In two carefully coordinated events, the USA put an end to Israel’s plan to attack Iran. On March 28, 2012, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak publicly praised himself and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta:
The decision [to cancel the attack] was the result of contacts between the [Israeli] Defense Ministry and the Pentagon.”
At that moment, the poker game between the USA, Israel and Iran came to an abrupt end. There was no winner, but one loser: Israel.
About a week ago, I published Obama Bluffs Netanyahu, just after President Obama’s video appeal to the Iranian people on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year. He told them that there was
no reason for the United States and Iran to be divided from one another.”
This was a sharp deviation from the belligerent Israeli-American discourse in recent months. Moreover, it was a clear end to Netanyahu’s desire to force the USA into attacking Iran (see Netanyahu Wags the Dog). “Netanyahu needs a war with Iran. The only way Netanyahu could prevent a deal between the USA and Iran is by attacking Iran before an agreement is signed, or by performing a false flag attack on American soil. Obama bluffed Netanyahu,”I summarized the event. A week later, the American administration hit Israel twice. The first event was private in nature, a war-simulation conducted at the Pentagon. The second was public and brutal: the USA formally disclosed secret information about Israeli plans, which has effectively put an end to any possibility of carrying out an aerial attack on Iran by Israel.
Tuesday 27, Pentagon
This Tuesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was a special invitee of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. He was rushed to a secure underground bunker, where stray planes couldn’t cause undesired damage. He was expecting a nice cup of coffee and maybe a piece of chocolate cake; nothing was too shabby for him; he would show the world his nickname “Napo” (for “Half-Napoleon”) was undeserved. Instead, he found a row of serious looking and carefully shaved American generals handing him a few sheets of paper. They contained the results of an Israel-Iran war simulation conducted by the U.S. Central Command.
The Pentagon concluded that the Iranians could kill 200 Americans with a single missile response to an Israeli attack. This number is conservative considering there are well over ten thousand American soldiers stationed in the immediate vicinity of Iran and that Iran reportedly owns more than one missile. On the political level, that would mean the subsequent creation of an investigative committee. One clear outcome of such an investigation is that the American victims’ blood would be on Israel’s head. Instead of a green-light on the attack, Israel was offered additional funding for the Iron Dome missile interception system. Minutes later, Barak delivered the words abovementioned, a formal acknowledgment of Israeli warmongering defeat. Barak also thanked the Obama administration “for helping strengthen Israel’s security.” Israel will not attack Iran at least until after November’s Presidential elections.
Wednesday 28, US Congress
A few days ago, the world got a brutal reminder on the worth of Israel’s word. Israel and Germany signed an agreement for the supply of a sixth Dolphin submarine to Israel. Last November, Germany had conditioned the agreement on Israel’s unfreezing monies of the Palestinian Authority; Israel had complied. However, while the ink on the new agreement was still drying, Israel announced on March 25 a planned re-freezing of the Palestinian budget. Still shocked, Germany has still not answered the insult. President Obama couldn’t let this treacherous Israeli angle emerge again, especially when his political future is at risk. The day after the war was defused, the USA made sure Israel would be unable to strike Iran. In two parallel events, the American administration disclosed facts that though not new, were released officially for the first time.
A U.S. Congressional Report on the outcome of an Israeli attack on Iran was prepared by analysts at the Congressional Research Service, and was delivered on Wednesday. The report claims that Israel and the U.S. do not know the exact location of all Iran nuclear facilities. They are so dispersed that an Israeli attack would not be successful. Moreover, even if destroyed, Iran could rebuild most of its centrifuge workshops within six months after an attack. Moreover, the report says that it is “unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on the likelihood of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.” This report renders an Israeli attack useless, and mainly just a tool of propagandistic nature. Mocking Israeli Corroboration of Killing practice, the administration made public on the same day secret data on Israel’s preparations.
Foreign Policy—a global magazine on economics and politics —published on the same day that
Azerbaijan granted Israel access to air bases on Iran border.”
Mark Perry reports there that a senior U.S. administration official told him “The Israelis have bought an airfield, and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.” This is not new (see Azerbaijan-Israel: A Shia—Jewish Alliance), but the same sources added factual data. The Azeri military has four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields that could be available to Israel, and four air bases for their own aircraft. One of them (see map above) is close to Tehran. “If Israeli jets want to land in Azerbaijan after an attack, they’d probably be allowed to do so. Israel is deeply embedded in Azerbaijan, and has been for the last two decades,” the same source added. The article goes on to explain that U.S. officials believe Israel has been granted access to these air bases through a “series of quiet political and military understandings.” Again, this is not new, I described the Israeli-Azeri alliance in detail; however, this now being official, has slammed the door on Israel’s attack.
Thursday 29, Israel
Was this just a “tempest in a teacup,” a little media decoy attempt in the way of a upcoming attack? It doesn’t look like it. The following day, Ron Ben Yishay, a senior security analyst working for Yedihot Aharonot—the largest Hebrew newspaper—published an angry article in which he denounced the “treasure of information flooding [from Washington].” Beyond the angered tone, there are several instances in which he hints that Washington is not aware of all the options for such an attack, openly claiming that much of what is said in the media is disinformation (and since Hebrew media is controlled to a large extent by the Israeli administration, we have an admission that Israel lies to us). He goes on to claim that the Congressional Report is inexact, but “that doesn’t matter because the headlines in the Israeli and American media were its target.” Furious, he continues: “the damage is disclosure of secret information and analysis that the Iranians would have needed to invest significant intelligence efforts and monies in order to achieve it.” “Every Iranian intelligence analyst reading the congressional report and Foreign Policy would find there a treasure of information,” he added.
This is not how a country behaves towards an ally,” he said sputtering in rage.
I want to remind Mr. Ben Yishay of something. Maybe he would even be able to tell me who wrote this. In the aftermath of 9/11, Hebrew media published two striking comments. One was that of comparing the relative population sizes, Israel has suffered more terror than the USA. This is strange coming from a people that claim that “every soul is worth an entire world.” Then, a senior Israeli analyst said: “This is good for the Jews.” Do you remember this, Mr. Ron Ben Yishay? Let me tell you, that this is not how a country behaves towards an ally.
Following these publications, Iran now has a good idea of what Washington and Tel Aviv know about its nuclear program and understand exactly which are the signs watched by them with respect to this program. Moreover, certain options—like an air strike from Azerbaijan—can now be easily blocked by Iran. Considering this, there is no doubt that Obama slammed Barak.
If you are as puzzled as I am how a true Christian could possibly be taken in by Zionism, a short paper on the phenomenon is available from Sadaka http://www.sadaka.ie/Articles/Papers/PAPER-Christian_Zionism.pdf.
“The destiny of the Jewish people is to return to the land of Israel and reclaim their inheritance promised to Abraham and his descendants forever. This inheritance extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. Within their land, Jerusalem is recognised to be their exclusive, undivided and eternal capital, and therefore it cannot be shared or divided.
At the heart of Jerusalem will be the rebuilt Jewish temple, to which all the nations will come to worship God. Just prior to the return of Jesus, there will be seven years of calamities and war known as the tribulation, which will culminate in a great battle called Armageddon, during which the godless forces opposed to both God and Israel will be defeated.
Jesus will then return as the Jewish Messiah and king to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and the Jewish people will enjoy a privileged status and role in the world.”
The scary US-based Unity Coalition for Israel brings together more than 200 partners claiming to represent more than 40 million Americans in the largest network of Pro-Israel groups in the world. Their Mission is “to focus the efforts of secular and religious organizations and individuals for whom the existence of the State of Israel is central and essential to the future of the free world. We educate these organizations and individuals on security issues and radical ideologies, including global Islamic terrorism… UCI reaches millions of people through more than 200 Christian & Jewish organizations, including churches, synagogues, prayer networks, think tanks and thousands of individuals.
Christians owe debt of eternal gratitude to Jews”
Pastor John Hagee is founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which claims to be the largest pro-Israel organization in America, with over 850,000 members. It holds at least 40 pro-Israel events a month in towns and cities across this country. “We’re building support for Israel from coast to coast!” is the sort of proclamation that reveals the real agenda.
What does Hagee’s CUfI believe in?
- We believe in the absolute authority of the [sacred] scripture to govern the affairs of men.
- We believe in the promise of Genesis 12:3 regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. We believe that this is an eternal covenant between God and the seed of Abraham to which God is faithful. Genesis 12:3 “And I will bless them that bless thee and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” Point: God has promised to bless the man or nation that blesses the Chosen People. History has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the nations that have blessed the Jewish people have had the blessing of God; the nations that have cursed the Jewish people have experienced the curse of God.
- We support Israel because all other nations were created by an act of men, but Israel was created by an act of God! The Royal Land Grant that was given to Abraham and his seed through Isaac and Jacob with an everlasting and unconditional covenant.
- St. Paul recorded in Romans 15:27 “For if the Gentiles have shared in their (the Jews) spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.”
- Christians owe a debt of eternal gratitude to the Jewish people for their contributions that gave birth to the Christian faith… the Jewish people have given to Christianity:
a) The Sacred Scripture
b) The Prophets
c) The Patriarchs
d) Mary, Joseph, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth
e) The Twelve Disciples
f) The Apostles
It is not possible to say, “I am a Christian” and not love the Jewish people.
Hagee pretends the relationship between Christians and Jews in biblical times still applies today. He uses ‘mushroom management’ methods – keep ‘em in the dark and keep shoveling horse manure at ‘em. If his Cornerstone church followers bothered to take an independent trip to the West Bank and Gaza – and I do mean independent, not an Israeli bus tour with guides trained by the Tel Aviv propaganda department (or by Hagee) – they’d quickly discover the unpalatable truth. The glitzy Hagee empire, and others like it, would then crumble.
An effective riposte to the biblical distortions used to support Israel’s lust for supremacy is The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism, a statement by the Latin Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches in Jerusalem issued in 2006 http://imeu.net/news/article003122.shtml. They are on the ground, in the front line, in the Holy Land. They know the score. They put the genuine Christian case. And it is summed up in the first sentence:
“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.
We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.
We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!”
The Declaration, explains Sadaka, asserts that “Christian Zionists have aggressively imposed an aberrant expression of the Christian faith and an erroneous interpretation of the Bible, which is subservient to the political agenda of the modern State of Israel… Christian Zionism thrives on a literal and futurist hermeneutic in which Old Testament promises made to the ancient Jewish people are transferred to the contemporary State of Israel in anticipation of a final future fulfillment.” For the posh churchy word ‘hermeneutic’, read ‘interpreting the Scriptures’.
Corrupting the Biblical Message
Not only does Zionism cloak itself in the Jewish faith, it hides its ugly face behind Christianity’s skirts. And, believe it or not, there is even a movement calling itself the World Muslim Zionist Organization.
In Christianity’s case the rot set in way back in1909 when the Scofield study bible was published and became the standard religious text in the United States.
It’s a propaganda classic. And the indoctrination has lasted 100 years.
Cyrus Scofield, a convicted criminal and described by one American newspaper as “a shyster”, was commissioned to re-write the King James bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes. The idea was to change the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist sub-culture within Christianity. The Oxford University Press appointed Scofield as editor, and the Scofield Reference Bible was born
It introduced a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, which did not exist until 1948 but was already being ‘prepped’ on the drawing board of the World Zionist movement.
American journalist Grace Halsell explained the re-hashed Biblical message:
“Simply stated it is this: Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. Never mind what Israel does, say the Christian Zionists. God wants this to happen…
Scofield said that Christ cannot return to earth until certain events occur: The Jews must return to Palestine, gain control of Jerusalem and rebuild a temple, and then we all must engage in the final, great battle called Armageddon. Estimates vary, but most students of Armageddon theology agree that as a result of these relatively recent interpretations of Biblical scripture, 10 to 40 million Americans believe Palestine is God’s chosen land for the Jews.”
This belief that Old Testament promises made to the ancient Jewish tribes are transferable to the largely unrelated people that make up the modern state of Israel is what underpins their hope for the final battle they call Armageddon, in which Israel’s enemies (and God’s, of course) will be defeated. After that Jesus will return as the Jewish Messiah and King to reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and the Jewish people will enjoy privileged status in the world.
That is the Zionist dream of world domination in a nutshell. What’s in it for non-Jews? Blessed if I know. Yet armies of non-Jewish politicians have become eager stooges.
My reading of history is that the Jews were expelled from Palestine by the Roman occupation in 70AD, when the second temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. They were expelled again in 135AD.
Nowadays return is regarded as an inalienable right. But it must be exercised as soon as the reason for expulsion (e.g. foreign occupation) ceases. In the Jews’ case an opportunity would have occurred in the 4th century AD as the Roman Empire collapsed. But they didn’t take it. They can hardly expect to change their mind 16 centuries later. Their right expired a very long time ago.
By comparison the Palestinians’ right of return after being ethnically cleansed in 1948 (and ever since) is valid because the enemy occupation has not yet ended and the UN has endorsed their right.
Nevertheless Zionists claim Jerusalem is theirs by heavenly decree. But this holiest of cities was already 2000 years old when King David captured it.
Historians say that Jerusalem, in its ‘City of David’ form, lasted only 73 years. In 928BC the kingdom divided into Israel and Judah, and in 597BC the Babylonians conquered the city and destroyed Solomon’s temple. The Jews recaptured it in 164BC but finally lost it to the Roman Empire in 63BC. Before the present-day illegal occupation the Jews controlled Jerusalem for some 500 years, whereas it was subsequently ruled by Muslims for 1,277 years. Before the Jews it belonged to the Canaanites. And for nearly 90 years it was also a Christian kingdom. A lot of competing claims, then, which is probably why the UN declared in 1947 that it should be independently administered as an international city.
In 1187 Saladin restored Jerusalem to Islam while allowing Jews and Christians to remain. Today Jewish religious groups want control of the city for their spiritual centre and for a third temple to be built in accordance with ancient prophecies. The plan to make the Israeli occupation permanent threatens not only the Muslim but also the Christian holy places. Political and religious tensions are thus kept at boiling point. It is no wonder that the Iranian president quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini as saying the unfriendly regime occupying Jerusalem “must vanish from the page of time”. It is no surprise either that he was immediately misquoted by Zionist propagandists as wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
The question is, are we seriously to believe that an all-powerful Supernatural Being has chosen and elevated one group of humans to a position of supremacy above all others, and has approved the use of any mean, including murder, brutal eviction and even war, to achieve their selfish goal, and now mobilizes millions of lesser mortals from around the globe, like those who regard themselves as upstanding Christians, to serve as tools and sing the praises of this ‘Grand Design’?
I’m with the Churches of Jerusalem on this. It’s a gross corruption of the biblical message.
These Jewish Intellectuals – Do They Never Look in the Mirror?
“Behind the Mask of Humanity” is the title of an article in SvD (second biggest morning daily in Sweden), 12 January 2012, written by the Jewish professor Lars Dencik. He questions former leader of the liberal party Bengt Westerberg’s motives for wishing to ban circumcision of boys in Sweden. Dencik wants us to know that, deep down, it is not out of compassion for the children that Westerberg makes his point, but distrust of Jews’ ability to take care of their children. Dencik writes:
Is it really out of consideration for our Jewish boy-babies that Bengt Westerberg, and other like-minded persons, wishes to introduce a ban against a tradition, crucial to our identity and culture? Do they really imagine the we Jews in Sweden cannot ourselves look after our children’s best interests and care for them in the appropriate manner?
This argument can of course be used against all measures undertaken by our society to protect children’s rights. There are most certainly, among those who work for children’s rights in society, individuals who exaggerate parents’ unsuitability to care for their children. But is it what this discussion is really about? Dencik answers the question himself:
They don the mask of humanity which hides a classic, colonial and contemptuous attitude towards those who belong to “the Others”, in this case the national minority of Jews in Sweden.
It is difficult to interpret this in any other way than that Denik is implying that Bengt Westerberg is driven by racism and hatred of Jews, or emotions to that effect – behind his mask. We have heard this sort of thing before, when those who have taken it upon themselves to act as spokespersons for the Jews do not get exactly what they want. Soon we’ll probably be hearing that Bengt Westerberg is also a so-called holocaust denier as he evidently does not think that the suffering of Jews always awards them special rights.
Ritual physical interference in the sex organs of boys and girls is difficult to combine with a humane approach to children, hence they should themselves have the sole right to decide whether they wish to undergo this change when they reach adulthood – hardly an unreasonable point of view when all is said and done? And regardless of whether it is carried out by rabbis, imams, state medical care, or is compatible with medical ethics. According to Jewish tradition, the rabbi sucks blood from the boy’s penis during the operation. It could also be mentioned that Swedish law forbids parents hitting their children.
Quite apart from the extent to which these operations are based on culture or religion, it is reasonable to suppose that we can discuss what is appropriate in Sweden, with our own culture and tradition of rights as the starting point. But no, apparently not, according to the next point of view, on the same page in SvD, by Lena Einhorn, well known Jewish writer and film maker. According to her article, “The demand to conform lies beneath the surface”, she tries, with the help of an anonymous Jew who does not wish to eat a ham sandwich at a meeting, to portray Bengt Westerberg, who also attended, as a contemptible person (almost anti-Semite?) when he is said to have rejoined “Next time I would like my sandwich without butter”. Quite an appropriate comment, I would think, if it is true, which we will never know. Perhaps it was just a friendly joke?
Indeed, it is fair to suppose that a person who has unusual eating habits should occasionally take responsibility for them and not rely upon “the Other”. Many of us have surely encountered similar problems when socialising with vegetarians. A triviality? Hardly when we are left wondering whether Bengt Westerberg, or anyone else, will be able to defend himself against the kind of sniping Lena Einhorn delivers? Furthermore, what sort of mentality does this sort of attack represent?
Westerberg seems to have been “killed” twice, just to make sure. How could he contest claims made by others about his innermost thoughts if not by openly stating his opinions? Or interpretations made by others of hearsay (rumours) about a sandwich incident? This is, of course, pure projection. Do these Jewish intellectuals never look in the mirror? If they did, they might find that what they dislike about themselves is exactly what they feel the need to ascribe to Bengt Westerberg, thus showing themselves as “good and righteous Jews”.
We may, of course, find Denick and Einhorn merely pathetic, but unfortunately it is worse. In fact, they demand special favours for Jews, simply because they think that what is right for Jews is morally untouchable, regardless of whether it is right for others, for example their own children who, as adults, may make the choice to no longer remain Jews.
It could be said that they apply a categorical imperative that is the opposite of Kant´s which is humanistic. The tribal orientated mentality they convey, similar to other tribal mentalities, is racist orientated and has, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with humanism. Paideia, The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden, plays a significant part in the development of this mentality and received 40 million SEK from the Swedish government to start its work, a fact unknown to most Swedes and other Europeans; it plays a strategic part in teaching multi-culturalism to Europeans, according to its own director Barbara Spectre.
Most unfortunate for them, is that Denick and Einhorn do not realise that their actions can, in fact, add fuel to the fire of hatred of Jews. Jewish minority interests can never be boundless in a majority culture; it would, in extension, mean that we were faced with a dictatorship of minorities. Could this be what they really want “deep down”? However, I am still confident that not all of those who propagate “multiculturalism” or the slogan “we are all different” share this view.
And we all know the sort of debate it would have been if it were only Muslim boys who are subjected to circumcision?
The 64th anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre, April 9th 1948
The General Union of Palestinian Students
& Deir Yassin Remembered (UK)
Monday April 23rd London
Moment of Commemoration led by Abu Ashraf
Deir Yassin resident, aged 8, April 1948
Deir Yassin Remembered (US)
Monday April 9th
Deir Yassin Memorial
9 Mile Point, Geneva, New York
Monday April 9th
“With the names of the victims, we will walk through the village to the old cemetery”
Below is a video made by Asghar Bukhari. Muslims in my community are quick to point a finger at anyone who speaks up against our innactive leaders and try to discredit the speaker by saying “he has no beard” or “why doesn’t he perfect himself first”? Such idiotic comments are usually made by the kind of Muslims (sheep) who need to know which group (herd) you belong to, once they identify you belong to a particular group (herd) they can then write you off as deviant based on your group (herds) ideology not matching their own.
Muslims in the U.K. and beyond need to wake up to the fact that we belong to the Ummah and what happens to our brothers and sisters anywhere in the Ummah it is our responsibility to know about it and to help if we are able. The problem is our committees have become book keepers and bucket shakers and even worse our Imams are afraid to mention or even recite special prayers for the oppressed. My own mosque in Finchley is one of the worst culprits the committee having employed an Imam who refuses to even acknowledge the fact that Islam and it’s followers are under attack and that people can make a difference when they are educated and encouraged to take action under good leadership. Here is a link to the etiquette of Qunoot, (with a beautiful example by Sheik Alfasy for MP3) the prayer we can make for those in crisis like in Syria now. Sheik Haitham al Haddad is one of the members of the Shariah Council. Sheik Haitham says it is an obligation to pray for our brothers and sisters, you would think it is the very least action that our Imams could take, but in my mosque like hundreds of others you will not find it is done, if our Imams don’t even believe in praying for those in distress what are they doing standing up as leaders?
I support every word that Asghar Bukhari says here, he speaks the truth and he has every right to sound angry.
The Phil Monsour Band performing I left my heart in Palestine Brisbane in 2011. The song is on the new album Ghosts of Deir Yassin to be released April 2012.
I Left My Heart in Palestine
Standing at the checkpoint
You were coming home from work
Our eyes met we laughed about how the soldiers talked
A smile of quiet dignity in that cage of shame
Determination in your eyes I might never see again
I left my heart in Palestine
We were people of no consequence quietly crying on the bus
Staring into the distance as we drove back through the dust
A spirit gently bending in this hope we trust
Nothing on our skin makes them better then us
I left my heart in Palestine
Dark hair falling gently in the soft light of the dusk
As the setting sun reflected off the dome of the rock
Crackling like a gunshot a distant call to pray
Someone praising god and saying we’re still here
I left my heart in Palestine
Smiling at the words etched upon the wall
Standing in its shadow dreaming of its fall
Our hopes met like thunder in our arms entwined
Cradling the stories of those we leave behind
I left my heart in Palestine
I left my heart in Palestine
Being a rabidly pro Israel supporter appears to necessitate being vehemently anti Islam. Baroness Cox is an interesting case in point. Recently Baroness Cox made the news in both the Sun and the Mail with some very incendiary comments about Islam which were clarified later on Islamophobia watch as to have actually not being the following:-
Brutal punishments like whipping and stoning could become widespread in Britain if Islamic Sharia law is allowed to thrive, a member of the House of Lords has warned.
This was said to be part of a speech in the House of Lords at a symposium called ‘Islamist Resurgence: Shari’a and Freedom‘ held by the Christian Broadcasting Council of which Baroness Cox is the vice president. At this particular symposium Baroness Cox was asked to speak because of the bill that she has written called the Arbitration and Mediation Services Equality Bill which seeks to redress what she sees as problems of equality in the Shariah arbitration and mediation services provided by the Shariah councils in the U.K. The Shariah councils help to provide solutions acceptable to Muslims usually on family issues and divorce and their rulings are not legally binding. Just how Baroness Cox envisages the great leap from providing marital and family mediation to enforcing whipping and stoning in the U.K. only becomes possible to understand when you start to search who Baroness Cox’s friends and associates are.
A search into what Baroness Cox represents tells us that she is very pro Israel in fact she is one of the co founders of “One Jerusalem” you can read here about what they call “The Global Assualt on Jerusalem”
As Jewish Jerusalem is under attack from people who have declared their intention to annihilate the Jewish nation we need to redouble our defense of the Holy City.
This is the kind of inflamatory language which would ensure that peaceful participants in the “Global March to Jerusalem” get shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces.
Also from One Jerusalem website is
OUTRAGEOUS: Obama Administration Refuses to State Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel
Indeed Tel Aviv is the capital of the State of Israel as agreed by all governments.I wonder if Baroness Cox knows any of the reported abuses of Christian clergy that take place in Jerusalem? Read about the regular spitting at Christian Clergy by Jews here. Does Baroness Cox appreciate how a Muslim family have been the keyholders to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem? Read the story of Christian Muslim co-0peration here .
Another organisation of which Baroness is vice president of is the “Jerusalem Summit” and we can see exactly what they stand for with this extract from their mission statement
We see Radical Islam as the third onslaught of Totalitarian Evil on the free mankind in the last 100 years. The first two were Fascism and Communism. The free world managed to defeat them by uniting, working out a joint strategy, and mastering resolve to fight and prevail. Now, too, is the time to unite and lay out a coherent moral and political strategy in that crucial fight.
Read the full Islamophobic mission statement here. Even more hair and eyebrow raising is this article which suggests the issue of the” Palestinian problem” might be resolved by giving each Palestinian family $100,000 to go away
This is a problem that can conceivably be dealt with by means of money — specifically generous sums paid to the Palestinians to relocate and resettle elsewhere in the Arab/Moslem world.
The reason for offering this solution
BUT EVEN IF ONE is convinced that the Palestinians are undeserving of a state, the question still remains as to whether they are genuinely desirous of one.
When you are sitting down and have a damp cloth ready for your forehead read the whole article here.
This was all information which I found just spending a hour or so searching exactly what Baroness Cox is all about. There is so much more I could say about her but really what I seek to understand is why does being Pro Israel mean you have to be anti Islam? Could it be because Israel knows that the only real threat to it’s existence comes from Muslims? I myself do not believe that there is any political solution to the problem of Israel and its endless need for wars in the region and its ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people. The western governments, the United Nations etc have all proved over the last 60 years that they are not willing or able to bring about a solution to the problem of the occupation of Palestinian land. The best hope in my opinion lies with the Muslims remembering their obligation towards their brothers and sisters under oppression. The borders that separate Muslims are all man made, we are one Ummah and the land that is Palestine should be returned to its rightful owners.
with variations on a theme by Joseph Haydn
Beat poet adventurer strays beyond the bounds of singer songwriter’ MOJO
Haunting tunes & striking lyrics… yearningly pretty & bittersweet.’ The Independent
An incandescent new presence with superior lyrics.’ The Guardian
Lovely, poetic, with poise and bite wrapped in a protest singer’s conscious. ’Daily Mail
The War on Trevor is a 15 minute piece of narrative music composed by critically acclaimed singer songwriter Sarah Gillespie, arranged and produced by her long time collaborator, maverick saxophonist Gilad Atzmon. The piece combines elements of classical music, folk, jazz & blues knitted together with Gillespie’s trademark lyrical bite. The project is supported by the PRS ‘Women Make Music’ Award & launched at Ronnie Scott’s on the 3rd & 4th April 2012.
Set in London The War on Trevor depicts the plights of an ordinary Londoner who suddenly finds himself accused of various wrong-doings, ranging from public indecency and infidelity to terrorism. Gillespie never draws us into Trevor’s guilt or innocence. Instead she sketches a sinister, Kafka-esque world in which guilt and innocence have become irrelevant. Reflecting on the recent tragedy of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was killed by police when he was misidentified as a bomber, and Moazzam Begg, who was imprisoned for terrorism without charge, mere suspicion itself is all it takes for Trevor to be reduced to a blank slate on which various people project their phobias, fears and revenge.
Musically and lyrically Gillespie mixes black humour and pathos in 4 song sections delivered in the first person: by the copper that arrests Trevor (The Miranda Warning), the girlfriend who dumps him (Signal Failure) and finally the Intelligence officer who interrogates him (The Shami Chakrabarti Blues). The first 3 sections are characterised by jovial horns and cockney colloquialisms: ‘Do I look like I sailed down the Thames on a spoon?’ and pithy allusions to Trevor’s ‘meat and two veg’, the ‘Twitterati’ and human relationships that rely entirely on decent phone signals. The final section, however, unfolds into Trevor’s despair as ‘executioners chew gum’ and ‘physiatrists wet the bed.’ Transforming Haydn’s famous melody into an epic war march that laments the carnage taking place along Afghanistan’s main river and beyond, Trevor asks meekly, ‘would you mind terribly if I cry on the banks of the Arghandab .’?
The War on Trevor is a contemporary anti war song. Its protagonist personifies a culture that, without realising it, is terrorised because of the hell it inflicts on others. Sarah Gillespie – guitar and vocals, Gilad Atzmon – clarinets, saxophones & accordion, Enzo Zirrili – drums, Ben Bastin – double bass & cello. The War on Trevor is launched at London’s Ronnie Scott’s on 3rd and 4th April and followed by a 12 date UK tour.
- April 3rd – Ronnie Scott’s, London
- April 4th Ronnie Scott’s, London
- April 13th – Much Wenlock Poetry Festival
- April 15th – Lichfield Guildhall, Lichfield
- April 19th – Ropetackle Arts, Shoreham by Sea
- April 21st – The Barn, Snailwell Suffolk (SOLO)
- April 24th – The Albion Beatnik Bookshop, Oxford (TRIO)
- April 25th – The Command House, Rochester
- April 26th – The Vortex Jazz Club, London
- April 27th – Wakefield Jazz Club, Wakefield
- April 28th – St David’s Hall, South Petherton
- May 27th – Black Mountain Jazz, Abergavenny
- June 3rd -Strawberry Hill Jazz Festival, Richmond
- July 14th – Marlborough Jazz Festival
A huge win for George Galloway in Bradford West yesterday shows voters total frustration with mainstream parties and their pro war policies. George Galloway and the Respect party stands for
The Respect Party is opposed to war, privatisation and unemployment. The Respect Party stands for peace, publicly owned services and a decent future for all
The drumbeats for war with Iran are getting louder, and the escalating provocations by Western capitals are developing a logic of their own. It admits of no alternative and points in only one direction – towardsmilitary conflict. Or to put itmore accurately, towards openmilitary conflict. The head of Britain’s MI6 has already called for covert military operations in Iran – which are, of course, an act of war – and they have been taking place. So are the drone overflights, which are also legally an act of aggression.
Here are the results of the Bradford West by election
The full result (with vote share and change since 2010 in brackets):
George Galloway (Respect) 18,341 (55.89%, +52.83%)
Imran Hussain (Lab) 8,201 (24.99%, -20.36%)
Jackie Whiteley (C) 2,746 (8.37%, -22.78%)
Jeanette Sunderland (LD) 1,505 (4.59%, -7.08%)
Sonja McNally (UKIP) 1,085 (3.31%, +1.31%)
Dawud Islam (Green) 481 (1.47%, -0.85%)
Neil Craig (D Nats) 344 (1.05%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 111 (0.34%)
This decisive victory shows that Muslims will not vote for a candidate just because he is a Muslim if he does not represent the voters interests. The Muslim candidates who stood for the Bradford West seat lost resoundingly. Muslims will not vote like sheep for a candidate who follows the party line of endless war whatever his religion is, rather they will vote for the person who is saying what they want to hear. Any candidate if they be Muslim or not who represents Conservative or Labour is part of a corrupt war making machine and at best they can only offer to throw a few pennies in the voters way by adjusting taxation etc but in reality we are in deep recession and the millions spent on war would be put to better use building up Britain again not destroying someone elses country.
وَأَلْقَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۚ كُلَّمَا أَوْقَدُوا نَارًا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا اللَّـهُ ۚوَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا ۚ وَاللَّـهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُفْسِدِينَ ﴿٦٤﴾
And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war , Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.
The Israelis have bought an airfield,” an official said, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.” said senior ‘un-named’ US officials
The past two days has seen conflicting reports emerging regarding Israel allegedly securing 4 airbases in Baku, in Azerbaijan. If true this would significantly enhance Israel’s ability to wage war on Iran. Baku is less than 1000 km from Tehran the capital of Iran compared to nearly 3000km from Israel to Iran. So what is the truth of the matter?
Apparently the Americans are reported not to be happy at all with the move. It is unclear whether the Israelis will launch an attack from Baku, but at the very least they could launch drones to conduct surveillance. It was only in February that Israel signed a deal with Azerbaijan to supply $1.6 billion in arms, specifically anti-aircraft missiles and drones.
However the latest reports seem to cast some doubt on this whole issue, according to Haaretz, Azerbaijan has since denied giving access to Airbases for Israel.
This information is absurd and groundless,” said Teymur Abdullayev going on to add that this reports were “aimed at damaging relations between Azerbaijan and Iran.”
But it seem likely that this is just lies from Azerbaijan, as previous Wikileaks cables compared the Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev to Mafia dons Sonny Corleone & Michael from the Godfather. The Wikileaks cable goes on to say that the President’s policies were characterized by…
pragmatism, restraint and a helpful bias toward integration with the West,”
This is from the same President who was imprisoning bloggers who were critical of the regime. So in a nutshell it does indeed look like Israel has found the perfect partner for the war crimes it will unleash against Iran. A crime partner who can lie with confidence and conviction and provide it with 4 bases to launch its operations from. As we already know, Madonna’s gig in Israel is on May 29th (BDS has not been very effective here then), so presumably the IRAN war will follow shortly afterwards. I sincerely hope not! If we are to avert this unfolding tragedy we must all pull together, to do everything we can, to stop Israel and its apocalyptic plan before it is way too late.
Can a Jewish culture institute help save Europe at a time when alleged questions of integration are increasingly causing disagreement in many countries?
The word, or rather the concept, paideia, comes from ancient Greece. It was a system of learning, complete with instructions, and aimed at giving students enough cultural general knowledge for them to become true, real and genuine human beings. Paideia aspired to be the cultural heritage that is continued through the generations.
In ancient Greece, as with democracy, only the aristocracy were included in paideia, that is to say free men but not women, children or slaves.
Paideia and Democracy as concepts have obviously been affected by the passing of time and prevailing cultural influences. However they are, still today, important symbols of humanistic values and people’s participation in a state’s affairs, i.e. the power of the people. I have discussed various aspects of this in the article ” The Uprisings in the Arab World – Reflections on Democracy”.
Sweden currently has a European institute for Jewish studies called Paideia. It was founded in 2000 with government funds amounting to 40 million SEK to set it off. Its enterprise is ambitious and takes place within the framework of The Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities.
One would think that a European paideia institute, in modern times, and acknowledging the tradition paideia stands for, would have an organisation and management that somewhat represents the various peoples, cultures and nations of Europe. Furthermore, a neutral base would be more suitable than the Swedish Jewish council which has its own specific set of ideas.
Of course you might think that there is really nothing to stop the Jewish Paideia from acting on behalf of all Europeans and that it doesn’t matter that the institute is Jewish. However that is hardly the impression conveyed by information on its webside. In a video featuring Paideia’s head, Barbara Spectre, she explains her ”philosophy”.
(note. This video is regularly removed from YouTube by the user, probably because it reveals too much about leading Jewish representatives’ endeavours to play a dominant role in culture and education in the West and how Sweden’s government willingly subsidises the plans.)
The video concerns Jewish beliefs and the process of training a qualified cadre of Jews to lead the integration movement to save Europe. Spectre does not seem entirely convinced however that this will be positively received by non-Jewish Europeans and anticipates that it could cause resentment, which, one supposes, falls within the framework of ”anti-Semitism”.
Hitherto, Paideia has been such a success that Barbara Spectre has been awarded a prestigious Israeli prize for her work. It is difficult to see this prize as anything but a reward for work done to promote the interests of the Jewish state. For sure Paideia will get some help from Paideia Trustee, Ambassador Jan Eliasson, appointed Deputy Secretary-General to the UN.
Do European Jews, using the Paideia institute, now wish to take on a leading role, similar to the one held by the men of ancient Greece, and assisted by millions of taxpayers’ money, develop and consolidate this role? Many questions need answers, but I do not think it is possible to understand the activities of the Jewish paideia without understanding what ”Jewish” is.
The Jews themselves speak of Jewish religion, Jewish culture, Jewish history, Zionism and, last but not least, the Jewish people and the Jewish state. What is it, then, that is so special about ”Jewish”?
I have wrestled with this question, from time to time, my whole life – for purely personal, but also political reasons. I have written many articles on the subject and also published a book. My idea of what ”Jewish” is can be summarised thus:
Most of those who call themselves Jews today, connect their identity primarily to the Jewish state Israel and are secular. Jewish identity is very much about perceiving oneself as special in a positive way, to be chosen by God, but at the same time as a victim, forever hounded by the Holocaust. This is often used as a compelling moral argument to motivate special treatment of the group at the expense of others, mainly the Palestinians. It is also the grounds for what is usually called ”Jewish Chutzpah”, broadly meaning ”reckless audacity”. But most troubling is the idea of supremacy in the Jewish law Halacha, where non-Jews are not seen as real humans. Altogether, this makes a racist orientated tribal mentality.
“Jewish” can, to some extent, be a religion (Judaism), to some extent politics (Zionism) and so on, or a mixture of various things, but only to some extent. Primarily and fundamentally, “Jewish” means a mentality or an ideology (Jewishness).
Grounded on “Jewish ideology” Paideia, based in Sweden, now spends 40 million of Swedish taxpayers’ money, to start with, to spread this “culture” to the whole of Europe. This will, of course, create “anti-Semitism”.
US President Barack Obama says he is pushing for “a world without nuclear weapons.” Disingenuously lumping together the nuclear-armed state of North Korea and nuclear-weapon-free Iran, Mr Obama claimed that a “new international norm” was emerging to deal with their “intransigence”. Perversely turning a blind eye towards the West’s double standards and special allowances for close friends, the US head of state asserted, as if it were an accomplished fact, “Treaties are binding. Rules will be enforced. And violations will have consequences.” President Obama did not make clear, though, that the US and its allies exempt close friends from any enforcement of international law and protects them militarily and diplomatically from the consequences that should be due for gross human rights violations.
Iran has been overrun and occupied frequently and its territory has been altered throughout the centuries by Greeks, Arabs, Turks and Mongols. In modern times, the West overthrew the legitimate Mossadeq government and imposed the corrupt regime of the puppet Shah. It was the West, of course, that armed and supported Iraq in its war against Iran. But since the end of the Persian Empire the land of Iran has not invaded its neighbours’ territory for well over 1400 years.
Israel, on the other hand, continues to occupy its neighbours’ land and frequently violates Lebanese air space, from time to time destroying lives, property and infrastructure. The destruction of life, livelihood, property and infrastructure by Israel is an almost daily occurrence in Occupied Palestine. All this, in defiance of international law.
Which Middle East Power, therefore, is the greater threat to global peace and stability? Is it Israel, the only country to have introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and that refuses to respect the borders of its neighbours? Or is it Iran, which, unlike Israel, respects its neighbours’ borders and has signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty? Is it Israel that refuses to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency? Or is it Iran, that does co-operate with the IAEA?
A British student who suffered a near-fatal blow to the head in police clashes during a student demo – is on trial himself for the violence. Alfie Meadows and 50 others ended up in hospital after the fighting during protests over tuition fees. He could be jailed for 5 years if convicted but, as Ivor Bennett explains, his supporters want to see the police face justice over brutality.
by Jay Knott, with input from Francis Clark-Lowes
Tony Greenstein is a campaigner for the unemployed, the homeless, etc.. He’s been involved for decades in helping the poor in England’s progressive capital, Brighton.
He is also involved in more complicated issues like anti-fascism and Palestine solidarity. He follows Lenni Brenner’s discovery that the Nazis co-operated with Zionists in the 1940s, and tries to apply the conclusion to Britain in the 2010′s (Brenner 1983).
The relatively new English Defence League seem to reinforce that analysis. Not only are they “fascists” (they oppose black immigration), but they are Zionists too (they harass Muslims and Palestine Solidarity groups).
The other main far-right group in the UK is the British National Party. It claimed it was the only party in Britain to unconditionally support the Israeli massacre of Gaza in 2008-9 (Shaviv 2009).
The BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, frankly admitted that his party was once anti-Semitic, but said it had changed. If you’re a far-right leader, and want to prove you’re not anti-Semitic, what do you do? Support Israel! Most people aren’t aware of Lenni Brenner’s view, that fascism and Zionism are twins, and tend to think in simplistic terms. For them, anti-Semitism implies opposition to Israel.
So why did Griffin feel the need to prove his party is not anti-Semitic? Because Zionists and anti-fascists had been screaming “Nazis!” at the BNP, and its predecessor, the National Front, for decades. The leader of the Anti-Nazi League once confided to me that it wasn’t strictly true to say these parties were National Socialist, but, as he put it, “the shit stuck to the blanket”. To attract wealthy Jewish support, the anti-fascist left exaggerated their opponents’ anti-Semitism. To grab nationalism back from the fascists, the anti-fascists harked back to World War II. It worked. Posters of the leader of the NF, next to a picture of Goebbels and a pile of bodies, did the trick, leveraging both Jewish fear and British patriotism. The far right had to change its tune.
The pro-Semitic, Islamophobic, English Defense League is, in part, the result. Despite this achievement, and despite its falsehood, lefties still shout “Nazis!” at the far right. They don’t shout “Zionists!”. The implication is that white identity politics is worse than Jewish supremacy.
An important component of anti-fascism is the claim that “appeasement” in the 1930s toward Germany was a mistake. In other words, war was better. Anti-fascists tend to be rather sheepish about this. The successes of the left on the streets against the British Union of Fascists, which was against war with Germany, may have helped prepare the way for Britain’s entry.
Today, we might begin to ask what was so good about the Allies, why the war was “necessary”. This will not harm modern Britain. But undermining the Allied narrative is dangerous for the state of Israel. Why this is so, was indicated, unconsciously, by an anti-fascist, who said that, if you mention the holocaust in the same breath as other crimes of World War II, you ‘eviscerate’ the holocaust’s ‘historical meaning and importance’ (Knott 2012).
Without the holocaust’s ‘historical meaning and importance’, Israel is nothing more than the only remaining apartheid state.
Back to Tony Greenstein. In his blog, he describes a recent meeting to promote his new book on the history of opposition to fascism on the South Coast (Greenstein 2012). The book describes “working-class people” preventing the anti-war BUF from meeting in Brighton in 1936, another battle with the same people in 1948, then the NF in the 1970s and 1980s.
The EDL threatened to picket the meeting. The Quakers said they wouldn’t let him use their hall, because they were worried about “anti-fascist aggression”. Tony says that it’s always fascists who initiate confrontation. This is not true. Much of the fighting between the two sides consists of anti-fascists trying to prevent their opponents holding legal, peaceful, meetings and marches. This is not to imply supporting the things the EDL say at these meetings, or the right to say these things. It doesn’t even imply criticizing violence against them. It just means “anti-fascists tell lies”.
Anyway, Tony’s meeting was held in the Brighthelm Centre. It wasn’t Tony’s first intervention in that building. Four years ago, Gilad Atzmon had an appointment there to give a talk entitled ‘The Primacy of the Ear – The Road from Music to Ethics (An Alternative Take on the Israeli Palestinian Conflict)‘. Tony is an obsessive opponent of Gilad, so he fly-posted the Centre, claiming Gilad is a racist, and calling for a picket of the event. No doubt he also wished to persuade the manager of the Centre to cancel the booking. The organizer, Francis Clark-Lowes, decided to have the meeting at his house instead (Clark-Lowes 2008).
The reader is probably thinking this is all a storm in a teacup. But the story has more wide-ranging implications. Why has Palestine solidarity been so unsuccessful, when the fight against white apartheid was so successful? The oppression of the Palestinians is roughly the same problem – racial supremacy supported by the West – and roughly the same kind of people are opposing it, i.e. leftists. But, whereas there are “Jews Against Zionism”, there never was “Aryans Against Apartheid”. We need a critique of Palestine solidarity as it currently exists. Gilad is a leader in this critique. He’s shaking the movement out of its complacency.
The above is a rather complicated argument, so we have to explain what we’re not saying. We’re not saying that fascism is an acceptable political philosophy. Though we say the BUF was against war, this doesn’t mean we think they were right on any other issue. We disagree with Tony’s claim that the EDL is a new BUF; it is not a serious political movement. We’re just defending the hypothesis that, today, Jewish racism is so important in comparison with white European racism, that concentrating on the latter, or even making them equal (“against all racism”), occludes this vital truth.
- Knott, Jay. (2012, March 13). Zionist Bullying in the West Coast Co-op Movement. http://www.deliberation.info/zionist-bullying-in-the-west-coast-co-op-movement
- Shaviv, Miriam. 2009, October 23. BNP Leader Nick Griffin, friend of Israel? The Jewish Chronicle. http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/bnp-leader-nick-griffin-friend-israel
- Greenstein, Tony. (2012, 18 March). Successful Anti-Fascist Book Despite EDL Threats and Quaker Cowardice. http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/03/successful-anti-fascist-book-despite.html
- Clark-Lowes, Francis. (2008, January 9). Brighton Rocked – Gilad Atzmon event a success. http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2008/01/brighton-rocked-gilad-atzmon-event.html
- Brenner, Lenni. (1983). Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner
Introduction by GA: The support of David Rovics, whom I admire, is very significant to me. I will be sharing a platform with David this Saturday in Bristol’s Art Against the War, yet until a week ago I wasn’t aware at all of David’s attitude towards my thoughts and writings. However, at the peak of the campaign against my book, David wrote to me. Like others he also was asked to join one of those ADLs (Atzmon Defamation Leagues). Seemingly he didn’t.
I believe that David’s support should be realised as a crucial call for us all to unite. The battle against Israel, Zionism and the Lobby must be an open discourse. Freedom of expression and thought are the most precious values at the heart of the battle for truth, justice and peace. Those who believe in One State from the river to the sea should adhere to principles of inclusiveness.
Disavowing Disavowal: In Defense of Gilad Atzmon
I’ve been on a concert tour in Europe, so far mostly in Great Britain, for the past month or so. There’s nothing like being on tour to connect on a personal, face-to-face level with society, or at least the little subsets of society who come to my shows. Being a songwriter who writes songs about the Palestinian struggle, among other subjects, many of my shows around the world are organized by Palestine solidarity activists of one kind or another. Before the tour began I was getting occasional emails from people asking me whether I wanted to add my name to a group denunciation of jazz musician, blogger and author Gilad Atzmon. Denounce him for what, I asked. For being an anti-Semite, they replied. I’d then ask them to send me what he wrote that they found offensive, which they would then do (sometimes accompanied by an introductory essay explaining the distinction between anti-Zionsim and anti-Semitism). I’d then read every word, and each time, I’d fail to find the anti-Semitic bit. Then, ten days into my tour, the US Palestinian Community Network published a “Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon.” Several of the signatories include Palestinian intellectuals and activists I know and admire.
Before and especially after their denunciation of Atzmon was published, several of my gigs in England and Scotland have included people handing out printed copies of the disavowal and telling me and other people in no uncertain terms that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, may be a Mossad agent, and may be (or is, depending on who you ask) a holocaust denier. (“Which holocaust” is not an appropriate question, so don’t even think about asking. Just the question alone is enough to get you accused of being a denier in some quarters.)
Well, all the attention Atzmon was getting prompted me to fork up $9.99 for my first electronic book (and I’m very thankful that something got me to read a book again, as somehow or other it’s been ages). I’m not a scholar, but I am an avid student of history and politics, and I thought Atzmon’s book, The Wandering Who?, was a very thought-provoking read. There weren’t any particularly new ideas in it, but it was a very well-organized, well-articulated, contemporary and at times, humorous 200-page analysis of Jewish identity.
From the outset, Atzmon makes it clear that his criticism of various aspects of Jewish tribal identity(s) for the past couple millenia is not aimed at the many people who happen to be born Jewish, but to what he identifies as “third category” Jews – Jews who identify primarily as Jewish, first and foremost. Growing up in the New York area with my eyes open and being of Jewish lineage myself, it is not hard to see that this third category exists, and in abundance, so it’s also not hard to see why it’s such an interesting subject to write a book about.
A cursory glance at history tells me that narrow tribal identity politics usually suck. Whether it’s people defining themselves in terms of their nation, their region, their ethnicity, their football team, their religion, if people have convinced themselves that they’re better than you, watch out. What Atzmon is doing here is deconstructing (to use a word he probably doesn’t like) Jewish identity politics, specifically. He is not analyzing or denouncing tribalism in general, I assume because you gotta stop somewhere, but maybe he has other reasons, like just wanting to stick to the point, or perhaps a little bit of self-preservation.
Why, then, is Atzmon’s intellectual exercise here getting both the Anti-Defamation League and even various good activists so riled up? Well, for different reasons, depending on who’s feeling riled. In the case of people involved with Palestine solidarity in one form or another, I’d say it is not Atzmon’s non-existent hatred of Jews that is the problem here. It is the fact that, in his position as an accomplished jazz musician and writer, he keeps talking about his views and upsetting people who identify with other narratives of Jewish religion, history and identity than Atzmon’s. Some of these people he’s pissing off include Jews and others who are involved with the movement to boycott Israeli products, etc. Because he’s pissing them off, it doesn’t really matter whether he’s right, he should just shut up and stop rocking the boat, because he’s distracting people from the very worthy cause of Palestinian self-determination.
Now there’s where I can sympathize with Atzmon’s detractors. There is, I’m sure, great strategic value in as united a front as possible. I’m not an organizer – just a musical cheerleader – so I don’t know much first-hand about building a solid movement and that sort of thing, and I’m sure it’s extremely difficult. I’m also sure it’s extremely necessary. But as someone who has been studying history and politics for many decades, I have to say that Atzmon is only saying the things that so many people already know, and I, for one, am not going to pretend otherwise because shunning someone for stating the self-evident is more convenient for the movement in the short-term. If he is to be shunned for being unnecessarily divisive, or for having too dark a sense of humor, or for being overly confrontational or critical, fine, shun away. But if he is to be shunned because he is an anti-Semite, no, that’s just nonsense.
I’m not going to lay out Atzmon’s whole thing here. If you’re curious, read the book – at least read the first two chapters before you decide to join in the shunning. But as a big fan of world history and the similarities and differences between the development of different societies over the millenia, as I was reading his book I kept thinking of other examples of tribal identity politics through the ages. One of the things I love about the US, despite a perennially despicable government committing one holocaust after another – the African holocaust, the Native American holocaust, the Korea holocaust, the Vietnam holocaust, not to mention the German and Japanese holocausts committed by the USAF – and despite all the efforts of racist pricks in power who do their best to maintain all sorts of divisions within American society – in the end, the US is full of hopelessly assimilated mutts like myself. It is, in fact, to no small extent, a melting pot, and although the bigotry that often is one of the factors that leads to assimilation must certainly be condemned, the fact that the country is full of people who, like me, can trace their ancestry to at least a dozen countries, tribes and historic religious affiliations, is a beautiful thing. It leaves many of us, especially those of us living comfortable lives, who are broadly accepted as part of a given society, perplexed by tribalism. For us assimilated types it doesn’t come naturally, and if it is to exist it must be very purposefully ingrained. (Which is why the ADL hates Atzmon – he’s interfering with the ingraining process with his book.)
I kept wondering, as I was reading Atzmon’s book, what would reactions of the general public be like to a similarly critical deconstruction of Catholic religion and tribal identity? I suspect such a book would be taken very differently depending on the locale — depending on whether you live in a place where Catholics are disproportionately living in poverty or faced with discrimination, or have been in such a position in living memory, such as Northern Ireland, as opposed to places like the US or the other 26 counties of Ireland. For example, I have never met anyone living in Belfast who would refer to themselves as a “recovering Catholic.” Despite the efforts of the historically oppressed Catholic community in the northern six counties to distance themselves from the Catholic tribal identity and embrace a more inclusive, Republican identity (Protestants welcome!), the effect of centuries of anti-Catholic discrimination and oppression has left people with a much stronger attachment to their Catholic identity than most Catholics would tend to have in the Republic of Ireland or in the United States, where you will often meet people who, when asked if they grew up in a religious family or some other such question, will define themselves as a “recovering Catholic.”
Most people immediately understand what is meant by “recovering Catholic.” The emphasis may vary depending on the person and what their experiences were like, but most likely anyone “recovering” from being a Catholic is trying to recover from growing up in an atmosphere where they were led to believe that sex is bad, everyone else who doesn’t believe the way we do is going to hell and should therefore be converted to my religion, abortion is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, etc. Yet if someone were to describe themselves as a “recovering Jew,” in many cases the room would become uncomfortably quiet, I imagine, as people gradually walk away from the offending party, lest they be accused of anti-Semitism by standing too close. Except in Brooklyn or Tel Aviv, where being Jewish is quite normal and unexotic, and where most people would understand immediately (whether or not they like it) that this person is recovering from growing up in an environment where everyone who wasn’t Jewish was a goy and was not to be trusted and was a closet anti-Semite, where you shouldn’t marry a goy, where you’re always either too Jewish or not Jewish enough, where you’re a failure for not being a doctor or a lawyer, where you’re part of a Chosen group of people and you’re better than others, but don’t say that in public or they’ll say you poisoned the wells, etc.
Sticking with the Catholic example here, though, reading the “debate” (if you can call attack and counter-attack a debate) between Atzmon’s detractors and supporters (some of whom appear to be lunatics), I was thinking about what a friend in West Belfast was telling me about some things that happened back in the day, during the Troubles. The IRA was, like so many movements, full of inevitable contradictions. So much of the Republican movement had a distinctly socialist orientation, and elements of the Republican movement were very critical of the Catholic church presently and historically, including even critical of the church’s stance on abortion and many other still-sensitive issues among many people of Catholic origin there and around the world. But much of the IRA’s funding came from Irish-American supporters in the US, who were often otherwise fairly conservative politically and socially as well. So the IRA’s socialist message and anyone associated with the Republican movement who was speaking out in support of legalizing abortion was seen as an obstacle to the Republican movement, even if many people quietly agreed with the dissenters.
Many people have made relevant comparisons between the global movement in support of Palestinian self-determination and the global movement in support of Irish Republicanism. There are many more relevant comparisons to be made, and I’d venture to say that this is another of them. In both cases, with the various dissenters within the anti-Zionist movement and the Irish Republican movement, I really do sympathize with both the dissenters and the “united front.” I understand that strategic unity is vital for any successful movement. But I also understand that honest debate, freedom of expression, and critical analysis of everything – very much including Jewish identity politics – is also vitally important. I hope that a unity of purpose can be maintained even with such substantive differences in our various understandings of reality and history. Moreover, I hope that Atzmon’s honest efforts to disentangle the whole question of Jewishness will lead other people from other tribal backgrounds to do more of the same. And I hope that more people will read his book before they feel the need to call him an anti-Semite.
After the cold-blooded murder of the 17 Afghan villagers in Kandahar Province the US military and the ever-complicit Obama regime constructed an elaborate cover-up, exposing the Administration up to charges of conspiracy to suppress the essential facts, falsify data and obstruct justice : All are grounds for criminal prosecution and impeachment.
This massacre is just one of several hundred committed by US armed forces according to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. It could ruin the Obama presidency, by putting him on trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice and arguably send him to jail for war crimes.
Obama’s deliberate lies about the events surrounding the massacre and the fundamental responsibility of the high military command for the crimes committed by its troops underscores the breakdown of the occupation of Afghanistan, the very centerpiece of Obama’s war policy. The President of the United States has personally played a major role in the cover-up. From a political vantage point, the executive conspiracy charge has wider and deeper implications than the massacre itself, as horrible as it is.
The Massacre, the ‘Official’ Story (1st version) and the Cover-Up
According to the US military command in Afghanistan and the Obama regime, at 3am on March 11, 2012 a deranged soldier walked off a Special Forces Base in rural Kandahar Province and without command authority entered two villages (two miles apart), shot and killed 17 unarmed civilians, mostly women and children and wounded an unspecified number of villagers; then he doused their bodies with gasoline, set them on fire and hiked back to base to surrender himself to his commanders. This ‘surrender’, the Pentagon claims, was recorded on video and no less than the President of the United States , Barack Obama, vouched for its authenticity as conclusive proof for the story of a lone, unbalanced mass murderer. The military command quickly whisked the initially unnamed murderer out of the Afghanistan to the maximum security federal prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and only then identified the madman as a 38-year old, multi-decorated, 11-year army veteran, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales. The US has rejected all attempts by the Afghan President, the Afghan Army Chief and members of the Afghan Parliament to interview Sgt Bales, gather testimony and bring the suspect to trial in Afghanistan .
According to an independent Afghan parliamentary investigation led by Sayed Ishaq Gillami, and initial investigations by General Sher Mohammed Karimi of the Afghan Army, who interviewed residents of the two villages, there are significant contradictions in the US military’s and President Obama’s “official story”. Eye witnesses have testified that up to 20 soldiers were involved, aided by a helicopter. What they described was typical of a US Special Forces’ night time raid, which involved the systematic breaking down of doors, rousing the sleeping families and shooting Afghan victims.
Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today, finds the villagers’ version of events quite plausible for the following reasons: The villages, where the murders occurred, were two miles apart, making it highly unlikely that a lone, fully armed solder could haul a multi-gallon jerry can of gasoline from his base to the first sleeping village, break down the doors of one or more homes, commit the murders, douse and burn his victims and then proceed on foot two miles further on to the second village, shoot, kill and burn the next set of unarmed villagers and then walk back to his base and surrender.
It makes far more sense that a heavily armed group of Special Forces troops, engaged in village ‘pacification’ operations, left their base in military vehicles, passed through the gate in the wee hours of the morning, on a routine official operation, authorized by the bases military command and something went wrong. What was supposed to have been a typical midnight assault on a “pacified” village in search of Taliban supporters, turned into the mass murder of children and their mothers in bed with virtually no adult males (husbands, fathers, uncles or brothers) present to protect them. Typically, all Afghan farmers keep weapons in their homes, but these villages had been disarmed by the Special Forces and the adult men had either been detained in earlier sweeps or were in hiding from just such brutal operations in the expectation that their wives and children would not be attacked.
Whatever triggered the mass murder of mothers and children in their nightclothes in those villages in Kandahar , one thing is clear: the President of the United States conspired with the US military command to obstruct justice in the cover-up of a heinous war crime, a felony punishable with impeachment.
When the implausibility first ‘official’ story became embarrassingly evident to the most superficial observer, the Obama ‘cover-up’ crew released a new version on March 26: According to the revised version of events, the lone, deranged Sgt. Bales committed the first massacre in the early morning hours of March 11, walked back to base for breakfast and lunch and then walked out again to a second village for another round of mass murder – before returning and turning himself in to his commander posing for the video.
Why the Obama Cover-Up: Military Demoralization and the Iran War
Why would President Obama engage in such a clumsy cover-up further eroding US relations with the Afghan President Karzai, the Afghan military and especially the Afghan people? Why would he risk charges of conspiracy to protect war criminals by insisting on an easily refutable cover-up?
The story of the alleged assassin, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, provides some leads about the larger crisis facing the imperial military. Bales is a ‘decorated’ soldier rewarded for his three tours of combat duty in Iraq and his more recent Afghan assignment where he would have participated in similar types of Special Pacification Operations among civilians in the countryside in Afghanistan. In the days after news of the massacre leaked out, a furious Afghan President Karzai claimed that “hundreds” of similar massacres had been perpetrated by US and NATO forces and had gone unreported in the Western media and unpunished. Karzai has repeatedly called for an end to US Special Forces’ night raids on sleeping villages. But, until now, there had been no need for a US Presidential cover-up up. With the approaching US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the growing expressions of militant Afghan nationalism, the Obama regime must hide the true nature of the occupation. Washington ’s Afghan clients can no longer ignore US war crimes against innocent children and women and other non-combatants. This is especially true in the so-called ‘pacified’ villages where the adult Afghani men have already been arrested in sweeps or driven into hiding and with the few remaining, disarmed and ‘under the control’ of the US Special Forces.
Considering even the US official story, why would the Special Forces commanders in charge of the Sgt. Bales base ignore the loud bursts of gunfire and screams of women and children in a village within 100 meters of its perimeter at 3 am? According to their official version, the base command only became aware of the massacres when Sgt. Bales walked back to base, raised his hands high for a video-op and confessed to killing and desecrating the bodies of 17, mostly children and women.
Obama has tried to sell the ‘confession’ video as proof of the ‘official version’ of events to a skeptical Afghan President Karzai who contemptuously demanded the ‘alleged’ video be turned over for a detailed examination for authenticity. Obama’s refusal to release the video tends to confirm his role in the cover-up.
Obama’s contention that a ‘lone unbalanced gunman’ committed the crime is completely self-serving and exposes serious and deep structural problems with the war in Afghanistan . US combat troops in Afghanistan are demoralized and angry because their military commanders have marched them into a cul de sac – a dead end. They are engaged in a long, losing war where every dead US soldier is accompanied by scores who are maimed, blinded and mentally traumatized. In Obama’s war, the wounded are patched up and recycled back into the same meat grinder in an increasingly hostile environment, where rape, torture, maiming and murder become their only ‘recreation’. Sgt. Bales was coerced into multiple tours of duty in Iraq and then shipped off to Afghanistan , contrary to his expectations of a promotion and an end to overseas combat assignments.
There is a huge gap between the world of the political warlords in Washington and their accomplices among the warmongering ‘lobbies’ and that of the soldiers who risk their lives in imperial wars of occupation. These dispensable soldiers are repeatedly deployed to brutal colonial wars thousands of miles from their homes to confront an ‘enemy’ they cannot possibly understand. They end up brutalizing the families, friends, neighbors and compatriots of the elusive Afghan anti-colonial fighters – who are everywhere. Back in the Washington none of the political war-mongers ever experience the pain and suffering of a prolonged war, which for any soldier on the battlefield, is ever present, everywhere. Soldiers, like Sgt. Bales, operate in a very hostile environment where, a roadside bomb or a grenade thrown from a motorcycle, or even a ‘trusted’ Afghan ally, who might turn his gun on his US ‘mentors,’ are omnipresent threats to their ever returning home in one piece.
Obama has to conspire with the Pentagon in covering up this mass murder, defending the officers in charge of these ‘pacified’ villages, because there are no alternatives, no back-ups, no new recruits eager to engage in the 12th year of war in Afghanistan . There are only the re-cycled killers, willing to pursue their career in ‘Special Forces’ involving ‘kill and destroy’ operations. Furthermore, Obama cannot rely on the international allies who are rushing to withdraw their own troops from this quagmire. And Obama has a problem with his allied Afghan warlords and kleptocrats, who managed to run off with over $4.5 billion dollars in 2011 (half of the entire state budget) (Financial Times, 3/19/12, p. 1). President Obama cannot allow an entire garrison, including their commanding officer to be put on trial for the war crimes in this massacre. Holding anyone, besides the hapless Sgt. Bales, accountable for the massacre would incite a general rebellion within the armed forces, or, at a minimum, further demoralize the elite Special Forces who are expected to man these long-term engagements after the regulars withdraw, which in the case of Afghanistan could last until 2024.
This issue has implications far beyond Afghanistan : Obama has developed his entire new counter-insurgency strategy centered on the easy entry and bloody exits of US Special Forces targeting over seventy-five countries. The Special Forces figure prominently in Obama’s military preparations for Syria and Iran , which have been developed at the behest of his Zionist overlords.
In the final analysis, the entire imperial military apparatus of the Obama regime, while formidable on paper, depends on the ‘Special Operations’ formations. As such, they are the centerpiece of the new imperial warfare, developed as a response to the demands for reduced ground forces, budgetary constraints and growing domestic discontent. Their ‘actions’ are designed to leave no witnesses and no embarrassments. They may be the butchers of children, women and unarmed civilians but they are the White House’s butchers.
Despite all their crimes and cover-ups, the Obama regime’s priority is to defend the empire with whatever personnel is available at his disposal. So while Sgt. Bales is in Leavenworth , the Afghan elite cry in justice , the families in Kandahar mourn their dead and the Taliban plan their revenge.
On the domestic front, Obama faces strong popular opposition to the costly unending wars, which have destroyed the US economy, and growing anger and demoralization in the armed forces. As a result of the massive popular discontent among the American people with politicians of both parties who have recklessly sent troops into anachronistic colonial wars, which serve the interest of foreign powers, the President has issued an executive decree, allowing him to assume dictatorial powers in order to militarize the entire economy, its resources and its work force. On March 16, 2012 Barak Obama issued an Executive Order-National Defense Resource Preparedness in order to sustain the global empire.
Clearly prolonged colonial wars cannot be sustained through the consent of the citizens and such wars cannot be prosecuted according to military manuals and the Geneva Conventions. At this point, only Presidential ‘rule by decree’ can secure compliance of the citizens at home and only massacres and cover-ups can sustain the colonial occupations abroad. But these are desperate and temporary: When the extreme measures have run their course there will be nothing to fall back on and nothing can save the president of a collapsing empire from the revolt of its citizens and soldiers.
In this video of the 15th March 2012, Eugene Puyear interviews Gilad Atzmon from his recent American Grass roots tour. He covers all the usual suspects, AIPAC, LFI, CFI & Jewish Lobbying in general. As usual he makes some controversial claims.
He makes the point that AIPAC is the single greatest threat to America’s stability and to Jews worldwide. Which is interesting in itself, because it shows he cares about Jews rather than hates them as his critics often claim.
Why does he say this, simply because a war with Iran could easily become a nuclear war which would be very bad for everyone. Apart from the loss of life and chaos it might cause, significantly he mentions that this could lead to a new rise in anti-semitism, because it is AIPAC & the Jewish Lobbies that are pushing for this war.
Reading mainstream media, it is hard not to marvel at the fact that over 70 years after WW II merged seamlessly into WW III, most media doesn’t provide relevant analysis of the main threats to democracy, free speech, or world peace. How little we learned from WW II, and how sad that, if we persist in our refusal to learn, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes. As pointed out by Gilad Atzmon, the same forces that bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea and Vietnam are now bombing Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. This is why I say that WW II merged seamlessly into WW III. The USA is currently considered the only official “super power” in the world. Since the late 1890s, however, the Zionist movement has operated to establish itself on the world arena, through the mechanism of initially courting, later threatening, politicians of empires (or “super-powers”) and other strong nations, to pursue Zionist goals.
In that context, the question arises of how powerful the United States really is, and whether it is even a sovereign nation. Although the USA is a nominal democracy, its politics are not the outcome of a mandate given its government by US voters. Instead, a strong conglomerate of unrepresentative power is governing the USA, operating behind closed doors, out of sight of the voters that put the government in power to ostensibly represent the public. Therefore, it is about time we have some relevant analysis of US policies; US affiliations; and whom US politicians represent. This takes us to the topic of Israel, which is purportedly the United States’ closest “ally,” and also the main force behind the current push for attacking yet another country in the “Middle East” – Iran.
I am proposing that we demand answers to some pressing questions (see below) that mainstream, and even most “alternative,” media veer away from. I am looking for ways in which I and other regular people in the US can work towards convincing the US government to cease further escalation of the world conflict we are in. I have concluded that we can all contribute by insisting on answers to questions that we frame based on our own perceptions, rather than based on sound-bites rammed down our throats with flag poles, at the top of which fly US and Israeli flags in mindless concert.
The supposed “alliance” between the USA and Israel has me asking in naked wonder: Are there examples of Israeli conduct that indicates that it respects that USA? Has Israel ever conducted policies that could potentially have led to peaceful coexistence with its neighbors in general, and Palestine in particular? Does Israeli national ideology make peaceful co-existence possible?
As for the USA, I believe that the sooner people realize that the USA has more in common with Palestine than with Israel, the sooner we could all be on a path to peaceful coexistence. As Gilad Atzmon and others have pointed out, “we are all Palestinians.” In the USA, it is more a question of occupied minds than of occupied territory, but the USA is on a slippery slope there. Could it be that one reason the USA has such trouble recovering from its long struggle with yellow fever and subservience to Israel/Zionism is the shame of dealing with the fact that, unlike Palestine, the USA is under occupation as a result of its failure to resist? Is it too painful to face the fact that perhaps the land of the free and the home of the brave is neither? For while we can blame Zionism for trying to corrupt the USA, there is only the USA to blame for the success of the mission.
With mainstream media as a weapon of mass deception, and the integrity of mainstream journalism at vanishing point, it is hardly surprising that media reports we receive on the state of the world are mendacious enough to threaten to sway the US public into supporting another illegal war, this time on Iran. All is not lost, however, for there is the heart warming trend that more and more people, not least the young, are starting to see that something simply does not add up in the “information” we receive from our media. Also phenomenally encouraging is the spiritual awakening of cross-national solidarity movements throughout the world. Therefore, things can and will change, not only in the USA.
By popular demand of The People – person by person, country by country, we need to peacefully dismantle oppression, and institute democracy. I suggest we all start by speaking up. To that end, I direct the following 44 questions to press and other media; government representatives; community groups, and so on:
- Does Iran have nuclear weapons?
- Does Israel have nuclear weapons?
- What does Israel intend to use its nuclear weapons for (here, I am assuming it is not going to nuke its own back yard)?
- What foreign nation/s does Iran threaten?
- What foreign nation/s does Israel threaten?
- Has Iran ever attacked, or threatened to attack, the USA?
- Has Israel ever attacked the USA with military force?
- What happened to the USS Liberty?
- What is Israel’s relation to India, which is also a nuclear power, within which strong forces have an interest in joining its Hindutva movement to the Zionist goal of war on Islam and the Arab world?
- Why has Zionism been so successful in exploiting Jewish fears for purposes other than achieving safety for those whom it purports to represent, when Jews who are true to Judaism, such as the Torah Jews, offer a message of love, respect, coexistence, and dignity for all? (The Rabbinical Torah Jews consider the occupation of Palestine contrary to the will of The Almighty, while the official position of the state of Israel has always been to ignore Rabbinical interpretations of the Bible, and instead interpret passages about killing and looting as carte blanche to ravage the land for the sole benefit of “the Jews.”)
- Judaism is a religion, right?
- Why do so many people who identify as Jewish still believe that Zionism represents them, and helps them achieve security (or that Zionist ideology has the potential of securing peace)?
- Is Zionism anybody’s friend? Or does Zionism constitute the most all-encompassing form of anti-Semitism, in that it is in fact double-barreled anti-Semitism, for the following reasons: 1/ It seeks to eliminate an entire Semitic population, the Palestinians. 2/ Even assuming one accepts the semantic ploy that refers to Jews as Semites (which most Jews are not,) aren’t Zionist politics the biggest danger to the safety of Jews anywhere? In other words, is it not imperative to stop Zionism in its tracks, for the purpose of everybody’s chance of freedom?
- Is there an ideological difference between Aryan National Socialism and Jewistic National Socialism? By “Jewistic” I mean ideologies that base political entitlement on Jewish identity.
- Why is it that, when talking about the 20th century – which was riddled with holocausts – we refer to the German holocaust as The Holocaust?
- When we analyze the Crusades, the Roman, Ottoman, British, German, US Empires, or any other forces that have committed wide-scale atrocities, we are permitted, in fact expected, to look into the cultures that fostered them. Yet, when analyzing Israeli/Zionist atrocities, we are expected to self-censor, if and when we have any impulse to look into the Jewishness that Israel/Zionism purports to protect. Even when, in the words of the eloquent Gilad Atzmon, the tanks and planes that commit the war crimes are decorated with Jewish symbols. Why?
- Has any Israeli government wanted Peace (as opposed to a bigger Piece)?
- Do a majority of Israeli voters want peace? If so, what type of peace would they have in mind (here, we should remember that only about 6% of the Jewish population in Israel did not support “Operation Cast Lead”)?
- What borders, if any, does Israel/Zionism have in mind for “the Jewish state”?
- What position does Israel/Zionism feel it would be appropriate to settle for (no pun intended) outside any formal borders of Israel?
- Is it possible for Israel/Zionism to feel “secure” in a world where other countries have equal power and rights? Stated differently, is Zionism compatible with peaceful coexistence between equals?
- If a nation occupies another nation, should the occupied people have voting rights in the occupying country?
- What does democracy mean? (Here, one should discuss a span that starts with, on the one hand: A lynch mob, which is certainly a democracy in the sense of numbers. On the other hand: A nation in which the people who are governed have power to form the system that governs them. In other words, a show of casting a “vote” for one of few candidates, none of who represent the interests of the voter, would not qualify as a democracy. This is especially true in the USA, in which candidates are effectively permitted by the Supreme Court (although this could be challenged on constitutional grounds) to sell their mandate to a higher bidder (be it a “corporate person” or a foreign nation.) Moreover, the “two party system” is an insult to any serious proponent of choice. Not least because the “two parties” are inching so close to each other that, for all practical purposes, they constitute nuances of a one-party system, leaving voters the “choice” of checking “yes” or “no” to very narrowly framed questions. A further blatant humiliation to US voters is the “choice” of pledging allegiance to Israel either for “Democratic” or “Republican” reasons. The only current exception is Republican candidate Ron Paul, whom the press is largely ignoring.
- Is it possible to have a “Jewish democracy”?
- Is it possible to have a “White democracy”?
- Does the US government want Peace?
- For every Jewistic Zionist in the USA, how many Christianic Zionists are there? By “Christianic” I mean ideologies that base political entitlement on Christian identity.
- Do Christianic Zionists want Peace? If so, do they wish to achieve it with or without stepping up WW III first? Stated differently, do they think it is necessary to “redeem Israel” for “the Jews” as a prerequisite to the second coming of The Lord?
- Do a majority of US voters want peace?
- Do a majority of World voters want peace?
- What are the fastest growing industries in the USA?
- What corporations and other entities have the largest stakes in the for profit prison industry of the USA? Here, I refer to detention centers on US territory, as well as throughout the world.
- What corporations and other entities have the largest stakes in the for profit “security” industry in the USA? I am referring here to extensive background and credit history checks for the purpose of conducting the simplest transactions; fingerprinting to be allowed entry into amusement parks or renting cars, etc.; cameras covering most public spaces and places of business, and so on.
- What is the “Department of Homeland Security” in the USA fashioned upon?
- Does International Law – from which nation states derive their legitimacy – permit one country to send its drones or live agents into another country to murder people?
- Is the term “targeted killing” meant to imply that murder is legitimate if it is intentional and directed at a specific person?
- Why has the word “sayanim” been deleted from Wikipedia? And why does my spell-check indicate that the word doesn’t exist?
- Why does mainstream media refer to incitement to genocide as “lobbying,” when done by Israel and its networks? (Here I am assuming that “lobbying” does not refer to collective national lobotomy.) The Genocide Convention of 1951 defines “genocide” as “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The Convention also declares that there shall be no immunity. Persons committing this crime shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. It is a sad irony that the USA and Israel are both parties to the Genocide Convention…
- Is incitement to genocide an expression of free speech? In the same vein, does the “freedom of movement” include the right to move a bullet or a kitchen knife into another person?
- Why the separate standard for Israel and its networks, when others are criminalized for “Holocaust Denial” if they delve into analysis of the German holocaust?
- Assuming, as I do, that nobody wants to see a repeat of how the Weimar republic ended, is it not in everybody’s interest to look very closely at all the causes and dynamics that led to the German holocaust? We need people like Gilad Atzmon, and we need him now. Lest history repeat itself. Again.
- Why do we repeatedly hear that the US and its “ally,” Israel, are both afraid that diplomacy with Iran won’t work, when it couldn’t be clearer to a random passer-by that the real Terror lies in the knowledge (as opposed to the mere fear) that diplomacy with Iran – who has never attacked another country – has worked and will continue to work. In fact, Iran’s self-restraint towards foreign nations (unfortunately not towards its own people) is quite remarkable.
- What Terror Group or Nation is the strongest, most long term, and most immediate threat to the USA, as well as to democracy and free speech anywhere?
- Is it time to divorce Israel?
If more proof was needed (some of us think it isn’t) that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu lives in a fantasy world that exists only in his own deluded mind, his latest verbal assault on the UN Human Rights Council for its decision to appoint and despatch an independent international fact-finding mission “to investigate the implications of the (illegal) Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” is it.
The Council, Netanyahu said in his fury, has “an automatic majority against Israel”, is “hypocritical” and “out of touch with reality”. He added that “It should be ashamed of itself.”
There is, in fact, some substance to the charge that the UN Human Rights Council is hypocritical. There are many abuses of human rights in many countries which it does not investigate because the African, Asian and Latin American majority on the 47-member Council say “No”. So there is most certainly a case for saying that this particular UN body is hypocritical, even out of touch with some realities and, in that context, appears to be obsessed with Israel-Palestine.
But does that mean the decision of the UN Human Rights Council to set up an independent investigation of the implications of Israel’s on-going colonization of the West Bank including East Jerusalem should be treated with contempt and not taken seriously?
Netanyahu claims that it does.
In my opinion that Netanyahu claim deserves the judgement delivered about a different matter in a recent article by economist Paul Krugman for the New York Times. He was commenting on the claim by the Republican leadership in general and frontrunner Mitt Romney in particular that the high and rising price of gasoline in America is “thanks to an Obama administration plot.” Krugman wrote:
This claim isn’t just nuts; it’s a sort of craziness triple play – a lie wrapped in an absurdity swaddled in paranoia.”
Netanyahu’s purpose was, of course, to encourage other powers led by America to use their influence to kill the UN Human Rights Council’s initiative before it takes on real life. And the early signs are in his favour. The U.S. ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Betty King, said the Council’s decision “harmed efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.”
That has to be a joke given that there is no prospect of re-starting real and serious negotiations as long as Israel continues to consolidate its occupation of the West Bank, and as long as Netanyahu’s position is, in effect, that negotiations must end with the Palestinians surrendering on Israel’s terms.
I think it’s reasonable to imagine that when Ambassador King made her statement, she was aware that the Obama administration would be required by the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress to bully and intimidate the Human Rights Council into aborting its investigation.
While Netanyahu waits to see if the Obama administration will do his dirty work on this occasion, his government has cut all contact with the UN Human Rights Council and announced that it will prevent the Council’s team of independent investigators entering Israel or the occupied West Bank from Jordan.
Whichever way you look at it, the signs are that this particular mission of the UN Human Rights Council will be more than D.O.A. (Dead On Arrival). It will most likely be D.B.A (Dead Before Arrival)
In that event one of the questions in my mind will be this.
Will any mainstream Western media institution have the balls to offend Zionism by giving space or airtime to voices expressing outrage at Israel’s continuing immunity from what honest investigation would describe as crimes against humanity?
Contrary to what Netanyahu seems to think, the Palestinians are human and do have rights. And they, not Jews, are the victims in the true story of the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. (As I have written previously, Israeli and many other Jews need to feel they are the victims because victimhood is, it seems, what gives them meaning).
As for the answer to my headline question… Nobody is more out of touch with reality on the ground in the occupied West Bank than Netanyahu.
Of the 47 rotating member states of the UN Human Rights Commission, 36 voted in favour of the decision to investigate Israel’s illegal settlement activities, and 10 including the Czech Republic Romania, Hungary, Poland, Costa Rica, Italy and Spain abstained. The United States was the only country to vote against it.
Thirty-six states voted in favor of the decision, while ten states abstained, including the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Costa Rica, Italy and Spain. The United States was the only country to vote against it.
Israeli-born Gilad Atzmon, one of Europe’s finest jazz musicians, was in Washington, DC in mid-March for the first time at the end of a multi-city North American grassroots tour to discuss his recently published and highly controversial book, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics.
As Atzmon was speaking on the East Coast at the end of his tour, Israel ended several months of calm in Gaza by assassinating Zuhair al-Qaisi, head of the Popular Resistance Committee, on March 9. The Israeli assassination provoked rocket attacks from Gaza militants. Subsequent Israeli air strikes on Gaza killed 27 Palestinians, including two children, and destroyed 32 homes, a school, a playground and an office of the Red Crescent. Two days after a March 12 truce was declared Israeli missiles struck again….
Regrettably, instead of uniting to criticize Israel for launching its lethal attacks on Gaza, 23 respected Palestinian writers and activists used their talents and energy to gather signatures on a statement calling for “The Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon,” published on March 13.
Atzmon wrote a response the following day—the very day the Washington Report sponsored a hard-hitting interview with Atzmon by Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, Connecticut State University Professor of History Emeritus, in Washington, DC. Many activists told friends on our staff they were afraid to come to the discussion after reading the anti-Atzmon statement by the Palestinian activists.
We hope you’ll watch the video of Atzmon addressing the charges frequently levied against him in his March 14 interview with Prof. Mezvinsky. Decide for yourself—should Atzmon continue his frank discussion of Jewish identity, or should his voice be silenced?
Large numbers of activists have already made up their minds, and have written letters and articles in support of Atzmon. In fact, people who had never heard of him have now flocked to Atzmon’s Web site, www.gilad.co.uk, to discover for themselves what he has to say.
The video of the entire event is now posted, in four segments, on the Washington Report’s Web site www.wrmea.com.
Video streaming by UstreamWe spoke about The Wandering Who, Dershowitz, AZZ, the Lobby, Abunimah & Co., Iran, Ethics.. very very interesting…
I first heard about this story some years ago, but little evidence existed at that time. Essentially that America had created a load of fake gold bars and sold them onto the world market. Well to be clear, they were gold plated with Tungsten in the middle. The reason being is that Tungsten has a density of 19.25 g·cm3 whereas Gold has a density of 19.3 g.cm3. So Tungsten is the perfect substitute for Gold.
Working on the assumption that the global Gold market has become largely tainted with fake bullion, it also neatly explains why the Rothschilds exited the Gold market in a hurry some years ago.
LONDON, April 14, 2004 (Reuters) – NM Rothschild & Sons Ltd., the London-based unit of investment bank Rothschild [ROT.UL], will withdraw from trading commodities, including gold, in London as it reviews its operations, it said on Wednesday.”
Perhaps also this is also why Gordon Brown sold off most of Britain’s Gold Reserves to the Chinese, because between 1999 and 2002 Gordon Brown sold 60% of the UK’s gold reserves. Various explanations have been offered as to why he may have done this.
- He knew most of them were fake
- He was driving the price of Gold down to stop a UK bank default.
- To keep the Rothschilds solvent
Whatever the real motivations behind the sell off, it all points to how fragile and corrupt our economic system is. Whilst we the people rely on paper-based FIAT-currencies, people with money have been buying Gold or Silver but now Gold has been shown to be largely fake. Various economists have been talking about the return to the Gold standard when paper based currencies were directly related to actual wealth, in this case Gold. But that won’t ever work with much of the Gold in circulation being fake.
Also the Germans have recently got a whiff of this story and are busy reviewing where their gold is and whether it is really Gold. Imagine what would happen if Germany was find that most of its gold was fake.
The German Federal Audit Office has criticised the Bundesbank’s lax auditing and inventory controls regarding Germany’s sizeable gold reserves – 3,396.3 tonnes of gold or some 73.7% of Germany’s national foreign exchange reserves. - Source
What is new about this story is that yesterday a gold bullion bar was purchased from a scrap dealer in the UK but the buyer was suspicious when the weight was slightly off. So the customer decided to cut the bar in two. In doing so he revealed that the bar had been drilled out and filled with Tungsten. The problems will really come if our Banks are holding phony gold, then the whole house of cards could come tumbling down. Perhaps that would be a good thing, we can not carry on with this charade much longer. And what to replace it with? Peer-to Peer virtual encrypted currencies and an end to the Central Bankster’s oppression. Hoorah!
thanks to Silver Doctors
Solar, one of our commentators asks me to name one living anti-Semite. I’m happy enough to do this but before I do, I ask him what he means by the term.
Solar is reluctant to commit himself so, to help him along, I say what the term means to me.
For me, there seems two possible meanings. The first is someone who opposes all Jews simply because they’re Jews. The second is someone who opposes ‘Semitism’ – some kind of Jewish ideology, mindset or spirit.
The first is of course absurd. In all my life I’ve never come across anyone who opposed Jews just because they were Jews. Oh, I’m always running into people (more and more these days) who don’t seem to like Jews very much, but that’s always because of the way Jews think and behave, – more recently the way Jews behave towards Palestinians and the way other Jews behave to defend the way Jews behave towards Palestinians.
Anyway, the notion is implicitly absurd. I don’t like cauliflower, but not just because it’s cauliflower, but because it’s white, looks funny and smells of sick.
Trouble is, the situation becomes so much more complicated with the possibility that a Jew is a Jew only because he/she thinks and behaves like a Jew (I suppose a cauliflower is also only a cauliflower because it’s white, looks funny and smells of sick).
Still, any way you look at it, people don’t much like the way Jews think and behave and my feeling is they’re not going to put up with it forever.
So what to do?
Well, one way is that Jews simply stop being Jews – just as Jesus, St Paul, Karl Marx, Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon have done. It is a solution but, for me, not a satisfactory one. A few years ago I went to observe Jewish Book Week in London. During one of the sessions, someone from the audience asked the distinguished panel whether they agreed that if our Royal Family were Jewish they would be slightly more amusing. The panel thought they would and so did I. It would be a pity if there were no Jews and for me, it would be a tragedy.
No, there’s a better solution. Jews should be Jews but they should try and contain themselves a bit more. Sure, there’ll be peaks and troughs in their behaviour just as there always has been, but perhaps the peaks could be a little less peakier and the troughs a little less troughier.
Because if they don’t, it’ll take me a lifetime to meet Solar’s challenge and name all the living anti-Semites and the day will surely come when you’ll all be singing, ”We’re all anti-Semites now!”
‘Western civilization? I think it would be a good idea.’ Mahatma Gandhi
The US army staff sergeant Robert Bales, who shot dead Afghani civilians on their home two weeks ago, has now been formally charged with 17 counts of murder. Aside from the heartbreaking tragedy of this incident, it’s clear that, in the West, the prototype of the ‘lone wolf solder’ has some advantageous side effects. He plants a false discrepancy between murder that is permissible, and murder that is a violation of our collective moral code.
We in the West slaughter innocent men, women and children en masse – but we prefer to do it remotely, ‘humanely’, from a palatable distance. We kill without looking into the faces of our victims. We kill with regret, not pride. We do not own our actions. Yet this gap between authorised violence and renegade barbarism is imaginary. From the victim’s perspective there cannot be a significant difference between being executed by a robotic drone or blown up by one American solder. It is estimated that at least 40,000 civilians have so far been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. Add to that the 36,000 members of the Taliban, the 14,000 Northern Alliance and the 10,000 members of the Afghan Security Forces, and the figure is shockingly high. As painful as it may be to admit, Robert Bale’s murder of 17 Muslim peasants was totally consistent with the very ideology that planted him on Afghani soil in the first place. The decorated American father of three was not transgressing the ideology that his uniform represents. He was merely seeing it through. For us to imagine otherwise is a subtle form of self-congratulation, implying that we live in an ethical culture temporarily punctured by the arbitrary whims of a mad man. This is not the case.
Meanwhile, the case of the Algerian French ‘lone wolf’ of Toulouse, who gunned down seven civilians in France last week, highlights the embarrassing disparity between the way in which the actions of individuals are interpreted as being indicative of the collective from which they hail. When a Muslim commits an atrocity, his actions are understood to represent the values maintained in his culture. American Robert Bales is an isolated maniac with anger management issues, but Mohamed Merah is acting on behalf of ‘a group’. We may not know who the group is (so far alleged links include al-Qaeda, ‘The Knights of Pride,’ Syrian extremists and Salafism in general), but it’s definitely ‘a group’. It’s inconceivable that it could just be him.
Regardless of what the truth of the matter may be, it’s clear that when it comes to appropriating the Enlightenment notion of ‘the sovereign individual’, we are conspicuously selective. We do it only when it suits us. This applies to the victims in France as well as the perpetrator. The death of the first two (Muslim) men shot dead on 11 and 15 March did not qualify as headline news in the global media until they became an appendix to the harrowing murder of a Rabbi and his sons.
Hence the very concept of ‘war crimes’ appears to be a western luxury. The My Lai Massacre committed by troops in Vietnam, the Haditha massacre of Iraq, the killings in Sabra and Shatila, the bombing of United Nations shelters in Gaza, were all understood as aberrations. In order to reconcile ourselves with this endlessly unfolding catalogue of carnage and abuse, we enjoy the prototype of the young, vulnerable, undereducated soldier who just got slightly over excited by the chauvinist revenge rhetoric inherent in their training. Lynndie England, of ‘Human Pyramid’ fame, for example, is often described as a ‘poor, brain-washed, trailer-park dimwit’ rather than an ordinary American patriot enjoying her moment of Schadenfreude.
Perhaps its time that we ponder on the clue loaded in the often-used phrase describing this phenomenon: ‘the lone wolf’. In the animal kingdom and in war, the lone wolf’s singularity is shaped by his essentialist nature as a pack animal. It is because of the pack, not in spite of the pack, that he strikes out alone.
Sarah Gillespie is a singer-songwriter living in London. www.sarahgillespie.com
This week a friend said to me, “Their blood is so precious”. Of course she meant the biggest news story of the week, the shooting of the Jewish children and a Rabbi in France. Whilst I absolutely condemn the murder of innocent civilians and especially children, I and my fellow Muslims would like to know why the continuous murder of children in Palestine, Afghanistan Pakistan or Yemen goes on with hardly a mention in the international media? It seems clear to us that the blood of Jewish children is just more precious to the world.
The children of Muslims are just statistics, barely worth a mention as just victims of yet another drone attack, or as victims of Israel’s continous attacks on the beleagured citizens of Gaza. The pro-Israel lobbies and media have dehumanised Muslims, their deaths are mere statistics – and always without names.
But the big question everyone is asking is WHY? Why did a French citizen kill 3 soldiers and 4 civilians at point blank range? The answer in my opinion is because he was a criminal and a murderer and a very misguided human being. Mohammed Merah had a criminal record. He had already demonstrated that he had little sense of right or wrong. Allegedly, he raised thousands of Euros by hold-ups and break-ins, using the money to buy guns. Mohammed Merah clearly had a very chequered past and was certainly very far from practising any of the morals or principles of Islam or indeed of any religion. Mohammed Merah clearly had a very disturbed mind and wrongly thought that the only way that he could avenge the deaths of fellow Muslims was to take matters into his own hands. Why was that? The Israelis have some suggestions.
Today the Jerusalem Post ran an op-ed entitled “Western World is Blind”
Despite Muslim murderousness, West refrains from admitting Islam is the problem
There are many things wrong with this statement but let’s start with the fact that almost a quarter of the world’s population are Muslim, so if Islam is an evil ideology as is claimed, why are the majority of Muslims law-abiding citizens? The article goes on to talk about the Islamic terror industry, whatever that is, and who is making money from it? Unlike the giants of the arms trade industry who make millions on the weapons used to kill children in Muslim lands and who happily sell weapons to oppressive regimes to use against their own populations, there is no such thing as an Islamic terror industry.
At this time, almost any terror group on earth originates from the Muslim world
Yes of course, and who does the labelling? You only have to look to Israel, the U.K. the U.S.A. the E.U. or N.A.T.O. - the biggest exporters of terror at state level and the ones who are always interferring in other nations politics by sponsoring and arming opposition groups or putting puppet leaders in place whilst labelling any locals who show resistance to their policies as terrorists.
Islam as a religion is not to blame. Indeed, the words of the murderer himself need to be taken seriously as he told police about his motivation. Merah stated clearly his reasons for killing - to avenge the deaths of Muslims in Afghanistan, children in Palestine and for the niqab ban in France. Merah had legitimate grievances -we’re all angry and frustrated, not only at the deaths of so many Muslim civilians including children, but also at western governments’ lack of morality on such issues as Palestine, the so called War on Terror, torture and extra ordinary rendition, imprisonment and in France, using changes in the law such as the niqab ban and outlawing praying outside as cheap gimmicks, to gain far right votes.
How should Muslims respond to what is perceived as the global war on Islam? This is a good question and one that Muslim and mosque leaders fail to answer or provide managed solutions to.
Governments have looked at how to prevent violent extremism and have policies such as “Prevent” in the U.K. but one needs to know exactly who advises the government on how to deal with terror and what their motivation might be. The report into some of the funders of such lobby groups were revealed in a report by Spinwatch (read about it here). The government’s strategies include surveillance of Muslims in universities and mosques with the government asking teachers to spy on Muslim pupils and even Muslims to spy on each other and Mosque leaders and Muslim leaders have been worse than hopeless in representing or addressing the legitimate grievances of their followers and congregations. Do not talk of anything political is the policy of many Imams, but what is happening to our brothers and sisters in the Ummah is part of our religion, we cannot separate ourselves from it. We attend sermons every Friday knowing full well that our brothers and sisters are being murdered and oppressed in so many lands, yet the sermon never even alludes to these issues, never mind Imams giving leadership and direction to the congregations.
I speak as one of perhaps 2 million Muslims in the U.K. and I have no reason to believe that France is any better. I know that Muslims feel there is no justice, not only here in the U.K. but for our brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan who are being killed by Zionist and Neo Conservative policies of endless war. We are alarmed by Israel pushing for war in Iran and we are upset by the number of Syrians being killed every day in Syria, and we have little doubt that there is a lot of outside meddling in the Syrian state of affairs. Our so called leaders refuse to direct us in any coherent course of action that would allow us to feel that at least we were doing something, however little. Raising money in the mosques is not a solution we want an end to the killing and oppression and it is high time that our leaders stood up for Muslim interests in any and every legal way possible.
We are two million at least in the U.K. how come we have no voice? As long as we have no leadership and no direction we can do nothing and young frustrated men will continue to believe the only solution is to take matters into their own hands.
Finally, the fact that Mohammed Merah was well known to the French Intelligence services is an interesting revelation which certainly opens up the possibility of him being manipulated and used for political reasons. Who knows who might have recruited him whilst he was in prison. The big question is who has the most to gain from his actions?
The recent open letter Granting No Quarter: A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon, apparently written by Ali Abunimah, has come as a shock to many people, including yours truly. Not only have the Zionists colonized Palestine and subjected them to a permanent campaign of genocide, but as anyone who has been paying attention knows, they have colonized the Western democracies, turning them into obedient puppets. Now it appears that they have also colonized the Palestine Solidarity movement.
At the end of this essay are links to a number of responses supporting Atzmon and what he stands for. These cover the ground pretty well, but I’d like to add a critical look at the language used by Abunimah et al and some of the notions underlying such terminology. I’ll start with the title itself, which begins with the curious phrase “Granting No Quarter.” The phrase is familiar to anyone who has read books or seen films based on British naval warfare set in the 18th or early 19th centuries. – this is as extreme as it gets. This from a group of mostly Palestinian supporters of the Palestinian struggle against Israel in opposition to another such supporter. That is sufficiently mind-boggling in itself, but Ali Abunimah, and I would assume at least some of his fellow signatories, are also supporters of One Democratic State as the solution to the basic conflict in the Middle East, as is Atzmon. Some fundamental and portentous difference, beyond a mere dispute about strategy or tactics, must be responsible for such a total and uncompromising attack on a seemingly close ally. It allows for no debate, no compromise – no quarter offered or accepted.
Some observers have implied that Ali & Co. have actually gone over to the enemy, or may have been Zionist agents from day one, and that the Jewish members of these Solidarity groups are acting as their handlers. For the sake of argument, I’m going to assume that is not so, that they are perfectly sincere in considering themselves loyal to the Palestinian cause as they conceive it. Looking at the signatories of the Letter we find some successful academics, Abunimah and Massad being the most prominent. They have prospered as unofficially sanctioned spokesmen for the Palestinian cause in the US and have no incentive to rock the boat. If they presented any perceived danger to tribal Jewry, they would likely find themselves on the street, as has happened to a number of academics, many of them Jewish, who have dared to challenge the predominant Jewish narrative. This points to a simple motivation based on economic and professional self-interest, but I believe there’s more to it than that.
“Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity.” So begins the Wikipedia page on the subject. Race is a broad brush that covers just about any typology that attempts to divide humanity into distinct groups according to such criteria. All such attempts have very fuzzy edges. “Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. In the modern English language, the term “racism” is used predominantly as a pejorative epithet. It is applied especially to the practice or advocacy of racial discrimination of a pernicious nature (i.e., which harms particular groups of people).” The accusation of racism has typically been a characteristic of leftist critiques of systems that practice discrimination against members of relatively powerless minorities. The accusation of racism against Zionist Jews is a curious exception. This particular group is far from being powerless. More to the point, there has been an obvious racist component within Jewish culture from the very beginning. Just take a look at the Old Testament, let alone the blatant contempt for the “goyim” (non-Jews) found in the Talmud. The dehumanization of “the Other” is a very old and characteristically Jewish pattern. For tribal Jews and their allies, the “shabbas goyim,” to bandy about the term “racism” is hypocrisy of the highest order. (“The term shabbos goy refers to a non-Jew who performs duties that Jewish law forbids a Jew from performing on the Sabbath.” – wikipedia) What I am getting at is that Ali Abunimah et al are arguably shabbas goyim, non-Jewish elements of the currently dominant political force in the Western world that James Petras refers to as the Zionist Power Configuration (JPC).
This term is the most powerful weapon in the tribal Jewish verbal armory. To be labeled antisemitic is akin to having been labeled a heretic by the Holy Roman Inquisition. It might not invite torture and burning at the stake, but they will set about ruining your life. It is purportedly a special case of racism, whereby the Jewish people are cast as the eternal victims of racial prejudice. I defer to a Jewish thinker on this subject:
“If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown towards the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very distant from each other, since they were ruled by very different laws, governed by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did not permit them to judge of anything in the same way, it must be therefore that the general cause of anti-Semitism has always resided in Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.” ~ Statement regarding the expulsions of Jews, by noted Jewish author Bernard Lazare in “L’antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes,”published in 1894.
As a number of people have pointed out, there is another problem with the use of the word antisemitism. “Semite” is a linguistic term denoting peoples who speak semitic languages. Israelis are not semites in spite of the fact that they speak Hebrew ((it’s an adopted language of far too recent a vintage). The Zionists who created Israel and still run it are descended from the Khazars, linguistically a “Turko-finnic” people. The vast majority of semites speak Arabic as their native language, making tribal Jewry, particularly the Israelis, the only people in the world who are truly “antisemitic” – and they are virulently antisemitic.
Abunimah invokes this term, specifically “settler-colonialism,” as characterizing the nature of the Zionist invasion of Palestine. They claim that Atzmon rejects this characterization. Actually, all he does is point out that settler-colonialism has traditionally referred to efforts of European powers to install a permanent presence of their nationals in countries they wish to control. In all such cases, except Israel, there is a mother country that the settlers can rely on to finance and support their efforts. This is different from the case of the Jewish State, in which that role has been played by world Jewry in the diaspora. It’s a non-issue, really, except that once again Abunimah is misusing language to make his argument.
Culture Race, as we mentioned above, is a clumsy, inaccurate and misleading way of looking at the distinguishing characteristics of people that we attempt to lump together in identifiable groups. There’s a much better way of separating out what Atzmon calls “collectives.” This is by looking at characteristic ways of thinking, speaking and behaving, which together pretty much determine who we are. These distinctions are cultural. And this is where the already shaky limb that Ali is clinging to breaks and he tumbles into complete nonsense. Ali doesn’t mention culture in his letter, but take a look at this, Ali Abunimah attacking Gilad Atzmon at the Stuttgart One State conference (Dec 2010. “Jewish Culture.. doesn’t explain anything at all.” This remark is not only absurd – it would be like saying that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, or that the playing of the pipes has nothing to do with their Celtic origin, or that the French drink wine merely as a matter of personal choice, etc. , etc. (one could make a parlor game out of this) – he is so intent on demonizing Atzmon that he abandons any shred of intellectual integrity. Perhaps he secretly believes in “Intelligent Design?”
The notion of race is based on genetic differences, which determine our physical being. Genetic evolution in the human race more or less ceased some 5,000 years ago. Culture, on the other hand, is memetic. Memes are patterns that we inherit from our environment, starting when we are children with our families and continuing as we get older to to the notions, norms and attitudes prevalent in our societies. Culture is far and away the most significant causal factor in how we manifest in the world. What makes memetic (cultural) evolution possible and far more rapid than through genetic mutations is that we have the ability to change our minds based on new information, or seeing things in a new way. To do so requires curiosity, an open mind and considerable humbleness. This is what the word “freedom” means in its fullest sense. Many people become rigid and inflexible in their views, including far too many academics. As Eric Hoffer, the great longshoreman philosopher put it in his book ‘The True Believer,’ “In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.
This term, frequently used by Atzmon, is the crux of the matter. If you will indulge me, click on Us vs. Them: On the Meaning of Fascism. It is about identity politics and how this phenomenon tends to evolve into fascism. Atzmon is absolutely correct in making it central to his investigation. He stresses that it is intellectually dishonest to attempt to discuss Zionism and Israel without reference to “Jewishness.” Zionism was a specifically Jewish endeavor to create a Jewish state. What could be more obvious? If you leave out the “Jewish” part there isn’t much left, is there? The point is too obvious to belabor, but Abunimah attempts to do just that. Atzmon, in the grand tradition of intellectual inquiry, has committed himself to trying to understand the whole complex picture, which centers around the question of what “Jewish” and “Jewishness” mean. Abunimah cries foul and invokes the taboo that has been the mainstay of Zionist propaganda from day one. You can’t talk about “Jews.” You can’t talk about “Jewishness.” Otherwise you are “racist,” “antisemitic.” A circular, absurd argument. I guess it might upset somebody, most likely “The Wandering Guess Who.” (There is a very intriguing piece from an unlikely source, a recent issue of the New York Times. The author has some very intiguing things to say about tribal identities. Click on Forget the Money, Follow the Sacredness.)
I am Jewish, Atzmon is Jewish (whether he likes it or not – sorry, Gilad, but it’s a friendly dig), and so are many of his supporters. I don’t want anyone telling me that I can’t look at what that means. It is one of my fondest hopes that a great many Jews honestly consider the question “who am I?”. As long as the answer is “I’m a Jew, first and foremost” we are in for a lot more trouble. If the answer is “I’m first of all a human being and the rest is secondary” then there will be grounds for optimism. If enough Jews have the courage to look in the mirror and ask this fundamental question, we could easily solve the most pressing problem facing the world today, because, like it or not, tribal Jewry currently holds all the cards. Without at least the tacit support of most Jews they wouldn’t be able to play their game any longer.
Political Correctness We are now going to address what I believe to be the primary motivations behind Abunimah’s extraordinary attack on Atzmon. A number of political fashions arose out of postmodernism, such as multi-culturalism, radical feminism and gay and lesbian activism, for example. In all cases, these fashions endorse various flavors of identity politics, These particular ideas were actually pioneered within the 60’s counter-culture, but the postmodernist academics turned them upside down. Instead of being inspired by a sense of our common humanity, we were inundated by all sorts of identity politics, all with narratives that, under the new dispensation, couldn’t be challenged without confronting the enforcement arm of the new orthodoxy – political correctness. All of this grew out of the Marxist culture that had previously been the fashion on the Left, but needed a new intellectual basis after the reaction to the horrors of Stalinism and Maoism, and eventually the fall of the Soviet Union. Ergo, postmodernism and its progeny provided continuity and a new lease on life.
In keeping with the tradition of Marxism-Leninism, the neo-Marxists needed to instill monolithic party discipline. After all, there can be only one vanguard of the proletariat. The new ideology of identity politics developed the strategy of political correctness to enforce its monopoly over discourse. This is not confined to the groves of Academe – the ADL and similar Zionist institutions actively enforce the orthodoxy. And, just as an aside, Jews continued to make up a large proportion of both the party leadership and the party faithful, just as Bolshevism was largely a Jewish project. Although the thought police concern themselves with decrying any perceived denigration of a number of tribal groups, by other academics particularly, there is no question that the one and only Sacred Cow is the Jewish Tribe. Casting aspersions on black people, gays or women, for example, will get you a serious dressing down, but any reference to Jews or Jewishness that isn’t flattering might well cost you your livelihood, or worse.
To sum up, the attacks on Gilad Atzmon and Ken O’Keefe reveal an organized attempt to silence independent voices within the Palestinian support community. Many moons ago I was in the US Army. As it was peacetime, the only enemy in sight was the Army itself. We fought to a draw. There are many of us who don’t like to take orders, least of all from from the PC thought police. This an attempted political coup, actually, much like the successful efforts of the Bolsheviks (which means “majority,” although they were a small minority – quite Orwellian, actually) against the Mensheviks. But it isn’t going to work, because Atzmon and O’Keefe aren’t interested in power or being part of an organized movement. They are truly independent people taking a personal stand against a great evil, and they take their stand on behalf of all of suffering mankind, not just the Palestinians. Their efforts are prompted by the plight of the Palestinians, but like Gandhi, ML King and Mandela, they serve an even higher purpose, that of justice, wisdom, compassion and peace.
I would leave it there, but I want to make an appeal to Ali Abunimah et al to reconsider their views on this matter. When I got involved in One State advocacy more than ten years ago, I realized that we needed to operate under a big tent. After all, we are a small, relatively powerless group of people, up against the most powerful and ruthless fascist endeavor in history. At the very least, we need to accommodate one another even if some people have some views that rub us the wrong way. So I would like to invite Ali Abunimah, Joseph Massad, my friend Haidar Eid and all the others to check their guns at the door and rejoin the rest of us involved in the greatest struggle of our time.
Supporters of Atzmon have written a flurry of
responses to Abunimah’s letter. Here are links to some of them:
- Permission to examine “Jewishness,” by Rich Siegel | deLiberation
- Atzmon-Palestinian Infighting Reveals Underbelly of Gutless Duplicity, by Gordon Duff | Veterans Today
- I’m So Glad We’ve Got Gilad, by Francis Clark-Lowe | deLiberation
- Why Hate Gilad Atzmon: “He’s WRONG!” (Or Is He?), by Kevin Barrett | VeteransToday
- Ali Abunimah and his Solidarity Career, by Paul Eisen | deLiberation
- Ali Abunimah attacking Gilad Atzmon at the Stuttgart One State conference (Dec 2010)
- Disavow with no mercy? Not in my name!, by Nahida the Exiled Palestinian, by Nahida The Exiled Palestinian
- Faint Heartedness, Political Correctness, and Peculiar Timing: The Attacks on Gilad
- Atzmon, by Richard Edmondson | Left-wing Christian
- Abunimah Boycotting and Censoring Gilad Atzmon? by Debbie Menon | My Catbird Seat
- More on the Atzmon Controversy, by Noel Ignatiev | PMP
- Engaging Gilad Atzmon: Interview by Prof. Norton Mezvinsky | YouTube
- Ali Baghdadi’s (Arab Journal, Chicago) responds to Abunimah & Co | Uprooted Palestinians
- A Call for the Disavowal of Splittism, by Kim Petersen | Dissident Voice
- Don’t Shun Gilad Atzmon, by Michael Rabb | CU-Divest
- “Disavowal” of Gilad Atzmon? The Truth be damned! by William A. Cook | VeteransToday
- Cynthia McKinney Interviews Gilad Atzmon about Israel, Zionism, and Jewish Identity Politics |YouTube
- The unfortunate division over Gilad Atzmon | AlisonWeir
Needless to say, Atzmon and O’Keefe have had something to say about it as well:
Gilad wrote to his list:
It seems as if in spite of a very well orchestrated Jewish campaign, truth and justice prevailed, a lot thanks to you out there. There is a simple basic fact my detractors fail to grasp.I am not a politician, I do not seek power. I am an artist, I search for beauty and justice. And as it happens both are out there available for us.”
It appears that the same people who are trying to excommunicate Atzmon are also after Ken O’Keefe, which is really disgusting. There aren’t that many real heroes in this world, but O’Keefe is certainly one of them.
December 28th 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the U.S. massacre of Native Americans at Wounded Knee.
The United States of America was founded upon genocide, amassed a fortune from slavery and now sustains its weakened edifice through rape and armed robbery. Its presidents, with a few honourable exceptions, were Rothschild appointed stooges: obedient, homicidal gimps for Jewish extremism. Every fixed election saw these pork barrel prostitutes; these congressmen, representatives and senators put on a shorter leash by their usurious overlords; heads halted, pulled and bought to their knees by the criminal state of Israel and its parasitic financiers.
For America, the real America, died with Chief Hupah ‘Shining Elk’ Glešká at the massacre of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, December 28th 1890; when Western European immigrants besieged and opened fire on Native Americans of the Lakota Sioux tribe. The so-called U.S. military spared no one; as men, women and children were torn to ribbons by a cowardly barrage of machine gunfire and mortar rounds. Anywhere between 153-300 American Indians, were killed in the attack; dumped in mass graves as their country was looted at gunpoint. The last real Americans, or Natives if you prefer, can now be seen trying to scrape a living in some barren dustbowl down in the worst parts of Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and North Carolina. Theirs is a story of hopeless struggle, a nation lost and a people enslaved in their own land.
An eyewitness account by Oglala Lakota Chief American Horse describes the ruthless and savage manner in which the invaders struck at Wounded Knee: “There was a woman with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce. A mother was shot down with her infant; the child not knowing that its mother was dead was still nursing…The women as they were fleeing with their babies were killed together, shot right through…and after most all of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed or wounded should come forth and they would be safe. Little boys…came out of their places of refuge, and as soon as they came in sight a number of soldiers surrounded them and butchered them there.”
As America was buried, gleeful immigrants doled out looted spoils and planted foreign flags on land still damp with the blood of its original inhabitants. What eventually arose from the Earth was an imperial aberration. An extremist Jew controlled, Anglo-American Frankenstein; a mad beast that would squander every chance to join humanity, reject every friendly overture and retain only the base emotions with which it was born: violence, racism, paranoia and greed.
The Native Americans were successfully indoctrinated to hate themselves, demoralized by a vicious propaganda campaign, chillingly summarized by its slogan: ‘Kill The Indian, Save The Man’. Having lost their country and slowly divided by collaborators and self-defeating tribalism, material dispossession led to despair which led to alcoholism which led to the gutters of gambling and a downward spiral that was sure to end in absolute ruin for this once brave and magnificent race.
Now those with a penchant for comparative martyrology have tried to draw parallels between the persecutions of Jewry in Europe to that of the Natives in America. The irony being that few, if any, of those who peddle this preposterous canard know, or will ever admit to the fact, that it was ‘The Benefactor of Jews’ Edmond James de Rothschild who bankrolled the slaughter of Native Americans (via Jacob Schiff’s ‘Kuhn, Loeb and Co’, August Belmont, Nicholas Lowe, J.P. Morgan, Albert Pike, Sigmund Shlesinger and other agents of influence).
By 1846, learned members of the international community were aware of Rothschild’s murderous obsession to regain their economic stranglehold over North America (they’d been kicked out en-masse by President Jackson in 1836 but their system of fractional reserve banking continued to decimate the country) by securing a charter to impose a central bank (i.e. permission to print dollars, determine the rate of interest and fully control the American economy ergo U.S. policy). Jackson’s successor President Jon Tyler, despite numerous death threats, upheld the ban on Rothschild; the next five Presidents would also hold the line against Rothschild. But the criminal banking cartel got the upper hand by assassinating anti-Rothschild Presidents Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and James A. Garfield in 1881.
The destruction of the remaining Native Americans would clear the way for the Rothschild controlled Union and Southern Pacific Railroad (deepening their economic occupation of America en route to regaining the central bank charter in 1917), and serve to seal a Faustian pact between power hungry Western European immigrants and the megalomaniac proponents of Jewish supremacy. Even today, you’ll often find the same Zionist Jews who try and compare their suffering to the American Indians, emotionally blackmail white America (irrespective of whether they condone or condemn the crimes of their forefathers) to back their genocide against the Palestinian Arabs. After all, if it was Kosher for them to wipe out the ‘Red Skins’, why should they object to the likeminded extermination of the ‘Rag Heads’?
Such was the universal disdain for Rothschild meddling in the 19th century, that less than a year after Wounded Knee, and in spite of the fact that Britain is also a vassal state of Rothschild, the following editorial appeared in the ‘The British Labour Leader’ newspaper:
“This blood-sucking crew (Rothschild) has been the cause of untold mischief and misery during the present century, and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between States which ought never to have quarrelled. Whenever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumours of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity you may be sure that Rothschild is near the region of the disturbance.”
But it was too little too late for the Native Americans.
U.S. journalist L. Frank Baum vocalized the sentiments of the ignorant masses, and less than a week after the massacre, as frozen corpses were still being excavated and Native youth ruthlessly exterminated by U.S. troops, Baum wrote: “Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untameable creatures from the face of the earth. The whites are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit is broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are.”
And despite the vile sentiments expressed in Baum’s polemic, his last description of the native’s plight was, and remains, a fairly accurate observation. For today, their situation is worse than ever. As Rothschild crooks go for another run on the markets, perhaps softening America up to contract the money supply and instigate another crash / depression, the Native Americans are the still first to suffer.
Life on the Pine Ridge reservation, South Dakota, seems to have come to standstill a long time ago. The red desert landscape is dotted with poorly built wooden shacks, fitted with corrugated iron fronts; the majority of these houses have no hot water and others have only just been connected to the power grid. Torn pieces of canvas and cloth attached to cover the broken windshield of a pickup truck, flutter in the mid autumn breeze like rags on an injured leper. Three Native American girls in their early twenties huddle outside a shack; one cradles a puppy against her chest as the other rubs both hands against her arms in an effort to stay warm. Further down the road; a drunkard lies unconscious, empty bottle in hand, on the porch of a beaten up old saloon as a skinny black Labrador staggers through the empty streets, his tongue hanging out as if to imitate the wasted winos around him. Its’ not hard to be affected by the monumental tragedy that occurred just a few miles from here in 1890: For if Wounded Knee was the death of the dream, than Pine Ridge is the dreamer’s tortured spirit, a meandering wraith trapped between life and death: patronized, forgotten and left to rot. The majority of American Indians live below the poverty line, education opportunities are limited, employment is virtually non-existent, 23.1% of the prison population are Natives, the average life expectancy for an American Indian is just 50 and teenage suicides are the highest in the country.
The ancient Greek historian Myron of Priene wrote of the persecuted Helot civilisation in 280 B.C., and described how the savage Spartan minority imposed upon the Helots “…every shameful task leading to disgrace”. And went onto reveal that if any Helot “…exceeded the vigour proper to a slave’s condition, they (Sparta) made death the penalty”. Well I’ve seen the Helots of today, a people who had everything and lost it all, who tried their best to resist but where decimated and trampled by an enemy more brutal than such a people could ever imagine much less overcome. An enemy that now threatens the world and looks upon the Earth with the same covetous eyes with which it once looked upon the Americas, a mad beast plagued with violence, racism, paranoia and greed. And yet despite their hardships and the impossible task of having to reside inside the belly of the mad beast, Wounded Knee is not just the site of a loss, its’ also the site of a small, but significant, victory: 22 years ago, this historic site was home to a renewed freedom struggle, a 71 day siege where the AIM (American Indian Movement) declared independence from the U.S. regime and liberated part of their country. They were, alas, thwarted by the same problems that’d led to their ancestor’s downfall. But it was a cri de Coeur heard around the world, one which reminded the U.S. that American Indians will not be swept under the colonial carpet, but rise up as a defiant, albeit dying, reminder, of the sins of those who fraudulently call themselves Americans.
UPDATED WITH RESULT
Soon, the New Democratic Party will have a new leader. Whether it will have any meaningful political future is another matter. I’ve already shown that a Thomas Mulcair victory would formally complete the Israelization of Canada’s national political parties, thereby depriving voters of their last Canadian electoral option.
Lamentably, many delegates to the NDP convention seem oblivious to this obvious fact, including one MP with whom I spoke after my earlier column came out.
In spite of my presenting evidence of Mulcair’s dual loyalty, bullying, and pro-Harperite proclivities, this highly personable, well-spoken person managed to finesse, deflect, deny or rationalize it away. His responses were so effortless, so polished, that they seemed rehearsed, as if this weren’t the first time he had had to justify his support for Mulcair.
For example, he claimed that concerns over Mulcair’s loyalty are exaggerated or taken out of context, although how “ardent supporter of Israel in all situations and in all circumstances” could be misconstrued escapes me. He also quickly tossed off the bald assertion that, at any rate, voters didn’t much care about foreign policy—the exact same line I got from Wayne Moriarty, the pro-Israel hasbaratchik posing as editor of the Vancouver Province. When pressed to justify this claim, though, he backtracked.
At any rate, Mulcair had given him “written assurance” that he would respect the NDP’s current policy on Palestine, and that was good enough. The idea that this assurance was inconsistent with Mulcair’s earlier profession of zionist fealty, or that he may have just been manipulating him to buy leadership support, didn’t compute.
It wouldn’t have made any difference if I had told him that Mulcair’s co-campaign chairman is former MP Lorne Nystrom, now a director of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Israel Lobby’s main pressure group.
Photo courtesy of Ron Saba
The most disquieting aspect of this exchange, though, was not the lame answers I got, but the fact that this person is intelligent and has had at least a basic education in the Middle East. He is not your typical hasbarat from whom one would expect anodyne clichés and cognitive denials.
So what does it mean for the future of the NDP if MPs like this willingly refuse to acknowledge a danger staring them in the face? Former leader Ed Broadbent knows all to well.
In a candid interview with the Globe and Mail, the former party leader launched a broadside at Mulcair for his abandoning core social-democratic values for Liberalish centralism, and not being capable of maintaining unity among the party’s 101 MPs: “People should look carefully at the fact that of the people who were there [in caucus from 2007 to 2011] with Tom, 90 per cent of them are supporting other candidates than Tom,” said Broadbent.
Already, talk of increased infighting is making Broadbent look prescient, and this development invites questions of how long the NDP could expect to hold itself together under Mulcair. If conference delegates want a historical example of what infighting and a sudden lurch to the right might do to the party, they need look no further than what happened to the Progressive Conservative Party.
Brian Mulroney, a venal, temperamental, outsider was chosen leader at a convention in June 1983 for reasons that had everything to do with image and none to do with competence. The man he replaced, Joe Clark, was a highly principled MP who unfortunately lacked the political acuity to maintain his party in government, or hold it together in the face of concerted internal dissention.
Under Mulroney, the PC Party would follow a reactionary, right-wing economic dogma that was also ascendant in the U.S. and U.K. Reason and balance in foreign and economic affairs would give way to the uncritical embrace of U.S. militarism and Israeli “self-defence”, denial of Palestinian rights, lower corporate taxes, minimal government, and economic continentalism. Under Clark’s short-lived prime ministership, the party followed economic moderation, an independent foreign policy, and showed respect for Palestinian rights.
Mulroney’s two majority governments allowed him full rein to remake Canada in his own image. As such his time in office would be characterized by arrogance, corruption, sleaze and patronage, making him the most despised prime minister to date. (Stephen Harper has since broken that record.)
In June 1993, 10 years to the month after becoming leader, Mulroney retired from politics, the damage having been done. In the electoral rout that same year, hapless bag-holder Kim Campbell led the PCs to near obliteration—two seats. The rest of the party fissured into a Quebec Separatist Party (the Bloc Québécois) and a Corporatist Christian Party (the Reform Party), which would form the nucleus of the present-day Harperite party.
For all of his shortcomings, Clark was still favoured to win the 1984 election. Had the PC Party stuck with him as leader, it would likely still be around today.
Like Mulroney, Mulcair is a party outsider, though he does have political experience—a former Quebec Liberal who later tried to hire himself out to the Harperites. He also has a flash temper, and supports an alien ideology to the right of the NDP’s principles. Social democrats cannot be expected to coexist within the same party as centrist compromisers who would turn the NDP into an insipid Liberal-lite Party. If this were to happen, the Liberal-lite faction would eventually form a formal or informal union with the larger “Labour Zionist” Liberal Party, thereby reducing the NDP to rump status in the House of Commons.
If 42 other NDP MPs are prepared to vote for Mulcair, perhaps disintegration is inevitable, even necessary to revitalize the party. Under the late Jack Layton, the party began to lose focus and ended up sacrificing principle for political expediency, as the Gaza flotilla debacle proved.
Convention delegates will have to decide if the NDP is worth preserving, or admit defeat by embracing their inner Mulroney to let history take its predictable, destructive course.
Well, the NDP voted for self-destruction. Mulcair won the party leadership, but it took four ballots. and even then he won only 57 percent of the vote. The deep division between corporate zionists and social democrats is now out in the open. When Joe Clark called for a leadership conference in 1983, he at least had 66.7 percent support. The NDP will now have to spend considerable effort to defend its integrity, which means it will be less effective as an Opposition party. Under Mulcair, the NDP now stands for No Defensible Principles.
By Gilad Atzmon
Israeli press reported this evening that French gunman Mohamed Merah had been on a trip to Israel in the past.
According to the report, Merah’s passport had Israeli stamps in it. The purpose of his visit is unknown. Israeli analysts suspect he was either trying to visit the Palestinian territories or preparing for a terror attack.
However, I won’t rule out the possibility that Merah was actually trained by Israeli forces. Marah may have conducted a false flag operation. By way of deception is, after all, the Mossad’s motto.
Read the story of Naeim Giladi, an Israeli agent operating in Iraq in the late 1940’s.
“On May 10, at 3 a.m., a grenade was tossed in the direction of the display window of the Jewish-owned Beit-Lawi Automobile Company, destroying part of the building. No casualties were reported.
On June 3, 1950, another grenade was tossed from a speeding car in the El-Batawin area of Baghdad where most rich Jews and middle class Iraqis lived. No one was hurt, but following the explosion Zionist activists sent telegrams to Israel requesting that the quota for immigration from Iraq be increased.
On June 5, at 2:30 a.m., a bomb exploded next to the Jewish-owned Stanley Shashua building on El-Rashid street, resulting in property damage but no casualties.
On January 14, 1951, at 7 p.m., a grenade was thrown at a group of Jews outside the Masouda Shem-Tov Synagogue. The explosive struck a high-voltage cable, electrocuting three Jews, one a young boy, Itzhak Elmacher, and wounding over 30 others. Following the attack, the exodus of Jews jumped to between 600-700 per day.
Zionist propagandists still maintain that the bombs in Iraq were set off by anti-Jewish Iraqis who wanted Jews out of their country. The terrible truth is that the grenades that killed and maimed Iraqi Jews and damaged their property were thrown by Zionist Jews.”
The Israeli Yet (Hebrew edition) published a few hours ago an interview with retired Israeli police commissioner, Major General Assaf Hefetz. Hefez is highly critical of the French police’s recent operation in Toulouse. According to the Israeli Major General, the French waited for too long (32 hours). He contends that the French police should have been more assertive and far more aggressive. I hope that you have a hard stomach to read how Israel would handle a similar situation.
They should have implemented the ‘pressure cooker tactics’ says Hefetz-
“massive fire at the walls of the house, throwing grenades around the building followed by bulldozer erasure of the building walls till the suspect turns himself.”
Frightening isn’t it? Welcome to occupied Palestine. It seems as if Major General Hefetz came short of suggesting to evacuate the city and to nuke the neighborhood.
In fact General Hefetz is describing here the Palestinian reality. Hefetz lethal approach explains the devastation the Israel left behind in Jenin (2002). It also explains the genocidal tactics employed by the IDF in Gaza massacre (2009). It is more than likely that General Hefetz better seek help and find a way to deal with his aggression. Yet, we have to remember that at the time of Operation Cast Lead, 94% of Israeli Jews supported IDF genocidal tactics. It seems as if we are dealing here with a psychotic collective.
UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s visit to Tashkent on 28 February was not covered in any UK mainstream media that I can find, which is peculiar, given the media’s obsession with covering anything to do with “Our heroes” in Afghanistan. It was not really the kind of visit the state would want to publciise, with Hammond in the rather unheroic position of having his knees firmly placed on the acres of marble floor of Tashkent’s presidentiail palace, with his tongue well and truly stuck up Karimov’s arse.
NATO, including the UK, needs to transit Uzbekistan to get its 14,000 vehicles out of Afghanistan, having well and truly queered the pitch of an exit through Pakistan by a decade of bombing the locals. The Karimov family had already made hundreds of millions in profit through a monopoly of providing haulage and logistical services to supplies going in to Afghanistan. With NATO’s demoralised forces sitting on an incredibly large stockpile of materiel in effect stuck in the country as the utterly fruitless occupation ends, the Karimovs are in a position to ramp up extortion.
That will not only involve huge cash payments going to the Karimov family from the British taxpayer, disguised as transit fees, railway charges, fuel provision etc. It will also include a raft of political demands. Karimov had already in 2011 secured the ending of EU sanctions, and the international respectability he craves for his regime through an official visit to Brussels and call on EU President Barroso.
Now as a condition of facilitating our retreat, Karimov is insisting on a full visit to Tashkent by David Cameron in 2013 or 2014, a state visit by Karimov to the UK in 2015 and acceptance of Gulnara Karimova as Uzbek Ambassador in London. He is also keen to acquire a variety of state of the art UK weapons and surveillance systems for use against his own people. The strong steer from No 10 is that these Karimov demands will have to be accepted.
There is an excellent video here of Scott Horton being interviewed by Galima Burkabaeva on the subject of the kelptocratic Karimov state. Galima was an eyewitness to the Andijan massacre of 2005, in which Karimov’s military murdered some 800 pro-democracy demonstrators. Galima herself only just got away, a bullet passing clean through her reporter’s notebook.
Nice friends Mr Hammond has.
As our honourable sister Hana al-Shalabi of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad enters the 35th day of her hunger strike to protest Israeli ‘administrative detention’, or to give it its proper name: kidnap and false imprisonment. Palestinian prisoner affairs minister Issa Qaraqaa announced that Hana, 28, is in critical condition and was taken to hospital to undergo a series of tests. Independent doctors from the ‘Physicians for Human Rights’ group declared that she was suffering from severe muscle wastage, a fall in blood sodium levels and a weak pulse: “After the examination, the doctor established that the patient’s life was in danger and recommended her immediate transfer to hospital for observation”, said Qaraqaa. It was later reported that Hana al-Shalabi had been discharged from hospital and retaken by her Israeli captors.
The prognosis doesn’t look promising and there are those who say that Hana is close to death, others; that she has already embraced martyrdom but that the Israeli occupation fears the international backlash this news will cause. Especially since a wave of solidarity hunger strikes, inspired by Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa’s successful 67 day protest, are already beginning to cripple IDF dungeons across occupied Palestine. But whatever the outcome; the fact remains that her courageous stance has embarrassed the wretched parasites of the illegitimate state of Israel and the equally illegitimate, collaborationist popinjays who call themselves leaders of the Arabian Peninsula.
Hana al-Shalabi, from Burqin, Jenin was only a child when heavily armed IDF conscripts, shipped in from every corner of the globe, besieged her hometown. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank took on the form of checkpoints, terror attacks, home demolitions, kidnappings and disappearances. For Jenin has always been the heartland of Palestinian resistance; in 1935 Mujahid Sheik Muhammed Izz ad-Din al-Qassam made his heroic last stand against the Rothschild controlled British Empire, even in the midst of disaster in 1948, Arab fighters still managed to hold off hordes of Jewish terrorists and prevent the fall of Jenin. ‘The Second Intifada’ saw Jenin become a focal point for resistance once again, and the target of numerous Israeli terror attacks; Hana’s brother was also martyred in such an attack in 2005. The Palestinians, to their eternal credit, tried to conduct retaliatory strikes to the best of their ability and means: Islamic Jihad volunteers managed to put up a spirited defence of their country, but outgunned, outnumbered and under siege, any hopes of a meaningful victory were soon dashed. As the world’s fourth largest army, sustained by conscription and in receipt of at least $8.3 million a day in U.S. military aid; soon encircled the fledging resistance.
Hana al-Shalabi was taken from her home at gunpoint by Israeli kidnappers in September 2009. Held hostage for over 2 years, Hana, along with other Palestinian captives, was released as part of a prisoner swap for French IDF conscript Gilad Shalit in October 2011. Hana’s elderly parents and surviving siblings were overjoyed to have her back. Severely maltreated by the Israelis, Hana slowly began to readjust; trying as best she could to resume what passes for a normal life under occupation. But her freedom was short lived. Four months later, on 16th February 2012, armed Israelis burst into the al Shalabi family home, took Hana into custody again and put her under what the Jewish occupation calls ‘administrative detention’.
Tortured and viciously assaulted by the Israelis, Hana al-Shalabi was placed in solitary confinement and subjected to an increasingly depraved series of attacks. The wounds inflicted upon her are a disgrace only to her persecutors, those extremist Jew villains who, for shame, could not beg for grace.
And what of our pious and upright Ullama in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, how can they stand to see their mothers, sisters and daughters harassed in so brazen a manner? Why do our noble Imams, who so eloquently sermonise about the importance of Hijab; not demand, by the will of Allah (swt), that their Kings show some measure of decency, some indication that they’re still Muslims, some respect for their race and lineage? Are they aware that the Israeli abomination is but a few minutes away from their ivory towers and luxury resorts? Must we, like Qadi Abu Sa’ad Al-Harawi, shave our heads in mourning and enter their palaces? For no doubt, we shall see the same scenes today as Al-Hjawari saw at the court of the great Caliph al-Mustazhir in Baghdad, days after the fall of Al-Quds Jerusalem and the massacre of the Muslim population by European invaders in 1099 A.D:
“How dare you slumber in the shade of complacent safety, leading lives as frivolous as garden flowers, while your brothers have no dwelling place save the saddles of camels and the bellies of vultures? Blood has been spilled! Beautiful young girls have been shamed . . . Shall the valorous Arabs resign themselves to insult and the valiant Persians accept dishonour? Never have the Muslims been so humiliated. Never have their lands been so savagely devastated.”
Qadi Abu Sa’ad Al-Harawi
And at least al-Mustazhir and others could plead ignorance and were quick to organize resistance once made aware of the situation Our leaders today, be they Sunni or Shia, are denied that refuge and reprieve; their excuses, should they fail to act despite being gifted all the means with which to do so, will not be accepted in this life or the next.
African American civil rights activist Kwame Ture a.k.a. Stokely Carmichael once said, that the main flaw of non-violent resistance “…is that it requires your oppressor to have a conscience”. A conscience that Carmichael correctly observed was absent in the U.S., and a conscience that has never existed in any regime run by extremist Jews and their acolytes. Now I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again; there’s little glory in martyrdom without victory. And unless Hana Al Shabali’s sacrifice instigates a process whereby civilised countries finalize a new policy to formally engage the criminal state of Israel and begin an open ended, humanitarian intervention in occupied Palestine, then she needn’t have bothered. Each Palestinian life is precious, and ought not to be placed in harm’s way without serious consideration, for to paraphrase General Patton; in any war, the trick isn’t to die for your values, but to get the other lot to die for theirs.
That said, Hana al-Shalabi is the bravest woman in the world. And I echo sentiments expressed by Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh: “The Palestinian people, with all its components and its factions, will never abandon the hero prisoners, especially those who lead this hunger strike battle.”
Hana al-Shalabi recently reassured her supporters in a statement released by her lawyer: “It’s true our lives are very precious, but our freedom is even more precious and more powerful than their cells”, she said. I’m inclined to agree, but at the same time, lament the state of affairs that led her to believe that Palestinians were so alone in their struggle that they had to embark upon this course of action. And perhaps Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa put it best, when he said:
“I started my battle offering my soul to Allah almighty and adamant to go ahead until righteousness triumphs over falsehood. Here I am in a hospital bed surrounded with prison wardens, handcuffed, and my foot tied to the bed. The only thing I can do is offer my soul to Allah as I believe righteousness and justice will eventually triumph over tyranny and oppression. I hereby assert that I am confronting the occupiers not for my own sake as an individual, but for the sake of thousands of prisoners who are being deprived of their simplest human rights while the world and international community look on.”
Khader Adnan Mohammad Musa
Just back from the annual United Nations happy-clappy session about drug prohibition in Vienna, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. I was there as part of the delegation from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a global campaign of serving and former police officers, lawyers, judges, intelligence officers, customs officers and prison governors, all with years of experience on the front line of the drug war, and all of whom campaign against prohibition.
Why do they do this? Precisely because they have, during their professional lives, witnessed the terrible failure of the drug prohibition laws.
LEAP’s message is simple, logical and powerful, and its membership credible and experienced – have a look at the website.
The UN delegation consisted of former US drug prosecutor Jim Gierach, retired Brazilian judge Maria Lucia Pereira Karam, award-winning US prison superintendent Rick Van Wickler, and myself.
Needless to say, LEAP and all this breadth of relevant expertise was marginalised at the UN.
Each country around the world funds the UN via voluntary donations. Once they have coughed up, they are allowed to send national delegates to represent “their” interests at shindigs such as the CND. Those delegates are pre-briefed by their bureaucrats about the line they must take, and no dissent is allowed.
NGOs are notionally able to feed in their views to their delegates, although access is limited, and over the last few years the language of the CND has indeed moved towards harm reduction and children’s rights. But this merely propagates the basic, flawed premise that “drugs” are bad, not that the “war on drugs” has comprehensively failed, is ill-thought out, and actively damages society.
UN decisions on drug policy are made by consensus, which means that there is no real democratic debate and that the resolutions are so bland as to be meaningless. At no point whatsoever are evidence-based alternative solutions, such as regulated legalisation, even whispered in the corridors of power.
The CND’s key achievement this year was to get all the nations to reaffirm their commitment to the 100-year old International Hague Convention, the first drug prohibition law in a long and escalating legal litany of failure and harm. And this in the teeth of all evidence provided by the successful decriminalisation experiments in Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
So here’s where the fun kicks in, but I stress that this is my highly personal take on what it was like to attend the CND last week:
WARNING: CND appears to be a potent psychotropic drug which has unknown and potentially damaging effects on the human brain. Exposure to CND for even so short a period as a week can lead to disorientation, numbness, depression and a dislocation from reality. No data exists about the long-term psychological effects of prolonged exposure, but some subjects can display uncharacteristic aggression after only a couple of days’ experience of CND.
CND appears to be highly addictive leading to rapid dependency, and delegates return year after year for another hit. For a week, it’s party time, but then comes the crashing low, as they have to push CND on their own countries for another long year, against all common notions of decency, humanity and community.
CND is continually presented to vulnerable delegates as the only lifestyle choice. Those who question its efficacy are outcast from the gang. But what of the delegates’ rights to live a CND-free life, away from the peer pressure, bullying and violence? What about reducing the harm that CND increasingly causes to communities across the world?
As the godfathers of CND push the line of harm reduction programmes, developing countries are increasingly drawn into a life of sordid “money dependency”, even prostituting themselves politically to enable their continued reliance on CND.
The organisations controlling CND garner huge profits, and there is little political will to change the current set-up.
So, a win-win for the drug cartels, terrorists, enforcement agencies, governments, bureaucrats and the wider global “drug war” infrastructure.
Not so good for the rest of us.
The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was criticised yesterday for comparing the killing of three children and a rabbi in a shooting attack in France to the situation in Gaza.
At the “Palestine refugees in the changing Middle East” conference in Brussels, Baroness Ashton, described the murders in Toulouse as a
terrible tragedy”, but she then added: “When we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives.”
Seemingly some prominent Jewish and Israeli leaders couldn’t agree less. For them Jewish suffering exceeds all other suffering and Palestinian’s in particular.
The London Jewish Chronicle quoted some of the outraged critics. “Even when read in context, Ashton’s words are beyond unacceptable,” said Oliver Worth, the British chairman of the World Union of Jewish Students. He said they were “truly outrageous and revolting” and called for her to resign because she had “lost all credibility”. And yet, Mr Worth fails to explain why is it “outrageous and revolting” to equate Jewish suffering with Palestinian one.
Baroness Ashton’s remarks were both crass and wholly inappropriate,”
said the chief executives of the Board of Deputies, yet he also fails to provide any reasoning.
“There is absolutely no equivalence between the situation in Gaza and the cold and callous murder of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler and the three children,”
said Stefan Kerner, director of public affairs for the Zionist Federation.
And I wonder why there is no ‘equivalence’, is it because the Jews are yet to withdraw from Toulouse? Or may be Mr Kerner actually expects the French to withdraw from Toulouse and to leave it to Rabbi Sandler and a few other Jews. I obviously find it really difficult to follow the Zionist logic anymore.
The Rabbi added: “For a person in Baroness Ashton’s position to even consider her comments appropriate is disgraceful. She should withdraw her statement immediately and apologise unreservedly for the offence that she has caused.” And I wonder why is it offensive to Jews when someone equates their grief with Goyim’s suffering. Does the Rabbi really believe that Jewish suffering is somehow superior?
Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Foreign Minister, said he viewed her remarks as “inappropriate”. He said he hoped that she “re – examines and retracts them”. And I wonder, what kind of a retraction would please the Israeli Government. Do they really expect Baroness Ashton to accept that Jewish suffering is the ultimate form of human grief?
Israeli war criminal as well as Opposition leader Tzipi Livni also, attempted to offer some reasoning. She described Ashton’s remark as “reprehensible, infuriating, and wrong” to draw any link “between the murder of children in Toulouse and the massacre Assad is leading in Syria and the situation in Gaza”. Livni may be right for a change, the crime committed in Gaza by the Jewish State in the name of the Jewish People is indeed unique in the history of brutality. Also the fact that 94% of the Israeli Jewish population supported IDF genocdial tactics at the time of operation Cast Lead is also very unique. Israel’s war crimes are indeed uniquely cruel and beyond comparison.
But Livni didn’t just stop there, she tried to qualify her statement.
“A hate crime or a leader murdering his people is not like a country fighting terror, even if civilians are hurt.”
According to Lvini, the Baroness had failed to make “the appropriate moral distinction”. To start with we do not know yet what led to the tragic event in Toulouse. However, the fact that Israel defines the Palestinians as “terrorists” is yet to provide the Jewish State with an moral excuse to slay indigenous people of the land and to abuse every possible human right.
I guess that we are all becoming impervious to Jewish political logic. But maybe this is another symptom of the Zionification of our reality. From now on we are expected to obey.
Those of us who believe in justice know very well that the European Union have failed to bring any meaningful pressure on Israel that might bear postitive results for ethnically cleansed and oppressed Palestinians. The E.U. is a member of the Quartet alongside the United States, United Nations and Russia, appointed to mediate the “peace process” in the Israel/Palestine conflict and with Tony Blair as the E.U. special envoy it will be no surprise to anyone that peace is as unlikely as ever.
But today pro Israeli Jews are absolutely infuriated that Catherine Ashton who is the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission dared to mention the deaths of Jewish children in France and Palestinian children in Gaza in the same sentence.
Zionist blogs are full of outraged comments that to some the death of a Palestinian child is equally as tragic as the death of a Jewish one. Saying something Pro Israeli Jews do not like can mean the end of a political or academic career as the Pro Israeli Jewish bullying campaigns frequently produce results. I will post a few of the comments so that readers can get a feel of the fury Ms Ashton’s speech has provoked
She is a sick, hate-filled piece of filth, capable of saying and doing anything to earn her political salary and support from Muslim voters back home and petrodollars from abroad. . .
If this ugly bitch doesn´t get the monstrosity of her crap, she´s a moron and shouldn´t be the Foreign Policy Chief of any decent and self-respecting entity. If she knows exactly what she´s doing, i.e., pandering to and appeasing muslims at the expense of the Jews, she´s also a moron, of immoral & anti-Semitic brand. If God really existed, He should have immediately droned this mongrel with a thunderbolt. I conclude there´s no God. QED. . .
and here one commenter puts the “action plan”
Ashton is an abomination; her ignorance and hatred is reflected in her appearance. Just like that other
anti-Semetic abomination Jenny Tonge. A placement of the failed NuLabour government of GB, she is
an eternal symbol of that government which (to enrage Conservative voters and party) flooded England
with Islamists. Multiculturalism in which the indigenous population must watch whilst huge swathes of
their country is silently conquered by people who claim all benefits of democracy but hate Enlightenment. Israel should demand her removal. We need a petition to the EU demanding an immediate apology.
So lets see if Catherine Ashton is forced to apologise or resign for suggesting there is any equivalence between the deaths of Jewish and Palestinian children. Of course if she does get forced to issue a statement of explanation or apology or even resign we would be accused of being anti Semitic to suggest that certain groups exert a huge amount of power in International politics.
The part of Catherine Ashton’s speech that is causing such an outcry
We are gathered here because we have recognised the potential of the youth of Palestine. Against all the odds, they continue to learn, to work, to dream and aspire to a better future. And the days when we remember young people who have been killed in all sorts of terrible circumstances – the Belgian children having lost their lives in a terrible tragedy and when we think of what happened in Toulouse today, when we remember what happened in Norway a year ago, when we know what is happening in Syria, when we see what is happening in Gaza and in different parts of the world – we remember young people and children who lose their lives. Here are young people who are asking not to be leaders of the future, but to be taken seriously as leaders of today. And it is to them that we should look and to them we should listen and it is to them that I pay tribute.
Judging by the many comments on Pro Israel blogs, the links to which I prefer not to publish, there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian child.
EDIT Within an hour of publishing this on deLiberation we already have Catherine Aston’s statement of retraction according to Haaretz
EU’s Ashton: I did not parallel Toulouse attack to Gaza deaths
How very predictable and how very sad. It is reported that the original speech contained both Sderot and Gaza, the hate against her continued on anti Palestine blogs. I had no idea that even mentioning the deaths of Palestinian children could cause such and outcry.
UPDATE – The press is reporting that the killer is a Muslim. He is reported to have said
Mr Gueant said. “This person has made trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the past … and says he belongs to Al-Qaeda and says he wanted to avenge Palestinian children and to attack the French army.”
Predictably Pro Israel, Anti Palestinian Islamophobes are commenting on blogs that Islam is a religion of hate and Jew hatred is from the Quran even though the killer is giving his reasons above and even though one and a half billion Muslims in the world are not murderers.
The term “holocaust denial” is defined as follows by the American Anti-Defamation League:
Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy. It was this doctrine that was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Holocaust. What is on the surface a denial of the reality of genocide is, at its core, an appeal to genocidal hatred. (ADL 1996).
In other words, if you are unconvinced of the official view of the Nazi holocaust, you are complicit in it. Note that the party line changes. Thirty years ago, someone who refused to believe that Jews were made into soap, glue and lampshades by the Nazis, was allegedly party to murder. That is no longer the case. But today, if you question cattle trucks, gas chambers, or a number of Jewish fatalities less than about five million, you are still, by the above definition, someone who is trying to replay that genocide. Note that I don’t reject the latest version of the official story; I reject the idea that rejecting it is a crime. But that doesn’t satisfy the thought police; it just makes me an “apologist” rather than a “denier”.
The acceptance of the concept “holocaust denier” is the result of a successful assault on the highest principles of Western civilization – sceptical enquiry and presumption of innocence. It was unlikely it would stop there. Legislators, activists and journalists have tried to extend the term “denier” to protect another sacred tablet: the belief that there is irrefutable evidence that human activity is causing the earth’s climate to enter a period of unprecedented, irreversible warming.
Like the high priests of the holocaust, when the warm-mongers change their tune, they expect us all to march in step. Once it was “global warming”; today it’s “climate change”. Scientific theories usually get more precise, but this isn’t normal science. Once they said Britain was bound to get hotter. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” complained Charles Onians of The Independent in March 2000. Several record winters later, the theory is as strong as ever; when their predictions fail, they change them. The current “consensus” is that the melting of Greenland will cut off the Gulf Stream, and Britain will shiver. And it’s not just this sceptred isle: “Global warming is making the world colder”, a recent headline announced. I’m not making this up.
Anthony Watts runs the world’s most popular “climate sceptic” site. He uses sound scientific arguments to counteract the official view that global warming is certain. But he is incredibly politically naïve. In March 2010, he wrote an article about moves in Germany to imprison “climate change deniers”. He immediately drew a connection – this reminded him of the Nazis. “This is what the allies fought for: freedom of speech and freedom from tyranny”. German politicians want to put people in prison. For “denying” something. The obvious continuity, is not with Hitler’s regime, but with Germany’s post-war government, which jails people for “denying the holocaust”.
The similarities don’t end there. The official holocaust religion, and the party line on climate change, both depend on ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, circular reasoning, and the assumption that the other guy’s arguments need a psychological explanation, not a reasoned reply. Naomi Klein recently argued in The Nation that “conservative white men” tend to disbelieve the theory of global warming “because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview” (Klein 2011). The warm-mongers claim to understand the motives of climate change “deniers”. But you can’t read someone else’s mind, particularly someone you’ve only met via their writing. The Anti-Defamation League is being less than candid when it says it knows the motives of holocaust doubters; the same is true of someone who claims to have ascertained the intentions of climate change sceptics.
Instead of fighting for freedom, the climate sceptic community pleaded that the term “denier” should be reserved for “holocaust deniers”. The commissars, scenting cowardice, responded by barking louder.
First they came for the holocaust deniers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a holocaust denier
Then they came for the climate change deniers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a climate change denier
Then… well, you know the rest
Anti-Defamation League (1996). Holocaust Denial: An Online Guide to Exposing and Combating Anti-Semitic Propaganda.
Klein, N. (2011, November). Capitalism vs. the Climate. Naomi Klein. The Nation.
Onians, C. (2000, March 20). Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. The Independent, London.
Watts, A. (2010, November 11). Germany’s Greens get ugly with climate skeptics.
…but when will he give Israel the kicking it deserves?
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has worked himself into a lather over Iran’s blocking of a Foreign Office website. He says: “I condemn this action by the Iranian Government. ‘UK for Iranians’ was launched to reach out to Iranians, explaining, discussing and engaging with them on UK policy.
“We have no quarrel with the Iranian people… At the launch of our website, I celebrated the links between the UK and Iran, and the richness of Iran’s culture… It is not just Iranians who are the poorer for their government’s censorship, but the rest of the world. We will continue to look for opportunities to engage with the Iranian people, confident that Iranians are outward looking and deserve the same freedoms that others enjoy around the world.”
What a hoot! For months Mr Hague worked overtime to force the people of Iran into misery, poverty and isolation by imposing a battery of “unprecedented” sanctions. He then campaigned to have these measures intensified, and to hell with the consequences – for them and for us.
Hague, with his pro-Israel affiliations, is simply not the right person to engage with the Iranians or anyone else in the Middle East.
‘UK for Iranians’ looks like a clone of America’s “virtual embassy”, which is also beamed at the Iranians. It too was blocked back in December. The British website says things like: “The UK would welcome improved relations with Iran. We have shared interests in a wide range of issues, including a stable Afghanistan… However, the UK and many other countries have serious concerns about the Iranian Government’s policies: its failure to address serious international concerns about its nuclear programme; its support for terrorism and promotion of instability in its region; and its continued denial of the human rights to which its own people aspire and which Iran has made international commitments to protect…”
I suspect the only people in the UK who have concerns about Iran’s policies are the Israel luvvies and Washington lapdogs that infest our parliament.
On the touchy subject of diplomatic relations the website has this to say: “Since an attack by government-sponsored militias on the British Embassy in Tehran on 29 November 2011, the British Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian Embassy in London have both been closed. This does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety. It is action that reduces our relations with Iran to the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of diplomatic relations…”
It was Hague’s decision to shut down the British embassy in Tehran and eject the Iranians from London. He had not in any case maintained a full diplomatic presence in Tehran and the embassy operated at chargé d’affaires level for several months after the previous ambassador left. Perhaps they couldn’t find a new ambassador who was willing to jump through Hague’s foreign policy hoops. So now we do business with Iran through a third-party country, Germany.
So much for the desire to improve relations, reach out, engage, share interests, talk over “serious concerns”, and so forth.
Aiming a final kick our diplomatic service says: “The international community has lost confidence that Iran’s nuclear activities are for exclusively peaceful purposes… We are clear that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people. The responsibility for any impact on the population lies with the Iranian Government and their failure to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions. The Iranian Government can choose to act to bring sanctions to an end at any point.”
In other words, we turn the screws but the screams are not our fault – just like it wasn’t our fault when we did the same in Iraq for 12 long years, starving their kids, before delivering shock’n’awe and wholesale destruction.
Hague said in his Middle East Statement, 9 November 2011: “Iran’s actions not only run counter to the positive change that we are seeing elsewhere in the region; they may threaten to undermine it, bringing about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or the risk of conflict”.
Yet according to the US intelligence community Iran hasn’t got an active nuclear weapons programme and Israeli intelligence agrees. Only a few weeks ago the Director of the National Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported: “We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons… We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons…”
Why is Hague so focused on Iran when Iran’s close neighbour Israel is the one with a runaway, unsafeguarded nuclear weapons programme?
UN Security Council resolution 487, in 1981, called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”. Israel has ignored it for 30 years. Hasn’t it occurred to Hague that Israel’s huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical and biological – and it’s refusal to end the illegal occupation of Palestine – are what’s really undermining positive change?
Furthermore, as the BBC reported http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428, back in 2009 the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. “Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.”
It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
So Hague is kicking the wrong target. He needs to propel the toe of his bovver boot into the US-subsidized backside of the Zionist entity. That’s where unprecedented sanctions are need.
They are conspicuously absent when they would be so easy to apply.
And I’m still waiting for answers to simple questions I put to Mr Hague through my MP, who is one of his faithful lieutenants in the Foreign Office. They include..
- What concrete proof is there of Iran’s military application of nuclear technology?
- Why isn’t Hague more concerned about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the threat it poses to the region and beyond, and the mental state of the Israeli regime?
- How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the 32 years since the Islamic Revolution?
- Did Mr Hague make any effort to go and talk before embarking on punitive sanctions?
- By pulling our people out of Tehran and throwing Iran’s people out of London Mr Hague has shut the door on diplomacy. How can he now communicate effectively with a people he pretends to “have no quarrel with” but seems determined to goad into becoming an implacable enemy?
And in an exchange of words the other day about the British Government’s obscenely greedy tax on motor fuel – it levies a 130% surcharge (in duty and value-added tax) on the ex-refinery price – the MP in question tried to persuade me that by December the measures his administration had taken would save motorists £144 filling up the average family car.
It’s a claim that will astonish British motorists who have watched with alarm as prices at the pump rocket and are likely to go higher, ditto energy prices as a whole. The Government’s policy of making bitter enemies where we need to have friends and forcing up the price of crude, is hurting us as well as the Iranians and is already causing catastrophic damage to British industry and hardship for families and pensioners.
I told the MP I hoped he wasn’t going to lecture us again on how the only way to defend our national security was to declare economic war on Iran and its people and threaten ultimately to vaporise their women and children and reduce their homeland to rubble. Nearly everyone by now knows it’s poppycock. Mr Hague, I said, “seems to have a thirst for aggravation, has assumed the role of Europe’s bovver-boy and right now is probably this country’s biggest liability”.
Stuart Littlewood’s book Radio Free Palestine can now be read on the internet by visiting www.radiofreepalestine.org.uk.
Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with Palestinian officials.
In this exclusive interview with Press TV’s Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations.
He goes further to explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.
Disavowal: “…a mental act that consists in rejecting the reality of a perception.”
For me to be Jewish is, above all, to be preoccupied with overcoming injustice and thirsting for justice in the world, and that means being respectful toward other peoples regardless of their nationality or religion, and empathetic in the face of human suffering whoever and wherever victimization is encountered” (Gilad Atzmon, “On Jewish Identity,” 1/15/2011).
Strange that the US Palestinian Community Network, in an article titled “Granting No Quarter: a Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon,” by Ali Abunimah, would seek to silence the voice of a man who, as the quote that opens this article attests, publically proclaims, to all the world in his new book The Wandering Who, that he stands for “justice, human dignity, equality and social and economic rights,” the very principles that the US PCN proclaims in that very article: “…we stand with all and any movements that call for justice, human dignity, equality, and social, economic, cultural and political rights.”
Perhaps Mr. Abunimah failed to read Mr. Atzmon’s book. Perhaps he failed to see the contradiction he penned. Perhaps he felt forced to respond to outside pressures that necessitated he “reject the reality of the perception” expressed by Mr. Atzmon and propose “disavowal,” an action that Nahida suggests might be related “to the Talmudic concept of excommunication in which “the Talmud forbids coming within six feet of a person who has been excommunicated“? (from “Disavow with no mercy,” Nahida exiled).
Strange also, is it not, that this imposition of an action on the members of the PCN, reflects a Medieval form of punishment or, perhaps, a tribalistic one, a concept (a perception perhaps) that Mr. Atzmon suggests is a tool of the Zionists’ strategy to control the masses, a perception that the PCN abhors in its condemnation of Atzmon.
Atzmon’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion that serves as springboard for vicious attacks on anyone who disagrees with his obsession with “Jewishness”. He claims that all Jewish politics is “tribal,” and essentially, Zionist. Zionism, to Atzmon, is not a settler-colonial project, but a trans-historical “Jewish” one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a Jew. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist. We could not disagree more (PCN, Ali Abunimah).
Had Mr. Abunimah read Atzmon’s book he would have realized that this is not what Atzmon’s work claims. Atzmon begins by narrowing his subject:
Atzmon distinguishes among those who follow the Judaic religion; those who regard themselves as a human being who happens to be of Jewish origin; and those who put their Jewishness over and above all other traits. Chaim Weizman, the first Israeli President and a Zionist, identified being a Jew as a ‘primary quality’ above citizenship, occupation, head of household, indeed “Jewishness becomes the key element and fundamental characteristic of one’s being.” Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote “…the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical racial type are Jewish” (“A Letter on Autonomy,” 1904). It is this identifying principle that Atzmon sees as corrosive, not only to Judaism, but to the safety and security of the Jewish people, their friends and their neighbors. “…probably then and there I left Chosen-ness behind to become an ordinary human being” (6). (A Review of the Wandering Who, Cook).
Does Atzmon’s analysis that focuses on the Zionist strategies to enforce its goals translate now into anti-Semitism? When did Zionism become a synonym for Jew? Is it not “an international political movement that originally supported the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine (Eretz-Yisra’el) and continues primarily in support for the modern state of Israel.” (New World Encyclopedia). When did it become anti-Semitic to analyze a political party? Indeed, Atzmon’s criticism of Zionism focuses on its corrosiveness to Judaism itself, a concern that has been present in Jewish history since the inception of Zionism:
Throughout its history the Zionist movement has faced hostility from both within and without as well as considerable (sic) ambivalence among Jews with regard to the centrality of the Jewish State. …In the Jewish world, the ultra-Orthodox and the Reform movement have opposed Zionism as challenging tradition and assimilationism, respectively. …In recent years the Reform movement joined the Zionist Organization and has actively endorsed immigration to Israel. In Israel itself, the term “post-Zionism” has become popular in certain circles seeking to suggest that the movement is obsolete and at the same time to “demythologize” its achievements. (Encyclopedia of Judaism).
The PCN attacks Atzmon because in their view he appears “to reaffirm and legitimize Zionism” by “adopting anti-Semitic or racist language.” That conclusion is based on a misreading of his views as we have established above. How can a critique of Zionism’s strategies “legitimize” what it claims to be? Does it not do the opposite? By elucidating the coercive strategies used by the Zionists to control those opposed to its goals, does he not add insight as to how Zionism helps maintain and further the “imperialism and colonialism” PCN finds as the causes of the destruction of the Palestinian homeland, “expelling its people, and sustaining the systems and ideologies of oppression, apartheid and occupation.” In short, shouldn’t PCN embrace Atzmon as a man willing to place his own life in danger in his effort to aid the Palestinian cause?
Atzmon’s analysis reveals strategies used by the Zionists to control their population. He points specifically to the Zionist lobbies that tell the assimilated Jew “You will never escape who you are so why not be proud of it and work with us.” Indeed, this very assertion undermines a moral foundation as it forces the American Jew to succumb to that “primary quality” of Jewish-ness above loyalty to his nation. “First they are Jews and only then are they humanists” (35). Zionism, as Atzmon notes, has used Jewish ‘separatism’ and its resulting ‘insecurity in relations with his fellow beings’ to coerce obedience and commitment. This tactic has been characteristic of the Zionist power since the Mandate period.
This is not anti-Semitism; it is historical analysis based on personal experience that unveils a political movement that has as its principle goal the creation of Greater Israel, the full colonization of the lands of Palestine bereft of its indigenous peoples, a perception that PCN should give serious thought to as should we all.
Hasan Afzal is suffering from “self hatred”. You can read about him here and here. Although Hasan Afzal claims to be a friend of Jews and Israel we have yet to hear his opinion on Neturei Karta the Torah Faithful Jews. Afzal is also on the team of The Freedom Association whose rather questionable strategy to engage students i found on their website.
Free Spirits events are also held at University campuses across the country and at party conference fringes. At Universities, as well as offering excellent speakers, we also provide a free drink to each student who attends. In this way, students can hear top speakers and discuss freedom issues, whilst enjoying a drink.
Free Spirits: Free Thinking, Free Drinking and Freedom of Speech
Anyway, what we do know is that Hasan Afzal stands for free speech. Here he is clearly telling us that we need in order to stand up against censorship and intolerance . . .
Yet Hasan Afzal’s website, which is called Stand for Peace, appears to work solely for the interests of the Zionists who want to oppress free speech whenever it goes against their total-domination agenda. Here is Afzal’s latest piece published on 16th March and picked up immediately on the rabid Zionist, Islamophobia award winning, pro-war blog Harry’s Place. Are Patrick Mercer MP and the College of Law about to legitimise an extremist?
Afzal then writes
It then comes as a surprise to the staff of StandforPeace that Patrick Mercer MP of Newark is to share a platform with Asim Qureshi of Cageprisoners. They are to talk about ‘terrorism legislation’ at the College of Law, Moorgate on Monday 19th March. Asim Qureshi is amongst the worst extremists in Britain. The organisation he works for, Cageprisoners, is notorious for promoting extremists and apologias for terrorists, including those tried and convicted in open courts.
These words are not the words of a Muslim. Terminology as “share a platform” and “legitimise” come directly from the Zionist handbook on how to stifle what might not be good for the Jews/Zionists.
So, just who are the staff of Stand for Peace?
If, as Afzal claims, Asim Quershi is an apologist for terrorists and a promoter of extremists,then who better to talk about terrorism? Perhaps Asim might get the chance to talk about the terrorising of civilians in Palestine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan by the rogue states of the United States and Israel. Since Afzal says he believes in free and fair debate can we then look forward to a debate between himself and Asim Qureshi?
Last night Afzal posted a piece on Harry’s Place with no explanation or comment on the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja – a shocking massacre of Iraqi Kurds in 1988. This article “How Reagan armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons in Counterpunch is essential reading on the subject. Surely Hasan Afzal, whose website is, after all, called Stand for PEACE, would be against the use of this terrible massacre as a justification of the Iraq war which killed an estimated two and a half million Iraqis? We cannot be sure, because he does not clarify his position and the blog where he is a guest poster is vehemently pro-war.
A modern St George vowed one day to save his people from the ravages of a tribe of dragons. These monsters had been setting fire to towns and villages throughout the land, and if something wasn’t done soon, there would be none of his people left to save.
Of course St George knew very well that not all dragons behave in this way. For example, some dragons only use their fire to light a cigarette or to defrost a drainpipe. It was imperative to avoid anti-dragonism, and so he would only target those dragons who used their fire in an antisocial way.
In other words, he was an anti-arsonist, not an anti-dragonist. There was absolutely no justification for associating dragons with arson. Talk like that could lead to another holopnigo (mass drowning). After all, human beings could be arsonists as well.
St George considered being a dragon a fine thing; dragons had a long and venerable tradition, and he respected that. He realised, however, that this should not lead him into the trap of assuming that dragons had anything in common with one another, still less that they ever acted collectively in their rampages.
This led St George to agonise still further. Perhaps even the arsonist dragons were not responsible for what they did. They only acted the way they did because of the holopnigo in which they had suffered so terribly.
It was really imperialists who were responsible for using these traumatised dragons for their own ends. They wanted to control the world, and so they used dragons to do it for them. In other words, dragons were victims, not oppressors.
And so St George spent the rest of his days ferociously attacking the imperialists, while the dragons continued ferociously attacking his people.
It has to be admitted that this strategy, like another of depriving arsonist dragons of lighter fuel, was somewhat ineffective, but it had one over-riding virtue. It mirrored the arsonsit dragons in their adherence to the principle of purity of arms. St George’s activism was ethically pure.
The Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement is a good idea it is the institutional lie that is the problem. In my opinion B.D.S. is just a ploy for diverting time and energy of the people of conscience and keeping them busy within the parameters pre ordained by the powers that be. Today the B.D.S. campaign has been completely exposed. Read all about it in the Jewish Chronicle “Boycott, What Boycott? U.K. Business With Israel Is Booming” the article goes on to trumpet that
business over the last year with Israel has increased by a massive 34%
This was much to the delight of Matthew Gould the U.K. ambassador to Israel, who also said
“There is a lot of noise around boycotts but these figures show that it is just noise, and the trade relationship speaks for itself.”
But that is not all. For the B.D.S. campaigners, there has been more humiliation this week when it transpires that Omar Barghouti, leader of the B.D.S. movement whilst calling his disciples to an academic boycott attends Tel Aviv university. Omar Barghouti is a founding member of P.A.C.B.I. who have released a statement saying that Palestinians have no other choice than to sometimes study in Tel Aviv, however, Mr Barghouti gained his first degree in Electrical Engineering in Colombia University, so presumably could have studied in the United States or indeed in Egypt where he grew up.
For an interesting read of Omar Barghouti’s background read this article “The Chutzpah of Omar Barghouti“. Personally I wonder how as an exiled Palestinian he manages to live in Ramallah, who facilitated that? Ironically he views himself as one of the 99% read here – I wonder what the many Gazans unable to leave Gaza to pursue any academic career think of that?
So there we have it, B.D.S. is an #EpicFail. As I have said before the only redress for the Palestinians will be found when we Muslims follow Islam and look for an Islamic solution.
Boycott is anyway an entirely Jewish concept as we were already told by our Hebrew speaking Palestinian friend Gilad Atzmon when he wrote this article “The Herem Law in the context of Jewish past and present“. A very enjoyable read on the concept of kosher democracy.
Earlier this week I wrote about the “pond life” that exists amongst the leaders of the political left. (Incidently, talking of hopping things, Barghouti in Arabic means flea). The majority of left wing activists are very caring people who love to try and make a difference where they see a clear injustice, such as the the one perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
Feeling the need “to do something” as a human that cares, is a very natural response to Israeli ethnic cleansing, land theft and war crimes. Clearly the hands of the U.N. the E.U. and Western governments are tied and they are unable to change the situation in the Middle East by political or by legal means. Arab governments for years were too busy stealing the wealth of their own nations and oppressing their own populations to have any motivation to help the Palestinians who now have little left to steal anyway.
In such an environment of International deceit it has been left to the few honest people on the street, to stand up and highlight Israeli injustices and to try to shame our leaders into taking some action. Boycott Divestment and Sanctions was exactly one such action that every person could participate in and feel that they were doing at least something positive.
As long as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is operating within the parameters set out by its anti Zionist, Zionist members and its sister organisation the B.D.S. campaign, seeks only kosher solutions, then obviously nothing is going to change for the Palestinians.
That stupid exhibitionist in the shooting spree by HIMSELF…
How can you grown up people believe in this two murderous clowns???
by James Petras and Robin Eastman Abaya
Introduction: A Week of National Humiliation:
From March 4th to March 9th, 2012, 13,000 militant Israel Firsters, took over “political Washington” and imposed a foreign regime’s (Israel) political agenda to the rousing applause and appreciation of their captive vassal US legislators and executives who crowded the halls and platforms groveling for the imperious nods of their visiting Israeli overlords. The annual meeting of the American (sic) Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most outrageous public display of Zionist-Jewish power as it shapes US foreign policy. The sole purpose of AIPAC is to ensure Israel’s unchallenged military and political power over a huge region from North Africa to the Persian Gulf. Over three quarters of the US Congress members paraded themselves before the AIPAC, as well as President Obama and Vice President Biden and any high ranking Cabinet members in any way related to US foreign policy (Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Panetta included). They all loudly parroted the political agenda and military priorities that the AIPAC has imposed on the United States.
AIPAC: A launch pad for Israeli Leaders
The AIPAC gathering is clearly not a meeting of “just another lobby”: It is the launch pad used by Israel’s top political and military leaders to drag the US into another major war in the Middle East – this time against Iran. Shimon Peres, Israel’s President opened the conference, setting the militarist tone and political framework for US President Obama who followed, slavishly echoing the language and substance of the Israeli leader. The following day the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, spoke, and forcefully laid out the line for a US war against Iran with thousands of prominent and respectable Jewish Americans, Israel Firsters, leaping to their feet dozens of times in fanatic support for a US war – a war, in which few, if any, of them, their children, relatives or friends will suffer loss of life or limb. This was the same Bibi Netanyahu who once opined that the 9-11 attack on the US benefited Israel because it linked the US closer to Israeli interests.
Not since the War of 1812, which saw the British occupation and burning of Washington, has the US capital been so utterly humiliated by a foreign power. Unlike the British crown, which then negotiated a peace settlement, allowing the US to regain its sovereignty and capital, the Israeli leaders and their rabid “fifth column” demand a military agreement, in which Israel dictates the terms under which the US goes to war with Iran.
Israeli leaders have not secured the submission of the US because of Israel’s military, economic or political superiority: They have a puny economy, a fraction of the US nuclear weapons and have few allies and even less public approval in the international community. But they do have at least a half million fanatical, unconditional Zionist militants in the United States, including thousands of loyal multi-millionaires and billionaires who fund the campaign of both Democrat and Republican parties. AIPAC is the vanguard of Israel’s shock troops in the US. Highly disciplined and organized, AIPAC lobbyists invade the offices of every Congressperson armed with a legislative script carefully prepared by and for the State of Israel. They have secured the full commitment of most members of Congress for Israel’s agenda waving both dollar signs and stars (of David). As past history has amply demonstrated, Congressional staff or legislators who dare hesitate or ask for time to reflect, rapidly find themselves on the receiving end of AIPAC’s political bullying and threats which usually secure acquiescence. Refusal to capitulate to AIPAC means the end of a political career in Washington.
The Israeli (and therefore AIPAC’s) agenda is to pursue an unprovoked war, either initiated by the US or as part of a US-backed Israeli sneak attack, against the sovereign Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is targeted today because the other opponents of Israel’s colonization of Palestine have been destroyed in previous Zionist-backed US wars, namely Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and the ongoing proxy war against the Assad regime in Syria.
Today Israeli leaders insist that Iran should be violently denied what over 120 other nations practice freely: the legal enrichment of uranium for medical, commercial and scientific purposes. Past Israeli propaganda, echoed by the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations, falsely claimed Iran possessed nuclear weapons or … was in the process of manufacturing them and therefore posed an ‘existential’ threat to Israeli. Even the mere ‘capacity’ to enrich uranium for medical purposes (many times below the level needed for a weapon) is presented as a major threat to the Jewish State. Meanwhile, the 27 US intelligence agencies (in their yearly ‘findings’) and even the US-influenced International Atomic Energy Agency have found no such evidence of an ongoing weapons program – thus the need for bizarre terms like ‘existential threat’.
Israel’s high command has now come up with a new flimsy pretext for war. Iran’s potential (through its advanced scientific and technical manpower and research centers) for acquiring a ‘nuclear weapon capability’ may constitute a sufficient cause for war. In other words, Israel has ordered its 13,000 AIPAC militants, to demand every US Congress person vote for a war resolution on the basis of Iran’s current uranium enrichment program geared to medical uses and on its sophisticated scientific and intellectual potential! Meanwhile, the Mossad has launched a not-so-secret program of terrorist assassinations of Iranian scientists – in their homes, offices and universities; with nary a protest from the ‘Zionized’ US press.
Israel’s Willing Executioners
Netanyahu’s newest criterion for war (Iranian capability) has the blind support of the major Jewish organizations in the US. American Zionists are the willing executioners promoting an aggressive, unprovoked, military attack against the homeland (and homes) of 75 million Iranians. Let us be clear, there are naked genocidal impulses permeating some of the pronouncements of leading US Jewish religious leaders. The executive vice president of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Herring, suggested that Israel should consider “the use of tactical nuclear weapons in areas that aren’t so populated or in the open desert …to show the Iranians that their lives are on the line, that Israel won’t go quietly”. The rabbi did not specify whether population centers of a quarter of a million inhabitants or less qualify under his definition of “not so populated” and therefore are suitable targets for this educational display of thermo-nuclear destruction, “just to show the Iranians”…. Let us keep in mind that among the Zionist fundamentalists, “not a few organizational leaders … wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons right now”.
When Netanyahu gave the command to the AIPAC delegates to invade the US Congress and secure a war commitment on the basis of Iran’s ‘capacity’ (for uranium enrichment), there was no debate and no dissention among the ‘shock troops’ – only blind unanimous approval among Jewish American citizens for their foreign master. These respectable Jewish-Americans marched lock-step in platoons right up to the Congress members on their lists, canned arguments in one hand and Israeli-ghost-written legislation in the other. They boast of having rounded up a substantial majority of elected US representatives – for war!
If Israel’s power in the US depends on AIPAC’s tight control over the US Congress, the lobby, for its part, depends on the power of the wider Zionist power configuration permeating strategic political and administrative offices, political party structures and the electoral process itself. This, in turn, depends on Zionist media influence linked back to economic and financial power. The democratic and representative process has been totally crushed under this narrow-focused juggernaut for war on behalf of Israel.
AIPAC’s Congressional and Executive Collaborators
While much has been made of the influence AIPAC exercises over the US Congress and Executive via ‘lobbying’, better termed intimidation and pressure tactics, a great part of its success is based on the larger Zionist matrix of power operating within the government, civil society and the economy. When AIPAC lobbyists approach Congress members with Israeli-dictated foreign policy priorities in hand, they coordinate and are given a major platform by the forty-plus elected Zionist legislators who, just happen, to occupy strategic positions, such as the chairpersons of Congressional committees dealing with foreign policy, especially policy related to the Middle East. In other words, AIPAC’s conquest of Congress is ‘by invitation’. The relation is ‘reciprocal’. AIPAC and the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and various fundraisers mobilize money and activists to help elect the reliable Zionists to office. Once in place, they openly collaborate in writing pro-Israel legislation and ensuring that ‘majorities’ vote the ‘right way’.
Mark Dubowitz, executive director of “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” helped write the latest (Iran) sanctions bill … (Financial Times March 6, 2012, pg. 9). The “Foundation” is better known as an unconditional and unquestioning promoter of Israel’s agenda. Dubowitz is one of many un-elected ‘legislators’ who write and promote laws at Israel’s behest. The legislation to impose sanctions on Iran, authored by Dubowitz, is designed to brutalize and starve 75 million Iranian citizens into submission to further Israel’s goal of unquestioned supremacy in the Middle East.
AIPAC’s operations are not confined to Congress or to the electoral process. From the Reagan Administration to the Obama Administration, AIPAC has supplied committed Zionists to key positions in the Treasury, State Department, National Security Council and the President’s inner circle of advisors on the Middle East. AIPAC pressure ensures the appointment of Zionists to the executive branch and has led to the creation of special administrative posts designed specifically to pursue Israel’s agenda. A good example of AIPAC’s success is the post of Undersecretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Intelligence. The position was first held by Stuart Levey, a Zionist zealot, whose whole purpose was to design and implement US (and later EU) sanctions against Iran. His replacement, David Cohen, a clone also from AIPAC, is the author of legislation pushing for punitive sanctions against Syria.
Dennis Ross, widely known as ‘Israel’s lawyer’ and a former AIPAC leader, was appointed senior adviser to Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, was the architect of US support for Israel’s starvation blockade and criminal bombing of Gaza (1999), the murderous invasion of Lebanon (2006). He has provided ‘cover’ for Netanyahu’s massive building of Jews only settlements on occupied Palestinian lands and his cynical ‘peace negotiations’ ploy.
Jeffrey Feltman, the current AIPAC front man in the State Department, is the key official in charge of Middle East affairs, especially Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Obama’s own inner circle of advisers is dominated by unconditional Israel supporters, including David Axelrod as chief confidant and the former Presidential Chief of Staff, dual US-Israeli citizen and current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. What is striking is the constant cycle from leadership and activity in Zionist (Israeli-front) organizations, entry into powerful government post, return to one or another pro-Israel think tank, ‘civic organizations’, electoral office or lucrative private practice – all promoting the interests of Tel Aviv.
AIPAC and the 52 Grassroots Organizations
AIPAC’s power in Washington depends on the activism of hundreds of thousands of American Zionists affiliated with organizations under the 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations (MAJO). While there is considerable overlap of membership, MAJO leaders openly serve as a transmission belt for Israel: transmitting the political line from Tel Aviv to their membership, including activist doctors, dentists and stock brokers in New York, Miami, Kansas City, Los Angeles and San Francisco and all points north, south, east and west. When AIPAC has ‘trouble’ securing an elected representative’s sign-on to legislation for sanctions against whichever country is currently targeted by Israel, the reluctant legislator becomes a prime target for local Zionist notables and ‘fund raisers’, who pay them a ‘visit’ to persuade, if possible, threaten retaliation, if necessary. If a legislator still refuses to hew to Israel’s line, or considers service to a foreign power to be harmful to United States, he/she will soon find that AIPAC has raised millions of dollars to fund a campaign of slander and electoral defeat.
Along with these upper middle class ‘grass roots’ activists there are the numerous highly politicized Zionist mega-millionaires and billionaires, like Adelson, Saban and scores of others, who make no bones about being fanatical Israel Firsters and donate millions to Congresspeople willing to subordinate US interests to Israel’s quest for Middle East supremacy.
Besides this legal corruption of the political process, there is the issue of illegal espionage and thuggery on AIPAC’s part, most recently evidenced by the ongoing law-suit by one of two former top AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen caught spying for Israel (passing classified documents on US military policy towards Iran). Rosen, who was acquitted in a highly manipulated ‘trial’, maintains that AIPAC routinely encouraged its officials to secure confidential US government documents for Israel.
And then there are the prominent free-lance Zionists, who engage in vicious, highly publicized, political thuggery, physical assaults and blackmail against critics of Israel. The most prominent defamers, like Abraham Foxman of the Anti (sic) Defamation League, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, manipulate legions of respectable and wealthy thugs to pressure schools, universities and other employers to censor and fire critics of Israel. These Zionist organizations far exceed the reach and effective blacklisting of an earlier generation of witch hunters, like Senator Joseph McCarthy, who were rank amateurs in comparison. The recent antics of Israel-Firster Andrew Adler, editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times, whose call for the Israeli Mossad to assassinate President Obama led merely to his resignation as editor after several weeks of nervous outrage (but no federal investigation or charges).
What is striking here is that while most respectable Zionists dissociate themselves from AIPAC spies and verbal assassins, the power of the Israel Firsters ensures that such goons and thugs are rarely charged for their crimes and have never gone to jail.
The wider impact of Zionist influence and thuggery is evident in the timorous self-censorship of the majority of Americans who privately express fear and loathing at the confrontational, strident and abusive Zionist-Americans pushing a foreign agenda.
Israel, Zionism and the Mass Media
The mass media is a key political resource, which the pro-Israel power configuration exploits to the full. Not a single major print, television, film or radio outlet is willing to provide a balanced account of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel’s dispossession of thousands of Arab families from their homes and the daily terrorist Zionist settler and military assaults against Palestinians protesting land seizures go unreported. The hundreds of nuclear weapons in Israel’s arsenal are never mentioned while the Jewish State’s hysterical claims that non-nuclear Iran represents an existential threat are repeated and magnified, ad nauseam. The leaders of the 52 know their Goebbels: A lie repeated often enough becomes an accepted truth.
Zionism and Leveraging Power
What is crucial in understanding the Zionist Power Configuration’s stranglehold over our government is how it leverages power. For example, a tiny minority falsely claims to speak for all American Jews, who represent about 3% of the US population. However, based on this claim, they mobilize and raise funds to elect the committed Zionists who hold about 10% of the seats in the US Congress and Senate. These representatives, in turn, enjoy the support of a tiny cadre of super rich Zionists, whose promotion allows them to gain control over key committees dealing with Middle East policy and security.
Domestic security has been deeply influenced by the Zionist-Israeli agenda: Former US Attorney General, Michael Mukasey and Homeland Security Tzar, Michael Chertoff have been among the most prominent officials orienting US domestic security to focus on critics of Israel and the entrapment of Muslim citizens in bizarre webs of phony terrorist plots, while real domestic security has suffered and civil rights have been shredded. The over-representation of Zionists on the US Supreme Court (3 out of 9) and the careful selection of recent justices, like Justice Sotomayor, underscore the profound nature of the process as it extends to the judiciary.
The Zionist Power Configuration controls the Mid-East policies of both Democratic and Republican Party and their Presidential nominees through their Congressional and political party power bases. The US President, in turn, is leveraged, in order to secure key policy appointments for Zionists in the State Department, Treasury and Pentagon. Their leverage in the foreign policy establishment allows Zionist officials to put pressure on allies and clients in the United Nation and European Union to support policies, such as Israel’s boycott and punishment of the elected Hamas government in Gaza and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
Leverage is how Israel, an infinitely small and insignificant state with less than 1% of world GNP, exports and market shares and occupying .001% of the world’s territory, can play such a disproportionate role in the reconfiguration of power in the Middle East. Through its American-Zionist influentials, Israel has manipulated the US into a quagmire of wars in the Middle East, costing the world’s consumers of oil untold billions of dollars and pushing the world economy into recession.
Israel’s “Petroleum Tax”: War Threats and the Price of Gas
During the first 3 months of 2012, the price of oil rose 15% (over 30% since the summer 2011) largely due to Israel’s war mongering and threats to launch an offensive war against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Peres and Foreign Minister Lieberman have all repeatedly demanded the US bomb Iran, or failing that, they warn, Israel would launch its own offensive war against the Iranian people and drag the US into another war.
Almost all oil experts and political analysts agree that the spike in oil prices is a result of Israel’s war mongering, as major international oil speculators bet that an Israeli assault on Iran will provoke a major disruption in production and transportation of petroleum in the Middle East and provoke a global shortfall.
The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations have added to the war hysteria by echoing and embellishing on Israel’s claims of an Iranian nuclear threat (or Iran’s “growing capacity” to threaten Israel in the future).
During the first three months of this year alone, the increased price of gasoline – or more accurately Israel’s war tax on the American consumers and drivers costs an additional 60 cents a gallon, or $9 dollars more to fill a 15 gallon tank. This represents the tribute the Zionist power configuration has imposed on the American consumers in their push for a new war on Israel’s behalf. No US politician would dare discuss this issue, let alone speak up and tell the Zionist chattering classes and their “beloved leaders” to stop pimping for war or else risk the cutting off of Israel’s $3 billion dollar annual handout from the US taxpayers.
Leading economists have stated that the price hike in petroleum (caused by a bellicose Israel) is stunting growth and pushing the US and EU back into recession … costing millions more job losses. If we add the consumer losses caused by high gas prices to the losses in world economic output, the mere war chants of Netanyahu, Lieberman, Peres and the AIPAC will cost the global economy hundreds of billions over the course of the year.
Any mention of Israel’s gas tax on the American family’s budget will elicit outraged accusations of anti-Semitism from respectable Zionists and ugly threats from their thug accomplices. When Obama performed his infamous annual belly crawl to pleasure the AIPAC delegates and their Israeli guests, in the midst of cheers over his re-affirmation of America’s unconditional loyalty to the state of Israel, he also quietly asked Israel to lower the war cries at least until after the November elections because of its effects on the price of gasoline on the American voter.
The high price of oil is damaging Obama’s chances for re-election. The American electorate may not understand the real cost of Obama’s submission to Israel and may not be aware of Israel’s gas tax, but they are holding their putative President responsible for their pain at the pump! There is only one thing that Obama cherishes more than Zionist support and that is the votes of an economically squeezed American electorate, who are turning against him in droves as the price of gasoline soars.
The week of March 4 to 11, 2012 will go down in history as a week of national humiliation; a time when legions of fanatical American Zionists took over Washington; when the entire Cabinet, led by President Obama, groveled before the officials of a foreign state – in the heart of Washington DC. When the President and Prime Minister of Israel directed their foreign legionaires to march on the US Congress and shove their flimsy pretexts for war with Iran into the faces of cringing legislators, the simplistic and idiotic message was: Bomb Iran because it may soon have … a nuclear ‘capacity’. If asked what constitutes capacity, they quote their beloved leaders in Tel Aviv, including the semi-literate (former nightclub bouncer) Foreign Minister Avi Lieberman, the morally corrupt Bibi Netanyahu and the quietly diabolic Shimon Peres that Iranians can ‘enrich uranium’ – a capacity long held by 125 other countries.
It is with supreme arrogance that the followers of AIPAC and the 52 Presidents penetrate the US government in order to serve a foreign government. None bother to hide their past, present or future affiliations with the state of Israel. They are backed by prestigious Zionist academics, whose tendentious justifications for war have already sent tens of thousands of US soldiers to an early grave or to the wards of military and veteran hospitals and clinics across the country: They have sold us the argument that by serving the interests of the State of Israel we serve the United States. From this, it only follows that to break the law and act as an unregistered agent for a foreign power, to transfer highly classified government documents to Mossad agents at the Israeli embassy and to threaten Americans who criticize or oppose Israel is a patriotic act. Naval analyst Jonathan Pollard, the convicted US master-spy for Israel, is widely celebrated in Israel as an honorary Colonel in the IDF and a hero; the leaders of the major Zionist organizations are again pressuring Obama to release this traitor.
The documented performance of the leading Zionists in public office in the United States over the past two decades has been an unmitigated disaster. The self-proclaimed best and brightest have led the country into the worst economic and military catastrophes in a century. It was Alan Greenspan, as head of the Federal Reserve, who de-regulated the financial sector and optimized conditions for the mega-swindles and speculative frenzy bringing down the entire financial system. It was his replacement, Ben Bernacke, who pushed for trillions of US tax-payer dollars in bail-out funds to save his cronies on Wall Street and set them back on course, in the last 2 years, to repeat their speculative orgy – and allow such tribal compatriots as Stephen Schwartzman to reap $213 million in earnings in 2011.
It was Fred Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Libby, Abrams and Ross, as well as their less prominent lieutenants, who pushed the US into wars on Israel’s behalf in Afghanistan and Iraq, all the while confidently predicting ‘low cost, quick victories’ (even slam-dunks). Never has such a cohort of Ivy League mediocrities collectively produced so many disastrous policies in such a brief historical time while never being held in any way, shape or form responsible or accountable for their performance. It is obvious that these policy disasters did not result from faulty intellect or lack of an elite education. Their apparent ignorance of historical, political, economic and military realities was a result of their blinding Zionist loyalties to the Israeli state whose real interests they embraced. This lack of accountability guarantees that this process will continue until the US, as a republic, is destroyed for the masses of its misled citizens.
In order to justify a war against Israel’s regional adversaries, these blind mediocrities have distorted the realities of Arab nationalism. It was with supreme tribal arrogance and racism that they assured themselves that Arabs could never sustain prolonged resistance to their imperial juggernaut. They believed precisely what their tribal religion/ideology told them: They were a chosen people (genetic studies aside). They were the most financially successful investors or speculators. They attended and taught at the most prestigious universities. When, on occasion, a leading Zionist philanthropist, like Bernard Madoff, fell afoul—and actually went to jail– it was because, like his fellow tribalists, Milken, Boesky and Pollard — he didn’t buy his one way ticket to Israel soon enough.
When a country, like the United States, is in decline, it is not because of external competition: Declining competitiveness is only a symptom. It is because of internal rot. Decline results when a nation is betrayed by craven leaders, who crawl and humiliate themselves before a minority of thuggish mediocrities pledged to a foreign state without scruples or moral integrity.
James Petras latest book is The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counterattacks
(Atlanta: Clarity Press 2011) 2nd edition.
 For full coverage of the daily activities and the uncritical reportage of the major media see the Daily Alert , the official mouthpiece of 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations, especially March 4 – 6, 2012.
 See the AIPAC video reports and the list of speakers. http://www.aipac.org , 3/2/2012 and subsequent reports.
 White House press release of Obama’s declaration that US subordinate relation to Israel is “sacrosanct”, March 4,/20/12.
 The reference is to Noam Chomsky whose laughable effort to downplay the influence of the Zionist power configuration is widely rejected and is once again refuted by the most superficial observation of the proceedings, pledges and prostrations of all top US policy makers at the AIPAC meeting.
 Netanyahu’s public pronouncements and AIPAC speech were duly recorded, amplified and supported by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and especially the Washington Post (2/6/2012). He explicitly called on the US to militarily attack Iran on behalf of Israel, on the basis of Teheran’s ‘capacity’ to make a nuclear weapon. According to Netanyahu “we can’t afford to wait much longer …” Prime Minister’s Office 3/5/12.
 New York Times, 3/5/12.
 Prime Ministers Office as quoted in the Daily Alert, 3/6/12.
 AIPAC video daily reports, 3/6/12.
 For example, just one of the numerous Zionist billionaires, the casino tzar, Sheldon Adelson has already contributed “tens of millions of dollars” to influence the current Presidential elections. Haaretz, 2/29/12. Haim Saban, another Israel-Firster billionaire, bought the principle Spanish language TV outlet in the US, UNIVISION, and then proceeded to promote sensationalist Israeli propaganda about an Iranian-Islamist “takeover” of Latin America.
 AIPAC press releases, 3/7/12 – 3/10/12.
 A survey of the Daily Alert , from March 4 to March 9, reveals there is not one single article that discusses the alternative of a diplomatic settlement with Iran, while over a dozen articles feature calls for war.
 For documentation and details on the decisive role of Zionist policy makers in launching the US war against Iraq see my The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta: Clarity Press 2006).
 New York Times, 3/1/12
 The 52 Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations repeatedly endorsed Netanyahu’s pretext for war. See Daily Alert, 3/6/2012
 Quoted in http://Mondoweiss.net, 3/2/12.
 Key Zionist Congressional operatives include Representatives Berman, Cantor, Harman, Lieberman, Ros- Lehtinen, and Levin as well as their Christian side-kicks, like McConnell and Pelosi among others who appeared at the AIPAC war fest. AIPAC promotional flyer 3/2/12.
 See The Power of Israel in the United States (op cit.)
 See “On Bended Knees: Zionist Power in American Politics” in James Petras, War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column (Clarity, Atlanta 2010.
 The Power of Israel in the United States, op cit.
 Though Ross has formally resigned, he is still a key Obama adviser on the Middle East. See Haaretz 1/27/12,
 One of the key Zionist operatives is Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. He played a crucial role in support of Israel ‘s bombing of Lebanon in 2006, during his term as Ambassador, calling Hezbollah a “terrorist organization”. He dictated policy to the US client ruler Fouad Siniora. Feltman twice served in Israel. He was stationed in Gaza where he collaborated with the occupying Israeli Defense Forces. He worked with uber-Zionist US Ambassador Martin Indyk backing Israel’s position in the phony “Peace Process” from 2000 to 2001. Other Zionists in key positions include Jack Lew, current Chief of Staff to President Obama; David Plouffe senior adviser, Dan Shapiro, Ambassador to Israel; Steven Simon, Head of Middle East/North Africa Desk at the National Security Council; and Eric Lynn, Middle East policy advisor. Jewish Virtual Library a Division of the American-Israeli Enterprise 2012.
 Prominent Zionists, who served in strategic positions in the foreign policy realm of the Obama regime, included Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to the President, David Axelrod, Senior Advisor; James Steinberg Deputy Secretary of State; and Richard Holbrooke Special Envoy to Pakistan/Afghanistan (deceased).
 Several studies estimate that Jews make up about 25% of the Forbes 400 richest Americans; over half are contributors to Israel or Zionist organizations or causes. J.J. Goldberg in his book on Jewish power estimates that 45% of Democratic fundraising comes from pro-Israel Jews. (Jewish Power: Inside the Jewish Establishment, Reading: Addison-Wesley 1996)
 Steve Rosen, a top policy director of AIPAC, along with his colleague, Keith Weissman admitted to handing over confidential documents to the Israeli embassy. Rosen later filed suit against AIPAC for firing him and Weissman and refusing to pay their legal fees; he claimed that the Lobby frequently condoned its employees’ receipt and illegal transfer of classified US government information citing numerous AIPAC documents to back-up his case. The Jewish Daily Forward, 12/15/2010.
 The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, urged Netanyahu to order the Israeli secret spy service, the Mossad, to assassinate President Obama, Haaretz 1/21/12. Rabbi Michael Lerner, a moderate Zionist critic of Israel, has been subject to four attacks on his home in the past two years, while accused of being a ‘self-hating Jew’ by Zionist fanatics. Mainstream Zionist organizations dissociate themselves from physical violence, while slanderously labeling opponents and critics of Israel as “anti-semites”, which has created precisely the political climate that encourages the less balanced among their audience to violent activity. Leading Zionist ideologues have been extremely active in inducing colleges and universities to fire critics of Israel, as was the case in the failure of DePaul University to renew the contract of a widely published scholar like, Norman Finklestein. Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, authors of an erudite study of The Israel Lobby, were subject to vitriolic attacks by American Zionist leaders, including A. Foxman of the Anti (sic) Defamation League as well as a superficial critique by left-Zionist Noam Chomsky. The racist rantings of uber-Zionists like David Horowitz and Pamela Geller helped to detonate the Islamophobic and Zionophilic mass murderer, Anders Breivik, in Norway.
 See the Atlantic Jewish Times editorial 1/20/12.
 The editor of the Atlantic Jewish Times who called for Obama’s assassination was not charged with any federal security offense. The confessed Zionist spy, Colonel Ben-Ami Kadish, who stole secret US nuclear weapon plans for Israel, did not spend a single day in jail although he paid a $50,000 fine for handing over scores of documents to Israel. (See Grant Smith Foreign Agents, Institute for Research Middle East Policy (IRMEP) Washington 2008. On AIPAC spying see IRMEP 2/6/12.
 Not to be ignored, the rarified atmosphere in high level scientific research journals has been politicized – most outrageous is the censorship of a genetic-immunologic study (by a leading international team of scientists) showing the close genetic relationship, if not identity between Levantine Jews and Palestinians. University libraries around the world were advised to ‘tear-out’ (eyes closed) the offending study from the pages of the journal, Human Immunology, lest such data might undermine the racist ‘raison d’etre’ for an exclusively Jewish State. (see Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians, Robin McKie, Guardian-Sunday Observer (London), November 25, 2001 and Hum. Immunol. 62 (9): 889–900.)
 A review of new reports and editorials of the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, published by the Daily Alert during the AIPAC conference, reveals a close alignment with the extremist militarist position of the Israeli regime and AIPAC leaders See Steve Lendman ‘New Times Promoting War on Iran’ 3/3/12.
 During the month of February 2012, the Israeli Army and armed paramilitary Jewish settlers carried out 145 attacks on Palestinians, killing and wounding dozens, demolishing homes, seizing thousands of acres of land and uprooting scores of families: The Wall and Settlements Information Center, Palestinian Authority 3/1/12. Neither the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post reported on these Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians.
 Among Chertoff’s current clients are the manufacturers of the intrusive and nationally detested ‘body scanners’ used at US airports. He was also instrumental in the release and repatriation of a dozen Israeli Mossad agents arrested in New York and New Jersey within 24 hours of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Three of the nine justices,Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan, are Zionists unwilling to challenge the Executive usurpation of war powers and promotion of torture and rendition. The others are all affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. Not a single Protestant-affiliated Justice (numerically the majority religion in the US) has been appointed to the Supreme Court since the 1990 appointment of respected constitutional scholar, David Souter (by George Bush the First), because of their ‘unreliability’ (code-word for upholding the Bill of Rights and Constitution). The recent appointment of Justice Elena Kagan, whose lackluster academic career did not deter uber-Zionist Laurence Summers from appointing her Dean of the Harvard Law School, uderscores the mediocre criteria used in the high judiciary. The most recent appointment of Sonya Sotomayor to replace the brilliant (and Zionistically ‘unreliable’) J.P. Stevens, was promoted heaviliy for the Supreme Court on the basis of her strong ties to Israel, starting with her first (of many) ‘leadership’ tours to Israel (see The Jewish Chronicle – Life story Israel trips tie Sotomayor to Jews, Ron Kampeas – May 26, 2009).
 Financial Times 3/6/12, p. 9.
 Howard Kohr AIPAC executive director, during his vitriolic war mongering speech at the conference exceeded even Netanyahu’s explicit call for an immediate military attack on Iran. See AIPAC daily report, 3/16/12.
 Most experts agree that the oil price increase has stymied ‘economic recovery’ and if it continues to rise will plunge the world back into deep recession.
 Obama’s speech to the AIPAC meeting pointedly called on the Israeli leaders to tone down on their military rhetoric, clearly linking rising oil prices to Israeli war mongering.
 See Grant Smith, ‘AIPAC Directors Use of Classified Missile Data, Harmed National Security – US State Department’, Business Wire 2/6/12.
 Financial Times 3/1/12, p. 17.
This morning Sam Kiley, Sky News’ security correspondent, stated bluntly that the large bulk of Afghan heroin and opium production is controlled by members of the Karzai government.
That is a simple truth, and I have been publishing it repeatedly on this blog for the last six years, but it runs absolutely contrary to what has been an extraordinary and monolithic mainstream media narrative. The insistence for ten years by an almost unanimous mainstream media that it is the Taliban who contol the drugs trade has been perhaps the most remarkable example of a massive organised lie in modern media history. The question of how a false narrative like that becomes an accepted mainstream “truth” is a key element in control of the state by a rapacious elite using the brainwashing tcapabilities of modern mass communication.
The truly remarkable thing is the truth has somehow broken through. Then today in Parliament David Winnick, opposition defence spokesman, actually stated directly tthat people know longer believe that the presence of our troops in Afghanistan somehow protects us from terrorism, but rather might tend to inspire hatred of the UK.
Again, a blindingly obvious truth that I have been proclaiming for a decade. But absolutely not admissible as an argument on moanstream media in that period, and a truth whose denial was the dedicated work of Winnick’s party when it was in government.
The counter-productive and ruinously expensive nature of the Afghan War is something a high proportion of people fully understood even when they were never reinforced in their understanding by seeing that view reflected in “mainstream media”. Tens of thousands of children have died while arms suppliers and mercenary commanders got very rich. The last nine to be slaughtered in their beds have helped jolt people in the media and politics to talk some semblance of sense at last.
Urinating on dead Afghans, burning Korans and a nighttime killing spree are not the problem; they are symptoms of the problem. A vicious occupation by religious antagonists who repeatedly and continually launch massive violence on civilians, with the intent of imposing by force elements of an alien culture while establishing a massively corrupt and despised puppet government, is not a viable long term project. There is no way to undo the past. The best thing to do now is leave.
The headline over an article in Ha-aretz by Bradley Burston on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s poker game with President Obama was If Obama wins in November, is Netanyahu in trouble? That’s a question I’ve had in my own mind for quite some time and it begs another. What, really, worries Netanyahu most – the prospect (not real) of Iran posing an existential threat to Israel or the prospect (real) of a second-term Obama?
There is, Burston wrote, something new in the air, something Netanyahu does not like. What is it? “American conservatives have begun to think out loud that Barack Obama will win in November.”
In my opinion there’s a better than evens chance that in the course of a second Obama term, America would put its own best interests first, which would mean an end to unconditional American support for the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong. (As is often the case, the Gentile me and Gideon Levy are on the same page. The headline over one of his recent articles in Ha-aretz was It’s only a matter of time before U.S. tires of Israel).
There are three main reasons why I have that opinion.
The first is my belief that Obama hates being a prisoner of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. (I think that Max Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and a well respected military historian, was spot on when he wrote the following in a recent article for the Daily Mail. “Privately, Obama yearns to come down hard on Netanyahu, whom he dislikes intensely. But the U.S. President does not dare to do this when his own re-election may hinge on the three per cent of American voters who are Jewish.”)
The second, and much more to the real point, is that behind closed doors there are now many in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments who are aware that an Israel which has no interest in peace with the Palestinians, and is led by men who wants war with Iran, is an Israel that is much more of a liability than an asset for the U.S. There is also awareness in the top levels of America’s military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments that Netanyahu decided to play the Iran threat card in order to divert attention away from Israel’s on-going consolidation of its occupation of the West Bank and, in short, to have Palestine taken off the American foreign policy agenda.
The third is the insight given to me by former President Carter when my wife and I met with him and Rosalyn after they had said goodbye to the White House. “Any American president has only two windows of opportunity to break or try to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress on matters to do with Israel Palestine.”
The first window is during the first nine months of a president’s first term because after that the soliciting of funds for the mid-term elections begins. Presidents don’t have to worry on their own account about funds for mid-term elections, but with their approach no president can do or say anything that would offend the Zionist lobby and cost his party seats in Congress. The second window of opportunity is the last year of his second term if he has one. In that year, because he can’t run for a third term, no president has a personal need for election campaign funds or organised votes. (I imagine that incoming President Obama, briefed by Carter or not, was fully aware of these limited windows of opportunity and that was why he tried in his first nine months to get a freeze on Israel’s illegal settlement activity).
So my answer to Burston’s headline question is yes, Netanyahu could very well be in trouble if Obama wins a second term.
A good indication of Netanyahu’s fear of a second term Obama is, I think, the mountain of money his seriously wealthy supporters in America are investing in the effort to get a Republican into the White House who will allow Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby to pull his strings.
Question: Given that he does not want Obama to have a second term, what now are Netanyahu’s options?
I can see three possibles.
One is to watch and wait and hope that there will be a downturn in the American economy between now and November that will assist a Republican presidential candidate to defeat Obama.
Another is to launch a unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear sites (never mind that Iran’s leaders have not taken a decision to go nuclear for weapons and possibly never will unless Iran is attacked).
Question: How might initiating a war with Iran assist Netanyahu to put Obama in real trouble?
One short answer is that the probable regional and global fall-out of an Israeli attack on Iran, including soaring oil prices, could bring what is being presented as a slow but sure recovery of the American economy to a swift halt. And that, most likely, would be enough to guarantee Obama’s defeat in November. (In an analysis for The National Interest, an American bi-monthly foreign policy journal, Paul Pillar, a former, very senior CIA analyst and today a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies, noted that the welfare of American consumers and workers is “not high” on the list of decision-making criteria for Netanyahu and his government).
There is, however, one thing that could cause Netanyahu not to go with this option. Quite apart from the fact that Israel’s past and present intelligence and military chiefs are divided on the wisdom of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran, the polls are showing that a majority of Israeli Jews are opposed to Israel going it alone with an attack on Iran. They’re in favour of Iran being attacked but only if America becomes engaged and takes the lead.
And that brings us to a possible third option for Netanyahu. It is to commission a Mossad false flag operation – an attack on a vital American interest or interests for which Iran could be and would be framed.
The Zionist lobby, Obama’s Republican rivals and much if not all of the American mainstream media would promote this falsehood as fact, and that could leave Obama with no choice but to commit American military power. If he did not, his Republican challenger or challengers, assisted by the Zionist lobby and most if not all of the American mainstream media would accuse him of failing to protect America’s security interests and betraying Israel. And that, given the ignorance of American public opinion, would almost certainly be enough to guarantee Obama’s defeat.
For his own part Obama absolutely does not want war another war. He’s frightened, as he should be, of the possible/probable consequences.
Quite apart from the possible/probable economic consequences (including soaring gasoline prices in America), Obama understands completely that U.S. engagement in a new and broader regional war will ignite more anti-Americanism and play into the hands of Arab and other Muslim radicals and extremists, perhaps to the point of assisting them to become the dominant political power in the region. And that, were it to happen, would be potentially catastrophic for America’s best interests in the Arab and wider Muslim world. (Netanyahu would, of course, be quietly pleased because his Israel needs enemies).
So far as I am aware there is no well informed commentator who is prepared to make an explicit prediction about what Netanyahu will do – whether he will or will not order a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran in the closing stages of the American election. If I had to bet my life on it, I’d say he won’t; but there’s a real danger that his anti-Iran rhetoric, described in a recent Ha’aretz editorial as “a combination of wretchedness and megalomania”, may create an unstoppable momentum for war.
As my readers know, I regard Ha’aretz as the most honest newspaper in the world on the subject of what is really happening in Israel. Its view of Netanyahu was on display in a recent editorial headlined Israel must not lend itself to Netanyahu’s vulgar rhetoric on Iran. I think the whole editorial ought to be required reading not only for those who want to replace Obama as president but for all American voters. Here is the text of it (with my emphasis added).
Anyone who cares about Israel’s future could not help but feel a chill upon hearing Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent speech at the AIPAC conference – if not because of the gravity of the existential threat it described, then because of its sheer vulgarity and bad taste. The prime minister, as if he were no more than a surfer leaving feedback on a website, did not hesitate to crassly compare Israel today to the situation of European Jewry during the Holocaust. And to spice up his speech with one of those visual gimmicks he so loves, he even pulled out a photostat of correspondence in order to imply a comparison between U.S. President Barack Obama’s cautious approach toward attacking Iran and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s refusal to bomb the rail lines to Auschwitz.
Netanyahu sometimes seems like he is holding a debating competition with himself. Every speech is the “speech of his life” and must overshadow its predecessor, while afterward, as if they were rehashing a sporting event, he and his aides gleefully count the number of standing ovations, especially from his American listeners. And in order to wring an ovation from the end of every sentence, it seems as if all means are legitimate: kitsch (trash) and death, threats and vows, warnings and rebukes of the entire world.
This time, too, it’s not quite clear what he wanted to obtain via this inane rhetoric – a combination of wretchedness and megalomania – aside from applause. Did he want pity? To prick the conscience of the world? To terrify himself, or perhaps to inflame the Churchillian fantasy in which he lives? But one thing is clear: Aside from the fact that he deepened our feelings of victimhood, insulted the American president and narrowed the options for diplomacy, Netanyahu did not improve Israel’s situation one jot by this speech, just as he hasn’t by any of his others.
Netanyahu isn’t the first Israeli prime minister, especially from the right, to harp on the trauma of the Holocaust. But in contrast to Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who at the moment of truth also displayed diplomatic and leadership abilities, Netanyahu was and remains essentially a PR man: someone for whom words and rhetoric replace reality. The spine-chilling fear is that one day, all of us – himself included, despite his caution and hesitation – will discover too late that we have become hostages to his Churchillian speech, but without a Churchillian victory.
I’ll conclude with my own favourite story about Netanyahu.
Way back in 1984 I had an appointment for lunch in New York with the Englishman I most admire, Brian (later knighted) Urquhart. He was an Undersecretary General of the UN with the responsibility for conflict management. He served four Secretary Generals and was, in fact, the world’s number one trouble-shooter. Because of his matchless grasp of international affairs and his integrity, he was respected by leaders on both sides of all the conflicts he managed. And he never pulled his punches in behind-closed doors exchanges with leaders. On one private occasion Prime Minister Begin said he should not talk with Arafat. Urquhart looked Begin in the eye and said: “Mr. Prime Minister, I am the servant of the international community, don’t you dare to tell me who I can and cannot talk to!”
When Brian arrived for lunch, he said as he was sitting down, “I’ve just met the most dangerous man in the world.”
I asked who it was.
Brian replied: “He’s just presented his credentials as Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Benjamin Netanyahu.”
For those who might want to lighten the gloom with a laugh, here’s a very funny joke I received by e-mail a few days ago.
A plane left Heathrow Airport under the control of a Jewish captain. His co-pilot was Chinese. It was the first time they had flown together and an awkward silence between the two seemed to indicate a mutual dislike.
Once they reached cruising altitude, the Jewish captain activated the auto-pilot, leant back in his seat, and muttered, “I don’t like Chinese.”
“No rike Chinese?” asked the co-pilot, “why not?”
“You people bombed Pearl Harbour, that’s why!”
“No, no”, the co-pilot protested, “Chinese not bomb Peahl Hahbah. That Japanese, not Chinese.”
“Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese…doesn’t matter, you’re all alike.”
There was a few minutes of silence….
“I no rike Jews,” the co-pilot suddenly announced.
“Oh yeah, why not?” the captain asked.
“Jews sink Titanic.” the co-pilot replied.
“What? That is insane! Jews didn’t sink the Titanic!” the captain exclaimed. “It was an iceberg.”
“Iceberg, Goldberg, Greenberg, Rosenberg, nomattah…all same.”
In-fighting is characteristic of progressive movements. On the right things are much easier. They want a “survival-of-the-fittest” society, small government, low taxes, no safety- net, no brown-skinned people crossing our borders, the right to unlimited profits un-hampered by any oversight or regulations, the right to claim foreign natural resources and to take advantage of cheap foreign labor, and when foreign leaders are not easily subjugated, the right to wage war in the name of “freedom” and “liberty” and “democracy” while waving the flag. The program is quite simple and so agreement is easily found.
Problems occur when someone like Sarah Palin is put in a position of high visibility, and has to be coached on information she should have learned in high school, or when they have to decide whether Mormon candidate Mitt Romney qualifies as Christian. But issues like these are relatively manageable, and all they need is a common adversary to embrace unity over their minute differences. For example it’s easy for them to agree that Obama is a Socialist, even though he more closely resembles a Reagan Republican, because he’s a member of the Democratic Party and they want to beat him.
On the left, however, where activists become active because they actually care about humanity and the planet; care about universal values of peace, justice, human rights, environmental sustainability, and the like, all hell breaks loose on a regular basis. This is because there are many varied perceptions as to what qualifies as fair, just, and balanced, and many varied opinions as to how to achieve these things. It often seems that shades of meaning have monumental ramifications, and degrees to the left, in increments, often translate to irreconcilable differences.
I played a concert with saxophonist/author Gilad Atzmon in Geneva, New York last night, a benefit for the Deir Yassin Remembered scholarship fund. (Put into perspective, two Jews playing a concert, unpaid, to raised money to send Palestinian kids to college.) This morning we happened to meet before breakfast in the hallway of our motel. He said, “I have to show you something. You won’t believe this.” We entered his room, he opened his lap-top, and set his browser on a link to a sort of a treatise, a declaration, prepared by Ali Abunimah and signed by various activists, entitled “Palestinian Writers, Activists, Disavow Racism and Anti-Semitism of Gilad Atzmon”. What has Gilad Atzmon done to inspire this very extreme action? He has examined, and written about, the issue of “Jewishness”, about HIS “Jewishness”, and about mine.
Why is this objectionable? Some explanation is required. Zionists have long sought to equate Zionism with Judaism. As usual, the right wing has a simplistic ideology: By equating these two “ism’s”, Zionists are able to justify the position that opposition to Zionism means “Anti-Semitism”. Supporters of the liberation of Palestine strenuously object to this, and rightly so. But it seems that many have adopted an equally simplistic view to combat it: Since Zionism and Judaism are NOT the same thing, and since Zionism is the direct cause of the problem, Judaism and Jewish culture are placed out of bounds, taboo, don’t touch them. We don’t want to be called “Anti-Semites”, and we need our Jewish allies in the movement.
The problem with this simplistic view is that it in this case simplicity is not elegant. The reality is that Judaism and Zionism are indeed two different things. But paradoxically, while Judaism specifically forbids Zionism (according to the interpretation I personally accept), Zionism is also clearly rooted in Judaism and in aspects of Jewish culture which are also clearly rooted in Judaism.
It is important to make the distinction between Judaism and Jewish culture because many Jews, and among them many Zionists, are secular and even anti-religious, and yet embrace their Jewish identity as central to who they are. It is also important to make the observation that Jewish religion informs secular Jewish culture, even if unconsciously so. Up until about 1780 there were no secular Jews. There was only Orthodox Judaism, and that influence remains, this even among the significant population who are atheists identifying as Jews and embracing Zionism. I am personally a product of that culture. As both Zionism and Jewish identity are embraced both by large numbers of religious Jews and large numbers of anti-religious Jews, we are left with the problem of what to call their Jewish commonality. Thus “Jewishness”.
On the religious end of the spectrum, we find Orthodox Jewish Zionist rabbis and Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionist rabbis, both groups spending much of their lives in study of Jewish holy books, and both groups, when they are not studying, pointing their fingers at each other and shouting “Torah Ignoramus!” This is a debate that the uninitiated are not permitted to enter, and initiation consists of life-long dedication to study of Jewish holy texts. There is no choice but to allow them this ongoing fight.
On the secular end of the spectrum are less religious Jews, members of Reform and Reconstructionist synagogues who may or may not be atheists, members of atheist synagogues- yes you read that right- there are “Humanist” synagogues that hold “services” to serve their “Jewishness” rather than God, and finally many Jews who are not members of synagogues at all. Many secular Jews are strongly Zionist and place a very high value on their Jewish identity. So, there is a wide variety of religious belief and observance among Jews, and yet what they all have in common is the valuing of Jewish identity- of “Jewishness”. The difference between the religious and the secular is that the religious understand the origin of the components of cultural Jewishness, and the secular most often do not.
When I was seven years old a little girl in my 2nd grade class told me, “My daddy said you killed Jesus.” I told her I had never killed anyone. I was upset enough about this accusation that I told my parents about it, and they were duly horrified. For many years I attributed this to “classic Anti-Semitism”. I had experienced the misfortune, at a very tender age, of having been victimized with this horrible accusation, which has been leveled against Jews since the dawn of Christianity.
So imagine my astonishment when, many years later, in 2006, I read about Swedish peace-worker Tove Johansson’s experience. She was escorting Palestinian school-children past crowds of hostile Jewish settlers in Hebron, when the settlers began chanting “We killed Jesus, we’ll kill you, too.” They smashed a bottle over her face, causing severe injuries. There are also various other accounts of Jewish settlers proudly taking responsibility for the murder of Jesus, something that I had always assumed was a false accusation, leading me to investigate. I found in the writing of Jewish-Israeli scholar Israel Shahak that there is actually a Talmudic mandate for this claim. I also found that while it seems that relatively few Jews are aware of Shahak’s writing, many of those who are hate him passionately, although none have ever presented me with an actual argument confronting his claims.
I came to support the Palestinian cause after first having come to an awareness of some dramatic problems in the Jewish culture in which I was raised. I grew up in a Reform synagogue where many atheist Jews, and some who had religious beliefs, attended to affirm their Jewish identity, to raise their children with Jewish identity, and to support Israel. I was presented with the idea that it was a privilege to be a member of a universally despised people, who were hated for no reason at all, and who were more intelligent and moral than others. And I was told that Israel had never harmed anyone, that the Arabs just hated Jews for no reason, just like everyone hates Jews for no reason.
Having come to believe in God as a young adult, I had to go back to re-examine the Judaism, or more accurately, the “Jewishness” I was raised with, and clearly identified idolatry: the worship of the twin idols of Jewish identity and Israel. And I began to move away from what I identified as the Jewish identity cult. Even with that awareness, I was so completely indoctrinated in Zionist propaganda, that I did not question the things that I had been told. For example, I did not question the story of Jews who wanted to be friendly neighbors to the Arabs, and of Arab leaders who, in 1948, made radio broadcasts of orders for their people to get out temporarily, while they intended to drive the Jews into the sea. Why should we let them return when they wanted to annihilate us like Hitler?
I understand that Jewish activists for Palestine come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, and that there are those who do not have the same needs as I do. I know there are those who would like to support Palestine while embracing their Jewish identity and some who additionally wish to embrace Jewish religion at various levels of observance. But that’s not me, and I will not allow Ali Abunimah and a list of bullies to tell me that I have no right to intellectual inquiry into my religion and culture. Of course, their objections are targeted at Gilad Atzmon, not me. But when they say it about him, they are, by extension, saying it about me, and those like me- those of us who have to struggle to come to terms with having been lied to all our lives.
When I finally came to understand the depth of the criminality of Zionism, and I came to that realization in my middle age, my response was not, “Oh my God, let’s fix this while we protect Judaism and Jewish identity from those who would like to make a connection.” Not at all. My response was a more natural and obvious one: “Oh my God! What kind of sickness do I come from?” I have the right to ask that question, and to search for answers. I have the right to talk to the seven year old victim of “Anti-Semitism” who still lives inside me, and help him to understand his experience.
Back in the 80’s in an interview on the American television show 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace confronted Meir Kahane, the infamous Brooklyn rabbi, now deceased, who became an Israeli Knesset member and an advocate for the expulsion of all Arabs from all of historic Palestine (both “Israeli Arabs” and Arabs living in the occupied territories), about a law he proposed.
Wallace: “You proposed a law for the Knesset to pass against Arabs that’s really astonishingly identical to the Nuremberg laws of the Nazis under Adolf Hitler.”
Kahane: “Mr. Wallace, one of the problems of Jews is that they wouldn’t know a Jewish concept if they tripped over one. I merely quoted from the Talmud. Most Jews think Judaism is Thomas Jefferson. It’s not.”
I was raised in a “Jewishness” which presumed to be something very different from what it was. And in that pretense it had me donating to plant trees in Israel, and receiving Israel bonds as bar mitzvah presents. It had me joining Zionist youth groups and becoming president of one, and it had me living and working in Israel during my 20’s, all while believing a system of lies. I have the right to examine the cult that lied to me, the cult that I have survived and left.
I think I speak for everyone who supports the Palestinian cause, including both Atzmon and his detractors alike, when I say that I believe that the first priority for all of us is to stop Zionists from killing the next Palestinian child. How to accomplish this? I think if any of us knew, we would lie, steal, cheat, do whatever it might take. But we don’t know. Does placing limits on parameters of acceptable ideology help to accomplish this goal? Does censorship, censure, expulsion, ex-communication? These are the things that this edict against Atzmon is attempting to accomplish. Does it actually accomplish anything or is it just divisive? Are the Zionists enjoying watching a split among the pro-Palestine camp?
Clearly requiring certain parameters is reasonable. For example, there are those who sympathize with both the cause of white supremacy and with the Palestinian cause. Those people would do the most good for Palestine by staying as far away from the cause as possible, and they should be shunned and avoided. But that’s not who Atzmon is, or who I am. There is no racism here. There is simply examination of the religion and culture that produced Zionism.
Abunimah puts words in Atzmon’s mouth:
“…one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist.”
I fail to see how this attitude can be attributed to Atzmon when he openly speaks of the Neturei Karta Orthodox Anti-Zionist Jews. But again, a simplistic interpretation would be lacking. The fact of the existence of Anti-Zionist Jews should not be taken as evidence that Zionism is not connected with Judaism, Jewish culture, or “Jewishness”. The Neturei Karta also believe in exile from this land and return to it, just not at the present time under present circumstances.
I understand that from the Palestinian point of view, many consider inquiry into “Jewishness” superfluous. They just want Zionism to end, and this is reasonable. But why won’t it end? The UN passed Resolution 194 64 years ago, and re-ratified it numerous times. Why have the refugees not been allowed back? There have been various “peace processes”. Why is there no peace? American administrations have been pressuring to end settlement expansion for decades. Why are settlements still expanding? What is behind the almost super-human capacity for Zionist belligerence? for Zionist disingenuousness? Why is it that the world governments look the other way and pretend it isn’t going on? And how is it possible that America is fighting wars for Israel? How is it possible that for all of my life I’ve been listening to my people whine over the holocaust while failing to admit that any crimes were committed in Palestine? How deep is a cult that was able to hide from me, one of its children, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine for most of my life?
For those who want to insist that Zionism is some bizarre aberration that grew out of an otherwise healthy Jewish culture and religion, that’s fine for them. Having been lied to all my life, I wanted to know what Kahane meant when he sneered at me and told me I wouldn’t know a Jewish idea if I tripped over it. And now I know. Certainly I have the right to free inquiry, and to the expression of ideas, and so does Gilad Atzmon.
If there are those who dislike Atzmon’s ideas, they are free to write their own and express disagreement. They are free to state that Atzmon does not represent them. But to organize a list of those who agree to disavow him is disgraceful, and in my opinion does not serve the cause. There should be a retraction and an apology.
But why then and why now?
First now, because his rather lacklustre Electronic Intifada, now well past its sell-by date is now being totally eclipsed by deLiberation.
And second, because above all else, Ali Abunimah needs to protect and enhance his western-based solidarity career. Ali Abunimah knows that as with pretty much everything in the west, if the Jews don’t want it, it’s not going to happen and compared to that, truth and courage mean precisely nothing.
God save us all from such people.