Netanyahu’s latest deception

Source

Shifty Netanyahu

Why, really, has Netanyahu put settlement expansion on hold?

By Alan Hart

His own explanation was that he wants to avoid or minimize the prospects for an “unnecessary confrontation” with the international community, for which read President Barack Obama and the European leaders who would follow his lead (with the arguable exception of the French whore).

I think it’s more than reasonable to believe that Netanyahu was concerned, possibly even alarmed, by the explicit nature of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s condemnation on 6 November of Israel’s on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank.

On Israeli television Kerry asked why Israel was continuing to build settlements when doing so was giving the Palestinians good cause to believe that Israel was not serious about peace. (Writing in the Times of Israel, Raphael Ahren said Kerry’s “rhetorical onslaught” amounted to “a forceful slap in the face for Netanyahu”, a slap “the prime minister cannot have expected and one he will not quickly forget”.)

Netanyahu’s fear

My guess is that Netanyahu concluded that there was a grave danger, for the first time ever, of Israel being blamed by the whole of the international community, including America, for the breakdown and collapse of the latest round of “peace talks”.

My guess is that Netanyahu realized that a perception of Israel not being serious about peace with the Palestinians could undercut the Zionist lobby’s effort to make an accommodation with Iran impossible.

But his main focus was and is elsewhere – on the effort the Zionist lobby in association with its Saudi allies is now making to sabotage the prospects of Obama reaching an accommodation with Iran.

As I write Kerry is about to brief members of the Senate Banking Committee behind closed doors in the hope of persuading it not to introduce Zionist lobby dictated legislation to impose even more punitive sanctions on Iran while negotiations with it are still underway.

My guess is that Netanyahu realized that a perception of Israel not being serious about peace with the Palestinians could undercut the Zionist lobby’s effort to make an accommodation with Iran impossible.

Obama’s stark choice

Netanyahu must know that the stakes for the Zionist lobby have never been higher than they are today. If it succeeds in getting legislation to impose even more punitive sanctions on Iran, Obama will have a stark choice to make: either to bow to the lobby’s will (par for the post-Eisenhower American presidential course), which would mean goodbye to any hope for an accommodation with Iran, or to confront the lobby’s stooges in Congress.

Obama could do the latter, as President Dwight Eisenhower once did, by taking to the bully pulpit – going over the heads Congress and speaking directly to his fellow Americans on television and radio. Eisenhower, the first and to date the last American president to seek to contain Zionism, made best use of the bully pulpit when its lobby tried to prevent him insisting that Israel should withdraw from the Sinai without conditions after it had colluded with France and Britain in the 1956 war on Egypt.

Given that an Obama showdown with the Zionist lobby is a possibility, (not a probability), it’s worth recalling what Eisenhower said when, from the bully pulpit, he took on the Zionist lobby and won.

Israel insists on firm guarantees as a condition to withdrawing its forces of invasion. If we agree that armed attack can properly achieve the purposes of the assailant, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order. We will have countenanced the use of force as a means of settling international differences and gaining national advantage… If the UN once admits that international disputes can be settled using force, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of the organization and our best hope for establishing a real world order.

The Zionist lobby must know that if Obama defies it on Iran, his next logical step would be to use the leverage he has to require Israel to be serious about peace with the Palestinians on terms the vast majority of them could accept. (As I have noted in the past, the truth, despite some of their rhetoric to the contrary, is that Iran and Hezbollah will accept whatever is acceptable to the Palestinians, as will the whole of the Arab and wider Muslim world.)

Netanyahu needs the Zionist lobby and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, to succeed in their efforts to wreck the prospects of an American and European accommodation with Iran; and if putting further Zionist colonization of the occupied West Bank on hold assists that cause, so be it.

A few commentators expressed a degree of surprise that Netanyahu’s decision did not provoke a revolt against him by some of his neo-fascist coalition partners, especially those who favour annexing all of the West Bank. That didn’t happen because Netanyahu squared them in advance of his announcement by telling them that putting the plans for more settlements on hold was only a tactic. “It’s just another of our deceptions.” He didn’t say that as far as I know, but that was the implication of his message to the leaders of his coalition partners.

Alan Hart stil Worried and Dreaming: “Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations”.

Alan Hart is still worried and dreaming:

  • anti-Israelism could be transformed into rampant and rabid anti-Semitism”.
  • “the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism.
  • Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

He is not sure and “wondering if honest future historians will conclude that one of the greatest ironies in all of human history, perhaps even the greatest, is in the fact that Zionism wanted and needed anti-Semitism in order to justify its criminal policies and actions to Jews everywhere and misinformed and therefore gullible gentiles in America and Europe.”

According to Alan, Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially.”

Allan can’t see that the zionist leaders, who can’t tell the jews of the world to go to hell, has send the Arab Jews of Iraq and other Arab countries to hell. They did the same to RABIN, the Israeli Dove of Peace (According Gilad Atzmon, the Hebrow speeaking Palestinian, “Shalom” = Peace and security for Jews only).

This video and the follwing pictures demontrate how Zionists deall with the ony real anti-zionist’s Jews, the “Paletinian Jews”.

PHOTOS

Finally Alan, never tire of dreaming about the great prize he worked for as Arafat (Father Palestine) and Perez since late 70’s. The prize is still “available to the Jews of the world and Israeli Jews especially if they did allow justice-driven reason to prevail. Generally speaking, they are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership, in one state with equal rights and security for all, they could change the region for the better and by so doing give new hope and inspiration to the whole world. Put another way, Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations.”

“Dream on, Alan.” he said.

I would pass to Alan the question asked by a frustrated Palestinian: What came first ?? The Jews or the Ghetto

About 2 years ago, instead of assking,  you asked Palestine – What Next?
I answered you Nothing but full liberation

Keep dreaming Alan, we Palestinian, in Palestine and all over the world will not only dream on, we will keep on resisting until full liberation.
Get it Alan: No alternative to FULL LIBERATION
Get it Alan: “NOTHING SHORT OF FULL LIBERATION OF PALESTINE IS ACCEPTABLE!”

It took our common friend,  Gilad Atzmon many years to realize that the place he was born in was in fact occupied Palestine. He left that place and vowed not to return until its liberated.

The Real enemy of the Jews is not only the Zionism, its Jewishness. Get it Alan, and don’t be fooled by the so-called anti-zionists controlling the PSC. The are in fact anti-zionist-zionists. Here is a sample. 

—————————

The curse of Zionism and the Jewish paradox

                                                      

By Alan Hart

I was inspired (perhaps I should say provoked) to write this piece by something US Vice-President Joe Biden said in his speech to the recent J Street national conference in Washington DC. He recalled visiting Golda Meir when she was Israel’s prime minister and he was a junior senator. Her parting words to him were, he said, these: “We Jews have a secret weapon in our conflict with the Arabs. We have no place else to go.”Taken a face value what Golda said was obviously not true because there were then, as there still are, many countries to which Israeli Jews can go to start a new life if they wish. For the  one million who have taken their leave of the Zionist (not Jewish) state for a better life elsewhere, America was and remains the first choice, but today Germany is also becoming popular.
So what, really, was Golda’s message to Biden by implication?

Zionism’s raison d’être

In very low key “Mother Israel” was giving voice to Zionism’s raison d’etre (reason for being). The logic of it can be summarized as follows.

The world always has been anti-Semitic (meaning anti-Jew because Arabs are Semites, too) and always will be. So, Zionism takes it as a given that holocaust II – shorthand for another great turning against Jews – is inevitable. Israel therefore exists to be a safe haven, a refuge of last resort, an insurance policy for all the Jews of the world when that day comes. That’s why Israel has an unsatisfied hunger for more Palestinian land, an unquenchable thirst for more Palestinian water and a lust for the oil that has very recently been discovered in Palestine that became Israel.

And that in turn is why Zionism’s in-Israel leaders, assisted by their lobby and its associates and allies in America, will stop at nothing to advance their cause; a cause which requires, among other things, consolidating Zionism’s hold on the occupied West Bank and not ruling out a final ethnic cleansing of it, and the creation of a pretext to go to war with Lebanon again to take for keeps the south of that country up to the River Litani. (In a recent article Franklin Lamb made reference to an Israeli document which contains the text of a speech made in 1941 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister. One particular sentence is circled by hand. “We have to remember that for the Jewish state’s ability to survive it must have within its borders the waters of the [rivers] Jordan and Litani.”)

In passing I have to say that one of the greatest promoters of the Jewish fear of a new upsurge of anti-Semitism is Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America. (A more appropriate name for his organization would be DIC – Defame Israel’s Critics.) A decade ago, in his address to the ADL’s 90th annual meeting in New York, he said: “We currently face as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one.”

In addition to its elected traitor agents in Congress, the Zionist lobby’s associates and allies include the non-Jewish neo-cons in various departments of state and the security services, a host of think tanks and the mainstream media, and the leaders of the tens of millions of deluded, mad, Christian fundamentalists. (This fundamentalism is historically anti-Semitic but supports Israel right or wrong because it sees the Zionist state as the instrument for bringing about Armageddon. For their part, Israel’s right wing leaders and their lobby courted and welcomed Christian fundamentalism because the alliance with it gave them maximum influence in Washington DC.)

The Jewish paradox

As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the answer to the question of what Zionism would do in the event of mission failure was given to me by Golda Meir in one of my interviews with her for the BBC’s flagship “Panorama” programme. She said that in the event of a doomsday situation, Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it.”

Israel was created by Zionism to guarantee the wellbeing and existence of the Jews, but that wellbeing and perhaps even existence is most seriously threatened by Zionism’s policies and actions

The Jewish paradox comes down to this. Israel was created by Zionism to guarantee the wellbeing and existence of the Jews, but that wellbeing and perhaps even existence is most seriously threatened by Zionism’s policies and actions.

How can that possibly be true?

What we are witnessing today is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism. It is not a manifestation of anti-Semitism, meaning that it’s not being driven by prejudice against or loathing and even hatred of Jews just because they are Jews. Anti-Israelism is being provoked by Israel’s arrogance of power, its sickening self-righteousness and its contempt for international law in general and the rights of the Palestinians in particular.

The danger for Jews everywhere is that anti-Israelism could be transformed into rampant and rabid anti-Semitism. The most explicit warning that this could happen was given voice by Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving director of military intelligence. In his book, Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in English in 1988, he wrote this (my emphasis added):

Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.

Harkabi also noted that Israel’s biggest enemy was its own self-righteousness. If he was alive today I would suggest to him for comment that if “enemy” can be defined as a force with the ability and real intention to destroy Israel by military means, self-righteousness is the only enemy of the Zionist state.

The real enemy of the Jews

Harkabi was not the first Jew to warn of the danger of Israel becoming a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism, and he was in very good Jewish company. Prior to the Nazi holocaust most Jews everywhere were opposed to Zionism’s colonial-like enterprise. They believed it was morally wrong (which, of course, it was) and would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

As I write I find myself wondering if honest future historians will conclude that one of the greatest ironies in all of human history, perhaps even the greatest, is in the fact that Zionism wanted and needed anti-Semitism in order to justify its criminal policies and actions to Jews everywhere and misinformed and therefore gullible gentiles in America and Europe.

At school I was given what I still believe to be the best definition of a paradox – “The truth standing on its head to attract attention.” One such truth is this. There is no such thing as a “Palestine problem”. There is only a Jewish problem in and over Palestine that became Israel.

The headline over an article by Bradley Burston in Ha’aretz on the first day of this year was “Will 2013 be the year American Jews secede from Israel?” One of his concluding paragraphs was this: “American Jews want to know what is being done in their name. In the name of Judaism. And if they think that it is self-destructive, oppressive, blockheaded and wrong, it stands to reason they would want it to stop.“

The gentile me has a problem with that expression of hope.

If reason prevailed…

The evidence is that while a growing but still smallish number of American Jews are publicly critical of Israel’s policies and actions, very many, still the majority, are remaining silent and don’t want to know what Zionism is doing in their name; and while that remains the case there is no prospect of reason prevailing in enough Jewish minds to change the course of history.

…while it is perfectly possible that Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially. How it could be changed if reason was assisted to prevail can be simply stated. If a majority of American and European Jews were prepared to openly acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name, and then insist that the wrong be righted on terms acceptable to the Palestinians, any Israeli government would have to change course and be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.
 

What I really mean is that while it is perfectly possible that Zionism’s in-Israel’s leaders could tell an American president and the whole of the non-Jewish world to go to hell, they would not be stupid enough to say the same to the Jews of the world, Jewish Americans and Europeans especially.
That stands to reason – doesn’t it?

On public speaking platforms (as in my book) I never tire of giving voice to my thoughts about the great prize available to the Jews of the world and Israeli Jews especially if they did allow justice-driven reason to prevail. Generally speaking, they are the intellectual elite of the Western world and the Palestinians are the intellectual elite of the Arab world. Together in peace and partnership, in one state with equal rights and security for all, they could change the region for the better and by so doing give new hope and inspiration to the whole world. Put another way, Jews and Palestinians in peace and partnership could become the light unto nations.
Dream on, Alan.

Note

An indication that Netanyahu is alarmed by the possibility of a majority of Jewish Americans demanding or even requesting that Israel be serious about making peace on terms the Palestinians could accept is in the following.

The Israeli American Council recently commissioned the distribution of leaflets to thousands of Jewish Americans asking them where their allegiance would lie in the event of a real crisis between the US and Israel. The leaflet was originally endorsed by representatives of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. When Netanyahu learned of this endorsement he directed the ministry to disassociate itself from the questionnaire.

I think it’s reasonable to assume he was worried by the prospect of the survey indicating that in the event of a showdown between himself and President Obama, a majority of Jewish Americans would be Americans first and not Israel firsters.

Is Alan Hart Running Cover For AIPAC?? By Brother Nathanael Kapner

“Is Alan Hart Running Cover For AIPAC? IS ALAN HART A JEW?… “asked Brother Nathanael Kapner, “I don’t know if he is or not but he sure sounds like one.” he answered.

Like Brother Nathanael Kapner, idon’t know if Alan Hart is a Jew, but taking into consideration Alan’s claim that he probably the “only person on Planet Earth who enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship” with, both Arafat, “Father Palestine”, and Golda Maer, “Mother Israel”, I would agree with brother Nathanael Kapner, Mr. hart sounds like a Jew.

Mr. Hart has devoted his time and energy to get “Father Palestine” and “Mother Israel together”. For many, many years, as typed under the above picture obtained from Alan’s site, he was Arafat’s LINKMAN with Peres, and I claim that Arafat is a Jew and his  mission was nothing but liquidation the Palestinian cause as the Arab’s central cause under the banner of “Palestinian Independent decision”, then,  under the bannar of “O’ we are alone (YA WAHDANA)” he, in OSLO, sold out 78% of Palestinian land and ended the first Intifada. Read my full comment here 

Moreover, as written under the second picture signed by Golda Meir. Mr. Hart is a good friend of Golda, “Mother Israel”. For thirty two years Mr. hart used the above signed picture as a protective shield against anti-Semitism accusation.



When I was accused of anti-Semitism, I would hold up the picture, read out Golda’s inscription, and say to my accuser – “Do you think that old lady was so stupid that she couldn’t have seen through me if I was anti-Jew!” That always won me the applause of the audience and its contempt for my accuser.”

  

Many Pro-Palestinians Activists consider Mr. Hart as a “great friend” of Palestine, yes a “great friend”, who don’t dare to say Israel or Zionism is a cancer, Instead he wrote The Israeli-Palestinian crisis is a cancer at the heart of international affairs that has the potential to consume us all unless it’s cured. Every man, woman and child has a stake in it.”

Thirty two years ago, at a point frightened, Alan interrupted Mother Israel to say:

“Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying… You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?” “Without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need, Golda replied, “Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.” “

Therefor, to save the world, actually to save the dommed Zionism Enterprise, Palestinians and Arabs should surrender.  Surrender or face the Samson option

Israeli nuclear plant at Dimona, left. Two Mordechai Vanunu photos at right.


“In his article Palestine does not have to be a lost cause, Alan Hart advices Palestinian that the only way to save their “lost cause” is by declaring to their occupiers “… we will never accept anything less than a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation, as required by UN Security Council resolutions and international law.”

WRONG MR Alan Hart … WRONG

Nothing short of FULL LIBERATION of Palestine is acceptable to us, Palestinians” cried Nahida, the exiled Palestinian.

“Our friend wants the Palestinians to attest their good-intention publicly, once and for all and demonstrate to the world and to the occupiers of their lands that they are only interested in peace, they “should” reassure their rapist murderers, “in the most explicit terms” that they want to “live in permanent peace” with a “Jewish state” encroached over 80% of their land!! In other words, Palestinians are strongly advised by our friend to pull their acts together, organize, unite and hurry up, sign the statement he prepared for them in which they sign off permanently their RIGHTS to their OWN historic land of Palestine. Furthermore, he wants the Palestinians to declare publicly and permanently that they are giving up their right of return!
These are precisely the demands of our enemy!


Total Surrender, nothing less nothing more, and that’s at a time when the Palestinian struggle and resistance are finally gaining global support and momentum.

By doing so, Mr. Hart reflects better his domain of interest and expertise; namely zionists and “israelis”, but not Palestine or Palestinians.
Had he any real knowledge of Palestinians, he would’ve known that Palestinians do NOT surrender. Nahida the exiled  Palestinian
I disagree with sister Nahida, Mr. Hart have real knowledge of Palestinians, moreover he is an expert in Zionism, the real enemy of the Jews.
In his “own” Gentile take”, or may be his own Jewish take, Mr. Hard quoted Vladimir Jabotinsky saying:  

“Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or it falls by the question of armed force. It is important to speak Hebrew but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonization. 

“To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer – absolutely untrue. This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes – not for any sweet words nor for any tasty morsel, because this (the Palestinians) is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall.”

Having read almost all Articles written by Alan Hart, I would say he is doing his best “to kill the faintest hope for the” Palestinians, and “remove every opening in the Iron Wall”. He like, Jabotinsky, knows that the zionist project “stands or it falls by the question of armed force”, and that is exactly what Nasser said: What was taken by force can only be restored by force 

Therefore, for Mr. Hart, the armed resistance is not an option, and Alan hart will never stop bluffing Palestinians.

Alan, the fake friend of Palestine and the good friend of Israel as “Mother Israel” called him, has shown his true face, he was for two state solution and when the “UN General Assembly recognized of Palestine as a non-member state, he found it, it does’t fit. 

As  the Palestinians are never going to surrender to Zionism’s will by accepting crumbs from its table,” Alan made a U-turn, and to avoid “a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine” Abbas should announce winding up the Palestine Authority and handing responsibility for the occupation back to Israel, “ he could say to the world something like this”:

 “We are truly grateful for this recognition of our rights and claim for justice, but we must also be realistic. Zionism has no interest in a two-state solution so we must move on. One state with equal rights for all is the only way of preventing a catastrophe for all.”

 Finally, it seemes that Brother Nathanael Kapner hit the nail and explained the nightmare of Mr. Hart, and why he is desperate to educate the “brain washed Jews”, why he issists to call anti-zionism, anti-Israelism, and explains his panic of “the rising global tide of anti-Israelism” will turn into “classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.”

=========

Is Alan Hart Running Cover For AIPAC?
December 21, 2012
___________________________________

IS ALAN HART A JEW?…I don’t know if he is or not but he sure sounds like one.
In his latest piece, “Obama’s Hegel Test,” Hart just can’t bring himself to identify AIPAC as a “Jewish Lobby” but rather a group of individuals “made up of all faiths.”
I never knew that AIPAC was an ‘Inter-Faith Movement.’ Not once did I ever see an Episcopal priest or a Presbyterian minister pandering to the Jews on an AIPAC podium.
Hart would also have us believe that AIPAC enjoys the membership of Baptist Zionists, for these are the REAL so-called “Christian Zionists.”

What a joke! The Jews who fund, lead, and make up the operating body of AIPAC actually DESPISE Baptists dear Alan. I never saw Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson headlining a single AIPAC Conference.

And any ‘GOYS’ associated with AIPAC (believe me, they’re NOT part of the funding or operating body) are either useful idiots, Gentile window dressing, or CRASS opportunists.

ALAN HART is an inconsequential author who penned the book, “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews.”

My immediate response to the title was, “Is Alan Hart running cover for the Jews?” For MOST would agree that Zionism is the enemy of the Palestinians, NOT Jews.

This is why I suspect that Alan Hart is a Jew himself.

For those few Jews who oppose Zionism, (Gilad Atzmon is an exception who has the guts to NAME the “Jewish Lobby” as a pernicious force), seem to care more about what’s good or bad for the Jews and NOT what’s good or bad for the Gentiles. (Gilad Atzmon recently did an article on this very theme.)

Hart’s central argument is that ‘Zionism is not Judaism.’ Again, is Hart running cover for the Jews?

Believe me, for I grew up as a Jew, Zionism IS Judaism and Judaism IS Zionism. If not, then why did we declare at every Passover meal, “Next Year in Jerusalem!”

And why did we sing, “Hatikvah,” Israel’s national anthem, at EVERY Sabbath service?

Was it because Judaism is NOT Zionism? No way! Mr Hart is fooling us all.

Alan Hart’s piece revolves around Obama’s pending nomination of Chuck Hegel as Secretary of Defense who once said, “the Jewish Lobby intimidates a lot of people in Congress.”

Hart quotes Jewish shill, Senator McCain, who in response to Hagel replied, “I know of no Jewish Lobby.” And neither does Hart. For Hart argues that AIPAC does not represent all Jews.

FACT IS, (for I grew up as a Jew), MOST Jews DO INDEED support AIPAC, if not overtly, then tacitly.

Your run of the mill Jew (if there is such a thing) is very careful not to let the Goyim know that his allegiance is FIRST to Israel and NOT to America.

And those few Jews who don’t agree with AIPAC’s agenda would rather keep their views to themselves.
Why offend their fellow tribe members? Why get kicked out of the synagogue? You can count on one hand courageous Jews like Gilad Atzmon who vociferously oppose the power of AIPAC, that is, the JEWISH Lobby.

BOTTOM LINE: The intimidating power of BILLIONS of dollars, media influence, and the organizational track, finds JEWS at the very center.

To advance the lie that AIPAC is only marginally connected to the Jewish community is a deceptive ploy to let American Jewry, whose loyalty is to a foreign nation, off the hook.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Corbett Report Radio – How to outgrow the government with Andrew Gavin Marshall
http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-245-how-to-outgrow-the-government-with-andrew-gavin-marshall/

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Alan hart bluffing Palestinians Again: "The Palestinians’ only option"

On July 27, 2010, Alan Hart, “a friend and supporter of Palestine”, invited ALL Palestinians, at home and in Diaspora with all their political shades, factions and affiliations to unite and “call israel’s bluff”. In his analysis the Palestinians now have only one option. Alan writes:

“They could do so with a joint Fatah-Hamas statement to something like this effect: “We cannot and will not recognise Israel’s “right” to exist because it has no such right, but we are a pragmatic people and we hereby declare that we are prepared to recognise and live in permanent peace with the reality of an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states… We further declare that our pragmatism extends to accepting that the right of the dispossessed Palestinians to returnmust and will be confined to the Palestinian state, which means that many of those who wish to return will have to settle for compensation for the loss of their homes and their land.”

A week later, sister Nahida,ed Palestinian asked  Who is trying to bluff the Palestinians?
REAL friends of Palestine should NEVER insist or even ask that Palestinians recognize “israel”?
Read Nahida exposing Alan’s bluff here
—-
Now, two years later, when Hamas leadership (Mishaal) backed by the international Brotherhood gave the (PA), the green light to go for vote on recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, the “brilliant magician, bases of his well known “good” name, drawn out of his sleeve, the one state solution card to obtain recognition by temptation and persuasion and close the so-called Palestinian file. 
Why?
The “UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine as a non-member state” does’t  fit, ansewred Alan arafat’s linkmam with Peres.

Why?

“As things are and look like going, and given that the Palestinians are never going to surrender to Zionism’s will by accepting crumbs from its table, the only alternative to one state for all is a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That might buy Zionism some more time for the short term, but in the longer term it would most likely guarantee that the rising global tide of anti-Israelism was transformed into classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.” 

Again, Alan, the fake friend of Palestine and the real friend of Israel as “Mother Israel” called him,  show his true face, “the rising global tide of anti-Israelism” will turn into “classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.”
In other words, Alan’s concern is preventing Holocaust II, not the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Again, as Nahida said two years ago, Mr. Hart uses the carrot and the stick to bring Palestinians to line and trap them to surrender their rights and land, once and for all.” AS if zionist would accept the one state solution proposed by PLO faction since 1967.
Alan said :

“When announcing that he was winding up the Palestine Authority and handing responsibility for the occupation back to Israel, he could say to the world something like this: “We are truly grateful for this recognition of our rights and claim for justice, but we must also be realistic. Zionism has no interest in a two-state solution so we must move on. One state with equal rights for all is the only way of preventing a catastrophe for all.”

In Alan’s proposal, like in his previous proposal there is place for diaspora Palestinians.
In his  anal-ysis the Palestinians now have only one option.

For starters it requires the PLO to recognize and declare that the two-state solution is dead (not least because no Israeli prime minister is going to trigger a Jewish civil war in order to end the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem).

The next step should be winding up the Palestine Authority and handing total responsibility for the occupation back to Israel.
That would open the door to what I believe to be the only viable strategy for the Palestinians if they are ever to obtain justice.
With the two-state solution not only dead but formally buried, they could then campaign, with growing global support, for equal rights and security for all in one state (all of pre-1967 Israel plus all of the West Bank plus the Gaza Strip).

In one or two decades at the most, because the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews, one state would mean the end of Zionism, but it would also open the door to real security for the one state’s Jews.

 I shall not spoil more time on Alan’s brand new bluff, serving “nothing but to finalize the zionist project by achieving the permanent Jewish conquest of Palestine.”
Now read Francis Boyle a leading expert in International Law and a true friend of Palestine:

“After twenty-two years of getting nowhere but further screwed to Israel’s apartheid wall on the West Bank and strangulated in Gaza, it is now time for the Palestinians to adopt a new strategy, which I most respectfully recommend here for them to consider:

Sign nothing and let Israel collapse! Recently it was reported that the United States’ own Central Intelligence Agency predicted the collapse of Israel within twenty years. My most respectful advice to the Palestinians is to let Israel so collapse!

For the Palestinians to sign any type of comprehensive peace treaty with Israel would only shore up, consolidate, and guarantee the existence of Zionism and Zionists in Palestine forever.”

Why would the Palestinians want to do that?

“Without approval by the Palestinians in writing, Zionism and Israel in Palestine will collapse. So the Palestinians must not sign any Middle East Peace Treaty with Israel, but rather must keep the pressure on Israel for the collapse of Zionism over the next two decades as predicted by the Central Intelligence Agency.” 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
 

THE PALESTINIAN SPRING: A New OSLO UNDER COOKING IN CAIRO

In an Inteview with Dam Press, General Amin Htait said:



I was amazed today by the flood of praise Mishaal to the Emir of Qatar using the liseners as if the resistance missiles hitting Tel Aviv were Qatari made.

The conspiracy against the resistance in Gaza, today, is similar to that carried out by Palestinian and Arab hands in the West Bank to liquidate the resistance.

I am afraid that there will be a new Oslo, a new PA, and security coordination on the horizon giving the bread and taking the land and identity of the Palestinians.
The hope of foiling the plan, and continueing the confrontation depends on the honorable resistance fighters in Gaza who were not fooled by the lie of Arab spring.
 

Let us remember the pre-Oslo stage, and how Fatah hawks, Abu Jihad, Abu Iyad, Abu Al-houl, who could have been an obstacle to the settlement between the Arafat and the Israelis, has been eliminated. More here

Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Rumhi Legislative Council member of the Hamas movement, Said on Monday, that if Israel wanted to live in peace in the Middle East region, it should open negotiations and dialog with the leadership of the Hamas movement.

The Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has said that peace cannot be achieved in either Palestine or the region without the involvement of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas.

“No war without Egypt, no peace without Syria.” — Henry Kissinger

In an interview conducted by Speigel news magazine on Jan,15  2009 with President Assad,

SPIEGEL asked : “Mr. President….No one in the Arab world has as much influence on Hamas as you do. Couldn’t you have tempered the fighters?”


Assad replied:

“It always depends on how one uses one’s influence. Our most urgent objective is to stop the attack. The fighting must come to an end, and this applies to both sides. In addition, the Israeli embargo against Gaza must end, because sealing the borders is strangling the population. The blockade is a slow death. People don’t just die as a result of bombs, but also because their supplies of medications and food are cut off.”

Two years later, after the so-called Arab spring” Assad lost his on the ungratfull leadership of Hamas, he hosted and protected, and ….No one in the Arab world has as much influence on Hamas political leadership as Qatar do.  

According to Syria Truth, Syria have well documentation proving that the security official for “Hamas” in Damascus Kamal Hosni Ghanajah, known as Nizar Abu Mujahid,” and who was assassinated in Damascus in June last year, was running terrorist operations funded by Qatar on Syrian territory…  

In his Visit to Gaza says before the Israeli Pillar of cloud, the Emir of Qatar told Palestinians:

“Your resistance camp isn’t resisting, and your peace camp isn’t negotiating, so why don’t you make up?”

The Emir of Qatar didn’t explain why there should be a reconciliation, or over what.

As the Emir is aware that the resistance camp has never stopped resisting, and whereas Hamas belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the parent organization’s current priorities do not include resistance, and whereas Hamas has become Hamasan, (Divided into two Hamas) one linked to resistance, and other overseas Hamas linked to Global Muslim Brotherhood, represented by Meshaal, the Emir dceided to bring the resisting Hamas to terms, as Arafat did on his long way towards OSLO.

Targeting senior resistance commanders such as Martyred Ahmad Jaabari at the time of the truce with Israel, rises doubts especially that his movements inside Gaza were highly confidential and known to a reliable limited number.
Jaabari was the military field commander of the main Palestinian faction whose excellent ties with Iran were not affected by the controversy between Hamas and Iran over Syria.


Was Jaabari liquidated after a Western – Israeli decision to bring Hamas, voluntarily into the circle of domestication after the elimination of the field hawks in preparation for OSLO II?

According to the Palestinian newspaper, Al-sbah, Ghassan Ben Jeddo, who has entered the stronghold of alQassam Brigades and met with the Martyr Jaabari before resigning from AlJazeera revealed that Al-Jazeera recruits western intelligence agents, not reporters. The channel bears the responsibility of the assassination of martyr Jaabari through giving the Zionists a detailed report on the trip he made to Gaza and his interview with AlJabari during the Israeli aggression on Gaza in 2008 and lengthy scenes were aired by the channel.

Ghassan Ben Jeddo explained that the same scenario was followed when his colleague Yusri Fuda met with Bin Ashiba the member of al Qaeda in Pakistan who was arrested by CIA a week later. Fuda resigned from Al-Jazeera and remained silent throughout the past period.

He added, according to the same newspaper he will not remain silent, as did his fellow Fuda and will expose Al Jazeera, which used, directly or indirectly, Broadcasters and reporters inteligence tools. [Bin Jeddo denied the story]

According to a report published by the Fars news agency, the Qatari emir’s visit to Gaza aimed at locating Hamas leaders. He distributed watches and ballpoint pens among Hamas leaders, which could transmit low-frequency signals to Israeli satellites. The Israeli military officials use the received signals to spot the high-tanking Hamas fighters, and launch assassination strikes on them.

Let us recall the story of Oslo I as told by Alan, the linkman beween Peres and “FATHER PALESTINE”.


My comments in green.


 “When Arafat agreed to participate in what I called a conspiracy for peace, he said this to me:


“You must understand that I am putting my life into your hands. If word of this leaks before I have something concrete to show for it, I will be assassinated.”

Some years later I discovered who the assassin would have been.

Over lunch in his home, I told Abu Iyad the story of my secret shuttle diplomacy between Arafat and Peres, and I ended by quoting what Arafat had said to me at the start of it – that he would be assassinated if word that he was engaged in dialogue with Peres through me leaked.

Abu Iyad said: He was telling you the truth. I would not have ordered anybody else to shoot him, I would have done it myself, with my own gun.”

The following day I told Arafat what Abu Iyad had said. He gave me a long, hard look. Then, in a very matter of fact voice, he said: I knew that. Abu Iyad would have been the one to do it.” (For those in this audience who may not be familiar with Fatah and PLO politics in 1980 when I started my secret, shuttle diplomacy, Abu Iyad was then the one in Fatah’s top leadership who believed that Arafat’s decision to continue the struggle by politics and diplomacy alone was wrong).


Who killed Abu Iyad and Abu Jihad “FATHER INTIFADA”?


The full, inside story of my shuttle diplomacy is in the forthcoming Volume 3 of the American edition of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. To wet your appetite for it, and before I get to the climax of my favourite Arafat story, I’ll tell you another because it illustrates how pragmatic, how flexible and how serious Arafat was in his effort to do business with Israel, in order to get an acceptable minimum of justice for his people.

( I would say in order to do his Task -selling Palestine )

At a point in my to’ing and fro-ing between Arafat in Beirut and Peres in Tel Aviv, I decided that we had made enough progress to suggest that they should have a secret, face-to-face meeting. I suggested it first to Arafat. (For background I should tell you that he was not consulting any of his leadership colleagues). When I put the idea to him, Arafat had only one question – What, really, were the prospects of Peres winning the next election and becoming prime minister? I said the expectation in Israel was that he would win. The polls were actually giving his Labour Party a more than 20% lead over Begin’s Likud. Arafat then said, Yes, I’ll meet with him.” He had only one condition. The meeting could not take place “anywhere on Arab soil”. I said that was no problem. I lived in a rural even remote part of southern England and the meeting could take place in my home. Arafat said, “You have tell me only where and when and I’ll be there“.

Mr. Hart failed to get the “Peace Partners” together, because the Israeli party was fearing treason accusation and Arafat was fearing assasination by Abu Iyad.

Therfore , I may conclude that 1982 War was needed by both Parties, Arafat used it to justify laying his gun and moving to Tunis in stead of SYRIA, and later, after getting rid of  Abu Iyad, Abu Jihad, and Abu Al-houl to tjustify selling out Palestine rights under the Slogan “‘Ya Wahdana” – (Oh, we are alone). 

In 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood took up arms against the regime in the city of Hama. Abu Ammar, who like many Fateh historic leaders was a former Muslim brother, tried to dip his bread in the Syrian dish, besides the ideological motivation to stand by the Muslim Brotherhood in their battle against Hafez al-Assad, the political motivation was not less clear. Abu Ammar wanted to embarrass Sadat and “Camp David, but as a broker, and his best available entrance was playing within the “House of Hafez al-Assad” himself!

For weapon, he had assumed his command Brigadier “Abu Taan” (Mustafa Dib Khalil), leader of the “Palestinians armed struggle force” in Lebanon, who built his “land bridge” to supply “Islamic fighting gangs” with weapons across the Syrian-Lebanese border….
gFor the car bombs, Arafat assigned “Abdullah Abbasi” Abu Amjad, well known to Syrian political detainees who were in Sednaya military prison during the nineties…..

Connecting the dots, and taking into consideration, that Hamas accused Islamic Jihad for Implication of Hamas, since the beginning, in the ongoing confrontation with Israel to serve Iranian agendas Syria, I think General Htait hit the nail in saying:  The war against Gaza, if successful, God forbid could be called in future the war to extend the authority of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Arab world, the alternative homeland war. But,  the probability of success of this satanic plan is limited due to several considerations, including Palestinian heterogeneity and field capacity of the resistance factions in Gaza that may make the task of Hamas in the domestication and taming resistance, a difficult task. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Crucial Update: Netanyahu Says No to Ground Operation

  

By Gilad Atzmon

Ynet reported a few hours ago that Netanyahu gave private assurances to US President Obama that Israel is not planning a ground operation in Gaza yet.

“According to two American officials who were briefed on the phone conversation between Netanyahu and Obama, the PM said Israel  would not consider a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza unless there was escalation from Hamas or an attack that caused significant casualties.” 

The verdict is clear, PM Netanyahu tries to avoid his predecessors’ mistakes. But can he? The Israelis want to see blood, they are desperate for a victory, they want to see Gaza and the Hamas wiped out.

Interestingly enough, Israel and Netanyahu’s paralysis is the natural and inevitable outcome of the Jewish collective obsession with power. They can kill, they can destroy, they can deliver misery to the entire region but for some reason they never prevail.   

By the time they win the battle they are shocked to find out that they’ve lost the war.


The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, Jewish political interest and Israeli collective psychosis..
 Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

————————-

Comment By Alex

I agree with Gilad, for some reason they never prevail, and would add that reason was the Arab resistance, yes the ARAB RESISTANCE that started three decades before the so-called “Independence”. According to Alan Hart, in 1948, they assumed that with the massacres, and expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians, they may close the “Palestinian file” as called by British Alan Hart, the Linkman of Perez with Father Palestine (Arafat), according to Alan opened the file in 1965.  

 

In fact the Palestinian file was never closed, it was the core of the Arab Nationalists Movement, and Arafat ‘s real mission, especially, after closing the Arab nationalisn file (between 1961-1967 and piosoning Nasser), was closing the Palestinian file for ever. Read my comments, here, and here

“The old will die and the young will forget” those are the words of Ben Gurion regarding the victims of Israel’s first ethnic cleansing campaign.

 Sixty-four years later, some wondered what made him think so.

Sixty-four years later, some still wonder why despite the numerous United Nations resolutions and world condemnations, Israel’s impunity still prevails, and why the young never forget, never lost the hope and the determination that one day return they will return and prevail. To kill the the old and the young the Zionists invaided Lebanon committed Sabra and Satila massacre Palestinian to kill their hope and determination.  

On the other hand, George Galloway wonders how and why the Arab Armies are fighting to protect the Sykes–Picot Agreement’s borders 

As an uprooted Palestinian who lived in Bent Jbeil between 1948 and 1955, I know why, out of sudden, the Lebanese army deport me and all Palestinians from the Lebanese border zone, to north of Litani river, why Palestinians till now need a security pass to reach the border zone, except on occasions.  

In calling Arafat the Father Palestine, Alan Hart ignored, George Habash, the real Father of Arab resistance and unity, and Nasser, the Arab nationalist hero.

 

History has taught us, that the Sykes–Picot regimes and their league, only convene to maintain Sykes–Picot borders and the Zionist entity.   

Yes as Gilad pointed “The Israelis want to see blood, they are desperate for a victory, and they want to see Gaza and the Palestinian wiped out.”

However, two decades ago, Rabin hoped that the sea swallows Gaza and its people. But once again the besieged strip proves to be the graveyard of “Israeli” soldiers and hopes.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth

Mr. Linkman, as usual is not telling the whole story. He claims that 1967 war was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the majority of the Jews of the world, who prefere to live not in Israel.

In fact, nothing significant changed after 1967,  in the relation of the zionist entity with the Jews of the world, the majority of world Jews, including the zionist lobbies still belive that they may serve the zionist entity better by staying in their chosen places.

The real turning point was not the 1967 war, it poisoning Nasser that lead to Camp david, and Oslo the “great achievement” of “Father Palestine”.Moreover, the linkman is not telling the complete truch in saying that Israel’s military and political hawks set a trap for Nasser; and he walked into it, with eyes half-open. 

The linkman ignored that the so-called regeneration Palestinian nationalism started by “Father Palestine” on 1958, at the peak of Arab nationalism, three years before the Syrian Seperation coup funded by Saudia to undermine the Nationalists option, and bost Fatah and its Palestinian Option, was the real trap, that lead to 1967 war, and paved the way to  Islamic congress organization, and later to camp david, Camp David, May 17 peace treaty with Lebanon, Oslo and Wadi Araba.

The linkman ignored that the historical Muslim brotherhood with America going back to 1953, and the fact that many of Fateh founders were Muslim brothers.

President Eisenhower in the Oval Office with Muslim delegates,
1953, after July revolution.
Said Ramadan, the Son in-law of Hassan Al-Bana the founder of
Brotherhood, is second from the right.
في أقصي اليمين سعيد رمضان في ضيافة أيزنهاور داخل البيت الأبيض


The 1967 war paved the way to:

Here, let us remember that Nasir’s rejected Baghdad Pact , known as Dwight Eisenhower‘s Project, to contain the Soviet Union by having a line of strong states along the USSR’s southwestern frontiercontain.

Nasser felt that the pro-western Baghdad Pact posed a threat to Arab Nationalism. As a response, Egypt and Syria united into the United Arab Republic. At that time, 1958 Syria was as described by Patrick Seal, a feather in wind storm. It is Nasir who protected Syria from the wind storm blowing from Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon.

The United Arab Republic boasted 1958 revolution in Iraq.

On July 14, 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The new government was led by General Abdul Karim Qasim who withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, opened diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and adopted a non-aligned stance; Iraq quit the organization shortly thereafter. The organization dropped the Baghdad Pact moniker in favor of CENTO at that time.”

“The toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution, along with the internal instability, caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance.”

The United Arab Republic boasted also in the same year, 1958, the setting up of the first cells of the Fateh movement in Kuwait

The formation of Fatah was the first nail driven in the coffen of Arab nationalist movement at its 1958 peak, and 1967 defeat and the death (poisoning) of Nasir were the last nails.
 Assisted by the regeneration Palestinian nationalism, which became the tail that wagged the Arab dog despite the brutal efforts of the intelligence services of the frontline Arab states to prevent it happening, Israel’s military and political hawks set a trap for Nasser; and he walked into it, with eyes half-open,

 The lies about the 1967 war are still more powerful than the truth

by Alan Hart
Tuesday, June 5th, 2012      

In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war, the Six Days War, was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations).
Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of who were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.

six day war

So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel?

Part of the answer is in a single word – pride. From the Jewish perspective there was indeed much to be proud about. Little Israel with its small but highly professional defence force and its mainly citizen army had smashed the war machines of the frontline Arab states in six days. The Jewish David had slain the Arab Goliath. Israeli forces were in occupation of the whole of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory), the West Bank including Arab East Jerusalem (Jordanian territory) and the Golan Heights (Syrian territory). And it was not much of a secret that the Israelis could have gone on to capture Cairo, Amman and Damascus. There was nothing to stop them except the impossibility of maintaining the occupation of three Arab capitals.
But the intensity of the pride most Jews of the world experienced with Israel’s military victory was in large part a product of the intensity of the fear that came before it. In the three weeks before the war, the Jews of the world truly believed, because (like Israeli Jews) they were conditioned by Zionism to believe, that the Arabs were poised to attack and that Israel’s very existence was at stake and much in doubt.
The Jews of the world (and Israeli Jews) could not be blamed for believing that, but it was a big, fat propaganda lie. Though Egypt’s President Nasser had asked UNEF forces to withdraw, had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and had reinforced his army in the Sinai, neither his Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel. And Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that.
In short, and as I detail and document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the offensive Israel launched at 0750 hours (local time) on Monday 5 June was not a pre-emptive strike or an act of self-defence. It was a war of aggression.
The summary truth about that war is this.
Assisted by the regeneration Palestinian nationalism, which became the tail that wagged the Arab dog despite the brutal efforts of the intelligence services of the frontline Arab states to prevent it happening, Israel’s military and political hawks set a trap for Nasser; and he walked into it, with eyes half-open, in the hope that the international community, led by the Johnson administration, would restrain Israel and require it and Egypt to settle the problem of the moment by diplomacy. From Nasser’s perspective that was not an unreasonable expectation because of the commitment, given by President Eisenhower, that in the event of the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt to Israeli shipping, the U.S. would work with the “society of nations” to cause Egypt to restore Israel’s right of passage, and by so doing, prevent war.
A large part of the reason why today rational debate about making peace is impossible with the vast majority of Jews everywhere is that they still believe Egypt and the frontline Arab states were intending to annihilate Israel in 1967, and were only prevented from doing so by Israel’s pre-emptive strike.
If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Zionist state was not in danger was only that of a goy (a non-Jew, me), it could be dismissed by supporters of Israel right or wrong as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course.
On this 45th anniversary of the start of the Six Days War, here is a reminder of what they said.
In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows:

We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.

In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizmann, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
In a radio debate Peled also said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
In the same programme General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said:

There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.

On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for Le Monde. He wrote:

All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.

The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”
It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, almost all of them still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.
For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982.

In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Never ending Nakba

by Alan Hart
Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

Alan HartAs Ilan Pappe has said, most Israeli Jews have no idea of what they did to the Palestinians in 1948. (He also said that those who do know don’t think that what was done was wrong). But that’s only the tip of an iceberg of ignorance.

nakba
“One day I will go back to my grandfather’s home”

Because of the mainstream media’s complicity in Zionism’s suppression of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, most Americans and Europeans of all faiths and none have no idea of the enormity of Zionism’s crimes.

The Arabic word for what happened in the months before and after Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 is Nakba, meaning catastrophe. That’s a one word description of the fact that upwards of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were dispossessed of their land, their homes and their rights, but complete understanding requires knowledge of something else. Nakba was not simply an event in history. It is a process of ethnic cleansing, a process that has been on-going for 64 years to date and is continuing.
A timely reminder of this fact was contained in an article for the web site This Week in Palestine by Ibrahim Matar, an economist writing from Jerusalem.

He opened his piece by quoting a statement made by Ra’anan Weitz, the director of the Jewish Agency’s Settlement Department in 1948. “I ploughed Palestine into earth by ordering the demolition of 300 abandoned Palestinian villages from the Negev to the Galilee.” (The quotation was from an interview Weitz gave to the Jerusalem Post published on 7 March 1997).

Matar ended his piece with these words of his own:

The bottom line to the tragedy of the Palestinians is that the Catastrophe of 1948 is still going on, as Jewish colonisation of the West Bank continues to expand. The objectives of the Jews have not changed since the early part of the twentieth century. Their motto continues to be ‘dunum after dunum of land’ for the exclusive use of Jews.

The Jews claim that the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel. The fact is that the Jews have already literally destroyed Palestine, and in front of the watchful eyes of the world community represented by the Quartet, they continue with their policies and practices to complete the liquidation of the Palestinian presence in historical Palestine.

Question: Is completion of the liquidation of the Palestinian presence in historical Palestine really Zionism’s mission?

I believe the answer is “Yes”, and that unless the major powers led by America summon up the will to call and hold Zionism’s monster child to account for its crimes, there will be a final ethnic cleansing of Palestine at some point in a foreseeable future…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

How Long Can Jews Keep Supporting Their ‘Monster’ State Without Suffering a Global Backlash of Anti-Semitism?

Israeli children write messages on bombs to be fired into Lebanon

Leftwing-Christian.net

AIPAC’s annual policy conference is set to get underway this weekend in Washington. How nice it would be if at least a few of those attending might give some consideration to a bit of what Alan Hart presents in the following article. Me personally, I don’t have much hope of that happening, and as we all know, history often has a way of repeating itself. But of course the prospect of being pleasantly surprised is a door one might leave open for as long as one can.

In this article, Hart is addressing something I think a lot of people, myself included, have been wondering about, namely how long can Israel continue its aggressive policies of wars, land theft, and apartheid without igniting a backlash of worldwide anti-Semitism, one with possible catastrophic effects on Jews living outside of Israel? It’s a good question, and Hart obviously has given the matter considerable thought. But I’d like to take the liberty, if I may, of tossing a few other questions up into the air—questions closely related to the first, but which Hart doesn’t address.

First of all, it isn’t only the Middle East where Israel’s behavior is causing problems. The dilemmas caused by the existence of this rogue state extend into virtually every country, or at least those in the West, where they are having a significant impact on the lives of local populations. People cannot help feeling outrage when they see their elected leaders shamelessly kowtowing to Jewish lobbies. This is becoming increasingly true in the US, and I’m sure the same is happening in Britain, France, and other countries where powerful Israeli lobbies subvert public will. But of course it is especially ongoing in America—where the very leaders who are giving billions away to Israel—and spending trillions to fight Israel’s wars—are calling for the dismantling of Social Security and cutbacks in public education. At some point people are going to start putting two and two together (despite the lack of funding for our schools), and when they do they’re going to realize that the source of the problem is not Iran and it’s not Syria. The source of the problem is Israel—along with the domestic Jewish PACs and lobbies, and their network of supporters, who keep the money to the Zionist state flowing. We’re of course talking about tax dollars that could be going to provide health care for Americans, jobs programs, schools, and affordable higher education. How long before people start blaming the Israeli lobby for the lack of these things? There are countless sites on the internet run by people who have already figured these things out—with more going up every day—and it’s only a question of time before the rest start to catch on as well.
 
Hart says he believes the only way of heading off what he refers to as “Holocaust II” may be for American and European Jews to publicly distance themselves from Israel. What he doesn’t mention, though, is that the majority of Jews not only remain silent in the face of Israeli crimes, they actually go on funding the pro-Israel lobbies and PACS in their respective countries. And this is the crux of the matter. This is what’s fueling the anger and causing people to question whether there really is the distinction between “Zionism” and “Judaism” Hart claims there is.
 
Another thing is I don’t think simply “distancing” themselves is going to cut it. What is needed is a call for a dismantling of the state of Israel along with a total abandonment of the enterprise of operating lobbies and PACs on its behalf. If Jews want to lobby for health care, or an end to war, or even lobby for this or that industry, fine. But spending your efforts lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, particularly one which has caused so much harm, is not going to endear you to your fellow citizens.
 
Granted, publicly calling for a complete dismantling of the Jewish state (or what refers to itself by that name) may be a difficult thing for some Jews to do. If that is the case, then here’s my alternate suggestion: enthusiastic support—by a majority of Jews—for the one state solution. Simply put, it’s one person—one vote—all encompassed in one state. This is democracy. This is what you need to call for if you can’t bring yourself to voice the other.
 
But this isn’t what’s happening, at least not to any appreciable degree. Instead we see Jews calling for more and more wars, more and more aid for Israel, and carrying out “anti-Semite” witch hunts against those who object. All of which makes you wonder: what exactly are these “Jewish values” we hear so much about and which Hart alludes to? Can someone define them? And when the values, if they exist, come into conflict with certain doctrines in the Talmud, which one trumps the other and gives birth to the “monster” Hart talks about? Questions for pondering—although I’m not sure a majority of Jews are capable of such self-reflection. And on that score, Hart, too, seems to have his doubts.

Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable?

By Alan Hart

The Gentile me believes this question needs to be addressed because there is a very real danger that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism, which is being provoked by Israel’s terrifying arrogance of power and sickening self-righteousness, will be transformed into anti-Semitism unless two things happen.
The notion that anti-Israelism could be transformed into anti-Semitism is not new. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence, gave this warning:
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.”
The fact that (pre-1967) Israel is a Zionist not a Jewish state – how could it be a Jewish state when a quarter of its citizens are Muslims (mainly) and Christians? – in no way diminishes Harkabi’s message.
He was, in fact, treading a quite well worn path. Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, and as I document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, most Jews, eminent American and British Jews especially, were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise in Palestine. They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arab and wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way, it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.
Today, in my opinion, it can be said that Zionism wants and needs anti-Semitism in order to justify anything and everything its monster child does.
So what are the two things that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism (assuming as I do that the Zionist state is not going to change course in the direction of peace)?
One is that the mainly Gentile citizens of the Western world among whom most Jews live become aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism, and thus why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hardest core Zionist few in Israel. The difference can be simply stated. Like mainstream Christianity and mainstream Islam, mainstream Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles. Zionism, which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by ethnic cleansing and terrorism, is without moral values and ethical principles. Its driving ideology, conditioned by Jewish experience of persecution on-and-off down the centuries, is that might is right. Mainstream Judaism and Zionism are, in fact, total opposites. (In April one of the anti-Zionist Jews I most admire, Nazi holocaust survivor Dr. Hajo Meyer, is giving a talk in Luxembourg with the title How Israel betrayed all the human values of Judaism).
In the paragraph above I insist on the term “few” in Israel being to blame because the truth is that most Israeli Jews have been brainwashed by their leaders. (As the headline over an article by Gideon Levy for Ha-aretz put it on 5 February, Israelis should be afraid of their leaders, not Iran). Most Israeli Jews are, for example, totally unaware that the vast majority of Palestinians and most Arabs everywhere have been ready for many years for peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief.
The other thing that must happen if anti-Israelism is not to be transformed into anti-Semitism stems from the fact, perhaps I should say overwhelming probability, that no American president is ever going to be free to use the leverage he has to oblige the Zionist state to be serious about peace because of the Zionist lobby’s control of policy for Israel-Palestine in Congress.
So as things are Israel is a nuclear-armed monster beyond control. (From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”)
On reflection it seems to me that whether or not anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism will depend not only on the Westerners among whom most Jews live understanding why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the few, but also on what the Jews of the world, European and American Jews especially (I mean the majority of them), do from here on.
In my view they have two options.
OPTION 1 is to stay silent which, at this moment in time, is still the preferred option of most European and American Jews.
That said it has to be acknowledged that recent years have seen an increase in the number of Jewish groups which are critical of Israel’s polices and, in some cases, have even endorsed the call of Palestinian civil society for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. But the voices these groups represent are those of only a minority of Jews.
On the debit side of this particular balance sheet is also the fact that by limiting their campaigns to calls for an end to Israel’s occupation to make the space for a two-state solution, most if not all of the “progressive” (critical of Israel) Jewish groups are demonstrating that they are out of touch with or don’t want to recognise the reality on the ground in Israel-Palestine. The reality is that Israel’s still on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank has made a two-solution impossible. It is not yet formally buried but it is dead.
My own understanding of why began with a private conversation I had with Shimon Peres in early 1980. At the time he was the leader of Israel’s main opposition Labour party and seemed to be well placed to win Israel’s next election and deny Menachem Begin and his Likud party a second term in office – an outcome for which President Carter was praying. After learning that Carter had said behind closed doors that institutional diplomacy could not solve the Palestine problem because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress and that what was needed was some informal and unofficial diplomacy, my purpose was to invite Peres to participate in a secret and exploratory dialogue with PLO chairman Arafat with me as the linkman. The idea was that if we could use the 18 months or so before Israel’s next election to get agreement in principle on the way to the two-state solution to which Arafat’s PLO was by then committed, Peres and Arafat could begin to do the business for real when Peres became prime minister. (I was aware that a two-state solution would not provide the Palestinians with full justice, but at the time I shared the hope of those, including Arafat, who believed it was not impossible that within a generation or two the peace of a two-state solution could open the door to One State for all by mutual agreement, thus allowing all Palestinians who wanted to return to do so).
Peres welcomed the idea of an exploratory dialogue with Arafat with me as the linkman, but at a point in our conversation before I went off to Beirut to secure Arafat’s agreement to participate, he, Peres, said, “I fear it is already too late.”
I asked him why.
He replied: “Every day sees new bricks on new settlements. Begin knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s stuffing the West Bank with settlers to create the conditions for a Jewish civil war because he knows that no Israeli prime minister is going down in history as the one who gave the order to the Jewish army to shoot Jews (in order to end the occupation).” Pause. “I’m not.”
Question: If it was too late in 1980 when they were only about 70,000 illegal Jewish settlers on the West Bank, how much more too late is it today when the number of illegal Jewish settlers is in excess of 500,000 and rising, and the political influence of Israel’s religious fanatics and other bigots is growing?
In the words of an old English cliché, Jewish groups which are critical of Israeli policy but limit their effort to calling for an end to Israeli occupation are flogging a dead horse.
My considered Gentile take on why most Jews are silent on the matter of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and denial of their rights is in my book. For this post I’ll make only two brief points.
One is that deep down, if only in their sub-consciousness, most Jews fear (in large part because they are conditioned by Zionism to fear) that there will one day be another great turning against them. Holocaust II. So they perceive Israel as their refuge of last resort, and they tell themselves they must say nothing, do nothing, that could undermine Israel and put their insurance policy at risk.
The other, no doubt related, is that private discussion about publicly criticising Israel or not can and does tear Jewish families as well as communities apart. So for the sake of at least the appearance of Jewish unity it’s best not to discuss the matter.
The problem with Jewish silence is that it’s not the way to refute and demolish a charge or assertion of complicity in Zionism’s crimes. So continued silence by the majority of European and American Jews is most likely to assist the transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism.
OPTION 2 is for the Jews of the world to distance themselves from the Zionist state.
A most explicit statement of this as a possible option was made in October 2001 by Dr. David Goldberg, the prominent, widely respected, liberal London rabbi and author of a popular introduction to Judaism, The Jewish People, Their History and Their Religion. He dared to say, in public, “It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways.”
Eight years on the late Tony Judt, a professor of history at New York University and director of the Remarque Institute, put some flesh on that bone. British-born of a Jewish mother whose parents emigrated from Russia and a Belgian father who was descended from a line of Lithuanian rabbis, Judt started out as an enthusiastic Zionist. He helped to promote the migration of British Jews to Israel, and during the 1967 war he worked as a driver and translator for the IDF. But after that war, his belief in the Zionist enterprise began to unravel. “I went with the idealistic fantasy of creating a socialist, communitarian country through work, but I started to see that this view was remarkably unconscious of the people who had been kicked out of the country and were suffering in refugee camps to make this fantasy possible.”
In an article for the Financial Times on 7 December 2009, Judt wrote this:
“If the Jews of Europe and North America took their distance from Israel, as many have begun to do, the assertion that Israel was ‘their’ state would take on an absurd air. Over time, even Washington might come to see the futility of attaching American foreign policy to the delusions of one small Middle Eastern state. This, I believe, is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel itself. It would be obliged to acknowledge its limits. It would have to make other friends, preferably among its neighbors.”
For the sake of discussion there’s a case for saying that an Israel that was obliged by European and America Jews to acknowledge its limits might also be an Israel in which many Israeli Jews were prepared to open their minds to the wise words of one of their own – Avraham Burg. Between 1999 and 2003 he was the speaker of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset. By the end of his term in that office he was a leading advocate of the idea that Israel and a viable Palestinian state could coexist in peace. In August 2003 he wrote a most remarkable essay which was published in its original Hebrew by Yediot Aharonot and subsequently newspapers in Europe and America.
His lead point was that Israel had to “shed its illusions” and choose between “racist oppression and democracy.” The Jewish people, he wrote, “did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programmes or anti-missile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto nations. In this we have failed.”
And the following is what Burg had to say about Israel’s need to change course and the choices:
Here is what the prime minister should say to his people: the time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.
Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world’s only Jewish state – not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.
Do you want the greater land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let’s institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages.
Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse – or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements – all of them – and draw an internationally recognised border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish law of return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.
“Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. (Here, I note, Burg was being less than explicit about the consequences of Greater Israel giving full citizenship and voting rights to everyone. At the point not too far into the future when the Palestinian Arabs outnumbered the Jews of Greater Israel, Zionism would be voted out of existence. Palestine would effectively be de-Zionized, opening the door to One State for all).
The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire and suicide bombers or a recognised international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.
In my view Judt’s assumption that Israel “would” be obliged to acknowledge its limits if the Jews of Europe and America took their distance from it is questionable. Why? It’s rational, based on reason, and Israel’s deluded leaders are beyond reason. They are never going to shed their illusions and present the choices for Israel’s Jews in the terms outlined by Burg.
But the main argument for European and American Jews distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its policies is self-interest. By demonstrating that they were not complicit in Zionism’s crimes, they would be playing their necessary part in preventing anti-Israelism from being transformed into anti-Semitism.
But even if self-interest (in the context above) is the direction in which most European and American Jews might move, events on the ground suggest to me that the time left for them to decide whether or not to actually distance themselves from Israel is running out. And here is my brief summary of why.
Given their determination to keep for all time much if not all of the occupied West Bank (despite what they sometimes say to the contrary for propaganda purposes), Israel’s leaders have got to find a way to defuse the ticking, demographic time-bomb of occupation (the coming of the day when the Palestinians will outnumber the Jews of Greater Israel).
The evidence of the past 44 years is that Israel’s leaders believed they could do it in one of two ways.
One was by making life hell for the occupied Palestinians in the hope that very many of them would either give up their struggle in despair and accept crumbs from Zionism’s table – a few disconnected Bantustans which they could call a state if they wished; or, better still, abandon their homeland and seek new lives elsewhere. Neither of those two things happened or are going to happen.
The other was having in place a compliant, puppet, Palestinian leadership which could be bullied and bribed, with American assistance, into forcing its people to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table. It might be that Israel’s leaders still hope they can make this scenario work with Palestinian “President” Abbas or his successor, but it won’t work.
And that will leave them, Israel’s leaders, with only one way of defusing the demographic time-bomb of occupation – creating a pretext to drive the Palestinians off the West Bank and into Jordan, Syria or wherever. The final ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
I think that will be Zionism’s final solution to its Palestine problem. I also think that such an event will guarantee that the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism is transformed into anti-Semitism, meaning, as Harkabi warned, that Jews throughout the world will pay the price of Israel’s “misconduct”.
I’ll end by re-asking my headline question and giving it an explicit answer.
Is Holocaust II (shorthand for another great turning against the Jews) inevitable? Yes unless the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so. 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Alan Hart: ‘Israel makes Holocaust II inevitable’

“Alan’s article is very informative and surgical. However, it has a few historic mistakes. I pointed out some of those mistakes in my comment I left at his blog. However, for some reasons, Alan decided not to publish it. “

You are not the only one, he did the same with me. How you dare to say he commit historic mistakes.

Perez used him in the so called “Peace Conspiracy” to drag Arafat into Oslo trap.

For Alan History start with Holocaust, and there is no Solution other than recognizing Israel as Jewish nuclear state. He do theoritacly believe that that Israel should not exist, but, on ground, because they told him that if Israel goes down it would take the world with it, Israel should exist, and Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims should recognize Israel as a Jewish state to avoid the final ethnic cleansing of Palestine. For Alan Palestine is WB and Gaza . In other words Alan is calling for the final ethnic cleansing of Israeli Arabs to defuse the real demogrphic bomb.

Alan, like anti-zionist zionits, is not really concerned  about the Zionist monster occupying the world, he is worried because the global tide of anti-Israelism would turn into anti-Semitism, and makes a new Holocaust inevitable.

Alan Hart: ‘Israel makes Holocaust II inevitable’

 Posted on |

Alan Hart is a British news correspondent, author (Zionism: The Real Enemy of Jews) and blogger. He had interviewed several world leaders including Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, King Hussain of Jordan and US president Jimmy Carter. Gold Meir called Alan a “good friend”.
Alan Hart, who has been involved in Middle East conflict for over three decades, believes Israel has no right to exist. In August 2007, Alan wrote to then leader of British Opposition, Israel-Firster David Cameron: ““The Zionist state which came into being as a consequence of Zionism terrorism and ethnic cleansing had no right to exist and more to the point could have no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law, only the Palestinian could give Israel the legitimacy it craved“.
Alan’s latest article, entitled Is Holocaust II inevitable? is worth reading for both pro-Israelis and anti-Israelis. Alan Hart provides answer to his own question – that the only way Holocaust II can be avoided, “if the Jews of Europe and America distance themselves from the Zionist monster before it’s too late to do so“.
Alan’s article is very informative and surgical. However, it has a few historic mistakes. I pointed out some of those mistakes in my comment I left at his blog. However, for some reasons, Alan decided not to publish it.
For example, Alan keeps calling Israel “a Jewish State”, which is incorrect because it was never recognized as a Jewish state by its major sponsors, i.e. the US, USSR and UK. A copy of the document on left shows that US president Harry Truman had crossed the word “Jewish” from Israel’s name.
Alan also equates “anti-Israelism” with “anti-Smitism”, which is not true. The great majority of Zionist leaders, though born to Jewish mothers, were confirmed atheists. Furthermore, modern-day Jews are descendents of Asiatic Khazarian Turks or North African Berbers. They don’t belong to the Semite tribes of prophet Jacob (Israel).
Alan’s calling the next possible ethnic-cleansing of Jews due to the Zionazi policies of the state of Israel (and not by Muslim world policies) as “Holocaust II” is also incorrect. According to Jewish history, Jews have already went through two Holocausts. For example, Holocaust I is mentioned in Jewish Talmud (Gittin 57b): “Four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar – While Gittin 58a claims that sixteen million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. And then there is Holocaust II – the Judeo-Christian Nazi Holocaust of “Six Million Died”.
Here are some highlights from Alan Hart’s article:
  • Zionism wants and needs anti-Semitism in order to justify anything and everything its monster child does.
  • The Zionist state is not interested to live in peace with its neighbors.
  • On July 19, 1969, Henry Kissinger (a Zionist Jew and war criminal) then national security adviser, told President Richard Nixon that Israelis are “probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons“.

Alan refuses to accept the so-called “two-state solution” for the Occupied Palestine. “In the words of an old English cliché, Jewish groups which are critical of Israeli policy but limit their effort to calling for an end to Israeli occupation are flogging a dead horse,” he wrote.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

How about an international award for hypocrisy?

Whenever you read Alan Hart, remember, that Alan is a “Shalom” Activist, in other words, peace and security for Israel without Justice for Palestine in general and in particular the exiled Palestinians.

According to Gilad Atzmon Shalom mean peace and security for Israel.

I am not surprised with Alan, the Perez linkman with Arafat, criticizing the timing of the naive statement of William Hague,

“In the House of Commons he (Hague) pronounced Bashar al-Assad’s regime to be “doomed” because there is “no way it can recover its credibility.” That may very well be the case in the long term, but in my view that Hague statement was somewhat naive at the time he made it.”

For Alan, the Syrian “regime” is doomed since he started his little “peace conspiracy” with Perez and Arafat in late 1970’s. Hafez Assad died, but still living in Bashar. 

Alan should have realised that Kesinger was right when he said there is no peace without Syria. Fourty years passed, all attempts to change Syria failed. I wonder if Alan would live to wittness the fall of the last Arabs resistance fort. 

In his state of denial Alan claimed

“For its short to mid-term survival at the time of writing, and unless visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is seeking to engineer Bashar al-Assad’s departure from office in a face-saving way that will protect Russia’s interests, the Syrian regime doesn’t need credibility in the outside world. It needs only enough weapons and the will to go on killing its own people. (That said there can be no doubt that Bashar al-Assad and/or his Alawite generals took the Russian and Chinese vetoes as a green light to escalate the killing. Also to be noted is that Bashar al-Assad was not the only Arab leader to draw a particular conclusion from Mubarak’s downfall. “If our people take to the streets demanding regime change, shoot them!”).”

Btw, Sources close to Assad claimed that the first «double veto» was not co-ordinated with Damascus, and was a surprise, the Syrian leadership recived with great pleasure.

Moreover sources close to Al-Manar channel site claimed that Russians has always been in favour of military solution with the gunmen.

Only a stupid would think that “Lavrov is seeking to engineer Bashar al-Assad’s departure from office in a face-saving way that will protect Russia’s interests”

Look at the map, Alan, may be you would understand that Syria is so precious, and your Western Zionfied Countries can’t afford to pay, neither to Russia, nor to China. 

How about an international award for hypocrisy?

by Alan Hart


Arising out the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish chemist who invented dynamite, the Nobel Prize is universally recognized as the most prestigious award in the fields of peace-making, economics, chemistry, physics, medicine and literature. How about an international award – without the gold medal, the diploma and the money – for hypocrisy?

Such an award could be called the Lebon Prize (reversing Nobel).

NobeltoiletpaperIf there was such an award, the statements of European and American leaders in the immediate aftermath of Russia and China’s veto of the Security Council resolution to end the killing in Syria suggest two most obvious nominees for it.

One is William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary.
In the House of Commons he pronounced Bashar al-Assad’s regime to be “doomed” because there is “no way it can recover its credibility.” That may very well be the case in the long term, but in my view that Hague statement was somewhat naive at the time he made it. For its short to mid-term survival at the time of writing, and unless visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is seeking to engineer Bashar al-Assad’s departure from office in a face-saving way that will protect Russia’s interests, the Syrian regime doesn’t need credibility in the outside world. It needs only enough weapons and the will to go on killing its own people. (That said there can be no doubt that Bashar al-Assad and/or his Alawite generals took the Russian and Chinese vetoes as a green light to escalate the killing. Also to be noted is that Bashar al-Assad was not the only Arab leader to draw a particular conclusion from Mubarak’s downfall. “If our people take to the streets demanding regime change, shoot them!”)

But the particular Hague statement that prompts my suggestion that he be nominated for a Lebon Prize for hypocrisy was this one. By exercising their veto

Russia and China have placed themselves on the wrong side of Arab and international opinion.”

The obvious implication is that it’s not good politics and policy to be on the wrong side of that opinion. Really? Then how do we explain the fact that all the governments of the Western world, led by America, are on the wrong side of it because of their support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong – unending occupation, on-going ethnic cleansing and all? There is a one-word answer. Hypocrisy.

The second most obvious nominee for a Lebon Prize for hypocrisy is Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN. In condemning the Russian and Chinese vetoes, she said,

For months this Council has been held hostage by a couple of members.”

Given that for the Security Council has been held hostage for decades by American vetoes to protect Israel from being called to account for its crimes, that Rice statement is – what I can say without resorting to use of the “F” word? – hypocrisy most naked and taken to its highest level
No doubt readers will have other suggestions, probably many, for nominations for a Lebon Prize for hypocrisy.
Footnote

Free Nobel PrizeHague also condemned China and Russia for “betraying the Syrian people”. It apparently doesn’t matter that the British and all other Western governments have been betraying the Palestinians for decades. There really is no end and no limit to the hypocrisy.

The Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway, while the other prizes are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden. Baruch Aba Shalev, author of a book on the Nobel Prize, has said “the Nobel Prize has come to be regarded as the best-known and most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and economics

NobelpeacePrize

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

BBC censors own report on Tunisia’s Jews

by Alan Hart


There was a moment in a report from Tunisia by the BBC’s Wyre Davies when I could not stop myself laughing. I was listening to it on the Corporation’s generally excellent World Service radio. (In my view this particular BBC service is generally excellent because unlike all other BBC news and current affairs outlets, radio and tv, it often reflects some of the truth about what is happening in and over Palestine that became Israel).

Davies was in Tunisia to find out how its remaining 2,000 Jews (down from 300,000 once upon a time) were responding to a call from an Israeli government minister for them to move to Israel. The case the minister made was, apparently, that their security and wellbeing were no longer guaranteed in an Arab country with an Islamist government in place of what Davies called a

sectarian dictatorship”.

In other words, Tunisia’s Jews were in danger and would be safe in Israel. (My guess is that the greatest concern of the Israeli minister and his colleagues was less the fate of Jews in Tunisia and more the need for Jews from anywhere to go to Israel to help defuse the ticking demographic time-bomb of occupation).
The story as told by Davies for the BBC’s World (radio) Service was honest reporting at its best. Its explicit message was that Tunisia’s Jews have rejected the Israeli call.
One of those interviewed by Davies said to him and a listening world, “No one here is afraid.”
Another said,

Go to Israel?… I’m not crazy!”

That’s what made me laugh.
A subsequent development wiped the smile from my face.
A friend in Italy sent me a web link for the television version of the Davies report from Tunisia. I opened the link to check that it was the same report I’d heard on the World (radio) Service. It started in exactly the same way so I assumed it was, and I tweeted it as “MUST WATCH: Tunisia’s Jews reject (Israel’s) call to leave,”
An hour or so later I made the time to view the complete television version. The Jewish gentleman who said, “Go to Israel…? I’m not crazy!” had been edited out.
On past BBC form there are four possible explanations.

  1. Driven by a personal commitment to Zionism and support for its monster child right or wrong, a senior BBC executive ordered the quote to be dropped on his own initiative,
  2. A senior BBC executive received a telephone call from the Israeli Embassy in London, or possibly the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem, telling him or her that Israel would not be pleased if the BBC gave more air time to a Tunisian Jew who was saying “No” to Israel in a way that suggested he had some contempt for the Zionist state and thought that many Israelis were crazy.
  3. A senior BBC executive anticipated that giving the Jewish gentleman in Tunisia a wider audience would provoke Zionism’s wrath and decided (as BBC excutives often do) that it was better for the Corporation to censor itself than provoke that wrath.
  4. For reasons of limited space in a television news bulletin, the report for the World (radio) Service had to be edited, shortened.

I have to say that I consider the fourth possible explanation as summarized above to be the least likely one. Why? There are many very good journalists in the BBC and they know as well as I do that the single most revealing and therefore newsworthy statement in the original Davies report was that of the Jewish gentleman who said, “Go to Israel…? I’m not crazy!”

The censored (or edited) version of the Davies report can be found at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/world-africa-16805329
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Is Israel on the road to self-destruction?

Again and again Mr. Alan Hart is repeating the song (Blackmail): His friend “Mother Israel” told him:  “In a doomsday situation,” she said, “Israel would be prepared to take the region down with it.”
Is Israel on the road to self-destruction? Alan asked, though he knows the answer.

Israel is in a doomsday situastion, and Alan’s “nightmare” may come true.

To prevent Israel from destroying itself and taking the world with it, he involved him self in the what he called “Peace conspiracy” and served as a linkman between Arafat “Father Palestine” and Perez. Oslo is the bastard child of his peace conspiracy. After two decades Alan is still woried

On september, 2010, Mr. hart called the Saudi King to follow the advise of Thomas L. Friedman: “King Abdullah should invite Mr. Netanyahu to Riyadh and present it to him personally.”
He called Fatah-Hamas to declare in the most explicit terms, “we are a pragmatic people and we hereby declare that we are prepared to recognise and live in permanent peace with the reality of an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states… We further declare that our pragmatism extends to accepting that the right of the dispossessed Palestinians to return must and will be confined to the Palestinian state, which means that many of those who wish to return will have to settle for compensation for the loss of their homes and their land.” 

“Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?” He asked..
The more He think about this question, the more he is convinced that “there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world.”

SO PALESTINIANS SHOULD WAIT TILL JUDGEMENT DAY.

Who is trying to bluff the Palestinians?

by Alan Hart

One very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is ‘Yes’ is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote:

The Israeli government doesn’t want peace. There’s nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”

The headline over her latest article is Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. One of her main points is that Israel has never confronted the trauma of the Nazi holocaust and has

turned it into a placard in the service of the national trauma, to reinforce the constant existential fear and the aggressiveness that comes with it.”

Because what she wrote is so important, and in my view ought to be read by all peoples of all faiths everywhere who want to understand why the Zionist state is what it is, I am going to quote her at some length.

She wrote:

The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.
The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a forgone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).
The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust – which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.
So it is that we don’t have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That’s the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one’s surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.
What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.

I imagine that most if not all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere would welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing, but in my Gentile view it is not actually a prospect to be welcomed. Why not?
If there comes a time when it seemed to them that the Zionist state’s self-destruction was imminent, Israel’s leaders would respond in the same way as they would if their state was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield. As readers of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews know, that response was put into words by Golda Meir in the course of one of my BBC Panorama interviews with her when she was prime minister. In a doomsday situation, she said, Israel

would be prepared to take the region down with it.”

The question arising is something like this. Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?

The more I think about this question, the more I am convinced that there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world. But that must be the subject of another post and I will welcome thoughts from others before I write it.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

America’s growing isolation

Isreal Settlements
A longer headline would have added the words because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes.
On 19 December, in the Jewish Daily Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis wrote this:
“Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama’s 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.
“Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president’s top Jewish supporters in 2012.”
That’s not good news for the would-be presidents on the Republican side who are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes.
On the same day, in what the BBC’s Barbara Plett called “a highly unusual move”, all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council sharply criticised Israeli settlement activities. They said in their statements that “continued settlement building threatened the chances of a future Palestinian state.” They also expressed dismay at rising settler violence. (“They” were the envoys representing the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA).
It was UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant who read the statement of the EU group.
“Israel’s continuing announcements to accelerate the construction of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, (1000 new housing units tendered for last week), send a devastating message. We believe that Israel’s security and the realisation of the Palestinians’ right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues.”
As Barbara Plett noted,
“Despite the unanimity of views, the envoys did not try to draft a single Security Council statement because they knew the US would veto it.” She also noted that the Obama administration’s stance was that “anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks belongs in a US-led bilateral process, not at the UN.”
It could be said, and I do say, that such criticism of Israel’s settlement activities is 44 years too late. So what, really, is its significance?
My answer is in three parts.
The first is that it’s a strong indication of America’s growing isolation because of the Obama administration’s unconditional support for Zionism’s monster child.
The second, related, is that it seems to confirm what I have been saying and writing for several months – that behind closed doors almost all of the governments of the world, European governments in particular, are more than fed up with Israel’s contempt for and defiance of international law.
The third is that the governments of most of the member states of the UN have come to terms with the fact that Zionism’s assertion that a Palestinian state on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip could and would pose a threat to Israel’s existence is propaganda nonsense of the highest order. (This, of course, is only of academic interest because the two-state solution has long been dead if not yet buried).
When I am thinking about Obama’s grovelling, my memory recalls a comment made to me by Dr. Hajo Meyer, the passionate anti-Zionist Nazi holocaust survivor and author of An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.
We had shared a platform in London and over breakfast the following morning I asked him a question. I said: “Hajo, you’re well into your eighties and you are being vilified by Zionism’s verbal hit-men for your efforts to unmask the Zionist monster. Why are you continuing with your truth-telling? Why don’t you sit back in peace and quiet and enjoy what’s left of your life?”
He replied with nine little words. “The first person I see every morning is me,” meaning “I have to live with myself.”
It’s more than reasonable to assume that Obama looks in the mirror from time to time. I wonder if he can live with himself.
Footnote: My comments on Israel’s response
Israel’s response as delivered by Karean Peretz, spokeswoman for Israel’s UN Mission, included this: “The main obstacle to peace, has been, and remains, the Palestinians’ claim to the so-called right of return and its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,”
That, too, is Zionist propaganda nonsense of the highest order.
Israel is not a Jewish state. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslims? Israel could only be a Jewish state after it had resorted to a final round of ethnic cleansing. Israel is a Zionist state.

Arafat and his secret channel

Because Arafat kept them informed through a secret channel, Israel’s leaders have long known that in the event of a two-state solution, the PLO was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of the right of return being confined to the territory of the Palestinian state, which would mean that only about 100,000 refugees would be able to return, with the rest having to accept financial compensation for the loss, theft, of their land and rights.

As I explain in my book Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, when they decided they had no choice but to be pragmatic, Arafat and his leadership colleagues took a degree of comfort from two hopes.
One was that all Palestinian refugees everywhere could and would have a Palestinian passport.
The other was that if there was a two-state solution, it could evolve over one or two generations into one state for all – i.e. because in peace and partnership enough Israeli Jews would say something like “We don’t need two states”. In the event of a one-state solution coming about by mutual consent, it was assumed on the Palestinian side at leadership level that, over time, all Palestinians who wanted to return would be able to return. So in theory the two-state solution was not necessarily the end-game on the right of return.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Alan Hart and Gilad Atzmon discussing Jewish security matters.

DateFriday, December 16, 2011 at 11:39PM AuthorGilad Atzmon


Link to the full version of the panel event featuring Alan Hart, Gilad Atzmon, Karl Sabbagh and Sameh A.Habeeb (London, May 2011):

http://vimeo.com/23539189

The Wandering Who-A Study of Pre Traumatic Stress Dissorder Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Lobby: ‘Obama is not a trustworthy puppet’

Every American President has only two windows of opportunity to take on the Zionist Lobby – in the first nine months of his first term and the last year of his second term if has one,” former US President Jimmy Carter, quoted by Alan Hart in his book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews .

On November 30, while addressing a $10,000-plate campaign fundraising dinner at the residence of Jack Rosen, chairman American Jewish Congress (AJC) – Obama assured his guests: “No ally more important than Israel“.

Jack Rosen, on his part, praised Obama as the greatest supporter of Israel among all US Presidents. However, Rosen acknowledged that some Jewish leaders’ “frustrations” at Obama’s a few statements about Israel and Benji Netanyahu; stop new Jewish settlements, negotiate with PA on a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders and anti-Bibi slur at G20.

I believe the Zionist regime has a long shopping list of ‘concerns’ for Obama, such as, regime change in Syria and Iran, demilitarization of Hizbullah, toppling of Hamas, denuclearization of Pakistan, etc. However, Alan Hart believes it’s the fear of Jewish Lobby loosing its dictorial power in the US.

The real reason concern of those American Jew who are taken in by Zionist propaganda is that a second term Obama might, just might, decide to put America’s own real interests first and confront the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress in order to get real peace process going,” Alan wrote.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Alan Hart: The Arab Spring and security and wellbeing of Jews now resident in Palestine that became Israel.

Hello or goodbye to “democracy”

“On the matter of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, what is the will of the Arab masses? In their heads if not always their hearts it is not for military confrontation with Israel. It is that their governments be united enough use the leverage they have on America, to cause it to use the leverage it has on Israel, to cause or try to cause enough Israeli Jews to face reality and insist that their leaders make peace on terms which would satisfy the demands and needs of the Palestinians for justice, while at the same time guaranteeing the security and wellbeing of Jews now resident in Palestine that became Israel.” Alan Hart


In all his writings, Alan Hart main real concern is nothing but “the security and wellbeing of Jews now resident in Palestine that became Israel. while at the same would satisfy the demands and needs of the Palestinians for justice.” I changed the order.
=====
Ikhras

November 24, 2011
From Tahrir Square VIA www.3arabawy.org

A protester standing in Tahrir on Wednesday night, carrying a banner with a message to Field Marshal Tantawi: “Hand over power, you agent of Israel, so that we can execute you in Tahrir.”

The Arab Spring – hello or goodbye to democracy?

  • November 24, 2011
T Square 2Israeli democracy fades to black (the black of the blank screen at the end of a film). That was the headline over a recent article by Lawrence Davidson, an American professor of Middle East history. He argued that the suppression of the democratic rights of non-Jews in Israel is coming full circle with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likudniks and settlers now targeting the rights of Jews as well. Events in Cairo provoked this question: Are we witnessing the fading to black of the prospects for freedom and democracy in Egypt, or, is resurgent people power going to make it impossible for the military to maintain its controlling grip? (Presumably there would be limits to how many Egyptian civilians Egyptian soldiers were prepared to kill even if the generals, desperate to protect their wealth and privileges, ordered the suppression by all means of protests and demands for real democracy).

Events still to unfold will determine the answer but in advance of them, and before Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi demonstrated a degree of panic by announcing that the election of a civilian president would be brought forward, the assessment of many informed observers was in tune with that of Marina Ottaway, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She wrote: “In the early days of the Egyptian uprising, when violence threatened to engulf the country, the military did an admirable job of maintaining order without violence and easing Hosni Mubarak out of office. Ten months later, it has emerged as the most serious threat in the transition to democracy. Recent announcements leave no doubt that the military indeed rules Egypt and intends to maintain its control indefinitely.”

The best indicator of whether or not Eygpt’s generals will eventually bow to people power and let democracy have its way will be in their final decision about dropping or not their proposal that new constitutional principles should preserve special powers for the military after the handover to civilian rule. These special powers as originally proposed would give the military a veto over a new constitution and prevent scrutiny of its vast budget. In other words, these “supra-constitutional” principles would enshrine the military’s right to intervene in civilian politics at any time of its choosing.

If Egypt’s generals do seek to control the democratic process by (among other things) fixing elections as Mubarak did, they will back their actions with the assertion that they must do whatever is necessary to prevent radical Islam taking over the country. That would put them on the same page as Zionism’s propaganda maestros. In a recent article for Ha’aretz, Moshe Arens, a former Israeli Minister of Defence and Foreign Minister, wrote the following.

A wave of Islamic rule, with all it entails, is sweeping across the Arab world. It will replace secular dictatorships with Islamic ones. We should have expected nothing else… Observers may fool themselves into believing that the Islamic parties contesting the elections in the Arab countries are ‘mildly’ Islamic, or ‘moderate’ Islamists, but their leaders are neither mild nor moderate.”
The unstated but implicit Zionist message Arens is conveying is that the Arab Spring will create more and more states that will become safe havens for Islamic terrorists, and that Israel and the West, America especially, will have to pursue the “war against terrorism” on many more fronts with even greater vigour and escalating expense.

What the overwhelming majority of all Arabs want is:
Full Liberation 
This is How Liberation is

What the overwhelming majority of all Arabs want is an end to corrupt, repressive, autocratic rule. In reality there is no prospect of Muslims who preach the need for violence and practise it calling the shots if democracy is allowed to take root and grow in the Arab world. In Egypt for example, and whatever it may or may not have been in the past, the Muslim Brotherhood is the process of transforming itself, now in the guise of the Freedom and Justice Party, into a modern and progressive political force which truly wants to see Egypt governed by democratic means for the benefit of all and not just a privileged elite. The only thing that could drive a significant number of Egyptians into supporting violent Islamic fundamentalism is never-ending military suppression of their demands for freedom and democracy. (If this were to happen one could say that like “Dubya” Bush and Tony Blair, Egypt’s generals had become recruiting sergeants for violent Islamic fundamentalism).

In my analysis Arens’ prediction of what will happen in the Arab world is a cover for the real fear of Zionism’s in-Israel and in-America leaders. It is that democracy could or even will take root in the Arab world or at least major chunks of it. Why such a prospect alarms Zionism is not complicated.

Democratically elected Arab governments would have to be reflect the will of their masses, the voters. On the matter of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, what is the will of the Arab masses? In their heads if not always their hearts it is not for military confrontation with Israel. It is that their governments be united enough use the leverage they have on America, to cause it to use the leverage it has on Israel, to cause or try to cause enough Israeli Jews to face reality and insist that their leaders make peace on terms which would satisfy the demands and needs of the Palestinians for justice, while at the same time guaranteeing the security and wellbeing of Jews now resident in Palestine that became Israel.

The leverage the Arab world has is in the form of oil, money and diplomatic relations.

For an example of how this Arab leverage could have been used to good effect in the past I’ll turn the clock back to 1967. Now let us suppose that in the weeks following the Six Days War the Arab leaders put their act together and sent one of their number secretly to Washington to deliver this message to President Johnson: “If you don’t get the Israelis back to the pre-war borders, we’ll turn off the oil taps.” (That is how Zionism’s in-Israel leaders would have played the oil card if the boot had been on the other foot, if they had been in the Arab position).

How would Johnson (or any other occupant of the White House) have responded?

If he believed the Arab leaders were united and serious, not bluffing, he would have said something very like the following: “I can’t promise quick action on East Jerusalem but otherwise give me three weeks and I’ll do it.”

In short, the Arabs would not have had to turn off the oil taps. A credible threat to do so would have been enough to motivate Johnson (or any other American president) to use all necessary leverage to bring Israel’s occupation to a quick end.

That’s how the game of political leverage is played.

A real hello to democracy in the Arab world or at least significant chunks of it, and Egypt especially, would be very bad news for Zionism.

Netanyahu is fully aware of this and is escalating his anti Arab Spring rhetoric. In his latest speech to the Knesset he blasted Israeli and world politicians who support the demands for change in the Arab world and accused it of “moving not forward, but backward.” He asserted that his original forecast that the Arab Spring would turn into an “Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic wave” had turned out to be true.

In his report for Ha’aretz, Barak Ravid wrote: “The speech showed an expressed lack of trust in Arab nations’ ability to maintain a democratic regime; a yearning to go back to the days of ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; a fear of the collapse of the Hashemite royal house in Jordan, and an utter lack of willingness to make any concessions to the Palestinians.”

Netanyahu also slammed those Western leaders, Obama especially, who had pressed Egypt’s generals to tell Mubarak to go. At the time that was happening, Ravid revealed, Netanyahu said in closed talks that the American administration and many European leaders “don’t understand reality”. In his last speech he called them “naive”.

I used to wonder if Netanyahu really believes the nonsense he talks. I am now convinced that he does.

The latest developments in Cairo – the apology by two of the generals on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) – are making me wonder if the coming days will see the removal of Field Marshall Tantawi, which is what the protestors in Tahrir Square are demanding. The two generals not only apologized for the deaths of protestors, they said, according to the BBC report I heard, “We do not aspire to power and we do not want to continue in power.”
If those words can be taken at face value, they suggest to me that a majority of Tantawi’s SCAF colleagues have realised that continuing in power, even behind the scenes, would require them at a point to give orders to the army to shoot to kill large numbers of Egyptians, orders which would not be obeyed by the lower ranks and foot soldiers.

If that is the case – Tantawi’s departure would indicate that it is – the prospects for a real hello to democracy in Egypt are improving. And if something approaching real democracy can take root and grow in Egypt, the days of Arab autocrats and despots almost everywhere (probably not Saudi Arabia) may well be numbered.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Palestine – What Next? – Nothing but full liberation

“Palestine – What Next?” asked Alan Hart…”Kevin Connolly had gone to Israel to find out “what hopes there are, if any, for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”” he added.

Nothing new, except Alan is putting “the dissolution of the PA, effectively making Israel fully and completely responsible and accountable for its occupation” as “the first and immediate priority”
Why should the PA be dissolved? ??

Out of sudden, Hart found it:

  • PA is corrupt,
  • PA’s main role has been to keep the Palestinians, Hamas supporters on the West Bank in particular, under control for Israel. In that context the PA has been more or less a quisling authority collaborating with Israel, and by so doing it has undermined the liberation struggle.
  • The term of Abbas expired in January 2009 
  • Abbas’s “his prime concern is to preserve the good life and privileges he and his Fatah leadership colleagues enjoy.” Abbas is a fully paid up member…..his decision to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state was entirely self-serving.

Under “Father Palestine” neither Fateh, nor the PA were corrupt, the “Peace Consipracy” hasn’t “undermined the liberation struggle”, the security collaboration with Israel is not the only fruit of Alan’s  “Peace Consipracy” with Perez and “Father Palestine”, going to Oslo, was not entirely self-serving, as late Mahmoud Darwish said two decades ago.

Yes Abbas “ruled out the possibility of dissolving the PA” after challanging Obama and Netanyahu in seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state. He did it because his services are still needed.  Whats on the table is disolving the Palestinian Cause, not the dissolving of the PA.

Who extended the term of Abbas after January 2009?  The so called “Arab League”
Returning the favour Abbas gave up the Arab leage presidency to Qater. Consequently, whats on the Table now is SYRIA, not the Palestinian Statehood.

In stead of asking: Israel – What Next? Alan asked: Palestine – What Next?
Alarmed with Akiva Eldar saying: The settlers have won and Israel has lost… Israel must now live with the consequences.” and the nightmare of “Israel tearing itself apart in a Jewish civil war” Alan remembered what “Mother Israel” told him once upon a time. If Israel goes down it will take the whole world with it.  Sampson option blackmail
In case you missed it:
Time to close the Palestinian file
Out of sudden, Alan remembered that the overwhelming majority of the palestinians are refugees, he assumed that they forget their land and right of return.  In his “view it’s time for Palestinians everywhere to become engaged by peaceful and democratic means in the struggle to end the Zionization of their homeland and secure their rights. Put another way, if the Zionist colonial project is to be contained and defeated, the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians must now be supplemented by practical, effective and co-ordinated Palestinian diaspora action.”

“For what purpose?” he asked

“Once upon a time this now side-lined, parliament-in-exile was the supreme decision-making body on the Palestinian side. Even Arafat was accountable to it. (It did, in fact, take him six long years to persuade a majority of PNC delegates representing Palestinians nearly everywhere to endorse his policy of politics and compromise with Israel. That happened towards the end of 1979. The PNC vote in favour of Arafat’s policy – the two-state solution – was 296 for it and only four against. From then on the Palestinian door was open to peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief).” Alan added,

Here, I would ask readers to read how Mr. Hart the linkman played actively with “Father Palestine” and Perez to “undermined the liberation struggle” and the relation of “Peace conspiracy” and the assassination of Abu-iyad, Abu-jihad, Abu-alhoul…

Out of sudden Mr. Hart is calling bring the PNC back to life, re-structured and re-invigorated PNC  to debate and determine Palestinian policy to “improve the prospects for getting a real peace process ” “that would require the major powers led by the U.S. to confront the Zionist monster.”

“If diaspora Palestinians do not now make the effort and put their act together, I think it’s possible, even probable, that future Palestinian historians will conclude that they betrayed their occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters as much as the regimes of an impotent, corrupt and repressive Arab Order did.”

Palestine – What Next?var addthis_product = ‘wpp-262’;var addthis_config = {“data_track_clickback”:true,”data_track_addressbar”:false};if (typeof(addthis_share) == “undefined”){ addthis_share = [];} by Alan Hart

In advance of the formal burial of the Palestinian Authority’s bid for state recognition at the UN, BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme was on the right track. In his introduction to a quite revealing report, presenter John Humphrys said reporter Kevin Connolly had gone to Israel to find out “what hopes there are, if any, for the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

Among those Connolly interviewed were Akiva Eldar, the Ha’aretz columnist who has been a constant critic of Israel’s settlement policy. He said. “The settlers have won and Israel has lost… Israel must now live with the consequences.”

As I have written from time to time in the past, the possible consequences include Israel tearing itself apart in a Jewish civil war; Israel going down and taking the whole region with it; and/or a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

If I take it as a given (I do) that Israel’s leaders are not remotely interested in peace on terms that would satisfy even minimum Palestinian demands and needs for justice, and that as things are the major powers will continue to allow Zionism to go on calling the policy shots, the question arising is this: What can the Palestinians do themselves to advance their cause?

It’s not for the gentile me to tell the Palestinians what to do but if I was a Palestinian the following is what I would want to happen.

The first and immediate priority – the dissolution of the PA, effectively making Israel fully and completely responsible and accountable for its occupation. Having to take complete responsibility would be quite costly for Israel financially and in terms of the additional call on its security resources. And in theory it ought to be less difficult (at present it’s impossible) for the Palestinians, with the assistance of concerned and caring agencies and governments, to hold Israel accountable to international law for its occupation policies and actions.

Why should the PA be dissolved? Apart from the fact that it’s corrupt and useless (has become just another Arab regime, some might say), the short answer is in two parts.

One is that under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah cronies, the PA’s main role has been to keep the Palestinians, Hamas supporters on the West Bank in particular, under control for Israel. In that context the PA has been more or less a quisling authority collaborating with Israel, and by so doing it has undermined the liberation struggle.

The other is that under Abbas’s leadership the PA has subverted Palestinian democracy. He was elected as chairman in January 2005 for a term of four years which expired in January 2009. There should then have been new elections. In the absence of them Abbas and his PA are without legitimacy and thus any real mandate to represent the occupied and oppressed Palestinians.

Abbas’s response to the statement by the Security Council’s admissions committee that it had failed to reach agreement on the PA’s bid for full membership and state recognition was to say that he would “keep on trying.” He also ruled out the possibility of dissolving the PA.

I think it’s not unreasonable to speculate that his prime concern is to preserve the good life and privileges he and his Fatah leadership colleagues enjoy. Arafat was never a member of the discredited Arab Leadership Club. Abbas is a fully paid up member. On reflection I also think his decision to seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state was entirely self-serving. He knew the bid could not succeed but he calculated, correctly, that it would focus global attention on the Palestinian cause in a way that would improve his low standing in the eyes on his people. It did but only briefly.

Obviously the dissolution of the PA will only happen if enough Palestinians demand it. But in my view it’s not only the occupied and oppressed Palestinians who need to do the demanding. In my view it’s time for Palestinians everywhere to become engaged by peaceful and democratic means in the struggle to end the Zionization of their homeland and secure their rights. Put another way, if the Zionist colonial project is to be contained and defeated, the incredible, almost superhuman steadfastness of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians must now be supplemented by practical, effective and co-ordinated Palestinian diaspora action. For what purpose?

Not only to bring about the dissolution of the PA but to have it replaced as soon as possible by a re-structured and re-invigorated PNC (Palestine National Council). Once upon a time this now side-lined, parliament-in-exile was the supreme decision-making body on the Palestinian side. Even Arafat was accountable to it. (It did, in fact, take him six long years to persuade a majority of PNC delegates representing Palestinians nearly everywhere to endorse his policy of politics and compromise with Israel. That happened towards the end of 1979. The PNC vote in favour of Arafat’s policy – the two-state solution – was 296 for it and only four against. From then on the Palestinian door was open to peace on terms which any rational government in Israel would have accepted with relief).

For the PNC to be brought back to life re-structured and re-invigorated, there would have to be elections to it in communities/constituencies throughout the Palestinian diaspora. The following by country and numbers of Palestinians is the most recent available estimate of its composition that I am aware of.
The occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip – 4,200,000

  • Jordan – 2,900,000
  • Israel – 1,600,000
  • Syria – 800,000
  • Chile – 500,000
  • Lebanon – 490,000
  • Saudi Arabia – 280,245
  • Egypt – 270,245
  • United States – 270,000
  • Honduras – 250,000
  • Venezuela – 245,120
  • United Arab Emirates – 170,000
  • Germany -159,000
  • Mexico – 158,000
  • Qatar – 100,000
  • Kuwait – 70,000
  • El Salvador – 70,000
  • Brazil – 59,000
  • Iraq – 57,000
  • Yemen – 55,000
  • Canada – 50,975
  • Australia – 45,000
  • Libya – 44,000
  • Denmark – 32,152
  • United Kingdom – 30,000
  • Sweden – 25,500
  • Peru – 20,000
  • Columbia – 20,000
  • Spain – 12,000
  • Pakistan -10,500
  • Netherlands – 9,000
  • Greece – 7,500
  • Norway – 7,000
  • France – 5,000
  • Guatemala – 3,500
  • Austria – 3,000
  • Switzerland – 2,000
  • Turkey – 1,000
  • India – 300

That global spread of the original (1947/48) and subsequent (1967) Palestinian refugees and their descendants is an awesome tribute to the success of Zionist ethnic cleansing.

The prime task of a re-structured and re-invigorated PNC would be to debate and determine Palestinian policy and then represent it by speaking to power with one credible voice. That, I believe, would significantly improve the prospects for getting a real peace process going. By definition a real peace process is one that would require the major powers led by the U.S. to confront the Zionist monster.

The organizational effort required to bring the PNC back to life, re-structured and re-invigorated, is massive, but what might have taken years in the past could be done in months by making best and most effective use of the internet.

If diaspora Palestinians do not now make the effort and put their act together, I think it’s possible, even probable, that future Palestinian historians will conclude that they betrayed their occupied and oppressed brothers and sisters as much as the regimes of an impotent, corrupt and repressive Arab Order did.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

PA: We’ll Change Face of the Mideast if Settlements Continue



We’ll Change Face of the ME if Settlements Continue

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, announced that the PA was about to take “important, big and dangerous decisions” if Israel continued with its current policies. He did not give further details about the expected decisions.”

On reading Nabil’s statement, I recalled Alan Hart saying: Netanyaho could not say “Yes” to President Obama and the Palestinian could not say “No”.

Though, I am inclined to believe Alan, I would say, even if Abbas have the balls to say No to Obama, with or without his “IF”, he will not change anything. The face of the Mideast have already changed starting Palestian Great First Intifada (the real mother of the “arab spring”) , The Liberation of south Lebnon, The Liberation of Gaza. the Israeli failures in July 2006 war and the War on Gaza, the fall of Arab puppets in Tunis and Egypt, and the ongiong Battle (mainly in Syria) to fill USA vacum.

Nabil, may claim that his BOSS, two decades ago played a roll in changing the face of  of the Mideast which started with Camp David, OSLO (engineerd by Abbass), Wadi Araba, Ask Mr. Linkman.

PA: We’ll Change Face of the Mideast if Settlements Continue

The Palestinian Authority on Thursday threatened Israel that its decision to expedite construction in settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods following the admittance of Palestine to UNESCO will drive the PA to take “important” and “dangerous” decisions.

Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, announced that the PA was about to take “important, big and dangerous decisions” if Israel continued with its current policies. He did not give further details about the expected decisions.

However, Abu Rudaineh said in an interview with BBC that the planned decisions would “change the face of the entire Middle East.”

Last week, Abbas told an Egyptian TV station that he was considering “dangerous and significant” decisions in wake of the continued stalemate in the so-called peace process.
PA officials in Ramallah said they believed that the decisions include either the dismantlement of the PA or the resignation of Abbas.

At a meeting of the Fatah Revolutionary Council in Ramallah last week, Abbas hinted at the possibility of dissolving the PA when he told delegates that the PA “was not a real authority.”

Some Palestinians believe that dissolving the PA would be the most appropriate way to “punish” Israel for its refusal to stop construction in the settlements and occupied east Jerusalem neighborhoods and accept the pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution, according to the Jerusalem Post.
These Palestinians argue that dissolving the PA would mean that Israel would have to assume responsibility for running the day-to-day affairs of the Palestinians, at least in the West Bank.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Has President Obama become a joke?

by Alan Hart

  • October 26, 2011 Obama In Iraq
Last Saturday in his radio address to his own people and over the internet to those around the world who still think he is worth listening to, President Obama said, “This week we had two powerful reminders of how we’ve renewed American leadership in the world.” That made me wonder which of the two d’s should be applied to him – duplicitous or deluded. (I won’t argue with any readers who might say that he is both because being duplicitous eventually makes you delusional. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is best proof of that).
According to Obama the two powerful reminders were the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the end of the war in Iraq. The day before his Saturday show the president declared the killing of the Libyan leader to be “momentous”; and he told his fellow Americans that the long and costly war in Iraq will be over by the end of the year and that all 40,000 U.S. servicemen and women still there “will definitely be home for the holidays.”
It could be that I am missing something but I can’t see how the killing of Gaddafi was one of two powerful reminders of renewed American leadership in the world. That said, one possible implication of Obama’s rhetoric is that CIA agents and their Libyan assets played a major role in bringing the Libyan pot to boiling point for regime change. If that was so, Obama’s unspoken message to his fellow Americans last Saturday was something like: “Trust me. I’m not a soft touch. I am more ready and willing than any of my recent predecessors to authorise whatever actions are necessary to destroy those who stand in the way of our foreign policy objectives.” (No doubt some of those who advise Obama are hoping that Iran will be the next target).
The only reason why all American servicemen and women will be leaving Iraq is Obama’s failure to persuade the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep US bases and several thousand troops there indefinitely on America’s terms. They were that American troops would not be subject to Iraqi law. (In each of the many countries country where American forces are based, the US insists on legal immunity for them, refuses to let them be tried by foreigners).
As Jonathan Steele pointed out in an article for The Guardian, the issue of legal immunity for American forces was especially sensitive in Iraq “after numerous US murders of civilians and the Abu Ghraib scandal in which Iraqi prisoners were sexually humiliated.”
The same article delivered what I think is a very sound judgement of America’s achievement in Iraq. Steele wrote:
“The final troop withdrawal marks a complete defeat for Bush’s Iraq project. The neocons’ grand plan to use the 2003 invasion to turn the country into a secure pro-Western democracy and a garrison for US bases that could put pressure on Syria and Iran lies in tatters… Their hopes of making Iraq a democratic model for the Middle East have been tipped on their head. The instability and bloodshed which the US unleashed in Iraq were the example that Arabs sought to avoid, not emulate… But the neocons’ biggest defeat is that, thanks to Bush’s toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran’s greatest enemy, Tehran’s influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America’s.”
How that contributes to renewing America’s leadership in the world is beyond my comprehension.
In his radio address Obama the master of rhetoric also said, “After a decade of war, we’re turning the page and moving forward with strength and confidence.”
I found myself wondering what his confidence is based on.
America is bankrupt (as are most if not all the nations of the Western world).
According to the latest polls, Obama’s job approval rating is somewhere between 36 and 42 percent, and likely to fall to an historic low if there is not significant progress on reducing unemployment (or at least halting its rise) and home ownership foreclosures.
And according to a CNN/ORC International poll, only 15 (repeat 15!) percent of Americans asked said that they trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time.
On the foreign policy front the only two things America leads the world in are support for the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel right or wrong and targeted assassinations
I am also wondering if Obama has any real grasp of the fact that largely because of his support for Israel right or wrong, America is becoming as isolated in the world as it is.
I’ll conclude by saying that it gives me no pleasure to write about Obama in the way I am now doing. I was among the many who were initially inspired by his rhetoric and dared to invest some hope in the view that he would change America and the world for the better. I now think he was never going to be a president who could give substance to his soaring rhetoric because he was too inexperienced and too naive for the job.
So with regret my own answer to the headline question is “Yes”, he has become a joke.
Footnote:
As I write one of the questions I am asking myself is this. Is it possible that supporters of Hillary Clinton will seek to prevail upon Obama not to run for a second term, to clear the way for them draft her, to give the Democrats what they will believe to be a better chance of preventing the Republican Mitt Romney being the next occupant of the White House? Much might depend on how much of a boost Obama gets in the polls for bringing the servicemen and women home from Iraq. But obviously all bets will be off if the American and perhaps even the whole global economy crashes between now and the end of the year.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

%d bloggers like this: