Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”

 

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4ZRgpQbY&t=23m7s

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

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

A Candle in the Dark

masters of victory

From the Village of Jibshit came out a man with a firm courageous position, a man that devoted his life for the sake of Jihad, Resistance, Land, Nation, and Islam. He was a man that held the meanings of moral and support and used them to revive people, and a man that always uttered the words of bravery, audacity and perseverance.

That man was assassinated by the filthy hands of the enemy, yet his precious blood did not go in vein. His Martyrdom was a memorable victory, for he was a flame glowing in the path of the Islamic Resistance, and he was the brightest color of dignity and honor.

He is the great leader Sheikh Ragheb Harb, the most eloquent of words, and the most luminous of positions.

Ragheb1

In loving memory of his Martyrdom, Moqawama.org had a special interview with his son Ragheb Harb Junior, who was born 6 months after Sheikh Ragheb’s Martyrdom.

Speaking of Sheikh Ragheb Harb’s character, Ragheb Jr. said his father was a leader; he held the main characteristics of a leader that made him unique in society. “My Father dealt with people as if they were his own family, he was a leader and a loving father to everyone.” he said.

He noted that his father was known for his fidelity for Islam, adding a quote from his father, “There is no better tomorrow without Islam.”

Ragheb continued that his father sacrificed his own self, family, money, time and efforts for the sake of Islam. He tried his best to help people and raise them to be part of a high, educated, knowledgeable Islamic society. “I’m sure my father’s ultimate joy was when he dedicated his blood for the sake of his goal, and that was the noblest thing ever”, Ragheb added. 

Ragheb2Being a leader in Hizbullah makes it hard to live a normal life, meaning that at many times, the leader may have to be away for a while. Ragheb Jr. considered he was privileged, for his father’s path despite the sacrifices, was an honor.

He said there is a huge difference between a person sitting at home and caring less about his responsibilities and a person away from home and holding not only his responsibilities but that of a whole Islamic nation. “Even though he was away, my family knew he had a sacred aspiration, and so they were all patient for the sake of his goal”, Ragheb said. “My father hardly came home, especially during the “Israeli” occupation, but mother took his place, and filled in the gaps. She was his Jihad companion.” he added.

As for Ragheb’s personal relationship with his father, he said that even though he didn’t have the chance to meet him in person, he learned from his father through the stories told by his siblings. “While he was at home, father used to play with my siblings, tell them jokes, and he was always concerned about their academic results. Even though he had a lot to do outside yet these things never controlled his thoughts at home. He used to preach in a funny way.” Ragheb added that his father’s basic request was for them to sustain their religion.
 

Ragheb3

Ragheb was influenced by his father psychologically and personally, he said that with no doubt he felt that his father was a blessing sent from God, and that he was affected by his superb and decent characteristics. “His imprints and breath where left everywhere”, he added.

Receiving Sheikh Ragheb’s martyrdom was a shock to the family. Ragheb Jr. said that his father had always sought after martyrdom, but his assassination was a shock to the family. “It was a Friday night, father came back home from the Mosque and sat down for awhile, and afterwards he said he was going to see the neighbors. After a couple of hours, my parents heard people echoing “Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar”. They didn’t know what was going on, not until they heard someone saying: “Sheikh Ragheb was killed”, It was the hardest news ever, for it wasn’t familiar yet.” he said.

Sheikh Ragheb had a great influence on Ragheb Jr.’s life. He said: “Father was a source of pride and dignity; he taught me the true meaning of anticipation and perseverance”. He added that his father’s path is with no doubt the right path leading to happiness in this life and the afterlife.”

 

Ragheb4

Speaking of the imprints of the Martyrs in our lives, Ragheb said that the Martyrs are following the path of Imam Hussein (pbuh), the path of Imam Ali (pbuh), the path of Imam Hassan (pbuh) and Ashura’a. Islam is immortal and continues to grow due to their valuable blood.

Ragheb continued:” All our accomplishments are due to what the blood of the Martyrs reaped throughout history. Our time isn’t any different than the previous times, for the blood of the precious Martyrs, are still pouring on Islam. It is the light of God on earth and God’s light is sealed.” Ragheb said that the imprints of the martyrs are countless; we’ll get to know their value as we grow older.

Ragheb ended by sending a message to his father saying: “Oh Father if you had the chance to ask about this world, you’d ask about Islam, the resistance, the Mujahideen, the oppressed, the land and your sons. As for Islam it is the Light that will never be turned off. As for the resistance, it is the beacon that was fueled by your blood and the blood of all the Martyrs, and its fire will remain so that it burns the bigotry of the enemy.

Ragheb6

As for the Mujahideen, they have never changed their determination and they never will, they will continue this path as it was drawn.

 

As for the tyrannized; they will remain our first priority until God gives permission for their savior to appear. As for the land it will remain precious and dear with the Jihad, strong with our fists, green with our pouring blood. As for us your children, if God wants, we’ll keep on following your dear path under the banner of Imam Khamenai and Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah until we reach what you reached.”

Source: al-Ahed news 

16-02-2010 | 09:59

Trump’s Futile Efforts to Appease the Jews

Posted on February 8, 2017

 photo jewsagainsttrump_zps5p6q3gom.jpg

‘Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump…’

[ Ed. note – Israel Shamir is a noted author and commentator on Middle East issues. His books include Galilee Flowers, and Cabbala of Power. He is also a former Israeli and a Jewish convert to Christianity. In the article below he argues that the attacks on Trump we are seeing today, and particularly the strident protests over the president’s immigration ban from seven Muslim countries, are in reality a continuation of the war against Christianity, though under a different guise.

“The war on Christ and the Church is the most important element of Judaism,” he says. “Wherever Jews succeed, the Church suffers, and vice versa.”

In other words, the deep divisions we are witnessing now in American society are symptomatic of far more than simply political differences over how the country should be run. It is something much more primal and deep–and I’m not sure Trump fully understands this, if at all.

For these reasons, Shamir says, Trump’s efforts to win favor with Jews (by moving the US embassy, appointing hardcore Zionists to top positions in his administration, etc.) are likely to prove futile. He also notes something I noted in a post I put up a week ago–namely that the Jewish fundamentalists who hold power in Israel have different priorities from American Jews, and that appeasing one group does not necessarily gain Trump any ground with the other–and this also is not something the new occupant of the White House appears to comprehend fully.

Trump’s best hope of succeeding in his new job is to try and fathom the root source of the hostility now being directed against him. There are Bible verses that provide clues were he to take the time to read them–such as this one from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:20):  For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” As I have said elsewhere, “Christian anti-Semitism” was not the cause of the split between Christianity and Judaism. The antipathy to Jesus’ teachings was present right from the start. ]

***

By Israel Shamir

President Trump had paid a hefty advance to the Jews. He did (almost) all they wanted for their Jewish state: he promised to move the US embassy to the occupied Jerusalem thus legalising their annexation of the holy city; he condoned their illegal settlements, he gave them starred positions in his administration; he told the Palestinians to drop their case in the ICC or else, he even threatened Iran with war. All that in vain. Jewish organisations and Jewish media attack Trump without slightest hesitation and consideration. His first step in curbing the soft invasion wave had been met with uniform Jewish vehemence.

He was called a new Hitler and accused of hatred of Muslims: what else could cause the President to arrest, even for a few months, the brave new migration wave from seven Middle Eastern states? Today he singles out Muslims, tomorrow he will single out Jews, said Jewish newspapers. Migration is the lifeblood of America, and the Muslim refugees are welcome to bring more diversity to the US.

Massive demonstrations, generously paid for by this notable Jewish philanthropist Mr George Soros, shook the States, while judges promptly banned the banning order. They insisted the orders are anti-Muslim, and therefore they are anti-constitutional. Somehow the constitution, they said, promises full equality of immigrants and does not allow to discriminate between a Muslim and a Christian.

This sounds an unlikely interpretation of the US Constitution. The US, and every other state, normally discriminates, or using a less loaded word, selects its potential citizens. The choice of seven states hasn’t been made by Donald Trump but by his saintly predecessor: President Barack Obama, this great friend of Muslims, made the choice personally some years earlier. So Trump had made a most moderate and modest step in the direction of blocking immigration by picking states already selected by the Democratic President.

One could reasonably claim that people of the seven states have a very good reason to hate America, and the reasons were supplied by previous US Presidents.

Libya, the most prosperous North African state until recently, had been ruined by President Obama: NATO invasion had brought Libya down; instead of stopping migration wave Libya had been turned into a jumping board for the Africans on their way North.

Syria is another Obama’s victim: by his insistence that ‘Assad must go’, by massive transfer of weaponry, money and equipment (remember white Toyota pickups?) to the Islamic extremists, he ruined this country.

Iraq has been ruined by President Bush Jr: he invaded the most advanced Sunni state, broke it to pieces and gave the centre of the country to the Isis.

Somalia has been ruined by President Bush Sr: he invaded this unfortunate country in the early nineties, when the USSR collapse allowed him to do so under the UN flag. Since then Somalia has become the supplier of choice of migrants and refugees for Sweden (there they formed the biggest community in Malmo and elsewhere), the US is also keen on getting them.

Yemen has been destroyed by Obama with Mme Clinton playing an important role: she facilitated delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia in real time as they bombed Yemenis.

Sudan was bombed by President Clinton; afterwards this country had been dismembered and separate South Sudan had been created. Both halves became dysfunctional.

Iran is the odd one in the Magnificent Seven. It has not been invaded, has not been bombed, just threatened with invasion and bombardment for many years since President Carter. This country has no terrorists, it did not fail, its citizens are not running seeking for asylum. It was placed on the list by President Obama, who planned to bomb it, but never got to do it.

While Bush, Clinton and Obama bombed and invaded these countries, the Democratic humanitarians including their Jewish leaders just applauded and asked for more bombs. But they became appalled when Trump promised: no more regime change, end of “invade the world/invite the world” mode. Wikileaks put it well: bomb the Muslims, and you are fine; ban the Muslims, and you are the enemy.

Apparently, the people who instigated the Middle Eastern wars wanted to create a wave of refugees into Europe and North America in order to bring more colour and diversity to these poor monochrome lands. Welfare state, national cohesion, local labour and traditions will disappear, and these countries will undergo a process of homogenisation. Never again the natives will be able to single out Jews, for there will be no natives, just so many persons from all over the world, celebrating Kumbaya.

The Jews will be able to get and keep their privileged positions in Europe as they do in the US. They won’t be alone: by their success, they will establish a pattern to copycat for whoever wants to succeed in the new world, and masses of imitation-Jews will support the policies of real Jews.

Still, Jewish insistence on the Syrian refugees’ acceptance and on Muslim immigration in general is a strange and baffling phenomenon. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe that. We may exclude compassion as a cause for it. There are many thousands of natives of Haifa in Israel who suffer in Syria and dream to come back to their towns and villages, but the state of Israel does not allow these Syrian refugees to return for one crime: they aren’t Jews.

Israel accepts Jews only; and American Jews do not object to it; they do not compare Israeli leaders with Hitler or Trump. Israel had build a wall on its border with Sinai, and this wall stopped the black wave of African migrants. American Jews did not shout “No wall, no ban” in front of Israeli Embassy. Mystery, eh?

Kevin MacDonald wrote a thoughtful piece trying to unravel the mystery, Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees? and published it on January 17, a few days before Trump’s inauguration and full three weeks before the subject moved to the front burner. KMD correctly predicted that Donald Trump won’t appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address, though this was the guess of mass media. Moreover, KMD correctly predicted that “Trump will announce an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My (KMD’s) question: why would they do that?”

KMD provides a few possible answers, but none answers his own question. The world is full of troubles, and the US can get as many refugees as they wish from the Ukraine or Brazil, from China and Central Africa, without an anti-Israeli angle.

I’d suggest a simple explanation. Jews want to import Muslims to fight Christ and the Church.

Muslims of the Middle East are not, or weren’t, anti-Christian; they co-existed for millennia with their Christian neighbours. In Palestine, Christians and Muslims lived together and suffered together under the Jewish yoke.

But recently a new wind has blown in the Muslim faith, the wind of a very strong rejection of whatever is not strict Sunni Islam of the ISIS brand. Their first enemy is Shia Islam, but Christians follow Shias as a second-best object of persecution…

Continued here

Is Haifa Nuclear Bomb has become True? هل باتت نظرية قنبلة حيفا النووية أمرا واقعا؟

 

 

Related 

israel set to introduce a law which authorises “theft & robbery”

“A law that approves theft and robbery”

This is the photo Palestine Monitor used to illustrate its article. It has no caption or credit. It seems to be a photo of a settlement with communications masts – something most Palestinian villages lack.

Final vote looming on settlement legalisation bill

By Sarah Bedson, Palestine Monitor
February 04, 2017

Israel’s parliament is to vote on a controversial bill next week that seeks to retroactively legalise Israeli settler outposts, simultaneously granting legitimacy to dispossessing Palestinians of privately owned land in the occupied West Bank.

The outpost “Legalisation Bill” passed its first reading in the Knesset in December and following Tuesday’s narrow win of seven to six in a committee vote, the controversial legislation is now two readings away from being adopted into Israeli law. The second and third reading, typically voted on in the same parliamentary session, are expected to take place on Monday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted last Sunday that the law was designed to “regulate” settlement and “prevent recurrent attempts to harm the settlement enterprise.”

For many Palestinians, the move is yet another land grab.

Variations of the law have been proposed at the Knesset for years, with the current impetus to pass the legislation being precipitated by the Amona outpost eviction order. Excluded from the measure, Amona was evacuated last Wednesday.

Israel’s Education Minister and chairman of the ultra right-wing Jewish Home party, Naftali Bennett, spoke at the Knesset last week, calling the Amona settlers “heroes,” and reassuring that the bill would “put an end” to such “painful” experiences.

B’Tselem states that approximately 100 settlement outposts are located throughout the West Bank, all of which are hitherto considered illegal under Israeli domestic law.

As for international law, all Israeli settlements over the Green Line are condemned. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids an occupying power from moving its own civilians into occupied territory.

According to the Israeli NGO Peace Now, the regulation law would retroactively legalise 55 outposts, including approximately 4,000 housing units in both settlements and illegal outposts through the expropriation of over 8,000 dunums (about 2,000 acres) of private Palestinian lands.

The new law would grant settlers the right to live in the land if, as stated by the bill, they “innocently” took it – ostensibly without knowing Palestinians owned the tracts or whether homes were built there at the state’s instruction.

Opposition and Zionist Union leader, Yitzhak Herzog, said: “It is a very serious stain in the book of Israeli law because it is a law that approves theft and robbery.”

Under the terms of the bill, Palestinian landowners would only be eligible for compensation if they could prove their ownership, which Human Rights Watch recognise can be a tall order.

Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit. “The bill contravenes both Israeli and international law”.

Israel’s attorney general and the government’s top lawyer, Avichai Mandelblit , opposes the bill and has vowed not to defend it in the Supreme Court, arguing that it contravenes both Israeli and international law.

Some Israeli officials, reportedly including Netanyahu himself, have also warned that the new legislation could see Israeli officials brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague, a move that Saeb Erekat, secretary general of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) promised to pursue in a press release on Tuesday.

The legalisation bill comes against the backdrop of a stream of Israeli announcements to build a total of 6,000 new settler homes in the occupied West Bank.

Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, released a statement on Wednesday decrying the continued settlement expansion, asserting that it “marks a very worrying trend”, and risks thwarting any chance of a two-state solution

Israelis Stop Planting, Destroy Olive Tree Seedlings

Trees

I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;

A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;

A tree that may in Summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;

Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.

Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.

By Joyce Kilmer

Goodbye Palestine (But Watch for the Blowback)

Goodbye Palestine (But Watch for the Blowback)

BRIAN CLOUGHLEY | 02.02.2017 | OPINION

Goodbye Palestine (But Watch for the Blowback)

Donald Trump won’t be formally forbidding entry of Palestinians to his New Great America, because he doesn’t recognise Palestine and never will. But he has designed a way of preventing their travel and that of countless others by introduction of ‘extreme vetting,’ which will help to deny Palestine the legitimacy that the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly agreed upon five years ago.

The New York Times reported on January 25 that «the first of the two [of Trump’s] draft orders… calls for terminating funding for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria [which] include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization».

It was ironic that also on January 25 the Times of Israel noted that former Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger would go to prison for fraud, breach of trust and tax offenses. His crimes resulted in a sentence of three years in prison and a fine of over a million dollars, and most people think he got off lightly, given the scale of his deception and grubby hypocrisy.

The irony is that the day before the Chief Rabbi was awarded his just punishment, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (himself under investigation for alleged swindling), announced that the state of Israel would continue to commit fraud, pledge itself to breach of trust and offend against international law and moral principles.

His decision to build 2,500 more homes for Israelis on Palestinian land was denounced as illegal by governments around the world (with a predictable exception), and the UN declared that such ‘unilateral actions’ were an obstacle to peace. The European Union criticised the announcement by saying that it «weakens rather than strengthens the prospects for a two-state solution to the Middle East peace process, and makes the possibility of a viable Palestinian state more remote» — which is exactly the intention of the government of Israel.

The EU also recorded that «settlements are illegal under international law and continued settlement expansion also calls into question Israel’s commitment towards reaching a negotiated agreement with the Palestinians», which highlighted the fact that Israel has no intention of ever attempting to reach a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and is resolved to destroy them as a nation.

On 24 January the Israeli newspaper Haaretz observed with admirable objectivity that «Netanyahu has tried to destroy every possibility of achieving a two-state solution… With Trump behind him and a silent opposition, the prime minister is leading Israel to a binational state, which will be either not Jewish or not democratic».

No matter the crescendo of condemnation caused by Israel’s scornful rejection of so many humanitarian principles laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is no doubt that existing illegal settlements will be expanded and more will be built. Israel can afford, politically and financially, to defy the world because it is supported to the ultimate degree by Trump Washington. The President and the entire Congress are solidly on the side of the Zionist state, and with this firmly in mind Netanyahu arrogantly declared that «we came out with one stroke now and there will be more».

The government of the United States was conspicuously absent from those that condemned Israel for its contemptuous dismissal of December’s UN Security Council Resolution, which described settlement building as a ‘flagrant violation’ of international law, and when asked if Trump supported Israel’s flouting of international law, his press secretary, the truculent Sean Spicer, said that «Israel continues to be a huge ally of the United States. He wants to grow closer with Israel».

This was consistent with Trump’s tweet of December 28, just after the Council vote, to assure Netanyahu that «We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!»

January 20 is now receding to the tunes of erratic displays and decisions, and Trump has not been backward in reiterating his support for Israel.

His patronage became apparent on Inauguration Day, when, as the UK’s Daily Telegraph reported, the mayor of the Israeli settlement of Efrat was the first illegal settler ever to be a guest at a presidential installation. His invitation was not unexpected, however, because Trump has had a deep and personal association with Israeli settlements for a long time. In 2003, for example, he donated $10,000 to ‘Beit El, an affluent settlement of around 7,000 people just north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah.’ The gift was made in honour of David Friedman, Trump’s nomination to be ambassador to Israel.

In August 2015 The Times of Israel wrote that «Trump is not an unfamiliar face in Jewish circles. He has served as a grand marshal at New York’s annual Salute to Israel Parade. After Hurricane Katrina, he was among a group of celebrities who decorated Jewish federation tzedakah boxes to be auctioned off to support hurricane disaster relief. In February, he was honored with an award at the annual gala for the Algemeiner, a right-wing Jewish news organization». And it goes further than that.

As recorded by Slate, «In 1995, a company called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts went public on the New York Stock Exchange. Trump was its chairman and, beginning in 2000, its CEO. The company lost money every year of its existence and went bankrupt in 2004. Its total 1995–2004 losses: $647 million. When it went bankrupt, bondholders had to settle for less than what they were owed. Employees lost their jobs and contractors went unpaid».

Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer was David Friedman.

Donald Trump and his attorney David Friedman, following an appearance in US Bankruptcy Court on February 25, 2010, in Camden, New Jersey. (Bradley C Bower/Bloomberg News, via Getty Images/JTA)

The UK’s Telegraph reported on January 29 that Friedman had led an American support group that raised funds for the Beit El settlement. Of even more significance, ‘the family of Trump’s powerful son-in-law Jared Kushner have also donated thousands to Beit El.’

It’s good to keep things in the family, but it is apparent that Palestinian families do not figure in the Trump list of priorities any more than the world’s refugees pluck any chord of sympathy in his flinty heart. He is determined to isolate the people of Palestine and will use whatever means at his disposal to do so. His casual malevolence is becoming the emblem of Brand Trump, and it does not matter who suffers as a result of his bizarre posturing on the world stage. His support for the equally malevolent and vindictive Netanyahu will result in obliteration of the Palestinian people – and will create even more resentment and terrorism. It’s called Blowback, and in the end, America and Americans will suffer.

%d bloggers like this: