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.

Advertisements

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!

%d bloggers like this: