israel’s concentration camps

 

On Israel’s little-known concentration and labor camps in 1948-1955

Civilians captured during the fall of Lydda and Ramle around the time of July 12, 1948 and taken to labour camps. In the July heat they were thirsty and were given a drop of water carried by a child under soldiers’ guard. (Photo: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society)

By Yazan al-Saadi | Al-Akhbar | September 29, 2014

Much of the grim and murky circumstances of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the late 1940s have gradually been exposed over time. One aspect – rarely researched or deeply discussed – is the internment of thousands of Palestinian civilians within at least 22 Zionist-run concentration and labor camps that existed from 1948 to 1955. Now more is known about the contours of this historical crime, due to the comprehensive research by renowned Palestinian historian Salman Abu Sitta and founding member of the Palestinian resource center BADIL Terry Rempel.

The facts are these.

The study – to be published in the upcoming issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies – relies on almost 500 pages of International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) reports written during the 1948 war, that were declassified and made available to the public in 1996, and accidentally discovered by one of the authors in 1999.

Furthermore, testimonies of 22 former Palestinian civilian detainees of these camps were collected by the authors, through interviews they conducted themselves in 2002, or documented by others during different moments of time.

With these sources of information, the authors, as they put it, pieced together a clearer story of how Israel captured and imprisoned “thousands of Palestinian civilians as forced laborers,” and exploited them “to support its war-time economy.”

Digging up the crimes

“I came across this piece of history in the 1990s when I was collecting material and documents about Palestinians,” Abu Sitta told Al-Akhbar English. “The more and more you dig, the more you find there are crimes that have taken place that are not reported and not known.”

At that time, Abu Sitta went to Geneva for a week to check out the newly-opened archives of the ICRC. According to him, the archives were opened to the public after accusations that the ICRC had sided with the Nazis during World War II. It was an opportunity that he could not miss in terms of seeing what the ICRC had recorded of the events that occurred in Palestine in 1948. It was there he stumbled onto records discussing the existence of five concentration camps run by the Israelis.

He then decided to look for witnesses or former detainees, interviewing Palestinians in occupied Palestine, Syria, and Jordan.

“They all described the same story, and their real experience in these camps,” he said.

One question that immediately struck him was why there were barely any references in history about these camps, especially when it became clearer the more he researched that they existed, and were more than just five camps.

“Many former Palestinian detainees saw the concept of Israel as a vicious enemy, so they thought their experience labouring in these concentration camps was nothing in comparison to the other larger tragedy of the Nakba. The Nakba overshadowed everything,” Abu Sitta explained.“However, when I dug into the period of 1948-1955, I found more references like Mohammed Nimr al-Khatib, who was an imam in Haifa, who had written down interviews with someone from al-Yahya family that was in one of the camps. I was able to trace this man all the way to California and spoke with him in 2002,” he added.

More references were eventually and slowly discovered by Abu Sitta that included information from a Jewish woman called Janoud, a single masters thesis in Hebrew University about the topic, and the personal accounts of economist Yusif Sayigh, helped to further flesh out the scale and nature of these camps.

After more than a decade, Abu Sitta, with his co-author Rempel, are finally presenting their findings to the public.

From burden to opportunity: concentration and labor camps

The establishment of concentration and labor camps occurred after the unilateral declaration of Israel’s statehood on May 1948.

Prior to that event, the number of Palestinian captives in Zionist hands were quite low, because, as the study states, “the Zionist leadership concluded early on that forcible expulsion of the civilian population was the only way to establish a Jewish state in Palestine with a large enough Jewish majority to be ‘viable’.” In other words, for the Zionist strategists, prisoners were a burden in the beginning phases of the ethnic cleansing.

Those calculations changed with the declaration of the Israeli state and the involvement of the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan, after much of the ethnic cleansing had occurred. From that moment, “the Israeli forces began taking prisoners, both regular Arab soldiers (for eventual exchange), and – selectively – able-bodied Palestinian non-combatant civilians.”

The first camp at Ijlil, which was about 13 km northeast of Jaffa, on the site of the destroyed Palestinian village Ijlil al-Qibiliyya, emptied of its inhabitants in early April. Ijlil was predominately made up of tents, housing hundreds and hundreds of prisoners, categorized as POWs by the Israelis, surrounded by barbed wire fences, watchtowers, and a gate with guards.

As the Israeli conquests grew, in turn exceedingly increasing the number of prisoners, three more camps were established. These are the four “official” camps that the Israelis acknowledged and were actively visited by the ICRC.

The study notes:

All four camps were either on or adjacent to military installations set up by the British during the Mandate. These had been used during World War II for the interment of German, Italian, and other POWs. Two of the camps – Atlit, established in July about 20 kms south of Haifa, and Sarafand, established in September near the depopulated village of Sarafand al-Amar in central Palestine—had earlier been used in the 1930s and 1940s to detain illegal Jewish immigrants.

Atlit was the second largest camp after Ijlil, it had the capacity of holding up to 2,900 prisoners, while Sarafand had the maximum capacity of 1,800, and Tel Letwinksy, near Tel Aviv, held more than 1,000.

All four camps were administered by “former British officers who had defected their ranks when British forces withdrew from Palestine in mid-May 1948,” and the camp’s guards and administrative staff were former members of the Irgun and the Stern Gang – both groups designated as terrorist organizations by the British before their departure. In total, the four “official” camps were staffed by 973 soldiers.

A fifth camp, called Umm Khalid, was established at a site of another depopulated village near the Zionist settlement of Netanya, and was even assigned an official number in the records, but never attained “official” status. It had the capacity to hold 1,500 prisoners. Unlike the other four camps, Umm Khalid would be “the fist camp established exclusively as a labor camp” and was “the first of the “recognized” camps to be shut down… by the end of 1948.”

Complementing these five “recognized” camps, were at least 17 other “unrecognized camps” that were not mentioned in official sources, but the authors discovered through multiple prisoner testimonies.

Civilians in a labour camp in Ramleh, July 1948. (Photo: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society)

“Many of [these camps],” the authors noted, “[were] apparently improvised or ad hoc, often consisting of no more than a police station, a school, or the house of a village notable,” with holding capacities that ranged from almost 200 prisoners to tens.

Most of the camps, official and unofficial, were situated within the borders of the UN-proposed Jewish state, “although at least four [unofficial camps] – Beersheba, Julis, Bayt Daras, and Bayt Nabala – were in the UN-assigned Arab state and one was inside the Jerusalem “corpus separatum.”

The number of Palestinian non-combatant detainees “far exceeded” those of Arab soldiers in regular armies or bona fide POWs. Citing a July 1948 monthly report made by ICRC mission head Jacques de Reynier, the study states that de Reynier noted, “that the situation of civilian internees was ‘absolutely confused’ with that of POWs, and that the Jewish authorities ‘treated all Arabs between the ages of 16 and 55 as combatants and locked them up as prisoners of war.’” In addition, the ICRC found among the detainees in official camps, that 90 of the prisoners were elderly men, and 77 were boys, aged 15 years or younger. The study highlights the statements by an ICRC delegate Emile Moeri in January 1949 of the camp inmates:

It is painful to see these poor people, especially old, who were snatched from their villages and put without reason in a camp, obliged to pass the winter under wet tents, away from their families; those who could not survive these conditions died. Little children (10-12 years) are equally found under these conditions. Similarly sick people, some with tuberculosis, languish in these camps under conditions which, while fine for healthy individuals, will certainly lead to their death if we do not find a solution to this problem. For a long time we have demanded that the Jewish authorities release those civilians who are sick and need treatment to the care of their families or to an Arab hospital, but we have not received a response.

As the report noted, “there are no precise figures on the total number of Palestinian civilians held by Israel during the 1948-49 war” and estimates tend to not account for “unofficial” camps, in addition to the frequent movement of prisoners between the camps in use. In the four “official” camps, the number of Palestinian prisoners never exceeded 5,000 according to figures in Israeli records.

Taking account of the capacity of Umm Khalid, and estimates of the “unofficial camps,” the final number of Palestinian prisoners could be around the 7,000 range, and perhaps much more when, as the study states, taking into account a November 17, 1948 diary entry by David Ben-Gurion, one of the main Zionist leaders and Israel’s first prime minister, who mentioned “the existence of 9,000 POWs in Israeli-run camps.”

In general, the living conditions in the “official” camps were far below what would be considered appropriate by international law at that time. Moeri, who visited the camps constantly, reported that in Ijlil in November 1948:

“[m]any [of the] tents are torn, that the camp was “not ready for winter,” the latrines not covered, and the canteen not working for two weeks. Referring to an apparently ongoing situation, he stated that “the fruits are still defective, the meat is of poor quality, [and] the vegetables are in short supply.”

Furthermore, Moeri reported that he saw for himself, “the wounds left by the abuse” of the previous week, when the guards had fired on the prisoners, wounding one, and had beaten another.”

As the study shows, the civilian status of the majority of the detainees were clear for the ICRC delegates in the country, who reported that the men captured “had undoubtedly never been in a regular army.” Detainees who were combatants, the study explains, were “routinely shot on the pretense that they had been attempting to escape.”

The Israeli forces seemed to always target able-bodied men, leaving behind women, children, and the elderly – when not massacring them – the policy continued even after there were low levels of military confrontation. All in all, as the Israeli records show and the study cites, “Palestinian civilians comprised the vast majority (82 percent) of the 5,950 listed as internees in the POW camps, while the Palestinians alone (civilian plus military) comprised 85 percent.”

The wide-scale kidnapping and imprisonment of Palestinian civilians tend to correspond with the Israeli military campaigns. For example, one of the first major roundups occurred during Operation Danj, when 60-70,000 Palestinians were expelled from the central towns of Lydda and Ramleh. At the same time, between a fifth and a quarter of the male population from these two towns who were over the age of 15 were sent to the camps.

The largest round-up of civilians came from villages of central Galilee who were captured during Operation Hiram in the fall of 1948.

One Palestinian survivor, Moussa, described to the authors what he witnessed at the time.

“They took us from all villages around us: al-Bi’na, Deir al-Asad, Nahaf, al-Rama, and Eilabun. They took 4 young men and shot them dead… They drove us on foot. It was hot. We were not allowed to drink. They took us to [the Palestinian Druze village] al-Maghar, then [to the Jewish settlement] Nahalal, then to Atlit.”

A November 16, 1948 UN report collaborated Moussa’s account, stating that some 500 Palestinian men “were taken by force march and vehicle to a Jewish concentration camp at Nahlal.”

Maintaining Israel’s economy with “slave labor”

The policy of targeting civilians, particular “able-bodied” men, was not accidental according to the study. It states, “with tens of thousands of Jewish men and women called up for military service, Palestinian civilian internees constituted an important supplement to the Jewish civilian labor employed under emergency legislation in maintaining the Israeli economy,” which even the ICRC delegation had noted in their reports.

The prisoners were forced to do public and military work, such as draining wetlands, working as servants, collecting and transporting looted refugee property, moving stones from demolished Palestinian homes, paving roads, digging military trenches, burying the dead, and much more. As one former Palestinian detainee named Habib Mohammed Ali Jarada described in the study, “At gunpoint, I was made to work all day. At night, we slept in tents. In winter, water was seeping below our bedding, which was dry leaves, cartons and wooden pieces.”

Another prisoner in Umm Khalied, Marwan Iqab al-Yehiya said in an interview with the authors, “We had to cut and carry stones all day [in a quarry]. Our daily food was only one potato in the morning and half dried fish at night. They beat anyone who disobeyed orders.” This labor was interspersed with acts of humiliation by the Israeli guards, with Yehiya speaking of prisoners being “lined up and ordered to strip naked as a punishment for the escape of two prisoners at night.”

“[Jewish] Adults and children came from nearby kibbutz to watch us line up naked and laugh. To us this was most degrading,” he added.

Abuses by the Israeli guards were systematic and rife in the camps, the brunt of which was directed toward villagers, farmers, and lower class Palestinians. This was so, the study said, because educated prisoners “knew their rights and had the confidence to argue with and stand up to their captors.”

What is also interestingly noted by the study is how ideological affiliations between prisoners and their guards, had another effect in terms of the relationship between them. The study, cites the testimony of Kamal Ghattas, who was captured during the Israeli attack in the Galilee, who said:

We had a fight with our jailers. Four hundred of us confronted 100 soldiers. They brought reinforcements. Three of my friends and I were taken to a cell. They threatened to shoot us. All night we sang the Communist Anthem. They took the four of us to Umm Khaled camp. The Israelis were afraid of their image in Europe. Our contact with our Central Committee and Mapam [Socialist Israeli party] saved us .… I met a Russian officer and told him they took us from our homes although we were non-combatants which was against the Geneva Conventions. When he knew I was a Communist he embraced me and said, “Comrade, I have two brothers in the Red Army. Long live Stalin. Long Live Mother Russia”.

Yet, the less fortunate Palestinians faced acts of violence which included arbitrary executions and torture, with no recourse. The executions were always defended as stopping “escape attempts” – real or claimed by the guards.

It became so common that one former Palestinian detainee of Tel Litwinsky, Tewfic Ahmed Jum’a Ghanim recounted, “Anyone who refused to work was shot. They said [the person] tried to escape. Those of us who thought [we] were going to be killed walked backward facing the guards.”

Ultimately, by the end of 1949, Palestinian prisoners were gradually released after heavy lobbying by the ICRC, and other organizations, but was limited in scale and very focused to specific cases. Prisoners of Arab armies were released in prisoner exchanges, but Palestinian prisoners were unilaterally expelled across the armistice line without any food, supplies, or shelter, and told to walk into the distance, never to return.

It would not be until 1955 that most of the Palestinian civilian prisoners would finally be released.

Forced Labour Camps Atlas. (Source: Salman Abu Sitta, Palestine Land Society)

An enduring crime

The importance of this study is multi-faceted. Not only does it reveal the numerous violations of international law and conventions of the age, such as 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1929 Geneva Conventions, but also shows how the event shaped the ICRC in the long run.

Because the ICRC was faced with an Israeli belligerent actor who was unwilling to listen and conform to international law and conventions, the ICRC itself had to adapt in what it considered were practical ways to help ensure the Palestinian civilian prisoners were protected under the barest of rights.

Citing his final report, the study quotes de Reynier:

[The ICRC] protested on numerous occasions affirming the right of these civilians to enjoy their freedom unless found guilty and judged by a court. But we have tacitly accepted their POW status because in this way they would enjoy the rights conferred upon them by the Convention. Otherwise, if they were not in the camps they would be expelled [to an Arab country] and in one way or another, they would lead, without resources, the miserable life of refugees.

In the end, the ICRC, and other organizations, were simply ineffective as Israel ignored its condemnations with impunity, in addition to the diplomatic cover of major Western powers.

More importantly, the study sheds more light on the extent of the Israeli crimes during its brutal and bloody birth. And “much more remains to be told,” as the final line of the study states.

“It is amazing to me, and many Europeans, who have seen my evidence,” Abu Sitta said, “that a forced labor camp was opened in Palestine three years after they were closed in Germany, and were run by former prisoners – there were German Jewish guards.”

“This is a bad reflection of the human spirit, where the oppressed copies an oppressor against innocent lives,” he added. The study essentially shows the foundations and beginnings of Israeli policy towards Palestinian civilians that comes in the form of kidnapping, arrest, and detainment. This criminality continues till this day. One merely has to read the reports on the hundreds of Palestinians arrested prior, during, and after Israel’s latest war on Gaza mid-summer of this year.

“Gaza today is a concentration camp, no different than the past,” Abu Sitta concluded to Al-Akhbar English.

Yazan is a staff writer for Al-Akhbar English. Follow him on Twitter: @WhySadeye

 

The Jewish mindset: Palestinian prisoners being financially exploited

New report highlights economic exploitation of Palestinian prisoners

1-0c8f16befdSamidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network – February 10, 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association launched a new report focusing on the economic exploitation of Palestinian prisoners. The 68-page report, released on 8 February, looks at the impact of imprisonment and accompanying financial exploitation on prisoners and their families.

It examines prices at the “canteen,” the monopolized prison store from which Palestinian prisoners must purchase their food, hygiene supplies and other personal products. It also looks at the history of pre-1980 forced labor among Palestinian prisoners and the use of privatization with both Israeli and international corporations, including G4S, 3M, Hewlett-Packard (HP), Motorola and Volvo.

 

Rabbis Fake Solidarity Once Again

February 09, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned a few days ago that 19 rabbis were arrested in NYC during a protest at Trump International Hotel. The Rabbi operates within the T’ruah organisation, a rabbinical human rights group that was formed (in 2002) to convey an image of Judaic ethical and universal awareness.

patch.com reports that the rabbis sat down in the street in front of the Trump Hotel in an act of protest against Trump’s executive orders affecting Muslim immigrants and refugees. But T’ruah do not just oppose Trump’s policy as ordinary human beings or American patriots. They actually operate as ‘Jews.’

Chutzpah, as we know, is a Jewish invention and Rabbi Jill Jacobs, T’ruah’s executive director, has a lot of it in her disposal. “It makes a statement when we (Rabbis) are willing to put our bodies on the line.” she said. Perplexed Goyim may wonder how exactly Rabbi Jacobs puts her ‘body on the line’ (sitting down on the street in the middle of Manhattan)? The rabbi must have realised how ridiculous her statement was, as she then corrected herself. “Right now the people whose bodies are really on the line are people trying to get to America, and risking death to do so. The least that we can do is put our bodies a little bit on the line…to bring attention to the situation of refugees.”

Rabbi Kleinbaum also added a statement concerning rabbinical heroism. “I’m risking arrest today because America welcomed my own immigrant family to its shores, as it did millions of families before us who fled persecution.” But if Rabbi Kleinbaum is actually talking as an American Patriot who cares for American universal values, why is he protesting ‘as a Jew’? He should really protest as a proud American.

“As Jews, who know what it means to be targeted by discriminatory laws, we stand firmly with refugees fleeing war, persecution, and economic strife,” T’ruah Rabbis said in a statement.

Along the years I have developed an allergy to “as a” statements in general and “as a Jew” proclamations in particular. For one reason or another, rather often ‘as a Jew’ constructions happen to be grossly duplicitous. If Jews know so much about persecution how come their Jewish State is institutionally racist and discriminatory towards minorities and gentiles? If Jews are pro immigration, how come their Jewish State is vile in its attitude towards illegal immigration. If the Jews ‘stand firmly with refugees’ isn’t it about time their Jewish State invites millions of Palestinian refugees to return to the land that belongs to them and them alone? Do T’ruah rabbis openly support the Palestinian right of return? If they do, they manage to keep quiet about it.

But let’s take it further, can the T’ruah rabbis report to us how many Syrians have found a refuge in Jewish homes? How many refugees are living in rabbi Kleinbaum’s and Jacobs’ spare bedroom? Considering the war against Islam was a Zio-Con project, can the Rabbis tell us when is the last time they sat down in the street in front of Paul Wolfowitz’ or Bernard Henri Levy’s homes? After all, Henri Levy claimed that ‘as a Jew’ he ‘liberated’ Libya. Shouldn’t the T’ruah rabbis at least occupy the streets in front of the Israeli Embassy and AIPAC offices? After all, it was Israel and its lobby that pushed for war in Syria. It was Israel and its lobby that are directly involved in the creation of the refugee crisis in Syria.

I kindly advise T’ruah and other Jewish human rights groups  to be slightly more economical with their duplicity. By now, the Goyim know. They see it all and their patience is about to run out.

 

Reality Reversal: It’s Really the Jews Who are Discriminated Against, says Jerusalem Editor

By Richard Edmondson

Caroline Glick is an editor at the Jerusalem Post. In the talk above, she seems to have forgotten who is occupying whom. Glick obviously believes it is Palestinians who are discriminating against Jews, rather than the other way around.

“What they (Palestinians) are saying essentially is that Jews should not be allowed to live there just because they are Jews.”

Glick tries to advance an argument that Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace, that the real problem is Palestinian racism, and she alleges that a Palestinian state in “Judea and Smaria” would be so “inherently bigoted” that Jews wouldn’t even be “allowed to live there.” She further claims that dismantling the illegal settlements that have been built would be tantamount to “ethnic cleansing.”

Are Palestinians calling for a state that would be ethnically cleansed of all Jews? I have never heard any Palestinian official issue such a call, but Glick is repeating a talking point that has been made by other Israelis, including Benjamin Netanyahu.

This is not simply a case of twisting the truth; it is standing reality on its head.

Three questions here should be asked:

  1. Does a sovereign state have the right to deport aliens who have entered the country illegally?
  2. Should sovereign states have the right to set immigration policies based upon concerns about national security and public safety?
  3. Should a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank, were one to be established, have the right to expel settlers who have carried out, for instance, arson attacks on Palestinian homes, or poisoned Palestinian livestock, or destroyed olive trees?

The answer to all three of these questions is yes. But this is not the same as saying “No Jews allowed.” To the contrary, were Jews who have demonstrated their good will, and there are a number of these, a few of them quite prominent and whose names come readily to mind–were Jews such as these to apply for residence permits or even citizenship in the new Palestinian state, would they be turned down? The answer almost surely is no. But in Glick’s view “this is a racket.” She goes on:

Jews don’t have civil rights. We’re not allowed to live wherever we have property rights to build–just because we’re Jewish? And this is a moral argument? This is a reasonable argument? This is establishing what, exactly? Ethnic purity? This is where we’ve come to?

But wait–is it not Israel which demands to be recognized as a “Jewish and democratic state”?

Recently Stuart Littlewood published a commentary on a publication put out by a pro-Israel advocacy group called The Israel Project. The publication is a 116 page booklet entitled “Global Language Dictionary,” a document intended as a “guide to visionary leaders who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel,” as an official with The Israel Project describes it.

Basically you could think of this as a manual designed to teach people how to stand reality on its head. Littlewood’s commentary on the Global Language Dictionary can be found here. The full PDF is here. Included is a whole chapter devoted to settlements. The following, described as “the best settlement argument,” provides the opener for the chapter:

“If we are to have real peace, then Israelis and Palestinians will have to live side by side. The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can’t be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don’t say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizen (sic) of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don’t accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable.”

You’ll notice that the future state of Palestine is referred to not as a country or nation, but as a “Palestinian area,” and that the passage fails to take into account any Jewish responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages that occurred in 1948, or for the near 70 years of home demolitions and denial of building permits that have occurred since. Moreover, the idea that Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy “equal rights”–as this “best argument” does claim–is preposterous to say the least. The chapter goes on:

The settlements are the single toughest issue for Israel and the hostility towards them and towards Israeli policy that appears to encourage settlement activity is clearly evident. Unless and until Israeli government policy changes, here’s the best communication approach:

The document then proceeds to list four talking points, followed by tips on how to obfuscate the whole issue with such irrelevant declarations as:

“Peace is not just about settlements. It’s about jobs, prosperity, and hope for all sides of the conflict–for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Every Palestinian child deserves a better future, and so does every Israeli child. If we can agree on that, and stop doing those things that hurt our children, we can start on the road to mutual understanding and mutual respect.”

And if you’ve any doubts this manual for standing reality on its head was written as a guide for fooling Americans especially, then consider that it also advises readers to:

Emphasize solutions wherein nobody has to leave their own homes. Americans are far more favorable towards solutions that are “just a redrawing of borders on the map” and do not require anyone–Israeli or Palestinian alike–to leave their own homes, businesses, and communities. Again–mutuality and the right to live in your home are the key themes to weave in.

Basically, the whole approach comes down to a simple tactic: accuse the Palestinians of being racists while portraying Israeli Jews as the very embodiment of liberal tolerance. And this in effect is the approach Glick takes in the video above. Glick, of course, is Jewish, and the Jerusalem Post, where she works, is one of the most prominent newspapers in Israel. In other words, she is a Jew who holds a high-ranking position in a major media outlet (albeit in Israel).

A couple of days ago I put up a post that included the following graphic:

 photo medialies_zpsefpioihs.gif

One picture is worth a thousand words, as they say, and the artwork provides a perfect illustration of how the western mainstream media basically stand reality on its head. In addition to the Palestine-Israel conflict, other areas in which mainstream media news organizations are hard at work inverting truth into its mirror opposite include:

  • Syria, where a democratically elected president is depicted as a dictator and where terrorist, head-chopping cannibals are rendered as “moderate rebels” deserving of Western support;
  • Russia–accused of “aggression” even as NATO builds bases and holds war game exercises on its borders;
  • Ukraine, a country portrayed as a peace-loving democracy but which in reality is ruled by a US-installed puppet government that has been rejected by a sizeable portion of the population–ethnic Russians who have broken away and established a de facto independent state in the country’s eastern region

So far as I’m aware, “Global Language Dictionaries” have not been published in these other areas, but the pattern of “reality reversal” is the same. Reporting on 9/11 has also followed the same pattern, with the “terror attack” vs. “false flag attack” dichotomy serving as the antipodal opposites, and in this case the equivalent of a “Global Language Dictionary” has been published–in the form of the official 9/11 report. The most obvious tip-off that the media are engaged in willful deception on 9/11 is the stubborn and persistent refusal to report the overwhelming body of evidence assembled by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth pointing to controlled demolition as the cause of the collapse of Building 7, but were the media to report even a sliver of this information it would cause the whole house of cards to fall.

So here we have a small group of people who together enjoy the vast majority of ownership and/or executive control of the mainstream media, now engaged, in almost perfect sync with each other, in a number of deceptions so utter and absolute that the truth in each case is almost literally inverted.

Never before in history has one group of people exercised such power.

isrlunatics

So what can be said of such people? Well, a starting point might be their “singularity.”  That at least is the word used in a book review, here, published by Daniel Lazare, a liberal Jewish writer whose articles have appeared in The Nation.

“Eventually, nearly every discussion of the Jews, pro or con, sympathetic or hostile, gets around to their alleged singularity,” Lazare writes in an article which poses the question: “Are the Jews Unique?”

Jews, he says, have always been “stubborn, clannish and standoffish, and even when they stopped wearing those funny clothes in the modern era and tried to blend in–especially when they tried to blend in–something about them remained at odds with the larger society.”

The article, as I say, is a book review. The book Lazare is reviewing is The Jewish Century, by Yuri Slezkine, a Russian-American Jew who holds a faculty position at the University of California at Berkeley. Slezkine’s thesis is that the human race is comprised of two different types of people, “Apollonians,” or food producers, and “Mercurians,” who provide a variety of services to the food producers. Comments Lazare by way of his review:

In Greek mythology, Apollo is the god of livestock and agriculture and hence of settled existence in general. Hermes–Mercury to the Romans–is, by contrast, a trickster god who serves as “the patron of rule breakers, border crossers, and go-betweens,” i.e., less permanent types who prefer to live by their wits. Rather than settling down and blending in, the Mercurians seek the opposite goal: to keep themselves apart by deliberately cultivating strangeness‚ strange customs, strange languages and so on.

In what seems to be an exercise in public relations (perhaps not unlike the Global Language Dictionary), Slezkine argues that the Jews are not the only population group that has played the Mecurian role, and he names others, including the Koli such’ok people of medieval Korea along with a number of tribal groups in northern Africa, who have played similar roles–but of course none of these peoples presently find themselves perched at the pinnacle of world power.

So in evaluating Glick’s comments in the video above, along with similar speeches and commentaries by other Zionist speakers, should we perhaps keep in mind the “trickster” and “Mercurian” tendencies which may be at play?

Back in December I wrote and posted an article entitled “Light and Darkness,” which included a commentary on the following passage from the first epistle of John:

Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

Modern day scholars, as I noted, have argued that the “antichhrists” John referred to were the Gnostics, but the early Gnostics–as I also noted–held a reverence for Christ, and I argued that the reference in reality is to Jews–specifically Jewish Christians who, at the end of the first century, abandoned the faith and returned to Judaism. This is what John means by “they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us.”

Jewish Christians were persecuted (by other Jews), thrown out of the synagogue, and following the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, the intensity of these persecutions increased. The “Mercurians” apparently wanted nothing to do with any teaching about loving one another or seeing all peoples as fellow children of God.

In the video above, Glick seems well aware that the settlements are “the single toughest issue for Israel,” and she lays the blame for the turbulent situation on the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Iraqis, Syrians, the British–everybody pretty much is at fault…except of course for the Jews.

And so we find ourselves in a world of inverted realities–where Palestinians who have had their lands stolen are the “racists” and Jewish settlers who believe that “one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” are absolved of blame; where Russia is an “aggressor”; where terrorists are “moderates”; where light becomes darkness and where darkness is celebrated.

Why Did the Al-Jazeera Expose Fail?

January 14, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

“The Lobby”, the Al-Jazeerah expose of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Lobby infiltration into British politics is a landmark in journalism. It seems that Qatari TV outsmarted Israeli intelligence in the UK and beyond.

In the program, an undercover journalist named ‘Robin’ managed to infiltrate into the corridors of the Jewish lobby in Britain, secured the trust of a senior Israeli intelligence officer and, most importantly, managed to reveal the depths of Israeli interference in British politics.

We learned how Israel and its lobby plot against Britain and the Brits. In the program, Shai Masot, an Israeli official was caught on camera conspiring to “bring down” a British minister.

We learned how our own treacherous MPs shamelessly serve a foreign power and foreign interests. In Episode 3 we witness British politicians and Israeli lobbyists such as MP Joan Ryan  caught on camera smearing a Labour voter as an ‘anti-Semite’, and practically conspiring against her own party. Ms Ryan does it all for the Jewish state, a state with a horrid record on human rights and war crimes.  I wonder what is it that motivates MP Ryan? Is it  greed, or is it just power seeking?

The Brits should certainly ask themselves how come it is left to a Qatari TV network  to reveal the shocking news about their democracy being taken over by a foreign Lobby. Should this not be the concern  for the BBC or the Guardian? And even after the Al-Jazeera expose, the British media remained silent and the question must be asked: would it have stayed as silent had Shai Masot been a Russian? Would it have stayed as silent if MP Joan Ryan was exposed as an Iranian lobbyist?

But Al-Jazeera fell into an all-too-common trap. Troubled by its own findings, it tried to soften them with the usual politically correct fluff.  Instead of concentrating on the British aspect of this saga and allowing the Brits to speak for themselves, Al-Jazeera allowed an Israeli – academic Ilan Pappe to speak for us. Similarly, Jackie Walker, certainly a victim of the Israeli campaign was also asked, “as a Jew” (as well as a Black person), to spell out for us her own identitarian philosophy. All other commentators on the Israeli espionage operation came from recognised Palestinian solidarity perspectives. Despite the fact that the dirty dealings of the Israeli Embassy and the treason of members of the Israeli lobby groups in Britain is a clear offence against British sovereignty and the British people, only one Brit, journalist Peter Oborne, addressed the offence from a clear British perspective.

This is wrong. “The Lobby” exposed, above all, a gross interference with British sovereignty, a crude intrusion into the British democratic process and government.  Al-Jazeera failed because it turned this British national tragedy into an internal Jewish dispute.

For obvious reasons, Al Jazeera chose not to delve into the deep, cultural meaning of the Israeli operation. Israel is, above all, the Jewish state and, as I have mentioned many times before, plotting against other people’s regimes is deeply embedded in Judaic teaching and Jewish culture. It is in practice the message of The Book of Esther, which teach the Jews how toconspire against their rulers and, by proxy, to win over their enemies.  You can read The Book Of Esther for yourselves (it’s pretty short and very entertaining): http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Esther.html

Shai Masot was no junior embassy employee as claimed. He was a senior intelligence officer operating from the safety and immunity of its embassy on behalf of the Jewish state. He was working alongside Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev and the two are seen together in the film, sitting side by side, addressing various Jewish lobby groups. Shai Masot has been recalled and, I understand, is currently seeking other employment. Mark Regev should now be expelled and the matter must be investigated by MI5.

israeli Soldiers Execute Young Palestinian Man In His Home Near Tubas

Israeli Soldiers Execute Young Palestinian Man In His Home Near Tubas

IMEMC News – January 10, 2017

 Israeli attacks, News Report, Tubas, West Bank 0

 

10 Jan
1:20 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Updated: According to investigations by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and the mother’s testimony, Fawziyah Mahmoud Khamis Salhi (67) said to PCHR’s fieldworker that at approximately 02:00 on the abovementioned day, Israeli forces moved into al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas. 

They surrounded the family house of Mohammed Subhi Ahmed Khamis Salhi (33) near an UNRWA School for Girls and the camp sports club, seemingly in order to arrest him. 

A number of Israeli soldiers jumped from the outer wall of the 1-storey house. Mohammed and his mother then heard noise in the corridor and went out of their bedroom. 

When his mother saw the soldiers, she stood between them and her son.  An Israeli soldier then ordered her to sit on a plastic chair there, but when she refused, the soldier forcefully seated her. She then twice stood between the soldiers and her son. 

However in the third time she stood, the soldier forcefully pushed her and seated her on the chair.  The soldier then pulled out a gun with a silencer and directly fired 5 bullets at Mohammed at point-blank range. 

As a result, the bullets penetrated his neck, chest, hand, armpit, pelvis and thigh from the left side of his body and killed him in front of his elderly mother.  The mother said that she did not hear any sound of shooting, but saw sparkles coming from the gun. 

After that, her son swayed and fell on the ground.  His body was put on a litter and then taken by an ambulance belonging to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to Tubas Turkish Governmental Hospital in Tubas, where medical sources announced him dead. 

It should be mentioned that the Mohammed previously served a 3-year sentence in the Israeli prisons.

Updated From: Israeli Soldiers Execute Young Palestinian Man In His Home Near TubasJan 10, 2017 @ 12:47

Many Israeli soldiers and undercover officers invaded, on Tuesday at dawn, the al-Far’a refugee camp, north the West Bank district of Tubas, before breaking into the home of a former political prisoner and fatally shooting him in the head in front of his family.

Khaled Mansour, a member of the Political Bureau of the leftist Palestinian People’s Part (PPS), said an Israeli commander executed Mohammad Salhi, 33, with six bullets, including one in the head, from a close range, after invading his home and searching it.

Mansour added that many undercover soldiers invaded the Salhi family home, and started shouting at his mother and pushing her around, an issue that forced her son, who thought they were thieves, tried to push them away from her.

The soldiers then started firing at the young man, including from point black range, wounding the him with six live rounds, some in his head, before he fell onto the ground and bled to death after the soldiers prevented everybody from approaching him.

The soldiers also invaded and searched many homes in al-Far’a, and interrogated dozens of Palestinians while inspecting their ID cards.

It is worth mentioning that the slain Palestinian is a former political prisoner, who was held by Israeli for three years; he was single while his father died several months ago, and is survived by his mother and sister.

Following the attack, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry issued a statement described the Salhi’s execution, in his own home and in front of his family, as an Israeli state-sponsored terrorism.

The ministry said the soldiers shot Salhi in front of his mother, and left him to bleed to death, without allowing anybody to render the urgently-needed medical attention to him.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRF.AbuBaker%2Fvideos%2F1420432687996367%2F&show_text=0&width=400

The Alt Right is The New Jew

January 08, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

 

By Gilad Atzmon

It been accepted for a while that the New Left is the Old Right. However, we have been quick to learn that the Alt Right is the New Jew.

The Jewish Daily Forward reports this week that supporters of the far-right Jewish Defense League (JDL) are sympathetic to the white nationalism of the “alt-right” — and have “no plans to push back against an anti-Jewish march planned in Whitefish, Montana by a neo-Nazi”.

JDL leader Jonathan Stern told Haaretz that “alt-right” figurehead Richard Spencer was “a white nationalist who stands up for white people and there is nothing wrong with that.” Stern seems to accept that if Jews are entitled to celebrate their Jewishness (as the daily Forward has been doing for a century), White people are also entitled to celebrate their Whiteness.

The Forward reports that In Whitefish, Spencer’s hometown, “liberal activists, including Jews, have organized for years against white supremacists… Spencer’s family owns property here and some locals urged Spencer’s mother to sell her property and denounce her son’s brand of white supremacy.”

The JDL’s leader doesn’t agree with these tactics. He puts the blame on Jewish organisations. “So they provoked this guy, and now there is all this response, by white people, and white supremacists, and neo Nazis, and they want to march in the Jewish Community…If Jews are being targeted, we need to stand up for them. But if this is a response to a liberal organization, it’s a different story,” Stern said. “They started it, let them deal with the consequences.”

For many years, most of the American Jewish elite identified itself with Liberal and progressive politics. This is clearly changing now. Andrew Breitbart and his breitbart.com were the first birds to shift to the Right. Adelson was quick to gamble on Trump (once he won the primaries) and now the JDL, that was formed to fight ‘Nazis,’ actually accepts that the old Nazis may as well be their new allies. I wonder how long will it take before we find out that Soros starts to fund ultra nationalist organisations through his new CSI (the Closed Society Interlude).

Listen and learn from JDL founder about the Jewish State:

https://youtu.be/qDuWgmnDhLY

%d bloggers like this: