United Against Spitting by Gilad Atzmon


Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:45AM Gilad Atzmon

Three days ago the Israeli Right wing paper The Jerusalem Post published an exposé of the growing tendency of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem to spit on their Christian neighbours. (‘Mouths Filled with Hatred’, By Larry Derfner The JPost, Nov. 26, 2009).

Father Samuel Aghoyan, a senior Armenian Orthodox cleric in Jerusalem’s Old City, told the JPost “that he’s been spat at by young Haredi (God fearing religious Jews) and national Orthodox Jews ‘about 15 to 20 times’ in the past decade”. Father Aghoyan added, “Every single priest in this church has been spat on. It happens day and night.”

Similarly Father Athanasius, a Texas-born Franciscan monk who heads the Christian Information Centre in Jerusalem’s Old City, said he’s been spat at by Orthodox Jews “about 15 times in the last six months”.

Jewish spitting is not exactly breaking News. I myself have explored the issue more than once. The Israeli professor Israel Shahak commented on Jewish hatred towards Christianity and its symbolism, suggesting that “dishonouring Christian religious symbols is an old religious duty in Judaism.” According to Shahak, “spitting on the cross, and especially on the Crucifix, and spitting when a Jew passes a church, have been obligatory from around AD 200 for pious Jews.”

Interestingly enough Jewish spitting has had an impact on the European urban landscape. The following can be read in a ‘Travel Guide for Jewish Europe’.

“In Prague’s Charles Bridge, the visitor will observe a great crucifix surrounded by huge gilded Hebrew letters that spell the traditional Hebrew sanctification Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh Adonai Tzvaot, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts.” According to various commentators, this piece, degrading to Jews, came about because in 1609 a Jew was accused of desecrating the crucifix. The Jewish community was forced to pay for putting up the Hebrew words in gold letters. Another explanation is that a Jew spat at the cross and for this he was to be put to death as a punishment. When this man begged for his life, the king, seeking to have good relations with the Jews, said the Jewish community had to rectify the offence….” (To read more: Travel Guide for Jewish Europe, pg 497)

Shahak maintains that “in the past, when the danger of anti-Semitic hostility was a real one, the pious Jews were commanded by their rabbis either to spit so that the reason for doing so would be unknown, or to spit onto their chests, not actually on a cross or openly before a church.”

But times are changing. In the Jewish state most Jewish inhibitions seem to have disappeared. In Israel Jews can spit as much as they like and on whatever they like. As we read above, in the Jewish state it isn’t just Christian symbols that are being spat on, it is actually the Goyim in general. Far more concerning, it isn’t even just kosher saliva. It is actually everything they may find at their disposal: saliva, live ammunition, bombs, missiles, WMD, white phosphorous, you name it, they spit it.

In fact, spitting is not the problem. Spiting is just a symptom of a deeply imbued cultural categorical dismissal of ‘otherness’ that distinguishes Israel as a criminal state. It is also this very dismissal of ‘otherness’ that stops the Israelis and their supporters around the world from understanding the level of resentment that is mounting against any form of Jewish nationalism.

Hatred is a form of blindness. Jewish hatred, that is culturally, religiously and spiritually orientated, is also a form of deafness. This may explain the tragic consequences in which nationalist Jews fail time after time to internalise the criticism leveled against them: against their politics and culture. This may explain why Jews fail to grasp what is the root cause of ‘anti semitism’. Rather than being reflective and engaging in self-mirroring, the nationalistic Jew would insist that the problem is always somewhere else.

As interesting as it may be, Zionism was the only modern serious Jewish collective attempt to amend the cultural abnormalities within Jewish culture. Early Zionism took anti Jewish criticism seriously. It committed itself to bring about a civilized ethical person. Zionism obviously failed completely. Yet, till the 1980’s some fading voices of “humanist Zionism”, people who wanted to see the Jews setting themselves into a peaceful nation living amongst others, could still be heard in occupied Palestine. It may also explain why the most radical and effective voices against Zionism and Jewish nationalism, are in fact people who were a product of Zionist upbringing (Shahak, I. Shamir, Sand, Burg and a few others).

In the late 1970’s a young dissident movement led by an Israeli Refusenik Gadi Elgazi protested against serving in the occupied territories. “Occupation Corrupts” Elgazi said. He was sent to prison repeatedly. Elgazi and his supporters maintained that controlling other people would have a devastating impact on the Jewish state and its morality. They were obviously correct. Through the years Israel has become a criminal collective, complicit in genocide. With 94% of its population supporting the IDF measures in Gaza, there is no room for doubt, Israel has no room amongst nations. As if this is not enough, the level of crime within Israel is also soaring. The rate of homicidal crime is rapidly growing and it seems as if no one there knows how to tackle the problem. Elgazi’s predictions proved to be a prophecy. The occupation turned against the occupier.

Interestingly enough, it didn’t take long before Jewish cultural hatred towards Goyim and their symbols would turn inward and mature into an internal Jewish war where Jews do spit on each other. The tension within Israel’s Jewish communities is rising by the day whether it is the rapid rise of poverty or the rising social division between Israeli Jewish communities. Seemingly, there is a growing unresolved tension between the secular and orthodox Jews in Israel. As much as Jews can hate the Goyim, nothing is comparable with the way and manner in which they despise each other.

Channel 4, the brave British broadcaster that just 10 days ago exposed the cross-party Jewish lobby operating in the UK, did it again. The Battle for Israel’s Soul is an exposé of the feud between Jewish communities in Israel(1). Just like in the case of the occupation that turned eventually against the Israelis, hatred towards Goyim made the Israelis into a vengeful collective. Naturally it didn’t take long before the Israelis would start to spit on each other.

My message to the Palestinians is actually very simple. Give the Israelis time. They do not need enemies. With the level of self contempt they carry in themselves it is just a question of time before they totally implode.

(1) To watch the entire film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRQsJWDTNXA



November 30, 2009 at 7:41 am (Hasbara, Israel, Palestine, Status of Jerusalem)

The Jerusalem Syndrome

Israel is lying to itself about ‘united Jerusalem’

By Gideon Levy

Those types have always been seen on big-city streets, talking to themselves, asking and answering, shouting, speaking in a low voice, deliberating and pontificating. As children, we were afraid of them. They were “crazy.” That’s exactly what Israeli public discourse is like. We are talking to ourselves, inventing bogus axioms and sticking with them as if they were decreed from on high, convinced that the whole world accepts them. But we are only talking to ourselves. No one else accepts them. The Israeli collective is not only talking to itself, it’s deceiving itself completely.
Jerusalem is a perfect example of this. It’s a neglected city, filthy and in parts frightfully ugly, stricken by poverty and ignorance. Nationalist, religious and social tensions are tearing it asunder, and part of the city is under the burden of occupation with all its most violent characteristics. The purported education, culture, openness and prosperity – far from the actual situation – are the locus of our national aspirations.

It’s a capital city which not a single country in the world recognizes, but it’s “our eternal capital,” in the words of the prime minister. It’s a relatively marginal city, certainly when compared to Tel Aviv. From many standpoints it’s a city on the margins which secular Israelis don’t exactly flock to for a good time. It’s a city even the prime minister preaches about. But he doesn’t practice what he preaces when he flees the city for the weekend, whenever he can. It’s the “heart of the nation,” but a city that has gradually become the city of the ultra-Orthodox and the Arabs, society’s two poorest minorities.

It’s the “rock of our existence,” but a divided and dismembered city that has in our deceptive words become “united Jerusalem.” It’s a city whose political future is more enshrouded in uncertainty than any other in Israel, but it’s “ours forever and ever.” So this discourse, which is accompanied by plenty of self-deception, is being conducted among ourselves, only ourselves. The Jerusalem syndrome has taken hold of us all.

Jerusalem’s borders are also deceptive. Regarding religious and national feelings toward the Old City, there did not have to be a connection between religion and sovereignty, as Uman in Ukraine is also holy to many Jews and no one talks about imposing Israeli sovereignty there. So it’s hard to understand which national and religious feelings are being addressed here amid the city’s ever-expanding area, east and west, north and south, beyond recognition.

What is the connection between the city’s Gilo neighborhood, which is closer to Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity than the Western Wall, and the sanctity of Jerusalem? What about remote Pisgat Ze’ev and eternal Jerusalem? What’s the connection between Jewish Jerusalem and the Shoafat refugee camp? And how can Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu make the artificial distinction between construction in Gilo and Har Homa (which are within Jerusalem’s current municipal borders) and Ma’aleh Adumim, just beyond the city limits on the West Bank? Why is it not possible to freeze construction in Gilo but it is possible in Ma’aleh Adumim? So why not extend Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries to Hebron, the Dead Sea, Ramallah and Ramle? Why not build there recklessly and declare all this our capital?

And the prime minister has told us other lies, such as “our commitment to protect freedom of worship for all the religions in Jerusalem, and to ensure fair and equal treatment for the city’s residents, Jews and Arabs alike.” Freedom of worship? It’s a sad joke. In no other city is access to holy places restricted according to the believer’s age, as Muslims who seek to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque are restricted. Fair and equal treatment? When, if ever, did Netanyahu visit the Palestinian neighborhoods of the beloved city?

Israel of course can continue to talk to itself and lie to itself, to decide that not just Jerusalem but also the Jordan Valley and Golan Heights are Israel’s forever. It can decide that its inhabitants are not “settlers” but “residents,” as they have always called themselves, and that these are not at all occupied areas. It can decide that “settlement blocs,” another Israeli creature, are “at the heart of the national consensus”, as they are now being defined without any basis in fact. It can decide that the current route of the separation fence is the real international boundary. We can talk and talk to ourselves, like the crazies who walked around the streets of my childhood, frightening us very much.

wiss Minarets Not Allowed to Broadcast Prayer Calls, Still, They’ve Been Banned


30/11/2009 Swiss voters approved a ban on new mosque minarets being built, prompting dismay and anger in the Muslim world at the success of the far-right initiative.
The referendum to ban the minarets was approved Sunday by 57.5 percent of voters who cast ballots and in 22 out of the country’s 26 cantons.

Far-right politicians across Europe celebrated the results, while the Swiss government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”
Minarets distinguish mosques and are traditionally used to call for prayers.

The far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) said that the minarets — of which Switzerland has only four and which are not allowed to broadcast the call to prayer — were not architectural features with religious characteristics, but symbolized a “political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights.”

The referendum’s approval was quickly condemned in the world’s most populous Muslim nations.
“This is the hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities. They don’t want to see a Muslim presence in their country and this intense dislike has made them intolerant,” said Maskuri Abdillah, the head Indonesia’s biggest Muslim group, Nahdlatul Ulama.

Egypt’s Mufti Ali Gomaa denounced the ban on new minarets as an “insult” to Muslims across the world.
“This proposal … is not considered just an attack on freedom of beliefs, but also an attempt to insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland,” he said.

Islam is the second largest religion in Switzerland after Christianity. Muslims in this country make up some five percent of the population.

A mosque in Geneva was vandalized three times during the anti-minaret campaign, local media reported Saturday.

Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf sought to reassure Muslims, saying: “It is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. Of that, the Federal Council gives its assurance.”
But for the 400,000-strong Muslim community, the harm has been done.
“The most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community,” said Farhad Afshar, who heads the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland.

The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticized the result, saying that it “heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures.”

Young people carrying candles and cardboard minarets led a mock funerary procession in the federal capital Bern, carrying a banner reading “This is not my Switzerland,” the ATS news agency reported.

Amnesty International said the minaret ban is a “violation of religious freedom, incompatible with the conventions signed by Switzerland.”

The Swiss Green party said it was contemplating lodging a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for violation of religious freedoms as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

In Morocco, a parliamentarian from the Justice and Development Islamist Party expressed surprise.

“I think that Muslims in Switzerland, and those who live in the European Union, have a lot of work to do in communication to show their real face of tolerance and cohabitation of Islam,” said Saad Eddine Othmani.

French far-right politician Marine Le Pen welcomed the outcome, saying that the “elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political-religious Muslim groups want to impose.”

“Switzerland is sending us a clear signal: yes to bell towers, no to minarets,” said Roberto Calderoli, minister of administrative simplification and a member of Italy’s anti-immigrant Northern League party, told the ANSA news agency.

However, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner condemned Switzerland’s referendum vote as a show of intolerance and said the decision should be reversed.
“I am a bit shocked by this decision,” Kouchner told RTL radio. “It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance.

“I hope the Swiss will reverse this decision quickly,” he added.
Kouchner said “if we cannot build minarets that means that we are practicing religious oppression”.

“Is it really offensive that in a mountainous country there is a building that is a bit taller than the others?” he asked.
A senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party said Monday that the banning is a sign of a fear of Islam that also exists in Germany and must be “taken seriously.”
To criticize the outcome of the Swiss would be counterproductive. It reflects a fear of a growing Islamisation of society, and this fear must be taken seriously,” said Wolfgang Bosbach of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.


Meanwhile, SVP Vice-President Yvan Perrin cheered the fact that his party had won the vote “without difficulty.”

He told Radio Suisse Romande that Swiss companies should not worry about suffering from a possible backlash from Muslim countries.
“If our companies continue to make good quality products, they have nothing to worry about,” he said.

My compatriots’ vote to ban minarets is fuelled by fear

The Swiss have voted not against towers, but Muslims. Across Europe, we must stand up to the flame-fanning populists


Tariq Ramadan

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 November 2009 20.00 GMT

It wasn’t meant to go this way. For months we had been told that the efforts to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland were doomed. The last surveys suggested around 34% of the Swiss population would vote for this shocking initiative. Last Friday, in a meeting organised in Lausanne, more than 800 students, professors and citizens were in no doubt that the referendum would see the motion rejected, and instead were focused on how to turn this silly initiative into a more positive future.

Today that confidence was shattered, as 57% of the Swiss population did as the Union Démocratique du Centre (UDC) had urged them to – a worrying sign that this populist party may be closest to the people’s fears and expectations. For the first time since 1893 an initiative that singles out one community, with a clear discriminatory essence, has been approved in Switzerland. One can hope that the ban will be rejected at the European level, but that makes the result no less alarming. What is happening in Switzerland, the land of my birth?

There are only four minarets in Switzerland, so why is it that it is there that this initiative has been launched? My country, like many in Europe, is facing a national reaction to the new visibility of European Muslims. The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol.

Every European country has its specific symbols or topics through which European Muslims are targeted. In France it is the headscarf or burka; in Germany, mosques; in Britain, violence; cartoons in Denmark; homosexuality in the Netherlands – and so on. It is important to look beyond these symbols and understand what is really happening in Europe in general and in Switzerland in particular: while European countries and citizens are going through a real and deep identity crisis, the new visibility of Muslims is problematic – and it is scary.

At the very moment Europeans find themselves asking, in a globalising, migratory world, “What are our roots?”, “Who are we?”, “What will our future look like?”, they see around them new citizens, new skin colours, new symbols to which they are unaccustomed.

Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates – violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few – it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor. There is a great deal of fear and a palpable mistrust. Who are they? What do they want? And the questions are charged with further suspicion as the idea of Islam being an expansionist religion is intoned. Do these people want to Islamise our country?

The campaign against the minarets was fuelled by just these anxieties and allegations. Voters were drawn to the cause by a manipulative appeal to popular fears and emotions. Posters featured a woman wearing a burka with the minarets drawn as weapons on a colonised Swiss flag. The claim was made that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Swiss values. (The UDC has in the past demanded my citizenship be revoked because I was defending Islamic values too openly.) Its media strategy was simple but effective. Provoke controversy wherever it can be inflamed. Spread a sense of victimhood among the Swiss people: we are under siege, the Muslims are silently colonising us and we are losing our very roots and culture. This strategy worked. The Swiss majority are sending a clear message to their Muslim fellow citizens: we do not trust you and the best Muslim for us is the Muslim we cannot see.

Who is to be blamed? I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective western societies. In Switzerland, over the past few months, Muslims have striven to remain hidden in order to avoid a clash. It would have been more useful to create new alliances with all these Swiss organisations and political parties that were clearly against the initiative. Swiss Muslims have their share of responsibility but one must add that the political parties, in Europe as in Switzerland have become cowed, and shy from any courageous policies towards religious and cultural pluralism. It is as if the populists set the tone and the rest follow. They fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely “integrated”. That we face common challenges, such as unemployment, poverty and violence – challenges we must face together. We cannot blame the populists alone – it is a wider failure, a lack of courage, a terrible and narrow-minded lack of trust in their new Muslim citizens.

Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University. His most recent book is What I Believe

P.S. I Hate You! –

Amanda Mueller

P.S. I Hate You! –

I keep hours not traditional to those of most in the United States, staying within the same operational hours as those in Palestine that I work with, interview and whose stories I report. I like this, the quiet that enters my home when I wake up at 3:00 AM.

Today I received a very disturbing e-mail in regards to the human rights award that SIANS has just announced they were awarding to me. I am sure you can understand how difficult it can sometimes be reporting on topics not necessarily in agreement with public opinion, much less the opinion of our foreign-policy decision makers. Being given this award meant that my long hours and my outrage was making a difference somewhere – enough for people to notice – and share with other individuals the stories of the Palestinian people I tell, those with no voice – those atempted to be silenced in the media.

Then I received an e-mail today that contained a hateful message and a personal attack because of my belief in non-violence and the movement that Palestinian individuals have practices in so many ways since 1902.

The e-mail read:

Do you really think you are more deserving than, for example, Rachel Corrie? Do you know why Rachel is unworthy of any such award?

If I understand well, you feel quite happy and satisfied with the murder of millions while you continue your useless campaign “supporting and maintaining a commitment to non-violent resistance”!

Rachel Corrie was a volunteer with ISM (International Solidarity Movement) who promotes non violence. Their website states: “The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) is a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles. Founded by a small group of activists in August, 2001, ISM aims to support and strengthen the Palestinian popular resistance by providing the Palestinian people with two resources, international protection and a voice with which to nonviolently resist an overwhelming military occupation force.”

Rachel Corrie was senselessly murdered while practicing non-violence while standing in front of a home to be bulldozed. Her very act is the DEFINITION of non-violence.

That isn’t what disturbs me the most about the e-mail. It is the assumption that I feel quite happy and satisifed with the deaths that have taken place in the area.

I do not know how to react to this, quite honestly. When I first read it, I cried – knowing the work that I do that simply cannot be contained in a press release for a human rights award. Nor do I act as a braggard in my many job functions as that makes my work about me and it isn’t, it is about the violations of human rights of those stuck under an assertive occupation and bringing awareness to THEIR stories, not mine.

To say that I am happy and satisfied with the millions of deaths is perhaps the ugliest thing ever said to me, and as a reporter of Palestinian issues, I have had my share of ugly things said to me.

The e-mail has left me rather sad.

LF Bloc Seeks to Remove Resistance from Policy Statement!


29/11/2009 Lebanese were still “celebrating” the “gift” presented by their government on the eve of Al-Adha, in reference to the government’s ministerial statement, when the Lebanese Forces decided once again to “disturb” everyone…

Thus, after his so-called “allies” before his “rivals” confirmed the country’s fundamental right of “Resistance” until the liberation of all Lebanese territory occupied by the Israeli enemy, LF chief Samir Geagea wasn’t satisfied.

The reason is so simple. In his dictionary, there’s nothing called “Resistance”!

Thus, Geagea didn’t hesitate to gather his bloc, including his two “independent” ministers, and announce the Lebanese Forces “opposition” to the concept of “Resistance,” of course without telling the Lebanese what was his “smart plan” to face the Israeli occupation and continuous threats against his country.

Following the “exceptional” meeting at Geagea’s residence, the Lebanese Forces parliamentary bloc claimed that “the mentioning of the resistance in the sixth article of the ministerial Policy Statement contradicts with the statement itself in the first place, and with the Constitution and Taef Accord, as well as with Resolution 1701 and other international resolutions.”

Therefore, the bloc asked the government to “amend that article or terminate it in preservation of its credibility, solemnity, and constitutionality.”

“It contradicts the charter of coexistence in addition to being unconstitutional and illegal, therefore it is invalid,” the bloc went on to claim.

The bloc pretended that the Taef Accord did not include any hint about the resistance, but rather “it urged respecting international resolutions, extending authority of the State on all territories, and disarming Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias without exceptions.”

“The mentioning of the word ‘Resistance’ in the sixth article is a bypassing of the national dialogue table and predetermination of its resolutions,” it concluded.

One message can be understood from the LF new “show”: it’s launching a “trivial opposition within the government,” a concept that the Lebanese Forces itself rejected and condemned before finding itself alone in the “middle of the storm”!

KARKAR: Israeli war criminal welcomed in Australian

{Goldstone} by Naser Al Ja’fari-Al Arabs today newspaper-Jordan


– November 29, 2009

Olmert in Parl4
AAP Image/Alan Porritt, Canberra, 26 November 2009

by Sonja Karkar – Australians for Palestine – 29 November 2009

The news that former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was in Australia and was welcomed by the honourable members of our parliament came as somewhat of a shock. It is one thing to have allowed a man on corruption charges as well as facing war crimes indictments into Australia at all; it is another thing that he was listed as a distinguished guest in Hansard – the official record of parliamentary proceedings – and received a resounding “hear, hear” from our elected representatives.

This is, after all, the man who approved the genocidal attack on the 1.5 million imprisoned and defenceless Palestinians in Gaza less than a year ago. This is the same attack that was the subject of numerous enquiries, not least the UN fact-finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, which found that “the operations were carefully planned . . . and designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population . . . [and] that the serious violations of International Humanitarian Law recounted in this report fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).” With further investigations, these violations may well amount to “war crimes and “crimes against humanity”. Read More…

November 29, 2009

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Former Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal Ehud Olmert arrived in Australia unnoticed until his presence was noted in the House on Thursday, the last sitting day of parliament for the year. Columnist and propagandist for Israel, Greg Sheridan wrote about him two days later in The Australian and gloated about his long interview with this “giant of contemporary Middle East politics”. That interview resulted in two articles (see first; see second) in the same newspaper on the same day by the same author. I suppose a “giant” needs that much verbiage. Indeed, Sheridan seems to have a penchant for giants: Ariel Sharon was mighty amongst other giants of Israel’s past and even our own John Howard grew into one.

Aside from the casual mention of corruption charges against Olmert, there is nothing to suggest that Olmert is anything but a man of peace whose extensive “generous” offer to the Palestinians seems to have replaced the myth of Barak’s long-touted most generous offer foolishly rejected by the Palestinians. Jonathan Cook exposes that myth here.

Olmert’s war on Gaza is fleetingly described as brutal, but Olmert regrets the innocent Palestinians killed and rejects the Goldstone report accusing Israel of war crimes as “a moral indignity”. Sheridan maintains, however, that he is “best remembered for the extensive negotiations and final peace offer that he undertook with Abbas.” If Barak’s offer did not include the lands Israel has expropriated for settlements and security zones, especially in the Jerusalem area nor that area where Israel has created Canada Park on razed villages, then what area did Omert consider to be 94% of the West Bank when he offered it and all of Gaza including a tunnel “under Palestinian control” linking the West Bank to the Gaza Strip? In the 8 years since Barak’s offer, Israel has furiously increased its settlement building and there is no sign of it stopping despite talk of freezes and partial freezes.

All this talk of peace from a man of war is just more of the same bluff and spin that the media insults us with when it needs to bolster Israel’s image. The indicted war criminal Ariel Sharon was also described as a man of peace before his brain collapsed. Israel churns out these peacemakers made-to-order and the world it seems cannot get enough of these split personalities. But truth, justice and the law is catching up with them.

According to J-wire – Jewish Online News from Australia and New Zealand, Olmert is in Australia attending the Australia-Israel Leadership Forum in Melbourne this coming week. We have no other details. Also arriving in Australia next week is the Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom who will be attending a gala dinner in Melbourne on 6 December hosted by the Australia Israel Cultural Exchange (AICA). Australia’s prime minister Kevin Rudd will be there as well. For more information about Silvan Shalom and the protest being organised see here.

Don’t let Australia become a safe haven for war criminals. We ask you to write to your local member, the ministers listed below and the media protesting visits and immunity given to suspected war criminals and demand that Australia honours its obligations under international human rights conventions by detaining anyone deemed to be war criminals until court proceedings under universal jurisdiction can be brought against them.


The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Fax: (07) 3899 5755 Email

The Hon Stephen Smith MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Fax: 08 9272 3477

The Hon Robert McLelland MP, Attorney-General

Fax: (02) 9585 9200

Media outlets:

A Night Unto The Nations


Posted by realistic bird under Politics Tags: , , , , , ,

by Ali Khalil

by Gilad Atzmon, November 27, 2009

In his latest Haarertz commentary, the Israeli political analyst Yoel Marcus wonders “How Israel became a night unto the nations?” Marcus is obviously nostalgic about the days where the great powers “were not only sympathetic to Israel’s establishment, but admired its valor in repulsing the Arab states’ onslaught.”

Proudly he mentions the ‘renowned foreign journalists’ who came to Israel in 1948 and wrote “glowing reports about this war of David against Goliath”. Noticeably, Marcus fails to mention or to grasp that the expulsion of the indigenous Palestinians from their villages and cities wasn’t exactly a repetition of a ‘David against Goliath’ narrative. Quite the opposite, it was a story of a young organised Jewish army that ethnically cleansed defenseless civilian population consisting mainly of peasants.

As it happens, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the newly formed Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of Palestine’s indigenous population. Young IDF soldiers were following a racist doctrine that was categorically no different from the Nazi agenda. It was all about the establishment of a ‘Jew only’ state. For some peculiar reason Yoel Marcus is convinced that back then Israel was a light unto the nations. Miraculously, the Israelis are pretty efficient in forgetting their original sin. Like their Diaspora ancestors they adopted a banal vision of their historical narrative. This narrative repeats itself in many Jewish and Israeli holidays(1) and is usually described humorously as:

‘They wanted to kill us, we survived, let’s eat’.

But times have changed according to Marcus “admiration for Israel’s strength gradually turned into resentment”. Marcus grasps that “Israel’s military might and its unrestrained use of this might have turned the David-versus-Goliath analogy into an asset for the Palestinians.” Interestingly enough, Marcus fails to understand that for some time now, the public perception has reversed the roles. In the eyes of Palestinians, Israel has never been an innocent little kosher ‘David’. In fact it has always been a crude monstrous genocidal entity. True, Zionists managed to fool the nations for many years presenting Israel as an harmless lost child who ‘returned’ home after 2000 years. The facts are now disclosed. The Jewish nation is an invention. The return saga is based on a fantasy. The only facts surrounding the Jewish state are the barbarian and merciless tactics it performs day by day.

Marcus notes that the reputation of Israel shifted radically. It is now regarded as aggressive and domineering. Unlike Alan Dershowitz who myopically insists that Israeli support in American campuses is guaranteed, Marcus is honest and brave enough to admit that American universities are becoming pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. “That is dangerous” he says “because this is where America’s future leaders are bred.”

Marcus, however, is obviously extremely naive. Like most Israeli leftists he believes that Israel’s trouble started in 1967 with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Marcus, like most Israelis, is convinced that once occupation ends the Jewish State would once again surf the waves of glowing admiration. Marcus fails to understand that Israel has past the no-return-zone. In spite of the fact that he has written for Haaretz for decades and must be familiar with the most intimate details of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Marcus, like most Israelis, manages to miss what the Palestinian cause is all about. He somehow dismisses the 1948 Nakba and the refugee issue.

Shockingly enough, in the eyes of the Zio-centric journalist, Palestinians and Goyim in general are an easy target for manipulation. It is this exact tendency that led to the birth of Israel’s ‘unilateral’ philosophy. We the Jews will do what we have to do, the world will follow. In Ben Gurion’s words: “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, all that matters is what Jews do.”

Marcus is concerned. Israel’s reputation is falling apart “From a light unto the nations, Israel has become a maligned and ostracized nation”…. “Ever since Operation Cast Lead in Gaza officers in the Israel Defense Forces have been at risk every time they land in an international airport”. However, Marcus is not at all concerned with the fact that he himself is living on stolen land. Morality seems to be beyond him. There is not a single reference to ethics in his entire article. For Marcus and other Israeli leftists, it is all about the exchange rate. It is all about give and take rather than self reflection that may lead into a long overdue ethical realisation.

Marcus wants Israel to be a light unto the nations. He doesn’t understand that this is not going to happen. The window of opportunity is closing down. The disclosure of Israeli barbarism together with the exposure of its relentless lobbies around the world makes it very clear. Israel is not just night unto the nations. It is actually a total nightmare and embarrassment to humanity and humanism.

(1) Hanukah, Passover, Israeli Independence day etc

%d bloggers like this: