The Palestinians and the “State” Delusion

By: Rashid Shahin

After over 20 years of the futile “negotiations” the whole world (including the Palestinians) agrees that it has been fruitless.  It was aimless negotiations but a waste of time during which the occupation state of Israel has succeeded to shuffle the occupied land upside down and create deep demographic changes through accelerating the settlement that has never been done before.

Despite all the facts on the ground, some still hope to believe in that mirage and works to revive life in the dead body of the Oslo Accord. Still, some Palestinians are looking for an exit of some sort that would save them some self respect, or what has remained from their self respect, to prove that they can get something from a process that has resulted in nothing but more land grab, building settlements for more settlers obsessed with Talmudic heresies.

When talking of negotiations between enemies, it should be agreed upon from the beginning that there is a possibility for each party to recognize the other which  doesn’t exist in the Palestinian-zionist case. The Zionist party and since the very beginning of the struggle doesn’t recognize the existence of the Palestinian people, in the first place which was very clear from their deceptive slogan that was created in the early twentieth century of “a land without people to a people without land”.


Accordingly, the Palestinian leadership should take this in consideration and understand the fact that the Oslo process will never lead to a durable or comprehensive peace with the Zionists, with a state that was created initially by terrorist groups who committed heinous crimes in documented massacres against the Palestinian people to establish their atrocious states built on Talmudic heresies, on the rubble of the Palestinian people.

Gambling to reach to any peaceful agreement, even at the minimum level, with the Zionist state of gangsters (especially at the deteriorating Arab situation) is more futile than it was at the beginning of the Oslo process in Madrid Peace Conferencesupported by the first Intifada which was continued secretly later on in the suspicious Oslo Agreement.

Trying to copy the Iranian style (of negotiating) and identifying with it can’t work in the Palestinian case and dragging the situation into the Syrian case is a leap into the unknown.

Working at going back to the same futile negotiations again is nothing but a fruitless game that should be stopped especially after the facts on the ground imposed by the Zionist occupation, which is very clear not only to the Palestinian people in the street but also to all the world leaders.

Finally, we think that the status cue is a thousand times better than pursuing the mirage of the endless negotiations, especially it is clearer now (which is a fact that we should admit) that the Zionist occupation state is not intending to reach to a peaceful settlement for the struggle, and it is not ready ( as it has never been  before) to agree that the Palestinians get an independent state with Jerusalem its capital, and needless to mention the Palestinian refugees and the Right of Return.

The utmost reconciliation that the Zionist state might be willing to is to give the Palestinians an “expanded” autonomy, or a state with two different statuses, one to include the West Bank with annexing some of the bordering Palestinian towns that the Zionists want to get rid of, which is a typical racist style. OR, full occupation and annexing the West Bank. Accordingly we call to stop those futile negotiations with the Zionists that will end into nothing for the Palestinians.


Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration


By Robert Fisk

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.


Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.

On an official visit to Israel in 1986, Thatcher said that she regarded discussion of Jerusalem as “internal politics”. In 2001, Tony Blair’s government granted 90 arms exports licences to Israel for “defensive” weapons – including torpedoes, armoured vehicles, bombs and missiles. There is much, much more of this in Cronin’s book, including Blair’s useless and disgraceful period as “peace” envoy to the Middle East and the growing business contracts between British companies and Israeli arms providers – to the extent that the British army ended up deploying Israeli-made drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside the EU, Theresa May’s Britain will maintain its close relations with Israel as a priority; hence May’s stated desire less than a month ago to sign a bilateral free trade agreement with Israel. This coincided with an Israeli attack on Gaza and a Knesset vote to confiscate – ie, steal – yet more lands from Palestinians in the West Bank.

From the day that Herbert Samuel, deputy leader of the Liberal Party and former (Jewish) High Commissioner for Palestine, said in the House of Commons in 1930 that Arabs “do migrate easily”, it seems that Britain has faithfully followed Balfour’s policies. More than 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted in their catastrophe, Cronin writes. Generations of dispossessed would grow up in the camps. Today, there are around five million registered Palestinian refugees. Britain was the midwife of that expulsion.

And this summer, we shall again be exhorted by Theresa May to remember the Balfour Declaration with “pride”.

Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.


“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”


On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.



Ziad Fadel


Al-Salamiyya:  This town is famous for its majority Isma’ili Muslim population, a very courteous people with no axe to grind with anyone.  That doesn’t stop the devil-worshiping Nusra/Alqaeda from trying to exterminate them, however.  Yesterday and today, the forces of villainy in this world tried desperately to overrun several SAA and PDC positions near the town, specifically at Al-Sat-hiyyaat west of the town about 10kms.  The attack has, so far, been a disaster for the terrorist cannibals who also attacked at Khunayfees and Al-Ramliyya.  All attacks were blunted by the force of SAA artillery, PDC rangers and helicopter gunships.  The number killed has been estimated at 33 rodents.  Intercepted communications indicate a breakdown in command structure and a diminution in the amount of weapons and ammunition wielded by the foreign-supported vermin.  Hence, the following story:




West Al-Haraat Village:  Members of the PDC militia set a trap for a truck barreling down a road carrying weapons to Nusra/Alqaeda in the Al-Salamiyya area and engaged the terrorists occupying it in a firefight which the militia won handily.  Both driver and his sidekick were killed and their carcasses converted into instant fertilizer.  After inspecting the truck, the militia showcased a terrorist surveillance drone and a great many light, medium and heavy weapons, and rockets for RPG anti-tank launchers.  It was obvious the rodents in Al-Salamiyya were anxious to be resupplied as reports filter in of a large SAA column moving in their direction.


The Al-Hayyaan Natural Gas Station was set ablaze by ISIS on orders from American-accented terrorist enablers in Turkey.  This intelligence was gathered by Russia and delivered to the SAA-MI.  It took place 2 days ago as the vermin withdrew rapidly from this area, one of Syria’s most important natural resources-rich installations.  The rodents knew they could not hold out as they observed the SAA moving to surround them and close off all escape routes.  CIA operatives informed their rodents that they should leave the area quickly but, before doing so, to lay waste to as much of the facility as possible.  Some have doubted that the ISIS rats were able to demolish the gas production facility.  My sources say it did happen but that only a portion of the plant was destroyed.


Al-Qunaytiraat Axis:  We can confirm the deaths of 23 Nusra/Alqaeda rodents here on the Homs-Al-Salamiyya Road.  With large SAA reinforcements moving to buttress the forces in Al-Salamiyya, the terrorists, now increasingly under American command before the ascension of Donald Trump, tried to cut off the Homs-Salamiyya Highway.  To no avail.  The SAAF went into action immediately with ground support from SAA artillery and rocket units and clobbered the syphilis-ridden vermin.  They also were annihilated at another site near the ‘Izzeddeen-Al-Qunaytiraat Junction by very precise artillery and rocket fire.

The number of Nusra/Alqaeda dead is 23 so far with these named:

Abu Hamza Al-Jawlaani (Id pending. Leader of Alqaeda)

Khaalid Dardar (Alqaeda leader of Turk descent)

Muneef Khalaf Seedu

‘Ammaar Al-Hammood

Muhammad Hussayn Al-Sharaabi

Hussayn Al-Ruzz

Abu Miqdaad Al-Dayri (Id pending)

The rest were not identified because they were foreign.  5 pickup trucks with 23mm cannons were destroyed in the melee.





Dayr Muqrin:  The Syrian Army has completely liberated this village adjacent to the ‘Ayn Al-Feeja water source and aquifer.  The Nusra/Alqaeda rodents have withdrawn to what they think are defensible positions.  Actually the wanted to make a deal and get over to Idlib, but, the Saudi Arabian money-rats nixed he whole project threatening to cut off all aid to anybody who surrendered or agreed to pull out.  Saudi Arabia seems to think that all water comes from one place.  Not true.  In any case, the Saudis will be pleased to know that a large contingent from the fully mechanized 4th Armored Division led by Maj. Gen. Maahir Al-Assad is about to pounce on the rodents and orders are to take no prisoners.


Faaiza Amna Hameed invited you to her event

Support Palestine in DC 2017! (Official)

Sunday, March 26 at 12 PM

The White House in Washington, District of Columbia



John Esq. sent me this great video about the modern Russian weapons now in Syria.

John Esq. also sent this video about Russia’s warning that any air force attacking the SAA will be shot down:

Joaquin Flores sent this one with Dr. Assad explaining that most of the prisoners freed have returned to the government:

Waf Halabi informs us that the U.N. has successfully supplied the citizens of Mu’adhdhamiyya with enough food for 40,000 people:

While I have already posted this article by Sharmine Narwani, Patrick Henningsen sends it again and I think it’s a great article:

Alex Kharegi asks if Russia is really pulling forces out of Syria:

The French delegation to Syria was targeted by the “moderate” terrorists:

The latest on Waadi Baradaa and the big trip to Idlib from Waf Halabi:

Waf Halabi gives us this video depiction of fighting to defend Deir El-Zor from the Obama savages of ISIS:
Read more 

Israel’s never-ending crimes: It’s not just settlements


By Stanley L Cohen

Israel has not just committed unspeakable acts of genocide but done so with absolute transparency.

Last week, the world stood fixated at a largely symbolic gesture by the United Nations in which it found the continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank of Palestine to be illegal. Or did it?

Although the UN Security Council, with rare uniformity, chastised Israel for flouting the law of occupation, the resolution, crafted with ambiguous lawyerly precision, left experienced thinkers on the subject debating just what it means.

In its most ambitious read, some would argue it appears that the decree concerned the occupation as a whole, and swept within its prohibitive reach all settlement activity since 1967 when Israel seized the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from Arab-Palestinian control.

Others view its advisory language as helpful through its continued embrace of the time-tired two-state solution and its apparent call for a return to the status quo ante of some 15 years ago when illegal settlements had not as yet swallowed much more than 60 percent of the West Bank.

In its least appealing landscape painting, it would appear that the resolution seemingly bestows upon already completed settlements de facto legitimacy and addresses only that part of the building glut currently under way or planned for tomorrows yet to come.

To make matters worse, despite its gratuitous dicta, the resolution remains very much a toothless declaration without any enforcement mechanism whatsoever – essentially relying upon a sudden burst of Israeli conscience to reverse a steady march of indifference to international law that has led Israel’s way since the very first day it was manufactured from stolen land in Palestine.

Defiant Netanyahu

Predictable in immediacy and urgency, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw his weekly tantrum, accusing the world of a dark conspiracy organised by the soon to be ex-President of the United States, Barack Obama, who on his way out of the door after years of obsequious obedience to Israeli will, has suddenly discovered that it’s OK to say no … well … maybe … or perhaps, to its glaring intransigence.

But then again, it’s kind of hard to take seriously “pressure” exerted by a country that has just enriched Israel’s military coffers and occupation to the tune of $38bn.

Not satisfied with the echo of his own vitriol, Netanyahu was just beginning. Next, he singled out Senegal – one of the most impoverished countries in the world and a mover of the resolution – for economic reprisal. Its offence is having the temerity to believe in the rule of law and being housed in the international building with flags of 193 nations and the State of Palestine that sits overlooking the East River of New York City.

Netanyahu told the world just what he thinks of the UN and its resolution when he announced plans to proceed with the building of thousands of new housing units in Jerusalem in particular.

“Israel will not turn its other cheek,” Netanyahu proclaimed as he went on to prophesy a “plan of action” against the UN directly. Not long thereafter he suspended working ties with the UK, France, Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay, Spain, Senegal and New Zealand, those countries that supported the resolution.

Like a dark lord

Netanyahu should quit while he’s ahead, but he just can’t. There is no incentive. Like the hundreds of earlier resolutions critical of Israeli policies, as worded, the most recent condemnation by the UN can do little more than cry out for justice in the night from a state built from the marrow of genocide.

I get “bombast”, “brash” and, at times, even “bully”. However, it’s the two-legged beasts that feed on the innocent I do not. Netanyahu is very much that kind of beast – an ogre who lives in a world surrounded by dark, deadly thoughts. With delusion his ally, dishonesty his friend and death his messenger, he thumbs his nose at the world as his reign of state terror consumes more and more civilian victims guilty of no offence other than breathing the air that surrounds them and seeking a free life.

When the history of our times is written, an honest accounting will no doubt add Netanyahu’s wicked shadow – and that of his predecessors – to the list of fiends that have seen the world as little more than a playground within which to use their toys of death and despair – always, of course, for the right reasons and always, of course, against the meek and defenceless among us.

The sum total of Israel’s efforts these past 68 years is nothing short of the deliberate infliction upon Palestinians, as a cognizable group, conditions of life and death calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

In the world of Joseph Stalin, induced famine was the prime weapon of choice, though mass execution and exile helped him dispose of tens of millions he viewed as “enemies of the people”.

To Henry Kissinger, the world, particularly Indochina, was very much a small chess game. Civilians were mere pawns ripe for sacrifice through hi-tech weaponry, including biological and chemical warfare, to enforce his worldview at any cost. Millions lost their lives to his cerebral game board.

To Pol Pot, struggle was little more than purification, erasing through starvation, overwork and execution a quarter of his people whose sole crime was to see life through a prism that collided with his own – no matter how soft their view or backward his sight.

In Rwanda up to half a million women were sexually assaulted, mutilated or murdered, along with an equal number of male Tutsis, as enemy agents of the Hutu state – machetes and rape induced Aids to the plentiful weapons of preference.

Slow-motion genocide

These are but a few of the extremes of genocide, those rare cases we are told noted mostly for mass murder, systemic rape or group starvation – the worst of the worst. Yet, genocide does not demand of us an immediate mountain of bodies or an explosive rage of terror for international law to take hold.

As it turns out, in what increasingly seems to be more than mere passing coincidence, the legal definition of “genocide” enacted by the UN General Assembly was born in 1948, the very same year as Israel – which has since gone on to become both expert at its application and legendary in its denial.

In relevant part, under the applicable Convention, genocide means “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; or (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Each and every one of these types of genocide has been perpetrated by Israel, seemingly with almost proud boast, and no accountability, for almost 70 unbroken years.

One need not rest upon obtuse historical footnotes to find abundant, indeed systemic, acts of extermination carried out by Israel since 1948 against Palestinians – very much a cognizable “national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as those terms are contemplated and commonly understood and applied under international law.

Beginning with its mass expulsion, rape and murder at the onset of the Nakba (the Catastrophe) Israel has devoted itself to 68 years of non-stop genocide coming up for air only periodically to retool or to change the nature of its weaponry of choice.

What started out with the expulsion, at gunpoint, of more than 700,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homeland set in motion a refugee stampede that has grown to more than seven million displaced and stateless people, providing the world more than a disturbing glimpse of what was to come decades later in Syria.

Never-ending violence

Over the years, Israel has found diverse ways to kill more than 400,000 Palestinian civilians and injure or cripple two to three times as many, including tens of thousands of women and children. Whether by tank fire, rockets, or cluster or phosphorus bombs, it has given new meaning to the evil of willful group slaughter.

In its thirst to ethnically cleanse all of Palestine of its remaining inhabitants, it has made use of starvation, in violation of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as a method of war targeting foodstuffs, crops and livestock throughout the occupied territories.

In particular, it has destroyed more than a million olive trees which not only serve as an essential mainstay of Palestinian culture but, along with hundreds of thousands of razed fruit trees, constitute key products of a Palestinian national economy largely in various states of ruin.

In Gaza, Israel has targeted hospitals, schools, daycare centres, multi-storey apartment complexes, UN Relief and Works Agency shelters and mental health clinics with a deadly proficiency that would make historic war criminals blush with envy.

It has laid waste to thousands of its hardscrabble built homes and left upwards of a hundred thousand Palestinians internally displaced, indeed homeless – leaving many families at a breaking point.

For the survivors of the Gaza killing fields, Israel has made life unbearable over the past decade though a criminal embargo that not only guarantees insufficient caloric intake, fresh water and medicine, but denies to its 1.8 million survivors building materials essential for the reconstruction of its beleaguered, and largely levelled, infrastructure.

Not satisfied with physical pain alone, with cruel, wanton abandon, it is no stretch to find that its master plan has consciously induced levels of post-traumatic stress disorder unmatched anywhere else in the world.

Given all these palpable elements of ethnic cleansing, it is reasonably projected that Gaza will be uninhabitable by 2020 thereby once again driving several million traumatised refugees out on to the road of an uncertain and dangerous diaspora.

To describe Israel’s Gaza strategy as anything but one intended to cause “serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” is to deny a very public and systematic orgy of punishment meted out to Palestinian civilians on the basis of group identity and dynamic – and nothing more.

In the West Bank, Israel’s calculus of pain and punishment is largely a difference without a distinction: one that varies in form but not intent or ultimate goal.

Not satisfied with the 531 villages and localities it depopulated and completely eradicated during the early days of the Nakba, since 1967 Israel has stolen, resettled and annexed almost all of the West Bank, including much of East Jerusalem, in clear violation of Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibit an occupation force from doing little more than erecting limited bases for its own security needs in occupied land.

During this criminal land grab, it has approved, indeed subsidized, the building of illegal housing for some 800,000 – largely immigrant – settlers at the same time it has destroyed almost 50,000 Palestinian structures, largely homes, many of them ages-old, rendering tens of thousands of its indigenous population homeless, often destitute or dependent upon the largesse of already overcrowded housing of family or friends.

None of these facts about Israel’s sordid and deadly history can be dispatched as the product of mere hyperbole or unsupported hearsay.

Claims of Israeli genocide have been substantiated time and time again by a host of independent human rights organisations and NGOs, with no axe to grind, and include findings from respected groups from within Israel, itself.

In point of fact, from its arrogant perch, Israel has not just committed unspeakable acts of genocide but done so with absolute transparency as if to say to the rest of the world: there we did it, and we are well beyond the reach of international law.

Make no mistake about it, the sum total of Israel’s efforts these past 68 years is nothing short of the deliberate infliction upon Palestinians, as a cognizable group, conditions of life and death calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

In the presence of overwhelming evidence of premeditated Israeli genocide, to argue otherwise is to reduce the dark, evil and systematic deeds of Stalin, Kissinger, Pol Pot and the Hutu state to little more than a collection of misunderstood happenstance.

Yes, Mr Prime Minister, you should quit while you are ahead. Today, Israel stands charged with violations of the law of occupation. Tomorrow, it might very well, indeed should, find itself seated in a well-deserved international dock on trial for genocide.

Stanley L Cohen is a lawyer and human rights activist who has done extensive work in the Middle East and Africa.

Israeli Pine Forests were planted to hide the plunder of Palestine!

November 28, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Village Under the Forest

The Village Under The Forest explores the hidden remains of the destroyed Palestinian village of Lubya, which lies under a purposefully cultivated forest plantation called South Africa Forest.

The documentary explores themes related to the erasure and persistence of memory and dares to imagine a future in which dignity, acknowledgement and co-habitation become shared possibilities in Israel/Palestine.

The Village Under The Forest is co-directed by Emmy-winner Mark Kaplan and scholar and poet Heidi Grunebaum. If the music sounds familiar to you, it is because you may recognise me in it.

في ذكرى وعد بلفور المشؤوم

  220 world dignitaries demand UK to apologize for Balfour Declaration

راسم عبيدات ـ القدس المحتلة

نتيجة بحث الصور عن الكاتب راسم عبيداتأكثر من مقالة كتبت حول ضرورة مطالبة بريطانيا بتحمّل مسؤولياتها التاريخية والسياسية والأخلاقية تجاه ما لحق بشعبنا من نكبات ومظالم مستمرة حتى يومنا هذا، فبريطانيا هذه الدولة الإستعمارية المارقة، هي المسؤول الأول والمباشر عن زرع دولة الاحتلال الإسرائيلي على أرض شعبنا وفي خاصرة أمتنا، ونتيجة لذلك لم يتعرّض شعبنا لنكبة واحدة باحتلال أرضه وإحلال المستوطنين الصهاينة مكانهم بعد طردهم وتهجيرهم قسراً عن ديارهم عام 1948، بل ما زالت نكباتنا مستمرة ومتواصلة، وما زالت بريطانيا الاستعمارية تدعم دولة الاحتلال الصهيوني، فاليهود عندما تعرّضوا لـ«الهولوكست» على يد النازية، ما زالت ألمانيا تتحمّل تبعات ذلك حتى اليوم وتدفع لهم التعويضات المالية وتقدّم المساعدات بشتى أنواعها المدنية والعسكرية لدولة الاحتلال.

أما نحن الفلسطينيون، فما زالت بريطانيا، ترفض تحمّل مسؤولياتها التاريخية والسياسية والأخلاقية عما حلّ بشعبنا الفلسطيني، نتيجة ماPicture سمّي بوعد وزير خارجيتهم بلفور لرجل الاقتصاد والمال اليهودي روتشيلد، بمنحهم فلسطين أرضنا كـ«وطن قومي» لهم، ولذلك نحن كشعب فلسطيني علينا في ذكرى هذا الوعد المشؤوم، القيام بإطلاق حملة واسعة تمتدّ من 2/11/2016 وحتى 2/11/2017 وتشمل فعاليات متنوّعة تستمرّ على امتداد عام كامل لوضع المجتمع الدولي، وخاصة بريطانيا أمام مسؤولياتها التاريخية ودعوتها للتكفير عن الجريمة الكبرى التي ارتكبتها، ورفع الظلم التاريخي الذي لحق بالشعب الفلسطيني. ورفع قضايا عليها تلزمها بدفع تعويضات لمئة عام مقبلة عما لحق بشعبنا من ظلم واضطهاد، وهذا لن يتأتى إلا من خلال استنفار كلّ طاقات وإمكانيات شعبنا الفلسطيني في الداخل والخارج بقواه السياسية ومكوناته المجتمعية والمؤسساتية والشعبية والجماهيرية، عبر فعاليات متعدّدة ومتنوّعة يتكاتف ويتقاطع فيها الجهد الشعبي والرسمي، من أجل محاكمة بريطانيا وإلزامها ليس فقط بدفع التعويضات، بل تصحيح هذا الخطأ التاريخي والعمل على تمكين شعبنا الفلسطيني من تحقيق حلمه وحقه في دولة مستقلة على أرضه التي طرد وهجر منها.

وعد بلفور هو في الجوهر مشروع استعماري ألبس غطاء دينياً وأسطورياً زائفاً بهدف تحقيق المطامع الاستعمارية لبريطانيا وربيبتها الحركة الصهيونية، والتي لا تزال حتى الآن من خلال مشروعها الكولونيالي دولة إسرائيل مرتبطة بمصالح الرأسمالية المتعولمة المتوحشة وزعيمتها الحالية الولايات المتحدة الأميركية.

في ذكرى هذا الوعد المشؤوم، نجد بأنّ بريطانيا ما زالت من أكثر الدول عداء لشعبنا وتنكراً لحقوقه الوطنية المشروعة، ونحن نتذكر جيداً كيف عملت بريطانيا على تعديل قوانينها وتشريعاتها القضائية، من اجل منع اعتقال ومحاكمة قادة الاحتلال العسكريين والسياسيين وضباطه وجنوده ومستوطنيه المتهمين بارتكاب جرائم حرب بحق شعبنا، على الأراضي البريطانية، وكذلك هي من هدّدت نشطاء المقاطعة بالاعتقال، واعتبرت مقاطعة دولة الاحتلال اقتصادياً واكاديمياً وثقافياً وتجارياً إلخ… شكلاً من أشكال اللاسامية.

ودائماً وقفت الى جانب أميركا برفض ممارسة أية ضغوط او عقوبات على «إسرائيل»، نتيجة لخرقها القانون الدولي واستمرار احتلالها لأرضنا، وتكثيفها للإستيطان بشكل جنوني في القدس والضفة الغربية، وبما يلغي أيّ إمكانية عملية لتحقيق ما يسمى بـ»حلّ الدولتين».

ولم تتورّع بريطانيا عن وصف نضال شعبنا بـ»الإرهاب»، حتى في ظلّ الحرب العدوانية الأخيرة على شعبنا في قطاع غزة تموز 2014 «الجرف الصامد»، وجدنا قاتل أطفال العراق والمبعوث الخاص السابق للرباعية الدولية في المنطقة، توني بلير، ذهب لكي يتضامن مع مستوطني غلاف قطاع غزة ضدّ «الإرهاب» الفلسطيني في نصرة ودعم للجلاد على الضحية، ولذلك علينا الا نألو جهداً مع كلّ اصدقائنا في العالم، من أجل خلق رأي عام ضاغط على بريطانيا، حتى في بريطانيا نفسها، لحملها على تصحيح خطئها التاريخي، وإلغاء هذا الوعد المشؤوم، وتحمّل مسؤولياتها التاريخية والسياسية والأخلاقية، فهذا الوعد المشؤوم، لم ينتج عنه نكبة واحدة لشعبنا، بل استتبعتها نكبات كثيرة، فشعبنا في الخارج حتى في مخيمات اللجوء، لم يسلم من القتل والتشريد، وشعبنا في قطاع غزة يعيش في أوضاع شبيهة بالقرو وسطية، حيث البنى التحتية المدمّرة والطاقة والكهرباء المقننة، والحصار المستمر، وعجلة الإعمار الدائرة ببطء شديد، وأكثر من 70 ألف مواطن ممن دمّرت الحرب العدوانية الأخيرة منازلهم، ما زالوا في مراكز الإيواء، والنقص في الأدوية والخدمات الطبية والصحية، والبطالة والفقر بلغت أرقاماً قياسية، أكثر من 70 من أهلنا هناك يعيشون على الإغاثة والإعانات، وتمارَس بحقهم ليس فقط عقوبات جماعية، بل يتعرّضون لسياسة تطهير عرقي من أجل إحداث تغيير كبير في الواقع الديمغرافي لصالح المستوطنين، والضفة الغربية تغرق بالمستوطنين، لكي يكونوا دولة داخل دولة، والداخل الفلسطيني 48 لم يسلم من مشاريع التهويد، حيث مشروع «برافر» التهويدي للنقب، والنكبة استولدت نكبات متوالية، ما زال شعبنا يدفع ثمنها دماً وتضحيات ولجوءاً وتشرّداً وبعداً عن أرضه التي ولد فيها وترعرع عليها، ما زالت بريطانيا والمجتمع الدولي الظالم يتنكرون لحق شعبنا في الحرية والإستقلال، والعيش بحرية وكرامة في وطن مستقلّ، علينا ملاحقة بريطانيا في كلّ المحافل الدولية وتأليب الرأي العام عليها في بريطانيا وأوروبا والعالم الغربي والعربي والإسلامي، ليس لكي تصدر اعتذاراً، بل وعداً مضاداً يؤكد حق شعبنا وحق لاجئينا بالعودة الى أرضهم التي شرّدوا منها.

وفي ذكرى هذا الوعد المشؤوم لتكن شعاراتنا المرفوعة وحملتنا ونشاطاتنا مكثفة ومركزة على «نعم لمحاكمة بريطانيا الإستعمارية»، و«لتتحمّل بريطانيا الإستعمارية مسؤولياتها التاريخية والسياسية والأخلاقية عن نكبات شعبنا ومآسيه»، «بريطانيا ملزمة بدفع تعويضات لشعبنا لمئة عام مقبلة» و«بريطانيا ملزمة بتصحيح خطئها التاريخي وتمكين شعبنا من استعادة أرضه المغتصبة».


نتيجة بحث الصور عن ‪balfour declaration‬‏

Related Videos

%d bloggers like this: