The Fading Holocaust

April 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 A new survey by Claims Conference finds a significant lack of Holocaust knowledge in the United States.

A new survey by Claims Conference finds a significant lack of Holocaust knowledge in the United States.

by Gilad Atzmon

“Holocaust Is Fading From Memory” the New York Times reported last week. Apparently a survey commissioned by the ‘Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany’found that “many adults lack basic knowledge of what happened — and this lack of knowledge is more pronounced among millennials, whom the survey defined as people ages 18 to 34.”

The Jewish Material Claims Against Germany reported that “Thirty-one percent of Americans, and 41 percent of millennials, believe that two million or fewer Jews were killed in the Holocaust”

This leaves me wondering how it is that the number Jews who died in the holocaust keeps dropping in people’s minds. The numbers of dead Russians stays solid at around 20 million. The number of the Brits who died in the Blitz also stays at around 40,000. The number of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by the newly born Jewish State just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz remains solid at about three quarters of a million. Only the number of Jews who died in the big war keeps fluctuating. I’d like to suggest to our friends at ‘Jewish Material Claims Against Germany’ that statistics may not provide the answer. They may want to ask themselves why is it that despite intense holocaust indoctrination in the newly formed religion’s tenet, namely the primacy of Jewish suffering, the message is somehow ignored and often rejected. The anomalies go further. The Russians, the Vietnamese and the Palestinians do not constantly measure  Americans’  acknowledgment  of their suffering. They do not poll Americans’ approval rate of their holocausts on a weekly basis so the next question is why Jewish institutions feel the need to do so.

The NYT reports that “Forty-one percent of Americans, and 66 percent of millennials, cannot say what Auschwitz was.”

This, I must admit, is worrying. By now we have a holocaust museum in pretty much every city in the West.  Clearly this has not been enough. I recommend that we consider building a holocaust shrine on every street of every city in America.  And if this fails, there may be no other option but to push for legislation that makes it compulsory for every household in America and beyond to dedicate a room to Holocaust commemoration.

Matthew Bronfman, a board member of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany told the NYT,  “As we get farther away from the actual events, 70-plus years now, it becomes less forefront of what people are talking about or thinking about or discussing or learning action, I think we’re really going to be behind the eight ball.”

Maybe, just maybe, when the ‘Jewish material claims’ body starts to look at Palestinians’ material loses in the name of the holocaust, the American people and everyone else (including Jews) may see a point in internalizing the meaning of Auschwitz as a universal message and a lesson in history.

Advertisements

Universalising the Holocaust

April 12, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

dublin.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Israel is upset!  Ynet reports today that Dublin Mayor Mícheál Éamonn Mac Donncha addressed a Palestinian Authority international conference in Ramallah on Wednesday, despite the Israeli Interior Minister instructing authorities to stop him from entering the country.

Mac Donncha boasted at the conference that his city’s council adopted a resolution calling for the expulsion of Israel’s ambassador to Ireland. Such a move didn’t make Mac Donncha popular in the Jewish State.

The symposium titled ‘Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Palestine’ focuses on Jerusalem’s significance in the eyes of Palestinians in the light of American president Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“Jerusalem is of paramount importance in the world. I think an attempt by any one state or religion to exclusively reign supreme over Jerusalem is wrong. The American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is therefore very wrong,” Mac Donncha said expressing a universal ethical position.

Palestinians are not used to seeing Western politicians taking their side. Such an ethical move never goes unpunished as Jeremy Corbyn and thousands of his party’s members can tell.

Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Occupied Territories Maj.-Gen. Yoav Mordechai questioned yesterday whether “the honourable Mícheál Mac Donncha chose the event and its timing intentionally or not.” Today Israel marks the Holocaust Remembrance Day. “Perhaps tomorrow’s siren will remind him that (Mufti) Amin al-Husseini met with the mass murderer Adolf Hitler, and then he’ll try to come up with things to tell his city’s Jewish community.” I want to believe that Maj.-Gen. Mordechai doesn’t expect Dublin’s mayor to compromise on basic ethics just to appease Dublin’s Jews. Needless to mention that it may also be possible that some of the 1500 Jews who live in Dublin may actually support the Mayor’s humanist approach.

Maybe Maj.-Gen. Mordechai should use the occasion and contemplate himself over the meaning of Holocaust day. He can, for instance, delve into the racist Israeli Law of Return. He can ask himself how is it possible that just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the newly formed Jewish State ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population (The Nakba). Maj.-Gen. Mordechai should ask himself if it is a coincidence that on the week that commemorates the holocaust, IDF soldiers filmed themselves ‘having fun’ shooting Palestinian protestors as if they were sitting ducks.

https://youtu.be/EjTkJIPKj80

I do believe that time is ripe for the Jewish State to tell us what is the universal moral lesson it drew from the Holocaust.

If they want to burn it, you want to read it!

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto,

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

In Case You Missed It: What Is Antisemitism?

By Michael Neumann

March 27, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. Silently they congratulate themselves on their courage. With a little sigh, they suppress any twinge of concern that maybe the goyim–let alone the Arabs–can’t be trusted with this dangerous knowledge.

Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!

I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

“Antisemitism”, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry–a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “anti-Zionism is antisemitism! ” quickly alternates with: “Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you antisemite”

Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.

But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.

What difference does that make? Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.

It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.

What crimes? Even most apologists for Israel have given up denying them, and merely hint that noticing them is a bit antisemitic. After all, Israel ‘is no worse than anyone else’. First, so what? At age six we knew that “everyone’s doing it” is no excuse; have we forgotten? Second, the crimes are no worse only when divorced from their purpose. Yes, other people have killed civilians, watched them die for want of medical care, destroyed their homes, ruined their crops, and used them as human shields. But Israel does these things to correct the inaccuracy of Israel Zangwill’s 1901 assertion that

“Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country”.

It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace.

Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm, and whose very existence they contrived to ignore.

Zionist atrocities were not part of the initial plan. They emerged as the racist obliviousness of a persecuted people blossomed into the racial supremacist ideology of a persecuting one. That is why the commanders who directed the rapes, mulilations and child-killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel.(*) But these murders were not enough. Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order, but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. Like my parents, I have always been an atheist. I am entitled by the biology of my birth to Israeli citizenship; you, perhaps, are the most fervent believer in Judaism, but are not. Palestinians are being squeezed and killed for me, not for you. They are to be forced into Jordan, to perish in a civil war. So no, shooting Palestinian civilians is not like shooting Vietnamese or Chechen civilians. The Palestinians aren’t ‘collateral damage’ in a war against well-armed communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.

Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.

Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.

In other words there is a choice to be made. You can use ‘antisemitism’ to fit your political agenda, or you can use it as a term of condemnation, but you can’t do both. If antisemitism is to stop coming out reasonable or moral, it has to be narrowly and unpolemically defined. It would be safe to confine antisemitism to explicitly racial hatred of Jews, to attacking people simply because they had been born Jewish. But it would be uselessly safe: even the Nazis did not claim to hate people simply because they had been born Jewish. They claimed to hate the Jews because they were out to dominate the Aryans.

Clearly such a view should count as antisemitic, whether it belongs to the cynical racists who concocted it or to the fools who swallowed it.

There is only one way to guarantee that the term “antisemitism” captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.

For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture.

I, for example, grew up in Jewish culture and, like many people growing up in a culture, I have come to dislike it. But it is unwise to count my dislike as antisemitic, not because I am Jewish, but because it is harmless. Perhaps not utterly harmless: maybe, to some tiny extent, it will somehow encourage some of the harmful acts or attitudes we’d want to call antisemitic. But so what? Exaggerated philosemitism, which regards all Jews as brilliant warm and witty saints, might have the same effect. The dangers posed by my dislike are much too small to matter. Even widespread, collective loathing for a culture is normally harmless. French culture, for instance, seems to be widely disliked in North America, and no one, including the French, consider this some sort of racial crime.

Not even all acts and attitudes harmful to Jews generally should be considered antisemitic. Many people dislike American culture; some boycott American goods. Both the attitude and the acts may harm Americans generally, but there is nothing morally objectionable about either. Defining these acts as anti-Americanism will only mean that some anti-Americanism is perfectly acceptable. If you call opposition to Israeli policies antisemitic on the grounds that this opposition harms Jews generally, it will only mean that some antisemitism is equally acceptable.

If antisemitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews. The Nazis made up historical fantasies to justify their attacks; so do modern antisemites who trust in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So do the closet racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is antisemitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are. It also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish.

So far, I’ve suggested that it’s best to narrow the definition of antisemitism so that no act can be both antisemitic and unobjectionable. But we can go further. Now that we’re through playing games, let’s ask about the role of *genuine*, bad antisemitism in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in the world at large.

Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter. In other words, it is one thing to be told: you must simply accept that antisemitism is evil; to do otherwise is to put yourself outside our moral world. But it is quite something else to have someone try to bully you into proclaiming that antisemitism is the Evil of Evils. We are not children learning morality; it is our responsibility to set our own moral priorities. We cannot do this by looking at horrible images from 1945 or listening to the anguished cries of suffering columnists. We have to ask how much harm antisemitism is doing, or is likely to do, not in the past, but today. And we must ask where such harm might occur, and why.

Supposedly there is great danger in the antisemitism of the Arab world. But Arab antisemitism isn’t the cause of Arab hostility towards Israel or even towards Jews. It is an effect. The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat. Indeed its chief cause is not antisemitic propaganda but the decades-old, systematic and unrelenting efforts of Israel to implicate all Jews in its crimes. If Arab anti-semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm. Arab governments could only lose by permitting attacks on their Jewish citizens; to do so would invite Israeli intervention. And there is little reason to expect such attacks to materialize: if all the horrors of Israel’s recent campaigns did not provoke them, it is hard to imagine what would. It would probably take some Israeli act so awful and so criminal as to overshadow the attacks themselves.

If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, “`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says”, Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)

Of course there are historical reasons for fearing a horrendous attack on Jews. And anything is possible: there could be a massacre of Jews in Paris tomorrow, or of Algerians. Which is more likely? If there are any lessons of history, they must apply in roughly similar circumstances. Europe today bears very little resemblance to Europe in 1933. And there are positive possibilities as well: why is the likelihood of a pogrom greater than the likelihood that antisemitism will fade into ineffectual nastiness? Any legitimate worries must rest on some evidence that there really is a threat.

The incidence of antisemitic attacks might provide such evidence. But this evidence is consistently fudged: no distinction is made between attacks against Jewish monuments and symbols as opposed to actual attacks against Jews. In addition, so much is made of an increase in the frequency of attacks that the very low absolute level of attacks escapes attention. The symbolic attacks have indeed increased to significant absolute numbers. The physical attacks have not.(*) More important, most of these attacks are by Muslim residents: in other words, they come from a widely hated, vigorously policed and persecuted minority who don’t stand the slightest chance of undertaking a serious campaign of violence against Jews.

It is very unpleasant that roughly half a dozen Jews have been hospitalized–none killed–due to recent attacks across Europe. But anyone who makes this into one of the world’s important problems simply hasn’t looked at the world. These attacks are a matter for the police, not a reason why we should police ourselves and others to counter some deadly spiritual disease. That sort of reaction is appropriate only when racist attacks occur in societies indifferent or hostile to the minority attacked. Those who really care about recurrent Nazism, for instance, should save their anguished concern for the far bloodier, far more widely condoned attacks on gypsies, whose history of persecution is fully comparable to the Jewish past. The position of Jews is much closer to the position of whites, who are also, of course, the victims of racist attacks.

No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.

It is not Jews who live most in the shadow of the concentration camp. LePen’s ‘transit camps’ are for ‘Arabs’, not Jews. And though there are politically significant parties containing many antisemites, not one of these parties shows any sign of articulating, much less implementing, an antisemitic agenda. Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that, once in power, they will change their tune. Haider’s Austria is not considered dangerous for Jews; neither was Tudjman’s Croatia. And were there to be such danger, well, a nuclear-armed Jewish state stands ready to welcome any refugees, as do the US and Canada. And to say there are no real dangers now is not to say that we should ignore any dangers that may arise. If in France, for instance, the Front National starts advocating transit camps for Jews, or institutes anti-Jewish immigration policies, then we should be alarmed. But we should not be alarmed that something alarming might just conceivably happen: there are far more alarming things going on than that!

One might reply that, if things are not more alarming, it is only because the Jews and others have been so vigilant in combatting antisemitism. But this isn’t plausible. For one thing, vigilance about antisemitism is a kind of tunnel vision: as neofascists are learning, they can escape notice by keeping quiet about Jews. For another, there has been no great danger to Jews even in traditionally antisemitic countries where the world is *not* vigilant, like Croatia or the Ukraine. Countries that get very little attention seem no more dangerous than countries that get a lot. As for the vigorous reaction to LePen in France, that seems to have a lot more to do with French revulsion at neofascism than with the scoldings of the Anti-Defamation League. To suppose that the Jewish organizations and earnest columnists who pounce on antisemitism are saving the world from disaster is like claiming that Bertrand Russell and the Quakers were all that saved us from nuclear war.

Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.

This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.

In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.

* Not even the ADL and B’nai B’rith include attacks on Israel in the tally; they speak of “The insidious way we have seen the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians used by anti-Semites“. And like many other people, I don’t count terrorist attacks by such as Al Quaeda as instances of antisemitism but rather of some misdirected quasi-military campaign against the US and Israel. Even if you count them in, it does not seem very dangerous to be a Jew outside Israel.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca

This article was originally published by “Counterpunch” –

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.

Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

Why is the world today (2018) the way that it is?

Consider these historical facts:

We have had centuries of revolution in the Western world.  Jews have played critical roles in these revolutions.

It is now 170 years since Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published.  1848 was known as a year of revolutions in Europe.

Modern psychiatry or psychology (psychoanalysis) was founded by several Jews in Europe in the late 1800s (Freud and his cohorts).

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

It has been 120 years since the “forged”, but strikingly prescient, Protocols were circulated.

Large scale emigration of Jews from eastern Europe into the United States begins in the waning years of the 19th century and accelerates greatly in the first 25 years of the 20th century.  This large influx of Jews with alien ideas begins to transform US society beginning in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson (one of the most damaging administrations in US history).

The world has endured a century of murderous, atheistic Bolshevism in various forms throughout the world.  Ethnic Jews foisted this program on to the world.

The Jew (Zionist) orchestrated Balfour Declaration (1917) brings America into the European War (World War One) resulting in a defeat for Germany and the punitive Versailles Treaty.  The seeds for a second world war are sown.

The Institute for Social Research (also known as The Frankfurt School) was started in Weimar Germany in the 1920s.  When Hitler came to power early in 1933, these Jewish social revolutionaries fled to New York and set up shop with the help of US Jews.  We have them to thank or blame for the destructive social engineering known today as the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Powerful Jewish interests in Britain push the British to war with Germany in 1939.  The Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union have built the world’s largest army in history and await the opportunity to spread their revolution by force of arms.  This they do beginning in September, 1939 by annexing eastern Poland.  Then the USSR attacks Finland in late 1939.  In the spring of 1940, it is the Baltic States’ turn as these 3 small nation states are occupied by the Red Army.  Later in 1940, Stalin seizes part of Romania.  (There are many who believe that Hitler’s invasion in June, 1941 was a preemptive strike to forestall a Bolshevik onslaught against central and western Europe.)  Jews in the Roosevelt Administration opportunistically seize upon FDR’s infatuation with both Stalin and utopian communism and urge FDR to aid those countries at war with Germany, which FDR does through Lend-Lease.  As well, Soviet spies penetrate FDR’s government bureaucracy.  During the war, FDR’s policies and agreements favor the USSR at the cost of all other nations and peoples involved.  The outcome of the war is a victory for the Jewish banking interests in London and New York, and a victory for Jewish communists throughout Europe (with the enslavement of Christian nations in central and eastern Europe).

We have had 70 years of holocaustism, which seeks to inculcate the idea of a perpetual victimhood of the Jews in the minds of goyim (gentiles, non-Jews).  Obviously, when we obsess on alleged Jewish suffering, we are not likely to focus on Jewish villainy, or even suspect that such villainy exists.

Rabid and heretical Christian Zionism spreads widely in American Protestantism in the 1960s and 1970s.  The pro-Israeli lobby in the US is greatly strengthened by the support of millions of these deluded Christian Zionist voters, and this impacts US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Also in the 1960s, feminism is effectively hijacked by 3 Jewesses, Friedan, Abzug, and Steinem (half Jewish) and becomes radical or gender feminism which promotes enmity between the sexes.  Also, at this time, pornography spreads and is accepted in the culture.  Hugh Hefner was not the only Jew promoting and publishing pornography.  The adult film industry is largely run by Jews.

The world’s finances and financial markets are largely controlled by the interlocking Rothschild banking empire.  Financial panics and recessions/depressions can be caused at any time to wipe out middle class savings and make people more dependent upon government “assistance”.

We are being told that nationalism anywhere in the world is “anti-Semitism” by default.  Another lie from the Jews.

The elders in Israel threaten the world with nuclear holocaust via their Samson Option if Israel’s existence is seriously threatened or in jeopardy.  Long before the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu in the mid 1980s, the world knew that Israel possessed atomic weapons.  The Israeli threat of atomic holocaust for the world cannot simply be ignored.

The current world order, or the New World Order in progress, is a Semitic scam and sham.  We are all to be serfs and debt slaves on the global plantation (another collectivist, Talmudic utopia) ruled from Jerusalem.  Christian Zionists, lackeys for the Jews, may patrol the fields with whips in their hands as overseers for the absentee Jewish landlords.

We are all Palestinians now, with a life sentence in this New World Order.

Has not humanity paid a high enough price for the arrogance, deceit and betrayal of these chauvinistic Jews, for their crimes, for Jewish villainy?

conclusions and recommendations

We have lamented before that the Jewish Revolutionary Nature is incompatible with Western, Christian Civilization.  The above noted historical movements and facts demonstrate the truth of this position.  (An in-depth analysis of each of the above movements is obviously beyond the scope of this blog post.  However, the interested reader can do an Internet search for articles and books on all of the above noted historical movements and find the Jewish influence and control behind each.)  The Jews when acting on this revolutionary nature, which seems to be embedded in their genes as it persists from generation to generation, subvert the culture of whatever host society (nation) they live in.  They act to divert and deform the normal, natural development and progress of that culture.  It is a zero sum game that the Jews seek to always win.

You may cry out that not all Jews are social revolutionaries.  You would be quite right, but that does not alter the above facts.  In the Bolshevik Revolution, not every Russian Jew was a communist, but nearly every communist leader and inciter of violent revolution was an ethnic Jew.  The Cheka and NKVD mass killers were disproportionately Jewish.

The current trajectory of world society is for greater loss of freedom and more intrusive governmental control of our lives, and for Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism to continue to divide and demoralize western and Christian peoples.

Western historiography must be reformed by people who are free of bias and are capable of objectivity when investigating and chronicling historical events.  Censorship of facts solely because these offend the Jews or expose their villainy can no longer be tolerated.  We need publishing houses that are not controlled by Jewish ownership.

No more wars should be fought by Christian peoples for these damned Jews and their nefarious schemes!!

No more believing in this Chosen People nonsense to give the Jews a free pass any longer.

Humanity cannot afford the cost of Jewish Supremacism and domination any longer.

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

McMaster Threatens Russia in Speech at Holocaust Museum; is there a ‘Jewish Agenda’ at Work?

Posted on 

Departing US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster believes the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. is holy ground. He said so in a recent speech there.

“We are gathered together this afternoon on holy ground,” he proclaimed.

Yesterday it was reported that McMaster has been ousted from his position in the Trump administration. While there were subtle nuances in views on such things as Russia and the JCPOA agreement with Iran, the “personal chemistry” between Trump and McMaster probably had at least as much, if not more, to do with the latter’s departure than anything else. And the general’s speech at the Holocaust Museum, I would contend–a speech given on the 7th anniversary of the outbreak of the war in Syria–offers us some interesting insights into why the anti-Russia hysteria emanating from Washington has ramped up to such dangerous levels.

You can go here to access a Politico report on the speech, and here to see a video of it uploaded by the US State Department. As you will observe, McMaster devoted much of the talk to fulminating against Russia. The program also abounded with the usual rhetoric against Syria and Iran.

“Unfortunately today in Syria we are confronted with some of the worst atrocities known to man,” McMaster declared, and he went on to adjure that “the Russian government has bombed civilian areas and provided political cover for Assad’s crimes.”

Some of the worst atrocities known to man? McMaster ludicrously seems to be suggesting that President Assad, whose ouster has been openly called for by both US and Israeli officials, may be “worse than Hitler,” as it were. It is a sign that desperation to remove him is reaching new levels.

Significantly, the talk was given on March 15, which as I say was the 7th anniversary of the outbreak of the war in Syria–and at several points during the program McMaster made reference to a “Syria exhibit” there at the museum.

“The Syria exhibit here at the Holocaust Museum details these horrifying crimes through photographs, film, first person accounts, and other documentary evidence. It is estimated that nearly 500,000 people have perished since the war began,” he said.

Throughout, the following image was projected onto a large screen upon the stage from which the general gave his talk:

Question: Why would the Holocaust Museum, an entity presumably devoted to remembering an event in history, insert itself into the contemporary politics of regime change in the Middle East? Does it not suggest that the agenda of overthrowing the Assad government may be quintessentially a “Jewish agenda”?

In that regard, another point to consider is this: Russia is the chief reason why, after seven long years, the efforts to overthrow Assad have gone up in smoke. Imagine. All the money, resources, time and effort spent recruiting, arming, and training terrorist proxies, and nothing to show for it other than heaps of dead bodies and whole areas reduced to rubble. Despite all that, Assad remains leader of Syria.

Imagine the pent up fury this has triggered in certain circles in Washington…and probably elsewhere. Do you really doubt that pitting the US in a war against Russia is an option that has not been considered? So should we consider the bringing about of such a war a part of the aforementioned “Jewish agenda”?

Many political analysts would say what’s being played out now, vis-à-vis the escalating tensions between the US and Russia,  is a “neocon agenda.” Or, alternately, that the “Deep State” or the “Military Industrial Complex” are behind it all. But McMaster’s speech at the Holocaust Museum on the anniversary of the start of the war strikes me as an oddity, a red flag almost. If you were Sherlock Holmes trying to solve the puzzle of a murder mystery it’s certainly a piece of evidence you wouldn’t overlook.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (as it is officially called) is located adjacent to the National Mall in Washington, some ten blocks from the White House. According to Wikipedia, it has approximately 400 employees and is run by a governing board called the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, a body whose membership  includes 55 individuals appointed by the president of the United States. The Council also includes five members of the US Senate and five members of the House of Representatives. Congressional members include Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ted Deutch, and Marco Rubio of Florida; Lee Zeldin of New York; Brad Schneider of Illinois; Orrin Hatch of Utah; and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The current chairman is Howard M. Lorber, chairman and CEO of Vector Group Ltd., a holding company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He is chairman also of Nathan’s Famous, a fast food chain. While in college, Lorber was a member of the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity, an experience which, according to Wikipedia, “had a large impact on his Jewish identity, and as such he endowed a position within the organization called the Lorber Director of Jewish Programming.” Alpha Epsilon Pi, by the way, is a fraternity that is “based upon Jewish principles.” Supposedly it is open to all who espouse its “purpose and values,” however, some have questioned whether this is indeed the case since the fraternity is said to have “expelled non-Jewish members from some of its chapters.”

Lorber reportedly has known Trump for more than 30 years.

The day McMaster gave his speech at the museum was also the day the US, UK, France, and Germany issued a joint statement on the Salisbury nerve agent poisoning, a statement in which the NATO members judged it “highly likely” that Russia was behind the attack. In fact, McMaster even made mention of the statement in his speech that same day.

“This morning the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom condemned the abhorrent nerve agent attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal that took place in Salisbury, United Kingdom on March 4,” he said. “The statement made clear that we believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related to this incident and to provide full information to the OPCW.”

Other commenters, from George Galloway to Paul Craig Roberts, have covered extensively why it would have been absurd for Russia to carry out such an attack, so I’m not going to waste space on it here. What I’d like to do instead is posit the theory of an historical continuum.

What we are seeing now, with all the venomous rancor being directed against Russia, is not solely the result of Russia’s entry into the Syrian war in 2015; it in fact has relatively little to do with that; it also has little or nothing to do with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, nor does it trace its roots back to the outset of the Syrian war in 2011.

It did not begin with Assad’s becoming president of Syria in the year 2000, nor with Putin’s assuming the leadership of Russia in 1999.

What we are seeing is not a “new cold war,” a throwback to the 1950s and 60s; nor did it even commence with the Holocaust in the 1940s and 30s. No. What we are seeing now began much earlier. Much earlier. It is a continuum that stretches back for 2000 years–all the way back to the crucifixion of Christ.

dictionary definition of “continuum” is: “a continuous extent, succession, or whole, no part of which can be distinguished from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division”…and…“a continuous series or whole, no part of which is perceptibly different from the adjacent parts.”

In other words, a continuum, particularly an historical continuum, could be thought of as a play of many acts. In this case, the play started in the time of Christ–and it has yet to reach its conclusion. I say this because anger at Christ and Christianity seems to be embedded in the collective Jewish psyche. Jews for centuries have blamed Christians for their problems. Certainly a lot has changed since the Second Vatican Council and the onset of the era of “interfaith dialog” (an era which has coincided with the rise of Christian Zionism), and the ill-will between Christians and Jews today is nowhere near what it used to be. Now, rather than Christians, it is the Muslim world which Jews, or Israeli Jews at any rate, find themselves at war against, yet the old resentments are still there– bubbling underneath though surfacing from time to time in such forms as negative portrayals of Christians in Hollywood films and TV shows.

Alleged “Christian anti-Semitism” is something that many Jews harbor seething resentments over. And this is why I say a continuum is in effect…and why such a continuum should be taken into consideration when forming an analysis of current events.

The key events in this continuum are:

→ The crucifixion of Christ in 30 A.D.;

→ Destruction of the Jewish temple exactly 40 years later;

→ Third Jewish revolt crushed by the Romans in 136 A.D.;

→ Rome renames Judea “Syria Palestina”; some Jews remain; others disperse to other regions;

→ The compilation, starting in early 3rd century, of the Talmud (in which Jesus is reviled);

→ The compilation, in the 7th century, of the Quran (in which Jesus is revered);

→ Conversion to Judaism by the Khazars in the 8th century;

→ Khazar Kingdom defeated by joint Russian-Byzantine force in the 10th century; Khazarian Jews disperse to Eastern Europe;

→ 11th-20th centuries: Jews expelled from roughly 100 countries or regions;

→ 1933-45: Hitler comes to power; Jews placed in camps; World War II is fought

→ 1948: Israel established; more than 700,000 Palestinians dispersed from their villages and homes;

→ 1951: AIPAC is founded and Jewish power begins to grow in America

Russia is the most powerful Christian nation on earth. Yes, its power and influence are viewed as threatening to US global hegemony, but the irrational threats and accusations being made against it, the heightening of tensions to almost unprecedented levels, can be fully understood only within the context of the above continuum.

Likewise the threats against Assad and Syria.

Bashar Assad is a secular leader who has protected Christians. If terrorism is truly the concern of US officials, why single out Assad as the enemy? Why not Saudi Arabia instead? Assad is actually fighting the very terrorists Washington professes such concern over. Assad has ensured that Christians in Syria, at least in areas controlled by the government, remain free to practice their religion. Their churches and monasteries are protected. In fact, Assad arguably has done more to unify Christians and Muslims than any other national leader, certainly in the Middle East–and this may be the real reason he is hated so much. Here is a video which I posted on December 30, 2015. It shows Assad and his wife, Asma, visiting a Church in Damascus during Christmas that year:

The church is the Notre Dame de Damas Church, an ancient cathedral located just two kilometers from the militant-held area of East Ghouta. The people you see in this video are probably some of those who have suffered most from terrorist shells fired from East Ghouta. The more the Syrian Army has closed in on these terrorists, establishing humanitarian corridors for trapped civilians, the louder have become the howls of protest from the mainstream media and US officials. And yes, a case in point–McMaster’s speech on the 15th.

“The war has now raged for seven years. The Assad regime has killed indiscriminately, tortured, starved, raped, and used chemical weapons on his own people. It has attacked hospitals and schools, and countless Syrians have been arrested, abducted, or simply disappeared,” he claimed.

This wasn’t the only reference to the Syrian “regime” reputedly killing its “own people.” In fact throughout his talk, McMaster repeatedly referred to “Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” as if it were a proven, undisputed fact. And almost laughably–despite America’s documented support for terrorists in Syria, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki movement, which in 2016 filmed themselves beheading a 12-year-old Palestinian boy–he touted the US as a “civilized nation.”

“All civilized nations must hold Iran and Russia accountable for their role in enabling atrocities and perpetuating human suffering in Syria,” he insisted…and he issued a demand:

If Iran and Russia do not stop enabling the regime’s atrocities and adhere to Security Council resolutions, all nations must respond more forcefully than simply issuing strong statements. It is time to impose serious political and economic consequences on Moscow and Tehran.

I suppose we should breathe a sigh of relief that McMaster didn’t call for an all-out military invasion of Russia–and that so far no other US official has issued such a call either. But that being said, it’s hard to imagine what further “political and economic consequences” could be imposed that would not lead to war.

Is it just a coincidence that Vladimir Putin, president of the most powerful Christian nation on earth, and Bashar Assad, a head-of-state who has worked toward Muslim-Christian unity, would be held up by US leaders and mainstream media as objects of vilification and demonization? Did that simply happen by chance? Or is there a continuum in effect? A continuum that has resulted in a Jewish agenda that is now leading us toward global confrontation?

The lies tirelessly generated by mainstream media on Syria are discussed in an article published a couple of days ago by independent journalist Eva Bartlett.

“As per their norm, corporate media’s reports on Eastern Ghouta rely on the usual suspect sources,” Bartlett says.

One of the “usual suspect sources” heavily relied upon for a good while now has been the infamous White Helmets. This proved to be the case in McMaster’s speech as well–in fact, from his podium the general recognized and applauded two members of the so-called humanitarian organization present at the time–present in the halls of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. “Let’s give them a round of applause,” he urged. The audience obliged.

Bartlett also discusses an article by Sharmine Narwani that was published a few days prior to her own, an article in which Narwani discusses her experience of visiting, and seeing with her own eyes, a chemical weapons laboratory discovered by the Syrian Arab Army in a recently-liberated portion of East Ghouta. Narwani’s article, which includes photos taken inside the lab, can be viewed here.

But yet McMaster and other US officials go on asserting that it is Assad, rather than terrorist saboteurs, resorting gawkishly to chemical attacks–and they state their opinion on this matter almost uniformly, as if singing in a chorus.

McMaster, in his position as National Security Advisor, participated regularly in meetings of the National Security Council. He presumably had access to CIA intelligence on the situation in Syria. If the CIA is even remotely competent then would it not know, or at least have a fairly good idea, who is manufacturing and using chemical weapons in Syria? If the answer to that question is no, then it inevitably begs a second question, somewhat more trenchant and sardonic than the first: do CIA agents, tasked with gathering, processing and analyzing national security information, derive their intelligence assessments from reading the mainstream media?

Of course the other alternative is that the US national interest has now been replaced by some other agenda.

Bartlett’s article, well worth reading in its entirety, is headlined, ‘They know that we know they are liars, they keep lying’: West’s war propaganda on Ghouta crescendos.

In it, she also cites a group of Trappist nuns in Syria–and even provides a couple of quotes from one of them. Here is what she writes:

“We, the people who actually live in Syria, we are really exhausted, nauseated by this global indignation that issues blanket condemnations of those who defend their lives and their land.

“The attacks on civilians in Damascus, began from the Ghouta area into the government-controlled part, and not vice versa… Why this blindness on the part of the West?”

You can well understand why the nuns would feel nauseated. So thorough has been the distortion of reality that soldiers of the Syrian Army, the very young men who have given their lives to protect the nuns and other innocent Syrians, have been portrayed as the evildoers. Bartlett herself then goes on to comment:

It is a painful rhetorical question that many of us have asked over the years, well-aware of the answer: because it doesn’t serve the regime-change agenda, one so diligently put forth by the corporate media.

As the war propaganda continues, I quote the nuns, who said: “Deliver us Lord from the war… and deliver us from bad journalism.”

I’ll close here with a quote from Jesus–it is the 9th beatitude, from the 5th chapter of Matthew, a quote which Russians and Syrians generally, and most especially Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad in particular, would do well to keep in mind:

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I’ll also offer a quote from John, from his first epistle, a passage in which this beloved disciple of Jesus discusses the crucial importance of love. What he is outlining here is the most fundamental of all Christian concepts:

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

It is vital that we continue to live in love rather than succumb to the hatred of other nations and peoples–hatreds that are being deliberately fomented. It is also important that we understand the continuum, to recognize that it is still in effect, and that most likely there are further acts in the play that are yet to come. These do not have to include World War III, however. It is not mandated that the play end tragically. For the choice of how it ends is our own–and the possibility of choosing love, rather than fear and hate, lies with all of us.

Is it Good for the Jews?

March 19, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

african-migrants.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

Israeli media outlet Ynet reported last weekend that five staunch supporters of Israel, including Alan Dershowitz, sent a letter to Netanyahu “imploring him to reconsider (a) plan that will see illegal African migrants sent to Uganda or Rwanda, warning of the ‘incalculable damage’ it could have on Israel and Jews’ ‘moral standing.’

“We fear,” the letter states, “that a mass expulsion could cause incalculable damage to the moral standing of Israel and of Jews around the world.” If for one minute you thought that Dershowitz & Co care about the thousands of Black refugees and their human rights you were sadly mistaken. The letter writers clearly explain that their concern is for Jews and their reputation.

The five advocates for Israel counselled PM Netanyahu that the expulsion of African refugees will reflect badly on the Jews.

One of the authors of the cautionary letter was Rabbi Marvin Hier, who accepted an invitation by US President Donald Trump to offer a prayer at his presidential inauguration. Heir was also one of the founders of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and its Museum of Tolerance. Heir probably realised that crying about the Holocaust while being associated with another one isn’t such a clever idea.

I am left wondering, if Dershowitz, Heir, Abe Foxman and the others can see that the treatment of Africans in the Jewish State  is ‘bad for the Jews,’ how  is it that they fail to see that Israel’s brutal occupation and racist policies against Palestinians have a similar impact on ‘Jewish moral standing’?

I probably expect too much ethical thinking.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)


Support Gilad.jpg

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Campaign Against Antisemitsm’s chairman Gideon Falter. I have made the decision to fight this crucial battle for freedom of expression even though this fight poses a real risk of bankrupting me and my family.

The March to Jerusalem

March 13, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

2929568_orig.jpg

When I was a young Israeli I learned from our leading military leaders that Israel was not afraid of wars.

They said

“we know how to deal with tanks, infantry, airplanes. Even ballistic missiles won’t knock us down.”

But they added,

“if the Palestinians decide one day to march to Jerusalem we won’t be able to offer a military answer.”   

Ynet reported today on two ‘Palestinians Return’ marches due to take place later this March and in May.  The Israelis are in a state of panic and for good reason.

 The following is a translation of the Ynet article:  

“The Great March of Return”: is an initiative in Gaza for a mass march toward the Israeli border.

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5156864,00.html#autoplay

By Elior Levy

Civil activists in the Gaza Strip have plans for marches toward the Israeli border on Land Day at the end of this month and on Nakba Day. One of the organizers told Ynet that the “Great March of Return” has the support of Hamas (and) “there are no guarantees [on our part] not to cross the border.”

 A new initiative in Gaza is gaining momentum and is beginning to worry the Israeli defense establishment. The campaign is called the “Great March of Return,” during which they expect large crowds to march from Gaza toward the Israeli border to mark the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their land.

The marches are scheduled to take place on the anniversaries of  two significant days: March 30, Land Day and May 15, Nakba Day. On the later date, the opening ceremony of the American embassy in Jerusalem is due to take place.

In the days before Land Day, the organizers plan to set up tens to hundreds of tents near the border to show the refugee existence. This move will also be highly visible and is expected to maximise participation. Once these tent camps are positioned, young Palestinians and organized groups will move in until the marches take place.

In previous years we have seen mass marches heading toward the borders on Nakba Day, but the difference this time may be due to the difficult conditions in the Gaza Strip which have intensified in the last year and caused serious unrest. During rising internal protests within the Strip, Hamas tends to let the demonstrators vent their anger hoping that the sword won’t turn over [on Hamas].

Hamas makes it clear – “we won’t stop the demonstration”

Hamas has announced that it supports the March. Twice last week, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh made clear their support for the campaign. “We will not be able to stop the tens of thousands of citizens who set out north and east to protest the siege imposed on the Gaza Strip,” he said, calling on the Palestinians to participate in the March.

Haniyeh’s statement was aimed primarily at Israel and other countries in the region. His intended to threaten them with the possible ramifications of such marches – it could  get out of control and spark violent confrontations or even a mass attempt to cross the border towards Israel. In any case, Hamas made it clear that it will not stop the demonstrators from reaching the Israeli border.

One of the organizers’ plans is to organize a display using the uniform of Jewish inmates in the Nazi camps during the Holocaust to compare that to the situation in the Gaza Strip. Gaza residents who could provide such clothes were asked to contact the organizers.

 Ahmed Abu Aritha, one of the organizers of the March is an activist from the Gaza Strip. He stressed that this will be a popular march and there are no plans for violence.

“This is a positive initiative not only for us, but also for Israel, because Palestinians who participate in this rally will hold peaceful protests without rockets or tunnels, they just want to cry out loudly and to call for their release from their imprisonment.”

 Regarding the Israeli fear that masses of demonstrators may  try to cross the border, Abu Aritha clarified that at the moment there is no official call, but this does not guarantee that such a scenario won’t take place.

“There is no decision by the organizers to cross the border towards Israel, but we have no guarantees that it will not happen.”

The messages conveyed by the organizers through social networks actually allude to violence, such as posting pictures of demonstrators heading to the border and trying to cross it. The march is widely covered by the Palestinian media as well as by popular Arab media such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, which naturally increases its public resonance as the date approaches.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

%d bloggers like this: