Presidential Rule by Deception: Obama, the Master Con-man

Barack ObamaIntroduction

In an electoral system, run by and for a corporate oligarchy, deception and demagoguery are essential elements – entertaining the people while working for the wealthy.
Every US President has engaged, in one fashion or another, in ‘play acting’ to secure popular approval, neutralize hostility and distract voters from the reactionary substance of their foreign and domestic policies.

Every substantive policy is accompanied by a ‘down home’ folksy message to win public approval. This happened with President ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s revival of large-scale proxy wars in Afghanistan in the post-Viet Nam War period; Ronald Reagan’s genocidal wars in Central America, George Bush Sr.’s savaging of Iraq in the First Gulf War; ‘Bill’ Clinton’s decimation of social welfare in the US while bombing civilians in Yugoslavia and deregulating Wall Street; George Bush Jr.’s invasion and partition of Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempted coup in Venezuela and massive tax cuts for the rich; and Barack Obama’s staggering bailout of the biggest Wall Street speculators, unprecedented launching of five consecutive wars, and arrest and deportation of millions of immigrant workers. Each President has elaborated a style in order to ingratiate himself with the public while pursuing his reactionary agenda.

In rhetoric, appearance and in public persona, it is ‘de rigueur’ for US Presidents to present themselves as an ‘everyman’ while committing political actions – including war crimes worthy of prosecution.

Each President, in his ‘play acting’, develops a style suitable to the times. They constantly strive to overcome the public’s suspicion and potential hostility to their overt and covert policies designed to build empire as domestic conditions deteriorate. However, not all play acting is the same: each President’s ‘populist’ style in defense of oligarchic interests has its characteristic nuances.

 The Carter Feint: ‘Human Rights’ Wars in the Post-Viet Nam War Era

‘Jimmy’ Carter was elected President at a time of the greatest mass anti-war upheaval in US history. His campaign projected a soft-spoken, conciliatory President from humble roots reaching out to the anti-war electorate and solemnly pledging to uphold human rights against domestic militarists and their overseas despotic allies. To that end, he appointed a liberal human rights advocate Pat Derian to the State Department and a veteran Cold Warrior, Zbigniew (Zbig) Brzezinski, as National Security Advisor and foreign policy strategist.

Duplicity reared its head immediately: Carter openly criticized the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua – while privately telling the dictator to ignore the public criticisms and assuring him of continuing US support.[1] As the Sandinista revolution advanced toward victory, Carter convoked a meeting of Latin American leaders urging them to join in a joint military intervention with the US to ‘save lives’ and to prevent the popular Nicaraguan revolution from taking power and dismantling the dictator’s army. It soon became clear to the leaders of Latin America that Carter’s mission was a thinly- veiled ‘humanitarian’ version of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ and they declined. When Carter realized that, without the fig leaf of Latin American participation, a US-led invasion would arouse universal opposition, he abandoned the project. The political climate would not support a unilateral US invasion so soon after the end of the war in Indochina .

However, Carter soon re-launched the Cold War, reviving military spending and pouring billions of dollars into funding, arming and training tens of thousands of fundamentalist Jihadists from around the world to invade Afghanistan and overthrow its leftist, secular government.

Carter’s policy of re-militarization and launching of large-scale and long-term secret CIA operations in alliance with the most brutal dictators and monarchs of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was accompanied by sanctimonious speeches about human rights and token appeals to protect ‘civilians’. In this regard, Carter became our founding father of the double discourse: a con man that publically condemned the jailing and torture by Pinochet of political opponents in Chile while orchestrating what would become a decade-long blood bath in Afghanistan with millions of victims.

 Reagan: Geniality with Genocide

Up until the ascendancy of Barack Obama, the avuncular President, Ronald Reagan, was acknowledged as the ‘master con-man’, by virtue of his Hollywood acting experience. Reagan was and remained a disciplined and hardened backer of policies designed to concentrate wealth while smashing unions, even as he entertained the flag-waving hard hat construction workers with his jokes about ‘limousine liberals’ and Cadillac welfare queens. The knowing wink and clever two-liners were matched by an adaptation of morality tales from his cowboy films. Reagan, in his role as ‘the righteous sheriff’, backed the mercenary contras as they invaded Nicaragua and destroyed schools and clinics and the genocidal military dictators in El Salvador and Guatemala who murdered hundreds of thousands of Indians and peasants.

Uncle Reagan’s friendly chats would describe how he had stopped the communist ‘outlaws’ (peasants, workers and Indians) of Central America from flooding across the Rio Grande and invading California and Texas. His tales resonated with mass audiences familiar with the racist Hollywood cowboy film version of unshaven Mexican bandits crossing the ‘ US ’ border. The clean-shaven, straight-talking, ‘stand-up for America’ President Ronald Reagan was elected and re-elected by a resounding majority in the midst of CIA-backed mujahedeen victories over the government and secular civil structure of Afghanistan, Pentagon- supported Israeli slaughter of Palestinian refugees in their camps in Lebanon and the mass genocide of scores of thousands of indigenous villagers in Guatemala.

When news reports seeped out about the mass graves of poor villagers in Guatemala , Reagan resorted to colloquial language right out of a Hollywood film to defend General Rios Mont : “He’s getting a bum rap”. In defending the brutal dictator of Guatemala , Reagan replaced Carter’s sanctimonious phrasing in favor of down-to-earth macho talk of a no-nonsense sheriff.
In substance, both Carter and Reagan were rebuilding the US war machine after the debacle of Viet Nam ; they were setting up a global network of client dictators, Muslim fundamentalists and hypocritical Anglo-American humanitarians interventionists.

Bush Senior: Uni-Polarity and the Ticket to Uncontested Imperial Conquests
Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the US and Western Europe re-conquered, pillaged and neo-colonized Eastern Europe . West Germany annexed East Germany . And a predator-gangster oligarchy in Russia seized over a trillion dollars of public assets, impoverishing millions and laundered the illicit funds via elaborate banking operations on Wall Street and in London and Tel Aviv.

President George Bush Sr. embraced the doctrine of a unipolar world – free from rival super-power constraints and independent Third World resistance. ‘Poppy’ Bush believed the US could impose its will by force anywhere and at any time without fear of retaliation. He believed he was heir to a new imperial order of free markets, free elections and unrestrained plunder. The first war he would launch would be in the Middle East – the invasion, massive bombing and destruction of Iraq . It was followed by an unprecedented expansion of NATO bases in the countries of Eastern Europe . The spread of neo-liberalism led to the naked pillage of public assets throughout Latin American and Eastern Europe . The Empire ruled the Muslim world through an arc of client dictators from Tunisia , Egypt , and Saudi Arabia to Pakistan .

Bush adopted the persona of the ‘happy warrior’ – the invincible American President who had triumphed over the Evil Empire. Meanwhile, the domestic economy deteriorated under the enormous costs of the massive military build-up and gave rise to a crisis that hurt the electorate. Bush’s personal rigidity and lack of theatricality prevented him from playing the con-man – unlike his predecessor, the actor Reagan. Even as he extolled the prowess of the US military, his career as an ‘insider’ corporate operative and CIA director did not provide him with the demagogic skills necessary for a successful re-election.

While Bush celebrated his overseas victories, he failed to attract a popular following: His pinched face and wooden upper-crust smile was no match for ‘Cowboy’ Reagan’s street corner geniality or even ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s pious intonations of human rights and Christian values … Deception and demagoguery are crucial elements in a re-election campaign – and so Bush, Sr. gave way for the next Presidential con-man-in-chief, Bill Clinton.

The Clinton-Con: Black Churches , Welfare Cuts and the Wall Street Warrior

Bill Clinton, like Ronald Reagan, turned out to be a Wall Street populist .With his folksy Arkansas intonations he preached messages of hope in black churches while diligently applying the free-market lessons he had learned from his Wall Street mentors. Tooting the saxophone and oozing compassion, Clinton told the poor that he could ‘feel their pain’, while inflicting misery on single mothers forced to leave their children and take minimum-wage jobs in order to retain any public assistance. He joined hands with labor union bosses at Labor Day festivities, while fast-tracking job-killing free-trade treaties (like NAFTA) that devastated the American working class. Bill Clinton enthusiastically sent bombers over Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities for several weeks, destroying its factories, hospitals, schools, power plants, radio and TV stations and bridges, as well as the Chinese Embassy, in support of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army and its separatist war against Belgrade . Clinton bombed civilians and their vital infrastructure, a war crime in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’, to the ecstatic cheers of many Western liberals, progressives, social democrats and not a few Marxists as well as many Jihadists. On the home front, this self-proclaimed ‘people’s candidate’ ripped to shreds all restraints on banking speculation by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, New Deal legislation enacted to protect against massive banking swindles. This opened the floodgates to massive financial manipulation, which destroyed the pensions of many millions of workers.[2]

Clinton’s policies laid the groundwork for the information technology and Stock Market crash of 2000-01. His appointee, Alan Greenspan, created the conditions leading to speculative financial frenzy and subsequent economic crash of 2008. Bill Clinton’s stand-up comic performances in black churches, his back slapping encounters with labor bureaucrats and his embrace of feminists and others just raised the rhetorical bar for future aspiring Wall Street warlords in the White House. It would take eight years and the election of Barack Hussein Obama to finally surpass Bill Clinton as Con-Man-In Chief.

Bush Junior: A Yale Man with a Texas Drawl
President George Bush, Junior’s regime launched two major wars and backed two Israeli assaults on Palestinian civilians trapped in Gaza – the world’s largest open-air prison. He virtually eliminated taxes on billionaires while overseeing the geometrical growth of the domestic police state apparatus; and he unleashed the biggest speculative bubble and crash since the Great Depression. He lowered the living standards for all Americans except the top 10% of the population – and despite these disasters and despite his lack-luster performance as a con-man, he was re-elected.

His handlers and backers did their best to market their boy: his Ivy League credentials and New England background was replaced by a transparently phony Texas accent; tinny, whiney sound bites, reminiscent of his father’s, were replaced by a Texas ‘ranchers’ homely drawl. His ‘just-folks’ grammatical mistakes may have been mocked by the liberals but they resonated deeply with fundamentalist Christians – who would never have recognized the Phillips Exeter Academy-Yale Skull and Bones boy in their Commander-in Chief.

President Bush, Jr. was decked out in the uniform of a ‘Top Gun’ fighter pilot to polish his military credentials tarnished by revelations that the millionaire-playboy had gone AWOL during his service in the National Guard. His silly ‘Mission Accomplished’ claim that the Iraq war had been won in the first months after the invasion was rudely corrected by the huge outbreak of Iraqi resistance against the occupier. Bush handed over foreign policymaking, especially pertaining to the Middle East , to a small army of Jewish Zionists, aided and abetted by notorious militarists, like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Most major political events were handled by his Cabinet thugs – Secretary of State Colin Powell shamelessly fabricated the ‘evidence’ of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in his performance before the United Nations. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz invented Afghanistan ’s ties to the planners of 9/11.

Cheney and his Zionist troika of Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and ‘Scooter’ Libby trumpeted the ‘global war on terror’ while Michael Chertoff, Michael Mukasey and Stuart Levey conducted a domestic war against the Bill of Rights and US Constitutional freedoms, defending torture, jailing thousands of Muslims, punishing businesses trading with Iran and labeling US opponents of Israel’s war crimes as ‘security threats’. Bush, Jr. just nodded his approval, letting the “big fellas have a piece of the action”. With Junior, there was no peace demagoguery just plain talk to plain folks and- “Let the bombs fall and the Capital flow”. Bush did not have to go preaching to black churches (he had a black Secretary of State and National Security Adviser to do his dirty work without the cant); Bush never claimed that Israel got the ‘bum rap’ when it was charged with genocidal crimes. Under Bush, Jr., war criminals did not have to ‘sugar-coat’ their crimes. While occupying the White House, Bush signed off on the multi-trillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street and then just went off to tend his cows and chop wood at the Texas ranch.

Bush’s ‘style’ was a combination of ‘laid back’ and ‘straight forward’: he simply committed war crimes, protected Wall Street swindles and expanded the police state, without claiming otherwise. As the endless wars dragged on, as the stock market flopped under its own fraud and manipulation and the increasingly repressive legislation provoked debate, Bush just shrugged his shoulders and finished out his term in office without flourish or fanfare: “Y’all can’t win ‘em all. Let the next guy try his hand”.

Barack Obama: The Master of Deceit

From the beginning of his Presidential campaign, Obama demonstrated his proficiency as the master of all cons. He spoke passionately against torture while consulting with the torturers; he condemned Wall Street speculators while appointing key Street operatives as economic advisers. He promised a new deal in the Middle East , especially for Palestinians and then appointed a dual citizen, Israeli-US, Rahm Emmanuel (son of an Israeli Irgun terrorist) to be his most intimate Presidential advisor. Honolulu born and bred, Barack modulated his voice according to the audience, adopting a Baptist minister’s cadence for the black audiences while assuming the professorial tone of an Ivy League lawyer for his Wall Street contributors.

He hob-knobbed with Hollywood celebrities and Silicon billionaires, who bankrolled the fairy tale of his ‘historic breakthrough’ – the First Afro-American President who would speak for all Americans – nay for the entire world! Millions of giddy camp followers, white, black, old and young, the trade unionists and community activists alike were willingly deceived. They had chosen to disregard the fact that Barack Obama’s key advisers were rabid militarists, big bankers, corporate CEO’s, die-hard Zionists and Wall Street manipulators.

Indeed Obama’s supporters were enchanted by the phony rhetoric, the demagogy, the ‘populist style’, and the fake ‘authenticities’. Here was the man who promised to end the wars, close the torture concentration camp in Guantanamo , bring Wall Street to heel, repeal the Patriot Act and restore the Bill of Rights. And he was ‘their guy’ – shooting hoops in an urban playground – something Bush had never done! In truth, Barack Hussein Obama did a lot that Bush never dared to do – he surpassed Bush by far in committing war crimes against humanity – pushing for more military adventures abroad and police state repression at home. He exceeded by far any President in US history in assuming dictatorial police powers, in waging multiple wars while directing the massive transfer of state revenues to Wall Street bankers. President Obama, hands down, will be regarded as the greatest con-man President in American history. The Carters, Reagans and Clintons all pale in comparison: the enormous gap between style and substance, promise and performance, peace and war, capital and labor has never been greater.

It is President Obama’s hollow eloquence that raised the hopes of millions at home and abroad only to condemn them to an inferno of endless wars. It is the perversity of his rhetoric which attracts the Latino vote with promises of immigrant citizenship while his policy has been fill detention centers with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers and their families. His soaring rhetoric promising justice for Muslims in Cairo was followed by the bloody bombing of Tripoli, the torture and slaughter of the Libyan patriot President Gadhafi; the broken promises to the Palestinians contrasts with the embrace of the bloody Israeli warlords.

Obama far out-paced President Bush’s drone attacks in Pakistan , Yemen and Afghanistan , bombings which targeted farmers, whole families and famished orphans in their schools. Soaring moral and ethical pronouncements accompany Obama’s arming and praising the 40,000 Muslim fundamentalist mercenaries sent to degrade and shatter the secular Syrian state. The pretexts for mass killing fall from his lips like maggots on a rotten corpse: his blatant lies about the use of poison gas in Syria as the government in Damascus confronts a foreign mercenary invasion; the lurid tales of fabricated massacres in Benghazi ( Libya ) and the false claims of stolen elections in Venezuela . Obama’s rhetoric converts executioners into victims and victims into executioners.

President Barack Obama promised a comprehensive health care overhaul for America and then presented the electorate with a confusing series of obligatory payments for plans designed by for-profit private health insurance companies. Obama ‘defended social security’ by raising the age of retirement, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of workers in hazardous occupations would die before ever receiving any benefits after a lifetime of obligatory contributions. Obama solemnly promised to defend Medicare and then proposed to reduce its budget by a trillion dollars over a decade.

Obama claims a presidential prerogative of ‘defending American interests’ by ordering the assassination of whomever his million-member secret police state apparatus designates as a security threat – including American citizens – without trial, without recourse to habeas corpus.

In the White House Rose Garden President Barack Obama strolls arm-in-arm with his wife and children, a family man, true to his promises… While in Aleppo a young teen, a street vendor, is beheaded before his parents and neighbors by fanatical ‘freedom-fighters’ praised and supported by the President. The boy’s alleged crime was blasphemy. The murdered teen has joined the scores of thousands of Syrians killed and the hundreds of thousands who will join them, as Obama has decided to openly arm the mercenaries.

Casual, open collar, President Obama jokes as he walks and talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the sumptuous estate of a California billionaire, offering friendship and peace – shaking hands for the cameras with a scorpion in his palm. The smiling Obama has ceaselessly dispatched his envoys to Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa to incite claims and conflicts against Beijing . Obama believes that his own ‘personal magic’ will blind the Chinese to the fact that China is being encircled by US air and maritime bases. He seems to believe that the Chinese will ignore his efforts to forge US-centered trade pacts which specifically exclude China .

The master ‘confidence-man’ sincerely believes in his power to move and mystify the public, pick the pockets of his adversaries and make his victims believe they have been in the presence of a world-class statesman. In fact, Obama has been playing the role of a street hustler living off the earnings and lives of his people while handing them over to his corporate bosses and pimps for Israel .

Obama fills internment camps with hundreds of thousands of Latino immigrant workers while promising a ‘roadmap to citizenship’ to the cheers of Mexican-American Democratic Party vote hustlers!

Obama received 95% of the Afro-American votes, while the income gap between blacks and whites widens and unemployment and poverty figures soar. Obama, the first ‘Afro-American President’, has bombed and intervened in more African countries, backing mercenary armies in Libya and Somalia and establishing more military bases throughout the black continent than the last five ‘white’ Presidents … So much for the self-proclaimed “historic breakthrough of a Black President ending centuries of racism”.

It’s enough for Obama to appoint other black police state thugs and foreign interventionists, like Eric Holder and Susan Rice, to win the cheers of liberals even as their own security files grow in the data warehouses of the world’s biggest spying agencies.

One cynic, commenting on the long-standing love affair between Obama and white liberals, observed that ‘the more he screws them the better they like him … Even as he marches them off to jail, they would take care to note on his behalf, that the barred windows have curtains – something Bush would never have allowed.’

Conclusion

For sheer span of broken promises, of systematic lies in pursuit of wars and financial manipulation in the name of peace and social justice , of consistent and bold aggrandizement of executive power over the life and death of US citizens in the name of security, Obama has set the standard of political deception and demagogy far beyond past and probable future US Presidents.

The political context of his ascent to power and his deep links to the military-financial-Zionist networks insured his success as a premier confidence man.

President George Bush, Jr., the cringing, fading war-monger engaged in prolonged, costly wars and facing the collapse of the entire banking and financial sector, provided Candidate Obama with an easy target. Obama exploited the mass revulsion of the American people, longing for change. His soaring rhetoric and vacuous promise of ‘change’ attracted millions of young activists … The problem is that in their enthusiasm and blind adherence to ‘identity politics’ with its claims that all ‘blacks’ and ‘women’ are oppressed and therefore guaranteed to promote peace and justice — facilitated Obama’s con-game and political hustle.

Obama, once in office, not only deepened and widened the scope of President Bush, Jr’s wars, massive spy apparatus and corporate profiteering; he bamboozled the vast majority of his liberal-labor supporters in the Democratic Party! Barack Obama conned the Democratic Party Congressional liberals and they, in turn, conned their constituents into supporting this fraud.

The costs of President Obama’s two-faced policies are enormous: democracy has given way to a police state openly defended by the President and Congressional leaders; Wall Street’s recovery and corporate profiteering is fast destroying public health and social security. Barack Obama’s multiple endless wars and interventions are destroying vast cities, infrastructure, entire cultures while and killing and impoverishing millions of people from Libya to Palestine , from Syria to Iran . The economic sanctions against Iran , the provocative encirclement and isolation of China , and the campaign to destabilize Venezuela are the centerpieces of Obama’s ‘pivot to empire’. These policies portend even greater world-shattering catastrophes.

Unmasking the con-man is a first step requiring that we expose the tricks of the con-game. The politics of deception and demagogy thrives by directing popular attention to style and rhetoric, not substance. The solemn and pious cant of ‘Jimmy’ Carter distracted from his launch of the rabid Jihadists against the secular administration of Afghanistan . Uncle Ronald Reagan’s geniality and populist TV patter covered-up his blood baths in Central America and mass firing of the unionized air controllers and jailing of union leaders. ‘Bill’ Clinton’s show of empathy for the poor and embrace of ‘feel-good’ politics neutralized opposition as he bombed Yugoslavia into a pre-industrial age while his domestic policies kicked vulnerable single mothers from welfare programs. They all paled before the grand con-master Obama, billed as the ‘first black’ President, a community organizer (who disowned his sponsor into the black communities of Chicago, Rev. Wright, for his anti-war, anti-imperial stand) has capitalized on his racial credentials to garner the vote of guilty-ridden, soft-headed liberals and marginalized blacks in order to serve the interests of Wall Street and Israel.

Disarming these con-men and women requires exposing the nature of their demagogic populist styles and focusing on substantive politics. The decisive criteria need to be class politics that are defined by fundamental class alignments, between capital and labor regarding budgets, income, taxes, social spending, financing and property rights. ‘Shooting hoops’ in ghetto playgrounds is a con-man’s distraction while his budget cuts close hospitals and schools in black and poor neighborhoods.

The extravaganzas, featuring sports and entertainment celebrities to promote imperial wars, are the ‘con’ to undermine international solidarity for war victims and the unemployed. President Obama, the confidence man, is still performing while sowing destruction.

It’s time for the deceived, the disillusioned and the deprived to stand-up and shout! “We are deceived no more. Its time you were put on trial for Crimes against Humanity!”

Dutch PM: ‘Israel should be in Germany’


On November 8, 2012, Dutch daily Telegraaf quoted former Dutch prime minister Dries Van Agt as saying that Jews should have been given a safe homeland in Germany instead of Palestine – as Palestinians had nothing to do with the Nazi Holocaust – which was committed by the Frankist Jews, according to Rabbi Wolf Gunther Plaut (died 2012).
Jews need a safe place. Why couldn’t they get a safe place in Germany, at the time?”, he said while adding: “It would be more logical for Jews to have gotten a piece of land in Germany as the Middle East had nothing to do with World War II.”

Andreas Antonius Maria ( Dries) Van Agt (born 1931) served Prime Minister of Netherlands from 1977-1982. Earlier he had served as country’s Justice Minister (1971-77) and Deputy Prime Minister (1973-77). Dries Van Agt also served as Dutch ambassador to the US and Japan.

On June 27, 2008, Israeli daily Ha’aretz published an interview of Dries Van Agt in which the paper equated him with ‘anti-Semites’ like former US president Jimmy Carter and Russian-Israeli Jewish writer Israel Shamir.

Regrettably, his anti-Israel views are not that unusual in the Netherlands these days. They are shared by a number of politicians from different parties and persuasions. While they are quite mainstream on the political left, these views are by no means confined to the left, as Van Agt’s example shows,” claimed Ha’aretz.

In February 2006 – professor James Petras in an article had claimed that Netherlands is totally controlled by pro-Israel groups and Mossad. He was commenting on why it was the Jewish Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, who solicited, selected and published the anti- Islam cartoons?

Dries Van Agt doesn’t urge the world to “wipe Israel off map” but criticizes the Zionist regime for its Nazi-like treatment of Native Palestinians. He has condemned suicide attacks against civilians in his speeches and on his personal website. However, he supports Palestinians’ rights to armed resistance under international laws. He also advocates the Palestinians’ right of return to their homes from where they were uprooted by the invading European Jewish terrorist groups. He supports sanctions, boycotts and divestment from Israel, to make the Zionist regime apply United Nations resolutions to resolve Israel-Palestinian bomb.

In fact what Dries Van Agt said now – Mahtama Gandhi had told Russian Jew, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist congress, who later became the first president of the Zionist entity – that German Jews should stay put in their motherland and demand equal rights by non-violent protests. Gandhi had rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the “Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.” 
 
Gandhi cnnot be called an anti-Semite, as his Jewish biographer, Joseph Lelyveld, has claimed in the book, ‘Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi And His Struggle With India’ that Gandhi has affair with German Jewish gay Dr. Hermann Kallenbach.

In 1948, India’s envoy at the UN Security Council, V.K. Krishna Menon also made a similar statement. “We agree that the Holocaust happened in Europe and was carried out by the German Nazis – Should not the Jews be compensated by awarding them the most fertile state of Germany (Bavaria) as a Jewish homeland? Why should the Palestinians made to pay for the crimes of others?”

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!

Egypt Islamists to honour peace deal with Israel: Carter

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.htmlFormer US president Jimmy Carter assures all Islamists in Egypt expressed “eagerness” to uphold Camp David peace deal between Egypt and Israel

AFP , Friday 13 Jan 2012

Former US president Jimmy Carter said on Friday that Islamist parties, who have taken political centre stage in Egypt’s first post-revolution legislative polls, have vowed to honour the peace treaty with Israel.

“All of the parties involved (in the election) have expressed eagerness to continue with the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt,” Carter told reporters in Cairo.
The former president was presenting the Carter Centre’s findings in the first elections since a popular uprising ousted president Hosni Mubarak in February.
Carter, who was directly involved in the 1978 and 1979 Camp David Accords that led to Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, said the agreements had two parts: peace with Israel and the guarantee of Palestinian rights.
Regarding peace with Israel, “that part of the accords has been basically approved and honoured,” Carter said.
But “the rights of Palestinians have been violated with sometimes tacit approval from Washington and also from Cairo,” Carter said.
“All of the political parties and presidential candidates with whom I have met assured me that both aspects of the Camp David accords will be honoured in the future,” he said.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party, has publicly pledged its commitment to the deal.
“When I questioned the Salafists about this, they assured me they had no intention of rejecting the peace agreement,” Carter said. He was referring to Al-Nur, the party representing an ultra-conservative brand of Islam that has claimed second place in the landmark polls after the FJP.
In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

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!

Jewish ‘Vengeance’ and Mufti’s residence

>Posted on January 19, 2011 by rehmat1|

The World Zionist movement propagandists are master in the field of character assassination of both friends and foes. Their victims list includes Adolf Hitler, also known as the Founder of Israel; Al-Haj Mufti Amin al-Husseini for his resistance to the mass illegal immigration of European Jewry to British mandate Palestine, and lately of former US President Jimmy Carter, who gave Camp David to Israel but later received the title of ‘anti-Semite’ for calling the Zionist entity an ‘apartheid state’ in his book and meeting Hamas – and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan for criticizing the Zionist entity for its Zionazi actions.

After Mufti’s heirs complained to the Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin – he condemned the Zionist entity for demolishing the residence (Shepherds Hotel) of late Mufti of Al-Quds, Al-Haj Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974).

The hotel, a villa built in 1935, was to serve as the residence of  Haj Amin al-Husseini, the late grand mufti of Al-Quds (Jerusalem). The mufti, a prominent Palestinian nationalist leader, was sought by the British for his earlier anti-colonial activities in Iraq and later in Palestine, where the Zionists were trying to establish their presence.  As a result, he fled the country and took refuge during World War Two in Italy and Germany.
After Israel occupied East Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967, the property, was confiscated under its absentee property laws that apply to abandoned properties of absent Palestinians who were chased out of their homeland. It was later sold to a Miami-based American-Jewish casino billionaire, Irving Moskowitz, who is said to be “a long-time supporter of Jewish building and settlement in East Jerusalem”. Last week, Jewish settlers used three bulldozers to demolish the historic Shepherds Hotel located in the heart of Sheikh Jarrah to build 20 new units for the foreign Jewish settlers. The okey for this heinous act was given by Benji Netanyahu in 2009. See the demolition video below.

Lenni Brenner, a Zionist Jew historian, in his book Zionism in the Age of Dictators has documented how the Nazis patronized the Zionists and the Mufti’s request for banning Jewish immigration fell on duff ears thanks to Adolf Eichmann who was a protege of Zionist von Mildenstein and like his mentor, had studied Hebrew. Eichmann accompanied by his wife had visited British mandate Palestine and the trip was fully paid by th WZO. The SS records confiscated by the American after the D-Day, record a conversation between Eichmann and one Zionist leader, saying: “Mr. Eichmann, believe me that if we Zionists were not Jewish, we would have been Nazis (in fact there were 150,000 German Jews in the Nazi Army). You Nazis consider the Aryan race to belong to the perfect people and the German people as the most perfect. We also consider ourselves a perfect people, and Zionists, the most perfect ones”.

Israel-born British writer, blogger and the renowned jazz player, Gilad Atzmon describes the Jewish Vengeance, as: “Zionists love to see themselves as revengeful and merciless. In Israel, Samson who is nothing less than a genocidal murderer is regarded as an eternal hero. He even managed to get an IDF battalion called after him. It is not a secret that the fantasy of retribution is deeply imbued within the Zionist psyche  and Israeli politics…..”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Carter: Gaza siege one of the worst violations against humanity

>Carter: Gaza siege one of the worst violations against humanity

[ 13/11/2010 – 07:31 AM ]

GAZA, (PIC)– Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter told Al-Jazeera on Friday that Israel and other regional countries were working to strengthen the Fatah party against Hamas, despite the latter having control in Gaza.

Carter condemned the continued blockade on the Gaza Strip as one of the worst violations against humanity.

The U.S. leader said Hamas won the elections, but Israel jailed their politicians and threatened others to be deported, stressing that delivering peace to Israel is impossible without delivering security to the Palestinians first.

He added that it was unfortunate that the world watches the siege on Gaza with acceptance and satisfaction while 40,000 students in the Strip are denied the right to education because of Israel’s block of building materials used to erect schools.
IOF soldiers shoot worker, raid southern Gaza

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

When neutralism becomes a crime.

>

Frustrated Arab’s Diary

Carter , is he neutral ??  
 
if you a neutralperson
when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian-conflict
then ,please tell me :

Who  has an army and who does not ?
Who is occupying and who is the occupied ??
Who came from Europe and who was born there since 2000 years ??
Who is stealing the land and 83% the waters ??Who expanded his (legal) territories by 550% and his expansion is on-going ??

Who never respected none of the United-Nations resolutions  ??
Who is emprisoning 10.000 citizens of the other side ??
Who is allowing new-emmigrants into their state , while forbiding
the indiginious-refugees of the other side to return home ???

Must I go on ???

Who has nuclear power stations while the other hardly have
garbage-collector-truck-repair-shop  ??

Are you still neutral ??

Who is producing and selling weapons worldwide
while receiving thechnical and military aid from the USA  ???

Are you “neutral”
or simply criminaly-ignorant ??

Raja Chemayel

23.09.10
Posted by Tlaxcala at 11:18 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

ADL’S VIEWS SHOULD NOT BE TAKENSERIOUSLY

DesertPeace

March 28, 2010 at 14:32 (ADL Hatemongering, Israel, zionist harassment)

It must have been a slow week in the offices of the ADL…. they seem to have found time to dig up some dirt on Jimmy Carter and throw it in his face…..

BUT….. they obviously did not read the second linked article on this post or they might not be so quick to condemn.

ADL: Carter has reverted to anti-Israel stance, despite recent apology

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter’s apology to the Jewish community over his anti-Israel views should not be taken seriously, an Anti-Defamation League statement said Sunday, claiming that Carter had continued attacking Israel even after sending an apologetic letter to the leaders of the U.S. Jewish community.


More HERE

Perhaps the reasons for Carter’s positions can be found in the following…..


Israel should thank Obama for acting like a friend
By Gideon Levy

If Israel had a real peace camp, if the silent majority had broken its sickly silence, if more Israelis approached the situation as a collective rather than individuals yearning for the next holiday or car, if more Israelis refused to accept blindly the deceptions of Israeli diplomacy and propaganda, Rabin Square would have been filled with demonstrators yesterday. Among the banners and flags, one sign would have stood out in this hour of risks and fateful decisions: “Thank you, friend.” Thank you, Barack Obama, friend of Israel.


Read the rest HERE

Anti-Semitism: Zionism’s Indispensable Alibi

by Maidhc Ó Cathail
(Thursday, March 18, 2010)

“…are Professors Mearsheimer and Walt engaged in hate propaganda by documenting the harmful influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy? Or is former US President Jimmy Carter a “bigot” for comparing the Israeli occupation of Palestine to apartheid South Africa? Are the survivors of the USS Liberty who refuse to remain silent about Israel’s deliberate attack on their ship merely motivated by hatred of Jews? Is Professor Norman Finkelstein a “self-hating Jew” for exposing the Holocaust Industry’s corruption of history and memory in the service of an extortion racket? And is UN special rapporteur Richard Falk also “self-hating” for likening Israel’s actions against the besieged Gazans to what the Nazis did to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?”

Although Zionism typically represents itself as the solution to anti-Semitism, the truth is less flattering. In fact, hostility toward Jews is indispensable to the cause of Jewish nationalism. If anti-Semitism didn’t exist, Zionists would have to invent it. And in many cases that is precisely what they have done.

Contrary to the widespread perception that Zionism opposes anti-Semitism, its adherents have occasionally revealed a more ambivalent attitude to Jew-hatred. In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, prophetically wrote in his Diaries, “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Even the suffering inflicted on European Jewry by the Nazi holocaust doesn’t seem to have unduly tempered such cynicism. In 1995, Jay Lefkowitz, an American government official, told the New York Times Magazine, “Deep down, I believe that a little anti-Semitism is a good thing for the Jews–reminds them who they are.”

If Zionist extremists can’t provoke the desired level of anti-Semitism to advance their goals, they are even prepared to fake it. A 1952 article in Davar, the official organ of Mapai, the party of the then Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, suggested sending a team of saboteurs “to help redeem Jews” from the countries where they are “absorbed in sinful self-satisfaction.”

“The task of these young men,” the article explained, “would be to disguise themselves as non-Jews, and, acting upon the brutal Zionism, plague these Jews with anti-Semitic slogans, such as ‘Bloody Jew,’ ‘Jews go to Palestine,’ and similar ‘intimacies.’”

Lest anyone doubt that the Israeli government would ever contemplate carrying out such a cynical plot to encourage Jews to move to Israel, the “rescue” of about 125,000 Iraqi Jews in the early 1950s involved far worse acts. “In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews,” wrote former CIA officer Wilbur Eveland in Ropes of Sand, “the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel.”

Whatever about posing as “Arab anti-Semites,” one might think that Zionists would draw the line at a post-Holocaust sponsorship of Nazism. Yet this is exactly what a leading Canadian Zionist organization has been accused of. “In the 1960s, the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) paid John Garrity, a small-time mercenary, to build up the fledgling Canadian Nazi Party,” reveals Ezra Levant in Shakedown. When the embarrassing truth emerged, it was justified by the CJC as an attempt to learn more about neo-Nazism. However, the real purpose, according to the Jewish Canadian writer, was to provide “a pretext for the addition of ‘hate’ laws to the criminal code.”

While “hate” sounds like something that all decent people would condemn, one man’s hate may be another man’s righteous indignation. Zionists, for example, tend to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and, therefore, as something that could be considered a “hate crime.”

But are Professors Mearsheimer and Walt engaged in hate propaganda by documenting the harmful influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy? Or is former US President Jimmy Carter a “bigot” for comparing the Israeli occupation of Palestine to apartheid South Africa? Are the survivors of the USS Liberty who refuse to remain silent about Israel’s deliberate attack on their ship merely motivated by hatred of Jews? Is Professor Norman Finkelstein a “self-hating Jew” for exposing the Holocaust Industry’s corruption of history and memory in the service of an extortion racket? And is UN special rapporteur Richard Falk also “self-hating” for likening Israel’s actions against the besieged Gazans to what the Nazis did to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?

In each of these cases, by no means an exhaustive list, the charge of anti-Semitism, rather than serving to protect Jewish people from defamation, has been used to obscure Zionist crimes.

However, as Zionist criminality becomes increasingly transparent, there will most likely be a sharp rise in anti-Semitism worldwide. No doubt much of it will be the result of genuine, albeit misdirected, anger as the extent of Zionist crimes against humanity becomes more widely known. But considering Zionism’s history of faking attacks on Jews, we can expect at least some of this “hate” to be the work of Jewish extremists who disingenuously claim to be fighting anti-Semitism.

Perhaps it’s time for those who are genuinely concerned about combating hatred in the world to heed the words of Israel Shahak. As the great Israeli humanist concluded in his classic Jewish History, Jewish Religion, “Although the struggle against antisemitism (and of all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism … is now of equal or greater importance.”

Source:
by courtesy & © 2010 Maidhc Ó Cathail

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

"C" like Carter or "C" like Chemayel ??

Frustrated Arab’s Diary

President Jimmy Carter
has written a book
(which I did not read)
but I have heard positive critics about :
” Israel :
Peace or Apartheid ?? “
I intend to write another book ,
(with my brother-in-law)
Sherlock Hommos , PhD ,
which shall  be titled:
 ” Israel:
Peace or Israel  ?? “


this future book ,
shall be more practical
and more realistic, of course .
Although Carter has a better name and fame…
but I shall sell it as a better discount !!

Raja Chemayel
Ghost-writer for Sherlock Hommos
Posted by Тлакскала at 8:29 PM

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

CORRIGAN: Israel and Apartheid: Is it a fair comparison?

Link
March 8, 2010
noarabs483_001 copy
by Edward C Corrigan  –  Dissident Voice –  1 March 2010
There is a controversy raging in North America over Israeli Apartheid Week (March 1-7 2010).1 A resolution was passed in the Ontario Provincial Parliament which was unanimously supported (only 30 MPPs voted) and declared the comparison of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to apartheid as “odious.”
To quote an article in the Toronto Star Canada’s largest circulation paper.

In a rare show of unanimity, Ontario MPPs of all political stripes have banded together to condemn “Israeli Apartheid Week.”
Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) tabled the motion Thursday to denounce the sixth annual provocative campus event that kicks off next week at universities and colleges in 35 cities around the world.
“Resolutions in the Ontario Legislature send a message. They are about moral suasion,” said Shurman, adding “it is close to hate speech” to liken democratic Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.
“I want the name changed. It’s just wrong,” he said, emphasizing that “respectful” debate about the Middle East is much more constructive than slinging slurs.
“Israeli Apartheid Week is not a dialogue, it’s a monologue, and it is an imposition of a view by the name itself – the name is hateful, it is odious,” he said, adding it is also offensive to the millions of black South Africans oppressed by a racist white regime until the early 1990s.2

Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman (Thornhill) was quoted as saying that he wants “the name changed. It’s just wrong” and that his resolution is about “moral suasion”, and that the term apartheid is “close to hate speech…hateful” and “odious”. He says he wants a “respectful” debate much more “constructive” than “slinging slurs.”
New Democratic MPP Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park) also claimed that the word apartheid is “inflammatory” and ”used inappropriately in the case of Israel”. “Apartheid does not help the discussion,” she states.
Shurman also argued that the comparison “is also offensive to the millions of black South Africans oppressed by a racist white regime until the early 1990s.”2
It is interesting to see what South African’s who actually lived under the Apartheid system have to say about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The natural basis of such kinship between the policies of Israel and South Africa was apparently recognized by the virulent supporter of Apartheid and prime minister of South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd. He noted in 1961 that Jews “took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. In that I agree with them, Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”3
The much revered leader of the struggle against racism and Apartheid in South Africa and the first President of the non-racist Republic of South Africa Nelson Mandela had the following to say on the issue of the Palestinians. To quote journalist John Pilger, “To Nelson Mandela, justice for the Palestinians is ‘the greatest moral issue of our time.’”4
Here is an excerpt from a speech Nelson Mandela gave on International day of Solidarity with the Palestinians.

The temptation in our situation is to speak in muffled tones about an issue such as the right of the people of Palestine to a state of their own. We can easily be enticed to read reconciliation and fairness as meaning parity between justice and injustice. Having achieved our own freedom, we can fall into the trap of washing our hands of difficulties that others faces.
Yet we would be less than human if we did so.
It behooves all South Africans, themselves erstwhile beneficiaries of generous international support, to stand up and be counted among those contributing actively to the cause of freedom and justice.
Even during the days of negotiations, our own experience taught us that the pursuit of human fraternity and equality — irrespective of race or religion – should stand at the centre of our peaceful endeavours. The choice is not between freedom and justice, on the one hand, and their opposite, on the other. Peace and prosperity; tranquility and security are only possible if these are enjoyed by all without discrimination.
It is in this spirit that I have come to join you today to add our own voice to the universal call for Palestinian self-determination and statehood.5

In March 1985, Denis Goldberg, a Jewish South African and member of the African National Congress and sentenced in 1964 to life imprisonment for “conspiring to overthrow the apartheid regime,” was released through the intercession of his daughter, an Israeli, and top Israeli officials, including the president of Israel and allowed to go into exile to Israel.
Goldberg said after arriving in Israel that he saw “many similarities in the oppression of blacks in South Africa and of Palestinians.” He called for a total economic boycott of South Africa, singling out Israel as a major ally of the apartheid regime. Refusing to live in a country that supported Apartheid South Africa Goldberg quickly left Israel and moved to London, England.6
Mr. Aziz Pahad, the South African Deputy Foreign Minister, and Mr. Kgalema Motlanthe, the Deputy President of the African National Congress (ANC), met with Palestinian human rights activists on 6 June 2008 in South Africa. The South Africans officials had recently returned from a visit to the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the meeting with Arab Political Leaders and Adalah representatives Mr. Pahad and Mr. Motlanthe stressed the South African government’s support for the Palestinian people. Mr. Motlanthe stated that in his view “the current situation for Palestinians in the OPT is worse than conditions were for Blacks under the Apartheid regime.”7
Here is an excerpt from an article describing the reactions of Veteran African Congress members after visiting the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

Veterans of the anti-apartheid struggle said last night that the restrictions endured by Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories was in some respects worse than that imposed on the black majority under white rule in South Africa.
Members of a 23-strong human-rights team of prominent South Africans cited the impact of the Israeli military’s separation barrier, checkpoints, the permit system for Palestinian travel, and the extent to which Palestinians are barred from using roads in the West Bank.
After a five-day visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories, some delegates expressed shock and dismay at conditions in the Israeli-controlled heart of Hebron. Uniquely among West Bank cities, 800 settlers now live there and segregation has seen the closure of nearly 3,000 Palestinian businesses and housing units. Palestinian cars (and in some sections pedestrians) are prohibited from using the once busy streets.
“Even with the system of permits, even with the limits of movement to South Africa, we never had as much restriction on movement as I see for the people here,” said an ANC parliamentarian, Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge of the West Bank. “There are areas in which people would live their whole lifetime without visiting because it’s impossible.”8

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy also wrote an article on this visit by South African dignitaries. Here are excerpts from his report:

Lunch is in a hotel in the city, and Madlala-Routledge speaks. “It is hard for me to describe what I am feeling. What I see here is worse than what we experienced. But I am encouraged to find that there are courageous people here. We want to support you in your struggle, by every possible means. There are quite a few Jews in our delegation, and we are very proud that they are the ones who brought us here. They are demonstrating their commitment to support you. In our country we were able to unite all the forces behind one struggle, and there were courageous whites, including Jews, who joined the struggle. I hope we will see more Israeli Jews joining your struggle.”
She was deputy defense minister from 1999 to 2004; in 1987 she served time in prison. Later, I asked her in what ways the situation here is worse than apartheid. “The absolute control of people’s lives, the lack of freedom of movement, the army presence everywhere, the total separation and the extensive destruction we saw.”
Madlala-Routledge thinks that the struggle against the occupation is not succeeding here because of U.S. support for Israel – not the case with apartheid, which international sanctions helped destroy. Here, the racist ideology is also reinforced by religion, which was not the case in South Africa. “Talk about the ‘promised land’ and the ‘chosen people’ adds a religious dimension to racism which we did not have.”
Equally harsh are the remarks of the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times of South Africa, Mondli Makhanya, 38. “When you observe from afar you know that things are bad, but you do not know how bad. Nothing can prepare you for the evil we have seen here. In a certain sense, it is worse, worse, worse than everything we endured. The level of the apartheid, the racism and the brutality are worse than the worst period of apartheid.
“The apartheid regime viewed the blacks as inferior; I do not think the Israelis see the Palestinians as human beings at all. How can a human brain engineer this total separation, the separate roads, the checkpoints? What we went through was terrible, terrible, terrible – and yet there is no comparison. Here it is more terrible. We also knew that it would end one day; here there is no end in sight. The end of the tunnel is blacker than black.9

Here is what other prominent South Africans have to say about the issue of Israel and Apartheid.
“I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu10 “When I hear, ‘that used to be my home’, it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu11 “… the fundamental cause of the conflict — lest anyone remains unclear. It stems from the Zionist world view — its belief in a perpetual anti-Semitism that requires that Jewish people around the world — a faith group — should have a national home of their own. The biblical narrative was evoked to proclaim Palestine as the promised land reserved exclusively for God’s ‘chosen people’ and their civilizing mission. It sounds all too familiar as a vision the Voortrekkers had in this country. It gives rise to racism, apartheid and a total onslaught on those who stand in your way, whether blacks or Arabs or red Indians. Many Jews do not agree with this Zionist world view, and declare that being anti-Zionism and critical of Israel does not equate with anti-semitism.” – Speech given to the South African Parliament by Government Minister Ronnie Kasrils12 “… Israel came to resemble more and more apartheid South Africa at its zenith – even surpassing its brutality, house demolitions, removal of communities, targeted assassinations, massacres, imprisonment and torture of its opponents, collective punishment and the aggression against neighbouring states.” – Former South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils from a speech at Israel Apartheid Week 2009.13 “But what is interesting is that every black South African that I’ve spoken to who has visited the Palestinian territory has been horrified and has said without hesitation that the system that applies in Palestine is worse.” – Professor John Dugard, Former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied Palestine.14 “Apartheid Israel can be defeated, just as apartheid in South Africa was defeated.” – Winnie Mandela15 “”When I come here and see the situation [in the Palestinian territories], I find that what is happening here is ten times worse than what I had experienced in South Africa. This is Apartheid.” – Arun Ghandi16 “The horrendous dehumanisation of Black South Africans during the erstwhile Apartheid years is a Sunday picnic, compared with what I saw and what I know is happening to the Palestinian people.” – Willie Madisha, former head of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)17 “As someone who lived in apartheid South Africa and who has visited Palestine I say with confidence that Israel is an apartheid state. In fact, I believe that some of Israel’s actions make the actions of South Africa’s apartheid regime appear pale by comparison.” – Willie Madisha, in a letter supporting CUPE Ontario’s resolution.18 “I say with confidence that Israel is an Apartheid state. The trade union movement must move beyond resolutions, otherwise history will look back on us and spit on our graves.” – Willie Madisha, at a trade union conference held in London, England.19 “Indeed, for those of us who lived under South African Apartheid and fought for liberation from it and everything that it represented, Palestine reflects in many ways the unfinished business of our own struggle.” – Farid Esack, Writer, Visiting Professor at Harvard and Anti-apartheid Spokesperson.20 “They support Zionism, a version of global racist domination and apartheid based on the doctrine that Jews are superior to Arabs and therefore have a right to oppress them and occupy their country.” – Current COSATU President, Sidumo Dlamini.21

Former U.S President Jimmy Carter who helped bring about the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt has also have written and spoken out on Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians. In an interview in Israel Carter stated the following on the Apartheid comparison:

When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200-or-so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.
Carter said his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” was meant to spark U.S. discussion of Israeli policies. “The hope is that my book will at least stimulate a debate, which has not existed in this country. There’s never been any debate on this issue, of any significance.22

Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid resulted in him being severely criticized by the American Jewish community. Here is what Cecilie Surasky, from the Jewish Voice for Peace and Muzzle Watch, had to say about this treatment.

Few people anywhere have endured more vicious demonization regarding the Israel issue than Nobel-prize-winning former US president Jimmy Carter. It is a sad statement that the man who did more for peace for the Israelis than any other U.S. president, is now vilified as an anti-Semite in Jewish communities across the land, most notably for titling his book Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. In fact, Carter is one of Israel’s few true friends who remains impressively committed to doing whatever he can to bring about some kind of resolution, rather than taking the easy road by giving the self-destructive government more of what it wants- arms and money to occupy more land. 23

Issues that are virtually forbidden in the North American public arena are treated much differently in Israel where such topics are part of the general political discourse and debate. Many Israelis use the term Apartheid to describe Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. It is worth reviewing the political debate and public discussion of these questions in Israel.
Michael Ben-Yair was Israel’s attorney general from 1993‑96. He wrote that after Israel won the Six Day War in June 1967:

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one — progressive, liberal — in Israel; and the other — cruel, injurious — in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture.
That oppressive regime exists to this day.24

Avraham Burg was speaker of Israel’s Knesset in 1999‑2003 and is a former chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel. Here is how Burg is described in an article published in The New Yorker magazine.

Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment. His father was a Cabinet minister for nearly four decades, serving under Prime Ministers from David Ben‑Gurion to Shimon Peres. In addition to a decade‑long career in the Knesset, including four years as Speaker, Burg had also been leader of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Israel. And yet he did not obey the commands of pedigree. Defeating Hitler and an earlier book, God Is Back, are in combination, a despairing look at the Israeli condition. Burg warns that an increasingly large and ardent sector of Israeli society disdains political democracy. He describes the country in its current state as Holocaust‑obsessed, militaristic, xenophobic, and, like Germany in the nineteen‑thirties, vulnerable to an extremist minority.25

In 2003, Burg wrote in an article:

Israel must shed its illusions and choose between racist oppression and democracy.
The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state here, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.26

In 2007 another article was published in Haaretz on Avraham Burg. He is quoted: “to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It’s dynamite.” In the interview Burg said that he was Ain favor of abrogating the Law of Return and calls on everyone who can to obtain a foreign passport.”27
Here are the words of another veteran Israeli politician, Yossi Sarid, on the comparison of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians and Apartheid. Sarid served as a member of the Knesset for the Alignment, Ratz and Meretz between 1974 and 2006. A former Minister of Education and Minister of the Environment, he led Meretz between 1996 and 2003.

The white Afrikaners, too, had reasons for their segregation policy; they, too, felt threatened — a great evil was at their door, and they were frightened, out to defend themselves. Unfortunately, however, all good reasons for apartheid are bad reasons; apartheid always has a reason, and it never has a justification. And what acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck – it is apartheid. Nor does it even solve the problem of fear: Today, everyone knows that all apartheid will inevitably reach its sorry end. One essential difference remains between South Africa and Israel: There a small minority dominated a large majority, and here we have almost a tie. But the tiebreaker is already darkening on the horizon. Then the Zionist project will come to an end if we don’t choose to leave the slave house before being visited by a fatal demographic plague. It is entirely clear why the word apartheid terrifies us so. What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself. Even Ehud Olmert has understood at last that continuing the present situation is the end of the Jewish democratic state, as he recently said.28

Another prominent Israeli politician who served many years in the Knesset, Shulamit Aloni, has also been scathing in her criticism of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.29 Aloni, is the Israeli Prize laureate who once served as Minister of Education under Yitzhak Rabin. She wrote, “Jewish self‑righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.”30
Aloni also defended former U.S. President Jimmy Carter:

The US Jewish Establishment’s onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced‑in, or blocked‑in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population’s movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians’ land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.31

Here is what Yossi Paritzky, a member of the Shinui Party who served in the Israeli Knesset and also in the Israeli cabinet, had to say about racial discrimination in Israel:

One of the clearest rules that distinguishes a democratic state from a non‑democratic state is the principle of equality when it comes to rights and obligations. In a democratic country, all citizens regardless of race, religious, gender or origin are entitled to equality when it comes to national assets, services and resources, and all citizens regardless of race, religion, gender or origin are equally obligated by national duties.
For example, in a democratic country everyone must pay taxes (although at different rates, of course,) and everyone must obey the law. On the other hand, every citizen in a democratic state is entitled to enjoy individual freedoms. One is entitled to purchase assets in the country, marry anyone he or she wish, work wherever one wants, study whatever one wishes, and express himself or herself as they wish.
In short, equality is the basic tenet of a liberal western democracy and without it a country is not democratic in practice although possibly democratic by law.
… in a series of three decisions that are separate but connected through a stench of racism and discrimination, Israel entered the dismal pantheon of non‑democratic states. This past Wednesday, Israel decided to be like apartheid‑era South Africa, and some will say even worse countries that no longer exist.32

The following are comments made by Yossi Beilin, a member of the Knesset, and chairman of the Israeli Meretz‑Yahad Party, on the uproar caused in the United States over former U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

I cannot recall when the publication of a book has generated such a debate in Israel. And even though we are talking here about a book that was published in the United States and has yet to be translated into Hebrew, the quiet way in which Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has been received in Israel is nevertheless noteworthy, not least because it is Israel itself that is the object of Carter’s opprobrium.
Part of the explanation for why Carter’s book did not set off any public outcry in Israel lies in the difference in literary culture. For better or worse C and I, for one, certainly think that it is for worse C books just don’t matter here in the way they still do elsewhere. Yet perhaps a larger part of the explanation lies with the difference in political culture, and with local sensitivities (or perhaps insensitivities) to language and moral tone.

It is not that Israelis are indifferent to what is said about them, but the threshold of what passes as acceptable here is apparently much higher than it is with Israel’s friends in the United States. In the case of this particular book, the harsh words that Carter reserves for Israel are simply not as jarring to Israeli ears, which have grown used to such language, especially with respect to the occupation.
In other words, what Carter says in his book about the Israeli occupation and our treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories C and perhaps no less important, how he says it C is entirely harmonious with the kind of criticism that Israelis themselves voice about their own country. There is nothing in the criticism that Carter has for Israel that has not been said by Israelis themselves.33
Uri Davis, author of Israel: An Apartheid State (London: Zed Books, 1987) and many other studies34 on Israel and Zionism, was elected in August 2009 to serve on the Fatah Revolutionary Council.35 He wrote:

Following the establishment of the state of Israel, however, and the introduction of the legislation detailed below into the body of Israeli law, the legal situation governing the activities of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Histadrut, the Workers’ Company, and their various subsidiaries radically altered. Their respective restrictive constitutions, which were legally binding on what were, until 1948, technically voluntary organisations, are now incorporated into the legal foundations and the body of law of the state of Israel, thereby establishing a situation of radical legal apartheid of Jew versus non-Jew.36

Davis further added the following quote from Israel’s Defense minister Moshe Dyan.

We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. In a considerable portion of localities we purchased the land from the Arabs. Instead of the Arab villages Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the name of the villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. Nahalal was established in the place of Mahalul, Gevat in the place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kefar Yehoshu’a in the place of Tel Shaham. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village (Dayan, 19 March 1969; as quoted in Haaretz, 4 April 1969)37

Another example of the type of discussion that goes on in Israel is the following statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: “For sixty years there has been discrimination against Arabs in Israel. This discrimination is deep‑seated and intolerable.” Olmert made this statement while addressing a meeting of the Knesset committee that was investigating the lack of integration of Arab citizens in the Israeli public service.38 Prime Minister Olmert also made the following comment in an interview with Haaretz: “If the day comes when the two‑state solution collapses, and we face a South African‑style struggle for equal voting rights, then as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.”39
Here is a recent discussion of Apartheid which was published in the Israel press titled, “Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?,” by Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, January 5, 2010. The author is discussing a ruling of an Israeli judge.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that “the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided.” A similar argument was voiced during the days of Israel’s military administration over its Arab citizens, which was lifted in 1966, and which is today considered a dark period in the country’s history.
Beinisch herself is a co-author of about a dozen rulings that exposed the malicious use of the segregation regime in an effort to take over Palestinian land. In some cases, most notably one concerning the separation fence near Bil’in, she wrote that the invasive route set by the army was inferior from a security point of view to the route proposed by experts at the Council for Peace and Security. In another case the state admitted that the person in charge of planning the fence did not inform government lawyers that the route had been adjusted to the blueprint for expanding the settlement of Tzofin. Were it not for human rights organizations and conscientious lawyers, who would prevent shortsighted politicians from annexing more and more territory “for security against terrorism”? asked Beinisch.
One of the myths among whites in South Africa was that “blacks want to throw us into the sea.” Many of apartheid’s practices were formally based on security, mostly those involving restrictions on movement. Thus, for example, at a fairly early stage, black citizens needed permits to move around the country. During the final years of apartheid, when the blacks’ struggle intensified as did terrorism, its practices became more severe.
To avoid the rude word apartheid, Beinisch pulled out the well-known argument that apartheid is “a policy of segregation and discrimination based on race and ethnicity, which is based on a series of discriminatory practices designed to achieve the superiority of a certain race and oppress those of other races.” Indeed, systematic segregation (apartheid) and discrimination in South Africa were meant to preserve the supremacy of one race over others.
In Israel, on the other hand, institutional discrimination is meant to preserve the supremacy of a group of Jewish settlers over Palestinian Arabs. As far as discriminatory practices are concerned, it’s hard to find differences between white rule in South Africa and Israeli rule in the territories; for example, separate areas and separate laws for Jews and Palestinians.40

Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, and former Prime Minister, also has used the Apartheid analogy. At the annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya Barak “delivered an unusually blunt ­warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish ­majority or an “apartheid” regime.”41
To quote the Guardian, “His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.”
Barak, a former general and Israel’s most decorated soldier, said that a two-state solution was “the only way to secure Israel’s future as a “Zionist, Jewish, democratic state.” Barak also said:

As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic… If this bloc of millions of ­Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.41

Can you ever imagine a top American or Canadian politician making statements like these, or a leading Canadian or American newspaper publishing comments like these ones? If the politicians did make statements like these what would be the reaction?
This article only reviews a portion of the critical debate in Israel from Israeli politicians. There is much more debate and critical examination of Zionism and of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. The comparison between Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians and to Apartheid is a legitimate part of that debate and this is an analogy frequently used by Israelis.
Serious discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must include the full spectrum of opinion in keeping with democratic values, free speech and much needed critical inquiry. In Israel, there is a vibrant political debate, and while this debate and democratic discourse is coming increasingly under attack, this debate contributes to the vitality of Israeli society as it deals with the Palestinian issue, the nature of a “Jewish State” and how to govern its society.
America, which provides a great deal of financial, military and political support for Israel, needs to be aware of this debate in Israel and in Jewish circles, and to understand the ramifications of uncritical support for the policies and actions of Israel toward the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. To stifle and censor the discussion of these important issues does no favors for the United States, Canada or for Israel or the Jewish people.

  1. Israeli Apartheid Week: Solidarity in action: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, March 1-7, 2010. []
  2. MPPs decry linking Israel to `apartheid’: In rare show of political unity, legislators join in denouncing ‘odious’ name of campus event,” Toronto Star, February 26, 2010. [] []
  3. Israel and South Africa: A Natural Alliance,” by Robert B. Ashmore, The Link, October-November 1988, Volume 21, Issue 4. []
  4. For Israel, a Reckoning,” by John Pilger, Antiwar.com, January 14, 2010. []
  5. Address by President Nelson Mandela at the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Pretoria, 4 December 1997. []
  6. The Israeli-South African-U.S. Alliance,” by Jane Hunter, The Link, March-April 1986,Volume 19, Issue 1, p. 1. []
  7. Delegation of Arab Political Leaders and Adalah Representatives in South Africa Meet with Lawyers from the Legal Resources Center, Ministers and Government Officials to Discuss Constitution Building and Human Rights, Adalah, 9 June 2008. []
  8. ‘This is like apartheid’: ANC veterans visit West Bank,” By Donald Macintyre, The Independent, July 11, 2008. []
  9. Worse than apartheid,” by Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 10/07/2008. []
  10. Apartheid in the Holy Land,” by Desmond Tutu, The Guardian, April 29, 2002. []
  11. Desmond Tutu Likens Israeli Actions to Apartheid,” by Adrianne Appel October 29, 2007 by Inter Press Service. []
  12. Kasrils Ronnie Speech given to the South African Parliament by Government Minister Ronnie Kasrils, MP on 6 June 2007 to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the Six Day War. []
  13. Israeli Apartheid: We Learn From History That We Learn Nothing From History,” Tuesday 21 April 2009 by Ronnie Kasrils. []
  14. Hisham B. Sharabi Memorial Lecture: Apartheid and Occupation under International Law with John Dugard Monday, March 30, 2009 Edited Transcript of Remarks by Professor John Dugard, Transcript No. 311 (30 March 2009). []
  15. Winnie Mandela on apartheid Israel,” Independent Online, March 26, 2004. Retrieved November 3, 2006. []
  16. Gandhi’s Grandson Visits Gaza Through Video-Conference, Describes Occupation as ‘Ten Times Worse than Apartheid,” International Press Center (IPC), August 29,2004. []
  17. The Boycott Israel Meeting,” held April 08 2009 Bristol Indymedia, Sunday April 12, 2009. []
  18. South African unions support CUPE Ontario resolution on Israel,” July 4, 2006, “On behalf of 1.2 million South African workers, Willie Madisha, president of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), writes: “… with great pride, I congratulate CUPE Ontario for their historic resolution on May 27th in support of the Palestinian people — those living under occupation and those millions of Palestinian refugees living in the Diaspora. We fully support your resolution.” []
  19. PGFTU Account of Recent Events in Nabalus. []
  20. I come from Apartheid South Africa. Arriving in your land, the land of Palestine, the sense of deja vu is inescapable,” by Adam Horowitz, Mondoweiss, April 22, 2009. []
  21. Address By Sidumo Dlamini, To The International Strategy Workshop Towards The International Solidarity Conference Of COSATU,” 26 March, 2009. []
  22. Jimmy Carter: Israel’s ‘apartheid’ policies worse than South Africa’s,” Haaretz, 11/12/2006. []
  23. Jimmy Carter’s apology to the Jewish people,” by Cecil Surasky, Muzzle Watch, December 28, 2009. []
  24. “The Six Day War’s Seventh Day,” by Michael Ben‑Yair, Haaretz, March 3rd, 2002. This article is also reproduced in The Other Israel, Voices of Refusal and Dissent, Foreword by Tom Segev and Introduction by Anthony Lewis, edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin. (New York: New Press, 2002), p. 13-15. []
  25. The Apostate: A Zionist politician loses faith in the future,” by David Remnick, The New Yorker, July 30, 2007. []
  26. The end of Zionism,” by Avraham Burg, The Guardian, September 15, 2003. []
  27. Burg Defining Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end,” by Ari Shavit, Haaretz, June 7, 2007. See also “Leaving the Zionist ghetto: Interview with Avraham Burg,” by Ari Shavit, Haaretz, June 8, 2007. []
  28. Yes it is apartheid,” by Yossi Sarid, Haaretz, April 25, 2008. []
  29. You can continue with the Liquidations,” by Shluamit Aloni, January 18, 2002 published in The Other Israel, Voices of Refusal and Dissent, Foreword by Tom Segev and Introduction by Anthony Lewis, edited by Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin. (New York: New Press, 2002) p. 85-87. []
  30. “Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel,” by Shulamit Aloni, Yediot Acharonot, May 1, 2006. The article was published in Israel’s largest circulating newspaper in the Hebrew edition but not in the English‑language YNetNews. It was translated by Sol Salbe, an Israeli-Australian editor and translator, and distributed through the Australian based Middle East News Service sponsored by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The Hebrew original. []
  31. “Indeed there is Apartheid in Israel,” by Shulamit Aloni, Yediot Acharonot, May 1, 2006. The article was published in Israel=s largest circulating newspaper in the Hebrew edition but not in the English‑language YNetNews. It was translated by Sol Salbe, an Israeli-Australian editor and translator, and distributed through the Australian based Middle East News Service sponsored by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The Hebrew original. []
  32. Our apartheid state: Three racist, discriminatory decisions undermine Israel’s democratic character,” by Yossi Paritzky, YNet News, July 24, 2007. []
  33. Carter Is No More Critical of Israel Than Israelis Themselves,” by Yossi Beilin, The Forward, January 19, 2007 republished in Occupation Magazine, February 2, 2007. []
  34. See for example Uri Davis, Palestinian Arabs in Israel: Two Case Studies (co-author), (London: Ithaca Press, 1978); Citizenship and the State: A Comparative Study of Citizenship Legislation in Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, Reading, Berkshire UK: Ithaca Press, 1997); and Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, (New York: Zed Books, 2003). []
  35. See “A Jerusalem-born Jew elected to Fatah Revolutionary Council,” by DPA, Haaretz, August 15, 2009. []
  36. Israel — An Apartheid State, by Uri Davis, (Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987), p. 15. []
  37. Ibid., p 21. []
  38. See “PM slams ‘discrimination’ against Arabs,” by Elie Leshem and Jpost.com Staff, Jerusalem Post, November 12, 2008. See also “Olmert voices sorrow for plight of Palestinian, Jewish refugees,” by Shahar Ilan, Haaretz, September 15, 2008. []
  39. See “Olmert warns of end of Israel,” BBC, November 29, 2007. []
  40. Are Israel and apartheid South Africa really different?,” by Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, January 5, 2010. []
  41. Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid,” by Rory McCarthy, The Guardian, February 3, 2010. [] []

Edward C. Corrigan is a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: corriganlaw@edcorrigan.ca.
River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian

OBLIVIOUS TO THE EVILS OF ZIONISM

DesertPeace

February 11, 2010 at 11:38 am
When I was a child one of my favourite games was closing my eyes and making you disappear…..
That is exactly what Israelis are doing today.
For example…. just down the hill from where I live the following is taking place; yet life goes on in the area as if everything is alright…..
Israeli border guards and police continued operating in the Shu’fat Refugee Camp on Wednesday, following clashes which began on Monday, in the northern quarter of East Jerusalem.

On Tuesday evening two teenagers and three journalists were injured in clashes between Shu’fat Refugee Camp residents and Israeli forces.

Taken FROM

Twenty minutes to the south of my home this is happening…..
Hebron – International and Palestinian tree planters were dispersed with tear gas and sound bombs as they attempted to work land belonging to local farmers on Wednesday, the Palestinian solidarity project said.

Media spokesman for the project Mohammad Awad said the volunteers, participating in the “voluntary day to protect lands under threat of confiscation” brought 500 olive tree seedlings to lands registered to Hasan Awad, Husam Ahmad Bahar and Ibrahim Abed Al-Hamid Abu Maria.
Shortly after the group started planting, Israeli soldiers descended on the area from near the Karmi Zur settlement, 19% of which is built on Palestinian owned land, according to Peace Now, and residents say much of the rest of the land belonged to the village of Beit Ummar.
Awad said soldiers attacked the group and fired teargas as well as sound bombs at them until they retreated from the area. When the smoke cleared and the volunteers returned to the land, Awad said they were prevented from doing so.
An Israeli army spokesman said accounts from officials in the military differed from Awad’s version. He said forces ordered planters to leave the area near Karmi Zur because they were tree planting where “such an activity is not permitted.” According to the army the volunteers left the area without incident.


Taken FROM

The above, plus the ongoing struggles in Shiekh Jarrah (just ten minutes from my home) prove my point….. Israelis have their eyes closed to these evils. The wall of separation has succeeded in making them oblivious to the evils of zionism.
All of what is mentioned here is just in the vicinity of Jerusalem itself…… Gaza is a foreign country as far as they are concerned.
In a day and age where ignorance is no longer considered bliss…… those with their eyes closed are guilty of the crimes being committed by the zionist state.
Silence is complicity! Silence kills!!

River to Sea
 Uprooted Palestinian
%d bloggers like this: