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.

 

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

The more Juif becomes Theresa, the more antisemitic becomes Britain.

February 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Today, the Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported that the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain in 2016 were the highest on record. The CST’s statistics show that there were 1,309 incidents of ‘Jew hatred’ last year — a 36 per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

Of course, the CST is not a reliable source and its‘antisemitism figures’ have been debunked numerous times before. However, if these statistics are accurate, they suggest only that the more the British government invests in fighting anti-Semitism…. the more antisemitic Britain becomes.

This is easy enough to explain. The fight against antisemitism is now a profitable industry.  Every day, we learn of some new Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism and to hunt down the Jew haters, and all at the expense of the British tax payer*.

And, as always in the case of Israel and Zionism, these organisation are financially sustained by the very Jewish hatred they seek to oppose. And, when there is no Jew hatred to be found, they will either induce, or even invent some.

For instance, we learned in the last few weeks that Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) launched a war against popular cult figure David Icke. The same Stephen Silverman who launched this war also launched a war against musician Alison Chabloz for expressing her thoughts on Holocaust religion by means of a cabaret performance.

These ugly campaigns against British truth-seekers are unlikely to make UK Jewry popular. Quite the opposite. Both these campaigns immediately backfired – Alison’s work went viral and the campaign against Icke proved only that Icke’s investigation into Rothschild Zionism is not only legitimate, it is actually essential.  These campaigns clearly are not going to silence Icke or Chabloz but they will confirm  that Jewish institutions here in Britain do not subscribe to the notion of freedom of thought and elementary human rights.

Dave Rich, Deputy Director of Communications at the CST told the JC: “I think there is an overall climate rather than one specific thing that is responsible for the rise in (antisemitic) incidents.”

Rich is wrong. There is one crucial factor in the rise in opposition to Jews and their politics: Jewish power has lost all its subtlety. It is now crude and vulgar and manifested right out in the open: whether it is the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party or theIsraeli embassy crudely interfering with British party politics or the constant hunting of critics of Israel or even the impunity of suspected child molester Lord Janner – more and more Brits are now reading between the lines. They have had enough.

If the British government is really concerned about antisemitism, it could eliminate it in no time at all. It must immediately strip Jewish organisations of any special treatment and funds and  must stop spending millions on the CST and all the other Jews-only paramilitary organisations operating in the kingdom.

We all agree that racism is a bad thing, so let’s fight it in a universal manner rather than following the whims of one particular tribe.

* Theresa May vowed recently to allocate more than 13.4 million pounds annually to Jewish security matters.

Mass Insanity Grips America

berkeley

On Wednesday night a crowd of protesters turned out for a protest at the University of California in Berkeley against a speech that was to have been given by an editor at the Breitbart website. Things were more or less peaceful until a crowd of about 150 “masked agitators,” as they were described, showed up and began carrying out acts of violence.

According to media reports, the mostly black-clad “anarchists” were clearly intent on overt acts of violence. Rocks, molotov cocktails, and “commercial grade fireworks” were all thrown–and yet, as CNN reports, “no arrests were made throughout the night.”

I tried, by doing a search, to confirm CNN’s information about there being no arrests, but none of the news reports I turned up mentioned anything about anyone being arrested and taken to jail. And indeed, in the photo above, which I grabbed from one of the videos available today, you can see smoke from an exploding firework of some sort, plus a crowd of people on the sidewalk–and a group of police standing inside a building looking out and more or less just watching.

The absence of any police action to quell the disturbance is discussed in the video below, which features an interview conducted by Tucker Carlson of Fox News with Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart editor who was to have given the talk but who ended up being evacuated from the campus.

The violence that took place in Berkeley is symptomatic of the insanity sweeping America, but in my view, the insanity is on both sides of the equation–the social justice warrior protestors as well as Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, and Fox News.

While Wikipedia refers to Breitbart as “a far-right American news, opinion, and commentary website,” the reality is that if you go Breitbart you will be hard-pressed to find anything critical of Israel or its lobby in America–and in fact, in the video below, Yiannopoulos makes no mention of either.

Likewise, with the protestors. We have seen large protests over Trump’s refugee policies, but where was the outrage when neocon policy makers started the wars that destroyed whole countries and created the refugee crisis in the first place? We heard hardly a peep about it from the left.

So what we have here is a case of “everybody babbling about everything except for what matters the most.” Which in effect is mass insanity. And the fact that neither the left nor the right (or the “political center,” for that matter either) offers any solution to the real problems facing America suggests that the insanity epidemic is going to grow worse, not better.

Further aggravating the derangement is that college campuses, formerly bastions of free thought, have now become some of the most repressive environments in American society. Protestors in Berkeley last night carried signs reading, “No safe place for racists” and “This is war.”

The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. She was able to respond that she was OK after the attack.

As the scene spiraled out of control, university police warned protesters to disperse and issued a lockdown for campus buildings.

Yes, they “warned,” but apparently did nothing else. I once lived in San Francisco and would occasionally attend protests across the bay in Berkeley. This was back in the 1990s, and I can tell you that in those days, Berkeley Police were not shy about making arrests. But apparently that’s different now.

In further evidence of the insanity, the U.C.-Berkeley administration issued a statement condemning the violence, yet at the same time essentially blaming it all on Yiannopoulos.

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer’s presence and perspectives,” UC Berkeley said in a statement.

“While Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus’s Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective,” it stated.

Legally bound to “enable free expression,” yet it was the university which made the decision to cancel the speech and apparently also to call off the police.

President Trump responded to all this by implying the possibility of a cutoff of federal funding to the university.

If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

 In an article published a few days ago, The Saker expressed the view that a “color revolution” is currently underway in America. I think he’s probably right up to a point, and one could surmise certainly that the violent protestors who showed up Wednesday night in Berkeley were of the “protestors-for-hire” variety.

Yet I think there may be more to what’s going on than simply a color revolution against the Trump administration. It was back in 2001 when Ariel Sharon made the oft-quoted comment that “We Jews control America.” Yet the Zionist Jews who hold so much clout in America are of the neocon persuasion, for the most part, and as such they tend to be more “internationalist” in their outlook than the religious fundamentalists who now have power in Israel. Thus we have the neocons in America pushing for war with Russia, while Russia and Israel maintain not only friendly, but cordial relations almost. The rift between the neocons of America and the religious fundamentalists of Israel was perhaps most evident back in March of 2014 when the US pushed for a UN resolution condemning Russia for its annexation of Crimea–a resolution which Israel refused to support.

More recently, of course, we have seen neocons and other Zionists in America screeching about Trump’s immigration policies…while Netanyahu has praised Trump’s decision to build a wall and an Israeli company is reportedly seeking the contract to construct it.

One way to look at it, perhaps, is that the ambitions of the neocons are far greater than simply expanding Israel’s borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. They want the entire planet. The fundamentalists in Israel, on the other hand, are far more concerned with “the land” and with driving the Palestinians from it, and they view pragmatism, rather than open conflict with Russia, as the best approach in achieving their goals.

Now enter the Trump administration, which has sided openly with the fundamentalist Israeli faction–which may explain why we see so much anti-Trump vitriol, even still, from the mainstream media, despite the fact that Trump has been overtly pro-Israel. So while The Saker may be right in that someone (most likely the neocons) is instigating a color revolution against Trump, there is likely far more going on than just that.

At any rate, here is the video with the interview between Yiannopoulos and Carlson.

Appeal Aimed at Fordham University: ‘Don’t Ban Students for Justice in Palestine!’

 

Posted on January 31, 2017

 photo urwelcome11_zps97baeeb2.jpg

[ Ed. note – Imagine a student organization at a major American university–(where such lofty ideals as academic freedom and free speech presumably are held dear)–being banned before it even gets organized or holds its first meeting.

Well, that’s what happened at Fordham University with the local Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

The school’s dean of students, Keith Eldredge, vetoed a measure approved by the University Student Government association which would have recognized the SJP group. Eldredge announced his decision in a December 22 email sent out to the young student activists who had applied for permission to form the organization on campus.

“After consultation with numerous faculty, staff and students and my own deliberation, I have decided to deny the request to form a club known as Students for Justice in Palestine at Fordham University,” he wrote. “While students are encouraged to promote diverse political points of view, and we encourage conversation and debate on all topics, I cannot support an organization whose sole purpose is advocating political goals of a specific group, and against a specific country, when these goals clearly conflict with and run contrary to the mission and values of the University.”

So in other words opposing an apartheid state and calling for an end to a decades-long occupation runs against the “mission and values” of Fordham University? What’s disgusting about this is that Fordham is, at least nominally, a Christian university that was founded by the Catholic diocese of New York. So is Eldredge trying to imply that SJP’s support for the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement somehow violates the teachings of Jesus?

“There is perhaps no more complex topic than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it is a topic that often leads to polarization rather than dialogue,” Eldredge goes on.

So Jesus–a man who called the Pharisees hypocrites, turned over the tables of the money changers, and accused the Jewish scribes of turning his Father’s house into a den of robbers–was somehow timidly averse to being polarizing when a clear need presented itself?

“The purpose of the organization [SJP] as stated in the proposed club constitution points toward that polarization,” the dean continues. “Specifically, the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel presents a barrier to open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding.”

Thank you, Dean Eldredge, and I’m sure the Zionist settlers in the West Bank are also aware of the dire need for “open dialogue and mutual learning and understanding”

Maybe the occupation of Palestine is a “complex topic” to the deans at Fordham University, but of course for most of the rest of us, it’s really not that hard to figure out.

The current president of Fordham is the Rev. Joseph M. McShane. If you follow one of the links below you will find a letter addressed to McShane written by Palestine Legal, whose mission is to protect “the civil and constitutional rights of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom.” Quite a big job obviously and probably about to become even more challenging.

Also below you will find an appeal addressed to Fordham University by the Friends of Sabeel North America. I must say I admire their diplomacy. It’s probably more than I could have mustered. FOSNA, by the way, is a Christian ecumenical group affiliated with Sabeel, an international peace movement launched by Palestinian Christians. ]


 photo fosnalogo_zpsngjvggyq.gif

After subjecting Palestinian student activists to an extensive and abnormally elongated vetting process that lasted over a year, Fordham University in New York City has banned its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights stated that the ban “blatantly violates [the University’s] promise to guarantee freedom of inquiry on campus,” calling on Fordham’s administration to “immediately permit and facilitate the formation of SJP.”

On Monday, FOSNA Executive Director Tarek Abuata sent an open letter to Fordham’s administration urging them to reinstate the chapter.

Help us tell Fordham University that as people of conscience, now more than ever, we have a responsibility to take action and support Palestine solidarity efforts.

Please call, write, or e-mail:

President Rev. Joseph M. McShane
president@fordham.edu

Keith Eldredge, Dean of Students
eldredge@fordham.edu

Office of the President, Fordham University
441 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
Tel: 718-817-3000

Free debate and open inquiry are hallmarks of university study. Help us ensure that Fordham University gives students who seek to debate, organize, and advocate for justice in Palestine and Israel the opportunity to do so as part of their educational experience.

Support our work by donating

Letter in support of Fordham Students for Justice in Palestine:

President Rev. Joseph M. McShane
Keith Eldredge, Dean of Students
Office of the President, Fordham University
president@fordham.edu
eldredge@fordham.edu
441 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
Tel: 718-817-3000

Dear President Rev. McShane and Dean Eldredge,

Friends of Sabeel North America is a Christian ecumenical organization seeking justice and peace in the Holy Land through nonviolent advocacy and education. As executive director, I write to express deep concern that Fordham University has decided to prohibit students from organizing a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter on your campus.

You may have seen this week’s statement from the Catholic Bishops of the 2017 Holy Land Coordination. This statement provides an urgent plea for the people of the world (and Catholics in particular) to pray and act for justice in the Holy Land:

Fifty years of occupation demands action.

For fifty years the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza have languished under occupation, violating the human dignity of both Palestinians and Israelis. This is a scandal to which we must never become accustomed.  Our Coordination has called for justice and peace every year since 1998, yet the suffering continues. So this call must get louder. As Bishops we implore Christians in our home countries to recognise our own responsibility for prayer, awareness and action.

So many people in the Holy Land have spent their entire lives under occupation, with its polarising social segregation, yet still profess hope and strive for reconciliation. Now, more than ever, they deserve our solidarity.

(See the signatories and full text)

We implore you to encourage your students to become active for justice and peace in Palestine and Israel by allowing the SJP chapter to form. As you know, throughout history students have been at the forefront of debating and organizing for justice causes (women’s rights; abolition of slavery; equality in racial, ethnic, and economic matters; opposition to war and to the apartheid regime in South Africa).

The First Amendment protects free speech as a hallmark of our democracy. Free debate and open inquiry are hallmarks of university study. Please give to the students who seek to debate, organize, and advocate for justice in Palestine and Israel this fundamental opportunity as part of their educational experience at Fordham University.

Friends of Sabeel North America has worked closely with SJP groups across the country. We find they are composed of bright, compassionate, highly conscientious students. SJP chapters are usually comprised of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and secular students. They represent a cross-section of ethnic, racial, and religious diversity.

Please allow your Fordham students the freedom all Americans hold dear. Encourage rather than prohibit their work for justice in Palestine and Israel as the Catholic Bishops of the 2017 Holy Land Coordination have urged.

With warm regards,

Tarek Abuata, Executive Director

Friends of Sabeel North America


Fordham University’s Ban on Palestinian Rights Group Sets Dangerous Precedent

By Joe Catron | January 26, 2017

Mint Press News

NEW YORK — Nearly a hundred students and community members rallied on Fordham University’s Manhattan campus before marching to nearby Columbus Circle on Monday.

The protest marked the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by students at the Jesuit institution to found a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine on their campus.

SJP organizations, which take their name from a still-existing student group founded at the University of California, Berkeley in 1993, already exist on over a hundred campuses in the United States, as well as several overseas.

A national organization using the same name organizes annual conferences attended by many of these loose affiliates, but maintains no formal relationship with them.

On Nov. 19, 2015, four students at Fordham applied with the university’s administration to register an SJP club at the school’s Lincoln Center campus.

By all accounts, they did not expect the grueling ordeal that lay before them.

Their plans finally ground to a halt on Dec. 22, 2016, when Keith Eldredge, dean of students at the Lincoln Center campus, informed several SJP activists in an email that he had overruled a vote by the school’s United Student Government to recognize the group a month earlier and denied it registration as a student organization.

“According to sources within student government, he has never even reviewed a club for veto, let alone actually vetoed one, in his entire ten years here at Fordham,” Sapphira Lurie, a senior and lead campus organizer for Fordham Students for Justice in Palestine, told MintPress News. “This is a clear example of the Palestine exception to free speech.”

“The Palestine exception,” a term popularized by Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights in a 2015 report of that name, refers to barriers to free speech and organizing faced by Palestinian and solidarity activists in the US.

In a Jan. 17 statement on Fordham’s ban of SJP, Palestine Legal, a nonprofit organization that provides legal assistance and representation to Palestine activists, said it had responded to more than 600 attempts to repress their activities nationally since the start of 2014.

Of these, it said, “the vast majority” targeted students and faculty.

On campus, these efforts often include obstacles to student organizing, like challenges to event funding and space registration, or the unwarranted suspension of recognized groups, as well as the intimidation, and occasional termination, of faculty.

But Fordham’s preemptive ban of a student organization sets a dangerous new precedent, one students and other local activists are determined to fight.

“As far as we’re aware, this is the first time a college has summarily banned a group supporting Palestinian rights before students even held their first meeting,” Radhika Sainath, a Palestine Legal staff attorney and cooperating counsel at the CCR, told MintPress News.

‘Fordham breached its express promise’

Palestine Legal’s statement summarized a letter, sent by it and the CCR to Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., Fordham’s president, on the same day.

When they filed their application, the letter said, “[T]he students expected Fordham would approve their group within a few weeks so that they could start their educational programming.”

[[[ Read Palestine Legal’s letter to Fordham’s president Rev. Joseph M. McShane. ]]]

Instead, they faced months of stonewalling, punctuated by meetings at which administrators asked if they would consider a different name, expressed concern at their support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and use of the word “apartheid,” and inquired about their willingness to work with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, J Street, and Seeds for Peace.

The administrators also inquired whether an anti-BDS resolution passed by the New York City Council or an executive order and blacklist opposing the movement issued by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, all last year, should preclude SJP’s recognition by the university.

As the USG decision on Nov. 17 neared, one administrator, Dorothy Wenzel of the university’s office of student leadership, who had previously admitted to polling Jewish faculty on whether SJP should be allowed to register at Fordham, instructed a USG officer to notify the school’s Jewish Student Organization of the pending vote.

Continued here

Hasbara is Desperate to stop David Icke (video)

January 30, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

But with Goldman Sachs and Soros destroying one country after another, they do not stand a chance. By now we are all Palestinians.  David Icke knows it and he is not alone!!!

The following pathetic video was produced by the Campaign Against Antisemitism, an Israeli Hasbara unit operating in Britain. This video won’t hurt David Icke. Instead, it proves once again that Jewish power is the ability to silence discussion on Jewish power.  This power is proving less effective by the day.

Related

Why we must defend those who dare to speak about the ideology of Jewish supremacy

By Nahida Izzat | Aletho News | December 26, 2012

Source

Forbidden words, taboo topics, witch hunts, smear campaigns, excommunications, thought-policing and book banning are no longer the trademark of fascists and right wing extremists, the profession is shared now by Jewish “anti-Zionists,” alleged “friends of Palestine.” We are left watching in astonishment and disbelief  as some “anti-Zionists” are doing the work of hyper-Zionists the likes of ADL and BoDoBJ.

I have recently witnessed the ostracizing and excommunication of two activists, Paul Eisen and Gilad Atzmon, by my local group affiliated to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) using the Zionist method of character assassination of using the labels “racist” “anti-Semitic” as a method of muffling truth.

Yet, among the numerous intellectuals and political activists that have publicly defended Atzmon are many Jews for whom I have only high praise and have expressed much admiration.

It seems that those who wish to stifle discourse are acting as controlled opposition. They attempt to block intellectual discussion, suppress academic freedom, obstruct rational and scholarly debate, filter vital information and smother serious research that examines three main identifiable problems:

The problem of the ideology of Jewish supremacy

The problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying

The problem of idolizing the holocaust (which is used as a tool to further Zionist aims)

In 2009, soon after the Gaza massacres, by sheer coincidence I came across the word Neshama. Curious, I googled the word, and lo and behold a Pandora’s Box opened before my eyes; a new learning curve began; I learned about a group called Chabad Lubavitch. I was horrified to discover the supremacist ideology at the core of this group and the level of influence accomplished by the Rebbe and his followers.

Horror-struck, I started investigating, studying then writing about two main issues; the supremacist ideology and the high influence of this prominent organization, attempting to alert our Jewish PSC allies to the danger of such ideology and influence… only to be faced with utter silence.

The problem of the ideology of Jewish supremacy

First; if we accept that Zionism is defined by the crime of genocide and the ethnic cleansing of a nation and has caused the wiping out of a country, then investigating the motivation behind such crime is essential to fight it and hopefully to defeat it. Without unfiltered scrutiny, we would never know who we are dealing with and how to stop them.

Second; supremacism in Jewish ideology is not above criticism; like every other ideology, it should be transparent, accessible and not kept secretive. Without unfiltered scrutiny we would never know what animates Zionists to act with such aggravated cruelty and sadism.

Third; to accuse of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” those who expose Jewish supremacy, is the equivalent of covering up the ideology behind the crime and dissuading people from learning about it, hence challenging and fighting this form of racism.

Dismissing such supremacist beliefs as irrelevant and obsolete would be a huge mistake because these views are the very motor that charges, motivates and energizes the Jewish settlers in Palestine, and gives them the sense of entitlement to do what they do without feeling any guilt or remorse.

For us Palestinians and for our supporters in the solidarity movement, it is a matter of extreme importance to inspect and scrutinize the ideology that motivates and animates the Jewish settlers in our occupied Palestine in order to better understand it, hence combat it. Restricting our understanding of the occupiers, their ideology and mindset cripples our ability to fight back against them knowledgeably and effectively. Furthermore, in our day and age, racism has become outlawed, when people learn about the extent of the ideological racism in the Zionist entity, it will enable us to fight them in their weakest point, thus, bring the day of our liberation closer.

The problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying

First; when we look at Zionism as a crime, again, then logically we must identify and investigate the modus operandi. Failure to do so would leave us unable to understand how our oppressors operate and succeed.

Second; with regards to the Jewish-Zionist lobby: investigative work that examines information, no matter how well concealed, and attempts to identify at least some of the culprits and the real criminals behind the fearmongering, the endless wars and the catastrophic conditions that our world suffers is neither racist nor anti Semitic.

Third; devoid of proof or evidence for their false accusations the controlled opposition gate-keepers insidiously filter information through intimidation and by labeling anyone who dares to divulge vital facts. They disable Friends of Palestine (FoP) members from understanding the animus and the methods used to install and to perpetuate the criminal Zionist project, in particular the global network of collaborators who organize and effectively manipulate world policies by coercing world governments into continuous support of the Zionist project in spite of its growing inhumanity.

Expecting to become myself sooner or later a victim of such smear and filtering activity, I always utilize extensive links to primary sources I quote, mostly Jewish organizations. The network formed by these organizations involves large sections of Jewish communities worldwide, and its ultimate role is generally to support the Zionist entity, by inserting themselves in influential positions.

Suppression of inquiry amounts to a dynamic protection system (by peripheral concealment) of the global Zionist network.

Lite-Zionist critics of Israel are attempting to impose on FoP their restrictive dogma, i.e. that a majority of Jews worldwide, whether Zionist “diaspora” or “Israelis”, are not the manipulators of international policy with regards to “Israel”, but the complacent, docile instrument of U.S. imperialism.

To persist, such dogma imperatively needs, again, to filter out glaring facts such as the over-representation of Jewish-Zionist dual citizens in vital areas of UK-US policy making, or the cross-pollination of racist and supremacist ideology between many Talmudic Rabbis and many Secular Jewish-Zionist Organizations supporting the Zionist project.

The persistence of this dogma also requires strict and repressive censorship and gagging of whomever tries to scrutinize, analyze and discuss the facts, let alone expose them to an audience concerned by matters of equality and humanism, such as FoP and the Palestine solidarity movement in general was supposed to be. That is how and why smear campaigns with killer words such as “anti-Semitism” or “racism” are launched.

At best, such activity on part of alleged “friends of Palestine” is irresponsible. The logical implication of such nonsense, would be that Jewish Israelis, almost all of them serving at least 2 full years in the Israeli army, are just naïve and innocent victims. Thereby, this nonsensical dogma exculpates the notoriously perverted cruelty and psychopathy of the Israeli military’s crimes, up and down the command ladder.

The problem of idolizing the holocaust

First; “Facts” do NOT need laws to enforce or defend them, what they require is research to examine their narrative and correct it for better accuracy and understanding. The denial of these principles will invariably lead to the eradication of the Science of History, and thus cause the blind repetition of more genocides, as we already see in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan… Much like what we see with the cover up and suppression of information about The Truth about 9/11, who benefited and how the event was used to create a climate of hatred and fear which enables the power elite to continue waging wars of aggression and extermination.

Second; without understanding how the holocaust has been used by Zionists, from its onset til this very day, we would continue to succumb to intimidation and give allowances that legitimize and justify the existence of a criminal entity. By insisting on keeping an aura of holiness, uniqueness and exceptionality around the holocaust which would continue to put it above any historical event, preventing researchers from examining how this event has been used, and how it enables our occupier to continue to use it as justification for what they do in Palestine.

The holocaust ought to be studied as a historical event with a historical narrative that has NO sacred or exceptional dimension. The emotional, dogmatic and sacred luggage that has been attached to it has been systematically used and is still used by Zionists to justify and minimize their ongoing heinous crimes in Palestine, as well as the claim of special status with special benefits in their respective countries.

Third; there is absolutely no link -strictly none- between the so-called Holocaust and Palestinians. Nowhere can Palestinians be incriminated in the abhorrent oppression committed by central Europeans against Jews during World War II.

I, as a Palestinian, am not prepared to live in guilt, nor to pay for crimes my people haven’t committed. We refuse to accept and will reject forcibly if necessary, pathologically violent and racist Jewish occupiers.

Military conquest, terrorism, robbery, torture, ethnic cleansing and slow genocide ongoing since the arrival of the first Zionists in Palestine almost one century ago (i.e. before the holocaust) does NOT make someone the rightful “owners” or “co-owners” of my homeland, it makes them abject and violent occupiers.

I and with me my People are not accepting any more to keep having to listen to this narrative shoved down our throat with the repetition of tragedies about legendary love stories, human-fat soap or human-skin lamp shades in order that the Zionists continue to deceive, to trade with and reap the profit by deception and theft of a historical crime that has already been dealt with, and while they continue to use it to justify the ongoing theft of Palestine and extermination of Palestinians.

When someone claims to be in the solidarity movement with Palestine, but then at a crucial time when the Palestinian struggle for Liberation gains momentum, engages in such blatant cover up and concealment of vital information and analysis that would enable people to better understand the core problematic issues and how to effectively deal with them, I and with me every member of the FoP and the Palestine solidarity movement, have the right to question the dubious intentions and motivations of such acts, and to evaluate the damage such people are causing to the movement, hence to Palestinians.

I would like to add a thought about the accusation of racism and anti-Semitism used as a method to silence debate. Anti-Semitism is nothing but one form of racism. Jewish supremacy is yet another form of racism. All forms of racism are vile and ought to be rejected.

An aggravating factor makes the accuser’s motives appear to be even more dubious. Indeed the false accusations of racism is inconsistent with their deafening silence about the mountain of evidence of the wide-spread existence of the ominously racist Jewish supremacist ideologies. This utter silence is a glaring attempt to deflect from the real racism about which I happen to have done extensive research during the past 2 years.

Also, I perceive the attacks as an attempt to block intellectual debate about the problem of global Jewish-Zionist networking and lobbying, which to me is very worrisome, to say the least, when coming from self proclaimed “Friends of Palestine.”

What I find really mind-boggling and hard to fathom in all this is the inconsistency with regards to racism.

On the one hand they do not hesitate to throw such a label against many honorable activists, scholars and intellectuals, in fact they label as “racist” and “fools” anyone who exposes the revolting yet well concealed Jewish supremacy, anyone who notices the effect of Jewish-Zionist networking or  who objects to their disproportionate over-representation in key positions with all what it entails of conflict of interest and promotion of the interest of a foreign entity at the detriment of the interest of their national constituency. Yet, on the other hand, mystifyingly, the same people, who without hesitation accuse us of racism, stay utterly mute about the massive, revolting and offensive racism that fills thousands of pages in the Talmud, and major Jewish religious books! And I am not talking about some fringe lunatic fundamentalists who use these always mutating texts as tools, what I am talking about is the inter-connective network of people deeply entrenched in the main centers of government, power and capital, and who are veritably driving policies, war-mongering and hate-mongering!

This sharp contrast between the fervent reaction of those disloyal activists to alleged “racism” on one hand, and on the other, their apathetic deflated reaction or lack thereof, to the sickening anti-human racism emanating from Jewish sources with its correlation with Zionists’ activities, leaves me speechless, beyond words.

Since I started exposing this racism, and over the past two years, I heard NOT ONE WORD about their outrage, opposition or willingness to expose or fight Jewish supremacist ideology, such as seen in the writing of one of the most respected, most reputable Jewish philosophers Moses Ben Maimon (also known as Maimonides).

“Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah is considered by traditionalist Jews even today as one of the chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics.” Moses Ben Maimon sees no problem with subjugating and enslaving gentiles:

“They shall be your subjects and serve you.”

“The subjugation they must accept consists of being on a lower level, scorned and humble.

They must never raise their heads against Israel, but must remain subjugated under their rule. They may never be appointed over a Jew in any matter whatsoever.”

He also talks about the right of the Jewish king to:

wage a milchemet hareshut, (war of aggression) i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation.

These “chief authoritative codifications of Jewish law and ethics” do not see any ethical predicament with “Jewish wars” of extermination and annihilation either.

Since this notorious ideology is the unequivocal underlying animus and root cause of the Zionist aggression and occupation, and since the “facts on the ground” prove the cross-pollination between this degradation and the secular Zionist aims, including the irrefutably slow-genocidal Zionist military policies, scrutiny and criticism of this racist supremacist filth is not a matter of fringe theology, but a vital matter of totalitarian politics.

Now, where is their outrage against such blatant Jewish racism and supremacy and terrifying nihilistic ideology? Don’t they claim to be against racism wherever it comes from? Why don’t they have the guts to condemn and campaign against such racism?

Is it not ludicrous to hear them condemn instead, those who expose and vehemently oppose such racism?

Without using any commonsense they jump into the ADL bandwagon and rub shoulders with Zionists!

If someone obstinately objects to the massive control and unwelcome influence and the robbing of others rights and property, under the pretext of divine entitlement, does that person become the unreasonable “bigot” !

What kind of skewed logic is that?

This inconsistency is incomprehensible to me.

Why are they entitled to classify people and to dictate to people what they should read and what they should avoid?

Why this condescending attitude that appears to be claiming to know what is best for people and selecting their intellectual diet for them?

Why deprive people of the right to read a wide range of opinions, including my own writing, and allow them to make up their analysis, and conclusions without manipulation, repression or restraint?

In my writing I vehemently criticize racist Jewish ideology, but I never accuse all Jews of being racist, never put them -or anyone else for that matter, in one basket. Ever.

In my writing I quoted the poll that 95% of USA Jewry support Israel as a Jewish state and 90% of British Jewry believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people, and concluded that most world Jewry are supportive of the theft of Palestine.

Truth is that the majority of world Jewry insist that Jews have a right and claim to the land. Including some of our Jewish “anti-Zionist” friends under whatever pretext. Their claims are not acceptable and unjustifiable!

I have pointed out the influence of organized Jewish networks, such information is available for any serious researcher, it can be easily verified, yes it is troublesome to find such a tiny group extremely overrepresented in so many vital areas of public affairs, such as finance, media, security and policy making, more so when the interests of such a group are in conspicuous conflict with the interest of the larger group, and when this minority supports a genocidal entity that has not evolved in six decades.

Over-representation is as unfair as under-representation, and if anti-racists take it upon themselves to defend the rights of the under-represented minorities, it is of equal importance to do the same with over-representation.

Perhaps such questions of over-representation might have not surfaced had the behavior of those in question been shrouded with morality and humanity. Had they been working to establish social justice, building homes, schools and hospitals instead of destroying and polluting the planet for generations to come, and instead of law of the jungle where the super-rich eat the poor to the last bone, had they chosen cooperation instead never-ending conflict, and promoted peace and justice instead of fomenting perpetual wars.

No one should be slandered for observing and objecting to such blatant mockery of morality, equality and justice.

I do not need to focus on Christian Zionists because their ideology is almost entirely sourced from the Old-Testament which is none other than the Jewish Torah! Most authentic Christians consider the Christian Zionists as worshipers of “Israel” and of the “Jewish people” rather than God, and in that sense they share the same ideology as Jewish-Zionist supremacists, in terms of their reverence and idolization of the Jewish people as the “Chosen”, they are one and the same. Furthermore, those who occupy my land, those who drove me out of my homeland, and those who are still depriving me from going home are the Jewish Zionists.

I criticize the deafening silence of anti-Zionist Jews with regard to the racism that thrives amidst many Jewish communities. A silence which I believe will backfire one day, as they would be seen as not only complaisant but also complacent by deflecting away and concealing horrendous truths.

My criticism is motivated by concern and genuine care for good Jewish individuals that I have known and those whom I don’t know, because of what I perceive as the danger that would befall all of them if they continue to ignore the supremacist ideology, the growing influence of the adherents of this ideology and if they continue to ignore all the warning signs that point to accumulating bottled rage against such villainy, which no doubt would one day manifest itself violently as an inevitable backlash to much unsaid, yet felt, oppression and unspoken, but lived, subjugation.

I find it rather pathetic that the only defense mechanism that the accusers come up with is the smear, slander and the accusation of being a “racist” against anyone who pokes the boil exposing the pus infesting inside one of the most vile racist and supremacist ideologies thriving at the heart of some Jewish teachings as per Mishna Torah, Zohar, Tanya, and Talmud. By insisting on dismissing Jewish supremacy and Jewish-Zionist networks they only promote the most cruel and degenerative racism to be found on the planet by means of concealment and shifting attention away from the real racism that I vehemently fight and deplore.

The persons who resort to accusation, suppression, character assassination and smear campaigns very cunningly and dishonestly omit to mention that those who expose and condemn the racist concepts of “chosen-ness”, “exceptionality”, “superior morality”, “superior intelligence”, and “Jewish entitlement of world leadership” do not invent these concepts. It is not racist to expose or quote such abomination, it is not a crime to bring such Jewish-claims to the public awareness. Any honest criticism should be directed against those who believe such filth and make such revolting claims.

To those individuals who take part in such ADL style smear campaigns of accusation of racism, I say:

I accuse you of acting as a smoke screen to cover up real racism as manifested by Jewish supremacists

I accuse you of acting as protectors and gatekeepers of the global Jewish Zionist networks and lobby groups by denying their existence and effectiveness.

I accuse you of complicity by insisting to conceal planned crimes against humanity as manifested in the supremacist nihilistic Chabad ideology.

Any Solidarity Movement with Palestine should take the opinions, the interests, and the future well being of Palestinians at heart, otherwise, it speaks only for itself, not for Palestinians.

Palestinians have the right to fight for the full liberation of their country, those who are willing to march with us all the way are welcome, those who are not, may look for other more convenient and less controversial campaigns to support.

I denounce any person or group who pretends to speak in my name as a Palestinian, yet behind closed doors, they plot and whisper about how to mute Palestinian voices and curtail the spread and impact of daring Palestinian opinions.

I denounce any person or group who claims to work for Palestine, yet their actions are contrary to the legitimate interest and aspirations of Palestinian people. Allowing themselves to be used as a vehicle to secure the future of the Jewish-Zionist invaders by facilitating the permanent takeover of Palestine with the pretext of “two peoples, one future” blather or “equal rights to both sides” nonsense.

I denounce any person or group who turns a blind eye and reacts with a deafening silence to the unimaginable repulsive racism that oozes from some Jewish supremacist groups, yet instead, hysterically and shamelessly react to someone who accidentally came to discover such horrors.

Finally, I fully trust the Palestine solidarity movement to have the intellectual integrity and capacity to see through the fog of manipulation, and to have the assertiveness, the respect for their own intellect and enough open-mindedness to look at many sources of information, and that they have the courage to read for themselves and evaluate what they read independently, without having some gurus spoon-feeding them with filtered, processed, misrepresented or manipulated information.

~

auteur_1643Nahida Izzat is a Jerusalem-born Palestinian refugee who has lived in exile for over forty five years, after being forced to leave her homeland at the tender age of seven in 1967, during the six-day war. She has a degree in mathematics, but art is one of her favorite pastimes. She loves hand-made things and so makes dolls, cards, and most of her own clothing. She also writes poetry, participates in written dialogues and believes in building bridges, not walls.

%d bloggers like this: