Another Billboard the Mainstream Media Can’t Quite Fathom

bethlehembillboard

A TV station in North Carolina has published a report on a strange, new billboard that has cropped up in their area that some local residents, at least those who work in the media, are having trouble figuring out.

The billboard in question is similar to the one pictured above. The artwork on it is by the British artist Banksy and depicts Mary and Joseph coming up against Israel’s apartheid wall while attempting to get to Bethlehem.

“It’s only been up for a week and a half, but if you did see it, you might be wondering what the meaning is behind it, just like we did,” says the reporter in a report which can be found here.

The billboard was paid for by If Americans Knew, the organization founded by Alison Weir, who, to the station’s credit, is given airtime in the report.

Another interesting aspect is the behavior of a local man who is also interviewed and whose obvious reticence to comment on the billboard may be–and probably is–due to fear of being accused of anti-Semitism.

“I know what the meaning of it is, that’s why I don’t want to comment on it. I mean, it’s pretty self-explanatory,” he says.

All this comes just a few days after I posted an article commenting on another billboard, one that went up in Detroit in 2015, and which also left local media reporters similarly puzzled–or at least pretending puzzlement. As I commented,

The poor TV reporters simply cannot fathom–or at least pretend not to fathom–what the billboard means. “Is it meant to be ant-Semitic or something else entirely? wonders one.

“What exactly does the statement on this billboard mean?” asks another, referring to it as “the million dollar question.”

What we seem to have here is an epidemic of cluelessness. Or at least feigned cluelessness. This, of course, from people whose job it is to inform the public.

Moreover, the report doesn’t endeavor to explain why a billboard in an American city–advocating that America’s interests should be placed first over Israel’s–should even be regarded as “controversial” in the first place. And of course, the reporters are obligated to trot out a member of the Anti-Defamation League to explain it all away as an “old anti-Semitic canard.”

And this is why I say it’s a perfect illustration of where we find ourselves today: Jewish power is the 3,000 pound elephant in the room. It exists. Of that fact there is no doubt. But sadly, no one can talk about it.

Interestingly, the TV report on the new billboard, in North Carolina, did not include comments from the ADL, although maybe that’s just because the ADL hasn’t gotten around to opening a branch in the Appalachian Mountains yet. What is clear, of course, is that either with or without a local ADL office, there is tremendous fear of Jewish power. It is evident in the words of the TV reporter, and especially in the demeanor of the man who refused to talk about the billboard on camera. Even the fact that billboards like this arouse such “controversy” in the first place is testimony to that fear.

America may have once been the “home of the brave,” but that doesn’t seem by and large to be the case any longer. With growing attacks on the BDS movement, with people losing their jobs or being denied tenure for saying the wrong thing, with even the president of the United States being fried, basted, and roasted for merely abstaining on a UN resolution, Americans in increasing numbers are becoming cognizant of who holds the reins of power in their country.

Running from the Truth: Code Pink Excludes Alison Weir from Event

codepink

By Richard Edmondson

The Iraq war was based upon lies. Not many people dispute that any longer. The question is no longer that lies were told; the question now is why they were told, and who stood to gain the most from an invasion and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

Was it all for oil, as some have maintained? Did George W. Bush, perhaps one of the most dimwitted presidents in the history of America, initiate the war all on his own? Or was he pushed into it by a powerful lobby or pressure group?

In the video below, Alison Weir, director of If Americans Knew, discusses how a group of neocons in the US, in collusion with Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, became a powerful force maneuvering the US into war. But Weir says she was not allowed to present this information–even though she had initially been invited–at a “tribunal” held in Washington and dubbed “the People’s Tribunal on the Iraq War.”

The Iraq Tribunal, held December 1-2, was aimed at bringing “the lies that created the war into public awareness,” and also at pushing for “truth and accountability”–that’s according to Code Pink, the activist group which organized the event.

“After 14 years of costly war based on lies, it’s time for truth and accountability,” said Code Pink. The statement goes on to add:

The People’s Tribunal on the Iraq War will unify the global anti-war/peace movements with other justice movements by uplifting testimonies of the costs of this war—and war itself. The Tribunal will bring the lies that created the war on Iraq into public awareness, while demanding Obama act on them. It will build and inspire the anti-war movement that we will need after the inauguration of the next administration in 2017. It will be a tool that all groups can use to build, inspire, and enliven their organizations and communities.

If “truth and accountability” are so important, one wonders why Weir was excluded from the event. I don’t know the answer to that. You’d have to ask Medea Benjamin, one of the founders of Code Pink. You can find her contact information here, should you be so inclined.

The first day of the tribunal was promoted as offering an in-depth look at the lies told to justify the war, while the second day was devoted to the costs, human and otherwise, of the war and subsequent occupation. Reportedly more than 100 people gave “testimonies” on one aspect or another, and my purpose here is certainly not to disparage or criticize their work. But I can’t help feeling that the event would have been enriched had Weir been allowed to participate.

In 2015, Weir was attacked by Jewish Voice for Peace for giving interviews to media outlets the JVP deemed anti-Semitic. Did this have something to do with why she was disinvited from speaking at the Tribunal? Or was it the content and substance of her talk? She does, after all, name some prominent Jewish neocons who “marketed” the Iraq war.

By contrast, you can go here to watch a six-hour video of the first day of the tribunal and which includes Medea Benjamin’s comments, or her official “testimony,” starting at about 1:12:00 in. In the segment, Benjamin talks about lies told by George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, and also about the “complicity of the US mainstream media” and other factors leading up to the war–but makes no mention of Israel or its lobby. The onus is laid pretty much on the Bush administration:

The Bush administration dismissed the inspectors’ findings because their conclusions contradicted those of the US government. The next day, George Bush went on the radio to address the American people, arguing the inspections team did not need any more time because Saddam Hussein was still refusing to disarm, and the rest is history. Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States, but the American people, traumatized by the 9/11 attack, were easily duped by the Bush administration’s propaganda.

Benjamin and Weir obviously  have strikingly different perspectives on who was principally at fault for getting the US into this disastrous war. Weir, after listing a number of neocons and neocon think tanks, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, whose advocacy of military intervention was discussed at least in the Israeli press, if not in the American, goes on to cite the supplemental input to the war fever served up by Israeli leaders:

Israeli leaders worked to sell the war to Americans. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former prime ministers Netanyahu, Peres, and Barak, all told Americans that it was urgent that Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program be stopped. And Israeli intelligence agencies fed the US reports supposedly documenting these.

Weir doesn’t say so, but it’s worth recalling as well that Saddam Hussein was granting sums of money to the families of Palestinian martyrs who died in attacks against Israel, and that he had begun doing this at least as far back as the early 1990s–which is probably one of the chief reasons the leaders of Israel wanted him killed or at least overthrown. In some cases the payouts were as high as $25,000.

In her talk, Weir cites an article in which former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is described as “over the top crazy when it comes to Israel.” Is it hard to imagine such a man might have had a homicidal urge to take out Saddam Hussein?

At any rate, it seems very much as if the neocons, working in coordination with Israeli leaders, pushed to have Saddam Hussein removed but to have US  military forces do the job for them. Some people simply can’t get their minds around this. Others don’t want to try. Still others, the more fearful types, believe it’s best just to not even talk about it.

Weir’s video was posted on Monday by Greg Bacon, who, alluding to some of the Jewish supporters of Israel referenced by Weir, comments, “what a nice bunch of homicidal maniacs.” Yet Code Pink, despite its avowed purpose of seeking “truth and accountability” on the Iraq war, apparently preferred to keep the tribunal’s attention focused elsewhere for the most part.

It seems this may be somewhat–although not entirely–out of character for the group. Back in 2011, Code Pink organized a protest in response to AIPAC’s annual convention in Washington that year. It has held similar events in other years as well, but the 2011 affair in particular is discussed in an article at Counterpunch by Harry Clark, who notes that the event included a protest as well as an indoor program of speeches and workshops. And ironically Weir was one of the participants, although she and others of her mindset were “relegated to a workshop in the basement,” as Clark puts it (emphasis added):

Alison Weir and other writer-activists, including Jeff Blankfort, photographer (12) and journalist, (13) Janet McMahon of Washington Report on   Middle East Affairs (14) and Grant Smith of Institute for Research: Middle East Policy (15) were relegated to a workshop in the basement, which was very well attended. Code Pink repeated the event in 2012, and the Israel Lobby critics were allowed only to hold an event in the hall afterward, with the hall stripped of all Code Pink identifying material, and the audience invited to further events scheduled else- where at the same time. One hundred twenty-five remained in the hall to hear the Lobby critics. In 2013, the critics were banned from the program altogether.

Why does Code Pink, a leftist organization which presumably places a high value on free speech and the First Amendment, seem so intent on censoring critics of the Israeli lobby? Why would people who have been critical of Israel in the past, as Code Pink has, want to stymie efforts to exposed the true extent of the lobby’s power? One almost gets the impression that such people are afraid of something.

Fear, Loathing, and Jewish Tribalism

Recently journalist/blogger Richard Silverstein published an interesting article on Israeli whistle-blower Shamai Leibowitz, who in 2009, while living in the US, leaked documents to Silverstein exposing Israel’s strategy of trying to provoke a war between the US and Iran. What you’re about to read might seem a bit off topic at first, but please bear with me.

“In 2009, Shamai Leibowitz was working secretly for the FBI, translating wiretapped conversations among Israeli diplomats in this country,” writes Silverstein. “He passed some transcripts of these conversations to me, which described an Israeli diplomatic campaign in this country to create a hostile environment for relations with Iran.”

Leibowitz told Silverstein that the Israeli Foreign Ministry, along with its diplomats posted in America, were waging a “perception management campaign” against Iran. The two talked over how to go about making the information public and finally agreed that Silverstein would publish it on his blog but would do so in such a manner as to try to conceal Leibowitz’s identity. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out. The Israelis “became aware that their security was breached,” and Leibowitz was prosecuted by a compliant US Justice Department apparently eager to keep Israeli secrets hidden. Leibowitz ended up going to prison for 20 months and being stripped of his right to practice law. He has also been shunned by his community and fired from jobs he has tried to hold.

So intense apparently were the repercussions that Leibowitz, after the going got rough, made a 180 degree turn by publicly denouncing Silverstein and claiming that in leaking documents he had in reality been trying to expose wrongdoing–not by the Israeli government, but by the FBI (this, keep in mind, while still living in America). As Silverstein puts it:

Though I didn’t know it at the time he first contacted me in 2009, Shamai Leibowitz was a psychologically unstable person.  Not to mention that the relationship with me which he initiated caused him to pay a very heavy price.  By leaking secret documents in order to expose Israel’s strategy of provoking a war against Iran, he lost his job, accrued enormous legal debt, and was sent to federal prison for 20 months.  In order to retain the loyalty of his family and the Orthodox Jewish community which supported him, he renounced his journalistic relationship with me and its original purpose.  After his release he published fraudulent (at least to my mind) accounts of his motives and activities, which claimed he had intended to expose wrongdoing within the FBI.  If that was the case, Shamai never mentioned any such matters to me.  He was wholly dedicated to the notion that Israel had created a campaign within the U.S. to exploit our media, and political leadership to go to war against Iran.  That is the reason he and I worked together.

Silverstein also sheds light on the ostracization the whistle-blower suffered within the Jewish community, adding that Leibowitz…

…was known in his religious community as a fine Torah reader who beautifully chanted the Torah portion at his Orthodox synagogue. However, when a well-connected member discovered Leibowitz’ “past,” they told the rabbi that he must take this great communal honor from him or they would leave the congregation. Suchshunning is, unfortunately, all too common in the Jewish community (remember Spinoza?) for those holding unpopular views of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Luckily, Leibowitz discovered a conservative synagogue whose rabbi embraced him despite his “baggage.” Throughout his subsequent trials and tribulations, this rabbi and community have stood behind Leibowitz and his family.

One wonders how the story might have turned out differently had the whistle-blower not found the lone synagogue willing to “embrace” him. If Leibowitz’s story is any illustration, it would seem that if you are Jewish and you take any action deemed as threatening or disloyal to Israel, the consequences can be quite severe. Some criticism, to be sure, is allowed, but apparently there is a point or a line that you don’t cross–or at least that’s my take on it anyway.

How these threats of social reprobation play into the thinking of Jews, and to what extent it cows or intimidates them from saying anything too critical about Israel or Jewish power, is not something I have a great deal of insight into–although perhaps it’s worth mentioning here that Medea Benjamin is Jewish. Below is a picture of her holding a sign avowing her membership in Jewish Voice for Peace–the very group which launched an attack against Weir in 2015.

mbenjamin

JVP, in a statement published online, charged Weir with being “a repeat guest of white supremacist Clay Douglas on his hate radio show.” Her transgressions also include giving interviews to Pastor Mark Dankof–branded by JVP as “anti-gay, anti-Jewish”–and the American Free Press, labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, according to the statement. Weir’s line-by-line rebuttal to their charges can be found here, and you can also access commentaries on the matter, here and here, by Gilad Atzmon, who defends Weir, calls the attack on her “guilt by association,” and who points out additionally that JVP would not have had the same reaction had Weir appeared on Israeli TV–which Atzmon describes as “suffused with Jewish supremacy and racism.”

As for Benjamin, clearly she has supported many worthwhile causes over the years, both in terms of her work with Code Pink as well as with Global Exchange, an organization she helped start up in 1988. Her hard work was acknowledged by writer David Swanson, who gave her a glowing introduction on day one of the tribunal

“Medea Benjamin, born Susan Benjamin, is an American political activist–I assume everyone knows that,” Swanson said. He went on to add:

Best known for co-founding Code Pink, and along with activist and author Kevin Danaher the fair trade advocacy group Global Exchange. Benjamin was also the Green Party candidate in California in 2000 for the US Senate. She currently contributes to Op-Ed News and the Huffington Post. In 2003, the Los Angeles Times described her as, quote, one of the high profile leaders, end-quote, of the peace movement. I would describe her as one of the best leaders of the peace movement. Medea Benjamin…

However, one of course must wonder what ground-changing victories can ultimately hope to be be achieved by any movement–whether it be for peace, social equality, justice for Palestine, or any other noble such goal–when the leaders of those movements, rather than confronting hard truths, are instead ducking and running from them.

Watch this short video and follow this brave woman!!!

If Americans knew that Codepink is a controlled opposition apparatus they would get upset..

Once again Alison Weir hits the nail on the head telling the truth that brought America on its knees.

 

Kevin Barrett’s and Greg McCarron look into Max Blumenthal’s affairs

September 02, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

You want to listen to this radio program:

Kevin Barrett’s:  Max Blumenthal – son of Zionist operator, Libya-destroyer, and Hillary confidante Sidney Blumenthal – is one of the highest-profile pro-Palestine Jews and foundation-funded “alternative” media luminaries. Though a notable truth-teller concerning on-the-ground realities in Occupied Palestine, Max Blumenthal occasionally mutates into a self-appointed thought-policeman. As if his past witch-hunts against Gilad Atzmon and Alison Weir were not shameful enough, Blumenthal has now taken it upon himself to decide who is guilty, and who is not guilty, of the dreadful crime of 9/11 truth. The good news is that he has found Abby Martin “not guilty.” The bad news is that he seems to be taking the position that 9/11 truth is indeed pernicious, but that Abby Martin only sought the truth about 9/11 when she was young and foolish. Older and wiser now, Abby is no longer interested in such things, Max assures us.

Today’s guest, Greg McCarron, is not impressed by Blumenthal’s attempts at gatekeeping. Read his analysis at:

MAX BLUMENTHAL FINDS ABBY MARTIN NOT GUILTY OF 9/11 TRUTH

…and listen to our exasperated attempts to figure out where Max Blumenthal (and Abby Martin for that matter) are coming from.

(source: http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/greg-mccarron-max-blumenthal-finds-abby.html)

Kevin Barrett’s and Greg McCarron look into Max Blumenthal’s affairs

Kosher Palestinians! by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian 

A kosher Palestinian, is the one who he believes in:

  • The “specialness” and “chosen-Mess” of Jews”, for they always “know better” and no movement or organization can function if not headed by them and guided by their “light”
  • They believe that anyone on earth be called racist supremacist except Jews, so they take “strong stands” against “Palestinian racism” and “Palestinian antisemitism” if Palestinians question the right of the “Jewish state” to exist, but a Kosher Palestinian never ever questions Jewish supremacy and racism, worse, they accuse those who request a condemnation of ideological Jewish supremacy of being “antisemites”
  • They also believe in the “primacy of Jewish suffering”, more than their own, and revere the “holocaust” as their one and only true deity worthy of worshiping, never to be doubted or questioned
static1.squarespace.com

Image result for Vanessa BeeleyBOYCOTT ALL SOFT ZIONISTS…and APOLOGISTS

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY AND EXPOSE THESE INSIDIOUS GATEKEEPERS. They are serving only Israel.

Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada supports cancellation of the US Nakba speaking tour in case it offends the Zionists. I say boycott Abunimah and all the other sell outs and vassals of the illegal and oppressive state of Israel.

Abunimah’s [false] claim was that Alison Weir of If Americans Knew [one of the best websites educating Americans about the Palestinian cause] might have been in the audience.

Anyone who supports this Zionism apologist, please feel free to unfriend me right now.

Paul Larudee of the Free Palestine Movement.

Alison Weir had nothing to do with the event and apparently showed up to hand out flyers for her website. One of the SJPers criticized Alison,claiming that the issue was Alison’s refusal to respect Israel’s “right to exist” as a regime. The Palestinian speaker, Amena Ashkar, agreed with Alison’s view on this matter, but was told by organizers that she was not allowed to voice her opinion. The speaker, being a principled person, refused to give the talk if her feelings about the colonial regime that dispossessed her were going to be censored from the discussion. So the organizers decided to cancel the entire event.

Their own explanation doesn’t even make sense. If the problem was Alison Weir or her flyers they could have simply removed the materials (and Alison as well), and in fact it appears they had done that just. Instead they cancelled the entire event, and that is because they did not want Amena’s views to be expressed.

It is beyond despicable that Stanford SJP would go to this length to cancel a talk by two Palestinian refugees who have spent their lives in a refugee camp, unlike the privileged brats who organized — and then cancelled –this talk. That includes an 85-year-old Nakba survivor. But now they want to rationalize their disgusting behavior by drudging up rumors and innuendo about some white lady who was in the audience and her pamphlets?

Stanford SJP owes their guests — and the rest of us — an apology. I am currently speaking to some of the national tour organizers about putting out a public statement where Amena can express the ideas Stanford SJP denied her the opportunity to speak at Stanford, and calling on Stanford SJP to retract this ridiculous explanation and show some accountability for what they just did.

http://freepalestinemovement.org/…/why-was-the-nakba-tour-…/

ALISON WEIR’S STATEMENT
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153546910184632&id=32975139631&substory_index=0&hc_location=ufi

Gilad Atzmon‘s article:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/…/2…/4/15/ali-abu-kosher-did-it-again

Related

If Americans Knew What Stanford SJP Stands For

April 16, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Allison Weir On Stanford SJP And Their Notion Of  ‘Solidarity’…

Source:

Dear friends,

Some people who oppose If Americans Knew are misrepresenting a recent event at Stanford University in which the Stanford SJP demanded that their invited speaker, Amena, a Palestinian refugee from Lebanon, censor her talk. She refused to do so and the event was not held. (UPDATE: Amena explains what happened: iakn.us/22vvXxE)

The organizer of the speaking event, the North America Nakba Tour, posted an account of what transpired. (iakn.us/1VV1GYL)

However, to our astonishment, some opponents of If Americans Knew then tried to divert attention to me and IAK rather than keeping it on this woman and her colleague who traveled so far to tell us their story. Someone at Stanford SJP posted a fraudulent statement about the incident on their Facebook page, which we expect will be repeated far and wide by people bent on taking down If Americans Knew.

While the Nakba Tour statement already gives the basic facts, we are now augmenting this with a more detailed description of what transpired.

Below are the facts:

The Stanford SJP event was part of a tour by two Palestinian women who have recently arrived in the US from a Lebanese refugee camp to speak at events under the North America Nakba Tour. They are Mariam Fathalla (respectfully known as Umm Akram) an 86-year-old Nakba survivor, and Amena Ashkar, the 22-year-old granddaughter and great granddaughter of other Nakba survivors, who has known no other home than refugee camps.

The purpose of the Nakba Tour (iakn.us/23tcAuX) is to bring Palestinian refugees from camps in Lebanon to tell Americans about Israel’s mass expulsion of Palestinians 60 years ago and of their subsequent plight, voices that are almost never heard in the U.S. Nakba means catastrophe, the term Palestinians use to refer to the 1948 war of ethnic cleansing that created Israel. (For details, read the excellent book by Israeli historian Ilan Pappeiakn.us/1VlUsOA and see our short brochure on it. iakn.us/1XvmchG)

Several months ago, the organizer of the Nakba Tour, Paul Larudee, asked me and many others to help with various aspects of the tour. Like others, I responded that I’d be glad to help.

On request, I agreed to help, as needed, with driving, with visits to Capitol Hill and with promoting the tour. As you’ll recall, IAK posted announcements of the tour to our list and on our Facebook page encouraging people to organize venues for the speakers.

When the two women arrived, Paul asked me to join a discussion on how to present to Americans (we both live in the SF Bay Area), since this is their first visit to the U.S. I agreed to do this and mainly emphasized how little most Americans know about this issue. The tour organizers had not had time to put together written materials to take along, so we arranged that IAK would provide these free to the Nakba Tour to make available to audiences, particularly our Synopsis factsheet, which gives important history and context about Palestine-Israel.

Since speakers can only cover so much in a 45 minute talk, it’s always valuable to provide additional informational materials to audiences. Many groups around the country use If Americans Knew materials, which are largely articles written by respected experts that IAK republishes into booklets and factsheets. (iakn.us/IAKmaterials) Some of the most popular are the Origin booklet (written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East) (iakn.us/1XvmCVa), Right of Return booklet (by Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh) (iakn.us/25ZZzYp), Synopsis fact sheet (iakn.us/1RUbPDS), and map cards (iakn.us/1MQhEzM). We also arranged that IAK would provide some of my books (/iakn.us/AOBJ-book) for the Tour to sell at events, with all proceeds going to the Tour, as a fundraising contribution and to educate attendees about the history.

Paul told me that the meeting about speaking to Americans had been extremely helpful and asked me to come hear the talks in person and perhaps afterwards give feedback. I felt both speakers would do a superb job – Amena’s English is excellent and both have powerful stories – but I said I’d be glad to come along if this might be of help, and rode with them to Stanford.

The Stanford Incident

When we arrived at the venue, the Tour videographer Samir Salem and I set up the materials table in the back. Suddenly, a few students confronted me, saying I wasn’t supposed to be there. I was entirely taken aback that they were focusing on me, rather than their distinguished guests.

(By the way, this was a huge change from when I spoke at Stanford several times a number of years ago. A 2004 lecture was covered in the campus newspaper (iakn.us/1SajfSh), and I was enormously touched when a student reporter told me, “That was the most powerful speech I’ve ever heard.”)

Paul tried to explain to today’s Stanford SJP students (none of whom have heard my talk (iakn.us/1Mu8ew6) or read my articles (iakn.us/1JV1KST) and book) that I wasn’t a speaker and that I had come at the Tour’s request to sit in the audience and hear the talks.

During the ensuing discussion, one or two of the students obliquely referred to the JVP-USCEIO unfounded accusations against me (iakn.us/1F7ax4u). They appeared not to know that these have been widely discredited and are opposed by most pro-Palestine activists, including some of the most respected and committed individuals both in the U.S. and in Palestine (see, for example,iakn.us/1S6IEdj.)

The students first objected to the books (which have been purchased by over 24,000 people and widely praised by reviewers, activists, and general readers, many saying they are “eye opening,” and “should be read by every American”), claiming they couldn’t sell things.

Next, they objected to the cards and booklets (eventually admitting it was because they contained the IAK website). Paul responded that these were the Tour’s materials and that he had never heard of speakers not being allowed to provide materials to audiences. I removed the offending books from the table and left the conversation, feeling the event shouldn’t be about me or IAK, but about Amena and Umm Akram.

At about this point, Amena entered the discussion, and students told her they objected to my views on “Israel’s right to exist” (one of our brochures contains John Whitbeck’s excellent article deconstructing this alleged “right.”iakn.us/1V0g6bj).

As I’m sure you’re aware, the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel’s alleged “right to exist” is one of Israel’s major talking points, and a demand that many Palestinians reject, since it would mean that Israel supposedly had the “right” to ethnically cleanse them, the “right” to discriminate against them, and the “right” to prevent people like Amena, Umm Akram and numerous others from returning to their homes. As Whitbeck writes:

“To demand that Palestinians recognize ‘Israel’s right to exist’ is to demand that a people who have been treated as subhumans unworthy of basic human rights publicly proclaim that they are subhumans. It would imply Palestinians’ acceptance that they deserve what has been done and continues to be done to them. Even 19th-century US governments did not require the surviving native Americans to publicly proclaim the ‘rightness’ of their ethnic cleansing by European colonists as a condition precedent to even discussing what sort of land reservation they might receive.”

Amena questioned the Stanford students, who told her she could not give her views on “Israel’s right to exist.” She then said she felt “unwelcome,” refused to give a censored speech, and the event did not go on. I was not involved in that conversation, which took place largely in Arabic, and I did not discourage her from speaking. (Hear Amena’s account of what transpired: iakn.us/1VV1GYL)

Nonfactual statement by anonymous individual from Stanford SJP

Someone has now posted on the Stanford SJP website and Facebook page a truly bizarre, highly inaccurate statement about the incident containing numerous false and absurd assertions. (iakn.us/1WrHzlF) Among these is the claim that they canceled the event because of me, that I “refused to leave” (no one ever asked me to do so), and that I have supposedly “made derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish conspiracy.” Whew!

When some individuals tried to post comments on the Facebook post objecting to the statement and giving real facts, their comments were quickly removed. At this point in time, however, perhaps a new moderator seems to have stopped removing such comments, and the thread contains a great many comments supporting me and opposing the Stanford students’ actions and statement, including the following by Paul Larudee:

“Whoever wrote this should be congratulated for cramming so many falsehoods into such a small space. If invited, I would be happy to elaborate, but why bother when the gatekeepers are removing all the evidence whenever it is posted? If they will allow this comment to remain, I suggestfreepalestinemovement.org/…/31/the-north-america-nakba-tour/. Long live free speech everywhere except Stanford.”

(By the way, it’s probably relevant to note that a committed Palestine activist has written to me that this Stanford behavior seems to be part of a problematic pattern with the current group, whose version of the divestment resolution takes a liberal Zionist position: ignores refugees, dates the injustice only from 1967, disavows BDS, and endorses Israeli self-determination at the expense of Palestinians.)

The Good News

Fortunately, to date the Stanford behavior has not been replicated by other groups on the Nakba Tour. In fact, Paul and others say that their reception has been overwhelmingly positive, and that individuals hosting the Tour in other locations are outraged at the Stanford group’s actions.

Meanwhile, at IAK we’re busy putting up more and more billboards (including our incredibly popular billboard supporting Flint, which has been shared by well over a thousand people on Facebook), sending out materials around the country, and preparing for my upcoming talks in Washington State, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

And I’ve just received word that a wonderful supporter, outraged by this malicious attack and extremely pleased with our work, has given us $10,000!

As we’ve mentioned previously, our IAK talks are going extremely well – to standing-room-only, receptive audiences, many of whom buy my book. (In fact, many supporters suggest that it is specifically because the talks are so effective and the book is doing so well that the attacks on us continue and escalate.)

UPDATE: 

I just gave two talks in Spokane, Washington. The first was in a large, hugely popular local bookstore with many people new to the issue in the audience. The event was full – all the seats were taken and people were standing in the back. The response was extremely positive and many people bought my book.

The second event was on Friday evening in Whitworth University. 135 students attended and again the response was electric and numerous people bought the book.

Of course, this is exactly what Zionists – with Ali Abunimah’s help – wish to prevent, but are failing to do.

Today I give talks in two Seattle libraries, tomorrow in a Portland, Oregon, church, and after that in Pennsylvania and Florida.

Thanks so much, everyone, for exposing and opposing the malicious actions and fraudulent claims by the JVP-USCEIO-Abunimah machine.

Best,

Alison

Ali Abu Kosher Did it Again

Shabbos Goy Ali Abunimah, the man who planned  to reduce the Intifada into an electronic noticeboard, did it again. Abunimah is notorious for being an appeaser of light Zionists and AZZs, is caught on the above tweet thanking Stanford  Students for stopping a Nakba event featuring an 85-year-old Nakba Survivor and others who have spent their entire lives in a refugee camp in Lebanon. Stanford SJP are now claiming — falsely — that they cancelled the event “because “Alison Weir who refuses to respect Israel’s “right to exist as a regime” was in the audience.

if Ali Abunimah like Stanford SJP insists upon Israel’s right to exist, he should consider Join the Likud party…

To learn more on this fiasco read Marxism.org:

[Marxism] Stanford SJP shuts down Palestinian refugee event, falsely blames it on Alison Weir

SJP shut down an event featuring an 85-year-old Nakba Survivor, one of two  people who have spent their entire lives in a refugee camp in Lebanon. Now they are claiming — falsely — because Alison Weir (remember her <https://louisproyect.org/2015/06/25/the-jewish-voice-for-peace-attack-on-alison-weir-jvp-loses-its-balance-2/&gt;?) was in the audience.

 Stanford SJP is lying. It had nothing to do with Alison Weir and everything to do with the fact that one of the speakers wanted to question Israel’s right to exist as a regime:

Alison Weir had nothing to do with the event and apparently showed up to hand out flyers for her website.

One of the SJPers criticized Alison, claiming that the issue was Alison’s refusal to respect Israel’s “right to exist” as a regime.

The Palestinian speaker, Amena Ashkar, agreed with Alison’s view on this matter, but was told by organizers that she was not allowed to voice her opinion.

The speaker, being a principled person, refused to give the talk if her feelings about the colonial regime that dispossessed her were going to be censored from the discussion. So the organizers decided to cancel the entire event.

Their own explanation doesn’t even make sense. If the problem was Alison Weir or her flyers they could have simply removed the materials (and Alison as well), and in fact it appears they had done that just. Instead they cancelled the entire event, and that is because they did not want Amena’s views to be expressed.

It is beyond despicable that Stanford SJP would go to this length to cancel a talk by two Palestinian refugees who have spent their lives in a refugee camp, unlike the privileged brats who organized — and then cancelled — this talk. That includes an 85-year-old Nakba survivor. But now they want to rationalize their disgusting behavior by drudging up rumors and innuendo about some white lady who was in the audience and her pamphlets?

Stanford SJP owes their guests — and the rest of us — an apology. I am currently speaking to some of the national tour organizers about putting out a public statement where Amena can express the ideas Stanford SJP denied her the opportunity to speak at Stanford, and calling on Stanford SJP to retract this ridiculous explanation and show some accountability for what they just did.

%d bloggers like this: