Telling the Truth–‘The Most Revolutionary Activity of our Time’

Speech by Ken O’Keefe, February 23, Middlesex University–Israeli Apartheid Week

Here is my lecture last week at Middlesex University. The one with our friendly Zionists. Watch the video to see what they reckon I should be jailed for; ‘incitement’ they call it. I would have to agree that telling the truth is the most revolutionary activity of our time and the UK police have already arrested me once on bogus pretences so we shall see. Either way so be it, in life, death or in prison I will not be silent, we will not be silent, no matter what they do to me, there will be justice. TJP
Middlesex University: Sponsored by Free Palestine Society & Interpal
Israeli Apartheid Week

February 23, 2012

–Ken O’Keefe

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!

‘With AIPAC breathing heavily down the Hill’s neck, a Senate ‘bill’ takes aim at Iran!’


“…A proposed Senate resolution, supported by the pro-Israel lobby, would shift America’s red line in dealing with Iran from preventing the Islamic Republic’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to stopping it before it achieves “nuclear capabilities.” Authors of the resolution believe that it is the only way to ensure that Iran ceases to be a threat to the region. 

Opponents see it as moving America too close to a declaration of war. … In an attempt to highlight diplomacy and make clear that war was not a preferred solution, Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina began circulating a letter in the House of Representatives, calling on the administration to do everything in its power to avoid war. “We’re not saying we should take military options off the table, we’re saying we should try to negotiate before bombs start flying,” Ellison said in a February 17 interview with the Forward. “We need to talk until we reach the conclusion that it cannot be solved, but I believe we can reach an agreement.”

The letter is backed by dovish Jewish groups Americans for Peace Now and J Street, which also worked to try and change the language of the Senate resolution introduced by senators Graham, Lieberman and Casey. “It has been a long time since we tried negotiating with Iran, and it will be foolish not to use this tool,” said Dylan Williams, director of government affairs at J Street.
But attention will turn in the coming weeks to other voices on this issue. AIPAC intends to have delegates participating in its annual conference lobby for the Senate resolution when they meet with their representatives on Capitol Hill.

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!

Free Hanaa Shalabi, end administrative detention

Posted by on February 29, 2012
by Mahmoud El-Yousseph, source
Hanaa Shalabi is on hunger strike. She is a Palestinian female political prisoner from the village of Burgin near Jenin. She was kidnapped from her home on February 16, 2012 by Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the middle of the night.

Hanna’s family was ordered outside the house, she was blindfolded and handcuffed. All cell phones and computers in the house were confiscated and a photograph of her brother hanging on the wall, who was killed by IOF in 2005, was torn up and stepped upon by one of the soldiers. Hanaa was also beaten and sexually harassed by the IOF.

Her attorney stated, “she is demanding the end of administrative detention and that the soldiers who beat her up and undressed her to carry out a body search be put on trial.”

Administrative detention is a procedure that allows the Israeli military to hold prisoners indefinitely on secret evidence without charging them or allowing them to stand trial. Hanaa was ordered to serve administrative detention for six months in the HaSharon prison. As of this writing, Hanaa has entered her 13th day of an open-ended hunger strike and is currently being held in solitary confinement. Latest reports indicate that Israeli prison officials have moved her to different prison to cut off any contact with the outside world.

This young lady has been in administrative detention before, totaling 2 1/2 years starting in March, 2009 where she served for 6 consecutive terms. Hanaa was among the freed Palestinian prisoners who were released in October 2011 under the prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel. However, this time Israel has reneged and rearrested her as it did in previous prisoner exchange deals. For example, in November 1983, Palestinian prisoner Ziad Abu Ain was supposed to be part of a prisoner release deal, but was rearrested on the bus containing those who were about to be released.

I will never forget that prisoners ‘exchange deal of Thanksgiving Day 1983. My younger brother Samih was among the freed prisoners, after spending 18 months in an Israeli concentration camp in south Lebanon. He was kidnapped by IOF while visiting our family with his German wife and 5 year-old daughter, Carmen. Throughout his captivity, neither our mother, his wife, Carmen nor our oldest brother was permitted to visit him, even though he was being held merely 20 miles away.

While lobbying in the US to secure his release, Israeli officials first denied holding him, then they admitted he was in Ansar prison camp, held on terrorism charges. When I refuted their false allegation, I was told he has committed a crime in Germany. However, after German officials denied this false claim, the Israeli Attorney General arrogantly stated on public record that under Israeli law, Israel can prosecute people for committing a crime in different countries. This was a clear flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of Germany.

According to Aldemeer, there are 25 members of the Palestine National Council, including the Speaker of the Parliament, who are among 5,000 Palestinians held captive in Israeli dungeons. This includes 6 women, 166 children and 320 “administrative detainees.”

According to Palestinian prisoner solidarity sites, over 20,000 administrative detention orders were issued since 2000 by the Israeli occupation authority. On February 24, 2012, the 320 Palestinian administrative detainees held captive without charge or trial declared a boycott of Israeli military courts. This boycott is to start on March 1 in protest of these sham courts that are used by the Israeli occupation army and Israeli intelligence as a cover for illegal detention based on “secret” files and lack of indictment.

One week after Hanaa’s kidnapping, her 67 year-old parents started an open-ended hunger stirke in a tent set up in front of the family home in support of their daughter’s struggle for freedom and in protest of her illegal detention. Her father, Yahya Shalabi, promised that they will continue the hunger-strike until the release of their daughter and the abolishment of administrative detention.

Hanaa Shalabi and her parents put themselves against overwhelming odds. They have the moral courage to challenge Israel’s injustice no matter what. This is a dignified family with deep conviction, who are standing firm and tall beyond anyone’s expectation. I know from experience that Israel does respond when its image and reputation is on the line. Therefore, I urge everyone who reads this to help in anyway then can to expose Israeli injustice. if not by deeds, by praying in your heart that Hanaa Shalabi will be set free and for the end of Administrative Detention.

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!

British Lord forced to resign after "Israel will not last" claim

A British Lord has been forced to resign from her party after saying that Israel would not last forever if it continued to oppress the Palestinians.

Jenny Tonge, a former MP for the Liberal Democrats, which is the junior partner in the British government, made the comments in a speech at a British university.

“Beware Israel,” she said. “Israel is not going to be there for ever in its present form. One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving £70bn a year to Israel to support what I call America’s aircraft carrier in the Middle East – that is Israel. One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA: enough is enough.”

She added: “Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown.”

Tonge’s comments were seized upon by the powerful right-wing British blog Guido Fawkes, which launched a campaign calling for her to be fired from the party.

Tonge was heavily criticized by all British political parties, with the leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband saying there was “No place in politics for those who question existence of the state of Israel.”

Liberal Democrat party leader Nick Clegg demanded she apologize but Tonge, a long-time supporter of Palestinian freedom, refused to do so and resigned instead.

As a result, Tonge will remain a peer but will not sit with the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.
Tonge was previously fired from her shadow Cabinet role in 2004 after claiming she could identify with Palestinian suicide bombers.

“If I had to live in that situation – and I say that advisedly – I might just consider becoming one myself,” she said.

“Having seen the violence and the humiliation and the provocation that the Palestinian people live under everyday and have done since their land was occupied by Israel, I could understand…”


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!

‘Strategic’ Fuad Siniora: "Moscow & Beijing’s positions are influenced by domestic politics but they will change soon!"

Svia FLC

‘Tearful’ Fuad predicted Assad’s downfall & triumph of March14 in Lebanon last …August!
‘Ring around the Rosie…’
“… “The Syrian problem became a domestic issue in Russia. It is part of the election campaign … adding that Russia might be “ready to discuss business in a more pragmatic way” after the vote. 

Unlike Russia, which has a naval base on the Syrian coast and sells arms to Damascus, China has little commercial interest in shielding Assad from criticism, Siniora said.
Siniora said China had balked at U.N. condemnation of Assad because of concerns over potential criticism of its own domestic record, including in Tibet. But in the long term he said it was not in Beijing’s interest to side with the Syrian leader.
“It is not in the interests of the Iranian regime to continue hammering on having Lebanon and Syria as their client countries,” Siniora said.
“This is not a sustainable relationship and this will lead towards furthering the confrontation in the region.”

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 Mossad Has Long Given Marching Orders to AIPAC

Recommended by Maidhc Ó Cathail

By Grant Smith
February 28, 2012

AIPAC’s Washington policy conference next month is drawing intense scrutiny and unprecedented resistance. AIPAC has worked quietly for years to tripwire the United States into war with Iran. Soon it will “ask” Congress and the president to define “nuclear weapons capability” as the threshold for war, essentially demanding an immediate attack. Because Iran presents no military threat to the United States, many Americans wonder exactly where such costly and potentially disastrous policies are formulated. Recently declassified FBI files reveal how Israeli government officials first orchestrated public relations and policies through the U.S. lobby. Counter-espionage investigations of proto-AIPAC’s first coordinating meetings with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the head of Mossad provide a timely and useful framework for understanding how AIPAC continues to localize and market Israeli government policies in America.

Although AIPAC claims it rose “from a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s,” its true origin can be traced to Oct. 16, 1948. This is the date AIPAC’s founder Isaiah L. Kenen and four others established the Israel Office of Information under Israel’s U.N. mission. It was later moved under the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The IOI opened offices in New York City, Washington, and Los Angeles, which became testbeds for working out how Israeli government leaders would promote lobbying initiatives through public relations harnessing the power and financial support of American organizations and supporters. Although the FBI nervously noted IOI founder Kenen had become a member of the Communist Party in 1937 while working as a newspaperman at the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, he was never the subject of a criminal investigation. Only because Kenen interacted with so many U.S. and foreign nationals who were targets of espionage, foreign counter-intelligence, and domestic security investigations (such as super-lobbyist Abraham Feinberg, Israeli diplomats, and assorted Mossad officers) did Kenen’s movements appear as cross-references in hundreds of pages of recently declassified FBI documents [.pdf].
Continue reading…

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!

German Presidency and the Israeli factor

Though, German Presidency is ‘ceremonial’ – German Presidents are expected to have moral power – like the Israeli Presidents (just joking!). On February 15, German President Christian Wulff, 51, was forced to resign for being accused of corruption before becoming head of state in 2010 as Israel-Firster Chancellor Angela Markel’s choice. Wulff is accused of receiving financial and other (?) favors from his supporters while he was Governor of lower Saxony state. Chancellor Angela Markel was quick to appoint Joachim Gauck, 72, as interim President till new election in March. The selection of the new President will be made by 1,240 public figures including all MPs.

If one study ‘morality’ of the great majority of the western political leaders from some objective source, he will find that Wulff did not commit moral wrong-doing.

On Monday, German Opposition Die Linke (Left Party) nominated Beate Klarsfeld, 73, as its candidate for the Presidency. Beate Klarsfeld’s qualification is that she is a Jewish Nazi witch hunter who became famous for tracking down Nazi official Klaus Barbie in Bolivia where he was working for German intelligence BND and CIA with the help of Israeli Mossad. In 1983, Klaus was arrested and extradited to France where he died of leukemia in 1991 in a French jail serving a life sentence. She believes that denial of “The Six Million Died”, and criticism of Zionism or Israel is ‘anti-Semitism’.
Former Jewish French foreign minister, Dr. Bernard Kouchner, while called Klaus Barbie mass-killer – went to Romania in his private jet in 2010 to plead for mercy for his fellow Zionist Jew, Roman Polanski, serving jail for sexually molesting a child. Earlier in 1996 Kouchner had slammed his friend, pastor Abbe Pierre, for endorsing French philosopher Roger Garaudy’s controversial book, ‘The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics‘. The author who later converted to Islam, was fined $40,000. France’s Chief Rabbi, Joseph Sitruk, was also irked by the book and said the Holocaust was a proven fact and not open to debate.

The Left Party is known for its pro-Israel, anti-Muslim and anti-immigration campaigns. Last year, Left Party banned its MPs and employees from joining German flotilla to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. The party also called for end to boycott of Israel and criticized groups and countries calling for “Israel to be wiped off map”.

Even though, Beate Klarsfeld, who was convicted in 1969 for slapping then Chancellor Kurt Goerg Keisinger, has no chance to beat veteran anti-communist Joachim Gauck who is supported by Markel’s ruling party and two other opposition parties in the Bundestag (parliament) – the pro-Israel Jewish propagandists have started a smear campaign against pastor Joachim Gauck.

Joachim Gauck has been blamed for his anti-Semitic views in the past. The allegations include Gauck’s backing of both ‘The Black Book of Communism‘ and the ‘Prague Declaration’ – and believing that Holocaust is being exploited by certain Jewish groups and Israel.

Gauck has spoken out against what he calls an over valuing – “Überhöhung” of the Holocaust – aggressively insisting that the worst genocide in human history has to be judged alongside the crimes of various communist regimes. Gauck argues that modernity has lost its religious, read: Christian foundation. Therefore non-believers, he says, acquire a “psychological benefit” from the Holocaust, because it provides something absolute and quasi-religious. This antisemitic trope – the Shoah as religion – is a favourite right wing tactic and features heavily in the writings of anti-Zionist activists like editor of The Black Book of Communism, the former Maoist Stéphane Courtois, who asserts that Israel benefits from the claim that the Holocaust was un unprecedented crime,” says Chris Hale, a German TV producer and a Zionist writer.

Germany is home to Western Europe’s second largest Muslim population (4 million) after France (6-8 million).

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!

Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List”

Published Tuesday, February 28, 2012
“Perception is 100 percent of politics,” the old adage goes. Say something three, five, seven times, and you start to believe it in the same way you “know” aspirin is good for the heart.
A Free Syrian Army (FSA) gunman stands guard as demonstrators pray

 on a street in Reef Damascus, north of Damascus, early 4 February 2012.
(Photo: REUTERS – Stringer)

Sometimes though, perception is a dangerous thing. In the dirty game of politics, it is the perception – not the facts of an issue – that invariably wins the day.

In the case of the raging conflict over Syria, the one fundamental issue that motors the entire international debate on the crisis is the death toll and its corollary: the Syrian casualty list.
The “list” has become widely recognized – if not specifically, then certainly when the numbers are bandied about: 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 – sometimes more. These are not mere numbers; they represent dead Syrians.

But this is where the dangers of perception begin. There are many competing Syrian casualty lists with different counts – how does one, for instance gauge if X is an accurate number of deaths? How have the deaths been verified? Who verifies them and do they have a vested interest? Are the dead all civilians? Are they pro-regime or anti-regime civilians? Do these lists include the approximately 2,000 dead Syrian security forces? Do they include members of armed groups? How does the list-aggregator tell the difference between a civilian and a plain-clothes militia member?

Even the logistics baffle. How do they make accurate counts across Syria every single day? A member of the Lebanese fact-finding team investigating the 15 May 2011 shooting deaths of Palestinian protesters by Israelis at the Lebanese border told me that it took them three weeks to discover there were only six fatalities, and not the 11 counted on the day of the incident. And in that case, the entire confrontation lasted a mere few hours.
How then does one count 20, 40, or 200 casualties in a few hours while conflict continues to rage around them?

My first port of call in trying to answer these questions about the casualty list was the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which seemed likely to be the most reliable source of information on the Syrian death toll – until it stopped keeping track last month.
The UN began its effort to provide a Syrian casualty count in September 2011, based primarily on lists provided by five different sources. Three of their sources were named: The Violations Documenting Center (VDC), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) and the Syrian Shuhada website. At that time, the lists varied in number from around 2,400 to 3,800 victims.

The non-UN casualty list most frequently quoted in the general media is the one from the Syrian Observatory – or SOHR.

Last month, SOHR made some headlines of its own when news of a rift over political viewpoints and body counts erupted. Two competing SOHRs claimed authenticity, but the group headed by Rami Abdul Rahman is the one recognized by Amnesty International.

OHCHR spokesman Rupert Colville stated during a phone interview that the UN evaluates its sources to check “whether they are reliable,” but appeared to create distance from SOHR later – during the group’s public spat – by saying: “The (UN) colleague most involved with the lists…had no direct contact with the Syrian Observatory, though we did look at their numbers. This was not a group we had any prior knowledge of, and it was not based in the region, so we were somewhat wary of it.”
Colville explains that the UN sought at all times “to make cautious estimates” and that “we have reasonable confidence that the rounded figures are not far off.”

While “also getting evidence from victims and defectors – some who corroborated specific names,” the UN, says Colville, “is not in a position to cross-check names and will never be in a position to do that.”
I spoke to him again after the UN decided to halt its casualty count in late January. “It was never easy to verify, but it was a little bit clearer before. The composition of the conflict has changed. It’s become much more complex, fragmented,” Colville says. “While we have no doubt there are civilian and military casualties…we can’t really quantify it.”

“The lists are clear – the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy,” he explains, citing the “higher numbers” as an obstacle to verification.

The Casualty Lists Up Close: Some Stories Behind the Numbers

Because the UN has stopped its casualty count, reporters have started reverting back to their original Syrian death toll sources. The SOHR is still the most prominent among them.

Abdul Rahman’s SOHR does not make its list available to the general public, but in early February I found a link to a list on the other SOHR website and decided to take a look. The database lists the victim’s name, age, gender, city, province, and date of death – when available. In December 2011, for instance, the list names around 77 registered casualties with no identifying information provided. In total, there are around 260 unknowns on the list.

Around that time, I had come across my first list of Syrians killed in the crisis, reportedly compiled in coordination with the SOHR, that contained the names of Palestinian refugees killed by Israeli fire on the Golan Heights on 15 May 2011 and 5 June 2011 when protesters congregated on Syria’s armistice line with Israel. So my first check was to see if that kind of glaring error appears in the SOHR list I investigate in this piece.

To my amazement, the entire list of victims from those two days were included in the SOHR casualty count – four from May 15 (#5160 to #5163) and 25 victims of Israeli fire from June 5 (#4629 to #4653). The list even identifies the deaths as taking place in Quneitra, which is in the Golan Heights.

It also didn’t take long to find the names of well-publicized pro-regime Syrians on the SOHR list and match them with YouTube footage of their funerals. The reason behind searching for funeral links is that pro-regime and anti-regime funerals differ quite starkly in the slogans they chant and the posters/signs/flags on display. Below, is a list of eight of these individuals, including their number, name, date and place of death on the casualty list – followed by our video link and further details if available:

#5939, Mohammad Abdo Khadour, 4/19/11, Hama, off-duty Colonel in Syrian army, shot in his car and died from multiple bullet wounds. Funeral link.
#5941, Iyad Harfoush, 4-18-11, Homs, off-duty Commander in Syrian army. In a video, his wife says someone started shooting in the mostly pro-regime al Zahra neighborhood of Homs – Harfoush went out to investigate the incident and was killed. Funeral link.
#5969, Abdo al Tallawi, 4/17/11, Homs, General in Syrian army killed alongside his two sons and a nephew. Funeral footage shows all four victims. The others are also on the list at #5948, Ahmad al Tallawi, #5958, Khader al Tallawi and #5972, Ali al Tallawi, all in Homs, Funeral link.
#6021, Nidal Janoud, 11/4/11, Tartous, an Alawite who was severely slashed by his assailants. The bearded gentleman to the right of the photo, and a second suspect, are now standing trial for the murder. Photo link.
#6022, Yasar Qash’ur, 11/4/11, Tartous, Lieutenant Colonel in the Syrian army, killed alongside 8 others in an ambush on a bus in Banyas, Funeral link.
#6129, Hassan al-Ma’ala, 4/5/11, policeman, suburbs of Damascus, Funeral link.
#6130, Hamid al Khateeb, 4/5/11, policeman, suburbs of Damascus, Funeral link.
#6044, Waeb Issa, 10/4/11, Tartous, Colonel in Syrian army, Funeral link.

Besides featuring on the SOHR list, Lt. Col. Yasar Qashur, Iyad Harfoush, Mohammad Abdo Khadour and General Abdo al Tallawi and his two sons and nephew also appear on two of the other casualty lists – the VDC and Syrian Shuhada – both used by the United Nations to compile their numbers.

Nir Rosen, an American journalist who spent several months insides Syria’s hot spots in 2011, with notable access to armed opposition groups, reported in a recent Al Jazeera interview:

“Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes. Of course, those deaths still happen regularly as well.”
“And, every day, members of the Syrian army, security agencies and the vague paramilitary and militia phenomenon known as shabiha [“thugs”] are also killed by anti-regime fighters,” Rosen continues.

The report issued in January by Arab League Monitors after their month-long observer mission in Syria – widely ignored by the international media – also witnessed acts of violence by armed opposition groups against both civilians and security forces.

The Report states: “In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the observer mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against government forces and civilians…Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children…In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers.” The observers also point out that “some of the armed groups were using flares and armour-piercing projectiles.“

Importantly, the report further confirms obfuscation of casualty information when it states: “the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.”

On February 3, the eve of the UN Security Council vote on Syria, news broke out that a massacre was taking place in Homs, with the general media assuming it was true and that all violence was being committed by the Syrian government. The SOHR’s Rami Abdul Rahman was widely quoted in the media as claiming the death toll to be at 217. The Local Coordination Committees (LCCs), which provide information to the VDC, called it at “more than 200,” and the Syrian National Council (SNC), a self-styled government in absentia of mainly expats, claimed 260 victims.

The next day, the casualty count had been revised down to 55 by the LCCs. (link:

Even if the count is at 55 – that is still a large number of victims by any measure. But were these deaths caused by the Syrian government, by opposition gunmen or in the crossfire between the two groups? That is still the question that needs to break through the deafening narratives, lists, and body counts.

In International Law, Detail Counts

While the overwhelming perception of Syrian casualties thus far has been that they are primarily unarmed civilians deliberately targeted by government forces, it has become obvious these casualties are also likely to include: Civilians caught in the crossfire between government forces and opposition gunmen; victims of deliberate violence by armed groups; “dead opposition fighters” whose attire do not distinguish them from regular civilians; and members of the Syrian security forces, both on and off duty.

Even if we could verify the names and numbers on a Syrian casualty list, we still don’t know their stories, which if revealed, may pose an entirely different picture of what is going on in Syria today
These questions are vitally important to understand the burden of responsibility in this conflict. International law provides for different measures of conflict: the two most frequently used gauges for this are the Principle of Necessity, i.e., using force only when it is necessary, and the Principle of Proportionality, i.e., the use of force proportional to the threat posed.

In the case of Syria – like in Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and Libya – it is widely believed that the government used unnecessary force in the first instance. Syrian President Bashar Assad, like many of these Arab rulers, has as much as admitted to “mistakes” in the first months of protests. These mistakes include some shooting deaths and detaining a much larger number of protesters than expected, some of whom were allegedly tortured.

Let us assume, without question, that the Syrian government was over zealous in its use of force initially, and therefore violated the Principle of Necessity. I tend to believe this version because it has been so-stated by the Arab League’s observer mission – the first and only boots-on-the-ground monitors investigating the crisis from within the country.

However – and this is where the casualty lists come in – there is not yet nearly enough evidence, not by any measure acceptable in a court of law, that the Syrian government has violated the Principle of Proportionality. Claims that the regime has used disproportionate force in dealing with the crisis are, today, difficult to ascertain, in large part because opponents have been using weapons against security forces and pro-regime civilians almost since the onset of protests.

Assuming that the number of casualties provided by the UN’s OHCHR is around the 5,000-mark -the last official figure provided by the group – the question is whether this is a highly disproportionate number of deaths when contrasted directly with the approximately 2,000 soldiers of the regular Syrian army and other security forces who have been reportedly killed since April 2011.

When you calculate the deaths of the government forces in the past 11 months, they amount to about six a day. Contrast that with frequent death toll totals of around 15+ each day disseminated by activists – many of whom are potentially neither civilian casualties nor victims of targeted violence – and there is close to enough parity to suggest a conflict where the acts of violence may be somewhat equal on both sides.

Last Sunday, as Syrians went to the polls to vote on a constitutional referendum, Reuters reports – quoting the SOHR – that 9 civilians and 4 soldiers were killed in Homs, and that elsewhere in Syria there were 8 civilian and 10 security forces casualties. That is 17 civilians and 14 regime forces – where are the opposition gunmen in that number? Were none killed? Or are they embedded in the “civilian” count?

Defectors or Regular Soldiers?

There have also been allegations that many, if not most, of the soldiers killed in clashes or attacks have been defectors shot by other members of the regular army. There is very little evidence to support this as anything more than a limited phenomenon. Logically, it would be near impossible for the Syrian army to stay intact if it was turning on its rank-and-file soldiers in this manner – and the armed forces have remained remarkably cohesive given the length and intensity of the conflict in Syria.

In addition, the names, rank and cities of each of the dead soldiers are widely publicized by state-owned media each day, often accompanied by televised funerals. It would be fairly simple for the organized opposition to single out by name the defectors they include on their casualty lists, which has not happened.

The very first incident of casualties from the Syrian regular army that I could verify dates to 10 April 2011, when gunmen shot up a bus of soldiers travelling through Banyas, in Tartous, killing nine. This incident took place a mere few weeks after the first peaceful protests broke out in Syria, and so traces violence against government forces back to the start of political upheaval in the country.

“Witnesses” quoted by the BBC, Al Jazeera and The Guardian insisted that the nine dead soldiers were “defectors” who had been shot by the Syrian army for refusing orders to shoot at demonstrators.

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, debunked that version on his Syria Comment website. Another surviving soldier on the bus – a relation of Lt. Col. Yasar Qashur, #6022 on the SOHR list, whose funeral I link to above – denied that they were defectors too. But the narrative that dead soldiers are mostly defectors shot by their own troops has stuck throughout this conflict – though less so, as evidence of gunmen targeting Syrian forces and pro-regime civilians becomes belatedly apparent.

The VDC – another of the UN’s OHCHR sources for casualty counts – alleges that 6,399 civilians and 1,680 army defectors were killed in Syria during the period from 15 March 2011 to 15 February 2012. All security forces killed in Syria during the past 11 months were “defectors?” Not a single soldier, policeman or intelligence official was killed in Syria except those forces who opposed the regime? This is the kind of mindless narrative of this conflict that continues unchecked. Worse yet, this exact VDC statistic is included in the latest UN report on Syria issued last week.

Humanitarian Crisis or Just Plain Violence?

While few doubt the Syrian government’s violent suppression of this revolt, it is increasingly clear that in addition to the issue of disproportionally, there is the question of whether there is a “humanitarian crisis” as suggested by some western and Arab leaders since last year. I sought some answers during a trip to Damascus in early January 2012 where I spoke to a select few NGOs that enjoyed rare access to all parts of the country.

Given that words like “massacre” and “slaughter” and “humanitarian crisis” are being used in reference to Syria, I asked International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Spokesman Saleh Dabbakeh how many calls for urgent medical assistance his organization had received in 2011. His response was shocking. “Only one that I recall,” said Dabbakeh. Where was that, I asked? “Quneitra National Hospital in the Golan,” he replied, “last June.” This was when Israeli troops fired on Syrian and Palestinian protesters marching to the 1973 armistice line with the Jewish state. Those same protesters that ended up on SOHR’s casualty list.

A Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) worker confirmed that, recalling that his organization treated hundreds of casualties from the highly-publicized incident.
As the level of violence has escalated, however, the situation has deteriorated, and the ICRC now has received more calls for medical assistance – mainly from private hospitals in Homs. The SARC today has nine different points in Homs where it provides such assistance. The only two places they do not currently serve are the neighborhoods of Bab Amr and Inshaat “because the security situation does not allow for it – for their own safety, there is fighting there.”
During a phone call last Thursday, one NGO officer, explained that the measure for a “humanitarian crisis” is in level of access to basic staples, services and medical care. He told me off the record that “There is a humanitarian crisis in (i.e.) Bab Amr today, but not in Syria. If the fighting finishes tomorrow, there will be enough food and medical supplies.”
“Syria has enough food to feed itself for a long time. The medical sector still functions very well. There isn’t enough pressure on the medical sector to create a crisis,” he elaborated. “A humanitarian crisis is when a large number of a given population does not have access to medical aid, food, water, electricity, etc – when the system cannot any longer respond to the needs of the population.”

But an international human rights worker also cautions: “the killing is happening on both sides – the other side is no better.”

People have to stop this knee-jerk, opportunistic, hysterical obsession with numbers of dead Syrians, and ask instead: “who are these people and who killed them?” That is the very least these victims deserve. Anything less would render their tragic deaths utterly meaningless. Lack of transparency along the supply-chain of information and its dissemination – on both sides – is tantamount to making the Syrian story all about perception, and not facts. It is a hollow achievement and people will die in ever greater numbers.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow Sharmine on twitter @snarwani.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.

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!

For the release of our compatriots and colleagues held captive in Baba Amr

by Thierry Meyssan

Several journalists are held in the sealed-off Baba Amr area. According to Atlanticist leaders, they are prevented from leaving by the constant pounding of the rebel stronghold by the Syrian Army. As an on-the-spot privileged witness of the negotiations, Thierry Meyssan gives an account of the situation: the journalists are kept as prisoners by the Free “Syrian” Army which uses them as human shields. Their evacuation by the Syrian Red Crescent has been obstructed by the rebels.

JPEG - 18.4 kbOur colleagues Marie Colvin (Sunday Times) and Remi Ochlik (IP3 Press) were killed on Wednesday, 22 February 2012, in the rebel-held area inside Homs.

According to Western news agencies quoting the Free “Syrian” Army, they were victims of the shelling inflicted by the Damascus forces on the area. However, the National Army made use of multiple rocket launchers only for a very brief period to destroy firing positions, and at no time after 13 February. Furthermore, if it were true that the city was pounded for 21 days, as reported by the news agencies, it would have been reduced to a heap of rubble without a living soul a long time ago.

At least three other journalists still remain in the rebel zone: Edith Bouvier (Le Figaro Magazine), Paul Conroy and William Daniels (Sunday Times), and probably a fourth one of Spanish nationality.
In a video posted on the Internet, Edith Bouvier, who was wounded in the leg, and William Daniels called for a cease-fire and for their evacuation to a hospital in Lebanon. Immediately, an intensive communication campaign was mounted for them, including the creation of several Facebook groups and thundering declarations by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé.

There is no GSM or G3 coverage left in Homs, and the telephone wire lines in the rebel zone have been cut.

It won’t escape anyone’s notice that if the journalists were able to upload a video to call for help, it is because they had access to a satellite connection. And if it hasn’t been possible for them to contact their families, their employers or embassies, it is because those who control that satellite connection have denied it to them. They are, therefore, not free in their movements and are kept as prisoners.

The military situation

The Syrian generals deemed that the Battle of Homs was won on 13 February and reported to President Bashar al-Assad that it was over on Thursday, 23 February, at 1900 hours.

Victory does not have the same meaning for civilians as for the military. The former dream of a return to a peaceful life. The latter proclaim it much in the same way as a surgeon at the end of a successful operation. The fact remains that the injured are still subjected to months of treatment and years of rehabilitation. Specifically, what the end of the battle means to them is that the rebels have been confined inside a completely encircled area and no longer pose a threat to their security.

The main arteries of the city were reopened to traffic, but they are strewn with speed bumps for miles on end. Cars must zigzag their way along. The city has been emptied of the vast majority of its inhabitants and is nothing more than a ghost town.

The Battle of Homs unfolded in three stages:
- The first day, Syrian troops were stopped from entering the besieged neighborhoods by the anti-tank missiles fired by the rebels, notably Milan missiles.
- Then, the Syrian troops bombarded the missile firing posts, at the cost of significant collateral damage among their fellow citizens, while the rebels regrouped into a single zone which they appropriated.
- Finally, the troops surrounded the rebel stronghold, penetrated it and began liberating each street, one by one. To avoid being ambushed from the rear, the Syrian army advanced row by row, which slowed its progression.

The encircled area was once inhabited by 40,000 people. It now shelters an unspecified number of civilians, mostly old men who could not flee in time, and about 2,000 fighters of the Free “Syrian” Army. This label hides several rival groups divided into two main currents: on one hand, the Takfirists who consider not only that democracy is incompatible with Islam, but that the Alawites (including Bashar al-Assad) are heretics and should be barred from any political responsibility in Muslim lands; on the other hand, the felons who were recruited to strengthen the so-called Free “Syrian” Army. No longer paid, these gangs have resumed their independence and do not follow the same logic as the Takfirists. Most foreign fighters left Homs before the bastion was sealed off. They are currently assembled in the northern district of Idlib.

All the rebels in Baba Amr have considerable stocks of arms and ammunition, which in the current situation are no longer replenished, and sooner or later they will have to give themselves up, short a foreign military intervention. Their arsenals contain night vision Dragunov sniper rifles, as well as 80 to 120 mm mortars and incalculable quantities of explosives. They converted basements into warehouses and even set up weapons caches in the sewers. However, contrary to what has been reported, the pipes are too narrow to allow them to circulate. Similarly, the tunnels that were dug in the days when they had the protection of the former Governor of Homs, are no longer ventilated and can no longer be used. As for the ex-governor, he has long been exiled in Qatar, where he quietly enjoys the salary for his treachery.

The population had backed the rebels for a while, but it is now being used as human shields. Civilians who attempt to flee are shot by snipers. They have no way of rebelling, especially since most of them are elderly.

One could suppose that in the medium term, the rift within the Free “Syrian” Army, its lack of popular support, and the drying up of international reinforcements should lead some of the rebels to surrender. However, the Takfirists may decide to fight to the death.

At present, the rebels won’t allow civilians to flee their area and are blowing up the empty houses, at a rate of about a dozen per day. Moreover, rebel commandos located outside the cordoned zone attack the camps of the regular army to disorganize it and loosen the noose. They resort mainly to car bombs, thanks to the reopening of the streets, which explains the need to maintain the speed bumps.
Baba Amr is not being pounded. The only shelling still taking place is rebel mortar fire against the National Army.

The situation of the journalists

The journalists inside the rebel area are grouped into the same apartment, called a “media center,” whose precise location is unknown.

They entered Syria illegally, when they could have applied for a press visa, which all would have obtained, with the exception of Israeli citizens in view of the state of war between the two countries.
Their transportation to Homs was organized by a single smuggling ring, either from northern Lebanon or from southern Turkey. This ring serves as Office of Public Relations for the Free “Syrian” Army. It is responsible for having put the journalists in contact with the persons hosting them, and whose identity is unclear.

On Friday, 24 February, the International Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent began negotiating with the Free “Syrian” Army via the Red Crescent workers inside the cordoned area. They were given permission to enter the premises with ambulances to repatriate the bodies of the two dead journalists, and to evacuate the rest, both injured and sound. However, at the last moment, the journalists refused to leave, fearing a trap set up by the Damascus authorities. Indeed, they had been told by their French colleagues who left the scene earlier that the Syrian government would strive to eliminate them.
Moreover, having access only to satellite TV channels controlled by NATO and the GCC, they are convinced that the fighting of which they are the victims is not only limited to their neighborhood, but extends throughout all of Syria.

Ultimately, the Syrian Red Crescent was allowed to evacuate twenty-seven sick and injured civilians who were driven to the Al Amin hospital in Homs (in the liberated part of the city). The London office of the Muslim Brotherhood, known as the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, according to which hospitals have become torture centers, had spread the rumor that several of the wounded people were later arrested by the Syrian police. Following an investigation, the Red Crescent attested that these charges are absolutely unfounded.

On Saturday 25th, the International Red Cross and the Syrian Red Crescent asked the Free “Syrian” Army for permission to re-enter the area. Being on the spot, I offered my services to the authorities to facilitate the removal of my compatriots and colleagues. The negotiations lasted over four hours. Several states, including France, were kept abreast of these events.

After several twists and turns, the officers of the Free “Syrian” Army received the instruction via satellite to decline. Their encrypted communications with their superiors either ended up in Beirut or were relayed via Beirut. De facto the journalists are being used as human shields even more effectively than civilians, the rebels fearing a final assault by Syrian forces.

Therefore, journalists are now the prisoners of those who sponsor the Free “Syrian” Army, the very same ones on whose behalf the “Friends of Syria,” gathered at the Tunis conference, appealed for support, funds and arms.

 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!

How Long Can Jews Keep Supporting Their ‘Monster’ State Without Suffering a Global Backlash of Anti-Semitism?

Israeli children write messages on bombs to be fired into Lebanon

AIPAC’s annual policy conference is set to get underway this weekend in Washington. How nice it would be if at least a few of those attending might give some consideration to a bit of what Alan Hart presents in the following article. Me personally, I don’t have much hope of that happening, and as we all know, history often has a way of repeating itself. But of course the prospect of being pleasantly surprised is a door one might leave open for as long as one can.

In this article, Hart is addressing something I think a lot of people, myself included, have been wondering about, namely how long can Israel continue its aggressive policies of wars, land theft, and apartheid without igniting a backlash of worldwide anti-Semitism, one with possible catastrophic effects on Jews living outside of Israel? It’s a good question, and Hart obviously has given the matter considerable thought. But I’d like to take the liberty, if I may, of tossing a few other questions up into the air—questions closely related to the first, but which Hart doesn’t address.

First of all, it isn’t only the Middle East where Israel’s behavior is causing problems. The dilemmas caused by the existence of this rogue state extend into virtually every country, or at least those in the West, where they are having a significant impact on the lives of local populations. People cannot help feeling outrage when they see their elected leaders shamelessly kowtowing to Jewish lobbies. This is becoming increasingly true in the US, and I’m sure the same is happening in Britain, France, and other countries where powerful Israeli lobbies subvert public will. But of course it is especially ongoing in America—where the very leaders who are giving billions away to Israel—and spending trillions to fight Israel’s wars—are calling for the dismantling of Social Security and cutbacks in public education. At some point people are going to start putting two and two together (despite the lack of funding for our schools), and when they do they’re going to realize that the source of the problem is not Iran and it’s not Syria. The source of the problem is Israel—along with the domestic Jewish PACs and lobbies, and their network of supporters, who keep the money to the Zionist state flowing. We’re of course talking about tax dollars that could be going to provide health care for Americans, jobs programs, schools, and affordable higher education. How long before people start blaming the Israeli lobby for the lack of these things? There are countless sites on the internet run by people who have already figured these things out—with more going up every day—and it’s only a question of time before the rest start to catch on as well.
Hart says he believes the only way of heading off what he refers to as “Holocaust II” may be for American and European Jews to publicly distance themselves from Israel. What he doesn’t mention, though, is that the majority of Jews not only remain silent in the face of Israeli crimes, they actually go on funding the pro-Israel lobbies and PACS in their respective countries. And this is the crux of the matter. This is what’s fueling the anger and causing people to question whether there really is the distinction between “Zionism” and “Judaism” Hart claims there is.
Another thing is I don’t think simply “distancing” themselves is going to cut it. What is needed is a call for a dismantling of the state of Israel along with a total abandonment of the enterprise of operating lobbies and PACs on its behalf. If Jews want to lobby for health care, or an end to war, or even lobby for this or that industry, fine. But spending your efforts lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, particularly one which has caused so much harm, is not going to endear you to your fellow citizens.
Granted, publicly calling for a complete dismantling of the Jewish state (or what refers to itself by that name) may be a difficult thing for some Jews to do. If that is the case, then here’s my alternate suggestion: enthusiastic support—by a majority of Jews—for the one state solution. Simply put, it’s one person—one vote—all encompassed in one state. This is democracy. This is what you need to call for if you can’t bring yourself to voice the other.
But this isn’t what’s happening, at least not to any appreciable degree. Instead we see Jews calling for more and more wars, more and more aid for Israel, and carrying out “anti-Semite” witch hunts against those who object. All of which makes you wonder: what exactly are these “Jewish values” we hear so much about and which Hart alludes to? Can someone define them? And when the values, if they exist, come into conflict with certain doctrines in the Talmud, which one trumps the other and gives birth to the “monster” Hart talks about? Questions for pondering—although I’m not sure a majority of Jews are capable of such self-reflection. And on that score, Hart, too, seems to have his doubts.

Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable?

By Alan Hart

The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.
The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”
The fact that (pre-1967) Israel is a Zionist not a Jewish state – how could it be a Jewish state when a quarter of its citizens are Muslims (mainly) and Christians? – in no way diminishes Harkabi’s message.
He was, in fact, treading a quite well worn path. Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews, eminent American and British Jews especially, were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise in Palestine. They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.
Today, in my opinion, it can be said that Zionism wants and needs anti-Semitism in order to justify anything and everything its monster child does.
So what are the two things that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism (assuming as I do that the Zionist state is not going to change course in the direction of peace)?
One is that the mainly Gentile citizens of the Western world among whom most Jews live become aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism, and thus why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Israel. The difference can be simply stated. Like mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam, mainstream Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles. Zionism, which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by ethnic cleansing and terrorism, is without moral values and ethical principles. Its driving ideology, conditioned by Jewish experience of persecution on-and-off down the centuries, is that might is right. Mainstream Judaism and Zionism are, in fact, total opposites. (In April one of the anti-Zionist Jews I most admire, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer, is giving a talk in Luxembourg with the title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism).
In the paragraph above I insist on the term “few” in Israel being to blame because the truth is that most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by their leaders. (As the headline over an article by Gideon Levy for Ha-aretz put it on 5 February, Israelis should be afraid of their leaders, not Iran). Most Israeli Jews are, for example, totally unaware that the vast majority of Palestinians and most Arabs everywhere have been ready for many years for peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.
The other thing that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism stems from the fact, perhaps I should say overwhelming probability, that no American president is ever going to be free to use the leverage he has to oblige the Zionist state to be serious about peace because of the Zionist lobby’s control of policy for Israel-Palestine in Congress.
So as things are Israel is a nuclear-armed monster beyond control. (From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”)
On reflection it seems to me that whether or not anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism will depend not only on the Westerners among whom most Jews live understanding why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the few, but also on what the Jews of the world, European and American Jews especially (I mean the majority of them), do from here on.
In my view they have two options.
OPTION 1 is to stay silent which, at this moment in time, is still the preferred option of most European and American Jews.
That said it has to be acknowledged that recent years have seen an increase in the number of Jewish groups which are critical of Israel’s polices and, in some cases, have even endorsed the call of Palestinian civil society for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. But the voices these groups represent are those of only a minority of Jews.
On the debit side of this particular balance sheet is also the fact that by limiting their campaigns to calls for an end to Israel’s occupation to make the space for a two-state solution, most if not all of the “progressive” (critical of Israel) Jewish groups are demonstrating that they are out of touch with or don’t want to recognise the reality on the ground in Israel-Palestine. The reality is that Israel’s still on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank has made a two-solution impossible. It is not yet formally buried but it is dead.
My own understanding of why began with a private conversation I had with Shimon Peres in early 1980. At the time he was the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour party and seemed to be well placed to win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin and his Likud party a second term in office – an outcome for which President Carter was praying. After learning that Carter had said behind closed doors that institutional diplomacy could not solve the Palestine problem because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress and that what was needed was some informal and unofficial diplomacy, my purpose was to invite Peres to participate in a secret and exploratory dialogue with PLO chairman Arafat with me as the linkman. The idea was that if we could use the 18 months or so before Israel’s next election to get agreement in principle on the way to the two-state solution to which Arafat’s PLO was by then committed, Peres and Arafat could begin to do the business for real when Peres became prime minister. (I was aware that a two-state solution would not provide the Palestinians with full justice, but at the time I shared the hope of those, including Arafat, who believed it was not impossible that within a generation or two the peace of a two-state solution could open the door to One State for all by mutual agreement, thus allowing all Palestinians who wanted to return to do so).
Peres welcomed the idea of an exploratory dialogue with Arafat with me as the linkman, but at a point in our conversation before I went off to Beirut to secure Arafat’s agreement to participate, he, Peres, said, “I fear it is already too late.”
I asked him why.
He replied: “Every day sees new bricks on new settlements. Begin knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s stuffing the West Bank with settlers to create the conditions for a Jewish civil war because he knows that no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who gave the order to the Jewish army to shoot Jews (in order to end the occupation).” Pause. “I’m not.”
Question: If it was too late in 1980 when they were only about 70,000 illegal Jewish settlers on the West Bank, how much more too late is it today when the number of illegal Jewish settlers is in excess of 500,000 and rising, and the political influence of Israel’s religious fanatics and other bigots is growing?
In the words of an old English cliché, Jewish groups which are critical of Israeli policy but limit their effort to calling for an end to Israeli occupation are flogging a dead horse.
My considered Gentile take on why most Jews are silent on the matter of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and denial of their rights is in my book. For this post I’ll make only two brief points.
One is that deep down, if only in their sub-consciousness, most Jews fear (in large part because they are conditioned by Zionism to fear) that there will one day be another great turning against them. Holocaust II. So they perceive Israel as their refuge of last resort, and they tell themselves they must say nothing, do nothing, that could undermine Israel and put their insurance policy at risk.
The other, no doubt related, is that private discussion about publicly criticising Israel or not can and does tear Jewish families as well as communities apart. So for the sake of at least the appearance of Jewish unity it’s best not to discuss the matter.
The problem with Jewish silence is that it’s not the way to refute and demolish a charge or assertion of complicity in Zionism’s crimes. So continued silence by the majority of European and American Jews is most likely to assist the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.
OPTION 2 is for the Jews of the world to distance themselves from the Zionist state.
A most explicit statement of this as a possible option was made in October 2001 by Dr. David Goldberg, the prominent, widely respected, liberal London rabbi and author of a popular introduction to Judaism, The Jewish People, Their History and Their Religion. He dared to say, in public, “It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways.”
Eight years on the late Tony Judt, a professor of history at New York University and director of the Remarque Institute, put some flesh on that bone. British-born of a Jewish mother whose parents emigrated from Russia and a Belgian father who was descended from a line of Lithuanian rabbis, Judt started out as an enthusiastic Zionist. He helped to promote the migration of British Jews to Israel, and during the 1967 war he worked as a driver and translator for the IDF. But after that war, his belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. “I went with the idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work, but I started to see that this view was remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible.”
In an article for the Financial Times on 7 December 2009, Judt wrote this:
“If the Jews of Europe and North America took their distance from Israel, as many have begun to do, the assertion that Israel was ‘their’ state would take on an absurd air. Over time, even Washington might come to see the futility of attaching American foreign policy to the delusions of one small Middle Eastern state. This, I believe, is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel itself. It would be obliged to acknowledge its limits. It would have to make other friends, preferably among its neighbors.”
For the sake of discussion there’s a case for saying that an Israel that was obliged by European and America Jews to acknowledge its limits might also be an Israel in which many Israeli Jews were prepared to open their minds to the wise words of one of their own – Avraham Burg. Between 1999 and 2003 he was the speaker of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. By the end of his term in that office he was a leading advocate of the idea that Israel and a viable Palestinian state could coexist in peace. In August 2003 he wrote a most remarkable essay which was published in its original Hebrew by Yediot Aharonot and subsequently newspapers in Europe and America.
His lead point was that Israel had to “shed its illusions” and choose between “racist oppression and democracy.” The Jewish people, he wrote, “did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programmes or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto nations. In this we have failed.”
And the following is what Burg had to say about Israel’s need to change course and the choices:
Here is what the prime minister should say to his people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.
Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.
Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.
Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.
“Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. (Here, I note, Burg was being less than explicit about the consequences of Greater Israel giving full citizenship and voting rights to everyone. At the point not too far into the future when the Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Jews of Greater Israel, Zionism would be voted out of existence. Palestine would effectively be de-Zionized, opening the door to One State for all).
The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.
In my view Judt’s assumption that Israel “would” be obliged to acknowledge its limits if the Jews of Europe and America took their distance from it is questionable. Why? It’s rational, based on reason, and Israel’s deluded leaders are beyond reason. They are never going to shed their illusions and present the choices for Israel’s Jews in the terms outlined by Burg.
But the main argument for European and American Jews distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its policies is self-interest. By demonstrating that they were not complicit in Zionism’s crimes, they would be playing their necessary part in preventing anti-Israelism from being transformed into anti-Semitism.
But even if self-interest (in the context above) is the direction in which most European and American Jews might move, events on the ground suggest to me that the time left for them to decide whether or not to actually distance themselves from Israel is running out. And here is my brief summary of why.
Given their determination to keep for all time much if not all of the occupied West Bank (despite what they sometimes say to the contrary for propaganda purposes), Israel’s leaders have got to find a way to defuse the ticking, demographic time-bomb of occupation (the coming of the day when the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews of Greater Israel).
The evidence of the past 44 years is that Israel’s leaders believed they could do it in one of two ways.
One was by making life hell for the occupied Palestinians in the hope that very many of them would either give up their struggle in despair and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table – a few disconnected Bantustans which they could call a state if they wished; or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek new lives elsewhere. Neither of those two things happened or are going to happen.
The other was having in place a compliant, puppet, Palestinian leadership which could be bullied and bribed, with American assistance, into forcing its people to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table. It might be that Israel’s leaders still hope they can make this scenario work with Palestinian “President” Abbas or his successor, but it won’t work.
And that will leave them, Israel’s leaders, with only one way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation – creating a pretext to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan, Syria or wherever. The final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
I think that will be Zionism’s final solution to its Palestine problem. I also think that such an event will guarantee that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism, meaning, as Harkabi warned, that Jews throughout the world will pay the price of Israel’s “misconduct”.
I’ll end by re-asking my headline question and giving it an explicit answer.
Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Yes unless the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so. 

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 Accusation Of “Anti-Semitism” I: Zionism, “Jewish Israelis” And Revisionism

Anyone who demands the
full liberation of Palestine
and nothing less, and who has no
fear of criticizing “Jewish voices
for peace” that are really just Zionist
shields, will immediately be stamped
with the “anti-Semitism” label.

by Jonathan Azaziah

Prelude: In the wake of my two-part deconstruction of “mask of Zion” wearer Uri Avnery and the grave intellectual and ideological problems within the International Palestine Solidarity Movement, I was accused of “anti-Semitism” by a well-known voice within the blogosphere who rushed to Avnery’s defense. While this person’s reply to my vastly-documented work did not warrant such a response, I diligently composed this series to demolish and banish any similar accusations that are sure to arise in the future. In this first part, we delve into the true nature and wider historical context of Zionism, what it means to be a “Jewish Israeli” and the always-controversial realm of Holocaust® revisionism….

Like the moon rising upon the completion of sunset, it can be described as nothing other than inevitable that as soon as one raises one’s voice above a whisper in regards to the twisted, cancerous and supremacist ideology that guides the usurping Zionist entity occupying Palestine and the far-reaching global Jewish-Zionist Lobby that protects it from even the slightest criticism, one will be hysterically demonized, slandered, libeled, smeared and browbeaten with the label of “anti-Semitism.” If one criticizes any person of Jewish origin who expresses ‘support’ for Palestine but who also harbors blatant Zionist sympathies and actively attempts to impose this Zionism on others to delay, deflect and outright silence discussion on key matters relevant to full Palestinian liberation, one will once again face the same hysteria reignited like a supremacist conflagration and receive the chastisement of “anti-Semitism.” This inevitable calumny has now found its way to my person.

On February 2nd, 2012, I completed and published a two-part series deconstructing and exposing the ‘Israeli’ activist for ‘peace,’ Uri Avnery (real name: Helmut Ostermann), a highly-regarded figure in the Palestine Solidarity Movement. The first part secondarily dealt with Avnery’s expertly-masked supremacism and chiefly, his elephantine lies against Islamic Resistance movements, which were smashed to pieces as perversions of history (1). The second, more controversial part of the series examined and documented Avnery’s support for the Zionist entity’s current top stooge in the United States, President Barack Obama, as well as his glowing approval for NATO’s genocidal aggression against Libya and his obscene call for more genocide in Syria. It also delved deeply into the reasons behind the degeneration of the Solidarity Movement and the relation of persons like Avnery to this deterioration (2). For this, I was vitriolically accused of “anti-Semitism” by one Steve Amsel, operator of the website ‘Desert Peace,’ in a short, slanderous op-ed that he penned entitled, “In Defense Of Uri Avnery (3).”

Zionists do not work well with
facts; they are much more
comfortable with ad hominem

In his piece, Amsel did not refute a single point of either part of the series, showing that his allegiance is not to the truth of the matter but to the protection of tribal interests. Throwing scholarship and academic debate to the wayside, he instead chose to engage in an irrational, distorted and ad hominem tirade against my character due to him being rather perturbed with the fact that Uri Avnery’s murderous past and overt adherence to Zionism were brutally and unforgivingly exposed in my series. Amsel writes, “The lies, the quotes out of context by Avnery found throughout the essay do the same {“discredit the entire pro Palestinian Movement”},” and also, “I am afraid that Azaziah falls into the trap set by the Zionists themselves in attempting to discredit Avnery simply because he is a Jewish Israeli.” How woeful and obscene. The luminously obvious reason as to why Amsel couldn’t display examples of lies or misquotes is because such examples don’t exist; except maybe in Amsel’s dreams. There wasn’t a single “lie” uttered about Avnery throughout the piece, nor was there a single quote taken out of context; every Avnery quote and every Avnery position were taken directly from his own writings.

The idea of falling “into the trap set by the Zionists themselves” by unveiling the true face of a Zionist only could have originated in a purgatorial, Orwellian realm located between the laughable and the demented. I would sincerely like someone to explain to me, preferably in the most vivid way possible, how exposing Zionists… benefits Zionists. This asininity will be revisited in the conclusion. The title “Jewish Israeli” is one that deserves a brief but thorough examination; what does it mean, really, to be a “Jewish Israeli?”

Since “Israeli” is a fabricated identity, one based on the theft of Palestinian food like falafel, hummus, olive oil and maftoul as well as Palestinian folklore and culture (4), and “Israel” is a fabricated entity, one based on 131 years of illegal, immoral Jewish colonization of Palestine and the destruction of more than 500 Palestinian villages during the (still-ongoing) Nakba (5), to be a “Jewish Israeli” is to be a colonizer and a destroyer of Palestine. To be a “Jewish Israeli” is to have racial and colonial privileges over the indigenous Palestinian people; at least 30 racist, supremacist laws within “Israel” solidify and uphold these privileges (6). Several of these laws represent a system in which all persons of Jewish heritage on the planet have the “right” to become “Israeli” while all Palestinians, refugees and current inhabitants of Palestine, are systematically denied the most basic human rights (7). To be a “Jewish Israeli” is to serve in the Zionist occupation army and massacre Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, et al. The essence of the “Jewish Israeli” identity is the identity of an oppressor, of a murderer, and irregardless of whatever ‘mask of Zion’ that Zionists attempt to place on it, this is all that it is.

Uri Avnery partook
in the (ongoing) ethnic
cleansing of Palestine
as a member of the terrorist
Givati Brigades.

Despite this irrefutableness and the undeniable fact that Uri Avnery embodies these oppressive qualities to the letter, I did not “attack” or “discredit” him “simply because he is a Jewish Israeli” and this suggestion is particularly intellectually infantile. I “attacked” and “discredited” Avnery because he scripted the most egregious fallacies against the Islamic Resistance movements of the region (1). I “attacked” and “discredited” Avnery because he jovially and fully supported the Zionist-engineered annihilation of Libya at the hands of NATO and wants to see the same carnage repeated in Syria (8). I “attacked” and “discredited” Avnery because he murdered Palestinian women and children during his admitted stint as an Irgun terrorist (9). I “attacked” and “discredited” Avnery because he admittedly partook in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine as an occupation terrorist of the Givati Brigades (10). Persons like Avnery, excuse me, terrorists like Avnery, have no business with the International Palestine Solidarity Movement; the only business that they truly have is with the four walls of the prison cell that they should be thrown in for violating humanity in the most malevolent manner imaginable.

Amsel also brazenly demands, “After a long lifetime in the struggle, both as an activist and a pro Palestinian voice in the Israeli Knesset, Avnery deserves honour, not discredit.” What “struggle” did Uri Avnery participate in? The Zionists’ “struggle” to butcher, rape, pillage, ethnically cleanse, murder and demolish their way to a “state” built upon the bodies of the aboriginals? What a monstrous insult to the Palestinian people who have been waging a real struggle against Zionism since the first criminal Jewish colonists arrived in their homeland in 1881 (5).

Palestinian hunger
striker and hero
Khader Adnan;
Uri Avnery and
other likeminded
Jewish supremacists
could never even
dream of his courage.

If one wants to see what the veritable definition of what struggle is, look no further than Palestinian activist and political prisoner Khader Adnan, who remarkably and courageously went on hunger strike for 66 days, beginning on December 18th, 2011, one day after Zionist occupation authorities kidnaped him from his Jenin home at 3:30 a.m. then locked him away in ‘administrative detention,’ the Orwellian “Israeli” phrase for illegal imprisonment without charge (11). There is no Zionist, including Avnery, that could ever walk a millisecond in Khader Adnan’s shoes; bravery is a characteristic that is incompatible with their way of thinking. Avnery is to struggle what Jewish pornography kingpin Al Goldstein is to decency or what twisted Zionist war criminal Henry Kissinger, developer of the National Security Study Memo (NSSM 2000) to weaponize food and depopulate the “Lesser Developed Countries {read: Arabs, Africans, Asians; read further: goyim} (12),” is to humanity.

And “pro Palestinian?” How does bombing and ethnically cleansing Palestinians make one “pro Palestinian?” How does recognizing the entity that usurped Palestinians of their land and giving them a demilitarized ghetto-prison “state” for a consolation prize make one “pro Palestinian?” More Zionist newspeak; more Zionist doublethink. It is astonishing that Amsel would suggest that a terrorist and killer of Palestinians deserves “honor.” Would he suggest that Sharon and Peres, Barak and Olmert also deserve “honor?” It is equally astonishing that he invokes the “Israeli” Knesset as if it were an institution of justice, human rights and dignity, and serving in this institution leads to one embodying these qualities. It is nothing of the sort. The Knesset represents the institutionalized racism of Zionism, it is the structural personification of the Zionist occupation. It is the entity that passed the Orwellian “Boycott Bill,” which punishes any ‘citizen’ of “Israel” who boycotts the Zionist regime (13). And it is the entity that passed the “Nakba Law,” which criminalizes the remembrance and exposé of the Zionist regime’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine (14).

The exceptionally limited number of Palestinians who serve in the Knesset are routinely incited against, illegally arrested, groundlessly prosecuted and subjected to the most degrading anti-Arab racism (15). But this is Zionism that we are discussing here, and with it inherently comes maniacal violence. MK Talab al-Sana, chief of the Arab Democratic Party in “Israel,” has been threatened with death by letter (16). MK Ahmed Tibi has been threatened with death via Facebook (17). Survivor of the Freedom Flotilla Massacre, the gallant and eloquent MK Haneen Zoabi, has been threatened with death so many times (well over 50) that she told her secretary to stop informing her of it (18). “Israel” is not a normal “state,” and thus, its “state” institutions should not be treated with normalcy. The Knesset is an organ of Zionist oppression and it has absolutely no authority, legitimacy or jurisdiction over any part of Palestine. It, like the “Israeli” entity and identity, is a projection of the psychosis known as Jewish supremacism and it, like the “Israeli” entity and identity, must be boycotted, dismantled and abolished. Permanently.

To close his slanderous invective, Amsel presents a piece of Avnery’s entitled, “Reluctant Prophet,” to, evidently, show “what type of man he {Avnery} is through his description of another great Jewish (Israeli) person.” But of course! One “Israeli” praising another “Israeli,” occupier patting occupier on the back, all in the name of solidarity with Palestine, yes? The “Jewish Israeli person” in question is none other than Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the famed “Israeli” scholar and thinker who former “Israeli” President, Air Force Commander, Defense Minister and Irgun terrorist Ezar Weizman described as, “one of the greatest figures in the life of the Jewish people and the State of Israel in recent generations,” and also, “a spiritual conscience for many in Israel.” Leibowitz was a devout Orthodox Jew and arch Zionist who repeated lies about Hamas quite similar to those repeated by Avnery in his now-disgraced “Shukran, Israel” piece. Leibowitz famously stated after al-Naksa that, “The occupation of the territories would turn Israel into an agent of repression, whose citizens would be employed in growing numbers to police the Palestinians (19).” This is typical of the delusion that is Zionist romanticism.

Zionism is a supremacist
force of destruction and
manifests itself as “rightist”
or “leftist” at will to further
its agenda.

Zionist romantics like Avnery and Leibowitz would like the world to believe that there is dichotomy between the right and left wings of Zionism, that there is a more benevolent, universalist, innocent Zionism on the “left” side of the aisle. They would like to dupe the world into thinking that the Zionist “left” transcends racism and militarism, that the Zionist “left” is intent on establishing “peace.” Most contemptibly, they would also like to fool the world into accepting the Zionist occupation of Palestine as an “obstacle” that has only existed since 1967. These are lies; grotesque, misleading and unconstructive. Zionism has no right wing and it has no left wing, this is a distraction birthed by the Zionist media to humanize it and hide the animalistic atrocities it has committed against the indigenous. Zionism was, is and always will be a project of supremacist terror and plunder. This project is now a global empire of criminality and it all began with the theft of Palestine. Whatever petty political squabbles may occur between Jewish usurpers in “Israel,” all Zionist parties are committed to the same goal: destruction of the Arab peoples for the sake of creating ‘Greater Israel.’

Lest we forget, just so there isn’t an ounce of discrepancy on this matter of the intrinsical evil of Zionism, al-Nakba, the Qibya massacre, the Kafr Qassim massacre, Mossad’s assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy, al-Naksa, the murderous assault on the USS Liberty, further Zionist expansion into the occupied West Bank, al-Quds and Syria’s al-Jaulan, the implementation of the Law of Return as a “come to Palestine and steal some aboriginal land because you’re chosen” card for World Jewry and lastly, genocidal Operation Cast Lead, were all carried out by “left-wing” Zionist entity leaders. Khalas with this insulting false dichotomy and khalas with the recognition of any person as a credible source who attempts to preserve it. Amsel wrote that we would uncover what kind of person Avnery is through his gleaming depiction of Leibowitz in “Reluctant Prophet,” and indeed we do: he is a Zionist, a hardcore, self-deluding Zionist, whose concern with “peace” only translates to the racist preservation of the usurping Zionist entity, just like Leibowitz before him.

Questioning “The Holocaust®” in any
capacity can get you
imprisoned alongside
hardened convicts for
the criminal action of
“thought crime.”

On The Holocaust®: Countering and Shattering The “Jewish Suffering” Vertex

Prior to introducing the rubbish about Leibowitz, Amsel quoted a caption from the second part of my Avnery series dealing with the ‘holocaust’; the caption reads, “The Palestine Solidarity Movement is so busy paying its respects to the propaganda-ridden “chosen” holocaust, it is failing to adequately fight for Palestine.” Seemingly incapable of responding without hysteria, Amsel subsequently commented, “The above is a lie to discredit those Jews involved in the struggle. Nothing but pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism.” Odd. I did not mention “Jews” in the caption, but Amsel did, for the transparently perceptible reason of adding fuel to the “anti-Semitism” fire that he sought to burn me with.

No matter, a tidal wave of truth will douse the defamatory flames. Again, there was no examination of my remark, let alone a refutation. By no means was it a “lie” on any level and by no means was it an attempt to discredit anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It was an undoubtedly harsh but nevertheless accurate statement to wake up the Solidarity Movement from its Zionist-induced slumber. There are none so blind as those who choose their blindness, cherishing it as if it were a heavenly gift.

Thinker and activist Dr. Francis Clark-Lowes, along with esteemed activist and revisionist Paul Eisen before him, characterize the very essence of the caption. Both of these brilliant and fearless men have been expelled from a vital wing of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign for alleged ‘Holocaust® Denial’ and ‘anti-Semitism.’ Paul Eisen was ruthlessly targeted for having the spine to speak on Holocaust® revisionism and his beautiful, important website, Deir Yassin Remembered, a commemoration of the ungodly Zionist massacre of at least 112 Palestinian men, women and children on April 9th, 1948, is now defunct as a result of this cruel and dastardly character assault. This particular branch has been conquered by Jewish supremacists masquerading as “anti-Zionists” and it has become obsessed with ‘Holocaust® Denial’ and ‘anti-Semitism.’ It has even entered into a shadowy, unspoken alliance with toxic Zionist outlets like Engage, Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle to fight its newfound obsessions (20).

Additionally, it has installed a precondition into its framework called “anti-racism,” an Orwellian phrase for “anything critical of Jewish-Zionist power will not be tolerated;” and it is doing everything that it can to deflect attention away from Zionism and Jewish supremacism, passing out leaflets and organizing forums that repeat the tiresome slogan of “Israel” being a settler-colonial apartheid state, insisting that “Israel” is an American client regime and even going as far as saying that Zionism has “non-Jewish origins (21),” one of the most astronomical assertions that I have ever come across. “Israel” is far worse and far more powerful than any “settler-colonial apartheid state” and this description at its root is deceptive and deflective (22). “Israel” absolutely is not another mere US client regime, as ‘American imperialism’ has no place in the Zionist entity (23) and its fifth column lobbying apparatus exercises immense power over the American government, as evidenced just recently with its coverup of the heavy, domineering Zionist hand in the butchering of Iraq and the push for more butchery in the Islamic Republic of Iran (24).

Rabbi Moses Hess:
the REAL godfather
of Zionism, the
little-known creator
of Communism and a
hardcore Jewish

And as if this wasn’t painfully obvious enough already, the origins of Zionism are entirely Jewish, birthed in the mental womb of a hideous supremacist largely forgotten by history. Long before Herzl, there was Moses Hess, or more aptly, Rebbe Moses Hess, a fanatical Talmudist who placed the self-anointed racist rabbinical ‘sages’ on a higher station than prophets and who deemed the Jewish people possessors of a collective, legislative genius that will bring forth their resurgence in the land that they call “Israel.” Rabbi Hess went as far as deeming the Jewish people their own ‘God (25).’

Beyond his rabbinic hatred of goyim in general, Hess had a particular rabid, racist dislike for the German people and his landmark book, “Rome and Jerusalem: the Last National Question,” penned in 1862, is filled with venomous rhetoric against Europeans and serves as a call to Jews to recognize their inherent superiority over all other peoples on earth and thus, “the new Jewish state would be a light to the nations showing them how to live in socialist harmony.” This written pronunciamento of Talmudism is the godfather work of Zionism. Why do “leftists” ignore Rebbe Hess? Because he is also the true founder of Communism (and its manifesto), their ideology’s backbone. Hess was the mentor of none other than Karl Marx, who referred to Hess as the “communist rabbi (26).” Leftists, most specifically those of Jewish heritage who put their tribal interests before everything, would rather dwell in delusion because they don’t want their political dogma tainted. But facts are facts; their dogma is forever linked to Zionism, a byproduct of Jewish supremacism.

If the nature of the Zionist entity is skewed, the root of its power is downplayed and its origins are designedly lied about, how can it be combated? How can the Solidarity Movement triumph, how can full freedom for Palestine be attained, when something is rotten at the core? In light of the facts presented here, especially the persecutions of Dr. Francis Clark-Lowes and Paul Eisen, is the caption sited by Amsel not vindicated? Is it not validated? Is its representation of truth not etched in even bolder ink?

Eisen and Clark-Lowes care deeply about Palestine, why should their (correct) opinions about World War II’s history disqualify them in any way from showing solidarity with the suffering Palestinian people? Why is a Palestine Solidarity organization dedicating so much of its time to ‘fighting’ the slippery, vague and idolatrous constructs of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Holocaust® Denial’ while the Zionist occupation of Palestine rages on without mercy? And more importantly, why is a Palestine Solidarity organization allying itself with and behaving like the very Zionist outfits that incessantly berate and slander the Palestinian people and cause on a daily basis? And the answer is, because Jewish sensitivities regarding what took place during World War II and the irreconcilable need to maintain the uniqueness of Jewish suffering (as well as victimhood) and the racist notion that Jewish persecution at the hands of non-Jews just because they are Jewish is an inevitable occurrence have utterly crippled any rational debate or discussion on these issues (2).

Nazism doesn’t even come
close to the evil of Zionism.
Comparing the two only benefits
the Jewish supremacist agenda.

Even referring to Zionists or “Israelis” as “Nazis” or calling the usurping entity itself a “Nazi state” are exaltations of the supremacist idea that Jews have suffered more than anyone else on earth and they deserve more sympathy than all other people, even when Jews do awful things to other (non-chosen) peoples. Despite some Zionist shrieking here and there, these false comparisons are quietly encouraged because it takes the weight off of Zionism and the Jewish supremacists upholding it.

It is a subtle but very effective method of disseminating Zionist propaganda. By equating to Zionism to Nazism or “Israelis” to Nazis, you are unequivocally saying that “Israel” is like the Nazi regime but there is nothing worse than the Nazi regime and no matter who suffers at the ironfisted hands of “Israel,” nothing can or will ever compare to the suffering of those who lived under Nazism, especially Jews. You are upholding the Zionist myth that the Nazis were the most evil persons to ever walk the planet and nothing that “Israel” does, no matter how savage, no matter how bloody, will ever trump this “ultimate Nazi evil.” Zionists, because of their Jewishness, because of their victimhood, will always be given the benefit of the doubt when their crimes are judged. “Look at what was done to them during the Holocaust®,” how many times has this atrocious fantasy been repeated as indisputable fact?

How many times have we said “Al-Nakba,” and we have been countered with, “but what about the ‘death’ camps…” How many times have we said, “Al-Naksa,” and we have been countered with, “but what about the human soap…” How many times have we said, “Sabra and Shatila, Qana, Marwaheen, Jenin, al-Khisas, al-Aqsa, al-Ibrahimi Mosque, Dahmash Mosque, Dueima, Lebanon ‘06, Cast Lead, countless other massacres, the torture, the dungeons, the administrative detention, the ethnic cleansing, the home demolitions, 64 years of illegal occupation,” and we have been countered with, “all of ‘that’ is horrible, sure, but what about the gas chambers…”

By capitulating to this supremacism, in which Jewish suffering always has primacy, the Palestine Solidarity Movement is helping maintain the status quo; by establishing preconditions to join a group meant to display solidarity with Palestine, but these preconditions protect Zionists and water down their crimes in the name of “fighting anti-Semitism and Holocaust® Denial,” the Palestine Solidarity Movement is operating as yet another Zionist fifth column, just like the ADL, which has a long record of spying for the Zionist entity (27), the Zionist Organization of America or AIPAC. The only difference is, its ‘mask of Zion’ is a much better cover than the others. It must change the path it is on.

The Zionist Power
Configuration has turned
“The Holocaust®” into
an extortion racket that
generates money
for the global protection
of the Zionist entity.

Why would it be mandatory to pay one’s allegiance to the holocaust unless it was to pay homage to Jewish suffering, even if the one paying said allegiance is a Palestinian, Lebanese or Syrian whose life has been destroyed under the very guise of “Jewish suffering”? Why would such a ludicrous oath be needed unless it was to engrave in stone this narrative that has been eating at the world for more than six decades now, even in a place (the Solidarity Movement) where historical iconoclasm is so desperately needed? Does anyone not ask themselves why men have done hard time in prison for questioning a historical event? Or why do laws even exist to stop this event from being investigated or criticized?

If anything, investigating all narratives used by international Zionism to deepen its stranglehold over Palestine should be the prerequisite for joining a solidarity campaign, especially the Holocaust®, which “Israel” and its worldwide Jewish-Zionist network of sayanim have used as a weapon since its criminal founding to extort and influence Western governments, stifle international debate on “Israel”, infect the historical record with falsities, corrupt Western educational discourse and build Zionist fortunes. Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, the invaluable Jewish anti-Zionist pioneer, called it “Holocaustomania (28).”

Let this next statement ring from pillar to post in the Solidarity Movement, from western hemisphere to eastern hemisphere, in the hearts of the religious and the non-religious and in the minds of all persons from all political persuasions: National Socialism is dead and has been so for nearly seven decades; it was decapitated at the behest of international Zionism by the crippling military might of the Allied Powers. Adolf Hitler is dead too and he is not coming back; ever. Nazism is not the beast devouring our world today and Hitler isn’t the figurehead of the beast.

These two things are apparitions; they are boogeymen kept alive and perpetually invoked by the real “powers that be” to deter investigation into their criminal intrigues; nothing more. Zionism and Jewish supremacism are the interlocked demons eating away at the heart of our earth at the present moment, they are the forces behind the vast majority of the world’s problems and they are certainly, without a doubt, the driving force behind every major war of the last century, as correctly noted by the eloquent President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (29).

With that said, no, Nazism wasn’t the most evil ideology to have ever been spawned and no, Hitler wasn’t the most evil man to have ever lived; not even close. Jewish supremacism on the other hand, which destroyed Nazism and Germany itself in the process, is the most evil ideology to have ever been spawned and the persons who adhere to this belief system of “chosen-ness” are the most insidious group that humanity has ever known. The blood of hundreds of millions of innocents as a result of the major wars they have engineered are the genocidal proof.

Citizens of the world are
afraid to criticize the crimes
of Zionist Jewry because they
don’t want their name
blackened with “anti-Semitism.”

Comparing this two-headed malevolent behemoth with Nazism is not only fallacious and an insult to the historical record, it is a service to the Zionist entity and its powerful worldwide lobbying networks. The Zionist Power Configuration appreciates nothing more than pathetic excuses for investigators, who have been so brainwashed beyond repair with Zionist propaganda regarding WWII that they look inside every nook and cranny for Nazi elites that don’t exist, while the very real Jewish supremacist elites (that do exist) own and thoroughly dominate the media with Zionist hasbara (30), nefariously police the Internet (31), despicably promote and distribute pornography (32), pump ecstasy pills and other narcotics into streets across the globe in a “virtual monopoly” (33), successfully lobby the US Congress to implement racist, Talmudic law in America (34), and, last but not least, vigorously work around the clock to eviscerate beyond recognition the Muslim nations of Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine itself (35), Pakistan and Kashmir (36).

And what of National Socialist Germany? Ernst Zündel, the steadfast fighter for truth, hero of history and revisionist giant, who has been dragged through the mud over the years by the Jewish community and Zionist media, imprisoned for “thought crime,” had his home burnt to the ground, targeted for murder by Jewish zealots and had his reputation completely destroyed, opined that National Socialism should be judged for defending Germany as well as the crimes it committed, for its achievements and failures, but nothing more, nothing less and certainly not for fanciful exaggerations (37).

Zündel rightfully believes that the collective memory of the world regarding Nazi Germany is one replete with everybody’s perception of that time period except that of Germans, and this is because the Zionists have ensured that the global forum be this way to protect their tribal interests and international agenda. Aforementioned Jewish Holocaust® revisionist Paul Eisen succinctly notes that there are three distinct, foundational principles to revisionism. Firstly, there never was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the Nazi regime to systematically and physically eliminate every Jew in Europe. Secondly, homicidal gas-chambers never existed. And thirdly, the numbers of Jewish victims have been exaggerated (37).

Children of “the West”
are constantly bombarded
with “Holocaust®” stories
but none of them are rooted
in anything even resembling

Even Holocaust® “expert” Raul Hilberg, the world’s premier “authority” on the topic, admitted under oath in the kangaroo court of the first Zündel trial in 1985 that there was no planned genocide against the Jews of Germany, there was no Nazi blueprint for mass extermination, no central planning of systematic killing by any agency of National Socialism and no budget designated specifically for the destruction of European Jewry (37). Does this make Hilberg, a staunch Zionist, a self-described “defiantly strong Jew” and a Jewish supremacist who believed that, “The Jews are the conscience of the world. They are the father figures, stern, critical, and forbidding (38),” anti-Semitic and a ‘denier of the Holocaust®’?

For the sake of truth, it must be said: the “annihilation of the Jews” narrative that has been relentlessly pumped into the consciousness of humanity since the rise of National Socialism is a farce. A hardcore dose of wartime propaganda that began in the spring of 1942 with hasbara cooked up by Jewish and Zionist agencies and then disseminated throughout the Jewish press. These unconfirmed and uncorroborated sensationalist reports about Jews being steamed to death, suffocated to death, pressed to death, electrocuted to death and gassed to death were then picked up by Zionist media apparatuses in both Britain and America, including the BBC and the New York Times, and were repeated as factual happenings. Not a single one of these reports were rooted in factuality; not one. In reality, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them Jews, died in the Nazi work-prison camp system from exhaustion, malnutrition and the typhus epidemic because the Hitler government failed to provide them the proper food and medicine. But this wasn’t deliberate. It was due to the sadistic 6-year blockade and the barbaric, deranged and cruel saturation bombing campaign carried out against Germany by the Allies, chiefly the Zionist-occupied United States (37).

Nothing defines the holocaust quite like the “homicidal gas chambers,” and no place embodies the “homicidal gas chambers” quite like Auschwitz, National Socialism’s most infamous camp complex. According to popular opinion, 4 million victims, mostly Jews, died in the Auschwitz “extermination” camp. But this, like most other facets of the Holocaust® religion narrative, is false, so false that even preeminent “Israeli” holocaust ‘historian’ Yehuda Bauer has admitted that it is a “deliberate myth.” The Zionist entity’s Holocaust® center and Poland’s Auschwitz State Museum have both reduced the Auschwitz death toll down to 1 million Jewish and Gentile victims but several other prominent historians put the number lower, as low as 500,000 Jewish and Gentile victims (39).

Moreover, the world famous Auschwitz “gas chamber” is a fake, every part of it. It was constructed brick by brick after World War II for propaganda reasons. It is from this point that the “homicidal gas chambers” story falls to pieces. American gas chamber expert Fred A. Leuchter, research chemist Dr. William B. Lindsey and Walter Lüftl, a prominent Austrian expert engineer who ran a huge Vienna-based engineering firm, have all proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the stories of Jews being exterminated by gassing en masse at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek and Mauthausen are untrue on every level. After thorough investigations of the camps, all three men, preeminent authorities in the field, concluded that the stories were “absurd” and “technically impossible.” To reiterate, there isn’t a lick of documentary evidence which suggests that the Nazis planned a “final solution” for Euro-Jewry or “extermination” of Euro-Jewry. This truth can be reconciled with the fact that the vast majority of Jewish inmates unable to work in the camps were left alive and cared for, contrary to the oft-repeated hasbara that those unable to work were executed by gassing. Another major Jewish ‘historian,’ History Professor of Princeton Arno Mayer, has admitted that most Jews who died in Auschwitz died of typhus (39).

Wealthy Zionist fanatic
Theodore Kaufman and
his book of genocide,
“Germany Must Perish.”
While there was no German “final solution” for the Jews of Europe, there was a Jewish “final solution” in place for the people of Germany. The name of this “final solution” was “The Book That Hitler Fears: Germany Must Perish,” a small volume written by a Jewish businessman and rabid Zionist from New York City named Theodore N. Kaufman; the first edition was published sometime between late 1940 and early 1941 and the second edition was published later on in the latter year. In truly disturbing fashion, and in no uncertain terms for that matter, Kaufman blatantly advocates the mass genocidal sterilization of the German people and the subsequent territorial breakup of Germany as a nation-state, fractionalizing it into smaller, weaker entities. Kaufman put this frightening plot on paper because he genuinely believed (and wanted others, specifically Americans, to believe) that Germans were inherently barbaric as a people and therefore, the only way to stop their barbarism from spreading to the four corners of the earth, was to annihilate them (40). Sick does not even begin to delineate Kaufman or his book.

And yet, to note, yes, to simply note these critical historical facts long-suppressed by the Zionist media, to merely discuss this tiny, albeit devastating and refutative package of information, is to commit the ultimate sin, is to engage in the damnable-by-imprisonment thought crime of “Holocaust® denial.” To refuse to accept fabrications, inaccuracies, falsehoods, exaggerations and outright hasbara by Zionist propagandists is to be a “Holocaust® denier.” On the other hand, to accept these lies, these pernicious lies that have been used to justify the most berserk, inhuman aggressions against the people of Palestine and others, is to be a teller of truth, devoted “activist” and “humanist.” Is madness not what this Orwellian dichotomy represents? Is the very essence of “freedom of speech” not maimed beyond recognition by this eccentric duality?

The infamous, Zionist-engineered “312 incubator babies” story that led to the beginning of the decimation of Iraq more than 20 years ago has been exposed as a grisly hoax (41), should we still accept it as fact? The repugnant stories of the now-fallen Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhdhafi giving his military forces Viagra and ordering them to rape civilians, which were used by NATO to increase its barbarous bombing of Libya, have also been exposed as totally baseless (42), should we still accept them as examples of truth? The story of Hamas causing the initiation of Operation Cast Lead by violating the ceasefire with the Zionist entity in late 2008 has been debunked as a Zionist lie; ‘Israel’ had not only been planning the Gaza massacre for quite some time, but it broke the ceasefire on November 4th, 2008 (43), should we still parrot the hasbara? And then there is the “WMDs in Iraq” story, which was another Zionist-birthed fallacy that caused more Iraqi blood to be spilled for the usurping ‘Israeli’ regime (44), should we still cite it as veracious? The emphatic answer to these four questions of course, is “NO!” Using this as the guideline, why then should the hasbara of the Holocaust® not be rejected any less resoundingly?

The Zionist entity
fills the collective mind
of the globe with lies
and it is a professional
obligation of mainstream
“journalists” to accept
these lies as truths.

It is not only socially (and professionally) recommendable but socially (and professionally) obligatory to swallow Holocaust® propaganda in both the mainstream and alternative spheres of media because of the “Jewish sensitivities” sacred cow. To reporters and journalists of both spheres, the ‘fragile feelings’ and emotional (delusional) attachments of Zionist Jews, are seemingly much more important than the truth of a very serious matter, with very serious geopolitical implications. To the same reporters and journalists, the feelings of other peoples who have been afflicted by genocide are of no consequence at all.

The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 is frequently belittled, downplayed and denied. The number of martyrs total more than 1.5 million but mainstream “authorities” routinely reduce this to around 300,000, without incident, without uproar. The ADL, Zionist spy nest and Mossad’s most powerful American front organization (45), leads the charge in suppressing the history of the Armenian Genocide (46). The Ukranian Genocide of 1932-1933, known as the Holodomor, is as badly ignored as the horrors experienced by the Armenian people. More than 10 million Ukranian men, women and children were mercilessly starved to death in a manmade famine, but this martyr count too is disgracefully reduced to numbers as low as 1 or 2 million. Once more, we find the ADL leading the charge to minimize and deny this crucial historical event, with ADL head and Jewish supremacist thug Abraham Foxman once telling reps of former Ukranian President Viktor Yushchenko that, “One thing that you need to be sensitive about is not to link it {the Holodomor} with ours {the Holocaust®}. Be careful. It cannot be played as your genocide, our genocide. Because that will be counterproductive on all sides (47).”

The Iraq Genocide that began with UN Resolution 661 on August 6th, 1990 and continues to rage on to this very moment is assuredly the most denigrated of modern day atrocities. Not only is the vast scope and sheer brutality and evil of the American-British invasion excused and lessened by the previously-discussed “authorities,” so are the numbers of the martyrs and this incessant need to “decrease and downplay” is nothing short of shameful. How many different death tolls are there? 30,000? 100,000? “Tens of thousands” is a common expression. “Collateral damage in the thousands” is also typical.

Even “one million dead” has become a trivialized slogan for “leftists” who ramble on about an “imperialism” that is faceless, as if there aren’t persons behind it with an exceedingly particular ideology. In reality, according to Iraq’s Ministry of Women’s Affairs, more than 2,500,000 Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the criminal invasion and this staggering figure only includes the martyrs of 2003-2010 (48). Moreover, according to the Iraq Ministry of Health, the crippling, unrelenting sanctions that preceded the invasion claimed well over 2,000,000 lives, including 700,000 children (49). 4.5 million Iraqis dead and the ADL refers to this crime against humanity as “democratization (50).”

And the question, as always, is “WHY?” Why are the Armenian, Ukranian and Iraqi Genocides, all of which are rooted in graphic, prolific historical fact and detail, denied, downplayed and minimized by the establishment media? Because the establishment media is the Zionist media and the Zionist media is an instrument of the Jewish supremacist agenda. The Armenian, Ukranian and Iraqi Genocides weren’t Jewish, and because of this obvious but very telling fact, they aren’t newsworthy in the eyes of the Zionist media and the stooges that it employs as “reporters.” But there is a more mischievous reason as why these specific ‘atrocity events’ are devalued, nay, covered up, by the Zionist media and it is because they are all the products of Jewish-Zionist intrigue.

The ungodly Armenian
Genocide was a crime
against humanity carried
out by the agents of
Jewish-Zionist intrigue.

The subversive and maniacal Young Turks, who perpetrated the Armenian Genocide, were Jewish in origin who strongly believed in the Talmudic-Kabbalistic ideology of the 17th century false Jewish Messiah Sabbatai Zevi and his followers, whom many of them descended from. The Young Turks, who were also deeply connected to Freemasonry, had extraterritorial ambitions and were not content with just eliminating the Ottoman Empire; they wanted to establish a “Jewish state” in the heart of Mesopotamia, after ethnically cleansing the indigenous peoples in a repeat of the Armenian Genocide (51). Their exploits were funded by the wealthy communities of Jews and Donmè (crypto-Jews) of Thessalonika (Salonika; Thessaloniki, then part of Turkey, now part of Greece), as well as powerful Jewish-Zionist banking interests in Vienna and Berlin (52).

Their flagship propaganda paper, “The Young Turk,” was managed by none other than Jewish supremacist Vladimir “Iron Wall” Jabotinsky, the genocidal spiritual godfather of the Irgun terror gang, and arms used in their massacres were provided by powerful Jewish financier of the Bolsheviks, Alexander Israel Helphand, better known as “Parvus.” Emmanuel Carasso, Jewish-Zionist founder of the Young Turks, maintained close links to and sought advice from B’nai B’rith, the institution of Jewish Freemasonry, throughout their campaign of bloodshed and militarism (53).

Without the Young Turks’ overthrow of the Ottoman Empire, there would not be a usurping Zionist entity in Palestine now; there would be no Zionist occupation. To understand that the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide were one of the seemingly endless tentacles of international Zionism is to understand a major missing piece of the geopolitical puzzle. The Zionists were well-aware that the Ottoman Empire had to be liquidated if they were to turn Palestine into a “Jewish homeland,” hence why the Young Turks, a force almost exclusively comprised of Jews, were put into action. Today, the Zionist Power Matrix not only wants this hidden Jewish history ignored, but buried; it wants to maintain the idea that “Muslim Young Turks” massacred Armenian Christians to further the Zionist “divide and conquer” agenda.

The savage reign of the Bolsheviks
was a Jewish endeavor; this
devastating fact of history
has been forgotten by
the world thanks to the
Zionist propaganda machine.

The architect of the Holomodor was the Jewish-Bolshevik Lazar Kagonovich, an “artist” in savagery who is said to be the real power behind Josef Stalin. The founder and first commander of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, better known as the Cheka, the animalistic internal security apparatus of the Soviet regime, was Jewish-Bolshevik Genrikh Yagoda, who also founded the brutal Soviet Gulag system and is single-handedly responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million innocents. Jewish-Bolshevik Leonid Reichman was the head of the Cheka’s special operations department and served as its chief interrogation officer and is responsible for the torture of tens of millions of Russians. 39% of all Bolshevik-Stalinist security officials were Jewish, making the greatest mass murderers of the modern era Jews, not Germans; Bolsheviks, not Nazis (54). The Bolshevik Revolution itself, from the onset, was a Jewish endeavor, with close to all of the leading Bolsheviks, including Lenin and Trotsky, possessing Jewish origins and the murder of the imperial Romanov family being ordered and carried out by Jewish-Bolshevik agents (55).

The Zionist media has deliberately entombed these facts because the Holocaust® narrative of “perennial Jewish victimhood” wouldn’t hold as much as weight if the world knew that Jews were nothing even remotely close to victims in Bolshevik-Stalinist Russia; they were the rulers, oppressors and tormenters, just like they are in Palestine today. The only difference is the name of the ideology. Bolshevism and Zionism are simply two heads of the same Jewish supremacist dragon.

While several top academics have documented the domineering Zionist role in the planning and execution of the destruction of Iraq, most notably Professor John J. Mearsheimer and Professor Steven Walt in their landmark work, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” as well as Dr. Stephen J. Sniegoski in his masterpiece, “The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel,” it has not been discussed (at all) that Mossad, the Zionist entity’s international intelligence directorate, has been the chief player in keeping the Iraqi nation in chaos by endlessly planting car bombs and attempting to foment ethno-sectarian war. Very few have spoken above a whisper that the annihilation of Iraq wasn’t just for the “protection” of the usurping ‘Israeli’ regime but for the expansion of it (56).

Speaking out
against the mighty
Zionist Lobby is not just
forbidden, it is “anti-Semitic.”

Anyone who has spoken out against the power of the Zionist Lobby and its role in constructing the decimation of Iraq, including the aforementioned scholars, has been smeared as “anti-Semitic” by the Zionist media and any info on Mossad operations in Iraq have been totally blacked out. The Iraqi people were sacrificed on the altar of Zionism and this must never be revealed to the public because it may just prevent future wars of Zionist aggression from occurring.

And while the two said books also prominently featured the little-known truth that “neoconservativism,” the guiding ideology of the Zionist warmongers behind Iraq’s butchering, is a sole invention of Jewish intellectuals who desperately desire to preserve the existence of the Zionist entity at any cost, it did not focus on what drove these tribalists to found the ideology to begin with: “Holocaust® consciousness (57).” So these men, nearly all of whom are Jewish, just like the Bolsheviks before them, are pushing, bullying, influencing and lobbying Western governments to fight imperial wars for Jewish interests and the preservation of “Israel” in the name of the “6 million Jewish victims” of the Holocaust®.

Paul Wolfowitz, the author of the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” and the chief Zionist strategist behind Iraq’s dismemberment, stated, “That sense of what happened in Europe in World War II has shaped a lot of my views (58).” Wolfowitz’s ‘partner in crime,’ fellow arch Zionist, Iraq War planner and ‘Israeli’ spy Richard Perle, echoes this sentiment, “The defining moment of our history was certainly the Holocaust. It was destruction, a genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don’t want that to happen again. When we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes, we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic (59).” Astounding.

When these revelations are presented in context with the earlier iconoclastic bombshells regarding the exaggerations and fabrications so intimately associated with the Holocaust®, you get the feeling that these persons are insane; not metaphorically, but literally insane. Jewish supremacist warmongers like Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of their neoconservative tribal brethren are planning and ordering wars that are based on lies in the memory of the biggest historical lie of our time. I am legitimately asking here: does it get anymore psychotic than this? And please, allow me to ask another question… doesn’t researching the Holocaust® and debunking all of the gobbledygook that comes along with it become all that more important when the stability of our world is being threatened by madmen who believe in its manufactured uniqueness and righteousness? This is an especially important point when considering ‘Israeli’-American aggression against Iran is on the rise (60), and the “prevention of a second holocaust” is the pretext that is being invoked by the ‘left’ and ‘right’ wings of the Jewish spectrum to destroy thousands of years of Persian history.

The Zionists
are invoking
“The Holocaust®”
as a pretext to
destroy the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
Just recently, Chemi Shalev, in his “West of Eden” blog for the “liberal” Zionist entity newspaper Ha’aretz, wrote a piece entitled “The Holocaust is a good reason, not a bad excuse, for attacking Iran (61)” and neoconservative godfather and genocide-monger Charles Krauthammer, recipient of the “Guardian of Zion” award, an “honor” given out for supporting ‘Israel’ in print by the Zionist entity’s Bar-Ilan University’s Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies (62), recently told ultra-Zionist Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News that, “I cannot imagine the Israelis are going to allow Iran to go nuclear and to hold the Damocles sword over 6 million Jews all over again. Israel was established to prevent a second Holocaust, not to invite one (63).”

Not only does this bloodthirsty trash reinforce the point made earlier that Zionism is chameleonic and it can manifest itself as “rightist” or “leftist” at will as a means of enforcing the Jewish supremacist agenda at its core, it illuminates a much more important matter: investigating the Holocaust® and exposing it for the psychological warfare that it truly represents isn’t only a must for the people of Palestine but for every truth-seeking, peace-seeking human on this planet.

In his groundbreaking book, “The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics,” brother Jihad (Gilad) Atzmon writes some monumentally important words on page 176 that encapsulate the vivid details of this section wholeheartedly, “We should also ask what purpose Holocaust denial laws serve? What is the Holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionist lobbies and their plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes (64).”

~ End Of Part I ~

Next: The revolutionary, fearless breakdown of international Zionism’s linguistic weaponry, the examination and refutation of Jewish “chosen-ness” and the ever-stunning heights of Zionist arrogance…


(1) The Case Of Uri Avnery I: “Shukran, Israel” Analyzed And Refuted by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(2) The Case Of Uri Avnery II: Hasbara, Supremacism And The Future Of Solidarity by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(3) In Defense Of Uri Avnery by Steve Amsel, Desert Peace
(4) Hummus And Falafel Are Already “Israeli.” Now They’re Coming For Palestine’s Olive Oil Too by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada
(5) Resisting The Nakba by Professor Joseph Massad, Al-Ahram Weekly
(6) The Rights Of Israel by Professor Joseph Massad, Al-Jazeera English
(7) Is Israel A Democracy Or An Ethnocracy? by Ben White, The New Statesman
(8) Understanding The Opposition To NATO’s Intervention In Libya by Uri Avnery, Redress Information and Analysis
(9) Uri Avnery Interview by Jon Elmer, The Progressive
(10) 1948 Remembered By The People Who Were There by The Independent
(11) Take Action For Hunger Striking Palestinian Prisoner Khader Adnan! by Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network; Deal Reached To End Khader Adnan’s Detention By 17 April; 66 Day Hunger Strike Ends by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada; Starving For Freedom: The Hunger Strike Of Khader Adnan by Ali Abunimah, Al-Jazeera English
(12) Kissinger’s 1974 Plan For Food Control Genocide by Joseph Brewda, The Executive Intelligence Review
(13) Anti-Boycott Bill Becomes Law After Passing Knesset by Lahav Harkov, The Jerusalem Post
(14) Knesset Approves Nakba Law by Elad Benari, Arutz Sheva
(15) Equality For Palestinians? Israel Won’t Have It by Ben White, The Guardian
(16) Arab MK Gets Death Threats by WAFA
(17) Israeli Arab MK Lodges Complaints After Receiving Death Threats On Facebook by Jonathan Lis and Ophir Bar-Zohar, Haaretz
(18) Arab-Israeli Parliamentarian Fights Death Threats by Mel Frykberg, Inter Press Service
(19) Obituaries: Yeshayahu Leibowitz, 91, Iconoclastic Israeli Thinker by Joel Greenberg, The New York Times
(20) As A Jew… A Letter To Sarah Colbourne by Paul Eisen
(21) From The Outside Looking In… The PSC AGM by Paul Eisen, deLIBERATION
(22) “International Zionism Is Strangling The World:” Interview With Jonathan Azaziah by Kourosh Ziabari, Mask of Zion
(23) Wikileaks Is Zionist Poison II: Deconstruction Of The Myth; Section – Cablegate Fraud II: Disgusting Zionist Lies by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(24) The Iraq War Cover-Up: What Did AIPAC Do And When Did It Do It? by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss
(25) Judaism Discovered: A Study Of The Anti-Biblical Religion Of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition And Deceit; Chapter – Moses Hess And The Secret Relationship Between Judaism, Zionism And Communism, Section – Moses Hess And Judaism, Pages 862-863 by Professor Michael A. Hoffman II, Independent History and Research
(26) Emancipation: Moses Hess To Theodor Herzl by Michael Goldfarb, Global Post
(27) The Anti-Defamation League: A Protector Of Civil Rights Or Silencer Of Free Speech? by American Muslims for Palestine
(28) Book Review: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections On the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering by James A. Montanye, The Independent Institute
(29) Ahmadinejad: Zionists Started Both World Wars by Yitzhak Benhorin, Ynet
(30) Stunning Jewish Success Dominates American Media by Jeffrey Blankfort, Intifada Palestine; Do Jews Dominate In American Media? And So What If We Do? by Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss
(31) A Talmud Ace Tackles Thorny Issue Of Net Neutrality by Joy Resmovits, The Jewish Daily Forward
(32) Triple-Exthnics by Nathan Abrams, The Jewish Quarterly
(33) Israel Trips On Ecstasy by The Washington Times
(34) Bill Text 102nd Congress (1991-1992) H.J.RES.104.ENR by The Library of Congress  

(35) Pakistan: Gateway To The Zionist Endgame by Martin Iqbal, Empire Strikes Black
(36) The Salala Massacre: NATO’s Naked Aggression Against Pakistan And The Hegemonic Israeli-Indo-American Strategy Behind It by Martin Iqbal and Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(37) The Holocaust Wars by Paul Eisen, Righteous Jews
(38) A Conscious Pariah by Nathaniel Popper, The Nation
(39) Auschwitz: Myths And Facts by Mark Weber, The Institute For Historical Review
(40) The Book That Hitler Fears: Germany Must Perish by Theodore N. Kaufman, Argyle Press; Introductory Note by Mark Weber, The Institute For Historical Review
(41) Syria Under Fire: Zionist Destabilization Hits Critical Mass; Section – Hasbara In Full Effect: Exaggerations and Fabrications by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(42) Amnesty Questions Claim That Gaddafi Ordered Rape As Weapon Of War by Patrick Cockburn, The Independent
(43) US Media Didn’t Report Israeli Ceasefire Violation by Jim Lobe and Ali Gharib, The Electronic Intifada
(44) The Zionist Murderers Of Iraq by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(45) The Ugly Truth About The ADL by The Executive Intelligence Review
(46) ADL’s Abe Foxman Disputes Criticism On Armenian Genocide Position by Armenian National Committee Of America
(47) Defamation (film) by Yoav Shamir
(48) Army Of Widows, Orphans Trail US War by Press TV
(49) Lifting The Iraq Embargo After Almost 2 Million Deaths by Dr. M. Amir Ali, Institute Of Islamic Information and Education
(50) Iraq War: Is It Good For Jews, And Israel? by Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith
(51) Young Turks, Freemasons And Jews by Elie Kedourie, Middle Eastern Studies (Vol. 7, No. 1, Jan. 1971)
(52) The Young Turks: Who Were They? by Radio Islam
(53) Palmerston Launches Young Turks To Permanently Control Middle East by Joseph Brewda, The Schiller Institute
(54) Stalin’s Jews by Sever Plocker, Ynet
(55) The Jewish Role In The Bolshevik Revolution And Russia’s Early Soviet Regime: Assessing The Grim Legacy Of Soviet Communism by Mark Weber, The Institute For Historical Review
(56) Occupied Iraq: New Year, Same Zionism by Jonathan Azaziah, Mask of Zion
(57) The Neoconservative Persuasion: Examining The Jewish Roots of An Intellectual Movement by Gal Beckerman, The Jewish Daily Forward
(58) The Busy Life Of Being A Lightning Rod For Bush by Eric Schmitt, The New York Times
(59) The War Party by BBC Panorama
(60) Iran Escalation: All The Elements For War Are Coming Together by Tom Burghardt, Global Research
(61) The Holocaust Is A Good Reason, Not A bad Excuse, For Attacking Iran by Chemi Shalev, Haaretz
(62) Charles Krauthammer: A Pen In Defense Of Zion by Bret Stephens, The Israel Report
(63) Krauthammer: Israel ‘Will Strike’ Iran To “Prevent A Second Holocaust” by The Daily Caller
(64) The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics; Chapter 21 – Truth, History And Integrity, Page 176 by Gilad Atzmon, Zero Books

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!

‘Don’t attack Iran. G-d will send Ahmadinejad to hell’

Israel’s former Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef 91, in his recent weekly Talmud lecture broadcast on Israeli radio every Saturday night advised the Zionist regime: “Don’t attack Iran. Learn Talmud and G-d will save the people of Israel and send Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to hell. In every generation, there are those who tried to destroy us and HaShem (G-d) saved us. Now, there is a tyrant in Iran, perhaps a reincarnation of Haman. We have no one to rely on except our (revengeful) G-d in Heaven,” said the Rabbi.

Unlike Benji Netanyahu and Ehud Barak – Ovadia is not depending on Obama administration or the Jewish Lobby, which he did not even mention. Rabbi Yosef pointed out that there never before have been so many Jews studying Talmud and reiterated that HaShem will fight for Israel.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who is head of Orthodox Arab Jews and founder of Israel’s political Shas party which has its member, Minister of Internal Affairs and deputy Prime Minister, Eli Yishai, in Benji’s government. The rabbi is a typical Zionist whino. In April 2001, he called for the annihilation of Arabs. In August 2010 – Ovadia prayed to his Jewish G-d for death to Palestinian and their President Mahmoud Abbas. He called Palestinan “evil, bitter enemies of Israel” and condemned any dialogue with them. In December 2010, Ovadia’s daughter joined wives of 27 Israeli rabbis urging Jewish women to avoid dating or working with native Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Rabbi Ovadia also composed an anti-Muslim song, entitled “Day missiles on Ishmael“.

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!

"When Assad Won"

 Via FLC

“… The winter of 1979 might have been the most perilous time for the regime: Its leading lights were slowly being snuffed out, its support within key segments of the army and broader population was in doubt, and even its top officials were beginning to breaking away. On Dec. 27, Syrian ambassador to the United Nations Hammud al-Shufi abruptly resigned, due to what he termed “the anti-democratic and repressive methods and corruption of the Assad regime.” (No Syrian ambassadors have yet defected during the present unrest.)….  
History is written by the victors, and the story of Syria’s civil war is no exception. ……. 
 Assad’s response was as cunning as it was ruthless. He retaliated by dissolving the associations and arresting their leaders….. Meanwhile, he found allies in the Damascene merchant class and was able to weather the economic storm. According to Seale, the merchants’ support for Assad at this critical juncture cemented the regime’s relationship with the Damascus businessmen — an alliance that has persisted through the present day.

 Having cut off all avenues of dissent but violence, the Assad regime then moved to ensure that its enemies had no hope of winning through armed revolt. After a failed assassination attempt against Assad on June 26, 1980, the regime’s strongmen determined to make the Muslim Brotherhood pay….

The Sunni insurgents responded by escalating their campaign of terror in Damascus…. For all the stresses put on the Syrian regime, the sharp and unbridgeable sectarian rifts that the conflict had opened made it virtually impossible for the Alawite ruling class to do anything but fight to the death. “[The Muslim Brotherhood] has succeeded in widening the distance between the government and the majority of the people, but not in destabilizing the regime,” wrote the historian Hanna Batatu in December 1982. “Instead of splitting the ‘Alawis and thus weakening their foothold in the army, they have, by their anti-‘Alawi practical line, frightened the ‘Alawi community into rallying behind Asad.”

With the military remaining largely loyal, nothing could stop Assad from crushing the opposition’s strongholds. By the time the city of Hama rose in open revolt in February 1982, the stage was set for a final confrontation between Assad’s opponents and more than 10,000 well-equipped Syrian security forces — a battle the Sunni insurgents could not hope to win….. In the end, the Sunni insurgency of the late 1970s and early 1980s was too focused on Sunni revivalism, too shadowy — simultaneously too violent to attract widespread support and not violent enough to pose an existential threat to the regime.

Could the modern-day opponents of Bashar al-Assad, Hafez’s son, suffer the same fate as the insurgents of years past? …..Syria’s revolutionaries have not been able to make a complete break with the past. After months of largely peaceful protest, the effort to topple Assad is increasingly defined as a struggle between Syria’s security forces and an armed insurgency. According to activists’ own figures, the past two months have seen a higher proportion of Syrian soldiers killed than at any other point in the revolt — totaling roughly 25 percent of the total deaths. This surge in violence has also been marked, in the past two weeks, by devastating car bombings in Aleppo and the first assassination of a Syrian general — tactics that carry an echo of the dark days of civil war….”

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!

Syrians Overwhelmingly Approve New Constitution


My PhotoMajor media scoundrels can’t bear reporting good news they’d rather suppress, so they downplay and disparage it best they can. More on that below.


On Sunday, Syria’s state TV showed huge pro-Assad crowds in Damascus’ Saba Bahrat Square. By national referendum, they were eager to support constitutional reforms. They also backed state security force efforts against Western-backed killer gangs.


Russian Eurasian Institution head Alexander Doglen also endorsed draft constitutional changes. Islamic scholar Abdul-Rahman Ali al-Dalaa said they boost human dignity and religious freedom.


On February 27, Syria’s Interior Ministry announced Sunday’s impressive results. From 7AM, 14,185 polling centers opened across Syria’s governorates, as well as at border crossings, airports, mobile desert areas, and other locations.


Syrians are enthusiastic for change. Despite opposition boycotts, threats, anti-Assad media campaigns, and turnout hampered in violence-torn areas, 89.4% of eligible voters approved it. Another 9% opposed, and 1.2% of ballots were invalid.


Overall, 57.4% of Syrians participated. The total was impressive, given the risks voters took to show up.


Raw numbers included 8,376,447 voting among 14,589,954 eligible. Those for totaled 7,490,319 compared to 753,208 against.


The Constitution includes 157 articles. From its initial draft, 14 are new, 37 were amended, and another 34 reformulated. Among other reforms, political pluralism was established for the first time, as well as presidential term limits, and press freedom.


Reporting it, The New York Times headlined, “Syrians Said to Approve New Charter as Battles Continue,” saying:


Fighting keeps raging. Critics called it “too little too late, and Western leaders labeled (it) a farce.”


“Even before the result was announced, after a morning of new shelling in the beleaguered city of Homs and elsewhere, some Western leaders had disparaged the vote as having no credibility.”


UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said it “fooled nobody. To open polling stations but continue to open fire on the civilians of the country has no credibility in the eyes of the world.”


In fact, Western-backed insurgents bear most responsibility for violence and instability to impose regime change most Syrians oppose. Their impressive turnout showed it.


Huge crowds voted in Damascus and other less violent areas. Voting continued until 7PM, and in high turnout areas until 10PM. Only then were centers closed.


Downplaying an impressive day, The Times said “(s)ome polling places appeared deserted, and at others, the opinions were divided.”


Hillary Clinton called Sunday’s vote an empty gesture, saying:


“It’s a phony referendum that is going to be used by Assad to justify what he is doing to other Syrians. So it’s a cynical ploy to say the least.”


Anti-Assad Syrian National Council (SNC) member Bassma Kodmani said:


“It is not going to work because the repression is continuing. They are caught up in this cycle, and it is simply to late.”


AP buried referendum results paragraphs into an article headlined, “Red Cross delivers aid to Syrian city of Hama.” It stressed violence and opposition boycotts over impressive results downplayed dismissively.


At the same time, EU nations imposed new Syrian sanctions. They include freezing central bank assets and those of certain government officials. Importing precious metals, diamonds, and minerals were also banned. Moreover, cargo flights may no longer land in EU countries.


New measures build on last September’s oil embargo and other multiple rounds. They’re effective after publishing them in the EU’s Official Journal. It’s usually within 24 hours of imposition.


A joint EU foreign ministers statement said:


“The EU underlines that those responsible for the violence across Syria will be held responsible for their actions. The EU supports the Syrian opposition in its struggle for freedom, dignity, and democracy.”


In fact, rogue EU states, like America, won’t tolerate democracy at home or abroad. They wage wars to prevent it.


For his part, Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned about intervening against Syria and/or Iran “under cover of humanitarian slogans.” In fact, “tragic events (are) driven not by concern for human rights, but a desire by some (nations for regime change and) to redistribute markets.”


Russian news agencies quoted him saying nations need to “decide their own fate independently.” He added that Western nations backed Arab Spring revolts to advance their own regional interests.


They very much want Syria and Iran regime change to assure them there against majorities in both countries.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



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!

Tales of the Israel Lobby: Threats, Dershowitz, & Embedded Lobbyists

James Abourezk represented South Dakota in Congress from 1971 to 1979. CNI asked Senator Abourezk about his experiences with the Israel Lobby. In his first response he told of an Israeli plot to assassinate him. In this column he discusses threats to his family, Alan Dershowitz, and Israeli lobbyists embedded in the U.S. State Department:

by James Abourezk
When I was Chairman of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC), we had two bombing incidents. I had no idea who was responsible, but I had a guess. Someone unknown placed a bomb in the doorway of ADC’s Boston headquarters. The staff there called the Boston police, who came and were in the process of disarming the pipe bomb that they found there. If I recall correctly, the police had put the bomb in a metal barrel, and it exploded in the face of one of the police officers, seriously injuring him. We all felt terrible about the policeman being injured and we tried as best we could to console his family. The whole incident was covered by a Boston TV station, and I assume they still have the footage of the explosion on file.
At around the same time, someone unknown firebombed the ADC headquarters in Washington, D.C. I was out of town at the time, but no one was hurt, and I was able to get back in time to accompany the arson expert with the D.C. police department, who showed us exactly where the bomb was thrown and how the fire had spread from that point.

Because we were all gripped with fear of what might be next, I decided to tighten up the security on my home, if nothing more than to calm down my family. I had bought a Rottweiler dog sometime earlier both for protection of my family and of our home. I learned that Rottweilers would automatically attack anyone who came near our home, unless we had introduced the dog to person visiting. I had a security expert—someone who had once worked as a Secret Service agent in the White House—make recommendations to insure that we would be a difficult target for someone who would wish us harm. We followed his advice and made the house a bit more invulnerable. He also told us that it would be impossible to make any home 100 per cent safe, but we could make it so a potential bomber would be discouraged enough to give up trying.

I also hired a 24 hour guard for the house. The first night the guard, a young man wearing a blue blazer and armed with a weapon situated himself inside, near the front door. At one point during the night, he ran upstairs to our bedrooms and shouted that there was something making noises outside. I suggested that, since he had the gun, that he should check it out, but he wanted me to go with him. So I dressed, took the Rottweiler with me on a leash and the guard and I did a search around the house. Finding nothing we went back in. The guard spent the rest of the night immediately outside my bedroom door, I suspect more frightened that I was, and the next day, I fired the security service.

After the bombing of the ADC headquarters in Washington, I was still extremely nervous about what might happen, but I put on my brave face and held a press conference, announcing to the world that “we would not be intimidated” by these kind of terrorists, and that we were going to work harder than ever to bring justice to the Palestinians and others in the Middle East who were victims of Israel’s aggression. But I honestly had a hard time staying calm and preventing myself from running out of the room to find a safe place to hide.

What Has Been Your Experience with Alan Dershowitz?

I remember Alan Dershowitz, not as a Harvard Law Professor, but as the person who wrote an op-ed column in one of our national newspapers in which he said that Palestinians need not worry about justice in the Occupied Territories, as the Israeli Supreme Court would always make certain that they were fairly treated. I’ve been reading Mondoweiss online, which has a daily list of Palestinians whose homes are leveled by U.S.-made bulldozers, of land outright stolen by Israeli settlers for the use of the settlers, most of whom come from the United States to live in the West Bank. I know that Dershowitz’s words about the Israeli Supreme Court are a great comfort to those Palestinians in the West Bank who have been killed, maimed, and their property stolen.

A few short years ago when I was in Damascus, I did an interview on Al Manar Television, which is Hizbollah’s channel in Lebanon. During the interview I mentioned that Alan Dershowitz was a “snake.”

There is a pro-Israeli group here in the U.S. which calls itself “MEMRI” which tapes television shows broadcast in the Middle East. They had taped my interview, which I suppose is where Alan Dershowitz heard about my description of him. He thereupon wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post in which he called me an “anti-Semite.” That slur is the favorite of Pro-Israeli Lobbyists and it works a lot of the time, often succeeding in silencing critics of Israel or of its policies.

“I was a journalist in waiting, but I didn’t want to be chasing fires and monitoring police calls,” she writes in her third book, “Front Row at the White House.”

Later, when I was invited to speak to the ADC gathering in Washington honoring Helen Thomas, who was herself the target of the same smear, I spoke about Dershowitz’s attempt to silence me by calling me an anti-Semite. I told the audience at that dinner that anti-semitism means that the person charged disliked Jews as Jews. I further said that I do not dislike Jews, but I only disliked Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman, the head of the B’nai B’rith, and that my dislike of them had nothing to do with anti-semitism, but with how they operated.

My speech that night was later published on the Counterpunch site, which prompted the ever vigilant Dershowitz, after he had read the speech, to vehemently deny that he had labeled me an anti-semite. The co-editor of Counterpunch, Alex Cockburn, somehow located the old Jerusalem Post column written by Dershowitz, and there it was, plain as day, with him very cleverly saying about me that, when it comes to anti-semitism, “if the shoe fits, wear it.”

Here is the relevant portion of Alexander Cockburn’s column, quoting Dershowitz:
“In his [CounterPunch] article entitled ‘Honoring Helen Thomas’ dated November 22, 2010, James Abourezk makes the following statement:
‘I once called Alan Dershowitz a snake on Al Manar television. Al Manar is Hezbollah’s news channel in Lebanon. When he found out what I had said, he wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post, calling me an anti-Semite.’
[That] is a lie. Here is a link to my article to which he refers. ( I challenge him to find the term ‘anti-Semite’ in the article. I also challenge your readers to read the article and judge Abourezk’s credibility. Now I will characterize Abourezk: He is a liar.”
Cockburn went on:
“I duly clicked on the Huffington Post link thoughtfully provided by prof. Dershowitz and indeed, there is no use of the term ‘anti-Semite’ in the column by the noted Harvard law professor, published on September 21, 2007. But since the prof. is a notoriously slippery fellow, I put a couple of sentences from that same column into the google search engine, pressed button A and, hey presto, up came the same Sep 21, 2007 Dershowitz column, printed that same day on the site of the United Jewish Foundation. And lo! there was a final paragraph, omitted from the Huffpost version. Here it is.
‘Well maybe former Senator Abourezk isn’t so different from the late Senator Bilbo after all. He uses the word ‘Zionist’ in precisely the same bigoted way Bilbo used ‘kike.’ [Huffington Post version ends here.]
‘It is true that not all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but just because it is anti-Zionist does not mean it is not also anti-Semitic. If the shoe fits…’ (C2007 09/21/07).
“Anti-Semite”… “anti-Semitic” … A minute difference on which the slippery prof. would no doubt try to hang his hat, but to any impartial observer it’s plain enough that Abourezk’s memory is true. Dershowitz was sliming the former distinguished Senator from South Dakota as an anti-Semite. It’s maybe why Huffington Post dropped the final paragraph as libelous, unless Dershowitz reserved the slime for the version he sent FrontPageMagazine which, the vigilant reader will have noted, was credited as its source by the United Jerusalem Foundation.”

And here is my response to Alex after he found the “anti-semite” article:

Dershowitz is neither a good lawyer nor a good liar. He is trying to slither out of what has become nearly a full time occupation–that of branding any criticism of Israel as coming from someone who hates Jews. That does not work on me, as I’m secure in my anti-racist feelings. I’ve had any number of Zionists who are devoid of any reasonable argument throw the anti-semitism charge at me. Sorry, but it doesn’t work, and Dershowitz is not clever enough to make the “shoe fit” no matter how hard he tries. Does he think that pointing to an incomplete article reprinted in Huffington Post will do the trick? Obviously he does, which makes his lie even more prominent. That’s a trick that even a first year law student would be smart enough not to try. He’s been caught lying and no amount of his flailing about will make that vanish. I hadn’t realized that it would be that easy getting a job teaching law at Harvard. Had I been younger, armed with this knowledge I would have applied for the job.
Jim Abourezk

We’ve heard nothing from Dershowitz since that time, but he’s still out there somewhere, apologizing for Israel’s dirty deeds.

Letters of 76 Senators

This great snapshot,shows Gerald Ford with then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, just days after Nixon’s resignation. Photo courtesy of Library of Congress.

When Gerald Ford was President and Henry Kissinger was his Secretary of State, the two decided, during U.S. backed peace talks to bring Israel around to U.S. thinking by withholding American aid to Israel. That effort ended quickly when 76 U.S. Senators signed an AIPAC drafted letter to President Ford containing a thinly veiled threat to Mr. Ford if he continued to withhold military aid to Israel. The letter prompted President Ford to give in to the Lobby’s demand and to resume aid to Israel.

What happened leading up to the publication of the letter in the U.S. press is an interesting story. I had dinner with one Senator—who shall go unnamed here—the night before the letter was released to the press. He told me that he had no intention of signing it.

The next day, when the letter appeared in the Washington Post, I asked my friend what had happened.

“Jim, I received phone call after phone call all during the day yesterday, calls from people who had gone beyond just supporting me in my election, but people—lawyers, doctors, professional people and businessmen—who had interrupted their careers to work in my campaign. I couldn’t say no to them, which is why you saw my name on the letter.”

AIPAC Founder Isaiah L. Kenen and Ted Kennedy

Later, in the Senate cloakroom, a number of us were standing together, talking about the letter. Ted Kennedy spoke first. “I knew that’s what would happen when I was approached to sign the letter, and I don’t like it at all. We should, next time, get together before signing such a letter, and all of us say no at the same time.” What Kennedy was referring to was the Israeli Lobby’s practice of picking off the Senators by going to one Senator, saying, “Senator So- and-so has signed, and you’d better not be the only potential presidential candidate not on the letter.” They would then go to Senator So-and-so and say the same thing. Ultimately, all of the leading Senators—especially those who wanted to run from President—would put their signature on the letter.

Kennedy’s statement was what spurred me to say something, during a mini-debate I had with Hyman Bookbinder before a section of the D.C. Bar Association’s meeting in D.C. We were promoting a book we had written together as a debate on the Middle East—Through Different Eyes—and I mentioned that Senators would cheer on Israel in public but would bad mouth both Israel and the Lobby in private. One lawyer raised his hand and asked, “name just one U.S. Senator who would do that.”
I said, simply, “Ted Kennedy,” hoping he was politically strong enough to resist the Lobby’s counter-attack.

Two or three days later, Ted Kennedy called me and said, “Abourezk, what the hell have you done to me?” I guess Ted had underestimated his own political strength, or at least, did not want any of it diluted in a tiff over the Middle East. And he for sure did not want to spend his time defending himself from the Israeli Lobby.

Getting help from the lobby

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1948, at age 17, immediately after I graduated from High School. After training in San Diego, I was ordered to Japan to become a member of the occupation. I was stationed on quasi-shore duty in Japan, actually aboard a non-propulsion barracks ship tied up in the heart of Tokyo, on the Sumida River. The ship was essentially the barracks for members of the Admiral’s staff. Early on in my tour there, the Kodokan Judo University in Tokyo sent a few Judo instructors to our ship in order to recruit students for their Judo school. The delegation included the then world champion, Ishikawa-san, and a slightly built man in his eighties, named “never fall Mifune.” We converted a large empty cabin on the ship into a Judo room, with mats on the metal floors to break our falls.

There I learned the essence of the art of Judo—using your opponent’s strength and momentum against him in order to win.

That lesson was very useful in helping me get a Committee assignment I wanted while in the Senate. When North Carolina’s celebrated Senator Sam Ervin retired from the Senate after masterfully chairing the Senate Watergate Committee, I decided to try for his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Jim Allen, from Alabama, also decided to try for the seat. But he was senior to me so it was obvious to everyone that I had an uphill battle.

With the lessons I learned studying Judo in mind, I caught David Brody, one of the Israeli Lobbyists, in the corridor, telling him that I was trying for the Judiciary Committee seat that Sam Ervin was vacating. I casually mentioned that if I didn’t get on Judiciary, I would then try for Foreign Relations. That, I knew, would get his attention.

Although I never saw any evidence of the Lobby’s actions, even though Allen was senior to me, I surprisingly got the most votes from the Senate Steering Committee, which makes Committee assignments. So I later thanked Dave Brody for his help, but he never acknowledged that he had done the job.

Embedded Lobbyists.

It is difficult to describe how deep into the U.S. Government the Israel Lobby is embedded, but occasionally signs of the depth of its penetration become obvious. I can cite two instances where it was more than obvious.

I received a call one day from a career State Department diplomat, someone I had met during a trip I had made to the Middle East. He was my “control officer” when I was in Egypt on that trip, the diplomat whose job it was to stay with me during my stay there.

His call came out of the blue, at least two or three years after having met him in Cairo. He sounded both desperate and frantic, telling me he had to come to my apartment to talk to me about something.
When we met, he was totally different than when I had met him in Cairo, then a very suave professional diplomat. The day he came to my apartment he was both nervous and frantic, telling me that someone had to do something about the Israeli Lobby. They were “everywhere” in the State Department, he said, leaning on anyone who had anything to do with the Middle East. By that, he explained, he had witnessed both Lobby representatives and Israeli officials working over U.S. diplomats in every kind of setting, that is, he saw them doing so in restaurants, in State Department offices, virtually everywhere.
All he wanted to do, he said, was to stop it, and he didn’t know how. I had to confess that I didn’t either.
I’m not certain that anyone in Washington, D.C. knows the total amount of money and favors our government gives to Israel, largely due to its Lobby.

Aside from the several billions of dollars in aid that goes from our Treasury to Israel, there are a great number of top secret contracts that we sign with the Israeli government that could not stand the light of day should they be disclosed.

I do remember that our taxpayers funded the “Arrow” air defense system Israel has now to deter incoming rockets and missiles.
I also knew about Israeli Aircraft Industries having an office at the airport in Wilmington, Delaware, presumably to handle air force contracts between Israel and the U.S. government. Why else would there be such an office in Delaware?

Other avenues for the Lobby to Pursue?

After I left the Senate and began practicing law in Washington, D.C. I was retained by a very wealthy Palestinian who had spent a number of years attending schools in the United States. He received a PhD from Columbia University in New York, and had spent a lot of time making money and investing it in real estate in various parts of America, as well as in Europe. He was married to a Palestinian woman and they had two sons, both of whom were born in New York during his schooling there.

My client was building a satisfying life, traveling in Europe and the United States to tend to his business interests, until, one day, he was surprisingly denied entry into the United States. He was accused of being a member of the PLO. Other than all Palestinians considering themselves belonging to the Palestinian liberation movement, he had never done anything that would brand him as a terrorist. He suspected that someone who was an enemy had deliberately told the U.S. government that he was a PLO member, hoping to cause him problems.

This was during the Reagan Administration, so my first move was to hire a Republican law firm to help lobby for a visa for him. He not only had business interests in the United States, but his two sons were both in college here, so not being allowed to come into the U.S. was a decided handicap.
Aside from the law firm charging great amounts of money for whatever time they spent on his case, the lawyer assigned to his case was ultimately never able to get him cleared to enter the U.S. Finally, the lawyer/lobbyist told my client that he had a Jewish partner in the firm who was well connected in Israel, and would be able, he said, to travel to Israel to plead his case and to obtain Israel’s approval for his entry visa into the United States. He was told that the cost would be extra for the service.

My client looked at him, dumbfounded, and to his credit, said that he would prefer not to enter the U.S. if it came to relying on the Israeli government’s intervention to get him a visa.
Source: Council for the National Interest
Editing: Debbie Menon

JAMES ABOUREZK is a board member of the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and is a contributor to CounterPunch and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books, including Advise & Dissent: Memoirs of South Dakota and the U.S. Senate.
His e mail address is:
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!

Assad Prevails with Wisdom, US Backtracks by Hastiness

Batoul Wehbe
Bashar Assad, AsmaDuring his participation in the referendum on the new constitution in Damascus Sunday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad emphasized the ‘media attack’ on his country which he said that ‘although serious, however, doesn’t outdo reality.’ ‘They may be stronger in space, but we are stronger on the ground. Still, we want to win on the ground and in the space,” Assad said after casting his vote along with his wife Asma’ .
In the meantime, US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned that foreign intervention in Syria may push the country into the abyss of a full-scale civil war. Clinton also cautioned against the United States arming ‘rebels’ in Syria because ‘such a move could inadvertently lead to support for Al-Qaeda and Hamas.’ ‘Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?” she said during an interview with CBS News during a visit to Morocco. “Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?” she asked.
Bashar Assad“This is not Libya, where you had a base of operations in Benghazi, where you had people who were representing the entire opposition” to Libyan strongman Moammar Gaddafi. “You’re not going to bring tanks over the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. That’s not going to happen,” Clinton emphasized.

Assad’s stance demonstrated a firm position with regards to realizing reforms in Syria where US and Arab backed unrest has been ongoing since 11 months. The same day, Clinton heralded the retrogress of the US position concerning Syria after realizing it over-esteemed the so-called opposition which has become divided and under-esteemed the Syrian president who has prevailed with the support of his regime and people, thus suggesting a wise management of the crisis by President Assad.

Syria now is the center of the world powers’ concerns. Everything that happens there may influence the whole region. Many analysts have described the events in Syria as a global war against the country; a war that is apparently waning down with Assad emerging as victorious.

Syria witnessed on Sunday a new phase of reform not seen in any Gulf country. Syrians, whose turnout was remarkable, voted on the new constitution, state run agency SANA reported.

The committees tasked with overseeing the referendum process beganSaba Bahrat Demo tallying votes in all centers with results set to be announced on Monday.

Minister of Interior Mohammed al-Shaar said that the polling centers witnessed a huge turnout of the citizens except in some areas.
Huge crowds of citizens streamed on Sunday into Saba Bahrat Square in Damascus in expression of support to the comprehensive reform process and to the referendum. They voiced rejection to the foreign interventions in Syria’s domestic affairs and the decisions of “Syria enemies’ Conference” held lately in Tunis, in reference to the now-divided “Syria Friends’ Conference.”

Source: Website Team

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!

Syrians Say ’Yes’ to New Constitution, President Assad Approves It – “Qatar in Favor of Delivering Arms to Syrian Opposition”

Syrians Say ’Yes’ to New Constitution, President Assad Approves It
Local Editor
Syrian President Bashar Assad endorsed on Tuesday the new constitution which has been supported by Syrians during Sunday referendum.
Assad issued a decree in which the new constitution came into effecet since February 27, official news Agency reported.
On Mondaythe results of the referendum were announced, with high percent of the voters said yes to the new constitution.

Syrian interior minister
Al-Shaar during press conference on Monday

89.4% of the 57.4% who vote on Sunday referendum agreed to the constitution, Interior Ministry announced.

In a press conference, Minister of Interior Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar said that that 8,376,447 citizens voted in the referendum on the new draft constitution, which constitutes 57.4% of the 14,589,954 eligible voters, with 7,490,319 (89.4% of voters) agreeing to it while 753,208 (9% of voters) didn’t agree.
He said that there were 132,920 invalid ballots, which makes up 1.6% of votes.

Al-Shaar hailed the turnout as good “despite the threats and intimidation by armed terrorist groups in some areas and the accompanying distortion and instigation campaigns by media”, official news agency, SANA, quoted him as saying.

The announcement of the results came just after the European Union adopted sanctions on Syria’s central bank and froze the assets of several Syrian government officials.

The foreign ministers of the 27 EU countries, in a meeting in Brussels on Monday, also banned the purchase of gold, precious metals and diamonds from the country, and banned Syrian cargo flights from the European Union.

Source: Agencies

“Qatar in Favor of Delivering Arms to Syrian Opposition”
Local Editor
Qatar and Norway Prime MinistersQatar’s prime minister said Monday he was in favor of delivering arms to the Syrian opposition that is battling President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and attacking innocent civilians across the country.

“We should do whatever necessary to help them, including giving them weapons to defend themselves,” Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim Al-Thani said during an official visit to Norway.

“This uprising in Syria now (has lasted) one year. For 10 months, it was peaceful: nobody was carrying weapons, nobody was doing anything. And Bashar continued killing them,” he pretended during a news conference.
“So I think they’re right to defend themselves by weapons and I think we should help these people by all means,” he added.

Hundreds of peaceful Syrian citizens have been killed in violence across Syria since armed gangs erupted protests in March 2011.
Qatar PM Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-ThaniThe Qatari prime minister also reiterated that his country was in favor of sending an international peacekeeping force to Syria, with an Arab “core”.

“We need (an international) coalition, but the core of the coalition should be an Arab force,” maybe referring to the Peninsula Shield that entered Bahraini territories in March 2011 and brutally killed dozens of peaceful Bahraini protests demanding freedom and social justice.
At the beginning of the month, Russia and China blocked a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s crackdown.

Last week in Tunisia, a “Friends of Syria” international conference, in which Moscow and Beijing refused to take part, discussed several ways to help opponents of Assad’s regime but put off a decision on sending a joint Arab League-UN peacekeeping force.

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!

War of Nerves


By JOHN CHERIAN, February 2012
The West, along with “Israel”, is racheting up threats of an attack, but Iran appears unfazed.

REPORTS appear every other day in the Western media about an imminent “Israeli” strike against Iran. The Barack Obama administration keeps on repeating that “all options are on the table” against Iran. The United States armed forces have begun their biggest amphibious landing drill in the Persian Gulf region in more than a decade. The Pentagon recently doubled the number of aircraft carriers in the region. U.S. military and spy drones have been flying over Iran for some time now. Late last year, Iranians brought down a sophisticated U.S. drone.

The “Israeli” media are full of stories about the build-up of American troops in two small Gulf islands near the Strait of Hormuz. “Israeli” “Defense” Minister Ehud Barak, one of the architects of the massacre in Gaza three years ago, said in early February that “the window” for an effective military strike on Iran was rapidly closing because of the continuing development of uranium enrichment centrifuges by that country. “Israeli” Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon declared that his country was confident of hitting any facility in Iran it chose to, saying that he was speaking from his experience as a former head of the “Israeli” armed forces.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy added his belligerent voice to the war discourse by saying that an attack on Iran would be justified if the country “continues its senseless race to get the bomb and threaten its neighbors”. Sarkozy seems to have conveniently forgotten that in the modern era, Iran never started a war. It has always been a victim of aggression. It was the West and the Arab monarchies that encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in 1980, leading to the eight-year war, which led to the loss of more than a million Iranian lives.

Teheran appears to be unfazed by the ratcheting up of threats from the West.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary of the Iranian revolution, said that the Islamic Republic would soon announce some “very important” achievements in the nuclear field.

The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also reiterated that Iran would never give up its “rights” to a peaceful nuclear program. Iran has been consistently stating that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has every right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program. All of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including those engaged in uranium enrichment, are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that weapons-grade uranium is not produced.

Khamenei warned the West against undertaking a military adventure, saying that if hostilities broke out, “it would be 10 times deadlier for the Americans” than it would be for Iran. Reacting to threats from “Israel”, he said the country was a “cancerous tumor” in the region, which had to be removed.
U.S. Secretary of “Defense” Leon Panetta told the media in Brussels in early February that there was a strong likelihood of “Israel” attacking Iran by the middle of the year. On December 20, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey told CNN that a whole range of options were being examined for military action against Iran. “I am satisfied that the options that we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable if necessary,” he said.

The right-wing government in “Israel” would like nothing better than precipitating a war with Iran. The hawkish government in “Israel” has coldly concluded that the Obama administration, readying itself for re-election later in the year, will have no other option but to finish the war that “Israel” wants to start. But the realists in the Obama administration know that Iran is not like neighboring Iraq, which they could occupy in a couple of weeks. President Obama, trying to tone down the talk of imminent war, said in the first week of February that the “Israelis” had not yet decided their course of action against Iran. He emphasized that the two countries would “work in lockstep, as we proceed to solve this, hopefully diplomatically”. Meanwhile, the Republican contenders for the U.S. presidency, with the exception of Ron Paul, are carrying on with their refrain of “bomb, bomb Iran”.

On the nuclear issue, the Iranian people are united as never before. The neighboring Arab monarchies are no doubt tacitly supporting the psychological and economic warfare being currently waged by the West against Iran, but they realize that Iran too has many cards to play. The Shia populations in these countries are already restive and are demanding their democratic rights. Senior Iranian officials have warned that if war breaks out, the Iranian army will target the U.S. military bases littering the Gulf countries. If shipping is affected in the choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, global oil prices are bound to shoot through the roof. Even the American consumer could be left with a big hole in his pocket during an election year. This will be detrimental to Obama’s chances of winning a second term.

On a parallel track, the U.S. has been trying desperately to arm-twist traditional friends and trading partners of Iran, like India, to implement the unilateral sanctions imposed by the West. When India’s Foreign Secretary, Ranjan Mathai, was in Washington recently for talks, the U.S. State Department spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, told reporters that “how India might find alternative sources of energy” was among the important issues discussed. She said that the U.S. was trying to implement a “two-track policy, both to encourage countries to wean themselves from Iranian oil, but also to work with suppliers around the world to help countries find alternative sources of energy”.

The Saudi Arabian government has promised to ramp up the production of oil in order to meet any shortfall in case Iranian oil is forced out of the international market. Iran has described the unilateral sanctions imposed by the West as part of the “psychological warfare” being waged against it. In the first week of February, the Obama administration gave more powers to U.S. banks to freeze Iranian assets and close loopholes that would make it even more difficult for the Iranian government to transfer funds through international banking channels. Iran’s Vice-President, Mohammed Reza Rahimi, defiantly reacted to the latest set of sanctions by saying that Iran would make “the sanctions ineffective, as it has done in the past, and will continue selling oil”.

The sanctions, meanwhile, are beginning to affect the lives of ordinary Iranians. The Iranian rial has registered a steep decline against the dollar in recent months, leading to high inflation and rise in the prices of basic imported goods such as medicines.

India is among Iran’s biggest buyers of oil and gas. Senior Indian policymakers say that though the country’s dependency on Iranian oil is decreasing, Iran will continue to be a major supplier. Twelve per cent of India’s crude imports are from Iran. In January, India became the biggest importer of Iranian oil, displacing China. The announcement by the Indian government that it was planning to send a large trade delegation to Iran to strengthen economic ties has angered Washington. Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar told the media in Delhi that India was implementing the United Nations-mandated sanctions against Iran but emphasized that the sanctions did not apply “to a vast range of products India supplies to Iran”.

With Iran agreeing to payment in rupees and other unconventional methods like barter trading, Indian officials made it clear that India would not be pressured by the West into taking steps that would have an adverse impact on the national economy. For that matter, even Pakistan has struck a defiant note. Despite open warnings from the U.S., Pakistan has announced that the work on the gas pipeline with Iran will continue. Washington was more successful with New Delhi on the gas pipeline issue. Under pressure from the Bush administration, India had withdrawn from the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project, saying that it was economically unfeasible and would give Islamabad undue leverage on the country’s energy security. Under American pressure, many major private Indian companies such as Reliance suspended their contracts with Iran for the supply of refined gasoline.

The Obama administration is naturally unhappy with India’s decision to broaden economic ties with Iran at this juncture. U.S. Congressmen have started raising the issue. Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat speaking at the confirmation hearing for the Obama administration’s nominee for the Ambassador’s post in New Delhi, Nancy J. Powell, said that India “seems to be rebuking the sanctions” imposed by the West on Iran.

Senior Indian officials insist that they will continue dealing with Iran. They point out that until recently the West was urging India to cut economic ties with Myanmar in order to isolate the government there. Today, it is the West which is leading the charge to invest in that country. Indian officials predict that this situation will replicate itself in Iran within a couple of years.

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: As seen by an Israeli General’s son

Posted on

Israel is not an occupation. It’s the ethnic-cleansings of the native Palestinians,” Miko Peled, son of Israeli Gen. Matti Peled and brother of Professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan. Miko Peled is a former Israeli soldier. Last year Miko gave an interview to the Alternate Focus describing his experiences as a young soldier in the Jewish army. He also describes a confrontation with the same army on a recent visit to Israel and the West Bank. Watch the video below.

Both Miko, an Israeli-American citizen, and his sister, Nurit, are among the few courageous Israeli Jews who those born and raised in committed Zionist Jewish families – have the moral courage to challenge Israel’s official Hasbara (propaganda) lies about Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. Their grandfather, Dr. Avraham Katsnelson, sang Israeli anthem on Israel’s unilateral declaration of a state in May 1948 and their father Gen. Matti Peled was a commanding officer during 1967 war. Later both of them became committed to building a single democratic state in occupied Palestine for the foreign Jews and the native Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

A former soldier in Israel Occupation Force (IOF), Miko has turned into peace-activist. His passionate memoir, ‘The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine‘ is expected to be at stores this Spring. Incidently, Miko Peled’s experience living in Israel’s racist society and a country ruled by Zionazi leaders – is not much different than my blogger friend – Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon, who has documented his views on Israel and Judaism in his controversial book, ‘The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics‘.

Miko Peled’s favorite story from the Bible is: “The Bible tells us a great story of the patriarch Abraham willing to sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac to prove his faith. At the moment of truth, when Abraham was about to kill his son an angel appeared telling Abraham not to harm the boy. In the Koran, Abraham is about to sacrifice Ishmael to the same God and the angel of God appears telling him not to harm his beloved son, Ishmael. The moral of the story is quite clear: Neither Israelis or Palestinians are called to sacrifice their sons and daughters to war, in fact, whether we are believers or not we are all called by our God or our conscience to care for our children so that they may live in peace and grow up as the equals that they are”.

Miko’s sister, Dr. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, in her address at the European Union in 2005, told the Islamophobe western delegates: “The so-called free world is affraid of the Muslim womb“.

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 Re-arrests Shalit-deal Palestinians, Hunger Strikes Start

Local Editor
Hana ShalabiOver the past few weeks, the Zionist occupation regime has re-arrested five Palestinian prisoners that were freed from ‘Israeli’ jails in October and December last year under the so-called Swap Deal.

The deal was mediated by Egypt to free 1,027 Palestinian inmates in exchange for Hamas-captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Female Palestinian prisoner Hana al-Shalabi is one of the re-arrested detainees. She has reportedly gone on a hunger strike since her arrest, 12 days ago.

Jaber Weshah, the deputy director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, said on Sunday the Israeli move is a “violation of the norms of the exchange and I think this should be highlighted internationally and Israel should abide by the agreement.”
Palestinian in Israeli prisonAccording to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, before the release of the 1,027 prisoners, about 6,000 Palestinian detainees were held in Israeli prisons.

Islam Abdo, a Hamas official, called on Egypt to “oblige Israel to respect the agreement and release the prisoners and also improve the detention conditions of the other Palestinian prisoners.”

Hana Shalbi, 30, said she was subjected to an embarrassing body search by a male Israeli soldier upon being detained and was assaulted when she resisted.

Shalbi stated that prison authorities have put her in periodic solitary confinement as punishment for her hunger strike.

Swap deal 2011This is the second high-profile hunger strike by an arrested Palestinian in recent months. Khader Adman, a senior official in the Islamic Jihad, ended a 67-day fast last week after the Zionist occupation authorities agreed to release him from administrative detention on April 17.
Administrative detention involves imprisonment without trial for up to six months, and it can be extended if the courts approve.

Shalbi is a resident of the West Bank village of Burkin near Jenin. She previously served 25 months under administrative detention; her detentions was repeatedly renewed.

Other administrative detainees have announced their intention to refuse to appear in ‘Israeli’ military courts starting on March 1. They say the courts extend administrative detention even when lacking evidence of any involvement in terrorism by the suspects.

Source: Websites

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: