hamas trusts the goodwill of the Mossad!” What fools!] , and his parents will be allowed to visit him. He will be returned to Israel after an agreement is reached regarding the list of Hamas detainees to be released that was previously submitted to the cabinet.

The European source said Shalit’s transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria’s support.
The deal would put the Gaza Strip under the leadership of a joint committee subordinate to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas……
Israel this week freed Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker and Hamas member Aziz Dweik after three years in prison.[I am sure that this was a part of the deal]…..”
# posted by Tony : 8:00 PM

Police, Basij ‘imposters’ arrested in Iran

link
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:27:58 GMT

Iranian police officials have reportedly arrested the armed imposters who posed as security forces during post-election violence in the country.

Iran’s Basij commander, Hossein Taeb, said Monday that the imposters had worn police and Basij uniforms to infiltrate the rallies and create havoc.

Taeb added that the recent anti-government riots have killed eight members of the Basij and wounded 300 others.

Iranian security officials –and in particularly the Basij volunteer forces– have been accused of killing and injuring protestors who took to the streets to protest the outcome of the June 12 election — which saw incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win by a landslide.

“Basij forces are not authorized to carry weapons,” said Taeb, asserting that armed groups are the main culprit behind the killings.

Tehran Police Chief Azizallah Rajabzadeh has also insisted that his department had no role in the shoot-out that has become the focus of most media outlets in the West.

“Policemen are not authorized to use weapons against people,” said Rajabzadeh. “They are trained to only use anti-riot tools to keep the people out of harms way,” said Rajabzadeh.

Last week saw some of the worst violence since the election after some ‘terrorist elements’ infiltrated the rallies on Saturday, according to Iranian officials.

The insurgents set fire to a mosque, two gas stations and a military post in Western Tehran, leaving scores of people dead and wounded.

Supporters of the defeated candidates have staged a torrent of rallies, which have provoked unprecedented mayhem in the country over the past nine days.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi election campaign officials, however, have insisted that the defeated candidate’s supporters are not within the rioters.

Ahmadinejad orders probe into Neda’s ‘suspicious’ death

Press TV reports:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked the Judiciary chief to conduct a through investigation into the death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, an Iranian woman who was shot dead in Tehran’s post-vote protests.

In a letter to Iran’s Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi on Monday, Ahmadinejad called for a serious probe into the “suspicious” death of Neda and recognizing elements behind her killing.

“Neda Aqa-Soltan was shot dead in one of Tehran’s streets on June 20 by unknown elements in a completely suspicious way,” said the president.

“Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran’s internal affairs) for their political misuse,” he added.

Neda, 26, became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran and an international icon in recent days after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.

Her death first became suspicious after revelations that she was killed by a small caliber pistol — a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.
——-
Note: I suppose now we have heard it all. First, we were told that Neda was killed by a “Basij thug” sniper “hiding on a rooftop”. Then that she was killed by a “Basij thug” “sniper on a motorbike“. And now we are told that she died from a small caliber pistol (no doubt fired by a “Basij thug”). Except that a small caliber pistol cannot be fired accurately at ranges over 50 meters max. If this really was a pistol shot, then the entire “Basij thug” thing is collapsing and what we are left with it a typical false flag operation. More details about the rather strange circumstances of her death can be found here.

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 5:01 AM

Dear friends,

There are two stories which I am very interested in:

The first one is the story of the “Basij thug sniper on the roof who is not on the roof but on a motorbike who is not a sniper after all but who shooting with a small caliber handgun“. It is quite possible that the government is trying to cover up something here and is lying about this small caliber handgun thing, but I very much doubt this. They are, after all, raising the issue of Neda’s murder at a time when this issue is quietly running out of steam. Then, a *small caliber* shot to the heart is something which is typical of a professional assassination. A small caliber is easy to hide, is quiet, very accurate and does the job very well, but only in the hands of a highly trained shooter. This story deserves all the scrutiny it can get. (did I mention that small caliber handgun is a favorite Mossad assassination weapon?).

The second story I am interested in is the story of the “fake Basij” recently arrested. Same disclaimer as above – could be just spin and damage control by the government. My questions here are: have the Basij deployed in Tehran been given weapons or not? That should be easy to verify. Second, has the local press revealed anything about the identities of the arrested individuals?

In partricular, I ask those among you who either speak Farsi or have contacts in Iran to please help me and get me as many details as possible.

I would be most interested in the confirmation that Neda was killed by a small caliber hangun bullet.

We *know* that Neda was NOT demonstrating. All sources agree about that. We also know that she was NOT close to any demonstrations. All sources agree about that too. We also know that the images of her wearing green (the color of this “color coded revolution” have been doctored (that has been admitted by all sources too). But none of that is a “smoking gun” (literally). But if we could only get a confirmation that what killed her was a small handgun round we would have an absolute certitude that this is a false flag assassination.

I ask you to please make a real effort, use all your contacts, to try to establish what the autopsy report on her death said.

Needless to say, the corporate press and the Left-leaning free press will now hush up this story. Considering how much indignation and outrage (not to mention how little cool logic) they put into Neda’s death, I don’t expect anybody to come up with a mea culpa. So the ONLY chance to find out is, I believe, the local press in Tehran (either paper or on the Fari Internet). I don’t understand Farsi and I don’t have personal contact in Iran.

Bottom line: I really need help here.

Many thanks in advance,

The Saker

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 7:16 AM

The Settlers’ Lawyer (or, Elliott Abrams Is At It Again)

Link

Illegal Israeli  Colonies in Occupied Palestinian Land.

Illegal Israeli Colonies in Occupied Palestinian Land.

Posted by Lara Friedman

25 Jun 2009 09:13 am

The Settlers’ Lawyer (or, Elliott Abrams Is At It Again)

On May 23, 2005, the Washington Post ran a an incisive op-ed by former State Department negotiator and Middle East advisor Aaron Miller, entitled “Israel’s Lawyer,” in which Aaron argued “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney…” I was reminded of that article when I read today’s piece by Elliott Abrams in the Wall Street Journal, which should, I believe, have been entitled “The West Bank Settlers’ Lawyer.”

Before anyone accuses me of casting aspersions on Mr. Abrams’ honor or motivations, let me be clear: I have no doubt he has taken the case pro bono. For him, advocating for the settlers is clearly a labor of love. And the settlers are fortunate to have Elliott volunteering for the job. He brings a unique combination of expertise and experience, combined, it would seem, with a shameless willingness to cherry-pick the facts and, when the facts don’t support his argument, to fall back on the “I was there and I know what happened.”

An interesting approach from a man who does not have a spotless record when it comes to truth-telling and foreign policy (for anyone who has forgotten the history: “Elliott Abrams — Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.”)

But that was a long time ago. Let’s forgot the ugly and embarrassing Iran-Contra history and focus on the “facts” in the current case, as Elliott sees them:

In today’s WSJ article, Elliott offers an almost completely unverifiable history of what he says transpired between June 2003 and August 2005 (the date of Israel’s “disengagement” from Gaza). Predictably, he focuses on the letter President Bush gave to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004. In that letter, Elliott notes (correctly), Bush wrote: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

What Elliott neglects to mention is that in the letter Bush also re-stated his commitment to the Roadmap (”the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap”), which in stage I states that “Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).”

Elliott then goes on to assert that “On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth.” His evidence of such an agreement? Exhibit A: A statement by Prime Minister Sharon, not President Bush: “Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: ‘Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.’”

Is this extremely experienced lawyer and foreign policy professional seriously arguing that a statement by Sharon should be understood as an accurate articulation of US policy, even in the absence of any corroborating statement by the US President? Even when that lengthy policy speech went into a range of issue where – at least officially – there was public disagreement with the US? (for example, in this same speech Sharon makes clear Israel views the Roadmap commitments as sequential – the Palestinians do everything they have to do, and only then does Israel act. ) Apparently so.

But it gets better. For further evidence, Elliott asserts that, really, the US agreed with everything Sharon was saying. His evidence? Exhibit B: A letter from Ariel Sharon’s Chief of Staff, Dov Weissglas, Secretary of State Rice.

It is like saying “your honor, I swear my client did not sideswipe that car in the parking lot. I was there and I saw the whole thing. And as proof I give you my statement and a statement from my client and his wife, written to the owner of the damaged car, making clear that they were not the ones who hit his car. I rest my case.”

So there are not quotes from President Bush or Secretary Rice to support Elliott’s narrative – only statements by Israeli officials.

But Elliot has more proof to bring before the court: media reports. Exhibit #C: Elliott notes that “Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed ‘agreed principles.’ On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that ‘the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward.’”

Interesting. So if the NYT reported it, it must be true, right? Or rather, what must be true is that they were reporting what someone told them, at the time. And according to the first paragraph of the article Elliott cites, the source is: “American and Israeli officials.” Who could these officials be? Could they be Abrams himself (who at this point can no longer deny that he is personally invested in such a policy), and maybe Dov Weissglas? There is no way to know, but regardless, this is clearly not definitive proof of anything, other than the fact that there were Israeli and US officials spinning the story this way.

The rest of Elliott’s article is simply hearsay and innuendo, speculation, and conjecture – not a single “fact” that can be examined, let alone refuted. Elliott rests his case on statements by two Israeli officials who never hid their desire to do everything possible to keep building West Bank settlements, and press reports based on un-named US and Israeli officials.

With this kind of evidence, it is hard to see why the jury is still debating this case at all. Clearly the settlers’ have a really excellent lawyer.

———

And since some of us prefer to rely on facts, rather than clever argumentation and bombastic statements, here are some actual statements by President Bush about settlements, from the same period Elliott is addressing:

President Bush 9/21/04: “…Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations…”

President Bush, 11/27/07: “…Israel must demonstrate its support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise its responsibilities without compromising Israel’s security.”

President Bush, 1/9/2008: “…The second track is to help both parties deal with road map issues. Settlements is a road map issue…”

President Bush, 1/10/2008: “…Each side has got obligations under the road map. Settlements are clearly stated in the road map obligations for Israel. We have made our concerns about expansion of settlements known, and we expect both parties to honor their obligations under the road map.”

SOURCE: www. peacenowconversation.org

——————————————————–

Hillary Is Wrong About the Settlements

By ELLIOTT ABRAMS

Despite fervent denials by Obama administration officials, there were indeed agreements between Israel and the United States regarding the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. As the Obama administration has made the settlements issue a major bone of contention between Israel and the U.S., it is necessary that we review the recent history.

In the spring of 2003, U.S. officials (including me) held wide-ranging discussions with then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem. The “Roadmap for Peace” between Israel and the Palestinians had been written. President George W. Bush had endorsed Palestinian statehood, but only if the Palestinians eliminated terror. He had broken with Yasser Arafat, but Arafat still ruled in the Palestinian territories. Israel had defeated the intifada, so what was next?

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan’s King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan's King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Jordan’s King Abdullah, June 4, 2003.

We asked Mr. Sharon about freezing the West Bank settlements. I recall him asking, by way of reply, what did that mean for the settlers? They live there, he said, they serve in elite army units, and they marry. Should he tell them to have no more children, or move?

We discussed some approaches: Could he agree there would be no additional settlements? New construction only inside settlements, without expanding them physically? Could he agree there would be no additional land taken for settlements?

As we talked several principles emerged. The father of the settlements now agreed that limits must be placed on the settlements; more fundamentally, the old foe of the Palestinians could — under certain conditions — now agree to Palestinian statehood.

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: “It is in Israel’s interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state.” At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally — including every single settlement and the “Philadelphi Strip” separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

These decisions were political dynamite, as Mr. Sharon had long predicted to us. In May 2004, his Likud Party rejected his plan in a referendum, handing him a resounding political defeat. In June, the Cabinet approved the withdrawal from Gaza, but only after Mr. Sharon fired two ministers and allowed two others to resign. His majority in the Knesset was now shaky.

After completing the Gaza withdrawal in August 2005, he called in November for a dissolution of the Knesset and for early elections. He also said he would leave Likud to form a new centrist party. The political and personal strain was very great. Four weeks later he suffered the first of two strokes that have left him in a coma.

Throughout, the Bush administration gave Mr. Sharon full support for his actions against terror and on final status issues. On April 14, 2004, Mr. Bush handed Mr. Sharon a letter saying that there would be no “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. Instead, the president said, “a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the “1967 borders” to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders — correctly — as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: “Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.”

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

They were not secret, either. Four days after the president’s letter, Mr. Sharon’s Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that “I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria.”

Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed “agreed principles.” On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that “the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward.”

In recent weeks, American officials have denied that any agreement on settlements existed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on June 17 that “in looking at the history of the Bush administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility.”

These statements are incorrect. Not only were there agreements, but the prime minister of Israel relied on them in undertaking a wrenching political reorientation — the dissolution of his government, the removal of every single Israeli citizen, settlement and military position in Gaza, and the removal of four small settlements in the West Bank. This was the first time Israel had ever removed settlements outside the context of a peace treaty, and it was a major step.

It is true that there was no U.S.-Israel “memorandum of understanding,” which is presumably what Mrs. Clinton means when she suggests that the “official record of the administration” contains none. But she would do well to consult documents like the Weissglas letter, or the notes of the Aqaba meeting, before suggesting that there was no meeting of the minds.

Mrs. Clinton also said there were no “enforceable” agreements. This is a strange phrase. How exactly would Israel enforce any agreement against an American decision to renege on it? Take it to the International Court in The Hague?

Regardless of what Mrs. Clinton has said, there was a bargained-for exchange. Mr. Sharon was determined to break the deadlock, withdraw from Gaza, remove settlements — and confront his former allies on Israel’s right by abandoning the “Greater Israel” position to endorse Palestinian statehood and limits on settlement growth. He asked for our support and got it, including the agreement that we would not demand a total settlement freeze.

For reasons that remain unclear, the Obama administration has decided to abandon the understandings about settlements reached by the previous administration with the Israeli government. We may be abandoning the deal now, but we cannot rewrite history and make believe it did not exist.

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.

SOURCE: http://www.online.wsj.com/

June 27, 2009 Posted by Elias

Israel’s Settlements: Why they are Wrong and Must be Dismantled
Israeli Land Expropriation and Settlements
What are Israeli Settlements, and Why are they Coming Under Pressure?
Natural Growth: Israel’s Demographic Hogwash
Africa-Israel Under Scrutiny for Settlement Construction
An Existential Threat and its Solution.

BISHARAT: Changing the rules of war

Link

– June 28, 2009

by George Bisharat

San Fransisco Chronicle

1 April 2009

Israel killed 63 police cadets at their graduation ceremony during its attack on Gaza

Israeli forces deliberately killed 63 police cadets attending their graduation ceremony.

The extent of Israel’s brutality against Palestinian civilians in its 22-day pounding of the Gaza Strip is gradually surfacing. Israeli soldiers are testifying to lax rules of engagement tantamount to a license to kill. One soldier commented: “That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him.”

What is less appreciated is how Israel is also brutalizing international law, in ways that may long outlast the demolition of Gaza. Read More…

Analyses of All Alleged Rigging Proofs in Election

Link

by Zainabia for Shiachat

Different elements raised DOUBTS about the recent Elections of Iran (2009). Let us analyze them one by one.

Objection 1: How it is possible that some Areas got more than 100% Votes?

This is “The Biggest” proof which is presented in order to blame these elections to be rigged.

Iranian Government confirmed it and then made it clear the reasons why some areas could have more votes than 100%. Unfortunately Western Media all together neglected this clarification and put false words in Iranian Government’s mouth that it accepts the rigging of 3 million votes. This is absolutely a lie and disinformation by Western Media. Iranian Government never said that it is Rigging, but it gave the valid Facts and Reasons for this phenomenon.

Let us leave these Satanic Propaganda tactics of West, and let us concentrate on the reality. Following are the Valid Facts why some areas could have more turnout than 100% Voters:

1. Even according to Western Media, the total turnout in these elections was 85% countrywide.

2. Iranian Presidential Elections are not held on “Area” bases.
Any voter could vote any where in the country, and it is not obligatory for him to go back to his “Registered Town” in order to cast the vote.

3. There were two reasons of presence of over 100% Voters in few Areas. Firstly due to Summer, and secondly due to week-end many people (/Tourists) went to resorts which are mainly situated near Caspian See (and these were mostly the areas where turnout was more than 100%)

4. Please also note that in some of these Areas (with more than 100% turnout), Mr. Mussavi got the majority votes.

5. Please also note that parts of Population from “Undeveloped Areas” migrate to “Developed Areas” for jobs and earnings. So, although they stay in Areas where they do their jobs but they are not registered there but in their home towns.

Therefore, let us use two terms (1st) Local Population, which is registered in that respective town (2nd) Non-Local Population, which is not registered in that respective town.

6. What does 85% turnout means? It is an “Average” of total votes casted countrywide.
It means that in some Areas “Local Population” casted 60-70% Votes (less than 85%), while in other Areas “local Population” casted 90-95% votes (more than 85%)
Now let us consider those Areas where “Local Population” casted 90-95% votes. Now add in it the numbers of “Tourists” and “Non-Local Population” which stay there for jobs and earnings. This simply shows there is nothing to wonder if turnout was more than 100% in some Areas.

7. You remember that at the end of election time, there was a lack of Ballot Papers at some places. It means numbers of voters came to cast their votes on that day was almost equal or more than the registered voters in that area. Voting times had to be extended 4 times in some areas.

8. In Elections of 2005, the turn out was only 59.6%. Even then in Areas of “Zorgan” and “Morv” turn out was more than 100% in last elections.

9. Iranian Government offered the other Candidates for recount of 10% Ballot boxes. It means there could be recounting in all these 50 alleged areas where claims are being made of rigging due to the fact of more than 100% voting.

10. Even much more to this that first time in last 30 years Iranian Government issued the complete list of number of vote per box after which opponents are left with no lame excuse for going for Road Politics. [Link].

Objection 2: It is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes

This propaganda is done by some of “Western Professors”. They claim themselves to be experts of examining election results on bases of scientific methods. One such professor is Dr.Walter R. Mebane who prepared the following data on bases of his Scientific Voting Techniques and claimed that it is impossible for Ahmadi Nejad to get 24.5 Million Votes.

With respect to Dr. Walter and other Western Professors, let us bring down the things from “Mathematical Equations” to “Real Ground Realities”. And this ground Reality says there is absolutely no problem in Ahmadi Nejad’s getting 24.5 million votes.

The best way of getting answer to this question is to look at the results of Elections of 2005. Following Table is taken from wikipedia.

The present Elections of Iran resembles very much to the 2nd Round Eelctions of 2005 while right from first day it was clear that real competition was only between Ahmadi Nejad and Mussovi. From 2nd round elections of 2005, it becomes clear that:

1. Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million Votes in last elections [While Mussave has got only 13.3 million votes in present elections]. Here you could see for yourself who could be the possible winner.

Note: Last elections of 2005 were conducted under the reformist government of Khatami and Ahmadi Nejad got no power to do any type of rigging, but still he got 17.3 million votes.

2. The turn out in last elections was only 59.6%. But despit this low turn out Ahmadi Nejad got 17.3 million votes. In present Elections, the turn out is huge 85%. This means that it is 25.4% more turn out in present elections.

Therefore, if we add 25.4% to 17.3 million votes of Ahmadi Nejad, then it gives us the figure of 24.6 million votes (and this is the same number approx. which Ahmadi Nejad got on the field in present elections)

3. People of Iran knew Ahmadi Nejad & his Policies much better in these elections as compared to last elections. Now question is how does it effect the votes? In order to get answer to this, let us once again look at the last elections of 2005.

In first round elections of 2005, people knew very less of Ahmadi Nejad and his Politices. So in first round he got only 19.4% Votes (i.e. 5.7 million votes only). But till 2nd round things changed and People knew Ahmadi Nejad and his Policies better and therefore we saw a huge jump in his support and it raised to 61.7% votes in comparison to 19.4% (i.e. 17.3 million votes as compared to 5.7 million votes).

4. So, situation is this that after 4 years of government of Ahmadi Nejad, people saw how much Ahmadi Nejad did for the poor people of Iran and how his policies directly benefited them. We are not going in details of his work in this area, but simply due to policies of Ahmadi Nejad and his simple way of living, he got not only votes from religious people, but also from the poor classes of Iranian people.

So, there is nothing to doubt if Ahmadi Nejad got 24.5 million votes in present elections.

Objection 3: Pre-Election Surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was not leading the race

This objection is not true. Even the foreign neutral pre-election surveys showed that Ahmadi Nejad was leading the race with 2 to 1. Let us quote briefly from Washington Post, which writes:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin — greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

You could read whole article where they are presenting their DATA based on scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces (i.e. not only Tehran). It should be an eye-opener to those who still blame these elections to be rigged and for fraud.

Objection 4: Mr. Mussavi submitted a List of Pre-Election complaints

This is a funny objection.

A counter question to Mr. Mussavi: “Why didn’t he object upon these pre-election irregularities before Elections? Instead of objecting and presenting these complaints before elections, he actually claimed victory only after one hour of closure of voting. And afterwards within few hours (even before ending of official counting and results) he directly called his followers to “Stage Resistance”.

Upon complaint of Mr. Mussavi, the Iranian Guardian Council Authorities launched the investigations and after complete investigations they say:

“After 10 days of examination, we did not see any major irregularities,” Guardians Council spokesman Abbasali Kadkhodai told the state IRNA news agency, rejecting opposition allegations that have brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets. “We have had no fraud in any presidential election and this one was the cleanest election we have had. I can say with certainty that there was no fraud in this election.”

Fact is depites so much crying from Mr. Mussavi & Western Media, they are still unable to bring even a single reliable proof of any type of Rigging.

Actually, they themselves know it very well that Ahmadi Nejad has won with such huge difference that there is absolutely no DOUBTS in his victory. Please also note that:

  • Mr. Mousavi got almost minimum of 2 representative at more than 95 percent of all the centers.
  • At each center, 14 observers including the candidate’s observers oversaw the entire process, including inspection of empty boxes at the outset and their sealing at the end, with four locks, and then all signed a certificate of proper election, i.e., Mousavi’s own men have certified the clean process.

Objection 5: Elections were fraud while Results were started to be announced after only few hours

Please note that the official final results were announced at 4 pm the next day, 16 hours after the closure of voting. Nevertheless, it was true that results started coming just few hours after the closing of voting. But does it really constitute a proof of Rigging?

There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box. Why would it take more than an two to three hours to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.

Objection 6: Ballots ran out at some places and not every one got the chance to vote

This is again misleading objection.

There was huge turn out and it’s “Average” was 85%. This means in some areas there were 70-80% votes (less than 85%) and in some areas 90-95% Votes from Local Population. And while Non-Local Population was also allowed to vote anywhere in any polling center, therefore at some centers turn out was over 100%. This is the main reason of running out of ballots. So, the educated West could now please tell us how it constitute Rigging? It may be termed as not sufficient measures for preparation of elections, but certainly not as Rigging.

Secondly, even if all the people who did not vote, had actually voted for Mousavi (a virtual impossibility), that would be 6.93 million additional votes, much less than the 11 million vote difference between the top two candidates.

Objection 7: How Ahmadi Nejad did well in Sunni Areas?

It is a misconception that there are any kind of Shia/Sunni problems in Iran. It is only Saudi backed Wahabi Media which normally propagate such disinformation. There is only minor problems along border of Pakistan, while in remaining whole Iran Ahle-Sunnah have very brotherly ties with their Shia brethern.

Let me quote once again from the poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. (This is same report of Survey which has been mentioned above by Wahsington Post and which predicted 89% voters turnout in recent elections and 2:1 lead for Ahamadi Nejad). On Issue of Shia/Sunni in Iran, it’s survey says [LINK]:

Iranian Shiite Muslims Think Favorably of Sunni Muslims,
Christians, Americans and others

… For Iranian citizens of the Islamic Republic, 87 percent of who in our survey identified themselves as Shiite, views of both Sunni Muslims and Christians were
overwhelmingly favorable—with only 8 percent voicing an unfavorable view of
Sunnis and 11 percent of Christians. (Opinions on Jews were divided, though
more are favorable than unfavorable.)

Indeed, Iranian views of Sunnis and Christians, as well as non-Iranians generally,
are quite accepting—more so than the corresponding views of their neighbors,
such as in Saudi Arabia, according to our TFT survey there.

Iranians clearly distinguish between countries and policies they do not like (US
and Israel), and people they do like (Christians, Americans, Arabs, Sunni
Muslims and Jews). Iranians are favorable to Christians by a 6:1 margin, Sunni
Muslims by a 9:1 margin, Americans by a 2:1 margin and Jews by a 5:4 margin.
In fact, Iranians are as favorable to Americans as they are to their Arab
neighbors. The high favorability of Sunni Muslims among Iranians (higher than
for Arabs generally) demonstrates that Shiite/Sunni issues are not the primary
force driving a wedge between Iranians and their Arab neighbors.

Objection 8: About Azeri Province and Tehran

Rigging is also claimed while Ahmadi Nejad got more Azeri Votes than Mussavi. This is not strange while Irani-Azeries is a very religious soceity and religion plays more role here than race. Secondly Ahmadi Nejad lived in this province for several years, worked hard, got good relations with Top people there and could also speak the Turkish-Azeri language without any problem. And he ran a very good election compaign here. Contrar to Ahmadi Nejad, his rival Mr. Mussavi has not been to these areas for a long long time and ran his election compaign poorly.

Another fantasy theory is how Ahmadi Nejad got more votes than Mr. Mussavi in Tehran. It is not complete truth. Mr. Mussave actually won the elections in main Tehran City. But there are poor neighbourhoods around Tehran and here Ahmadi Nejad got huge majority of votes.

Conclusion

There is not a single “Hard Proof” of any rigging in elections. All the proofs that have been presented, they are based only and only upon “Conjecture Theories”. Opponents & Western Media trying it’s best to encourage the unrests and Civil War in Iran by doing a lot of biased coverage and neglecting the realities. They want Iranian poeple to solve their differences on the roads instead of sitting down on the Table and look at things rationally on bases of ground realities.

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 7:02 AM

The Promised Land?

The Promised Land?

The Promised Land?

A three-part series ( Pioneers, Conflict and End of the Dream ) examining the origins, violent creation, and modern-day reality of the state of Israel, told through the stories of individual Israelis.

The Promised Land? – Pioneers

In Epsiode 1 Al Jazeera examines how and why Jews returned to Palestine after 2,000 years of exile, and how the political Zionism first articulated in 1896 became reality with such speed.

The Promised Land? – Pioneers – Part1

The Promised Land? – Pioneers – Part2

The Promised Land? – Conflict

A special series examining the origins, violent creation, and modern-day reality of the state of Israel through the stories of individual Israelis.

Episode two, Conflict, looks at how the still small Jewish population succeeded in defeating a far larger Palestinian population and asks if a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing was employed.

The Promised Land? – Conflict – Part 1

The Promised Land? – Conflict – Part 2

The Promised Land? – End of the Dream?

A special series examining the origins, violent creation, and modern-day reality of the state of Israel through the stories of individual Israelis.

The final episode looks at modern day Israel – a country that bears little resemblance to the one imagined by its Zionist forbearers.

The Promised Land? – End of the Dream? – Part 1

The Promised Land? – End of the Dream? – Part 2

Israeli ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children – a report

cartoon of the day

By Carlos Latuff • Jun 27th, 2009 at 21:00 • Category: Artwork, Cartoon of the day

click to enlarge. By Carlos Latuff

Carlos Latuff is a friend of Palestinian people.
Email this author All posts by Carlos Latuff

We’re all Anti-Semites Now

Link

June 26, 2009

weareall.jpgBy Henry Makow Ph.D.

Anti-Semitism used to refer to a racial prejudice against Jews. Now “hate” is a codeword for something else: Opposition to Zionism, a political program that many Jews find repugnant.

By equating “hate” with opposition to Zionism, organized Jewry has given everyone permission to be an anti-Semite.

In Soviet Russia, anti-Semitism was considered “counter revolutionary” and severely punished. Similarly, anti-Semitism is now a political crime in the West because it runs counter to the New World Order.

For example, a Winnipeg journalist, Leslie Hughes, was dropped as a Liberal candidate in the 2008 election for remarking on Israeli foreknowledge of the 9-11 attack in an 2003 article. She taught courses on tolerance and had no feelings of hostility against Jews whatsoever. Her crime was political. (She is suing the Jewish groups.)

My writing warns Jews they have been used to advance the central banker’s plan for world government dictatorship. I emphasize that every significant nation, religion and organization is being used in the same way. Nonetheless, the Canadian Jewish Congress accuses me of “hatred against Jews” and wants to suppress my writing on this subject. The absurdity of accusing the son of holocaust survivors of anti-Semitism only underlines the true political nature of my crime.

YOU ARE AN ANTI SEMITE IF …

Rev. Ted Pike extrapolates from the 2004 US “Global Anti-Semitism Review Act” to define the kind of political activity that is being criminalized. (“The Real Motive Behind
‘Dept Of Global Anti-Semitism'”)

1. Any assertion “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world” is anti-Semitic.

2. “Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.

3. “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti-Semitic.

4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.

6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.

7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

8. Diminishing the “six million” figure of holocaust victims is anti-Semitic.

9. Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.

10. Asserting that a “Zionist Conspiracy” exists is anti-Semitic.

11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

12. Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti-Semitic.

13. Denying the right of mostly atheist Jews to re-occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.

14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.

Essentially if you believe in truth and justice, you’re an anti-Semite. If you believe in free speech, free inquiry and the democratic process, you’re an anti-Semite. If you oppose tyranny, corruption and murder, you’re an anti-Semite.

If you’re not an anti-Semite, you’re uniformed at best, and a sell-out (“vendu”) at worst.

Ultimately, the New World Order will turn 90% of the world’s population and at least 50% of Jews into anti-Semites. Is this the real agenda? To divert blame away from the central banksters and their non-Jewish Masonic minions?

THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN

Andrew Hitchcock’s “The Synagogue of Satan” is a compelling chronology of the Jewish role in the central banker’s Satanic conspiracy a.k.a The New World Order. Together with my Illuminati, it provides as an excellent introduction to the subject.

The.Synagogue.of.Satan.gifThe only knock is that Hitchcock does not provide references. For example, he lifts the above list from the Internet without giving credit to Rev. Pike. Nevertheless Hitchcock’s sources can be verified online.

I was impressed by the amount of new information and insight I found. Hitchcock explains how the “nationalization” of the Bank of England in 1946 was a sleight-of-hand. He recounts new details of the murder of Rachel Corrie which evoked not a murmur from the US “leadership” and media. He explains how the attack on the USS Liberty was a false flag like 9-11. He lucidly explains the significance of the Noahide Laws.

You read this book with growing fury at the scale of ruthlessness, criminality and chutzpah of certain Jews. These Jews are not God’s Chosen people, but Satan’s, a matter that should be of concern to the others who are guilty mostly of naivety, complacence, conformity, cowardice, opportunism and even some complicity. (The same can be said of Americans who support US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with their tax dollars. Neither can hold their head up.)

Hitchcock quotes Werner Sombart who says that from 1820 onward, there was “only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild.” He says modern capitalism and Americanism are nothing else but “the Jewish spirit distilled.” Certainly we must analyze the positive and negative aspects of this spirit, weighing material prosperity against spiritual, cultural and political bankruptcy. We must realize that modern Western civilization is essentially Cabalist (Masonic) and Jewish, and increasingly so.

CONCLUSION

Does the New World Order represent the central banker’s need to consolidate power? Is this culmination of a Jewish agenda, or a more general satanic agenda? I suggest that these three agendas are complementary and overlapping.

Our world is the product of a long-term Satanic conspiracy to overthrow Christian civilization and institute a veiled dictatorship using the mass media, education and sophisticated technology. All the scoundrels selling their fellow Americans down the river are put there by the central banking cartel, ( David Rockefeller, US franchisee.)

In 1984 George Orwell predicted that reality would be turned upside down. Black would become white according to Big Brother diktat. Now that free speech is a political crime, Orwell’s prophesy has come true.

We must resist the globalist traitors with all our power. A people too stupid or weak to demand their freedom don’t deserve to have it.

They bribe us with our own money now but eventually the bankers will demand payment in blood.

%d bloggers like this: