نصر الله: أميركا دولة عنصرية ومتوحشة و»إسرائيل» أهمّ تهديد للأمن في منطقتنا

Source

Click to sea the Video

أكد الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله أن «ما نعيشه اليوم من أحداث ليس معزولاً عما مضى وعن التاريخ»، مشيراً إلى «أنّ أهمّ تهديد للأمن والاستقرار في منطقتنا هو وجود الكيان الغاصب المحتلّ وهو ما يعود لأكثر من 70 سنة». وأوضح السيد نصر الله في كلمة له أول من أمس أنه «لفهم الحاضر والتعاطي معه لا بدّ أن نعود للماضي والتاريخ ونفهمه وفي الحدّ الأدنى نقرأ تاريخ بلادنا وأمتنا وشعبنا»، لافتاً إلى أن «البلاء الحقيقي في منطقتنا وجود «إسرائيل».

وقال «إذا كنت تريد أن تواجه هذا العدو أو تتعاطى مع الكيان يجب أن يكون لك معرفة بتاريخ فلسطين وأرض فلسطين»، مضيفاً «يجب أن نعرف هؤلاء الغزاة من هم، هل هم حقيقةً بنو إسرائيل بنو يعقوب؟ من أين جاؤوا وما هي أهدافهم ونقاط قوتهم وضعفهم تقرأها بتاريخهم؟».

ولفت السيد نصرالله إلى أنّ «بعض العرب ينظرون للحق الديني لهؤلاء، لكن هؤلاء كانت خياراتهم مفتوحة بأن يقيموا وطناً في الأرجنتين أو أوغندا، وأحد الخيارات فلسطين، إذاً كان الموضوع سياسياً بالكامل».

واعتبر السيد نصر الله «أنّ أميركا اليوم التي تمثل أكبر تحدٍ لشعوب العالم وأكبر تهديد للأمن والسلم الدوليين وتعاقب الدول وتصنّف حركات المقاومة بالإرهاب، فإنه بمعرفة تاريخها سنعرف كيف نتصرف معها والمتوقع منها».

وتابع إنّ «القراءة في التاريخ الأميركي تكشف لنا تاريخ غزاة وعصابات إرهابية ومستوطنات ومجازر بحق السكان الأصليين، وأنها دولة عنصرية في عمقها ومتوحشة ودولة قائمة على الأسس الظالمة والتمييز العنصري، في وقت تختبئ أميركا اليوم خلف الإعلام الكاذب والتضليل لشعوب العالم».

وإذ شدّد السيد نصر الله على «أنّ الجهل بالتاريخ في الصراع مع العدو «الإسرائيلي» أو الهيمنة الأميركية يجعل قراءتنا وتوقعاتنا سراباً وخاطئة حول بعض الدول»، رأى أنه «عندما نقرأ التاريخ بشكل صحيح ستصبح آمالنا صحيحة ورهاناتنا صحيحة».

Documentary: ‘Steal of the Century’ (Part 2)

Source

The documentary ‘Steal of the Century’ shows the brutality of the occupation under which the Palestinian people live. (Photo: Video Grab)

‘Steal Of The Century’ (Part 2) is a documentary by Robert Inlakesh, filmed on the ground in occupied Palestine, investigating the peace process, Donald Trump’s proposed ‘Deal of the Century’ and why the Palestinian people have unanimously rejected it. It also seeks to show the brutality of the occupation under which the Palestinian people live, as well as a brief look into the history of Palestine-Israel.

Steal of the Century aims to provide the context leading up to Trump’s so-called peace plan, coupling together Palestinian voices with what International Law has to say about the issue. The documentary series is also built around the themes of the “final status issues”, as they are referred to, namely; borders, Jerusalem (al-Quds), Settlements and refugees. The focus is also placed on issues that fall under these categories.

Part 2 focuses on Bethlehem, the Gaza Strip, Refugees, Israeli Night Raids, Water Resources, and more. It features an interview with Sabreen Al-Najjar, the mother of Razan al-Najjar who was a 21-year-old nurse murdered by Israel during the Great Return March in 2018.

Credits:Cameraman: Hamde Abu RahmaEditing and Graphics by: Dias MussirovProduced, Written and Directed by: Robert Inlakesh for Press TV

Seeing the Tree But Not the Forest: Systemic Racism in American and Israeli Policing

July 31, 2020

By Benay Blend

Since the murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police, his name has (or should have) become a household word. When Mawusi Ture, an activist with the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP), asked if I would write about a similar incident, I was embarrassed that I had to look up the particulars of the case. John Neville also died in police custody, his last words were those of Floyd:   “Let me go.” “Help me up.” “Mama.” “I can’t breathe.”

Neville’s death, and others like it both in America and Occupied Palestine, bears mention beyond the tragedy of this man. The circumstances of his final moments are indicative of the systemic racism embedded in America’s policing and in Israel where many of our police are trained

On December 1, 2019, guards booked John Neville into the Forsyth County jail in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Reporting for the New York Times, Michael Levenson summed up the subsequent events. About 24 hours after his arrest, Neville fell from his top bunk onto the concrete floor. After what appeared to be a seizure, detention officers and a nurse moved him to another cell for observation.

In reality, he was left restrained on his stomach, calling out for help, much like George Floyd. Two days later he died from a brain injury due to cardiac arrest, which in turn was caused by asphyxia during a prone restraint.

In early July, five former detention officers and the attending nurse were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of John Neville, yet another Black man who called out “I can’t breathe.”

“Good men and women made bad decisions that day and, as a result, a good man died,” the Forsyth County sheriff, Bobby F. Kimbrough Jr., whose office runs the county jail, said at the news conference.

However, this case was not about good cops who make bad decisions, but rather systemic racism that has long been embedded in America’s policing. As Levenson observes, the charges were the newest in a long string of similar incidents that have inspired global protests against police brutality due to systemic racism in the force.

Over the past ten years, The New York Times found at least 70 people have died at the hands of the police after reiterating Floyd’s words: “I can’t breathe.” On an interactive page, the Times recorded all the words, that of the victim but also the victimizer’s failure to respond, that were said at the time of death.

After the death of George Floyd, videos surfaced of Israeli police performing the same knee-on-the- neck procedure with Palestinians that was responsible for Floyd’s demise. According to Sheren Khalel, the images have renewed concerns about programs that send American police to train under Israeli military forces.

Neighboring Durham, North Carolina’s City Council voted two years ago to bar its police department from engaging in “military-style training” programs abroad. While there seems to be no documentation specific to Winston-Salem, Khalel notes that North Carolina remains one of many states that participates in what Jewish Voice for Peace has labeled Deadly Exchange.

Palestinian Americans had long drawn comparisons between the US and Israeli use of tactics. Palestinians, too, quickly showed support after the murder of George Floyd, partly because of their own long history of oppression at the hands of Israeli cops.

Indeed, on July 8, Middle East Monitor (MEMO) reported that a Palestinian prisoner detained in Israeli jails had died of “medical negligence,” in much the say way as John Neville. In Saadi Al-Gharably’s case, a local NGO conveyed that Al-Gharably had suffered from prostate cancer, diabetes and blood pressure, none of which received medical attention during his time in prison.

Referring to a report from the Media Office of the Palestinian Prisoners, MEMO related that around 222 Palestinian detainees are said to have died in Israeli prisons, while over 5,500 Palestinians are currently held in Israeli jails where they are now even more at risk from the Covid-19 virus.

Shortly after Floyd’s death, Mohammad al-Qadi, a Palestinian marathon runner from the Occupied West Bank tweeted several pictures showing Israeli police using the same chokehold on Palestinians that had been employed on Floyd. “Crazy how the same thing happens in Palestine but the world chooses to ignore it,” al-Qadi captioned, describing with some anger the world’s indifference to suffering in his country.

What does it take to ignite an uprising that draws awareness to injustice? In occupied Palestine, it was the burning alive of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, 16, by three young Israeli settlers that called attention to the 2014 war on Gaza. In America, the murder of George Floyd sparked protests that continue on today.

Both events were watersheds, a spark after decades of Occupation in Palestine and centuries of the same in the United States. Such tragedies need to be put into historical context. Without that kind of grounding, movements that are organized around one event, like for example the anti-war campaign during Vietnam, run the risk of losing momentum when the original galvanizing force is gone.

Other pitfalls, too, could be avoided by placing each victim of police brutality within a timeline. For example, there have recently been important analyses on the tendency of brands and corporations to commodify Black lives. “As brands all over the world are taking a stand,” writes Leonie Annor-Owiredu, the questions should be: “where were you then, why now, and for how long will you take a stand?”

“Brands must be willing to take on struggles,” she continues, “instead of simply supposing/announcing themselves to be allies to the cause.” Context also plays a part in highlighting the Wall of Moms, a group that Dani Blum observes first started at the Portland protests but more recently have mobilized collectives across the country. Arm-in-arm, they have formed human shields between protestors and federal agents.

While admirable, McKensie Mack noted in a Facebook post that Black mothers in Englewood have been protesting violence in their community for years by creating a wall of justice around it in the same way as the Wall of Moms, by using their bodies as a shield. “We have a history,” Mack reminds her readers. “Let’s honor it. Let’s tell it right.”

By placing targeted groups—whether Palestinians or African Americans—at the center of their struggles, by placing those movements within historical contexts, there is a continuity that is less likely to be commodified by opportunists who soon move on to the next thing when they get tired.

It also makes clear that certain communities have entire systems and structures set against them. George Floyd and Mohammed Abu Khdeir were not one-time tragedies, but rather the latest in an entire history of atrocities meted out by settler-colonial states.

“The revolution won’t be sustained in diversity schemes,” Annor-Owiredu warns. It requires structural changes to bring about real justice.

Palestinians and people of color understand the importance of narration from below. In the words of journalist Ramzy Baroud, such history must rely on “the collective memory of the Palestinian people,” an accounting that defines “what it means to be Palestinian…what they stand for as a nation, and why they have resisted for years..”

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

An Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy

Source

by Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson | Author | Common Dreams

Part I—Meeting Caroline Glick

I traveled to Israel and the Occupied Territories in the early 2000s with the progressive group Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. We made an effort to gain insight into most of the players in the conflict, and so a series of interviews was arranged with members of the Israeli right wing. I remember that one of them was Caroline Glick, an ardent American-Israeli Zionist. She lectured us on the positive personal relationships allegedly prevalent between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. 

It was an interesting and somewhat embarrassing experience. Glick and I are both American and both Jewish. Growing up, I had this understanding that American plus Jewish always meant being anti-racist. To be so was, in my mind, the prime lesson of modern Jewish history. What being anti-racist meant to Glick was unclear. She spent the better part of an hour giving us a defense of Israeli-Jewish treatment of Palestinians based on the classic “some of my best friends are Black” (read Palestinian) defense. In the words of the New York Times journalist John Eligon, this line of argument “has so often been relied on by those facing accusations of racism that it has become shorthand for weak denials of bigotry—a punch line about the absence of thoughtfulness and rigor in our conversations about racism.” And so it was with Glick, who explained that she, and many other Israeli Jews, had Palestinians who do small jobs for them and are treated well, and that this proves a lack of cultural and societal racism. It was such a vacuous argument that I remember feeling embarrassed for her. 

Things haven’t gotten much better when it comes to Ms. Glick’s worldview. She is now a senior columnist at Israel Hayom (Israel Today, a pro-Netanyahu newspaper owned by the family of Sheldon Anderson) and contributor to such questionable U.S. outlets as Breitbart NewsShealso directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. There can be little doubt that she continues to see the world through the distorting lens of a particularly hardline variant of Zionism.  

Part II—Glick’s Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy 

Recently, Caroline Glick launched an attack on the legacy of the late American-Palestinian scholar and teacher Edward Said. Entitled “Edward Said, Prophet of Political Violence in America,” it was recently (7 July 2020) published in the U.S. by Newsweek—a news magazine with an increasingly pro-Zionist editorial stand. As it turns out, one cannot find a better example of how ideology can distort one’s outlook to the point of absurdity. Below is an analysis of Glick’s piece in a point-by-point fashion. Ultimately, the ideological basis for her argument will become clear. 

1. Glick begins by resurrecting a twenty-year-old event. “On July 3, 2000, an incident occurred along the Lebanese border with Israel that, at the time, seemed both bizarre and … unimportant. That day, Columbia University professor Edward Said was photographed on the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese side of the border with Israel throwing a rock at an Israel Defense Forces watchtower 30 feet away.” She goes on to describe this act as “Said’s rock attack on Israel” and the “soldiers protecting their border.”

We need some context to put all of this in perspective: Israel is an expansionist state, and the original Zionist aim (as presented to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I) was to incorporate parts of southern Lebanon into what is now Israel. Southern Lebanon also briefly became a staging area for Palestinian retaliatory attacks into Israel. Thus, Israel invaded Lebanon multiple times only to be forced to withdraw in the face of resistance led by Hezbollah, a strong Lebanese Shiite militia in control of much of southern Lebanon.  

Said relates that during his 2000 visit to the Lebanese border with his family, he threw a pebble (not a “rock”) at a deserted Israeli watchtower (no Israeli soldiers were “defending their border”).  Said saw this as a symbolic act of defiance against Israeli occupation. Over the years stone throwing by Palestinian youth had become just such a symbolic act. And, it was from their example that Said might have taken his cue.

2. However, Glick wants to draw highly questionable consequences from Said’s act. She tells us that “with the hindsight of 20 years, it was a seminal moment and a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” By the way, the “mob violence” in America she is referring to is the mass protests against police brutality that followed the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on 25 May 2020.

3. Now that sounds a bit odd. How does Glick manage this segue from Edward Said’s symbolic stone toss in the year 2000 to nationwide inner-city rebellions against police brutality in 2020 America? Here is the contorted sequence she offers: 

a. Said was a terrorist because he was an influential member of the alleged “terrorist organization,” the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). “Terrorist organization” is a standard Zionist descriptor of most Palestinian organizations. Actually, the PLO is the legally recognized representative of the Palestinian people and as such has carried on both a armed and a diplomatic struggle to liberate Palestine from Israeli Occupation. In 1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist. This made little difference to the Zionist right wing who, like Glick, continued to use the terrorist tag for propaganda purposes. It is to be noted that all liberation movements are considered to be “terrorist” by those they fight against. And, indeed both sides in such a struggle usually act in this fashion on occasion. Certainly, Israel is no innocent in this regard. 

b. For Glick, Said’s alleged terrorist connection transforms his “rock attack” into a terrorist act. This is simply an ad hominem assertion on Glick’s part. There is no evidence that Said ever engaged in any act, including the tossing of stones, that can sanely be characterized as terrorism.

c. Glick tells us that, at the same time Said was ‘committing a terrorist attack’ on Israel, he was also “the superstar of far-Left intellectuals.” It is hard to know what she means here by “far-Left.” It is seems to be another ad hominem slander. Said was a scholar of Comparative Literature and, when not in the classroom, he advocated for the political and human rights of oppressed Palestinians—how “far-Left” is that?

d. Nonetheless, Glick goes on to assert that as a “far-Left” academic, Said waged a “nihilistic” and “anti-intellectual” offensive against Western thought. He did so in a well-known work entitled Orientalism published in 1978.

What does Orientalism actually say? Using mostly 19th century literary and artistic examples, the book documents the prevailing Western perception of the Near East and North Africa, which stands in for the Orient. This perception reflects a basically bipolar worldview—one which, according to Said, reserved for the West a superior image of science and reason, prosperity and high culture, and for the Orient an inferior somewhat mysterious and effeminate image of the “other” fated for domination by the West. Over time this view became pervasive in the West and influenced not only literary and artistic views of the Orient, but also impacted political, historical, anthropological and other non-fictional interpretations. Having helped create a superior sense of self, this orientalist perception served as a rationale for Western world dominance. It should be said that whether one agrees with every one of Said’s details or not, there is no doubt his well researched and documented work has made most scholars more aware of their biases.

e. Glick refuses to see Orientalism asjust an influential academic work. Instead, in what appears to be a pattern of illogical jumps, she claims that “in Orientalism, Said characterized all Western—and particularly American—scholarship on the Arab and Islamic worlds as one big conspiracy theory” designed to justify empire. This then is the heart of Said’s alleged “nihilistic” repudiation of Western scholarship. She particularly points to Said’s claim that “From the Enlightenment period through the present every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist and almost totally ethnocentric.” While this is a far-reaching generalization, it basically reflects an equally pervasive, very real Western cultural bias. What Glick describes as a “conspiracy theory” is Said’s scholarly demonstration of how that bias has expressed itself. And, it should be noted that such pervasive biases are not uniquely American nor even Western. Chinese, Japanese, Arab/Muslim, Hindu and Jewish civilizations have their own variants of such biases. Yet, it is Said’s effort to expose and ameliorate the orientalism of the West that seems to madden Caroline Glick.

f. For Glick, Said’s suggestion that both past as well as many present scholars have culturally biased points of view of the Orient becomes an accusation that any “great scholar” with a classical Western worldview “is worse than worthless. If he is a white American, he is an agent of evil.” Glick is now building a real head of steam and her account becomes more and more grotesque. She now claims that Said’s work is “intellectual nihilism.” How so? Because it “champions narrative over evidence.” What Glick is implying here is that Said’s work is an anti-Western screed presented without evidence. This is demonstrably wrong, but nonetheless provides a platform for Glick’s further assertion that Said’s fantastical narrative is told in order to “manipulate students to engage in political violence against the United States.”

Part III—What Is This All About?

Caroline Glick makes repeated illogical jumps. As egregious as these are they actually point the way to her larger ideological agenda.

  1. Said is a terrorist because he opposes Israel and supports the Palestinians. Participation in the PLO is her proof of this. 
  2. Because Said is a terrorist, his throwing of a stone at the southern Lebanese border is a terrorist attack against Israel and its defense forces. 
  3. Somehow, Said’s throwing the stone was also “a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” The connector here is Said’s tossing of an intellectual “rock”—his thesis presented in Orientalism.
  4. Just as his “rock attack” was terroristic, so Said’s book, Orientalism, is itself an act of terrorism as well as a “nihilistic” project. 
  5. It is all these nasty things rolled into one because it calls into question established cultural assumptions that had long underpinned colonialism and imperialism, and which also just happens to underpin Israel’s claim to legitimacy.
  6. But there is more. Glick tells us, “Said’s championing of the Palestinian war against Israel was part of a far wider post-colonialist crusade he waged against the United States. The purpose of his scholarship was to deny American professors the right to study and understand the world [in an orientalist fashion] by delegitimizing them as nothing but racists and imperialists.”
  7. And finally, “Orientalism formed the foundation of a much broader campaign on campuses to delegitimize the United States as a political entity steeped in racism.”

Part IV—Conclusion

Glick’s attack on Edward Said’s legacy is beset with leaps of illogic. So let me conclude this analysis with my own leap, hopefully a logical one, to an explanation of what may be Glick’s larger agenda. Glick is attempting to turn the ideological clock back to a time before decolonization. Specifically, she wishes to resurrect an overall acceptance of Western colonialism as a benevolent endeavor whereby progress and civilization was spread by a superior culture. 

Why would she want to do this? Because if we all believe this proposition, then Israel can be seen as a legitimate and normal state. After all, Israel is the last of the colonial settler states—the imposition of Western culture into the Orient. It rules over millions of Palestinian Arabs as the result of a European invasion made “legal” by a colonial document, the Balfour Declaration, and its acceptance by a pro-colonial League of Nations. Our post-colonial age in which Edward Said is a “superstar intellectual,” is seen as a constant threat to Zionist Israel’s legitimacy. 

Edward Said’s legacy provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding why the Western imperialists thought and acted as they did, and hence helps both Western and non-Western peoples to confront their own modern historical situation. However, Glick cannot see any of this except through the Zionist perspective. Thus, Said’s legacy is just part of an anti-Israeli conspiracy—an attack on those scholars who support the legitimacy of an orientalist point of view and of the Zionist state. 

She also suggests that Said’s undoing of historically accepted biases lets loose the “mob violence” seen in the U.S. There is no evidence for this, but it may be Glick’s  roundabout way of undermining student support for Palestinian rights on American campuses. 

Ultimately, what Glick is interested in is preserving the image of Israel as a Western democratic enclave in an otherwise uncivilized sea of Arab and Islamic barbarians. That fits right into the traditional orientalist belief system and justifies the continuing U.S.-Israeli alliance. Said has successfully called that perspective into question. Hence Glick’s assault on his legacy. 

Finally, Glick’s present attack on Said, and her attempt to tie his work into the protests that followed George Floyd’s murder, shows how frightened the defenders of one racist state, Zionist Israel, become when their principle ally, the United States, comes under attack for racist practices. Said as a “superstar” foe of all racism becomes the lighting rod for that fear. 

Righteous Anger Vs. Zionist Jewish Wrath

By Rima Najjar

Source

Rabbi Yaakov Yosef e4e65

The tragedy of the Israeli mentality is that there is no room for Palestinian anger and frustration in its make-up but plenty of room for Jewish wrath. I found myself reflecting on this proposition after participating in a discussion thread on Facebook the other day.

Harvey Stein, an American-Israeli filmmaker and blogger in The Times of Israel, recently generated a long heated thread on Facebook by embracing Peter Beinart’s vision of the end of the two-state “solution,” and inviting his friends to comment. He finally abandoned the thread, saying: “The genuine debate I try to inspire here is impossible.”

When people begin discussion of an issue with two different premises, the discussion is destined to remain on parallel tracks that never meet. But what I observed and am exploring in this post goes beyond the obvious. It has to do with how emotions are perceived on each side — perhaps a little like the difference between Dr King’s perception of black riots in 1966 as “the language of the unheard…to make justice a reality,” and Trump’s perception of the riots today in the context of black protests as an opportunity to exploit the racist fears of white nationalists in order to be reelected.

Neal Hugh Hurwitz, a “soft” Zionist participating in Stein’s thread was alarmed by my show of anger in the discussion. He commented: “Harvey Stein — — so we know about the bad guys on our side — — whatcha goin do about the Rima Najjars from Indiana???:) I think she’d slit your throat.”

In his mind, my anger as a Palestinian at the injustice and thievery of the Zionist project is equivalent to the aggression of hard-core Zionists, who were trolling on Stein’s thread, and whose terror tactics in the West Bank are ongoing.

The fear that Palestinian anger might lead to terror against Israelis is a fundamental principle of the Zionist Jewish state. Brutally repressing any and all expression of that anger has been the premier job of the state for all of its 72 years.

Debate that does not embrace historical facts is destined to produce anger and frustration on both sides, but only one side’s anger can honestly be characterized as righteous. Harvey Stein, a Jewish immigrant from New York, believes his right to belong in Jerusalem is equal to mine, a Palestinian exile in Indiana denied return, by virtue of his being a Jew (he may or may not be religious, I don’t know). He and other soft Zionists are willing to go as far as declaring that their “profound belonging” to Palestine-now-Israel does not supersede mine — and no farther.

I understand Harvey Stein actually discovered the name of the Palestinian family who owned the house he now lives in. How can he sleep at night — in Jerusalem or in New York, I wonder. (It’s worth noting here that Miko Peled in his book The General’s Son mentions how his mother, who was born and raised in Jerusalem, refused to occupy the home of a Palestinian family who had been forced out of West Jerusalem in 1948 when it was offered to her.)

Every morning without fail, as I read the news coming out of Palestine/Israel, my helpless anger rises to a boiling point at the relentless march of violent events inherent in the makeup of the national/Judaic state that would have been legitimate only if, at the end of the 19th century, its founders had happened to discover an uninhabited piece of land somewhere on the globe and immigrated there.

Instead, its criminally-minded founders (their own words attest to their unconscionable aggression) finagled their way into Palestine (their campaigns of advocacy and early lobbying in Britain and the US are well-documented) and executed a meticulous plan of terror, as described in Thomas Suárez’ book State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel.

I am not sure to what the word “modern” in Suárez’ title refers. There is no such thing as modern and ancient Israel in the same sense we use these terms to differentiate between modern and ancient territorial polities like Greece, for example, or modern and ancient Egypt. The word “modern” in association with Israel is totally misleading, as is the ubiquitous term “diaspora” used to describe Jews outside Israel for the purpose of emphasizing their mythical religious/spiritual connection to the Holy Land.

The name Palestine to describe the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River was most commonly used from 1300 BC onward, and it has evolved from a multiplicity of beginnings — ancient, medieval, modern, nationalist — into a geopolitical concept and distinct polity. This is unlike the myth-narratives of the Old Testament with its single “beginning.”

The idea of a “modern” Israel has thus necessitated the obliteration of thousands of years of Palestinian history, jumping, as Israelis do, from the Old Testament to the 20th century.

Israel’s state terror has been met in some instances by retaliatory acts of terror against Israelis by Hamas. That is true. But those acts are not comparable with the racist/supremacist, indeed systemic, actions of the Zionist Jewish state that regards Arabs as inferior and accepts “revenge” as a “mitigating circumstance” for a brutal lynching — (that report was in my news-pouch today).

According to a 1954 “fatwa” by Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, Jews are allowed to kill enemy civilians–men, women, and children (“massacre of revenge” — milhemet nakam). Also in self-defense. The massacres perpetrated on Palestinians by terror gangs as described in Suárez’ book pre-Israel, and those perpetrated on Gazans, are all today rationalized by the Israeli forces as acceptable and ethical conduct.

It is no accident the Jewish offensive warfare pre-1948 turned into “defense” forces of the Jewish state. Offense is defense in the Zionist mentality.

In 2011, Sari Nusseibeh, at the time a professor of philosophy at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem and also its president, published an article in Al Jazeera that explains why the Israeli demand to be recognised as a “Jewish state” by the Palestinians is an inherently problematic concept:

… recognising a “Jewish state” in Israel — a state which purports to annex the whole of Jerusalem, East and West, and calls Jerusalem its “eternal, undivided capital” (as if the city, or even the world itself, were eternal; as if it were really undivided, and as if it actually were legally recognised by the international community as Israel’s capital) — means completely ignoring the fact that Jerusalem is as holy to 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, as it is to 15–20 million Jews worldwide.

… Nevertheless, it remains true that, in the Old Testament, God commands the Jewish state in the land of Israel to come into being through warfare and violent dispossession of the original inhabitants. Moreover, this command has its roots in the very Covenant of God with Abraham (or rather “Abram” at that time) in the Bible and it thus forms one of the core tenets of Judaism as such, at least as we understand it. No one then can blame Palestinians and descendents of the ancient Canaanites, Jebusites and others who inhabited the land before the Ancient Israelites (as seen in the Bible itself) for a little trepidation as regards what recognising Israel as a “Jewish State” means for them, particularly to certain Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox Jews. No one then can blame Palestinians for asking if recognising Israel as a “Jewish State” means recognising the legitimacy of offensive warfare or violence against them by Israel to take what remains of Palestine from them.

At the beginning of Zionist terror in Palestine, the impetus for it came from a secular national/supremacist construct that professedly had little to do with religion. But religion now permeates the psyche of the state, and the bigots it has let loose on the West Bank dramatize that fact.

We are all ‘Jews’ in the eyes of today’s Nazis

 BY GILAD ATZMON

external-content.duckduckgo-1.jpg

An observation by Gilad Atzmon

Palestinians are ‘Jews’ in the eyes of those who plunder their land, their homes, fields and olive groves. They are ‘Jews’ to those who abuse their human rights and squash their hopes for peace and justice. 

Blacks are ‘Jews’ in the eyes of those who dare compare them to ‘monkeys.’ They are ‘Jews’ in the eyes of those who work hard to vet  (look here, here, here, here etc. ) their calls for equality and for a future of hope. 

The Muslims are ‘Jews’ in the eyes of those who call them ‘Islamo-Fascists’  and mobilize their influence  to decimate Arab and Muslim countries one after the other.

So-called ‘Whites’ are ‘Jews’ in the eyes of those who mock their culture, call for their elimination, burn their books and persecute their intellectuals, mock their heritage and desecrate their bronze heroes.

Maybe everybody is a ‘Jew,’ except the Jews, as no one, thankfully,  calls for punishment of Jews, no one plunders their homes, no one burns their books or silences their most famous Harvard lawyer; no one calls for the destruction of their institutions. 

Maybe in the eyes of the Nazis of our time everyone is a ‘Jew’ except the Jews.

This is the universal lesson we learned from the Holocaust: Nazis (racist, supremacist and authoritarian) must be exposed and fought against.

Donate

Black Voices also Matter

Source

By Gilad Atzmon 

That we are proceeding rapidly into an authoritarian reality is hardly a news item: it is impossible not to identify the institutions at the centre of this unfortunate transition.  Every day one Jewish organization or another brags about its success in defeating our most precious Western values: political freedom and intellectual tolerance.

At the moment it seems as if silencing authentic Black voices is the Zionists’ prime objective. This morning we learned that Black Voices do not matter at all: in a total capitulation to the French Zionist Lobby group CRIF,  the great Black French comedian Dieudonné’s  YouTube channel was deleted by Google.  CRIF tweeted:

 “A month ago, the CRIF filed a complaint against Dieudonné after the broadcasting of anti-Semitic videos. Yesterday, his chain

‪@YouTube has been deleted.  CRIF welcomes this decision and encourages other platforms to take responsibility and close all of its accounts.”

In the late 18th century the Anglo Irish statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke realised that “all that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.” I guess that in 2020 for evil to prevail all that is needed is for an internet company to become an extension of Zion.

Neither Dieudonne nor anyone else needs my  ‘kosher’ certificate, although I have no doubt that the French artist is an exemplary anti racist. What I will say is that if Zion doesn’t  want you to listen to someone, there is nothing better you could do for yourself  than defy their wishes. Dieudonne, France’s most popular comedian, is a brilliant Black man. He was brave enough to stand up and declare that he had enough of the holocaust indoctrination, what he wants to discuss is the holocaust of his people, an ongoing century of discrimination and racist abuse. Within only a matter of hours, Dieudonne was targeted by French Jewish organizations and was portrayed as a racist and an anti Semite .

I am looking forward to see what Black Lives Matter is going to do for one of Europe’s most authentic and profound Black voices.  Just an idea, maybe instead of pulling down bronze statues, BLM should consider calling for every Black artist to close their Youtube channels until Google comes to its senses. This would be a nice proper attempt at a Black power exercise, but as you can imagine, I do not hold my breath.

 Unfortunately, Zionist destruction of the little that is left out of the Western spirit has become a daily spectacle. Yesterday we saw the Jewish press bragging that  Fox Soul — a new Fox chnnel geared toward African Americans  scheduled live broadcast of a speech by Louis Farrakhan.  The Jewish Algemeiner was kind enough to reveal that the Simon Wiesenthal Center had called for the broadcast to be scrapped.

 Zionist organisations never march alone. They are effective in identifying  the odd Sabbos Goy who stands ready to lend his or her ‘credibility’ to the ‘cause.’   This time it was CNN anchor Jake Tapper who tweeted, “Farrakhan is a vile anti-LGBTQ anti-Semitic misogynist. Why is a Fox channel airing his propaganda?”


 As we all know, Jews often claim to be there for Blacks. Jewish outlets often brag about the significant Jewish contribution to the Civil Rights Movement. According to some Jewish historians, a large amount of the funds for the NAACP came from Jewish sources – some experts estimate as much as 80%. Howard Sachar begins his article  Jews in the Civil Rights movement, by claiming that “nowhere did Jews identify themselves more forth­rightly with the liberal avant-garde than in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.” This would seem a positive moment in Jewish history until we remember that Judaism has, throughout its entire history as we know it,  sustained uncompromised ‘segregation bills’. What are kosher dietary rules if not a ‘segregation bill?’ What is the rationale behind the Zionist attitude toward mixed marriage other than a segregation bill? Even within the Palestinian solidarity movement, many Jews choose to march within racially segregated political cells (JVP, IJAN, JVL etc.) rather than voluntarily strip themselves of their Jewish privilege.

It is true that some of the greatest voices of the Civil Rights Movement were Jews. But I am afraid that this is where the good part of the story ends. Historically the Jewish attitude towards Blacks has been nothing short of a disaster. It is difficult to decide how to enter this colossal minefield without getting oneself into serious trouble.

In European Jewish culture the word shvartze  (Black, Yiddish) is an offensive term referring to a low being, specifically a Black person (“She’s dating a shvartze. Her grandmother is probably rolling over in her grave”). Zein Shver, a Jewish Black American, points out that “Shvartze isn’t Yiddish for Black. Shvartze is Yiddish for Nigger!”

The reference to ‘shvartze chaya’ is a direct  reference to ‘black beast,’ meaning the lowest of the low. Shvartze chaya is also how Ashkenazi Jews often refer to Arabs, Sephardi Arab and  Falasha Jews. I guess that, at least culturally, some Ashkenazi Jews find it hard to deal with the colour black, especially when it comes on people. It is therefore slightly peculiar to witness white Ashkenazi Jews complain endlessly about ‘white supremacy.’ It is, in fact,  hard to imagine any contemporary cultural code more racially oriented than the Ashkenazi ethos.  I would suggest that if Jews are genuinely interested in combating white exceptionalism, that maybe they should first uproot those symptoms from their own culture.

This is an anomaly — the same people who played a fundamental role in the civil rights movement, are themselves instrumental in an historic racist segregation project. In my work on Jewish Identity politics I have noticed that Jewish organisations dictating the boundaries of Black liberation discourse is hardly a new symptom. This political exercise is a fundamental feature and symptomatic of the entire Jewish solidarity project. It is the ‘pro’ Palestinian Jews who make sure that the discourse of the oppressed (Palestinians) will fit nicely with the sensitivities of the oppressor (The Jewish State for that matter).  It seems as if it is down to Jews to decide whether or not the civil rights activist and scholar Angela Davis is worthy of an award for her lifetime of activity for her community.

A review of the ADL’s attitude to the Nation of Islam (NOI) in general and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, provides a spectacular glimpse into this attempt to police  the dissent.  

NOI according to the ADL, has “maintained a consistent record of anti-Semitism and racism since its founding in the 1930s.” The ADL’s site states that “under Louis Farrakhan, who has espoused and promoted anti-Semitism and racism throughout his 30-year tenure as NOI leader, the organization has used its programs, institutions, and media to disseminate its message of hate.”

“He (Farakhan) has repeatedly alleged that the Jewish people were responsible for the slave trade as well as the 9/11 attacks, and that they continue to conspire to control the government, the media, Hollywood, and various Black individuals and organizations.”

The real question we need to ask is whether Farakhan’s criticism is ‘racist.’ Does he target  ‘The Jews’ as a people, as a race or as an ethnicity or does he actually target specific elements, segments or sectors within the Jewish universe?  A quick study of Farakhan’s cherry picked quotes provided by the ADL reveals that Farakhan doesn’t really refer to ‘the Jews’ as a people, a race, a nation or even as a religious community. In most cases he refers specifically and precisely to segments within the Jewish elite that are indeed politically dominant and deserve our scrutiny.

Let us examine some of Farakhan’s most problematic quotes as selected by the ADL: “During a speech at Washington, D.C.’s Watergate Hotel in November 2017, Farrakhan told his audience that the Jews who ‘owned a lot of plantations’ were responsible for undermining black emancipation after the Civil War. He also endorsed the second volume of the anti-Semitic book, ‘The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,’ which blames Jews for promoting a myth of black racial inferiority and makes conspiratorial accusations about Jewish involvement in slave trade and the cotton, textiles, and banking industries. Farrakhan believes this book should be taught in schools.”

It is obvious in the quote above that Farakhan refers to a segment within the Jewish elite. Those who “owned plantations,” those who were specifically involved in the Atlantic slave trade, those who were and still are involved in banking and so on. And the next question is; does the ADL suggest that Jewish slave owners are beyond criticism?  Is the Jewish State axiomatically on the right side of history so neither Farakhan nor the rest of us is entitled to criticise it? And what about Jewish bankers, do they also enjoy a unique immunity? I am sorry to point out, such views only confirm the supremacist and privileged attitude that Farahkan, amongst very few others,  is brave enough to point at.

The question goes further. If Jews do empathise with Blacks and their suffering as we often hear from Jewish leaders, can’t they take a bit of criticism from the likes of Farakhan, Angela Davis or Dieudonne? If Jews care so much about the Other, as many well meaning Jews insist upon telling us, how come all this caring disappears once Farakhan, Davis  or Dieudonne appear on the scene? 

Jewish solidarity is a peculiar concept. It is a self-centred project. Jewish New Yorker Philip Weiss expressed this sentiment brilliantly in an interview with me a few years back. “I believe all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews — like myself for instance — are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism.” Weiss supports Palestine because he believes it is good for the Jews. For him the Palestinians are natural allies. I believe that if Blacks and Palestinians or anyone else  wants to liberate themselves and to obtain the equality they deserve, they can actually learn from Zionism. Rather than counting on solidarity, they have to shape their own fate by defining their priorities. In fact this is exactly what is so unique about Farakhan and Dieudonne. This is probably why Jewish organisations see them as prime enemies and invest so highly in their destruction.  

Do Black Lives Really Matter in “Israel”?

Do Black Lives Really Matter in “Israel”?

By Batoul Ghaddaf

“Black Lives Matter” chanted the protestors in “Tel Aviv” a few days ago as they stood in solidarity with the Black community in America. The protestors seemed to be condemning the actions of the American police that has murdered a Black American while pinning him to the ground with one officer’s knee on the victim’s neck until he could no longer breathe. The protestors held banners that read “I can’t breathe” as they were George Floyd’s, the victim, final words.

But the question here comes to mind, do Black lives really matter in “Israel”?

A small investigation can reveal that this protest is yet another attempt for “Israel” to whitewash its endless crimes in front of the international society. In fact, the occupation has a history of systematic discrimination against Black Jewish migrants, treating them as second-class citizens, and even questioning their Judaism.

The occupation promoted itself as welcoming any Jewish person to the so-called “promised land” only to later appear that it actually meant white Jews as Jewish communities of color struggled their way in their very own so-called savior entity. Upon their arrival, Black Jews had their faith questioned by religious authorities, were deprived of health care as opposed to white Jews and even their blood donations were destroyed in fear of them carrying HIV, a stereotype for Africans. To this day, African Jews lag in almost every socioeconomic category. Ethiopian Jews living on the stolen land record the highest poverty rate in all of the Occupation. 

In addition to this, “Israel” has plans of voluntary deportation of African Jews to a third country. These plans ignited a series of protests in their so-called capital as the African community there sought the International community to pressure the government to neglect such plans. The results were to let the plans go for now, yet voluntary deportation still stands, and more than 66% of the “Israelis” are in support of it.

Moreover, the systematic discrimination continues as it is recorded that when a Black man is shot in “Israel” by the IOF, the soldier responsible does not get the proper punishment in contrast to when a white “Israeli” is shot. Ironically, these same soldiers train the policemen that the people in Tel Aviv are protesting against. According to Amnesty USA, since 2002, mostly-taxpayer funded trips to the occupied land are done to train US police officers from more than 25 states including Minnesota police. It appears that they train them on brutality and discrimination.

Yet again, not only do Black lives not matter in the occupied lands but also no life matters except that of the White Jew. “Israel” continues its daily unjustified murder of Palestinian men, women, children and most recently, people who are handicapped and of special-needs. The latest “Israeli” brutality recorded is of the murder of Iyad Halak, a Palestinian autistic man, unarmed, right in front of his school in occupied al-Quds, with 8 bullets of an M-16 weapon to his body as he was trying to run away from them after he was scared. Reports have said that his teacher was with him, and has tried to warn the soldiers of his disability.

Raising a “Black Lives Matter” banner in the occupied territories is but an offense to the “Black Lives Matter” movement. A white supremacist apartheid entity that continues to murder Palestinians with cold blood and continues to annex Palestinian land on a daily basis raising a banner of justice and showing solidarity to a disadvantaged group is embarrassing to endorse and ironic to watch. The international community that saluted the protest is the same community which has long ignores the fact that this entity is a colonial one built on indigenous people’s genocide and exile, the annex of their land and daily murder of children, women, people with disabilities and anyone that is not a white Jew.

So once again, the question is raised, “Do non-Jewish white lives really matters in “Israel”?”

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Arthur Topham

by admin on January 17, 2020

The Book that the Jews Fear
By Arthur Topham

May 27, 2011

Author’s Preface:

What is contained herein is but a synopsis and partial review of the verbatim text of an actual book first published in the USA back in early 1941 when America was still a neutral country. That book, Germany Must Perish! was written by a Jewish writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman. Its exact proposals are those contained herein.

It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It was, and probably remains to this day, the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature. Again, the reader is cautioned to bear in mind that I have changed the word “Nazi” to “Jew” in the quote from the Philadelphia Record as I have changed all the other words “German” and “Nazi” to “Jew” and “Zionist,” etc.

The striking thing about the vileness of the text is how, today, it seems to roll off the mind’s tongue as if it were as truthful and factual as the rising sun. As such I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, “By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War” and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.

I would humbly ask the reader to be aware of these features as they read both the text and the context in which it was first written. I have, as the saying goes, only changed the names to protect the innocent. As for any further extrapolation I will leave that up to the reader.

________________

ISRAEL MUST PERISH! The Book that the Jews Fear By Roy Arthur Topham

Beginning with the Table of Contents page Topham makes this dramatic initial statement:

“This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the Jewish nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.”

How do you like those apples so far? Talk about cutting to the chase!

from Chapter One: About This Book

“Today’s wars are not wars against Netanyahu.

Nor are they wars against the Zionists…

Netanyahu is no more to be blamed for these Israeli wars than was Sharon for the last one. Nor Begin before. These men did not originate or wage Israel’s wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the Jewish nation for conquest and mass murder.

These wars are being waged by the Jewish people. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the wars.

…This time Israel has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty:

Israel must perish forever!

In fact – not in fancy!”

*******************

“For quite patently, to fight once more in democratic defense against Israel with any goal in view save that country’s extinction constitutes, even though it lose the war, a Jewish victory. To fight, to win, and not this time to end Jewish Zionism forever by exterminating completely those people who spread its doctrine is to herald the outbreak of another Jewish war within a generation.”

When this day of reckoning with Israel comes, as come it will, there will be only one obvious answer. No statesman or politician or leader responsible for post-war settlements will have the right to indulge in the personal luxury of false sentiment and specious sanctimony and declare that Israel, misled by her leaders, shall deserve the right of resurrection!

… the beast that is Israel shall never roam the earth again!

It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the Jews…to make certain that the vicious fangs of the Jewish serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the Jews, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it be forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative:

Israel Must Perish!

… And so it is with the people of Israel. They may respond for a while to civilizing forces; they may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms and exterior behaviorisms of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which eventually drives them, as it drives the tiger, to kill. And no amount of conditioning, or reasoning, or civilizing – past, present or future – will ever be able to change this basic nature. For if no impress has been made upon this war-soul over the period of some two thousand years is it to be expected that of a sudden, on the morrow, this miracle will occur?

This analogous linking of the people of Israel with a savage beast is no vulgar comparison. I feel no more personal hatred for these people than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. If the Jewish people wish to live by themselves, in darkness, it would be strictly their own affair. But when they make constant attempts to enshroud the souls of other people in those fetid wrappings which cloak their own, it becomes time to remove them from the realm of civilized mankind among which they can have no place or right to existence.

We need not condemn the Jews. They stand self-condemned. For it suffices us to read and hear those words written and spoken only by Jews; to observe deeds performed solely by Jews; to endure sufferings and dislocations caused solely by the Jewish people in pursuit of their megalomaniacal ideals and daemonic aspirations to realize that it is the Jews themselves who decree, almost demand, their ostracism from their fellow man. They have lost the wish to be human beings. They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such.

This is an objective viewpoint, carefully considered and factually sustained. It is the viewpoint taken of them in this book.

War must be fought … with penalties infinitely more frightful and hazardous than war itself.

This book sincerely believes that it has found such a penalty; and by its imposition upon the people of Israel, this book believes that not only would a great scourge be removed from the world, but a great good born to it.”

from Chapter Two: Background of Jewish Zionism

“Jews are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats. They brandish arms which are like barbed clubs; from their mouths instead of ordinary human speech, issue the rumbling of artillery and the clash of steel; their life is one of perpetual explosion. The Jew does not live on the heights; he avoids light, and from his hiding place he picks to pieces treaties, exercises his malign influence on newspaper articles, pores over maps, measures angles, and traces with gloating eagerness the lines of frontiers. To love their country is for them to despise, flout and insult every other country. They are capable of little else but cheating and lying, even to themselves. They meddle in everyone else’s affairs, poking their nose into matters that do not concern them, criticizing everything, bossing everything, lowering and distorting everything. What a pity that twenty-three centuries after Socrates and Plato, two thousand years after Christ, the voice of men like these should still be heard in the world, worse still that they should be listened to, and worst of all that any one should believe them! Country for them is an isolated organism and they admit it is possible for them to live and breathe in an atmosphere of haughty contempt for their neighbors. They conceive their country as a permanent element of dissolution like a devouring and insatiable monster, a beast of prey, whose one function is to plunder. All that it does not possess it has been robbed of. The universe belongs to it by right. Whoever attempts to escape from its tyranny is a rebel. This jingo country, this bloodthirsty fetish of which they are the champions, they endow, with the capriciousness of potentates, when it suits their purpose, with every marvelous and charming attribute. Whoever does not at once agree with their extravagances is a barbarian. You must love their country in full armor, with dervish-like celebrations and howls, eyes shut and body trembling with ecstasy; a deaf ear must be turned to the rest of the world on its failings. Everything that is not Jewish must be hated. Hate is sacred. Love and hate are in connection with your country two terms proceeding from one condition of mind. For them Industrial progress is not a happy sign of national prosperity but a means of domination. Geography is not the science of the earth, but a mere revelation of the boundaries between which are elaborated strategical schemes of conquest. Every neighbor is of necessity a jealous one, and the enemy who is vigilant is jealous too. The world is populated by hyenas crouching on the plots of earth from which they ought to be dislodged.

The Jew has decided that his race has been elected by God to order the modern world. Anyone who resists him will be an arrogant usurper, who ought to be crushed. The Jew professes to want peace, but it must be his own sort of peace, after the pattern of the Persian satrap’s who, out of love for peace and concord, throws everyone to the lions who dares dispute him. His voice is raucous and resounding; he does not argue but makes sweeping assertions and lays down the law. At the first sign of resistance he grows crimson in the face, and has recourse to thunder and lightning. He holds forth on the authority of a sacred categorical imperative which stands in the stead of truth and order; he respects nothing and no one. Should he find himself confronted by the law, he says that it needs reforming. Ministers are mere clerks to be used as pawns in his maneuvering. He is exacting and cantankerous; whoever undertakes to shout with him never shouts loud enough. To give in to him means becoming enlisted as his civil agent. He is an agitator and swashbuckler. He dips his pen in gall and he sets in motion with his antics the marionettes which appeal to the nation and may come to conquer it. The fundamental superiority of the Jewish race, the necessity of expanding Jewish prestige in all quarters of the globe, of protecting the Jew wherever he may be found, no matter what he may be, because he bears within him a residuum of the race; that is what the educators of youth coming down the years in disciplined array like battalions crossing the maneuver fields, have never ceased to drum into the popular understanding and the flame of victory rising to the sky will be the signal for it to boil over.

…Time cannot change the infernal breed, whatever its label. Time merely enlarges the field in which the Jew can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, practice those monstrous acts which his fevered, war-intoxicated brain dictates, and his vile instincts and barbaric, savage soul prompts. If today the urge of his war-soul can prompt the Jew to murder innocent hostages imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-fanatic Jew of tomorrow?

…Make no mistake about it; world-dominion is not a mirage to the Jew; it never was, and so long as Israel exists as a nation, it never will be. A belief to the contrary, if too-long sustained, may well result in the world’s enslavement by the Jew.

As fantastic and as cyclonic as Zionist “accomplishments” might seem, it is still more fantastic to note as a fact that in the entire annals of history no doctrine ever existed which has all its major beliefs so clearly defined, its methods so concisely detailed, and its aims so vividly, comprehensively, and boldly stated beforehand. It is in every respect a deliberate, ruthlessly calculated plot to rule the world or, failing that, to annihilate it! And so long as the Jewish nation exists it intends, in one form or another, now or later, to bring about just such a catastrophe.

…The poisonous wine of destruction has long before been distilled; Netanyahu is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle, which is the Jewish war-soul, into the jug that is world humanity. In detailing those ingredients which combine to constitute the toxic formula of Jewish Zionism the author shall quote, wherever confirmation of his statements may be deemed advisable, principally from Jewish sources. For after all no one can explain the Jew so well as he himself. He has made no secret of his character, his ambitions and his intentions. By his acts he has himself bared his heart and soul; by his words, by his own hand he will someday come to dig his own grave.

It is not to be wondered at that the nations of the Western world regard the avowed program of the Zionist Jew for world conquest and dominion with a great deal of amazement and incredulity. For such an idea is entirely alien to those basic principles and instincts of the western civilization which, painfully and gradually, arose out of the chaos of the past thousands of years. Such civilized nations regard individual rights, the sacredness of human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the virtues of mankind and itself, the individual States, as guarantor of those rights. And though, at one time or another during their existence nations may have sought political and economic adjustments, even territorial aggrandizement through force of arms, it must be noted that no Western nation has ever made such a religion of war, such idolatry of armaments, and such a cult of mass murder and destruction as has Israel and her peoples.

According to her own writers, teachers and statesmen Israel has but one great reason for existing; that of achieving world-dominion! Since that is its highest aim, therefore, Israel constantly claims that it has every right to make free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution and oppression, in order to achieve that goal. Consequently such a perverted nation, such a State of human negation, views its vice as being the only true virtue in life, whereas to the Jews the virtues as they are known and may be practiced by the rest of the world are merely vices due to the latter’s decay and degeneration! As though there exists anywhere in the world a nation which can boast of degeneration in the same degree as Israel!

The primary reason which stirs Jewish lust for world dominion was best summarized by a Jewish professor who declared that since Israel will never be able to understand the world, the latter must be conquered and reformed so that it will be able to conform to Jewish thought!

It is just such mass megalomania, crass egoism and intellectual aberrancy which stirred the demented brain of the Jew of yesterday to foment his wars; which animates the insane Zionist today in continuing those wars and which will, if the schizophrenic Ashkenazim continue to exist, direct the policies and actions of any party in control of Israel in the future. For, to reiterate, the Jewish idea of world-dominion and enslavement of its peoples is no political belief: it is a fierce and burning gospel of hate and intolerance, of murder and destruction and the unloosing of a sadistic blood lust. It is, in every literal sense, a savage and pagan religion which incites its worshippers first to a barbaric frenzy and then prompts them to vent their animal ferocity in the practice of every horrible, ruthless and unmentionable atrocity upon innocent men, women and children. Such are the true Jewish virtues! And the world will feel their sting so long as they continue to tolerate Israel and her peoples on the earth, for those Jewish traits are the same as those which, emanating from the Jewish soul, animated the Jewish tribes of yore. We have but to examine the development of those tribes to perceive just to what extent within the Jewish soul, the Jewish ideal of world conquest and dominion really lies.

… Such is the ” Chosen Master-Race” of the world!

from Chapter 3. Organized Jewish Zionism

…Zionism — the theory of a master race of Jews destined to enslave a weak world by force and brutality — had been an unvoiced doctrine of Jewish belief since tribal days until the latter part of the last century when it reached its maturity by becoming fashioned into a vast and well-organized movement [World Zionist Organization. A.T.]. Its astounding and ambitious program amalgamated all the major doctrines and beliefs of such Jewish teachers, writers, statesmen and philosophers as Rabbi Yehudah Akalai, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Moses Hess, Eliezer Ben-Yehudah, Moshe Leib Lilienblum, Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, Max Nordau, Ahad Ha-am aka Asher Zvi Ginsberg, Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Jacob Klatzkin, Nahman Syrkin, Rabbi Samuel Mohilever, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, Martin Buber, Bernard Lazare, Solomon Schecter, Nahum Sokolow, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion. And because the doctrine which it preached touched upon the very roots of the Jewish soul, and embraced the fundamental tenets of the Jewish intellect, the movement met with immediate and tremendously popular response. In fact its program was so popular with the Jews that within ten years after its inception its malignant dogma was already spread throughout the entire world.

…The World Zionist Organization combined various doctrines into a program of action and issued, among its statutes, four main principles which lay down broadly its chief objectives. They were:

1. To watch over and support all Jewish national movements in all countries where Jews have to sustain a struggle in support of Zionism with the object of embracing and uniting all Jews on the globe.

2. To promote an active Jewish policy in interests in Europe and across the seas and especially to further all colonial movements for practical purposes.

3. To treat and solve all questions bearing upon the bringing up of children and higher education in the Jewish sense.

4. To quicken patriotic self-consciousness of Jews, and to offer opposition to all movements antagonistic to Israeli national development.

…Branches of the World Zionist Organization (now working covertly under the name B’nai Brith International) sprang up in major cities of the world…. With the spread of its propaganda, B’nai Brith International Israel’s Mossad scattered a large number of secret agents throughout the world for the purpose of supplying it with confidential reports relating to the gospel of Zionism. These agents were the forerunners of the present day fifth-columnists [working within the Zionist media and on the Internet. A.T.]; it was their work which started the compilation of the notorious Jewish “scrap-book” in which the Israeli government listed all its enemies, and enemies to the idea of a Jewish-dominated world. To a nation such as Israel blackmail pales in insignificance to its other crimes. And so, with every passing hour, the members of B’nai Brith International continued with their nefarious work which, teaching and enforcing the great common Zionist Jew ideal of world-enslavement, quickly became an integral part of the average Jew’s life and dreams…. The vicious virus of Zionism had been injected into the life stream of the public, and the Jews awaited the epidemic which they felt must sooner or later infest the world.

As a matter of fact, the work and program as well as the propaganda which they spread had reached such a pitch that as far back as 1897 various Jewish writers were already busy prophesying how and when the ideological goal of Zionist world-dominion would be attained! These prophets were by no means few in number; there exists a large number of serious works by Jewish authors in which the destiny of Israel is elaborately worked out in full detail and the deification of Zionism and the Holocaust Myth as a world religion depicted.

from Chapter 4. Jewish Zionism Abroad

…The task of spreading the heathenish cult of Zionism in foreign lands was delegated to the World Zionist Organization, an organization maintained by the Rothschilds and B’nai Brith International. Beginning its operations in 1897 that association was the first to prepare the ground and develop and test the tactics which are being used today by all Zionist Jew fifth-columnists.

…True Zionism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern “refinements” finds that it can express itself best by committing truly barbaric and bestial acts of violence against innocent civilized peoples [such as the Palestinians. A.T.] Thus, if Zionism were ever to prevail upon this earth, we can be sure that every step would be taken — though few indeed are these steps which the Jews have not already taken! — to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man.

Thus it has been a chief aim of the Jew to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from the earth. However, the Jew was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all these religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the Zionist dogma of hate and destruction, the Jews conceived their now infamous and oft-tried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary.

…Zionism was born ages ago, its growth has been proceeding for centuries, and it has now reached an advanced stage of flowering. Netanyahu is but a bud indicative of what kind of “flower” when it comes to full bloom, the world may expect to see!

Because she made no effort thousands of years ago, to become civilized as did her neighbors, Israel today is an outsider among all civilized nations. The processes which it has taken other nations thousands of years to absorb, cannot be suddenly absorbed by Israel overnight. Consequently, the continued existence of Israel among them becomes increasingly inimical to the best interests of civilized nations.

The deliberate and perverse distortions of what should have been a sane and normal course of development — as in other nations — now gives to Israel and her people a capacity unexcelled by any other peoples on earth, for fostering and propagating every indecent and inhuman precept of life. And as she seeks to distribute her own poisonous brew she has herself become so intoxicated by its ingredients that she can no longer escape the ever-constant desire, the urgent compulsion and the burning lust which it incites in her to extinguish any and all signs of good which she sees developed or practiced in other lands. Thus in self-justification Israel would excuse her own unnatural and perverse life by polluting others with her malignant infection. Israel is now well beyond all saving. The world had best look to its own preservation and welfare, lest some of those Jewish poisons run through her system also and come to destroy it!

With each succeeding world war which she plans, plots and starts Zionism comes ever closer and closer to her goal of world-dominion. At the present time Netanyahu, who has merely striven to remedy mistakes which previous Jewish leaders made in attempts at world-subjection, may bring the Jewish people very close to realizing their goal. And Netanyahu is not the last of the Jewish leaders!

How much misery, suffering, death and destruction are needed before it becomes apparent to the world that any compromise with Zionism will, of itself, be a certain guarantee that soon thereafter, Israel must again embark upon her unholy crusade to dominate it. How many more chances will be vouchsafed it to beat back Zionism? Suppose there comes a time when Israel can not be halted? Dare we risk waiting? One never knows the exact hour one is scheduled to die; can we, with any more certitude and assurance tell which opportunity shall be our last? It may well be that this is our last chance. Suppose we pass it by; look ahead. Next time, the so-called elder generation of Israel will be the Mossad-trained youth of today, and this elder generation, now mothers and fathers, will already have instilled and encouraged their children with the idea of world-dominion. Thus the next Israeli leader may come to lead a nation of born fanatics! As a consequence of this there may come to be welded a machine so gigantic in proportions, so overwhelming in destructive power, that it may well overcome every possible obstacle in its path. For assuredly the Israeli youth of the next generation — today schooled in Talmudic Zionist schools — will find a leader, as past generations of Jewish youth have always found a leader, to incarnate and personify the body and soul of that nation and dominate its collective Will.

A leader who will feed that Israeli body and soul the only food upon which it can subsist: War!

from Chapter 6. A Middle Road?

…With Zionism shown thus to be the very soul of conquest and world-dominion, may we not then pose this question: Is it possible for the world, in any manner, to find some compromise that will allow both it and Israel to exist side by side in peace and justice? In concrete terms, were peace declared tomorrow to Israel’s apparent satisfaction, could this nation born and bred on blood, be expected to be appeased for more than the immediate future?

We should like to hope so; but the history of that nation cuts the hope out of our heart.

…What then of a democratic Israel?

Democracy for a people who believe only in superiority, not equality?

…Israel already has given us her answer:

“Israel does not want a share of anything. She wants, she demands, all or nothing.

…A final solution: Let Israel be policed forever by an international armed force?

Even if such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war, suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold.

Thus we find that there is no middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That Israel must perish forever from this earth!

And, fortunately, as we shall now come to see, that is no longer impossible of accomplishment.

from 7. Death to Israel

…When an Individual commits premeditated murder, he must be prepared to forfeit his own life in consequence. When a nation commits premeditated murder upon its fellow nations, it must be prepared to forfeit its own national life.

On that point the laws of man and God are explicit:

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.”

But what is the law of man or God to Israel? Nothing.

She recognizes only Jewish law; so be it.

It must then be Jewish law, if such a law there be, which decrees her penalty — the penalty of death.

And there is such a Jewish law which decrees that death to her:

As in all human affairs, there must also be in every system of punishment a last limit, a ne plus ultra that no punishment can overstep. Thus even from the point of view of pure theory the necessity of the depth-penalty is postulated; it is, as the ultimate punishment on earth, the indispensable keystone of every ordered system of criminal law. No apparent reasons which are alleged against it can withstand any serious criticism. The State, which has the right to sacrifice for its own protection the flower of its youth, is to feel so nice a regard for the life of a murderer? We much rather allow to the State the right to make away with men who are undoubtedly injurious to the common weal. That the powers that be must bear the sword is an expression which runs deep in the blood of the honest man; if this truth is to be banished out of the world, great wrong is done to the simple moral feeling of the people. The ultimate problems of the moral life are to be solved in the domain of the practical, not of the theoretical, reason. The conscience of every earnest man demands that blood be atoned by blood, and the common man must simply grow doubtful of the existence of justice on earth, of this last and highest punishment is not inflicted. The State makes itself ridiculous and contemptible if it cannot finally dispose of a criminal. There must be a limit for mercy and indulgence, as for the law, a last limit at which the State says: “This is the end, humanity is not longer possible here.” It must be possible to inflict at last a punishment beyond which there is nothing, and that is the punishment of death.

Let Jewish Will be done!

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the Israeli nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some five million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Zionism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Israel from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.

Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the Jewish people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Zionism.

…Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 2,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 2,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Israel could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Israel could be sterilized within a period of a year or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present Jewish doctrine that so much as one drop of true Jewish blood constitutes a Jew.

Of course, after complete sterilization, there will cease to be a birth rate in Israel. At the normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, Jewish life will diminish considerably. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Zionism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact. By virtue of its loss of self-perpetuation Israel will have atrophied and Jewish power reduced to negligible importance.

Reviewing the foregoing case of sterilization we find that several factors resulting from it firmly establish its advocacy.

Firstly, no physical pain will be imposed upon the inhabitants of Israel through its application, a decidedly more humane treatment than they will have deserved.

Secondly, execution of the plan would in no way disorganize the present population nor would it cause any sudden mass upheavals and dislocations. The consequent gradual disappearance of the Jews from Arab territory will leave no more negative effect upon that continent than did the gradual disappearance of the Indians upon this.

…A detailed program of the manner in which the outraged victims of the Zionism onslaught might make certain that Israel leave no gap might be put hypothetically:

Israel has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Israel must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Jews as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

1. Immediately and completely disarm the Israeli army and have all armaments removed from Israeli territory.

2. Place all Israeli utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace Jewish workers by those of Allied nationality.

3. Segregate the Israeli army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

5. Divide the Israeli army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

6. Partition Israel and apportion its lands to the existing Arab population.

7. Restrict all Jewish civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization has been completed.

8. Compel the Jewish population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the Hebrew language, as well as to restrict Hebrew-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of Hebrew-language schools.

9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Jews whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their actions. Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Israel.

from 8. ‘Lest We Forget …’

Perhaps in the Future …

United States has entered the war. The struggle is long and bitter but at last the Allies forge ahead. Their armies surround Israel.

Israel realizes that she has lost. She does not want invasions. She fears the vengeance long overdue her. So she sues for peace. Comes the Armistice!

And immediately thereafter, as once before, Israel finds that the words “Humanity” — which she has debased; “Justice” — which she has distorted; and “God” whom she has profaned, have an irresistible sales appeal to Allied Statesmen.

Israel puts her Zionist propaganda machine to work.

Soon men in the victor nations are urging:

“Peace with Honor!” — “Justice without Rancor!” — “God and Mercy!”, and all those other weak, sticky phrases which befuddle the weary minds and exhausted emotions of the long-suffering people of the war-decimated democracies.

Forgotten in the sudden lush of a peace that is no peace, are all the brave sons who were sacrificed to the monster Israhell: forgotten is the plight of the countries whose resources were drained, and whose energies were sapped in stemming the Talmudic onslaught. Forgotten, too, is the duty owed to generations yet to be born.

Yes: all forgotten because the Allies cannot resist such an appeal. And so, even though a hundred years and a hundred instances have shown the hypocrisy of a Jewish promise, the Allies fall once again its victim.

They forget that the struggle they waged was not a sport’s contest: that their adversary was a beast, not a human being! And so, filled to overflowing with the infectious germ of sentiment, they stretch out their hand to their fallen opponent and help him arise. They pat him on the back with a hearty “No hard feelings, old man!” and, happy that the war is now over and done with, return to their homes.

Believing, sincerely, that Jewish war will not come again.

Believing that somehow, in some inexplicable manner, Israel has accepted Christ.

A decade passes. A decade of hard work and many sacrifices.

A decade of much sweat and little pleasure.

But the democratic peoples do not mind. They are building a better world for their children.

So they think.

Meanwhile Israel grows strong and robust.

Her army is larger and more powerful than ever before; she has developed new weapons whose frightfulness surpass all imagination. She had found a new leader. And her war-souled people are bent once again upon conquering the world. Once more the earth trembles beneath the depleted uranium missiles of the Jewish defense forces.

Like a cobra Israel is poised:

She strikes!

The people of the civilized nations are stunned.

They exclaim, “But it cannot be again!”

But it is.

And this time it is Too Late!

For Israel wins. She is master of the world.

…and so a thousand years of peace was sold to the Devil for a moment’s respite! And only because men tried to placate the body, instead of expunging forever the bestial war-soul, of the Jew!

The sun now shivers as it rises upon a Dark world.

For slaves to the Jews are children once free.

Civilization is no more. Perversity is raged rampant.

Even the moon shudders as it wanes in a frightening chill.

This is, finally the, “New World Order!”

Shall it be so?

Our choice lies still before us:

False sentiment or courageous decision —

Which shall it be?

The End

Trump’s Executive Order on Anti-Semitism: A Category Mistake

December 23, 2019  

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

 Lawrence Davidson 

Trump’s Executive Order on Anti-Semitism: A Category Mistake—An Analysis (23 December 2019) by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—Trump and the Constitution

It is a pretty sure thing that President Donald Trump is ignorant of what is in the U.S. Constitution and, in any case, does not care much about what the document says. Take the idea of freedom of speech as set down in the First Amendment. Does he understand the importance of this amendment? Actually, it would seem that the only freedom of speech he finds sacrosanct is his own, expressed almost daily in angry, often rambling “tweets.” Those frequent missives hardly make the man a model of critical thinking and, as it turns out, for the price of some special interest’s political support, President Trump is willing to tell us all that we must believe the opposite of what is true. If we don’t, he will take away some federal benefit. Trump is by nature both authoritarian and simple-minded—not an unusual combination. 

Part II—Confusing Categories

It was in this simplistic frame of mind that, on 12 December, President Trump issued an executive order directing the federal government to deny funds to universities and colleges that allow alleged anti-Semitic speech on campus. Well, the reader might respond, such an order is understandable because we know that anti-Semitism is a particularly vicious form of racism. And so it is. The mistake here is to assume that President Trump actually knows how to recognize genuine anti-Semitism, so as not to confuse this expression of bigotry with its opposite: the support of human, civil and political rights—in this case, those of the Palestinians. Now, the reader might ask, how could anyone confuse these two categories: on the one hand, the support of an oppressed people’s rights and, on the other, racist anti-Semitism? It helps if you are ignorant, amoral and opportunistic. 

And so, with the encouragement of the Zionist lobby, a particularly powerful lobby dedicated solely to the interests of the Israeli state, President Trump, who is in fact ignorant, amoral and opportunistic, based this executive order on a logical fallacy—a category mistake. He identified protests against Israeli state behavior with anti-Semitic racism and declared that any university or college that allows the former (say, by permitting criticism of Israel for its violent suppression of Palestinian rights) is to be found guilty of the latter (anti-Semitism), and therefore is not to receive federal funds. 

Part III—A Zionist Project 

Working for the purposeful confusion of anti-Semitism and the support for Palestinian rights is a Zionist project. It should be emphasized that the Zionists who carry this project forward are not, like the president, ignorant or confused. They know what they are doing. And that is why this effort constitutes a tragedy of the highest order not only for the Palestinians, but for the Jewish people as well.

After World War II every sane individual knew that racism, particularly racism expressed through state power, was bad news. The consequences of such empowered bigotry was there to see across the world: Japanese behavior in China, Korea and Southeast Asia generally, along with German behavior throughout occupied Europe, constituted the worst examples. They resulted in the deaths of tens of millions—among them six million Jews. That is why as early as the late 1940s, an expansion of international law and the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights sought to make such behavior criminal, particularly when carried out as the policy of governments.

As it turned out, those resolutions constituted direct obstacles to the Zionist goal of a “Jewish state” in Palestine. The Zionist conquest of Palestine in the military campaigns of   1948 and 1967, was followed by the systematic narrowing or outright denial of the human, civil and political rights for Palestinians. In the case of Palestinians residing in Israel proper, the racist policies and practices were often obscured behind a facade of benign-sounding declarations that, more often than not, had little impact on minority rights. No such facade was adopted within the Occupied Territories. In this way racism became an essential tool for achieving Zionism’s goal of ethnic exclusivity.  

So how do you rationalize this behavior? Even though Ashkenasi (that is, European) Jews have been one of the most persecuted groups in Western history, it was not hard for the Zionists to see their own racist behavior as necessary. Founding a state first and foremost for one group, in a territory already occupied by hundreds of thousands of “others,” easily led to discriminatory policies and practices. It also led to indoctrination of Israeli Jews and their diaspora supporters through the distortion of the history of conquest and colonial occupation. The inevitable resistance of the Palestinians, even when non-violent, became labeled as lawlessness at best and terrorism at worst. In this sense, Israeli society has mimicked not only the apartheid sentiments of South Africa, but also the culture that prevailed in the United States before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Part IV—Exporting the Fallacy

Yet it was not enough for the Israelis to convince their own Jewish citizens that Zionist racism was righteous self-defense and support of Palestinian rights the equivalent of anti-Semitism. This logical fallacy had to be pushed on Israel’s primary ally, the United States. And, at least in the halls of power, this effort has been remarkably successful, probably because the Zionist lobby has a lot of money to help or hinder ambitious American politicians. 

However, outside of those halls, the effort has been exposed for what it is: a dangerous reversal of categories that threatens to turn the clock back on much of the post-World War II progress in political, civil and human rights. As the growing popularity of the boycott Israel movement (BDS) has shown, American citizens, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have an increasing ability to see the reality of the situation. A survey released in mid June 2017 by an organization known as the Brand Israel Group, “a coalition of volunteer advertising and marketing specialists” who consult for pro-Israel organizations, indicated that “approval of Israel among American college students dropped 27% between the group’s 2010 and 2016 surveys” while “Israel’s approval among all Americans dropped 14 points.” Brand Israel’s conclusion: in the future, the U.S. may “no longer believe that Israel shares their values.” This is the case not because of any big increase in anti-Semitism, but due to ever-growing evidence of Israeli racism.

One reaction to this increasing popular clarity of vision is President Trump’s executive order. If, in this case, colleges and universities do not enforce the Zionist logical fallacy, they lose federal money. 

Part V—Conclusion

Governments do not have a very good reputation for telling their citizens the truth. For instance, just this month it was made known that the U.S. government and military misled the American people about the ability to achieve victory in the Afghan war—a conflict that has been going on for 18 years. The same thing occurred during the Vietnam War. However, it is one thing to withhold information, or downright lie about a situation, and another to urge a population to swallow the category contradictions Trump and the Zionists are peddling. There is something Orwellian about that. It is no mistake that it is the brightest of college students, those who are actually overcoming ignorance and practicing the art of thinking straight, who are most put off by this propagandistic tactic. 

As for those Zionist students who claim that protests against Israeli policy and behavior on their campus make them feel uncomfortable, or even unsafe, they might try to learn something from those feelings. After all, it’s the closest they will ever come to the much more profound feelings of anxiety and danger that Palestinians feel every day, in their own homes, neighborhoods and campuses as well. So which category do all of us want to defend—the category of state-sponsored racism or the category of human, civil and political rights? Just be sure not to confuse one for the other.

Israel, Racism and Brutality

By Robert Fatina
Source

Saba Mahmoud Abu Arar 0c619

The savagery of the racist, apartheid Israeli regime continues to shock people with any sensitivity, despite its long record of brutality. The recent attack on the Gaza Strip, coming as a precursor to United States’ President Donald Trump’s so-called ‘deal of the century’, was no exception.

For reasons that defy any logic other than ugly racism, Israeli terrorist bombers targeted a private home resided in by a young family. Killed in the bomb were a one-year-old girl and her pregnant mother; two other children were seriously injured. That this is by design cannot be disputed. After the 2014 carpet-bombing of the Gaza Strip, what Israel calls ‘mowing the lawn’, some IDF soldier-terrorists wore shirts with the outline of a pregnant, Muslim woman on the front, in the crosshairs of a gun. The caption was: ‘One bullet, two kills’.

The U.S. has never been a friend to human rights anywhere, least of all to those of the Palestinians, and this situation has worsened under the cruel administration of Trump. He has cut funding for Palestinians, renounced international law that recognizes Jerusalem as a future, shared capital, and, like all his predecessors from Harry Trump to Barack Obama, finances and supports all Israel’s brutal, repressive actions, even those considered to be crimes against humanity. He apparently hopes that this will force the Palestinians to accept a ‘deal’ that gives Israel everything and Palestine nothing. The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Riyad Mansour, commented on this on May 7 at United Nations headquarters, when he said this: “Some in the (Trump) administration, they think: ‘Yes, what will help peace is break the legs of the Palestinians, break one arm and five teeth, and when they are on the ground they will come crawling to you for anything you offer them’. Those who think that way don’t know the Palestinians.”

Some details of the ‘deal’ – which is no ‘deal’ at all, since one of the main parties to it had no input into it – have been leaked. It allows Israel to keep all of the land it has stolen since 1967; prevents Palestine from having any military, and requires Gaza to disarm. The West Bank disarmed several years ago, and the result has been constant, violent repression by Israel. Additionally, Israel will be responsible for ‘security’. If ever there was a case of the fox being given responsibility for the security of the henhouse, this is it.

According to other details ‘leaked’, if either party rejects the deal, it will lose all U.S. funding. Currently, under Trump’s brutal, racist administration, Palestine gets no U.S. funding, so it has nothing to lose. It is highly unlikely that Israel would reject the ‘deal’, since it gets everything it wants from it. So the U.S. administration is setting up Palestine for catastrophic disaster, by doing all in its power to destroy it, and then offering permanent, second-class human status to Palestinians. Whether or not they accept the ‘deal’, their repression will continue. Either way, they will lose a significant part of the West Bank. Additionally, the internationally-guaranteed right of return is not mentioned at all.

However, it must be remembered that the U.S. is not the world government. It can propose any ‘deals’ it wants to. When Trump announced the move of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in violation of international law, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the move by an overwhelming margin. More recently, when the U.S. announced its support if Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, United Nations spokesman Stephane Dujarric referred to the Security Council resolution of December, 1981, which called the Israeli annexation “null and void and without international legal effect”. He further said that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres adheres to all council resolutions, and that that position remains unchanged, despite any U.S. actions. The U.S. decreeing something doesn’t make it a fact.

The U.S. is, however, in a position to make things extremely difficult for the Palestinians, as it has thus far done. That will only worsen when this ‘deal’ is rejected by Palestine, as it is sure to be, if the information about it that has thus far been leaked is accurate. Israel will violently steal more land in the West Bank; it will react with brutal, deadly force to any resistance there or in Gaza, which often involves blatant violations of international law and crimes against humanity. The bombing of hospitals, homes, schools and United-Nations refugee centers, all crimes against humanity and all of which Israel routinely does, will continue and possibly increase. Israel will continue to withhold tax revenues that for some reason it is allowed to collect ‘on behalf’ of Palestine, causing the country to further cut the salaries of its employees.

There has been a major shift in the Democratic Party in the U.S. in the context of Palestine. Yes, Democratic Party officials still support Israel, proclaim it -bizarrely – to be a democracy, and talk about its right to exist. Yet they increasingly criticize its policies, something unheard of just a few short years ago. Two of the multitudinous candidates currently seeking to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2020 have actually called the brutal, murderous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a racist. One freshman member of the House of Representatives has decried U.S. support for Israel that is based on political donations. These are conversations that weren’t being held until very recently.

Unfortunately, Trump still has two more years in office. And even should he be removed for any number of reasons, his vice president, Mike Pence, would only continue the U.S.’s fawning support for apartheid Israel. And to say that Netanyahu has been emboldened by Trump’s moves is an understatement; during his recent re-election campaign, he vowed to annex the West Bank.

It is not from the United States that justice for Palestinians will ever be established; the U.S. has never cared about human rights. The rest of the international community must act, before it is everlasting too late.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: