What is normalisation?: Normalising the Abnormal

Live From Occupied Palestine
Dear friends,

in the last couple of weeks, there has been a debate (once again) on a number of Palestinian and Israeli sites, as well as twitter and Facebook about the issue of “normalisation” and what it means in relation to the Palestinian struggle. This latest discussion came about as a result of Palestinians activists taking a stand against a range of pro-normalisation conference in Occupied East Jerusalem. It has come to light in the last few days that the organisers of at least one of these conferences also organised a pro-normalisation conferences held in the illegal Israel colony of Ariel.

As most Palestinians will tell you, opposition to the “normalisation” of Zionist-settler colonial occupation and apartheid has long been a central component of Palestinian national movement. One of the first major anti-normalisation campaigns staged by Palestinians occurred in 1936 when Palestinian engaged in a six month boycott against Zionism and British imperialism.

Having spent an extensive amount of time in Palestine, it has been my experience that the majority of Palestinians both in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and outside the territories oppose normalisation with Israel as long as Israel continues to oppress, occupy and carry out apartheid against the Palestinian people.

In October this year, the Palestinian Academic and Cultural Boycott campaign against Israel issued a statement explaining in detail what “normalisation” is and isn’t. In my opionion, the definition adopted by both PACBI and by the Palestinian BDS campaign in 2007 is simply a formalisation of what Palestinian society has widely understood to be “normalisation”. I have included it below.

In solidarity,

Kim

Israel’s Exceptionalism: Normalizing the Abnormal

In the Palestinian and Arab struggle against Israeli colonization, occupation and apartheid, the “normalization” of Israel is a concept that has generated controversy because it is often misunderstood or because there are disagreements on its parameters. This is despite the near consensus among Palestinians and people in the Arab region on rejecting the treatment of Israel as a “normal” state with which business as usual can be conducted. Here, we discuss the definition of normalization that the great majority of Palestinian civil society, as represented in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, has adopted since November 2007, and elaborate on the nuances that it takes on in different contexts.

It is helpful to think of normalization as a “colonization of the mind,” whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor’s reality is the only “normal” reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with. Those who engage in normalization either ignore this oppression, or accept it as the status quo that can be lived with. In an attempt to whitewash its violations of international law and human rights, Israel attempts to re-brand [1] itself, or present itself as normal — even “enlightened” — through an intricate array of relations and activities encompassing hi-tech, cultural, legal, LGBT and other realms.

A key principle that underlines the term normalization is that it is entirely based on political, rather than racial, considerations and is therefore in perfect harmony with the BDS movement’s rejection of all forms of racism and racial discrimination. Countering normalization is a means to resist oppression, its mechanisms and structures. As such, it is categorically unrelated to or conditioned upon the identity of the oppressor.

We break down normalization into three categories that correspond to differences pertaining to the varied contexts of Israel’s colonial oppression and apartheid. It is important to consider these minimum definitions as the basis for solidarity and action.

1) Normalization in the context of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Arab world

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has defined normalization specifically in a Palestinian and Arab context “as the participation in any project, initiative or activity, in Palestine or internationally, that aims (implicitly or explicitly) to bring together Palestinians (and/or Arabs) and Israelis (people or institutions) without placing as its goal resistance to and exposure of the Israeli occupation and all forms of discrimination and oppression against the Palestinian people.” [2] This is the definition endorsed by the BDS National Committee (BNC).

For Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, any project with Israelis that is not based on a resistance framework serves to normalize relations. We define this resistance framework as one that is based on recognition of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and on the commitment to resist, in diverse ways, all forms of oppression against Palestinians, including but not limited to, ending the occupation, establishing full and equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and promoting and advocating for the right of return for Palestinian refugees – this may aptly be called a posture of “co-resistance” [3]. Doing otherwise allows for everyday, ordinary relations to exist alongside and independent of the continuous crimes being committed by Israel against the Palestinian people. This feeds complacency and gives the false and harmful impression of normalcy in a patently abnormal situation of colonial oppression. 

Projects, initiatives and activities that do not begin from a position of shared principles to resist Israel’s oppression invariably allow for an approach to dealing with Israel as if its violations can be deferred, and as if coexistence (as opposed to “co-resistance”) can precede, or lead to, the end of oppression. In the process, Palestinians, regardless of intentions, end up serving as a fig-leaf [4] for Israelis who are able to benefit from a “business-as-usual” environment, perhaps even allowing Israelis to feel their conscience is cleared for having engaged Palestinians they are usually accused of oppressing and discriminating against.

The peoples of the Arab world, with their diverse national, religious and cultural backgrounds and identities, whose future is more tangibly tied to the future of Palestinians than the larger international community, not least because of continued Israeli political, economic and military threats on their countries, and the still-prevalent and strong kinship with the Palestinians, face similar issues with regards to normalization. So long as Israel’s oppression continues, any engagement with Israelis (individuals or institutions) that is not within the resistance framework outlined above, serves to underline the normality of Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid in the lives of people in the Arab world. It is, therefore, imperative that people in the Arab world shun all relations with Israelis, unless based on co-resistance. This is not a call to refrain from understanding Israelis, their society and polity. It is a call to condition any such knowledge and any such contact on the principles of resistance until the time when comprehensive Palestinian and other Arab rights are met.

BDS activists may always go above and beyond our basic minimum requirements if they identify subcategories within those we have identified. In Lebanon or Egypt, for instance, boycott campaigners may go beyond the PACBI/BNC definition of normalization given their position in the Arab world, whereas those in Jordan, say, may have different considerations.

2) Normalization in the context of the Palestinian citizens of Israel

Palestinian citizens of Israel – those Palestinians who remained steadfast on their land after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 despite repeated efforts to expel them and subject them to military law, institutionalized discrimination, or apartheid [4] – face an entirely different set of considerations. They may be confronted with two forms of normalization. The first, which we may call coercive everyday relations, are those relations that a colonized people, and those living under apartheid, are forced to take part in if they are to survive, conduct their everyday lives and make a living within the established oppressive structures. For the Palestinian citizens of Israel, as taxpayers, such coercive everyday relations include daily employment in Israeli places of work and the use of public services and institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals. Such coercive relations are not unique to Israel and were present in other colonial and apartheid contexts such as India and South Africa, respectively. Palestinian citizens of Israel cannot be rationally asked to cut such ties, at least not yet.

The second form of normalization is that in which Palestinian citizens of Israel do not have to engage as a requirement of survival. Such normalization might include participation in international forums as representatives of Israel (such as in the Eurovision song competition) or in Israeli events directed at an international audience. The key to understanding this form of normalization is to consider that when Palestinians engage in such activities without placing them within the same resistance framework mentioned above, they contribute, even if inadvertently, to a deceptive appearance of tolerance, democracy, and normal life in Israel for an international audience who may not know better. Israelis, and the Israeli establishment, may in turn use this against international BDS proponents and those struggling against Israeli injustices by accusing them of being “holier” than Palestinians. In these instances, Palestinians promote relations with mainstream Israeli institutions beyond what constitutes the mere need for survival. The absence of vigilance in this matter has the effect of telling the Palestinian public that they can live with and accept apartheid, should engage Israelis on their own terms, and forgo any act of resistance. This is the type of normalization that many Palestinian citizens of Israel, along with PACBI, are increasingly coming to identify and confront.

3) Normalization in the International Context

In the international arena, normalization does not operate all that differently and follows the same logic. While the BDS movement targets complicit Israeli institutions, in the case of normalization there are other nuances to consider. Generally, international supporters of BDS are asked to refrain from participating in any event that morally or politically equates the oppressor and oppressed, and presents the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis as symmetrical [5]. Such an event should be boycotted because it normalizes Israel’s colonial domination over Palestinians and ignores the power structures and relations embedded in the oppression.

Dialogue

In all these contexts, “dialogue” and engagement are often presented as alternatives to boycott. Dialogue, if it occurs outside the resistance framework that we have outlined, becomes dialogue for the sake of dialogue, which is a form of normalization that hinders the struggle to end injustice. Dialogue, “healing,” and “reconciliation” processes that do not aim to end oppression, regardless of the intentions behind them, serve to privilege oppressive co-existence at the cost of co-resistance, for they presume the possibility of coexistence before the realization of justice. The example of South Africa elucidates this point perfectly, where reconciliation, dialogue and forgiveness came after the end of apartheid, not before, regardless of the legitimate questions raised regarding the still existing conditions of what some have called “economic apartheid.”

Two Examples of Normalization Efforts: OneVoice and IPCRI

While many, if not most, normalization projects are sponsored and funded by international organizations and governments, many of these projects are operated by Palestinian and Israeli partners, often with generous international funding. The political, often Israel-centered, framing of the “partnership” is one of the most problematic aspects of these joint projects and institutions. PACBI’s analysis of OneVoice [6], a joint Palestinian-Israeli youth-oriented organization with chapters in North America and extensions in Europe, exposed OneVoice as one more project that brings Palestinians and Israelis together, not to jointly struggle against Israel’s colonial and apartheid policies, but rather to provide a limited program of action under the slogan of an end to the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state, while cementing Israeli apartheid and ignoring the rights of Palestinian refugees, who compose the majority of the Palestinian people. PACBI concluded that, in essence, OneVoice and similar programs serve to normalize oppression and injustice. The fact that OneVoice treats the “nationalisms” and “patriotisms” of the two “sides” as if on par with one another and equally valid is a telling indicator. It is worth noting that virtually the entire political spectrum of Palestinian youth and student organizations and unions in the occupied Palestinian territory have unambiguously condemned normalization projects, such as OneVoice. [7]

A similar organization, though with a different target audience, is the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), which describes itself as “the only joint Israeli-Palestinian public policy think-tank in the world dedicated to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of ‘two states for two peoples’. IPCRI “recognizes the rights of the Jewish people and the Palestinian people to fulfill their national interests within the framework of achieving national self-determination within their own states and by establishing peaceful relations between two democratic states living side-by-side.” [8] It thus advocates an apartheid state in Israel that disenfranchises the indigenous Palestinian citizens and ignores the UN-sanctioned right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

Like OneVoice, IPCRI adopts the ubiquitous “conflict paradigm” while ignoring the domination and oppression that characterize the relationship of the Israeli state with the Palestinian people. IPCRI conveniently neglects a discussion of the roots of this “conflict,” what it is about, and which “side” is paying the price. Like OneVoice, it glosses over the historic record and the establishment of a settler-colonial regime in Palestine following the expulsion of most of the indigenous people of the land. The defining moment in the history of “the conflict” is therefore not acknowledged. The history of continued Israeli colonial expansion and the dispossession and forcible displacement of Palestinians is conveniently ignored, as well. Through IPCRI’s omissions, the organization denies the resistance framework we have outlined above and brings Palestinians and Israelis into a relation privileging co-existence over co-resistance. Palestinians are asked to adopt an Israeli vision of a peaceful resolution and not one that recognizes their comprehensive rights, as defined by the UN. 

Another disturbing, but again entirely predictable, aspect of the work of IPCRI is the active involvement in its projects of Israeli personalities and personnel implicated in Israeli violations of the Palestinian people’s rights and grave breaches of international law. IPCRI’s Strategic Thinking and Analysis Team (STAT), includes, in addition to Palestinian officials, former Israeli diplomats, former Israeli army brigadier generals, Mossad personnel and senior staff of the Israeli National Security Council, many of them reasonably suspected of committing war crimes. [9]

It is no surprise, therefore, that the desire to end the “conflict,” and the desire to realize “a lasting peace,” both of which are slogans of these and similar normalization efforts, has nothing to do with obtaining justice for Palestinians. In fact, the term “justice” has no place on the agenda of most of these organizations; neither can one find clear reference to international law as the ultimate arbiter, leaving Palestinians at the mercy of the far more powerful Israeli state.

An Israeli writer’s description of the so-called Peres Center for Peace, a leading normalization and colonial institution, may also well describe the underlying agenda of IPCRI and almost all normalization organizations:

In the activity of the Peres Center for Peace there is no evident effort being made to change the political and socioeconomic status quo in the occupied territories, but just the opposite: Efforts are being made to train the Palestinian population to accept its inferiority and prepare it to survive under the arbitrary constraints imposed by Israel, to guarantee the ethnic superiority of the Jews. With patronizing colonialism, the center presents an olive grower who is discovering the advantages of cooperative marketing; a pediatrician who is receiving professional training in Israeli hospitals; and a Palestinian importer who is learning the secrets of transporting merchandise via Israeli ports, which are famous for their efficiency; and of course soccer competitions and joint orchestras of Israelis and Palestinians, which paint a false picture of coexistence. [10]

The normalization of Israel – normalizing the abnormal – is a malicious and subversive process that works to cover up injustice and colonize the most intimate parts of the oppressed: their mind. To engage in or with organizations that serve this purpose is, therefore, one of the prime targets of boycott, and an act that BDS supporters must confront together.

PACBI

————–

[1] http://www.forward.com/articles/2070/

[2] Translated from Arabic: http://www.pacbi.org/atemplate.php?id=100

[3] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1673

[4] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1645

[5] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1108

[6] http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1436

[7] http://pacbi.org/atemplate.php?id=163 (Arabic)

[8] http://www.ipcri.org/IPCRI/About_Us.html

[9] http://www.ipcri.org/IPCRI/R-Projects.html

[10] Meron Benvenisti, A monument to a lost time and lost hopes, Haaretz, 30 October 2008. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/a-monument-to-a-lost-time-and-lost-hopes-1.256342

Posted on 31-10-2011

Posted by Kim at 6:40 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Israel v. Palestine in 2012

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1324331373.htmlby Stephen Lendman
Palestinians have endured decades of ruthless occupation. World leaders decline support. They’re left largely on their own despite growing millions globally supporting them.
Life in occupied Palestine is harsh and repressive. On December 26, Jerusalem’s mayor, Nir Barakat, delivered another blow. The Municipality will classify 70,000 Israeli Arab citizens non-residents and involuntarily transfer them to West Bank locations.

At issue is entirely Judaizing Jerusalem through forced ethnic cleansing to facilitate escalated settlement construction. It’s also part of creating a greater Jerusalem and preventing a two-state solution.
Two new Haaretz reports are also significant heading into 2012, one by writer Barak Ravid.
After refusing peace negotiations with Israel unless illegal settlement construction stops, he said:
“The Palestinian leadership submitted a proposal to renew peace talks with Israel that drops their longstanding demand that Israel ceases all West Bank settlement construction, a top Israeli official said on Wednesday.”
In mid-December, PA officials told Quartet members peace talks could resume if Israel releases 100 long held Palestinian prisoners in good faith.
Abbas faced heavy pressure for months, no matter decades of past peace process futility because Israel won’t tolerate it. It needs enemies to justify confrontation and violence.
Nonetheless, EU and other Quartet members told Abbas he’ll share responsibility if talks don’t resume by late January.

“There’s real concern in the Quartet that after that date, Abbas will return to UN initiatives,” an unnamed Israeli official said. At the same time, Netanyahu vowed no talks if Fatah/Hamas unity government plans proceed, saying:
Fatah will have to “choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas.” Reconciliation shows “weakness. There cannot be peace” if both sides unite. “What happened….in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism.”
Israel wants Hamas marginalized, isolated, and bogusly accused of terrorism. In fact, it’s Palestine’s legitimately elected government.

Baseless accusations are Israel’s stock in trade. Hamas wants peace, equity and justice for all Palestinians. Numerous times its present and past leaders expressed willingness to recognize Israel in return for self-determination in peace inside pre-1967 borders – 22% of historic Palestine. Moreover, they agreed to unilateral ceasefires in spite of repeated Israeli violations.

Nonetheless, defensive responses follow continued Israeli provocations. Washington and Israel call it “terrorism.” Under international law, it’s legitimate self-defense.

Despite Abbas’ offer, Israel rejected it out of hand, claiming one precondition replaces another and his proposal is too vague. Will full or preparatory talks follow? Will new conditions be demanded?
In fact, Israel negotiates one way. Its long suit never included equity, justice and fairness. Negotiations at any level will prove futile like earlier. Both sides know it, but the charade continues whether or not talks resume.

According to Palestine’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, no preconditions were set, saying:
“A freeze of settlement construction, holding negotiation on the 1967 lines, and the release of prisoners are not preconditions but Israeli obligations, without which we can see no renewal of negotiations with Israel.”

Netanyahu countered, saying Israel rejects talks if Palestinian unity proceeds, and “(t)he peace process can only advance while maintaining security arrangements, which is becoming more difficult in light of the current situation in the region.”

At the same time, Haaretz writers Yanir Yagna and Gili Cohen headlined, “IDF confirms preparations for extensive future Gaza military action,” saying:

Following on and off air strikes and ground assaults since summer, the IDF’s “Gaza Division is preparing for a possible large-scale incursion into the Gaza Strip….”

According to Gaza Division’s Southern Brigade General Tal Hermoni:
“We are preparing and, in fact, are ready for another campaign, which will be varied and different, to renew our deterrence.”

Stopping short of saying war, he left little doubt what he means. So does IDF chief General Benny Gantz. Commenting on Cast Lead’s third anniversary, he called it “an excellent operation that achieved deterrence for Israel vis-a-vis Hamas.”

However, warning about new emerging cracks, he said expect more conflict. Israel will initiate “swift and painful” punishment. “I do not advise Hamas to test our mettle.” The next Gaza campaign will be shorter than Cast Lead with much greater firepower, he stressed.

Gantz and Hermoni left no doubt. Israel plans war. Perhaps its timing will coincide with expected Washington belligerence against Syria and Iran. At risk is inflaming the entire region.
General war may follow. Nuclear weapons may be used. Humanity will be threatened.

Washington, key NATO partners, and Israel plan world dominance, even if destroying it happens in the process.

A Final Comment

Hamas is Palestine’s legitimate government. At Israel’s behest, Washington spuriously calls it a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Al-Zatouna Center contributer Dr. Mohen Moh’d Saleh discussed its eight distinct features. His narrative diverges greatly from hostile Western discourse. Notably, Hamas is characterized by:

(1) “moderate Islamic discourse.”
(2) “high dynamism” that lets it function “under difficult circumstances and regain its strength and vitality after harsh strikes.”
(3) “Shura-based” consultation that keeps it cohesive and strong regardless of Israel’s response.
(4) emphasis on polity, social needs, charity, jihad for liberation, and education.
(5) effective resistance.
(6) popularity at home and abroad.
(7) remaining corruption free.
(8) legitimacy to gain moral and financial support.

It also wants Palestinian unity through elections. However, participation entails perils under occupation. Washington and Israel won’t permit a legitimate process unless assured Fatah, not Hamas, will win and maintain Israeli imposed harshness.

Moreover, authority and resistance conflict. In part, getting along entails going along to assure needed financial and other aid continues.

Yet liberation depends on resistance. It also requires Palestinian consensus and replacing farcical peace talks with real ones.

Palestinians deserve leaders able to deliver what they’ve long been denied – to live free on their own land, in their own country securely in peace.

If equitable unity government is possible, perhaps it’s how to get it, but not without considerable more struggle ahead.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Raja´s review of 2011

Raja´s review of 2011

The “ Eunuch on the Nile “was replaced by 13 Pimps-in-uniforms,
(who receive 1,5 Billion Dollars yearly ,
from the USA.)

The “Tyrant of Tunis”

found his refuge at the Servant of Mecca

The man who, in 1968 ,has liberated Libya
was lynched to death

by those who shall soon claim to teach us
the rule-of-law.
(Jesus had one Judas and Cesar had one Brutus
but Qaddafi has had 10 of each )

The Queen of Qatar

has bought for herself the FIFA

and now ,her husband wants spread democracy in Syria

(instead of teaching us how to corrupt-footballism.)

Turkey is coming to Syria
to finish the slaughtering the Armenians
who took refuge from Turkey , there.
(France decided to consider genocide as a crime,
except when it is done in Algeria)

The International Crime Court , on Hariri´s case,
wanted to judge the accused
before punishing the false-witnesses
(in spite the fact that, the accused was pointed out
by those same false-witnesses)

The Euro Currency
has failed in uniting,
Greece with Denmark.

The Arab-League of States
wanted to teach Damascus
how to become Democratic
(but they could not find any example
of any democracy among themselves.)

The Zionist-State
has built more new illegal houses
than it could fill them
with any illegal new settlers.
(probably, Americans who lost their homes ,
may come soon to inhabit them,
after all they paid for it )

The US-soldiers left Ayyrak
with an US-Embassy bigger than
all Iraqi–government-buildings, all together .
(as for the uncountable WMD ,
they might come back ,for it, some other time)

The only Atomic-bomb Iran shall soon have,
might be coming from the USA
(on behalf of Israel, of course and as usual ).

Berlusconi has ran out of Viagra
therefore, he has had to resign,
(but his government, at least, shall remain to teach
to the new Lybia how to avoid corruption)

The Kingdom of Saudi Oilrabia
has bought more war-planes
than it has pilots.

The World´s main-Media reported
daily, frequently and uconstantly on Syria
without ever having any reporters,there.
(they must have used a Cristal-Ball
put at their disposal by Tel-Aviv and Pentagon)

The King of Bahrain has used Saudi-Tanks
to copy a Tinamin-square-scenario.
(but there are practically less Bahrainees,
than there are Chinese)

Sudan has lost its own South
to the Giants of the Oil Industries
while Darfour has had its day in the Media,only and until , South-Sudan was born ,
delivered by a colonial-mid-wife.
(since then, both are forgotten, now )

Mahmoud Abbas asked from the United Nations
to allow him a statehood,
65 years after that this same UN has
allowed to the Zionist to steal Abbas´ same statehood.
(it is like asking a butcher to spare the life of a cow
after it is slaughtered)

The Moroccan King has brought
democratic reforms,
by allowing to his Parliament to choose
the next Prime-Minister.
(it is like a democracy……..but in drips)

The financial wealth of Libya
entered into a labyrinth,
longer than that underground-river
which Qaddafi has built
although Qaddafi´s river , has had a beginning and an end
this labyrinth does have only a beginning..

• Del.icio.us
• Facebook
• Stumbleupon

• Newsvine
• Yahoo bookmarks
• Mixx

• Digg
• Reddit
• Google Bookmarks

• Twitter
• LinkedIn

North Korea and the Czech Republic
although being so extremely different and so far apart
both have lost their presidents on the same day
and yet both peoples did cry ??
It seems that any people may love
a democratic-leader as much as may love a dictator.
( I have attended President Havel´s funerals , only)

Finally ;

The UN has been taken-over by the NATO
and
The Arab League has been taken-over by the GCC
and
the USA has been taken over by the AIPAC
and
Al Jazeera has been taken over by its own dishonesty
and
my “Fans” are now less in numbers
but have gained in quality.

Next Year , in Jerusalem…….Inchallah !!

I wish you a,
H A P P Y
healthy, humane, interesting and a dynamic
2 0 1 2

رَجا شْمَيِّل
Raja Ibrahim Khalil el Chemayel
2011

Posted byTlaxcalaat9:26 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

‘Arab Spring’ is good business to snuff out Palestine!

Via FLC

“… He won praise in the Middle East and elsewhere for speaking out early and strongly in support of demonstrators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, urging the countries’ leaders to listen to their demands….”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 10:48 AM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Israeli Hasbara’s Satire (must watch)

Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:36AM Gilad Atzmon

 

This is how it looks when the Jews Only State’s Satire Unit attempts to communicate with Goyim’s fear.

I am obliged to mention here that the Hebrew word for Jesus- Yeshu (ישו in Hebrew) is actually an acronym for the formula (ימח שמו וזכרו ) meaning “may his name and memory be obliterated”. This acronym is reserved to Jews’ most hated people such as Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. I guess that someone should remind the Israeli ‘comedians’ that they are stepping here into a very dangerous territory.

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

A Glimpse Into Israeli Barbarism

Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:30AM Gilad Atzmon

 

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Israeli collective madness Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Haniyeh in Egypt: Hamas Presence with Brotherhood Threatens Israel

 Comment:

Haniyeh described Hamas as the “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.”

I don’t think heniya did well in describing Hamas as the “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.” because its a known fact and will neither confuse or frieghten Israel.

Haniya statement may have pleased his guide but shall backfire and and will hurt the image of Hamas, who staved all the time to pose as an independent Palestinian resisrance movement with an Isalmic face, not as a MB’s tool. It will justify and give credibilety to Mubarak’s accusations and actions, that Hamas is not threatening Egypt’s security, and not interfering in Egypt’s matters.

In a speech marking the first anniversary of Operation Cast Lead, Ismail Haniyyeh turned to “the air force hero“ (Mubarak was the commander of the Egyptian Air Force during the Yom Kippur War) and told him, “We are not threatening Egypt’s security, we are not interfering in Egypt’s matters, and we were forced to use the tunnels as an exceptional default option due to the situation we were pushed into.”  

Hamas deprecates Egyptian media’s systematic smearing campaign

Moreover, if i am in Mr. Haniya’s shoes,

• I should have remmebered that, on ground and during the hard time, the real supporters of Hamas were Iranian brothers and Syrian SECULAR brothers.
• I should consider, MB are not Egypt, and if MB’s support is Guranteed, what’s the wisdom in losing the support of MB’s rivals, Copts, lefts, nationalist, and librals?
• I should consider that such statement, though its true, shall cast real doubts on Hamas claining that Palestinian reconciliation is a stratigic aim.
• I should have considered, the impact of such statement on Hamas relations with Syria, unless Hamas is so sure that their Syrian brothers are comming, and that their brothers in Egypt, Tunis and Libya shall stay in power until judgement day.
• I should consider its impact on people supporting Hamas as an armed resintance movement devoted for liberation of all palestine.

Haniyeh in Egypt: Hamas Presence with Brotherhood Threatens Israel

Head of Hamas in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh discussed Mideast politics with the Leader of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, which is emerging as the biggest winner in the first parliamentary elections after Mubarak’s ouster.

Haniyeh is on a first trip to Egypt outside the blockaded strip since Hamas came to power in 2007.

“The Brotherhood centre has always embraced issues of liberation, foremost the Palestinian issue,” Mohammed Badie, brotherhood leader, said on Monday after meeting the Hamas leader at the group’s newly inaugurated headquarters in a Cairo suburb, according to Egypt’s state news agency MENA.

He added that Hamas has served as a role model to the Brotherhood in its reconciliation with the Fatah movement and in closing the recent prisoner swap deal with the Israeli enemy.

Hamas presence with brotherhood threatens Israel

Haniyeh described Hamas as the “jihadi movement of the Brotherhood with a Palestinian face.” He said his visit to the Brotherhood center would confuse and frighten ‘Israel’.

Haniyeh said during his visit to the Arab League that reconciliation with Fatah is a “strategic” matter that should not be hindered by American and Israeli objections. Israel has said the closer Fatah gets to Hamas, the further it moves from a so-called failed “peace deal”.

Mashaal: The internal division is a burden on all Palestinian factions

[ 27/12/2011 – 11:07 AM ]

DOHA, (PIC)– Head of Hamas’s political bureau Khaled Mashaal said the inter-Palestinian division has become a heavy burden on everyone and there is real need for the national reconciliation.

In a political TV show on Al-Jazeera channel on Monday, Mashaal stated that some regional circumstances like the persistent US bias in favor of Israel and the preoccupation of Arabs with their uprisings and political changes prompted the Palestinian parties to necessarily rearrange their internal situation and move to end the national rift.

He noted that a kind of harmony and understanding started to emerge between him and de facto president Mahmoud Abbas when they met currently and last month and discussed many issues related to the national reconciliation.

Stating his opinion on the Arab spring, Mashaal said the great Arab awakening is certainly a gain for All Arab nations especially the Palestinians.

With regard to the popular resistance, Mashaal stated that this kind of resistance was approved unanimously by all Hamas leaders, but he said his Movement keeps all options open.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"It’s a Trick, We Always Use It." (calling people "anti-Semitic")

Saturday, December 31, 2011 at 12:16AM Gilad Atzmon

An old video of an old trick…

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and other Zionist ‘tricks’ Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

1948 IDF veteran soldier tells the truth about the Nakba (must watch)

Friday, December 30, 2011 at 11:35PM Gilad Atzmon

 

Ethnic cleansing, battle, massacre and more..

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Zionist Barbarism Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Operation Free Palestine – #OpFreePalestine

Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 8:27PM Gilad Atzmon

 

Gilad Atzmon: I do not know much about this group but they seem to be determined…

“Anonymous, TeaMp0isoN and many other hacktivists from around the world have united, we may not be able to stop the Zionist regime, but the least we can do is raise awareness and educate people by defacing Zionist websites, Operation Free Palestine is about educating the blind and terrorising the terrorist, the tables have turned, the time has come”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"Neither the Arab League nor Western governments care about the Syrian people…"

“Via FLC

“… It called – nay pleaded – for Arab League intervention while ruling out Western intervention (under the title of UN or “international community” and various other code words that are used to disguise – in theory – the US/Israeli role). The SNC then changed its tune again and started calling for a no-fly zone (as if the war on Iraq and on Libya did not start with “no-fly zone” rhetoric). The council then accepted international intervention but only “to protect civilians.” The folks of the Syrian National Council assumed that we forgot the NATO bombing campaign in Libya (which included the deployment of ground troops and special forces) was undertaken under the UN pretext of “protecting civilians.” So NATO killed Libyan civilians (as the New York Times revealed in an extensive report) in order to protect Libyan civilians. Such are the rules of the US-dominated UN.

Sheikh Adnan al-Arur (the fanatical cleric based in Saudi Arabia who holds sway among at least some of the protesters and whose name is often chanted in some protests went further. He threatened this week to cut off the tongues of any member of the SNC who does not call for international intervention in Syria. No one from the SNC protested the words of Arur. The alliance between Ikhwan and their liberal lackeys is too delicate to bother with reactions to the likes of Arur.

But the goal of calling for international intervention is now clear: on the very first day of the Arab League Monitor’s mission, the SNC declared its failure to undertake its mission. Western media (which now are reduced to publishing the pronouncements and claims of the pro-Saudi Syrian Monitor for Human Rights) quickly echoed the opinion of the council.

The criticisms of the SNC are correct but come very late in the game. They should have been raised earlier and those criticisms apply to (potential) Western intervention in Syria. Neither the Arab League nor Western governments care about the Syrian people. The notion that the league of Arab tyrants are in a position to monitor human rights violations in a sister country is ridiculous. To make the exercise of the Arab League mission more absurd, Qatar selected an intelligence commander from the tyrannical regime of Omar al-Bashir of Sudan to head the Arab League monitoring mission. … Qatar is implementing a plan on behalf of the US/Israel, but the public has not been informed of the exact features of the plan….. Clearly, Saudi/Turkish/US/Qatari/Jordanian/Israeli/Hariri intervention in Syrian affairs is only increasing the suffering of the Syrian people but the primary responsibility of the suffering should be blamed on the Syrian regime, which is obligated to protect its population….

The mission of the Arab League is not serious. It has so far failed to stop the killing and will not stop the killing. It is merely a phase to camouflage another more dangerous phase that Western governments and their clients in the region have in store for Syria.”

Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 3:13 PM
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Did US give South American leaders cancer?

Posted on December 30, 2011 |

Remember the good-old Jewish scientist Dr. Phlip Zack who was behind the Anthrax conspiracy to demonize Muslims. Yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he suspects US has developed a cancer producing deadly virus. Addressing a rally Yesterday, he said that odds were too high to believe that four of Latin American Presidents to be striken with cancer in same span of time – to be a natural phenomenon. Chavez came to that conclusion after Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez joined the list of presidents diagnosed with the disease.

“It would not be strange if they had developed the technology to induce cancer and nobody knew about it until now … I don’t know. I’m just reflecting,” he said in a televised speech to troops at a military base. Watch a video below.
Hugo Chavez underwent surgery in June to remove a tumor from his pelvis. The other Latin Presidents who are diagnosed with cancer include Fernandez, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff – plus former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have all been diagnosed recently with cancer. They’re all anti-American imperialism and friendly toward Islamic Iran and Palestinians.
Chavez said he was warned by Fidel Castro of such US deadly virus. “Fidel always told me, Chavez take care. These people have developed technology. You are very careless. Take care what you eat, what they give you to eat – a little needle and they inject you with I don’t know what,” he said.
“We must take good care of Evo Morales (President of Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador),” he added
Chavez also slammed Washington and its western poodles for calling the recent Russian elections ‘Fraud’.
Barack Obama in a recent interview with Venezuelan paper El Universal showed his anger at Venezuela’s friendly relations with Islamic Iran and Cuba.
“The United States does not pretend to dictate its foreign affairs. I would argue, however, that the Venezuelan government’s ties to Iran and Cuba have not served the interests of Venezuela or the Venezuelan people. With regard to Iran, the international community’s concerns are well known. Ultimately, it is up to the Venezuelan people to determine what they gain from a relationship with a country that violates universal human rights and is isolated from much of the world. The Iranian government has consistently supported international terrorism that has killed innocent men, women and children around the world – including in the Americas. It has brutally suppressed the Iranian people simply for demanding their universal rights. And Tehran continues to pursue a nuclear program that threatens the security of the Middle East. Here in the Americas, we take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously and we will continue to monitor them closely,” said Obama.
Yep, Obongo, it was Iran which invaded Libya with the help of CIA-Mossad sponsored Al-Qaeda and now is using it against Bashar al-Assad in Syria!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Genocide and International Law

Nahida- exiled Palestinian

Strangling Life is GENOCIDE

Ali’s tale is that of many Palestinians, a life-long struggle under Israeli occupation; their “crime” is attempting to sell THEIR produce abroad, and having the “chutzpa” to water their crops with water belonging to THEM

More than six decades of this, when will the world stand up and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH

====================================

The Genocide Convention

Article 2 of the United Nations issued Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
1. Killing members of the group; [Israel …guilty]

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [Israel …guilty]
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; [Israel …guilty]
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [Israel …guilty]
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Article 4 states:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

***********

The Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed, and undergoing GENOCIDE since over six decades.

Please raise the issues with those around you, and complain to:

UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide
http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/contactform.asp?address=1
The International Criminal Court
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Telephone: +41 22 917 9220
Email: InfoDesk@ohchr.org
The US Department of State
http://contact-us.state.gov/app/ask

***********

Nuremberg Principles,

Principle VI. states,
“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”

There should be no impunity for war criminals.

***********

The Sanhedrin principles:

• Wars of aggression . . . NO PROBLEM
  

Mishneh Torah, Chapter 5, Halacha 1

“A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them.

Afterwards, he may wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation.“

• Extermination . . . NO PROBLEM

Mishneh Torah, Chapter 1, Halacha 2:


“Amalek’s seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple”

THE LAWS OF KINGS AND THEIR WARS

6) The obligation to destroy the seven nations living in the Land of Canaan;
7) The prohibition against allowing any one of them to remain alive;
8) The obligation to destroy the descendents of Amalek;
9) The obligation to remember what Amalek did;

• Subjugation and Enslavement . . . NO PROBLEM

Mishneh Torah, Chapter 6, Halacha 1

If the enemy accepts the offer of peace and commits itself to the fulfillment of the seven mitzvot that were commanded to Noah’s descendents, none of them should be killed. Rather, they should be subjugated as ibid.:11 states: ‘They shall be your subjects and serve you.’
If they agree to tribute, but do not accept subjugation or if they accept subjugation, but do not agree to tribute, their offer should not be heeded. They must accept both.
The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble. They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever.

***********

• Christmas gift of 2011 to Christians inciting “Love” of Muslims

• That type of “love” of course, the kabbalistic type

• This was their Christmas gift last year, 2010

• More seasonal humour, Jewish-Israeli style, here is a taster

• Hasidi David Yerushalmi, The Man Behind the Anti-Sharia Movement

• This is the end of year chart of salaries of US Jewish Communal leaders
  

• From survive to thrive
  

• What effect does the racist teaching have on the larger Jewish communities?

• How much can such teaching influence the attitude, thoughts and behaviour of people?

Operation Cast Lead and a 2012 Deja Vu

Eileen Fleming

Published 12/30/2011 – 9:06 a.m. CST       

                                     
Exactly three years after Operation Cast Lead, Israel is threatening another invasion on Gaza while Hamas leaders order a halt to all attacks on Israel.

This year’s week between Christmas and New Years reaped at least three Palestinians killed by Israeli air strikes on Gaza and several rockets fired from Gaza into Israel without reports of damage.

Israeli military chief Benny Gantz said a new offensive would be “Swift and painful. Sooner or later, there will be no escape from conducting a significant operation.” [1]

An Israeli army commander in the Gaza Division said, “We are preparing and in fact are ready for another campaign…to renew our deterrence, if we are called on to restore full quiet to the communities [in the south].” [Ibid]

Haaretz reported that the Israeli plan calls for the next Gaza operation to be shorter then Operation Cast Leads three-week onslaught and will employ even greater firepower.

Haaretz also reported that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal ordered the movement’s military wing to cease its operations against Israel and quoted unidentified sources from Fatah who said the instructions were issued as part of the reconciliation talks between the two factions in Cairo. The Cairo meet-up managed to focus the two groups on the people powered popular struggle against the Israeli occupation in the spirit of the pro-democracy demonstrations that spontaneously erupted in the Arab world this past year.

A Little History:

On April 3, 2009 the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council commissioned a fact-finding mission “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

The Council appointed the Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone, a South African Constitutional Court judge and the former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Justice Goldstone issued the 575-page report on September 29, 2009 and the Goldstone Report accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes perpetuated during the 22 days of assault on Gaza which began two days after last Christmas day, when the Israeli military launched Operation Cast Lead; a full-scale attack on Gaza that killed 13 Israelis and 1,400 Palestinians.

Over 5,000 Palestinians were injured, 400,000 were left without running water, 4,000 homes were destroyed, rendering tens of thousands who are still homeless because of Israel’s targeted attacks upon them, their schools, hospitals, streets, water wells, sewage system, farms, police stations and UN buildings.

US-supplied weapons enabled the 22 days of Israel’s attack on the people of Gaza and we the people of the US who pay taxes provide over $3 billion annually to Israel although Israel has consistently misused U.S. weapons in violation of America’s Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts.

America is the worlds largest arms supplier to Israel and under a Bush negotiated deal with Israel, we the people who pay taxes in America will also provide another $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

During the 22 days of Israeli assault on Gaza, “Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault was decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation!) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza.” [2]

In a 71-page report released March 25, 2009, by Human Rights Watch, Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes.

“Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza,” provides eye witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza.

“Human Rights Watch researchers found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended in January.

“Militaries officially use white phosphorus to obscure their operations on the ground by creating thick smoke. It has also been used as an incendiary weapon, though such use constitutes a war crime.

“In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said Fred Abrahams, senior emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch and co-author of the report. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.” [Ibid]

In November 2006, Father Manuel, the parish priest at the Latin Church and school in Gaza warned the world:

“Gaza cannot sleep! The people are suffering unbelievably. They are hungry, thirsty, have no electricity or clean water. They are suffering constant bombardments and sonic booms from low flying aircraft. They need food: bread and water. Children and babies are hungry…people have no money to buy food. The price of food has doubled and tripled due to the situation. We cannot drink water from the ground here as it is salty and not hygienic. People must buy water to drink. They have no income, no opportunities to get food and water from outside and no opportunities to secure money inside of Gaza. They have no hope.

“Without electricity children are afraid. No light at night. No oil or candles…Thirsty children are crying, afraid and desperate…Many children have been violently thrown from their beds at night from the sonic booms. Many arms and legs have been broken. These planes fly low over Gaza and then reach the speed of sound. This shakes the ground and creates shock waves like an earthquake that causes people to be thrown from their bed. I, myself weigh 120 kilos and was almost thrown from my bed due to the shock wave produced by a low flying jet that made a sonic boom.

“Gaza cannot sleep…the cries of hungry children, the sullen faces of broken men and women who are just sitting in their hungry emptiness with no light, no hope, no love. These actions are War Crimes!”

During Operation Cast Lead, the UN Security Council, Amnesty International, International Red Cross and global voices of protest rose up and demanded a ceasefire but both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed resolutions to support a continuation of Israel’s so called “self defense.”

This Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012 is on the Record saying NO to another assault on Gaza and an End to the Occupation of Palestine in 2012!

1.Israeli army plans new invasion of Gaza

2. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-us-arms-used-for-war-crimes-in-gaza/

Eileen Fleming,Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012

Founder of WeAreWideAwake.org
Staff Member of Salem-news.com, A Feature Correspondent for Arabisto.com and Columnist for Veteranstoday.com

Producer “30 Minutes with Vanunu” and “13 Minutes with Vanunu”

Author of “Keep Hope Alive” and “Memoirs of a Nice Irish American ‘Girl’s’ Life in Occupied Territory” and BEYOND NUCLEAR:Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

http://www.youtube.com/user/eileenfleming

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

GLOBAL MARCH TO JERUSALEM

GLOBAL MARCH TO JERUSALEM – 30TH MARCH 2012

Spread the word… and if you can take part in this GREAT event

• The demographic battle for Jerusalem

"O people and political forces" Wake up American Administration is the one occupying your Palestine, violating your Al-Quds, threatening your Holy mosque…

“O people and political forces, don’t be deluded by the American Administration as it is the one occupying your Palestine, violating your Al-Quds, threatening your Holy mosque, and it is the one responsible, even before the enemy, of holding thousands of Palestinians in prisons, and of displacing, torturing, and besieging them in Gaza and the West Bank.

This is America, so we should remember on the 10th of Muharram, not to err the enemy and not to err the friend. Only that with a blind insight errs the enemy and the friend.


The enemy is this American Administration and its “tool” not “ally” in the region, Israel, which it uses as a spearhead to humiliate and oppress the Arabs and the Muslims, and to impose the American desire on the Arabs and the Muslims in order to guarantee a market for its arms and steal their oil, and this should stay in mind.” Sayyed Hassan Nasralla

After six decades,  on 10th Moharam, Sayyed Hassan  addressed the short-sighted political powers riding the arab awakening and linning up to please the American Imperial adminstration.  He remineded Arabs and Muslems,and political Forces (mainly Islamists) that the Zionist entity is nothing but an imperial project designed and excuted to serve as a buffer against any kind of Arab unity

History is repeating itself , below is Part 1 of the upcoming book ‘Origins of Imperial Israel’  by Andrew Gavin Marshall,

In this part the author tells how and why “the zionist entity was created.

In the early 20^th century the Imperial strategists were increasingly frightened with the growing “Arab awakening”, the Zionists knew how to convince London of the value of a British-controlled Jewish buffer-state in Palestine for the protection of the Suez Canal and imperial communications to India.” At the 1907 Colonial Conference British Prime Minister Campbell Bannerma stated:

“Empires are formed, enlarged and stabilized so very little before they disintegrate and disappear… Do we have the means of preventing this fall, this crumbling, is it possible for us to put a halt to the destiny of European colonialism which at present is at a critical stage?”

The answer Bannerman received from the commission he established to look at the question, was that it was necessary

[to fight] against the Union of popular masses in the Arab region or the establishment of any intellectual, spiritual or historical link between them… [and thus recommended] all practical ways of dividing them as such as possible should be taught, and one way of doing so would be to construct a powerful, human ‘barrier’ foreign to the region – a bridge linking Asia and Africa – thus creating in this part of the world, and near the Suez Canal, a force friendly towards imperialism and hostile towards the inhabitants of the region.[4]

The report submitted to Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman recommended the following actions:

1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.[5] 

Almost the same is happening today. Surprised by the “Arab awakening”, the Imperial strategists are facing the same question, how to prevent the fall, and crumbling of the American Empire and the rest of its ME puppets, how to save its Zionist tool. 

President Eisenhower in the Oval Office with Muslim delegates, 1953, after July revolution. Said Ramadan, the Son in-law of Hassan Al-Bana the founder of Brotherhood, is second from the right. في أقصي اليمين سعيد رمضان في ضيافة أيزنهاور داخل البيت الأبيض

The only option they have is ride the so-called “Arab spring” to ensure that the new regimes would be under the authority of the imperialist countries, and use the golden imperialist rule: divide to conquer, to fight any kind of unity whether national, intellectual, religious or historical, divide the region’s inhabitants, and use the same tool used half cencury ago to destroy the Arab Nationalist movement and turn the so-called “Arab spring” into an opportunity to destroy Arabism again and divide Syria being the Last Arab fort and the corner stone of the axis of arabic and Islamic resistance.

Hopefully, the global landscape and power balance has changed, and the conspiracy will fail. Thanks to the resistance in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, and to the great Syrian people bleeding to lit the resistance candle.

The Origins of Imperial Israel: A Buffer Against Arab Nationalism

The Intel Hub

By Andrew Gavin Marshall

December 29, 2011

NOTE: The following is Part 1 of a 2-part sample on the ‘Origins of Imperial Israel’ from a chapter on the American Empire in an upcoming book by Andrew Gavin Marshall, supported through The People’s Book Project. Please support the Project to help the book come into being.

Part 1

Israel emerged in the post-War period due to a great many complex domestic and international political reasons: to provide a place to direct the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, to allow the British to formally end the Mandate over Palestine which they held as their empire was crumbling, and to serve as a ‘buffer state’ for Western nations in the Middle East, a region of the world which was identified as a necessity to control in order to secure its vast oil resources and strategic position in relation to the East.

America in the post-War period, however, was deeply divided in its strategic-imperial circles on whether or not to support the State of Israel, which did not become a stated and strong policy until the later 1950s.

The State Department, in particular, full of individuals who were familiar with the politics and changes in the Middle East, were worried that support for Israel would threaten America’s interests in the region by antagonizing the Arab states and ruining America’s good reputation following the War.

Others, however, won out in the end, largely by arguing that such a state in the Middle East would be a significant support to American interests, acting as a powerful ‘buffer’ against the spread of Arab nationalism and Pan-Arabism. In its first years, Israel walked a balance of receiving support from both the United States and the Soviet Union. With the rise of Nasser in Egypt, however, America saw its imperial interest in supporting Israel.

Nasser Declaring nationalizing Suez canal

The notion of a “Jewish State” as a ‘buffer’ for the West had been a long-held desire among imperial strategists and was even a popular means of promoting the Zionist cause from leaders within the Zionist movement.

In the early 20^th century, the Zionists, keenly aware of the British and French imperial rivalry in the Arab East, “knew how to convince London of the value of a British-controlled Jewish buffer-state in Palestine for the protection of the Suez Canal and imperial communications to India.”[1]
In 1907, the London Colonial Conference emphasized the increasing interest in establishing a ‘buffer state’ for British imperial interests in the Near East. The Conference agreed “to establish a strong but alien human bridge in the land that links Europe with the Old World which would constitute, near the Suez Canal, a hostile power to the people of the area and a friendly power to Europe and its interests.”[2]

British imperial strategists were increasingly alarmed with the growing “Arab Awakening” emerging in the context of Arab indigenous nationalism. These fears of a growing and developing Arab nationalism informed British Prime Minister Campbell Bannerman when he stated at the 1907 Colonial Conference:

Empires are formed, enlarged and stabilized so very little before they disintegrate and disappear… Do we have the means of preventing this fall, this crumbling, is it possible for us to put a halt to the destiny of European colonialism which at present is at a critical stage?[3]

The answer Bannerman received from the commission he established to look at the question, was that it was necessary

[to fight] against the Union of popular masses in the Arab region or the establishment of any intellectual, spiritual or historical link between them… [and thus recommended] all practical ways of dividing them as such as possible should be taught, and one way of doing so would be to construct a powerful, human ‘barrier’ foreign to the region – a bridge linking Asia and Africa – thus creating in this part of the world, and near the Suez Canal, a force friendly towards imperialism and hostile towards the inhabitants of the region.[4]

The report submitted to Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman recommended the following actions:

1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.
2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.[5]

In 1917, the British issued the Balfour Declaration as a statement of support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (though it also stipulated that it was not to disadvantage or remove the Arab inhabitants of the land).

In 1922, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration, though the State Department subsequently issued a notice stating that the resolution “did not constitute a commitment to any foreign obligation or entanglement.”[6] In 1936, the Arabs resorted to armed resistance within Palestine, and the British responded by crushing them.

During World War II, under the British Mandate of Palestine, the Zionists were “forming, training and arming their forces under the ‘British Shield’.” At the same time, during the War, Zionists increasingly focused on promoting their cause in America, taking note of the declining influence of Britain and rising dominance of America.[7]

It was during the 1940s that America increasingly recognized the importance of the oil resources of the Middle East to the developing plans and concepts of American global hegemony following the War. Thus, American approaches to the region were “developed within an anti-Arab nationalist and hegemonic framework designed to protect American access to oil.”[8]

The Zionist leadership recognized this vital interest to the United States, and thus began to promote the Zionist cause along similar lines of securing American access to Middle Eastern oil. In the 1940s, American oil companies were largely against the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, which they viewed as inimical to their interests in the region.

In 1933, the Saudi King had granted the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil exclusive rights over Saudi oil prospecting and extraction in the east of the country. The eventual formation of the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco) as a joint venture between the House of Saud and Standard Oil (the House of Rockefeller) took place in 1943.

The oil companies stressed the importance of American security over and for Saudi Arabia. Zionist leaders in America held several meetings with oil company executives in an attempt to secure their support for a Jewish state, but to little avail. In fact, an oil industry publication, Oil Weekly, editorialized in 1946 that, “a Jewish state established with American support might endanger the ability of the US to assure a steady supply of oil from the Middle East.”[9]

In 1946, an agreement was established between the American government and Aramco to build a pipeline between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean coast, though this ran into problems with the U.S. Congress blocking such efforts, leading Aramco to decide to build the pipeline separate from U.S. involvement.

As it was deduced, “the best place to offload the oil would be Haifa bay in the north of Palestine, and an agreement to this effect was signed with Sir Allan Jordan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner for Palestine.”

Zionists, simultaneously, sought to advocate the pipeline project as necessarily transporting through areas of Jewish settlement in Palestine, and thus, the promotion of a Jewish state along the pipeline route “would introduce a stable element loyal to the United States into the project,” and reduce security costs for America.[10]

A confidential memo produced for the Jewish Agency in Palestine in 1947, in close proximity of the United Nations partition of Palestine, was titled, “The Jewish National Home and American Oil in the Middle East,” which stated that the purpose of the Zionist movement:

was to establish in Palestine a democratic society whose citizens would enjoy the living standard of advanced western states, in an economy based on modern agriculture, industry and scientific development.[11]

In 1945, a profoundly prophetic article was written by an American philosopher, William Ernest Hocking, in the journal The Muslim World, in which he explained the emerging conflict of “Arab Nationalism and Political Zionism.”

Hocking stressed that with the increased pressures in the U.S. Congress to support the Zionist cause, America may be rushing into a situation which it does not fully understand, stressing the need to weigh humanitarian concerns for the remaining European Jews following the Holocaust with the political objectives that exist in the complex circumstances of the Middle East, “and consider to what extent the proposed means will serve the humanitarian end, and to what extent it will serve other ends.” While acknowledging that “a place or places of refuge for Jews driven from Europe must be provided,” the question of Palestine needs a wider context.[12]

In examining the economic conditions upon which the Jews would find themselves thrust into within Palestine, Hocking explained that for a country roughly the size of New Hampshire, only half of the land is cultivable, and yet, planners desired “a program of intensive industrialization” to be undertaken.
Hocking questioned the viability of imposing a “forced industrialization” on a location with little rainfall, requiring imported fuel, and few water resources as “an appropriate center for an industry based on the resources of the wider Near East.”

Further, Hocking noted that while the notion of Palestine as the natural home for the Jewish people is based upon religious principles, “a Palestine heavily industrialized is a Palestine defaced from this point of view for Jew, Moslem, and Christian alike,”[13] as industrialization would be an affront to the spiritual significance of the location for all peoples.

Asserting that the reasons for the support of a Jewish state are not humanitarian, but political, Hocking examined how the Jewish National Fund in Palestine had increasingly deprived land from Arab labourers, as land granted to Jewish settlers was, by law, only allowed to be cultivated by Jewish labourers, and thus, it “cease[d] automatically to be a place of possible residence or work to those [Arab] laborers.” As Sir John Simpson reported on that matter:

It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either nor or at any time in the future… He is deprived forever from employment on that land… Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable.[14]

Thus, wrote Hocking, “the Arab masses as a whole have felt their relative position deteriorating,” and the true question, then, was “of the attitude of the slowly advancing power,” that is, the Zionist power.
“Its strength, intelligence, cash backing, splendid equipment, render it in Arab eyes the more formidable” because of this exclusionary and discriminatory attitude: “Hence they have come to face the future with concern.” As to the question, increasingly discussed within the West, as to why the Arabs and Muslims cannot simply grant this small piece of land to the Jews and go elsewhere, Hocking explained:

Those who are promoting this view do not explain what they propose to do with the extensive religious establishments of Islam in Palestine, including the great mosques and various schools. These establishments are not, like those of the Christians, primarily of a memorial nature: they are important educational and devotional centers for a living religion, within the region of its central activity. To maintain such establishments a considerable local population is required and assumed: to deport the million Arabs to Iraq would be another way of strangling these institutions.[15]

Further, in terms of those arguments which favour deportation due to the “immense domain” of the Arab people, Hocking explained that the domain, in fact, is mostly desert, with the “cultivable portions” being strewn around the rim, “whose northern arch is known as the Fertile Crescent.” Thus, the advantages of Palestine for Jew and Arab alike come from its position on the Mediterranean coast:

Commercially it belongs to the European Area. Palestine stands in an important strategic position between Europe and the budding industrial development, not so much of Palestine itself as of the lands behind Palestine, Arab lands which are entering on a new economic era… If the future economic importance of Palestine is to be, as I surmise, commercial rather than agricultural or industrial, its prosperity will depend to a large extent on its relations to this growingly important hinterland. And vice versa, the prosperity of that hinterland might depend to a considerable extent on its relations with the financial powers, the warehouses, and the commercial lanes centering in Palestine and vicinity.[16]

This emphasizes the notion of a Jewish state in Palestine as a buffer between the West and the Near East, between the imperial powers and the growing spread of Arab nationalism.

Thus for the Arabs, leaving Palestine to exclusive Zionist control would “amount to acceptance of a barrier between them and Europe at the outset of their newer national career.” Yet, even with all of the Palestinian and Arab desires for, like the Jews themselves, a “new beginning,” they are increasingly portrayed as “nomadic,” “backward,” and “half-civilized,” ignoring the fact that “it was the Arabs who for six hundred years preserved the classical culture of Greece for a dark Europe,” or that they are still emanating out of the oppressive domination of four centuries of Turkish rule.

Thus, what was being asked of the Arabs was to accept their entire potential for progress as being entirely dependent upon the political state of Zionism, which had thus far shown enormous animosity and disregard for the Arab peoples within Palestine. Hocking concluded by writing:

I believe the political Zionists at this moment as distinct from the cultural Zionists who have built the noble Hebrew University and who know what a National Home must be, – I believe the political Zionists to be the chief enemies of the cause of Zionism as well as of the Jewish interests in the world of tomorrow. What can they hope to gain by extricating their brethren from the prejudices of Europe only to build a community in Palestine which has to be protected by Western force (and if we intervene, then by American force also) because it is cradled in an environment of distrust and fear cultivated by their own methods of realizing a misplaced nationalistic ambition?[17]

In the Truman administration in 1947, as the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, the CIA released an assessment of the situation in one of its first major reports, which predicted that if a Jewish state were created, “war would break out between Arabs and Jews, and the Arabs would win.”

While the former turned out to be true, the latter, of course, did not. However, without stating it outright, the CIA report essentially led to the assumed conclusion that, as Thomas Lippman wrote, “partition would be detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States and would ultimately augment rather than alleviate the suffering of the world’s Jews.”[18]

The United States, in 1947, had reached a point where a decision finally had to be made on the issue of a Jewish state in Palestine. Within Palestine itself, Jewish gangs (such as the Hagana, the Irgun, and the Stern Gang), “were waging a guerrilla war against the British,” and thus, the issue became central to the United Nations and global politics.

In the White House, some of Truman’s closest advisers supported the Zionists, though his national security and foreign policy advisers, especially within the State Department, had opposed partition and the formation of a Jewish state, arguing that, “such an outcome would alienate the Arabs, jeopardize American strategic and economic interests throughout the Middle East, open the door to the political penetration of the Arab world by the Soviet Union, and possibly lead to the loss of the American oil bonanza in Saudi Arabia.”

As the State Department chief for the Bureau of Near East and Africa Affairs, Loy Henderson, wrote to Acting Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1945:

In case the government of the United States should continue to press for the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine at this time, on humanitarian or other grounds, much of the work done in the Near East in recent years in building up respect for, and confidence in, the United States and in increasing American prestige, will be undone… The mere resentment of the Near Eastern peoples towards the United States on the ground that we have decided to disregard the Arab viewpoint with regard to Palestine would be unpleasant… It would be much more serious, however, if we should give them ground to believe that we do not live up to our firm promises already given.[19]

Henderson here was referring to the promise from the United States to engage in “full consultation” with the Arab states, primarily Saudi Arabia, in the lead up to any potential decision the United States would make on the issue.

As the CIA report emphasized, partition would “solve nothing and would only intensify support for Zionist expansion,” and the report further stressed the importance of regional implications for the Arab states:

Arab nationalism is the strongest political force in the Arab world. It grew up in secret societies under Ottoman rule, came out into the open in the Arab Revolt of World War I, and has been the major factor in the independence movement in the Arab world ever since. Because of the strong ties between the various Arab states, political developments in any one country are of vital concern to Arabs everywhere. Palestinian independence is, consequently, the major aim not only of the Palestinian Arabs but also of Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Transjordanians, Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. It would be political suicide for any Arab government to ignore this situation.[20]

Tellingly, the report also predicted that the Arabs “fear that the Jews will consolidate their position through unlimited immigration and that they will attempt to expand until they become a threat to the newly won independence of each of the other Arab countries.”

The CIA felt that this perception was, indeed, correct: “In the long run no Zionists in Palestine will be satisfied with the territorial arrangements of the partition settlement.” The CIA felt that such a partition would inevitably create “instability and hostility” in the Arab world.[21]

In the immediate aftermath of partition, the CIA report predicted that “war would break out” between the Arabs and the Jews, that the Jewish populations in other Arab nations would be in danger, “American oil interests would be damaged,” and that the Zionists would “continue to wage a strong propaganda campaign in the US and Europe,” and that, “whatever the actual circumstances may be,” the Arabs would, said the report, “be accused of aggression,” which would “doubtless continue to influence the US public, and the US government [could], consequently, be forced into actions which [would] further complicate and embitter its relations with the entire Arab world,” and finally, the Soviet Union could make considerable political gains in the region as a result. Further, the report stated that eventually the Arabs could turn to “religious fanaticism,” which could become “an extremely powerful force.”[22]

Where the report was wrong, however, was in predicting that the Jewish state would fail in a war with the Arab states, having mistakenly underestimated the organizational capabilities of the military Zionist groups in Palestine, as well as over-estimating the cooperation of the Arab states, which actually had many suspicions of one another.

As early as 1943, a special envoy dispatched by President Roosevelt to the Arab leaders to discuss Palestine, Colonel Harold Hoskins, stated that, “only by military force can a Zionist state be imposed upon the Arabs.”[23] This logic, of course, was not lost upon the Zionist military and strategic leaders, who had immense national ambitions.

These ambitions, however, were not merely political, but racial. In a disturbing parallel with the Nazi German state from which many European Jews would later escape to the Holy Land, several Zionist leaders were themselves drawing up plans for a program of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Palestine.

As Israeli historian Ilan Pappé documented, Plan D, as it was called, “was the fourth and final version of vaguer plans outlining the fate that was in store for the native population of Palestine.” The first three plans involved obscure and vague means for dealing with the Palestinians, whereas the fourth plan – the final plan – was a detailed military document written and plotted out by less than a dozen Zionist leaders, led by David Ben-Gurion.

Plan D was emphatic and adamantine in its purpose: to remove the Palestinian population from the land. Ethnic cleansing, as defined by the U.S. State Department, is “the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.”[24] By definition, then, the Zionist leaders were preparing a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is an independent researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada, writing on a number of social, political, economic, and historical issues. He is also Project Manager of The People’s Book Project.
Please help spread the word about the Project and the book by joining the Facebook Page.

See some other samples from the book, and if you like what you see, please donate:
– The American Empire in Latin America: “Democracy” is a Threat to “National Security”
– The Council on Foreign Relations and the “Grand Area” of the American Empire
– The Rockefeller World: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission
– Education or Domination? The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations Developing Knowledge for the Developing World
– An Education for Empire: The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations in the Construction of Knowledge

Notes

[1] Ibrahim Ibrahimi, “Review: The Making of the Jewish State,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1971), page 122.
[2] Adnan Amad, “History and Fiction in Boasson’s Comments on Galtung,” Journal of Peace Research (Vol. 10, No ½, 1973), page 151.
[3] Anwarul Haque Haqqi, West Asia Since Camp David (Mittal Publications, 1988), pages 104-105.
[4] Ibid, page 105.
[5] Robert I. Rotberg, Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix (Indiana University Press, 2006), page 220.
[6] Michael C. Hudson, “To Play the Hegemon: Fifty Years of US Policy Toward the Middle East,” Middle East Journal (Vol. 50, No. 3, Summer 1996), pages 333-334.
[7] Ibrahim Ibrahimi, “Review: The Making of the Jewish State,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 1, No. 1, Autumn 1971), pages 124-125.
[8] Ibrahim I. Ibrahim, “The American-Israeli Alliance: Raison d’etat Revisited,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 15, No. 3, Spring 1986), page 23.
[9] Zohar Segev, “Struggle for Cooperation and Integration: American Zionists and Arab Oil, 1940s,” Middle Eastern Studies (Vol. 42, No. 5, September 2006), pages 820-821.
[10] Ibid, pages 822-823.
[11] Ibid, pages 824-825.
[12] William Ernest Hocking, “Arab Nationalism and Political Zionism,” The Muslim World (Vol. 35, No. 3, July 1945), page 216.
[13] Ibid, pages 216-217.
[14] Ibid, pages 219-220.
[15] Ibid, page 220.
[16] Ibid, pages 220-222.
[17] Ibid, pages 222-223.
[18] Thomas W. Lippman, “The View From 1947: The CIA and the Parititon of Palestine,” Middle East Journal (Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 2007), page 17.
[19] Ibid, pages 18-19.
[20] Ibid, pages 19-21.
[21] Ibid, pages 21-22.
[22] Ibid, pages 22-23.
[23] Ibid, pages 25-26.
[24] Ilan Pappé, “The 1948 Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies (Vol. 36, No. 1, Autumn 2006), pages 6-7.

Sultan Erdugan facing the "Kurds spring"

Several months ago, commenting on an article posted at Syrian Dpress, I wrote: Erdogan, should worry, Turkey has the same Syrian, religious/ethnic political landscape. So, if Syria falls, Turkey could be NEXT. If Syria survive (IT will), Turkey would lose everything build via the Syrian Gate. In Arabic we say, those who have a Glass home should avoid throwing stones on neighbors. It’s not about democracy, it has never been. It’s about dividing the divided, more I guess, Assad would say to his old “brother”: After you Brother Erdogan Expresses Regret, PKK Urges Uprising

Local Editor

I told yee “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed regret Friday for the “unfortunate and distressing” incident, and said that “it had been determined they were smugglers and not separatist rebels”. “Images transmitted by drones showed a group of 40 people in the area, it was impossible to say who they were,” he said, adding that “afterwards it was determined they were smugglers transporting cigarettes and fuel on mules.” Erdogan stated that “no state deliberately bombs its own people,” and pointed out that “the separatist rebels of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) had used the same route and methods to bring weapons into Turkey to mount attacks.” The Turkish Prime Minister further called for critics to await the result of an official inquiry. Members of a pro-Kurdish party protest against the government on Thursday For their parts, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) called the Kurds in Turkey earlier Friday to uprise following the deadly raid that killed 35 people near the Iraq border. “We urge the people of Kurdistan… to react after this massacre and seek a settling of accounts through uprisings,” Bahoz Erdal from the armed wing of the PKK, said in a statement. 35 villagers were killed on Thursday as the Turkish air forces staged a deadly airstrike near the Iraqi border. For its part, Turkish ruling party said the strike could have been a “blunder” that killed civilians and not Kurdish separatists. “According to initial reports, these people were smugglers and not terrorists,” said Huseyin Celik, vice-president of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP). “If it turns out to have been a mistake, a blunder, rest assured that this will not be covered up,” he said, adding that it could have been an “operational accident” by the military. Turkey’s military command said it had launched an air raid on PKK militants after a spy drone spotted a group moving toward its sensitive southeastern border under cover of darkness late Wednesday. “The area where this happened is called Sinat-Haftanin, in northern Iraq, where there is no civilian population, and where the terrorist organisation has bases,” a military statement said, referring to the PKK. But the country’s main pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) said the planes had bombed villagers from Kurdish majority southeastern Turkey who were smuggling sugar and fuel across the border on mules and donkeys. “It’s clearly a massacre of civilians, of whom the oldest is 20,” BDP leader Selahattin Demirtas said in a statement that called on Turkey’s Kurdish population to respond “by democratic means”.

• Turkey: Clashes as police break up Kurd protest air strike on civilians
•  In case you missed it: Is Erdogan worried about Strategic Relationship with Syria? He should

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Khalid Amayereh: All we want from Egypt is to tell Israel, straight in the eyes, our commitment to the Camp David Peace Treaty depends on your behavior toward the Palestinians

Why Mr. Ameyereh??

The answer:

“….The Muslim Brotherhood is not going to be at Hamas’s beck and call…. relations between Islamic movements and countries (Except Syria) are not conducted in this way…Egypt is suffering from immense social and economic problems at the home front, which means that the country can’t devote all or most of its energies to the Palestinian issue… Egypt, and that is very important, should create a real linkage between its own commitment to the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel on the one hand and Israeli behavior toward the Palestinians on the other… Israeli policies and behaviors …..killing of the two-state- solution possibility….. In short, an Islamist-led Egypt would have to tell Israel, straight in the eyes, that there cannot be “business as usual” with the Jewish state (Amayreh said Jewish state, not the zionist entity, not even Israel) if the Palestinians continue to be savaged and brutalized and pushed to the corner…..”

The above quotes are the core of all recent comments written by Amayereh in PIC

His London’s Facebook brother wrote:

“We promised them with every revolution to rejoice their defeat and our next gloat will be soon from free Damascus, God willing, that’s a promise!”

Hamas-Cairo connection must be enforced  [ 28/12/2011 – 12:28 AM ]
 

By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine

Ismael Haniya’s visit to Cairo is undoubtedly a right step, occurring at the right time and going in the right direction.

For years, Haniya and other Palestinian Islamist leaders, many of them elected by their own people in free and fair elections, were treated as personas non-grata by the defunct Egyptian regime of Husni Mubarak.

Not only that. The ex-president said nothing and did nothing as Israel sought to decapitate the Gaza Strip three years ago when the apartheid Zionist regime launched its genocidal blitzkrieg on the virtually-unprotected coastal enclave, killing, maiming and incinerating thousands of men, women and children.

Adding insult to injury and in order to receive a certificate of good conduct from Israel and her guardian-ally, the United States, the Mubarak regime consolidated and tightened the manifestly criminal siege on the Gaza Strip, leaving the 1.6 million Gaza inhabitants to their fate.

Now, all of this has changed thanks to the great Egyptian revolution which ousted Mubark and sent him to jail where he should belong for the rest of his life. Which really gives us the hope that a new chapter of relations between Egypt and the Palestinians will be opened.

The opening of this chapter will be necessary if the Egyptian revolution is to acquire wider Islamist legitimacy and if true democracy is to be allowed to prosper in a country of more than 80 million who have grown up, watching a Hitlerian Israel murder, savage and humiliate their brethren in Palestine.

Haniya held gorgeous meetings with many Egyptian dignitaries as well as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Nabil al-Arabi.

The elected Palestinian prime minister also had a fruitful and cordial meeting with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood who’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) has scored landslide victories in the two stages of the ongoing Egyptian elections.

Hamas is ideologically affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hence, the ascendancy of the Brotherhood to influence and power in Cairo is likely to help the Palestinians get rid of their erstwhile orphan status, which enabled a notoriously Gestapo-minded Israel to gang up on them anytime it wishes, with or without a reason.

I don’t think brother Haniya needs to be elaborative or exhaustive in explaining to the Egyptian brothers the situation in the Gaza Strip and the unrelenting Nazi-like campaign of terror, murder and economic strangulation the Zionist regime and its criminal allies are carrying out against the thoroughly tormented people of Gaza.

The steadfastness of Gazans is more than legendary. It actually transcends reality.

I believe the Egyptian Muslim Brothers are fully aware of the overall situation in Palestine. And they don’t need anyone to explain to them the suffering and dire human conditions facing most Palestinians.

What they need instead is a practical prioritizing strategy to enable them to help the Palestinian people and their just cause more effectively while taking into account objective political realities in Egypt and the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not going to be at Hamas’s beck and call. And I don’t think that Hamas envisages such a possibility. In the final analysis, relations between Islamic movements and countries are not conducted in this way.

Non the less, the ascendancy of the Islamists to power, either partially or fully, is undoubtedly a development of paramount strategic importance that must be fully utilized in order to rectify the scandalously oblique balance vis-à-vis Israel.

It is true that Egypt is suffering from immense social and economic problems at the home front, which means that the country can’t devote all or most of its energies to the Palestinian issue.

However, the new Egypt will have to demonstrate to Israel that a new strategic situation is already taking place in the region, thanks to the Arab Spring, and that Egypt will no longer tolerate the Nazi-like treatment meted out to the Palestinians.

Egypt, and that is very important, should create a real linkage between its own commitment to the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel on the one hand and Israeli behavior toward the Palestinians on the other.

After all, all aspects of Israeli policies and behaviors are squarely incompatible with the stipulations of the hapless peace treaty, including the scandalous settlement expansion, the unmitigated Judaizing of East Jerusalem as well as the effective killing of the two-state- solution possibility.

Apart from this, Egypt is demanded to play the role of “Big Brother” for the Palestinian cause. Indeed, there is a whole lot of issues that can be tackled in this regard ranging from revoking travel restrictions to allowing for unfettered travel from and to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah border terminal.

Egypt should also help the Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, deliver themselves from the humiliating dependence on Israel for their power and fuel consumptions. We saw over the years the cruel and sadistic use of fuel and electricity supplies from Israel to the Gaza Strip whereby Israel resorted on many occasions to cutting off these supplies for political consideration and in order to torment and humiliate the Palestinians.

In short, an Islamist-led Egypt would have to tell Israel, straight in the eyes, that there cannot be “business as usual” with the Jewish state if the Palestinians continue to be savaged and brutalized and pushed to the corner.

Needless to say, one of the immediate priorities in this regard must be the lifting of the 4-year-siege on Gaza. The people of Gaza have suffered too much and for too long as a result of this barbarity.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The Sad, Sad World of Israel’s Big-time Liars

‘A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes’ — attributed to Mark Twain

By Stuart Littlewood

Meet another of Israel’s undesirables, Yuli Edelstein.

He is the regime’s Propaganda Minister (or to be more precise, Minister for Dis-information and Diaspora) and he runs the biggest lie machine in the world.

His task is to make the Israel ‘brand’ smell sweeter. The reason it stinks, of course, is the regime’s putrid morals and murderous conduct, which the lie machine works overtime to try to justify and excuse. It will always fail. You cannot build a decent brand image on lies, obnoxious behaviour and a massive attitude problem.

Jewish Leaders (Chabad) Host Edelstein

Edelstein hit the headlines over Christmas when he told everybody that the Arabs are “a deplorable nation”. He was speaking at a public diplomacy event (incredible as it may seem!) at Yor Yehuda, which I’m told means “light of Juda”.

He said that “as long as the Arab nation continues to be a deplorable nation, which continues investing in infrastructure for terrorism, education to hate, and welfare for the families of shaheeds [martyrs], there will be no peace.”

The reporter asked Edelstein’s office if the minister was aware that there are some 80 million Arabs in the world, from Sudan to Syria. A spokesman replied: “Yes, there are – and the minister meant them all.”

That’s rich coming from someone whose own position doesn’t bear examination. I understand Edelstein lives in one of Israel’s illegal settlements, Neve Daniel, which is built on stolen Palestinian land in wilful breach of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

“Settlers” is too nice a word for such people. It suggests peaceful pioneers wishing to integrate with the locals. Israeli “settlers” are anything but. They are aggressive squatters, half a million of them in over 100 illegal colonies – ugly blots on an otherwise lovely landscape. They include gangs of armed delinquents and religious nutters who terrorise local villagers, vandalise their crops, pollute their land and harass their children. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids an occupying power to transfer parts of its own civilian population – and that includes Edelstein and his ministerial colleague the psychopath Avigdor Lieberman – into the territory it occupies. Which leaves these two charmers open to charges of war crimes.

Israel’s hasbara liars verge on the compulsive and pathological. Telling lies is routine; they are in denial of reality; they exaggerate; they come to believe their lies; they have no remorse; and they have no regard for the consequences. Despite this, the Western media lap up anything Tel Aviv’s liars spew out.

Edelstein’s capacity for silliness knows no bounds. When the US demanded that Israel suspend a planned project in East Jerusalem (which is Palestinian territory of course) and revoke planning permission, Ynet News reported Edelstein saying that such a demand to halt construction “proves how dangerous it is to get dragged into talks of a settlement freeze… Such talks will lead to a demand to completely freeze our lives in the entire State of Israel.”

And he let his Stalinist tendencies (Edelstein’s from the Ukraine) get the better of him earlier this year when he wrote to Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook demanding the removal of a page that was calling for a third Intifada and had generated nearly 250,000 supporters.

How to do it (a teach-yourself primer)

It goes without saying that Israel’s lie machine has an instruction manual for those it recruits into its vile business. See it here.

The manual’s general thrust is to win over the mass of “persuadables”, primarily in America but also in the UK. The strategy from the start is to isolate democratically-elected Hamas and to rob the resistance movement and the Palestinian people of their human rights. This quote at the beginning sets the tone: “Remember, it’s not what you say that counts. It’s what people hear.”

The lie machine’s top priority: demonise Hamas…

And this is how they try it on…
• “Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas. There is an immediate and clear distinction between the empathy Americans feel for the Palestinians and the scorn they direct at Palestinian leadership. Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support. Right now, many Americans sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, and that sympathy will increase if you fail to differentiate the people from their leaders.”

• “Draw direct parallels between Israel and America—including the need to defend against terrorism…. The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel is an important American ally in the war against terrorism, and faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens.”

Note how Israel’s strategy is almost totally dependent on the false idea that they and America are victims of terror and all western nations need to huddle together with Israel for mutual protection. Fortunately, level-headed people are beginning to realize who the terrorists really are.

It is surely obvious by now that allowing parallels to be drawn between Israel and America only serves to increase the world’s hatred of America. US citizens are very belatedly waking up to this, as are British citizens, but many continue to fall ass-over-tit into the trap.

Next, inject with “core values” and repeat over and over and over again…

• “The language of Israel is the language of America: ‘democracy,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘security,’ and ‘peace.’ These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social, and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American.”
If so fluent in this splendid language, why won’t Israel acknowledge their neighbours’ rights to democracy, freedom, security and peace and end their military oppression?
• “A simple rule of thumb is that once you get to the point of repeating the same message over and over again so many times that you think you might get sick—that is just about the time the public will wake up and say ‘Hey—this person just might be saying something interesting to me!’ But don’t confuse messages with facts…. ”
Right, never let facts get in the way of a good message! And, as George Dubya Bush, 43rd US President, said: “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
• “The fight is over IDEOLOGY, not land; terror, not territory. Thus, you must avoid using Israel’s religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews.”

If the fight isn’t about land, why did Israel steal it at gunpoint? And why won’t they give it back when told to repeatedly by the UN?

Then there’s the uncontrollable urge to possess the Holy City…

• “The toughest issue to communicate will be the final resolution of Jerusalem. Americans overwhelmingly want Israel to be in charge of the religious holy sites and are frankly afraid of the consequences should Israel turn over control to the Palestinians. Consider:
# 71% of Americans trust Israel most to protect the holy sites in Jerusalem, compared to 6.1% who trust the Palestinian authority most. 8.5% percent trust neither.

# 54% of Americans believe that “Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty” while just 23.9% believe that ‘Jerusalem should be divided into Israeli controlled and Palestinian controlled areas’.
Given the choice between the two, Americans of all political and demographic stripes trust Israel to protect and have sovereignty over Jerusalem.”
The Old City and east Jerusalem are Palestinian. Nevertheless, “Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel,” says prime minister Netanyahu. Israel is in control right now and prevents Muslims and Christians from outside the City visiting the holy places. No way can Israel be trusted.
The UN’s partition plan decreed that Jerusalem should become a ‘corpus separatum’ under international administration. It is unlikely that the UN would wish to see its resolutions torn up or international law re-written for Israel’s sole benefit or to suit America’s misinformed opinion.

Oh, and let’s put the boot into the other demon, Iran…
• “Many on the left see an “Israel v. Palestinian” crisis where Israel is Goliath and the Palestinians are David. It is critical that they understand that this is an Arab-Israeli crisis and that the force undermining peace is Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You must not call Hamas just Hamas. Call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. Indeed, when they know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah, they are much more supportive of Israel.”
By the same token we must call the racist regime what it is – US-backed Israel.
The plight of the Palestinians under Israel’s heel was of international concern long before Hamas appeared on the scene. Iran’s support for Hamas is difficult to quantify and probably less than we think. In any case it is peanuts compared to America’s support for Israel.
Hamas, as everyone knows, is an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada. Hezbollah came into being in 1982 in response to US-backed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. So the territorial ambitions of US-backed Israel provoked the rise of both. US-backed Israel’s problem is entirely self-inflicted and shouldn’t concern the rest of us at all.
The lie machine’s propaganda manual is indeed an evil document oozing poison. It shows better than anything else why the Israeli regime can never, never, never be trusted and is therefore no partner for peace.
Edelstein should reflect on how being a fabricator and dealer in lies, and a war criminal too, is about as low a thing as a man can be. But, Israel being Israel, creatures like him and that unprincipled mouthpiece Mark Regev are guaranteed a job.
– Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting http://www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
  The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

 close

 close

Turkey: Clashes as police break up Kurd protest air strike on civilians

Turkey: Clashes as police break up Kurd protest air strike on civilians

Turkish riot police in Istanbul. Photo: Getty

December 29, 2011

ISTANBUL, — Turkish police used tear gas and water cannon to break up a demonstration in Istanbul by around 2,000 Kurds protesting against an air strike in southeastern Turkey [ northern Kurdistan] that killed 35 Kurdish villagers.

Several hundred youths, many of them with scarves over their faces, threw stones at the police and smashed police and civilian vehicles during the demonstration in the city’s main Taksim Square.

Police responded with water cannon and tear gas grenades and made several arrests.

Demonstrators brandished portraits of those killed in the air strike, which Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party earlier said may have been a blunder. More

35 Kurds killed in Turkish Air Strike
Local Editor
35 people were killed by Turkish air strike on the Iraq border Thursday, in an attack which a pro-Kurdish political party described as a “massacre” of civilians.

Turkey’s military command said it launched an air strike on PKK militants after an intelligence drone spotted a group of people moving toward its sensitive southeastern border under cover of darkness late Wednesday.

The pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) confirmed the death toll in a statement, saying that the dead people were among a group of 35 to 40, aged from 16 to 20, who had crossed the border for “smuggling purposes.”

Locals gather in  front of the bodies of people who were killed in a warplane attack in the Ortasu  village of Uludere, in the Sirnak province, on December 29, 2011.  Photo: Getty Images

Meanwhile, local security sources said the group was “smuggling gas and sugar into Turkey from northern Iraq” and may have been “mistaken” for Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorists.

The Turkish military began an operation in northern Iraq in October after 24 Turkish troops were killed in an attack by the PKK in the town of Cukurca near the Iraqi border. The army killed 36 PKK members in Kazan Valley of Hakkari province.

Source: Agencies

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

.