ISRAEL WANTS ITS CAKE AND WANTS TO EAT IT TOO

Love that wine cake

Love that wine whine cake best of all

*

They wage war and then they whine that there was a drop in tourism as a result. If only the people of Gaza had such ‘problems ….

*

“The tremendous blow to tourism suffered by the Israeli economy in all areas of Israel as a result of canceled visits is a factor in the economic slowdown,” Tourism Ministry director general Amir Halevy said in a statement. “Everyone understands the importance of rehabilitating tourism as an engine for economic growth.”

*

Israel August Tourism Numbers Take a

Sharp Downturn From Last Year

182,000 Visitors Recorded in 2014, Down 36% From 2013

*

GETTY IMAGES

By JTA

*

Israel’s August tourist numbers took a sharp downturn from the previous year’s figures.

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, 182,000 visitor entries were recorded for the month in Israel, down 36 percent from August 2013. Of the visitor entries, 164,000 were tourists staying more than one night, 32 percent less than August a year ago.

During the month, hundreds of rockets were fired at Israel, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, amid the Israeli military’s operation in Gaza. Foreign airlines canceled flights for at least two days after a rocket landed near Ben Gurion Airport in central Israel.

It is estimated that Israel’s tourism industry generates about $11 billion annually and is responsible for creating 200,000 jobs domestically.

“The tremendous blow to tourism suffered by the Israeli economy in all areas of Israel as a result of canceled visits is a factor in the economic slowdown,” Tourism Ministry director general Amir Halevy said in a statement. “Everyone understands the importance of rehabilitating tourism as an engine for economic growth.”

It is not unusual for Israel’s tourism numbers to dip during times of violence. This year’s August statistics were lower than all the August statistics from 2007 to 2013, but 49 percent higher than August 2006, the time of the Second Lebanon War, with 122,000 entries.

This week, the Tourism Ministry is convening all the Israel Government Tourist Office directors from around the world to formulate a plan for attracting tourists to Israel.

WHAT GIVES THE BASTARD STATE OF ISRAEL THE RIGHT TO CALL ANYONE ILLEGITIMATE?

bastards

*

Israel …..

A State that has NOT stood on its own financially since its inception

A State that has ignored EVERY UN Sanction against it since its inception

A State that has sent spies to the very nations that have kept her alive

A State has displace millions of people from their homes and properties

A State that, in this decade alone, has murdered thousands of innocent civilians including women and children

*

YET, this is how the zionists portray the latest events …

*

Netanyahu: UN Grants Legitimacy to Terrorists

UNHRC overlooks massacres committed by Hamas, IS, in favor of investigating Israel for defending itself against rocket attacks from Gaza.
*

Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lashed out Wednesday at the UN Human Rights Council, accusing it of granting “legitimacy to terror organizations” by investigating Israel for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

“UNHRC gives legitimacy to murderous terror organizations like Hamas and Daash (Islamic State),” he said, accusing the rights body ofoverlooking “massacres” committed elsewhere in the Middle East in favor of investigating Israel for defending itself against rocket attacks from Gaza.

The UNHRC has selected Prof. William Schabas to head an investigation into Operation Protective Edge. Speaking in a 2013 panel, Schabas clearly revealed his great eagerness to bring about the prosecution of Israel over its actions in Gaza, even if that involved“twisting things and maneuvering” in the international legal arena.

Asked about the possibility of prosecuting Israel for “ecocide” as well, Schabas expressed optimism on gradually enlarging the scope of legal accusations against Israel. “Years ago there were no courts at all,” he noted. “When [the term] ‘genocide’ was invented there was no court at all. There was no court for crimes against humanity, but we have them now. And with a bit of luck and by twisting things and maneuvering we can get them before the courts.”

Schabas did not deny Wednesday, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2, that the international community has a double standard regarding Israel’s conduct of war.

Channel 2‘s anchor, Danny Kushmaro, asked Schabas if there is not a double standard involved when that thousands of innocent civilians were killed in Chechnya by the Russians, and by NATO forces in Libya, yet there was “not one international investigation,” whereas Israel acted in self defense in Gaza and two investigations have been launched in the course of six years.

“There are a lot of double standards in the international level,” answered Schabas. “This is explained by the relative strength of the powers,” he added, and noted that some claim there is a double standard in Israel’s favor in the UN Security Council, where anti-Israel resolutions are vetoed.

CHUTZPAH EPITOMIZED ~~ THEY ERASED OUR LAND BUT KEPT OUR RECIPES

This is the latest example of blatant cultural appropriation of indigenous Palestinian and regional culture to add to a long list that already includes falafel, hummusolive oil, maftoul (“Israeli couscous”) and other staples that are frequently misrepresented and promoted as Israeli, while erasing or denying their connection to the country’s indigenous people and culture.

*

Did you know? Palestine’s knafeh is now “Israeli” too?

This image is making its way around the Internet. It comes from a feature published by BuzzFeed, sponsored by the ice cream maker Talenti, purporting to promote “17 Incredible Desserts From Around The World.”

There’s mooncake from China, maple taffy from Canada, sachertorte from Austria and then “from Israel,” there’s “kanafeh.”

This is the latest example of blatant cultural appropriation of indigenous Palestinian and regional culture to add to a long list that already includes falafel, hummusolive oilmaftoul(“Israeli couscous”) and other staples that are frequently misrepresented and promoted as Israeli, while erasing or denying their connection to the country’s indigenous people and culture.

Knafeh (it can be transliterated many ways) is perhaps the most iconic Palestinian dessert for which the occupied West Bank city of Nablus is particularly renowned.

As the Institute for Middle East Understanding explainsknafeh is “made from mild white cheese topped with a crispy layer of shredded wheat, and covered with sugar syrup.”

A tray of knafeh being prepared at Jafar Sweets in the Old City of occupied Jerusalem (Ho John Lee/Flickr)

Many Palestinians, excluded from returning to their country, have fond memories of eatingknafeh at Jafar Sweets in eastern occupied Jerusalem – a place that still serves it up every day.

Knafeh is so iconically Palestinian that a few years ago, in an effort to establish legitimacy and popularity, the US-backed, appointed Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad took part in a photo op in Nablus with what was claimed to be the world’s biggestknafeh.

Personally, I admit a strong pro-knafeh bias: it is delicious. But it is not “Israeli.”

Sometimes, when Palestinians react to Israeli efforts to appropriate their culture, they’re scolded: shouldn’t cultures mix and share?

Of course they should – Palestinian cuisine has its own distinct features but shares many features and influences with food from other parts of the region, including desserts (there are many regional variations of knafeh including in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey – a wonderful resource on Palestinian cuisine is Laila El-Haddad’s book The Gaza Kitchen).

Palestinians frequently see the efforts to market their culture as “Israeli” as part of Zionism’s ongoing campaign to erase them culturally and physically from the geography, history and future of Palestine.

Resisting this cultural appropriation can therefore take on great significance for Palestinians.

BuzzFeed, for its part, is a company that poses as a “news” site, but in fact sells advertising that blurs the line between editorial content and news – the word is “advertorial.”

This particularly item, as noted, comes from an ice cream maker, rather than a pro-Israel organization.

But as Joe Lo reported for The Electronic Intifada recently, pro-Israel groups are making use of BuzzFeed as well.

TALK ABOUT CHUTZPAH! ~~ LOOK WHO’S BEEN SELLING ARMS TO IRAN

First, the definition …

*

And the Award goes to …

*

But first, the whitewash …

The United States was aware of the shipments “in real time,” Israel’s Channel 2 news reported, and was thus able to thwart them. The TV report added that “it has to be assumed that Israel knew too, and was updated by the United States.” Finally, the Channel 2 report suggested that this may have been some kind of sting operation against the Iranians, since “it could be that whoever did this was not acting against Israel’s interest.”
*

Israeli Arm Dealers Planned to Breach Iran Embargo

  • By Umberto Bacchi

iran fighter jet

Reuters
US and Greek authorities reportedly foiled an attempt by Israeli-based arm dealers to smuggle spare parts for fighter jets to Iran

US and Greek authorities foiled an attempt by Israeli-based arm dealers to smuggle spare parts for a fighter jet to Iran via Greece in violation of an international embargo, a newspaper has revealed.

Two separate shipments containing replacement parts and ammunition for F-4 Phantom aircraft were seized by Greek officials in December 2012 and April 2013, Kathimerini newspaper reported.

The daily said it had access to a probe carried out by the Homeland Security in the US in cooperation with the drugs and weapons unit of Greece’s Financial Crimes Squad.

According to the probe, both cargos originated from the Israeli town of Binyamina-Giv’at Ada, about 60km north of Tel Aviv.

They were shipped to Greece by courier, but investigators believe the final destination was Iran, as Tehran has a large fleet of F-4 Phantoms.

Containers loaded with spare parts for the jet fighter were received by a phoney company registered under the name Tassos Karras SA in Votanikos, near central Athens.

A contact number for the company belonged to a British national residing in Thessaloniki who could not be immediately traced, Kathimerini reported.

An Athens court ordered the seized cargo be handed to US authorities in November.

Sanctions against Iran were imposed by the US after the Islamic revolution in 1979. The embargo was later adopted by other nations and expanded in 1995. The UK has had a national arms embargo in place on Iran since March 1993.

*

Source

Related Reports …. Here and Here

*

It all boils down to …

*

And the bunk is …

EVEN THE US CALLS ISRAEL’S MOTIVES ‘CHUTZPAH’ IN THE POLLARD AFFAIR

chutzpah
 *
First read THIS ….
*
Former US official: Demand to free Pollard is Israeli ‘chutzpah’

Israel is hypocritical asking to stop US spying on country but to release its own spy, says former US Homeland Security officer Stewart Baker*

Officials: Pollard release to be part of peace negotiations

PM Netanyahu will include release of Israeli spy from American prison as part of talks with Palestinians, according to Israeli officials. Ministers push for spy’s release after disclosure of US tapping on Israel

Following the exposure of US surveillance on top Israeli leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  is expected to demand the release of Jonathan Pollard, who has been jailed in US prison for nearly three decades, from American prison as part of negotiation efforts with the Palestinians, Israeli officials estimated.

“With regard to things published in the past few days, I have asked for an examination of the matter,” Netanyahu said in broadcast remarks, in a clear reference to the alleged espionage.

According to undisclosed Israeli officials, Netanyahu’s demand for the release of the Israeli spy through the platform of peace talks with the Palestinians could be executed in one of two ways: A release of the Israeli spy as part of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement pushed by the Americans for next month, or through a deal aimed at releasing Arab-Israeli prisoners.

PM Netanyahu meets with Israeli spy’s wife Esther Pollard (Video: PMO)

Documents leaked on Friday by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden showed the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ had in 2009 targeted an email address listed as belonging to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and monitored emails of senior defense officials.

“In the close ties between Israel  and the United States, there are things that must not be done and that are not acceptable to us,” Netanyahu said, speaking during a Likud party faction meeting.

On Sunday, several Israeli cabinet members and lawmakers said disclosure of US spying on Israel was an opportunity to press Washington to free jailed Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard. Netanyahu informed Likud party members on Monday that he had met with Pollard’s wife Ester “and updated her on our unceasing efforts to free Jonathan.”

Pollard was sentenced to a life term in 1987 in the United States for spying for Israel. A succession of US presidents have spurned Israeli calls for his pardon.

Source

*

See my post from yesterday dealing with this HERE

IT’S OK FOR POLLARD TO SPY ON AMERICA, BUT …

It’s a NO NO for the US to do the same to Israel!

*

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/14-640x426.jpg

*

In what appeared to be an attempt to calm the clamor, Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel had constantly sought Pollard’s release and did not need any “special occasion” to discuss his case with Washington: “I just met with Esther Pollard and updated her on our unceasing efforts to free Jonathan.”
*
PM: US spying on Israel unacceptable

Netanyahu slams reports regarding NSA’s interception of Israeli prime ministers’ emails, saying ‘In the close ties between Israel and the United States, there are things that must not be done and that are not acceptable to us’

Reuters

*

Prime Minister Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commenting on allegations the United States had spied on Israel’s leaders, said on Monday such activity was unacceptable and had no place in the allies’ close relationship.

Documents leaked on Friday by former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden showed the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ had in 2009 targeted an email address listed as belonging to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and monitored emails of senior defense officials.

Reports also said that spy organizations rented an apartment next to then Defense Minister Israel intended to ask Washington for clarifications.

“In the close ties between Israel and the United States, there are things that must not be done and that are not acceptable to us,” Netanyahu said, speaking during a Likud party faction meeting.

*

PM meets with Pollard's wife, slams US spying (Photo: Kobe Gideon, GPO)
PM meets with Pollard’s wife, slams US spying (Photo: Kobe Gideon, GPO)
*

On Sunday, several Israeli cabinet members and lawmakers said disclosure of US spying on Israel was an opportunity to press Washington to free jailed Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard.

Pollard was sentenced to a life term in 1987 in the United States for spying for Israel. A succession of US presidents have spurned Israeli calls for his pardon.

In what appeared to be an attempt to calm the clamor, Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel had constantly sought Pollard’s release and did not need any “special occasion” to discuss his case with Washington: “I just met with Esther Pollard and updated her on our unceasing efforts to free Jonathan.”

Netanyahu added, “He should have been released long ago. This is understood by everyone here and I believe is understood by a growing number of people in the United States.”

Israeli officials have played down the importance of any information the United States may have gleaned from its alleged espionage activities.

Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Israel had always assumed that even its allies spied on it. A statement issued by Olmert’s office, said the reports, if accurate, referred to a public email address and that chances that any security or intelligence damage had been caused were minuscule.

From

 

CHUTZPAH OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO …

walmartcannedfooddrive111913
*
Walmart Holding Canned Food Drive For Its Own Underpaid Employees
The company has long been plagued by charges that it doesn’t pay its employees a real living wage.
*

A Walmart in northeast Ohio is holding a holiday canned food drive — for its own underpaid employees. “Please Donate Food Items Here, so Associates in Need Can Enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner,” a sign reads in the employee lounge of a Canton-area Walmart.

Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, says the drive is a positive thing. “This is part of the company’s culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships,” he said. Indeed, Lundberg is correct that it’s commendable to make an effort to help out those who are in need, especially during the holidays.

A Walmart in northeast Ohio is holding a holiday canned food drive — for its own underpaid employees. “Please Donate Food Items Here, so Associates in Need Can Enjoy Thanksgiving Dinner,” a sign reads in the employee lounge of a Canton-area Walmart.

Kory Lundberg, a Walmart spokesman, says the drive is a positive thing. “This is part of the company’s culture to rally around associates and take care of them when they face extreme hardships,” he said. Indeed, Lundberg is correct that it’s commendable to make an effort to help out those who are in need, especially during the holidays.

But the need for a food drive illustrates how difficult it is for Walmart workers to get by on its notoriously low pay. The company has long been plagued by charges that it doesn’t pay its employees a real living wage. In fact, Walmart’s President and CEO, Bill Simon, recently estimated that the majority of its one million associates make less than $25,000 per year, just above the federal poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four. When the Washington DC city council passed a living wage bill requiring Walmart to pay workers a minimum of $12.50 per hour, the chain threatened to shut down its new stores if Mayor Vincent Gray didn’t veto the bill. Gray vetoed the bill.

Walmart’s low wages come at a public cost. Because low-income workers still need housing and health care, taxpayers end up doling out millions in benefits to bridge the gap faced by many of the store’s retail workers. They have also led to strikes at Walmart stores from Seattle to Chicago to Los Angeles in recent weeks.

Even if the canned food drive successfully gathers enough to help out the Canton store’s low-income workers, many of them might not even be able to have the food on Thanksgiving. That’s because Walmart is one of a group of retailers that will open its stores for Black Friday sales beginning at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving afternoon.

But the need for a food drive illustrates how difficult it is for Walmart workers to get by on its notoriously low pay. The company has long been plagued by charges that it doesn’t pay its employees a real living wage. In fact, Walmart’s President and CEO, Bill Simon, recently estimated that the majority of its one million associates make less than $25,000 per year, just above the federal poverty line of $23,550 for a family of four. When the Washington DC city council passed a living wage bill requiring Walmart to pay workers a minimum of $12.50 per hour, the chain threatened to shut down its new stores if Mayor Vincent Gray didn’t veto the bill. Gray vetoed the bill.

Walmart’s low wages come at a public cost. Because low-income workers still need housing and health care, taxpayers end up doling out millions in benefits to bridge the gap faced by many of the store’s retail workers. They have also led to strikes at Walmart stores from Seattle to Chicago to Los Angeles in recent weeks.

Even if the canned food drive successfully gathers enough to help out the Canton store’s low-income workers, many of them might not even be able to have the food on Thanksgiving. That’s because Walmart is one of a group of retailers that will open its stores for Black Friday sales beginning at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving afternoon.

Source

*

Runner-Up for the Award this year goes to …

*

McDonaldsTellUnderpaidWorkerstoSellTheirXmasPresents112013

*

McDonald’s Advice to Underpaid Employees: Sell Your Christmas Presents For Cash

Their website has another piece of advice for people who are stressed about their meager paychecks: “Quit complaining,” the site suggests. “Stress hormones levels rise by 15 percent after 10 minutes of complaining.”

*

Tis the season for holiday spirit: Yule logs, egg nog, festive lights and exchanging gifts with loved ones. If you work for McDonald’s, though, be sure to save those receipts.

McDonald’s McResource Line, a dedicated website run by the world’s largest fast-food chain to provide its 1.8 million employees with financial and health-related tips, offers a full page of advice for “Digging Out From Holiday Debt.” Among their helpful holiday tips: “Selling some of your unwanted possessions on eBay or Craigslist could bring in some quick cash.”

Elsewhere on the site, McDonald’s encourages its employees to break apart food when they eat meals, as “breaking food into pieces often results in eating less and still feeling full.” And if they are struggling to stock their shelves with food in the first place, the company offers assistance for workers applying for food stamps.

McDonald’s corporate officers have a history of offering questionable advice to their low-wage workers. Four months ago, the company partnered with Visa to distribute a sample “budget.” In it, the chain suggested that workers needn’t pay for such frivolous expenses like their heating bills, and factored in a monthly rent of $600. To workers living in New York City (home of 350+ stores) and other expensive metropolises, that number is almost comical.

McDonald’s employees are some of the most underpaid workers in the country. The company’s cashiers and “team members” earn, on average, $7.75 an hour, just 50 cents higher than the federal minimum wage. Responding to rising living costs, many stores have staged walk-outsstrikes and protests, demanding a living wage. In Europe, where the minimum wage for employees is $12, customers pay just pennies more than their American counterparts for the same menu items, while the stores themselves typically bring in higher profit margins than ones in the United States.

Of course, McDonalds has shown little willingness to negotiate higher salaries for their poorest workers even as labor rights groups up the pressure. Instead, their website has another piece of advice for people who are stressed about their meager paychecks: “Quit complaining,” the site suggests. “Stress hormones levels rise by 15 percent after 10 minutes of complaining.”

Also FROM

*

chutzpah_1

A MUST READ IF YOU THINK THE TSA ARE A BUNCH OF NUDNIKS

airport-security-cartoon-500x325
*
If you think the TSA hassle you went through the last time you traveled was unbearable, read the following ….. you ain’t seen nothing yet! It’s a long read, but if you want to see a real picture of zionism in action, it’s a must.
*

‘The bra is a security threat’: Harassment and interrogation at Ben Gurion airport
 Anonymous

*

ben-gurion-airport

Here is yet another story of a Palestinian being harassed while trying to travel through Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. Anonymous lives in Berkeley, her father is Palestinian and her mother is Jewish. Here she recounts how she was interrogated and strip searched while trying to leave Israel/Palestine after visiting family in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, “I had been mistreated, combed out of the crowd and profiled, my time wasted and my dignity subsequently stepped all over without a second thought. I had been treated like a criminal for having an identity that I was born into, told explicitly in each of these actions that I did not belong here and had no place here at all as a person with Palestinian heritage. Harassed and picked out from the rest because of my name, my history, the assumptions that go with them, and my very intention to visit my family, many of who cannot visit me in the USA.”

*

I took a deep breath and looked around at my surroundings. I mostly kept tabs on the other people who I had been in line with. While most went through the baggage scan machine and straight to their ticket desks, the other members with yellow stickers on their luggage like myself had all been cleared after a 10-15 minute bag check with only one or two of their bags being searched. I was the only person left at the checking tables. The thin bald man in the suit came over once again.

“What do you have in your pockets?” he asked me. “My passport, my visa, and my phone” I told him.

“Fine” he said, “she will escort you to security.” He pointed to the young blonde.

I reached for my bags. “No no. They stay here. You go with her.”

“Who will watch my bags?” I asked him. “They will be here. Go with her.”

The blonde woman and I walked through the airport.

“How old are you?” she asked me. “21” I said, “and you?”

“23” she said.

We stopped before a big white door. She swiped her id card and typed in a code. The door unlocked, to which I entered a white room with a baggage x-ray machine and a white table that looked like a dental chair. Curtains hung in the near right corner. She pointed to that corner with a foam chair and metal legs.

“Sit there” she said. I sat.

A young man appeared, he was in a plaid shirt, jeans and a pair of white Adidas. Undercover police for sure. He lurked on the other side of the curtain that the young blonde partially drew. “Stand with your arms at your sides” she gesticulated. I watched the man’s white sneakers stop on the other side of the curtain, facing towards it. I took my shoes off and my phone was placed in a grey tub. I eyed my passport and visa on the shelf in front of me. She did a general pat down and then pulled my pant waist far from my body and checked around between the gap where my underwear and my belt would have been if I had been wearing one. She sighed and told me that I was finished and should take a seat. Somebody else came through the white door on the other side of the curtain and began laughing with the plain-clothed guard. I could tell by the voice and by her black shoes under the curtain that she was a woman. The young blonde woman left with my shoes and my phone in the grey tub. I eyed my passport again on the ledge in front of me and stuck it into my pocket.

“Are your pockets empty?” Another blonde woman came through the gap in the curtains, the undercover guard moved to the table across from the gap and viewed in. I took my passport out again and held it in my hands. “Yes”.

She had large round eyes and appeared older than the first blonde woman who had checked my bags, maybe she was 26-29. Her hair was wavy and limp against her head. My phone beeped again, probably my family calling me to check on why I had not notified them about my status through the airport as we had agreed.

I guessed at the time. It was perhaps around 6:45. I had been in the private security room for roughly a quarter of an hour. “I am the security supervisor here and I have some questions for you” she told me. She asked me again as to the purpose of my trip, to which I gave the same generic answer of Holy Land sights, friends and family visits.

“Who’d you stay with?” I gave some names. “And the addresses?” I gave one address of a friend in Jerusalem who I’d stayed with for a block of time. She questioned me more on the details of the residents in the flat and how I knew them. She asked me why I’d stayed there and how I could be friends with the people who I mentioned. All had Jewish names.

“We just are” I told her. She stared blankly. “Ok…” she paused.

I said nothing, just looked up at her face. “And who paid for this trip?” she demanded. Her tone was hostile and her body language was on edge as she stood above me and looked down at me in my chair. “My mother.”

“Why?”

“So that I could visit the sights, friends and family” I repeated.

“You are going to London now.”

“Yes I am.”

“Why?”

“To visit family.”

“You are always visiting family” she commented in a teasing tone, the corner of her mouth in a slight snarl, “Why is that?”

“Because I am. Any other questions?” I told her flatly.

“What do you do?”

“What do I do?”

“Yes in the USA or wherever you live what do you do.”

“I work. I recently graduated college.” She asked for the details of what I studied and where I worked. I gave her one-word answers.

“What are your family names?” she again demanded.

“T(Palestinian) and N (Jewish).”

“N(Jewish)?”

“Yes N(Jewish).”

“And your other name is T(Palestinian)?”

“That’s right.”

“Your father was born where?”

“Jordan.”

She repeated my name. “That is my name.” She paused, confused.

“You told another security person that you are Jewish but really you’re just a Palestinian.”

“I am both” I told her.

“What do you mean both?”

“I am Jewish and Palestinian. My mother is Jewish and my father is Palestinian, do you want my family names again?”

The undercover guard was still sitting on the table swinging his legs. His face twisted.

“So if you are both, where is your family in Israel?”

“Jaffa and Tel Aviv” I told her. She was frustrated. “But who…you’re going to England?”

“My mother was born in Britain, why I am going to England and who I will see is not relevant. Do you have any other questions?” I asked her.

This was the first emotional rise that she had gotten from me and, though it was mild, I reminded myself to calm down. I did not want to spend any more energy on this process than I had to. The goal is to end this and go. End this process and go. I reminded myself.

She paused. “Ok, were you told to bring anything onto the plane?”

“I am just bringing myself and my luggage”

“Yes but were you told to bring anything with you?”

“I don’t understand your question”

“Were you told to carry something onto, you know, the plane”

“I still don’t understand your question. I am attempting to board this plane in order to leave Israel and I am hopefully bringing myself and my luggage”

“But there is nobody else?”

“No? I am by myself” She turned around to leave.

“Excuse me, what is your name please?” I asked her. “My name?” The guard smirked.

“Yes your name.”

She and the guard exchanged glances. He sniggered. She laughed. “What do you want my name for?”

“You know my name so I would like to know your name.”

“It’s Hilda.”

“Hilda what?”

“Hilda Ma…” She mumbled the rest. “What was your last name again please?”

“I’ll spell it out for you later if you want. Ok?”

“Yes thank you.” She tossed the curtain aside.

I sat in clear view of the guard who exchanged some words and guffaws with Hilda. He raised his eyebrows at her and pointed at me, his tone of voice said, “can you believe that? Who does she think she is?”

Hilda imitated me and they laughed again. She then disappeared to the other side of the room where I lost visual contact with her. The guard watched her speak with the young blonde woman who then reappeared in the curtained area. She pulled the curtains closer together behind her. The white shoes stood on the other side of the curtain, facing towards it. She motioned for me to rise and hold my hands away from my body.

“Are you going to check me again?” I asked. “Yes” she said.

She scanned me with a metal detector, paying close attention to my chest where my underwire was making the machine beep (which anyone who wears a bra can tell you happens routinely in a check with a handheld metal detector). She lifted up my sweat-pant legs and checked around my calves.

“What’s in your hair?” she said, pointing to my poofy bun on top of my head.

“Nothing, it’s just a hair tie” I said. “Ok can you take it off” she told me.

I took my hair down and she sifted through my curls. “You have a lot of hair” she told me.

I put it back up into a bun and said nothing. Then she left through the gap in the curtains.  The man walked to the gap in the curtain and again turned to face me. I sat down and looked at him. His feet were swinging and his eyes mocked me.

The young blonde came back with the same probe, with a flat head and a cotton pad, that she had used to check my luggage earlier that morning. “Ok stand up again” she told me.
“What is that?” I asked her. She looked shyly at me. “This will um go around your chest and your bottom area”

“My bottom?”

“Your waist and yes like that” she said. “For what purpose?”

“To check and then scan into the machine…it’s just your surfaces” she told me.

I withheld a shudder, feeling the situation slowly slipping out of my control. There was no one else in the room, only the four of us, Hilda, the young blonde, the young undercover guard, and myself. Hilda called the guard over to the right hand side of the room. I watched his white Adidas move back and forth as he rocked on the other side of the curtain. The young blonde stuck the flat-headed probe down my shirt and then around my bra. Then she pulled my sweatpants far away from my body and circled the probe around my waist.

“Can you pull your underwear down a little bit please?” she asked me. This was the first time that she had said please and I could tell that she was embarrassed. I stared at the gap in the curtain and pulled the top of my underwear down. I looked her in the face. Her skin was dewy. The woman swept the probe around my body again and then told me to lift my feet off the floor. She checked my soles. I heard my phone beep twice in its grey bin somewhere on my right by the white “dental” chair next to Hilda and the guard. The young blonde avoided my eye contact and left through the door.

About 30 seconds later, Hilda reappeared and swept open the curtains. The guard reappeared with her and moved to stand on my left by the curtain seam.

“Ok so I need to take off your underwear.”

“Excuse me?”

“Yes the machine signaled a problem with your shirt and underwear so you need to take them off”.

The guard stared me down. His eyes were mocking. “You want me to take off my underwear and then do what with them?”

“We will scan them and then you will need to put other ones on.”

“Other ones? I only have what I have on.” On cue the young blonde rolled in my red suitcase and pulled it into the curtain area.

“What did the machine detect exactly?” I pressed. “I can’t tell you that. You just need to remove your underwear and your shirt.”

“And then you want me to change back into them?”

“No you have to check them in with your luggage and wear something else.”

“But I don’t want to wear anything else. My other clothes are dirty.”

“You have to wear something else. The bra is a security threat.”

“My bra is a security threat?”

“Yes and so is your shirt.”

My mind buzzed as my emotions rose. I looked at the guard and he smirked back at me. “This is your punishment for asking Hilda’s name” I told myself.

The young blonde girl looked at me with my suitcase in hand, a surprisingly distressed look on her face. The expression was guilt. Only later did it strike me that the time between the probe test and Hilda’s decision that my underwear threatened security spanned an average of 30 seconds and that this was, most likely, a time too short to have actually checked the cotton pad on the end of the probe and communicated the next sequence of events between Hilda and the young blonde along with the organized retrieval of my suitcase from the terminal.

I unzipped my bag and popped it open. The inside was a mess from the first rummage through it and I had no idea where anything was. I calmed myself down, took deep breaths, reminded myself that this was all a power play with the intention of making me feel uncomfortable and unfamiliar. I fished out another bra from my bag and took the first shirt that I could find. I went into my underwear pocket but Hilda stopped me. “Why don’t you just wear the ones you have?” she said.

“You told me to change my underwear” I responded.

“No you can leave them. I just want your bra and your shirt” she barked at me.

I folded the two articles over my arm. “Give them to me” Hilda demanded. “I need to scan these before you put them on.” I handed them over to her while the guard watched. She disappeared, I don’t remember what she did. I was busy watching the young blonde woman who looked as uncomfortable as I felt. Hilda handed me my bra and shirt. I stared at the guard. Hilda caught my eye, “you have to change clothes now. No one will see you.” She left and drew the curtains behind her.

For the first time since I entered the airport, I was alone. I watched the guard’s white shoes, pointed towards the curtains. For good measure, I faced the wall and placed my passport in my pocket. I changed my clothes and replaced them with the ones from my bag. I went to my bag to fold them back in when Hilda pulled back the curtains.

“No don’t pack them yet I need to test them!” she barked.

“You already checked them. That’s why we are going through this process, correct?”

“I will check them again.”

I passed them to her right past the guard’s body. He had stepped very close to Hilda and myself. As I passed my clothing to Hilda, he stared down at the bra in my hand and then back up at me. I stood there. I took deep breaths. My eyes dared him to utter a word. He didn’t, he just stared at me.

The young blonde called me back to the other side of the curtains and closed them behind me. My whole body was vibrating with anger. She checked around my body with a metal detector for the second time. The young woman patted down my top yet again. My throat constricted and I could feel angry tears welling up somewhere inside me. I swallowed my feelings. I buried them. I reminded myself of my goal in this very moment and of the stubborn character that my family was so well known for. I made a pact with myself that I would not give them the emotional response they were pressing for. I would not let them compromise my dignity. “Focus” I told myself. “Just focus.”

Hilda brought my shirt and bra back from wherever she had taken them and I packed them into my chaotic suitcase. As Hilda and the guard joked and laughed together, the young blonde approached me. “This is all protocol you know” she whispered at my side.

“Oh really? This is protocol?” I said slowly. I looked her in the eye and she looked down at her feet. I hoped that she was ashamed of this process, ashamed of the actions that had been deemed “appropriate”, realized that she was a pawn in all of this but no less guilty in carrying out the policy of racial and specific group targeting that this whole experience was built upon.

The end of the process was sudden. The whole thing was surreal actually. Hilda left the room in one swift movement. The door slammed behind her. The guard kept tabs on me with the young blonde at my side. I closed my bag and pulled it to standing.

“You can put your shoes on” the young blonde said.

I looked around. “Ok, can I have my shoes please?”

“Oh yeah.” She brought me the grey bin with my phone and shoes and I slipped them on.

The girl pointed me towards the door and we walked through, the plain clothed guard disappeared into the hallway behind us. I did not see him again.

The girl and I walked back together, alone. “You know…” she began “I’ve been working here for 1.5 years and I have never seen them do something like that.”

“Do something like what?” I asked. She looked up at me with a crease in her forehead, “make someone take off their bra…”

“I hope it’s the last time” I told her. She looked ahead into the terminal. We stopped talking.

We reentered the large room that I had first had my bags checked through, the glass doors to the outside of the airport shone with the bright light of the sun. It was now morning. I smiled to myself that I had finished the process. “I get to leave now”, I thought to myself. My eyes adjusted to the light in the terminal where I clearly saw about 6-8 security guards rummaging through the complete contents of both of my carryon bags that now lay limp on the floor. Stuff inside grey bins, outside grey bins, on the conveyor belt, across on other tables; my things were strewn absolutely everywhere. It was chaos.

I appeared before the tables, covered in my things, as the plastic gloved hands continued the sifting process. Everything was separated and individually run through the little metal detector behind me.

A stern, balding, reddish haired man with a black kippah stood there with an earpiece on one side. His arms were crossed and by the way that the skinny bald man stood next to him and all the guards checked in with his appraising gaze, I could tell that he was the boss of this particular operation. Hilda had disappeared completely. She was nowhere in sight. I said nothing about the bags. I just breathed. “Excuse me”, I called to the skinny bald man, “What was the woman’s name who checked me in the security room?”

The man looked at me, “You mean Hilda?”

“Yes Hilda” I responded.

The man with the kippah turned his glance towards me. “What is her full name?” I asked.

The bald man opened his mouth to answer but first turned his attention to his superior. “We don’t give last names” the man with the kippah asserted. “I doubt that”, I thought to myself.

“Ok what is her title then please?”

“Hilda, Security Supervisor.” A woman with a clipboard appeared between us and asked the skinny man who I was. He pointed to my name on a short list, which she then highlighted in yellow and pink. The skinny man looked at me, “You will make your flight.”


A young woman beckoned me to her box, I’m next. She opened my passport and stared down at the page. She stutters my first name. “Yes?”

“Ra…Ra…” I pronounce the rest of it for her. “What was the purpose of your visit?” I let out the same monotonous answer I had uttered all morning.

“You have friends and family here?” she asked. “Yes.”

“Ok where are they?”

“Tel Aviv and Jaffa” I said. She paused and cocked her eyebrows. “That’s the same place.”

“No no, I said Tel Aviv and Jaffa” I told her, thinking she had not heard me correctly. “Yes that’s the same place.” What she was implying hit me.

All morning I had been mistreated, combed out of the crowd and profiled, my time wasted and my dignity subsequently stepped all over without a second thought. I had been treated like a criminal for having an identity that I was born into, told explicitly in each of these actions that I did not belong here and had no place here at all as a person with Palestinian heritage. Harassed and picked out from the rest because of my name, my history, the assumptions that go with them, and my very intention to visit my family, many of who cannot visit me in the USA.

Here I was being told by a girl in uniform, very close to my age, that my town had no existence in the present, even as I had just left from it hours before arriving at the airport. The whole morning’s exchange culminated at this moment as a burning ember in my stomach. It was emblematic of the constant reminder that we Palestinians are being systematically forgotten and erased from public consciousness in every sphere of life, delegitimizing every root that we are attached to inside and outside of the Israeli state.

Tel Aviv, some of it built on two prominent neighborhoods of my town, much of the rest built upon the orange groves that sustained it, was swallowing up my very presence, right there in the middle of the airport. I realized that, to this girl I was already a disappeared part of “history”, excluded from her general consciousness, not even present in her own imagination of the past.

Yet here she was, looking right at me. I wanted to show her, to figuratively reach behind her glass case, that I was not a shadow of the things that were but a glimmer of the present and future of what is and what can be.

“They are not the same place” I tell her “One is north and one is south. One is a city and one is a town.”

“No, you were in one place. The name of the city is Tel Aviv – Yafo. Not Yafo. Same place.” She handed me back my passport and stared at me, annoyed.

“It is not the same place” I told her. “Is that all?”

“Yeah. Go.”

I hurried to my gate, through the final check and into the airport lounge area. I decided that the plane would not leave without me, from the beginning the airline had been notified about my ensured tardiness. I stopped at a candy and snack store on my way to the gate and chose a bottle of water. I brought it up to the woman at the desk. “Passport and boarding ticket please” she told me. I handed both to her. She looked me up in the computer in front of her. Her eyes fixed on me. “How long have you been in Israel and what is your final destination?” I was incredulous. I was being asked security questions by a candy vendor.

“Excuse me, I’ve already passed through security. How much are those tic-tacs please?” I grabbed the box next to me. She told me the total and I paid. She asked no more questions. I took my boarding materials from the counter. As I turned around, I noticed two plain clothed men with shaved heads watching me from their seats at the fountain. They had no baggage. I guessed who they were. I moved past them and walked briskly to my gate. I kiss the necklace around my neck as an act of gratitude and I know that I will be back. I also know that it will not be easy. It never is.

I hope that one day this story becomes a fairy tale of what was once the Occupation, in all of its arbitrary character and continual perpetuation of inequality, injustice, and illusion. For now, this experience as described above is just a minor example of the humiliation and daily challenges that Palestinians face on a regular basis when trying to cross checkpoints inside and outside of the West Bank and Gaza. It is just a minor example of the racial profiling that Palestinians with Israeli passports or Jerusalem ID cards go through on a regular basis when walking down the street or applying for a job. It is just a minor example of how the Occupation divides the Palestinian population into all of our different “statuses” and privileges while combining us all together into one essentializing package. It is an example of a situation where the oppression of certain groups of people has been completely normalized by the international community.

If we can start anywhere in deconstructing this Occupation, literally taking it apart, we can start by educating ourselves and our communities. I implore those who read this to learn about the history of Palestine, to learn about recent events on the ground, to talk to as many people as they can, to be curious and ask questions, to look at displays of military power and question the motives of those governments who support them.

Throughout all of this, please remember, that this is not a historical issue, it is a human one.

Peace, Justice and Dignity.

 

Written FOR

WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHAT CHUTZPAH IS?

Here’s the most recent example …

*

Asking for an increase in aid at a time when America is still struggling could come across as insensitive, but the Israeli official said this was not the impression Israel has gotten from its American counterparts.
*

Israel Pushes for Boost in U.S. Aid to More Than $3B a Year

Beltway Wrangling Starts Now as Deal Expires in 2017

*
Upping the Ante: The U.S. provides a river of aid to Israel, as reflected by the honor guard welcomed at the Pentagon. Israel is pushing for an even larger package of future assistance.

GETTY IMAGES
Upping the Ante: The U.S. provides a river of aid to Israel, as reflected by the honor guard welcomed at the Pentagon. Israel is pushing for an even larger package of future assistance.

By Nathan Guttman

*

Israel’s 10-year assistance agreement with the United States doesn’t expire until 2017. But in Washington time, that’s not too far away for Israel to argue now for increasing aid levels when the agreement is renewed.

Citing the ongoing instability in the Middle East, Israel is already pushing for an increase in U.S. military aid to address new challenges and to ensure Israeli military superiority in the region.

More specifically, in renewal talks that are ongoing between the two countries, Israel is pointing to, among other things, recent sales of advanced American weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Under a doctrine stemming from statutory language in earlier legislation, the United States, Israeli officials point out, is committed by law to ensuring that Israel maintains a “qualitative military edge,” — known more commonly as QME — over any of its Arab neighbors.

The 2008 law, seen as mainly declarative at the time, could provide the legal basis for increasing aid to Israel in order to ensure its military edge.

“Naturally we are talking about our needs, and as we get closer to 2017 we will discuss the details of what the next package will include and under what conditions,” an Israeli official briefed on the discussions said. Still, opposition to an increase exists, and it comes, in some cases, from some surprising places.

“There’s a diminished threat from the Syrian army and no increase in the power of the Egyptian army,” noted Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser in the Bush administration. Abrams, who is generally regarded as hawkish, said that, for now, Syria and Egypt are preoccupied with war on, or repression of, their own rebellious citizens and thus pose less risk to Israel, with consequent implications for Israel’s military aid requirements. He noted also that Egypt’s military is not expected to receive any boost in its current level of American aid.

As for the recent American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE., Dov Zakheim, a former top Pentagon official who sat in on many discussions about military aid to Israel, said, “If you look at the issues, Israel and the Gulf states are on the same page.”

He noted that Saudi Arabia, the smaller Gulf countries and Israel share the same concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the spread of extremist Islamic forces. “So as long as the Gulf countries become more sophisticated in protecting their territories, this will cause more difficulties to Iran, and that’s a good thing,” Zakheim said.

An August 15 article published in Defense News first reported that Israel is seeking an increase in the foreign aid, which reached $30 billion in the decade-long agreement signed in 2007. Israeli officials confirmed to the Forward that informal talks are already taking place, but they said intense detailed discussions are not planned for the near future.

Much has changed since the last military aid deal was signed, in 2007. Israel’s neighborhood has become even more volatile, as the Arab Spring toppled or threatened long-standing authoritarian regimes. This has deprived Israel of a certain regional predictability it enjoyed, even with regimes with which it remained in a state of war.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is still struggling to recover from its worst slump since the Great Depression, forcing the federal government to cut back on all government expenses, and raising new doubts about the affordability of a robust foreign aid program.

While other nations struggle to receive American taxpayer dollars, Israel rarely faces resistance. Strong support in the administration and Congress, coupled with favorable public opinion and a strong lobby advocating for the cause, has made sustaining and increasing military aid to Israel an easy sell. This time around should be no different, officials and experts knowledgeable about the process say, despite the changed environment.

“It is not a matter of arm-twisting,” Zakheim said. “There is a long-standing commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge that has been accepted by the United States for good reasons.”

In preliminary talks, Israel began to lay out the principles it would like to see guide the next aid package. One will aim to put a dollar sum on the cost of maintaining Israel’s QME. This estimate will take into account what it will take to ensure that Israel’s armed forces are always one step ahead of their adversaries — or those Israel argues are adversaries — in the region. The second will be to include missile defense programs, currently funded through a separate Pentagon budget line, in the foreign aid program managed through the State Department’s budget.

“We’re looking at a holistic Middle Eastern picture, which includes growth of missile arsenals in Lebanon and Gaza; the strategic situation in Sinai; the Syrian situation as it impacts us and other countries, including Jordan,” Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, told Defense News. “Therefore, we will be looking for a long-term [memorandum of understanding] that will address all of the issues that are routinely raised in our very close and high-level consultations with our American counterparts.”

American and Israeli officials who were involved in past aid negotiations described a process driven by needs, not by the total dollar amount of the aid package. It begins with Israelis presenting the threats they believe they’ll face in the coming decades and the weapons systems they’ll need to address these threats.

Before the last Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 2007, the deal was first finalized between President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and only then handed down to the lower levels where the details were worked out.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the mainstream pro-Israel lobby, is deeply involved in the process, mainly in convincing Congress, once the administration makes a decision on the aid levels, to approve the assistance year after year and to make adjustments throughout the 10-year period if needed. “There’s a pretty good system in place,” said a former pro-Israel activist who was involved in those discussions. “AIPAC people know all the details and make sure the best package for Israel is approved regardless of who controls the committees.”

As discussions begin on the next assistance deal, Israel is looking for America’s help with a different set of concerns. Iran’s nuclear program remains the main issue for Israel, which is seeking advanced American weapons systems to deter Iran and possibly to take action against it. But according to an Israeli official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, short-range rocket threats from Hamas and Hezbollah now make up a bigger part of Israel’s plea, given the experience of recent years and the need to bolster missile defense systems.

New elements have also been brought into the calculation. These include Israel’s fear of instability in Egypt, where the military recently ousted a democratically elected Islamist government. Though the new government is actually friendlier to Israel than the ousted one was, the shakeup has stoked Israeli fears of an eventual full or partial revocation of the 1979 Camp David peace treaty between the Egypt and Israel. Jerusalem is also concerned about diminishing security along Egypt’s Sinai border with Israel, as the turmoil in Cairo has given terrorists in that area freer rein.

Israel also worries that Syria’s civil war may spill over; or that the country could break up, with nonconventional weapons falling into the hands of Islamist extremists using the country as an operating base; or that Jordan, Israel’s most trusted neighbor, which has kept the eastern boarder quiet for decades, could also see upheaval due to internal unrest and a huge influx of Syrian refugees.

The financial downturn that has plagued the United States since 2007 could change the backdrop of the upcoming aid talks, although assistance to Israel enjoys widespread support within the American public and in Congress.

After many deliberations in Jerusalem and Washington, Israel and its supporters decided not to seek an exemption from the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration. Israel agreed to take a cut of more than $150 million to its annual aid rather than be seen as seeking special treatment at a time when the American people are suffering the consequences of sequestration.

Asking for an increase in aid at a time when America is still struggling could come across as insensitive, but the Israeli official said this was not the impression Israel has gotten from its American counterparts.

Abrams, on the other hand, proposed in an interview with the Forward a dramatic change to the pattern of military relations between Israel and the United States: Doing away with U.S. aid to Israel altogether. “You can’t have Israel becoming richer and richer and then coming to America to ask for foreign aid,” Abrams said, pointing to Israel’s recent natural gas finds that are expected to create a huge cash surplus for the Jewish state in coming years.

Abrams argued that Israel can pay for the weapon systems it buys from the United States, just as Saudi Arabia does, and that military to military ties can remain strong, even without a foreign aid component. “I think it would be advantageous to the relations,” he said. [Any discussion about cutting the aid should be done privately, he added; otherwise, anyone proposing it would be accused by political rivals of not standing behind Israel.

“Israel’s popularity in the United States is tremendous,” he said, “and it might grow even more if foreign aid is taken out of the discussion.”

 

 

Source

WOODY GUTHRIE SEZ “BOYCOTT ISRAEL!”

woody-guthrie-machine
*
BUT ….. despite that, his name and memory are literally being dragged through the mud by the zionists.
Woody Guthrie was a man of the people, surely he would have been a friend and supporter of the Palestinian people, but you would never know that after reading about the following;
*
Woody Sez – The Life and Music of Woody Guthrie. August 21-31, 2013 – See more at: http://www.touristisrael.com/woody-sez-the-life-and-music-of-woody-guthrie-august-21-31
*
The internationally acclaimed musical Woody Sez, telling the life and music of the legendary American folk singer Woody Guthrie, tours Israel in August 2013. Featuring 25 of Guthrie’s most famous tunes, including ‘This Land is Your Land’, and ‘This Train is Bound for Glory’, the musical travels through the fascinating life of Guthrie, a man whose works inspired the likes of Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, and defined music as it is today. Following sell-out performances around the world, including the stages of London and New York, Woody Sez comes to Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv between August 21-31, 2o13.
*
SHAME ON YOU ZION FOR DEFAMING ONE OF THE GREATEST HUMAN BEINGS EVER TO HAVE LIVED!
*
image (2)
That includes zionism!!

YOUTUBE ‘PROVES’ THAT A MURDERED PALESTINIAN CHILD WASN’T DEAD AFTER ALL

 It took 13 years for Israel to garner enough CHUTZPAH to present ‘proof’ that a child murdered by the IDF in Gaza wasn’t dead after all….
Here is the ‘proof’ they offer via YouTube…
*
“Contrary to the claim that the boy was dead, the committee’s review of the raw footage indicates that at the end of the video – the part that was not broadcast – the boy appears to be alive,” the inquiry stated. “The probe has found that there is no evidence to support the claims that the father, Jamal, or the boy Mohammed, were shot. Furthermore, the video does not show Jamal being seriously wounded.”
“On the other hand, many signs indicate that the two were never hit by the bullets,” the panel added in its conclusion.
*
*
Israeli panel: Palestinian boy ‘killed’ by IDF at start of intifada did not actually die

National Israeli panel of inquiry says iconic footage from start of second intifada reveals that Palestinian child apparently caught by IDF bullets did not actually die in the incident.

By Barak Ravid
*
Mohammed al-Dura - AP - 19022012
The infamous image of Mohammed al-Dura (left) sheltering with his father Jamal. Photo by AP
*

Thirteen years after an exchange of fire in Gaza appeared to have resulted in the death of a Palestinian boy at the start of the second intifada, an Israeli investigative panel has found “there are many indications” that Mohammed al-Dura and his father, Jamal, “were never hit by gunfire” – neither Israeli nor Palestinian – after all.

The national panel of inquiry further claims that contrary to the famed report carried by the France 2 television network on the day of the incident, September 30, 2000, 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura appears to be alive at the end of the complete footage captured of the event.

The investigative panel was commissioned by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon in September 2012, and was headed by Yossi Kuperwasser, former director general of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs. It included representatives of the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit and the Israel Police, as well as outside experts.

The probe focused primarily on the France 2 report about al-Dura’s death and the events that followed. The report, which was presented by journalist Charles Enderlin, alleged that the boy was killed by bullets fired by Israel Defense Forces troops.

The committee found that the evidence in the television station’s possession did not support the claim that al-Dura died as a result of IDF gunfire. It added that the report falsely created the impression that the channel had solid proof that Israeli soldiers were responsible for the boy’s death.

“Contrary to the claim that the boy was dead, the committee’s review of the raw footage indicates that at the end of the video – the part that was not broadcast – the boy appears to be alive,” the inquiry stated. “The probe has found that there is no evidence to support the claims that the father, Jamal, or the boy Mohammed, were shot. Furthermore, the video does not show Jamal being seriously wounded.” 

“On the other hand, many signs indicate that the two were never hit by the bullets,” the panel added in its conclusion.

The inquiry casts doubt on the possibility that the bullet holes left on a wall under which the boy and his father sought shelter were caused by gunfire that came from a nearby IDF post, as was suggested in the France 2 report.

The committee stressed that “many question marks surround almost every aspect of the report,” further hinting that a boy named Mohammed al-Dura may have never existed.

The committee, which submitted its report for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s review on Sunday, charges France 2 and the reporter, Enderlin, with “harming Israel’s international standing and igniting the flames of terror and hatred.”

“Since it aired, the France 2 report about Israel’s actions has served as inspiration and justification for terror, anti-Semitism and the Israel’s de-legitimization,” the panel said.

An entire chapter within the inquiry report criticizes the media and offers conclusions that should be employed by journalists, even though no reporters were part of the committee. The panel asserted that the incident and its coverage highlight the need for “media outlets to abide by the strictest professional and ethical standards while reporting on asymmetrical conflicts.”

The photos of the Duras, father and son, taking cover behind a barrel during an exchange of gunfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militants, near the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip, remains one of the most enduring images of the second intifada.

Israel initially apologized for the boy’s death but issued a retraction when subsequent investigations indicated the boy was most likely killed by Palestinian fire.

In a February 2005 hearing in Paris, French Web site owner Phillipe Karsenty claimed France 2 had staged the incident, claiming the footage showed the boy still moving his arm, even though the cameraman had said he was dead. He provided a report from a French ballistics expert indicating the shots fired past the al-Duras came from the Palestinian position, and he pointed out that several scenes before the al-Dura incident appeared staged.

The judge agreed in that hearing that some scenes did not seem genuine.

However, Enderlin said that the images were no different from the clashes he had witnessed repeatedly. The prosecution stated that a dead Palestinian boy had been buried after the Netzarim junction incident, and that Jamal al-Dura consented to DNA tests that could prove the boy was his son.

 
 

ISRAEL; THE ONLY HUMANITARIAN COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST

No other country in the world does what Israel does … they release a prisoner, then they return him to prison under false charges …. then they are willing to deport him as his life is in danger from a hunger strike. Such humanitarianism exists nowhere else (sic).
*
Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
samer-issawi-palestinian-hunger-striker-2
*
Israel trying to deport hunger-strike Palestinian Samer Issawi
Israel offers long-term hunger striker Samer Issawi a deal to exile him to a UN member country
*
Samer Issawi
Israeli prison guards wheel Samer al-Issawi, one of four Palestinians held by Israel who has been on an intermittent hunger strike, as he leaves Jerusalem’s magistrates’ court February 19, 2013. ( Photo: Reuters)
*
Israel has told the European Union and UN it can deport a Palestinian prisoner on a life-endangering long-term hunger strike to one of their member states, an Israeli official told AFP on Friday.

But a lawyer for Samer Issawi, who has intermittently refused food for more than eight months, said his client strongly rejected the Israeli initiative, and an EU spokesman said no “official” proposal had been received.

Issawi, 33, was first arrested in 2002 and sentenced to 26 years for military activities on behalf of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

He was released by Israel under a prisoner swap deal in October 2011, but rearrested last July for violating the terms of the agreement by travelling to the West Bank from east Jerusalem.

The Israeli official said Issawi had gone to the West Bank to establish “terror cells” there.

Israel has ordered that he serve the remainder of his original sentence.

Issawi’s health has deteriorated because of his prolonged fast, and he was being held in an Israeli hospital. The Israeli official said he could “immediately be released to Gaza.”

In addition, “over the last few weeks the prime minister’s office was approached by senior EU and UN representatives, who expressed concern over his humanitarian condition,” the official said.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said Israel was willing to deport Issawi “to any EU member country, or any UN member country,” said the official, noting that they had yet to receive an answer from either.

An EU spokesman told AFP that “Israel has not formally approached the EU on this subject.”

However, the Israeli official insisted the issue “came up in official communications between officials on both sides.”

Lawyer Jawad Boulos said that while “Israel had tried to make him agree to being deported” to any of a number of countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Finland and Switzerland, Issawi had “strongly refused in principle to be deported to any state.”

Issawi is the last of four Palestinian prisoners who were on extended hunger strikes in Israeli prisons, after two ended their fast in February and a third was exiled from the West Bank last month to the Gaza Strip for 10 years.

Written FOR

UPHOLDING ISRAELI LAW AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE

Academic Freedom at American colleges is threatened by ziolawyers who are trying to undermine the American system of Justice …
*
Brooklyn College’s academic freedom increasingly threatened over Israel event
New York politicians join the Alan Dershowitz-led campaign to dictate to colleges what academic events they can hold
By Glenn Greenwald
*
dershowitz2
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is leading the campaign against an event featuring Israel critics, sponsored by the Political Science department of Brooklyn College. Photograph: AP/Sergei Chuzakov

(updated below)

On Tuesday, I wrote about a brewing controversy that was threatening the academic freedom of Brooklyn College (see Item 7). The controversy was triggered by the sponsorship of the school’s Political Science department of an event, scheduled for 7 February, featuring two advocates of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) aimed at stopping Israeli oppression of the Palestinians [one speaker is a Palestinian (Omar Barghouti) and the other a Jewish American (philosopher Judith Butler)]. The event is being co-sponsored by numerous student and community groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine, the college’s LGBT group, pro-Palestinian Jewish organizations, and an Occupy Wall Street group.

When I wrote about this earlier in the week, opposition to the event was confined to the usual suspects devoted to so-called “pro-Israel” advocacy, including many with a long history of trying to destroy anyone critical of the Israeli government. The controversy was largely fueled by BC alumnus Alan Dershowitz, who denounced the event in a New York York Daily News Op-Ed as a “hate orgy”. Dershowitz – with whom I had a lengthy and contentious email exchange yesterday on this and other topics (see below) – previously led the successful campaign to pressure DePaul University into denying tenure to long-time Israel critic Norman Finkelstein (after his tenure had been approved by an academic committee), all but destroying Finkelstein’s career as an academic.

Dershowitz has been joined in his current crusade by a cast of crazed and fanatical Israel-centric characters such as Brooklyn State Assembly member Dov Hikind. Ignoring the BDS movement’s explicit non-violence stance, Hikind publicly (and falsely) claimed that the event speakers (to whom he referred as “Barghouti and…the lady”) “think Hamas and Hezbollah are nice organizations, and they probably feel the same way about al-Qaida”.

Hikind called on the college’s President, Karen Gould, to resign, recklessly insinuating (needless to say) that she’s an anti-Semite: “Perhaps President Gould wasn’t bullied; maybe she secretly approves. . . . I can only speculate to what her motivation or lack of motivation is in allowing this irresponsible endorsement of this loathsome event by her College.” In 2011, Hikind led the campaign to force Brooklyn College to fire the young adjunct professor Kristofer Petersen-Overton for the crime of writing a pro-Palestinian paper (after firing him, the college rehired him days later).

One of the key members of Brooklyn College’s board of trustees, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, is notorious for having led the 2011 effort to block CUNY from granting an honorary degree to Tony Kushner in light of Kushner’s Israel criticisms (“My mother would call Tony Kushner a kapo,” Wiesenfeld said of the Jewish playwright). When a New York Times reporter writing about the Kushner controversy asked Wiesenfeld whether one side of the Israel/Palestine debate should be suppressed, Wiesenfeld objected that “the comparison sets up a moral equivalence.” When the Times reporter asked him: “equivalence between what and what?”, Wiesenfeld replied: “between the Palestinians and Israelis.People who worship death for their children are not human.”

Meanwhile, the neocon editorial page of the New York Daily Newsdecreed that “Brooklyn College is no place for an Israel-bashing lecture”. Some Jewish students demanded that the Department rescind its sponsorship by cynically conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, complaining that the event will “condone and legitimize anti-Jewish bigotry” and “contribute significantly to a hostile environment for Jewish students on our campus”.

In sum, the ugly lynch mob now assembled against Brooklyn College and its academic event is all too familiar in the US when it comes to criticism of and activism against Israeli government policy. Indeed, in the US, there are few more efficient ways to have your reputation and career as a politician or academic destroyed than by saying something perceived as critical of Israel. This is not news. Ask Chas Freeman. Or Ocatavia Nasr. Or Finkelstein. Or Juan Cole. Or Stephen Walt. Or Chuck Hagel.

But this controversy has now significantly escalated in seriousness because numerous New York City elected officials have insinuated themselves into this debate by trying to dictate to the school’s professors what type of events they are and are not permitted to hold. Led by Manhattan’s fanatical pro-Israel “liberal” Congressman Jerrold Nadler and two leading New York mayoral candidates – Council speaker Christine Quinn and former city comptroller William Thompson – close to two dozen prominent City officials have signed onto a letter to college President Gould pronouncing themselves “concerned that an academic department has decided to formally endorse an event that advocates strongly for one side of a highly-charged issue” and “calling for Brooklyn College’s Political Science Department to withdraw their endorsement of this event.” As a result, the “scandal” has now landed in The New York Times, and – for obvious reasons – the pressure on school administrators is immense.

Imagine being elected to public office and then deciding to use your time and influence to interfere in the decisions of academics about the types of campus events they want to sponsor. Does anyone have trouble seeing how inappropriate it is – how dangerous it is – to have politicians demanding that professors only sponsor events that are politically palatable to those officials? If you decide to pursue political power, you have no business trying to use your authority to pressure, cajole or manipulate college professors regarding what speakers they can invite to speak on campus.

These elected officials are cynically wrapping themselves in the banner of “academic freedom” as they wage war on that same concept. They thus argue in their letter: “by excluding alternative positions from an event they are sponsoring, the Political Science Department has actually stifled free speech by preventing honest, open debate.” But if that term means anything, it means that academia is free of interference from the state when it comes to the ideas that are aired on campuses.

The danger posed by these politicians is manifest. Brooklyn College relies upon substantial grants and other forms of funding from the state. These politicians, by design, are making it mandatory for these college administrators to capitulate – to ensure that no campus events run afoul of the orthodoxies of state officials – because obtaining funding for Brooklyn College in the climate that has purposely been created is all but impossible.

There are undoubtedly numerous motives driving these politicians’ campaign against this event. It is all but impossible to succeed in New York City politics – or US national politics – without faithfully embracing pro-Israel orthodoxies. That’s the nature of politics in general: it requires subservience to empowered factions and majoritarian sentiment. That’s what politicians do by their nature: they flatter and affirm convention. That’s exactly the reason politicians have no legitimate role to play in influencing or dictating the content of academic events. It’s because academia, at least in theory, has the exact opposite role: it is designed to challenge, question and subvert orthodoxies.

That value is utterly obliterated if school administrators live in fear of offending state officials. That is exactly what is happening here, by intent: making every college administrator petrified of alienating these same pro-Israel factions by making an example out of Brooklyn College. That’s why anyone who values academic freedom and independence – regardless of one’s views of the BDS movement – should be deeply offended and alarmed, as well as mobilized, by what is being done here.

The primary defense being offered by these would-be censors – we just want both sides of the issue to be included in this event – is patently disingenuous. In his lengthy email exchange with me yesterday – printed in full here – Dershowitz told me that his objections were not to the holding of the event itself, but to the sponsorship of it by the Political Science Department, especially given the lack of any BDS opponents. For those reasons, Dershowitz claims, “it is crystal clear that the political science department’s co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS.”

But nobody proves the disingenuousness of this excuse more than Dershowitz himself. Like the BDS movement, Dershowitz is a highly controversial and polarizing figure who inspires intense animosity around the world. That’s due to many reasons, including his defense of virtually every Israeli attack, his advocacy of “torture warrants” whereby courts secretly authorize state torture, his grotesque attempt to dilute what a “civilian” is and replace it with “the continuum of civilianality” in order to justify Israeli aggression, and his chronic smearing of Israel critics such as author Alice Walker as “bigots”.

Despite how controversial he is, Dershowitz routinely appears on college campuses to speak without opposition. Indeed, as the Gawker writer who writes under the pen name Mobutu Sese Seko first documented, Dershowitz himself has spoken at Brooklyn College on several occasions without opposition. That includes – as the college’s Political Science Professor Corey Robin noted – when he was chosen by the school’s Political Science department to deliver the Konefsky lecture in which he spoke at length – and without opposition. He also delivered a 2008 speech at Brooklyn College, alone, in which he discussed a wide variety of controversial views, including torture. As Professor Robin noted, when Dershowitz agreed to speak at the school, “he didn’t insist that we invite someone to rebut him or to represent the opposing view.”

Nor did any of the New York City politicians objecting to this BDS event as “one-sided” object to Dershowitz’s speech given without opposition. Why is that?

In fact, it is incredibly common for academic departments to sponsor controversial speakers without opposition. I speak frequently at colleges and universities, and always express opinions which many people find highly objectionable. As but one example, I spoke at the University of Missouri School of Law last September, in an event sponsored by the law school itself. As this news account from the school’s newspaper notes, I spoke at length about the highly controversial ideas in my last book, and that speech was followed by a panel discussion of like-minded civil liberties and civil rights advocates.

The way that happens is exactly how it happened here: a student group decides it wants to invite speakers or host an event and then seeks organizing support from one of the school’s departments. That does not remotely connote departmental agreement with all or any of the ideas to be aired; it simply reflects a willingness to help students organize events they think will be beneficial. As Professor Robin told me about the BDS event: “The student group explicitly asked us if we would like to ‘endorse’ or ‘co-sponsor’ the event; we explicitly opted for ‘co-sponsor.'”

Indeed, by extreme coincidence, the very same Brooklyn College Political Science department selected me to deliver this year’s Konefsky lecture – the same lecture previously given by Dershowitz (alone). I’m going to express all sorts of views on civil liberties and other political conflicts that are vehemently rejected by large numbers of people. But nobody ever remotely thought that there was anything inappropriate about my appearing alone.

That’s because it’s extremely common for academic departments to sponsor events at which controversial speakers appear either alone or with generally like-minded speakers. As Robin told me about Dershowitz’s absurd claim that departmental sponsorship of controversial speakers is unusual:

“When I was a grad student at Yale, I organized quite a few talks – the one I remember most was of Robert Meeropol defending the innocence of his parents the Rosenbergs. I got not only co-sponsorship but money from several academic departments to host this event. This is simply routine. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”

There is value in a full-on debate. But there’s also value in enabling an idea to be expressed and developed without having some cable-news-type “debate” with someone who rejects every premise of the argument. There’s also value in having tactical and strategic debates among people devoted to the same political cause. As College of Saint Rose Political Science Professor Scott Lemieux noted about the Brooklyn event: “You know who else is at best skeptical of boycotting Israeli scholars? Judith Butler, which may suggest that the discussion will be more critical and complex than its critics assume.”

(Dershowitz claimed to me that he “recently told someone who invited me to give a talk on Israel that the talk should not be sponsored by the school or a department.” But when I asked him to identify where this happened so I could follow-up and write about it, he ignored my inquiry. But if this happened, the fact that he had to specify this shows how common such sponsorships are even of the most controversial speakers like Dershowitz.)

Manifestly, this controversy has nothing whatsoever to do with objecting to one-sided academic events sponsored by academic institutions. Such events occur constantly without anyone uttering a peep of protest. This has to do with one thing and one thing only: trying to create specially oppressive rules that govern only critics of Israel and criticisms of that nation’s government. As Lemieux put it: “So, apparently, colleges have a moral obligation to have ‘balanced’ panels . . . in cases where the speakers might disagree with Alan Dershowitz.”

It’s fitting that this controversy erupted in the same week when Obama’s nominee to lead the Pentagon, Chuck Hagel, has been subjected to an extremely ugly McCarthyite-like attack from the US Senate over very mild statements he has made in the past about Israel and the domestic Israel lobby. As Esquire’s Charles Pierce observed, one GOP Senator, Ted Cruz, “took almost his entire opportunity to fit Hagel for a kaffiyeh” by all but accusing him of being a Terrorist based on his mild Israel criticisms.

In the ultimate irony, at the very same time that Hagel was forced to renounce his view that there is a powerful Israel Lobby that constricts debate and shapes government policy over Israel – there is no such thing! Perish the thought! – he has had to desperately run away from his past criticisms of Israel in order to have any hope of being confirmed. That ritual left a stammering mess of a nominee, petrified of affirming his own beliefs on Israel lest he be further smeared and rendered radioactive. Slate’s Dave Weigel put it best when he wrote about the Hagel hearing:

“[GOP Senator] Lindsey Graham had wanted to know who had ever been spooked by The Lobby and what stupid things they’d done out of panic. The answer was right in front of him, at the witness table.

Harvard Professor Stephen Walt, the much-pilloried author of The Israel Lobby – the book documenting how that lobby stifles debate in the US and dictates Israeli policy to Congress – was right to claim vindicationafter watching the ugly Hagel debacle. Noting that the entire Hagel hearing focused overwhelmingly on Israel and Iran – rather than issues of US security for which Hagel will actually be responsible – Walt declared: “I want to thank the Emergency Committee for Israel, Sheldon Adelson, and the Senate Armed Service Committee for providing such a compelling vindication of our views.”

The controversy over the BDS panel at Brooklyn College is nothing more than the latest manifestation of the attempt to squelch criticism of Israel and delegitimize its critics. It is intended to create special rules that apply to Israel critics but to nothing else: you can never allow them to speak without having someone there to attack them. It is designed to put into further fear any faculty members or school administrators who would dare run afoul of pro-Israel orthodoxies. The campaign devoted to stopping this event is so wildly disproportionate to the importance of the event itself because its objectives extend far beyond this BC event. That’s why this campaign is a severe threat to academic freedom and free debate.

When I wrote about this controversy on Tuesday, I said that if this BDS event is cancelled, then “I’d strongly consider asking them to cancel mine as well, as I assume when I accept invitations to speak in academic venues that I’m going somewhere that fosters rather than suffocates the free exchange of ideas.” I’m going to make that more definite: if this event is cancelled, or if the Political Science department is forced to change it to include speakers they never wanted to invite, then I will absolutely refuse to speak at Brooklyn College. Others should use this updated list to contact school administrators and make your views known.

The side that favors academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas does not remotely have the financial resources and political organizing clout as the side that tries to control political debates in the name of pro-Israel advocacy. But we can at least do what we can do in pursuit of these principles. Preserving the ability of academic institutions to host the events and invite the speakers they want – without having to heed the demands of “pro-Israel” advocates and the cowardly state officials who serve them – is of vital importance.

Other Dershowitz inaccuracies

According to Professor Robin, two of Dershowitz’s others claims made to me are factually inaccurate. The first is Dershowitz’s claim that the Konefsky family chose him as lecturer, not the Political Science department. Writes Robin:

“That is not at all how Konefsky lecturers are chosen; the political science department selects those speakers without any interference from the Konefsky family. (Can you imagine if we had to vet your lecture with the family?) In fact, I am shocked that he thinks private donors can choose speakers at an officially sponsored college event at all. That in fact betrays far more about his conception of academic freedom – not only that he thinks that is what happened but that he thinks it’s acceptable and just a normal way of doing business – than anything else.”

Also inaccurate, according to Robin, is Dershowitz’s claim that “the best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements.” As Robin explains, “the chair went through all of his emails today and has not found a single request from a student or student group for us to host an anti-BDS event.”

UPDATE

An emailer just brought to my attention what may be the most glaring and amazing inaccuracy in Dershowitz’s statements to me. Dershowitz repeatedly claimed – both to me and elsewhere – that academic departments should not sponsor one-sided events on controversial topics, and that he would not want any department to sponsor him for such an event. He wrote to me: “If and when I come to Brooklyn College to speak against BDS, I do not expect the event to be co-sponsored by the political science department. It will be sponsored by student and outside groups, as this event should be.” He also told me: “I would oppose a pro Israel event being sponsored by a department.”

But last February, a major controversy erupted when the University of Pennsylvania held an event with pro-BDS speakers. To address the controversy, here is what the school did:

“To counter the Penn BDS event, local pro-Israel groups including Hillel and the Philadelphia Jewish Federation have summoned the famed trial lawyer and Harvard University professor of law Alan Dershowitz to campus to keynote a Feb. 2 event: ‘Why Israel Matters to You, Me, and Penn: A conversation with Alan Dershowitz.’ Penn’s Political Science department – which has pointedly refused to co-sponsor the BDS conference — will co-host Dershowitz’s lecture, where the professor has vowed to explain why he considers BDS to be one of the most ‘immoral, illegal and despicable concepts around academia today.'”

So that’s not only another example where the highly controversial Dershowitz appeared without opposition on a college campus while sponsored by a university department, but it’s an example where he did so on this very topic: BDS. And he was sponsored by the same Penn Political Science department to give his anti-BDS talk that refused to sponsor the event with pro-BDS speakers. Where was Dershowitz’s oh-so-principled objections then to university departments appearing to take sides in these debates? To depict his opposition to this BC event as principled rather than about squelching criticism of Israel, he claimed to me: “I would oppose a pro Israel event being sponsored by a department.” So did he oppose this pro-Israel, department-sponsored event at UPenn at which he spoke?

By itself, this proves that this Brooklyn College controversy has nothing to do with the stated principle that university department should not sponsor one-sided events on controversial topics. It instead has everything to do with finding such events objectionable only when they contain criticisms of Israel. That the leading opponent of the Brooklyn College event himself regularly speaks at universities on controversial topics without opposition, sponsored by university departments, conclusively demonstrates how dishonest this current crusade is.

Written FOR

ANOTHER ‘JEWHAD’ DECLARED AGAINST A CARTOONIST

Carlos Latuff is not alone in his anti zionist works. As Israel continues with its genocidal policies against the people of Palestine, more works are appearing throughout the media condemning those policies.
But, Israel does not view these works as anti Israel or anti zionist, they view them as anti Semitic. This is one of zion’s oldest tricks …..
*
There’s a difference ….. as shown by Pete Pasho
*zionism-is-not-judaism
**
Latuff’s image depicting a pre election, bloodthirsty Netanyahu won him third place on the Wiesenthal Centre’s Top Ten anti Semitic list’
*
simon-wiesenthal-center-report-december-2012 (1)
*
Just a few days before the Wiesenthal Centre’s list came out he was cited by the ADL for his works.
*
Other cartoonists rocked the foundations of zion by depicting the truth in their works as well, among them was Pat Oliphant for depicting a nazi-like soldier going after innocent civilians in Gaza. Again, anti Semitism or truth?
*
20090326oliphantantisemite1
*
This week there was a new twist used by Israel, It is apparently strictly forbidden to criticise or condemn Israeli genocide on International Holocaust Memorial Day. The London Times of Britain ran a cartoon by Gerald Scarfe showing Netanyahu paving a wall with the blood and limbs of Palestinians. Once again, anti Semitism or truth? Apparently critics of Israel are expected to show some leniency on Holocaust Memorial Day…
*
TIMES-CARTOON
*
This latest work is the ‘talk of the town’ on the Zio Websites. Surely a work that will ‘win’ Scarfe a place on next year’s hatelist.
*
Here’s what the zionists are saying about this latest cartoon (From)
*

London Times Cartoon Depicts Benjamin Netanayahu Building Bloody Wall

Image Comes on Holocaust Remembrance Day

*

An editorial cartoon showing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall on the bodies of Palestinians and using their blood as cement was published in London’s Sunday Times.

The caption on the cartoon reads: “Israeli Elections… Will Cementing Peace Continue?” The cartoon was drawn by Gerald Scarfe, who drew the cover illustration for Pink Floyd’s 1979 album The Wall. Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters has been a critic of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

The cartoon published Sunday – International Holocaust Memorial Day – is “sickening” and “offensive,” the European Jewish Congress said in a statement.

European Jewish Congress President Dr. Moshe Kantor called for an apology from the Sunday Times on Sunday.

“This cartoon would be offensive at any time of the year, but to publish it on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is sickening and expresses a deeply troubling mindset,” Kantor said. “This insensitivity demands an immediate apology from both the cartoonist and the paper’s editors.”

“Amazingly, as this cartoon was published days after the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, underwent fully democratic elections, as others in the Middle East were being butchered by the tens of thousands, the Sunday Times focuses its imagination solely on the Jewish State,” Kantor said in the statement.

HonestReporting called the cartoon “a blood libel on a day when the millions of victims of the Holocaust are remembered.”

“Holocaust Memorial Day is an opportunity to remember the most appalling atrocities carried out in modern history. It should also be a day when the media remembers that Israel’s actions to defend its citizens bear no relation whatsoever to the genocidal crimes of the Nazis. On any day, this cartoon’s imagery is an assault on the real victims of genocide, demeans their suffering and insults their memory. The Sunday Times should be mindful that what started as cartoons in the 1930′s ultimately led to violence and unspeakable tragedy. This is a lesson that The Sunday Times has clearly not absorbed,” said HonestReporting CEO Joe Hyams in a statement issued Sunday by the organization.

*

 Needless to say, the ADL was one of the first to join the chorus with the following (From) …

*

ADL Slams Sunday Times ‘Blood Libel’ Cartoon Published on Holocaust Memorial Day, Calls for Immediate Apology

In an email to The Algemeiner, the Anti Defamation League has slammed Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper for publishing a cartoon  “with a blatantly anti-Semitic theme,” which appeared Sunday, on Holocaust Memorial Day, and has called for an immediate apology.

Raheem Kassam, Editor of The Commentator which first reported on the publication of the shocking image described the cartoon as depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “large-nosed Jew, hunched over a wall, building with the blood of Palestinians as they writhe in pain within it.”

“Penned by Gerald Scarfe (the cartoonist behind Pink Floyd’s The Wall), the caption reads: ‘Israeli Elections… Will Cementing Peace Continue?’” added Honest Reporting which also reported on the image.

“The Sunday Times has clearly lost its moral bearings publishing a cartoon with a blatantly anti-Semitic theme and motif which is a modern day evocation of the ancient ‘blood libel’ charge leveled at Jews,” Michael A. Salberg, ADL International Affairs Director told The Algemeiner. “There is nothing subtle about the caricatured image of Prime Minister Netanyahu using Palestinians and their blood to build a wall to ‘protect’ Israelis,” he added.

Salberg called for an immediate response from The Sunday Times saying, “The Sunday Times should be ashamed and should immediately apologize for its gross insensitivity.”

The ADL also made reference to the history of such gross portrayals of Jews and their role in fanning the hatred that led to their slaughter. “This is the stuff which historically justified hatred of Jews and led to the wholesale slaughter of Jews,” he said.

CEO of Honest Reporting, Joe Hyams, added criticism of the publication, saying, “Holocaust Memorial Day is an opportunity to remember the most appalling atrocities carried out in modern history. It should also be a day when the media remembers that Israel’s actions to defend its citizens bear no relation whatsoever to the genocidal crimes of the Nazis. On any day, this cartoon’s imagery is an assault on the real victims of genocide, demeans their suffering and insults their memory. The Sunday Times should be mindful that what started as cartoons in the 1930′s ultimately led to violence and unspeakable tragedy. This is a lesson that The Sunday Times has clearly not absorbed.”

The Sunday Times of owned by News International which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. In the past Murdoch has been recognized by a number of Jewish organizationsincluding the Anti Defamation League for his friendship to the Jewish community. Murdoch has been consistently listed by The Algemeiner as one of the “top 10 non-Jews positively influencing the Jewish future.”

When reached on the phone by The Algemeiner a representative of  the News International Press Office would not immediately comment on the cartoon.

UPDATE: The Sunday Times responded to The Algemeiner’s request for comment, issuing the following statement: “This is a typically robust cartoon by Gerald Scarfe. The Sunday Times firmly believes that it is not anti-Semitic. It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people. It appears today because Mr Netanyahu won the Israeli election last week. The Sunday Times condemns anti-Semitism, as is clear in the excellent article in today’s Magazine which exposes the Holocaust-denying tours of concentration camps organised by David Irving.”

 

 

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT’S PERSONAL WAR AGAINST SERBIA

 As Clinton’s top diplomat, Albright headed the U.S. participation in the Yugoslav wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and is credited for pushing NATO into the humanitarian crisis. Time Magazine called it “Madeleine’s War.”
*
*

Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, confronted by pro-Serbian protesters who called her a war criminal during a recent book signing in her native Prague, pushed them aside as “disgusting Serbs” in a confrontation going viral on the internet.

Displaying her trademark feistiness, Albright is seen in the video as sternly shouting “get out, get out,” to the protesters who arrived with a film crew. As they closed in on her, she stood up and said, “That’s it! Get out,” and soon walked away with an aide after saying, “they are disgusting Serbs.”

Albright, on a book tour to tout her new and well-received memoir, “Prague Winter: A Personal Story of Remembrance and War, 1937-1948,” was in her birthplace for the book signing on October 23.

According to the YouTube account, activists with “Friends of Serbs in Kosovo” led by film director Vaclav Dvorak, presented her with Dvorak’s documentary “Stolen Kosovo” and posters suggesting that Albright’s push for bombings of Serbs in Kosovo was inhumane.

“This is your work as well, madam” they charged, asking her to sign their posters, which she brushed away.

As Clinton’s top diplomat, Albright headed the U.S. participation in the Yugoslav wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and is credited for pushing NATO into the humanitarian crisis. Time Magazine called it “Madeleine’s War.”

Aide Erin Cochran, who was with her at the Prague book signing, told Secrets, “Everything was calm until this group arrived, apparently intent on causing a disruption. As Secretary of State, Dr. Albright had worked to halt ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo – and some people have never forgiven her for that. The resulting episode in the bookstore was regrettable but it did nothing to tarnish Dr. Albright’s enjoyable return visit to her hometown, Prague.”

Source

THIS YEAR’S NOBEL ‘WAR’ PRIZE GOES TO …..

*i.

 
*
Pretty pathetic …
*
*The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the European Union for its role in securing peace to the continent.The Nobel committee says the accolade is meant to be an encouragement to the union in difficult times. Norway – the home of the prize – is itself divided over EU membership and has twice refused it in a nationwide referendums. For more on this decision RT talks to host of the Keiser Report – Max Keiser.*
*
*
*
Maybe next year’s winner will be Netanyahu??

 

*
As one former recipient sees it …..
*

Nobel Peace Prize To European Union Is A Political Award

By Mairead Corrigan Maguire

Alfred Nobel was a visionary who believed in a demilitarized peaceful world. In his Will he left his Nobel peace prize to those who would work for ‘fraternity among nations’,’abolition or reduction of standing armies’, and ‘holding and promotion of peace congresses’.

In Nobel’s will the award for Peace was to go to Champions of peace, those working to replace militarism with international order based on law and the abolition of national military forces. Nobel’s vision and dream was to replace the power of militarism and war, with the power of law. I believe the Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, does not meet the criteria of Alfred Nobel vision and spirit, and his vision of a demilitarized peaceful world.

In many ways the European Union has done much in the past sixty years for Peace and reconciliation amongst nations, but it has sadly done little for the demilitarization of Europe. Whilst the EU imposes severe Austerity measures upon many EU countries it simultaneously supports the growing militarisation of Europe by its support for US/NATO (guilty of war crimes against Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., ) It continues to support the policies of USA Nuclear weapons, held in six EU States. It supports arms sales from European States (UK, Germany, etc.,) to countries all around the world. The EU instead of upholding human rights for countries such as Palestine, has rewarded Israel by giving them special trading status and huge grants (EU tax payers money) for its Military Research and weapons thus enabling it to continue it illegal policies of occupation and Apartheid of Palestine.

I cannot support this decision to give the peace prize to EU and appeal to the Swedish Foundation Authority to hold the Nobel Committee accountable for giving, yet again, a political award instead of supporting People taking courageous, and often dangerous stands to help move the human family away from military international Relations to one based on peaceful resolution of conflict.

I believe that the reform of the nobel peace Committee is now necessary. As is the case of all other nobel prize committees which are made-up of experts in their particular field, perhaps it is time too for the NPP Committee to be comprised of people experienced in the field of Peacemaking and International Law.


Mairead Maguire is a Northern Irish peace activist, and winner of 1976 Nobel Peace Prize. (www.peacepeople.com)

 

THE INVISABLE ISLAMOPHOBE

 He just doesn’t exist! Believe it or don’t! Like 9/11, Israel had nothing to do with it ;)
*

Anti-Islam Film’s Jewish Tie Crumbles

Film’s Creator Claims Israeli ‘Producer’ Doesn’t Exist

*
Plot Thickens: Initial reports identified the maker of the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ as an Israeli living in California. That story is falling apart.
YOUTUBE
Plot Thickens: Initial reports identified the maker of the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’ as an Israeli living in California. That story is falling apart.

WASHINGTON — An alleged tie between Jews and a film that sparked violence in the Arab world by insulting the prophet Mohammed, put Jewish activists on alert following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during riots against the film.

Jewish activists feared a widely reported role of Jews in funding and producing the film, which contains crude attacks on Islam, could stain the community as a whole as anti-Muslim.

But a search for a person presenting himself as responsible for the film who said his name was “Sam Bacile” led to a dead end. Eventually, another man involved in making the movie admitted Bacile’s name was a pseudonym and said that the alleged producer of the film is not Israeli and is probably not Jewish.

The claim that Jewish money was behind the film also lost ground as the partner, California Christian anti-Muslim activist Steve Klein, stated the movie was a low-budget project which he himself described as a “bad fifth grade production.”

An actress who appears in the film said she was duped and never knew it was about Islam or the prophet Mohammed.

Read the rest at the SOURCE
*************
Wait….. there’s more
*
He doesn’t exist BUT…
*
Report: Anti-Islam film director a convicted felon

ABC News says Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, is a convicted drug manufacturer who claims film’s funding came from wife’s family in Egypt

 
That report can be read HERE
*
HaAretz adds its two Shekels to the madness …
*

It wasn’t the Jews this time

False reports that an Israeli made the film that sparked the violence across the Middle East raises questions, and emphasizes some uncomfortable facts.

A screenshot of the film
A screenshot of the film ‘Innocence of Muslims,’ which incited an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that left 4 dead. Photo by Screenshot
*

On Wednesday afternoon a collective sigh of relief could be heard in cyberspace. Enterprising reporters from half a dozen newspapers and websites had finally done the research and reached a conclusion: It wasn’t the Jews.

The shadowy “Israeli-American real estate developer” who had supposedly received $5 million from “100 Jewish donors” to produce a movie portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a violent and stupid child-molestor was actually a convicted scammer from California belonging to another faith with a grievance against Islam – the Coptic Christian Orthodox Church.

So far, all those who have been identified in helping him produce and distribute the movie are not Jewish either. So there you have it, another blood libel against the Jews exposed in less than 24 hours, thanks to the power of the Internet.

We are left with a long list of factual and moral question marks. Who translated the film to Arabic and made sure that it would be seen by at least 1,000 times more Muslims than the number of Americans who had watched it a couple of months ago in a nearly-empty California movie theater? And why? Was it simply out of journalistic interest, was it for the purposes of rabble-rousing? Or was this all the work of Al-Qaida or another terrorist organization interested in creating a diversion that would enable it to carry out the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi?

And what of the movie’s producers? Why did they add inflammatory anti-Islamist remarks to the soundtrack? Were they trying to make money out of it or use it to raise funds for anti-Islamic activity in America? Are they connected to a wider network? And in a democracy, should we stand up and defend their right to disseminate whatever stupid and offensive material they produce?

The answer to the last question I hope is clear: we limit freedom of speech at our peril.

Salman Rushdie was protected by the British government and defended by a large part of the cultural establishment in the west when the Iranian regime issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death over the blasphemous “Satanic Verses” (though there were those who would claim to be democrats who, to their shame, placed the blame on Rushdie ).

Taking potshots at the prophet

The shyster Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, AKA Sam Bacile, has every much right as celebrated prize-winning author Rushdie – setting aside for a moment the comparative merits of either man’s artistic output – to take potshots at the prophet.

There is another question which should be asked of those media organizations, originally the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, that swallowed Bacile’s story of Israeli citizenship and Jewish backing: Why were you so quick to run his version when reporting such a highly sensitive story, without first performing some elementary corroboration? The moment it was out there, the Jewish and Israeli angles were reproduced on 10,000 websites and established as facts. But there is a wider issue at play here than journalistic practice and ethics. (To their credit, AP and the WSJ made major efforts, after their initial reports, to pick apart Nakoula/Bacile’s story and to set the record straight. )

What if Sam Bacile’s real name was Shmuel Berkowitz, originally of Herzliya, Israel? What if he had received funding from a neo-conservative foundation bankrolled by Jewish billionaires? And let’s be honest now – for the few hours during which this was the accepted version, we either believed it, or if we harbored doubts, we at least thought it could be true.

The straight and simple answer should be that it doesn’t matter. Rushdie, Nakoula and Berkowitz – Muslim, Christian and Jew – should all enjoy the same rights to sling mud at Mohammed, Jesus or Woody Allen. But it never is that simple. Rushdie was forced into hiding for a decade and will forever be looking over his shoulder, until his last day. The Copts in Egypt certainly didn’t need this, as the second-oldest religious community in Egypt struggles to hold on to their precarious existence under the new Muslim Brotherhood administration. And as for us Jews, many of us haven’t abandoned the shtetl mentality of fear of being held to account for what one tribe-member may or not have done. A fear that is often justified.

There is another Jewish dimension at play. While AP is a fully respectable organization and no one in their right mind would even begin to accuse the Wall Street Journal of even a hint of Judeophobia, there were Jewish readers who felt there was something sinister about the way the first reports seemed perhaps to emphasize the “Israeli-American” angle. Not that there was anything in it; that is just the way our brains are wired – we immediately spot the Jew in every picture, and then start asking why he is there? Why has he been made to stand out?

And another uncomfortable fact. Jewish filmmakers have been heavily involved in producing the films “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against The West” and “The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America.” And prominent Jewish philanthropists have financed some of these films’ production and distribution costs. What the far-right views as necessary, truth-telling documentaries and the far-left regards as Islamophobic racism, can be seen by the rest of us as highly selective takes on reality – a neocon version of Michael Moore’s films, just without the buffoonery. Whether or not you agree with all or some or none of the content of these movies, a pattern has been established in which Jews have voluntarily placed themselves at the front line of the propaganda battle with Islam. That’s why it was so easy to believe that the producer of “The Innocence of Muslims” was Jewish and Israeli.

Why should we be concerned here? Whether or not Jews or Israelis are involved or at fault, they usually get the blame anyway. The last time an embassy was attacked in Cairo was following the death of Egyptian soldiers in a border attack carried out by Islamic Jihad. That didn’t prevent the mob from sacking Israel’s embassy. And if Jews think, rightly or wrongly, that radical Islam is an existential threat to the west, why should they keep silent? Surely that would be a capitulation to anti-Semitism.

But those Jews who have taken it upon themselves to uncover the “true face” of Islam have created the paradigm by which this war, with no clear battle lines, is increasingly being seen. Eleven years ago, the western world stood by the United States in its defense of democracy and freedom; much of that struggle has now been marginalized to a great degree. No longer is it the west defending its values and freedoms from Islamic fundamentalism. It is now Jews against Muslims, Israelis versus Arabs and brave Netanyahu taking on Iran single-handedly.

The self-appointed warriors against “Islamofascism” have every right to fight their fight. But their shrill daily cries of wolf, their willingness to embrace some of the darkest elements of Christian fundamentalism and European nationalism – as long as they share the same cause – have hugely contributed to the situation where decent people can shrug and turn away.

*
Carlos Latuff’s take on the film…
*
*

“BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL MUST STOP”

  Or…. Israel’s lies and brutal occupation must be stopped!
*
“120 countries heard blood libel against Israel in Tehran today, and kept quiet,” Netanyahu said. “This silence must stop and for this reason I will go to the UN to tell the truth about the terror regime of Iran which poses the greatest threat to world peace.”
*
BUT, BUT, BUT …..
*

In his speech, Khamenei denounced what he said was Israel’s brutal suppression of Palestinian rights.

“Even now after 65 years the same kind of crimes marks the treatment of Palestinians remaining in the occupied territories by the ferocious Zionist wolves,” Khamenei was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying, adding that Israel commits “new crimes one after the other and create new crises for the region.”

The Supreme Leader added that the “Zionist regime, which has carried out assassinations and caused conflicts and crimes for decades by waging disastrous wars, killing people, occupying Arab territories and organizing state terror in the region and in the world, labels the Palestinian people as ‘terrorists,’ the people who have stood up to fight for their rights.”

*

Libel?  Sounds pretty true to me.
*

Netanyahu to deliver speech on Iran at UN General Assembly

PM to go to New York next month for 3-day visit; Netanyahu: I will go to the UN to tell the truth about the terror regime of Iran.

By Barak Ravid
*
N Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - AP - Sept. 21, 2012.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, right, speaks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, September 21, 2011. 
Photo by AP
*

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will give a speech about the threat of Iran’s nuclear program in an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York next month, the prime minister’s office said Thursday.

According to the statement, Netanyahu will arrive in New York on September 27 for a three-day visit and deliver his speech that same day, during a special gathering in which various state leaders will also speak.

Thus far, a meeting between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, who will also take part in the General Assembly event, has not been scheduled, but officials believe such a meeting will be set in the coming weeks.

Netanyahu on Thursday condemned a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who launched a venomous attack against Israel in a speech inaugurating the Non-Aligned Movement conference on Thursday.

“120 countries heard blood libel against Israel in Tehran today, and kept quiet,” Netanyahu said. “This silence must stop and for this reason I will go to the UN to tell the truth about the terror regime of Iran which poses the greatest threat to world peace.”

In his speech, Khamenei denounced what he said was Israel’s brutal suppression of Palestinian rights.

“Even now after 65 years the same kind of crimes marks the treatment of Palestinians remaining in the occupied territories by the ferocious Zionist wolves,” Khamenei was quoted by the Fars news agency as saying, adding that Israel commits “new crimes one after the other and create new crises for the region.”

The Supreme Leader added that the “Zionist regime, which has carried out assassinations and caused conflicts and crimes for decades by waging disastrous wars, killing people, occupying Arab territories and organizing state terror in the region and in the world, labels the Palestinian people as ‘terrorists,’ the people who have stood up to fight for their rights.”

Written FOR

THEY STOLE OUR LAND, OUR WATER, NOW THEY HUMILIATE US BY TRANSPLANTING OUR OLIVE TREES IN ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

Their removal and transplanting are part of the “banal” humiliation of Palestinians.
*

Ancient olive trees, stolen from Palestinian lands, now decorate Israeli settlement

by Philip Weiss 
*
olive tree
Olive tree, said to be several hundred years old, transplanted to Israeli settlement 
*

A week or so back I toured the sprawling Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim with Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. And he pointed out several ancient olive trees that he said had been taken by Israelis from Palestinian lands and transplanted to this new “Israeli” city inside occupied Palestine.

In this video below, Halper points out several olive trees, some over 400 years, that he believes were stolen from Palestinians. The trees would never grow here ordinarily. And he says that in other cases Israeli soldiers who have removed the trees from Palestinian villages have sold the trees to the nouveau riche in north Tel Aviv. 

These trees were in Palestinian families for 400 years, Halper says, and provided generations with sustenance. Their removal and transplanting are part of the “banal” humiliation of Palestinians.

*

Written FOR

‘EVERYTHING WENT WELL AT THE AIRPORT TILL THEY DISCOVERED I WAS A PALESTINIAN’

 When going through immigration control they entered his passport # in the computer and the saga began. A security officer came up behind him and asked him to follow to a police section near the luggage x-ray machines. Another two officers joined and the routine questioning began. Then all pocket contents emptied. 
*
Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
*
My dad`s experience at airport yesterday
By Sam Bahour
*
Saturday, August 4, 2012–My dad left our home in Al-Bireh at 7am yesterday, Friday, to head to the U.S. via Ben Gurion Airport.

At the entrance of the airport his taxi was not pulled over.

When he entered the airport, like everyone else, he placed his luggage on the conveyor to the x-ray machines. All fine.

He proceed to the airline counter and checked in his luggage. He kept with him one small carry-on bag.

When going through immigration control they entered his passport # in the computer and the saga began. A security officer came up behind him and asked him to follow to a police section near the luggage x-ray machines. Another two officers joined and the routine questioning began. Then all pocket contents emptied.

Then a security supervisor came and asked if his father`s name was `Sami.` My dad explained that his name is Sami and his father is Salem as it states in his passport. He was asked to enter a closed room.

He was patted down and then asked to undue his trouser`s button and drop them to his knees. My dad is 72 years old! Once half naked, the security officer took a black wand with a cotton tip and rubbed his legs, belt and underwear. Then he was asked to sit on a chair, still with trousers down, and raise one leg at a time while each leg was also rubbed down.

My father tried to engage by saying, `My Palestinian friends know what you all do, but what am I supposed to tell my American friends whom I`ve been telling that during my last few trips the security was like anywhere else?` The security guard just laughed, sort of affirming that what he was doing was insane.

Then they took his wallet and carry-on luggage and dumped the contents of both and went through it in a `crazy way.` When done, they advised my dad that he would be unable to carry on his carry-on bag and would need to check it in with luggage. He asked for a bag to place his medicine in. They brought him a plastic bag with Hebrew writing on it. In protest, he refused to use the Hebrew bag and asked to only take out his apple and his worry beads (rosary), telling the officer I need the apple for my health and I need these beads to pray for you all.

So a 3-hour ordeal before even embarking on the 12 hour trip to Ohio.

Return to his birthplace, he will do, again and again, Sam

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,142 other followers