Gilad Atzmon: The Wannsee Conference- Truth and Myth

Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 8:10AM

Gilad Atzmon

Last week, as Jewish Lobbies continue to invest enormous efforts in dictating and imposing a rigid and unquestionable Holocaust narrative, Israeli Haaretz published a short, succinct and courageous report challenging the validity of the Wannsee Conference as proof of the Nazi final solution.

Just ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, the Israeli paper reported that Dr. Norbert Kampe (63), director of the “Wannsee Conference” Memorial Centre in Berlin, has challenged some of the most widely-accepted historical facts associated with the conference and its meaning.

Jewish Holocaust scholars have always insisted that the master plan for the Nazi Judeocide was conceived at the Wannsee Conference but Dr. Kampe is quoted as saying that the conference dealt only with “operational matters”‌ instead of being a platform of any form of “decision making”‌. To prove his point, Kampe pointed to the fact that Hitler and his ministers were not present at the conference. Furthermore, he says, “At the time, January 1942, there was no organized plan for extermination camps.”

And yet, Haaretz admits, “Make no mistake. Kampe is not anti-Semitic. Certainly not a Holocaust denier. On the contrary. As expected of a professional historian, he studied countless relevant texts, documents and testimonies on the particular event…His conclusion is the direct outcome of an educated analysis of written material in his possession.”‌

So courageously, a Hebrew paper praises Kampe and his “fascinating historical lesson”‌ and also acknowledges that the Israeli Ministry of Education lacks the capacity to engage in any form of informed Holocaust debate. Haaretz clearly admits that

“to this day no one knows with complete certainty and confidence what exactly happened on 20 January 1942, in this pretty villa in the wealthy suburb of Berlin.”‌

Only one copy of the Wansee Conference protocol, found in 1947, survived the war, others having been deliberately destroyed by the Nazis in an effort to conceal evidence. This protocol is the only authentic documentation as to what happened in Wannsee and one of the few that made explicit use of the term “final solution”. However, Haaretz concedes that, like any historical document, the Wannsee document should be read carefully. The words “death” or “murder” do not appear in the conference protocol. Instead, it refers to “natural diminution”, “appropriate treatment”, “other solution options” and “different forms of solutions.” In fact, the only explicit references in the document deal with deportation rather than extermination. Even the famous table attached to the protocol that counts the Jews in each occupied country, does not state that those Jews are destined to be destroyed.

Just a few days ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, a Hebrew paper found the courage to admit that “decades of Holocaust research could not find a clear and explicit command made by high-level Nazi officials to engage in systematic mass extermination of Jews.”‌

According to the Israeli paper, the Nazis disguised their true intentions in some “ambiguous orders and”secret codes”‌, which were supposed to lead officers to interpret and to react upon what they believed to be Hitler’s will.

The moral here is simple. Once again we learn that some Israelis are far ahead of the Western press and academia in their criticism of Jewish ideology in general and the Zionist Holocaust narrative in particular.

Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Zionist’s global interests and influence or

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!

Likely Hezbollah Drone Explodes at Secret Israeli Airbase

Monday, January 30, 2012 at 8:59AM AuthorGilad Atzmon


An exclusive report from a confidential highly-placed Israeli source says that a booby-trapped drone crashed and exploded at the top-secret Israeli airbase Sdot Micha. Sdot Micha (also profiled here) is the home of the Israeli missile arsenal including its long-range Jerichos capable of striking Iran. There were civilian and military eyewitnesses to the crash, which happened within the perimeter fence of the facility, which covers a large area just outside Bet Shemesh.

sdot micha airbase
Sdot Micha airbase

The eyewitnesses and Israel’s wish to avoid pressure to retaliate against the Iranians, necessitated the publication of a media cover story. The story claims an advanced Israeli drone crashed near the Yesodot moshav, 10 miles from Sdot Micha. Israel also claims the drone took off from Tel Nof airbase. Eyewitnesses may be able to produce video documentation of the precise location of the crash unless it is impounded by the IDF.

The cover story reminds me in crucial ways of a similar one put out by the U.S. when it lost control of its advanced drone inside Iran. It did everything in its power to make the world believe that the drone crashed by accident and we vehemently denied it was brought down by Iranian electronic warfare capability. The more we denied the more people believed we were protesting too much.

Though crashing a drone inside Israel would appear to have Iran’s fingerprints all over it (they would certainly have greatest motivation), it’s hard to believe that Iran could fly a drone 1,000 miles with such precision. So blame will inevitably fall upon Hezbollah, a Syrian-Iranian ally, which often procures its most advanced weaponry from Iran. Hezbollah would’ve launched the drone from southern Lebanon. But I find it unlikely it could master the technological know-how to bring this off without Iranian engineering assistance.

There were no Israeli casualties and the drone explosion caused no significant damage at the base. But the very fact that Iran or its allies have escalated the psychological war of nerves in such a fashion will raise the temperature inside Israel once the true story is known. It will confirm among the hawks like Bibi, Barak and Bogie Yaalon the imperative to attack Iran. And the average Israeli man in the street will be that much more accepting of war given this new level of threat. But the “beauty” (if such a phrase is appropriate) of a drone attack is that, like the Mossad assassination of nuclear scientists, it’s hard to figure out precisely who is to blame for the attack. In that sense, it raises the temperature, but does so in a carefully calibrated way.

The fact that Israel could not detect such a threat and stop it before it did its damage indicates also some gaps in Israel’s defensive systems. Admittedly, drones are hard to defend against and Iran/Hezbollah may not have many at their disposal. But they clearly can do significant damage as we’ve seen from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. Imagine a drone equipped with a warhead (the current one appeared only to be booby-trapped, but not equipped with a warhead or missile) taking aim at the Kirya? That, of course, would be the next stage of development and one Israel might expect in the not too distant future. Certainly, a far more sophisticated step than merely crashing a drone into an airbase. But by no means beyond the realm of possibility for Iranian engineers at some point.

The wandering who- Gilad AtzmonI have always argued that there is a price to pay for Israel’s black ops campaign against Iran. In this case, the price was very low. But it will not always be so. There’s always a price to pay. The only question is when you’ll have to pay and how much.

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!

Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble: Eye of Newt and the ‘Invented’ Palestinians


“Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble”

“Perhaps unsurprisingly, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives seems to have a history of deserting the women in his life precisely at moments they find themselves battling debilitating illnesses. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer, and then said adios to his second wife, Marianne, after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The 68-year-old is now on his third marriage…”

Normally I don’t write a whole lot on presidential politics for the simple reason that it’s such a Zionist-controlled cesspool it often seems hardly worth commenting on. Moreover, it has always struck me as intellectually dishonest to single out this or that Republican—as a lot of leftwing bloggers do—for criticism, when the Democrats, including the one presently in the White House, are just as bad if not worse. Even so, here are a few items I couldn’t let pass, the first having to do with Newt Gingrich’s comment about the Palestinians being an “invented” people.
Gingrich seems like a reasonably intelligent fellow, and I’m guessing he knows enough about American history to know that white Europeans were not the original Americans. Here are what the original Americans looked like:

Here is what Gingrich looks like:

Gingrich is a white European. For white Europeans to come to America and kill off and displace the original Americans, turn around and claim to be the rightful owners of the land, all the while designating themselves as “Americans” while consigning the original Americans to squalid reservations in the process—very much required a considerable amount of “inventing.” So where does Gingrich get off accusing another people of being “invented”?
Here is what those whom Gingrich dismisses as “invented” look like. These are the original, native, indigenous Palestinians. Notice the brown skin—very similar in shade to the original Americans…

…however, these are Semites. Semites are the people indigenous to the Middle East—just like Native Americans are the people indigenous to America. In other words, the Middle East is the part of the planet Earth in which these people originated. Am I going too fast for you, Newt? Slow me down if I am.
Now as it so happens, there is one other group of people I would like to mention—Ashkenazi Jews. Here is what an Ashkenazi Jew looks like (who happens to be named Benjamin Netanyahu.):
Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites. They are white Europeans. Compare the two photos. Notice a certain familial resemblance:
Let me repeat: Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites, they are white Europeans. For white European/Ashkenazis to come to Palestine and kill off and displace the original Semites, turn around and claim to be the rightful owners of the land, all the while designating themselves as “Semites” while consigning the original Semites to squalid reservations in the process—very much required a certain amount of “inventing.”
(Yes, I know—the terrain is starting to get repetitious, but given the subject matter, it’s inevitable.)


U.S. map showing Native American reservations

Occupied Palestine map showing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians
Are “Ashkenazi Jews” an invented people? Gingrich should avail himself of a book written by a man named Shlomo Sand. And before he makes any more references to the Palestinians as “invented” he should actually, well, open the book and read it. Of course, we don’t know if he’ll bother to do that. Gingrich’s comment about the Palestinians is the bombast of an ignoramus, but rather than suffer public rebuke over his utterance, Gingrich, who in 1999 resigned from Congress after being found guilty of ethics violations, was rewarded with a $5 million check from Zionist Sheldon Adelson—with an additional $5 million donation recently being announced by Adelson’s wife.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives seems to have a history of deserting the women in his life precisely at moments they find themselves battling debilitating illnesses. Gingrich divorced his first wife, Jackie, as she was being treated for cancer, and then said adios to his second wife, Marianne, after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The 68-year-old is now on his third marriage. It was the second wife, Marianne, who recently offered some telling revelations about her former husband in an interview with ABC News, disclosing, among other things, that Gingrich wanted to have an “open marriage” in which he would be free to see other women while still remaining married to her—a request Marianne rejected. Moreover, it seems there was one woman in particular Newt was desirous of spending time with—the blonde congressional aide who went on to become his present wife, Callista.
Gingrich and wife Callista in November of 2000–3 months after their wedding

 Marianne today

Marianne told ABC her husband had been advised by the doctor treating her for MS that stress should be avoided, but that this evidently did not stop him from moving for a divorce just months after she had been diagnosed.

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an “open marriage” arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.

“And I just stared at him and he said, ‘Callista doesn’t care what I do,'” Marianne Gingrich told ABC News. “He wanted an open marriage and I refused.”

Marianne described her “shock” at Gingrich’s behavior, including how she says she learned he conducted his affair with Callista “in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington.”

He always called me at night,” she recalled, “and always ended with ‘I love you.’ Well, she was listening.”

Perhaps even more eye-brow-raising is that, according to ABC, all this was going on at the same time Gingrich was publicly denouncing Bill Clinton over his affair with Monica Lewinsky. If you go to the ABC link and watch the video, you’ll see film footage taken from that era showing Gingrich declaring in a speech he delivered, “There’s no administration in American history with less moral authority than the Clinton-Gore administration.”

One would be hard-pressed to point to a more glaring example of hypocrisy. What are we to make of the fact that such an unscrupulous hypocrite has been embraced by a prominent and wealthy Zionist contributor? Does this not tell us something about, a) presidential politics in America, and, b) the state of Israel itself?

Adelson’s support is widely acknowledged as having been a key factor in Gingrich’s victory in the South Carolina primary. According to Wikipedia, the casino magnate, with a net worth of $21.5 billion, is the 8th wealthiest American and 16th wealthiest person in the world. Speaking of Gingrich, Adelson has said , “There is not a better advocate for Israel”—and now thanks to this spigot of wealth, the Georgia Republican has notched up his first presidential primary win. Could there possibly be a plainer, more illustrative example of how Zionism, and Zionist money, have corrupted American politics?

And here’s another rhetorical question: Why does Israel seem to draw so much of its support from some of the most corrupt people on the planet? What is it about the Zionist state that they find so likeable and praiseworthy? I’m not simply talking about the 535 members of the U.S. Congress. No. From France to Germany, from Britain to America, from Belgium to the Netherlands to Denmark, from Spain to Italy to Greece, and from the IMF to the World Bank to the UN Security Council—virtually throughout the entire Western world—the most seriously corrupt, repressive, and dishonest specimens of humanity walking upright on the earth all seem to share one thing in common: they all love Israel.

Imagine that.

All of which brings me to a second point—one which I very much wanted to make about the American political system (although it probably applies to the political systems in all the other countries mentioned as well): namely that it’s a rigged game. It is rigged to ensure that one outcome and one outcome only will occur. Moreover it’s an outcome that will occur repetitively, over and over, time and time again, regardless of the changing faces, the evolving issues, or the advancing body of human thought and knowledge. What I’m speaking of is this: that the system is geared to ensure that the only candidates who stand more than a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected are the absolute dregs of American society. The most unprincipled. The most corrupt. The most deceitful, profligate, hypocritical, and immoral. The absolute dregs. This is the way the process has been engineered.

In her interview with ABC, Marianne expressed the opinion that Gingrich “lacks the moral character to be president,” but with all due respect to this good lady who endured 18 years of marriage to a hypocrite, she seems a bit confused as to what exactly the job qualifications are for serving as chief executive in this country. Certainly—as we all know—there are bright and talented Americans, Americans who, if given the chance, could, and definitely would, bring the country out of the morass in which it presently finds itself, people of courage, honor, and rectitude, people who remain true to their principles, who would react with indignation were someone to offer them money to invade another country and kill millions of its people, and who would probably even have the person offering such a bribe arrested. Yes. There are lots of Americans like that. They are all over the place. Quite literally. But the thing to keep in mind is that these are the very last people the top 1 percent would ever, ever want to see running the country. Far preferable to them are the moral degenerates. Moral degenerates and miscreants are invariably the ones who get the most money and most media attention, and don’t for a moment believe that’s by accident. As I say the system is rigged. There is no longer anything even resembling a democracy.

Another presidential issue I wanted to comment on, and which kind of ties in with everything I said about Gingrich, is Mitt Romney’s recent impromptu encounter with an Occupy Wall Street protester. Here it is. Check it out.
Now let me see if I understand him correctly. Romney is saying that the rich should continue getting richer and the poor poorer (the trend of the last 30 years or so), and anyone who objects to this state of affairs is being—“divisive”? It isn’t merely that his logic fails the infallibility test. The twin arguments he’s advancing—that wealth should be concentrated and that America should remain united—are diametrically, contradictorily opposed to one another. Wealth disparity, by definition, is a divide. It is a divide between rich and poor. America is very much a divided nation at this moment. It is a country in which CEOs make 325 times the average worker’s pay (up from 263 times as recently as 2009). By trying to reduce economic inequality, the OWS movement is essentially trying to restore unity to the country. If Romney really wanted a united America—rather than an America with a vast gulf between rich and poor—he would actually champion the OWS protesters rather than attack them, but we won’t hear anything like that from Romney because the richest 1 percent are funding his campaign.

Romney, who by the way also insists that corporations are people , vows that if elected president, his first foreign policy trip will be to Israel. No surprise there. But perhaps we could expect him to make a stop at the Cayman Islands on his way home. According to his tax returns, Romney holds a stake in an enterprise called BCIP Trust Associates III, but regulatory filings show that the partnership, valued at $5 million to $25 million, is registered in the Cayman Islands. This presumably would render it sheltered from U.S. taxation. However, with the predictability of a military press office flack denying civilian casualties in the latest drone attack, Romney’s campaign spokesperson, Andrea Saul, has insisted everything is strictly legal and on the up and up.

“The Romney’s investments in funds established in the Cayman Islands are taxed in the very same way they would be if those funds were established in the United States. These are not tax havens and it is false to say so.”

Romney and his wife Ann made $27 million in 2010, and up until that same year held millions in a Swiss bank account. Despite this, their 2010 federal tax rate worked out to 13.9 percent, “a rate typical of households earning about $80,000 a year,” reported the New York Times.

As I said, it’s a bit intellectually dishonest to criticize Republicans while omitting the sins of the Democrats, so let’s talk for a moment about Obama. In his state of the union address last week (full text here ), the chief executive spouted a lot of faux populism, painting himself as a man of action who intends to impose new regulations on Wall Street and close loopholes favoring the rich (apparently hoping people will forget that Wall Street bankers have consistently been among his biggest backers), while championing average Americans. In fact this seems to be his strategy for defeating the Republicans this year: let them flap their jaws about the wonders of the “free market” system while in turn casting himself as a populist—when in fact he is every bit as pro-rich as the Republicans are. In this respect, Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. And of course, significantly missing from his speech was any mention of his recent signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, giving the military the authority to arrest U.S. citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial, essentially shredding the last remnants of our constitutional safeguards. It is an ominous, ill-boding development (one of many these days, it seems) that places all of us in jeopardy.

But bad as the NDAA is—and it is indeed bad—that is not the only issue pertaining to the current president that merits attention. A recent campaign video has been the focus of considerable discussion of late, a video so bad, so exaggerated in terms of its worshipful tones, its deference to the Israeli lobby, that it seems to have left some people almost literally cringing. We see images of Obama wearing a yarmulke, visiting the Western Wall, etc.—as well as footage from various speeches in which he extols the virtues of the Zionist state, not his own country mind you, but Israel. Take a look:

The tone is quite reverential, would you not agree? Particularly striking I think is this image:
Obama is in essence worshipping at the altar of the Holocaust religion. Ali Abunimah, at the Electronic Intifada, says the video “takes Israel pandering to dangerous levels,” but actually even more than that is going on. The video is in essence presenting the Zionist state as an object of religious adoration. This is the kind of thing you’d expect to see at a Christians United for Israel conference—not from the Obama campaign. “When I touched my hand against the Western Wall and placed my prayer between its ancient stones, I thought of all the centuries in which the children of Israel had longed to return to their ancient homeland.” What we have here basically is adulation to a deity. Israel is being deified. And of course interjected through it all are Israeli officials bestowing their kosher seal of approval upon the U.S. head of state.

A question has arisen as to whether this is actually an “official” Obama campaign video—or possibly something put together simply to make the commander-in-chief of the United States look like a beggarly, brownnosing fawner. In point of fact, though, if you examine closely you will see that it appears to have been uploaded to YouTube by BarackObamadotcom. So yes, it does look as if it’s a genuine campaign video. But of course, what would you expect? Populist rhetoric is all well and good—it plays well to the masses—but it takes fawning to get Zionist money, and it takes Zionist money to get elected.

And so it goes in the rigged system of U.S. politics. And of course if all else fails, our 1 percent may always fall back upon the electronic voting machines to ensure this year’s election results are the ones they desire…
“For a charm of power trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble…”

The Smirk
Thought I would throw this into the mix (or the cauldron, if you prefer) as well. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a human being smirk quite this often in a 23-minute time segment as does one of the guests on this program. Are facial expressions an indicator of what resides in the heart? Speaking purely subjectively here—and based upon my own limited contact with habitual smirkers—the thing we see forming and dissipating…forming and dissipating…at periodic intervals throughout much of the show, seems to suggest something abnormal, an almost psychopathological disgust for any and all things decent.
One statement made on the show is in fact correct, however. The American people are not sheep. They are in fact much worse off than sheep. Sheep follow a herd instinct, a trait that is in their DNA. The herd instinct is a product of nature, one that functions to help ensure the survival of the entire herd, not simply single individuals, and it is a behavior observable in many species of animals. What the American people have succumbed to is not an innate, naturally-occurring herd instinct, but something far more sinister.

 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!

Jews in Iran

DateMonday, January 30, 2012 at 3:38AM AuthorGilad Atzmon

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!

Fear of Abuse in Libyan Prisons Haunts New Libya

Documents with photographs and details of people wanted by the Libyan External Security office are seen in the abandoned office where Muammar Gaddafi’s former spy chief and foreign minister Moussa Koussa was based in Tripoli 3 September 2011. (Photo: REUTERS – Anis Mili)
Published Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Allegations of torture made against Libya’s rebel forces have prompted a major humanitarian organization to halt its operations in the country. Libyan authorities, however, strongly reject accusations that such abuses are taking place.

Misrata – The issue of human rights in Libya after the fall of its dictatorial regime remains a controversial one. This is especially true in light of criticisms by international humanitarian organizations over what is happening in prisons run by the new Libyan authorities.
All eyes were on Misrata (east of Tripoli) during the revolution against former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, thanks to its resilience against a lengthy blockade imposed by the former regime’s brigades.

The city is back in the spotlight after a report by the organization Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) was issued last Thursday, which announced that it was stopping its operations at detention centers in Misrata because of what it described as the exposure of detainees to torture.

However, the authorities in the city were surprised by these accusations, and the head of the national security agency in Misrata, Ibrahim Beit al-Mal, rejected MSF’s allegations in an interview with Al-Akhbar, saying that the information in the report was not true.

He described the report by the organization as “mendacious” and said it had come to serve an agenda hostile to the 17 February revolution.

In contrast to the MSF report, Beit al-Mal stressed that the prisoners were treated well and received excellent care and attention, in addition to the provision of food throughout the day.

As for the national security prison, which contains 680 inmates, he explained that he has dealt with human rights organizations with complete transparency and allowed them to inspect the prison and meet prisoners without any conditions or constraints.

In the same context, the official previously responsible for the security committee prison in Misrata, Ali Aswiti, denied that there had been any cases of beating or torture inside the prison.
He said that if any such cases were uncovered, the mistreatment would most likely have occurred before the detainees were handed over to the security committee and were probably due to the actions of an irresponsible individual. He was taken aback by the decision of the organization which “ran counter to the situation inside the prison.”

For his part, the deputy chair of the National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Abdul Basit Abu Mazairiq, asked the office of the public prosecutor to open an investigation into MSF’s “allegations” and “to hold accountable officials and pseudo-rebels who are trying to discredit the revolution.”

Abu Mazairiq, who was the official spokesman for the rebels in Misrata, spoke to Al-Akhbar on behalf of the human rights council, saying: “This council has its own character and independent financial standing, answerable directly to the legislative authorities while enjoying wide powers to monitor the performance of the government.”

He continued, saying: “Its members have the status of law enforcement officers, meaning that they can collect evidence at the scene of any crime carried out against human rights. The law requires that prosecutors provide the council with the results of any investigation referred to them by the council or any case that is related to human rights.”

Abu Mazairiq, who is a lawyer, a playwright, and intellectual, added that “among the additional functions of the council is to advise parliament on everything that relates to civil liberties and human rights and to review all laws and regulations and to recommend modifications, so that it complies with international treaties and covenants that govern human rights.”

As for MSF’s accusations, Abu Mazairiq commented that: “I cannot confirm or deny the truth of this, although I could not imagine that of any person, especially within the agencies of the transitional government. I think that if this kind of torture happened, it would have happened at the hands of one of the groups who are considered rebels and are hunting for individuals loyal to Gaddafi who participated directly in the fighting. Therefore, if these people are subjected to torture, it is usually before they have reached the security committee or the National Security Agency. During my repeated visits to places of detention, none of the detainees ever complained of mistreatment or torture.”

In terms of human rights after the revolution, the deputy chair of the national council said: “We in Libya are living through exceptional circumstances. The government has not extended its control entirely, and its agencies are still weak. There is a major role for the rebels in maintaining order. But that does not prevent the existence of a range of abuses which stem from the absence of a culture of human rights in Libya for 42 years under Gaddafi’s rule.”

However, he stressed that “the government must be tough on its members in the event that any of them violate human rights, which means what happened in Misrata is a matter that cannot be ignored. We must confirm the reasons which led MSF to stop working in Misrata and it is a matter that I will follow through on personally to find out the truth behind it.”

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

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!

12th Herzliya Conference Addresses Challenge of Iran, Syria, Resistance “Arabs” Participate

By Abdul Nasser Fakih

The Herzliya Conference”, hosted by “the Interdisciplinary Center” at Herzliya in occupied Palestine; also one of the “Israeli” strategic security conferences and one aiming at assisting the enemy’s entity to determine the present security risks and the means to face them, is being held on the 30th of January through the 2nd of February in occupied Palestine, where a big number of economic, military, and political Zionist leaders are participating, as well as international, influential figures including European presidents and prime ministers and senior officers of international institutions and organizations. Yet, it is significant that some Arabs from Qatar, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are taking part in “the Herzliya Conference” and in normalization, therefore. This complies with a previous declaration by “the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)” concerning “an Iranian threat”, which has matched with Zionist calls for the alliance of Arabs and “Israel” in confrontation with “an Iranian threat for both”.

“Tahsine al-Halabi”, a Palestinian political writer and “Israeli”-affairs researcher residing in Damascus, has spoken to “al-Intiqad” Website, confirming that “the major concern of “the Herzliya Conference” is confronting the axis of the resistance, whose power and withstanding are increasing upon its steadfastness.” As well, al-Halabi points out, “The kind of Arab participation in the Conference is significant as it reveals the appearance of a new axis in alliance with “Israel” involving Doha, Oman, and Ramallah.” The Palestinian writer also sees that “among the central topics of the Conference are: first, the effect of the economic financial crisis on “Israel”; second, “Israel’s” current strategic asset with respect to the United States and the question on the continuity of the Zionist entity’s protection for the US interests in the Middle East; third, Tel Aviv’s and Washington DC’s security, military, and political conflict with Tehran; fourth, the influence of the current evolutions, evoked by the so-called “Arab Spring” (“the Arab Awakening”), on the resistance movements (Hizbullah and Hamas).”

Al-Halabi considers that “the most significant urgency the Conference deals with this year is the means to handle the Arab evolution and the prospect on the Iranian matter.” Then he talks about “an “Israeli”-US-European agenda, with which some Arab regimes familiarize in confrontation with Tehran.” Al-Halabi warns that “the Conference aims at preparing the Arab wisdom to accept this familiarization.” Besides, al-Halabi clarifies that “the participants’ proposals and debates in the Conference are to recommend working for the promotion of a media plan executed by numerous Arab-speaking media.” Al-Halabi points out that “this plan aims at addressing the public consciousness to view Iran as “the major enemy” and to promote a sectarian incitement; these are excellently two “Israeli” requests.”

Now al-Halabi explains, “The Conference is handling the ways “Israel” can benefit from the Arab evolutions and diminish the consequent harms these evolutions inflect on the Zionist entity.” Though al-Halabi says, “The Arab participants’ role serves to promote the principle of “non-opposition” of the so-called “Arab Spring” and “peace” with the Zionist-Occupation entity,” he notices “the apparent weakness in representing the countries of the uprisings, except Egypt, from which a participant is presented as an international character; that is, none of the Arab-uprisings countries dares normalize with the “Israeli” enemy in such circumstances.” Al-Halabi denounces “the representation for Qatar by one of the figures when no direct normalization agreement with the Occupation entity exists; this actually signifies the presence of secret “Israeli”-(Arab) Gulf affairs.”

In comparison, al-Halabi sees that Turkey “has taken no part in the Conference so as to guard its prestige and evade the accusation of participation in plotting against Syria.” Al-Halabi considers that the participation of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority “is no more than a mere ornament for the Conference, and this makes “Israel” seem as it were adherent to “peace” and as if it were sustaining the negotiations with Palestine.”

Now the Palestinian writer talks about the European participation in “the Herzliya Conference”, revealing that “the purpose beyond this participation is the “Israeli” cooperation with the European governments to counter the activity of some non-governmental organizations in “the old continent”, which are working for depriving the “legal and ethical legitimacy” of the Zionist entity.” He adds, “The means to develop the European-“Israeli” relations are being debated in consequence with the recent political conflict between Europe and “Israel”.”

Thereon, al-Halabi reveals that “the Turkish State has displayed a documentary film on the so-called “Jewish Holocaust” in parallel with the commemoration of “the International Remembrance Holocaust Day”, which the United Nations held in the UN Headquarters in New York last Friday, the 27th of January.” The Palestinian writer refers this act to “Ankara’s will to lessen the pressure on it, which the Zionist Lobby has been creating through Paris consequently after the French Congress ratified a law that incriminated the denial of the occurrence of “the Armenian Genocide” (“the Armenian Holocaust”) in time of the Ottoman Reign”, pointing out that “this has been the first time for an Islamic state to display such film, and this hasn’t evoked public agitation in Turkey since the public realizes that its government is suffering European pressure concerning the issue of “the Armenian Genocide“.” Al-Halabi concludes that this pressure is one of the outcomes of the “Israeli”-European cooperation, for which preparations have been made in common conferences held earlier, including “the Herzliya Conference”.”

Here are epitomes of the Arabs declared as participants in “the Herzliya Conference”:
1. Prince al-Hassan Bin Talal: the Regent of Jordan since 1965 until his discharge on the 25th of January, 1999, and the youngest son of King Talal and Queen Zein ash-Sharaf. Western institutes describe him as “an outstanding Arab economist and intellect” as he is actively involved in international forums and conferences for economy and intellect, which twin with the Western ideology. He is making a direct speech via video-link in the opening of “the Herzliya Conference”.

2. Dr. Saeb Erekat: Chief Palestinian Negotiator for “the Process of Settlement” with the Zionist entity since 1996 and senior member of the Palestinian-“Israeli” negotiations, which accomplished “the Oslo Accords” in 1993. On the 12th of February, 2011, he made his resignation to the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas after “the Process of Settlement” had reached a dead end. Seldom has Erekat missed membership in the negotiations of Palestinian delegations with the representatives of the “Israeli” Occupation. In the Conference he is addressing the recent developments of the Palestinian-“Israeli” relations entitled:
3. Riad el-Khouri: Jordanian economist “specialized” in Middle East and Africa affairs; previously participated in “the Herzliya Conference”; a former member of “the Carnegie Middle East Center”; a professor at the American University of Beirut (AUB) and the Lebanese-American University (LAU); consultant for the European Commission, the World Bank, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the US Aid Program (USAID); member of the International Council of “Questscope” in Amman, Jordan, a British organization involved in “changing and merging” communities. El-Khouri is lecturing on these topics:

4. Salman Sheikh: a Qatari researcher; Director of “the Brookings Doha Center” and Fellow at the corresponding “Saban Center for Middle East Policy”. Sheikh’s researches involve “settlement” issues and “solutions” for the Middle East struggle. Among his researches is “A Chance for Hamas to Seek Friends outside Damascus”. He has held several earlier positions, including: the Personal Representative of the Secretary General for Lebanon; the UN the Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on the Middle East; the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East “Peace Process”; and “the Director for Policy and Research at the office of Sheikha Mozah Bint Nasser el-Missned”. Currently he is the Special Representative to the European “Muslim West Facts Project”; he is also “the Counselor of Oxford Research Group for Middle East Affairs”. Sheikh is lecturing on:

5. Tony Badran: Lebanese-American Research Fellow at “the Foundation for Defense of Democracies” (FDD) in Washington DC, which is sponsored by the “Israeli” Lobby and the Neo-Conservatives of the US; whereby he is specialized in the Lebanese and Syrian political affairs. He is known for his extremism and discrimination against Arabs; yet, he is in contact with the Lebanese “Future Party” (of “the March 14 Alliance”) and has been considered to be “the foreign secretary of the Future Party” for many US lobbies. Previously he joined “the Lebanese Forces”, and he has actually acknowledged this when interviewed by several US media, including “Fox News”; whereby he bragged about taking part in the perpetration of “the Sabra and Shatila Massacre” against the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (in 1982). Actually, even some “Israeli” associations refrain from inviting him to their conferences as he has called for killing Muslims – even American Muslims. Badran is lecturing on:
6. Sherif el-Diwany: an Egyptian economist and Director of “al-Marsad Incorporation”. He has held the position of the Director of “the Middle East and North Africa for the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos”, the policies of which are quite known. Though el-Diwany has no publicity or post in Egypt, he’s going to lecture on:


7. Advocate Basha’er Fahoum Jayoussi: a Palestinian of the lands occupied in 1948, one of the founders and the Chairwoman of “the Jewish-Arab Center” at the University of Haifa, which concentrates on “merging Arabs with the “Israeli” community” and establishing “common actualities” between Jewish and Arab students; whereby the Center offers awards and scholarships to students doing researches on the issue of “common Arab-Jewish livelihood”, as well as to students reinforcing this “common livelihood” in appreciation for their “social activity”. Most of Jayoussi’s activities focus on the normalization between Palestine and “Israel”. She is lecturing on:

8. Nahed Khazem: Mayor of the Shafa Amr (Shfaram) Municipality in the Western al-Jalil (Galilee) in the north of occupied Palestine; is well known for his cooperation and good terms with the Zionist-government ministers, particularly with the Culture Minister Gideon Saer. Khazem also participates in merging Arabs with “the “Israeli” community” in the Galilee Region. He is lecturing on:


Here are epitomes of the prominent Arab attendees of “the Herzliya Conference”:

1. Muhammad Darawshe: a Palestinian of the lands occupied in 1948; Fellow Member at “the Abraham Fund”, an “Israeli” foundation; has held the position of the Foreign Affairs Director of “the Abraham Fund Initiatives” since 1996, of which he and Amnon Be’eri-Sulitzeanu have been the Co-Executive Directors since 2004. The foundation actually aims at eliminating the Arab presence in occupied Palestine; claiming the conduct of a “Merging and Equality Policy” targeting the Jews and Arabs in occupied Palestine. For more than twenty years, Darawshe has been significantly involved in the field of “Jewish-Arab co-existence”.
2. Masad Barhoum: a Palestinian of the lands occupied in 1948; the M.D. Director General of “the Nahariya Governmental Hospital” in Western al-Jalil (Galilee). Barhoum is known for his activity and cooperation with the “Histadrut” (“the “Israeli” General Federation of Laborers”), as well as his outstanding relations with the consecutive governments of the Zionist entity, particularly with the Zionist health ministers.

3. Ayman Seif: the Director of “the Center for the Development of the Arab Minority” at the office of the Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 1996 through 2008, he was in charge of “the “Israeli” Financial Committee” of the Prime Ministry, an economist at the Economy and Planning Ministry, and a member of “the Governmental Committee” in charge of securing the backgrounds of Arabs, claiming “Convenient Representation of Arab Scholars at Governmental Centers” as a policy; also a member of “the Special Committee for Promoting Work Opportunities and Initiatives in the Arab Mainstream”. 
4. Dr. Khaled Abu Asbah: a Palestinian of the lands occupied in 1948; the Director of “the Massar Institute for Research, Planning, and Educational Counseling”; a Sociology-Department Lecturer at the Zionist “Beit Berl Academic College” in “the Third Sector” in occupied Palestine. He received his Sociology and Anthropology PhD from “the Bar Ilan University” in occupied Palestine. His dissertation addressed “Family and School Perceptions: Indicators for Arab-“Israeli” Students’ Involvement in Violence”. Abu Asbah is a pioneer as to merging Palestinians with the Zionist entity; whereby he is in charge of “the Strategy for the Advancement of Arab-“Israeli” Citizens in “Israel””, a project regarding which he has made studies at “the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute”.  

Source: Al Intiqad Online Newspaper, Translated and Edited by
  • Hizbullah Slams Arab Participation in Herzliya: Reflection of Normalization, Commitment to “Israel’s” Security

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!

If a country wants…….

made in Syria !!
( even under the ” dictatorship “ )
If a country has already an atom bomb ,
it should not complain about Iran´s .

If a country has not even a parliament
nor any elected-leaders (or head of state)
it should not complain about Syria´s elected-parliament.

If a country has introduced and practised terrorism into Palestine
it should not complain that (some) Palestinians also use it now,
as self-defence.

If a country wants to “save the Jews”
(from any probable anything )
it must take them back to where they came from
or take them into its own .

If any country wants any Peace,
it must start by recalling all its soldiers
back to within its own borders.
If any country wants to put me in a prison
,for what I write or what I say,
it must have its prisons
with ,
Chinese cooks and Swisshygiene
Syrian sweet + pastry shop

Raja Chemayel

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!

%d bloggers like this: