Posted on July 28, 2012 by Richard Edmondson

Zionist Attacks on Billboards Degenerate into Smear Tactics, Censorship Calls

In the last 75 years, radio, television, and now the Internet, have radically altered the ways people are able to get their messages out to the public. Ironically, however, in America it seems to be the old fashioned billboard on the side of the road, highway, or railroad track that is most arousing Zionist jitters these days.

Over the past few years, billboard advertising campaigns have been launched in a number of cities calling for an end to US aid to Israel. Reaction from Zionists has varied from city to city. In 2010 Zionists in Seattle waged a successful campaign to halt ads timed to coincide with the second anniversary of Operation Cast Lead and which were contracted to appear on the sides of city busses. The ads bore the words “Israeli war crimes,” but were effectively killed before they even saw the light of day.

However, by spring of this year, things seemed to have changed somewhat. A series of billboards in Denver launched by The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel was met not with demands for removal, but by a counter campaign from the local chapter of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel organization. One SWU member, Dr. Shaul Gabbay, likened the “dueling billboards” in Denver to a somewhat spirited dinner conversation.

“Both perspectives are legitimate in terms of trying to influence the discourse here in the United States,” he said. “When you have just one voice, we make mistakes. When we have different and sometimes heated positions, then we can make better decisions.”

Fascinating! Israel supporters had progressed, so it appeared—from outright calls for censorship, such as was seen in Seattle, to at least putting on an appearance of being fair-minded and respectful of free speech, as portrayed in Denver.

And indeed, to Coalition members it seemed like a definite change in the wind had arrived, for they had fought long, hard battles with Israel supporters in an effort to get their ads accepted by billboard companies—battles going all the way back to 2009 when the Coalition put up its first billboards in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That campaign—featuring a picture of a young Palestinian girl and the words “Stop Killing Children: No More Military Aid to Israel”—got axed a mere three weeks into what had initially been a two month contract period.

Now, however, SWU seems, once again, to have done an about-face on the issue, and it isn’t only them. Recently the ADL criticized a New York-area billboard campaign showing dispossession of Palestinians from their land through a series of maps, and a New York Assembly member has called for the ads to be taken down. This controversy comes on the heels of the squelching of the Coalition’s recent Los Angeles campaign, a campaign featuring ads identical to the ones in Denver but which, as it turned out, met a far different fate.

The L.A. ads were contracted with CBS Outdoor Advertising, a subsidiary of CBS, and went up June 11 at 23 billboard locations throughout the city. Their removal just a week later was cheered by SWU:

“People and companies should avoid getting entangled with these anti-Israel activists,” said SWU CEO Roz Rothstein. “They distort facts, exploit the good name of organizations and companies, and harass those who disagree with them. We certainly hope that well-meaning people who want peace in the Middle East are not duped by their manipulations.”

What distortion of facts? What manipulations? The ads read simply, “Tell Congress: Spend Our Money at Home, Not on the Israeli Military”—with the American flag as a backdrop. More importantly, in calling for “people and companies” to “avoid getting entangled with these anti-Israel activists,” is Rothstein not issuing what in effect amounts to a call for censorship?

“Yes, Stand With Us appears to be calling for censorship,” said Armen Chakerian and Susan Schuurman, of the Coalition to Stop 30 Billion, who recently discussed the matter in an email exchange with this writer. “Contrast their position with our position, which invites everyone with a fact-based perspective on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and American support for that treatment to debate these issues in the sunshine-filled open, not behind closed doors of members of Congress’s offices.”

They add: “We are confident that a rational debate will educate the American people who are too busy putting food on the table and paying their mortgages to wade through the myths in the AIPAC-scripted rhetoric we hear coming out of too many politicians’ mouths.”

But an open debate in the marketplace of ideas appears to be what Zionists cannot tolerate. At its website, SWU, in rather exultant tones, announced the removal of the ads in two separate articles (here and here ), lambasting the Coalition for “distorting the facts,” and labeling the group “a fringe, extremist movement that seeks to harm the U.S. and one of our most valuable allies, Israel.”

The “before” and “after” graphic you see at the top of this post accompanied one of the SWU articles, appearing underneath the headline “Anti-Israel Billboard Campaign Removed in Los Angeles,” while the other article, headlined “Anti-Israel Billboards Are Taken Down,” featured just the photo of the censored billboard by itself.

SWU got one thing right. The billboards were indeed taken down. But what facts did the Coalition distort? It is here SWU engages in some fact distortion of its own, as it accuses the group of implying “through its literature and fundraising appeals that CBS Outdoor actually supported its anti-Israel cause.”

Did the Coalition really claim that CBS agreed with its call for an end to US military aid to Israel? Well, Stand With Us says they did—and to bolster this allegation they point to a) an online petition the Coalition set up calling on people to thank CBS for accepting the ads; and b) an article that appeared at Mondoweiss under the headline “Billboard campaign to end US aid to Israel hits LA—thanks to CBS.”

Taking these in order: the online petition praises CBS for “posting billboards in Los Angeles that call for an end to American military aid to Israel” and lauds the company for “demonstrating its support for the basic American tradition of free speech.” Nowhere in the four sentences of the petition can there be found any assertion that CBS agrees with the Coalition’s political views on Israel.

The article at Mondoweiss, announcing the “exciting news” that the billboards had appeared in L.A., was posted on June 13—two days after the ads went up. In it, reporter Annie Robbins points out that “this is the largest advertising campaign launched by Stop 30 Billion thus far,” and that “millions of Americans will be exposed to these billboards every day as commuters in the country’s second largest metropolitan area are stuck in traffic on some of the most congested roads in the world.” But as in the case with the petition, nowhere in Robbins’ story is there any assertion that CBS agreed with the message on the billboards.

Nonetheless Rothstein insists that “factual distortions” occurred, and alleges that such distortions “characterize the anti-Israel campaigners.” She also faults the Coalition for failing to “let the public know how much U.S. aid to Israel benefits America and the American economy because 75 percent of it must be spent in this county” and comments additionally, “They also mislead the public about who supports their movement, as they did with CBS Outdoor.”

“People and companies should avoid getting entangled with these anti-Israel activists. They distort facts, exploit the good name of organizations and companies, and harass those who disagree with them. We certainly hope that well-meaning people who want peace in the Middle East are not duped by their manipulations,” she concludes.

“We would never have been so naïve as to assume or claim that CBS shared our point of view regarding U.S. foreign policy,” counter Susan and Armen. “There’s a big difference between supporting free speech and endorsing our specific position. Our petition thanked CBS for giving us the same opportunity to put up our message as any other advertiser without discrimination or censorship.”

They also point to the fact that both articles at the SWU site are filed under the tag “Anti-Semitism,” which in their view “says a lot.”

“Activists working on Palestine solidarity work can only hear that charge so many times before that label becomes nearly meaningless. Many of our members are Jewish and we reject the notion that they are ‘self-hating’ Jews.”

Ads critical of Israel are also under fire in Westchester County, New York, although they apparently have not, at least as of yet, been taken down. Some locals, however, are endeavoring mightily to achieve that. One is New York State Assembly member Robert Castelli, who on July 13 wrote a letter to the president of MTA Metro-North calling for the ads to be expunged. Somewhat like a child trying to have his cake and eat it too, Castelli in his letter presents himself as a supporter of the First Amendment—while at the same time advocating censorship:

I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment right of free speech in the Constitution, and certainly a proponent that the people of Israel and Palestine should live in harmony together.

However, the subliminal message that this particular billboard carries is an anti-Israeli message that I believe has just the opposite effect of creating peace and harmony between the Israeli and Palestinian people. I therefore believe that it would be in the best interest of our communities to remove the billboard, for the sake of peace and harmony in our community.

New York State Assembly member Robert Castelli called for the removal of these billboards in Westchester County, NY.

Appearing mainly in train stations, the ads were placed by the Committee for Peace in Israel/Palestine, or COPIP, and depict a series of four maps that are familiar to most Palestine solidarity activists. There is nothing offensive or “anti-Semitic” about the text or imagery. Nonetheless Castelli seems to feel local Jews are in danger of being traumatized by the message:

I submit to you that by its very nature, it is inflammatory and directs a negative message towards the State of Israel and her people…

Therefore, I respectfully request that you consider, out of respect for the many Jewish members of our community, and people of Israeli origin living in our community, the prudence of removing this, post-haste.

The ads have also come under fire from the ADL, which views COPIP as “virulently anti-Israel,” a label that seems more than a tad bit overblown. If you go to the COPIP blogsite you’ll find an article by Uri Avnery, as well as links to Jewish Voice for Peace, the Middle East Children’s Alliance, and other relatively moderate organizations. The blog roll even includes a link to the liberal Zionist J Street—but none of this seems to be taken into account by ADL.

“These billboards are deliberately misleading and biased and come with an agenda that is fundamentally anti-Israel,” said Ron Meier, ADL’s New York regional director, in a press release on the organization’s website. “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely complex and cannot be summarized in a series of four maps.”

Is the Palestine-Israeli conflict really that “complex”? How hard is it for a layperson to fathom the idea that construction of illegal settlements on unlawfully occupied land might be a hindrance to peace? The ADL press release stops short of calling for the ads to be cancelled, yet it voices no opposition to Castelli’s call for the same.

“This ad campaign completely ignores the facts, including the history of land ownership prior to 1948, Israel’s repeated efforts to exchange land for peace, and the commitment of successive Israeli governments to achieving a two-state solution with the Palestinians,” Meier says.

The issue of the illegal settlements goes unmentioned, both in Meier’s statement and in the ADL press release.

The question arises as to how closely Castelli and the ADL may be working together. In calling for the ads to be cancelled, did Castelli allow the Jewish organization to avoid being sullied by having to issue such a censorship call itself? Perhaps the lawmaker’s letter gives us a clue:

I have forwarded, along with a photograph of the billboard, a background letter from the Anti-Defamation League, which I believe you should read thoroughly when considering what your options are in this case.

You have always been very receptive in the past. I hope this matter can be resolved quickly. Should you wish to discuss the matter with me further, I am, as always, at your disposal.

So far as I know, the contents of the ADL letter mentioned by Castelli have not been made public.

Castelli isn’t the only politician joining the attack against the End Aid To Israel billboard movement. On June 21, California Congressman Howard Berman sent a letter to The Coalition to Stop $30 Billion upbraiding the group for its L.A. billboard campaign.

As a member of the Los Angeles Congressional delegation, and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have heard from many of my constituents in the San Fernando Valley concerned about the numerous billboard advertisements your organization has placed throughout the LA area. As a strong supporter of the Constitution, I do not question your right to publicly air your views — even if I must drive past them every morning. However, as a Member of Congress who represents a community that overwhelmingly values the strong bond between Washington and Jerusalem, I cannot remain silent and allow your anti-Israel message to go unanswered.

As the “Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs,” Berman obviously hopes to convey his firm grasp on how “complex” the Palestine-Israeli conflict truly is, and he goes on to assure Coalition members that “you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship.” He also alludes to “threats to wipe Israel off the map,” though surprisingly makes no mention of Iran.

An excerpt from Berman’s letter to the Coalition—publicly released and posted on the congressman’s website—is also quoted at the SWU site…specifically the following passage boasting of America’s presumed leadership of the ubiquitous but undefinable “international community”:

We are the leading voice in the international community, and have the world’s most powerful military, yet your organization would have us abandon our closest ally in the Middle East and allow its deterrent capability to wither on the vine. That is not the way to demonstrate international leadership.

But Armen and Susan say it all kind of depends on how you look at it.

“We may be the leading voice in the international community, but at the UN only three nations in the world regularly agree with the U.S. government on issues involving Israel: the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau, with a combined population smaller than Modesto, California, and all economically dependent on the U.S. Government,” they said.

“With 200 nuclear weapons deliverable by land-based missiles and by submarine-launched cruise missiles, Israel’s deterrent capability is in no danger of withering,” they added. “Israel may be our closest ally in the Middle East, but that doesn’t mean this alliance is in our national interest. Our support has little to do with rational considerations of strategic advantage and much to do with American domestic politics.”

CBS did not return phone calls requesting clarification on why it cancelled the ads. Susan and Armen say they were informed in a curt email that the decision was made because “your organization has used the ‘CBS Outdoor’ name without permission”—apparently in its online petition.

“Our belief is that CBS manufactured an excuse to pull down our billboards because of their controversial nature,” they said. “We’ve been thrilled with the response we’ve gotten to our campaign to call CBS and ask for our billboards to go back up. Whether or not the billboards go back up in this community using this company, we are confident that this message continues to resonate with a growing number of Americans every day. In fact, another major city is already planning its own billboard campaign inspired in part by our continued success.”

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

Billboard Wars: Do the Same Rules Apply to Both Sides?

By Richard Edmondson

The word most in vogue with Zionists these days is “incitement.” Anytime a billboard criticizing Israel pops up, incitement is the charge that seems to get leveled. One becomes guilty either of inciting against Israel, or against the Jewish people as a whole.

The word incitement is used five times in a 2011 press release put out by the pro-Israel American Freedom Defense Initiative attacking this Seattle billboard—an ad that remained up only a few days before being censored:

More recently, following the cancellation of this series of ads in Los Angeles…

two articles—triumphantly announcing the ad campaign’s demise—appeared at the Stand With Us website (see here and here ), both filed under the tag “incitement.”

The word is also featured prominently at numerous pro-Israel web sites ( for example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, to name but a few), and even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who in the past has been accused of chronic submissiveness toward Israel and the US, now finds himself branded a vicious inciter of hatred against the Jewish state. If Abbas can be so judged, what hope is there for the rest of us?

But it isn’t only the hive-mentality adoption of certain words that we are witnessing in the electro-magnetic hasbara waves sweeping America currently. Consider: politicians have clout with the business community. That’s the way things work. The business of America is business, and when powerful politicians start calling on billboard companies to remove advertisements they dislike, the ad’s chances of remaining up are not especially good.

On July 13, Robert Castelli, a member of the New York State Assembly, wrote a letter to Howard R. Permut, president of the MTA Metro-North Railroad, calling for removal of billboards that had recently begun appearing at train stations in Westchester County, New York. The ads show the loss of Palestinian lands over a 64-year period through a series of four maps. The Metro-North Railroad is a subsidiary of New York’s state Metropolitan Transportation Authority. How long will such ads stay up with that kind of pressure coming down from a state Assembly member?

“While this billboard has been placed by an organization calling itself the ‘Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine’ (COPIP), and there is no offensive language on the message, I submit to you that by its very nature, it is inflammatory and directs a negative message towards the State of Israel and her people,” Castelli states in his letter to Perlmut.

“You have always been very receptive in the past,” the state assemblyman goes on to remark. “I hope this matter can be resolved quickly. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me further, I am, as always, at your disposal.”

Meanwhile, out on the west coast, California Congressman Howard Berman has joined in a series of attacks upon the billboard campaign of the Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel and their ads featuring an American flag as a backdrop with the words “Tell Congress: Spend Our Money at Home, Not on the Israeli Military.”

In a June 21 letter—sent to the Coalition and also posted on his website—Berman describes Israel as “a small nation surrounded by countries and terrorist groups that are committed to its destruction” and lets it be known he cares little for the signs.

As a member of the Los Angeles Congressional delegation, and the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have heard from many of my constituents in the San Fernando Valley concerned about the numerous billboard advertisements your organization has placed throughout the LA area. As a strong supporter of the Constitution, I do not question your right to publicly air your views — even if I must drive past them every morning. However, as a Member of Congress who represents a community that overwhelmingly values the strong bond between Washington and Jerusalem, I cannot remain silent and allow your anti-Israel message to go unanswered.

Rep. Howard Berman would prefer not to have to drive past this billboard every morning. He doesn’t any more. The ads were canceled by CBS Outdoor.

In a press release accompanying the letter, put out by his congressional staff, Berman additionally remarks:

My constituents sent me to Washington in large part to fight for a stronger U.S.-Israel relationship. This has been, and will continue to be one my (sic) top legislative priorities in Congress. I am not going to stand by and remain silent as some outside group comes into our community with these outrageous billboards calling for an end to our security partnership with Israel. I believe in a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and so do my constituents.

The same press release goes on to quote Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean with the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

The Simon Wiesenthal Center thanks Congressman Berman for his timely, focus (sic) and informed rebuke of the group whose anti-Israel campaign is based on a lie. At a time when thousands of innocent men, women and children are butchered by the regime in Syria, when Christian Copts are targeted for terrorism violence and threats in Egypt, it is telling that this group continues to pursue its extreme anti-Israel propaganda campaign, something that won’t help a single Palestinian.

Berman has been in Congress for 29 years. How closely will billboard companies sit up and take notice when a Congress member with this much seniority voices displeasure at something? The answer to this perhaps remains unclear, although well worth noting is that the ads were cancelled.

Presumably in an effort to offer “balance” to the debate, the pro-Israel side has joined the fight with billboards of its own. The above-mentioned American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), headed by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog, sought in September of last year to place ads on the sides of New York City busses depicting Israel and its supporters as “civilized” and opponents of the Jewish state conversely as “savages.” Specifically, the content would read: “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” At a cost of approximately $25,000, the ads were to have run on some 318 New York City busses for a total of four weeks.

Judge Paul Engelmayer believes this ad from the AFDI represents “core political speech” that must be “afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.”

The ads were expressly represented as a response to this ad which had been put up in the same area by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation:

But the AFDI’s ad was rejected by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority on the grounds that it violated its policies prohibiting “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation.” Does a public transit authority have the legal right to refuse ads that might promote racism? One would reasonably assume they might.

However, AFDI took the case to court, claiming the MTA had violated its free speech rights, and on July 20, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that the transit agency must allow the ads:

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the AFDI Ad is not only protected speech—it is core political speech. The Ad expresses AFDI’s pro-Israel perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and implicitly calls for a pro-Israel U.S. foreign policy with regard to that conflict. The AFDI Ad is, further, a form of response to political ads on the same subject that have appeared in the same space. As such, the AFDI Ad is afforded the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.

Other than upholding the “free speech” rights of corporations to purchase elections, it is relatively rare these days to find a US court issuing a ruling validating the first amendment. As the Occupy protests have shown, the right to publicly assemble and engage in free speech has been all but abrogated for many average Americans. Engelmayer’s entire 35-page opinion may be accessed here.

Another question, of course, is would this same judge—or any other judge in America for that matter—have issued a ruling requiring a transit authority or billboard company to accept ads depicting Jews as “savages”? In the climate that exists in the United States today—where people have paid heavy prices for voicing criticism of Israel or Zionism—it is hard to imagine such a ruling being handed down.

The irony of all this is certainly not lost on members of the Coalition to Stop $30 Billion, which made a deliberate decision back in 2009 to soften and tone down its message in order to increase chances of getting its ads accepted by billboard companies. The Coalition’s very first billboard went up in the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico on April 8, 2009. It is important to remember—this was three months after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, which resulted in the deaths of some 1,400 Gazans, approximately 300 of whom were children. The ads read: “Stop Killing Children: No More Military Aid to Israel.”

Immediately howls of protest erupted. Local media covered the controversy, and Sean Hannity led off one of his daily radio shows by blasting the signs. It was apparently all too much for Lamar Outdoor Advertising, which took down the ads three weeks into what had initially been a two-month contract period. Lamar’s local manager in Albuquerque commented that “the advertising was removed due to numerous complaints questioning the facts.”

Coalition members Armen Chakerian and Susan Schuurman say a decision was made at this time to tone down the message—to “Spend Our Money at Home, Not on the Israeli Military”—and it seemed to work. They were able to put up two full-sized billboards at two locations for several months each.

But the road ever since has been filled with ups and downs. Ads identical to the ones that were censored in L.A., were accepted in Denver earlier this year. But that was in April. Now the campaign being waged by the pro-Israel Stand With Us organization is (see story above) is beginning to grow rather virulent.

“People and companies should avoid getting entangled with these anti-Israel activists,” says SWU CEO Roz Rothstein. “They distort facts, exploit the good name of organizations and companies, and harass those who disagree with them. We certainly hope that well-meaning people who want peace in the Middle East are not duped by their manipulations.”

Statements like this could be viewed as a sign of paranoia in Zionist ranks over Israel’s deteriorating public image and its crumbling legitimacy—and indeed that seems to be how Chakerian and Schuurman look at it.

“It’s really beyond the realm of credulity to think we’d be so green to think CBS was explicitly endorsing our position. Then again, maybe we are setting the bar too low. Perhaps we should start expecting large media corporations to see what the rest of the world is beginning more and more to see, namely that the Israeli government has gone too far and that the tired, old clichés about anti-Semitism in response to justified criticism of Israeli policy just aren’t cutting it anymore.”

Posted on July 4, 2012 by Martin Iqbal

September 11, 2001: Zionist shock therapy and the birth of the lie

Article reposted from September 2011.

New York City, New York. Shock is a curious thing. The human mind is at its most susceptible when the proverbial rug has been pulled from under its feet. When a momentous, shocking event occurs we are thrust into an uncomfortable, unfamiliar, frightening place. We look for explanations, try to make sense of chaos whilst we are at our most vulnerable. Our malleable minds accept and subconsciously cling to the first narrative our ‘protectors’ offer, whether real or imagined, whether plausible or nonsensical.

The events of 9/11 were not only faithful to this rule, but they represented a paradigmatic example of this concept in play. The ‘shock therapy’ that has been unleashed on nations by means of bombs, bullets, and economic warfare, equally applies to the human psyche. It is not only nations but also people, that can be remade. While a shell-shocked America reeled over the most shocking, heinous, and dramatic terrorist attack the United States has ever suffered, the very architects of this attack moved to cement their ‘new world order’ narrative – ushering in the ‘War on Terror’. Before the toxic dust had even settled on Manhattan, the afraid, angry masses would be given their enemy and they would be given their saviours, as an equally toxic cloud of delusion descended on the American consciousness.

Ehud Barak, the BBC, and the birth of a pre-packaged lie

As the largest broadcaster in the world with over 20,000 employees, the Zionist-controlled BBC was the chosen outlet for the birth of the myth that is the ‘War on Terror’. As the attacks were unfolding, the BBC already had its pre-prepared propaganda agenda in hand. Later in the day the BBC would unwittingly expose this fact most obviously when they reported, ticker and all, the fall of WTC-7 over 20 minutes before it even happened. Former Prime Minister of Israel and former commander of the elite IDF intelligence unit ‘Sayeret Matkal’, Ehud Barak, would narrate the macabre theatre.

It is important to remember at this point, this is precisely how such events work; ‘false flag’ terrorism is a form of psychological warfare. In order for the operation to be successful, the perpetrator must be able to establish the intended narrative at the very outset – as soon as the minds of the subjects have been traumatised, dazed, and ‘blank-slated’. This is the fertile ground needed for the lie to take root, and the lie must be planted as soon as possible.

Relinquishing his post as Israeli PM to genocidal war criminal Ariel Sharon in March 2001, Barak was to travel to the United States and spend the months preceding 9/11 consulting for Electronic Data Systems and SCP Partners, which is a Mossad-run company specialising in security-related work. Within SCP Partners’ business portfolio are a number of firms which specialise in the creation of advanced niche specialty metals and complex metals products for industries such as energy, aerospace, infrastructure, and specialty metals and chemical industries.

Of course on the morning of the 9/11 plot’s gruesome conclusion, he would be miraculously present at the offices of the largest broadcaster on the planet. Literally as American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hurtled towards the twin towers, Ehud Barak (born Ehud Brog) was backstage at the BBC World offices in London, preparing to forge the War on Terror’s Zionist narrative in the vulnerable shell-shocked minds of his global audience.

“We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

Within the BBC’s pre-prepared news report – immediately before Barak is given the stage – a peculiar thing happened. Yasser Arafat, proudly clad with his Keffiyeh – the ultimate symbol of resistance to oppression – is interviewed in what was on the face of it a bizarre display of the utmost irrelevance. What on god’s green earth did the Palestinians have to do with an ongoing terror attack halfway across the globe, the perpetrators of which were at the time a complete mystery? As the BBC report would indicate with increasing clarity, the purpose of this was very simple: the Zionist narrative of the ‘War on Terror’ was being pulled out of its box and the Cellophane removed. Palestine – the righteous resistance at the very epicentre of Israel’s expansionist, hegemonic, genocidal ambitions – was the threat. Israel, the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ was the solution and here was its former Prime Minister with the answer.

As if presiding over a court case with a defendant and a plaintiff, the BBC reporter proceeds with his script, “That’s the view from the Palestinian side,” and Ehud Barak takes to the screen.

“This is an attack on our whole civilisation“. Who did it? “I believe we will know in twelve hours“. But that’s not important. What we need is a “globally concerted effort, led by the United States, the UK, Europe, and Russia“. Notice that Israel is conspicuously absent from the list; Israel doesn’t get its hands dirty unless it needs to.

“Bin Laden sits in Afghanistan“, the oracle tells us, but he’s not saying bin Laden did it. Yet. Ask him again in 11 hours, 59 minutes. “Within six or ten years“, Barak insists, Iran, Iraq, and Libya, the ‘rogue states’ must be taken down. Six or ten years on, and it’s two down, one to go.

Dehumanise the enemy: the ‘celebrating Palestinians’ propaganda

At four minutes and fifty-nine seconds through the video you see a Reuters feed flash up during the BBC’s live report. The despatch alludes to: “Palestian [sic] celebrations” in Jerusalem. The next act of the script is being played out as Palestinians, and by extension Muslims, are dehumanised and portrayed as heartless, bloodthirsty animals.

Scenes of ‘Palestinians celebrating’ in occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem), filmed by Reuters and AP, were later broadcast on TV on the BBC, Fox, CNN, and several other corporate-Zionist controlled media outlets:

Ten days after the event, in a piece titled Die Macht der TV-Bilder (‘The power of TV images’), well-respected German paper Der Spiegel utterly exposed this pernicious anti-Palestinian propaganda as being staged and manipulated.

It transpired that the lady who can be seen cheering and celebrating in front of the camera was told to do so, and offered cake in return. She later told German reporters of this, and was absolutely horrified to learn of the fraudulent context in which the footage was broadcast to an information-hungry world in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Further to this, you can clearly see in the video that there is only a very small number of children and people celebrating. In the background, one can see several people standing around nonchalantly, or simply walking from one place to the next.

Also, notice that the footage consists of only close, narrow shots. Long, wide shots would have shown the entire scene on the street: small groups of children and a handful of people celebrating, who were being urged and provoked to do so by those filming.

This footage, consisting of no more than a few seconds and a few people, was repeatedly broadcast to global audiences, alongside the chilling footage of Flight 175 slamming into the South Tower. By the time the hoax was exposed (albeit only by a German-language paper), the damage had already been done.

The big lie: peppered with Israeli fingerprints from preparation to orchestration and narration

The ‘mainstream’ 9/11 truth movement exhibits an acute case of selective vision. Whether through fear of the dreaded ‘anti-Semite’ epithet, or through aversion to the ubiquitous (but not entirely unfounded) ‘Jewish power & conspiracy’ stereotypes, the obvious and central Israeli connections to 9/11 are ignored.

The 9/11 false flag, and the torrent of Israeli-prescribed propaganda that followed as the towers fell, was engineered to instigate the War on Terror. Without a doubt, the axis consisting of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and the myriad of ‘disaster capitalism’ multinationals, benefited greatly from and colluded to differing degrees in 9/11. However, attributing the central role of planning and orchestration of 9/11 to these actors is born of short-sightedness. The BBC’s evidently pre-planned Zionist propaganda set-piece provided a clue to this, but this was merely the tip of the iceberg.

Not only did Israel benefit economically, politically, and militarily from 9/11 more so than any other nation on the planet, but ardent Zionists with close links to Israel, US-Israeli dual nationals, and even Israelis, are found at every pivotal nook and cranny of the plot.

The clues are abundant, and lay at the very core of the 9/11 conspiracy (how absurd it now seems to use that long-abused word in its proper context).

From the unprecedented privatisation of the WTC six weeks prior to the events, to the sophisticated hardware used to fly the remotely-controlled jets; from the missing trillions at the Pentagon, to the Israeli spies caught with explosives and subsequently released in New York, to the man who let them go – the same man who co-authored the Patriot Act and headed up the Department of Homeland Security; from the advance warnings received by Israeli communications company Odigo and part Israeli state-owned company ZIM (which terminated its WTC tenure one week before the event incurring a $50,000 bill), to the Israeli company that ran security at the 9/11 airports. This company, ICTS International, even ran security for the ‘shoe bomber’ airport, the ‘underpants bomber’ airport, as well as the 7/7 London bus service that was bombed in 2005. Yet another Israeli company, Verint Systems, ran the camera system in the London Tube network when it told the world that its cameras ‘weren’t working’, in an attempt to explain why there was no footage of any of the alleged bombers entering their respective tube trains. But I digress. The blue and white six-pointed star can be uncovered in all of the most obvious central aspects of the 9/11 game plan.

Six weeks before 9/11 the WTC ownership was transferred into private hands for the first time in history. Ronald Lauder lobbied for this to happen. Lewis Eisenberg, head of the Port Authority, presided over the deal. It was awarded to Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy. All of these men are staunch Zionists with close links to Israel; Silverstein – former IDF soldier – even speaks to Benjamin Netanyahu on a weekly basis. Billionaire Lauder is closely involved with several pro-Israel Jewish organisations including the JNF (which appropriates Palestinian land for the exclusive use of Jewish settlers). He even accompanied President Bush on his 2008 delegation to Israel, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Nakba.

Lowy fought in the Nakba as a member of the Golani brigade and, like Silverstein, miraculously steered clear of the WTC on that fateful Tuesday morning. All four men are intimately involved in the abhorrent Anti-Defamation League.

On September 10, 2001, the very day before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion in missing funds at the Pentagon. The Bush-appointed man responsible for the Pentagon’s finances at that time was staunch Zionist and Rabbi Dov Zakheim – a man who had been the Chief Executive of Systems Planning Corporation for the previous fourteen years – since 1987. SPC manufactures advanced aviation technology used for the remote piloting of large jet aircraft.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, residents of Bergen, New Jersey, saw five men stood atop a white van. These men had set up a camera to record the twin towers before the first plane had hit. Upon the impact of Flight 11 and the instantaneous, hellish death of hundreds of innocent people, these men celebrated and cheered together. The horrified residents reported the men, who were later apprehended by police. The Israeli men tested positive for explosives, but were not charged with anything and were later released.

A second van was found later that day in even more suspicious circumstances. By the George Washington bridge, which connects New York City to New Jersey, two Israeli men were caught driving the van containing a truckload of explosives. Dan Rather, news anchor for CBS, would report:

“Two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives were discovered around the George Washington Bridge. That bridge links New York to New Jersey over the Hudson River. Whether the discovery of those explosives had anything to do with other events today is unclear, but the FBI, has two suspects in hand, said the truckload of explosives, enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge.“

All of these Israelis were subsequently released ultimately by Michael Chertoff – ardent Zionist and son of a Talmudic Rabbi and the first hostess for El Al Airlines, a suspected Mossad front. Chertoff also co-authored the Patriot Act – legislation used to spy on Americans and stifle dissent in the name of ‘national security’.

It cannot be denied that politically and militarily, Israel benefited from 9/11 more than any other nation on the face of the earth. The false flag terror attacks afforded the Zionist entity endless political capital to pursue and accelerate its genocidal ambitions against Muslims in Palestine, and its goals of regional hegemony in coaxing the U.S. to invade Iraq.

In addition to this there is the important element of economic benefits; even the Israeli government admits that its economy is centred around the homeland security and weapons industry.

As a direct result of 9/11, the homeland security industry has boomed to astronomical proportions, eclipsing Hollywood and the music industry. Unprecedented security paranoia, war, and conflict are racking the planet. An ever-growing number of U.S. and Israeli-made drones (and Israel is considered the leading player whilst five NATO countries are using Israeli drones in Afghanistan) are patrolling the skies of the Middle East and Central Asia. Is it any wonder that Israel is one of the few nations on the planet that has largely avoided the post-9/11 economic slump?

The Zionist-controlled BBC’s pre-prepared ‘kick-off’ propaganda set-piece ‘hosted’ by Israeli Zionist heavyweight Ehud Barak, erected the ‘War on Terror’ before the events of 9/11 had even come to pass. The former Israeli Prime Minister’s appearance in what was a uniquely Zionist and anti-Palestinian news report as Manhattan burned provided a telling clue as to the perpetrators of the 9/11 psychological warfare operation. While real Israelis cheered in Manhattan, the world’s TV screens showed manipulated footage of Palestinians ‘celebrating’ 9/11.

Not only are Israel’s fingerprints all over 9/11 (something which is apparent even from the incomplete break-down above), but the new global paradigm that was forged on that day, empowered and benefited Israel in every conceivable way.

Your cause may be the Palestinian struggle, waged in the occupied holy lands of the Middle East. Your cause may be the fight against the unstoppable, destructive free-market neoliberal economic doctrine. Your cause may be the battle against fear, struck into our hearts by the ‘al Qaeda’ ghost – kept alive by psychological warfare outfits such as the Zionist-run SITE group. Your struggle may be against the decade of wars now expanding into Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Perhaps your cause is all of the above. In any case, what cannot be denied is that 9/11 is the seminal event, inextricably and intimately linked to almost every major problem the world faces today. Only through establishing the whole truth about this Zionist deception can we even begin to glimpse peace.

Posted on July 3, 2012 by Jay Knott

The One-Sided View of Hate in Hate Studies

The following paper was submitted to The Journal of Hate Studies at Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA, USA, on March 14, 2012. It was rejected without explanation. My paper criticizes the approach the discipline of Hate Studies had taken hitherto. It argues that Hate Studies has over-estimated the extent of white racism in the USA, and neglected Zionism as a source of hate. It backs up these criticisms with evidence, and a rigorous approach to evaluating it.

Abstract

The Journal of Hate Studies asks for “cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepens the understanding of the development and expression of hate”. The following submission for the 2012 issue of the journal (Call for Papers, Tsai, R.L., 2012) is all of the above. It argues that Zionism generates hate, and that hate studies writers have neglected it. Further, it produces evidence that hate studies researchers have exaggerated the amount of racism in white gentile America. In the process, it examines the methodologies which have led to this miscalculation, and suggests a more balanced approach.

I. Introduction

In his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), one of the founders of hate studies, Chip Berlet, defines the field as “inquiries into the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’ and the processes which inform and give expression to, or can curtail or combat, that capacity”. The current paper argues that Zionism includes examples of the above “human capacity”, but that no contributor to hate studies, until now, has noticed them.

Noel Ignatiev’s contribution to the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, (2007, pp. 240–244), describes the Zionist state of Israel as a “racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race”. Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, (2006), shows how Israel was initiated by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from their homeland, because they were not Jewish. I therefore argue that Zionism is a valid subject of hate studies.

However, a survey of the current publications of hate studies reveals a lack of concern with Zionism, in contrast to an emphasis on anti-Semitism and white racism. I illustrate this below with citations from the major works of hate studies, analyzing examples of alleged hate incidents to suggest a more scientific approach to the evaluation of hate. I cite the recommended works which allege there is an “epidemic” of hate crimes, and the one book currently in print which directly falsifies this hypothesis, Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., 1998). I make use of Steven Pinker’s recent work on the decline of violence, including hate crimes, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Pinker, S., 2011), and a number of newspaper and online reports of alleged hate crimes.

II. Inadequate attention to Zionism

The Zionist justification for expelling Palestinians has included expressions of “the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’” (Berlet, C., 2004). When Zionist leaders recognize the Palestinians’ existence, they sometimes refer to them as “devil’s spawn” (Rachel Abrams’ weblog; 2011). Other representative epithets include “drugged cockroaches”, “two-legged animals” and “Arab scum” (according to the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, 14 January 2002, citing The New Statesman, June 25, 1982). Some Zionists go so far as to say it would be justified to kill gentile babies “if they would grow up to harm us” – Rabbi Shapira, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv, 2009. The evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, in a book about self-deception, The Folly of Fools, the logic of deceit and self-deception in human life, (2011), in a section entitled “False Historical Narratives”, contrasts the Zionist myth with the reality:

a racialist (and then racist) country was shoehorned into the Middle East, so that Jewish people (half and quarter also) from around the world can immediately claim citizenship to this land but none of those who were so recently expelled could do so. (p. 236).

Nevertheless, only one of the papers for hate studies’ most recent conference mentions Zionism, and not to criticize it for racism, but to ask at what point criticism of it becomes racist – “Not every criticism of Israel and Zionism was viewed as antisemitic, but on many occasions such comment served to mask antisemitism” – Michael Whine, The Community Security Trust – Best Practice in Combating Antisemitic Hate, (2011), Journal of Hate Studies (vol. 9, p. 114).

Kenneth Stern, a founder of the discipline of hate studies, vigorously defends Zionism against the “racism” charge. In his first pamphlet on anti-Semitism for the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Zionism, the Sophisticated Anti-Semitism, (1990), Stern wrote: “This anti-Semitic slander – that Zionism was racism – first appeared at the United Nations in the early 1960s” (p. 6). Even the Jewish Agency for Israel says, of the right of return for Jews, “It has been suggested that an immigration policy which explicitly gives priority to one ethnic or religious group cannot be justified in liberal democratic terms” (2004). But Stern has consistently argued that describing the Law of Return as racist, is itself racist (Stern 2006). In an extensive survey of the literature, I have been unable to find anything recommended by the hate studies department at Gonzaga University’s Bibliography of Hate Studies Materials (Thweatt, E., 2002), which agrees with the United Nations that Zionism as a form of racism.

As well as the United Nations, Stern’s complaints about “anti-Semitism” are directed at rural political movements, known as “militias”, in the USA. In 1996, Stern wrote an article for USA Today entitled Militia Mania, a Growing Danger, and published a book called A Force Upon the Plain, subtitled The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, claiming that anti-Jewish attitudes are central to these movements’ ideologies (p. 246). Concern about militias is a recurrent theme in the hate studies literature (Dees, M., 1997; Berlet, C. & Lyons, M, 2000; Thweatt, E., 2002).

An example is Public Eye journal – “Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers” – edited by hate studies pundit Chip Berlet. In her article for the journal, The Montana Human Rights Network, (2005), Abby Scher claims the following statement, from a leaflet produced by a militia in Montana, is an example of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory: “George Bush… cynically used the tragedy of September 11th to silence dissent and to launch the war for Israel his Zionist neocon handlers wanted.” Arguments for the claims that the neoconservative movement is overwhelming Zionist, and that it was instrumental in persuading the US government to attack Iraq in 2003, include scholarly ones such as those of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby; 2007). Deciding how much truth there is in this view is beyond the scope of the present essay – my point is simply that classifying this analysis as “anti-Semitic” may tend to discourage us from asking legitimate questions.

III. The influence of pseudo-science

The field of hate studies has made use of the evolutionary approach in understanding ethnic conflict, for example in publishing Harold Fishbein’s The Genetic/Evolutionary Basis of Prejudice and Hatred (2004), and James Waller’s Our Ancestral Shadow: Hate and Human Nature in Evolutionary Psychology (2004). However, less scientific ideas have also been given credit. For example Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt’s Hate Crimes, (1993), which is recommended in hate studies’ bibliography (Thweatt, E., 2002), and referenced in several papers in the field, relied on a 1950 treatise on hate and prejudice, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Stanford, R.N., 1950): “Decades ago, the authors of The Authoritarian Personality recognized that prejudice satisfies a deep-rooted psychological need to protect or enhance self-esteem” (p. 48).

In The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues claimed to have found “quantifiable relations” between conservatism and anti-Semitism via the “Politico-Economic Conservatism” scale, the “Ethnocentrism” scale and the “Anti-Semitism” scale (p. 49).

The above diagram illustrates the general principle. If person A believes P and Q, and person B believes P, the likelihood that person B also believes Q is greater than the occurrence of belief Q in the general population. This is as true of any one class of beliefs as of any other. Yet the Frankfurt School believed it could derive “the determination of the potential fascist in childhood” (Adorno et al. 1950, p. 56) from this statistical banality.

The authors claimed that a German who joined the Nazis “can apparently never quite establish his personal and masculine identity; he thus has to look for it in a collective system where there is opportunity both for submission to the powerful and for retaliation against the powerless” (page 370); they did not apply this psychological explanation to Communist Party recruits of the same period.

The Frankfurt School’s approach still has influence. As a contemporary example of the use of psychoanalysis to reinforce political, and possibly racial, bias, consider Naomi Klein’s recent article about climate change for The Nation, Capitalism vs. the Climate (2011). She argued that “conservative white men” tend to disbelieve the theory of unprecedented anthropogenic global warming “because it threatens to upend their dominance-based worldview”.

Though work such as The Authoritarian Personality is taken seriously by some contributors, hate studies has also made some use of a truly scientific approach, such as the papers by Harold Fishbein and James Waller in The Journal of Hate Studies, (2004), which rely on evolutionary psychology. But no contributor so far has referenced Professor Kevin MacDonald, whose Separation and its Discontents – toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism, (2004) locates the genesis of anti-Semitism in genetic interests:

An evolutionary perspective is also highly compatible with the falsity and contradictory nature of many anti-Semitic beliefs. Evolution is only concerned with ensuring accuracy of beliefs and attitudes when the truth is in the interests of those having those beliefs and attitudes. (pp. 18-19).

Steven Jacobs may be right to say, in The Last Uncomfortable “Religious Question”? in The Journal of Hate Studies, (2008), that MacDonald’s work has “been almost universally condemned”, but, since science is not a democracy, this is hardly relevant to a scholarly evaluation of his work.

IV. An unscientific approach to hate crime claims

At the hate studies founding conference, in his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), Chip Berlet claimed there was “chronic underreporting” of hate crimes. There is evidence for this hypothesis. As The Leadership Conference states in the introduction to its Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America, (2009), some victims fail to report hate crimes. For example, illegal immigrants are concerned about deportation. People of color may not trust the police. Lesbian and gay victims may not want to “come out” to family members and co-workers by publicizing a homophobic hate crime.

But the scientific approach looks for refutation as well as confirmation. There is also over-reporting of hate crimes, which, if uncritically accepted, exaggerates the amount of hate in our society. I identify five variants of this phenomenon, and give examples below:

1. protected speech is sometimes listed with violent crimes under the broad label “hate incidents”;

2. the degree of hate involved in some actual crimes is exaggerated;

3. there are claims of hate crimes which didn’t happen;

4. there are “hate crimes” committed by the alleged victims themselves;

5. there are unsubstantiated assertions that hate crimes are on the increase.

As an illustration of type 1. above, consider Oregon’s Coalition Against Hate Crimes. This organization claims, on its website, to support the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, which declares that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. But the Coalition contradicts itself immediately; its list of “hate incidents” equates real crimes like the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant, with a talk by a “holocaust denier” (2010). In Hate Crimes (chapter 4; 1998), James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter found that the term “hate incidents” has been used by a number of organizations interchangeably with “hate crimes” to exaggerate the incidence of the latter.

Hate crimes happen. For example, in Texas in 1998, African-American James Byrd was dragged behind a truck by three white men, motivated by racial hatred, until his head came off.

Other notorious cases, such as the murder of Ethiopian Mulugeta Seraw by neo-Nazi skinheads in Portland, Oregon in 1988, and of gay student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998, were not quite what subsequent political campaigns made of them. According to Elinor Langer’s book, A Hundred Little Hitlers, (2003), the Seraw case was not a premeditated lynching. Had the skinheads murdered Seraw in Florida rather than Oregon, it would not have been a hate crime: the Florida Supreme Court explicitly excluded from that category “arguments over a parking space, which escalate into fist fights accompanied by racial or other slurs” – which is exactly what the Portland case was, except a baseball bat was used (Hate Crimes, Jacobs, J.B., & Potter, K., 1998; p. 32). An investigation by Elizabeth Vargas for the ABC News program “20/20″ on December 3, 2004, described by Virginia Heffernan in the New York Times, found the assumption that the murder of Matthew Shepard was homophobic to be unsubstantiated.

Another illustration of type 2., exaggerating the amount of hate in real crimes, is the 1996 panic about “black churches” being set on fire. President Clinton said “racial hostility” was behind the crimes. But according to statistical analysis in an article about the scare by Michael Fumento in Commentary magazine, (1996), confirmed in Hate Crimes (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., chapter 4; 1998),

1. the number of torched churches nationally was below average,

2. the ethnicity of the buildings had no effect on their risk of arson, and

3. there was no inverse correlation between convicted arsonists’ race and that of the churchgoers.

Type 2 is also illustrated by the one alleged anti-Semitic lynching in US history, which occurred in Georgia in 1915. It resulted in a boost in membership for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had been founded two years earlier. The victim, Leo Frank, had been convicted of child-murder, but his death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment; a mob abducted him from prison and hanged him from a tree. His conviction allowed the other suspect, who was black, to walk. The Anti-Defamation League’s evidence for the theory that it was an anti-Semitic lynching, in its People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide, (2009), such as shouts of “Hang the Jew” from the mob, is necessary, but insufficient, to prove it. If a convicted child-killer who was not Jewish would also have been murdered, anti-Semitism had no part to play.

The Anti-Defamation League is consulted by the federal Departments of Education and Justice, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, and other government bodies, according to Hate Crimes (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., chapter 4; 1998). An example can be found on the Department of Justice’s web page about the Sacramento “Hate Crimes Task Force” (2010). Some years ago, the ADL was found by the San Francisco DA to have spied illegally on dozens of people and organizations, fed information about South African dissidents to the apartheid regime, and committed numerous other violations of trust (Blankfort, J., 2002).

A comprehensive survey of examples of type 3. above, completely invented hate crimes, would be beyond the scope of this paper. A small sample can be found in the appendix, Hate Crime Hoaxes, along with some examples of type 4., fake hate crimes committed by pseudo-victims.

Type 4. was discussed by Gabriel Winant in an article for Salon.com, Fake hate crimes: not just for liberals anymore, (2008). She argued that the majority of fake hate crimes consist of minority persons manipulating sympathy for personal and political gain. She suggests this is why there is an epidemic on college campuses – in this milieu, a fake hate crime victim may find sympathy even after her hoax is exposed. In San Diego, a program was announced to “address diversity issues” after a “minority student” admitted hanging up a noose and a white hood in the library at the University of California in February 2010, an example of type 4. The program, entitled Racism – Not In Our Community, includes statements like “hurtful incidents” and “ensuring diversity”. The hypothesis that racism is a problem was so strongly entrenched that evidence known to be fabricated was used to attempt to confirm it (University of California at San Diego, 2010).

Some hate studies research falls into type 5. above, the allegation that hate crimes are increasing. Mari Matsuda wrote that “a marked rise of racial harassment, hate speech, and racially-motivated violence marks the beginning of the 1990′s” in Words That Wound (1993; page 44). Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt’s Hate Crimes complained of “a rising tide of bigotry and bloodshed” at that time (1993; p. xi). Morris Dees, co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a book entitled Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat, in 1997. Kenneth Stern’s article Militia Mania, a Growing Danger, (1996), claimed that local officials in rural America were being intimidated by right-wing terrorists – “According to the Rural Organizing Committee, elected officials on the local level have been forced by armed militia members who pack their meetings to enact ordinances they know are illegal, under threat of death”. The National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence alleges there is an epidemic of “ethnoviolence” in higher education facilities, but its definition of the term includes any “perceived expression of insensitivity”, including denial of tenure to an Asian-American academic, and a piece critical of affirmative action in a campus newsletter (Hate Crimes, Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., 1998; p. 49).

In fact, the incidence of hate crimes in the USA declined during the 1990s, continuing a century-long trend. Steven Pinker’s history of violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, (2011; p. 385) used a chart from James Payne’s A history of force, (2004), which shows how racist lynchings declined steadily from 150 per annum in the 1880s to close to zero by the end of the 1960s. Another graph in his book covers racist murders, 1996-2008 (p. 386), using statistics from the FBI. Most of these murders were of African-Americans. The chart shows a decline from five victims per annum in 1996, to one in 2008. One is less than 0.006 percent of the total number of murders in the country per annum, approximately 17,000. James B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter, in Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics, (chapter 4, Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic; 1998) also studied the evidence, and analyzed the politics, of the “rising tide” hypothesis:

This chapter explains how the hate crime epidemic has been socially constructed. We identify the leading proponents of the epidemic claim – advocacy groups, the media, politicians, and academic commentators – and show that this claim lacks any empirical basis. (p. 46).

The alarmist claims of Levin, McDevitt, Stern, Matsuda, et. al. (Levin, J. & McDevitt, J., 1993; Stern, K., 1996; Matsuda, M., et. al., 1993), cannot survive the gauntlet of attempted falsification by scientific methods. Examining why they are part of the hate studies canon is beyond the scope of the current paper, but I intend to return to that question in further research.

An opportunity to subject the beliefs of some hate studies writers to scientific scrutiny occurred at Duke University in North Carolina in 2006. When a black woman accused three white students of rape, the DA said it was a “hate crime”. Stuart Taylor Jr. and K.C. Johnson’s Until Proven Innocent: political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case, (2007), explains the political assumptions behind the credulity which greeted the woman’s claim. As the article Duke’s Reign of Terror by local journalist Arch T. Allen, in Metro magazine, (2007), explains, with few exceptions, the local and national media were biased against the accused. The rush to judgement of some of the faculty, students and outside activists, based on nothing more than the accused students’ sex, race, and alleged class, is a valid subject of hate studies research.

Angela J. Hattery and Earl Smith, in African American Families, (2007), said the case was about how “the class and race dynamics of the individuals involved (affluent white men and a low-income African American woman) shaped this incident differently from how it would have been shaped had they been absent”. The case does reinforce that view, but in the opposite direction to the one these theorists believe. Instead of doing empirical research into the difference between how the Duke three, and black students accused of similar crimes, were treated, they assumed that “members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that Kimberlé Crenshaw writes about – the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus”. Inspired by these words, and similar analyses (Matsuda et. al. 1993; Fish, S., 1994; Crenshaw et. al. 1996; Berlet C., & Lyons, M., 2000), eighty-eight academics signed a statement implying the students’ guilt by saying something “happened to this young woman”, but carefully avoiding saying what it was. The document in which they made this allegation subsequently disappeared, without explanation, from the African and African-American Studies website.

After the students’ lawyers uncovered the truth, the DA was dismissed, and his replacement said the students were “innocent”, rather than just “not guilty”, their academic accusers had an opportunity to reflect on the flaws in their methodology which led to their mistake. Instead, after the case, “I am less interested in trafficking through declarations of guilt and innocence in the case”, wrote one of the eighty-eight professors who had “trafficked” in the declaration of guilt (Taylor & Johnson, 2007).

I argue that hate studies should insist that a theory’s claims are subject to testing and reevaluation, and changing its predictions when they are falsified ought not to be acceptable.

V. Conclusion: a consistent and rigorous approach to understanding hate

“Whenever an ideology justifies baby-killing – even at the fringes of the fringes – that is an especially strong danger signal” – Kenneth Stern, A Force Upon the Plain. (1996, p. 249).

“There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us” – “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” – Yitzhak Shapira and Yossi Elitzur, rabbis in the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva, Yitzhar, near Nablus, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv (2009).

The influence of Zionism extends beyond Israel. Consider Rachel Abrams, who is married to Elliot Abrams, an influential advisor to the US government, who served under presidents George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan, describing, in her weblog, the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from captivity by Hamas in October 2011:

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you. Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshipping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women — those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others — and their offspring — those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god — as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose. (2011).

Hate studies would be enriched by studying how the influence of Zionism can produce this kind of hate. It would have more credibility if claims of the prevalence of white racism were evaluated more scientifically. It would also benefit by examining examples of hoaxes by which resentful members of minorities, encouraged by academic exaggerations of the extent of white privilege, contributed to a positive feedback loop, which appeared to confirm the hypothesis that the USA is suffering from a rising tide of bigotry and hate.

Appendix – Hate Crime Hoaxes

Associated Press (1998, November 22). Conviction in Phony Hate Mail Case. Sunday Star-News. NC: Wilmington.

Associated Press. (2004, April 20). Colleges perfect milieu for hate crime hoaxes. San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040420-0247-ca-hatecrimehoaxes.html

Bensen, Jackie. (2010). Jewish student caught painting swastikas on her own door then claiming anti-Semitic attack. NBC News4. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt5U7VcHw8

Boyd, C. (2001, June 12). Woman Who Claimed to be Victim of Hate Crime Accused of Stealing Van. MN: St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Delgado, R. (1999, May 8). Man Admits Inventing Racist Assault in San Francisco. San Francisco Examiner.

Eskenazi, J. (2004, May 21). Arson at Chabad House. Jewish Weekly. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/22706/arson-at-chabad-house

Kansas City Star. (2001, December 12). Linda Man, Woman Pleads Guilty to Harassing Other Black School Bus Drivers.

Leinwand, D. & Alexander, A. (1993, December 30). Swastika scrawling thieves staged insurance scam, police allege. Highbeam Business News. Retrieved March 12, 2012. http://business.highbeam.com/4331/article-1G1-14690014/crime-swastikascrawling-thieves-staged-insurance-scam

Perez, M. (2003, November 20). Fake hate crimes not new: colleges experience recent rash of bogus hate incidents. Golden Gate Express. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/000424.html

WBAL. (2008, October 7). Police ID 3 Charged in Synagogue Vandalism. WBAL TV. MD: Baltimore. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/17646190/detail.html

References

Abrams, Rachel. (2011). Rachel Abram’s webblog. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://badrachel.blogspot.com/2011/10/gilad.html

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and Stanford, R.N., (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Allen, Arch T. (2007). Duke’s Reign of Terror. Metro magazine, Raleigh, NC, 2007, November. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=1448

Anti-Defamation League. (2009). People v. Leo Frank Teacher’s Guide. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.adl.org/leofrank/The-People-v-Leo-Frank-Teachers-Guide_ADL.pdf

Berlet, C. & Lyons, M. (2000). Right-wing populism in America: too close for comfort. New York: Guilford Press, 2000

Berlet, C. (2004, March). Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style. Chip Berlet. Paper presented at the Conference to Establish the Field of Hate Studies. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Blankfort, J., Poirier, A. & Zeltzer, S. (2002, February 25). The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues. Counterpunch. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/02/25/the-adl-spying-case-is-over-but-the-struggle-continues

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies. (2002, January 14). Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and all Forms of Discrimination, citing The New Statesman, London. (1982, June 25). Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/d96d50d790ad4a47c1256b760047dac7

Crenshaw, K., (Author), Gotanda, N. (Author), Peller, G. (Author), Thomas, K. (Editor) (1996). Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement. New York: The New Press.

Dees, M. (1997). Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat. New York: Harper Perennial

Department of Justice. (2010). Hate Crimes Task Force. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.justice.gov/usao/cae/hate_crimes/index.html

Fish. S. (1994). There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It’s a Good Thing, Too. Oxford University Press.

Fishbein, H. (2004, March). The Genetic/Evolutionary Basis of Prejudice and Hatred. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Fumento, M. (1996, October). Politics and Church Burnings. Commentary magazine.

Group of 88. (2006). The “Listening” Statement. Duke University, Department of African and African-American Studies. Retrieved 2006, November 10, but no longer available: http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/listening.pdf

Hattery, A.J., and Smith, E.. (2007). African American Families. Sage Publications.

Heffernan, V. (2004, November 27). ‘20/20′ investigation challenges Shepard murder’s hate-crime label. New York Times, reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/27/DDGUEA1PVL1.DTL

Ignatiev, N. (2007). Zionism. The Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. Macmillan Press.

Jacobs, James B., and Potter, Kimberly. (1998). Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics. NY: Oxford University Press.

Jacobs, S. (2004). The Last Uncomfortable “Religious Question”? Monotheistic Exclusivism and Textual Superiority in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as Sources of Hate and Genocide. The Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Journal of Hate Studies. (2011). Table of Contents. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/issue/view/18/showToc

Klein, N. (2011, November). Capitalism vs. the Climate. Naomi Klein. The Nation. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate?page=full

Langer, E. (2003). A Hundred Little Hitlers. Elinor Langer. St Martins Press.

Leadership Conference. (2009). Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America, 2009. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes

Levin. J. & McDevitt. J. (1993). Hate Crimes. De Capo Press.

MacDonald, K. (2004). Separation and its Discontents: toward an evolutionary theory of anti-Semitism. Praeger Publishers.

Matsuda, M.J., Lawrence III, C.R., Delgado, R., Crenshaw K. (1993, June 4). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. Westview Press

Mearsheimer, J. & Walt, S. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Oregon Coalition Against Hate Crimes. (2010). Portland State University. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.againsthate.pdx.edu

Pappe, I. (2006). The ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld publishing.

Payne, J.L. (2004). A history of force: Exploring the worldwide movement against habits of coercion, bloodshed, and mayhem. ID: Sandpoint. Lytton publishers.

Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking Publishers.

Scher, A. (2005). The Montana Human Rights Network. Public Eye Magazine. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v19n2/scher_montana.html

Sharon, R. (2009, November 9). Israel: Maariv.

Stern, K. (1990). Anti-Zionism, the Sophisticated Anti-Semitism. American Jewish Committee

Stern, K. (1996). A Force Upon the Plain. OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Stern, K. (1996, January). Militia Mania, a Growing Danger. USA Today.

Stern, K. (2006). Antisemitism Today. American Jewish Committee.

The Jewish Agency for Israel. (2004). The Law of Return. The Constitution for Israel Project. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.cfisrael.org/a608.html

Taylor, S. Jr. & Johnson, K.C. (2007). Until Proven Innocent: political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case. St. Martins Press.

Thweatt, E. (2002). Bibliography of Hate Studies Materials. Gonzaga University Institute for Action Against Hate.

Trivers, R. (2011). The Folly of Fools. the Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. Basic Books, 2011

Tsai, R.L. (2012). Call for Papers “Hate and Political Discourse”. Robert L. Tsai, J.D. (guest editor). Journal of Hate Studies. WA: Spokane. Retrieved March 6, 2012. http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/againsthate/journal.html

University of California at San Diego. (2010). Join The Battle Against Hate. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://battlehate.ucsd.edu

Waller, J. (2004, December). Our Ancestral Shadow: Hate and Human Nature in Evolutionary Psychology. Journal of Hate Studies, 3. WA: Spokane.

Whine, M. (2011). The Community Security Trust. Best Practice in Combating Antisemitic Hate. WA: Spokane. Journal of Hate Studies, 9.

Winant, G. (2008, October 24). Fake hate crimes: not just for liberals anymore. Salon.com. Retrieved 2012, January 29. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/10/24/crime_hoax

Posted on June 29, 2012 by Laura Stuart

(Updated) Hasan Afzal “Takes The Biscuit” With His Call to Action

More lies and scaremongering about Muslims and Islam from Hasan Afzal of Stand for Peace. The target this time is a conference which aims to educate Muslims on the virtues and excellence of fasting and praying in Ramadan.

Afzal is calling people to action and judging by the comments on our favourite Islamophobia award winning blog Harry’s Place he is managing to propagate P.T.S.D. very successfully. Here is his rallying cry

On the 8th of July 2012, the Grand Connaught Rooms in London will host a conference featuring several hate preachers. Their repertoire includes justifying suicide bombings, glorifying jihad, promoting venomous homophobia, spreading crude antisemitism, and encouraging reprehensible bigotry against Shia Muslims.

Without going through every point I will pick just one. Afzal writes that Sheik Haitham al Haddad supports F.G.M. This is an outrageous and probably libelous claim, as no Muslim scholar will support something that is Haram in Islam.

“Good Boy Gets the Ziobiscuit”

How much longer are we expected to allow this petty failure of an individual to conduct witch hunts against some of the leading Islamic scholars of our time? He has no background of Islamic knowledge to give any weight to his nefarious claims.

Irony indeed that Afzal is calling a conference with the title “Month of Mercy ” a “Jihadist conference” and he is calling people to mercilesly hound the venue providers the Connaught Rooms, with phone calls and e.mails.

Zionist bullying tactics exposed yet again.

IMPORTANT UPDATE

According to the Stand for Peace website the Connaught Rooms have cancelled this event. Hasan Afzal is claiming this as a victory for himself and the readers of Harrys Place who he called into action to apply pressure on the venue management.

After a successful campaign by Harry’s Place readers and others around the web, I am pleased to announce that the Jihadist conference that was suppose to take place on the 8th of July 2012 has been cancelled.

Interesting to see that Afzal makes it clear just who is the audience that he performs for. Amongst the comments of appreciation on the Harrys Place blog are the promise of many more ziobiscuits and perhaps even some kosher Good Boy choco drops if he can have more Islamic events cancelled. Such as the one due to be held soon at the Emirates stadium, being such a useful shabbos goy obviously has to have its rewards.

Afzal might have been a bit hasty in claiming the victory as entirely his own however, as we read that the English Defence League and The Casuals United Team or C.U.N.T. (see the heading on their blog) had also taken up the “Call to Action” and were threatening to protest outside the event. According to the blog “Islamophobia Watch” this is not the first time that the E.D.L. have answered the call from Harrys Place read all about it here.

However, the international counterjihad movement is not the only source of inspiration for the EDL. They also take their cue from the terrorism-supporting Zionist blog Harry’s Place, as is shown by their enthusiastic response to a “call to action” against a so-called “jihadist conference” in London next month, posted at HP by Hasan Afzal of British Muslims for Israel.

A rather unfortunate alliance but one which clearly puts the all the racists and Islamophobes together.

According to the Casuals United blog

After discussions with our London reps, the venue have agreed to cancel. Well done to them!

“The safety of our staff and guests is our absolute priority at all times. After careful consideration and liaison with the local police force we have taken the decision to cancel the booking.”

So we are starting to get the real picture now. Hasan Afzal compiles a dossier of cobbled together out takes from various talks scholars have given and with his evident total lack of Islamic understanding manages to provide no context to explain what has been said. He then posts a call to action on Harrys place which mobilises individuals who are pro Israel, groups of racists and football thugs who bombard the venue providers with the misinformation they have been fed and make threats of protesting outside. But interestingly the Connaught Rooms management were not taken in by any of this circus, what they did was speak to the local police for advice and the local police instead of doing their job to uphold public law and order in the face of potentially rampaging hordes of drunk racists and football hooligans advised them to cancel the event in the “interests of health and safety”.

Some commentators on Harrys Place are not entirely happy with their new coalition with the E.D.L. and Casuals United but others had this to say

Sometimes it doesn’t matter how you get there as long as you arrive.

So there we have it, no fear of violence or hatred from the speakers booked to expound on the virtues of fasting and praying in the month of Ramadan, rather according to this email from the management of the Connaught Rooms fear of violence against their property and staff by our home grown racist thugs stirred and goaded into action by Afzal and Harrys Place. I rally do not think Harrys place should be congratulating themselves on their ability to mobilise racist thugs.

Posted on June 16, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

Telling the Truth About Israel in France

Yesterday, Ynet reported that a recent exam question at the Bichat Hospital Faculty of Medicine in Paris’ Diderot University has caused quite a controversy. The question asked student to determine whether operation Cast Lead was a genocide.

According to the Zionist umbrella organization of French Jewry, CRIF, the question, drafted by Diderot’s Professor Christophe Oberlin wondered “To what extent does it constitute a perpetual crime (war crime, crime against humanity, genocide crime)?” – The question specifically referred to the cold blooded murder, during Operation Cast Lead, of 48 members of the Samouni family.

The notorious French Jewish Lobby is already poised to round on this academic institution and to block even the most elementary intellectual exchange. Arch-Zionist Richard Prasquier, CRIF President, maintained that “as it stands, this question constitutes an absolute incitement to hate Israel…It has no place in medical education, much less in a university, and amounts to a violation of the neutrality (demanded of) professor Oberlin.” Here, Jewish-ethnic activist Prasquier is obviously wrong. Facing the truth and understanding its ethical implications is actually what academia is for and Israel must be held accountable for its murderous actions.

However, until that time, all Zionist lobbies including CRIF must be regarded as extensions of Israeli criminality. The time is ripe to move forward and to identify every element within the matrix of global Zionism and Jewish political power.

Posted on June 15, 2012 by Leslie Bravery

UN political affairs appointment ensures Zionist direction

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appointed Jeffrey D. Feltman of the United States as the top United Nations political issues official. Jeffrey D. Feltman was at the US Consulate General in Jerusalem, where he served first as Deputy (August 2001-November 2002) and then as Acting Principal Officer (November 2002 to December 2003). Feltman’s attitude to Middle East issues may best be summed up by his comment in a written statement that, “We do know, however, that it will be vital that the United States establish and maintain the types of partnerships that help us protect and promote our interests and that give us the ability to help shape and influence outcomes.”

On 9 May 2012, Feltman, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of State for near-eastern affairs, produced the statement called “Assessing US Foreign Policy Priorities and Needs amidst Economic Challenges in the Middle East”. In the statement, regarding Middle East peace, Feltman wrote: “The region’s dramatic changes present both risks and opportunities, and we understand Israel is concerned about the implications these changes may have on its security. As the President has made clear, our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad. The United States and Israel are working together at an unprecedented level of policy co-ordination to ensure we understand each other’s perspectives and concerns, and fully support each other as we consider the implications of change in the region.” The Palestinian people’s need for security is never mentioned in the statement. Complicity with the aim of maintaining Israeli hegemony in the region is clearly of paramount concern to the US as the statement goes on to say: “My colleagues throughout the US government and I are working to ensure that security assistance and arms sales to the Middle East are appropriate, and we remain absolutely committed to maintaining Israel’s ability to defend itself and its Qualitative Military Edge (QME).” Feltman’s statement does not concern itself with the Palestinian people’s right to defence against belligerent Israeli military occupation. What is made plain is that the sole strategic concern of the US is an “ironclad” military alliance with Israel.

Feltman also wrote in his statement that “we remain committed to realising a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that includes a secure Israel side-by-side with a viable Palestinian state.” There is no mention of commitment to a secure Palestine in the statement. Indeed, Israel has made plain its demand that any Palestinian State would have to remain defenceless or, as the Zionist spin puts it, “demilitarised”. The statement refers to continued US support for a future Palestinian state that would be a “responsible neighbour to Israel, and a source of stability and moderation in the region.” No such requirement is made of Israel, which presumably would be permitted to remain a source of instability and aggression. The one-sided statement refers to the need for “an effective Palestinian Authority (PA) government that remains committed to the Quartet’s foundational principles for peace, including the . . . renunciation of violence . . . “ The statement does not require the Israeli state to renounce violence and the subject of Israeli violence in international waters and against its neighbours is avoided. The May 9 statement refers to the requirement for Middle East regimes to “respect and protect fundamental human rights for all citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender.” The statement even goes on to insist that these standards will be used by the US “to judge which political actors are credible, and which are not.” Yet the US chooses to support the principle of “Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge” and remain complicit with Israel in its establishment of Jewish-only roads imposed upon Palestinian land and the ethnically disproportionate allocation of water resources in Occupied Palestine.

The statement is full of rhetoric regarding the need for a “strong role for inclusive economic growth”. Feltman writes: “We must support equitable, transparent, and predictable access to economic resources and opportunity.” Meanwhile, Israel continues, with US complicity, to blockade the Gaza economy, impose a three-mile fishing limit on a collapsing domestic fishing fleet and backs this up by frequently using its Navy to attack Palestinian fishing boats. The Israeli Army and illegal Occupation settlers continue to commit intolerable daily acts of agricultural and economic sabotage, bulldozing and setting fire to crops and olive trees, destroying wells, irrigation infrastructure and farm buildings. Israel continues to build its annexation Wall on Palestinian land, separating Palestinian communities from each other and from their farmland.

The US and Israel continue to demand that the Palestinians ‘negotiate’, under incredible duress, with their oppressor while the two powers studiously ignore the only legitimate basis for the restoration of peace and justice in the region, namely international law and, in particular, the Fourth Geneva convention. Failing this, the US must stand condemned for its complicity in the Zionist state’s continual ideologically-driven war crimes and the UN for allowing the US/Israel axis to direct policy at the international body. – Leslie Bravery 15 June 2012

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

The One Gay Solution

The Moscow City Court upheld last Thursday a district court’s decision to ban gay parades in the Russian Capital for the next 100 years. Not just one year, two years or even ten years, the court was pretty clear about it all-a century with no gay parades. Pretty sinister I would say.

As it seems Homosexuality is not very popular amongst Russia’s political establishment. In 2007, Former Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov described attempts to hold a gay parade in the capital as “satanic.” In fact, no gay Parade has ever been officially permitted in Russia. Russian gays are heavily discriminated. But they should never lose hope. In the last few days I have come up with a simple and creative solution that would calm this rift down and may even bring peace to what is left of occupied Palestine.

As we all know, Israel opens its arms to Russians and East Europeans Goyim who are happy enough to live in the ‘Jews Only State’ and even pretend to be Zionist Jews and hate Arabs accordingly. But Israel is also ‘the only democracy in Middle east’- it is open, liberal and tolerant. Tel Aviv is famous for being ‘The World’s Gay Capital’.

If Russian gays are unhappy with their meshigine Goyim homophobic leaders, they should simply make Aliya and join more than one million of their expatriates who already live happily in Israel. I believe that that such a wave of something between three to twenty million pride-seeking Russian immigrants would make Israel into a really nice place. Living in the rapidly expanding shore-city Gay Aviv, the new Russians will enjoy the sun, the beach and the famous hospitality of the Israelis. Considering Israel being an open, inclusive society, dynamic, liberal, democratic State, it won’t take long before the indigenous Hebrews amend their national narrative, they will probably name their reforming state IsraGay. They may even introduce some new rainbow colours to their precious Star of David. Believe me, it won’t take long before GDF’s (the newly formed Gay Defence Force) generals launch a peace dialogue with IsraGay’s neighbouring country and even some leading Palestinian One Gay Solution advocates. Let’s leave bigotry behind, together we cross the divide, peace may prevail after all.

Posted on June 11, 2012 by Francis Clark-Lowes

Wandering Who? Reading Group’s 4th Meeting

The Wandering Who? Reading Group invited the author of the book we are studying, Gilad Atzmon, to attend our gathering on Monday 28^th May.

We all agree that it is Atzmon’s swashbuckling personality which enables him to say things which others would shy away from. But there was some difference of opinion about both his style of debate and his views.

On the one hand he was seen as someone who thought on his feet, and needed to because of the malevolent forces out to get him. One member of the group liked his style and found his focus on power particularly useful at a time of false, complacent and moralistic political discourse.

On the other hand there was some worry about Atzmon’s intensive naval gazing on Jewish identity coupled with a lack of concrete proposals on how to delegitimize Israel. Also Atzmon’s style of delivery made it difficult to challenge him on particular points, and at least one member of the group had questions about Chapters 6 and 7 which didn’t get to be put.

Atzmon’s dismissal of Chomsky as simply an accessory to Jewish Power, even if this was one aspect of the man, seemed too sweeping for some. Neither were we unanimous in rejecting the boycotting of Israeli sponsored cultural events. Although Atzmon made it clear he supports most forms of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) we were left unsure of his exact position.

Much of the power of Atzmon’s rhetoric comes from his interest in philosophy and psychology. However, the use of technical language from these disciplines, such as praxis, matrix of negation, dialectic, organimus, projection and so on seemed to some of us to add little to the argument.

Nevertheless a fruitful discussion took place in the second half of our meeting about the use of ‘the Holocaust’ to validate academics, the responsibility members of a collective have for actions by that collective, the probable Israeli involvement in Syria as a preparation for a war on Iran, and the simplistic Western tendency to classify the leaders of non-Western countries as either with us or against us.

The critical note sounded in some of this report does not detract from our interest in The Wandering Who? and our intention to continue to study this brave book. We are very grateful to Gilad Atzmon for coming down from London to meet with us.

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

Lebanon, Palestine & Jewishness…

Gilad Atzmon on Afshin Rattansi’s Double Standard. Gilad Atzmon, novelist, journalist and saxophonist speaks about Lebanon, Palestine, Jewishness and censorship.

The original program can be watched here..

Note: The handsome young soldier in the B&W phot is not me, it is actually my father. The picture was taken in the 1950′s.

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Richard Edmondson

Some Potentially Serious Trouble for Israel

People in general, as well as 9/11 Truthers, are waking up to the very politically incorrect idea that Israel was the prime mover in the atrocity of 9/11. I got applause when, during the Q&A, I stated my belief that Israel did 9/11, with American help. A year ago I might have gotten boos.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are currently in the midst of a nationwide, 31-city tour promoting the final edition of their documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. This week events are being held in Oklahoma City, Minneapolis, Chicago, Madison, Detroit, and Buffalo, and the tour is scheduled to wind up in San Francisco on July 11.

While the tour actually opened in San Diego on May 21, an “opening night premiere” took place in Los Angeles on May 22, at the Beverly Hills Music Hall Theater on Wilshire Blvd. You can click here to see a press conference held by Richard Gage, AE 9/11 Truth founder, in which he talks about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings, dust samples taken in which nano-thermite chips were found, etc. But some people now are calling upon AE 9/11 Truth to get beyond the “how” of 9/11, and to start addressing the issue of “who.” One issuing such a call is Zan Overall, also known as The Wise Old Man, who was present at the opening premiere in L.A. The following is his report. His article recently was posted at Mr. Friend’s Blog.

By Zan Overall

Richard Gage and his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth organization (ae911truth.org) premiered the final version of their documentary called “Explosive Evidence” in Los Angeles on May 22nd, 2012.

I, the alleged Wise Old Man, attended, hoping to enlarge the scope of the event by focusing on “WHO” did 9/11 instead of just “HOW” the bastards did 9/11.

Richard Gage has made believing 9/11 Truthers out of many, many people. I admire him and we are friends. He does not get into the “WHO,” probably a wise strategic decision for him.

I DID get into the “WHO” that night, standing on the sidewalk with placards, one of which read:

People in general, as well as 9/11 Truthers, are waking up to the very politically incorrect idea that Israel was the prime mover in the atrocity of 9/11. I got applause when, during the Q&A, I stated my belief that Israel did 9/11, with American help. A year ago I might have gotten boos.

During my sidewalk activity I said (loudly) things like:

“Israelis with American helpers did 9/11. The monsters who did 9/11 LOVE you Half Truthers if you don’t say Israel did 9/11! That gives them more time to do other ‘9/11’s’ like Fukushima. That gives them more time to fool Americans into wiping out more of Israel’s enemies for her.”

I passed out material on Fukushima, principally the article “Fukushima-The Asian 9/11.”

I also said:

“You are spending and wasting years and years trying to get a ‘new investigation.’ You expect that the same powers that be that conducted a fraudulent investigation before would allow an honest one now? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Look at all the wasted effort trying to get an investigation in New York.”

Pointing to the traffic going by on Wilshire Blvd. I said, “The only way you are going to get those people to do anything about 9/11 is to get enough of them aware that Israel did 9/11! Then they will turn the anger that 9/11 aroused against Muslims into anger against the real villains!”

“9/11 is not an intellectual exercise, a hobby. Because the true authors of 9/11, Israel’s leaders, are getting away with it, millions of innocent Muslims are suffering and dying and our country is going broke and piling up some very bad Karma.”

I passed out a lot of material and those attending were made aware that “WHO” did 9/11 is as important, if not more important, than “HOW” it was done.

I like the way Overall uses the term “Half-Truthers” to refer to those who acknowledge the events of 9/11 are not what we’ve been led to believe but who at the same time refuse to discuss Israel’s role—because I’ve encountered people like this in the 9/11 truth movement myself. And he is certainly right on the futility of calling for a new official investigation (AE 9/11 Truth’s only demand to date). But I’m not so sure I agree with him on Gage’s seeming reticence regarding who did 9/11, and with his view that the latter’s continued evasion of the issue is “probably a wise strategic decision for him.”

In his tireless work with AE 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage has achieved some major successes. Thanks to he and the other professionals who have lent their time to studying and analyzing the evidence, people across the U.S., and around the world, have come to realize that the government’s official explanation of the events of 9/11 is a complete sham. Most incredibly of all, Gage and his fellow professionals have accomplished all this in the face of media silence and complicity.

It’s important to note that AE 9/11 Truth has grown, that it is no longer an organization of architects and engineers exclusively. I have not seen this final edition of the documentary, but an earlier version which I did see, and which I posted a review on, included experts in physics and other branches of science. The film even offered comments from psychologists who discuss the subject of cognitive dissonance and why so many people, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, still cling to the official version of 9/11. These are views far outside the scope of architecture and engineering. Would it not be appropriate then, at this point, for Gage to begin expanding the membership of his organization even further, and to include criminologists and law enforcement professionals, perhaps former Defense and CIA employees as well, who would now look at the evidence and examine the issue of who did 9/11?

As mentioned above, I came across Overall’s article at Mr. Friend’s Blog, where blogger John Friend offers up some comments of his own, including the following:

Instead of basing 9/11 Truth outreach efforts on pointing out all the obvious inconsistencies, absurdities, distortions, and outright lies in the official 9/11 narrative, why not point out that the only individuals arrested on 9/11 were Israeli Mossad agents that just so happened to specialize in explosives and electronic intercepts? You know, the types of skills you would need if you were involved in carrying out an attack like 9/11!

We could even print out the police report from the East Rutherford Police Department documenting this fact. And why stop there? Why don’t we go ahead and print out all the FBI and DEA reports detailing the elaborate Israeli spy ring operating in the United States prior to and on 9/11, which was clearly involved in the attacks? We may as well print out the Gerald Shea Memo documenting these facts as well, which was submitted to the official 9/11 Commission Report, but was (of course) ignored.

John also, like Overall, makes the excellent point that issuing a call for a new 9/11 investigation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when the investigation would be “conducted by the same criminal network that did 9/11 in the first place.” The logic here is hard to argue with. If the official 9/11 investigation was defective—something Gage and his colleagues have established beyond a shadow of a doubt—where is the sense in launching a new investigation, one with, most likely, many of the same shadowy officials pulling the strings in the background as the first time around?

“The family members of the victims lost on 9/11 started the 9/11 truth movement ten years ago,” Gage said at the premiere in L.A. “We are here to support them.” Would not “supporting” the families, then, include beginning to expose who was complicit in the crime committed that day? Is remaining silent on this issue truly a “wise strategic decision”? Or would it be far more strategically wise to begin to address the issue? To what extent are the 9/11 families “supported” by knowing how the deed was committed if the criminals who actually pulled it off never stand accused? In his talk, Gage went on to say that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Quite true. But this delay of justice is only further extended by failing to tackle the all-important issue of who.

Posted on June 4, 2012 by Ariadna Theokopoulos

Kafka as Back Up to Madonna – Video Review

“Madonna’s Peace Concert for the Chosen Only” recently posted by deLiberation is an extraordinary video that could easily be developed into a play or full-length movie. The problem would be that it might be accused of plagiarizing The Castle by Kafka.

In The Castle the main character we know only as “K” makes sisyphic efforts to contact the authorities at the Castle who, for reasons no one understands, rule over the village where he seeks residence permission.

Nothing can be done in the village without permission from the Castle, which is hard to obtain through the labyrinthine bureaucratic process. It is hard to impossible to contact the rulers in the Castle, whose doors are locked.

In the Madonna video the plot is equally simple: two Palestinians we could call K and K live in the forbidding shadow of the Jewish Wall, naturally on the barren side of it. The premise of the video is that they have purchased tickets to the concert that a self-proclaimed peace lover-cum-amateur kabbalist is going to give to her adoring fans on the other side of the Wall. To dispel the viewer’s doubts that any Palestinians would set aside his daily life worries and make efforts to enter Israel just to see this concert, the camera shows us the tickets repeatedly, with K and K holding them like products demonstrated in a TV commercial.

The diva’s name is perfect: Madonna. Perhaps Beckett, Pinter or Kafka himself would have rejected the name for this particular plot as too pat in its inevitable associations with Christianity’s support of the Wall, but reality is funny that way sometimes, not reluctant to ham it up.

K and K make repeated attempts to gain entrance to “the Castle” that zionism and “christian zionism” built, by knocking on the Wall, shouting entreaties and even calling by phone. The guardians of the Wall, just like in Kafka’s novel, are never seen. Their rumbling, mysterious voices are heard repeating the interdiction with an automaton’s verbatim iteration requesting properly documented prior approval of entry based on a request from “an organization.” K and K keep trying and fail.

Reading The Castle one is compelled to think of Israel as the Castle guarded by the Wall: nobody understands why it is ruling absolutely over “the village” where one may not be told what the charges against him are but must confess his guilt before being allowed to request pardon for it, where there are no Laws but the villagers keep trying to reverse engineer them by deducing them from the endlessly proliferating bureaucratic rules.

Above it all looms the oppressive, ominous shadow of the Wall that darkens and stifles the lives of K and K and K and K and K…. They may have tickets but those are as worthless as the very old, large keys to buildings long razed on the other side of the Wall. Yet they keep knocking on the gate of the Wall.

Kafka died before he could finish The Castle so K was left in eternal limbo. In the video K and K are left without a resolution as well. Many critics saw in Kafka’s work symbolic references to the anti-semitism of his time and place. This excellent video upholds the universality of his vision: anti-semitism, this time against the semitic Palestinian people, is strong in the Castle surrounded by the Wall called Israel, and elaborate justifications are given for its absurd existence and lack of humanity.

Madonna, a caricature of her former caricatural self, sings at the Castle about love and peace, unaware that Kafka provides a dissonant back up to her performance. Her papers are in order: she is a “kabbalist,” and a documented Castle lover. After the mutual adoration fest is over she will return to her own castle, remembering to dig up and rehang around her neck that large bejewelled cross. Her other fans love it.

It is a nice fantasy to imagine her surprising her fans in the Castle with a new song called “Tear Down That Wall,” but that song requires a really talented singer and a decent human being. The constructive work of demolishing the Wall will not be done by traveling minstrels and court jesters invited to the Castle anyway. It will be done by K and K and K and K and K and K and K and K….. Sooner rather than later. Inshallah.

Posted on May 31, 2012 by Kashif Ahmed

An Innocent Man: Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al-Megrahi (1952-2012)

story45787_120520MegrahiBACK20_1_320x240

December 21^st 1988: PanAm flight 103 is blown up in mid air over the southern Scottish town of Lockerbie, all 259 passengers and crew on board are killed in the bombing, with debris from the blast claiming a further 11 lives on the ground.

Framed for the terrorist attack, Libyan national, head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and former director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli; Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al-Megrahi, 49, was subjected to the kind show trial that would’ve made Mátyás Rosenfeld blush: Sentenced to life by a special court held on a NATO base in Holland on 21^st January 2001. He was released from a Scottish prison on 10^th August 2009 after being diagnosed with cancer, given a heroes’ welcome upon his return to Libya; Al-Megrahi spent his final three years with friends and family in Tripoli and died peacefully in his sleep in the early hours of 20^th May 2012, he was 60.

A reserved and capable patriot, Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al-Megrahi was a victim of the times; saddled with the burden of living in the days of dishonorable peace, the fruitless era of capitulation and appeasement. Handing over Al-Megrahi to criminal regimes in the West was the first of many errors by the Libyan Jamahiriya. Former Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ganem is on record as having said that Libya had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, but reluctantly acquiesced to Western demands, handing out $2.7 billion to “…buy peace and move forward”.

The Bloody Path to Lockerbie:

1969: The Rothschild controlled, illegitimate state of Israel expresses concerns over Libya’s support for the Palestinian people in the campaign to restore their country.

1970: The Rothschild controlled U.S. regime is ordered to tackle Libya on Israel’s behalf.

1973: The U.S. navy and air force begin hostilities with operation ‘Freedom of Navigation’ defined by a series of attempted incursions in and over Libya’s airspace and territorial waters, specifically off the northern Mediterranean coast in the Gulf of Sidra.

1975: U.S. spy planes attempt to violate Libyan airspace whilst the Libyan navy manages to dissuade the U.S. navy from advancing any further. Engagements are kept down to mutual harassment, mock attacks and aggressive posturing.

1980: The U.S. regime, having suffered a humiliating strategic defeat in Iran, intensify their aggression against Libya: Rothschild sees to it that America amass an armada off the Libyan coast, and so, aircraft carriers USS Forrestal and Nimitz move in to escalate the standoff.

1981: U.S. fighter jets down two Libyan fighter planes. The pilots eject and escape unharmed. U.S. forces gradually send more naval forces and aircraft carriers to the region.

1983: The U.S. regime, having suffered a significant military defeat alongside Israel in the Lebanon, continues to ratchet up the tension against the Libyans who have yet to respond militarily to the build-up of forces on their doorstep.

1986: The U.S. fleet edges ever closer to the coast of Libya: The U.S.S. Ticonderoga carrier is flanked by armed Destroyers the U.S.S. Scott and U.S.S. Caron: 30 Destroyers and 255 U.S. fighter planes are positioned directly in front of the Libyan coastline.

U.S. fighter planes invade Libyan airspace, Libya sends in three patrol boats in a bid to hold back further incursions. The U.S. air force launches a ruthless attack against Libyan forces, killing 35 naval personnel.

Mossad terrorists bomb La Belle discothèque in Berlin, Germany killing 3 and wounding over 200 civilians. The attack is blamed on Libya as a pre-text to a U.S. invasion.

At the behest of Israel, the U.S. regime conducts a wide scale terrorist attack on Tripoli; the bombing campaign kills 50 Libyans including Colonel Gaddafi’s 3 year old daughter, Hanna.

Israeli Fingerprints All Over Lockerbie:

In the wake of the bombing, Pan Am mobilized its internal investigation agency to look into the crime, coincidently; Pan Am’s internal investigation agency was none other than ‘Interfor’, a firm run by ex-Mossad agent Yuval Aviv. Mr. Aviv’s whitewash unsurprisingly blamed swarthy, Arab looking airport staff for the security lapse; some of Aviv’s sources for the report were his former employers the Mossad and Israeli airline El Al.

In his book, ‘Gideon’s Spies’, author Gordon Thomas cities a source inside the ‘Lohamah Psichlogit’ (LAP) Mossad’s psy-ops / psychological warfare department. The source describes how Mossad agents were propagandizing against Libya “within hours of the crash”. Evidence also emerged of how suspected Mossad terrorists visited the scene of the crime and tampered with evidence at the crash site, one Mossad member even stole a suitcase belonging to U.S. agent Charles McKee. Killed in the attack, McKee was said to have links to U.S.-Israeli cointiel pro operations in the Lebanon. The Israelis, still bitter that the Americans had left them to suffer a brutal defeat in the Lebanon war at the hands of Hezbollah resistance fighters, may well have been sending a deadly threat with Lockerbie: ‘obey us, or else’.

Ex-Mossad agent Colonel Victor Ostrovsky, also agreed to testify that it was the Israelis who set up both the Berlin and Lockerbie false flag terror attacks: In 1986, Mossad sent out a signal intercept transmitted from Tripoli to Berlin, this signal was then picked up by the CIA and used to fabricate evidence to frame Libya for the Berlin discothèque bombing. The exact same Israeli intercept was used to frame Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie attack.

The Cover Up Unravels:

Dr Hans Köchler, one of the UN observers at the trial of Al-Megrahi, declared that the proceedings were a “spectacular miscarriage of justice”.

Scotland’s Chief Law Officer during the investigation, Peter Fraser conceded in 2005 that chief witness for the prosecution; Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, was highly unreliable and expressed concerns that evidence may have been planted at the scene. It was later discovered that corrupt, Rothschild controlled U.S. plutocrats had offered “unlimited monies” for Al Megrahi’s conviction. Witness Tony Galui and his brother Paul were both paid a total of $3 million dollars for their services to the prosecution.

A fragment of printed circuit board allegedly discovered by British forensic scientist Dr Thomas Hayes had also been altered. Shabbt goy Dr Hayes, former head of British Royal Armaments Research and Defense Establishment (RARDE) was also involved in the frame up of the Maguire family for a crime they didn’t commit in 1976, The Maguire Seven were eventually freed on appeal after 14 years in prison.

Courageous campaigner Dr. Jim Swire, whose 24 year old daughter Flora was killed in the Lockerbie attack, has tirelessly fought for the truth. Piecing together evidence which exonerated Al-Megrahi and exposed the web of lies woven by a gaggle pro-Israeli sympathizers and corrupt, corporate media shills:

I first saw Baset al-Megrahi on the morning of 1st of May 2000. He was below us in the well of the specially convened trial court at (NATO) Kamp Zeist, Holland. With me were Reverend John Mosey and other friends. Close to us, to one side of the public gallery, sat his wife Aisha and his family. We were totally unprepared for the comment from another observer in the gallery:- “How could you sit so near to the filth?” he said. This was presumably naked racism, coupled to a profound a priori presumption of guilt unencumbered by the inconvenience of having to prove it. Similar hatred has festered for some, and contributed to the blinding of many ever since.

On my first actual meeting with Baset in Greenock prison, he was calm but determined to clear his name. He must have known that we had campaigned for years to have him tried under Scots law.Yet there was not a word of complaint, though his cancer, already giving him pain on sitting, was then in evidence. A devout Muslim, he had a Christmas card from the prison shop ready for me, on it he had written ‘Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family’. I treasure it. It resoundingly trumps the arrogance of the comment from Zeist, quoted above”.

Jim Swire

The real perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing remain at large, probably still in our midst planning ever more depraved and deadly atrocities for their Rothshcild overlords. But murder is a crime with no place to hide, and eventually, however long it may take; these people will be bought to book. Meanwhile, the specter of Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al-Megrahi haunts the Israelis like Banquo’s ghost did Macbeth, for the world is all too aware of who did what to whom and how. For even they must know that true justice will, someday, prevail.

Posted on May 22, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

They Love Themselves Loving Themselves

In this this debate two rabid Zionist enthusiasts (Jeremy Ben Ami and Alan Dershowitz) who openly support the existence of the ‘Jews only State’, pretend to disagree on some minor issues.

Interestingly enough, neither Ben Ami nor Dershowitz happen to be concerned with ethical or moral issues. They are largely interested in the image of Israel and its impact on American Jews.

I would really like to know how many American Jews support Israel becoming a ‘State of its citizens’. How many American Jews support the Palestinian right of return*? Is there any Jewish progressive organisation committed to universal ethical thinking?

* As far as I am aware even the IJAN (international ‘Jews only’ Anti-zionist network) seems to adhere to the concept of the Right of Return, yet fails to specify whether it supports the return of the Palestinians to their land, homes, villages and cities. Is it also possible that like left Zionists, IJAN also supports the return of Palestinian refugees to the future Palestinian State?

Posted on May 22, 2012 by Khalid Amayreh

Jews must clean their own house first

Israeli and Jewish hypocrisy is so brazen that it probably has no match under the sun. Jewish and Zionist circles never stop accusing other countries of harboring “hate” against Jews.

Jewish propaganda arms, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center as well as the Israeli foreign ministry recently criticized several countries, including Greece, for allowing nationalist parties to function.

We are told that the appearance of these parties in Europe should sound an alarm note because certain red lines are being crossed.

It is always good and auspicious to stand against and be vigilant about fascist and extreme nationalist parties which advocate xenophobia, bigotry and racism, such as Islamophbia and anti-Semitism.

But this is not the point here. The point is that Israel is inherently and absolutely unfit to lecture other countries and other peoples on the evils of racism as Israel itself is probably the ugliest and most brazen of embodiment of racism on earth.

For example, Israel and Jewish circles protest rather vociferously, usually with a great degree of sanctimony, the alleged hatred existing in Palestinian and other Arab textbooks when every Jewish school child is taught that Jews are the master race and that non-Jews are either lesser or sub-humans.

Just try to thoroughly examine the text-books used in hundreds of Talmudic schools across Israel and the occupied territories and you will see strange wonders. You will see text-books teaching that the Almighty created the entire universe solely for the sake of the Jew. You will see books teaching that the Almighty created all the nations “Goyem” (people like you and me) solely in order to serve the master race or Chosen People. According to some Talmudic texts, the lives of non-Jews have no sanctity.

Indeed, according to some rabbis affiliated with the Nazi-like Chabad sect, a Jew may murder a non-Jew, without any compunction, in order to extricate an organ from his or her body if the Jew needs one.

I really thought that this was a far-fetched canard until I ascertained its veracity.

Now, how Jews and Zionists could have the Chutzpah to criticize others of harboring “hate” toward Jews when Jews don’t even recognize those people’s very humanity? This is undoubtedly an uncomfortable question for the Israeli hasbara apparatus, which refuses to be honest in tackling such questions.

For example, when Zionist propagandists, such as Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson and Elie Wiesel are confronted with irrefutable facts pertaining to brash Jewish racism and there is no point denying the obvious, they try to prevaricate or evade the issue. Some, like Wiesel, have the audacity to claim that the rest of mankind has no right to criticize Jews even when Jews indulge in war crimes against humanity.

Unfortunately, many westerners, who are either scared to death by the Jewish Golem or scandalously brainwashed by a pliant media that is at Zionism’s beck and call, readily listen to and even dignify these morbid Zionist vagaries which go beyond the pale. After all, it would be foolish to challenge the self-righteousness of people like Wiesel especially when his Jewish supremacist sickness is accorded solemn and ample media attention from Sydney to California .

Another point. When any writer or intellectual thoughtfully and sincerely criticizes the Talmudic edicts that keep resurfacing in Israel, edicts which dehumanize and demonize non-Jews, or question Israeli regional hegemony and bellicosity, as did the German poet Guenter Grass recently, we see the shipyard dogs of Zionism fire a round after round of the anti-Semitism bombs at the “emulators of Hitler.”

Well, some short-sighted Zionists may still think that this is the right way to go but this is wrong because the Zionists are playing on borrowed time and invoking anti-Semitism every time Israel’s vile behavior is criticized serves only to cheapen anti-Semitism in the eyes of the non-Jewish world.

Still, many Zionist supremacists just don’t care, even if they know in the bottom of their hearts that the once effective weapon of anti-Semitism is becoming stale and losing its effectiveness. This is how arrogant and sick minds think. It is the same minds that expect Palestinian children who have just watched their fathers and mothers and relatives mercilessly and brutally killed by Israeli soldiers or Gestapo-like Jewish settlers to love Jews and sing hatikva (the Israeli national anthem) and not harbor a sliver of hate toward Zionism and Jews. Can a Palestinian school child, who has just returned home from school, seeing his home being bulldozed by a Jewish bulldozer, driven by a Jewish soldier, with a helmet bearing the Star of David, harbor love for his and his people’s tormentors? Of course, I am not speaking metaphorically as I witnessed hundreds of house demolitions ever since I was a little kid in the village of Kharsa south west of Hebron.

A final point. Everyone knows too well that most if not all the political parties represented in the Israeli Knesset can be judged as manifestly fascist. Just read the ideological and political platforms of the Habayt ha-Yehudi (the Jewish home,” the Ehud ha-Leumi (the national Union), Shas, whose spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef shamelessly teaches that all non-Jews are donkeys or beasts of burden, and even the Likud, and you will know what I am talking about.

Now, with clearly Nazi-like parties represented in the Israeli Knesset, do Zionists have a moral right to complain about some political parties in Greece or the Ukraine or Norway?

I hope that this and similar articles will provide some food for thought to Jews who might be prompted to think that life itself is hasbara and that if you succeed in this field you get it done.

No, life is not Hazbara, and if Jews succeed in obliterating the truth for sometime, they won’t be successful for ever.

Jews have much to do in terms of getting their own house clean. They’d better get busy putting their house in order rather than hurling baseless charges and accusations here and there.

People living in glass houses don’t throw stones at people’s houses.

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Kashif Ahmed

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui: Prisoner of Conscience

Pakistan forms committee for Dr Aafia Siddiqui's release

I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to them (i.e. Zionist Jews). The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If Americans understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don’t have any idea what goes on”.

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, U.S. Navy & Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

THE CRIME

March 30^th, 2003, Karachi, Pakistan: 11 days after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, masked gunmen kidnap scientist Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her children.

Aafia, 31, is taken to U.S. occupied Afghanistan; held hostage in an American run torture chamber at Bagram and separated from her children; Mohammed Ahmad, aged 6, Maryum, aged 4 and six month old baby Suleiman: missing, presumed dead; murdered in U.S. custody.

Tortured by her captors, Dr. Aafia endured 5 years of physical and psychological abuse. Fellow hostage Moazzam Begg (later taken to Guantanamo Bay, U.S. occupied Cuba) recounts a woman’s sobs and screams in Bagram, and how his captors implied that it was the sound of his wife being tortured in an adjoining cell.

THE SHOW TRIAL

Aafia is then put on a plane to New York, imprisoned in solitary confinement for 2 years, bought before a kangaroo court run by Judge Ronald Ellis who bans all live media coverage, denies bail and repeatedly spouts proven lies and Israeli approved conspiracy theories about 9/11. Ellis sets the trial date and the case is handed over to Judge Berman.

Shabbat Goy Judge Ronald Ellis reads out a list of ‘charges’.

Corrupt, pro-Israeli Judge Richard M. Berman (who was promoted to senior status on 9/11), presided over the macabre, Sanhedrin show trial like a pernicious Basilisk, safe in the knowledge that the pacified, castrated shills of the corporate media wouldn’t dare delve into his murky past as an aide to Jewish Senator Jacob Javtis. Berman’s predecessor in that role was a loquacious fellow by the name of Harold Wallace Rosenthal. Mossad murdered Rosenthal in 1976 because he was deemed to have revealed too much about the self-chosen:

Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer”.

Harold Wallace Rosenthal, aide to Senator Jacob Javits.

Berman, needless to say, would never make that mistake, and was well aware of what his Rothschild run, Israeli handlers were capable of should he ever stray off message.

Compromised Judge Richard M. Berman presides over the show trial.

Berman gradually became a prominent figure in extremist Jewry’s ongoing campaign to curtail public awareness and civil liberties en route to implementing a Talmudic police state to suppress any form of free speech that opposes them: responsible for sentencing media researcher Saleh Elahwal for his work with Lebanese TV news channel ‘Al-Manar’, Berman also supported Brooklyn Jew Dov Hikind in his call for New Yorkers to submit to stop & search and racial profiling; Hikind is a conservative democrat and active cheerleader for Israeli terrorism, who even snuck into Gaza in 2005 to encourage IDF conscripts to maintain the occupation.

Their Master’s Voice.

It was a given that a guy so deeply entrenched in the swamp of extremist Jewry would do as he was told, after all, who wants to end up shot to pieces in a false flag hi-jack staged by a gaggle of Kidon-Mossad henchmen and their underlings? No-one, and certainly not the right honourable Judge Berman, no, Berman was all in, and prepared to deliver a ‘verdict’ that’d been bought and paid for in 1913, when Rothschild agent Samuel Untermeyer blackmailed President Woodrow Wilson to appoint Zionist Jew Louis Dembitz Brandeis as U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

For not since Joan of Arc was burnt at the stake for heresy, has there been a more depraved and politically motivated spectacle than the one that transpired in the Manhattan Federal District Court on September 23^rd 2010:

Dr. Aafia is sentenced to 86 years in prison. And despite the trauma she’s suffered at the hands of extremist Jews and their savage, Shabbat goy enablers; she somehow summons the resolve to issue a softly spoken cri de Coeur that vocalizes the sentiments and beliefs of the civilized majority, and says what cowards and traitors dare not:

This decision has come from Israel”.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

THE BETRAYAL

The harshest criticism in this respect must, of course, be reserved for the Pakistanis themselves. And though The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has always supported Palestine, refuses to recognize the illegitimate state of Israel and often fights the good fight, its current batch of so-called leaders are amongst the most wretched and servile spawn of Israeli collaborators ever placed into power.

Left: Alleged Mossad Informant & Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Anti-Pakistani Exile / MQM leader Altaf Husain. MQM mercenaries maintain a strong presence in Karachi, where Dr. Aafia was kidnapped.

Asif Ali Zardari with Israeli media personality Daphne Barak.

Disgraced former ambassador Husain Haqqani wanted for the ‘Memogate’ scandal and possible treason charges.

Affia Siddiqui’s mother; Asmat Siddiqui said it all when news of the verdict came through:

The rulers of Muslim world have shown more barbarity than any other dictators in the world by maintaining silence over the issue. But I cannot say anything to anyone, if my country’s rulers did nothing. For six months the US court kept seeking a letter for the release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui from the Pakistani government but not a single word or letter was written.”

Asmat Siddiqui

The vile, Anglo-American-Israeli appointed Zadari regime in Pakistan is more Zionist than the Zionists, even disgraced former ambassador and aspiring U.S. citizen; Mr. Husain Haqqani, has been caught In flagrante delicto on many occasions, and was found to have been engaged in activities that would constitute a capital charge of high treason under Pakistani law: Mr. Haqqani also stands accused of aiding and abetting the unlawful imprisonment of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui; and obstructing efforts to secure her release. Husain Haqqani, who eagerly doled out visas to U.S. ‘Blackwater’ terrorists, denied U.S. congresswomen and pro-Palestinian campaigner Cynthia McKinney entry into Pakistan. Ms. McKinney planned to visit Pakistan to request the Zardari regime act on Dr. Aafia’s behalf and do the bare minimum to help her. Journalist Yvonne Ridley describes Mr Haqqani’s composure once Ms. McKinney bought his hypocrisy to light:

He squirmed and wriggled after being hoisted by his own petard, but like a worm impaled firmly on a fishhook of his own making, he could not escape the humiliating exposure of his duplicitous behaviour”.

Yvonne Ridley

THE WAR ON KNOWLEDGE

The Anglo-American-Israeli policy of targeting academics and scholars who refuse to bend the knee, seems consistent in light of Israeli terrorist attacks in Iran and the murder of scientists Mustafa Ahmadi Roshan, Darioush Rezaeinejad, Majid Shahriari and Masoud Alimohammadi. Mr. Rezaeinejad’s case is particularly troubling, as he was shot dead by masked gunmen on motorbikes as he waited to pick up his 3-year old daughter from nursery.

Martyred Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan with son Ali Reza.

Israeli sponsored terrorism has also taken a heavy toll in Syria over the past year; Dr. Issa al-Kholi, Director of Hamish Hospital in Damascus was ambushed by three gunmen who lay in wait outside his family home in Rukn Eddin. Professor Mayadeh Anees Sayyiouf of al-Baath University, engineer and nuclear scientist Aws Abdul-Kareem Khalil, head of Thoracic Surgery Department at Homs National Hospital Dr. Hassan Eid, Dr. Mustafa Mohammad Safar from Bisan Hospital, Ruba Ibrahim; a teacher at the National Center for Excelled Students in Homs, Talal Na’eem al-Qatreeb; an engineer from Homs Refinery, Fatima Khalifa; an engineer from the General Company for Electric Power Generation in Mhardeh, head of Douma Electricity Department engineering Firas Qaddar and technical assistant Bassam Barakat were also assassinated by pro-Israeli terror groups.

Anglo-American-Israeli orchestrated terror in Damascus.

Extremist Jews, fully in synch with their Talmudic mindset and seemingly instinctive parasitism, were among the first to applaud these attacks and among the most vocal in defending torture and calling for Dr. Aafia to be condemned as quickly as possible.

Heroic Iranian scientist Darioush Rezaeinejad killed by Mossad terrorists as he waited to pick up his daughter from nursery.

And you can cite all the amendments and laws you like; extremist Jews and their Christian Zionist sidekicks will simply laugh in your face, and not without good reason, because anyone who hasn’t noticed the death of decency and the absence of the rule of law, obviously hasn’t been paying attention. The mere fact that criminal and pro-Israeli stooge Newt Gingrich can openly solicit the murder of Iranian scientists in a presidential candidates debate, is evidence enough of the wet rot that’s soaked into every pore of U.S. society, decaying the entire edifice from within.

Victims of Jewish Extremism: Poet Ezra Pound imprisoned in the Death Cells, U.S. Occupied Italy, 1945

Victims of Jewish Extremism: Russian Scholar Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, imprisoned in the Ekibastuz Gulag, 1953

Victims of Jewish Extremism: Turkish PM Adnan Maderes, martyred in 1961 by Dönmeh. Maderes was killed because he wanted to legalize the Islamic Call To Prayer, banned under the Dönmeh regime.

The fact is that the U.S. has been an extremist Jew occupied regime since the Rothschild’s scurried back into power through bribery and blackmail in 1913. A nation riddled with Talmudic depravity cannot call itself free by any definition of the word, it ceases to be a nation but becomes a warped, decaying harbinger of criminality; a danger to itself and others. In simple terms, the U.S., unless it acts, will collapse like every other host the parasite has fed off since time immemorial.

AFTERMATH

The case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui goes beyond that of a mother, a sister, an innocent woman, but is the litmus test for the survival of a nation and the destiny that nation has chosen for itself: History is littered with the cadavers of countries and empires that were hollowed out by the malignant cancer of Talmudism; not through strength of arms or direct war but by appeasement, corrosive collaboration, aid and comfort.

Self-inflicted destruction or self-enacted preservation? This is the stark choice we face today, our illegitimate leaders who dissemble in the guise of men and women, would gladly betray their own citizens as captives to those who would win us without blows. To rely upon this common cry of curs shows a naivety beyond measure. For how can those whose only recollection of honour is a faded memory of an idea they surrendered long ago; on their backs, legs apart and screaming beneath the inbred sodomites of Jewish extremism, help us; when they can’t even save themselves from slavery?

The civilised world simply can’t afford to wait for the enemy to raise their standard in Satanic triumph; for when they bring ‘Abu Ghraib’ to your home, when Goyim become as docile as the cattle they perceive us all to be and the abomination of Israel hangs over a once free and vibrant people, like the stench of death itself. It’ll be far too late, and perhaps too long a wait to turn the tide on these parasites.

Standing up to the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang, Dr Affia took a bullet for us all, so if we fail to save her and actively de-legitimize the corrupt and compromised U.S. judicial system; we may as well have betrayed her to the enemy ourselves. Dr. Aafia is a prisoner of conscience, and successive U.S. regimes have proven themselves to be part of an endemically corrupt, Rothschild controlled criminal network. They’ve thrown down the Gauntlet for us all: ‘Bring us to justice if you can’, they taunt from afar. And the one question that will define the coming decade is simply this: Who dares accept their challenge?

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

Hafez Aladdeen is an Israeli Patriot

The Dictator-A Film Review by Gilad Atzmon

On the face of it, Baron Cohen’s The Dictator is a horrid film. It is vulgar, it isn’t funny and if it has five good jokes in it, they appear in the two minute official trailer. In short, save your time and money – unless of course, you are interested in Jewish identity politics and neurosis.

Similar to Cohen’s previous work, The Dictator is, once again, a glimpse into Cohen’s own tribal morbidity. After all, the person and the spirit behind this embarrassing comedy is a proud self-loving character who never misses an opportunity to express his intimate affinity to his people, their unique comic talent and their beloved Jewish state. But let’s face it, Cohen isn’t alone, after all, he has created The Dictator together with a Hollywood studio. So, it’s reasonable to say that what we see here is just one more Hollywood-orchestrated effort to vilify the Arab, the Muslim and the Orient.

I guess that Arab rulers, regimes and politics are an ideal subject for a satirical take, still, one may wonder what exactly does Sacha Baron Cohen know about the Arab World? As far as the film can tell, not much. Instead, Cohen projects his own Zionist and tribal symptoms onto the people of Arabia and their leaders.

In the film, Cohen plays General Hafez Aladeen, the Arab ruler of the oil-rich North African rogue state Wadiya. On the face of it, he is the satirical version of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, but in reality, Aladeen’s actions are no less than a vast amplification of the crimes committed by Israel and its war criminals such as Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni.

When Baron Cohen ridicules the Arab Dictators who obsessively seek WMD and nuclear weapons he should bear in mind that it is actually his beloved Jewish state that has, since the 1950s, been pushing the entire region into a nuclear race. It is his Israeli brothers and sisters who express every too often their lethal enthusiasm to destroy Iran and other regional entities. When Baron Cohen mocks the Arab rulers who murder their opponents and kill kids, women and elders, he once again projects Israeli symptoms because it is actually the Jewish state that so often engages in systematic mass murder and war crimes on a colossal scale. Someone should remind Cohen that the pictures of white phosphorus pouring over UN shelters were taken in Gaza, not in Saddam’s Baghdad, Homs (Sirya) or imaginary Wadiya. When Sacha Baron Cohen presents the Arab leader as a savage rapist he may want to remind himself that Moshe Katzav, who was, until recently, the President of the Jewish State is now locked behind bars after being sentenced for rape. It is therefore far from coincidence that when Cohen attempts to bond with his protagonist Dictator Aladeen, he actually speaks in his mother tongue, Hebrew. Cohen speaks Hebrew because Aladeen is not an Arab dictator, he is actually an Israeli patriot like Cohen himself.

But let’s try to transcend ourselves beyond Baron Cohen’s projections and confess: as much as Cohen’s new film is lame, Cohen, himself is far from being a fool. In fact, he has managed to bring to light a few interesting and astute political insights. For example, towards the end of the film Dictator Aladeen produces a remarkable speech at the UN in favour of dictatorship. In front of the delegations, Aladeen draws a pretty profound list of unintended parallels between the USA and dictatorship. Delivering a sharp political criticism by means of comedy deserves respect.

Another provocative insight is delivered through the character of Zoey (Anna Farris), a devout feminist and a human right activist. Zoey runs a multi-ethnic eco-friendly grocery store in Brooklyn. She is the ultimate solidarity campaigner and this time she rallies against Aladeen and his regime. While Zoey invades the street demonstrating against Aladeen’s brutality, Aladeen’s Chief of Staff Tamir (Ben Kingsley) plots against his ruler inside the UN building. He sells out his country’s assets to oil tycoons and world leaders. The cinematic meaning of it all is clear- the bond between the so-called Left and the imperial powers has been established. Zoey, the lefty progressive seems to work towards the exact same goal as the leading corrupted capitalist expansionist forces. They all want to bring the Aladeen regime to an end. I guess that many of those who monitor solidarity activism and discourse would agree with Cohen’s readings. After all, it was feminists and women’s rights groups that, in the 1990s, prepared the ground for the War against Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. The Left was also very reluctant to support the democratically elected Hamas. I guess that a Leftist, thrown into a room together with Dershowitz and Bin Laden, would probably attempt to bond first with Dershowitz.

But Zoey isn’t just a progressive solidarity and human right activists. As the plot progresses, Aladeen and Zoey fall for each other. Towards the end of the film ‘solidarity activist’ Zoey and Dictator Aladeen get married. This is when Dictator Aladeen and the rest of us find out that Zoey is actually a Jew. From a cinematic perspective, the Jew, the human right campaigner and the solidarity activist leader are all one. This amusing reading is unfortunately consistent with the reality of the solidarity movement. Those who monitor Jewish Left activism detect a relentless effort among some Jewish campaigners to tribally hijack and even Zionize the discourse of solidarity, human rights and marginal politics. However, from a Judaic perspective, Zoey, the new wife of Dictator Aladeen is nothing short of an incarnation of Biblical Queen Esther. Like Esther, Zoey has managed to infiltrate into the corridors of a lucrative foreign power.

I guess that with AIPAC controlling American foreign policy and 80% of Tory MPs being CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) members, a Jewish queen of a fictional Wadiya is almost exotic.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics

The book can be ordered on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Previous reviews of Baron Cohen’s films:

Some Things To Keep In Mind While Watching Borat by Gilad Atzmon

Symbolism and the Grotesque Bruno: a Glimpse Into Zionism? by Gilad Atzmon

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

Jeff Blankfort to AZZ Gabriel Ash

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: A few days ago we came across a vile email exchange between three, so-called, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists and Mr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, leading Palestinian intellectual and peace activist. Regretfully, the three Jewish ethnic campaigners used an abusive and patronizing language that left some of us bewildered and hurt. But Dr Qumsiyeh didn’t shy away, compassionately he answered the AZZ (Anti Zionist Zionists) putting into play every possible rule of reason. But his words were in vain. The infamous Tony Greenstein foolishly circulated the exchange and made his level of abusive language once again into public knowledge. I myself passed the exchange to Jeff Blankfort and a few others. Here is Blankfort’s open letter to Gabriel Ash. Once realising that he is about to be exposed, Ash tried to stop the publication of the following letter. However, Jeff Blankfort is made of a different material. His integrity is never compromised. This letter is published with Mr. Blankfort’s Consent.

—————————————————————–

Jeff Blankfort

Last night, Gilad forwarded to me the correspondence that is apparently being circulated by Tony Greenstein, he of the poison pen, among you, Abraham Weizfeld, and Mazin Qumsiyeh regarding an upcoming conference in Munich on the future of Palestine in which Mazin is participating together with Ghada Karmi, Norton Mezvinsky, and Oren Ben Dor with whom I am not familiar, and the objections to this conference on your part, as well as Greenstein and Weizfeld, based upon the latter’s discovery that Mazin was not a signatory to that unforgivable and contemptible letter circulated, to his everlasting discredit, by Ali Abumimah, denouncing, in terms, worthy of Joe McCarthy, Alan Dershowitz, and Abe Foxman, the estimable Gilad Atzmon who you and your fellow Jewish tribalists seem to see as the éminence grise behind the conference.

Before reading your contribution to this exchange, despite our disagreements over the role of the American Jewish establishment in dictating US Middle East policy, I had otherwise respected you but our point of disagreement turned out to be more important than I first thought. It is considerably more than a red line being nothing less than the division between political realists on one hand and Jewish tribalists on the other, and you have shown that you are just as eager to circle the wagons when Jews are criticized collectively as any full throated Zionist yahoo. That you have further besmirched yourself by comparing Atzmon with Meir Kahane is therefore fully consistent with where you, Greenstein and Weizfeld appear on the political spectrum. Weizfeld, who I have long considered a certifiable nutcase, founded something called “The Jewish People’s Liberation Organization,” (ROTFLMAO) and claims to “have functioned as an intermediary on behalf of the Palestinians to the Western (North American) societies and, on behalf of the Jewish People to the Palestinian and Arab Nations since 1968.” <http://www.angelfire.com/co3/alaqsaintifada/auth3.html>I need not bother to point out further the arrogance of such a statement since it speaks for itself. As for Greenstein, he has written that attacks on the pro-Israel Lobby “are the first step towards holocaust denial.” You certainly are in fine company, Gabriel.

Frankly, despite the time and energy I have spent exposing the nefarious role in support of Israel played by organized Jewry at every level of American society, political, economic, and social, my biggest problems, from a personal political standpoint, have come from left wing Jews, beginning with those, among them close family friends, Jewish communists, who were ready to lynch me back in 1971 when they learned I had spent four months with the Palestinians in the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. Their anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism was so intense that in 1973, when the CPUSA paper, the People’s World, put out a photo calendar (without having anything to do with the photo selection), they had to excise a photo I had taken in Jordan’s Schneller Camp of young Palestinian women with guns in order to sell it to the comrades.

Successive generations have become only more sophisticated. Leftist Jews from the various Marxist and Trotskyist organizations made sure that the Palestinian issue would be segregated from all the other people’s liberation struggles–even while claiming to be anti-Zionist (a word for me that has lost all meaning)–and this lasted up until the first US war on Iraq and then their bleats were limited to that ridiculous slogan that most Americans do not understand, “End the Occupation!” Not a word about stopping US aid to Israel, not a word about AIPAC or the pro-Israel Lobby and when I started speaking about it in the 80s, I found myself marginalized, not only by the faux Jewish solidarity activists but by Palestinian groups, as well, whose leaders had been thoroughly colonized by the Jewish activists and by that pied piper of disinformation. Noam Chomsky, who even Israel Shahak, his old friend, had to admit, served AIPAC’s cause. <www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html> Not surprisingly, no Jew would debate me regarding the Lobby. Chomsky, even when we were on friendly terms, Joel Beinin, Phyllis Bennis, Mitchell Plitnick and the JVP crowd. Chomsky, Beinin and Bennis, said the same thing, “it wouldn’t be useful.” To whom they didn’t say but I can tell you.

What Gilad has provided is an explanation for this phenomenon and the hysterical responses to what he has written from Jews such as yourself, from Greenstein and Weizfeld and the earlier railing against him by the International Anti-Zionist Jewish Network confirms his theory for which, I assume, he is much appreciative. I have read his book and while I don’t agree with all his conclusions, I do agree with the most important, his analysis of Jewish identity and the problems it creates in the political sphere and not only for the Palestinians. If you do not think that the build-up for a war against Iran and the draconian sanctions against that country and its people have been directed by Jews, inside and outside of the US government, on Israel’s behalf, you are not only in denial, you are part of the problem. If you do not think that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948, followed by the 1967 war, and the decades of occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians, are primarily the responsibility of Israeli Jews and their supporters internationally, you are part of the problem since, whatever else you may say or do, you are providing protective cover for the perpetrators.

Jeff Blankfort

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Shabana Syed

Israel’s hidden hand behind Pakistan’s disasters

Suspicions are aroused when the founder of the discredited group Quilliam Foundation, Majid Nawaz who has strong pro Israeli supporters, heads off to Pakistan to “…to counter the spread of extremist ideology within Pakistan, predominantly amongst younger generations of Pakistanis, who now constitute 63% of the total population”.

Majid Nawaz

‘Khudi’ has been set up in Pakistan by one of the founders of the QF, Majid Nawaz whose continual scare mongering against the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain and the need for government surveillance against Muslims, not only gave support to fascist far right wing and pro Israel groups but also encouraged Islamophobia perpetuating a climate of hate with increasing attacks on women in hijabs, while The English Defense League marched through streets calling out ‘Death to Muslims’.

One of the patrons of the QF is Jemima Khan, who according to Mr. Nawaz is a close friend; the Foundation which received huge government funding was set up to counteract ‘extremism’ amongst the Muslims.

What can the definition of extremism be when you are funded by the government?

A secret counterterrorism strategy report in 2009, dubbed “ Contest 2” would identify Muslims as “extremist” if they hold views that clash with what the government defines as “shared British values,” reported Vikram Dodd in the Guardian.

According to Shahid Khan, the publisher of South Asia Tribune an Independent UK based English newspaper: “The fact that Khudi has been established in Pakistan by government paid stooges like Majid Nawaz to target the growing younger population of Pakistan, means the West is not only worried about the country being a nuclear state but also about controlling the youth, and Imran Khan may be part of that strategy, until a new cricketing hero rears his head, only he has the ability to mobilize the youth”.

At a time when Pakistan is on brink of disaster, with corruption rife, tragic deaths a daily occurrence, depicted by the western press as a ‘failed state’, all eyes are on Imran Khan who according to his fresh faced young supporters ‘will get rid of the corruption, tell the Americans to go home, and reign in the chaos.’

His party Tehreek e Insaf is doing well in the polls and according to Newsweek which wrote a very supportive article on Khan, he is the ‘Most Popular Leader in Pakistan’

When the Western media supports you with positive headlines, you know they have approved you and that in itself is a worrying fact.

Khan is riding on a wave of popularity with a strong backing from a favourable western media, many promoting him as the next Prime Minister; he is lucky to receive such attention from a media which attempts to ignore the human tragedy of ‘inconceivable magnitude taking place’ in Pakistan. Ismail Salami writes:

“Only in April 2012, more than 250 Shia Muslims were maimed and killed in broad daylight. Around 150 pairs of Shias’ eyes were cut out of their sockets; many of them died while their faces had been smashed with stones or sprayed with acid.”

Khan may be saying all the right things like pointing out that US drone attacks are killing innocents and as a result breeding extremism, however is he aware that Drone attacks are just part of a long term strategy which includes extremist groups funded by Israel and India to create sectarian divisions and civil war?

If America leaves will it stop Israel’s Mossad and India’s RAW from swamping the country with mercenary groups like Xe Water, and Tehrik-I-Taliban who have murdered or wounded thousands of Pakistanis and nearly destroyed the economy with an aim to create a civil war.

This was clearly revealed by the Raymond Davies incident who not only ruthlessly killed Pakistanis but was also found to be supplying information and funds to an Indian/Israeli terrorist cell working with the Taliban.

Recent revelations have shown how in America a Virginia military course taught its officers to prepare for a ‘total war against Islam’.

As Dr Kevin Barret author of ‘Questioning the War on terror’ explains: “Since the Zionist-instigated false-flag attacks of 9/11, the United States of America has been at war with the religion of Islam. The neocon cabal of Zionist Christians and Jews behind 9/11 have tried to disguise their war on Islam as a “war on terror.” But occasionally one of them blurts out the truth: “I always thought it was a mistake not to say what Iraq really was, that is, a war against an expanding Islam,” opined neocon think-tanker James Schall of Georgetown University.”

Pakistan is just one cog in the wheel of the establishment of the “New World Order” which George Bush senior, part of the Zionist neocon cabal first mentioned in his speech to congress in March 6 1991 where he basically outlined a long-term plan for America to dominate the world.

According to Imran Hossein a prominent Islamic scholar, Pakistan is not such a just cog in the wheel, rather it’s a very important target for the Zionist led neo con cabal, firstly because it is strategically very important, secondly it’s a nuclear state and “the only Muslim country with the nuclear capability to stand against Israel’s expansionist plans’.

It is a known fact that any Journalist, academic or world leader who states that Israel was behind 9/11, or questions who is really behind Al Qaeda, will be ostracized by the Zionist owned mainstream media never given air time or allowed to surface as a leader. Pakistan news channels also mostly parrot the western media’s narrative, raising the question who really owns the media there?

Benazir Bhutto along with many in the intelligence community knew that Bin Laden was not hiding out in Pakistan, but was killed off in 2001, she stated it clearly in a Frost interview on November 2 2007.

As a result many have asked the question who has been bombing and blowing up in the name of Al Qaeda?

The former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook shortly before his death told the House of Commons that “Al-Qaeda” is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujahedeen and arms smugglers used by the CIA.

It is in Israel’s interest to discredit Muslims, all the Al Qaeda videos threatening jihad and bombings have been revealed to be fake and funded by Zionist groups; Adam Gadahn who had masqueraded as Al Qaeda leader in videos making death threats turned out to be a hard core Zionist Jew and was the grandson of Jewish ADL leader Carl Pearlman.

Dr Alan Sabrosky, a US Strategic analyst states: “I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation.

But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the US Government, who in the 9/11 attacks got the “catalytic event” they needed and craved to take the US to war on Israel’s behalf.”

The continual bloodbath in Pakistan will continue, even if the Americans vacate their forces from Pakistan as Jonathan Azaziah explains in his article ‘Hideous Sectarian Killings Reveal Deepening Zionist-Hindutvadi Plots Against Pakistan And Occupied Kashmir’, he writes: “How much more blood must be shed in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan before it is understood that the country is being torn to shreds from the inside out in a foreign-sponsored 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) campaign

He continues: “The real secret war against Pakistan is that which is being conducted by Israel and the Hindutva entity of India. Since the late 1980s, Zionism and Hindutva have signed military agreements and performed covert operations to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear program.”

He argues that in 2001 Mossad and RAW unleashed the codenamed ‘Dragon Policy’ aimed to create an all out ‘sectarian’ chaos within Pakistan, they hired mercenaries, drug lords and mafia figures to unleash the de-stabilization process.

Pakistan has no hope with the established politicians like Nawaz Sharif to President Zardari, their main concern when in power is not to deal with Mossad and RAW activities in Pakistan, but to just acquire as much wealth as they can.

Therefore the main question asked is will Imran Khan be able to deal with the growing subversive aims of Zionists in Pakistan and at the same time remain a ‘darling of the west’?

Already many Pakistanis are suspicious of him and it does not help his image when he takes time out of his busy schedule to fly to London to the aid of Conservative MP Zack Goldsmith his ex brother in law, and campaign on his behalf visiting mosques urging Muslims to vote for him.

Is Mr. Khan aware that this is the same Conservative Party whose leader once declared ‘I am a Zionist’ and over 80% of its MP’s are staunch members of ‘Friends of Israel’?

Does he also realize that two major Zionist funded British think tanks, ‘Centre for Social Cohesion’ and the ‘Policy Exchange’ known for their anti Muslim and Islam stance were set up by Conservative MP’s, one of them being Michael Gove who is now the Secretary of State for Education and has described “Islamism” as an ideology that is similar to fascism’.

Another fact that has cast a shadow on Mr. Khan’s motives and does not help his credibility is the actions of his ex wife Jemima Khan, who has always been at the forefront to support her ex husband, and been a well wisher of Pakistan.

In one of Ms Khan’s tweets she writes “Can’t believe we’re divorced and I’m still Imran’s Achilles’ heel”. According to most Pakistanis she is not an Achilles heel because she is Jewish, rather she is one if she persists in aligning herself with groups whose agenda is to ‘modernise Islam’ or against Muslims.

The fact she is a patron of the discredited Quilliam Foundation has cast many shadows on her well wishing stance.

Another baffling activity Jemima Khan has been at the centre of is the vocal and financial support she provided for Wiki leaks founder Julian Assange.

Gordon Duff from the respected Veterans Today website first highlighted how Wiki leaks was an Israeli intelligence operation, he wrote: “It only took Zbigniew Brzezinski Washington’s “establishment” foreign policy expert, a “New York minute” to spot Wiki leaks as an intelligence operation.

Wiki leaks Julian Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens is connected to the Rothschild Family who control the worlds banking system and are behind the formation of Israel. The house where Assange was “imprisoned” is owned by Vaughan Smith, the owner of Frontline Trust, a news organization that seeks to influence TV journalists. Frontline is funded by George Soros’ organization, Open Society Institute; George Soros is intimately intertwined with the Rothschild’s and is a former business partner of Jemima’s father James Goldsmith.

Jemima says the reason she supported Assange was because she believes in freedom of information and because she has

“…. personal interest in the revelations about Pakistan…”

According to General Hamid Gul, former Director General of ISI the Wikileaks revelations regarding Pakistan only harmed the country:

“The report has not said a word about Israel, nor does it give any disadvantage to US in the implementation of policies in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other Muslim countries, which have been particularly targeted.”

In the meantime Mr. Khan has just picked out Scottish millionaire Mr. Azeem Ibrahim to be his special adviser, Mr. Ibrahim’s specialty is that he “He has worked on taskforces set up by former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, advised the Turkish Government and has worked with various American bodies including the Pentagon, the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security”

This is the same Department of Homeland Security where Zionists hold key positions and where its second secretary Michael Chertoff was the main person to block any investigation of hundreds of Mossad spies detained in connection with the attacks on 9/11, he also started a witch hunt against Muslims, incarcerating over a 1000 innocents without any evidence, in an effort to take the attention off the Israelis spy ring.

As the country nears election time and opposition parties use every dirty trick against each other, no matter who wins, one fact is clear Israel’s secret war within Pakistan will continue, to not only manipulate and control the youth but to destabilize and denuclearize the country.

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Gilad Atzmon

Postcolonial Theory, Whiteness & Palestine

By Gilad Atzmon

Postcolonial, feminist and gay studies share many similarities to the extent that some academics regard these fields as theoretically and ideologically complementary. These fields of study are primarily concerned with politics, the structure of hegemony, the oppressed and the mechanism that brings about injustice. It is only natural then, that these realms of thought, primarily concerned with prejudice and injustice, would become key instruments in our understanding of Zionism and Israeli oppression.

Without questioning the intellectual validity and the theoretical substance of the postcolonial spectrum of thought, it is clear that some contemporary leading trends within this realm of studies emphasize the role of ‘White male’ and the ‘phallus’ as being at the core of contemporary Western society’s malaise. So the next question is almost inevitable –Where does it leave the ‘White male’? Or more anecdotally, am I, a person who happens to be wrapped in pale skin and is also attached to a white phallic organ, do I bear responsibility for centuries of European genocides? Would my responsibility lessen once I decide to chop my male organ off? Am I, or any other White male, left with any authentic ethical role? Or are we biologically doomed to be the epitome of every wrongdoing of the Western society for generations? The astute postcolonial theorist may suggest that ‘Masculinity’, ‘Whiteness’ and the ‘Phallus’ are mere symbolic representations rather than ‘things in themselves’.

Some postcolonial and feminist theoreticians would argue that imperialism, like patriarchy is, after all, a ‘phallo-centric’, ‘supremacist’, ‘White’ ideology that subjugates and dominates its subjects. This is an interesting and even intriguing statement, yet I am not so sure that it is valid or at all relevant to our understanding of Zionism and the crimes committed by the Jewish state. Zionism and Israel are clearly supremacist ideologies, yet is AIPAC’s push for a war against Iran ‘phallo-centric’? Is the Zionist appetite for Palestinian land ‘patriarchal’, or inspired by any form of ‘phallic’ enthusiasm or even ‘Whiteness’? Is the ‘War against Terror’ that left about one and a half million fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, ‘phallicly’ orientated or is it the White male again?

Let’s face it, Zionism, Israeli politics and Jewish Lobbying are not particularly ‘phallo-centric’ or ‘patriarchal’. They also have little to do with ‘Whiteness’. Zionism, and Israel are actually primarily ‘Judeo-centric’ to the bone. They are racially driven and fuelled by a particular supremacist culture that is inspired by some aspects of Talmudic Goy hating and some sporadic (and false) Old Testament (false) interpretations. But this is exactly the verdict the postcolonial scholar attempts to prevent us from reaching. It is especially embarrassing because Israelis and Zionists openly draw their inspiration and expansionist enthusiasm from Jewish culture and texts, which they interpret in a very particular self-serving manner.

In spite of the fact that this discourse, in its current form, is pretty much, irrelevant to our understanding of Zionism and Israel, this postcolonial discourse is still, very popular amongst some anti Zionists and in particular, Jewish anti Zionists. The reason is pretty simple; it is effective in diverting attention from the real issues; it disguises the magnitude of Jewish power, Jewish politics, the inherent ‘Jewish’ nature of the ‘Jewish State’ and Jewish intellectual hegemony within the west and the Left in particular. Within the realm of the postcolonial discourse we are not even allowed to mention the ‘J word’, let alone criticise Jewish lobbying or Jewish power structures.

In fact, the postcolonial discourse, allows its acolytes to talk endlessly and passionately about Israel and Zionism without saying anything meaningful. It allows the Left to refer to Zionism as ‘settler colonialism’ in spite of the embarrassing fact that no one actually knows where or what exactly is the Jewish ‘mother state’ is[1]. Postcolonial scholars also encourage us to refer to Israel as an Apartheid state in spite of the fact that Apartheid is a racially driven system of exploitation of the indigenous. The Postcolonial enthusiast would obviously turn a blind eye to the fact that Israel is not interested in exploitation of the Palestinians. It prefers to see them gone. Hence, since it aims to get rid of the indigenous, Israel should be realised as an avid follower of the Lebensraum (Living-space) philosophy. From that perspective at least, Israel should be equated with Nazi Germany rather than with South Africa.

The postcolonial discourse, in its current form, allows its anti Zionist enthusiasts to spin endlessly. They can refer to Israel and Zionism without actually disturbing, hurting or even touching Israelis, Zionists and Jewish political structures. The postcolonial theorist is basically engaged in an attack on an imaginary phantasmic construction that has zero relevance to Zionist ideology or Israeli politics whatsoever. It is basically an advanced form of an intellectual onanism.

Like Rabbinical Judaism and Stalinism, the postcolonial discourse is extremely intolerant towards dissent and criticism. It surrounds itself with a defense wall, operates as an intellectual ghetto. In fact, it also invented political correctness just to police and curtail, by means of self-censorship, any freedom of expression.

Arab and Palestinian Postcolonial Scholarship

One of the most influential postcolonial thinkers was Palestinian- American literary theorist Edward Said. Said’s polemic, Orientalism (1979) was a deeply profound attempt to grasp the West’s vision of the Orient, the colony and Islam. The term Orientalism, as coined by Said, covers three interrelated meanings. First, it names the academic study of the Orient. Secondly, it is a form of deliberation that constitutes the Arab as the ‘other’. Thirdly, it is the structures that maintain Western domination over the Orient.

Being an outstanding creative intellect, Said engaged in a vast examination of a multitude of Orientalist discourse. His writings refer to political and historical texts as well as literature and media. Said obviously realised the immense importance of cultural criticism and cultural studies.

Confusingly, some of Edward Said’s Palestinian and Arab successors seem to oppose the very field of study Said championed. For example, as much as Said was immersed in deep cultural examination and discourse analysis, Palestinian activist and academic Ali Abunimah recently claimed the following. “We should be very clear in condemning explanations which try to blame a culture or a religion for a political situation.“ Abunimah basically believes that culture doesn’t explain ‘anything at all’. It seems to me that Abunimah, who often integrates the term ‘Orientalism’ into his political statements and tweets, is apparently unfamiliar with the intellectual core of Edward Said’s thought and methodology.

Zionist orientalism has always targeted Orthodox Jews, which it sees as an enemy that should’ve been left in the shtetel.

— Ali Abunimah (@AliAbunimah) May 8, 2012

Ali Abunimah is not happy at all with my reading of the conflict. This is understandable and totally legitimate and furthermore, he is not alone. Other exiled Palestinians seem also to be very concerned. Their outrage at my argument that Israel is not a European style colonial state implies that they fear the end to a discourse in which they have invested so much. Some of those Palestinians were very happy to add their names to the list of book burners who demanded my disavowal. This was indeed a very sad turn – futile, yet, at the same time both revealing and predictable. Though those Arab and Palestinian scholars criticized my work for being ‘racist’ without providing a single racist comment by me, it was disappointing to discover that, it was in fact their writing that was actually saturated with biological determinist comments and peppered with blunt racism.

Recently we came across a video of cultural BDS leader Omar Barghouti exploring some ‘postcolonial’ ideas. He for instance, insisted that “the white race is the most violent in the history of mankind.” This is an outrageous sweeping generalization especially since , Barghouti surely knows that Zionism is Judeo-centric and has very little to do with Whiteness. It is not the degree of ‘Whiteness’ that constitutes the racist element within the Israeli legal system, it is rather the ‘degree of Jewishness’ that makes an Arab Jew privileged in comparison to a Palestinian with a very similar skin colour. Omar Barghouti is studying in a ‘Zionist’ Tel Aviv university (while asking the rest of us to boycott the same university). Seemingly, he has internalised the Zionist academic postcolonial jargon and has integrated and implemented some biological determinist and racist ideas into his pro-Palestinian political thinking.

And Omar Barghouti is not alone. Assad Abu Khalil, AKA The Angry Arab, is another postcolonial enthusiast who also engages in a similar racially driven approach. In his blog post White Man and Paul Newman, Angry AbuKhalil writes “the White Man is not a racial category–or it is not merely a racial category but also a political and epistemological category.” Not only does Angry Arab agree that the ‘White Man’ is partially a racial category, he even goes as far as linking skin colour with a political stand and even epistemology.[2]

Of course, I realise that being an Arab academic in a Zionised American or British university is a tough mission. I guess that for some time the postcolonial discourse was the only possible template that allowed a criticism of Israel and Zionism. But the time is ripe to move on. We’d better now call a spade a spade. It is time to call Israel what it is, namely “The Jewish State”. The time has come to ask what the Jewish State is all about and what is the true meaning of the Jewish symbols that decorate Israeli tanks and airplanes? The time has come for us to grasp that the Jewish Lobby is a primary threat to world peace.

But can we do it all while being thought-policed by the rigid boundaries of the postcolonial realm? Can we talk about Jewish identity politics while some prominent Palestinians activists attempt – to block any discussion on Jewish culture & power? My answer is yes we can, and we’d better make every possible effort to liberate our discourse from the Judeo-centric postcolonial grip.

Whiteness, The Jew & The Queer

In the last few weeks I have wondered why Omar Barghouti attacks the ‘White race’? Is it really necessary? Couldn’t he just refer to the ‘West’, America, Orientalism or the ‘British Empire’? Why does Angry Arab fight the White man? Is it really an elementary political category? Does the introduction of racial categories and biological determinism serve the Palestinian cause or Arab liberation? I decided to jump into the water and immersed myself in some contemporary texts about whiteness and postcolonial theory. I thought that it may help me to understand the emergence of such thoughts.

Following the recommendation of my friend and musical partner Sarah Gillespie, one of the first texts I picked was Richard Dyer’s ‘White’. Dyer is a respected film scholar and a leading writer on the topic. It didn’t take more than five pages before I stumbled upon a very interesting passage that opened my eyes. In the next few lines Dyer speaks about his childhood friendship with a Jewish pal and the impact it had on him.

“The key figure here was a Jewish boy at school, whom I’ll call Danny Marker. I used to visit him and his family in Golders Green, a Jewish neighbourhood of London. I knew by then that I was a homosexual and I envied Danny and his family-they too were an oppressed minority, whom, like queers, you could not always spot; but, unlike us, they had this wonderful, warm community and culture and the wrongfulness of their oppression was socially recognised. I now believe that there are intellectual and political problems with making and analogy between Jews and queers, between ethnic and sexual discrimination, but I am trying to say how it felt then. I envied Danny’s ethnicity and wanted to be part of it, indeed, felt at home with it.” (White, Richard Dyer, White Pg 5)

In The Wandering Who, I wrote extensively about the clear ideological and theoretical continuum between Zionism and other marginal thoughts. I explored the deep ideological similarity between Queer theory and the Jewish national aspiration. On the one hand we notice a legitimate and reasonable call against injustice – the Zionist and the Queer theorist demand to become ‘people like other people’ a call obviously understood and supported by many. But on the other hand, we also detect another forceful demand – to maintain and preserve uniqueness and differentiation. As one can imagine, the humanist call for equality can easily clash with the forceful self-centric, clannish demand for preservation (especially when celebrated on the expense of others).

However, Richard Dyer explores here another special affinity between the queer and the Jew. As a homosexual he expresses a clear and innocent envy of his Jewish schoolmate’s social landscape. Dyer notices that in spite of being oppressed, the Jews have managed to form a “warm and wonderful community and culture.” Dyer’s feeling at home within the Jewish family nest may explain why Tel Aviv has become a Gay capital. It explains why some prominent Queer activists feel so strongly and positively about the Jewish State, Zionism, Jewish culture and Jewishness in general. But it also may explain why some Arab and exiled Palestinian secular academics, feel some affinity to the Jewish dominated anti Zionist postcolonial nest. Operating as an intellectual ghetto, it may also retain some Jewish characteristics, it is probably a ‘warm community’ as Dyer describes it. It may even be that some Palestinian postcolonial secular academics would feel more comfortable in Tel Aviv University than in Al-Azhar University in Gaza.

I obviously understand it and I am far from being judgmental. But am I naïve to expect Palestinian activists and intellectuals to ensure that the, ‘wrongfulness of Palestinian oppression’ be widely and ‘socially recognised’ by the masses, rather than by a few postcolonial Jewish Anti Zionists? It is time for our discourse to leave the ghetto.

I guess that in order to achieve such a goal, we must transcend the decaying postcolonial discourse or else completely revise it. We must drift away from any form of marginal ideology. We must be able to deconstruct Jewish texts and Jewish cultural discourse with the same vigor that Edward Said deconstructed the European canon, whether it was Charles Dickens or Lord Balfour. We actually better locate the issue of Palestine at the forefront of the battle for a better world, humanity and humanism.

We should engage in an inclusive, open intellectual debate that welcomes all oppressed (queers, gays, Arabs, Muslims, people of colour and so on) and oppressors too. At the end of the day, with 50 million Americans living in deep poverty watching 30.000 drones fly over their heads, Gaza is now in Detroit, Newark and Philadelphia. Our solidarity with Palestine can now become a true force of genuine empathy. We don’t now just put ourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, we actually wear them. We all strive for the same liberty. We are one.

[1] If Israel is the Jewish ‘Settler State’ we better be informed at last where is the Jewish ‘mother state’ for colonialism is defined by a clear material, cultural and spiritual exchange between a mother and a settler states.

[2] It would be wrong not to mention professor Joseph Massad of Columbia University. Following his Mentor Edward Said, Massad also writes about the role of colonialism, its structure, its impact and the scars it left behind. Like Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad also refers occasionally to skin colour. Yet, unlike Barghouti and Abu Khalil, Massad seems to be far more carful and astute. Rather than falling into the banal biological determinist trap, he seems to critically refer and examine the role of skin colour from structural, social, cultural and political perspectives.

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Jonathon Blakeley

Chosen Ones or Supremacist Nutters, You Decide?

14 Million Jews out of 6 Billion humans means they are mere 1/4 of a percent of the population.

Page 4 of 61 2 345 6

deLiberation

news, views and comment…

Tag Archives: Zionism