Following weeks of harasment by Zionist infiltrators Tony Greenstein and Abraham Weizfeld; Paul Barrow, an American solidarity activist told the two tribal activists what he thought of them both. ~ the Editors…
I wouldn’t be so generous as to call you or Weizfeld an “anti-Zionist Jew,” Tony (Greenstein). You look pretty Zionist to me. Zionism is not just the affirmation of the right of a Jewish claim to a bunker along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is this belief in something universally sacrosanct about Jewishness, despite lack of any evidence that there is anything universal about Jews, other than a claim to being “Jewish” that we are not allowed to criticize, regardless of how ugly “Jews” become as a political force in asserting their control over the universe in the name of their tribe. I’m not even sure of your qualifications as a Jew. No one has asked me what my preferences are as to a claim of any sort of identity, and perhaps you should establish your credentials for being a Jew in the first place, since you are so earnest in your desire to defend their honor, whatever they might have left of it after you have done with the subject. Whether one believes in the holocaust or not was not a qualification for being invited to this group any more than whether or not I believe that the Mongols invaded Finland and raped all the wives and brought about the dilution of the Finnish race. Since when is the Jewish tragedy any more important than the Finnish tragedy? No one has asked me if I acknowledge that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Is this also a demand? To question this is also a crime in India. Should I also recognize that 2 million Indians were wiped off the face of the earth by the invasion of Europeans in America? Why isn’t that on the table as well? Why isn’t every genocide in history on the table? Am I also required to admit that the Turks are guilty of Armenian genocide without question, without investigation, without any query at all?
What makes the holocaust so damned important?
Why is holocaust denial now more important to so-called Jews than acknowledging a Jewish god? What does being Jewish mean to you? To admit that there was a holocaust? Are you semitic? Who are the semites? Are you Judaic? Do you believe in the Exodus, the invasion of Palestine, the massacre of the people of Palestine, and the right of return to massacre them AGAIN? Can a white whose origins can only be traced back to the Kazars be considered semitic?
A far greater crime than being a holocaust denier is to be a Palestinian genocide denier, a Palestinian genocide ignorer, of which Jews as a lot are guilty of. There is no massive outcry. You see far more wealthy Jews funding AIPAC than funding the Palestinian cause, and funding other criminal agencies that have fundamentally taken over the American government and made us all, Jews and non Jews alike, a party to perhaps the greatest tragedy ever recorded in history of massive slaughter of Arabs and Muslims across the globe. Refusing to stand up against the crimes of Israel makes every jew complicit, because this is being done in the name of Jews. Yet I have been personally physically threatened by Jews in my own community for asking them to do this. If someone robs a bank and kills all the bank employees and says, I’m doing this for the Barrow family, are not the police going to come to me and ask me if I know anything about this, and am I reponsible for this? What am I to say?
“Shut up. Get off my porch. Get out of my face. You don’t have any right to interrogate me.”
Don’t I have an obligation to deny any role or responsibility for it? If I am silent, doesn’t that make me inherently complicit? Doesn’t at least the appearance of that seem rather suspicious? So why shouldn’t the entire world be looking at the jews and saying, “Hello. What’s up, folks?” Perhaps we should now be calling Jews Holos instead. Have you also established the synagogue of the Holos? Would that be preferable to you? Suppose I deny that there was ever an Exodus? Isn’t that far more fundamental to Jews than Auschwitz? I never heard anyone calling another an “Exodus denier.” Supposing I say that the story of Moses was stolen from the Assyrians. I’ve never heard of anyone accusing another of being a Moses denier. Supposing I say that the story of the flood was stolen from the Sumerian Gilgamesh epic? What does that make me then? A Hebrew denier? Supposing I say that Cain must have scr3wed his mother Eve or that he was a sister f**ker of some future sister because there was no one else to screw to create a global population? Are we all criminals when we say that the Hebrews were notorious liars? Despite your protestations about ‘Atzmonites’, I notice in your blog that Atzmon is one of your favorite pasttimes, perhaps even far and above your supposed concern for the Palestinians. You have become his publicist, fundamentally. It would be interesting to me to know if there is any other person in this group who has ever written a single word about Gilad Atzmon. I’m sure he appreciates your notice, because it will certainly add much to his take at the cash register in the sale of his latest book. If he is a holocaust denier, I have yet to see any evidence of it. Certainly not from you. I have seen evidence that he asserts the right to question it, as every generation should any other aspect of historical information. Can you go beyond that? To deny something is to say that it never happened or does not exist. I have read The Wandering Who?, perhaps Atzon’s strongest polemic on Jewish identity, and did not find a single instance of such a statement. I’ll admit that you’re an expert at reducing a fine activist mission to absolute rubbish and have a few skills in the use of epithet and meaningless distractions, however irrelevant and unsubstantiated they may be, but I have yet to see any substance to your babble. You’re nothing but a troll, Tony. You and Weizfeld both. You insist upon changing the subject and making Jewish honor more important than the Palestinian cause, which, at this point, is perhaps the most inane thing I have ever contemplated, given what 6 million Jews are now doing in that part of the globe.
Report for the African Refugee Development Center (ARDC) to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) – submitted January 30, 2012
The State of Israel, which demands that non Jews will recognise it as “The Jewish State” has been involved in the ethnic cleansing of non Jews i.e. Palestine Christian and Muslim Arabs since its creation. Whilst the Israeli Government passes more and more laws which disadvantage non Jews, less well known is the situation of immigrants and asylum seekers from Africa. This video by the African Refugee Development Center is being presented to the United Nations today. The video explains in detail the basis for the racism of Israelis against non Jews.
Just be love, be loving, being love. Let got of all the hate, just be love. Don’t love others just let love flow from you. Let go, give up – go with the flow.
Altruism – the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others
5 Altruistic traits – Sacrifice of Light, giving up your will, time, wisdom, insights – hope. Spirit
Sacrifice of liberty, doing some action for another – assistance, aid, help, selflessness. Fire.
Sacrifice of Love, giving up something you love – compassion, care, share. Water.
Sacrifice of Knowledge, giving up information. Air.
Sacrifice of Matter, giving money, food, material things…. Earth.
Love all… all is love.
Last week, as Jewish Lobbies continue to invest enormous efforts in dictating and imposing a rigid and unquestionable Holocaust narrative, Israeli Haaretz published a short, succinct and courageous report challenging the validity of the Wannsee Conference as proof of the Nazi ‘final solution’.
Just ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, the Israeli paper reported that Dr. Norbert Kampe (63), director of the “Wannsee Conference” Memorial Centre in Berlin, has challenged some of the most widely-accepted historical ‘facts’ associated with the conference and its meaning.
Jewish Holocaust scholars have always insisted that the master plan for the Nazi Judeocide was conceived at the Wannsee Conference but Dr. Kampe is quoted as saying that the conference dealt only with “operational matters” instead of being a platform of any form of “decision making”. To prove his point, Kampe pointed to the fact that Hitler and his ministers were not present at the conference. Furthermore, he says, “At the time, January 1942, there was no organized plan for extermination camps.”
And yet, Haaretz admits, “Make no mistake. Kampe is not anti-Semitic. Certainly not a Holocaust denier. On the contrary. As expected of a professional historian, he studied countless relevant texts, documents and testimonies on the particular event…His conclusion is the direct outcome of an educated analysis of written material in his possession.”
So courageously, a Hebrew paper praises Kampe and his “fascinating historical lesson” and also acknowledges that the Israeli Ministry of Education lacks the capacity to engage in any form of informed Holocaust debate. Haaretz clearly admits that
“to this day no one knows with complete certainty and confidence what exactly happened on 20 January 1942, in this pretty villa in the wealthy suburb of Berlin.”
Only one copy of the Wansee Conference protocol, found in 1947, survived the war, others having been deliberately destroyed by the Nazis in an effort to conceal evidence. This protocol is the only authentic documentation as to what happened in Wannsee and one of the few that made explicit use of the term “final solution”. However, Haaretz concedes that, like any historical document, the Wannsee document should be read carefully. The words “death” or “murder” do not appear in the conference protocol. Instead, it refers to “natural diminution”, “appropriate treatment”, “other solution options” and “different forms of solutions.” In fact, the only explicit references in the document deal with deportation rather than extermination. Even the famous table attached to the protocol that counts the Jews in each occupied country, does not state that those Jews are destined to be destroyed.
Just a few days ahead of Holocaust Memorial Day, a Hebrew paper found the courage to admit that “decades of Holocaust research could not find a clear and explicit command made by high-level Nazi officials to engage in systematic mass extermination of Jews.”
According to the Israeli paper, the Nazis disguised their true intentions in some “ambiguous orders and “secret codes”, which were supposed to lead officers to interpret and to react upon what they believed to be Hitler’s will.
The moral here is simple. Once again we learn that some Israelis are far ahead of the Western press and academia in their criticism of Jewish ideology in general and the Zionist Holocaust narrative in particular.
Max talks about the continued under-regulation and lack of enforcement for wide-scale Banking fraud. He also talk about how Goldman Sachs undermined the economy of Greece to strip it of all its assets. The Banker elite it would seem are largely immune from prosecution or censure. One wonders how long the people will this endure this blatant criminality.
Thanks to Jonathan Azaziah for this
an insight into real life in occupied Palestine.”
…The trailer of the documentary We are Nabi Saleh!
We are Nabi Saleh is still looking for Co-funding, screening places and help with translation: Arabic-English. If you wan’t to collaborate, write an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. We can make it real together. Bless.
On December 21st 2011 the Israeli government demolished the village of Al Araqib for the 33rd time. The inhabitants of Al Araqib are Palestinian Bedouin Arabs who now hold Israeli citizenship. A film was recently made about the Beduoin of Al Araqib called “Sumoud” meaning steadfastness which is exactly what these amazing people are showing as they refuse to be removed from their land.
The people of al Araqib are resisting hard as they insist to stay on their land in the most difficult of conditions. Not only have they had their homes regularly demolished since 2010 but they have to live in the heat and cold of the desert without mains water and electricity. These previously nomadic people of Al Naqab desert used to graze their livestock over a huge area but since the formation of the State of Israel the land they used to roam has been either appropriated by the State for “security purposes” or bought up by “charities” such as the Jewish National Fund who have a policy of only marketing land to Jews. The J.N.F. is supposedly working to make the desert bloom but evidently they are engaged in ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their land, not just in Al Naqab but in other areas as well, I suspect this was the reason that David Cameron had to resign as a patron from the British J.N.F. last year.
The Jewish National Fund is campaigning on “Green Sunday”, February 5th 2012 by asking people to buy a tree to plant in Israel. I advise all those people who are for Human Rights and against Ethnic Cleansing to spread the word far and wide about this “Greenwashing” and to be active in promoting the truth about what the Jewish National Fund really stands for.
More information on how to help can be found on the website of the “Stop the Jewish National Fund Campaign http://www.stopthejnf.org/actionalerts_5feb2012.html
One very well informed and courageous Israeli who thinks the answer is ‘Yes’ is Merav Michaeli, a radio and television presenter who also writes for Ha’aretz. She is completely without fear when it comes to telling it like it is. On 2 January this year, for example, she wrote:
The Israeli government doesn’t want peace. There’s nothing new in that. It has been the proven way since the establishment of the state.”
The headline over her latest article is Israel’s never-ending Holocaust. One of her main points is that Israel has never confronted the trauma of the Nazi holocaust and has
turned it into a placard in the service of the national trauma, to reinforce the constant existential fear and the aggressiveness that comes with it.”
Because what she wrote is so important, and in my view ought to be read by all peoples of all faiths everywhere who want to understand why the Zionist state is what it is, I am going to quote her at some length.
The Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself. And that definition is narrow and ailing in the extreme, because the Holocaust is remembered only in a very specific way, as are its lessons. It has long been used to justify the existence and the necessity of the state, and has been mentioned in the same breath as proof that the state is under a never-ending existential threat.
The Holocaust is the sole prism through which our leadership, followed by society at large, examines every situation. This prism distorts reality and leads inexorably to a forgone conclusion… that all our lives are simply one long Shoah (experience of persecution and extermination – my amplification not Merav’s).
The ‘Hitlers’ are always there: Just a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the nth time that there is no shortage of those who want to exterminate us completely. In other words, there is no lack of reasons to continue to reinforce the fear of the Holocaust – which, according to his father, historian Benzion Netanyahu, has never ended.
So it is that we don’t have any rivals, adversaries or even enemies. Only Hitlers. This is how the Holocaust is taught in school, this how it is that Israeli students are taken to visit death camps – and how it came to be that, as Ha’aretz reported on Friday, just 2 percent of Israeli youth feel committed to democratic principles after studying the Holocaust… That’s the way it is with traumas. Because of our human limitations, a trauma that is not dealt with makes us constantly see yet another trauma approaching – even when whatever is coming has no connection to the previous trauma and may even be a good thing. Trauma leads to belligerence and a strong tendency to wreak havoc on one’s surroundings, but first and foremost on oneself.
What we consider rational is actually a frightened, defensive, aggressive pattern. Our current leaders have made Israeli Judaism just a post-traumatic syndrome, while they lead us to self-destruction.
I imagine that most if not all Arabs and other Muslims everywhere would welcome the prospect of Israel self-destructing, but in my Gentile view it is not actually a prospect to be welcomed. Why not?
If there comes a time when it seemed to them that the Zionist state’s self-destruction was imminent, Israel’s leaders would respond in the same way as they would if their state was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield. As readers of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews know, that response was put into words by Golda Meir in the course of one of my BBC Panorama interviews with her when she was prime minister. In a doomsday situation, she said, Israel
would be prepared to take the region down with it.”
The question arising is something like this. Is there any power on Planet Earth that could assist Israeli Jews to save themselves from themselves – perhaps I should say save themselves from their deluded leaders?
The more I think about this question, the more I am convinced that there is only one power that could do it – the Jews of the world. But that must be the subject of another post and I will welcome thoughts from others before I write it.
Pontius Pilate famously asked: ‘What is truth?’ He might just as well have asked: ‘What is power?’
Consider his situation. Pilate was the prefect of the province of Judea, the representative of the great Roman Empire. Before him stood a young other-worldly man who might be a nutter or a seer and who said nothing to defend himself. He seemed harmless enough, and his wife had just sent Pilate a message which read: ‘Have nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.’
There is no doubt in my mind that Pilate wanted to release Jesus. But in the end he was forced to recognise the power of the Roman appointed High Priest, Caiaphas, who led the move to have Jesus crucified.
So where did Caiaphas’s power come from, a power which was at that moment greater than the Roman prefect? It came surely from his ability to convince a sufficient number of his followers that Jesus was a menace, and by so doing to create a potentially discontented mass who might threaten the peace which Pilate was charged with preserving.
Through the ages politicians, whether despots, or colonial rulers or democratically elected leaders, have faced a similar dilemma. Our modern leaders often tell us: ‘Politics is the art of the possible.’ By this they mean that their power is more constrained than we imagine. They are engaged in a wrestling match with other powerful groups like foreign states, the rich, the military, academia, trades unions, popular movements and religions.
Ultimately power depends on convincing enough of the right people of your point of view, something, by the way, I was not conspicuously successful in doing within PSC! I say the ‘right people’ because most people are quite prepared to follow.
You may well wince when I say that, but what happened recently in PSC is a good example of this sheep-like mentality. If you had put the straight question to individual members: ‘Should Francis Clark-Lowes be expelled for expressing his opinion about the fate of Jews under the Nazis?’ I’ll wager a majority would have said ‘No!’ But wrap up the question in language which misinterprets what I said, and the crowd say ‘Yes’.
Marc Antony’s speech in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar illustrates just the kind of wrestling match for power to which I referred. Brutus and the conspirators have killed Julius Caesar and have managed to carry the people with them. Recognising this, Marc Antony, who is intent on exposing their crime, carefully praises his opponents: ‘For Brutus is an honourable man; So are they all, all honourable men.’ But by gradually introducing a counter argument he wins round the crowd and thereby reclaims the power.
But to return to the biblical story, I refrained from describing Caiphas’s power as Jewish. The entanglement of Judaism and Christianity has been the source of much discrimination against Jews as well as of Jewish suspicion of Christians, and I have no desire to add fuel to that fire. There are those who maintain that it is misleading to discribe the people to whom Jesus and Caiaphas belonged as Jews. I haven’t yet formed a view on this matter.
I am also aware that there is very little evidence for the biblical accounts of Jesus’s life and death. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is based on much firmer ground, though it is also a fictionalised version of events. But both of these stories have the ring of truth to them. Stories are important, even if they can at times be dangerous. It is our job to monitor the way they are used.
Meanwhile my story is one of marginalisation and the power of that position!
The Wembley and District United Synagogue. Always at the centre of our lives, this place, but you can forget the spiritual, we were strictly twice a year Jews. Nor was it cultural, at least not with any big C. No, for us second and third generation, upwardly mobile, North London Jews shul was strictly a social affair.
Our lives turned on this place and all it stood for. Sure, we ventured out, me, Tony and Helen to the local schools, where we mixed freely, if a little uneasily, with the local kids. Our parents less so: she, with the middle management personnel officers of the firms springing up all over Wembley to whom she and Auntie Leila delivered a never-ending supply of temps. He, even less so in those days when the rag trade round Commercial Roadwas still pretty much exclusively Jewish. There were no Bangladeshis then with whom, years later, he would form such mutually appreciative business relationships. “Your father!” one would say to me years later. “Your father Sir! His word is his bond Sir!” A fine tribute and one I’m still proud to remember.
That array of aunties and uncles – the men with their loud laughter and funny names: Maxie, Monty and Manny, all reaching into their pockets for the cash in that ritual altercation of who was going to pick up the bill…And the women, those aunties: Pearl, Blanche, Gerry and Faye with their big hair and high heels. Where now to find such women? So quick, so clever, so insightful..
But these proximities were extraneous to the real stuff of our lives which was this building and the families clustered round its foundations. That array of aunties and uncles – the men with their loud laughter and funny names: Maxie, Monty and Manny, all reaching into their pockets for the cash in that ritual altercation of who was going to pick up the bill. Oh, what greater proof of manhood could there have been for a six-year-old than to reach deep into the side pocket of your generously cut trousers and pull out a fat wad? Where amongst the creditworthy of Highbury and Islington would you find such men? And the women, those aunties: Pearl, Blanche, Gerry and Faye with their big hair and high heels. Where now to find such women? So quick, so clever, so insightful.
Festivals, weddings, barmitzvahs, funerals, shivas, stone-settings, parties, card-evenings, tombolas – these were the stuff of our lives. Each one just one more reason to get together, talk together, eat together, pray together, laugh together, sin together, fundraise together. Because, for the first seven years of my life my parents and their friends had, collectively at least, one aim and one aim only, and that was to raise the money to build a new synagogue for the Wembley community. Nothing mattered, only that they should raise the money to build the new shul. Why they bothered, I’m really not sure. Few were religious so it was certainly not to glorify God. No, for them it was for the glorification of something quite different. It was to celebrate their coming here, their place here, their progress here, together. For if the building of the new Wembley Synagogue can be said to glorify anything then it was to glorify Community. Community. How often, in my childhood, did I hear that word? Save for mensch and worldly, more than any other. Community was everything. My parents, their friends, the children of their friends. The shul, the cheyder, the cub and scout troop, the synagogue services – all was community.
So my mother and father, along with all those other young couples with their young families and mounting prosperity, laboured night and day, week after week, for all the years of my childhood to raise the money to build their new synagogue. And where did the money come from? Where did the funds to build this edifice come from? Why, from them of course. Where else? And how did they raise this money? How did they accumulate this pile? Why, from the parties, card-evenings and Tombolas. Thus, all this collective activity, this getting together, this socialising, all this was merely an excuse to give. Or, more likely, all this giving was merely an excuse for getting together. A less visceral group of philanthropists might have just sat down and worked out how much each should give and then banked the cheques. Not so the Wembley Community. Where would have been the joy in that, and where the wondrous environment for a small boy?
And when the synagogue was built, when, after all the activity and the excitement, the parties, the fundraisers, after all the disruption; synagogue services held in the Town Hall, Hebrew classes in the local school, cub meetings in a church hall. After all this, as we actually sat in it, our brand new synagogue with its blond wood panels, its memorial windows, none with anything even resembling a human form for, like Muslims, such things were forbidden to us, when we looked up at Rabbi Lipman sitting by the Holy Ark, and at my mother sitting up in the Gallery with her Ladies Guild cronies. When we sat there on that first Saturday, the congregation swollen with the massed ranks of the cubs, scouts, brownies and guides of the 19th Wembley Jewish Scout and Guide Troops, what did we see? We saw community.
Can there ever have been a prouder moment? Sitting there in my cub uniform, the blue and white scarf freshly ironed and folded exactly as Anthony had shown me the night before, the girls from my cheyder class in their brownie uniforms, the Girl Guides in their uniforms, as Rabbi Lipman welcomes us “members of the 19th Wembley Jewish Cub, Scout, Brownie and Guide Troops to our brand new shul”. Or, a more evocative moment when, after the two prayers, one for Her Majesty the Queen, public proof of our loyalty and gratitude…. May He who gives salvation to kings and dominion unto princes….; bless our sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth….that they uphold the peace of the Realm, advance the welfare of the nation and deal kindly and justly with the house of Israel. The other (this one strictly for us) for the President and The State of Israel, ….. Bless the State of Israel… The land which is sworn to our fathers to give us…Grant peace in Your Holy Land …unto all its inhabitants…. When he would then turn to us, his congregation, that group of people: mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters gathered all round this place and everything this place came to represent, and he would remind us that for all our transgressions, a bit of cash here, driving on shabbesthere, maybe a lustful thought or two, that we were still his congregation, still His congregation, still Community. And he would then pronounce for us the priestly benediction. …May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord make His face to shine upon you and give you peace.
And when they looked further afield, where they had wrought miracles on land bought fair and square (we were told), and had defended that land from those who had by their own ignorance and savagery (we were told), forfeited all rights to that land, (we were told) maybe their pride turned to arrogance. Because, by that summer of 1968 it seemed that there was nothing we couldn’t do.
Of course it’s gone now. The synagogue has steel security railings round it, a sign of the times perhaps. Maybe I’ve been so busy with my own losses that I haven’t had time to see the loss around me. Because they’ve all gone – Hackney, Whitechapel, Stamford Hill. Ilford, Cricklewood, Willesden, and Dollis Hill. Hendon, Finchley,Southgate, Golders Green. All gone. The parents to the grave or to retirement homes in Bournemouth orMarbellaand the children to Bushey, Hampstead and Primrose Hill. Maybe it was the prosperity that did for them, maybe just a bit too much success.
They’d come with nothing, cap in hand, asking for a place and, through talent and hard work they’d found that place. And when they looked around and saw the peace and prosperity they’d created: the husbands, the wives, the sons, the daughters, the houses, the cars, the education, the doctors, the dentists, the accountants, maybe satisfaction turned to pride and pride to conceit. And when they looked further afield, where they had wrought miracles on land bought fair and square (we were told), and had defended that land from those who had by their own ignorance and savagery (we were told), forfeited all rights to that land, (we were told) maybe their pride turned to arrogance. Because, by that summer of 1968 it seemed that there was nothing we couldn’t do.
If you are running a charity or trust in Britain or the USA, there is no minimum required spend on charitable purposes. So one could have a charity that takes several hundred thousand pounds a years in donations, and employs many well paid staff. As long as that charity does the bare minimum required by the Charity Commission, there is not a minimum required spend on actual charitable acts.
This is crucial, this means that by having a basic website, and indulging in some basic public work, leafleting & marketing, an organization can qualify as being a charity. One only has to look at the scandal of ‘Atlantic Bridge’ involving Liam Fox & Adam Werritty, to see this charity model in place there.
Charities are ripe for exploitation for the following reasons.
- Money laundering: – charities are the perfect way to launder money via anonymous donations.
- Self-regulation & minimal oversight make it very easy to hide bad or illegal practices.
- No minimum spend on the actual charitable acts.
- No maximum spend on ‘fund-raising costs’.
- No Tax
Whilst I am not implying that all charities operate in such a self-interested way, there is evidence that many charities are failing to deliver on the most basic of requirements. The following are just a few examples that I have found.
The charity ‘Atlantic Bridge’ ran for some 4 years without notice until a suspicious blogger flagged it to the charity commission and it all came undone. Stephen Newton the political blogger in question, who uncovered the scandal also points out that he had notified the charity commission earlier in 2009 but they failed to do anything about it.
British Friends of Hazon Yeshaya is another charity that has been caught up in a fraud scandal. Its purpose is to provide soup kitchens for the (Jewish) poor and needy in Israel. The charity raised over £750 000 last year, all the money went abroad to Israel, yet it failed to make the 14 000 meals a day which it was supposed to. Despite this it is still fund-raising in the UK.
The CST (Community Security Trust) is a Jewish charitable trust that has just been awarded a grant from the public purse. The grant of £2 million to Jewish Schools for security guards (CST security guards I bet) was issued by Michael Gove (Education secretary), despite him being listed on the CST advisory board. No conflict of interest here then. Coincidentally, Michael Gove has also received money from the CFI (Unincorporated_association - another type of charity) in 2005, and his islamophobic book ‘Celsius 7/7′ is free when you join the CST. Let us review these facts: -
- 2005 Michael Gove receives ‘donations’ from the Conservative Friends of Israel.
- His Book ‘Celsius 7/7‘ is free for every CST member. Presumably he will have got something for this islamophobic promotion.
- He is on the CST advisory board.
- He awards a £2 million grant from public money for Jewish-only Schools.
Gove’s book is a confused epic of simplistic incomprehension, riddled with more factual errors and misconceptions than any other text I have come across in two decades of reviewing books on this subject. 
William Dalrymple, A global crisis of understanding, The Times, 24 September-2009.
Here is a very interesting video from Michael Gove who seeks to encourage Islamophobia through his book.
Finally, from my personal work experience in the ‘third sector’ in two charity organizations I worked in, I was told by the staff, that they typically spend 10-20% of their turnover on charitable acts. It is clear that many charities are failing to deliver help to those that they say they support, or are just under-cover organizations designed to extract money and support from people who often have the best of intentions.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions” source.
Until we see proper regulation, transparency and accountability, the ‘third sector’ will continue to be plagued by corruption and fraud. It has become glaringly obvious that some charities & trusts are using the cover of their ‘good intentions’ to pursue their own quite separate and sometimes contradictory agendas.
“Cast Lead” – Western Complicity and Arab Collaboration.
Most of us so-called ‘civilised’ people in the West watched the “Cast Lead” massacre in Gaza of just over three years ago from the comfort of our living-rooms on colour T.V. screens (high definition naturally) – so we can’t say that we didn’t know. Both Lebanon and Gaza are just a thousand miles away from us, in fact Sharm-el sheikh, the Red Sea resort so beloved by winter sun-seekers is but six hours drive from Gaza.
I entered Gaza in March 2009 with the first Viva Palestina convoy. It was just a few weeks after Cast-Lead and the people of Gaza were in deep shock. Some families, who had lost their homes, were in U.N. tent communities, others were just squatting in the rubble of their bombed houses. I was one of a small group of women from the U.K. taken by a Hamas Government Minister to look at some of the results of the carnage. How are you to interpret the sight of a family whose home has been hit by a modern bomb other than as an act of sheer vandalism and murder?
Sure, we hugged the crying grandmother as she showed us her former house, burnt out and black on the inside with a hole in the bedroom ceiling where the bomb fell in on the sleeping family, but what real comfort can you give? But at least we went. For these Gazans it was incomprehensible that the world knew what they had suffered but just got on with their everyday lives, leaving them imprisoned in the worlds biggest concentration camp.
Traditionally for Gazans, many families live in one home with three or four generations and the houses can be two or three stories high. So many of destroyed houses had the concrete floors collapsed onto one another so we weren’t able to visit each family and find out exactly how many family members had been trapped, alive or dead, inside. But we did see children trying to wriggle into any tiny gap in the hope of retrieving some small personal belonging. One bombed and collapsed home I passed had an old man just sitting alone on top of the rubble. Had he lost his family along with his home? I took a photograph and, to this day, I wonder what was his story.
In another bombed and blackened home children, excited at our visit, brought us lumps of white phosphorous and showed us how they reignite if you rub them with a stick – definitely not something you want to see children playing with – and, as the pieces started to smoke profusely, we all rushed for the door. Three of us requested to go to Al Shifa hospital, the entrance doors of which we had seen so many times on T.V. as ambulances and civilian cars rushed up with the wounded and dying. There, we met the Head of the Intensive Care Unit. He was in a state of shock and agitation, raging against the whole world for, as he put it, “turning their backs on Gaza whilst the Israelis massacred them”,. We had nothing to say in our defense and even less in defense of his fellow Arabs for whom he had particular contempt. His frustration was palpable as we sat in his office – this man desperately in need of some respite from the horrors of the previous weeks and the long years of dealing with injuries to children and civilians by Israeli drones, F16′s, gunships etc. What must this man have seen? What must he have had to deal with? He told us “we don’t want your money or the aid you bring, we want to be able to live like human beings”. He is, of course, right. The people of Gaza need to rebuild their homes and businesses, export their produce and, above all, live like human beings – and it is the illegal siege, that horrific collective punishment imposed on the people for voting democratically for Hamas, that denies them that freedom to be productive people, a basic right which we take for granted in the west.
Three years on, nothing has been done. Legal cases have mostly gone unanswered, Gaza is still under siege right under the eyes of an International community unwilling to do anything but utter empty words, people are still dying from their injuries and houses remain demolished due to the Israeli ban on building materials. But still, Aid-Convoys and delegations come and go and give interviews about how the siege must end. But nothing happens.
For myself, I blame the Muslims and especially the Arabs. How did we forget our obligation in Islam to care for our suffering brothers and sisters? This phoney “War on Terror” has Muslim leaders and especially mosque leaders terrified to discuss what they call “politics” but what I call “what is happening to Muslims elsewhere,” in the masajid. Most Muslims are frightened to speak out let alone take action. Muslim communities feel under attack – and so they are and by the same Zionist machine which lobbies and advises Western Governments on how to deal with the “Terrorists”!
Between the Zionist oppression on the Muslims of Palestine and on Muslims in the West, the only difference is one of scale. It is high time we woke up, lost our fear and realised that we can ourselves pressure the governments of the West – but only if we have the Muslim leadership to unite and guide us.
We’ve been sent a transcription of PSC Chair Hugh Lanning’s speech at the PSC AGM where he tries to justify, on the grounds of racism, anti-Semitism and prejudice, the expulsion of ex-PSC Chair, Dr. Francis Clark-Lowes.
To support the PSC EC decision Lanning quotes Dr. Clark-Lowes saying.
“I said I was proud to call myself a Holocaust denier – it is the capital ‘H’ I believe we must question.”
Clearly here Clark-Lowes adopts a genuine, universalist attitude. By denying the Holocaust its capital ‘H’, the Brighton academic rejects the primacy of Jewish suffering. Of course one would expect the UK PSC to be primarily concerned with Palestinian suffering but, alas, this is not the case. Clark-Lowes’ stand has provoked all the usual PSC/hasbara agitators.
Similarly and tragically, Lanning, who, in recently stating his and PSC’s adherence to the principle of Two States, betrayed not just the Palestinian cause, but also the most basic humanist and universal ethical code, framed in international law, which guarantees to Palestinians (and anyone else in similar circumstances), the right of return.
Lanning also quotes Dr. Clark-Lowes as saying…
“to be precise, I’ve ceased to believe in the six million figure, the planned extermination programme and the mass killings in gas-chambers.”
A bit more problematic perhaps. Or is it?
Dr. Clark-Lowes is an academic, a student of, and authority on, German-Jewish relations. Of course , like anyone else, he can be right or he can be wrong. That’s not the point. The real issue is this: Is this essentially academic matter to be judged by the PSC EC or even the PSC AGM? Can the PSC decide how many Jews perished in the holocaust and in what manner? Are these not subjects for historical research? Should they really be considered political questions? And consider this: If the AGM of the PSC can determine the past by ‘popular vote’, how can it protest the Israeli Knesset determining the nature of the Nakba by the same means?
It’s pretty simple. The past does not belong to politicians, activists or anyone else. It is there for us to visit, revisit and revise – and those who oppose such an approach – whether Zionists, anti Zionists, Likudniks or even the PSC Executive Committee – are the enemies of truth, justice and peace and therefore of all humanity.
Lanning concludes, “…it was on these grounds that the Executive Committee determined that Dr. Clark-Lowes’ membership was not compatible with the objectives of the PSC…..PSC stands in opposition to racism, including anti-Jewish prejudice. “
I couldn’t find in Francis Clark-Lowes’ words a single trace of “racism or anti-Jewish prejudice.” But Lanning knows better.
“It was clear to the EC in this case that there was racism based on a clearly-stated expression of anti-Jewish prejudice. I’d go further: Holocaust denial with a big or a little ‘H’ is racist and anti-Semitic.”
Here I find myself in some agreement with Lanning. I don’t doubt that Holocaust denial may, in some cases, be driven by anti-Jewish feelings. But in Francis Clark-Lowes’ case this is clearly not so. The Brighton academic, ex-PSC Chair and scholar of Jewish studies, clearly opposes the Holocaust religion, the oppressive primacy of Jewish suffering, and Talmudic-style censorship practised by Lanning, PSC EC and their Zionist overlords – Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle . Dr. Clark-Lowes is no racist nor is he an anti-Semite and the PSC has singularly failed to prove that he is.
Over the years I’ve heard some Palestinian friends suggest that Palestinine solidarity activists should, mainly for tactical reasons, avoid any questioning of the Holocaust, and I understand their concerns. They say:
‘We’ve enough to deal with without taking on the Shoa as well’.
PSC’s Hugh Lanning, however, thinks otherwise: “It’s not a tactical issue as alleged in the correspondence; it is a principle issue. Holocaust denial has no place in the fight for a free Palestine. Our campaign is based on justice, human rights and international law.”
Someone should remind the PSC EC, and Hugh Lanning in particular, that the suppression of free thought and speech is incompatible with justice, human rights and international law . And they should ask themselves why an academic and leading solidarity activist should not be entitled to express his thoughts and explore Jewish identity, Jewish ideology and even challenge the ‘primacy’ of Jewish suffering. And one other question: Why has the PSC located itself in the front line of the Israeli Hasbara campaign in Britain?
In the last two years, the PSC EC has systematically expelled and marginalised leading Palestinian thinkers and solidarity activists in the UK and it was this, ahead of the AGM, that catalysed our founding of deLiberation as an alternative intellectual and activist platform.
Unlike a PSC that supports the Two-State solution, we at deLiberation simply support the right of Palestinians to determine their own future and, most important of all, we welcome open debate on the matter. Unlike the ‘secular’ PSC we are not afraid of Islam, Judaism or any other religion for that matter. And also unlike a PSC that bows shamelessly to Zionist pressure, we promise to fight Israel and its lobbies unceasingly.
On the most crucial and controversial matters, deLiberation will always provide open discussion and fresh analysis.
It is constantly bleated from certain quarters that the term ‘Jewish power’ is racist. How can you attribute power to a heterogeneous group like Jews?
But let’s think a moment about the use of the word ‘power’. Does anyone have a problem with us talking about ‘the power of the media’? Or, in some countries, or in the past, ‘the power of the church’ or ‘the power of the mullahs’?
Or, what about this in the Communist Manifesto? ‘Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.’ Furthermore, Marx, I believe correctly, identified the capitalist class as being the greatest power in modern society, but no one seems to think this concept unethical, even if they disagree with it.
Communism is, in modern terminology (though not, I seem to remember, in Marx’s) an ideology, and indeed we often talk about ‘the power of an ideology’. Some may think this is figurative; I don’t.
A number of us have been maintaining for some time that Jewishness is also an ideology. So why not Jewish power? The heterogeneity of Jews does not mean that they have nothing in common, and that they cannot act collectively. If it did mean this, then Jews would not be a recognisable group. This is, indeed, exactly what some wish to maintain.
But to say that you belong to a group which is unrecognisable is a strange concept. It smacks strongly of wanting to have your cake and eat it. Vanish when you’re under attack. Emerge to exercise enormous power when you’ve silenced your critics.
It is the ‘enormous’ which worries me. I have no objection to a minority group having a reasonable level of power in relation to the power environment in which it lives. But when a group’s strategy for survival becomes the equivalent of ‘full spectrum dominance’, that is a problem. And not only for non-Jews.
30th of March 2012 is what is known as “Land Day“, a day significant in the very full diary of Palestinian suffering. It is a day which recalls when, in the name of security, Israel decided to steal even more Palestinian land, something they have continued doing until the present day.
On Land Day, International Peace Activists will take part inThe Global March to Jerusalem and march towards Al Aqsa masjid in Occupied Jerusalem. They will be joined by humanitarians from around the globe, a host of mixed nationalities, religions and political persuasions all uniting to particpate in this historic event. Their aim is to highlight the illegal occupation and other Israeli injustices towards Palestinians.
After the two masajid in Mecca and Medina respectively, Al Aqsa masjid in Jerusalem is the third most important masjid to the world’s one and a half billion Muslims, . Despite Al Aqsa masjid being so important to Muslims, it is almost impossible to visit because of the Illegal Occupation by Israel. Palestinians who live in Israel or East Jerusalem are able to pray in Al Aqsa but others from the West Bank wishing to go and pray, are subject to age restrictions and military checkpoints. Palestinians from Gaza would not get permission to travel there at all. Muslims from the rest of the world might be able to visit Al Aqsa as part of a tour of the Holy Land, however everyone is subject to the whims of the Israelis issuing visas.
Personally I would love to visit Al Aqsa but am highly unlikely to be issued a visa by the State of Israel due to a series of events I suffered as an unarmed civilian activist at the hands of the Occupation State. Having been kidnapped from the Mavi Marmara in International waters of the Mediterranean in May 2010 by pirates a.k.a. Israeli Occupation Special Forces, taken to Hebrew speaking Palestine (Ashdod) against my will at gunpoint then imprisoned in Beer Sheba prison for allegedly entering the State of Israel illegally and breaking immigration laws! Yes, really ! You just couldn’t make that sort of lunacy up! I am now subject to a ten year ban from entering the State of Israel. My personal belongings which were stolen from me such as camera, mobile phone, cash etc have never been returned to me by the pirates, I don’t like to complain about my missing belongings too much since there are 8 widows and 29 orphans in Turkey who lost so much more.
It is alarming to follow the Meir Amit Institute reports about the “Global March to Jerusalem” and see their obvious attempt to portray the march as likely to become rowdy and violent. Given Israel’s tendency to respond to protests with violence, this is hopefully not a pretext for opening fire and murdering unarmed civilians.
This peaceful event is being seen by Israel as a threat to their legitimacy, and well they might because the publicity surrounding it will ultimately awaken more people in the world to the injustices that Israel perpretrates on Palestinians. But for some reason Israel is blind to the reality that it is its leaders and citizens such as the settlers, and their policies of ethnic cleansing, stealing land and apartheid that deligitimises the State in the eyes of the world.
Here below is the call from Palestinians to join the March
Join us as we intensify our struggle against forced exile and the system of Israeli apartheid on Land Day 2012.
We Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed and uprooted from our lands starting in the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) which resulted in the creation of the millions of refugees who are now living in the Diaspora. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel illegally annexed East-Jerusalem and the West Bank in a move which marked the Naksa (Setback), and subjected the remaining Palestinians to a brutal military occupation.
We are now in 2012, and we are still living in exile or under the Israeli apartheid regime, the illegal construction of colonial settlements is confiscating the remaining parts of Palestine, the Separation Wall divides and separates villages and towns, and Palestinians in Jerusalem are threatened of being driven out of their homes and lands for the mere purpose of the Judaization of this sacred city.
But we will not leave. We will stand and be firm. We will not permit thousands of years of our attachment to our land and our Holy City to be broken. We therefore invite and call upon all persons of courage and good will around the world to stand up and walk, with your fellow human beings, regardless of religion, of political affiliation – to stand up as responsible human beings and walk peacefully towards Jerusalem on the 30th of March, 2012.
We therefore ask all our brothers and sisters throughout the world to join Palestinians on Land Day, 30 March, 2012, in challenging the barriers, borders and procedures that separate Palestinians from Jerusalem and from their homes and lands in all of historic Palestine.
- Palestinian National and Islamic Organizations
- Al-Rowwad Cultural and Theatre Training Centre, www.alrowwad-acts.ps
- Al-Walaja Popular Resistance Committee
- The Alternative Information Center – AIC – www.alternativenews.org
- BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights: www.badil.org/
- Beit Ummar Popular Resistance Committee
- Bil’in Popular Resistance Committee www.bilin-village.org
- Friends of Freedom and Justice, Bil’in www.bilin-ffj.org
- Handala Center – www.handalla-center.org
- Holy Land Trust www.holylandtrust.org
- International Solidarity Movement: www.palsolidarity.org
- Nebi Saleh Popular Resistance Committee
- Ni’lin Popular Resistance Committee
- Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People www.PCR.PS
- Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign www.stopthewall.org
- Palestine Justice Network www.palestinejn.org
- Palestine Solidarity Project WWW.palestinesolidarityproject.org
- Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee www.popularstruggle.org/
- Siraj Center for Holy Land Studies, www.sirajcenter.org
- Youth Against Settlements (Hebron)
- Youth Activity Center – Aida Camp (www.key1948.org)
My heart sinks when I hear that phrase, ‘let’s be fair.’
‘Let’s be fair, George Bush had no alternative but to smash Afghanistan and Iraq.’
‘Let’s be fair, what would you have done faced with that massive hostile gathering at Amritsar on 13th April 1919 or that dangerous looking civil-rights march in Londonderry on 30 January 1972 (40 years ago on Monday, by the way)?’
‘Let’s be fair, the Jews needed a safe haven, and so they had to organise a transfer.’
Nevertheless, let’s indeed be fair! I’m thinking particularly about what used to be called ‘the Jewish question’. Once Jews had been emancipated in most of Europe in the nineteenth century, there was a debate both among Jews themselves, and in the wider host societies within which they lived, about what their role should be, and even about whether or not they should remain a recognisable group.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, recognised the problems which arose from remaining distinct within a host society, and at one point favoured the conversion of the mass of Jews to Catholicism. Many Jews today would also like to throw off the last vestiges of their Jewishness. Whether they succeed or not remains unclear.
But is it reasonable to ask a people with a long history and a recognisable culture to suddenly forget their identity? Is it even practicable? Of course not. Even those, the majority, who have abandoned all but the last vestiges of their religion, still have an awareness of being Jewish, and nothing non-Jews do is likely to change that. However much our modern identities may have multiple components, the parts which we inherit through our parents are always likely to be prominent.
In his book, The Wandering Who? Gilad Atzmon very clearly indicates the dangers inherent in aspects of Jewish culture today. He sees Jewishness as having become an ideology, and I suggested in my appeal speech a week ago that this ideology is also unsinkable. Whichever way you try to criticise it you end up in the wrong. This is a very effective survival strategy in the short term. But is it so in the long term?
Jewish history has indeed been one of periodic suffering. But it has also been one in which Jews have very successfully negotiated with the holders of power in their host societies. The two are not unrelated. There has been a wave motion in the fortunes of Jews, sometimes good, sometimes bad, with the bad being at least partly a reaction to what happened in the good periods.
We are living in a ‘good’ period for Jews. You need go no further than Mearsheimer and Walt to recognise the degree to which Jews, collectively, have been successful in controlling Western foreign policy, for example. But Jews and non-Jews alike know that this situation could turn nasty. How long will non-Jews tolerate so much power in the hands of a tiny minority?
So, let’s be fair. In all humanity, we don’t want a repeat of past pogroms. How, then, should Jews and non-Jews alike work toward a solution not solely based on all of us becoming universalists (an unlikely scenario). This will require a modification of Jewish culture, and where necessary also of non-Jewish cultures, in such a way that they can live in harmony with one another.
The role of non-Jews and Jews will be to criticise Jewish culture when they dislike what they see (just as Jews have very often criticised non-Jewish cultures), and not to be deterred by cries of ‘anti-Semtism.’
The task is not an easy one. But sticking our heads in the sand and treating the whole subject as taboo will get us nowhere.
In May 2010, all 189 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – including Iran – tacitly agreed to a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and called for a conference in 2012 in Finland. But Israel has refused to support a nuclear weapons-free zone for the region, reluctant to give up its own. Israel also is not a signatory to the NPT. These facts have arguably destabilized the region, leaving open the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East
Antiwar.com reported today that a former Saudi intelligence chief has called for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. Prince Turki Al Faisal urged the five permanent U.N. Security Council members to guarantee a nuclear security umbrella for Mideast countries that agree to a nuclear weapons-free zone and impose sanctions on countries that develop or maintain nuclear weapons.
Though it is clear that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would certainly be a concern to Saudi Arabia, it also must be mentioned that the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community, the Obama administration, and the latest IAEA report is that Iran’s enrichment is so far civilian in nature.
It seems that Israel and its relentless lobbies are the biggest threat to world peace.
Perfidious Albion, Our government is happy to go to war all over the world in the name of freedom, liberty and democracy. Our government will extol the virtues of freedom of expression and speech, but not in the case of Press TV, where it has prevailed upon it’s poodle the so called independent media watchdog OFCOM to remove Press TV off the Sky broadcasting platform.
The hypocrisy could not be more obvious.
After all, you can have a plethora of sex channels on British television, you can even have a gay sex channel on British television and that’s no problem for David Cameron’s media regulator, OFCOM.
You can be Rupert Murdoch at the head of a media corporation which stands accused of rampaging through practically every law in the book and yet you are deemed to be a fit and proper person to operate a television station in London.
The official reason behind the decision made by Ed Richard, the current Controller of Corporate Strategy at the BBC and the head of Britain’s Office of Communications (Ofcom), was that Press TV’s editorial team was based in Tehran.
Perhaps Mr. Richard should be reminded that CNN are head quartered in the USA.
What this decision says is that you can’t be a news channel that looks at the news from a different perspective to the grim prevailing orthodoxy of Washington and London.
It’s fair to say that Press TV has been a thorn in the side of Britain’s right-wing and pro-Israeli groups who have worked rigorously to limit its operations inside Britain.
Some political analysts have pointed squarely at the collusion between the zionist media lobby group, Britain Israel Communications & Research Centre (Bicom) & their influence over the (state-controlled) Ofcom to ban the alternative English-language channel Press TV in the UK.
Should we be really surprised?
The WikiLeak cables showed that the US state department wanted Press TV off Britain’s air waves prior to February 2010.
Our very own Foreign Office told US embassy officials who deal with Iran in February 2011 that it was “exploring ways to limit the operations of Press TV which operates a large bureau (over 80 staff) in London”.
So our Government has bent over and serviced the Americans yet again, care to remind me who actually runs this country?
Do we have any sovereignty left or are we the junior partner that merrily shoe shines for his American master.
With the pressure of hostilities being ramped up against Iran on a daily basis, I am of the view that banning Press TV is simply a ploy to silence any dissenting opinion against the manufacturing of war consent. If you deny Iran the ability of expressing really what is happening in it’s country and the motives behind the forces who are preparing to attack it, then you kill any opposing opinion to the pro war hawks.
Press TV may not be available on the Sky platform, but it’s still broadcasting into the UK. You can still view Press TV live on the internet, via a downloadable app on your smart phones or by any of the methods outlined on Press TV’s website.
They say truth is the first casualty of war.
It’s up to us to ensure that the lies told in the build up to the illegal invasion of Iraq are not allowed to be repeated again.
…without warning and get away with it?
And then do the same to all your neighbours?
There can be few things more despicable than robbing a family of their home then destroying it in front of their eyes. But this is Israeli policy.
When the following news item arrived in my inbox I was more than usually interested. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) took me to see Beit Arabiya, the much demolished and rebuilt Bedouin home, nearly six years ago. Of course, it has been bulldozed and rebuilt a few times since then.
I’m reproducing the whole thing so that you get the full flavour of Israel’s evil. And it’s from an impeccable Israeli source too.
You can also read it at here.
ICAHD Peace Center “Beit Arabiya” Demolished for the Fifth Time
24 January 2012
Israeli authorities demolished Beit Arabiya (“Arabiya’s House”) last night (Monday, January 23rd) for the fifth time, along with structures in the East Anata Bedouin compound. Beit Arabiya, Located in the West Bank town of Anata (Area C) just to the northeast of Jerusalem, is a living symbol of resistance to Occupation and the desire for justice and peace.
As its name suggests, Beit Arabiya is a home belonging to Arabiya Shawamreh, her husband Salim and their seven children, a Palestinian family whose home has been demolished four times by the Israeli authorities and rebuilt each time by ICAHD’s Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists, before being demolished again last night.
At around 11p.m. Monday, a bulldozer accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Israeli soldiers appeared on the Anata hills, to promptly demolish Beit Arabiya, along with residential and agricultural structures in the nearby Arab al-Jahalin Bedouin compound. 3 family homes were demolished along with numerous animal pans, and 20 people including young children were displaced, left exposed to the harsh desert environment. While standing in solidarity with Palestinians, ICAHD staff and activists were repeatedly threatened by Israeli soldieries. ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain was beaten and sustained minor injuries.
Beit Arabiya was issued a demolition order by Israeli authorities back in 1994, following their failure to grant a building permit. It has since been demolished four times, to be rebuilt by ICAHD activists. Following a reissue of the demolition order last Thursday, came last night’s fifth demolition. ICAHD Director, Dr. Jeff Halper, standing astride the ruins, vowed to support Salim and Arabiya in rebuilding their home.
“We shall rebuild, we must rebuild forthwith, as an act of political defiance of the occupation and protracted oppression of Palestinians”
Beit Arabiya has become a symbol of resistance to the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank and Israeli demolition policy.
“ICAHD is as determined as always to rebuild the home, and endure in its struggle to bring about justice and peace” added Halper.
Salim and Arabiya, along with their neighbors and friends stood last night and watched as this tragedy unfold once again. Arabiya and Salim have dedicated their home as a center for peace in the memories of Rachel Corrie and Nuha Sweidan, two women (an American and a Palestinian) who died resisting home demolitions in Gaza. In the past decade ICAHD has hosted numerous visitors at Beit Arabiya, and based its annul rebuilding camp at the house, rebuilding 185 demolished Palestinian homes.
Only earlier this month, ICAHD extended an invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing to visit Beit Arabiya during her country visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territory scheduled for later in the month. “It is our hope, that while we cannot extend the same hospitality to the Special Raporteur Raquel Rolnik will visit the ruins of Beit Arabiya, and report on the utter cruelty, and illegality of Israeli policies and practices, and that members of the international community will follow in her footsteps”. ” said ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain.
For more information and coordination of visits to Beit Arabiya, kindly contact Itay Epshtain at email@example.com or +972-54-2623306
House demolitions and forced evictions are among Israel’s most heinous practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). In 2011, a record year of displacement, a total of 622 Palestinian structures were demolished by Israeli authorities, of which 36 per cent (or 222) were family homes; the remainder were livelihood-related (including water storage and agricultural structures), resulting in 1,094 people displaced, almost double the number for 2010. The Jordan Valley sustained the largest number of demolitions (32 per cent of total structures demolished, 40 per cent of residential structures demolished, 37 per cent of people displaced), with 199 structures demolished and 401 people displaced.
Israel now controls 40 per cent of the West Bank through 149 settlements and 102 outposts, housing more than 500,000 Jewish Israelis, as well as through closed military zones and declared nature reserves. In addition, house demolitions, forced evictions, and land expropriation, exacerbated by settler violence and the economic effects of movement restrictions, have left Palestinian communities struggling to make a living. Palestinians live in constant fear of displacement and dispersion, while Israel secures its domination and control.
The demolition of Palestinian homes is politically motivated and strategically informed. The goal is to confine the 4 million residents of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to small enclaves, thus effectively foreclosing any viable Palestinian state and ensuring Israeli control, and to allow for the expropriation of land, the ethnic displacement of Palestinians, and the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank.
The recent ICAHD report ‘The Judaization of Palestine: 2011 Displacement Trends’ provides a political analysis of the root causes and consequences of Israel’s house demolition policy, focusing on the demolition of Palestinian homes and other structures in the Occupied West Bank. Click here to read the report.
Back in 2006 I arranged to go on one of ICAHD’s tours of house demolition sites, a programme for journalists and students then run by one of Jeff Halper’s colleagues, another amiable American known to everyone as “JJ”. I wrote it up for my book, Radio Free Palestine, as follows:
The tour with JJ took us to Anata… If you thought Jenin was bad, you should see Anata. This is a blighted and doomed Palestinian township, not shell-blasted like Jenin but strangulated, poverty-stricken, earmarked for destruction and on its last legs. There were umpteen demolition orders on Palestinian homes, some newly built.
Not content with persecuting the Palestinians, the Israelis are driving the Bedouin out of the Negev desert.
“They are destroying our homes and stealing our land and trying to concentrate us in small reservations in order to take our land and give it to Jewish settlers. Some of these so-called unrecognized villages predated the state of Israel. I wonder who needs recognition from whom,”
said Talab al-Sani’e, a Bedouin and a member of Israel’s Knesset.
“Israel has created 140 Jewish towns and villages in the Negev. And now they want to destroy Bedouin villages.”
Israel stands accused of illegally confiscating more than 98 per cent of Bedouin land and committing “ugly acts of racism” against Bedouins. Israeli aircraft sprayed herbicides over large areas of crops belonging to Bedouin tribes in the Negev for over 10 years. This was stopped after Bedouin leaders and human rights activists petitioned the Israeli high court, citing the herbicides’ harmful effect on humans and animals. After the court ruling the Israeli Land Authority turned to using tractors to destroy the crops just before harvest time, according to Bedouin leaders. “They refuse to connect our villages with the national power grid, they refuse to connect us with the national water carrier, they refuse to allow us to open streets. Our children are denied schooling.”
Meeting and shaking hands with peace campaigner Jeff Halper, a professor of anthropology at Ben Gurion University and director of ICAHD, was for me a high point of my visit to the Holy Land. An American Jew, Jeff went to live in Israel in 1973 after attending rabbinical school. He had been a Vietnam war resister, and when he became an Israeli citizen he refused to bear arms during his military service and refused to serve in the occupied territories.
ICAHD works with other Israeli groups such as Bat Shalom, Rabbis for Human Rights, Taayush and Gush Shalom, and with Palestinian organizations. ICAHD resists the demolition of Palestinian homes, with Jeff himself frequently confronting the bulldozers and Israeli soldiers. He and ICAHD organize Palestinians, Israelis and internationals in rebuilding some of the demolished homes to underline their political resistance to the occupation. Their deep knowledge and research has successfully exposed the injustice.
He and his Palestinian counterpart, Ghassan Andoni, a physics professor at Birzeit University and co-founder of the Palestinian Centre for Rapprochement between People, were both nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. In response to the nomination Professor Halper said:
I am chilled by the prospect of my country imposing a new apartheid regime on another people, by the prospect of my people, the Jews (of all people), becoming the new Afrikaaners. I must also be concerned over the rising frustration and fury in the Arab and Muslim worlds, fuelled in large measure by American and European support for Israel’s occupation policies that both deny the Palestinians their right of self-determination and turn my country into a pariah state.
ICAHD, as Israelis, block the destructive bulldozers, chain themselves in the houses, conduct campaigns to mobilize opposition to the policy in Israel and abroad, turn to the courts and, when demolitions finally occur, join the Palestinians in rebuilding demolished homes to show solidarity and resistance.
We have come to see house demolitions as the very essence of the conflict between our two peoples: Israel’s exclusive claim to the entire country in the name of the Jewish people at the expense of another people living in the country … thisis what gives the policy of house demolitions its special significance.
When, as Israelis, we resist home demolitions and rebuild demolished homes as acts of civil disobedience, we are acknowledging the rights of both people to share the country. We are affirming our recognition that Palestinian claims carry equal authority to our own. And we are proclaiming loudly: We refuse to be enemies!
God bless Jeff and ICAHD. If in Jerusalem be sure to visit this remarkable man and his organization
What it’s like to be on the receiving end of an Israeli demolition order
Here’s a further note from that visit to ICAHD:
Palestinians do not have the luxury of home-delivered mail (even in East Jerusalem), so demolition orders are distributed haphazardly. A building inspector may knock on the door and hand the order to anyone who answers, including small children. More often the order is slipped into the doorframe or left under a stone near the house. Palestinians frequently complain that they never received the order before the bulldozers moved in, and thus were denied recourse to the courts. In Jerusalem a favourite practice is to “deliver” an order at night by placing it somewhere near the targeted home, then arrive early in the morning with the Caterpillar.
America and the rest of the West should understand clearly why Caterpillar has become the hated symbol of dispossession, ethnic cleansing and oppression, and has been the target of disinvestment campaigns.
Dr. Elias Akleh is a Palestinian. In 1948 and again in 1967 his family were displaced, and like millions of other Palestinians, he now finds himself living outside of his homeland. It is perhaps fortunate that he did not move to the UK and join the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, because after their AGM on Saturday, he would most likely by now be facing moves to expel him from the same campaign that seeks to liberate him.
I say this after reading his recent article The Brainwashing of the Jews, in which he makes a number of strong claims about the Judaic religion and the role it has played in shaping Jewish Identity. In exploring his theme, he draws entensively on the work of Jewish writers Nurit Peled-Elhanan and Lillian Rosengarten, and also cites Atzmon approvingly. But, it is the inclusion of the latter which I think would have necessitated the PSC Star chamber to be reconvened.
Also fortunate not to be members of the PSC are Richard Falk and Prof. Mearsheimer, both of whom not only endorsed Atzmon’s book The Wandering Who?, but went on to refuse to withdraw their endorsements when their ‘mistakes’ were pointed out to them. Tony Greenstein would surely have no compunction in denouncing them to the PSC as anti-semites.
The thought that, had they been members, the PSC might have taken action against a Palestinian and two influential figures in the Palestinian solidarity discourse because they dared to suggest that Jewish ideology is a subject that can and should be debated, is especially ironic when you consider how Ben Cohen bemoans the fact that Jewish Power has failed to damage Mearsheimer, despite even the intervention of the mighty Dersh.
The fact that a controversy did not erupt, that the endorsement of a Holocaust revisionist by a prominent professor at a major university did not lead to calls for his dismissal or resignation or even a chin-pulling symposium in the pages of the New York Times’s “Sunday Review,” represents an important shift in the privileges that anti-Semites and their sympathizers enjoy.
Later he claims:
The truth is that the rising fixation with Jewish power in our time has unwittingly revealed Jewish emasculation instead. Jews do not control the discourse; rather, the discourse controls them.
I think Cohen, in highlighting how this is a struggle for control of the discourse, is dead right. His angle is that as the victim of anti-semitism, Jews should be able to decide what anti-semitism is, -and that that decision should not be challenged. So naturally, he is troubled that an increasing number of Jewish voices are vocally expressing dissent and insisting on opening up the discourse, because, as is clear, there cannot be an easily accepted definition of anti-semitism, when there is disagreement within the group said to be the real victims..
As a Palestinian Dr. Akleh welcomes the fact that more Jewish voices are speaking out against the ideology which with they have been ‘brainwashed’. As a Jew, Cohen wants those voices stopped, and punished.
Now, which side has been taken by the PSC?
In both Cohen and Akleh there are ideas worth considering, ideas which examine the question of anti-Semitism from opposite ends of the spectrum, and I would urge people to read them for themselves. And, if you’re worried about the PSC exec finding out you’re reading Akleh, why not do it under the bed-covers with a flashlight, in the early hours?
You should be safe…… for now.
Stealing, Theft & Piracy ~ Banksters
Max Keiser describes how fraud has taken over our banking systems. Plus, because there are no rules, banksters are doing just as they like. Traders are using Computer systems to do high volume trading but, by backing both sides at the same time, are also accelerating economic chaos. Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction @ Davos
Every week Max Keiser looks at all the scandal behind the financial news headlines. In this episode, Max Keiser and co-host, Stacy Herbert, discuss Google searching Davos; the Federal Open Market Committee getting high on its own money supply; bankers leaving the planet to live in parallel universes and the evidence for the manipulation of precious metals.
What do Shin Bet (the Israel Security Agency) and the British Police have in common? Aside from:
- Thug like brutality
- Massive corruption.
- & Institutional racism.
The answer is …..Both have used undercover agents to infiltrate local organizations and fathered children later abandoned when the mission has ended. Sounds like a bad joke? Sadly, funny it is not, but bad, certainly it is – and to the core. Indeed it is one sick and perverse mind that dreamt up or sanctioned these ‘operations’ which were at the end of the day paid for by public money.
According to reports in the Guardian, 8 women in the last month alleged that they had been tricked into relationships with undercover cops in Britian. This links in to an article by Laura Stuart regarding the Shin Bet in 1952; where Israeli Agents fathered children in the name of ‘intelligence gathering’ that they then later abandoned . Her article was called ‘A Social Crime in the Name of Israeli Security’ and I am certain that Israel is still doing such things in the name of its security. What is interesting is to see the same Zionist mindset at work in the UK – and doing exactly the same thing i.e. Creating Social Crimes in the Name of British/Zionist Security – social crimes that, as result of the manfactured ‘War on Terror’, cause yet more collateral damage
What we see in these cases is a complete lack of ethics and this from people who are supposed to be our moral guardians – the police. These police-spies have no idea right and wrong nor any compassion. They arrogantly believe that collateral damage is acceptable for the greater good,whatever that may be. And so with the moral justification of national security in their back pockets, because of some perceived threat to the state, they trick their way into people’s lives and ruin them
Mark Kennedy was the first of these deep undercover police spies to go public. He said he “knew of 15 other undercover officers in green protest groups, four of whom were still working.” One wonders how deep the infiltration of society goes by these secret policemen who, supported by intelligence agencies and paid for by public money, are infiltrating groups by gaining their trust, The evidence is growing daily that it is very deep indeed. If the police have deep undercover spies in the activist groups, then they will certainly be in many, many other groups. For example, When they are not infiltrating their way into the bed of some left-wing activist, we can one find these ‘public servants’ infiltrating groups such as the #occupy movement.
Spies are ‘chosen’ and spies are blind.
There is, I suspect, a vast secret police network, run in cahoots with the intelligence services, to provide information from the field. A kind of ‘masonic neighbourhood watch’. To the infiltrators in our midst, it all must seem like an exciting game. Defending National Security from the ever-present terrorists, they see themselves in a ‘James Bond’ lifestyle full of thrills and spills…
What must it be like in the mind of these secret spies, with their double (secret) lives? Their mission is more important than the life of an ordinary person. Their needs are more ‘special’ and, in their minds, takes supreme priority. So, being special makes it so much easier to turn a blind eye to injustice and to justify the injustice. Being special is the perfect kind of blindness. For there are none so blind as those who choose not to see.
Mahmoud Abbas the unelected Palestinian leader was in London last week holding discussions with David Cameron the Prime Minister at Downing Street. However, a planned meeting with British Jewish leaders was cancelled by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.
British Jews cancel meeting with Abbas in wake of pressure from Netanyahu
According to Haaretz British Jewish leaders and the U.K. Israeli Embassy pushed for the meeting, however the order came from Tel Aviv not to go ahead.
Such incidents can only add to the thorny issue of where the loyalties of the leaders of British Jewry lie. More on this subject can be found here.
The security services are delighted at the cancellation of the Gibson Inquiry into torture. Gibson had been showing worrying signs of independence. To use my own humble case as an example, he instructed the FCO, to their fury, that I must be allowed to see unredacted any document which I had already seen whilst Ambassador, and that I must be provided with paid legal assistance for my evidence on the same basis as other former public servants.
It is true that the terms which the government had set for the inquiry were ludicrous. Security service evidence would all be heard in secret, victims would not be allowed to question witnesses, the Cabinet Secretary, not Gibson, would decide what could and could not be published, and the CIA would have a veto on the publication of anything that related to their activities – including my own evidence.
But it was nonetheless true that a bad inquiry would be better than no inquiry, particularly given Gibson’s signs of fairness. Nothing short of assassination would prevent me from publishing my own evidence online, for example, and I would encourage detainees and others to take the same attitude.
The huge amount of time and energy devoted by the security services to persuade ministers firstly to constrain and then to cancel Gibson, is sufficient evidence in itself that the Gibson Inquiry would have been worth having. John Sawers has devoted more of his time to fighting the inquiry internally than to any single other subject, and become a hero to the torturers of Vauxhall Cross in the process.
It is ludicrous that Kenneth Clarke has announced that the Gibson Inquiry cannot go ahead because of the Metropolitan Police inquiry into rendition and torture anent Libya, when the Leveson Inquiry continues despite the long-running and delberately ineffective police investigations into News International.
The Gibson Inquiry contacted me in a friendly and helpful way, inviting me to submit a short evidence narrative for consideration in the interim report they will publish, to explain and put in context the official documents which I had supplied.
It dawned on me that my evidence of ministerial endorsement of a secret policy of collusion in torture, is extremely important to the Metropolitan Police investigation into rendition and torture, in favour of which Gibson has been cancelled.
This morning I therefore contacted Scotland Yard. I gave details of who I was and what I wanted to give evidence about. I was told a senior inspector would need to be consulted. Eventually, I was phoned back.
Scotland Yard stated that there is no investigation into complicity with rendition and torture in Libya.
My expulsion from both my local branch of PSC in Brighton, and from national PSC, and the upholding of the latter expulsion on appeal last Saturday, raises interesting questions about the right to free thought and speech.
I fully accept the right of PSC to expel me on the basis of my views, if these were found incompatible with the constitution. The issue at stake, however, was my questioning of what we are told about the suffering of Jews under the Nazis.
I shouldn’t need to, but I will make it absolutely clear that I accept that Jews suffered terribly under the Nazis. My questioning is simply about the nature of that suffering. PSC’s constitution, at the time I adopted this position on Brighton & Hove PSC’s closed email group, did not proscribe ‘Holocaust denial’.
Accordingly, I assumed that the Executive’s case against me at the appeal would be the accusation of anti-Semitism. My speech was prepared on this basis, but I discovered that Hugh Lanning’s speech was exclusively related to what I had said about the ‘Holocaust’.
Since the procedure laid down for my appeal had declared that I should make a five minute speech, to be followed by a five-minute speech on behalf of the PSC executive, with no right of reply on my side, I was not able to point out the inconsistency of expelling me for adopting a position which was not against the constitution (even if it now is).
But let’s look a little more carefully as this issue. Some time ago I read Joel Hayward’s MA thesis about revisionism and I met Germar Rudolf, a chemist who carefully evaluated the evidence at Auschwitz and found the conventional story seriously wanting. I then expressed my doubts, and because this earned me the label of ‘Holocaust denier’, I decide the best tactic was not to go on protesting that I was really a revisionist. OK, I thought; what if I am a ‘Holocaust denier?’
Can it really be right to forbid any discussion on this subject which contradicts what has become almost holy writ? The view I hear so often is that if I say the story isn’t entirely credible, then I’m saying that the Jews whose testimony forms the basis of the orthodox story are liars, and that’s anti-Semitism.
But wait a minute. Jews, like anyone else, can make mistakes, may even, dare I say it, sometimes massage the truth. On the other hand, some Jews who witnessed what happened under the Nazis may have reported exactly what they saw, but this was interpreted by others to confirm the standard view. Another possibility is that they themselves interpreted what was happening around them in terms of allied propaganda or pre-war rumours. I don’t claim to know the truth. On the basis of what I’ve read, I simply question the standard view.
In a society which proclaims the right to free thought and speech, can this really be wrong? Should I suppress my thoughts, or if I’m unable to do this, should I simply keep my mouth shut for fear of upsetting those whose identity is so tied up with the ‘Holocaust’?
Perhaps I would do this, if I didn’t believe that the group whose identity is so tied up with ‘the Holocaust’ is collectively oppressing the Palestinians. Politicians with the power to rectify the crimes committed in Palestine back off because of the fear they will be accused of enabling ‘another Holocaust,’ or to put it more simply, of anti-Semitism.
You will notice that I put inverted commas round the word ‘Holocaust’. This is because I believe we need to draw attention to the almost religious nature of the ‘Holocaust’ story. Maybe my doubts about the standard version of what happened under the Nazis are unjustified. Future historians will be the judge of that.
But I have no doubts about the use of ‘the Holocaust’ for political purposes, and this use is greatly enhanced by the special word and the capital H of ‘Holocaust,’ and still more by the prohibition on any questioning of the standard narrative. Fortunately in this country that prohibition is only moral and social; in many other countries it is legal. What a strange way to value the right to free thought and speech enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
Things can only get worse for the PSC. So far, the PSC leadership has faced just the thin end of a derailment campaign which is sure to intensify now they have shown such willingness to bow to Jewish power tactics. Now that PSC has started to censor its own members on such issues as holocaust revisionism and anti-Semitism, the attacks on an already weakened PSC can only increase. My friends who are still members tell me that lately in regional meetings, all too many hours have been spent discussing these topics and what at should have been active campaigning time has been spent on these distractions. As predicted by many, this has resulted only with the Zionists emboldened to make even more demands.
How two self-identifying political Jews, both operating in racially-orientated Jewish political groups (Does JBIG or JFJFP have any Palestinian members or indeed any members who are non-Jews?), can lead a discourse on racism is a question we should all be asking.
Outside, Harry’s Place, The Jewish Chronicle and Anthony Cooper hover and squawk over the PSC’s demise like vultures over a corpse, while within, Tony Greenstein and Naomi Wimbourne- Idrissi pass motions that serve only to hasten the decomposing of the body. Though how two self-identifying political Jews, both operating in racially-orientated Jewish political groups (Does JBIG or JFJFP have any Palestinian members or indeed any members who are non-Jews?), can lead a discourse on racism is a question we should all be asking.
It is no coincidence that these attempts to delegitimise PSC should occur after the Freedom Flotilla (Mavi Marmara) hit the mainstream media highlighting the injustice of the siege of Gaza and proving to the world that Israel Occupation Forces can and will kill with complete impunity. No other action since then has had such a huge impact. However, when the Reut Institute, an Israeli Intelligence Agency in August 2010, wrote its report on the Flotilla, it revealed that Israel had woken up to the fact that Muslims, Christians, Jews, leftists and atheists were able to work together in harmony to organise this huge initiative. So, it was decided that, after the flotilla, the main hasbara aim was to “delegitimize the delegitimizers “. PSC came late to support of the Freedom Flotilla, and was represented by only one delegate Sarah Colbourne who found a place on the Mavi Marmara only at the very last minute. Till then, PSC had not supported or even mentioned the mission.
Here is a quote from the Reut Institute Report:-
However it was the ability of its organizers to mobilize leading figures among the liberal progressive elite in the West that bolstered the Gaza Flotilla and turned it into a global and politically explosive event. The big-tent approach of ‘everyone is invited’ resulted in the participation of both extreme Islamists and European intellectuals; Jews, Christians, and Muslims; Arab citizens of Israel; and others. In all likelihood, the vast majority of those present did not aim to promote the delegitimization of the State of Israel.”
So, according to Israeli intelligence agency The Reut Institute, not all those on board the flotilla were against the existence of the Jewish State. Unbelievably, PSC’s Hugh Lanning confirms this. In the Morning Star he states that the PSC fully supports the “Two-State Solution”
But PSC speaker Hugh Lanning hit back. He stressed the need for two states based on the 1967 borders – a demand recently backed by US President Barack Obama but consistently rejected by Israel. “At the moment there is only one state – Israel,” he said. “A two-state solution objectively means the creation of a free, independent Palestinian state which does not exist right now.”
So there we have it in black and white; PSC supports the “Two State Solution” and at the same time proclaims itself as an organisation which is ‘anti-racist’.
The State of Israel wants to be “The Jewish State” and, as I write, is busily engaged in passing even more apartheid laws to disadvantage non-Jews. Many Israelis state openly their desire for 20% of their population who are Palestinian Arabs to be transferred into what would be the new State of Palestine thus making Israel a Jewish state pure and cleansed of Arabs. “Rein Juedischer Staat” in the equivalent Nazi terminology. So, to accept the Two-State Solution with its implicit renunciation of the right of return is, in my opinion, as full a complicity in racist ethnic cleansing as it is possible to be. Should not the truly non racist vision of One Democratic State, where the claimed Semites, the Jews live side by side in harmony with the real Semites, the Palestinians?
So much for the ‘anti-racist’ PSC.
It’s a day of high jinx, high revelry and high people in Australia; a day when a large and vocal majority come together to “celebrate what’s great” about this country. But what is the meaning of all this fanfare? What is the true origin of this passionately marked day of facepaint and binge drinking? Is everyone in Australia so keen on this particular anniversary? To get to bottom of these questions, and more, join your amiable host Robert Foster as he conducts a high-octane, high-frequency satellite link-up with a representative of the Mainstream Australian media: multi-Logie award-winning broadcaster, entertainer, emu-wrangler and true blue Aussie, Kenneth Oathcarn. WARNING: contains adult Australian vernacular – viewer discretion is strongly advised.
Written, produced and performed by
Hugo Farrant (Robert Foster) & Giordano Nanni (Ken Oathcarn).
The Queen needs a new royal yacht. But the British government says it can’t afford to buy her one. The GBP 80 million for the project must come from private sources.
“Leading British companies will … be asked to donate funds in exchange for naming rights to various decks and facilities on board,” says the Guardian newspaper.
Does this mean Her Majesty will be seen entertaining in the Goldman Sachs stateroom and sipping daiquiris on the Starbucks sun-deck? Will she shelter from squalls in the Murdoch salon and arrive and depart via the Revlon helipad?
The last royal yacht, Britannia, was a highly successful tool for promoting Great Britain Limited. That being the case, such an important national asset ought to be government funded, not sponsored by tacky brand names.
GBP 80 million is chickenfeed in the great scheme of things. Why, are we so hard up that there’s not enough in the public purse to pay for a new boat for our beloved sovereign? One reason, of course, is because for years we’ve been suckered into joining the United States in fighting Israel’s wars of aggression. Given our huge debts it beggars belief that we’re gearing up for another one, this time against Iran, and pushing the oil markets to the edge of panic.
Haven’t we had our fill of warmongering idiocy?
War fever was magnified at the weekend with an announcement that the Ministry of Defence had splashed out another GBP 14 million on building a replica Middle East village in Thetford Forest for training our troops. It’s complete with shops, fully furnished homes, the stench of rotting meat and a bomb survivor with limbs blown off.
The site was originally a replica Nazi village built in 1942, but that was training for a war of a very different kind, a war in defence of our realm and for our very survival.
“Why do we get dragged into … illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s.”
Why do we get dragged into these illegal and inhuman expeditions to devastate countries that are no threat to us? Because a team of Israel-firsters in our midst think it’s smart to promote the ambitions of a foreign power at the expense of our own national interest and everyone else’s. They have taken command and control of our country by infiltrating the highest levels of government. For example, they hold the key jobs in the Foreign Office.
Our watchdogs ought to have booted them out for violating the sacred principles of conduct in public life, but these leeches are now permanently attached while the dogs are de-fanged and petted.
I can imagine just how robustly the criminal regime in Israel is reprimanded by Prime Minister David Cameron, a self-declared Zionist, by Foreign Secretary William Hague, an avid fan of Israel since his teenage years, by Alistair Burt, a former officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel and now minister for Middle East affairs, and by Ambassador Matthew Gould in Tel Aviv who I’m told is the first Jew appointed to that post.
The proposed lobby register
Our coalition government has just provided a glimmer of hope for a solution – an unintended consequence no doubt – by releasing a woolly discussion document on proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists. This is part of a promise to clean up politics and provide greater transparency in the wake of scandals that destroyed the last shred of public confidence in our political system.
The government defines lobbyists as “those who seek to influence or change government policy on behalf of a third party”. The document itself says that a register should include information about the names of individual lobbyists and lobbying firms and the names of their clients. “In addition, we propose that the register should include whether a lobbyist was previously a government minister or a senior civil servant. The government does not propose that any information on meetings should be included in a register.”
However, only third-party lobbying firms will have to declare their clients and record former ministers and government officials they have on their books. Firms employing in-house lobbyists needn’t register at all.
The register should also offer the same transparency as provided for ministers, special advisers and senior officials. The recent Fox-Werrity outrage showed how unreliable that is. It took determined digging by a retired former ambassador to shine light into the dark and sinister corners of that affair.
Tamasin Cave from the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency, an organization representing a number of charities, unions and campaign groups, said the proposals “are fundamentally flawed and have the lobbyists’ fingerprints all over them. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”
“We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.”
Tamasin Cave, Alliance for Lobbying Transparency
The Independent newspaper has already blasted the government for attempting a ‘”whitewash” while campaigners say the move does nothing to clean up the lobby industry’s reputation for forging unhealthy relationships between senior politicians and leading lobbying firms.
Will ministers be required to declare why they are meeting lobbyists or which firms or groups they are representing? Apparently not, says the Independent.
Now’s your chance!
What about those who lobby on behalf of a lawless foreign power? It is vitally important to halt lobby groups like Friends of Israel in their tracks. Consultation closes on 13 April, so now’s your chance.
Members of the public can make their views known to:
Statutory Register of Lobbyists, Cabinet Office, Fourth Floor, 1 Horseguards Road, London SW1A 2HQ. Alternatively, email marking your response with “Statutory Register of Lobbyists” in the subject field of your email.
Make sure you let the government know that you know what a rotten, treacherous game they are playing. The three main political parties in the UK each have a Friends of Israel group to ensure pro-Israel members are embedded at all levels in the British political establishment and at the very heart of government, no matter who is in power.
Campaigners argue that these placemen inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on foreign affairs issues and especially on matters relating to Israel’s criminal acts.
Or the unjustified ganging up against Iran.
The aim of Friends of Israel is to promote the interests of Israel within the British Parliament. The Israeli regime is racist in its treatment of the Arab population and criminal in its territorial ambitions. The manifestos of Israel’s political parties are horrific. MPs who align themselves with Israel and endorse its practices are contradicting our own anti-racist laws and international and human rights laws.
Should MPs and ministers be acting on behalf of a foreign military power at the expense of our own interests and security? Of course not. They are expressly forbidden to let outside influence cloud their judgment. To do so would breach the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity: “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organizations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”
Yet Friends of Israel lobby groups go to great lengths to influence those in power. Some say that Friends of Israel membership is a necessary passport to high office.
But the man in the street is entitled to look at the Seven Principles of Public Life and say that the activities of lobbies like Friends of Israel are against the intentions, both in word and spirit, of those principles. Disgraced Defence Secretary Liam Fox was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying:
“…We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”
This was when his party was in opposition. Fox presumably spoke for all Friends of Israel in his party (that’s 80 per cent of Conservative MPs, according to some claims) who were hoping to form the next government. He would have Parliament and the country believe that Israel’s enemy, Iran, must become Britain’s enemy – the sort of dangerous nonsense that could lead our nation to disaster and once again cause hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be shredded and incinerated. Don’t his sort ever learn?
And seldom do Friends of Israel members declare an interest when speaking or writing about the Middle East. That is unacceptable in the “Mother of Parliaments”.
In the United States there are growing calls for the Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is so super-powerful that it calls the shots in Congress and has presidential candidates grovelling to Israel’s agenda, to be classified as an agent of a foreign power and treated accordingly.
Double standards prevail
The British government ordered a warship to join the US flotilla steaming through the Strait of Hormuz
“to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law”.
It’s a response to Iran’s threat to close that seaway if the West imposes an oil embargo.
Royal Navy ships have been patrolling there continuously since the 1980s, but brave Britain hasn’t lifted a finger to keep the sea lanes to Gaza open in response to Israel’s endless illegal blockade and brutal assaults on Gaza’s fishermen and peaceful humanitarian vessels trying to reach the besieged population with aid.
And yesterday the European Union announced an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which Britain had been pressing for. It is horribly reminiscent of the bully-boy tactics of the early 1950s, when Britain and America engineered a similar embargo and brought Iran to its knees in order to overthrow the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstate the hated Shah and his secret police. Why? Because Iran wanted to control its own oil and Britain and the US didn’t like that.
This latest move amounts to another direct attack on Iran’s economic lifeline and smacks of collective punishment and economic terrorism. It will cause hardship to ordinary citizens and further hostility throughout the Islamic world. Nothing pleases Israel more, but why are we so eager to dance to Israel’s tune and damage ourselves in the eyes of world opinion?
“Today’s sanctions show how serious EU member states are about preventing nuclear proliferation…”
But he and the EU are not in the least serious about nuke-bristling Israel’s refusal to sign up to, or even discuss, non-proliferation. No sanctions there.
Meanwhile hard-pressed British and European motorists are likely to pay a heavy price for this tomfoolery when oil prices rocket. And we are still waiting for proof that Iran has actually done something wrong, are we not? Where does Hague think he’s leading us?
Notice too how the British government’s broadcast regulator has chosen this moment to silence Press TV, Iran’s English-language broadcaster in the UK, by revoking its licence and thus suppressing the other side of the story. Press TV was an inconvenient voice that ruffled too many fine feathers among Britain’s bloodthirsty elite. Truth and free speech, as usual, are the first casualties in softening up the public for war.
I have been reading a range of articles about the events at the PSC AGM on Saturday. I am still trying to find what, if anything, had come out of the meeting that could cause it to be described as “a very good day” for the Palestinians.
And I came across a post by Anthony Cooper, in which he is trying to understand the reaction of the meeting to Francis Clark-Lowe’s appeal speech.
He notes that Tony Greenstein said that the room gasped when Francis mentioned the “Holocaust Myth”, that Paul Eisen referred to “modest applause” when Francis had finished speaking, and that Asa Winstanley said there were loud cheers when it was announced that Occupy London had taken over another bank building.
Loud cheers at a previous PSC event are, as it happens, the reason I have never joined, nor had much time for the PSC. Those cheers erupted at a rally in Trafalgar Square in 2003, anytime a speaker mentioned Rachel Corrie, who had died so tragically in Rafah earlier that year. I was listening to the speeches with two ISMers who had days before been deported from Israel, and who had both been eye witnesses to Rachel’s death. One of them was keen to address the crowd and I asked if this was possible. The answer was negative, although to this day I am convinced that the people cheering the usual suspects that address PSC rallies (ie Trade Unionists, clerics and politicians) describing events they had not witnessed, would have been interested to hear from people newly returned from Gaza, who had been at the very scene being described so dramatically from the stage.
The refusal (on the grounds of limited time) I found callous, and indicative of an intransigent approach. Last Saturday’s AGM shenanigans suggest to me that that my assessment was pretty sound. The loud cheers at PSC events for an ISMer in 2003, and the Occupy movement in 2011 also suggest that people attending the formulaic events laid on by the PSC Exec would welcome a more dynamic approach.
Occupy London is part of a movement of people who are tired of the old way of doing things, and who have come together to try and find new and dynamic ways of expressing their dissent. For now they are attempting to have a conversation about how to bring people together to resist the austerity measures of the discredited politicians that serve the interests of the corporations so well. By coincidence they use many of the same tools for organising that the ISM uses. They try to be as inclusive as possible, and aim to be as non hierarchical as they can be. Thus, in many ways they are antithetical to the PSC and much more flexible and open to innovation.
Anyway, directly under the Cooper post on the AGM was another PSC related post from earlier this month, which I read with growing unease. Entitled Did the PSC Lie to Caroline Lucas MP?”, it contains some disturbing hints at how bad things are in the PSC. I learnt that Green Party MP Caroline Lucas had received assurances from the PSC that “the organisation does indeed recognise Israel’s right to exist ….and that it remains committed to a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict”.
I stared at my screen in disbelief. The PSC had, it seemed, adopted the Zionist narrative and was now in favour of what I can only see as a ‘bantustan solution’. Cooper then pointed to an article in the Morning Star which portrays PSC Chair Hugh Lanning thus:
“He stressed the need for two states based on the 1967 borders – a demand recently backed by US President Barack Obama but consistently rejected by Israel.
“At the moment there is only one state – Israel,” he said.
“A two-state solution objectively means the creation of a free, independent Palestinian state which does not exist right now.”
I have Palestinian friends who would see this as totally unacceptable because for them it means eternal banishment to the overcrowded refugee camps, from which they have spent their entire lives waiting to escape. Their dream has always been to go back to the homes that their families were pushed out of in 1948. And somehow, in the name of solidarity with them, this Mr. Lanning is advocating an end to their dreams.
I wanted to find out more about him. After reading an amusing description of him as “a fake-left rightwing bureaucrat” I came across an article which seems to help explain why the PSC is so useless as a vehicle for solidarity with the oppressed people of Palestine.
Here, Hugh tells us that:
“All of the arguments we want and need to make, can and should be made without reference to race and religion. The strongest arguments are those based on justice, human rights and international law. There is no need to stray beyond these core principles -indeed it weakens us to do so.”
Good grief!!. He wants us to tackle what South African victims of Apartheid have described as an Apartheid state, without referring to the very causes of that Apartheid, and furthermore he wants to make the arguments based on “justice, human rights and international law” yet he himself is advocating a two state solution which fits into not a single one of those categories!!!
Lanning also hints at why the PSC is insisting on this rigid, formulaic and unfruitful path for solidarity activism. He points to a campaign of smears against the PSC in face of the Reut Institutes identification of “the biggest political threat that Israel faced as the growth of the boycott movement and solidarity with Palestine” before going on to claim that “PSC, London and the British trade union movement “ are the ‘hub.
In this last claim I think he is wrong. What Reut identifies is a “delegitimization network” and the PSC as shown above, does not fit into that category as it seems they are rather working to give it legitimacy.
For as long as the Israel insists on the subordination of Palestinians, we must surely resist any moves to afford it legitimacy, if we are truly in support of the peoples of Palestine. The PSC also has an ambivalent approach to the Boycott movement, which is why the Boycott Israel Network was set up away from BIG, in an endeavour to ensure that direct action for BDS could go ahead.
The PSC I am told, had an income of £220k last year. This is money which surely is intended to provide solidarity with an oppressed people, and yet somehow it is being diverted into activities that seem to be serving the interests of Zionists better than they are serving the Palestinians.
By buying into a rhetoric which identifies Israel as legitimate, and which refuses to address the racism which is integral to Zionism, or the ideological devices which sustain the Apartheid state, an organisation which was established with the express purpose of showing solidarity to the suffering has rendered itself at best ineffectual.
That it is now actively involved in the witch-hunt of those who reject the legitimacy of Israel, along with the racism and ideological apparatus that sustain it, renders it dangerous.
There is an urgent need for a vibrant, critical and responsive movement to stand united in solidarity with our oppressed brothers and sisters in Palestine and beyond, and the PSC is standing in its way.
By Gilad Atzmon
This last weekend brought with it some vile manifestations of Jewish politics in its most horrific forms.
United Against the Goyim
In the USA, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu should consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.
Actually, it wasn’t just Obama whom Adler suggested to eliminate, the Atlanta Jewish Times listed three lethal options to help Israel counter Iran’s nuclear capability. The first, to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to assassinate the current American president.
Devastatingly, Adler’s murderous attitude towards politics is wholly consistent with some Biblical and Talmudic anti-gentile teaching. It recalls clearly certain Old Testament genocidal verses such as Leviticus 26:7-8:
‘You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.’
It is also consistent with the appalling way in which Palestinians are abused by the Jewish State. But it is also consistent with the Jewish cultural wrath towards the dissenting Jesus and towards dissent in general. May I remind readers that the word Yeshu – Jesus in Hebrew – is the abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase
“may his name and memory be blotted out”.
Without comparing president Obama to Jesus, Adler’s homicidal inclination is somewhat similar. Seemingly, some Jews have yet to forgive Jesus – nor President Obama. .
The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta condemned Adler’s article, saying that Adler’s proposals were
“shocking beyond belief.”
- a pretty bizarre reaction, considering that the American Jewish Committee is itself an enthusiastic advocate of a war against Iran. Similarly, warmonger Alan Dershowitz listed recently the ‘legal’ reasoning behind an Israeli attack on Iran. True, he has yet to call for an American President to be murdered, he just thinks that launching another world war is a ‘reasonable’ thing to do. And, as far as I can remember, the American Jewish Committee didn’t rush to denounce Dershowitz or to apologise on his behalf or in the name of the Jews.
United Against Freedom
In Britain, following some relentless Jewish Lobby pressure, Press TV, The Iranian News Channel was forced off the air after Ofcom (The ‘Independent’ regulator for the UK Communications Industries), revoked its licence for ‘breaching the Communications Act’. This should come as no surprise. Bearing in mind that 80% of British Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel, we in Britain must expect the rapid fading away of some of our most elementary freedoms.
United Against Palestine
On Saturday the Islamophobic blog Harry’s Place and the Zionist mouthpiece Jewish Chronicle completed their takeover of UK Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC). In the last two years, the PSC EC has expelled and marginalised some of its leading intellectuals amongst them some prominent Palestinian and Muslim activists and now, at last, they are beginning to receive their just credit.
In the last two months we have noticed that the PSC has been praised by both the notorious JC and Harry’s Place. Two weeks ago, pro-war Harry’s Place thanked the Jewish ‘anti’-Zionists for promoting Jewish tribal interests at the midst of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and this weekend a PSC Executive member confirmed that PSC’s latest maneuvers against ‘anti-Semitism’ were in response to criticism from the rabid Zionist website Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle. Like others, I am confused. Should a Palestinian solidarity group surrender to an Islamophobic blog, a Zionist paper and other ‘Jews-only’ pressure groups?
Judging by the scale of the celebration on Islamophobic Harry’s Place, you’d be forgiven for assuming that PSC – now firmly committed to the struggle against anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial – is now just one more Zionist outlet, whose prime interest is in promoting Jewish tribal interests. I’m sure that the Palestinians in besieged Gaza and in refugee camps all over the Middle East are over the moon.
However, to counter the now complete Zionist takeover of PSC EC, a bunch of leading solidarity activists, journalists and intellectuals have launched deLiberation, a new UK dissident magazine. We aim to become a leading UK media outlet, to provide news, analysis and fearless criticism – exactly where The Guardian and the BBC so miserably fail. And we will fill that space now created by the current PSC Executive Committee.
United Against The Guardian
Two days ago, I discovered that CIF Watch, a Jewish supremacist site interested solely in cleansing British press of any criticism of Israel and Jewish power, was boasting that the Guardian surrendered to their pressure and
‘removed an Atzmon passage.’
Apparently the Jewish site was annoyed that Khaled Diab quoted me as saying
“The Jewish state is pretty devastated by the idea that a bunch of ‘indigenous Arabs’ are far more technologically advanced than its own chosen cyber pirates.”
Specifically, it didn’t approve of the Guardian printing the word ‘chosen’ in reference to Jews.
The CIF Watch site says of itself that it is
dedicated to monitoring anti-Semitism and combatting the assault on Israel’s legitimacy in the Guardian newspaper’s
Comment is Free’ blog.” So, it is not against racism or discrimination in general, but solely interested in matters to do with one group and its tribal interests.
Shocking but typically, the Guardian surrendered immediately to the Zionist’s demands. As the Guardian rushed to admit: the word ‘chosen’ “is at odds with ‘Guardian regulations”. But the Guardian needs reminding that ‘Choseness’ may be at odds with ‘Guardian regulations’ but it is clearly not ‘at odds’ with Israeli practice, the Israeli legal system, the Jewish Lobby and even Jews-only Palestinian solidarity groups.
United Against Truth
Three months ago I published ‘The Wandering Who’. This book presented a harsh criticism of Jewish identity politics, Left, Right and Centre. It openly argued that contemporary Jewish identity politics is exclusivist, in most cases, racially driven and, in many ways, is a threat to world peace. In some ways, as in Adler’s call to assassinate Obama, it actually also endangers Jews.
The book attempts to grasp the bizarre continuum between Israeli barbarism, Adler’s homicidal inclination, the PSC EC surrender to rabid Zionist bodies and the ‘Guardian’s regulation’. The book points to the political culture that made Jewish identity politics so powerful and, at the same time, so blind. And in spite of a united front’s attempt to silence the book and its message, in just a short space of time the book sold thousands of copies and its message is spreading like a forest fire.
I’m not one bit surprised by the surge of Jewish power. I wrote a book about it. But, being intimately familiar with Jewish history, I know exactly where it will lead. Jewish political arrogance has always proved to be, above all, devastatingly dangerous for Jews.
For the sake of peace, both Jews and gentiles must confront the prominence of Jewish identity politics. We should never be afraid to question ideologies and lobbies that impose a threat to peace, our value systems, freedom of thought, humanity and humanism..
Predictably Tony Greenstein is crowing about his victory in having me expelled from Brighton & Hove PSC, from national PSC, and now about the overturning of my appeal at the AGM on Saturday 21st January http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/01/psc-agm-crushing-defeat-for-gilad.html.
Karl Marx famously wrote: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.’ (‘Thesis on Feuerbach’, 1845.) It seems that the only truth which matters, for the Marxist, is a dialectical-material understanding of history, and so philosophy, that an enquiring mind, is redundant. The question becomes simply, ‘What is the most effective way of helping the dialectical-material process?’ In other words any notion of honesty in relation to the facts goes out the window. Lenin made this clear when he wrote:
‘The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.’ (Vladmir Ilyich Lenin: The Slogans and Organisation of Social-Democratic Work, 1919) The ‘definite truth’ which Lenin speaks about is, of course, a Marxist understanding of history.
Small wonder, then, that Greenstein’s remarks on my appeal is full of the same kinds of untruths and distortions which I have come to expect from him. I’m sorry that this post will be rather detailed, but how else can you challenge this kind of behaviour?Leaving aside his determination to misspell both my fore and surnames after twenty years of knowing me, here is a list of his misrepresentations (the paragraph numbers refer to Greenstein’s post on this subject):
- [Para 3] I did not say that I was ‘proud to be a holocaust denier’. My actual words to Greenstein on the Brighton & Hove PSC list on 4th April 2011 were: ‘You are, of course, right that Paul [Eisen], like me, is proud to call himself a “Holocaust denier”.’ This was in the context of my challenging Greenstein’s description of Dan McGowan, the founder of Deir Yassin Remembered, as a ‘holocaust denier’. The only evidence he was able to produce was was that McGowan was friendly with people who did ’deny the holocaust’. I compliment Greenstein on his use of a lower case ‘h’ for ‘holocaust’, though his thinking is consistent with the use of the upper case. The point of my statement was
- (a) to declare our pride at having found the courage to challenge extaordinarily entrenched aspects of the ‘Holocaust’ story,
- (b) to challenge the use of the term ‘Holocaust denier’ by, paradoxically, adopting it, and
- (c) to challenge the specialness of ‘the Holocaust’ as indicated by its capital ‘H’. The way that Greenstein presents my statement fails to convey any of this.
- [Para 3] Greenstein states that ‘not one voice was raised in his defence in Brighton PSC.’ He must know this to be untrue. One voice was raised forcefully in defence of my right to free speech at the meeting where my expulsion was discussed, and several other branch members contacted me later to declare their support.
- [Para 3] Greenstein states: ‘I reported his statement to the Executive …’ What he doesn’t mention is that his report consisted largely of correspondence between me and others on Brighton & Hove PSC’s confidential email list. For breaking the confidentiality of this list, Greenstein was removed as a user for several weeks. Once again, the end justified the means.
- [Para 4] Greenstein writes: ‘The speech is printed, in a highly edited version, on … Gilad Atzmon’s site.’ In fact Gilad reproduced the speech I sent him the day before the appeal without alteration. Between sending it to him and my delivery of the speech, I changed three words (in the 4th paragraph to make the phrase ‘partly unlikely, partly inflated’ instead of simply ‘unlikely’ and in the last paragraph I changed the third word from ‘your’ to ‘people’); I have checked the rest of the text carefully and there is no further difference between what I said, and what was reproduced on Gilad’s site. The phrase ‘highly edited’ is therefore completely untrue.
- [Para 5] Greenstein writes: ‘It [my speech] was extremely anti-Semitic, talking about the “Jewish narrative” and speaking about Jews as a group with common properties.’ That’s a peculiar definition of anti-Semitism. It certainly doesn’t imply hatred of Jews, and for the record I do not hate Jews. What is a group if its members do not have some things in common?
- [Para 5] Greenstein writes: ‘He openly stated that the holocaust was a myth (something Atzmon has not included in his version of the speech).’ Also completely untrue. See paragraph 5 of my speech where, on the contrary, you’ll find the phrase ‘the Holocaust myth’. By this I meant a story which has taken on the appearance of an unchallengable belief system.
Greenstein, for once correctly if my memory serves me right, reports that Hugh Lanning, Chair of PSC, in putting the case for the Executive against me, asked the conference
‘not to let evil enter our hearts’.
Who wouldn’t vote for that? Greenstein of course tries to discredit those who voted for me. The fact remains that a quarter of those who voted failed to vote against me, and one fifth voted for me. In the circumstances, where I had no right of reply to the Chair’s speech, these are not negligible proportions. I had, to be frank, feared worse. I was also heartened by the applause I received, and by the support of delegates I met outside the hall.
The views I have arrived at are difficult for many to accept, and in some cases I myself hold them provisionally. What I find totally unacceptable is the attempt to prevent me thinking and speaking freely, and to use untruths, distortions and abuse to discredit me. If people want to think badly of me because they genuinely disagree with what I say, that’s fine. If they think badly of me simply because of the way Greenstein presents me, that is not alright.
Francis Clark-Lowes (note the spelling!)
Sarah Colbourne is General- Secretary of the PSC
I wrote to you in November expressing my concerns about the direction PSC is taking under your leadership. I pointed out that the latest (at the time) victims of your witch-hunt were Francis Clark-Lowes and Gill Kaffash – surely two of the most dedicated and committed solidarity activists to be found. I also pointed out that those who were urging you to purge PSC of these activists were on the one hand, open and honestly Zionist outlets such as Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle but on the other hand, seemingly pro-Palestinian individuals such as Tony Greenstein, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and groups such as Jews against Zionism etc.
But why, when I refer to the solidarity instincts of these people, do I say (and italicise) ‘seemingly’? After all, these people have been involved in Palestinian solidarity for many years and have been relentless in their opposition to Israel and to Zionism.
Well, it seems to me that one can be ferociously anti-Israel and anti-Zionist without necessarily being wholeheartedly pro-Palestinian. Jewish anti-Zionists hate Jewish Zionist for many reasons other than concern for the Palestinians.
Both these groups of Jews emerged from the deep quandary so many Jews faced when they left the ghetto – both the real one and the religious one in their heads. The question they asked themselves was “Who do I worship now that I’ve rejected God?” For Zionists it was themselves, that is, the Jewish People and for Marxists well, despite all the worthy Revolutionary Messianism it was in the end…. much the same.
Tony Greenstein comes from a long line of Marxist Jews. You remember them, those wonderful people who brought you the Cheka, the Holodomor and the Gulag – just read Jewish historian Yuri Sklezine. From their ranks came such luminaries as Sverdlov, Kaganovich and Ilya Ehrenburg. And yes, they do want to end the Jewish state and yes, they do want Palestine to be for Palestinians – just like they want America to be for the Americans (as long as they run it) Britain to be for the British (so long as they run it) and PSC to be for Palestinian supporters (you know what I’m going to say). And, as for the integrity of their opposition to Zionism, remember Lenin? He called them ”Zionists with sea-sickness’.
Ask them what kind of Palestine they envisage? How do they answer? Do they answer as I and perhaps you might, that it is for Palestinians and only Palestinians to decide? Or, perhaps they don’t need to ask the question because they already know what kind of state Palestinians want – exactly the same kind of state they want i.e. a secular, democraticPalestine – truly a state for all its citizens.
A secular, democratic Palestine? on every street corner there will be a Commissar who just happens to be Jewish and who just happens to know exactly how you should think, what you may believe and how you must live your life. And, if you don’t agree with him, he will have tried and tested methods of helping you along. Just like in PSC.
Well, we all love democracy and we all want to be free to worship where and how we want. But I tell you Sarah, while it’s true that in that secular, democratic utopia that these Jews-for-this and Jews-for-that so love, every person will be equal before the law, every person will have one vote and every person will be free to worship as they choose but …..on every street corner there will be a Commissar who just happens to be Jewish and who just happens to know exactly how you should think, what you may believe and how you must live your life. And, if you don’t agree with him, he will have tried and tested methods of helping you along. Just like in PSC.
As far as Marxism is concerned I like all the sharing and brotherhood of man stuff though I don’t much like the set-piece sloganising, the think-what-I-tell-you-and-do-as-your-told stuff. But there might be important differences between Marxist ideology and Jewish Marxist ideology. Horrible though it is to contemplate, and despite your ever increasingly desperate protestations to the contrary, there are legitimate notions of Jewish identity and, though of course incredibly complex and nuanced and with many exceptions and qualifications, every self-identifying secular Jewish identity (including my own) does, by definition, involve to some degree, attitudes and tendencies which, if overly empowered and unchecked, can lead to what happened in Gaza in 2008 and also what happened at Conway Hall last Saturday.
But Sarah, hold on a sec. A little birdie has told me that you and your close circle in PSC have some important and heartfelt political connections of your own? Is that true? Have I been wasting my time…again?
Is it really “a very good day” for Palestinians”? – Tony’s Pyrrhic Victory
After Saturday’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign AGM, Tony Greenstein is one happy man! His blog now proudly proclaims a Crushing Defeat For Gilad Atzmon and the Anti-Semites . And the source of his joy? The expulsion of former friend and colleague Francis Clark-Lowe from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Furthermore, the J-Big motion he seconded was linked to a similar motion from the EC and “passed with barely 10 votes (if that), against”.
“All in all a very good day for PSC and the Palestinians and an abject defeat for the apologists for Atzmon and Eisen.” According to Tony:
Now, as it happens I care little for the authoritarian and moribund PSC but a lot for the Palestinians and, as I scoured Tony’s post in an attempt to discover exactly what was it that had resulted in this “very good day” for the people of occupied Palestine, I found that somehow, most of Tony’s references to Palestine and the Palestinians were in the form of potshots at political opponents, or big-ups for him and his allies. I found absolutely nothing to cause one single Palestinian to think they’d had a ‘very good day’, or that an end to the seemingly never-ending grind of occupation and oppression was anywhere in sight.
After the AGM had voted to approve his expulsion from the organisation that he chaired just over a decade ago, I met with Francis Clark-Lowes. Together with Paul Eisen we went to a café, where I recorded our conversation. I’ve met both of them before but this time our conversation focused on the events that lead to his expulsion. I was trying to understand how we had reached a situation where the most visible pro-Palestinian solidarity campaign in the UK was divesting so much time and energy in the unearthing and expelling of activists who, despite their incessant demonisation by Greenstein and the like, still remain to my eyes warm and kind people with a palpable concern for the plight of the Palestinians.
It is pretty impossible to dislike either of them, and although instinctively (years of indoctrination, perhaps) I find it difficult to discuss the ‘thought crimes’ that have resulted in their excommunication from the PSC, I still cannot find in myself the required shock or outrage at the conclusions they have reached. I’d certainly rather drink coffee with them than with the acerbic Mr. Greenstein any day of the week. And I’m glad to say that not all PSC members were quite so overjoyed by this thoroughly dirty business of expelling passionate pro-Palestinian activists from the campaign. My observation throughout the day was that these two people were warmly received and respectfully treated by the vast majority of attendees.
Perhaps some of those who voted may now be feeling some discomfort at their role in Francis’expulsion, and maybe some even some disquiet at the role that sites like Harry’s Place have played in creating these politics of rejection, so antithetical to the values of any solidarity campaign. Perhaps others realise that this won’t stop here. Harry’s Place is already baying for more blood. So much for the HP strap-line
“Liberty if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.
And I wonder also when Mr. Greenstein is going to realise how unattractive and objectionable is his own behaviour. That for all his current delight, Palestinians are not one jot closer to being able to live their lives without the yoke of oppression weighing down on them. And that, as long as both he and Israel behave as they do – with their constant attacks, the smearing and baying for blood – for the Palestinians, things can only get worse.
Arriving home, I find an Ali Abunimah tweet pointing me to a new Barack Obama video aiming to improve his re-election chances by proudly displaying the Israeli flag alongside the American one as a prelude to endorsements of him by Israeli war criminals. I find myself wondering if there will ever be a PSC AGM which causes a smile to light up the face of a man in Rafah, or a woman in Nablus. Or will they in 30 years time, still be droning on about US Imperialism and the need to stop any examination of the very power structures and narratives that keep the occupiers in business.
Press TV, the Iranian state broadcaster’s English-language outlet, has been forced off the air in the UK after Ofcom revoked its licence for ‘breaching the Communications Act.’
Though the British Government sends young soldiers to kill in the name of freedom, in the United Kingdom, some basic and elementary liberties belong to the past.
However, for the time being, we can still follow real news in this island. Press TV viewers in the UK can continue to watch the news channel via the following satellites or by visiting the following websites despite Ofcom’s sickening rulling.
You can watch Press TV broadcast from anywhere in the world by visiting the following websites:
- Press TV watch live services (Worldwide) ·
- Zattoo (Internet platform and IPTV. Supports PC, MAC, Linux and all tablet PCs and smartphones) (UK) ·
- OHTV Box (Internet Set-top box) (Worldwide) ·
- Roku Box (Internet Set-top box) (Worldwide) (Available in UK from January 2012) ·
- Livestation (Internet platform. Supports PC MAC, Linux and all tablet PCs and smartphones)
You could also view our broadcast through the following satellites:
Hot Bird 8 (13E)
Eurobird 1 (28.5E)
SES ASTRA (19/2E)
Yes, PSC has hitched itself firmly to the Jewish supremacists – the ‘anti-Zionist’ variety this time but it won’t be long before dear old PSC is an open and full-blown hasbara mouthpiece.
I was never a very good PSC member. Never much of an activist, all that leafleting and politburo-style meetings, never did much for me. And since DYR and I were the very first casualties in the ongoing and current PSC witch-hunt, to stand outside the PSC AGM was something I viewed with eager anticipation but also trepidation.
My reasons for attending were four-fold:
- To support Francis Clark-Lowes in his appeal against expulsion and Gill Kaffash in her motion to bring some sanity to this increasingly nonsensical ‘racist/anti-racist’ debate
- To hand out leaflets and badges about Deir Yassin and its remembrance
- To witness for myself the progress of PSC’s descent into complete subservience to Jewish power.
- To show my face after a five year absence.
I needn’t have worried. PSC members are every bit as lovely as I recall and those members of the Executive Council I saw and who saw me were also polite, if a little downcast. Sarah Colbourne pretended she didn’t see me but Betty Hunter did manage a strangled gurgle when asked cheerily why she wasn’t wearing her “Remember Deir Yassin‘ badge. And the that little Jews-only trio – Abe and Ros Hayeem and Deborah Maccoby – though visibly paling at the sight of me, had the good grace to shuffle hastily past. Even friend and brother Tony Greenstein managed to refrain from his usual foul and abusive behaviour as unloved, shifty and alone he entered the building. But the PSC rank-and-file were as the PSC rank-and-file always are – open, friendly and one hundred-and ten per-cent committed to the Palestinian people. .
I began to leaflet. For years, I was a market trader – not the money markets or commodity markets – but the real, get-your-gums-round-my-plums, markets – so I know a thing or two about shifting gear- and believe me, the principles of shifting gear on a market are much the same as pushing fliers at a PSC AGM – Pile ‘em high and make ’em cheap (in this case, free), never crowd the punter and, above all, keep going. Everyone loves a free badge so I gave out a lot. And there’s no doubt that Deir Yassin carries a lot of resonance for a lot of people– all the more so for the five year absence.
I didn’t see Francis make his speech but I read it beforehand. Honest, thoughtful and beautifully crafted, I can only assume it was as inspiring to hear as it was to read and I know it was received with modest but determined and warm applause. He lost of course but what did we expect?
And Gill’s motion? Well, Gill’s motion wasn’t called. It seems the AGM just ran out of time. And before all you conspiracy theorists get busy, Gill’s motion was not the only one not called. Course it wasn’t. If I was engaged in shady practices to ensure unpalatable ideas didn’t reach my membership, I too would make sure that Gill’s motion wasn’t the only one not called.
And finally, what of those critical ‘anti-racism’ motions? The ones that deal with all those pesky anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. Well, the EC decided to ensure the future of its Star Chamber by hitching its motion with its childlike ‘building’ this and ‘the masses’ that firmly to Jews-only motion number 9. This one proposed by Tony Greenstein and Naomi Idrissi-Wimbourne was my favourite.
Firmly Marxist in its rhetoric, this motion above all, set out to protect and to excuse Jews from their crimes in Palestine.
They passed of course just like we knew they would.
Yes, PSC has hitched itself firmly to the Jewish supremacists – the ‘anti-Zionist’ variety this time but it won’t be long before dear old PSC is an open and full-blown hasbara mouthpiece.
But one thing I know. People aren’t so stupid and PSC activists certainly aren’t. So one question remains: Now the PSC has joined in oppressing precisely those people it was supposed to liberate, where will all those ‘open, friendly, one hundred-and-ten-per-cent committed and thoroughly decent’ PSC activists go?
Welcome to deLiberation.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign believers have just hit Twitter with a flurry of upbeat, positively Hasbaraesque tweets – presumably to convince us all that today’s AGM was a resounding success.
PSC updates PSC Great AGM today. Excellent programme of work continuing our campaign to FREE PALESTINE! Make sure you get involved in the PSC campaign
Exactly how P.S.C. intends to FREE PALESTINE is not clear.I wasn’t at the AGM but this much I know: before the PSC can FREE PALESTINE from Zionist occupation it had better first free itself!
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Francis Clark-Lowes, an academic, former Chair of the National PSC and former chairman of the Brighton branch for Palestinian Solidarity, appealed today to the PSC AGM against his recent expulsion from the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.
Clark-Lowes has been maintaining, for a while. that the opposition to the Jewish State and Zionism, should attempt to grasp the true nature of the Jewish State and Jewish ideology. Being a leading UK Palestinian solidarity activist, Clark-Lowes has challenged the notion of the ‘primacy of Jewish suffering’. This was apparently enough for the PSC’s Executive Committee to expel him last year on the ground of ‘anti Semitism’.
I tend to believe that the PSC’s Executive Committee has lost its way. In the last year it repeatedly bowed to Zionist pressure groups. Together with some Jewish anti Zionist bodies, it expelled and marginalised some of UK’s leading activists and thinkers. At a certain stage, it was even applauded by the notorious Zionist Jewish Chronicle.
Instead of being an umbrella organisation that encourages open debate and pluralism on issues to do with Palestine and the conflict, the PSC’s central body has become a narrow-minded political indoctrinating instrument, engaged primarily with the fight against anti Semitism. This is very tragic indeed, but at least it is all in the open.
The PSC’s Executive Committee should be reminded that political battles come to an end, but ideas, spirit and truth remain.
Read Francis Clark-Lowes beautiful words and judge for yourself.
Appeal Speech to PSC AGM Delegates, 21st January 2012
by Francis Clark-Lowes
So, here I stand before you, ex-Chair of PSC, founder and ex-Chair of Brighton & Hove PSC, accused of being a racist, an anti-Semite, a Nazi sympathiser, a capitulator to Zionism, a pre-judger of Jews, an ‘upper-class fascist twit,’ a ‘Holocaust’ denier.
I’ve stopped defending myself against such descriptions, and have even, paradoxically, embraced them at times. How else do you challenge the simplistic mindset from which they arise?
From my background in German-Jewish Studies, I have come to believe that a major contributor to that mindset is a story of innate Gentile hatred of Jews, and consequent perennial Jewish suffering.
Zionism was consciously constructed on the foundation of this same unlikely story, and therefore required its maintenance and protection.
The carefully nurtured and moulded ‘Holocaust’ narrative has done a good deal of that job since the Second World War. But more fundamental is the prohibition on all discussion of Jews which does not accord with their own collective view of themselves – that is of a uniquely talented and uniquely suffering people. Hence the extraordinary move to ban any questioning of the ‘Holocaust’ narrative at this AGM.
Of course there are Jews who challenge elements of Jewish ideology. But these exceptions don’t invalidate, in principle, generalisations about Jews. That would be like saying you mustn’t describe dogs as quadrupeds because some of that species have lost a leg.
Put simply, the idea that Gentiles have an anti-Semitic gene, the story of Jewish suffering, the ‘Holocaust’ myth, Zionism, Jewish chauvinism, and anti-racist rhetoric have combined into an ideology which, because it is virtually unsinkable in its own terms, is immensely powerful. Breach one compartment of the vessel, and bulkheads protect the others to ensure the ship stays afloat.
Consequently, whatever we may say, no ambitious Western leader will be foolish enough to propose effective action against Israel, let alone to criticise the concept of Zionism. To do so is to risk being accused of anti-Semitism and enabling (quotes) ‘another Holocaust’. That’s a career stopper!
I am taken to task for capitulating to the Zionist narrative. Instead I should join forces with anti-racists to eliminate prejudice and thereby prove the Zionist story false. But what Zionist, let alone any intelligent person, is going to accept that generalisation, a crucial function of the brain, can be extinguished?
With all the difficulties there may be in defining groups and their cultures, and in estimating their power, without doing so we cannot make sense of the world. For a group to exist it must make itself recognisable, to its members and to others, and if a group can be recognised, then it can also be judged – positively, neutrally or negatively.
PSC’s acquiescence in the tendency to regard dislike of groups a cardinal sin is weakening ‘our,’ or should I already be saying ‘your’, organisation. Campaigning organisations turn to in-fighting when the force they seek to overcome appears insuperable. ‘If you can’t beat them, blame your comrades,’ seems to be the thought.
But the key to resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict lies in our hands. Instead of cowering in fear at the use Zionists might make of what we say, and desperately scouring every word uttered on this subject to root out supposed anti-Semitism, we should be challenging Jewish ideology. Anything less does the Israelis’ work for them and exposes the Palestinians to yet more grinding oppression.
I understand your reluctance to agree with me, but I am still prepared to work within PSC. All I ask is that you respect my right to free thought and speech. Readmit me, and you will have taken a step towards creating a more effective broad-based organisation.
One man who apparently thinks the answer is “Yes” is Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times. (By the time this article of mine is posted will he be the former owner and publisher?)
In his weekly newspaper Adler listed three options for Israel “to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons”. (Never mind that, unlike Israel, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and that the latest assessment of Israel’s intelligence community – an usually honest assessment – is that Iran has not yet taken a decision to go nuclear for weapons).
- Option 1 according to what Adler wrote “is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah.”
- Option 2 “is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
- Option 3 “is to give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
To make sure his readers got the message, Adler added this:
“Yes, you read ‘three correctly’. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If you have thought of this Tom-Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”
Adler has since apologized for what he wrote.
“I very much regret it,”
he told the Jewish Telegraph Agency.
The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta declared that his proposals were
shocking beyond belief.” Dov Wilker, director of AJC Atlanta said: “While we acknowledge Mr. Adler’s apology, we are flabbergasted that he could ever say such a thing in the first place. How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea? He surely owes immediate apologies to President Obama, as well as to the State of Israel and his readership, the Atlanta Jewish community.”
But the biggest blast of condemnation came from Abe Foxman who, as National Director of the so-called Anti-Defamation League, leads the Zionist campaign to smear all who criticise Israel as anti-Semites. He said:
“There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction. These are irresponsible and extremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. An apology cannot possibly repair the damage. Irresponsible rhetoric metastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists – even in some segments of our community – that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’ Mr. Adler’s lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he’s fit to run a newspaper.”
I have two thoughts to offer Mr. Foxman.
The first is that what is happening in America on the Republican side of the fence has about it the smell of what happened in Israel in the countdown to the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a Zionist fanatic. What do I mean?
There is today general agreement, even in Israel I think, that Rabin’s assassin was driven at least in part by an atmosphere of hatred for Rabin that was created by his political enemies led by Netanyahu. With the exception of Ron Paul, the Republicans who want to be president are creating an atmosphere of contempt for if not hatred of Obama on the grounds that he is
“too hard on Israel (what a joke!) and not tough enough with its enemies.”
By obvious implication the Obama of Republican campaign rhetoric is or could be a threat to Israel’s existence.
The second thought I have to offer Mr. Foxman is this. The answer to Wilker’s question of how Adler “could conceive such a twisted idea” is simple. He is brainwashed by Zionist propaganda.
As for my headline question, the answer is another question. Who knows?
(G) Sir Goldstein
(Zionist) Anti-semite Finder General!
(M) ‘Alleged Anti-semite’ man
(B1, B2, B3) Bloggers one, two and three
Bloggers: We have found an anti-semite! ( Anti-semite! Anti-semite!)
denounce him denounce him!
Blogger 1: We have found an anti-semite, may we denounce him?
G: How do you known he is a anti-semite?
B2: He looks like one!
G: Bring him forward
Man: I’m not a anti-semite! I’m not anti-Semitic at all!
G: ehh… but you talk like one.
M: They put those words in my mouth!
All: naah no we didn’t… no.
M: And this isn’t my blog, it’s a fake one.
(G pulls up web page)
B1: Well we did fake the Blog.
G: The comments?
B1: …And the comments, but he is an anti-semite!
(all: yeah, denounce him denounce him!)
G: Did you put those words in his mouth?
B1: No! (no no… no) Yes. (yes yeah) a bit (a bit bit a bit) But he is suspicious!
(B3 An he does ask questions that he should not. Look here he uses the word ‘if..?’)
G: What makes you think he is an anti-semite?
B2: Well, he doesn’t like Seinfeld!
(B2 pause & look around)
B2: Well who does.
B3: Denounce him anyway! (Denounce him Denounce him Denounce him!)
(Zionist walks in)
G: There are ways of telling whether he is an anti-semite.
B1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)
G: Tell me… what do you do with anti-semites?
B3: Label them! Insult them! Ban their books (Lock them up)
G: What do you lock up apart from anti-semites?
B1: More anti-semites! (B2 nudge B1)
G: So, why are anti-semites dangerous?
B2: Cuz they… ask questions that are not allowed?
(crowd congratulates B2)
G: So, how do we tell if he hates jews?
B1: Ask him what he thinks about Alan Greenspan?
G: Ah, but not liking Alan Greenspan does not mean that you hate all jews?
B1: Oh yeah…
G: Do Jews believe they are just like other peoples?
B3: No. They are the chosen ones!
B1: Let’s throw comments at him via a blog! (yeah yeah ya!)
G: What also is chosen by God?
B3: Lady Gaga
B2: Justin Bieber
(G looks annoyed)
B1: The Pope
(all look and stare at the Zionist)
G: Exactly! So, logically…
B1(thinking): If he believes that Jews are not a special case and chosen by God and that Israel was not chosen for the Jews by God… he’s suspicious and therefore…
G: And therefore,
(pause & think)
B3: An anti-semite! (B1: anti-semite)(B2: anti-semite)(all: anti-semite!)
G: Let’s ask him about Israel.
All: Anti-semite! Anti-semite! Anti-semite!
Loosely based on the Monty Python’s “She’s a witch burn her” sketch.
Found on Pastebin
For years I’ve been reading about Israeli atrocities against Arab Palestinians and their supporters. One can almost get used to the horrific reports of death and destruction, imprisonment of children and new apartheid laws. Stories abound of Israel demanding information in exchange for exit visas. Even worse, it is well known that Israel, in order to secure information, puts pressure on Palestinians desperately needing medical treatment in outside hospitals.
But now and again a story surfaces that is so evil it can still shock me to the core. This tale of complete disregard for the feelings of human beings goes way beyond even what I imagined the most arrogant and cruel Zionist to be capable of.
In 1952, Shin Bet agents were sent undercover to spy inside Palestinian villages. Keeping their real identities secret, they married Arab women, with whom they had children. Decade later, truth came to light. ‘They tried to forget, but never could,’ mission leader says
“Your husband is not who you think he is. He is not Arab. Your husband is a Jew who was sent into your village on a mission by the defense establishment.” This was the news a few Israeli Arab women received from the head of the Mossad
I can’t begin to imagine the pain of those women so horribly deceived, but I take some satisfaction in the knowledge that this disgusting Zionist experiment was a complete failure. After a decade of these deceptions, the Shin Bet conceded that the information gleaned from these marital ‘spies’ was marginal. In fact, one can start to see the ultimate demise of the whole Zionist project as we read the daily news stories of a corrupt, lunatic State spiraling out of all control. And we know the consequences of this may be disastrous for all those who have supported Zionism.
The history books of the future must surely equate the Zionist project with that of the Nazis. As for me, along with many other humanists, I can’t wait for the day that the State of Israel, like the Nazi State before it, is relegated to the dustbin of history and such crimes, all in the name of racial supremacy and chosen-ness, will be used only to teach and warn future generations of man’s inhumanity to man.
January 15th 2012, the CIA website is hacked by f3nix_h4ck3r. A release on Pastebin called ‘usuario & Pass Cia’ shows the CIA’s main website being probed, or penetration testing as it is euphemistically called. Penetration testing is where a website is scanned for vulnerabilities. Hackers don’t actually do this themselves, well very rarely. They have special software designed for “penetration testing” that stealthily sniffs, scans and probes websites and ports of computers, looking for back-doors to get inside websites.
Then these programs deliver reports to the hackers detailing everything the software probes have discovered. It is then, that the hackers start to devise strategies based on those recon missions. Often the hacktivists paste their reports anonymously on public websites so that others can analyse the reports and find exploits and break in or disrupt websites.
After weeks of sustained attacks on any websites with anything do with Israel, the targets of hack attacks is now shifting again. The latest to be targeted by hackers are the CIA, FBI and the White House no less. A few hackers can be a problem, but what about an army of Internet hackers growing virally, attacking the old guard and championing Truth, Justice and Peace? That is what is happening on the internet, on websites like Pastebin. The era of cyber-wars has begun. But it looks like a cyber civil & global war, where the oppressed peoples are attacking the establishment elite.
Pardon a rather navel-gazing morning, but I have been thinking about blogging. I am not sure how the Leverson Inquiry got into discussion of blogging, but apparently the editor of the Daily Mirror has described bloggers as “cowboys”.
If you read this blog you would, even in the last few months find definite and documented evidence that Jack Straw is lying about his complicity in torture, that Gus O’Donnell lied spectacularly about Adam Werritty’s number of meetings with the FCO, that there was a secret diplomatic deal between the US and Saudi Arabia that provided for the NATO attack on Libya and the Saudi invasion of Bahrain. You would not know any of those things from reading the Daily Mirror, or any other mainstream paper, with an honorable partial exception for the Independent.
Yet to my knowledge the only blogger to appear at Leverson has been the ultra right pin-up boy Paul Staines.
I have entered this blog for the Orwell Prize this year. I have never done so before. I had not realised, until I received an email last week, that the Prize accepts entries purely on the basis of self-nomination. That presumably rules out most decent people from the start. But I did have to select eight blog entries from 2011 for the nomination, and I found a dozen or so of which I am quite proud. This gave me impetus to move forward with an idea I have had for some time. I wish to bring out a book of collected writings.
My working title is
Zionism is Bullshit - Craig Murray and the Need for Dissent 2005-2011“.
I want to bring together not just the best entries of this blog, but published articles, and transcriptions of speeches and talks, as well as highlights of evidence to parliament etc. I probably won’t be able to incorporate comments from the blog, as copyright and permission issues look a bit nightmarish.
A book called “Zionism is Bullshit” is going to have to be self published and sold via the internet. That worked fairly well for The Catholic Orangemen of Togo. There are now 74 left of the original 1200 hardbacks printed. Please buy a copy or two, using the buttons on the right. My hubris has been punished, and in the two months since I announced I will be donating 10% of my income to Scottish Independence, my income has been nil (except £64 profit on Catholic Orangemen sales). Like “The Catholic Orangemen“, “Zionism is Bullshit” will be available for free download.
People keep saying hey Chunky Mark will you be the Prime Minister…Yeh Yeh; do you want to know my policies. Do you want to know what I would do if I was the Prime Minister??
THERE WILL BE NO MORE ROYAL FAMILY!!!….
Chunky Mark for Prime minister
As a young child up until 1948 Mohammed Hammuda lived an idyllic life in Yaffa and Lydda, Palestine. In this series which covers the individual stories of the lives of Palestinians in the Diaspora, he talks of the tragic events on the day in 1948 when the Israel solidiers came to Ethnically cleanse Lydda.
Mohammed’s father was shot and died that day in 1948 and his family suffered such hardship as refugees first in Ramallah then in Gaza. The family are now scattered between Gaza, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Britain. I had the pleasure of travelling with one of this man’s Grandaughters on the first Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza in February/March 2009 after “Cast Lead”, the young lady really impressed us older ones with her wisdom and caring attitude about fellow travellers on the convoy also with her ability to calm down the frayed nerves of stressed convoyers.
Now I can clearly see where these beautiful character traits came from as I watch her Grandfather. Last night I called this Grandaughter of Mohammed Hammuda and apart from the joy of catching up with such a special young lady again, she sadly told me that her Grandfather had died on the 12th of December 2011, of course without his wish of seeing his homeland again, and she has so far been unable to bring herself to watch the video.
So, here we see the tragedy of a family exiled and scattered, every member longing to return home to Palestine, a right which is theirs under International Law as refugees, but one which International governments are unwilling to create pressure on Israel to see granted to the exiled Palestinians. My friend told me that her Grandfather was such a kind and caring man, somehow I feel that we all share the burden of responsibility to ensure that these dignified people are given their full rights.
By Gilad Atzmon
This week, Jesse Lieberfeld an11th-grade American Jewish teenager won the Dietrich College’s 2012 Martin Luther King, Jr. Writing Awards for composing a beautiful piece about his own moral awakening and journey away from Judaism.
I once belonged to a wonderful religion. I belonged to a religion that allows those of us who believe in it to feel that we are the greatest people in the world—and feel sorry for ourselves at the same time,”
says young Jesse. However, it seems that it didn’t take too long before Jesse found out for himself that what he was part of was neither flattering or glorious.
To read Jesse prose click here
Jewish tribal cultural indoctrination is a full-on, comprehensive process. “Although I was fortunate enough to have parents who did not try to force me into any one set of beliefs, being Jewish was in no way possible to escape growing up”, says Jesse. “It was constantly reinforced at every holiday, every service, and every encounter with the rest of my relatives.”
Inherent to the culture and its maintenance is self-love. “I was forever reminded how intelligent my family was, how important it was to remember where we had come from, and to be proud of all the suffering our people had overcome in order to finally achieve their dream in the perfect society of Israel.”
Jewish ideological and cultural ‘programming’ is rather sophisticated. It is a unique dynamic pattern practiced in both a collective and an individual way. But those who carry the message aren’t themselves fully aware of their role within the tribal ideology they aim to maintain.
Of course Jews hold many different, and even contradictory, political beliefs. But however diverse their views may be somehow, those who are identified as Jews politically always unite against any attempt to criticise the cultural and ideological foundation of their tribal bond. Young Jesse is clearly aware of this. On the surface, it was the crimes against the Palestinians that provoked his ethical sense. “I grew more concerned. I routinely heard about unexplained mass killings, attacks on medical bases, and other alarmingly violent actions for which I could see no possible reason. ‘Genocide’ almost seemed the more appropriate term, yet no one I knew would have ever dreamed of portraying the war in that manner; they always described the situation in shockingly neutral terms.”
One of the most sophisticated tribal aspects of Jewish culture maintenance is the gradual manner in which criticism is silenced. “Whenever I brought up the subject, I was always given the answer that there were faults on both sides, that no one was really to blame, or simply that it was a “difficult situation.” This common Hasbara argument on the surface sounds reasonable but it ignores the fact that in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there is a clear distinction between the aggressor and the victim. The Israelis are the ethnic cleansers and the occupiers. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are the expelled, the racially discriminated, the abused, deprived, locked behind walls and barbed wire in open air jails and, in some cases, even starved.
But Jesse seems to be made of the stuff of honesty. Unlike some of the Jewish leftists who presents a pseudo-moral argument only to gain credibility so that he/she can then vet the discourse, young Jesse presses on, stripping himself of any trace of choseness and exceptionalism. “It was not until eighth grade that I fully understood what I was on the side of. One afternoon, after a fresh round of killings was announced on our bus ride home, I asked two of my friends who actively supported Israel what they thought.
We need to defend our race,” they told me. “It’s our right.”
This “We need to defend our race,” is a common excuse Jewish activists use amongst themselves. Although Jews do not form a race, Jewish identity politics is still overtly racist. In fact, any form of Jewish secular identity politics is racially driven and fuelled with racial exclusivity. This applies not only to pro Israeli Jews but unfortunately also to Jews-only ‘anti’ Zionist groups.
I guess it is obvious where Jesse is heading. He clearly sees an ideological continuum between the civil right movement in America and the Palestinian liberation struggle. In both struggles, there is clearly a racially driven oppressor and a victim collective – and Jesse draws the necessary conclusion, “I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion.”
Jesse has obviously identified the Jewish politics and culture of which he was a part, as a form of ‘racial supremacy.’ He never mentions Zionism, in fact, the word Zionism is not mentioned once in his sincere award-winning post. He simply speaks about his Jewish upbringing, the culture and the ideology.
Young Jesse has already grasped that an appeal to his Jewish friends is not going to lead anywhere. He writes, “I decided to make one last appeal to my religion…The next time I attended a service, there was an open question-and-answer session about any point of our religion…When I was finally given the chance to ask a question, I asked, ‘I want to support Israel. But how can I when it lets its army commit so many killings?’ I was met with a few angry glares from some of the older men, but the rabbi answered me. “It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?’ he said. ‘But there’s nothing we can do. It’s just a fact of life.’ I knew, of course, that the war was no simple matter and that we did not by any means commit murder for its own sake, but to portray our thousands of killings as a ‘fact of life’ was simply too much for me to accept.”
It seems that Jesse has the courage to redeem his soul. “I thanked him (the Rabbi) and walked out shortly afterward. I never went back…. If nothing else, I could at least try to free myself from the burden of being saddled with a belief I could not hold with a clear conscience.…I did not intend to go on being one of the Self-Chosen People, identifying myself as part of a group to which I did not belong.”
Surprisingly, Jesse wasn’t compelled to apologise for telling truth. He didn’t have to retract for telling things as they are. In fact he won the most prestigious humanist award for his essay. But I’m wondering how long will it take before ADL’s Abe Foxman and infamous Ethnic-cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz launch a campaign to destroy the awarding college.
Being a person who oscillates continuously between being an ‘ex-Jew’ and a ‘proud self hating Jew’, I embrace young Jesse and hold him close to my heart. My dear young twin brother, journeying from choseness is a life-struggle. From time to time you may feel lonely but you are never alone. Humanity and humanism are there at your side – for all time.
The following is video from the Artist Taxi Driver known as Chunky Mark. For those unfamiliar with Mark McGowan, he is a Performance artist activist. He broadcasts from his cab on current affairs, politics and whatever else takes his fancy. Most of his performances use strong language, some a great deal. This is simply because he feels so very strongly about what he is talking about. For those of you who are sick of the mainstream news, Mark offers and alternative satiricalview of the world and produces several videos every day. Enjoy ))
Nick Clegg, British deputy Prime Minister criticised Israel on Monday for sabotaging Palestinian peace process. Really what a shocker!! Following a press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas he said this on the subject of settlements.
Once you’ve placed physical facts on the ground that makes it impossible to deliver something that everyone has for years agreed is the ultimate destination… it is an act of deliberate vandalism to the basic premise on which negotiations have taken place for years and years and years,”
Pretty strong words for Clegg, especially since he features so heavily on the Liberal Friends of Israel website. His comments can be roughly translated as:- Israel has been misleading the internationl community for sometime about its real intentions in the West Bank. Abbas was doing a big European Tour meeting with all the people in charge. Zionists like:- Poju Zabludowicz (BICOM – more than likely as he met him last time)… and a bunch of unimportant bribed politicians, David Cameron, Merkel and the gang.
Rumours have been circulating for some time that the peace process may have stalled. Largely due the Palestinian delegation having totally lost faith in Tony (Cashpoint) Blair. With still no news on the UN Palestine bid and continued settlement expansion, no one really believes Israel is sincere about making peace. In fact the continued siege of Gaza seems designed to break the will of the Palestinians by making it so very unpleasant that they leave and never return.