Syrian Protesters Pelt US Envoy with Stones, Tomatoes

Syrian demonstrators threw U.S. ambassador Robert Ford and other U.S. diplomats on Thursday with stones and tomatoes as they were visiting an opposition figure in Damascus , a witness and diplomatic sources were quoted by Reuters.
“Two embassy cars were damaged. The U.S. delegation is still there and the crowd is surrounding the building,” said the witness. “They are chanting ‘Abu Hafez (father of Hafez)’,” the witness said, a nickname for Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The diplomats were visiting Hassan Abdul-Azim, who heads the outlawed Arab Socialist Democratic Union party. He has been demanding an end to a crackdown on opposition protesters as a condition for any talks with Assad.

Hassan Abdul-Azim on the right

Abdul-Azim told the Associated Press that Ford was still inside his office with about 100 pro-government protesters outside. He said Syrian security arrived about an hour after the movement began.

In Washington, State Department officials were not immediately available to comment.
It was the second attack on U.S. diplomats since the protests erupted in Syria in March. In July, following a visit by Ford to the city of Hama, Syrian protesters attacked the U.S. embassy compound in Damascus.

Source: Agencies

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

After 9/11 Anniversary, Is Lebanon Going to Be Theater for New US Tragedy?1/2

Nader Ezzeddine: Al-manar

Wanting to talk about the current stage in the Middle East, North Africa, and the American role in these parts of the world, we spontaneously return to an event that has occupied the international community for years and posed a big question mark. In addition, discussing and analyzing its causes, results, and consequences do lead any observer to a political question: Had not there been 9/11/2001 attacks against the WTC, could the U.S.A. have occupied the Arab and the Muslims lands at the military, intelligence, and the economic levels?

Such spontaneous return to the near past is not a coincidence. Since such an immense bloody event till today, several facts have been disclosed but they were effaced and downsized through a Western and an Arabian plan because their conspirators never wanted people to think one single time about the relation of the international intelligence particularly the C.I.A and the Mossad, which would ever project the event as an initial point to what is called “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) and NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). This is not the sole reason, yet in the course of the incidents the way they have been happening worldwide, and in our region in the wake of the WTC destruction, suspicions have been raised regarding the real conspirator for the attacks.

For this reason and after 11/9, the eyes have become rather wide open on the role played by the secret intelligence agencies in our daily lives. Actually, those groups are not only linked to the U.S.A. but to Europe and to the NATO, which had used the stay-behind” style a resistance movement that used to spy from behind enemy lines. That enemy was other countries dominating the international decision, which have executed numerous bombings in Bologne in the 80’s of the past century and in Spain, Italy, and other European countries. All of this was to serve economic goals. From this corner, 11/9 could be considered an international world war organized by the trans-continental companies that control the world under several titles and dominate the world economy.

Thus, they execute bombings and assassinations in order to serve their own economic, imperialistic and expansion goals.

In an assessment for the past 10 years, we can see that this period has been sufficient to cause the most immense human tragedy after World War 2. We can also clearly see the destruction and the criminality that took place in Europe during the Two World Wars; Islam, for instance, was not the cause for either of them, neither was either of the two wars about “war against terrorism!” The reasons were centrally ranging between economic and political domination for a rationally imbalanced European group (the Nazis and the Fascists) who forced the world into a tragedy we have been suffering from ever since until today.

For that reason, after 9/11/2001, the region started to go through a secret war waged by that “secret government” -Bloomberg Group- leading the change worldwide; subsequently, it could be considered that the numerous aggressions that have been executed by the Zionist- American group, which were not declared, is linked to the Neo-conservatives who had made it to the Oval office with President Reagan in the eighties of the past century.

However, those operations were disclosed during Junior George Bush’s reign, the failure and the imbalanced man, according to most psychiatrists and to most studies in the U.S.A. In addition, we cannot forget Dick Cheney’s role who had accompanied George Bush Senior when he announced the commencement of a “New World Order” in the wake of the Soviet Union collapse in 1991 when he said that “a new era” had begun.

The expression itself indicates to Torahic discourses linked to Zionist Talmudic faith. In the year 2001, the American President disappeared and Dick Cheney reappeared, by then he was in charge of a psychologists who believed in parapsychology or “manipulating the mind” over many American military groups that had been trained on criminality. Those groups were used in more than one assassination and massacres among nations mercilessly. This could be concluded from the Talmudic lessons that Dick Cheney tried to market followed by George Bush Junior claiming that the final Armageddon ” battle was approaching and would accompany the declaration of an Israeli state with Jerusalem as its capital. Thus, they tried to change the world through the available provisions at their hands, whether the political, the economic, or the cultural. There came September 11 as a springboard that provided the pretext, the legality, and the international cover up for the Bush and the Neo-conservative group namely – Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz- to go for war called “the international war against terrorism” in 2001.

US Comes To Region, Plays on Sectarian Chord to Break it Down
In the same course, director of “The Consultancy for Strategic Studies” Dr. Imad Rizk indicates that
“Invading Afghanistan was done under the pretext of “hunting down” Osama Bin Laden that the operation lasted for 10 years till the justification for Al-Qaeda organization leader’s presence was unnecessary anymore. Whoever traces the recent historical account will notice that Bin Laden was merely a CIA agent and was financed by Saudi Arabia to fight back against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Under this cover up, the doctrine of violence was manipulated and capitalized on in order to accuse Islam of terrorism. Subsequently, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war in 1991, Bin Laden’s duty as a deputy with a mission to gather the Muslims from all the Arab countries in order to fight against the Soviets was finished.

Then, the U.S.A. moved from encountering the communist tide to reorganizing Al-Qaeda activities that a new justified pretext came out on the scene in order to capitalize on Al-Qaeda organization projects. We witnessed how the manipulation and distortion of so many religious ideas prevailing by then was conducted and how Al-Qaeda literature was considered a part of trans-continental criminal terrorism. Thus, the U.S.A. was justifying its acts, but those acts can be defined as organized terrorism by a “supposedly” accountable international party.”

For this reason, 9/11 was the start and then invading Afghanistan followed in 2001 under the pretext of Al-Qaeda presence there. After that Saddam Hussein’s international law-breaking impact and his rejection to cooperate with the international community; in addition to the cover up that Saddam Hussein had the third military power in the East and that he was a threat to the Zionist entity because of his possession of nuclear technology capacities which would empower him to destroy the whole world.

Consequently, Iraq was invaded and occupied. On the occasion of the eighth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq “We witness today how the American project in the region is suffering the failures implanted by Dick Cheney and George Bush in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Such an American unilateral strategy that has proven its failure has dropped at the threshold of “the Cedars Revolution” in Lebanon upon the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri in February 2005, in addition to the organized disorder that ensued and was fabricated by circles specialized in media distortion and psychological wars. Thus, Al-Hariri assassination was manipulated by those circles through implanting sectarian dissension among the various sects and religious spectrum in the Middle East in an endeavor to redraw the political map of the region and to break it down. This dissension agrees with the Zionist project in order to concoct small, weak, and disputing entities that will allow the Zionist entity not only to survive and exist but also to grow the dominating power economically, militarily, and politically in this organic region for the international economy.”

Assassinating Al-Hariri and Christian figures to subdue Syria

Here the crisscrossing point between 9/11/2001 and Al-Hariri assassination on February 2005 can be seen. In the first case, the attack on the WTC was to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, while the second case was intended to justify imposing sanctions against Syria, to increase pressure on Iran and the other forces resisting against foreign domination in the region. After the failure of its attempts, the American Zionist project commissioned Israel to wage a war against the Lebanese resistance. About that Dr. Rizk says, “All of those events can be linked according to the road map produced by the Zionist lobby in the U.S.A. During the stage prior to the attack on 9/11, and those events that followed passing through Al-Hariri assassination until July 2006 war waged by Israel, there had been a series of security events in Lebanon such as assassinations and bombings in several places. In addition, the media was manipulated in order to highlight a falsified image claiming that Christians were targeted. Then, some figures close to March 14 were assassinated in order to fake dissension among the political parties in Lebanon. This issue was manipulated to accuse the Syrian regime in order to subjugate it to the American bids.”

Dr. Rizk adds, “After all the failures that hit the American project, the Lebanese resistance along with the national Lebanese army could direct a smashing and painful hit at the project. They have uncovered Mossad and CIA espionage networks last of which was recently a CIA network that was able to penetrate the resistance. Such networks are excessively available in Lebanon and working on ruining the country at several standards. Moreover, cultural and political wrecking of the society is one of the targets the CIA and other close circles to the Zionist project in the region are endeavoring for.”

Beirut now is Going through a Secret War Similar to the One That Had Happened before the Civil War
Therefore, a reflective reading of the events that have happened in Lebanon since the assassination of PM Rafik Al-Hariri passing through all the other assassinations including all the evidence gathered by the Lebanese security systems, most important of which has been unmasking the secret agent networks and some other international intelligence agents, is going to lead to a conclusion that the stage we arrived at and the intelligence operations particularly the American ones in Lebanon can never be separated from the Israeli intelligence activity. Subsequently, the American activity including the Western is rather privileged with provisional factors to achieve its goals more than the Israelis since it has a diplomatic cover up that allows them to legally finance the non-governmental organizations through which the U.S.A. and the Western countries can have access to data and information about the Lebanese community and the civil society from local municipalities and other governmental departments. Thus, because of the numerous regional intelligence offices availability in Beirut, it can be said that Beirut continues to live a part of a “secret war” nowadays similar to the one that was experienced in the 1950’s and the 1960’s of the past century just prior to the civil war in 1975. By then, Beirut was the focal point of interest for most international intelligence agencies where settlements by elimination used to take place among those agencies on the Lebanese territories.

Three Levels for the American and Western Security Operations

According to Dr. Rizk, “The Western and the American security operations particularly functions at three levels; the technical linked to legal cover up such as in what is done in various security agreements and is known to take a form of information exchange and “coordination offices” which represents the first step to reshape the American politics inside the Lebanese Government. The second level is the investigation level represented by the diplomatic movement of the westerners and the American embassy in Beirut at the political, cultural, social, and economic levels where there is no control on the lookout. Therefore, this activity is not controlled, and under such cover up information, gathering and classification take place.

The simplest evidence is what has been released by “Wikileaks.” A huge number of documents that have been leaked out and which indicates to a very excessive activity and confirm that Washington does not miss a thing inside the Lebanese authorities whether economic or related to the Lebanese society, but everything is wired to Washington where analysis is done along with other information that could be Israeli in origin. Furthermore, the third level and the most important of all is the executive level for those western and particularly the American security systems, for they do not collect information for the sake of collecting it but it is rather in preparation to attain a moment for execution.”

One Hand Executes and One Party Takes Advantage

Dr. Rizk adds,” According to several Western and American reports released by surveillance systems observing the Western activity, we can say that the bombings or the events that have happened in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, including Lebanon and Iran are the making of one hand from the logistics corner, the preparation of the booby traps, the usage of detonators, the way they are detonated, the campaigning, and the political capitalization. If we examine the simplest evidence of the crime, we can consider that the party taking advantage of the bombing and the ruining act can be participating in the operation itself. As for the bombings targeting the Iraqis, they can be considered natural with the presence of the American forces in Iraq, while they are unnatural to target Lebanese in Lebanon and Iranians in Iran, regions outside the confrontation fronts.
Iraq has been a gravitational region for the fighters who opted to encounter the American project or the Americans trying to kill the Iraqis. However, how does this apply to Pakistan, Lebanon, and Iran? For this reason, we conclude that the project the U.S.A. is trying to implement is interlinking and complementary. Not a single scene can be separated from the events and their course. All those events are interlinked, and we can prove that through the assassination operations that have been executed by US drone aircraft in Pakistan, Yemen, or in more than one country worldwide.”

At this point, we can conclude that the CIA was assassinating whoever they wanted to kill by using the controlled drone aircraft, and that the Mossad were using the diplomatic gloves and sharing in the field in order to partake in the bombing operations and in reorganizing their networks.

It is never difficult to recognize that Iraq has been one of the arenas where the Mossad cooperated with the American intelligence for the purpose of executing assaults against both the Shiites and the Sunnis. Their purpose was to arouse confusion and dissension among them, weaken those economic Arabian powers or give benefits to other countries that were financing or taking advantage. It was also perhaps to serve some Gulf countries that were taking advantage of the isolation of Iraq and its devastation at both the Arabian and the international levels.

The Jasmine Revolution in Syria

Dr. Imad Rizk

“Nowadays, we can see that some geographically small countries participate in the decision making in the invasion against Libya and its occupation by the NATO and even in devastating the infrastructure of more than one Arab country, up to speaking of financing those small countries for movements in Syria and in other Arab countries. The whole target goes into the same obvious American course; there are those who plan, who finance, and others who execute. It is impossible to exclude those countries from the conspiring plotter if he is a Zionist-American, and the financer if he is an Arab, or the murderer if he is an Israeli. Such crisscrosses can be considered a part of an international influence division.” Dr. Rizk continues,” From the daily proceedings, we conclude that because it was impossible to pressurize Syria in 2004-2005, the assassination of PM Rafik Al-Hariri had been committed and there followed “the Cedars Revolution” in Lebanon that was meant to trigger the Jasmine Revolution in Syria in 2005-2006.
However, the Syrian capacity to confront and the failure of the destructive and devastating American project in Iraq had pressed Washington to reevaluate its project, and thus came out Baker- Hamilton report that reassessed the American project keeping on the same strategy or the road map that has lasted till today, but it changed the tactics. The U.S.A. that is going to withdraw its troops from Iraq in December 2011 is going to install its anti-missile dome and its radars in Turkey and simultaneously it expanded the Gulf Council that it would include gains towards Jordan and Morocco. Such crisscrosses have become of obvious goals one of which is the protection of Israel and the protection of the monarchs supportive to the occupying entity whether it is in Jordan, Morocco, or in Saudi Arabia. Today, one can see the Gulf countries and Morocco excluded from accountability, and what is happening is very obvious in Egypt that represents the strategic passage through the Suez Canal, and Libya the gateway to Africa and the Niger where the main natural reservoirs of oil and Uranium. After that, Algiers and Iran are going to be targeted as the French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared .

Therefore, according to the Zionist conspiring geopolitical map for the region, no country can be isolated from Morocco up to Pakistan. The reason is that all those countries that comprise the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) are a region of operations either directly executed by the NATO forces under a “legalized” Arab and international political cover up or committed by the CIA and the Mossad arms under Arabian or European titles.

In the second part of the report:
How does the U.S.A. rid of its agents?
The Intelligence arms have spread in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq
A new wave of Bombings… Is the CIA Going to Be the Next Target?

Source: Al-Manar Website

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Syria – Western powers abandon new sanctions

The plan to break-up of Libya and Syria was conceived on May 6, 2002 by the Crypto-Jew John Bolton who was serving as under-secretary of state in the Dubya Bush administration. The plan is being implemented by America’s first Jewish President, Barack Obama.

Syrian foreign minister Walid Moualen during his speech at the UN General Assembly on Monday blamed ”foreign intervention” for country’s months of violence and for causing delays in Bashar Assad’s plans for democratic reforms. It’s no secret that Israel, the US, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are supporting the militants to by-pass the peaceful protesters who did not call for a regime-change in Damascus but for reforms.

Western powers have realized that a pro-West regime change in Damascus through mass protests is not as easy as was in Tunisia and Egypt. The base of dictators in Egypt and Tunisia was pro-West Army while in Syria, the army is pro-Assad and is controlled by the Ba’athist party which is both anti-religion and anti-Israel. In Libya, Qaddafi’s popularity was with the people, therefore, he never spent much money on modernizing his forces to fight insurgency – which made Libya an easy prey for NATO and the western forces on ground.

In Syria, the anti-government protests were not for a regime change as was the case in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen. The protest leaders were demanding multi-party democracy, end of 30-year emergency and freedom of speech – until it was over-run by US-Israel-Saudia sponsored Syrian National Council (SNC) based on Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) model. The SNC has bases in Turkey and is armed by US-Israel-Saudia via Lebanon’s former prime minister Sa’ad Hariri’s clan.

Ankara and Riyadh are trying to stir sectarian divide in Syria as Cairo and Riyah did in Lebanon to discredit Hizbullah. These Western-client regimes are trying to destablize Syria by pitting Sunni majority against Alawite minority and hoping to invite NATO to bring regime change in Damascus. In reality, Syria has been ruled by Ba’athist party for over four decades. The Ba’athists are not Alawite (Shia) like Hizbullah, but a collection of nationalist-secularist business elites, politicians and military officers drawn from all religious and ethnic groups of Syrian society.

Israel Lobby controlled think tanks, i.e. Center for Security Policy, Brooking Institute’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, International Crisis Group, American Enterprise Institute, George Soro’s Open Society Foundations, etc. are leading anti-Bashar campaign.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

How 10 Years of NATO Occupation have Uplifted the Afghan People

Contributed by Richard Edmondson

In his speech at the UN last week, Barack Obama, America’s swishy, limp-wristed puppet president, house-husband to Michelle, spoke of America’s and NATO’s accomplishments in Afghanistan, avowing that “we are drawing down our own forces, while building an enduring partnership with the Afghan people.” The implied message is that the citizens of that blood soaked, war-torn land have somehow been uplifted by the altruism of NATO’s benign, humanitarian embrace. The following report from RT would suggest otherwise.

Drug use, we are told in the report, has become rampant and parts of the country are in essence turning into a cesspool. According to a study cited, each Afghan family has at least one drug user, while “opiates are now found in breast milk, and all kids, even newborns, have morphine in their blood.” Among the more disturbing images the video presents us with are of a young Afghan girl, probably no more than 11 or 12 years old, smoking opium.

Interestingly, we are also informed that the drug trade is one of the Taliban’s “main sources of income,” but if history is any indication, my guess is that the CIA is benefiting as well, perhaps at least as much, if not more so, than the Taliban. Which may explain why, as the piece relates, stopping drug production is not among NATO’s goals. “Many experts find this a bit strange,” comments the somewhat mystified RT journalist, “given the fact that a large part of revenues from drug money is used to sponsor the Taliban.” I guess the Russian reporter probably never heard of Gary Webb or the Dark Alliance or the CIA’s history of drug trafficking. Or maybe he’s only pretending to be mystified. My only question is where is all the money the puppet president Karzai is being paid off with by his US and Israeli masters…and why doesn’t he at least hire somebody to pick up the garbage?

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

What’s Next for the Palestinian United Nations Strategy ?

With the Palestinian Authority’s application to the United Nations Security Council for full membership and what appears to be an impending US veto, in the transcript and video below Mouin Rabbani discusses the next steps.

Mouin Rabbani

In terms of what to expect now, I think it is very much an open question. The Security Council will begin consideration of the Palestinian application for full membership on Monday, but it is unclear how long those deliberations are going to take. It is equally unclear what the Palestinians are going to do when that application is inevitably rejected as a result of either a US veto or successful US bullying of other council members to vote against this application.

The next things to look at are whether and how the Palestinians go to the General Assembly and also how they are going to respond to the latest Quartet statement. If you look at the Quartet statement, I think it is fair to describe it as considerably worse than many of its awful predecessors in the sense that the current Quartet statement says virtually nothing about anything except trying to put in place another bogus process of proposals within three months, and framework agreement within a year, and peace and life for a thousand years by the end of 2012. Been there, done that several hundred times.

The point here is that the Quartet, which was basically established by the Bush administration as a substitute for the international community, was interestingly enough incapable of agreeing on terms of reference for yet another peace process. The basic reason it was unable to do so was because Washington insisted on inserting the most extreme Israeli preconditions for diplomacy into the Quartet statement and, in doing so, met resistance from the Europeans and, it seems, outright rejection from the Russians. Apart from their membership in the Quartet, the Russians have never really taken its directives all that seriously. Washington, on the one hand, rejected inserting anything about a settlement freeze into the Quartet statement basically imposing settlement construction as part of any peace process. At the same time, they insisted on inserting recognition of Israel as a Jewish State as part of the Quartet’s terms of reference. When that failed, the Quartet could do nothing more than come up with a rather lame excuse for yet another process.

I think this is likely to push the Palestinians even further down the path of internationalization. Here we see what can only be described as the extremism which has taken hold in Washington having a positive impact on the development of an alternative Palestinian strategy.

Mouin Rabbani is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) in Washington DC. He is an independent Middle East analyst and commentator specializing on Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Rabbani is in Washington, DC until October 10th and is available for media and public appearances.

VICTOR KATTAN on the Palestinian application for sovereign Palestinian statehood
Victor Kattan is the author of From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949 (London: Pluto Books, 2009) and The Palestine Question in International Law (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008). Victor was a Teaching Fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London from 2008-2011 where he is presently completing his PhD. Previously Victor worked for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2006-2008), Arab Media Watch (2004-2006), and the BADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights as a UNDP TOKTEN consultant (2003-2004).
“Palestine is the Heart of Arab people”PalestineFreeVoice

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Ken O’Keefe and Sameh Habeeb @ The Freiburg Conference

DateMonday, September 26, 2011 at 10:46PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon: Ken O’keefe speech closed the day in Freiburg. It was a monumental talk that was received with a standing ovation. Ken is probably one of the most charismatic and inspiring persons in our movement. You may want to regard these 2 videos as extended audio tapes. Apparently there was a problem with the cameras towards the end of the day. The videos are largely audio recordings with a bit of visuals.

Sameh Habeeb delivered, as he always does, a genuine, down to earth, picture of the hellish situation in Gaza. Sameh, posses this unique talent to convey the true spirit of Palestinian resistance. Bless him

Pro-Israel whitewash of 10-year-old’s killing unravels in court

One day in 2007, Israeli Border Police officers swept into the in the village of Anata just north of Jerusalem and began firing rubber bullets at a group of children who had thrown rocks at them. One Israeli bullet landed in the skull of a 10-year-old Palestinian girl named Abir Aramin, tearing the back of her head off and killing her. Aramin was the daughter of a prominent Palestinian activist named Bassam Aramin, who helped lead the group Combatants for Peace, a group that fosters dialogue between former combatants on both sides of the conflict. The little girl’s death sent sparked international outrage, generating headlines around the world.

The Israeli government went into damage control mode, denying any wrongdoing in connection with Aramin’s death and insisting without evidence that she had been struck in the head with a rock.

Meanwhile, the pro-Israel media watchdog group CAMERA claimed that the uproar surrounding Aramin’s death was a plot to inflame anti-Israel opinion and that all media reports suggesting that the Border Police killed her were categorically false. CAMERA declared that “stone-throwing Palestinians, as opposed to Israeli border police firing rubber bullets (as initially reported), may very well have been responsible for the death of Aramin.” Staffers from CAMERA called Haaretz reporter Danny Rubinstein to demand that he “clarify” his reporting on the killing by noting that “the Israeli border police are not necessarily to blame.”
Israeli state pathologists refused to perform an autopsy on Aramin, forcing her family to pay for their own examination, which proved she was shot by a rubber bullet. Though an officer testified that he may have shot Aramin, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the family’s demand to put him and a colleague on trial. The whitewash continued until this week, when an Israeli court conceded the Border Police’s guilt in the young girl’s killing by ordering the state to pay the Aramin family $432,000 in damages.
Though the cover-up has unraveled, CAMERA has yet to correct its baseless claims. Since the group’s staffers are so accustomed to complaining to the media about supposed falsehoods, they surely would not mind fielding demands to correct their own bogus assertions, especially those they made to whitewash the killing of a little girl. CAMERA can be reached here and at (617) 789-3672.oc

The Slow Hand of Justice at The Apartheid Wall

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The LIGHT List

BY Nahida the Exiled Palestinian

( List of Intellectuals Gagged for Hunting the Truth )


Some “friends” of Palestine demanded the removal of the link to this Website from a pro-Palestinian Website, because the content of the Website are highly “controversial”. Readers should consult their local “Thought Police” before embarking on reading, if you decide to proceed and read it anyway, you do so at your own risk, such “controversial” materials can cause some of your brain cell to suddenly ignite, which in turn might cause it to catch fire… BE WARNED

The approval of the “Thought Police” is always preferable, so you don’t get in trouble with them, you don’t want to find your name on their long, ever expanding list of “racists”, “anti-Semites”, Holocaust deniers” or conspiracy theorists”:

It is ironic that some of the “Thought Police” themselves been victims of slander and smear campaign, where they have their names published in the SHIT list, yet they engage themselves in similar behaviour and use the same methods!

I would suggest to the “Thought Police”, and they know who they are, if they still insist on following the sleazy methods of Zionist, to prepare their own smear list. To save them time, I would kick start it, and suggest that they call it the LIGHT List ( List of Intellectuals Gagged for Hunting the Truth )

This preliminary list would give them a good start:

NAME……………………….. “CRIME”

Gilad Atzmon ……………………. “Holocaust denier” and “anti-Semite”

Professor Richard Falks………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Professor John Mearsheimer… endorsed Gilad’s book

Professor William Cook …………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Professor Francis Boyle……….. for the FULL Liberation of Palestine

Professor James Petras……………endorsed Gilad’s book

Professor William T. Hathaway….. endorsed Gilad’s book

Ramzy Baroud …………………………..endorsed Gilad’s book

Dr. Paul Larudee………………………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo……………. endorsed Gilad’s book & shared a platform with him

Lauren Booth …………………….. endorsed Gilad’s book

Paul Eisen ………………………….”Holocaust denier” and “anti-Semite”

Israel Shahak …………………… exposed supremacism in some Jewish ideology

Ken O’Keefe……………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Israel Shamir……………………. exposed supremacism in some Jewish ideology

Jeff Blankfort………………………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Anthony Lawson …………………exposes the role of Jewish-Zionist Lobby

Stuart Littlewoods…………………. exposes the role of Jewish-Zionist Lobby

Eric Walberg …………………………..endorsed Gilad’s book

Shahram Vahdany …………………..endorsed Gilad’s book

Jonathan Azaziah …………………… exposes the role of Jewish-Zionist Lobby and crimes

Helen Thomas ………………………. for the Full Liberation of Palestine

Phillip Giraldi ………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool ……. endorsed Gilad’s book

Dr. Kevin Barrett ……………………….. endorsed Gilad’s book

Kathleen Christison………………………..endorsed Gilad’s book

Dr. Paul Balles …………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book & exposes Lobby

Dr Oren Ben Dor………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Roy Ratcliffe……………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Reham Al Helsi……………………………. for the FULL Liberation of Palestine

Alan Hart…………………………………… shared a platform with Gilad Atzmon

Alison Weir………………………………. exposes the role of Jewish-Zionist Lobby

Gideon Levy………………………………. exposed supremacism in some Jewish ideology

Richard A. Siegel …………………….. endorsed Gilad’s book

Silvia Cattori …………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Sunny Singh …………………………… endorsed Gilad’s book

Jeff Gates ………………………………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Professor Garrison Fewell…………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Stephen Lendman…………………….. exposes the role of Jewish-Zionist Lobby and crimes

Sameh Habeeb…………………………. endorsed Gilad’s book

Kim Petersen ………………………….. endorsed Gilad’s book

Richard Edmonson…………………..exposes Jewish supremacism

If they wish so, they can add Nahida the exiled Palestinian to the LIGHT List, after getting approval of members in the solidarity Movement, but if some members who know Nahida personally disapprove, they can add “Nahida’s articles” instead. As you know, Nahida and Nahida’s articles are TWO totally unconnected entities, they have absolutely nothing in common.

Endorsements :

“Gilad Atzmon decided to open Pandora’s Box, and ignite a debate that has been frustratingly dormant for too long. His experiences are most authentic, views are hard-hitting, and, at times, provocative. It must be read and discussed.” Ramzy Baroud, Palestine Chronicle

“A transformative story told with unflinching integrity that all (especially Jews) who care about real peace, as well as their own identity, should not only read, but reflect upon and discuss widely.” Professor Richard Falk

“Fascinating and provocative” Professor John J. Mearsheimer

“Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement is explosive.” Professor William A. Cook

“A pioneering work that deserves to be read and Gilad Atzmon is brave to write this book!” Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo

“Gilad’s escape from spiritual claustrophobia towards a free and open humanitarianism is fearless” Robert Wyatt

“In his inimitable deadpan style, Atzmon identifies the abscess in the Jewish wisdom tooth – exilic tribalism – and pulls it out. Ouch!” Eric Walberg, Al Aharam Weekly

“It is more than an academic exercise. It is a revelation!” Lauren Booth, Press TV

“A brilliant analysis that makes what appear to be contradictions in Jewish identity based political behavior not only comprehensible but predictable.” Jeff Blankfort

“Atzmon has the courage – so profoundly lacking among Western intellectuals” Professor James Petras

“Having known Gilad for 25 years, I read the book in English, I heard it in Hebrew and reflected on it in Arabic. Gilad Atzmon is astonishingly courageous” Dr. Makram Khoury-Machool

“A fascinating achievement” Dr Oren Ben Dor

“Gilad Atzmon is someone who encompasses what it means to be an intellectual.” Kim Petersen, Dissident Voice

“Gilad Atzmon is the Moses of our time, calling all of us out of the Egypt of our boneheaded nationalisms and racialisms and exceptionalisms and chosen-people-isms toward some form of humanistic universalism.” Dr. Kevin Barrett

“Perhaps only a musician could have written this sensitive, perceptive lament over how so many Jews, believing themselves to be doing ‘what is good for the Jews,’ have managed to carve the heart out of the Palestinian nation and make this tragedy look like the natural order of things.” Kathleen Christison

“Gilad’s The Wandering Who? would have been a welcome delight to Albert Einstein just as it will be the irritating nemesis for Abe Foxman ideologues.” Dr. Paul Balles

“A book that will shake up a few people….” Gordon Duff

“Engaging, provocative and persuasive.’ Jeff Gates

“When you finish reading this book, you may likely as well see a different face in the mirror.” Professor Garrison Fewell

“The Wandering Who deconstructs the unique political identity that shapes the reality of the Jewish Nation and the crimes committed in its name. As a non-Jew, I found it illuminating!” Sameh Habeeb, Palestine Telegraph

“Gilad Atzmon probes the dilemmas Zionism has created for its adherents” Neil Berry, Arab News

“It is a very moving account that should be read by everyone.” Silvia Cattori

“The Last Jewish Prophet” Professor William T. Hathaway

“Atzmon is an iconoclast.” Dr. Paul Larudee

A brilliant, courageous study as well as critical reflection on Jewish ethnocentrism” Rainlore’s World of Music

“Like all truth tellers of any merit Atzmon can expect the wrath of the powers that be and their minions as a reward for what he is exposing. People like Atzmon will have played a vital role in saving us from ourselves if indeed we do manage to survive. Love and respect to my brother Gilad Atzmon.” Ken O’Keefe

“The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journeys in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment.” Shahram Vahdany, MWC News

“Atzmon’s writing respects no sacred cows. His wit is biting, his insight and logic compelling.” Richard A. Siegel

“Sometimes a brash, abrasive provocateur is what is required as a catalyst for genuine debate.” Sunny Singh

“This is a very perceptive and instructive book” Roy Ratcliffe

“The most accurate assessment to date on Jewish identity and political drive” Today’s Jewsih Heroes

Palestine Meets All Statehood Criteria

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) arguing against the Palestinian bid for statehood at the 66th United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters in New York, September 23, 2011. (Photo: REUTERS – Jessica Rinaldi)
Published Sunday, September 25, 2011
A UN denial of Palestinian statehood would be scandalous. Not only are Palestinians’ rights to their land self-evident, but the international community and its institutions have effectively recognized a Palestinian state long before Israel was created. And Palestine today meets all the international criteria for such a recognition

The earliest recognition came in 1922, when the League of Nations guaranteed Palestinians the right to sovereignty and self-determination, declaring that historic Palestine reached a developmental stage where its existence as an independent nation would be provisionally recognized. Nevertheless, it was temporarily placed under British mandate as a “sacred trust,” until such time that the nation could stand alone.
Then came WWII, setting the Zionist project in full motion and leading to a full-scale offensive in Palestine. UN resolution 181 (29 November 1947), which divided Palestine into two states, spoke of drafting democratic constitutions for each state and guaranteeing to all persons “equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Legally speaking, there has been dual recognition of a Palestinian state by international institutions and by Israel itself — ironically at the historic expense of the Palestinian people — by virtue of the resolution that led to Israel’s creation.

International recognition of Palestine came again after the 1967 war. UN resolution 242 implicitly recognized that the land occupied in June 1967 constitutes the basis of a Palestinian state. And so the geography changed from historic Palestine and the League of Nations in 1922, to a divided Palestine defined by the UN General Assembly resolution in 1947, to a Palestinian parcel chopped away by Israel, summated by a UN Security Council resolution in 1967. But international recognition of a Palestinian state has always persisted.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, rendered an advisory opinion in 2004 that confirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The court pointed out that in 1970, the General Assembly affirmed that the principle of self-determination was enshrined in the UN Charter. In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed “the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine… without external interference… [to] the right to national independence and sovereignty.” It also condemned the Israeli government responsible for denying Palestinians their right to self-determination, calling this behavior a major violation of the UN Charter. The General Assembly resolution 65/202 in 2010 reaffirmed “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent state of Palestine.” That resolution was adopted by 177 countries. General Assembly resolution 58/292 in 2003 affirmed “the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and achieve independence in their state, Palestine.” Even the 2002 Mid-East Quartet proposed a Road Map for Peace envisioning a Palestinian state as a means of resolving the conflict based upon a two-state solution. The ‘road map’ was endorsed by UN Security Council resolution 1515.

Experts point out that under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, there are four criteria for statehood: 1) a permanent population; 2) a defined territory; 3) government; and 4) capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Palestine meets the four criteria. There has been an international recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination in their country. The Palestinian Territories including East Jerusalem, occupied since 1967, are a geographically defined territory. The ICJ advisory opinion confirms this. And there is clearly a permanent population living in the territory. International law apparently does not require border demarcations prior to a state gaining international recognition. Israel is one glaring example. Furthermore, the internationally recognized borders of major countries like India and China have not been completely demarcated; yet, international bodies still recognize the sovereignty of these nations. Palestine duly meets the fourth criteria, evinced by its international recognition from over 120 states and its membership in international organizations.

The Kosovo case belies the political nature of these decisions. The former Yugoslavia territory fails to meet any of the Montevideo Convention conditions, yet Washington has recognized it as an independent and sovereign state. Either the UN recognizes a Palestinian state, or let’s bid the idea of international legitimacy farewell.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Obama’s Short Cut To a Second Term

“The Zionists controlling Wall Street and the presidential elections is not a good enough reason for selling out America and its pride in that shamefull way. There is more to this than we all think, a hell of a lot more, something big is hiding under the surface like an iceberg, something as big as 9/11”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

September 26, 2011

Bibi lecturing obama on the new realities in the Middle East in the Oval Room, May 2011

It was only last May, when the arrogant and defiant Mr. Netanyahu arrived at the white house and lectured Mr. Obama, the president of the world’s super power about how wrong and irresponsible his mentioning, in the Middle East speech, of a two-state solution was, and specifically his call for a Palestinian state to be established as a sovereign state on the 1967 borders.
It was such an embarrassment for the president of the United States sitting in his Oval Office/throne and being watched live and worldwide while Bibi was slapping him across the face and instructing him as to what to say, or not to say actually, when it comes to Israel.
Reviewing that Oval Office spectacle, it was obvious that president Obama did earn his Nobel Prize, not for peace, but rather for keeping his peace and his incredible gift of anger management.

And when the Palestinians lately arrived to the UN to submit their bid for statehood based on the 1967 border lines, Mr. Obama has surprised the world once again and proved that he righteously earned his Nobel Prize by displaying yet another genuine Christian virtue, namely turning the other cheek to be slapped once again

If this recent Palestinian political initiative for statehood recognition hasn’t been smartly and timely thought of and presented to the UN, the world would have been busy following and addressing seemingly more urgent matters. Meanwhile, the Palestinian plight would have stayed overshadowed by news like Europe and the United States slipping into recession, china bailing out Europe, the latest on the Arab spring drama and of course the upcoming American presidential elections(sponsored by Israel et al.)

If the Middle East Quartet and its special envoy, or Zionist envoy to be more accurate, Tony Blair have managed to dissuade the Palestinian authority (PA) top politicians from proceeding with their bid for full UN membership as a sovereign state we would have been watching, apathetically, that is, the continuing Israeli hideous scheme to grab the last 22% of what used to be historic Arabic land of Palestine.

What good is the Palestinian bid for statehood?

Abbas submitting the application for Palestinian full membership at the UN

The way I see it, this Palestinian bid for statehood is an inevitable outcome of decades of failed diplomacy (or make believe diplomacy), Arabic stupidity and Arabic economic and political divisions, obscene pro-Israel lobbying and duplicity made primarily in USA and unprecedented political and military thuggery of the state of Israel.

This Palestinian bid for statehood is but a desperate cry after the so called Mid-East talks has hit the concrete wall of the illegal Israeli settlements that nobody seems to have the power to stop or freeze it for a while, not even the American honest peace broker.

Some fastidious analysts and op-ed writers will go over this political maneuver, scrutinize it and finally assess it as not worth the effort, for it will not change realities on the grounds. This UN recognition will not put a stop to the Israeli illegal settlements in the west bank, will not grant them East of Jerusalem and moreover, might as well damage the PA mandate and political authority.

But those scrupulous analysts most likely looked at this maneuver from an Israeli point of view, repeating the Israeli cliché “unilateral action will not get the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anywhere” …disregarding the fact that this bid is not about the conflict, rather it is about the world acknowledging Palestine as a state, with all the legalities of the state entailed, and not just an entity. Being an entity is the next closest thing to being nothing.

The Arab awakening

Those squeamish analysts somehow overlooked the current historical context in the Middle East where people are indiscriminately killed and their lives sacrificed not over some looming recession or spiking unemployment, not over the lack of bread and butter but rather the lack of freedom and dignity. And who could be lacking those attributes more than a homeless and uprooted Palestinian.

This bid is the Palestinian ticket to join the last days of the Arab spring that has turned into a hot summer and with the undergoing display of the dirtiest diplomatic stunts pulled by the American/Israeli alliance and with their blatant contempt for UN values and unanimity the expected American veto will herald one of the darkest autumns in the Arab world.

The so called Arab spring is not just about mass protests and mass killing, it is not just about toppling Mubarak and Bin Ali in Egypt and Tunisia, it is not just about delegitimizing Saleh in Yemen and bombarding Gaddafi in Libya, it is not about watching the last days for Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and the prince of Bahrain, rather it is about the Arab awakening.
And if the world acknowledges that the Arabs are awakening, then, we simply can’t exclude the Palestinians out.

A conflict dominated by unilateralism

Theodor Herzl

Eighteen years ago, on September 13, 1993, the Palestinian negotiators signed with the Israelis’ what is now known as the Oslo accords, literally crumbs thrown to the Palestinians from the Israeli table of military spoils in Palestine, and those accords were not meant to be taken as a serious step in the peace process but rather a compulsory and temporary Israeli concession to somehow put an end to the first Palestinian intifada.
According to these accords the Israeli side has cunningly bound the Palestinian side to a framework of bilateral negotiations as a precondition to any future settlement of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute.

And from there on the Israeli side picked up where they left off and continued their “business as usual” of grabbing more land, building more settlements and transferring the rest of the Palestinian population unilaterally and unabashedly under the very nose of a coalition of the western nations who are only willing to go for a ten years hunt for the wrong terrorists.
But when we look back at this so-called conflict we will be astounded by how unilateral this whole bloody business has been from the very beginning.

– Theodor Herzl(1860-1904) when he first wrote his manifesto for a” Jewish state” and followed it with his utopian piece “the old new land” he naively and absolutely unilaterally assumed that the Arab land of Palestine, which he himself as an assimilated Ashkenazi Jew( who spoke neither fluent Hebrew nor Yiddish) has never visited, would be the perfect choice for the establishment of his Zionist entity and again unilaterally assumed that the Arabs of Palestine would present no problem for the Ashkenazi & khazar Jews mass immigration to the new land for they , as Europeans, would be welcomed and hailed by the Arabic inhabitants as the modernizers of Palestine.
I don’t know what Mr. Herzl’s idea of modernity was, but it is obviously not what the Arabs of Palestine needed back then and certainly not what they are enduring through nowadays.
– Following the death of Herzl with his fictional idea of some utopian home land for the European Jews in Palestine … a lot of decisions and acts, mostly criminal in nature, have been taken by the Israeli side starting from the Palestinian exodus 1948, passing through the military occupation of East Jerusalem, Gaza and west Bank in the 1967 Israeli offensive, to the segregation, the west bank wall, the war on Lebanon and Gaza, the non-stop uprooting of ancient Palestinian olive trees to be replaced by cemented settlements and finally the inhumane blockade on Gaza and the massacre of international activists in international waters… all of those Israeli remarkable achievements have been deliberated upon, planned and executed unilaterally.
And after 60 years of dispossession, 40 years of occupation and 20 years of make-believe peace, the Palestinian bid for UN membership is interestingly enough deemed a unilateral act of aggression and warfare against Israeli interests.

Palestine was never invited to the table except in times of intifadas and more often in times of make-believe peace … the end goal of both was obviously the same, namely buying more time to grab more land and expel more Palestinians and make new and hard to touch Israeli demographic changes .

The Zionist short cut

But none of those Israeli illegal and aggressive goals would have been achieved so smoothly and with the minimum international opposition hadn’t it been for the magical Zionist recipe of literally buying the top politicians, corporate media and decision makers in the west and of course the United States of America. In other words, buying politicians, specifically American, has been, and still is the Zionist’s short cut to establishing the great Israel project.

Pandering to pro-Israel lobbies to garner more votes has been a shameful legacy kept by a long line of American top politicians and leaders initiated by Truman and his falling into the Rothschild’s trap of securing his presidential triumph only if he voted for the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel.
The latest in a long line of American Democrats and Republicans running for presidency to serve the Israeli goals rather than their country’s own, comes Texas Governor, Rick Perry standing lately shoulder-to-shoulder at a news conference with advocates for annexing West Bank settlements not to mention his prelude to the presidential campaign, dancing with far right-wing rabbis at his office a few months ago.

While Barack Obama, the US president, in his brief speech at the UN has strongly confirmed in an intimidating voice tone that “there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” And seriously added “Peace is hard work” He somehow has secured a “short cut” to his second term in office.

Israel’s thuggish far-right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told reporters shortly after Obama’s speech that: “I am ready to sign on this speech with both hands.”
But again, I think Mr. Obama has figured out this whole thing the wrong way. Pandering to Israel and sacrificing the interests and more importantly the pride of his country might grant him a second term in office, but … is it worth it? … is a second term in office worth that shameful submission?
It doesn’t make any sense …

I mean, the Zionists controlling Wall Street and the presidential elections is not a good enough reason for selling out America and its pride in that shamefull way. There is more to this than we all think, a hell of a lot more, something big is hiding under the surface like an iceberg, something as big as 9/11.
The way Obama is handing over the keys of the white house to the Israelis while other heads of less-powerful states such as Erdogan of Turkey and Ahamdinejad of Iran stand tall in front of the Israeli political debauchery makes you wonder if 911, with the hidden truth about it, has turned into some Israeli wild card.

Is acting against the very interests of the United States and abandoning the values of freedom, democracy and human rights, not to mention tarnishing his own legacy worth a second term in office.

What a shame…

This Obama has missed out on a golden opportunity to not only earn his Nobel peace prize but to make history and glory for himself and the United States of America.
The mere Abstinence from voting on the Palestinian bid for statehood, such a small step by Obama’s administration, would have been a giant leap for him and the United States of America.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Muallem Holds Meetings in NY as Arms Seized in Homs

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem on Tuesday said the USA and the European Union political, economic and media pressures aim at weakening Syria and deviating it from its national approach as authorities seized new quantities of ammunitions and weapons in Homs.

Muallem’s remarks came during his meeting separately with the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Brazil, the Arab League (AL) Secretary General and the United Nations Secretary General.

Muallem highlighted that the political, economic and social reforms announced by President Bashar al-Assad provide for drawing up legislations and laws that meet the demands and needs of the Syrian people.

He pointed out that the comprehensive national dialogue which has been launched throughout the Syrian governorates engages all spectrums of the Syrian society including the opposition to discuss a program for the reforms, before embarking on the national dialogue conference.

MinisterMuallem expressed to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Syria’s gratitude for the Russian supportive stance which obstructs the exploitation of international organizations by some Western countries to undermine Syria’s stances and policies.

Lavrov, for his part, reiterated his country’s keenness on Syria’s security and stability and continuation to consult and coordinate with it. He warned of interfering in the Syrian affairs, affirming that imposing economic sanctions against Syria doesn’t serve the goal of achieving stability in the region.

In the meantime, SANA news agency reported that competent authorities today seized new quantities of ammunitions and weapons in a KIA car parked at al-Wa’er neighborhood in Homs.
A source at Homs Police said the seized weapons include two TPGs, 3 rifles, 2000 bullets, 6 hand bombs as well as 6 car boards. All used by the armed terrorist groups to attack people.

Lavrov to the West: Enough with the “We-need-to-drive-Assad-into-a-corner-&-then-we’ll-see” bull!

“… Russia cannot support the project on Syria being pushed through by the West, Foreign Minister Lavrov stated in New York ahead of his address to the UN General Assembly.
Sergey Lavrov said he believed that placing sanctions on Syria are “not a very reliable strategy”.
“We ask what the next strategy is, how have you calculated your next steps? The answer we get is that we haven’t thought about it yet, but President Assad needs to go, we need to drive him into a corner with sanctions – he should go first, and then we’ll see,” Lavrov said in an interview with “Russia 24” channel. “It’s a very simple but – I believe – not very reliable strategy, if it can be called a strategy at all,” he concluded…”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Media Ignore Heart-Wrenching Death of Palestinian Boy

Posted by Richard Edmondson

Over and over, throughout its coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Zionist media have proven time and time again that as far as they are concerned the lives of Jewish children are the only ones that matter. Here, in the death of 12-year-old Ibrahim Zaza, we see another painful example of this.

A Gaza Boy Newspapers Omitted

“Both of Ibrahim’s arms were cut off. He had a hole in his lung. Parts of his legs were missing. His kidney was in a bad condition…we need people to stand with us.” These were the words of an exhausted man as he described the condition of his dying son in an interview with The Real News, an alternative news source.

Ibrahim Zaza was merely a 12-year-old boy. He and his cousin Mohammed, 14, were hit by an Israeli missile in Gaza, fired from an unmanned drone as they played in front of their house.

The story started on August 18. The next day, the British Telegraph reported: “Israel launches fightback after militant attack on Egypt border.” The whitewashing of the recent Israeli strikes at besieged Gaza leaves one wondering if all reporters used Israeli army talking points as they conveyed the story. Palestinians were punished for an attack at Israelis that reportedly accrued near the Israeli border with Egypt. There is no evidence linking Gaza to the attack, and Egyptian authorities are now disputing the Israeli account altogether.

“At least six Palestinians were killed in the first wave of bombing. Israel said they were members, including the leader, of the militant group known as the Popular Resistance Committees it accused of responsibility for the attacks,” wrote Phoebe Greenwood and Richard Spencer (The Telegraph, August 19).

The Popular Resistance Committees had dissociated themselves from the attack, as had Hamas and all Palestinian factions. But that was hardly enough to spare the lives of innocent men and women in Gaza, already reeling under untold hardship. Among the dead in the first wave of attacks that targeted ‘militants’ were two children, one aged three and the other 13.

In the media, Palestinian casualties only matter when they amount to a sizable number. Even then, they are placed within a context that deprives the victims of any sympathy, or worse, blames Palestinian militants for indirect responsibility (pushing Israel to resort to violence to defend its security). In fact, the term ‘Palestinian security’ is almost nonexistent, although thousands of Gazans have been killed in the last three years alone.

Even the news of Palestinian children killed in the August strikes was reported with a sense of vagueness and doubt. News networks downplayed the fact that the majority of Palestinian victims were civilians. The Telegraph reported that: “Hamas, which runs Gaza, said that two children were also killed in the air raids…” Quoting Hamas, not human rights groups or hospital sources, is hardly shocking when the reporter is based in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Neither was it shocking when the boy, Ibrahim Zaza, died. His heart was the only organ that had continued to function for nearly thirty days after the drone attack. The father, who was allowed to accompany Ibrahim and Mohammed to an Israeli hospital, was then prevented from leaving the hospital for he constituted a security threat. He kept circulating around his son’s frail body, hoping and praying. He appealed to people to stand by his family, stressing his lack of means to buy a wheelchair, which he thought Ibrahim would need once he woke up again.

There is no need for a wheelchair now. And Mohammed’s unyielding pain continues. His legs are bare with no skin. His belly area is completely exposed. His screams are haunting.

Ibrahim’s death seemed to compel little, if any, media coverage. There were no New York Times features, no Time magazine pictorials of the weeping mother and the devastated community. Ibrahim’s existence in this world was short. His death was mostly uneventful outside the small circle of those who dearly loved him.

There will be no debates on Israel’s use of airstrikes that kill civilians, and no urgent UN meetings over the incessant killings caused by Israeli drones, which in themselves constitute a highly profitable industry. Clients who have doubts about the effectiveness of the Elbit Systems Hermes 900 UAV, for example, need only view Israeli Air Force videos of the drone gently gliding over Gaza. According to sUAS News, it “can reach a higher altitude of 30,000 feet…(and) can be quickly and easily converted for the operator’s needs, without the need to adjust the operating infrastructure for every mission” (June 6, 2011).

Israel has been testing its drones on Palestinians for years. In Gaza, these vultures can be observed with the naked eye. Whenever the glider draws near, people scramble for cover. But it took a WikiLeaks report to verify Israel’s use of drones for the purpose of killing. According to a recently leaked document, Israeli army Advocate-General Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit had, in February 2010, informed previous US Ambassador to Israel, James Cunningham, of Israel’s use of weaponized unmanned aircraft to kill suspected militants.

In The Real News video report, Lia Tarachansky spoke to Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz, a spokesperson for the IDF, to try and understand why Ibrahim and his cousin were targeted.

Lia Tarachansky: “There was only one missile shot, according to witnesses, and it was at two children, one 12 and one 14, sitting outside of their house.”

Avital Leibowitz: “The logic is that when someone is trying to launch a rocket at you, then the logic is – we better target that person before he targets us.”

The one photo I could retrieve of Ibrahim Zaza showed him posing shyly for the camera, his hair brushed forward. My heart breaks now as I think of him, and all the other victims of Israel’s “logic”.

– Ramzy Baroud ( is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on


Here is the video from The Real News discussed in the above article:


The following article was published at Aljazeera back in May of this year, but in his recent speech at the UN Obama again committed the same transgression the author talks about. Here is a quote from that speech:

Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.

Why is it Obama can only find sympathy when the victims are Jews? And why does he ignore Israeli racism against Palestinians? What he says about hatred being taught to children is at least as applicable to Israeli children if not more so. Does he not know that nearly half of all Israeli high school students oppose equal rights for Palestinians? Probably not. Stories like that don’t get reported in the U.S. media.

Are Palestinain Children Less Worthy?

As Palestinian children endure lives of suffering, Obama’s love for their Israeli counterparts knows no limit.

What is it about Jewish and Arab children that privileges the first and spurns the second in the speeches of President Barack Obama, let alone in the Western media more generally? Are Jewish children smarter, prettier, whiter? Are they deserving of sympathy and solidarity, denied to Arab children, because they are innocent and unsullied by the guilt of their parents, themselves often referred to as “the children of Israel”? Or, is it that Arab children are dangerous, threatening, guilty, even dark and ugly, a situation that can only lead to Arabopaedophobia – the Western fear of Arab children? Innocence and childhood are common themes in Western political discourse, official and unofficial. While it is a truism to state that since the end of European colonialism the US and Europe have been, at the official and unofficial levels, friendly to and supportive of the Zionist colonial project and hostile to Palestinians and Arabs in their resistance to Zionism, the expectation would be that a West that insists rhetorically on the “universalism” of its values would show at least a rhetorical commitment to the equality of Arab and Jewish children as victims of the violence visited on the region by Zionist colonialism and the resistance to it. Yet, the only Western sympathy manifest is to Jewish children as symbols of Zionist and Israeli innocence. This Western sympathy is deployed primarily to denounce Arab guilt, including the guilt of Arab children.

Indeed, the only time Arab children received any sympathy at all in the West was a few years ago when Israeli and US propaganda outlets, official and unofficial alike, mounted a major propaganda campaign to save these children from their barbaric Arab and Palestinian parents, who allegedly trained them to commit violent acts, or who unlovingly placed them in the middle of danger, sacrificing them for their violent political goals. It was not Israel who was to blame for killing Palestinian children, but the children’s own uncaring and cruel parents who placed them in the path of Israeli Jewish bullets, which left Israeli Jews no choice but to kill them. This of course is an old Israeli casuistry used to justify Israel’s carnage of Palestinians. Golda Meir had famously articulated the workings of Israel’s Jewish conscience thus: “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

In the official discourse of post-World War II US power, Jewish children have been often invoked to illustrate the innocence of Israel, a tradition carried faithfully by Barack Obama’s rhetoric. Refusing to even acknowledge Arab children as victims of Israel, on June 4, 2009, Obama told Arabs in his Cairo speech: “It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.” He reiterated this in his May 19, 2011 “winds of change” speech, declaring: “For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.”

Later that week, in his speech to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on May 22, Obama expressed sympathy with the hardship colonising Jews experience while appropriating the lands of the Palestinians: “I saw the daily struggle to survive in the eyes of an eight-year old [Jewish] boy who lost his leg to a Hamas rocket.” He averred that the US and Israel, presumably unlike Palestinians or Arabs more generally, “both seek a region where families and their children can live free from the threat of violence”.
Endorsing Israel’s illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, he asserted: “We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighbourhood. I’ve seen it firsthand. When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries that the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.” Aside from borrowing anti-Black American white racism with the use of terms like “tough neighbourhood” – a term first borrowed by Binyamin Netanyahu to refer to the Middle East over a decade ago – wherein Arabs are the “violent blacks” of the Middle East and Jews are the “peaceful white folks”, Obama’s endorsement of the Israeli claim that East Jerusalem is part of the Jewish homeland is the first such official US endorsement of Israel’s illegal occupation of the city.

Defusing the Palestinian “demographic bomb”  

Nonetheless, Obama’s attention lay elsewhere, in the fear he expresses of Arab children. He first articulated this fear in his May 19 speech: “The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River.” In his speech to AIPAC three days later, Obama reiterated his fear once more, as the first “fact” and threat that Israel, Jews, and the US must face: “Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories.” This is hardly a new fear, as Israelis have annual conferences, and have developed all kinds of political and military strategies, to deal with their fear of Palestinian children, whom Israel’s President Shimon Peres calls a “demographic bomb” that he wants to defuse. Golda Meir herself once revealed in the early seventies that she could not sleep worrying about the number of Palestinian children being conceived every night. If children are the future – except that Arab children are a negation of it – then the crux of the argument is simple: Israel can only have a future with more Jewish children and fewer Arab children.

Murdering Arab children

The story of Arab children, and especially Palestinian ones, is not only tragic in the context of Israeli violence, but one that also remains ignored, deliberately marginalised, and purposely suppressed in the US and Western media – and in Western political discourse. When Zionist terrorists began to attack Palestinian civilians in the 1930s and 1940s, Palestinian children fell victims. The most famous of these attacks include the Zionist blowing up of Palestinian cafes with grenades (such as occurred in Jerusalem on March 17, 1937) and placing electrically timed mines in crowded market places (first used against Palestinians in Haifa on July 6, 1938).

While the violence of the 1930s was the first introduction to the Middle East of such horrific terrorist violence, it is in the 1947-48 Zionist invasion of Palestinian villages and towns that Palestinian children were deliberately not spared. In December 1947, one of the first attacks by the Haganah (the pre-Israel Zionist paramilitary army) first attacks – which would become typical in this period – targeted the Palestinian village of Khisas in the Galilee and killed four Palestinian children. This proved to be a small number compared with the subsequent mass murders awaiting the Palestinians. In the village of Al-Dawayimah, where the Haganah committed a massacre in October 1948, an Israeli army soldier, quoted by Israeli historian Benny Morris, described the scene as such:

The first [wave] of conquerors killed about 80 to 100 [male] Arabs, women, and children. The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead… One commander ordered a sapper to put two old women in a certain house… and to blow up the house with them. The sapper refused… The commander then ordered his men to put in the old women and the evil deed was done. One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her. One woman, with a newborn baby in her arms, was employed to clean the courtyard where the soldiers ate. She worked a day or two. In the end they shot her and her baby.

Palestinian children were murdered along with adults in April 1948 in the Deir Yassin massacre, to name the most well known slaughter of 1948. This would continue not only during Israel’s wars against Arabs in 1956, 1967, 1973, 1978, 1982, 1996, 2006, and 2008, when thousands of children fell victim to indiscriminate Israeli bombardment, but also in more outright massacres: in Qibya in 1953 where even the school was not spared Israel’s destruction; in Kafr Kassem in 1956 where the Israeli army massacred 46 unarmed Palestinian citizens of Israel, 23 of whom were children. This trend would continue. In April 1970, during the War of Attrition with Egypt, Israel bombed an Egyptian elementary school in Bahr al-Baqar. Of the 130 school children in attendance, 46 were killed, and over 50 wounded, many of them maimed for life. The school was completely demolished. The first Israeli massacre at Qana in Lebanon in 1996 spared no child or adult, and the second massacre in the same village in 2006 did the same – adults aside, 16 children were killed that year.

The number of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers in the first intifada (1987-1993) was 213, not counting the hundreds of induced miscarriages from tear gas grenades thrown inside closed areas targeting pregnant women, and aside from the number of the injured. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that “23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada”, one third of whom were children under the age of ten years old. In the same period, Palestinian attacks resulted in the death of five Israeli children. In the second intifada (2000-2004), Israeli soldiers killed more than 500 children with at least 10,000 injured, and 2,200 children arrested. The televised murder of the Palestinian child Muhammad al-Durra shook the world – but not Israeli Jews, whose government concocted the most outrageous and criminal of stories to exonerate Israel. In the Israeli attack on Gaza in December 2008, 1,400 Palestinians were killed, of whom 313 were children.

This exhibition of atrocity is not simply about regurgitating the history and present of Israel’s murder of Arab children for the past six decades and beyond – a history well-known across the Arab world – but to demonstrate how obscene Obama’s references to Jewish children are when he insists to Arabs that they must show sympathy with Jewish children, without ever enjoining Jews to show sympathy with the far larger number of Arab children killed by Jews. But Obama himself shows no sympathy with Arab children. Had he attempted to mourn the Arab children who fell and fall victim to Israeli violence at the rate of hundreds, if not thousands, of Arab children to one Jewish child, Arabs might have forgiven him this indiscretion.

Alas, Obama has no place in his heart for Arab children, only for Jewish ones. He even manages to infantilise Israeli Jewish soldiers who kill Palestinians, as nothing short of innocent children whose families miss them. In his AIPAC speech, Obama calls on Hamas “to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years”, but not on Israel to release the 6,000 Palestinian political prisoners, who include 300 Palestinian children, languishing in Israel’s dungeons for many more years. Perhaps Obama could have at least mentioned the reports of Israeli soldiers’ torture of detained Palestinian children issued in late 2010 by Israeli human rights groups. In the case of detained Palestinian sixth graders, in addition to being beaten up and deprived of sleep by Israeli soldiers, two thirteen-year old children testified that “the most awful thing that happened, was when the soldiers went to the bathroom, they peed on us and did not use the toilet. One of them videotaped it.” But Obama was not moved by their plight, for they were not Jewish children.

Zionism and Jewish children

 Interestingly and unlike Obama, Zionism did not always show similar love towards Jewish children, whom it never flinched from sacrificing for its colonial goals. In the Nazi period, Zionist leaders, for example, protested strongly against granting European Jews refuge in any country other than Palestine. In December 1938, David Ben-Gurion responded to a British offer, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, to take thousands of German Jewish children directly to Britain by saying: “If I knew it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), then I would opt for the second alternative, for we must weigh not only the life of these children but also the history of the people of Israel.” Zionism, Jewish children are as expendable as Palestinian and Arab children, unless they serve its colonial goals. In light of this, it becomes clear that it is not simply the Jewishness or Arabness of children that makes them expendable or not, but their insertion into a political project as figures that can advance its goals or constitute obstacles to them.

Israel’s recruitment of Jewish children in paramilitary organisations, which began in 1948, continues apace, and is perhaps best exemplified in its Gadna [“Youth Battalions”] programme, where young Jewish boys and girls are prepared early for their future military service in the most militarised state on earth. The most outrageous use of Jewish children, however, would be illustrated when the Israeli army invited them to write messages of hate on the missiles about to be launched against Lebanese children during Israel’s July 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Captured by an Associated Press cameraman, the picture of blond Jewish girls near the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona writing messages of death to Lebanese children circulated the globe – though it remains unclear if they ever made their way to Obama’s desk. It is important to note that Obama might have met these same blond girls when he visited Kiryat Shmona a few months earlier, in January 2006. He recalled later that the town resembled an ordinary suburb in the US, where he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children “at joyful play just like my own daughters”.

Teaching children to hate

 Given this history, not only are Palestinian children guilty of hating Israeli Jews, but also, Obama insists, they have no reason to hate Jews unless their evil elders indoctrinate them to do so. Binyamin Netanyahu himself, in his speech before Congress last week, reiterated Obama’s condemnation of Palestinians who allegedly “continue to educate their children to hate”. But what about Israeli Jewish children’s hatred of Arabs? A March 2010 poll by Tel Aviv University found that 49.5 per cent of Israeli Jewish high school students believe Palestinian citizens of Israel should not be entitled to the same rights as Jews in Israel; 56 per cent believe they should not be eligible for election to the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. According to a report in January 2011 in the largest Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, Jewish teachers in Israel stated that anti-Arab racism among Jewish students reached alarming levels, advocating killing Palestinians. The teachers found graffiti written on school walls and even on exam papers stating “Death To Arabs”. According to the report, a student at a school in Tel Aviv told his teacher during class that his dream is to become a soldier so he can exterminate all Arabs; several students in his class applauded in support of him. This, in no small amount, is the direct result of the racist Israeli school curricula with which Jewish children are regularly indoctrinated.

In his speech to Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu correctly diagnosed the situation on the ground. He declared: “Our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.” It is the establishment of a Jewish settler colony that the Palestinians must accept to ensure a future for Jewish children and terminate a future for Palestinian children. Indeed it is precisely the refusal of Arabs to adopt Arabopedophobia that is the biggest impediment to peace in the region. Obama hopes that a Palestinian bantustan could limit the threat that Palestinian children constitute to the nightmare that is “the Jewish and democratic state”. He recognises that the world can no longer claim to support universalism while endorsing Israel’s right to discriminate against non-Jews. In his AIPAC speech, he said as much when he told Israel’s lobby that the entire world, including Asia, Latin America, Europe (and he could have added Africa, which he inexplicably excluded) and the Arab World can no longer tolerate Israel’s institutionalised racism; that America in fact stands alone with Israel today. Clearly, Obama’s love for Jewish children knows no limits. His Arabopaedophobic views, however, are not accidental, but are motivated by his great love for the “children of Israel”, a love that can only be realised through continued hatred and containment of all Arabs, children and adults alike.
Joseph Massad is Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. He is author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question (Routledge, 2006). 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

‘Burnishing Obama’s pro-Israel credentials’ or Warning to Tehran?


“… American policymakers had–and indeed have–many reasons to be wary of Israel initiating a confrontation with Iran–chief among them the roughly 150,000 American troops the United States currently has deployed on either side of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other forces and assets assigned to bases in Qatar, Bahrain and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region.
So why has the Obama administration seemingly reversed that call? After all, the Obama White House has sought to curtail Iran’s nuclear program through diplomatic and economic measures–and the export of 5,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel would seem to severely test Israeli patience for that slow and frustrating effort. And, secondly, why is the information emerging now–nearly two years after the administration carried out the deal?
Some policy observers suggest that the U.S. military under Obama was trying to “hug Israel close,” in order to increase its feeling of security and thus hopefully stave off the prospect that Israel might launch a surprise strike on Iran on its own, thereby wreaking all sorts of havoc with U.S. military and diplomatic initiatives in the region.
The reported transfer may have been a “gesture” by the Obama White House “to assure the Israelis we love them,” one Washington Iran expert who insisted on anonymity told The Envoy via email. (Still, he confessed that he found the ultimate motivation behind the transfer mystifying.)…
As to the timing of the revelation, while some observers have suggested that American officials may have leaked it in order to burnish Obama’s pro-Israel credentials as he faces a tough 2012 presidential campaign, Lake himself, in an interview with NPR Saturday, discounted such a political motivation by his initial sources….
The simpler explanation may in this case be the more compelling one: American and Israeli officials initiated the disclosure of the information now to send a potent warning to Iran….
(And in actuality, Israel has received earlier shipments of U.S. bunker buster bombs, analysts said. For instance, the Bush Defense Department announced in 2008 plans to sell 1,000 GBU-39 smart bunker buster bombs to Israel, “to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” according to an Associated Press report. However, Israeli analysts said at the time that the smaller, 250-pound, precision GBU-39 bombs were more useful against buried arsenals in Lebanon and Gaza–not Iran: “You would need something a lot heavier” for Iran, former Israeli military strategic planner Shlomo Brom told the AP. “The GBU-39 can penetrate 6 feet of concrete, and 6 feet is not enough” for targeting Iran’s buried nuclear facilities, he said. By contrast, analysts note that the GBU-28 bombs reportedly transferred in the 2009 Obama deal are 5,000-pound bombs–e.g. twenty times heavier than the ones the Bush administration shipped in 2008.)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg’s latest smear

DateMonday, September 26, 2011 at 5:01PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Gilad Atzmon: Dear friends, this may well be one of the greatest days of my life.

Just a few minutes ago, I saw this piece expressing unequivocal support from Professor John J. Mearsheimer clearly one of the most distinguished scholars in our discourse and beyond.

For years I have been subjected to smear campaigns. I obviously survived them all because those who read me grasped the humanist intent in my work. In the following article, professor Mearsheimer exposes the banality and crudeness of the Zionist tactics. He shows how Goldberg & Co forge sentences, take words out of context and attribute misleading meanings.

I am afraid to advise my detractors that I am not alone at all. The Tide Has Changed.

Introduction by Stephen M. Walt  

Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote — a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side — but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.

The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg’s sally, and he sent the following reply.

John Mearsheimer writes:
In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.

His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:

Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.

The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book — what blurber does? — but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.

Goldberg maintains that Atzmon is a categorically reprehensible person, and accuses him of being a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler. These are two of the most devastating charges that can be leveled against anyone. According to Goldberg, the mere fact that I blurbed Atzmon’s book is decisive evidence that I share Atzmon’s supposedly odious views. This indictment of me is captured in the title of Goldberg’s piece: “John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist.”
This charge is so ludicrous that it is hard to know where to start my response. But let me begin by noting that I have taught countless University of Chicago students over the years about the Holocaust and about Hitler’s role in it. Nobody who has been in my classes would ever accuse me of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers or making excuses for what Hitler did to European Jews. Not surprisingly, those loathsome charges have never been leveled against me until Goldberg did so last week.
Equally important, Gilad Atzmon is neither a Holocaust denier nor an apologist for Hitler. Consider the following excerpt from The Wandering Who?

As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. . . . It was actually the internalization of the meaning of the Holocaust that transformed me into a strong opponent of Israel and Jewish-ness. It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return” (pp. 185-186).

It seems unequivocally clear to me from those sentences that Atzmon firmly believes that the Holocaust occurred and was a horrific tragedy. I cannot find evidence in his book or in his other writings that indicate he “traffics in Holocaust denial.”
The real issue for Atzmon — and this is reflected in the excerpt from his blog post that Goldberg quotes from — is how the Holocaust is interpreted and used by the Jewish establishment. Atzmon has three complaints. He believes that it is used to justify Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians and to fend off criticism of Israel. This is an argument made by many other writers, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, historian Peter Novick, and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. Atzmon also rejects the claim that the Holocaust is exceptional, which is a position that other respected scholars have held. There have been other genocides in world history, after all, and this whole issue was actively debated in the negotiations that led to the building of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Whatever one thinks of Atzmon’s position on this subject, it is hardly beyond the pale.
Finally, Atzmon is angry about the fact that it is difficult to raise certain questions about the causes and the conduct of the Holocaust without being personally attacked. These are all defensible if controversial positions to hold, which is not to say one has to agree with any of them. But in no way is he questioning that the Holocaust happened or denying its importance. In fact, his view is clear from one of Atzmon’s sentences that Goldberg quotes: “We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.” Note that Atzmon is talking about “the holocaust” in a way that makes it clear he has no doubts about its occurrence, and the passage from The Wandering Who? cited above makes it clear that he has no doubts about its importance or its tragic dimensions; he merely believes it should be seen in a different way. Again, one need not agree with Atzmon to recognize that Goldberg has badly misrepresented his position.

There is also no evidence that I could find in The Wandering Who? to support Goldberg’s claim that Atzmon is an apologist for Hitler or that he believes “Jews persecuted Hitler” and in so doing helped trigger the Holocaust. There is actually little discussion of Hitler in Atzmon’s book, and the only discussion of interactions between Hitler and the Jews concerns the efforts of German Zionists to work out a modus vivendi with the Nazis. (pp. 162-165) This is why Goldberg is forced to go to one of Atzmon’s blog posts to make the case that he is an apologist for Hitler.

Before I examine the substance of that charge, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed directly. Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who? Indeed, Goldberg’s blog post is silent on whether he has actually read the book. If he did read it, he apparently could not find any evidence to support his indictment of Atzmon. Instead, he relied exclusively on evidence culled from Atzmon’s own blog postings. That is why Goldberg’s assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon’s book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon.

This tactic puts me in a difficult position. I was asked to review Atzmon’s book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon’s blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.

Goldberg, however, has shifted the focus onto what Atzmon has written on his blog. I discuss a couple of examples below, but I will not defend his blog output in detail for two reasons. First, I do not know what Atzmon may have said in all of his past blog posts and other writings or in the various talks that he has given over the years. Second, what he says in those places is not relevant to what I did, which was simply to read and react to his book.

Let me now turn to the specific claim that Atzmon is an “apologist for Hitler.” Again, I am somewhat reluctant to do this, because this charge forces me to defend what Atzmon said in one of his blog posts. But given the prominence of the charge in Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon (and me), I cannot let it pass.

Plus, I see that Walter Russell Mead, who is also fond of smearing Steve Walt and me, has put this charge up in bright lights on his own blog. Picking up on Goldberg’s original post, Mead describes Atzmon’s argument this way: “poor Adolf Hitler’s actions against German Jews only came after US Jews called a boycott on German goods following Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor. Gosh — if it weren’t for those pushy, aggressive Jews and their annoying boycotts, the Holocaust might not have happened!”

It is hard to imagine any sane person making such an argument, and Atzmon never does. Goldberg refers to a blog post that Atzmon wrote on March 25, 2010, written in response to news at the time that AIPAC had “decided to mount pressure” on President Obama. After describing what was happening with Obama, Atzmon notes that this kind of behavior is hardly unprecedented. In his words, “Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even superpowers.” There is no question that this statement is accurate and not even all that controversial; Tom Friedman said as much in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.

In the second half of this post, Atzmon says that AIPAC’s behavior reminds him of the March 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods, which preceded Hitler’s decision on March 28, 1933 to boycott Jewish stores and goods. His basic point is that the Jewish boycott had negative consequences, which it did. In Atzmon’s narrative — and this is a very important theme in his book — Jews are not simply passive victims of other people’s actions. On the contrary, he believes Jews have considerable agency and their actions are not always wise. One can agree or disagree with his views about the wisdom of the Jewish boycott — and I happen to think he’s wrong about it — but he is not arguing that the Jews were “persecuting Hitler” and that this alleged “persecution” led to the Holocaust. In fact, he says nothing about the Holocaust in his post and he certainly does not justify in any way the murder of six million Jews.

Let me make one additional point about Goldberg’s mining of Atzmon’s blog posts. Goldberg ends his attack on me with the following quotation from a Feb. 19 blog post by Atzmon: “I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany.” That quotation certainly makes Atzmon look like he has lost his mind and that nothing he has written could be trusted. But Goldberg has misrepresented what Atzmon really said, which is one of his standard tactics. Specifically, he quotes only part of a sentence from Atzmon’s blog post; but when you look at the entire sentence, you see that Atzmon is making a different, and far more nuanced point. The entire sentence reads: “Indeed, I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany, for unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is a democracy and that implies that Israeli citizens are complicit in Israeli atrocities.” This is not an argument I would make, but what Atzmon is saying is quite different from the way Goldberg portrays it.

Finally, let me address the charge that Atzmon himself is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. The implication of this accusation, of course, is that I must be an anti-Semite too (I can’t be a self-hating Jew) because I agreed to blurb Atzmon’s book. I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, although that charge is thrown around so carelessly these days that it has regrettably lost much of its meaning. If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish — no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously.

The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes. He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza. What is going on here?
The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the “Chosen People.” His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who “happen to be of Jewish origin.” Rather, his problem is with “those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.” Or to use other words of his: “I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity … This book doesn’t deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity.” (pp. 15-16)
In other words, Atzmon is a universalist who does not like the particularism that characterizes Zionism and which has a rich tradition among Jews and any number of other groups. He is the kind of person who intensely dislikes nationalism of any sort. Princeton professor Richard Falk captures this point nicely in his own blurb for the book, where he writes: “Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard-core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity.”

Atzmon’s basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists. Atzmon will have none of this, which is why he labels himself a self-hating Jew. He fervently believes that Jews are not the “Chosen People” and that they should not privilege their “Jewish-ness” over their other human traits. Moreover, he believes that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem, as they “can never be blended together into a lucid and coherent worldview.” (p. 86) One can argue that his perspective is dead wrong, or maintain that it is a lovely idea in principle but just not the way the real world works. But it is hardly an illegitimate or ignoble way of thinking about humanity.

To take this matter a step further, Atzmon’s book is really all about Jewish identity. He notes that “the disappearance of the ghetto and its maternal qualities” in the wake of the French Revolution caused “an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society.” (p. 104) He believes that this crisis, about which there is an extensive literature, is still at the center of Jewish life today. In effect, Atzmon is telling the story of how he wrestled with his own identity over time and what he thinks is wrong with how most Jews self-identify today. It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the “Holocaust religion,” Zionism, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well. Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity.

In sum, Goldberg’s charge that Atzman is a Holocaust denier or an apologist for Hitler is baseless. Nor is Atzmon an anti-Semite. He has controversial views for sure and he sometimes employs overly provocative language. But there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, “should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.” Regarding Goldberg’s insinuation that I have any sympathy for Holocaust denial and am an anti-Semite, it is just another attempt in his longstanding effort to smear Steve Walt and me.

You can now order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book on or

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Israel plans 1,100 more settlement units as legislators call for full annexation

Tuesday September 27, 2011 17:16 by Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News

A group of right-wing Israeli legislators submitted a letter to the Israeli Prime Minister on Monday stating that in response to the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral bid for statehood at the United Nations, Israel must retaliate by fully annexing all West Bank settlements as part of the state of Israel. The call comes just as the Israeli Jerusalem municipality prepares to approve 1,100 new settlement units on Palestinian land in the settlement of Gilo, near Bethlehem.

Entrance to Har Gilo settlement, next to Gilo (image by myglesias, flickr)
Entrance to Har Gilo settlement, next to Gilo (image by myglesias, flickr)
The plan to move ahead with new settlement construction in Gilo received preliminary approval by the Israeli Jerusalem municipality, and was submitted to the Jewish National Fund, which owns 90% of the land in Israel, for a 60-day public comment period, after which it is expected to receive final approval, and new construction will begin.

In the midst of protests over high housing prices in Israel, Israeli authorities have sought to construct new units in illegal West Bank settlements and encourage young people to move there — in violation of international law and past signed agreements.

Indeed, Interior Minister Eli Yishai issued a directive that 20% of the new units constructed in Israeli settlements should be set aside for young couples.

The right-wing Israeli legislators who submitted a letter to the Prime Minister on Monday made a far-reaching recommendation that the Israeli government officially annex over half of the West Bank, which was occupied by Israeli forces in 1967 but remains Palestinian Territory. This annexation would leave Palestinians with just 13% of their original land, split into discontiguous islands, or reservations, much like the Native American reservations where people were forced to live after European colonizers took over their land.

In their letter, the legislators wrote, “The international damage that Israel could suffer in the wake of the UN vote is significantly smaller than that it would suffer if it doesn’t follow up on the principle you set a decade ago – ‘If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t give, they get nothing.” This last part was a reference to the Palestinian Authority and the Camp David Accords of 2000, during which the Israeli negotiators attempted to force the Palestinians to give up their internationally-recognized rights, including the right to freedom of movement, the right of return for refugees, and the right to live in a defensible state with clearly-defined borders.

The Israeli legislators, mainly from the right-wing Kadima party, called on Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to also cut off the aid money to Palestinians, which comes from international donors, but has to pass through Israeli hands for taxation, to accelerate the construction of new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to prevent all Palestinian construction in the West Bank, and to cancel the ‘VIP’ cards of Palestinian officials which allows them easier access through the over 500 internal checkpoints run by the Israeli army in every part of the West Bank.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Bill Clinton: "The two GREAT tragedies in the History of the Middle East!"


You would think Bubba meant Palestine 1948,

… and Iraq, 2003,

… Noooo, Bubba meant this:

“… Clinton said, “The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were Rabin’s assassination

and Sharon’s stroke.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Ahmedinejad and Obama at the UN: Of statesmanship and political pandering….

Franklin Lamb
Beirut, Lebanon

For westerners, and particularly Americans who have watched Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad up fairly close as he delivers speeches in the US and elsewhere including during last year’s visit to Lebanon, his charisma and populist connection with the public are evident and often powerful.
And President Barack Obama is normally no slough either on the stump when he woes voters and inspires them to support his point of view. But last week’s UN appearance by the two leaders left a Matthew 13:24-30 type image of the wheat being separated from the chaff. Both countries are juxtaposed menacingly in the Middle East, one pressuring the region in an all-out sustained NATO utilized effort to maintain its hegemony and the other actively trying to lead the region in a very different direction. Consequently the public was presented with an interesting contrast in styles and substance.
The two appearances could be handicapped along the lines that Obama’s tough job was to try to shore up Israel whose days as a dominate force in the Levant rapidly grow fewer as history corrects the nearly incalculable injustice that resulted from the West’s implantation of the racist state and as history inexorably deconstructs the world’s last 19th Century colonial enterprise.

From the UN podium, Ahmadinejad knew in advance that approximately 15 minutes into his speech began AIPAC would signal the launch of its churlish and infantile 30 country walkout and most of the delegations in the audience knew that the White House had given its ok. The Iranian President also knew that there would be the pro-Zionist tabloid media blitz against him complete with the now expected degrading and offensive cartoons and the Persian visitor being labeled in the US media, what else, but an “anti-Semite”, “a clown”, “weirdo”, “crackpot”. “the new Hitler” and the usual moronic libels. It is hard to imagine that the New York Times editors actually read his speech since they not only failed it analyze it but simply dismissed it as a “tirade” the same description they applied last year.

But this year, the AIPAC/White House walk-out backfired and it was roundly condemned not only among the American public but among the publics of each of the countries that agreed to rudely interrupt the proceedings. The Zionist controlled US government failed to realize that the international public, like most Americans, by and large retain respect for the values of open dialogue, common hospitality and respect for leaders from other countries. Moreover, they understand that the raison d’etre of the United Nations is to provide its members with an open forum. This includes Iran and each of the 192 other UN Member States. When Obama spoke the Iranian delegation listened respectfully.

OBAMA the compleat politician?

President Obama, embarrassingly for the American public proved once more his habit of assuming the role of the groveling US politician for the pariah Israeli UN Member. This latest speech was no exception and once more Obama made plain that he will support Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine as a quid pro quo for the Israeli lobby funding and supporting his 2012 Presidential re-election bid.

Birzeit University Professor Hanan Ashrawi, spoke for many in the audience and across America after Obama finished:

“I did not believe what I heard. It sounded as if the Palestinians were occupying Israel. There was no empathy for the Palestinians; he only spoke of the Israeli problems. He told us that it isn’t easy to achieve peace, thanks, we know this. He spoke about universal rights, Good; those same rights apply to Palestinians. The White House is applying enormous pressure on everybody at the UN and they are using threats and coercion. I wish they would invest the same energy in an attempt to promote peace, not threats.”

Has Iran have produced a Statesman or a sycophant?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is at his best when he is engaged in dialogue and debate according to people in Lebanon and Iran who know him well. But he gets to the point quickly and it sometimes catches his interlocutors off-guard if they aren’t prepared.

Devoutly religious, Iran’s President is unerringly polite and respectful, and never fails to mention the positive and the necessity of dialogue and seeking common ground.

But he speaks frankly and also noted that President Obama never made good on a pledge to try to improve US-Iranian relations and to open a dialogue with Iran, and said he still hopes for a face-to-face meeting. “I don’t believe that this is a chance that has been completely lost,” Ahmadinejad said.

He told Iran’s fellow UN Members “You all know that the nuclear issue has been turned and manipulated into a political issue,” and he added that Iran remains ready to negotiate over its disputed nuclear program, and repeated the country’s position that the program is for the peaceful production of energy

Following the 2009 disputed Iranian elections, he stated “We were very much in support of change. I sent a personal message to President Obama, but we never received a response.

His UN speech theme was that most nations of the world are unhappy with the current international circumstances. “And despite the general longing and aspiration to promote peace, progress, and fraternity, wars, mass-murder, widespread poverty, and socioeconomic and political crises continue to infringe upon the rights and sovereignty of nations, leaving behind irreparable damage worldwide.” He continued, “Approximately, three billion people of the world live on less than 2.5 dollars a day, and over a billion people live without having even one sufficient meal on a daily basis. Forty-percent of the poorest world populations only share five percent of the global income, while twenty percent of the richest people share seventy-five percent of the total global income. More than twenty thousand innocent and destitute children die every day in the world because of poverty.”

He challenged the United Nations to reform itself and he urged honest debate on the vital issues confronting the world community. He asked the UN to bear in mind who imposed colonialism for over four centuries, who occupied lands and massively plundered resources of other nations, destroyed talents, and alienated languages, cultures and identities of nations?

He asked the UN members to join in solutions to the World’s problems but asked that we not hide the facts of:

  • Who triggered the first and second world wars, that left seventy millions killed and hundreds of millions injured or homeless.
  • Who created the wars in Korean peninsula and in Vietnam?
  • Who imposed through Zionism and over sixty years of war, homelessness, terror and mass murder on the Palestinian people and on countries of the region?
  • Who imposed and supported for decades military dictatorship and totalitarian regimes on Asian, African, and Latin American nations?
  • Who used nuclear bomb against defenseless people, and stockpiled thousands of warheads in their arsenals?
  • Whose economies rely on waging wars and selling arms?
  • Who provoked and encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade and impose an eight-year war on Iran, and who assisted and equipped him to deploy chemical weapons against our cities and our people?
  • Who used the mysterious September 11 incident as a pretext to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, injuring, and displacing millions in two countries with the ultimate goal of bringing into its domination the Middle East and its oil resources?
  • Who nullified the Breton Woods system by printing trillions of dollars without the backing of gold reserves or equivalent currency? A move that triggered inflation worldwide and was intended to prey on the economic gains of other nations?
  • Which country’s military spending exceeds annually a thousand billion dollars, more than the military budgets of all countries of the world combined?
  • Who dominates the policy-making establishments of the world economy?
  • Who are responsible for the world economic recession, and are imposing the consequences on America, Europe and the world in general?
  • Who are the ones dominating the Security Council which is ostensibly responsible for safeguarding the international security?

This month’s Iran-U.S Presidential addresses at the United Nations have given its members a clear choice for the challenges quickly engulfing the Middle East. Ultimately, as the popular awakenings in this region teach us, it is the citizens of each country who have the power to decide how to deal with these crises.

Iran’s President demonstrated at Turtle Bay this month that he understands the problems, offers rational solutions and is ready for constructive dialogue. The next move is up to President Obama to extricate him and his country from the jaws of Zionism and to join with Iran and the community of nations with constructive proposals to help alleviate the challenges Iran’s President enumerated.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

‘Bunker-Buster Bombs’ for … Peace!


“…At the U.N. last week, Obama sided with Israel by pushing against the Palestinian vote for statehood. Even more telling: behind the scenes Obama has pressed hard to secure the Israeli state—through major military support…
But what participants didn’t know was that Obama had finally authorized military deals the Israelis had been waiting for for years. It is support that has drawn the two nations’ militaries increasingly close even as their leaders seem politely distant.

The aid, U.S. and Israeli officials confirmed to Newsweek, includes the long-delayed delivery of 55 powerful GBU-28 Hard Target Penetrators, better known as bunker-buster bombs, deemed important to any future military strike against Iranian nuclear sites. It also includes a network of proposed radar sites—some located in Arab neighbors—designed to help Israel repel a missile attack, as well as joint military exercises and regular national-security consultations.
“What is unique in the Obama administration is their decision that in spite of the disagreements on the political level, the military and intelligence relationship which benefits both sides will not be spoiled by the political tension,” says Amos Yadlin, former head of intelligence for the Israeli military. He declined to discuss any secret military cooperation.
Even some of the hawks from the George W. Bush administration grudgingly give Obama credit for behind-the-scenes progress…
The bunker busters were a significant breakthrough. The Israelis first requested the sale in 2005, only to be rebuffed by the Bush administration. At the time, the Pentagon had frozen almost all U.S.-Israeli joint defense projects out of concern that Israel was transferring advanced military technology to China.In 2007, Bush informed then–prime minister Ehud Olmert that he would order the bunker busters for delivery in 2009 or 2010. The Israelis wanted them in 2007. Obama finally released the weapons in 2009, according to officials familiar with the secret decision.
James Cartwright, who served until August as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Newsweek the military chiefs had no objections to the sale. Rather, he said there was a concern about “how the Iranians would perceive it” and “how the Israelis might perceive it.” In other words, would the sale be seen as a green light for Israel to attack Iran’s secret nuclear sites one day?”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

“The Wandering Who,” Gildad Atzmon’s Look At the Darkness Behind “Seinfeld”

Always the Smart Thing, Read the Book, Not the Reviews, Even This One

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

As editor of an American based military publication, reviewing a book on “Jewish identity” is new territory. The author, Gilad Atzmon, has an international reputation as someone who continually takes Israel to task, rebukes the mainstream media but lives and works as a musician. I ended up with him as a columnist because I wanted former members of Israel’s military groups who are outspoken on staff.
I got Atzmon of the IDF and Uri Avnery of the Irgun. Atzmon, I suspect, is much more dangerous with a saxophone than a machine gun but Avnery, that’s a tough guy.  [SETTLER]

The issue at hand is Atzmon’s book, “The Wandering Who.” First of all, I am biased. Though I didn’t edit this book, I am Atzmon’s editor for his other articles, that and his confidant and friend.
Why read the book? Unlike many things, it is delightfully short, I am always thankful for that. What I see is something of the “Seinfeld” in it, not so much the comedian, Atzmon’s irony will always fall short of Jerry Seinfeld, but the TV comedy show itself, a critique, intended or not, on Jewish identity. Atzmon clearly touches the “Seinfeld” message, touching on “Jewish identity” with more seriousness. There is also controversy, how identity can lead to something far darker. 

The question about the book is whether it is going to provide needed insights and asks the hard questions with honesty and courage. Few books have been opposed as this one has. Is this because Atzmon hates Jewish people or that he threatens “interests” that he says profit from dehumanizing the Jewish people. 

A simpler way of looking at it is, that, after reading this, will you respect Gilad Atzmon or like him as I do, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, or take the view of some, that he is involved in a vicious “Antisemitic” plot? In some ways, I think it is more important to understand how and why those whose well paid living it is to call others “Antisemites” do what they do. The more you know, the less likely you are to invite any of them to tea. 

This is one of the reasons “The Wandering Who” is such a dangerous book.

There have been attempts by powerful groups within the media to suppress this book, accusation of it being “Antisemitic,” have begun to flow, each review written even worse than the last. Atzmon touches a series of “third rail” issues, does so in a book that will shake up a few people, mostly Jews, mostly Americans.

There will be few surprises for Jews growing up in Israel. I come from a mixed family in America, having grown up in Detroit in the 50s and 60s. The community there, Jews, Germans, Pole and Hungarians, the world of “all white” industrial America, a country of prosperity, hope and injustice, was also one of dialog. Jews attacked Jews, everyone complained about Catholics and behind the politics, how some could be so stupid as to support “tool of the rich” Eisenhower was an identity issue of its own, the socialist movement that grew in America after the First World War. 

When I hear rhetoric about Obama and “socialism,” I remember the talks from then, Jews and Germans, industrial workers and business owners, dialog we no longer hear. The subject? Fixing the world, seeking justice, wanting a better life for people, that dialog, the continual dialog was the “identity politics” of the time, much of it was “Jewish identity,” and, despite the use of that fearful term, “socialism,” it was pure America.

This was every Sunday, cigarettes, overflowing ash trays, coffee cups, the living room in our small home in a Detroit suburb better characterized a “Hooverville,” a collection of shacks and small farms that had been engulfed by industrial sprawl.

Atzmon is someone of that period, a time and place he never knew, he wasn’t even alive then. This is what he reminds me of, I see those days when “truth” wasn’t delivered by television but rather lived, learned on the streets, in the work place and not at the hands of a corporation that hired actors to inform the public.

Our “truth” today is Orwellian. Atzmon’s issue is that “Jews” should know better because their traditions come from learning the hard truth of the streets, the work place and worse, in some cases so much worse. Atzmon and I share more than this. I edit a publication, Veterans Today, which has, to say it mildly, “gotten out of hand.” It has drawn writers from around the world, it has a covert focus, leaking intelligence, publishing analysis on world issues and taking a strong stand domestically on issues of treatment of war veterans and the misuse of our military. Our tough views on Israel’s current government we see as “defense related.” We believe American lives pay for political excesses of an ultra-nationalist regime in Tel Aviv and its apartheid policies.
We live in a separate reality from any other news source. We aren’t commercial, we have access to the highest levels of military and government and simply say the things “insiders” know are true. We hide things nobody else would imagine leaking, “hidden in plain sight” as it were, and we get away with it because we speak for a community, military, intelligence professionals, many at the highest levels, who are simply sick of seeing how dangerous and purposefully misinformed public has become.

You don’t understand? If you haven’t looked at the Republican candidates for president and wondered why Obama is laughing himself to death…..

Then again, there is Obama. Is he ok because most Americans are still eating, it could be worse, or should he be judged because of his failure to confront the 8 year national “suicide attempt” under the last Bush administration? How can you judge, there is no place to get information, not with a media that mixes biased reporting with wild conspiracy theory and fear mongering.

This is what has made Atzmon dangerous. “This?” The supposition made, that Israel isn’t about a “homeland for the Jewish people” but rather using that and trading off the holocaust to create a very unjust world, one continually at war, one destined for social upheaval, one increasingly unjust and one driven there with full cooperation of people of “Jewish identity” who are proving to be just as stupid as everyone else.

Then there is the “Antisemite” part. If a Jew in Israel or London is as poorly informed as a filling station attendant in Murphysboro, Tennessee, is it that much more serious because Jews are, for reasons not at issue, largely in control of both financial and media organizations that Atzmon says are at the root of what he sees as the decline of civilization into a century of barbarity?

Toward this end, how Gilad Atzmon began his path, growing up in Israel is a key component. As an American, I have been programmed to think of all Palestinians as terrorists. Having traveled the region, I now know that the media that put that idea before me, a hundred TV shows, biased news was a hateful and criminal effort. Working in the media, I am privately told that I had to be lied to all of my life to “help keep Israel safe.”

As a realist, I can see how insane that all is and was, how orchestrating racial hatred through systematic lies is one of the most reprehensible acts possible. Atzmon says this is at the center of “Jewish identity” practices and I agree. I see this injustice as a serious one but not the only one.
That was the education I got as a child, an education partially at the hands of that other “Jewish identity” politics, the one that seems to have gone away, a time when being Jewish politically meant you were part of a world movement for justice and humanity.

I was not raised to see Jews as the center of things, all good or all bad, as uniquely responsible.
I live in a country filled with people who are not Jews who would gladly practice any barbaric act, including those Atzmon points out that Israel perpetrates against its Palestinian population, and do so with glee. Americans love executing criminals. The problem there seems to be the indifference as to whether the “criminals” are actually criminals, as long as they are black. Over recent years, an examination of America’s criminal justice system, some using new sciences such as the easy and inexpensive availability of DNA evidence, has shown America’s “death rows” and prisons to be filled with the innocent.

This and a thousand other ills have been overlooked somehow, a population that, we are told, has lost its way, its moral center. I blame religious extremism and television but that’s me. I think Americans have been taught to accept injustice and to take pleasure in exercising their medulla more than their frontal lobes, to hate and blame, directed by a constant influx of lies. In a world addicted to drugs, from the illegal narcotics to the pharmaceutical “wonders” meant to save us all from the unpleasantness of taking responsibility for the world we have created for ourselves, dissemination of information is a form of drug delivery.
Atzmon will say the orchestration of those lies, of that path to inhumanity, was much a part of his upbringing in Israel, where fear and hate turned a generation bred for humanity and the arts into potential concentration camp guards.

Those of us who know the truth of Gaza and the real apartheid Israel also know the truth of what Atzmon writes. Those who want that truth withheld, and there are so many reasons to do that, mostly tied to the profitability of war and injustice, will attack this review as they have others.

See, I like Gildad Atzmon. To me he is like a child any parent would be proud of. He has a conscience. Having a child without one, something far more common than most suspect, is more than a failure. We have gone further than any other generation in history. We are capable of living a life in a world but seeing another. Media is that powerful.

A favorite film from long ago, winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1946, was “The Best Years of Our Lives.” It is the story of an American soldier returning from the Second World War. His son walks up to him, “Pop (this was 1940′s vernacular for “father”) you must have seen alot.”
His father, played by actor Frederick March, replies, “I saw nothing but what was ten feet in front of me. You know more of the war than I do, much more.”

In a life that can be leaving an air conditioned house for an air conditioned car for an air conditioned store and then reversing the order, occasionally varying “store” for “restaurant” and adding “gas station” once a week, reality is seldom any more than the “10 feet in front of you” described by Frederic March.
Reality, such as it is anymore, is the mythology of interpretation, Orwellian for sure, based on our trust in those who own and control this reality to value truth above all things.
But we all know that not to be true…..

The Anti-Defamation League will put a page on the internet calling me an “Antisemite” for writing this. White supremacist websites will attack me for sounding too “Jewish.”
I will still recommend Atzmon’s book, mostly to Jewish friends who are trying so hard to understand the world around them. 
A year ago, Atzmon’s message made him an outcast inside Israel. Today, in Israel as across the Arab world as well, everything is being challenged. Not everyone in Israel thinks like Atzmon. But, unlike a year ago, hundreds of thousands are protesting, asking questions and seeking answers. This is a generation that knows loss but doesn’t understand what they lost.
America has one much like it.

For them, for the young Israeli’s who want their history back, who want to know why mom and dad allowed them to be lied to for so long, Atzmon’s book may be the right thing. Best of all, it is human, it contains no message of hate and Atzmon can write.

For me, all I ask for is to be attacked for writing this. That will be the affirmation of my own humanity, proof of my own worth. Unless attacked by those who are genuinely evil, I feel empty. Gilad Atzmon and I share this. We welcome even more “onboard.”
Gordon Duff
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

MP Yassin Jaber to Al-Manar Website: Rahi Walking in Footsteps of Sadr

MP Yassin Jaber to Al-Manar Website: Rahi Walking in Footsteps of Sadr…
Hussein Assi
MP Yassin Jaber to Al-Manar Website:
Rahi Walking in Footsteps of Sadr…
  • Patriarch Rahi’s Southern Visit Historic
  • Rahi Addressed All Sects with One Voice
  • Christians Were Very Satisfied with Rahi’s Trip
  • Financing STL Will Not Explode Government
  • Int’l Boycott of Government Did Not Happen
  • We Fully Back Palestinian State in UNSC

Member of the Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc MP Yassin Jaber declared that the visit made by Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi to South Lebanon was historic, and highlighted that the messages carried out by the patriarch were in harmony with the messages of Imam Sayyed Mussa as-Sadr. He emphasized that the patriarch has addressed all communities with one voice.

In an exclusive interview with Al-Manar Website, Jaber undermined the campaign launched by some politicians against the patriarch over his recent positions, and stressed that Patriarch Rahi was applying the apostolic exhortation and expressing openness towards all Lebanese without exception. He pointed out that the Christian community cannot be shortened to one person, in reference to Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea.

While expressing belief that the Lebanese government will not be affected by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s financing challenge, given that the cabinet’s steadfastness was necessary at the current stage, Jaber stressed that the Lebanese official stance backs the establishment of a Palestinian state. He warned that the fall of such project in the United Nations would uncover the real position of the so-called “peace sponsors” and would strengthen the Resistance’s argument.


MP Yassin Jaber told Al-Manar Website that the visit made by Maronite Patriarch Beshara al-Rahi to South Lebanon throughout the three last days was historic, with all sense of the word. He noted that it did not happen before that a Maronite Patriarch pays a general visit to the south region, as Patriarch Rahi did. He said that the visit was also historic through its meanings and significance, and noted that it carried out a message of dialogue and unity.
Answering a question on whether Patriarch Rahi was continuing the path of Imam Sayyed Mussa as-Sadr, Jaber highlighted that Imam Sadr was famous for visiting the church and the mosque at the same time, and that he used to address all communities with one voice. “This is what Patriarch Rahi is seeking to do today,” he said, as he remarked that the patriarch came to the south as no one did before him and met people from various sects. He also pointed to the stances taken by Rahi who stressed Lebanon’s right to protect its sovereignty, and saluted the huge efforts paid by the southern people to liberate the land from the Zionist occupation. “All these messages come in harmony with those taken by Imam Sayyed Mussa as-Sadr,” he said.


MP Jaber undermined the campaign launched by some politicians against the patriarch over his recent positions, and pointed in particular to the positions taken on Saturday by Lebanese Forces chief Samir Geagea who claimed that the fear of extremism does not justify the crimes of dictatorships that created it in the first place, and said that “the Christian existence in Lebanon and the East has spiritual values, and holds on interaction and real participation in the national, cultural, political and social life for the people of the region.”

Commenting on Geagea’s words, Jaber stressed that it was not appropriate to distort such a bright day by listening to some useless opinions. He said that Patriarch Rahi was applying the apostolic exhortation and expressing openness towards all Lebanese without exception. He went on to say that the efforts paid by Patriarch Rahi should have been carried out a long time ago.

Jaber expressed belief that one person, in reference to the LF chief, could not express the views of all Christians. He explained that overall, the Christian community was satisfied with the patriarch’s trip to the South and other Lebanese regions. He noted that, throughout all his trips, the patriarch was seeking to unify Lebanese through inciting them to apply the slogan of partnership with words and actions.


During his interview with Al-Manar Website, MP Jaber tackled the STL financing’s challenge awaiting the Lebanese cabinet in the upcoming stage, in light of Speaker Nabih Berri’s latest remarks in this context. Berri has said that authorities would take the appropriate action when the time to pay Lebanon’s share of funds to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon comes. “When we reach that phase” we’ll decide what action to take, he reportedly said. “There is enough time before that date comes.”
Jaber said he backs Berri in this belief, and remarked that some politicians seek to anticipate things, thinking that this challenge would explode the government from inside, which is completely wrong. He noted that Berri wanted to say that solutions are always available, but only when their time comes. He emphasized that the cooperation between the government, parliament and presidency has proven its solidity as it has resulted in an unprecedented electricity bill. He said that when dialogue and understanding are present, all solutions can be reached.

Answering a question on whether he was assured that the government was not heading towards a crisis in this regard, Jaber said he had no worries at all. He highlighted that the cabinet’s steadfastness was necessary at the current stage, given that the government has proven to seriously deal with the various issues. While recalling of the threats addressed to the government of possibly facing an international boycott, Jaber noted that the opposite was taking place. He spoke of a remarkable international openness towards Lebanon, something which was reflected through the visits made by President Michel Sleiman and Prime Minister Najib Miqati to the United Nations.


To conclude, the Lebanese lawmaker tackled the Palestinian statehood challenge within the United Nations Security Council, in light of the expected American veto. He said that Lebanon clearly backs this state, as declared by President Michel Sleiman from the United Nations as well as all other Lebanese leaders. He noted that Lebanon officially stands at the side of the establishment of this state given that this is the least thing that Lebanese could give to their Palestinian brothers.

About the repercussions of the fall of the Palestinian state’s project in light of the American veto, Jaber said that the international public opinion would be aware of the misleading campaigns launched by the so-called peace sponsors. He also noted that the fall of this project would strengthen the argument of the Resistance and its fighters.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: